
AppGratis Is Nothing More Than A Black Hat Marketing Company - jscore
http://techyjeremy.tumblr.com/post/47783569514/appgratis-is-nothing-more-than-a-black-hat-marketing
======
jacquesm
AppGratis simply served a need, both on the consumer side (App discovery) as
well as on the corporate side (app promotion). What ratio paid apps to free
apps they were running is guesswork but I'd imagine if they would fail at the
mix they would fail in the marketplace. The bigger problem is that they were
simply too good at what they were doing and were competing with Apple on
Apple's turf. Apple would like to control how you discover Apps and any kind
of curation that is successful will sooner or later be hit like this.

Whether or not AppGratis could have seen this coming is debatable, but the
product was solid and seemed to have served a genuine need. If the app store
would not be broken in many respects then AppGratis would have never been able
to carve out the niche that it had.

App curation at the level that AppGratis was doing is really hard work, and
you can't blame them for wanting to be compensated for that hard work. So a
certain percentage of paid promotion is a fairly obvious step to make the
model viable imo.

Their biggest mistake - if you can call it that - was probably to be too good
at what they were doing.

In the AppStore no threat to Apple is too big to fail. Better remember that if
you are successful with an app you wrote and you are possibly in competition
with some portion of the Apple empire.

~~~
alxbrun
"AppGratis simply served a need, both on the consumer side (App discovery)
[...]"

How can you call "discovery" a process where users receive everyday a push for
the app that paid the highest bid to AppGratis ?

~~~
windsurfer
How can you twist words like that? You get paid by a marketing company to
steer discussions on social networks in favour of your brand.

~~~
2pasc
This is plain bullying. Most promoted apps did not pay AppGratis advertising
to be in the app. Some did, and they were described as "Sponsored". How do you
describe Google Business model then?

------
ultimoo
I still find it strange at times to wrap my head around the fact that for
decades we championed a distributed and an open world-scale system - The
Internet.

And now, we are going back to policies controlled by 'guidelines' and rules
and terms and conditions of large corporations -- Apple, Google, Microsoft,
and Blackberry. Either we as a developer community got lost somewhere; or this
was a careful, well thought-out move by the said corporations. And it is only
getting stronger as people are replacing laptops with tablets and so on.

I'm not commenting on the AppGratis fiasco, I couldn't care less about it.
Sorry for ranting.

~~~
mikeash
I'm not sure how much things have really become worse here, as opposed to just
shuffling things around.

20 years ago, a lot of people would have owned a Nintendo system or similar,
which had all the things you discussed and more. 10 years ago, most cell
phones could run third-party apps, but the requirements were so strict that
almost none of any interest were available. The PC was theoretically an open
system, but Microsoft was doing their best to close it up with business
measures that were about as effective as these technological measures are
today.

I'm not trying to defend in any way what Apple and friends get up to here. But
I think things are not as bad as you say, or perhaps were always as bad as you
say. The fight for openness is ongoing.

~~~
derefr
To put it another way: everyone (except Richard Stallman) has always wanted to
use _both_ open and closed systems. There is room for both, and neither will
kill the other.

~~~
GhotiFish
Oh? Only Richard Stallman? You mind including me in that list?

------
Irregardless
This story isn't adding up so far.

> But sources close to [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.

[http://allthingsd.com/20130408/confirmed-apple-kicks-
appgrat...](http://allthingsd.com/20130408/confirmed-apple-kicks-appgratis-
out-of-the-store-for-being-too-pushy/)

That's the closest thing I can find to a "confirmation" that AppGratis was
accepting cash in exchange for a higher rank in their app. They didn't confirm
or deny that in their "Here's the Full Story" blog post, nor does it say
anything about their business model on their website.

In any case, that supposedly has nothing to do with the two official reasons
for which they were most recently banned. First is 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._

But they had encountered that problem before and cleared it with Apple. So the
only new one is 5.6:

> _Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or
> direct marketing of any kind._

Seems a little odd to remove an app with 12 million users over such a minor
detail when it could be resolved in a few seconds -- just remove push
notifications. Does Apple ever give official responses on these issues?

~~~
AJ007
One of my friends in the mobile space told me about some app doing this, but I
don't know if AppGratis. At least one mobile app was offering a free app of
the day and charging thousands of dollars for the placement.

Not my strong area, but I will point out that the rest of the blogger's post
is _fantasy_. If you are correct, then nothing he wrote is right.

\- Paid links is not blackhat SEO. Blackhat SEO involves building links though
browser exploits and spam & getting referrals from hijacked pages that rank
well. Major newspaper brands sell paid links. No one would call them or their
customers blackhat. In fact, buying links is considered whitehat SEO.

\- Paid results absolutely do not take in to account a user's satisfaction.
Google has a list of prohibited types of ad customers some of which is
strictly enforced (things that are illegal under federal law) and other parts
that are not enforced at all.

\- Studies have shown a large % of Google users do not even understand that
the top ads are ads. Take a look at it some tip on an older LCD screen with a
poor viewing angle and you will notice the pink background color is
imperceptible. This is intentional.

\- Google's job is not to provide the best results. It is to provide the
results that benefit them best. (
<http://www.benedelman.org/news/011212-1.html> )

I'm not sure who the original author is, but it is a bit disturbing to me that
there are people in this industry that have swallowed Google's propaganda in
its entirety, and then are applying those concepts to the world at large.
Assuming he is not a Google employee, I think he may be in for a shock on how
brutal, inconsistent, and cut throat this business is.

~~~
dools
Couple of points:

Paid links are black hat SEO. If you sell links you should be putting
rel="nofollow" on them.

Also Google does do a pretty rigorous job of combatting paid ad spam. They
have many ad text and landing page policies designed to weed out sneaky
affiliate deals and the like. They also reward advertisers that provide more
popular user experiences through their quality score mechanism which is a
direct (and very significant) factor in cost per click.

It could be AppGratis was just as rigorous in their evaluation of offers - I
also don't think its a very valid analogy nor do I disagree with you generally
save for those 2 points.

~~~
jacquesm
> If you sell links you should be putting rel="nofollow" on them.

Is there a law that states that you should do that?

Is this 'best practice' without which clients no longer function?

~~~
dools
It's one of Google's guidelines. If you buy or sell links without doing that
you risk being penalised by Google. Whether or not that matters to you depends
on your site/business.

------
LinaLauneBaer
I am the developer of Store News ( <http://store-news-app.com> ) a iOS/OS X
app that shows the best deals in the Mac/iOS app store. Several ad companies
contacted me and offered money for a good position in my app. I always
declined because thinking about it made me feel bad.

When this whole AppGratis thing came up a few days ago I had an interesting
discussion about that with a friend of mine who is a lawyer. He told me that
according to German law it would have been illegal to what the ad companies
wanted me to do: To falsify the apps my own app is displaying for taking
money.

I don't want to judge AppGratis for what they are doing but to me it feels not
right. They may not break any US/... law but still… I think it also depends on
how exactly they promote apps inside their own app. If they clearly mark it as
a promotion/ad then I think it is fine. The comparison the author of the blog
post makes only holds water if they did mark their promotions as ads because
Google is clearly highlighting/declaring paid links as such…

~~~
jacquesm
Looks like you are in violation of the rules. Better prepare a plan-B.

------
2pasc
I am ashamed by some of the reactions here (appart from jacquesm which offers
a balanced one)

AppGratis is a media, and like all media, it runs on advertising. The quality
of apps promoted is shown in the fact that many apps stayed high in the
ranking after the promotion and most apps (95%+) never paid to be featured by
AppGratis. There was a cost - the cost of giving away an app with in App
purchase credits or what have you. Do you know many black hat marketing
Companies with 20,000 - 5 stars ratings from consumers all over the world? I
doubt eHow would have 5 star ratings...

Maybe AppGratis became too big for its own good, but still. But we are not
talking about scams like offer walls and shady newsfeed hacks.

What I see is a bunch of jealous people that are now coming out of the hood to
kick the CEO on the floor - and he is obviously hurting.

~~~
ebbv
> AppGratis is a media, and like all media, it runs on advertising.

In most media the advertising and the content are separate things and clearly
demarcated. That's the problem that's being highlighted here. AppGratis'
content was its advertising.

Ostensible media which is being paid for positive reviews/highlighting of
subjects has always been viewed as unethical.

I don't know how much of AppGratis' highlighted apps were paid for, but if the
answer is "any", then I think they violated their users' trust.

~~~
2pasc
AppGratis sponsored content was marked as Sponsored on the screen advertising
the app, or by being called "Discovery App of the Day" (vs. Deal).

~~~
jrochkind1
Wait, "Deal" means paid placement and "Discovery" does not? Or is it the
opposite? How exactly is it you think this is clear?

It is true that there is certainly plenty of 'old school' media that
intentionally confuses the difference between paid-placement advertisements
and editorial content too. And venues that do that are disrespected and
considered deceitful too, even if there are plenty of them.

~~~
2pasc
Sorry- my mistake. In the US, the Sponsored apps were marked as sponsored.
They could have been more clear about it, but you can see that. The others
were just regular content for consumers to discover.

------
crazygringo
I personally don't care what AppGratis does, whether it's good or bad,
because, as far as I understand it, that's not what any of the "outrage" was
all about.

It's the fact that a popular app, downloaded millions of times, existing for
years, can suddenly be yanked by Apple, without any kind of reasonable "due
process", or even reasonable warning. At a whim.

It's the arbitrariness of it, and the fact that it could happen to any
developer, that's scary. Talking about whether or not AppGratis is a good/bad
company is a complete distraction from the part that actually matters.

------
mikecane
>>>as a user I want to be able to find the best apps for my task. Quality
apps. Apps that will help me achieve whatever it is I’m doing. And I want
Apple to decide that

I stopped reading right there.

------
gyardley
It's odd that the author singles out AppGratis for so much ire. There are
many, many channels for paid app promotion, and rankings in Apple's app store
have been heavily influenced by advertising dollars since the fall of 2008 -
long before AppGratis was founded.

The advertising-free 'meritocracy' the author wants has never existed - even
before the influx of paid app promotion, Apple could arbitrarily send an app
to the top of the paid or free charts simply by featuring it.

~~~
unreal37
Not only for apps, but for anything in the world. If you spend a lot of money
on advertising, your "thing" will sell more copies. True for electronics, cell
phones, movies, TV shows, shoes, clothes... you name it.

The author of the original blog post thinks good apps should be decided by
Apple and not influenced by advertising. What world does he live in?

------
ishansharma
This is something I had in mind since starting. It was always a paid model.
And then inside the app, they pretended as if it was single person running it
all.

Even description was deceptive: "I pick one app, contact developers and try to
make it free for a day" (Don't remember exactly)

There's no reason for anyone to get angry about this. Apple has removed even
App Shopper app (which was a genuine one), removing this paid app promotion
app was a no brainer.

~~~
manmal
Appbuzzer (<http://www.appbuzzer.com>) has a similar business model, but it's
IMO a much more sane and friendly approach to that, and AFAIK way cheaper.

~~~
TheAnimus
It is a strange side effect that people will value something much more if its
on 'sale'.

IANAY (I am not a yank) but didn't JC Penny backtrack on their idea to stop
having promotions, but constant low price?

websites like hotukdeals constantly show how people will buy pointless things
they never wanted, because they are 'cheap', then moan when their order isn't
fulfilled, about not been able to get the thing they didn't want 6 hours ago.

tapping into that, to prime the pot for downloads is surely a useful feature.
The fact these apps exist are just natural competition in the app store,
against the app store.

It is that last bit that makes me doubt the validity of it as a business
model.

~~~
TillE
Without their big sales, I guarantee you that Steam wouldn't be making nearly
as much money. It's basic economics, plus marketing. You try to get everyone
to pay as much as they're willing to.

Of course, when that price = FREE, then it really is all advertising, for IAPs
or something else.

------
potatolicious
Whether or not AppGratis was "rightfully" banned from the App Store is besides
the point, IMO.

The problem here is that Apple is creating a confusing, inconsistent, and
highly luck-based environment. This is in many ways similar to why
entrepreneurship is often highly lacking in poorly governed countries.

Whether or not the rules are justifiable is a secondary concern to whether or
not the rules are evenly and consistently applied. Apple wants a walled
garden, fine, but we cannot have a walled garden where the majority of apps
breaking the rules get away with it, and it's a random draw as to who gets the
enforcement hammer.

If there's one thing that's poisonous to a healthy market it's uncertainty.

~~~
rdouble
_The problem here is that Apple is creating a confusing, inconsistent, and
highly luck-based environment._

Perhaps they are just mirroring the rest of reality.

------
stickfigure
In the first corner: 12 million users who voluntarily installed an app and can
voluntarily uninstall it at any time if they don't like it.

In the second corner: One blowhard with a blog.

It seems pretty obvious who has credibility in this fight.

------
nugget
Well said. An ecosystem where paid promotion is the only path to reach the top
of the charts incentivizes (even requires) the developers to become as
aggressive as possible in terms of monetization, which often sucks for users
and user experience.

~~~
danielweber
Well, the problem is that reaching the top of the charts matters, because
being at the top of the charts is where sales come from.

If there were something about the app market that really led itself to a
winner-take-all tournament-style compensation, then I could shrug and think
that AppGratis is merely the manifestation of another problem, and if it
weren't them it would be someone else.

I'm not sure the app market really needs to be that way. Rate people based on
average rankings, for example, giving new entrants a grace period before
competitors can bomb them into 0-star region. Quality will eventually out.

~~~
jfim
I am not exactly familiar with how the Apple App Store is structured, but I
know Google Play has sections for top new apps[1], which is restricted to only
recent apps.

It still doesn't solve the problem of launching an app and having no one
download it, but at least it means that they're not competing against
entrenched apps with millions of installs.

[1]
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/topselling_new...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/topselling_new_paid)

------
tudorconstantin
This is the most biased article that I ever read on HN.

Did someone forced the millions of users to use appgratis? It's not like you
create a recommendation app that promotes shitty apps and 10 million users
suddenly use it. No, that app has to bring some value. I'd never use such an
app, but there are many more others who are. Let the economy speak for itself
and as long as the app is not doing illegal things let it be supported or
killed by the market.

It is like saying that google should be closed because it shows shitty pages
for some searches.

------
ig1
It's important to note that both the US and EU you cannot legally make a paid-
for recommendation look like a real endorsement.

For the FTC guidelines on this see:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/20635261/FTC-Guides-Concerning-
the...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/20635261/FTC-Guides-Concerning-the-Use-of-
Endorsements-and-Testimonials-in-Advertising)

~~~
likeclockwork
And yet the media still exists as an industry.

------
NathanKP
I completely agree that the app store environment would be better without paid
promotion from companies like AppGratis. However, I would also agree with the
CEO of AppGratis in his post when he said that the app discovery process
through the app store is broken.

There have been numerous times when I've been searching for a good app in a
particular category and the app store search results are very bad. For example
try searching for "panoramic photo app". You'll get numerous results but all
of the top ones are complete crap.

I'd like to see Apple allow at least one service which actually filters out
all the garbage apps to show only the decent ones. Or at least improve their
own service to manually ban the crapware apps to the bottom. Also the "one
free app a day" model is a nice and effective way to spotlight interesting
apps compared to Apple's staff picks, which aren't updated frequently enough.

~~~
dooq
Yep, apple completely wrecked the app store discovery process with iOS 6. It's
a real shame IMO.

------
seivan
I agree, I wrote "good riddance" in the other thread as well. They are nothing
short of scam artists.

------
unreal37
This blog post makes a ridiculous argument to defend its point.

To paraphrase the author, "Apple should control the rankings of an app in the
app store, and it should not be influenced by illicit methods".

Now, suddenly, paying a third-party to advertise your app inside their app is
an "illicit method" of getting it discovered.

It's called advertising. Developers can choose (or choose not) to pay money to
promote there app in dozens of places and the app will increase in ranking in
the App Store because advertising works.

It's like saying you want people to discover movies by going to the theater
and choosing them by only by name, and NOT by watching trailers, TV
commercials or viewing the posters. It's just a ridiculous argument that all
advertising is by definition bad.

------
tudorconstantin
I imagine the author of this article would find it perfectly fine to have
apple tell him what political orientation or religion to have.

------
daemon13
Since the app discovery process in the Apple's own App Store (or on an
iDevice) is far away from acceptable user experience, it is not a big surprise
that companies like AppGratis are trying to fill this niche.

Apple's ban does not help in improving users' [that's us] experience. A better
response from Apple would be fixing core of the matter.

I recall that couple of years ago Apple purchased app search&discovery start-
up for circa $50M. Looks like reverse integration took place... unfortunately.

I discovered more high quality apps on HN than in App Store.

------
programminggeek
Meritocracy in search results? Are you kidding? I'm sorry but search results
are not a meritocracy and to think otherwise is just plain foolish.

First of all, if results can be hand ordered is it a meritocracy? No. Because
it's a select individuals opinion. Can their opinion be bought? Yep.

Second, can you buy popularity? Yep. Then is it a meritocracy? Nope. If EA or
Zynga puts out a game and spends $10 million promoting it and uses their other
apps to make it popular, is that a meritocracy when it shows up at the top of
a search result? No. It isn't.

Search engines aren't a meritocracy. The best results don't win. The most
relevant thing isn't always given. They are an attempt to return relevant
information, but how that relevance is determined is not necessarily merit
related at all. It just has to solve the user problem. It can be done in any
order that the search engine provider deems fit.

For example, Google shows ads alongside the search results. The top ads aren't
merit related. They are profit related. Google puts paid results above real
results. Google puts money above relevance.

When you are talking about millions of dollars being thrown around, it is no
longer about merit, it's about influence and those are not the same thing.

------
yohann305
Tell AppGratis' CEO to give a 30% cut to Apple, like in any other Apple app
store financial mechanics, and his app will be back in app store in no time.

------
lnanek2
It's true that you pay them and they send out a push message advertising your
app as their daily deal to their users. I'm not sure if that's black hat,
though. It's pretty standard marketing. You can pay amazon similarly to be on
the front page of the amazon app store. I do think it is against app store
guidelines all the same. Those are pretty clear you can't use push messages to
promote other apps.

------
kunai
I was a bit disappointed in HN when the original post skyrocketed to the top
of the front page.

It was disheartening to see knee-jerk reactions by the HN community. We've
built such an intellectually sound and interesting community; one that bases
its opinion on fact itself, and not emotion.

Let's keep it that way.

------
anoncow
>Google’s job is to make sure the top results are the best results possible.

So all that AppGratis had to do was make sure the apps they promoted were not
crappy. Review the submitted apps and factor in (genuine) votes by end-users.
This way they would have added value to the ecosystem.

If Apple/Google banned such an app from their appstore, I would have been
pissed.

But I understand. It is their marketplace. They make the rules. There is no
free market and no democracy. Those were just ideals, long forgotten and never
to be seen again.

I would continue typing and go into a rant on how the Appstore is a monopoly.
But I know it isn't. And even an oligopoly doesn't make me happy.

(I haven't used AppGratis.)

------
austenallred
I never used AppGratis, so I need some help understanding here.

Were 100% of the app recommendations "sponsored"? Were those that were
"sponsored" marked as such?

The comparison is made to black-hat SEO, but having a list of apps as well as
some sponsored apps is fine if they are marked as such. The article makes the
comparison to black-hat links, but including "sponsored" links is what Google
does with AdWords/PPC and is completely legitimate. So what did it look like
with AppGratis? It's all about organization and transparency.

~~~
2pasc
Most apps were not sponsored. Not more than 2 per week out of the 15 they are
promoting in the US.

------
jarsj
As a small app developer, I am gonna up-vote this thousand times (I wish). We
small developers need to unite and throw companies like these (paid
promotions, paid reviews) out.

~~~
jacquesm
Small app developers were a bigger beneficiary of AppGratis than paid app
developers ever were if I understand the ratio of free apps to paid placements
mentioned elsewhere in this thread correctly. By a factor of 7:1 or so.

------
TallboyOne
That's not black hat marketing.

------
nsxwolf
AppGratis might indeed be shady, but I don't understand the strategy of
banning this entire app category from the store.

It is, after all, how they obtained their new App Store (Chomp acquisition).
Why not sit back and let people create better app stores, and when you see the
next revolutionary one, acquire it?

------
jrockway
It would probably be more ethical to charge users for installing AppGratis.
Then the incentive would be to provide the user with useful information
everyday, or risk being uninstalled / canceled / refunded / whatever. Consumer
Reports works this way and they seem to be pretty successful.

------
tootie
Have you seen those "sponsored results" on Google? Better ban all their apps
too.

------
jjellyy
FINALLY someone makes some sense of this story. AppGratis is a scam.

~~~
2pasc
.. and you are a courageous individual

------
alegen
"And I want Apple to decide that [what apps are good] — not another company
that takes (large) kickbacks from app developers."

That's where I stopped reading...

------
recoiledsnake
>as a user I want to be able to find the best apps for my task. Quality apps.
Apps that will help me achieve whatever it is I'm doing. And I want Apple to
decide that

Why?

Anyway it's abundantly clear that Apple is failing at that task, especially
with new changes to the way search results are displayed.

~~~
danvideo
> And I want Apple to decide that — not another company that takes (large)
> kickbacks from app developers [...] I want Apple to be ultimately
> responsible for my app marketplace experience.

Yes, that line bugged me as well. Forgetting about AppGratis (because I don't
know enough about their business) how do you as a consumer just know that the
store owner must be better at curating/rating items for you than a third party
who's job that is?

~~~
cmccabe
No, you see, Apple taking a 30% kickback is good. AppGratis taking kickbacks
is bad. They're completely different scenarios. For one thing, the names of
the companies are different.

------
alekseyk
So they promoted applications that users (that liked what they saw)
downloaded. And that impacted numbers of downloads in the application store.

That's his whole beef and the reason for calling them a 'black hat' marketing
company?

Using that logic, if application is featured on a popular web site where
company paid PR to advertise makes the company in question a black hat
marketing company who is fucking everything up for everybody else?

Bullshit.

