yeah I agree. This will FINALLY let page owners understand how their content resonates with their fans, rather than the friends of fans (who probably don't care about their posts) the page also reaches through engagements.
Why doesn't Apple take the Amazon/Netflix approach and add a recommendations engine?
For example, if I was a big fan of iMobsters (and I spent a lot of $$$ in it, it would have a few categories.)
New (like iMobsters): Crime City, Mobster Wars 3D, Crime Inc.
Related: Racing Live, Gun Bros
You Might Like: Tiny Wings
etc.
Up until now, it's been the same old categories. The apps Apple features/shows (excluding rankings) aren't catered to your tastes, but rather just what they like (staff picks, featured , etc)
Except that isn't the case. Almost all of the dominant players in the social mobile gaming space have used bots, and are thriving. That's not to say the bad apps didn't use it as well, but their users' LTVs never backed out BECAUSE they were bad.
I strongly believe that it IS Apple's job to help get apps in front of iOS users because it's an ecosystem that prides itself on better apps. I agree that if Apple gave developers' a better way, to hell with bots.
As for a third party solution, people have tried. People have tried to create websites to rank apps, but they just don't work without incentivization (which to many of you, means misleading the end user.) Ask yourself honestly. Would you yourself log onto a site every time you try an app just to rate it?
Bots don't exist on Android, but incent PPI does. It doesn't matter about the # of installs he gets because Android takes into account uninstall rates as well as your app ratings.
If he's ranked higher than you, he's most likely hitting the factors better than you.
Why are you sure that bots do not exist on Android? The article did not deny their existence.
As for that "more holistic" approach, Bots don't usually uninstall apps that they've downloaded. They just get re-instantiated (and possibly reused to further help pad results).
Also if PPI was used, a lot of cash was blown to get 10k downloads and 381 Google +1s sandwiched into a manner of hours. That means the developer either has an inside track or lots of cash to blow and no thought to ever seeing a return.
I personally don't understand why "bot farms" are that "scummy" or unfair. It was possibly the best way for the average indie developer to stand out without a large wallet (to buy banners). This rash of a problem is even more aggravated ever since incent PPI was banned.
Because of this, the era of rapidly acquiring users at scale on iOS is coming to an end. In it's place, developers will be forced to revert back to traditional ad buys in the form of banner ad networks with ridiculously "black 'box" targeting options.
I don't know if this is a bad thing since developers will spend more time figuring out their LTVs through each respective acquisition channel, but you sure as hell better be able to throw a few thousand dollars here and there and expect it to never back out.
All in all, Apple's app store policy should just read, "If you've solved discoverability on our app store, we're banning your method."
I personally don't understand why "bot farms" are that "scummy" or unfair.
They fraudulently make the claim "lots of people like this". User's believe a "most downloaded" means other people like them have made a decision and picked this little grain of wheat from the chaff.
Bot farming is fundamentally lying to your potential customers to the detriment of applications that should be on the list.
Why aren't people rallying against Tapjoy when they're incentivizing people to download apps in exchange for virtual currency? As long as you pay $20-30k, you have enough downloads to breach the top 25.
Or take banner ads. Zynga has the ability to throw $100k IOs at random ad networks and their new apps are instantly in the Top 25 shortly after launch. Does this reflect popularity/quality or is it just a competition between who has the biggest wallet?
If Apple changed it's app store algorithm to function like the Android app store (that takes uninstall rates/ratings into account), this wouldn't be a problem.
Really? You believe that, just because it was cheap for indies, that ranking an app more highly in the app store based on non-human downloads was beneficial to the human users of the app store?
I'm no Apple fanboy generally, but this seems like they're making a choice based on what's good for their human users, and that choice benefits some the developers at the expense of others. (IMO, it benefits the ones who are competing "fairly", but that doesn't even matter compared to "is it good for users?")
You're twisting my words. Are you really so naive to believe that if you make a great app that you're automatically going to climb to the Top 25?
Try navigating the app store. Tell me how you discover apps. A great app that was released is never going to get anywhere unless a marketing budget has been allocated beforehand (unless you somehow win the lottery and create the next angry birds.)
And lets talk about the "expense" of others. Did you feel like you lost anything when bots and incent PPI were allowed? Did you even know about it? The app store functions in a way that it's sort of like the survival of the fittest. If the people don't like an app, it's going to drop back down as fast as it climbed up.
If Apple wants to create an ecosystem where indie developers can thrive, they need to change their ranking algorithm, solve discoverability for their developers, or stop banning the solutions people have been coming up with (incent PPI, bots.)
A Kantian ethicist might say that if you apply the first formulation of his categorical imperative you would find that it's immoral because if everyone were to do it, the whole system would stop working.
> It was possibly the best way for the average indie developer to stand out without a large wallet (to buy banners).
How indie is indie?
$5k - $15k may not be considered a "large wallet" by internet advertising standards, but it's a whole lot of money by "I just wrote a great app in my spare time and want people to see it" standards.
It varies. But $5k means their app can take a trip to the top 25 and gain around 8k organic users/day. You know where $5k in shotty banner ads gets you? ~2k organics tops.
Prove me wrong that $5k is a lot easier to scrape together than say... iAd's $25k minimum ad buy.
Putting aside all the costs of how much it costs to recruit a talented engineer/designer, I think the current monetization model these guys are using for the site is terrible for gaining traction.
When I first saw this on HN, I thought, "Sweet! If I can browse through the candidates and only pay $50 per email, I think this could be manageable!" I immediately started to look for where I could begin browsing before I realized I needed to enter my CC #.... There wasn't even a free trial... It was straight up, "Hey! You don't know how good/bad our candidates are, but give us $50 and just trust us!"
My suggestion? Make it like the dating sites like many here have already suggested. Let me browse your PF and see your qualifications. Why not set a bidding system on the 5 emails sent out a week? That way you can even rank how good each candidate is and what the demand for them are.
All in all, current model for me is no bueno. For all I know, you're grabbing people off CL.
