Most profitable ad solution for live wallpapers?

I’m considering to use StartApp, they pay 0.05 for US downloads but only 0.01 for downloads from other countries.

What do you mean with “one-time payment when they first run the wallpaper using Google payment”? Do you mean trying to get them to pay for unlocking extra features of the wallpaper?

Isn’t the point of “virtual currency” solutions to try to get the users to download advertised apps? If they do so, I get payed for that in real money and the users get payed in virtual money. But I don’t get anything if the users don’t download the advertised apps.

That alternative seems to have the same problem as the Appbrain alternative. I can only advertise this in the settings screen, which is not used that much.

Well with AppBrain etc. you only get paid if the user WISHES to proceed with downloading an app - you still have remind them about it by showing the app offerwall.

With virtual currency versions - you could show that as frequently - except this time presumably the user has a real incentive to download an app - because they want to unlock some feature of your app.

In addition, with AppBrain etc. you cannot show the offerwall too often - as users may get tired and there is a limit to how much revenue you get from overpresenting.

In contrast with virtual currency you could actually block a user from proceeding, show a reminder every time the app starts etc.

With AppBrain you could not prevent user from proceeding - as you don’t know whether they downloaded something or not.

Hi adforandroidapps,
good point but first of all if you lock down some features you need to allow the user eventually to pay using in-app. If you don’t provide that you’ll have problem with Google policies.
Anyway I think force users to download apps is not a good thing in long term.
If you force users to install a new app just to get features unlock than probably the user retention for that app will be very low and this means next time the developer of that app don’t want to pay the same money to get that download because it worth less.
Leave it the users the choice to chose if and what they want to install is better in long term.
It’s like push notifications : it’s very good in short term but not in long term I think.
Anyway just my 2 cents.

Wouldn’t letting the users unlock some feature of the app as an incentive to download other apps decrease the sales of the full version? Why would they want to buy the full version if they already have unlocked the features of the app?

I am trying out Startapp’s solution now on a live wallpaper. It was very easy to implement.

Ok, another long post - which is kind of rambling - but it is a train-of-though examination of the app offerwall industry … may be of interest to some …

megasoft:

Yes, I think these Tapjoy/GetJar/SponsorPay ARE “incentivized installs” in a way - i.e. compared to AppBrain which is completely non-incentivized (i.e. you don’t know what the user did) vs. Tapjoy/GetJar/SponsorPay where you DO know they did a download.

However, I think the criticism of incentivized installs is misleading - it derives primarily because it screws up other folks i.e. Google/Apple way of measuring “success” in the App Store - well come up with some better metrics (like perhaps retention ratio or active installs etc.).

Incentivized installs by itself is NOT something horrid - after all as a developer WHY would you want LESS info about what a customer did.

ALSO as a developer why would you NOT want the ability to “recommend” an app to the user ? Because offerwalls ARE after all essentially use of your “reputation” with the user (or their need for some vaule of your app) which you are translating into “here try these apps”.

It is also very similar to Google Adwords - Google making money off ads that they show in preference to other ads.

So it is very much like advertising in a way.

I think there needs to be a balancing of “powers” - with developers vs. Google. Google needs to ensure that developers do not abuse users in areas like notification ads (where user earlier did not know WHO is the offending app - but new Google policies ensures that the notification ad identifies the offending app). However developers are at the front line of the app ecosystem.

It is YOUR reputation on the line when advertisers push stuff VIA your app.

I find it interesting that ad networks CAN monitor users, can track who clicked on what - after all a click on an ad could lead anywhere.

In addition, developers taken on ALL the risk - they have to decide which ad network to use (in an arena of uncertain revenue terms) - there is so much inflation of eCPM by ad networks that it is hard to make any kind of assessment.

The result is developers making huge changes in code/UI structure/strategy to deal with each network type.

Add to that Google not expanding merchant developer to all countries - Apple has better reach in that sense.

Google is essentially shooting the horse which is pulling it’s cart. No wonder they are having problems.

The app ecosystem is driven by developers - it is they who make the effort to change a code line to add an ad network. In addition the burden of responsibility of ad networks is ALSO placed on developer shoulders - for example notification ads got developers banned.

So the mechanics are not working out too well for developers. And the reason is there is no entity representing the developers.

Sure, ad networks reach out to developers when their apps do well - but even here there is NO clear way to choose between ad networks - it is forums like this which allow some interaction between developers to choose ad strategies which are beneficial to all - and to expose weaknesses in ad strategy that save developers from a costly 1-2 month cycle of “trying” out each ad network.

This is the friction which prevents many apps from monetizing well - because change is hard for the developer as swapping in a new ad network brings uncertainties.

You will not find trade publications criticizing ad networks - this has to be done by developers themselves.

Add to that the ad networks ability to morph overnight - so any established fact about an ad network may not be true “now” (or so the ad network will claim).

For example ad networks say that “now” they are complying with Google new policy - however there is no way the ad network can get themselves pre-certified (as far as I am aware). So who is taking on the risk ? Developers - the combined effort required to switch ad networks is considerably greater than even the effort required by the ad network (to comply with new Google policy).

Now coming to your criticism of incentivized installs as “unfair” to the apps that are being promoted.

As a developer you are only looking at it from the user aspect - will your users use it - and can you generate revenue from such a solution ? If so, you will use it.

Is there something wrong “morally” with use of such a system - as I outlined above, such a system is essentially equivalent to you recommending an app to your users (for example if you trust Tapjoy/GetJar/Sponsorpay about what they present). Would you like to have that ability to recommend stuff to your users - if they trust you ? Why should you not ? If you have built up a reputation with your users.

Incentivized installs are not unfair to advertisers (apps who advertise there) for too long - because they only have to run a campaign for a week to immediately know how effective this route is … how “sticky” the artificial new users are.

However, I would suggest that anyone advertising on an incentivized network would know EXACTLY what they are in for - the more savvy advertisers would know just how much value it gives them after a week or month of testing.

And the price they pay will be dependent on that ratio. That ratio will include the general probability of users uninstalling immediately.

I would suggest that the price paid for incentivized installs is probably already reflective of that.

For example if you look at AppBrain - which seems to have a very stable and consistent model - pays $0.18 per app install to the developer. In this model the developer does not know if the user installed an app - and therefore cannot reward them. So it is completely non-incentivized installs. The users choose the apps that intrigue them from the AppBrain app offerwall and so presumably they will be less likely to uninstall them.

In contrast with Tapjoy/GetJar/SponsorPay the users are presented an app offerwall - but the developer knows when the users have downloaded something (in fact the developer does not HAVE to know if the users downloaded something while in their app - so it is even less info - what the developer knows is that the user accumulated credits some time, somewhere - and the user now wants to use that credit or “gold coins” to buy some feature in your app).

Now coming to the concern that incentivized installs are “unfair” to the apps advertising on there. This is a valid concern - because it relates to the SUSTAINABILITY of the model - as with some of the ad network varieties there can be promise of high eCPM etc. which steadily dwindles down - so this concern is legitimate.

Since AppBrain seems to have a fairly sustainable model running at $0.18 per app install, what should the price be for Tapjoy/GetJar/SponsorPay ? It SHOULD be less - since presumably the app install is “incentivized” (rather than being pure choice) the value of that install should be less as the user is more likely to uninstall. And this price is LESS - for example for GetJar it seems to be $0.09 per app install (I don’t know what it is for Tapjoy/SponsorPay - anyone can contribute that info ?)

So GetJar is HALF what it is with AppBrain. That is a big discount already - how much more of a discount do you want them to give ?

I think $0.09 may be approaching a fair figure, since for developers who have good apps the main concern is “app discovery” - which could be subdivided into: visibility (users knowing about their app), usability (users knowing what the app feels like after it is installed). There will be many app developers who will want to pay EVEN in an incentivized download environment because they feel confident that a certain proportion of those downloads will be “sticky” because their app is THAT good - but no one can find them on the app stores. That equation becomes even more attractive for them if their app is a social game etc. which is likely to earn $5-$50 from the lifetime of a user (it seems some apps DO have such high revenue-per-user). For them it is a slam-dunk to spend-to-get-users.

The question then becomes whether the $0.09 figure from GetJar could be decreasing over time (just like other ad networks which overpromise).

However GetJar has been at $0.09 for many months ($0.9 per 100 gold coins conversion ratio). I assume they have done their analysis - BUT it could happen that this ratio becomes less later - that is a risk which remains - UNLESS we are assured by GetJar that they are making money and this figure is unlikely to go down in the future.

I was looking at a slide presentation from GetJar and it seems they were making money before with incentivized installs on their GetJar network - I don’t know how that is so - since many small app developers report low installs from Getjar as an alternative app store - perhaps those GetJar figures are for Blackberry etc. (since GetJar addresses a large number of platforms). GetJar even quotes figures in a slide presentation that GetJar had more Facebook app downloads than via iOS.

So your concern is legitimate.

However, in your comment I find a concern for the welfare of developers advertising via Tapjoy/GetJar/Sponsorpay - just to address that as well. While it IS true that they may advertise on GetJar and not get the stable downloads they pay for - and they will leave. Only apps which find $0.09 per install as legitimate will proceed - the question is how many will be left (will CoinDozer etc. be the only ones left for whom it is profitable to advertise at $0.09 per app install).

Compare this with AppBrain - there since it is non-incentivized (user doesn’t get anything as reward for downloading - although there is a slight bias since only 8 or so apps are presented so there is that bias - which app is presented at the top which at the bottom etc.).

On AppBrain what will happen - if you have a bad app you will STILL see huge uninstall numbers. So as an app developer who is wanting to increase download numbers you will STILL face a similar hurdle on AppBrain. The only difference is you will not be paying for users who don’t like your icon to begin with and don’t download the app.

However how much of a discount is this ?

Since I feel AppBrain’s model is probably sustainable - they pay $0.18 per app install and so one can take this as a benchmark figure. Then by GetJar’s model is $0.09 not reasonable - i.e. it is discounted by half to account for the incentivized nature.

Notice that in both models the advertiser gets the ability to present their app to the public for free since they only pay if users install their app. That is some powerful free advertising in itself. Secondly the privilege of having users download your app is considerable (since that can be a big hurdle to overcome for app developers who want people to “at least try our app”).

From my own testing I have seen that I am not too eager to uninstall the apps I downloaded from GetJar either (though I have not downloaded too many apps via AppBrain so I can’t compare the experience - but I suspect it is similar or with AppBrain I would perhaps be even more casual about it ??). And the reason is that as a user you invest some time and bandwidth downloading an app - and are NOT all that eager to uninstall it - this is esp. so if it is a game or is an app which seems to promise some interesting feature (i.e. is a good app to begin with). There may even be a lack of hostility towards an app if you have EARNED something for downloading it (?) on an incentivized network and you in fact be possibly LESS inclined to uninstall it (don’t know how the psychology of this may work). I will at least want to “try” it out first before I uninstall it. Now the situation maybe different if GetJar only had inventory of “crap” apps - and perhaps this is why they are initially focusing on getting apps that have reasonably good ratings or which sound intriguing.

In any case, the AppBrain/GetJar discrepancy could be easily tested and decided on in a week of testing campaigns on both networks by advertisers - that is miniscule effort (developers have far harder times updating networks/UI etc. when they do such testing of in-app advertising).

So it is possible that as a developer of a “good” app I might find it even a better deal advertising via GetJar - there the per-install price is lower at $0.09 (plus $0.01 cut that GetJar gets) because of all the crap app advertisers - but since you are the developer of a “good” app you know that anyone who downloads it (however uninterested) will want to keep your app - or more practically you may know that “50% of even uninterested users wind up keeping our app”.

So it is possible that at $0.09 per app-install the model may in fact work.

However these are all legitimate concerns. As developers however - as long as the solution works for 6 months then it maybe worth it to consider it (which I believe it will for GetJar - since they have VC money - so they won’t abandon their experiment even if the model is failing slightly just yet - because they may have a perception that “at scale” the model will work). After 6 months, or if GetJar changes their app-install rate, one could reconsider the decision. But one thing in favor of GetJar is the price-stability i.e. there is a price guarantee (at least publicly-stated figure) - which means the number won’t be going down week-by-week - but may after a couple of months.

Examining another aspect of advertising - I assume that for some apps there maybe a need to do some aggressive campaigns - or for example it is a corporate app (i.e. Nestle wants an app for users to feedback etc.) - in which case they will have an advertising budget to just get the app out there. For such advertisers models like AppBrain and GetJar maybe essential. As GetJar presented in one of their slides how they were used by Yahoo to expand their app fast in India. With AppBrain they may pay more to get listed on every app offerwall shown that week. And the same with GetJar - in both cases it will be AppBrain/GetJar who will pocket the premium. You are a small app developer will only get paid $0.09 per app install (which presumably is reflective the average sustainable price etc.).

Let us know the feedback you get from users - and the actual conversion ratio etc. (compared to previous payment attempts etc.).

What you are saying in the first part of your posting makes a lot sense!
You are then talking about advertising on incentivized networks.

What would I as a publisher gain on displaying ads from incentivized networks? I could only show them in the settings screen, so it would be the same problem as with appbrain. You wrote “small app developer will only get paid $0.09 per app install”. What do you mean by this? Incentivized networks don’t pay me that much for a user installing an app with their ads?

I have tried startapp for 2 days now. The dashboard says 0 installs and revenue, although there have been several hundreds of downloads. I don’t know what is going wrong here, I
am waiting for their support.

In my experience people don’t usually click on “Get more …” buttons in the preferences Activity of wallpapers. I wouldn’t rely on the preferences Activity. They click, but not often enough to be profitable.

MobileVisuals:

If your StartApp starts working it would be great if you could report back with the conversion ratio you are seeing - i.e. what percentage of users say ok to the StartApp EULA.

Those who say “no” - what do you do for them ? Do you prevent running of the app ?

This is interesting - and I wonder if preventing running of an app violates Google policy - though perhaps if you have an impaired version to begin with i.e. one with watermark which gets removed etc. that maybe acceptable.

After all with in-app purchases, sometimes apps “remove all ads”.

I think the Google policy that user not be forced to click on ad etc. maybe related to when developers do not give an option to the user to “Cancel”.

Also situations where user HAS to click on an ad also seem would be less concern for Google and more for ad networks (who are selling ads based on presumption that there is no bias imposed at user-end). One of those ad networks is Google Admob.

However if some ad networks IS based on incentivized sense to BEGIN with then I suppose it is not as much of a problem. So for example when CoinDozer advertises through Tapjoy app offerwalls - CoinDozer knows already that users are downloading their app because they want to earn the coins. What CoinDozer is banking on is that a certain percentage of those users WILL keep the app and start spending in it. So here obviously no one is being taken for a ride - and this situation is similar for GetJar.


What would I as a publisher gain on displaying ads from incentivized networks? I could only show them in the settings screen, so it would be the same problem as with appbrain. You wrote “small app developer will only get paid $0.09 per app install”. What do you mean by this? Incentivized networks don’t pay me that much for a user installing an app with their ads?

You don’t have to show Tapjoy/GetJar/SponsorPay app offers in Settings screen. Since you can put up a nag screen which “reminds” users that if they accumulate enough coins they can unlock additional features of your wallpaper app, remove a watermark etc.

You cannot do that with AppBrain - there you blindly just have to show it as often as possible and hope that folks download something so you can get paid for that by AppBrain.

@adforandroidapps:

Even if the install is non-incentived you are not assured that the user will keep your app installed. In fact, most users download new apps just for the compulsion of trying as many apps as possible, and they are not likely to keep your app installed.

Right - even with non-incentivized app offerwalls like AppBrain there is no assurance that user will like your app.

But app makers still pay for that privilege.

For that matter incentivized app installs like Tapjoy offerwall has CoinDozer app downloads there - obviously CoinDozer thinks it is worthwhile.

And the reason is that if the statistics works out in they favor, they advertise - if 100 app installs at $0.18 or $0.20 is $20 and that leads to 5 paying long-term users users, then they have to make $4 off those users to pay back - if they do, then they will go all out to scale using this model (since they know they can make the advertising money back).

Other than that - from articles on the web - there are articles suggesting that big app makers are willing to spend $2000 a day to get themselves in the top 25 lists etc. as the payback from being in top 25 lists are huge - and they can make back $2000 per day or more after that for some time.

From the developer point of view all this is however only relevant in the sense that “is this model viable” - whether incentivized install pays back or not is primarily concern of the big app advertisers (who have advertising budgets).

I wonder also if there is any difference between incentivized downloads and non-incentivized downloads - because even in the AppBrain “non-incentivized” downloads there is a limited list of apps presented. If something catches your eye you download it (as a user). With incentivized downloads the situation is similar - a limited set of apps are shown - except now you are under some hurry to download “something” so you can accumulate some coins.

I am not sure if this “encouragement” actually leads to any higher uninstall rates - i.e. it could be that for both non-incentivized downloads (like AppBrain) and for incentivized ones like Tapjoy/GetJar/SponsorPay the uninstall rate is the same. I suspect it all depends on the quality of the apps that are being shown.

The AppBrain apps shown are generally good - because they are from bigger app makers (who have the budgets for advertising also). AppBrain may also do some pruning to show only high quality apps. As that probably gives them good statistics to show to new advertisers (i.e. “our uninstall rate is very low”).

Similarly for GetJar etc. - they too will initially want that apps shown be higher quality - so that their uninstall rate is low also - which will make GetJar attractive for app advertisers.

If the same quality apps as appear on AppBrain appear on GetJar, it maybe possible that GetJar could drive higher volumes per day (because there is a fire lit under users to accumulate coins which while artificial STILL does move them to try apps).

It is perhaps for this reason that GetJar has (using it’s VC money ?) made a wide range of apps available to download - what this does is it essentially makes the app-decision process much easier for the user. There becomes almost no reason for them NOT to use GetJar to search for apps - since they accumulate coins as well.

In any case, the survival of these various models will depend on how the statistics plays out I guess.
[hr]

Actually there MIGHT be some bias there - for example the users who like paying via Tapjoy and download CoinDozer etc. may be statistically less inclined to pay - which would suggest they would be non-paying when trying apps like CoinDozer as well - so I wonder how it working out for CoinDozer - they must be benefiting otherwise why would they continue advertising on Tapjoy ?

I have got 1,82$ for 219 downloads so far, which is less than their info says that I would get. I have only used startapp on 2 apps for one day. I asked them about conversion ratio, but it is not possible to get that from them.

Those who don’t agree can run the live wallpaper, but the StartApp EULA comes
up again at the start. So they can not see the live wallpaper animation until they agree. There have been no bad reviews so far. You can download my app “Morphing Galaxy live wallpaper” from Google play if you want to see how startapps solution actually looks like on an app.

MobileVisuals,
I think you can get better using AppBrain.
I got $4.82 with 81 downloads on my game and I have implemented “Other Games” button and show every 3 days on back button.
It’s less intrusive!
Anyway you should give in-app possibility in there because if that is missing you are breaking Google policy.

I am already using Appbrain’s solution on usual apps(not live wallpapers) and I agree that it pays off well there. I have implemented a similar solution as you.

Appbrain does not pay off well on live wallpapers (not usual apps). The reason is that their ads only can be shown in the settings screen.

What do you mean by “give in-app possibility in there because if that is missing you are breaking Google policy”? It is possible to download the full version of the app from the free version. Or what are you referring to with “in-app possibility”?

Hi MobileVisuals,
I think you can show AppBrain interstitial when users select the live wallpaper under onDestroy method you show setting activity and open appbrain interstitial.
Anyway if you put more feature in settings you can put there “Other Games” button and back button interstitial.
About Google policy I think you should give to users the alternative to get the same feature with in-app because that is required by new Google policy:

http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html#showlanguages

Ad Walls
Forcing the user to click on ads or submit personal information for advertising purposes in order to fully use an app provides a poor user experience and is prohibited. Users must be able to dismiss the ad without penalty.

megasoft:

I got $4.82 with 81 downloads on my game and I have implemented “Other Games” button and show every 3 days on back button.
It’s less intrusive!

Are those 81 downloads of your app ? That makes it $4.82/81 = $0.059/download.

Or are you talking about the 81 downloads off AppBrain offerwall ?

By the way did you see great impact of putting an “Other Games” button explicitly on screen ?

I use AppBrain in banner ads (25% of time) and at end-of-app (once every 3 days as suggested by AppBrain) and I was considering putting a “More Apps” button on screen.

However I thought that since the AppBrain banner ad is showing up anyway, maybe it would be overdoing it.

However having a “More Apps” button on screen may give users more confidence in where clicking that will lead to … I would be generally wary of that but I have seen that the AppBrain offerwall apps are generally good and so I was considering putting an explicit button.

Any thoughts on impact of such a move ?
[hr]


In-app purchases: Developers offering additional content, services or functionality within an application downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play’s payment system as the method of payment, except:

  • where payment is primarily for physical goods or services (e.g. buying movie tickets; e.g. buying a publication where the price also includes a hard copy subscription); or
  • where payment is for digital content or goods that may be consumed outside of the application itself (e.g. buying songs that can be played on other music players)

I wonder if Tapjoy/GetJar/SponsorPay are using a different interpretation of “payment” - i.e. no real cash is being transferred between user and developer. In fact, a third party is a broker.

In a way showing banner ads from non-Google (non-Admob) third-parties could also be seen as “payment”. Although here you are not unlocking content because people click on ads.

Although in real terms, the viability of your app IS based on a “statistical” presumption that a certain number will click on ads. Taken to extreme - if no one clicks on ads you will stop developing apps (as a means of earning money) altogether. So bottom line still is that developers are making appps with the presumption of making money. What Google wants to do is to make sure it is developers who take on the risk i.e. make apps in a “build it and they will come” mode.

Now incenvitized app downloads ARE unlocking content or providing additional functionality - and that could be construed as something problematic.

But what if incentivized app downloads are REPLACING irritating ads ? Is that enhanced functionality ?

The situation is crying out for alternatives to Google - but the problem is Google has scale which others will find hard to match.

For some reason GetJar-based apps ARE still on the Google App Store - so for some reason they are not cracking down on them (for that matter what about Tapjoy - that is the same thing as it also has app offers).

So I think Google is trying to lay down rules that it is deliberately not enforcing (a bit like Microsoft not enforcing piracy rules - as that would stunt growth in third world countries who were initially unable to pay anyway - so that allowed them to make it free there while charging in developed world).

I suppose one way would be to have apps point to their GetJar counterpart - but as with most such things the inclusion of greater number of steps will cut down on conversions.

Also what about the social games that are using their own in-game currency (in some cases buyable from the Google Play store) ?

I suspect one way out of this maybe GetJar including a buy-coins-from-Google-Play method (similar to what SponsorPay promises) - and that might appease Google.

GetJar was involved in a public spat with Apple earlier - maybe Android is not going after GetJar for that reason.

http://blog.getjar.com/developer/getjar-vs-apple/

But a bigger reason maybe that Google’s payment model is widely stated to be broken. So Google maybe on the lookout for new ideas for what will work.

But Google policy is a serious risk - because when Google drops an app it is usually some automated response and developers are left in the lurch not knowing what caused their apps to be delisted and their accounts frozen.

All in all it is not a very good situation with Google and developers.

A solution is perhaps to have alternate stores - but that won’t happen if Apple/Google has lock on their platforms for payment.

I suppose what it might take is a lawsuit against these two - to force opening of the payment mode - as just because they are selling a device (and making a profit on that) - what legal justification could they have to restrict users right to pay with any and all means that are becoming available to them.


Ad Walls
Forcing the user to click on ads or submit personal information for advertising purposes in order to fully use an app provides a poor user experience and is prohibited. Users must be able to dismiss the ad without penalty.

What if clicking on those removes ads ? Were the use of ads a poor user experience to begin with ?

So may not fall into “restricting use” category ?

If there is sufficient outrage, I wonder if app developers could hold a “turn out the lights” day (as wikipedia did on SOPA) - where their apps put up a notice to users about Google policies or something ??

How would that work ? Would developers be censored for airing a grievance against Google ?

Appbrain’s methods for displaying ads, like showInterstitial requires an activity as an argument. The only activity available in a live wallpaper is the settings screen. That is why these types of ads only can be shown in the settings screen.

I will probably go for a combination of Startapp and Appbrain. I will use Startapp when the app is being installed and Appbrain’s ads in the settings screen. Good idea to have both a back button interstitial and “Other Games” button!

The settings ads will still probably not generate as much as the Startapp ads, but every possible ad space should be used, so I will use the settings screen also.

I have asked startapp and they say that their ads comply with Google, but I will ask them again.

[hr]
This is what Startapp says:

We are fully compliant with Google’s Content Policy. We require you, the developer, to notify the user twice: once with a disclaimer in the apps description and once with the EULA screen. If the user declines the EULA, our products (the search icon or the app wall) is not added to the device.

It is not a problem because the user is able to still use the app if they choose not to use our product.

The user can still use the app even if they don’t click yes on the startapp dialog, but they will be shown the dialog everytime they start the app, if they never click yes.

hi adforandroidapps,
unfortunately I don’t have evidence of how good “Other Games” is working in term of installs but I know when users intentionally click on that button because I have a Flurry event in there and I can tell you that they do quite often.
I’m assuming “Other games” will have very high CTR because users have the intention to install new apps/games but I can’t see which install are coming from back button and which from “Other Games” button.
About the policy I think the target of Google is to give users the possibility to choose. If I want a locked feature I need to have the possibility to pay with in-app and not just installing apps or follow a specific procedure.
This means that if you lock down a feature that a user can’t get playing the game you need to provide both way. Probably most of the users will use the free one but Google want developers to provide that choice.
Infact if you check GetJar promotion they always show a modal dialog where users can choose between in-app or install apps.

Yes, I would think users would click on “More Apps” that is legitimized by the developer much more than a banner ad - which can be suspect to many user’s eyes.


Infact if you check GetJar promotion they always show a modal dialog where users can choose between in-app or install apps.

Those apps which have ability to charge via Google in-app payment do show both - for example Cut the Rope gives option of $3.99 payment or 75 coins (which is actually going to earn the developer only 75 x $0.009 = $0.675). And $4 is a lot - so they are probably giving that “option” to cover their bases ?

A thought experiment comes to mind - what if we give the user the option to pay $100 via Google in-app payment or by just 100 coins (if developers are going to start acting bloody-minded with Google).

So do you think if developer can give the option to pay via Google IAP or via incentivized downloads - that makes it kosher/legal in Google’s eyes ?

Even if that is so - it is not too much of a burden for developers - since they obviously benefit either way (someone with fat wallet can use the Google IAP instead of earning coins etc.).

But Google IAP is not available to all developers - for example I cannot use it.

But now that you mention it - you maybe right - that most GetJar apps I’ve seen also have BOTH Google IAP and GetJar - so in that sense by adding GetJar as an OPTION to a paid solution, no one could realistically claim (not even Google) that GetJar is “constraining” users - since you can’t constrain users by giving them an additional option.

And this MIGHT be the trump card in GetJar arsenal.

However what happens when apps just do Tapjoy offers etc. (or are all developers using Tapjoy also including Google IAP billing ?).

Startapp works well, but I am not sure that I want to add them to all of my live wallpapers. A lot of people download several of our live wallpapers. Startapp pays off less for users who already have their startapp page and icon installed.

Is there any similar companies to startapp, which installs start pages and icons to appwalls after the user clicks yes on a startup dialog? In that case, it would be good to also try them.

This seems to be a limitation of StartApp model - can’t get more than that one payment (because user can’t do any more for StartApp once they have installed those shortcuts etc.).

How do users deal with the StartApp EULA - if they say no to it can they still use the wallpaper (perhaps the wording suggests that the developer gets paid if you install these shortcuts and can uninstall them later) ? Or are they prevented from using it (which would seem to violate Google policy ?).