When a user launches an Amazon Underground app for the first time, a welcome message in the form of an interstitial ad plays. In subsequent times that a user either launches or resumes the app, paid interstitial ads will also sometimes play."
Interesting. So amazon deals with putting in the ads and the app dev gets paid for every minute the app is used. Seems like an interesting idea, probably useful for games that are very engaging (read: time drain)
I bought my daughters Kindle Fire's for Christmas. It doesn't have the Google Play store. 99.99% of the apps available, either free or even paid, are cookie cutter, mass produced, generic garbage. Almost all the free apps were complete junk.
Besides that, the Kindle Fire is a fundamentally useless device for kids. The kid mode was so buggy as to be useless. Take more than a few minutes of video and the wifi won't work. Some bug about if the disk is full wifi fails to work. There's just about no way to get the videos off the device, and no way for kids to do it. Download 2 movies? The wifi stops working. Install an app? 80% of the time, it never shows up in the menu.
The entire experience was stunningly bad. Amazon's entire Android device category is garbage. People complain about the extensions to Android by Samsung, etc, but honestly at least those other companies don't fundamentally ruin the device.
I see this as hugely superior to the freemium model, both from the perspective of the user and the app developers. App developers no longer need to cripple their apps and sell in-app band-aids to make money. The developers of the more entertaining and engaging apps will make more money. End users no longer spend a bunch of time on a game only to find out they need to pay to advance to the next part, or bypass some artificial restriction that shouldn't be there.
It just seems like a much more civil relationship.
1) High quality games that are meant to be completed quickly will make less money relative to poor quality games that stretch out gameplay.
2) Developers become incentivized to stretch out gameplay to increase revenue.
3) Amazon Underground is covering the costs for now. But if users were asked to pay themselves, I'm sure many would balk at the idea of paying per-minute to play games.
All that aside, this is an interesting idea. I could see episodic games particularly benefiting from this model -- so long as they don't fall into the trap of stretching out gameplay to increase revenue.
I generally agree, but it seems like it could have some bad side-effects if it becomes a popular business model, though.
There are a handful of interesting paid apps that are very short, unique experiences - which don't try to drag out the game to keep you playing it every day for months.
Its already getting harder and harder to actually sell/buy apps for money upfront, and this seems like it will make it even harder. And while I seem to be in a tiny minority of 'app' consumers, that is still my preferred method of obtaining new applications.
If interstitial ads were superior to the freemium model the market would already reflect that but it doesn't. The freemium model has just become a silly bogeyman in these discussions. Yes it can be abusive, yes it can be implemented horribly, just like any other pricing system. OTOH freemium is often best for both developers (differential pricing maximizes revenue) as well as users (rich whales are happy to pay, others are happy to be subsidized by them).
Maybe ... but it hugely depends on the per minute price Amazon are paying.
The same thing could have been said about streaming music services and yet many artists seem not too happy about the per play $ they get from Spotify & ilk (though they are probably bound to say that regardless to some extent)
Did anyone look at the list of permissions? Amazon isn't paying developers for interstital ads ... it's paying them to have an excuse to track everything on your phone:
"The FTC’s longstanding guidance to companies is that disclosures in their ads should be close to the claims to which they relate – not hidden or buried in unrelated details – and they should appear in a font that is easy to read and in a shade that stands out against the background. Disclosures for television ads should be on the screen long enough to be noticed, read, and understood, and other elements in the ads should not obscure or distract from the disclosures."
Every once in a while, the FTC does clamp down on this.[1]
I bought this and played it for about an hour to completion.
For my hour, I'd have made them $0.12. Instead, I paid $4.64.
So for them to get to the same profit using this model, they'd have to attract $4.62/$0.12 = 38 times more users. i.e instead of having 1000+ downloads, they'd need to be in the 38k+ downloads range and for everyone to have played it to completion.
I see two problems for this particular game.
1. Fighting fantasy based games are a niche market so is there going to be a large enough user base to support this?
2. I'd say that the length of a typical gamebook shouldn't be more than 1-2 hours as it will get very complex. So they're kind of capped re per player usage.
Since it's a niche market, I don't imagine there would be hundreds of thousands of people trying this out for 5 minutes each.
remember that you paid $4.64, but 30% of that went to Amazon anyway.
Generally, about 2-3% of the people who would download a free app would also pay for it, which could make Underground a good choice. People who haven't paid though, aren't as invested, and are more likely to quit using that app sooner.
Also, there's the niche issue: it's very possible that fighting fantasy fans are more likely to pay for their apps, which means none of these numbers applies to them.
There are also a lot of people out there who would not be willing to pay the $4.64 dollars. By using this model, developers can get both the people who want to buy it through the store and people who don't want to spend any money to play it, which might end up being more total profit.
This actively discriminates against people who find certain typefaces difficult, those using assistive technologies, and those using mobile devices. It's also not machine-friendly, so search engines can't index it and Ctrl+F doesn't work.
There's probably plenty of other reasons people can give for why plaintext is better.
I wish people wouldn't do this. It's not even necessary to get the desired effect. CSS has had rotation, custom fonts, custom backgrounds and such for a long time.
Isn't this the same model that funds most websites? Zero cost in exchange for advertising and, I'm guessing, giving up your private information - with all the positives and negatives associated with that model.
I'm too lazy to check: Does Amazon say what private info is collected? Info on phones can be much more personal and more accessible to other applications.
They reaaallly want the Amazon app store to happen on Android, don't they? We'll see if free content will be enough to get non-tech-savvy users to go through the trouble of installing an .apk file.
I'm feeling a bit sad that I'm overjoyed to hear that this category exists.
Paid, Free, Actually free
I like how they explain up-front that they pay the authors instead of perhaps another hidden payment model within 'Actually free' that ends up charging users.
Interesting. Curious about the reaction to Google Play not allowing such an app. (I'm guessing restrictions on app stores are ok when Google does them)
Everyone with an app store wants to own the app store market. It is a land-grab to establish a monopoly.
Amazon has to be worried about this because if you own the app store, you choose the default way that people read books on the device. Which means that they can cut Amazon out of the book-selling business to that person.
Amazon doesn't want that. So they have been trying to make the Kindle work. And to install their bookstore as an app. And to try to make their app store viable. And so on.
It is all a long-term play to be in a position to not lose a core business when everyone switches to reading on devices.
The key difference on Android is, and has always been, that you can get apps from off of Google Play. Google's store is just a store with its own policies, and you can install apps from anywhere (including other stores) if you want.
Which is why there is an Android version of this, and no iOS version.
Having just left a career at Amazon that spanned nearly 5 years, I can say with experience that it is not so uncommon to find this happening. I worked at a subsidiary, and we had to bill Amazon Corporate for our own AWS use. Being a media-oriented company, this particular subsidiary is sometimes a bit of an expensive AWS customer.
As a result, my former department, to this day, uses a Hightail (formerly, YouSendIt) dropbox as its only means by which customers can deliver files to the support and quality assurance teams.
I actually tried to install this, but stopped when it prompted me for permissions. It literally asked for every permission I can imagine (read and write my files, all contacts, all calls & texts, all sensors, etc etc etc).
This is Android - what about apps that run mostly in the background ? A music player, fitness tracker, activity tracker? What about apps that run continuously, like a launcher ?
What is security like on Amazon's appstore? It has all-encompassing permissions.
always online? Must the apps be used online, for monitoring usage and downloading ads - or can they be run offline, with the Amazon appstore app uploading stats/downloading ads when connected? (I ask this because I run games in "airport mode" and "stop" them afterwards, as a security measure, having been burned).
It wouldn't be feasible to do this on iOS. It'd required everyone of their customers to jailbreak their phone, and then all of the app developers would violate the TOS with Apple by releasing the app in ways that circumvent the app store.
Amazon's own OS is a fork of Android, and the Amazon Appstore consists almost entirely of Android apps you could also get through Google Play. So it makes sense they'd do it for just Android.
iOS doesn't allow apps to be installed outside a few apple controlled processes without a JailBreak.
I don't think Amazon would want to launch a product dependent on JailBreaking. Unless Apple is forced to provide an API for alternative app stores, I can't see this ever being allowed. Unless of course apple rips off the idea and does it themselves.
Seems like Amazon are trying to replicate WeChat by creating a platform that people don't leave to use apps. By owning this 'ecosystem', Amazon can (a) collect all sorts of data from what apps people use, how long they use them, when they use them, etc. and (b) can provide ads (as Sigmar states) that are very targetted.
One problem with Amazon App Store on Android phones is that if I replace my Android phone, I have to start all over again. Using the Google ecosystem, it's a matter of signing in and all my backed up apps and data are reinstated. There's a lot more friction to keep using the Amazon App Store/Underground app than there is with Google Play Store.
[+] [-] sigmar|10 years ago|reply
https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/underground/do...
"Interstitial Advertisements
When a user launches an Amazon Underground app for the first time, a welcome message in the form of an interstitial ad plays. In subsequent times that a user either launches or resumes the app, paid interstitial ads will also sometimes play."
Interesting. So amazon deals with putting in the ads and the app dev gets paid for every minute the app is used. Seems like an interesting idea, probably useful for games that are very engaging (read: time drain)
[+] [-] justin_vanw|10 years ago|reply
Besides that, the Kindle Fire is a fundamentally useless device for kids. The kid mode was so buggy as to be useless. Take more than a few minutes of video and the wifi won't work. Some bug about if the disk is full wifi fails to work. There's just about no way to get the videos off the device, and no way for kids to do it. Download 2 movies? The wifi stops working. Install an app? 80% of the time, it never shows up in the menu.
The entire experience was stunningly bad. Amazon's entire Android device category is garbage. People complain about the extensions to Android by Samsung, etc, but honestly at least those other companies don't fundamentally ruin the device.
[+] [-] eloff|10 years ago|reply
It just seems like a much more civil relationship.
[+] [-] gdeglin|10 years ago|reply
1) High quality games that are meant to be completed quickly will make less money relative to poor quality games that stretch out gameplay.
2) Developers become incentivized to stretch out gameplay to increase revenue.
3) Amazon Underground is covering the costs for now. But if users were asked to pay themselves, I'm sure many would balk at the idea of paying per-minute to play games.
All that aside, this is an interesting idea. I could see episodic games particularly benefiting from this model -- so long as they don't fall into the trap of stretching out gameplay to increase revenue.
[+] [-] Blaaguuu|10 years ago|reply
There are a handful of interesting paid apps that are very short, unique experiences - which don't try to drag out the game to keep you playing it every day for months.
Its already getting harder and harder to actually sell/buy apps for money upfront, and this seems like it will make it even harder. And while I seem to be in a tiny minority of 'app' consumers, that is still my preferred method of obtaining new applications.
[+] [-] Steko|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitJericho|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aquark|10 years ago|reply
The same thing could have been said about streaming music services and yet many artists seem not too happy about the per play $ they get from Spotify & ilk (though they are probably bound to say that regardless to some extent)
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mkaziz|10 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Amazon-Underground/dp/B004G...
[+] [-] 72deluxe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|10 years ago|reply
"The FTC’s longstanding guidance to companies is that disclosures in their ads should be close to the claims to which they relate – not hidden or buried in unrelated details – and they should appear in a font that is easy to read and in a shade that stands out against the background. Disclosures for television ads should be on the screen long enough to be noticed, read, and understood, and other elements in the ads should not obscure or distract from the disclosures."
Every once in a while, the FTC does clamp down on this.[1]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/09/opera...
[+] [-] mordrax|10 years ago|reply
I bought this and played it for about an hour to completion. For my hour, I'd have made them $0.12. Instead, I paid $4.64.
So for them to get to the same profit using this model, they'd have to attract $4.62/$0.12 = 38 times more users. i.e instead of having 1000+ downloads, they'd need to be in the 38k+ downloads range and for everyone to have played it to completion.
I see two problems for this particular game. 1. Fighting fantasy based games are a niche market so is there going to be a large enough user base to support this? 2. I'd say that the length of a typical gamebook shouldn't be more than 1-2 hours as it will get very complex. So they're kind of capped re per player usage.
Since it's a niche market, I don't imagine there would be hundreds of thousands of people trying this out for 5 minutes each.
[+] [-] zrgiu_|10 years ago|reply
Also, there's the niche issue: it's very possible that fighting fantasy fans are more likely to pay for their apps, which means none of these numbers applies to them.
[+] [-] zephyrthenoble|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thezilch|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biot|10 years ago|reply
I hope this doesn't become a trend, like using a picture of laminate flooring as a website background was a number of years back.
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|10 years ago|reply
There's probably plenty of other reasons people can give for why plaintext is better.
I wish people wouldn't do this. It's not even necessary to get the desired effect. CSS has had rotation, custom fonts, custom backgrounds and such for a long time.
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
I'm too lazy to check: Does Amazon say what private info is collected? Info on phones can be much more personal and more accessible to other applications.
[+] [-] 72deluxe|10 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Amazon-Underground/dp/B004G...
Thanks to mkaziz above for the link, apologies for the repetition
[+] [-] azernik|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zobzu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mordrax|10 years ago|reply
I'm feeling a bit sad that I'm overjoyed to hear that this category exists.
Paid, Free, Actually free
I like how they explain up-front that they pay the authors instead of perhaps another hidden payment model within 'Actually free' that ends up charging users.
[+] [-] agumonkey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] serve_yay|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|10 years ago|reply
Everyone with an app store wants to own the app store market. It is a land-grab to establish a monopoly.
Amazon has to be worried about this because if you own the app store, you choose the default way that people read books on the device. Which means that they can cut Amazon out of the book-selling business to that person.
Amazon doesn't want that. So they have been trying to make the Kindle work. And to install their bookstore as an app. And to try to make their app store viable. And so on.
It is all a long-term play to be in a position to not lose a core business when everyone switches to reading on devices.
[+] [-] mkozlows|10 years ago|reply
Which is why there is an Android version of this, and no iOS version.
[+] [-] robmiller|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewUnmuted|10 years ago|reply
As a result, my former department, to this day, uses a Hightail (formerly, YouSendIt) dropbox as its only means by which customers can deliver files to the support and quality assurance teams.
[+] [-] PhrosTT|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zrgiu_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 72deluxe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|10 years ago|reply
Oh here we go: https://amazon.com/gp/mas/get/android?dl=1
Take off the ?dl for a better splash page http://amazon.com/gp/mas/get/android
[+] [-] hyperpallium|10 years ago|reply
always online? Must the apps be used online, for monitoring usage and downloading ads - or can they be run offline, with the Amazon appstore app uploading stats/downloading ads when connected? (I ask this because I run games in "airport mode" and "stop" them afterwards, as a security measure, having been burned).
[+] [-] valhalla|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrowley|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephen-mw|10 years ago|reply
> 2.25 Apps that display Apps other than your own for purchase or promotion in a manner similar to or confusing with the App Store will be rejected
[0] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
[+] [-] anindyabd|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcr0|10 years ago|reply
1. Allow installs from unknown sources 2. Download and install apk.
Can't do that on iOS without jailbreaking.
[+] [-] BinaryIdiot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlawer|10 years ago|reply
I don't think Amazon would want to launch a product dependent on JailBreaking. Unless Apple is forced to provide an API for alternative app stores, I can't see this ever being allowed. Unless of course apple rips off the idea and does it themselves.
[+] [-] dandroid1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haser_au|10 years ago|reply
Smart play. It's definitely disruptive...
[+] [-] sahaj|10 years ago|reply