I wonder how much the App Store's rankings would change if Apple only counted a download "impression" once the app had had, say, 10 minutes of (non-contiguous) runtime on your device? These perversely-incentivized game users would be filtered out of the metrics, but all the drive-by "download, look around, oh this app isn't what I wanted, delete" users would as well.
You usually want a LTV of 3:1. So your LTV would need to be $2.10 per user. These users are way worse than acquiring them from other channels because they only briefly see your logo and a brief description. Let's say they are only 25% as good. So now you need a regular LTV of $8.40. Very few apps have a LTV of over a dollar.
The ratio - 20K real downloads from 20K incentivized, or 1:1 - is also a bad assumption. Here the actual ratio varies wildly, depending on how much the incentivized installs actually influence your app ranking. It's a feast or famine situation - spend too little, and your ratio will be closer to 1:10, since your ranking won't have moved enough to influence organic traffic. Spend sufficiently, and your ratio will be closer to 10:1, if not higher.
The LTV of 3:1 is also a bad assumption - I've worked with firms who would spend at breakeven all day long, often because they wanted to grow their user base into an acquisition or use it for future in-house cross-promotion. Many others are happy to make (say) $1.50 on $1.00 spend.
My experience agrees with the parent comment - anyone that has the budget to buy incentivized downloads does buy incentivized downloads, except for a small proportion of developers who strongly disagree with the practice. It simply works too well.
If you are trying to build a real business a 3:1 LTV is very reasonable.
Lifetime value of a customer ? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifetime_value )
I've had a lot of success on FB mobile install ads.
What GP is talking about is the much sketchier model of blocking (or greatly slowing down) access to an app unless the user goes and downloads an affiliated app. This is artificial download inflation by bending the user over a barrel, not advertising.
More commonly this is done by IP tracking.
- Device taps on button/ad in app A to download app B.
- URL is specially encoded to identify app A.
- Server registers some unique information about the device.
- Server redirects to app B's app store page.
- User downloads app B.
- User launches app B, which reports back to Server. Server recognizes device and is able to associate this install event with the original tap from app A. App A's servers are contacted to this effect.
The trick here is that the uniqueness of the device here is pretty limited and temporary. If the user downloads app B, then does not launch it, their IP address will soon change (cellular networks and the such). It's not a foolproof system.
Take it with a grain of salt as this information comes from one of their competitors. But I wouldn't be totally surprised if they charge that amount.
Unfortunately that didn't fit out budget.
I guess it would help me as a consumer from the standpoint of any confusion. I don't develop IOS apps, so I can't speak to the fairness of the process. I am an IOS user and it would irritate me if an app I like, such as Southwest's, is pulled all of the sudden for a rule that wasn't enforced consistently.
Re (2) If a notification that "today's [no-additional-cost] deal has arrived!" counts as "advertising, promotion, or direct marketing", then it seems every other push that aims to improve app usage, by announcing new content or features, would also be verboten. Is that what Apple is saying? If so, a lot of other apps are going to have to go...
Yes, they drive app use, and perhaps even later revenues, but in a way that's in harmony with my intent when installing the app and expectations. It's like "you've got mail (that you requested)". You can squint and call it marketing, but then almost every notification that increases use of a profitable app is also marketing.
2.2 You may not use the APN or Local Notifications for the purposes of advertising, product promotion, or direct marketing of any kind (e.g., up-selling, cross-selling, etc.), including, but not limited to, sending any messages to promote the use of Your Application or advertise the availability of new features or versions.
Can you please elaborate on this? Do you mean that Apply is paying some kind of affiliate fee? And what happens if the app is free of charge (FOC)?
Affiliation is not limited to Apple App Store, affiliation exists also on Amazon for instance, but not on Google Play, for the moment.
It's important to note that you can becomes affiliate even if your send a customer to the App Store with a free app (for instance Angry Birds Lite), and that at any time there is only one affiliate by device: that's why any apps recommendation will send you push notification each day to remain the current affiliate. And affiliation is not directly managed by Apple but by LinkShare for US, and TradeDoubler for Europe.
A last thing, doing affiliation is really easy:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/meon/id400274934?mt=8 => a link to my app without any affiliation
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/meon/id400274934?mt=8&par... => a link to my app with Linkshare identifier (partnerId=30) and my company identifier (siteID=pPE4bVE6DtE)
iTunes affiliates get a cut of 5% of all purchases within 72 hours, not just for the originating app (or media).
Aren't most of the apps that AppGratis links to discounted to free for the day. Apple doesn't pay commission on free downloads, right?
Rule 5.6 seems crazy to me, unless I have misunderstood something. What are the apps that are using push notifications for other reasons than what Rule 5.6 prevents? Communications apps? If that's the case, then Urban Airship needs to pivot very fast, because their business is built on something forbidden!
None of these rules are brand new and AppGratis had been approved by Apple staff time and time again and worked with the company when there were problems.
The fact a new person can come along and totally pull the rug out should highlight just how wildly inconsistent the approval system is.
I care more about the health of the app store ecosystem than one company. They claim to promote great free apps but in reality is spamming all their users with paid promotions to the highest bidder.
1. The WSJ report noted that Apple was concerned that " AppGratis was pushing a business model that appeared to favor developers with the financial means to pay for exposure." Simon hasn't addressed this point. Do they make paid recommendations ?
If they do make app-recommendations based on payments, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to ban them. As an iOS (and Android) developer, I personally think that paid-recommendations are bad for the ecosystem (though I'm sure that some giant shops paying for recommendations may disagree). At the least, I think users of AppGratis should be told if the recommendations are "paid for".
2. Simon's discussion of rule 5.6 doesn't really address the problem. Rule 5.6 says "Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind."
Simon counters by saying that they only send one notification per day and that users opt-in. However, neither claim refutes the fact that they''re violating rule 5.6. All iOS push-notifications are opt-in anyway. Rule 5.6 says 'no advertisement , no promotions,.... no direct marketing'. It doesn't make exceptions for apps that only send one notification per day. Now Simon could argue that Rule 5.6 is bad for the user and that push-notification-advertisements/promotions are good. That may be a debatable point. However, it is clear that his claims do nothing to counter the fact that AppGratis violates Rule 5.6 (as it is written)