Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Developer Calls Amazon Appstore a 'Disaster'

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the words-of-protest dept.

Android 241

An anonymous reader writes "The developer of the current #2 Top App on Android Market has written a very interesting article giving six reasons why they decided to pull their game from Amazon Appstore. From the article: 'If you are a small indie development team, or possibly even alone, don't bother with Amazon Appstore. Create a great app, publish it on Android Market, and provide great customer support. You will never succeed on Amazon Appstore without a big wallet, or at least an established reputation so that Amazon puts value behind their promises.'"

cancel ×

241 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Droid is not a monoculture... (0, Flamebait)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658652)

The developer has a choice to pull the app because he doesn't like the deal from the retailer.

The consumer can purchase the app from another vendor, or even contact the developer directly to arrange a direct sale.

And before the inevitable iTunes comparisons, Apple themselves choose which retailers can and cannot stock their products, no different to Levi's Jeans or countless other brand name companies.

If I posted a story on here moaning about the fact that I didn't get the pay increase I thought I deserved from my employer last year, there would be countless "then go work for someone else" responses.

In other words, nothing to see here - it's up to the developer and Amazon to work out a deal.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658684)

it seems like amazon should fire couple of guys though and hire some people with experience in mobile apps. there's a lot to see here, like being unable to comment on your app yourself without creating fake accounts.. it does seem like the store is just hastily done contract job and they hired amaterus to do the dev and customer relations. that's actually like 55% of the mobile sw stores which have existed over the years(since 2002 or so, you think apple invented this shit?). also, the amazon ceo would be wise to not let his store employees run favorites game and thus choose which games get bought, it's ridiculous that "popular games" are hand chosen, that gives enermous power(££€€€$$$) to those who pick 'em and "friendly" corruption, their personal taste and such start to affect the store way too much.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (3, Insightful)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658722)

In other words, nothing to see here...

Wut?

Did you read the article? This guy is telling about his experiences dealing with Amazon, and explaining why he believes that small developers shouldn't bother with it, and why it's inferior to Google's offering. This is great, useful information.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (-1, Troll)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658794)

Why does that concern me? Apart from a bit of work/hobbyist related shell/Perl/Python scripter, I'm not a developer - as a Droid user, I'm just a potential purchaser of the app...

I'm a geek, I'm interested in how things work technically and like nice shiny things - but I couldn't give a toss about what's negotiated between a producer and a supplier for products, that's up to them.

As long as no children/kittens are strangled in the product's production, what do I care how much the developer got paid for it? I just care about it being good value for money if and when I buy it, like I could care less whether or not the artist got paid when I buy a CD - it's their contract, they can negotiate it....

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

feepness (543479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658820)

what do I care how much the developer got paid for it? I just care about it being good value for money if and when I buy it, like I could care less whether or not the artist got paid when I buy a CD - it's their contract, they can negotiate it....

That there might be other people who are developers reading? That you are actually interested in how people get paid? The mildest curiosity perhaps?

Not all his points held equal gravitas, but to dismiss them out of hand is like going on a knitting board and saying that while I like sweaters, I have no interest in hearing how the yarn they use is made.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (-1, Troll)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658864)

That there might be other people who are developers reading? That you are actually interested in how people get paid? The mildest curiosity perhaps?

No, not particularly. I'm interested in reading about someone's technical abilities and thought processes into the creation of a piece of software, but the movements of little green pieces of paper in the process is of no interest because they just tend to get in the way anyway.

Not all his points held equal gravitas, but to dismiss them out of hand is like going on a knitting board and saying that while I like sweaters, I have no interest in hearing how the yarn they use is made.

That's not the same thing - I'm interested in how things are made, hence probably being interested in how a sweater is made. But I could give a toss about the cost of it until such time as I need to buy a sweater. At which point I care only about the end price and quality, not how much the retailer or producer makes from it.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658986)

If you read tfa, you'd see he *was* talking about the quality of his game. Not being able to interact with the customers was affecting his ability to improve the qualityof the game and as he was saying Amazon didn't let him do that.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1, Insightful)

GordonBX (1059078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658822)

Just because you personally are not interested in a story - because you are "not a developer" - doesn't make this story "not news". If you want a broad range of well-supported apps for your Droid, then you are pretty shortsighted not to care whether the people who write those apps can actually make a living or not.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (-1, Troll)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658844)

No, of course not.

But this IS a public forum and I am invited to post my opinions on any story published - you can either agree or not agree with those opinions, that is your choice.

If you're asking me to keep my mouth shut deliberately, then isn't that tantamount to censorship?

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658920)

No, of course not.

But this IS a public forum and I am invited to post my opinions on any story published - you can either agree or not agree with those opinions, that is your choice.

If you're asking me to keep my mouth shut deliberately, then isn't that tantamount to censorship?

Dude, he's just trying to tell you that you're being unreasonable, which you certainly are.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658922)

If you're asking me to keep my mouth shut deliberately, then isn't that tantamount to censorship?

What are you talking about?

You're the one who said "nothing to see here". Neither the GP nor the GGGP told you to keep your mouth shut.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1)

GordonBX (1059078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658928)

I find it reasonably amusing that you are accusing *me* of censorship when your original post said:

In other words, nothing to see here - it's up to the developer and Amazon to work out a deal.

Nowhere did I tell you to shut up, I just told you that you were acting a bit short-sightedly. I think a bit of self-awareness might be in order.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (4, Funny)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658846)

So Slashdot motto is now "News for pandrijeczko, stuff that matters"?

There are plenty of mobile developers here, they are interested.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (-1, Troll)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658872)

Yep, just like it's "news for icebraining" and everyone else that comes here - what's your point?

Just because I'm not a developer doesn't mean I don't have an opinion as a consumer of applications.

Or are we now operating some kind of caste system here where developers are on a higher and different social level to the rest of us mere mortals and I'm not allowed to talk to them?

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658972)

Yep, just like it's "news for icebraining" and everyone else that comes here - what's your point?

The point is that icebraining and evidently many other people find this article interesting. FYI, you're pretty fucking dense.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659024)

Your dad is going to be so mad when he comes home to find you've been trolling on his account.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (2)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659030)

If the topic at hand had been things that are of importance to a consumer of applications you might have a point.

But it wasn't. You went out of your way to point out you are not qualified or even interested enough in the topic to have an opinion. People are naturally going to discount it.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659110)

"Nothing to see here" is not an opinion, it's posting just to say you have no interest in the subject. It adds absolutely zero to the debate, it's tantamount to a child crying because s/he doesn't get what s/he wants. If you have no interest in the topic the adult response is to not post. Do you really crave attention so much you have to troll forums?

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658852)

For the lulz [iu.edu] eh?

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1, Insightful)

Heed00 (1473203) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658854)

You seriously can't be this obtuse -- really. The article is aimed at developers -- while it might not be of interest to you since, as you say, you are not a developer it will be of interest to many here who are developers or might be thinking about becoming developers. It's far from "nothing to see" for those who are developers as it describes one persons experience distributing his app through a particular venue.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (2)

timothyb89 (1259272) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658858)

As an Android developer, this information is extremely useful to me - I now have a testimonial from another small developer which could certainly influence future decisions. Knowing this, I'll think twice before trying to publish my apps with Amazon. And the same could likely be said for other Slashdot readers - I've read plenty of posts by developers here who are also likely to benefit from this information.

On the other hand, there's also plenty of normal users reading Slashdot. They likely decide that this information isn't pertinent and move on to another article. Problem solved, no?

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658866)

Why does that concern me? Apart from a bit of work/hobbyist related shell/Perl/Python scripter, I'm not a developer - as a Droid user, I'm just a potential purchaser of the app...

I'm a geek, I'm interested in how things work technically and like nice shiny things - but I couldn't give a toss about what's negotiated between a producer and a supplier for products, that's up to them.

If Slashdot is supplying the wrong kind of content, then you are perfectly free to go and find another site that does. So what are you complaining about? Nothing to see here.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (-1, Redundant)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658890)

I was not aware that Slashdot operated a system whereby a subscriber was not allowed to offer an opinion on particular topics.

I was giving a viewpoint based on being a consumer of applications and a geek - you don't like it, you know what you can do with it.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

GordonBX (1059078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658936)

You need to get over yourself.

Nobody has told you to shut up or that you "aren't allowed" to express your opinion.

What they *have* done is tell you in many (some humorous) ways that you are wrong to hold that pretty self-centered opinion

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658878)

Why does that concern me? Apart from a bit of work/hobbyist related shell/Perl/Python scripter, I'm not a developer

If the article doesn't concern you, don't read it or post comments on it, and accept that other people may have different interests and find this story interesting. Slashdot was not set up entirely to cater to your desires, most of us really don't care whether you find this article interesting or not, and many will find it interesting.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (-1, Offtopic)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658910)

Then please explain what the Slashdot Meta-Moderation system is then, if it is not a system to gather statistical data based on discovering how many topics are of interest to certain Slashdot readers?

Of course it's news for me, just like it's news for everyone else - if there wasn't at least something of interest here, neither you or I would come here.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659270)

The meta-moderator system is a way to moderate people who moderate comments. Such that if someone moderated you Offtopic for a comment you weren't offtopic for, a "Meta-Moderator" can mod your moderator as being unfair by disagreeing with the original moderation.

Although, I don't think you'll have to worry about someone modding against your moderators.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658882)

Slashdot: News for pandrijeczko. Stuff that matters.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658940)

As a consumer, you now know that the Amazon store is probably not the best place to shop because developers are avoiding selling their wares there.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659340)

And also because you can pay money for an app that Amazon knows doesn't work on your device yet offers anyway because they fail to filter on that, and then you won't be able to get a refund.

For a consumer, it's pretty fucking important to know that a shop will rip you off.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (2, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659062)

As long as no children/kittens are strangled in the product's production, what do I care how much the developer got paid for it?

How do you feel about puppies?

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659224)

Why does that concern me? Apart from a bit of work/hobbyist related shell/Perl/Python scripter, I'm not a developer

Maybe if the story wasn't on developers.slashdot.org, your bitching and moaning might have a bit more credibility.

But I doubt it.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659306)

Why does that concern me?

Here's some news for you: you're not the only person in the world that matters. This matters to a lot of people. It matters to Android developers, and by extension, it matters to Android customers, because Amazon Appstore will serve you apps that don't work on your phone, you won't be able to receive a refund for that, and informed developers will avoid Amazon Appstore like the plague.

Of course if you don't use Android at all, this isn't relevant for you. If you do use Android but never considered using Amazon Appstore, then you can ignore this too. But the same is true for every single article on Slashdot. Not every article is relevant to every single person. Pick the ones relevant to you, and ignore the ones that aren't. Commenting on every single story how it doesn't concern you is a waste of everybody's time, especially yours.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658740)

Then comment somewhere else.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658744)

Did you even RTFA? He did pull the app from the Amazon Appstore and he gave detailed reasons why he came to that decision.

Not Insightful (1)

tulimulta (769091) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658756)

Why is the parent modded insightful? Please mod it down. The commenter obviously didn't read the original article.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658770)

Thanks for using your first post to turn an article critical of Amazon's app store into yet another Android vs Apple fanboy bullshitting contest.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (2)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658806)

You're being a bit harsh. Maybe the tone of TFA was a bit blaming towards Amazon, but I see the article as a review of the service from a developer's point of view. If Amazon's service is crap, then that's a reason for other developers to not bother. Maybe he saved quite a few developers large headaches with his article. I'd say that this article is more useful and interesting than a similar article about iTunes would be, because iOS developers have no alternatives, so such an article would be kind of pointless.

Re:Droid is not a monoculture... (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658924)

Actually, even though it is basically a whine, I found TFA very informative and insightful. The pitfalls he encounters are not evident at first glance (contrary to most "I deserve more $$$ !" rants), his tone is reasonable... if I were Amazon, I'd take notice and try to fix his issues.

HTTP vs HTTPS (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658654)

I almost wanted to stop reading after the first point the developer made. Amazon rejected his application because it used an insecure communication channel over the internet. Cry me a river. I actually applaud Amazon for doing that. But instead he goes on to whine that his server can't handle the additional load caused by using HTTPS. While I can understand his frustration based on the other points he makes, the very first one really doesn't help his case.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658706)

if no sensitive information is send or requested from a HTTP server, there is no point in using HTTPS.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658720)

Actually there is. SSL also does authentication. He stated that he downloads levels via HTTP. Depending on how well his program was written and whether he uses the native development kit, it's feasible that the levels are an attack vector. Authenticating the server from which you download the levels is essential in that case, since an attacker could no longer do a man-in-the-middle attack in that case.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658774)

By authentication I assume you mean server authentication. SSL is not immune to man-in-the-middle attacks if the CA chain is not checked by the client.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658836)

He wouldn't be the first developer to do this. You should make your Androids and iThingy devices go through a proxy server and see what comes up - it's really quite disheartening.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658838)

Levels could be signed and / or encrypted. If the data is invalid then the level is rejected. There are lots of ways to encrypt in Java / Dalvik, e.g. Bouncy Castle + OpenPGP. Obviously by not using https a developer puts themselves at higher risk of not implementing a solution properly but it's perfectly doable. Moreso, it means they don't have to pay a tax on security which is essentially what SSL & CAs are. Why the hell should someone pay a 3rd party to bestow trust on communications if they were responsible for writing the consumer and producer of the data going over the wire?

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658886)

You could use a self-signed cert and distribute it with the app, you don't need to pay any "tax."

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (0)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658730)

What got me was his implication that because the change involved adding one letter to the code (the "s" in https), it shouldn't have made the difference between acceptance and rejection of the app.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658758)

You are inferring there. I think you are being over sensitive over a small but relevant detail that stuck in his craw. If he whined on and on about it you might have a point.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (2)

themightythor (673485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658788)

I think the point was that it took them two weeks to arrive at that conclusion. I know I'd have been frustrated in his situation.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659004)

What got me was his implication that because the change involved adding one letter to the code (the "s" in https), it shouldn't have made the difference between acceptance and rejection of the app.

Reading comprehension. You fail it.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658780)

why would you need https? If someone wants to see an image file from a site, they shouldn't need a https connection.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (1, Interesting)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658902)

In this case it was because Amazon felt access to the community site around the game should have required HTTPS access. I think that's perhaps being a little anal.

In the general case, where games download their own levels and updates, if game levels and upgrades are code signed and validated then it's not an issue at all. If this was a multi-player game for example (I don't believe that it is), malicious players could supply their own hacked levels and upgrades using MITM methods potentially giving them an unfair advantage over other players that doing things properly. Those sorts of holes can really damage the community trust around a popular game.

Personally I don't think it's Amazon's place to be rejecting Android apps just because they are missing an S from a HTTPS URI. They could just inform the developers and recommend that they fix it in the next release of the apps. It's not like Amazon is in the same position as Apple, protecting their own little walled-garden iThingy community - Android apps can be downloaded from anywhere and it's not Amazon's job to be policing the security of the operating system.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659046)

One of the ways that they can make their store attractive is by limiting the security issues with the software that they list.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659130)

If this was a multi-player game for example (I don't believe that it is), malicious players could supply their own hacked levels and upgrades using MITM methods potentially giving them an unfair advantage over other players that doing things properly.

Yes, that sounds totally plausible and not at all contrived. I can well imagine many people being so eager to cheat at games that they will happily commit a complex and technically-demanding federal crime in order to gain a slight edge.

Amazon should also have insisted that the game disable the device's screen and communicate with the player only by blinking morse code with the device's notification LED, like in Cryptonomicon, because there's a serious risk that malicious players might try to get an unfair advantage via Van Eck phreaking.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (4, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658870)

I almost wanted to stop reading after the first point the developer made. Amazon rejected his application because it used an insecure communication channel over the internet. Cry me a river. I actually applaud Amazon for doing that.

You realize that slashdot uses an insecure communication channel over the internet? The developer used http to deliver game levels to the customer. No personal data, no need for security.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659254)

This "slashdot" of which you talk, can't be very secure, can it ?

I actually heard they have "Anonymous Cowards" in this system, no doubt agents for this "Anonymous" hacker group.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658944)

Amazon rejected his application because it used an insecure communication channel over the internet. Cry me a river.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the nature of the app. In my opinion it's incredibly hypocritical. I mean when I go to Amazon they don't immediately redirect me to an HTTPS site either. If you're handling credit cards, logins, passwords, personal details then sure, but if not does it mean that the flickr app also gets rejected because it is using an insecure connection?

In other related news I also don't wear a balaclava in public, and I don't go around whispering everything to everyone in case someone can overhear. The pure and simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the internet simply does not need to be encrypted, and yes when you're getting a lot of hits the encryption can put quite a burden on a server.

Re:HTTP vs HTTPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659310)

google published that encryption over HTTPS makes an overload of 2 % for the encryption.

so that is very very small fee to pay, which make it not a real argument for overloading the system.

no surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658658)

The same applies for "their" books. If you are a small independent publisher, don't bother with Amazon. All they want is max profit (i.e. max discount on your books). Of course they will blow sugar up your arse if you agree to dumping prices.

owi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658660)

owi

Re:owi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659048)

owi mets-la moi!!!

One very good point and a lot of bitching (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658680)

So his one valid, but I have to admit extremely important, complain is that Amazon doesn't yet filter compatible devices.

Okay, I have to admit, that's a pretty big one, until they fix that I too wouldn't use their store as a developer.

But apart from that?
The review process took 2 weeks? Oh my god! Crazy!
After one angry mail his app got a sprecial promotion and he got 180,000 donwloads in a single day,
what shit treatment they give him, bastards!

Re:One very good point and a lot of bitching (5, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659038)

But apart from that?

4. Impossible to send refund?

5. Amazon Appstore is a disaster...
When attempting to reply to a comment, the system replied with "You must purchase products before you can post comments." (i.e. where's you dialog with your customers?)

6. What's with the price?
A short time after the above review arrived, Amazon changed the price of Apparatus to $0.99. We never discussed this change.

I still find the above compelling enough.

Re:One very good point and a lot of bitching (5, Informative)

makomk (752139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659094)

After one angry mail his app got a sprecial promotion and he got 180,000 donwloads in a single day,

180,000 free downloads - which damaged his reputation because thanks to the lack of compatibility checks it didn't actually run on many downloaders' phones.

Re:One very good point and a lot of bitching (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659268)

from what i can gather, amazon told him that it would do compatibility checks to ensure that people on incompatible phones simply never saw his software- he's complaining because their compatibility check doesn't work, which means that people on incompatible devices are allowed to purchase his software (and leave correspondingly bad reviews).

this seems like a relevant and reasonable complaint to me!

Re:One very good point and a lot of bitching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659334)

After one angry mail his app got a sprecial promotion and he got 180,000 donwloads in a single day,

180,000 free downloads - which damaged his reputation because thanks to the lack of compatibility checks it didn't actually run on many downloaders' phones.

Then maybe his application should have checked for fucking compatibility before it installed itself. Next up: Devs whining that the Amazon app store doesn't debug and compile their source code for them.

And just FYI, nobody using AT&T ever saw the app because they still block their customers and only allow the Google store and their own shitty AT&T market.

Re:One very good point and a lot of bitching (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659172)

After one angry mail his app got a sprecial promotion and he got 180,000 donwloads in a single day,

180,000 downloads, many of them going to people who most definitely couldn't use the app which Amazon should have known. That's a lot of people annoyed with his app, giving him tons of undeserved bad reviews, destroying his chances of making decent money with the app.

As you said: "What shit treatment they give him, bastards!". Only I am not sarcastic here.

Amazon Appstore's biggest sin (4, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658702)

Amazon wants developers to cough up $100 for the privilege of being listed on their site. Of course they're graciously waive the fee the first year but to me this seems like a deliberate barrier to stop all those scumbags with their free apps and open source ports from bothering listing on the service at all.

Anyway I think the appstore will succeed when Amazon unleash whatever tablet devices they're cooking up. Doubtless these devices will be locked down so that Amazon's services will be the only thing users can use. The store makes zero sense in any other context than that since I doubt even 0.01% of non Amazon devices would be bothered to manually install another marketplace app when the one they have installed by default does the job.

Re:Amazon Appstore's biggest sin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658962)

Actually I have an "unofficial" tablet by French vendor Archos that are not licensed to Google so I cannot use the Google store. So the only way to buy or sell apps is through Amazon! Maybe one day Google will let any Android user shop at the Android Market but right now users of "unlicensed" devices have to turn to Amazon. But honestly...I bought an iPhone, screw it.

Re:Amazon Appstore's biggest sin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659148)

It may be true that few people install the amazon app store. Probably the 180,000 downloads this developer got while on the "free app of the day" were all of the folks like me who only installed the amazon app store to get free apps of the day (when they are useful and not just some silly game like they are most days). I can't see any reason to install the amazon app store other than the free app of the day though. I now know it won't filter devices based on the manifest, so that is even one less reason to use amazon.

Re:Amazon Appstore's biggest sin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659150)

While I broadly agree with your point, it's hardly an insurmountable barrier to entry. If you had an app that was worthy of distribution, maybe a tip jar on a website could provide the yearly listing fee. Having used the Android market for a couple of years, and seen the supposedly walled garden of Apple and the plethora of garbage you have to wade through to find the gems, perhaps some barrier to ensure only half decent software gets uploaded is not necessarily a bad thing. $100 wouldn't stop me uploading my game or utility app but it might put someone off creating yet another soundboard or fart app.

Re:Amazon Appstore's biggest sin (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659262)

$100 wouldn't stop me uploading my game or utility app but it might put someone off creating yet another soundboard or fart app.

It would for me. Pay $100 to get listed, only get 25% of application sale proceeds? You can keep your store.

He did ok... 72k worth of ok! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658724)

While I agree with most of the points he points out, He forgot to say that his price was $1.99 during the amazon free app of the day and for each of the 180,000 free copies 'sold', he gets 20% cut of the asking price. So he walked away with $72k dollars from amazon for being the free app of the day!

He hasn't done too bad at all!

Re:He did ok... 72k worth of ok! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658748)

No I didn't. Do you really think Amazon gives developers money every day? This campaign is run every day and ~100k download the daily free app. You really think Amazon sends out 72k to developers every day? Before the campaign was launched, I received an agreement to sign, an agreement that said revenue would be 0%.

Re:He did ok... 72k worth of ok! (3)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658790)

You're saying Amazon gives away free money? I think you need to do a bit of research...

Appstore replies ? (3, Interesting)

DaveDerrick (1070132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658792)

So he got a bad review on Amazon App store he couldn't reply to & affected sales ? I have exactly the same problem on Android Marketplace, some user didn't realise what the app did (its a Utility not a game) & posted a "Dont waste your money" review on a £0.99 app. I refunded him, but I can't respond to his comments, reply to him or have the comments withdrawn, my sales slumped after that. Android Market place is no better than Amazon on this point.

Re:Appstore replies ? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658960)

Can you not just post up reviews saying that his response was full of crap? Might not be ethical but it sounds like justice to me.

Re:Appstore replies ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659330)

Can you not just post up reviews saying that his response was full of crap? Might not be ethical but it sounds like justice to me.

He tried, but you first have to buy the app. Since he's based in Sweden, he couldn't do that.

That's also no solution at all, since the fraudulent review was voted most helpful and appeared as the first review. His counter review wouldn't be seen at all.

Re:Appstore replies ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658974)

Negative comments (i.e. the comment is bullshit, not because the product is bad) are usually handled horribly: you cannot reply, your reply gets hidden in some sub-menu-like structure, you cannot remove fraudulent/senseless reviews and so on.

Hell, as a customer on Amazon half the bad comments on products make me wonder if the commenter was on drugs, is commenting on a completely different type of product, bought a pencil for the task of digging a hole for his 20 metre tree (read: he's an idiot) or intentionally tries to sabotage the product.

Re:Appstore replies ? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659076)

Comments on the internet divide into "stupid", "troll", "funny", and "useful". Sometimes I wish I had the option of rating every comment/forum thread/forum post/review/article everywhere according to these categories, but the stupid people or trolls might win then. More sites are using some type of rating scheme, so maybe a really good one will get invented and take over in a few years.

Re:Appstore replies ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659156)

The useless review thing affects most services, albeit not all of them preventing responses from the developer. I bought a utility on the Mac App Store, and saw the sole review was a one star with a useful comment like "doesn't work". The utility is a fairly specialized one, so I suspect that the user simply didn't understand how it worked?

A single review on a low volume application can be a killer. Maybe only post reviews and scores once x number of reviews have been left, and discard vague "it done not worked for me" comments?

And he just lost a bunch of devices.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658848)

There are a ton of mini tablets and other low end devices out there that don't have Marketplace access - that costs money while Android itself is free. I love the Amazon AppStore for that very reason, my phones with Marketplace access and my tablet without both can share the same account.

And there is never a reason not to use SSL, especially when you're transferring data a game will basically execute. Unless he's 100% sure that there's no way a corrupted level will allow for remote code execution or data leaks he's an idiot for not switching to HTTPS. And if he is 100% sure he's an idiot because he doesn't understand software testing.

One Purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36658942)

So far... the only use I've found for the Amazon App store? Is the free daily app. A lot of time's? It's junk. Sometimes, it's worth downloading. I've yet to actually get any app from them that cost money.

Angry Birds 2 was a fail too. (4, Interesting)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36658970)

The originally Amazon "exclusive" Angry Birds 2, just made fans of the game world wide Angry. Do you know when you get an error message saying that only US customers are allowed to purchase from the Amazon app store (for some ludicrously stupid reason, given how I purchase other things from Amazon all the time). It's not when I log in. It's not when I enter my one-click details. It's not when after I click buy it directs me to download the Amazon App Store App, it's not when I install the App, It's not even when I login and search for an app again. It's only after I SPENT HALF A FUCKING HOUR getting to the stage where I could click to download Angry Birds that I got the error message.

Well a big fuck you to Amazon, and while I was heated I sent a nasty email to the developers too. Fortunately a week later things reverted and the game appeared (to the surprise of everyone) on the Market.

Using Amazon from a user perspective is also an incredible mission. I don't have any desire to ever go back there again, even if they would serve me.

Re:Angry Birds 2 was a fail too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659058)

AFAIK all newer Amazon services (e.g. game/movie/app/music downloads) have this nice "Fuck you non-US customer!" message on the product page. Sure it's a bit hidden among all the other detail-spam but you get used to looking for this message due to more and more download stores coming up with stupid region restrictions. I stopped giving a shit about Amazon's fancy new services since they're all US-only anyway.

+1 (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659074)

This.

As a fellow non-USian, one would think they'd post that information somewhere up-front, that it's not very useful outside their borders. One is left to wonder if they are designing such "user experiences" on purpose, or if they really are that dumb. Not that I am a huge Amazon customer, but still, it's plainly bad business.

US Only (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659086)

Of couse it is a disaster. The store is US only for starters. Android developers have a hard enough time making money without purposefully isolating yourself to some 5% or 10% of the global Android market. I don't know why anyone would publish anything exclusively on the Amazon appstore. They better bet getting huge payoffs from Amazon to do s.

Re:US Only (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659178)

Its a standard US company thing. I think Apple got one office covering the whole or Europe and Middle-east...

Re:US Only (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659276)

So? Yes, it's hard (very hard) to launch in multiple continents simultaneously... however they're trying to compete with a marketplace that's global, so they either have to roll out to the rest of the world, or get left behind.

The biggest problem with Amazon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659098)

The wretched thing is US-only. He mentioned that, but it should really have been the first point. And the second, and probably the third.
// Non-US resident
/// Hates them we does
//// I want my Plants vs Zombies

For me, there's a single good reason (5, Informative)

Centurix (249778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659112)

There is a single reason not to use the Amazon app store to publish your app:

1) Customers willing to pay money living outside of the US cannot purchase from the store. I can publish my app from Australia, but I cannot purchase my own app without some circumnavigation of their block.

Re:For me, there's a single good reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659242)

And dont forget you cant buy their MP3s, TV shows, streaming video, and most of the kindle catalog outside of the US either.
Go fuck yourselves Amazon!

Copyright a Disaster (0)

trust_jmh (651322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659152)

Here we have another fine example of someone wanting to gain multiple times from something that they have done once. You can understand why I have no sympathy for this one, when things aren't going how envisioned.

The word "crook" describes these people, don't be put off when they try and influence you by calling you a pirate.

Good honest professionals on the other hand are willing to only get paid once for each piece of work they do. Of cause this does not stop multiple people chipping in a small amount each, to cover the total development cost of one piece of work. Also any additional charge for goods (e.g. delivery) and services (e.g. help/support and further development.) can also incur additional cost to be paid for once each time.

Re:Copyright a Disaster (1)

paziek (1329929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659182)

I don't understand your post. Do you imply he should sell only one copy of his game and then start giving it for free?

Re:Copyright a Disaster (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659272)

Mod this up funny! Oh... hang on... he's serious?

Re:Copyright a Disaster (2)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659296)

I'd be delighted to sell a product exactly once, if you can find a customer willing to pay the full development costs.

Customer POV (1)

Ed Peepers (1051144) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659206)

I've used the Amazon store and the only reason I have ever done so is to download the Free App of the Day (they drop a paid app to $0 for 24 hours) -- I have no intention of ever purchasing an app from it (too much hassle vs Android Market) so I can't quite fathom how developers are coming out ahead...

Thank God I left Android behind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36659210)

That crap was just a trainwreck waiting to happen. I've seen more article about dissatisfaction with Android in the past month than I've seen with iPhone and even Windows Phone 7 in the past 2 years.

IGDA (2)

eclipser13 (839296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659280)

Re:IGDA (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#36659332)

I don't see anything specifically targeted at this developer, I see no CC to his name or anything.

Also, as a developer, I had never heard of "IGDA" until you posted that link.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>