We suspected it was a bad deal, but tried it anyway as an experiment. Our blog post wanted to point that out, but more so we took issue with the fact that most people think Amazon pays 20% of the asking price even when an app is given away. Their agreement with devs says as much. No one seems to know that to be featured you have to agree to 0%. Again we agreed, but the secrecy is where our beef lies, we wanted to make that public.
I agree strongly that Amazon needs to make this clearer in their emails an admin pages (listing earnings that don't exist is terrible) but as far as their agreement goes, I think you are mistaken.
Section 2.a. of the Amazon Appstore agreement, emphasis mine:
"a. Royalty. For each sale of an App, we will pay you a royalty (“Royalty”) equal to the greater of (i) 70% of the purchase price or (ii) 20% of the List Price (defined in and subject to section 5i) as of the purchase date. No Royalty is payable for Apps with a List Price of $0.00. Such purchase price excludes taxes and any separately stated fees or charges. A Royalty is due only for sales for which we have received final payment from or on behalf of an end user. If an App is purchased using a credit card or bank account deduction mechanism, final payment will be deemed to have occurred when the applicable credit card company or bank has fully settled the payment for the applicable purchase."
I strongly doubt that "most people" think that Amazon pays 20% of the asking price to the dev. Maybe if you limited your audience to "Android developers very interested in the Amazon App Store", but that's really a pretty limited audience, and not who your app is targeted to. Has Amazon ever trumpeted that 20% figure to the public? No. I mean, I work for a competitor, and am ready and quite willing to see the flaws in their model, that's a horrible thing to compete against, but it absolutely does not surprise me that they're not giving away their money. I mean: it's clearly not necessary. Once they run out of indie devs willing to give their app away for nothing other than incredibly great exposure, then maybe they'll need to start paying out, but not before.
Can I just reply here? Here goes. I think you missed the entire point of the article. We agreed to be featured, we stand by that decision. What we take issue with is the public perception that Amazon pays their (publicly stated) 20% of the asking price for developers to be featured. They don't. Simple as that. Everything else is a beef, yes, but not our primary beef. Also we left it a month, we got featured June 27th, it's now August. Virtually no change in sales on Amazon.
Admittedly, my response was focused more on the other beef than that single point. Given how much other information was in the post, I didn't think the 20% == 0% was the central argument; my apologies for missing that.
My core belief that in the long(er) term that the give away likely would have helped the movement and sales of your app still stands though. I think you leaving it in the store for an extra month is valuable data point, but not quite enough for me to categorically agree with "Yep, totally experiment failure, f Amazon!"
Did any reviews come in from any of those massive downloads? How were the reviews? What was the average score?
I would give up the argument completely at 6 months after a few more update releases if there were 0 reviews and 0 sales, otherwise I stand by my original statement that this was a GOOD thing for you and your company.
It is my feeling that you are focusing too much on this bait and switch. Fine, it happened... but you also have your app on 101k more devices than you did the month before so do something with that, flip your perspective a bit and take advantage of it.
You cannot convince me that having your app on 101k more devices in 1 day is a bad thing (except maybe the server costs). It may be scary/odd/unexpected, but you guys are smart, you will figure out some good way to grow from this.
Fine, it happened... but you also have your app on 101k more devices than you did the month before so do something with that, flip your perspective a bit and take advantage of it.
Hell, before pulling out of the Amazon app store, release a new ad-supported version, and wait until a decent number of people have upgraded. Then pull out of Amazon's store. That should help defray the costs of the new hardware. Users can still do as the author suggested: re-buy on Android Market, and for users who had already paid for the app (not on free-app day), ask for a refund. Any serious user of the app will want to switch over to the Android Market anyway, so they can get later updates.
That feels slightly underhanded, but... eh. Server costs are real.
Yeah, in hindsight I realize that from the user's perspective, this really sucks. As a user who knows and understands the developer's perspective and how Amazon (intentionally or otherwise) screwed him over, I'd be sympathetic, but the vast majority of purchasers would not know any of that background information.
Generally it seems like you're expecting the OP to take on your perspective without really taking his perspective seriously. Just saying you have a "core belief" that waiting longer would help doesn't really seem like a fair point.
Why don't server/support costs matter? Why does it have to be that it's more beneficial for these guys to have their software on 100k more devices than not? Why should all business models have to work that way? And why should someone who has a business model expecting to profit from Amazon's advertised 20% be willing to accept waiving that?
OP seems to have a valid complaint against Amazon and a worthwhile warning to others in similar situations, and you're just telling him to suck it up figure out some way around it. Okay, I get what you're saying, but withdrawing from what is by all evidence an unprofitable app market driven partially by a bait-and-switch still seems perfectly reasonable.
That is a fair point, I don't think the OP's complaint about the 20-to-0 switch was invalid, but I do skip past it to try and look at what kind of benefit can be squeezed from their current predicament instead of scorching the earth and walking away.
The OP clearly decided that not doing business with Amazon was the right choice for their business, and Amazon richly deserves the scorching.
Amazon looked like it was setting up an app store where Android developers had a hope of getting paid, but so far, they've created a space where the control-freakism runs deeper than under Apple (e.g., the lack of control over basics like device filtering and removing apps from sale), and the return on investment is worse than under Google.
Wait, you expected to receive 20% of your pre free giveaway price during the free app of the day promotion and Amazon just gives you money, seriously? Where exactly does it say that you get paid during a free giveaway promo?
From the FAQ:
What is the payment structure between Amazon and me?
Amazon pays developers 70% of the sale price of the app or 20% of the list price, whichever is greater.
I'm not sure how one concludes that getting $50k of free money is even a smart assumption to make. So they give away X amount of money per day to app developers because they are being nice?
When the FAQ appears to address something (selling at less than list price) and doesn't call out an exception for free, it's not an assumption. Companies do all sorts of things. I don't understand all the economics of amazon's business model, but I can read.
He definitely is. The developers definitely should get paid 20% of their asking price for free downloads because some people think that's what happens. Amazon should definitely be responsible of their perception in the eyes of a few niave developers.
