Related
I am not a developer, but I was reading up on experiences that developers have with the Android Market.
Then I also came across a website that showed some statistics about paid apps and they were shocking. I can't remember the source right now, but it said that the Apple AppStore is a $200 million business per month, where the Android Market is only $5 millions per month. This is very discouraging for developers who are in it for money (usually companies who have the resources to create Games and more Complex Apps and have the ability to Partner with Services).
One developers said that he only got 23 downloads, in the first month. He mentioned then that over half of them used the 24 hour refund (could that be that those were leachers who downloaded the app and threw it on a P2P channel?), eventually he ended up with 11 sales. One guy sent him an email and said that $4.99 is too much to ask for, which I think is not unreasonable considering that there are many apps in the Apple AppStore that cost much more than that. Whether or not his app is useful or not to most users is sadly unknown by me. But looking at his perspective I think I would start developing apps for the iOS, who wouldn't that wants to make money?
The problem with these figures is that developers will eventually stop developing paid apps and the quality of the Android Market (from now on referred to Market) apps vs Apple AppStore (from now on referred to AppStore) apps will extremely decline. And there will be either many low rating apps in the Market or there will be an increase in the amount of Apps submitted the the Market.
We all want good Apps, Apple found out Apps are the number 1 reason a Plattform has success. Android has Google behind it which makes up for a good amount of Great apps and there are very good developers here that are not in it for the money, but eventually it all comes down to making money when it comes to professional businesses offering a product. Look at the games that are offered on the iOS platform vs Android, you can't tell me that an iPhone 3G or a 2nd Gen iPod has better graphics performance than some of the higher-end Android devices.
Also, are there too many free alternatives in the Android Market that the AppStore doesn't have? There are also many free apps in the AppStore.
What can be done about this? - Please post your ideas, since I am not a developer I am not the pro here when it comes to this issue I am asking for your opinion.
However, I am a business student so I have some insights of how companies will react to this as mentioned above.
The few ideas I have would be:
1. Google could increase the quality of design of the API and give different APIs to paid vs free Apps.
2. Sadly I have to mention it because of all the Leachers and then P2P distributors, remove the 24 hour refund policy.
3. Google to hire more developers in house who are paid and create free apps that can compete with the AppStore (which would cost Google a fortune). Maybe then charge a small amount for Google Voice to do some financial damage report.
4. Change the Markets way how people pay for apps? I noticed that in the past on my iPhone the decision to actually PAY for an app was much easier and faster for me, I didn't even bother to look for a free alternative.
5. Try to Market Android more towards people who are less geeks (who know where and how to find a free solution to the app they need), as in change the look of Android and make it much more simple for the average Joe day to day user (which I would hate because that means remove or hide many of the great features that make Android what I like so much about it and go back to a more primitive system like the iOS4). And tell hardware manufacturers to create more shiny phones.
--> Since most people who don't know how to get free alternatives, or who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to find free alternatives are people that are buying a product for the lifestyle and to show off (iPhone).
What are YOUR ideas to fix this issue? - Thank you for everyone posting solutions.
I don't think this is something we should worry about.
First, Android is open-source and many enthusiasts give their applications free of charge, which is not the case with Apple's closed OS. That is why about 65% of all apps in Market are free, and only 35% paid. In Appstore, about 70% are paid, only 30% free. Statistics: http://androidheadlines.com/2010/09/app-store-vs-android-market-how-much-is-paid-for.html.
Secondly, you'll find that Market currently supports purchases in only 13 markets while the App Store does so in 90. These numbers will change as time passes by and more markets will be included, but I'm sure that Android will always be a platform with much more free apps than iOS, and that's the beauty of Android.
As far as I'm aware the developers have a say regarding that 24 hour refund policy. An application can be made to be non-refundable if they choose to.
In comparing developers for iOS and Android, you have to also look at who they are individually. Sure, there are many apps developed across the board for all mobile devices, but I think the core of the Android Market are individuals who develop apps just for the sake of developing apps. They enjoy what they do and they would do it regardless of profit.
Of course you have a few that try to make money, but I believe they are the exception rather than the rule.
I mean no offense when I say this, but I believe that the iPhone attracts a very different type of user than Android does. Most people I personally know that use the iPhone do so more out of status and pretentiousness than its own usefulness. Many do not even know the majority of things they could do with the iPhone. Those I know who use Android use it because they root it and do their own modifications, overclocking, etc.
With this in mind, I believe that Android apps are generally created by a different kind of developer for a different kind of user.
shinji257 said:
As far as I'm aware the developers have a say regarding that 24 hour refund policy. An application can be made to be non-refundable if they choose to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have absolutely no say in whether or not out apps are refunded. If I showed you the numbers of instant refunds you'd puke. And the OP states $200 million to $5 million which is ridiculously off. I believe Google just reported that they passed $1 billion in sales (profit) from the Android Market. Either way, it's way more than $5 million a month.
All that said I personally am happy with what I have been able to do with the Market. I expected a little better on my most recent app but it takes time for people to get word of a new app. That's pretty much the problem I've found. It's hard to get noticed. But I still think it's pretty good. There is a lot I absolutely hate about the Market and a bunch of things I like about it. I'd still rather develop for Android and ironically, none of the apps I have created would even work on iPhone. Two are root apps and one requires a modification of the browser which is not allowed on iPhone (for no apparent good reason, I might add).
I am glad to hear that this isn't as big of an issue as I read online, it would be sad to see a great plattform to be hurten, as you can see with the WebOS.
As for not getting recognized, a few tips I have about that is not to rely too much on people finding your app in the market, but rather advertise it yourself, use your facebook and twitter and even this forum (if the forum policy allow that, I am not sure on that again since I am not a developer). I love the QR codes, I actually see many of them in bathroom stalls and other places, and I always check on them since it's in my curiosity to find out where they get me.
I'm making an extra living off paid apps on the Marketplace.
Oh, and an extra living off free apps with Admob.
So now I'm making 3 livings worth. It's wonderful. I have no complaints.
I mean no offense when I say this, but I believe that the iPhone attracts a very different type of user than Android does. Most people I personally know that use the iPhone do so more out of status and pretentiousness than its own usefulness. Many do not even know the majority of things they could do with the iPhone. Those I know who use Android use it because they root it and do their own modifications, overclocking, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're forgetting about Droid users. You'd be surprised how many people own an Android just for status and pretentiousness. It goes both ways. I even know a few people with Androids that don't even know that they have an Android.
1. Google could increase the quality of design of the API and give different APIs to paid vs free Apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't that mean closing the source? Or you think people will use opensource platform that only runs free apps over opensource platform that runs both?
I don't think I want closed source OS on my phone, if I did I'd probably use iPhone.
2. Sadly I have to mention it because of all the Leachers and then P2P distributors, remove the 24 hour refund policy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pirates do buy software sometimes, how do you think it gets to P2P networks in the first place? One of them buys it, his friend cracks it and everyone else gets it 4free.
So it wouldn't solve anything, removing the refund would only make legit customers angry if the app doesn't work.
3. Google to hire more developers in house who are paid and create free apps that can compete with the AppStore (which would cost Google a fortune). Maybe then charge a small amount for Google Voice to do some financial damage report.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought google did hire developers and they do create free apps. I don't think competing with appstore is their ultimate goal though, since appstore and iphoneos are completely closed.
Charging for services is something I agree with completely.
They should indeed make certain (not all) services cost money. But they should also keep the software free and open to ensure the quality.
4. Change the Markets way how people pay for apps? I noticed that in the past on my iPhone the decision to actually PAY for an app was much easier and faster for me, I didn't even bother to look for a free alternative.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was much easier and faster because apple paid someone to make it easier and faster.
I'm not so sure google is willing to invest money into closed source software, especially when you consider these 3 facts.
1. Closed source software has a limited amount of developers who are working to make it better, faster and more efficient.
2. More developers on a single project means more features, more bugfixes and faster development.
3. Opensource software in general is more secure because everyone can see the source code.
5. Try to Market Android more towards people who are less geeks (who know where and how to find a free solution to the app they need), as in change the look of Android and make it much more simple for the average Joe day to day user (which I would hate because that means remove or hide many of the great features that make Android what I like so much about it and go back to a more primitive system like the iOS4). And tell hardware manufacturers to create more shiny phones.
--> Since most people who don't know how to get free alternatives, or who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to find free alternatives are people that are buying a product for the lifestyle and to show off (iPhone).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I don't like being labeled, I think marketing should be focused on pushing Android for everyone, not just specific groups of people.
User knows what works best for him so let him decide what to buy. Wide selection of devices that share the base operating system is great, but user should decide what type of software he wants to use, not google nor apple.
User should also decide what type of service he wants to use and whether that service is free or paid.
Changing the look of Android to make it more simple is something I'd personally hate, but we should always have options.
It would be great to flash an extremely simple android OS for my grandmother's phone for example, while keeping my VNC and SSH on my own device.
Also, don't think there's much difference between android users and iphone users, they're just people anyway. And there's an equal amount of pirated iphone apps and android apps.
Only real difference is about the OS, where one offers you a choice and another forces you to pay and develops restrictions instead of new features.
What are YOUR ideas to fix this issue? - Thank you for everyone posting solutions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think there is an issue, devs get paid from pushing ads, users are happy with a wide selection of apps. Some services are free some services cost money. Just my 2c
Why are the ad blocking patches permitted here?
I remember the scandal with the "Impaled Angry Birds" version.
So why are developers developing in the disadvantage of others that rely on ads to receive revenue for apps that aren't lite versions and have no paid apps released?
More importantly, why are these distributed, discussed and allowed on this developer forum?
nemuro said:
Why are the ad blocking patches permitted here?
I remember the scandal with the "Impaled Angry Birds" version.
So why are developers developing in the disadvantage of others that rely on ads to receive revenue for apps that aren't lite versions and have no paid apps released?
More importantly, why are these distributed, discussed and allowed on this developer forum?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess because they're not technically breaking any rules.
There are rules against pirating apps but none against blocking the ads (which is sort of the same thing if you think about it, both are stopping the developers from getting the money they deserve).
But yes, i think 'adblockers' should be banned from these forums. I can't believe Google even allows them to be posted to the market tbh
You should start a poll and see if we can get the rules changed
It's not illegal to block ads on webpages? Which the apps also block.
/Feras - Galaxy Tab
I've felt adblockers necessary in a few games because they were almost unplayable. The problem also is alot of people only wanna block web ads but the ad blockers get apps too.
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App
I don't have a problem with watching ads in apps and I think it's a better way then selling apps that have no ads. I wouldn't buy most of the apps I have installed and with ads I can help the developers.
BUT: some ads are linking to a wap page which uses WAP billing. So when you touch the ad you have a contract over 10$ a week or something which is automatically billed with yor normal moblile contract. that makes it impossible to get your money back without risking high fees from your mobile provider for not paying your bills. Beacause it's not possible to block WAP billing (at least with O2) the only possible way to avoid this is to block the ads.
I'm very sorry for that, but if nothing changes (possibility to block wap billing, ads without wap links ...) I keep on blocking the ads.
I'd probably shouldn't be allowed, but I am glad that it is.
Some developers just throws ads in at the last minute and it often ruins the playability of a game and you end clicking ads by accident just trying to use the app which is not acceptable. I'll click an ad when I choose to.
My feeling is a lot of apps don't use ads respectably or creatively enough and so I rarely want to click an ad anyway. It's generally some lame text link to a larger corp. with little relation to the small-name game I'm playing. If someone's is going to make an awesome game, make an awesome ad too for something the majority of the people who downloaded your game are going to want. Have seen an endless stream of banner ads for the last 10 years of my life. Yawn.
Meltus said:
I guess because they're not technically breaking any rules.
There are rules against pirating apps but none against blocking the ads (which is sort of the same thing if you think about it, both are stopping the developers from getting the money they deserve).
But yes, i think 'adblockers' should be banned from these forums. I can't believe Google even allows them to be posted to the market tbh
You should start a poll and see if we can get the rules changed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Be careful with the "stopping developers from getting the money they deserve." comment. It is what the mpaa and riaa goons say too. It's hard to say who would use or stop using an app based on ads/too many ads if they couldn't be blocked. Developers can also sell limited free versions and full paid.
I won't deny or argue it, as there are problems with both sides, but a blanket ban seems a bit one sided in favor of the powers that be.
Adblockers themselves aren't breaking any of our rules, and are thus allowed - though it's certainly debatable what kind of person would use them.
That being said, I know there are apps out there that simply work around the adblocking and show you the ads anyways.
Note that copyrighted apps re-posted here but with the ads disabled (in most cases even without the ads disabled) is definitely against the rules. If you spot one, report the post and it will be removed, as happened with Impaled Angry Birds - though it was unfortunate it took so long to be removed (you can blame me for that if you want, I do).
I get annoyed at ROM revs that apply this. Let the user decide. I had a guy ask me to make one of my apps free because he said all the other apps like it were. I would but so many people block ads now. I'd like payment for my work and I can't find a good spot to place ads in the app. Maybe a load screen, but people would tire of that fast IMO. Maybe it is possible to write code to check if ads are blocked and have the app not function or very limited.
Sent from my iPhone with the bigger Gee Bees.
the adblockers simply make it "one click" easy to block the ads. there are numerous ways to get around the ads if you truly want too.
on a side note: how much of do the developers really lose? I'm not saying I'm one side or another but yes developers like getting paid and consumers don't like seeing ads.
my point being that most adblockers need access to your hosts file (phone must be rooted). xda is very big across the net but still a sort of 'niche' area where only a certain percentage of those us that like doing things to our phones meet. the vast majority of the market is totally unaware of what even rooting is.
as a very unscientific test, i asks all the people i know that use their phones for social networking and playing games (angry birds) questions pertaining to rooted phones and such. only about 2% of them even had a minor clue as to what i was talking about.
so to close this rant: adblocks might be bad/good in various ways but the majority of those ads are getting clicked and the developers are seeing something from that (of course i mean, if the ads really are paying)
i guess this has nothing to do with the OP question. simple answer. Ad Blockers aren't breaking any rules.
pxldtz said:
the adblockers simply make it "one click" easy to block the ads. there are numerous ways to get around the ads if you truly want too.
on a side note: how much of do the developers really lose? I'm not saying I'm one side or another but yes developers like getting paid and consumers don't like seeing ads.
my point being that most adblockers need access to your hosts file (phone must be rooted). xda is very big across the net but still a sort of 'niche' area where only a certain percentage of those us that like doing things to our phones meet. the vast majority of the market is totally unaware of what even rooting is.
as a very unscientific test, i asks all the people i know that use their phones for social networking and playing games (angry birds) questions pertaining to rooted phones and such. only about 2% of them even had a minor clue as to what i was talking about.
so to close this rant: adblocks might be bad/good in various ways but the majority of those ads are getting clicked and the developers are seeing something from that (of course i mean, if the ads really are paying)
i guess this has nothing to do with the OP question. simple answer. Ad Blockers aren't breaking any rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most of the time developers make very little from Ads, but in some rare cases (Angry Birds being a brilliant example) the company turns over about 1 million dollars a month, purely from ads.
The point of ad-supported apps, the way i see it anyway, is that you offer a free version that's ad supported and a 'paid' one that isn't (i know this isn't always the case, but that's the fault of the developer). Blocking the ads in the free one will undoubtably stop the users from buying the paid one, meaning the developer will lose out.
And whilst it's true that a very small percentage of all android users actually have rooted their phone and can use Ad Blockers, does that justify using one?
The OP has a point that the patches do take away revenue but the ad blockers are very different than other pirated methods since they do not change the programs themselves merely make additions to the phone's hosts file.
Ad Blockers of ANY kind (even on desktops) do the same thing. By blocking ads on Websites you are in essence STEALING money from the person who runs that site too!
but every major browser and Security suite has one!
And I would personally urge developers that if they want to use the AD subsidized business model they should at least offer a way to remove the ads via a one time donation. (Some do!)
I personally will not use or run any apps that use Ads simply because I know that 99% of all malware comes from scripts of hijacked servers these ads eminate from.
And it really sucks for those with limited data plans who will quickly run out of bandwidth quota from all the ads.
I really understand the OP (and other developers) point and I support their right to be compensated.
But please pick a better way to get compensated. A Lite version may entail slightly more work but it will ensure you will get something for it as opposed to hoping you get something for it because someone hacked the hosts file and stopped your revenue stream dead in it's tracks.
Meltus said:
And whilst it's true that a very small percentage of all android users actually have rooted their phone and can use Ad Blockers, does that justify using one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not at all, i'm simply stating both sides. it's going always going to be a pro/con dilemma. same with the mpaa/riaa except adblocking does not constitute piracy where you are literally stealing and not paying as opposed to modifynig your operating system to behave as you wish.
Asphyx said:
I personally will not use or run any apps that use Ads simply because I know that 99% of all malware comes from scripts of hijacked servers these ads eminate from.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
frankly speaking i do the same. I use ABP for firefox and i have a modifed hosts file as well that keeps these ads from ever appearing on my machine.
so atleast for justification on that part, consider the performance hits from multiple flash/banners/whatever popping up everytime you want to just browse the net.
Meltus said:
I guess because they're not technically breaking any rules.
There are rules against pirating apps but none against blocking the ads (which is sort of the same thing if you think about it, both are stopping the developers from getting the money they deserve).
But yes, i think 'adblockers' should be banned from these forums. I can't believe Google even allows them to be posted to the market tbh
You should start a poll and see if we can get the rules changed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can download ad free from the market for a while. Apparently Google does not have a problem with it. Why should XDA ban something that you can download from the market?
The other thing is that you can not stop people from editing their host file (because this is the only thing the application is doing)
So banning it from these forums doesn't make any sense at all IMO.
What ppl don't under stand is that if these programs didn't have ads they would cost money. Ppl do not write these programs for free, ads are they get paid. If u remove the ads u will see more programs being paid and less ad supported.
This stuff imo should not be allowed. But this will up end up costing everyone bc a few ppl are greedy. Whether it helps the performance of the game or w/e its besides the point. That was the developers decision. I am surprised its not against the terms of use.
My 2 cents lol
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
i don't understand why it would be against the terms of use? free vs paid vs ad supported all have valid points and you will never completely make everyone happy, whether it be the developer or the end user.
consider all the websites you visit on any given day and your antivirus software that you have installed that blocks a certain number of popups/ads that generate revenue for these websites.
how is this any different from having an ad blocker on your phone? it's still very much the same thing and i'm sure those that don't like the mentality of ad blocking on their phone use some sort of ad blocker on their pc.
Blocking ads is not a good thing for developers if that's how they get their money but it also takes away from the end-user experience. Ads usually get in the way (see Angry Birds) or they take away some of people's bandwidth if they don't have unlimited data. So no matter how you look at it somebody "pays" for it either way.
I'm not arguing for or against if this development should be on xda, just a different angle that i was thinking about for a long time.
the same, i'm not arguing for either side. just a debate towards both ends.
it's almost a rock/paper/scissors argument. each on trumps another.
developer distributes free app with ads. consumer likes app but dislikes ads. developer needs to keep consumer happy to get any downloads but still needs to get their revenue stream flowing, ie. ads stay in.
rinse, repeat.
If a consumer likes the app but dislikes the ads, said consumer should buy the full / pro / ad-free version.
Ads themselves bring very little in profits unless the app is used a LOT (like the Angry Birds example, which is extremely rare), and it's the correct type of app. A game is always in the foreground, you actually see the ads. A utility which runs a background service and is built well so you hardly ever need to interact with it, you'll see the ads pretty much never, and click on them even less. It is even arguable that a less well-built app brings in more ad-profits because you need to interact with it more.
I would argue (and in my experience this is correct) ads have more effect profit-wise in the number of people who are annoyed by ads and thus buy the full version than the ads themselves bring in. This is an important effect of ads that should not be overlooked, and this is IMHO a more important revenue stream adblockers negate than the ads themselves.
As for how big the percentage of adblocker users is, also depend on the target. For example, an application with ads targeted at root users, is much more likely to get adblocked than a non-root app. I would guesstimate (based on my own experience) the factor may be as high as a 20x difference.
At the end, it all comes down to that the user wants things to be free (and somehow they still want to be payed at their own jobs) while developers want to somehow get payed for their work, just like everybody else does. Somehow most users these days seem to think that because they technically can rip people off, it is not morally and ethically irresponsible to do so.
Reasonings like "I wouldn't pay for it anyway" or "I can't pay for it" or "I won't click the ads" or "the interface with ads annoy me" or "the ads take my limited bandwidth" are all both nonsensical and invalid in most cases. If you don't like it, be a real man and just don't use it, or pay for a version that doesn't have these limitations (and if it doesn't exist, again, simply don't use it). Don't have a credit card? Get one. Don't want to click ads? Then don't. (Or did you think they were placed in that annoying spot by accident ?). Want it different? Pay up. It not being the way you want it is never a valid reason to rip others. Ads taking your bandwidth? Pay up.
I'd like a car like yours, maybe I should just take yours and leave you empty-handed ?
Now of course with the latter statement, you would get people arguing that the unlicensed copying of software (in this case, yes, I am equating adblocking on ad-supported apps to piracy) is technically not theft while stealing your car is. While that would arguably be true from a dictionarial definition standpoint, it certainly isn't true from an economic standpoint.
As anyone with some knowledge of economics will assert to, a product's price calculation (excluding gaining market dominance or entry factors, simplified) goes something like this:
sale price = ( (research and development / expected units of sale) + (manufacturing cost + distribution cost) ) * (1 + profit margin)
Because "copying software is essentially free" (though distribution can still be a big amount, it is for more popular projects usually a negliable factor), the argument is usually that the manufacturer (developer) doesn't lose anything. In reality, all it does is remove (manufacturing cost + distribution cost) from the equation, and still leaves you with the costs of research and development and profit margin. Therefore, there is still a very real correlation between the economic effect of this and the economic effect of "actual" theft. It is not an unreal possibility that the developer of a semi-popular ad-based application could buy a new car if there were no adblockers, while now he is flat broke.
Adblocking in this case reduces the total units sold because there is no way or incentive to pay up. It is the same as piracy in the way that you are using something for nothing. Then again, it shouldn't be outlawed in the same way that BitTorrent shouldn't be outlawed. It's not the tool that is the problem, it's (the bulk of) the people using it.
Wow, I've really gone off on a tangent today. And that's not even including developer rights vs user rights, or when no ad-free version is available, or the guns vs piracy difference, or how developers on Android don't make any money anyways, or etc etc.
hmmm interesting thread personally i think it is wrong to edit a program to remove the ads in it that should be a no no, because your altering someone elses work, and essentially losing them revenue which would cause free apps to become just paid and non ad supported (possibly)
adblocking via hosts files however i think is perfectly fine as your not altering someone elses work. adfree i also have no problem with as essentially its just a downloader for hosts files i guess for people who don't know how to push a hosts file themselves. personally i just push the sames hosts file from my desktop seems to work quite well infact its the one reason i rooted and s-off'd my Desire HD
as for adfree being in the market yeah it is surprising because google makes alot of revenue from ads so its surprising they allow apps to block these revenue sources i guess however its just goes to show how hands off google is with user apps compared to say ....apple
and lets face it the average user wouldnt be pushing files and gaining root access ect to do it (none of my friends have) i think its a select few who will actually go to the trouble to actually remove the ads probably not enough to impact revenue from ads however if someone is redistributing a apk with ads removed then its probably going to do more harm.
one things for sure my DHD is staying ad free (its not so much ads in apps but ads in webpages that bother me)
Hello guys,
are you one of the android developers pissed off by piracy?
I have about 4000 active illegal users (70%), but my app is without any security checks.
Have you found a solution? I gave up on google security checks, it was too easy to hack. There is something more secure?
I've done a lot of research, but I am searching also for some real experience by xda users.
Thank you!
Well, if you chose to implement in-app purchasing, then I suppose that might solve your problem.
taomorpheus said:
Hello guys,
are you one of the android developers pissed off by piracy?
I have about 4000 active illegal users (70%), but my app is without any security checks.
Have you found a solution? I gave up on google security checks, it was too easy to hack. There is something more secure?
I've done a lot of research, but I am searching also for some real experience by xda users.
Thank you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have your own server you could crosscheck the user's google account with your purchase list.
Do it hidden, in multiple places and act delayed if you find out about a pirated version, then it's really hard to crack.
If you talk about your facebook app you could be kinda bad mannered and post that they are using an illegal app on their wall
Of course you'd have to be absolutely sure then
octobclrnts said:
Well, if you chose to implement in-app purchasing, then I suppose that might solve your problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't because a lot of people have already purchased the app in the classic way!
superkoal said:
If you have your own server you could crosscheck the user's google account with your purchase list.
Do it hidden, in multiple places and act delayed if you find out about a pirated version, then it's really hard to crack.
If you talk about your facebook app you could be kinda bad mannered and post that they are using an illegal app on their wall
Of course you'd have to be absolutely sure then
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually this is a really cool idea, can I access to my google account using google api?
superkoal said:
If you have your own server you could crosscheck the user's google account with your purchase list.
Do it hidden, in multiple places and act delayed if you find out about a pirated version, then it's really hard to crack.
If you talk about your facebook app you could be kinda bad mannered and post that they are using an illegal app on their wall
Of course you'd have to be absolutely sure then
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like this.
taomorpheus said:
Actually this is a really cool idea, can I access to my google account using google api?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have a look at this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2245545/accessing-google-account-id-username-via-android
superkoal said:
Have a look at this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2245545/accessing-google-account-id-username-via-android
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My Kaspersky Anti-Virus programm says that it is a fishing site.
However, it is STACKOVERFLOW!!!
nikwen said:
My Kaspersky Anti-Virus programm says that it is a fishing site.
However, it is STACKOVERFLOW!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kaspersky :silly:
taomorpheus said:
I can't because a lot of people have already purchased the app in the classic way!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent
In my opinion, create some sort of pop up that says "Attention pirated user, I'm glad you love my app as much as I loved making it, but I need to make money off of it. Please officially purchase this app "
Then have an In app purchase option in the pop up. This would make me want to purchase the app if I pirated it. I don't really believe that fighting piracy with DRM does anything but cause harm. You should just try and make the pirated users feel bad and encourage them to buy the app.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using xda app-developers app
v3nturetheworld said:
Sent
In my opinion, create some sort of pop up that says "Attention pirated user, I'm glad you love my app as much as I loved making it, but I need to make money off of it. Please officially purchase this app "
Then have an In app purchase option in the pop up. This would make me want to purchase the app if I pirated it. I don't really believe that fighting piracy with DRM does anything but cause harm. You should just try and make the pirated users feel bad and encourage them to buy the app.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahah yeah that's a good solution!
I've noticed that most of the pirated users come from Burma, where google play doesn't work. So I think that I will leave the app in this way and create another pro version for the nations that have google play issues!
But... how about implementing a solution like ROM Manager does? I mean, with a separate app and a pirate popup as suggested above? I'm clueless on what technology use to create a licensing APK, but it would be easier even for those people that haven't got Play Store, maybe
Tiwiz
I guess the main app checks if the Lisence app is installed and if installed it checks the key from a database of the license app and checks for the validity of Lisence on the cloud
Sent from my GT-S5302 using Tapatalk 2
Hit Thanx Button if i helped you!
taomorpheus said:
Have you found a solution? I gave up on google security checks, it was too easy to hack. There is something more secure?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Piracy is a "fact of life" for software. And most anti-piracy measures tend to hurt legitimate paid customers (and the dev) more than the pirates.
If you have a good, useful app, those guys in China can hack almost anything. (No offense to China; no Play there, lower income and an anti-IP culture.)
There are a FEW successful devs who have gone to extra-ordinary lengths at the JNI level. I tested, but never turned any JNI anti-hacking code on, because with thousands of paid users on many weird phones and ROMs, I felt it would break for enough people to not be worth it.
If you have an app that needs a server connection, or data updates, and you have some kind of independent registration system, you have a chance too. But that can be a lot of work.
I'd rather spend my time making my app better and supporting customers. My app price is higher than many would like (but I have virtually no paid competition). And because my app is support intensive, I've taken the view that I'm selling support and convenient updates, not an app, so much.
I mostly verify people are customers before supporting them, do as good a job as I can, get good reviews, and people see there is value there for their money. And yes, I get tons of support requests from pirates. Some of them I've converted to customers.
And... regular updates to an app provides value. If pirates want the latest, they keep having to go look for it. (Or do I recall some pirate update service ?) Updates via Play are easy and that ease has value.
All the above said, I do get angry from time to time, mostly at people stealing my time IE support. And the idea of finding a highly effective anti-piracy measure is fascinating.
But almost none of us is without some sin in our life regarding music, movies or software downloading... So I think it's good to consider the pirates' perspectives. Effective antipiracy definitely drastically reduces the user base and the Internet knowledge base and familiarity, and its' questionable as to how much revenue might increase, if at all.
IE, piracy can be seen as free advertising, and an opportunity to show some pirates there are valid reasons why going legitimate might benefit them, or even reduce their guilt level. I've had a few people buy my app and apologize...
mikereidis said:
Piracy is a "fact of life" for software. And most anti-piracy measures tend to hurt legitimate paid customers (and the dev) more than the pirates.
If you have a good, useful app, those guys in China can hack almost anything. (No offense to China; no Play there, lower income and an anti-IP culture.)
There are a FEW successful devs who have gone to extra-ordinary lengths at the JNI level. I tested, but never turned any JNI anti-hacking code on, because with thousands of paid users on many weird phones and ROMs, I felt it would break for enough people to not be worth it.
If you have an app that needs a server connection, or data updates, and you have some kind of independent registration system, you have a chance too. But that can be a lot of work.
I'd rather spend my time making my app better and supporting customers. My app price is higher than many would like (but I have virtually no paid competition). And because my app is support intensive, I've taken the view that I'm selling support and convenient updates, not an app, so much.
I mostly verify people are customers before supporting them, do as good a job as I can, get good reviews, and people see there is value there for their money. And yes, I get tons of support requests from pirates. Some of them I've converted to customers.
And... regular updates to an app provides value. If pirates want the latest, they keep having to go look for it. (Or do I recall some pirate update service ?) Updates via Play are easy and that ease has value.
All the above said, I do get angry from time to time, mostly at people stealing my time IE support. And the idea of finding a highly effective anti-piracy measure is fascinating.
But almost none of us is without some sin in our life regarding music, movies or software downloading... So I think it's good to consider the pirates' perspectives. Effective antipiracy definitely drastically reduces the user base and the Internet knowledge base and familiarity, and its' questionable as to how much revenue might increase, if at all.
IE, piracy can be seen as free advertising, and an opportunity to show some pirates there are valid reasons why going legitimate might benefit them, or even reduce their guilt level. I've had a few people buy my app and apologize...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, this is my philosophy. I usually reply to all emails, build the app around the feedback from the community and try to fix all the issues. This permits to create a loyal group of users, and it's the reason why apps like Facebook Home are hated so much: they talk about building apps around people, but for them people is the product, so it's a fail from the beginning
After some considerations I have abandoned the idea to build an antipiracy system, the reason is in part related to your thoughts but also because the 60-70% of pirated versions come from nations like Burma, indonesia, etc etc. So I don't feel that someone is stealing, google play can't provide a service, so people react. The good thing is that despite the lack of a service, they try to use my apps, so that's good, right?
So, at the conclusion, the best antipiracy system is to not use an antipiracy system. Clearly it will be hard to be supported only by paying customers, but the majority accepts some ads if the product is good ( the important thing is to not include spammy and intrusive services, one banner or a full screen on time a day is sufficient).
Thank you for this reply, it's really important to know that there are good developers around! :highfive:
Have you tried google licensing?
taomorpheus said:
Hello guys,
are you one of the android developers pissed off by piracy?
I have about 4000 active illegal users (70%), but my app is without any security checks.
Have you found a solution? I gave up on google security checks, it was too easy to hack. There is something more secure?
I've done a lot of research, but I am searching also for some real experience by xda users.
Thank you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I am new to android development but I've read about google licensing services which checks for user account whether the app is actually purchased from that particular account associated with the user. If authentication fails then user gets a blocking dialog to either exit the app or purchase it from play store.
dbroid said:
Hi,
I am new to android development but I've read about google licensing services which checks for user account whether the app is actually purchased from that particular account associated with the user. If authentication fails then user gets a blocking dialog to either exit the app or purchase it from play store.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cracker can easily remove IF and your won't ask to buy it.
There should be VMProtect or Themida like tool for android
GR0S said:
Cracker can easily remove IF and your won't ask to buy it.
There should be VMProtect or Themida like tool for android
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was hacked not long after its launch.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2010/0...on-easily-circumvented-will-not-stop-pirates/
taomorpheus said:
After some considerations I have abandoned the idea to build an antipiracy system, the reason is in part related to your thoughts but also because the 60-70% of pirated versions come from nations like Burma, indonesia, etc etc. So I don't feel that someone is stealing, google play can't provide a service, so people react. The good thing is that despite the lack of a service, they try to use my apps, so that's good, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. Most pirates can't afford the app or wouldn't buy it anyway. I also think that many pirates and those who felt "forced" to buy a protected app are bad customers. They will spread their bad feelings about the app and the "greedy dev".
And many have a sense of entitlement, so they make demands, expect lots of support, complain and write bad reviews. They project their own faults on others, and always assume others are trying to rip THEM off. Some have told me they were "testing" my app, because they were worried about getting ripped off if it didn't work (despite my free version and anytime cancel policy).
Better not to have such customers. These are the same people who think they are more important than everybody else and cheat in traffic and lineups etc.
taomorpheus said:
So, at the conclusion, the best antipiracy system is to not use an antipiracy system. Clearly it will be hard to be supported only by paying customers, but the majority accepts some ads if the product is good ( the important thing is to not include spammy and intrusive services, one banner or a full screen on time a day is sufficient).
Thank you for this reply, it's really important to know that there are good developers around! :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For most of us small devs, yes. Things may be different for certain apps, such as those that need a backend server, and for multi-person companies.
You can also promote that your app is "DRM free". That's definitely a plus, especially to custom ROM users who may avoid using Google Play.
I tried ads for a few months in 2011. The "CPM" rates started good, but quickly dropped to almost nothing. I think it's very hard to make money from ads, unless your app has a million users, and they are more "average" people who might click on the ads, accidentally or not.
I think it's usually better to raise app price as high as you can. I experimented a lot for many months between $1 and $10, usually keeping price constant for at least 2-3 weeks. I, and some others, have found that total income remains somewhat constant no matter what the price, LOL.
Now I've left price at the high end, so I can provide the best support possible, by limiting sales quantity. Some people think we should "make it up in volume", but that's a self-serving wish of the person who wants it cheaper. High volume might be viable if you provide zero technical support though.
What I'd say in terms of pirate stuff is to not try too hard on the software level (though I might write a guide on a few useful methods and pieces of code to prevent the usual circumvention methods) but on the upload level. When you release a new version, wait a couple of days and then search for a pirate version of your app. If you find one, report it, they're usually down in about 5 minutes. The more often you do this, the more likely people are to search, find all the links are "dead" and then just think "stuff it, I'll just buy it". However, this will only work on people who can buy it and are using pirate versions because they wish to, not because they have to
Quinny899 said:
What I'd say in terms of pirate stuff is to not try too hard on the software level (though I might write a guide on a few useful methods and pieces of code to prevent the usual circumvention methods) but on the upload level. When you release a new version, wait a couple of days and then search for a pirate version of your app. If you find one, report it, they're usually down in about 5 minutes. The more often you do this, the more likely people are to search, find all the links are "dead" and then just think "stuff it, I'll just buy it". However, this will only work on people who can buy it and are using pirate versions because they wish to, not because they have to
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because they'd PREFER not to spend money, if possible. In most areas of life, that's what most of us do.
Last I looked, this was the best Android cracking site: http://androidcracking.blogspot.ca/ . I read everything there twice before I started experimenting with protection code. If nothing else, it gives a glimpse of how hard it is to protect a popular app well.
I sent DMCA takedown requests to a few sites some time ago, but it's an endless task, and IMO not worth it, unless your app is VERY niche/has relatively few users. I've been "honored" to have my app included in several Torrents full of Android apps. Some of those Torrents are updated regularly.
I will still notify XDA admins if there's a link or offending ROM on XDA. XDA mods take it seriously.
Some companies will put out their own "pirate" fake or crippled versions of movies, and app devs could do the same. Perhaps have endless popups offering to buy the app legitimately. I personally wouldn't bother (at this time) but it could work. I agree that making piracy a hassle may improve sales a bit.
LOL, I just re-looked and see 3 on isohunt that are my app alone, but they are older. If I have time for "fun" later this year I should (1) start my own torrents, (2) collect IP addresses, and... I dunno; don't seriously want to be a copyright troll; rather design & develop.
Vulnerability Allows Attackers to Modify Android Apps Without Breaking Their Signatures
This might be the reason why the new MF2 and ME6 are not downgradable and why the 4.2.2 update was delayed.
Source->http://www.cio.com/article/735878/V...ndroid_Apps_Without_Breaking_Their_Signatures
IDG News Service — A vulnerability that has existed in Android for the past four years can allow hackers to modify any legitimate and digitally signed application in order to transform it into a Trojan program that can be used to steal data or take control of the OS.
Researchers from San Francisco mobile security startup firm Bluebox Security found the flaw and plan to present it in greater detail at the Black Hat USA security conference in Las Vegas later this month.
The vulnerability stems from discrepancies in how Android apps are cryptographically verified, allowing an attacker to modify application packages (APKs) without breaking their cryptographic signatures.
When an application is installed and a sandbox is created for it, Android records the application's digital signature, said Bluebox Chief Technology Officer Jeff Forristal. All subsequent updates for that application need to match its signature in order to verify that they came from the same author, he said.
This is important for the Android security model because it ensures that sensitive data stored by one application in its sandbox can only be accessed by new versions of that application that are signed with the original author's key.
The vulnerability identified by the Bluebox researchers effectively allows attackers to add malicious code to already signed APKs without breaking their signatures.
The vulnerability has existed since at least Android 1.6, code named Donut, which means that it potentially affects any Android device released during the last four years, the Bluebox researchers said Wednesday in a blog post.
"Depending on the type of application, a hacker can exploit the vulnerability for anything from data theft to creation of a mobile botnet," they said.
The vulnerability can also be exploited to gain full system access if the attacker modifies and distributes an app originally developed by the device manufacturer that's signed with the platform key -- the key that manufacturers use to sign the device firmware.
"You can update system components if the update has the same signature as the platform," Forristal said. The malicious code would then gain access to everything -- all applications, data, accounts, passwords and networks. It would basically control the whole device, he said.
Attackers can use a variety of methods to distribute such Trojan apps, including sending them via email, uploading them to a third-party app store, hosting them on any website, copying them to the targeted devices via USB and more.
Some of these methods, especially the one involving third-party app stores, are already being used to distribute Android malware.
Using Google Play to distribute apps that have been modified to exploit this flaw is not possible because Google updated the app store's application entry process in order to block apps that contain this problem, Forristal said. The information received by Bluebox from Google also suggests that no existing apps from the app store have this problem, he said.
However, if an attacker tricks a user to manually install a malicious update for an app originally installed through Google Play, the app will be replaced and the new version will no longer interact with the app store. That's the case for all applications or new versions of applications, malicious or non-malicious, that are not installed through Google Play, Forristal said.
Google was notified of the vulnerability in February and the company shared the information with their partners, including the members of the Open Handset Alliance, at the beginning of March, Forristal said. It is now up to those partners to decide what their update release plans will be, he said.
Forristal confirmed that one third party device, the Samsung Galaxy S4, already has the fix, which indicates that some device manufacturers have already started releasing patches. Google has not released patches for its Nexus devices yet, but the company is working on them, he said.
Google declined to comment on the matter and the Open Handset Alliance did not respond to a request for comment.
The availability of firmware updates for this issue will differ across device models, manufacturers and mobile carriers.
Whether a combination of device manufacturers and carriers, which play an important role in the distribution of updates, coincide to believe that there is justification for a firmware update is extremely variable and depends on their business needs, Forristal said. "Ideally it would be great if everyone, everywhere, would release an update for a security problem, but the practical reality is that it doesn't quite work that way, he said."
The slow distribution of patches in the Android ecosystem has long been criticized by both security researchers and Android users. Mobile security firm Duo Security estimated last September, based on statistics gathered through its X-Ray Android vulnerability assessment app, that more than half of Android devices are vulnerable to at least one of the known Android security flaws.
Judging by Android's patch distribution history so far, the vulnerability found by the Bluebox researchers will probably linger on many devices for a long time, especially since it likely affects a lot of models that have reached end-of-life and are no longer supported.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really thought more people would be interested in knowing this. I would really like to know what you guys think about this.
Key phrase here is "for apps not installed through the google store". Hence not an issue for a large fraction of users. Total case of FUD. Someone must be wanting to sell some av software.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Kremata said:
I really thought more people would be interested in knowing this. I would really like to know what you guys think about this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, X-Ray scanner either does not detect this latest security flaw or N7100 (as of DM6) is allready patched.
Kremata said:
I really thought more people would be interested in knowing this. I would really like to know what you guys think about this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the first link I found for XDA on this.
I think it's not that interesting because it's old, old news and exactly why it's being touted as a "new" discovery is beyond me, it's far from new.
We here at XDA have been using this method for years to modify stock Android and OEM system apps with great success. Here's an example by me from 2011: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=994544 there's a literally hundreds of examples all over XDA.
The real question here is how Bluebox security got everybody to act as a PR machine for them. If they turn up at Black Hat with this "amazing discovery" they're going to get laughed off the stage.
djmcnz said:
This is the first link I found for XDA on this.
I think it's not that interesting because it's old, old news and exactly why it's being touted as a "new" discovery is beyond me, it's far from new.
We here at XDA have been using this method for years to modify stock Android and OEM system apps with great success. Here's an example by me from 2011: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=994544 there's a literry hundreds of examples all over XDA.
The real question here is how Bluebox security got everybody to act as a PR machine for them. If they turn up at Black Hat with this "amazing discovery" they're going to get laughed off the stage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh! Thats the answer I was waiting for (and from a Recognized Developer). I knew XDA Devs were using this method. My new question is.. If they fix it will it be harder to create Mods? Will it slow down development?
Shouldn't this be posted in the generals forum?
Kremata said:
If they fix it will it be harder to create Mods? Will it slow down development?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suspect so. If they fix it properly it would become impossible to change any aspect of the app without signing it again. If you wanted to maintain compatibility with the original then you'd need the developer's keys.
At the moment really only the manifest and some metadata within the apk is signed, if they extended that to the entire contents of the apk many mods (think themes for stock Google apps etc) are screwed unless users are happy to relinquish Play Store links and updates (i.e. backward compatibility).
Google may not go this far and may only choose to authenticate the code (smali) rather than all of the apk contents (graphics, strings etc), this approach would leave room for some mods to survive. Remains to be seen.
I've just published my game to Google Play Store and was thinking of purchasing some advertising or pay per install ads. Anyone has any experience using Facebook ads, Admob, appbrain or other ad networks? What would you recommend. I do not have a large budget, for a start I am planning to spend around USD100.
Digitally said:
I've just published my game to Google Play Store and was thinking of purchasing some advertising or pay per install ads. Anyone has any experience using Facebook ads, Admob, appbrain or other ad networks? What would you recommend. I do not have a large budget, for a start I am planning to spend around USD100.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No experience with ads yet. I was recommended Facebook Lookalike Audience but we'll continue on our own up until 10k users. My fear would be to get a mass of users and disappoint them. Growing 100 at a time provides a good feedback loop to improve the app. Might use the Lookalike Audience then! Good luck!
Digitally said:
I've just published my game to Google Play Store and was thinking of purchasing some advertising or pay per install ads. Anyone has any experience using Facebook ads, Admob, appbrain or other ad networks? What would you recommend. I do not have a large budget, for a start I am planning to spend around USD100.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am also interested in this topic. I have a free app with a paid (no ads) counterpart. I was considering using any of the services that charge per install (CPI) on the paid app. If the cost per install is lower than 70% of the price of your app, then that investment would be risk-free.
Has anyone tried something like that? Would you recommend any service in particular? (Ideally, the ones that do not require SDKs to be added to the app, I don't want to add crapware to my app).
Digitally said:
I've just published my game to Google Play Store and was thinking of purchasing some advertising or pay per install ads. Anyone has any experience using Facebook ads, Admob, appbrain or other ad networks? What would you recommend. I do not have a large budget, for a start I am planning to spend around USD100.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The budget normally starts from $10000. I don't think $100 generates significant data and downloads to help you make further decisions considering that average CPI is about $1.
Reply From A Guy That Knows The Data
Digitally said:
I've just published my game to Google Play Store and was thinking of purchasing some advertising or pay per install ads. Anyone has any experience using Facebook ads, Admob, appbrain or other ad networks? What would you recommend. I do not have a large budget, for a start I am planning to spend around USD100.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great question! While I cannot, and will not give you numbers or estimates in any shape or form, I can give you broad and general advice.
First off, I'll explain my background in a bit more detail. I worked in advertising sales for years at the top companies, and then moved into the mobile app space (I am also a secret coder by night.) I then spent two years working in the mobile app data space - providing performance data in the form of estimates for downloads/revenue. Our job was to sell our vast data sets (on every mobile app and publisher - ranked and un-ranked) which were centered around accurate estimates for downloads/revenue for any given app in every category/subcat, and country for iOS and GP. We worked with mid-market and top publishers to help them forecast how many installs they would need to purchase to reach top rank, how many organic installs they would receive at that rank, and how many installs they would have to purchase on an ongoing basis to maintain that rank.
Based on my experiences, truth be told, most publishers that are actual companies (not small indie or single shop guys)....they are buying downloads. This is not to say that strong marketing campaigns don't come with this (PR, promotions, social media, viral, cross-promotional ads to existing user base, etc.), but in some way or another, most of them will be buying ads. Here is the caveat - it is not a simple process, at all. They have analysts that know exactly how much money they make off of one download....for instance...they know that for every download on xyz game, they make $2.30, and their CPI is $1.95, thus, their actual net rev is $.35 per install. However, this is all also centered around growth potential as well...so in many cases, they need to hit the top ranks for organic growth to generate higher profit margins, so they need accurate forecasting of exactly/roughly how many installs it's going to take to get there...and if they come up short, they don't make top charts and they either have to spend more money to climb up...or they're out of budget and they've lost $$$. Basically, if you want to buy ads...you need to set realistic goals, and understand what the value of your user is...from a financial standpoint. You must know your numbers cold before even considering putting a budget towards ads.
That being said, there are a ton of ways to buy ads out there, as I'm sure you and everyone knows. However, if you do get around to doing some solid analysis on what your users are worth, and want to run some testing with a low budget...nothing to break the bank...I would A) Go with a reputable company, even if the CPI/CPA is higher than you'd like....because you want to avoid fraudulent DL's....many ad networks will turn a blind eye to this for obvious financial reasons, and B) Try Facebook....honestly, I've spoken to many smaller developers that find a fair CPI/CPA, with pretty good ROI and retention.
Hope this helps - KNOW YOUR NUMBERS AND ALWAYS LOOK TO THE DATA
~Geo_Mojito
Some interesting data we are gathering at Thalamus.co, where we have the average CPI rates & Install Volumes of each network broken out by genre/platform/country. There are also contacts and minimum spends so should give you a good sense of what's out there.
A $100 budget is not too large, so it'd be hard to give you a definitive answer as to which network has basically no minimums (unless you want to work with a mobile self-serve DSP like PocketMath). Facebook would be a good place to start, although prices are at a premium due to high demand. I'd suggest really going all in on free methods like PR, reaching out to Bloggers, ASO, Social Fan Pages, Organic/Viral Installs, and Partnerships first.
My experience:
1) Social Networks advertising. I promoted it personally, it was tooooo long and without big results.
2) Youtube videos. Not bad, but you have to attract users to watch your videos and invite their friends to install your app.
3) Buying the marketing services in agencies. I have experience with several agencies, but App-Reviews has the best, I think.
4) Use different tools for advertising. I used AdMob, it had some success...
Digitally said:
I've just published my game to Google Play Store and was thinking of purchasing some advertising or pay per install ads. Anyone has any experience using Facebook ads, Admob, appbrain or other ad networks? What would you recommend. I do not have a large budget, for a start I am planning to spend around USD100.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After advertising services you can try some low budget app promotion services too. My personal choice is AppRankPRO . why is because it gives the proof of each and every install of the genuine real user and free keyword analysis services too. I think you can have a look at AppRankPRO