AppGratis pulled from the App Store. Here’s the full story
appgratis.com
appgratis.com
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)
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.
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.
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.
I've had a lot of success on FB mobile install ads.
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.
Lifetime value of a customer ? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifetime_value )
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.
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.
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)?
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?
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)
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.
Edit: sorry, mixed the thread
"I can't believe that it's 2013 and people are still basing their entire company around the App Store with it's murky rules"
"But there's a lot of money to be made there, it's worth it!"
"Apple needs to change their procedures"
They're all true. Basing a business around an app is both risky and potentially very profitable. Apple should change their practises but have little incentive to. So, for now, I can just express sympathy- this situation sucks.
Regarding the OP; I hope the blog post kicks up enough noise that they allow the app again. Having a large public outcry is the only way to get Apple to do anything other than sue Samsung in attempt to prevent them from innovating faster.
Not that I'd want to do actual development that way, but we do it for iOS CI.
install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX1082.pdf
B.2.iii
Sure, the odds of Apple coming after you are low. But that doesn't mean that it's any less of a violation of the license agreement that you agree to when installing the software. AppGratis also thought they were in the clear with their ToS issue.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text
Here are the ones that it is OK to break:
(Most of the rest)
TL;DR use your common sense
A ToS, on the other hand, lays out terms for the ongoing use of a service. If I violate the ToS, the service provider is within their rights to decline to provide me service. They're within their rights to do that anyway for nearly any reason they feel like, because this is an ongoing relationship and I don't have them enslaved. Beyond that, they could also sue, at which point things get a bit murky.
There's nothing wrong with breaking a EULA, and their legal enforceability is worrying. There's also nothing wrong with a service provider terminating service when a user breaks a ToS, which is what happened here.
There's no inconsistency.
Luckily they're not legally enforceable (at least in the U.S.) under many circumstances, though you may not want to take it to court since you could get unlucky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enfo...
BTW, I'm sure all Apple Boot Camp and Parallels users pay the $250 Microsoft license, NOT.
If anyone develops for iPhone without Xcode I'd love to hear it. I'd switch in a second if something could provide even half the functionality as long as it had half the usability issues.
android, linux, suing samsung, lack of innovation - it's like reading an Engadget comment.
apple's business model around the app store is to protect users from CRAP. malware, viruses, etc. it acts like a spam filter of sorts. just like any spam filter there are false positives, some things get through, etc. but this concrete case? good riddance.
and watch how google will tighten the screws in their play store due to facebook, malware, etc. they run ads for nexus without mentioning android. they run ads for chrome.
Apple's business model around the App Store involves protecting users from crap, but it also has healthy doses of limiting competition and establishing first-party app dominance.
The stock market is irrational and driven by fear and greed. While revenues and profits are objective performance indicators.
"Google removed 60,000 Low-Quality Apps from Play Store in February"
how does Google define low-quality again?
I haven't seen any significant innovation on their end since Notification Center. Android already has alternate lock screens, alternate keyboards, widgets.
My opinion is this; Android is both more innovative and more free. Since I know how to protect myself from malware reasonably well there's no benefit for me using the iPhone. My next phone will be an Android. It [Edit: the iPhone] would be good for, say, my wife, because she could care less about using it as a computing device and just wants to have something that works and takes photos.
PS Google can tighten the screws as much as they like; Android users can just sideload APKs without using the store AFAIK. I think that's far more appropriate. Lock down the store but allow alternatives.
> are aimed directly at people who don't know how to use
> computers
If you base your definition of "drive" as "being able to do the most basic of tasks", then sure, most everyone can drive a car. However, if you're an auto enthusiast, then to you being able to "drive" takes on a whole new definition; can you J-turn? How about drift? Can you jumpstart a car with a dead battery by push-starting? Can you correct your trajectory after losing control? To the hardcore drivers, these are the types of skills that will prove whether or not you can really "drive".
In the end, most people will get the normal use out of their car. It might be a bit more expensive and inconvenient, but in the end it will be just enthusiasts that actually care about being able to install custom parts on the car, or adjust the engine, or for that matter do repairs themselves.
> hacker - A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and stretching their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.
His original statement (and what you excised, in italics):
> The iPhone in entirety and OS X lately are aimed directly at people who don't know how to use computers even if it comes at the expense of those who do.
That's basically a truism. What's been happening over the past three releases of OS X is testament to that.
There will come a day when users like me can no longer install and run whatever they'd like on their Apple computers; all application downloads will be funneled through the App Store, and you'll have to "jailbreak" your laptop just to do anything useful with it. I may have already purchased my last Mac.
They are certainly (specially iOS) not aimed at people who like to spend hours messing with a thousand settings screens, buttons and checkboxes - self-proclaimed "power users".
I've been using OS X since version 10.2, I think (maybe even 10.1, looking at the timeline), and came to it in large part because it married things I liked about the Mac--but never quite enough to justify buying one--with the things I liked about FreeBSD and, to some degree, BeOS. And with every iteration of the OS it got easier for everybody to use.
But it's also gotten better for power users to use. Automator keeps seeing improvements. AppleScript, for both better and worse, doesn't seem to be going away. The Terminal app has gotten improvements with every release. And Mission Control -- whether you personally like it or not -- represents the latest in what's very clearly a quixotic quest on Apple's part to get everyone in the world to love virtual desktops. Mission Control may not be nerdy enough for you personally, but its very existence is pretty nerdy. (And I actually think power users should give it a chance; it's certainly not like anybody else's virtual desktop management system, but once I got used to it I found it struck a really nice balance between power and usability.)
Certainly, OS X is getting better at catering to neophytes and is bringing over ideas from iOS. But I don't see anything substantial that they're taking away from OS X in the process, and that should really be what concerns us, shouldn't it? If you start hearing credible rumors that they're taking away your shell prompt, then the sky may really be falling. But as long as you can still do everything you could before, complaining about the fact that you can also do swipey stuff on your trackpad and pull up a big iPhone grid of applications seems just a little silly.
The problem with the app market is that you literally can't be your own bitch. Your entire business lies in the hands of either Apple or Google. And until HTML5 (or non-native alternatives) gain traction and press Apple/Google into changing their ways a little bit, what is the solution?
Yes, which is why you should treat your ambiguously legitimate AppStore business like a vein of gold which might suddenly run out. You make sure you can put the money in your pocket as you go (note: fundraising can hurt your ability to do this), you don't invest too much in crazy expansion (forty-five employees? hopefully it was all sales) and you don't get too attached to future plans.
It's an unfortunate situation for AppGratis, who did the best they could to keep the wolf from the door in the face of uncertainly, but this was pretty likely to happen eventually.
AppGratis business model is dirty at its core because basically it's just a way for developers with cash to splash to have a big burst of downloads to help them climb the App Store Rank and get "organic download".
An even dumber thing is to bet everything its iOS app when you saw that a far superior product from one of your competitor was banned from the App Store 4 months ago (App Shopper) . I hope that the App Shoper banned at least made you think about the possibility that could await AppGratis and took preemptive measure. But No, instead you build an iPad app...
Now you come crying to the public in hope that a significant public outburst will make Apple changes his mind and reintegrate AppGratis in the store, I hope Apple stands firm on its decision.
I'm in no way an Apple fanboy or whatever, from a business point of view it make no sense. You knew the rules, you got burned and now you cry.
The only sympathy I have is toward AppGratis' 45 employees.
Plus however you might feel about apps like this, the much larger issue is that Apple is now pulling apps it doesn't like. While it's of course within their rights, this really shouldn't be just happening like this. With over 400 million or so iOS devices out there, even if it's no monopoly, there should be some regulation to prevent Apple from screwing around like this. There is a difference between rejecting apps based on an intransparent process and pulling apps afterwards because they don't fit with your business model.
These days, there is zero excuse for being ignorant of the way the software 'market' for iOS works. Which means that companies that continue to depend upon iOS software sales are either taking an incredible gamble, or simply aren't performing any sort of risk analysis as part of their business process.
But, I think we can all agree, that Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile platform, and, there is in fact at least one reasonable alternative (Android) - Some might go so far as to suggest that Microsoft's "Windows Phone" platform, and, for that matter, even Blackberry could be considered reasonable alternatives to the iOS platform.
And, regardless, 5.6 is pretty clear, ""Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind."" - If anything, Apple has simply failed to chase down all of the other apps that are doing this.
According to the AllThingsD article [1],
"But sources close to the company [Apple] say it was more than a little troubled that AppGratis was pushing a business model that appeared to favor developers with the financial means to pay for exposure. ... In other words, app-discovery platforms built on paid recommendations aren’t going to fly with Apple."
If this is their business model and this is really the issue, then it needs to be directly addressed by both sides.
[1]http://allthingsd.com/20130408/confirmed-apple-kicks-appgrat...
Who really benefits? The cheap user who will not normally pay for a high quality app? The app developer who spends $$ to get featured in AppGratis to then artificially climb the app store ranking?
Dls are one of the worst vanity metrics out there. Devs should focus on building high quality products, monetize, then acquire quality users in a sustainable manner.
I'd much rather get a free 1-day trial on each of those 5 apps and pay my whole $15 for the one I like best. The problem with this is that it'd kill all the mediocre to lousy app developers, but I just see that as a problem for those developers. It's a win for Apple and consumers, right?
Any time I see a free game with IAP I always say to myself "ah, here's where they charge for gold/xp/coins/whatever".
Even more outrageous are the ones that provide a pay app, then transition to freemium+IAP. Nothing says "Hey, thanks for being an early adopter" better than that.
However I changed my point of view as fremium+IAP does solve the problem of being able to try the real app.
From a developer point of view it's only one app to maintain. If further features are added, you have to pay to unlock them. Also developing a new version of an app always been a headache for a developer : without IAP, the only way is to create a new bundle so you're back to square one when you have to maintain several versions of the same app (which Apple forbid anyways in their TOS).
On any case we never really owned any software anyway. E.g. our copy of Microsoft Office always been a licence from Microsoft allowing us to use their software.
So "App as a service" doesn't seems a bad model and in-app-purchase fit that model nicely.
Now the real problem is the security and as my iPad is used by the whole family, I deactivate the IAP on the settings and only reactivate when I need it.
If somebody want a purchase, s/he need to ask me first. It's not ideal but does one thing I love : it kills the "instant gratification" process. And that only save a lot of money to the whole family!
No offense, but if you can't take the time to Google around for reviews and screenshots of an App to filter out the garbage, you deserve what you get. Blind purchases are always going to be a gamble, and I don't get how you don't get that.
Apple certainly doesn't owe anyone a trial system, but more than anything I find it odd they don't see the value of it. For instance, it would arguably result in far more impulsive purchases.
That's a pretty big charge.
A game of ours have been featured by AppGratis twice. They blow our charts what was then followed by a reasonable amount of paid players. That made a _huge_ difference for us. 2.5 months after the deal, there are still more downloads than was after 2 weeks of the release.
If you are a small team with very very limited resources. AppGratis is a really good way to get exposure this way. Would happily recommend them.
BTW, you can use other services to climb up the charts, like Chartboost or FB ads and I don't think any of them is any better or worst than the paid service of AppGratis.
Building great apps is hard. So is their marketing.
Simon should stop whining and just shift to Android. God knows it needs curation. The amount of filth in goog play is unbelievable.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/12/18/apple-removes-popular...
That was also a very useful app that provided real functionality that is missing from the Apple Store, like price history and price sale alerts. But Apple doesn't want to make it easier to figure out if you should wait to buy an app. Good for Apple, bad for users.
Did they not stop to consider this could be a problem for even a second?
I have no problem with simple humans making a decision to list an app in the App Store according to subjective guidelines. It helps get through a lot of submissions fast.
But delisting an app should involve a serious review process involving several levels of people on both sides.
And the depth of the review process should directly correlate to the number of installs and the time the app has been in the store.
This means that something like AppGratis has at least an assurance that their 45 staff wont be out of a job simply because they got someone in a bad mood.
The whole "no sympathy" bullshit is talk from people with nothing better to do that shit upon a fellow HN reader.
Imagine if Apple decided to pull Zynga's apps because they use notifications to promote themselves. There goes a public company up in smoke. The FTC will surely have something to say about that.
To who exactly?
Exactly.
AppGratis was doing a-ok under the 'old' rules and with the 'new' rules under the previous reviewers. Suddenly they're dead in the water because the 'new' rules forbid some behaviour (which given the apps popularity serves a need both on the consumer side and on the business end) which you may actually get a pass on during a review, and which then gets turned around a few weeks later.
If you're currently a successful vendor of any app in the appstore you may want to look carefully at what your 'plan B' is, just in case.
If you write for iOS, you are sharecropping. Your income exists at the sole discretion of an entity that has more power than you and very little incentive not to misuse it. Further, your income is more, not less at risk, if you are successful. If you lose, it's your loss. If you win, they take your niche, call you a plagiarist and kick you out with nothing. And if you are just puttering along, that's no guarantee you won't be sideswiped by a strategic or bureaucratic decision you can neither anticipate nor control.
Essentially, Apple can block any app they want for any reason they want. Even if you play by their rules they can change them tomorrow.
While I'm a free market supporter I don't think this is a good situation. It breaks innovation and makes our smartphones less capable than they should be. Sad.
Also, if I build an Android only app I limit my audience. It's like saying I should create a website only for Firefox in 2005 when IE was dominating.
But to your point, I as a developer will absolutely shy away from the iOS platform after reading this and I hope others will until they change their policies.
That's what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. If you make pre-prepared food for a grocery store chain and they suddenly decide to stop selling your products (for whatever reason, justified or capricious), you're going to be in deep trouble. How many small companies get >75% of their revenue from just one client?
It's a risk/reward tradeoff to hitch your wagon to someone else; they just got a large dose of the "risk" portion.
The point I'm trying to make is that for us developers iOS is one of the most important computing platforms. All else being equal we would benefit from it being more open. The more consumers you can reach with your products, the better.
Now if you want to do mobile apps you have to take huge bet when addressing 50% of the market. I think we should be working on fixing that situation sooner than later.
They created the platform. There are others.
Stop spouting this foolishness.
Some do, some don't. The ones that don't get burned like this.
But this is an amazing way to deal with the situation. He's frank, honest and comes off looking like he's got the situation under control. Marketing types should bookmark this for future reference - great way to address a situation.
He runs a marketing company. I'm fairly certain marketing can still operate successfully using "old" technologies like Email, Twitter and the Web.
"We see so much growth that we’ll be past 100 million users in the next two years. There’s such a huge shift from desktop to mobile that the potential for growth is unlimited."
EDIT: The All Things D article sheds more light on what might really be going on here: http://allthingsd.com/20130408/confirmed-apple-kicks-appgrat...
If there were a formal review procedure with rules for when an app gets notified about scheduled future actions (and when those can be superseded when needed), as well as a procedure for fixing problems before negative actions (if there is it sure doesn't seem it's followed), then we would see less of these stories.
As for the people offended about AppGratis' business model. Can you explain the difference between it and Groupon? Or any super bowl ad? It is wrong for someone to have money to promote their apps?
ok, Appgratis was "curating" the apps, and their reviews were quite funny sometimes, but still, their business model was not "editorial", you need to pay to get reviewed. And why would you do that? Well...to boost your rankings within the App Store.
With that developer/advertiser money Appgratis can then do their own paid promotion to acquire more downloads, then go back with an even bigger claim to advertisers/developers and resell that inventory. This is basically an arbitrage model and i can understand why Apple wouldn't like that.
Anyway, they've got $13M to pivot, so they should be fine.
I hope AppGratis sorts this all out, it's a heartbreaking story. I know from experience what it's like to spend months working on something only for it to be rejected.
Perhaps a better statement would be: understand that there are risks inherent to building for any given API, study those risks, and mitigate them.
CP/M seems to be dying off? Hope you've started your DOS port already :)
In addition being a user myself i have observed that many times if not all the time, apps they promote are not disclosed as advertising to their users and in addition many times are not deals at all when the company is promising one paid to free apps every day. For example today apps being promoted is Mobli, which was always free (Right?).
One more thing, they were also claiming "negotiating" those deals with developers. But here also I noticed that many times they were just taking the deals from others like Apple free app of the week. Is that wrong? no.... but they were presenting it in a way that makes a user believe the deal was brought by them and not by Apple or whoever.
I also never liked how the company is forcing me to tweet before getting a deal to download.
Probably the company was too "agressive" and this is what Apple did not like. They are referring to the rules the company violated but in my opinion and again as a simple ex user observer it looks that the company was very agressive in their business practices.
And the paying 20k for app promotion, or taking rev share on apps sold, that was just plain stupid given that you provide apple more ammo.
Real question is, how long does Kindertown have?
Startups should thus do risk analyzes as part of creating a business plan. If your depended on a single supplier, then it need to be calculated in. If the supplier ever feels threatened, or has reason to enter your market, then there is nothing one can do to prevents them from cutting you of. The only option is to either gamble that it wont happen, or diversify your business to the point where you are no longer in a fully depended relationship with the supplier.
It should be mentioned that the business model of service providers when they implement a "walled garden" (Closed platform) is to retain a complete level of control. If app developers would refuse to develop to walled gardens, then this kind of problems would not exist.
I'm talking of course in a moral, good for business good will sense and not legal.
Apple can basically pull any app at any time. You can choose not to develop for them, or you could try to sue them (you'd probably have to prove that they did something anti-competitive to get past the contract).
The one question I have is ... why did they use push notifications to send a daily message, when they could have just scheduled them locally? Clearly Apple notices anomalous traffic for non-transactional notifications, such as one that's sent once a day to everyone, and that's probably what alerted some unrelated guys in the app store. I imagine the guy wanted to follow up and then, unable to reach the CEO, pulled the app.
I would say the company with so many employees should probably have other people to pick up the slack for the CEO when he is on a plane.
Of course, what do I know. We have a completely different structure, and are distributed around the world.
Also, I guess Apple only tried to reach the CEO because when you summit an iOS app, you have to give them the information a person to contact in case they need to. I guess they gave them the CEO information.
Stallman remains very right on Apple - it is the antithesis of openness and hacker culture, and the fact that good programmers choose to be Apple serfs is very disappointing.
For those who say developers have no choice but to target Apple products or lose a big chunk of revenue - if developers had refused to develop apps for Apple from the outset, and only targeted open platforms, they wouldn't be in a dominant position in the first place.
In Germany you pay 15.400€ for a slot.
They work on a CPI basis. The CPI rate is 1,1 euro for iPhone and 2.2 for iPad. They list the amount of downloads that they "generally can achieve in Germany, Austria and Switzerland"
iPhone : 10,000 DL - iPad : 2,000 DL
[1] http://www.iphone-ticker.de/15-400e-pro-aktion-wie-appgratis...
Anyone that basis their entire business on a single platform controlled by a draconian company like Apple should not be surprised when things like this happen
"[Apple] risks a massive walk-out of developers and investors in mobile companies from the Apple eco system"