
Apple begins rejecting apps that offer rewards for video views, social sharing - jasonpbecker
http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/09/apple-begins-rejecting-apps-that-offer-rewards-for-video-views-social-sharing/
======
gergles
Good riddance.

Let's go even further and have them ban consumable IAPs. There's almost no
legitimate use case for them other than creating pretend currencies that make
people hit the skinner box lever harder and spend more money.

~~~
fidotron
The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly
worth enough to pay for making them.

The dominance of IAPs is not something engineered by the game makers, it's
just that it is so much more lucrative it is what enables the production
values of modern mobile titles to be what they are. Many game makers would
prefer it if you could charge somewhere around $5 per title and make a decent
amount from honest players, but unless you have some uberbrand crossover from
console land that's not going to work.

~~~
gtirloni
It would prevent the tsunami of stupid titles from showing up. Companies would
get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just
as always.

The amount of trickery I have seen in IAPs is disgusting.

~~~
fidotron
This is like arguing that Walmart should be banned. You might think the
products are stupid, but there are enough people that don't spending money on
their preferences to create the current situation. If there is a problem it is
with consumers.

Admittedly this does poison the well for many other game developers, but the
reality is getting attention in the current mobile market is close to
impossible without an enormous spend, so conservatism of business model is
going to rule the roost now.

It also doesn't help that self professed hardcore gamers undervalue mobile
titles enormously, and that touch controls just aren't good enough for many
purposes either.

~~~
DanBC
Could you imagine a Walmart that had fast checkout lanes that charged a few
dollars extra, and regular checkout lanes that didn't have baggers and
deliberately went slowly, even if there wasn't anyone ahead of you in the
line?

~~~
MichaelGG
I'd love a store that offered that. Sometimes I go to buy something then just
walk out because they're processing so long. Sometimes I'm tempted to throw
down cash and walk out but I figure that might cause a security incident.

But being able to skip the line for a few bucks is great. I do the same when
flying, too.

~~~
potatolicious
Except to make this analogy complete the store would make you wait 30 minutes
to check out even if there was no one else in the store. In other words, the
wait is artificial to begin with.

Paying to be prioritized in a system with limited resources is one thing,
paying to get rid of an entirely artificial restriction is quite something
else.

~~~
stoolpigeon
It's a video game. Everything is artificial. Following the reasoning here I
would expect that a proper game would be beat when I started it and any
interaction I have with it is some kind of artificial barrier that should be
removed.

~~~
potatolicious
This logic doesn't follow. Most video games don't optimize their gameplay
mechanics for conversion to micropayments - and the ones that do are widely
under attack.

Sure, all mechanics in all games are man-made, but to continue the analogy,
we're talking about an entirely artificial wait time to check out that's been
_specifically optimized_ to make you pay for the "express" checkout. In other
words, the wait exists for no reason except to extract more money from you.

The whole core of the argument is that developers used to optimize the
mechanics of the game for fun and enjoyment, and now instead optimize the
mechanics for how frequently and continually they can suck money out of your
pockets. There is now a gigantic philosophical and developmental gap between
the "pay once" and "pay monthly" business models and the "pay always" business
model.

------
minikites
> [W]here a confused developer wonders, “so we can’t encourage users to share
> stuffs [sic] on social networks anymore? This is one of the oldest tricks in
> the book and even Candy Crush uses it.”

"Even Candy Crush uses it" is not the best argument for this developer's
point. It is the best argument for Apple's shift in enforcement.

~~~
jbigelow76
Step 1, eliminate all marketing channels outside of the official App store.

Step 2, charge developers for "sponsored" placement in the App store.

~~~
superuser2
>marketing channels

When your "marketing channel" is my Facebook news feed, then yes, this is
absolutely what should happen.

~~~
randyrand
Don't be silly. Are you really suggesting that Apple is doing this to clean up
your news feed? They don't care whatsoever. Facebook does, you do, Apple
doesn't.

What OP said is right. This is about Apple having tighter control over the app
marketplace, not your news feed.

~~~
superuser2
Fine, but preventing spammy behavior is still a good thing.

I don't see anything about restricting use of Adwords, eliminating the "direct
to app store" URL infrastructure in Safari, or even telling you not to let
users share your app with their friends via social media.

All Apple is doing is telling you that you can't _incentivize_ (read:
effectively require) users to do pollute their friends news feeds, which is
already a distasteful spam tactic and socially unacceptable. Whatever the
ulterior motives, this discourages bad behavior and is still better for users.

------
lhnz
Great but as many have pointed out the biggest problem with the App Store is
that IAP has made pricing completely opaque.

The whole experience is completely untrustworthy as an app which requires an
average spend of £20+ to use properly is considered more "Free" than an app
which costs £2.99.

It's made a complete mockery of prices.

Fixed prices are popular for a reason and I hope Apple learns this and starts
properly surfacing information as well as categorising based on the reality of
an App's "price."

~~~
redler
It would be interesting if the app store displayed the median total
expenditure for any application that includes IAP. How would buying behavior
be affected when suddenly that "free" game includes a note like "$59 median
total spent"?

[Edit: clarity]

~~~
avalaunch
I think the median for "free" apps with IAPs would almost always be 0. My
guess is that the vast majority of people don't pay anything with a small
minority making up the bulk of the app's profits.

What you really need is a value that represents that amount you need to pay to
actually enjoy the app which would be a lot harder to quantify.

~~~
aikah
That's absolutely what our stats say.A tiny portion of players will spend a
crazy amount of money in IAP,while the great majority will never pay
anything.The "free" app is kinda subsidized. Doesnt excuse dirty IAP
tricks,you can choose the IAP model and still let most users have a great
experience even without paying.

~~~
MBCook
If you showed the average, but only the average people who have paid
something, do you think that would give reasonable numbers?

~~~
Jach
Why not just show a graph of the whole distribution, sorted by amount spent?
It's 2014; single-number summaries can sometimes be useful, but it's not
required to use them now we have computers and can work with the full data
set.

------
jarsj
IAP Ranters. Here is a story. A real one.

I take a coffee break and fire the addictive social game "Boom Beach".

My troops are ready and I am ready to attack the neighbors.

I buy a 5 USD tea + 3 USD water bottle (both I can get free at my office).

The attack doesn't go well. One little error. My break is about to end, but I
want to try one more time. Just that, it will take 2 hours to train my troops.

Or Wait, 1.99 USD to speed that up. Hours of planning, that went for the
attack and just 2 USD to find out if I was right or wrong. Is it worth it ? I
look at my coffee and water, the time, the ending break, the distractions till
this is resolved. It's worth it. And while I am putting in 2USD, might as well
take the 10USD deal for next 20 battles. Better spent than "expensive-than-
movie" popcorn. Ban that first.

~~~
Steko
I've been playing boom beach for several months and haven't spent a penny. In
the same time I've spent over $100 on two lackluster blizzard expansion packs
for d3 and sc2. Given the amount of time I've spent and enjoyed the game I
don't begrudge people in my position that do spend money. And no it doesn't 2
hours to train troops and there are plenty of free gems.

~~~
Greenisus
I haven't spent any money on Boom Beach either, but it can take over 2 hours
to train troops if you're at max level using all tanks (4 per boat at 36
minutes each = 144 minutes).

~~~
Steko
You can only get 3 per boat at max size. Level 20 landing craft have 24 seats,
tanks take 8 slots.

3 tanks does take a long time but every other unit trains in a fraction of the
time tanks do. Tanks take longer because you will often take no casualties
with them.

~~~
Greenisus
Ah you're right. I'm not that far (and honestly I'm starting to get bored with
it).

------
sprite
What I find annoying is that they did this with no warning. I got an app
rejected a few days ago. I have a coin model in my apps. The users can a)
Complete actions within the apps to earn coins b) Purchase coins through IAPs
c) Watch video ads for coins d) Complete offers for coins. Many users have
expressed that they were happy with the system, especially the video ads, with
reviews such as "I wish there was more videos to watch for coins". With only
around 2% of users spending money on IAPs, offers and videos are a good way to
monetize at least a portion of the remaining 98%.

~~~
increment_i
Wow, are you serious? People will watch ads for game credits? Thank goodness I
was a kid in the 90s before this wackiness pervaded the gaming industry.

I'm not knocking you BTW - the market will bear what it will bear - but, wow I
had no idea this was a thing.

~~~
wvenable
In the 90's you probably watched 10 minutes of ads in exchange for 20 minutes
of Television more times than you can count.

------
DigitalSea
This is a change I wholeheartedly agree with. The prompts in games to make you
watch advertisements or download other apps for game credits was always to me
a bit iffy. I am glad to see Apple officially forbidding these kind of moves.
Developers of free-to-play games will just find other clever ways of making
money off of free users, whether that be prompting you to spend real money on
in-app purchases or even forcing you too at some point: who knows what will
happen.

~~~
jfoster
Interestingly, Google seems headed in the opposite direction. They've even
released an app that lets users complete surveys in exchange for Google Play
credit.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.paidtasks)

------
ashbrahma
I feel bad for all the developers who are going to see a substantial drop in
revenues from incentivized video ads. But as a user, I am happy to see this
change. Developers have been very abusive with in-game credits.

------
pjc50
Interesting how the normally libertarian HN is very much against a "free
market" in apps, preferring that Apple get to dictate who earns money instead.

~~~
threeseed
Exactly and Google is also disgraceful. How dare Google filter spam when the
"free market" should decide what emails are received.

~~~
ojanik
Your example makes no sense. Market has decided and wants to use a tool like
spam filter.

~~~
pjc50
Crucially the market for email providers is really broad, easy to enter,
doesn't have explicit lock-in (although it's a potentially huge job to change
your email address, this can be made easier by having your own mail domain),
and doesn't have one or two big players making the rules.

Most systems including gmail will let you whitelist senders. You can't
whitelist apps onto an iPhone without jailbreaking it.

------
curmudgeon224
Random thoughts:

They are supposedly now banning keywords in titles so you won't be seeing more
title like Floopy Bird - incredibly fun additive threes 2048 game. Good.

As for banning incentivized social actions: that really sucks if you aren't
one of the companies (like King, Zynga, etc) that have really benefited from
the growth of using those incentivized actions. Developers that came before
you won't be punished and you are now going to have to spend your way to the
top. Good luck with that.

One rumor is that they are banning some incentivized video ad networks because
ads were coming up with Google Play logos. Oops.

Anyways - the long and short of it is, while the policies are probably net
positive for the consumer, the people that gamed the system early still win.

------
coldcode
It's about time. It's not only games that do this, even brand name companies
pay for positioning via incentivized downloads from these marketing companies.

------
seanalltogether
So where do you draw the line between viewing advertisements to play the game,
and viewing advertisements to enhance the game? What makes a video view for
gold coins different from an ad view to proceed to the next screen? I don't
fully understand the distinction here?

~~~
exodust
Perhaps the concern for Apple is that one of those methods circumvents Apple's
ad network, the other cannot?

Would this be a fair guess? I'm not fully understanding Apple's motivation
here either unless it was about bringing Apple back in as a dependency on ad
revenue rather than sidelined.

------
pratyushag
The clause of being able to promote apps that are made by the same publisher
will have a very significant impact on the industry and could even lead to
more consolidation and a significant disadvantage for independent developers.
In fact, I think this could lead to a business opportunity for publishing as a
service whereby a developer can host their app with a partner and get paid
based on the number of ads clicked, impressions, etc.

Overall, an unfriendly move for developers. I think it might be time to buy
some Zynga ;-).

------
justplay
Thats very good move, i guess.

------
jasonkostempski
Good. Start with Angry Birds Star Wars telepods and don't let them back in if
they remove it. Rovio really ruined the good thing they had going by getting
way too greedy.

------
mikeash
If Apple would just open up sideloading, all of the controversy could just go
away.

~~~
ceejayoz
In exchange for the "malware on iOS!" controversy? No thanks.

~~~
mikeash
Malware is kept at bay by the sandbox. App review does jack squat to stop
malware. Sideloaded apps could still be sandboxed.

Downvoters: please explain yourself. Is what I said incorrect?

------
finalight
does this mean hay day is gone?

