Hi asanka,
Thanks for the numbers. Much appreciated.
Yes, I agree that the mode of operation of leadbolt’s icon is not the same as startapp’s. Probably would be a better choice to compare startapp against airpush icon ads instead.
Hmm… assuming at the low end of your downloads, 3000, and making $30… thats an CPM of $10 roughly. Not bad then. I am only getting half of that from airpush.
Anyway, thanks again for the numbers, will help other developers judge for themselves.
Cheers!
Thanks for the comment. im also using airpush. it was great at the beginning but now it has very low CPM. also in some days fill rates are 10%
i have already given up with airpush and i have started a separate thread about this topic
I signed up a few weeks ago but haven’t heard anything back from them. Sounds promising I may have to follow up with them.
Just wondering if anyone got paid by startapp yet and do they only pay for active installs or they consider every single install? It should not happen that they adjust the installs later when some users delete the game.
Hey appsg - I’ve been getting paid by StartApp pretty steady for the past few months. At first they were at net-45, which isn’t the best, but a few months ago switched to net 30. Pretty standard. They pay on time (i’m using PayPal).
Not sure what you meant about the active user/install - they pay for every install, active user and new user, of your app (if they accept their opt-in… bloody Google policy). Is that what you meant?
I started using Start app for like a week or so and i am seeing a good revenue. I think this is a better way to monetize your apps especially entertainment apps and casual games which usually have a low retention rate. They also have a good support staff that replies to queries on time. So i guess you guys should try them.
A good idea if you want your account banned.
(Extracted from article Top Android Apps and Games on Google Play | AppBrain.com)
P.D: David, the “insert link”, “insert image”, etc don’t work, all I see is an “undefined” tag.
Thanks for the info Androider. Leadbolt I suppose because of the push notification ads, banners and interstitials should be safe.
Hey Androider ,thanks for the information. I will have to talk to them about this issue and get a response on this but as i can see from the blog, this study was done on 24th august, a week before the Google TOS took into effect. All these companies (Airpush, Leadbolt and StartApp)now implement an opt-in EULA and they all claim to be fully compliant with the new policy. Now that we are past the 31st August deadline, It would be very good to have another study to know if the numbers have changed and atleast make an informed decision about all these ad companies.
Hey developers,
I would like to respond to some of your posts.
Babuye- You can feel completely safe using our ad network as it is fully compliant with the “new” (not so new already) Google’s policy. As you mentioned in order to be completely compliant StartApp implemented an opt-in EULA which explains the end users exactly what is added to their phone. This makes things much more simple and till now we had no complaints at all (attached is an example of an opt-in Eula). Thank you for your compliments they are very appreciated. Our staff works very hard to be completely compliant and updated with all new policies and always keeps in mind the developers interest.
Androider- The article you quoted from is completely not relevant. It was written over 2 months ago and even then it wasn’t accurate at all.
Developers that integrated our SDK are very pleased with the revenue they generate and that their apps remain “clean” of adds. StartApp works with many developers and monetizes thousands of apps. You can check our website and see that more than 228 million apps were downloaded using StartApp’s solution, and the number is rising. I can ensure you that this number is achieved not by causing accounts to be banned but by promoting apps and paying developers a nice revenue and on time. Androider- you should give us a try, you won’t be disappointed.
Try our new website, it is, on my opinion, very user friendly.
Feel free to ask anything,
StartApp
StartApp recognised as “Threat/Virus” from app like Dr.Web. When user install an app with StartApp, s/he directly get warned as “Threat/Virus”. We lose customers and money, you lose developers and money.
What do you about this ?
From their FAQs - http://www.startapp.com/faq.html (which mentions links to other pages, but those links are inactive) - it seems they install an icon, add bookmarks to web browsers on the phone, and may possibly replace the browser home location.
From their website however one can see a figure of $14 RPMD (revenue per mille or thousand downloads).
Which reduces it considerably from the earlier $50 RPMD being quoted in this thread.
The question is - how much further will it fall ?
When it reaches $5 it will start to approach the revenue achievable with ads alone. Although one can use both together i.e. ads as well as startapp …
Is this also like Leadbolt/Airpush - where high prices are quoted so people join and then they reduce the numbers ? However Leadbolt/Airpush do not guarantee revenue which means they could potentially pay more to new sign-ups (so those get the word out that “hey guys I am being paid phenomenally”) - while StartApp has to announce their current figure for all developers - which may limit their ability to change the figure (though they have already changed it).
The per-app-install model is a very attractive one - for developers.
As it clearly delineates what revenue to expect - developers know how many downloads to expect per day usually.
The figure that could change is the RPMD however.
What got them banned before and why is it now ok - is the only change the inclusion of an EULA ?
Even with an EULA there will be people who will mistakenly say yes - and there will be no (easy) way to reverse. The changes it requires are not that big - changing browser home location may piss off some people - but it IS slightly intrusive. What may be ok for a 14 year old, may piss off some older folks - or at least they will wary of anything that does something like that.
Are developers paid even if users say no to the EULA ?
Or will the end result be the same - i.e. if everyone says no to the EULA then StartApp’s RPMD starts going down more in the future ?
Other than that it is still a “messy” solution - where StartApp gets no flak (they are hiding behind the developer) - it is the developer who gets all the flak of what their SDK does.
This puts StartApp in the same category as all the other “intrusive” ad networks i.e. Leadbolt/Airpush notification ads etc.
Is the browser addition stuff the extent of their activity or does their SDK remain on the phone even after app install (I am assuming it is limited to the shortcut additions one time).
Other negatives seem to be that they don’t have the manpower to answer e-mails and their website is not fully fleshed out - links are missing in FAQ for example. That is not a problem if their model starts getting traction though.
The other negative is that - what starts happening if a user already has the SDK from another app they downloaded.
You will not get paid for that (at least you don’t if you redownload your app). This means there is an inherent limit - this system will essentially die when it has populated all android devices - will no longer be worthwhile to developers - in practice this will start happening when their penetration is 10% or something perhaps (if they are wildly successful).
Hi adforandroidapps and everybody else,
My name is Ariel, I am the Director of Publisher Relations here at StartApp.
I appreciate the effort you took to write the above post. You are raising some solid points that are sometimes misunderstood about our concept and what we offer, so I’ll try to answer them to paint a better picture on our offer is and how beneficial it is to developers.
I’ll start with explaining a bit more on PPD (payment per download - for the developer) and the RPMD we’re showing - Our concept, right off the bat, was to pay the developers based on their app downloads. This is to counter the poor results of CPM based ads, which I think we can all agree, simply doesn’t work for the vast majority of developers/apps. By paying per download, we are virtually taking 100% of the risk on our end. We are risking that a user may never use our search access points, but still paying the developer up front.
Our PPD is based on where the user comes from and whether or not the user has the StartApp SDK on their device already.
A new user earns you $0.01-$0.05 per install (depending on the user’s location where a US user earns you more) and a returning user (a user that already has the StartApp SDK) $0.01. The user must also accept the EULA, which I’ll explain below.
So the RPMD we’re currently showing on our site - $14, is the average you can expect. There are developers making more and some making less. I’m not sure where we promised $50, since that is wrong. The maximum you can earn for 1000 installs is indeed $50 (if all users are new and from the U.S). This could be where you were confused.
You were right where you said the “per-download” model is attractive, and the RPMD is representing your traffic, from your app. It’s not a global number that we blindly give out to everyone.
Our EULA/opt-in is also something that sets us apart - aside from being the first to introduce this (reviewed by Lookout security as an example on how to do it right - https://www.lookout.com/resources/reports/mobile-ad-guidelines#TransparencyClarity), we try to be as transparent with your end users - The StartApp addition is not hidden in a block of text, rather presented in bold, bullet points. This, we hope, reduces the surprise and miss-clicks to a minimum.
Did you recently try to contact us? You can directly contact me - [email protected] or contact our support [email protected]. I’m sure you’ll get an answer very quickly.
And about the FAQ page - sorry about that, it’s a new site that was uploaded a few days ago so we have a few kinks to sort out still. We’ll fix this soon.
I’ll sum up here, as this is a long post already - We offer a unique, out-of-app (and out of the box) monetization model. The market is still HUGE and believe me, we are far from exhausting its potential. We do our absolute best to supply the best revenue to app developers, while being open and transparent to your end users. Give us a go, I can assure you that the numbers you generate will make you very happy!
Feel free to reach out with any more questions, this is a great forum for exactly these types of discussions!
Ariel.
My first question for representative of Startapp is, are you think that we are dumb? Second one, how you plan to solve a problem with Dr. web and other anti-virus programs? After that write your manifest about how great your company is!
No, I was just basing it on a reading of this thread.
While I can understand the bookmark placement and possibly also the home page change in the web browser (I don’t see why a user in his right mind would WANT to change that ?), what does it mean when an SDK is resident on the phone ?
I mean there is some reference to the SDK “already” being installed on the phone already. Does this suggest some active service remains running on phones (even after shortcuts, bookmarks been removed by the user) ?
Or is it just a marker places in preferences etc. - which StartApp just checks to see if it has been installed previously on this phone.
Presumably paying slightly less in such a scenario is reflecting that the user is “hostile” and may not keep the shortcuts again - OR is not hostile and has kept the shortcuts (in which case there is no value added for StartApp).
It is an interesting model - again however it is reminiscent of Leadbolt/Airpush notification ads - as the developer is the front for installation of something over which the developer has little insight (or ability to reverse from within the app).
However, it may be something that “works” in practice.
I wonder though if the “changes” it makes - while being legitimized by the EULA - still provide no “off” switch for the user. For notification ads - newer Android versions have capability of shutting off those in some way - or Google new requirements force there to be an identification “who the notification is coming from - what is the offending app”.
With bookmark changes - this may fall awry of Google “eventually” - as it steps on the search business for one - but secondly there being no way to undo the bookmark changes (as a whole). However, I acknowledge that the bookmarks inserted and the home page change could all be tackled individually by users. And the home screen shortcut is probably ok in that respect as well as it clearly identifies it as a “StartApp” shortcut.
Ideally there would be an undo icon on screen which would undo all the StartApp changes as well. However I can see how that would totally negate the value proposition for StartApp.
Which in a way also highlights that the value proposition IS essentially based on “friction” i.e. user will not bother (or know of) an easy way to undo everything.
Such a thing does not exist with incentivized installs for instance - as the app the user downloads is completely reversible.
However I can see where developers may find value in what you provide - in any case it is novel and probably the only option for app download-based revenue.
Thanks for your comments.
[hr]
StartApp representative,
Actually I just read that Lookout Security link you provided (maybe your website should show something similar first for developers who arrive at your site).
Reading that it made the whole thing much more palatable sounding - i.e. “dear user, to keep this app 100% free we are offering …”.
And I did feel much better about your SDK.
What happens if user refuses - then the developer does not unlock the premium features of the app I suppose ?
Perhaps if offered two choices - pay or choosing your option - may make it even more palatable for users - as they have a choice (though you probably would not advocate that - that was just a note to developers :-)).
The question is how are you able to make it work ? Are installing home page bookmarks sufficiently lucrative for you ?
What happens when users smarten up and start deleting stuff - I know StartApp is just offering that option because they are relying on laziness, not knowing how etc. of users so they will NOT uninstall the StartApp stuff (or perhaps StartApp recognizes that the hostile users will be useless to them anyway and ignoring them is part of the cost of this model - i.e. rely on the lazier users or blase ones).
So when users smarten up - will the RPMD start going down ?
Now it would be much more reassuring if developers knew that StartApp was making huge money from the bookmark links etc. - as that would assure the model works. Otherwise it is slightly reminiscent of the “shifting sands” behavior evident at Leadbolt/Airpush notification ads - start off strong, then when the real statistics indicate the real pricing, then things start going down towards that.
This concerns developers more than StartApp … relates to integrating with another “earning” method (like incentivized installs).
Assuming being classified as a virus by the antivirus apps issues has disappeared, one possible use for StartApp may be if used in combination with another payment method.
This way those who are queasy about installing stuff would use the other method, while the ones wanting an easy way would choose the StartApp.
The only problem with this approach is of “price parity” i.e. how does one make the StartApp vs. an incentivized install method (say) comparable. And this is related to the issue of price quantum i.e. the StartApp only allows one fixed (maximum) “payment” - and that’s it - a user cannot earn more.
If one is charging for say GetJar/Tapjoy etc. say $1.00 worth - which is about say 10 app downloads - while far fewer may bother with the effort and more may be willing to do the StartApp approach - still there is no way to charge again or up to a $1.00. However if you were only asking for 10 gold coins from GetJar etc. (which would pay you $0.09) then one could compare that to StartApp’s $0.05 or $0.014 per app-download type revenue.
Bojan - I’ve been working with app developers for almost 2 years now, and one thing I can definitely say is that they are NOT dumb 
Dr. Web is a serious problem for us, and we are doing A LOT to try and resolve this matter. Like I said before, it is not an easy task to have a AV company revert a false detection, as they are based on building a “scare tactics” using exactly these definitions. We have a dedicated security and privacy officer working on this issue exclusively. You guys are our driving force, as much as we help you monetize your apps, you help us generate traffic for advertisers. It’s a give and take relationship and our most important one!
adforandroidapps - again, good points raised!
I noticed I haven’t replied the SDK issue in the previous post, sorry about that. The SDK remains on the user’s device as long as the host app is there. The SDK is a part of the app, so naturally once the app is uninstalled, so is the SDK. One thing we do keep is the device IMEI, so to keep track of which device had the SDK on it once (and if the access points are there).
You asked about those users that re-install our SDK - Sometimes we do pay for those users, which are not adding real value for StartApp - we do this to be able to give the developer the maximum revenue possible, again, taking this possible loss on our end.
Regarding the access point removal - We offer a permanent opt-out and step by step instructions on how to remove all access points added. We have NO desire to be on a device where a user actively does not want us there (the EULA is the first and best way to make this work). We are working on an opt-out app that will remotely remove/revert the changes we did.
I’m happy you found our EULA solution (more) appealing, the intention was to make it as one. We have a few developers using this mechanics of “get StartApp for xxx” and some offering a version with our solution as an “no banners version”, which also makes sense (especially for games, where UI may be hurt by banner ads).
Our RPMD is not going down, on the contrary, it only went up since we started. Developers do not earn less than $10 for 1000 SDK installs.The RPMD is based on your individual traffic, and not dependent on outside advertiser campaigns. What you mentioned as the shifting sands effect usually happens because the ad network do not have stable, continuous campaigns, rather ups and downs depending on the current advertisers running on the other side.
We have a VERY stable revenue source as a company, which we are in control of, allowing us to not only keep a fixed payment per download for a long time, but also increase it.
I agree it’s not an easy comparison, and as hard to compare us to CPM based campaigns. What you should do is try to reduce the playing field to you app downloads (say 1000) and see how many incent installs/ad impressions you generate with this amount (assuming 1000 users for 1 month lifetime, for instance).
Not sure I totally understood what you meant (every 10 downloads = a $1 incent conversion? If that’s the case, there should be more app millionaires out there).
Like I wrote above, a developer using incent offers in his app should look at the revenue he is generating from 1000 downloads, or how many conversions he generates on his incent offers. Then it’s easy to compare.
Important to remember, you can user our SDK side by side with any other monetization model you have.
Apologies again for the long reply, I hope some of you made it all the way down here.
Feel free to contact me - [email protected] if you have more questions, or check our our site www.startapp.com and our developer site - http://developers.startapp.com/Register/Register.aspx?mc=5&pid=34
Thanks all,
Ariel.
Thanks. That’s cleared up some of the questions.
I could see use of your solution in combination with another solution - so the user can choose his medicine - for example say StartApp with GetJar/Tapjoy.
The users who are impatient and willing to accept shortcut changes etc. will choose the StartApp - it also has the advantage of instant validation (as presumably there is nothing to download etc. just addition of shortcuts etc.).
The users who are wary can do the longer process of GetJar etc.
The only problem with this approach would be that of price parity - how to price the GetJar/Tapjoy payment if you know the StartApp one is limited to $0.05 or $0.014 or whatever the RPMD is … Ideally they should be able to earn the same from the StartApp option.
And this points to the problem in your model - that it does not allow for repeated charging - since there is a maximum benefit you can extract from the user (the user can do no more for StartApp once they have your shortcuts etc. installed). So your model does not have facility to re-charge the user, or to charge MORE than the $0.05 or $0.014 per user or whatever the RPMD is.
This by itself is not a hindrance - since for many apps this maybe a good solution. Esp. apps which are hard to monetize with ads (for example themes etc.).
The advantage StartApp seems to have over other solutions is that it seems to be an “instant” solution. Since there is nothing to download - your SDK can instantly install the shortcuts etc. So the “enabling” of an app is quick. This is not something that is possible with GetJar/Tapjoy etc. - where there can be a slip between the cup and the lip - as there is always attrition as the process gets complicated - there will be users who get bored and fail to complete all the steps.
So I can see that for some types of apps - probably apps which have no intention of charging again for another feature of that app - this could yield higher conversion - perhaps most importantly because of it’s “instant” nature of activation …
But it may not be applicable for more complex games for instance - where the effort is larger to make and the compulsion to charge higher per app (perhaps over time via periodic in-app purchases).
Thanks for your reply.
Hello everyone,
I am new here, I registered to tell you my experience with StartApp. I have been working with them (I mean I use their SDK) for about a month now and I am seeing great results! (although I will not speak with numbers here, but the amount is really high) You get paid everytime a user accepts the EULA (usually there is a 80% acceptance, for me at least) and a little search Icon is being installed at their device. So far the players still enjoy my game and very few people have mentioned the EULA in a negative way. Most of them don’t mind. Their developer support is top aswell, I highly reccomend it (it performs better than banner ads for me) and I am really happy with it!
Thanks for your insight.
Looking over how the developer presents the ad type and the permissions - it is interesting that there are few negative comments about the ad type !!
I guess the reason maybe that those folks who are wary will say no (unless they press yes by mistake). And the 80% of users who care little about privacy etc. and may even think they can find something new with a new search engine etc. - those folks may click yes.
Even if 50% of users were to click on yes to the StartApp EULA it would have value.
In any case, it really highlights how sometimes developers (being more aware than the average person) may be overcautious about what the public “should” get in the app - what will piss off the users - i.e. statistically a certain percentage of people will say yes. In effect the developer is monetizing the clueless or generally unaware crowd (or who may think they could get something from a “new” search engine). While the thinking user is not paying.
In reality it maybe the dumbing down of the user base - as apps are now a consumer consumable - the same type of considerations are dictating economics (as apply to advertising and cereal etc.) - this is in stark contrast to the developer who may thus be totally mis-tuned to what the average user will want/tolerate or accept in terms of ads etc. By definition the developer will be far more finicky and particular (programming requires such temperament). So this is the social disconnect - and perhaps suggests why software companies where the market decisions are made by a non-programmer may fare better (?) in gauging “what the market will bear”.
In any case with StartApp it seems like it could be a very reliable way of making money off apps.
What I find interesting (and perhaps slightly disconcerting - again it is the developer thinking) is that any thinking person will say no - while the full burden of the revenue is on the unsophisticated user - again this is just over-moralizing perhaps and when developers are not paid enough they may start thinking along these lines (i.e. do whatever the market will bear).
