作者：James Brightman

几周前，PocketGamer.biz的工作人员发现苹果的应用审查政策中出现了一个有趣的新条款，而这一条款也暴露了苹果试图约束各大开发商推广应用的想法。从表面看来苹果只是针对于应用推广服务而非游戏开发商，但是不管怎样，苹果的这一新条款终会让一些游戏开发商的App Store推广活动陷入僵局。

app store(from alibuybuy)

有趣的是接受GamesIndustry International采访的开发商不仅未对此表示担忧，反而还支持苹果对于App Store的持续管理行为。

Involution Studios的创始人兼总裁Dirk Knemeyer解释道：“从20世纪70年代以来苹果始终都遵循着这一模式在开展业务。即他们的业务模式便是将所有人固定在一个严格控制且专有的生态系统中。他们只会将开放性应用于能够为自己谋利的区域中，并在之后施加更严格的控制。我们不应该对此感到惊讶。因为正是执行了这种严格的管理方法才使得苹果能够提供比其它竞争对手更优秀的产品和服务。而这种控制也不是随时都能让我们受益。如今，转向更高层面的控制是他们已经明确的业务模式，也是一非常重要的模式。”

Woo Games的首席执行官Ernest Woo补充道：“我们仍然在计划着将《ErnCon》推向Flurry，Tapjoy以及Chartboost等平台上，以此把握住交叉推广这一机遇。而如果苹果开始约束应用开发商在交叉推广时所使用的软件工具开发包，我们也只能通过创新去走出这种困境了！”PlayScreen的首席文化官William Volk也表示并不担心苹果对于应用推广服务的限制，他认为这与App Store本身的改革没有多大差别。苹果的这种限制与微软改变控制面板的决定非常相似——微软平台后来更难以找到独立游戏的身影。而如果苹果始终突显某些应用类别，这一新的App Store设计便不可能发挥功效。

Volk叹气道：“对于广发开发商来说，新的App Store所存在的一大问题便是不再突显任何游戏类别，即使开发商愿意花钱为游戏在子目录中赢得了一个席位，它的作用也将大不如前。用户必须多次点击才能到达某一类别，并且当你到达那一类别时你也只能看到1款应用，而不是25款。除此之外，广告选择也将被局限在更加传统的广告模式中，如iAd，插页式广告和视频等。”

也许Bolt Creative的联合创始人Dave Castelnuovo能够有效地概括这一情形。Castelnuovo清楚苹果和开发商各自的关注焦点。苹果希望能够维持App Store的完整性，而开发商们则希望在此进行应用推广。最后，Castelnuovo认为苹果对于App Store的管理是合理且有效的，游戏开发商们应该支持这种管理。

以下便是他对此的完整回应：

“看了这个条款，我就很清楚了。苹果只是要对那些看似“应用商店”的应用（这些应用中含有其他应用的列表，其唯一目的是通过这种广告联盟或推广计划盈利）加以限制。这一条款并不适用于那些非推广性应用或者只是通过动态消息推广应用的产品。否则苹果就会直接封杀所有的手机广告了。”

“我很难对这一做法做出评价。可以说每一方都有自己的有力论据，但如果走极端的话，两方面都有可能对苹果生态系统带来不利影响。”

“苹果始终都在强调应用排行的完整性。他们希望位列榜首的应用能够名副其实，是用户真正喜欢的应用。如果应用排名出现了不实情况，他们就有必要对此进行整顿，他们希望通过能力，功能以及排序法则等元素为用户创造一个更有价值的排名。”

“而应用推广服务则会妨碍到他们的这一努力。也许大多数情况下这种推广服务不会带来多大的影响，但是每次当这种服务出现时，App Store中的排行顺序便会完全脱离苹果的控制。Tapjoy便是首个例子，即Tapjoy允许开发者花钱获得排行榜榜首的位置，并因此大大伤害了消费者的利益。如今，随着完全免费的推广模式的盛行，这些应用将以一种难以阻挡的态势影响着苹果的App Store。”

“另一方面，苹果的这一做法将促使开发商们更加专注于应用检索效能，并更加努力地将自己的应用推向大众。如果你剥夺了开发商的营销和推广能力，他们便只能乖乖地听凭苹果支配。只有当自己的应用出现在排行榜单上，开发商才能获得销售利益，而只有当苹果愿意推荐他们的应用，这些应用才有可能出现在排行榜单上。”

“我们所面临的是两种极端的情况，但是我相信其中肯定存在着中间立场。如果苹果完全终止了所有的推广活动，必然会对整个生态系统造成消极影响。而如果应用门户允许各大公司通过付钱去决定应用排名，这也将不利于生态系统的发展。在这种极端情况中存在着一种权衡方法，我想苹果肯定清楚这一点，但是他们却仍然希望通过推出这一新条款去制约那些导致排行榜单出现异常值的行为。如果你所创造的是一款利用应用商店的数据并以不同形式重新装配而成的应用，你便有可能因为苹果的这一调整而遭受重创。如果你拥有的是一款强大的促销型应用，即通过花钱将其推上排行榜顶端位置，你便也会因此受创。而如果你所创造的是拥有一定附加值的应用门户，能够提供应用商店所没有的服务并强化生态系统，那么即使你必须遭遇几个月的茫然与排挤，你终将能够找到一种最适合自己的应用发行方法。”

“我还必须强调的是，有时候苹果推出这种条款只是为了警示开发商，不一定带有强制性，除非事态发展已经完全超出了他们的控制范围。”

“最后，如果你的业务策略是围绕着创造一个发现门户或推广服务，你就必须搞清楚你真正面对的什么。苹果将在最有利的时机改变它所提供的发展空间。就像OpenFeint，Plus+以及Tapjoy所做的那样。你当然可以尽己所能地赚钱，但是你也必须清楚，如果你的运营模式有损苹果利益（或者用户利益），苹果有可能随时封杀你的业务。”

“我认为从长远角度来看应用商店的管理是非常有利的。这也是为何应用在苹果App Store中能够比在Android平台上更为成功的最大原因。”

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Why Apple’s tight App Store management is a good thing

By James Brightman

We speak with iOS developers about Apple clamping down on third-party app promotion

A little over a week ago, the folks at PocketGamer.biz discovered an interesting new clause in Apple’s App Review Guidelines, which could indicate Apple’s intent to restrict any app that promotes titles from a different developer. It’s likely that Apple is simply targeting app promotion services, and not game developers themselves, but depending on if/how Apple enforces the new clause, some game makers could have a hard time getting the promotion they need in the App Store.

Interestingly, the developers GamesIndustry International chatted with were either not worried about it or were even in favor of Apple’s continual management of the App Store.

“Apple has done business this way since the 1970s. Their business model is to lock people into tightly controlled, proprietary ecosystems. They use openness only to the point that it benefits them, then increasingly clamp down with further controls. We shouldn’t be surprised by it. This frankly Draconian approach is also why they provide products and ecosystems that are generally superior to their competition. They take control; sometimes it is to our benefit and sometimes it isn’t. This is just the latest example of shifting toward a greater degree of control now that their business model is established and predominant,” explained Dirk Knemeyer, Founder & Chairman, Involution Studios.

“I don’t think it’s cause for great concern,” added Ernest Woo, CEO, Woo Games. “We’re still planning to ship ErnCon with Flurry, Tapjoy, and Chartboost integrated for cross-promotion opportunities. If Apple clamps down on use of such SDKs for cross-promotion then us app developers will just have to get creative!”
William Volk, CCO of PlayScreen, isn’t worried about the app promotion services clamp down as much as the overhaul of the App Store itself. Similar to when Microsoft revamped the dashboard and it became harder to find indie games, the new App Store design doesn’t play nice with giving categories prominence.

“The bigger issue is that categories are now buried in the new App Store, so that even if you did ‘buy’ placement into a sub category of games, it’s not going to matter as much as it used to. It takes far more clicks to even get to a category — and when you get there, you’ll see ONE app instead of 25,” Volk lamented. “Ad options are likely to be limited to more conventional advertising, such as iAds, interstitials and video.”

The situation is perhaps best summed up by Dave Castelnuovo, co-founder of Bolt Creative. Castelnuovo understands the concerns from both Apple’s perspective and from developers. Apple wants to be able to maintain the integrity of its App Store, but developers would like to have a chance at least of some promotion. In the end, Castelnuovo sees the App Store management as a positive that game makers should welcome.

Here’s his full response:

“From reading the clause, it’s clear to me, that Apple only has an issue with apps that look like an ‘app store’ – apps that have lists of other apps where their sole goal is to make money through the affiliate program or in promoting apps for money. It doesn’t apply to a non-promotional app that is just promoting another app through their news feed. Otherwise they would have to ban all mobile advertising.”

“This is a tough issue to comment on. Each side has a valid point and taken to extremes, both sides can be bad for the ecosystem.”

“Apple is mainly concerned with the integrity of their app rankings. They want the top spots to go to the apps that are most deserving, the ones that users actually enjoy. If it looks like the rank lists are getting stagnant and it would be a better service to users to shake things up, they want the ability, through features and ranking algorithms, to make it so users find more value in the listings.”

“App promotion services can interfere with these efforts. Not always, most of the time they make such a minimal impact that it really doesn’t matter, but every now and then a service comes along that has the power to radically shape the rank lists outside of Apple’s control. Tapjoy was the first example of this and I agree that services like Tapjoy, which allow developers to buy their way into the top of these lists, is a disservice to consumers. Nowadays, with the whole freemium promotion craziness, I think that these apps, as a whole, are starting to make an impact that Apple can’t manage.”

“On the other side, you have developers with legitimate concerns about discoverability and getting their app out to the masses. If you take away their ability to effectively market and promote themselves, then they are at the mercy of Apple. They can’t get sales unless they appear on a rank list, and they can’t appear on a rank list unless Apple features them.”

“Despite these two extremes, I think there is middle ground between the two. If Apple completely shuts down all promotion, it’s bad for the ecosystem. If App portals get so powerful that they sway the rankings in favor of the companies that pay the most, it’s bad for the ecosystem. But somewhere in the middle there is the right balance, I think Apple knows this but they are trying to publish a clause that they can use against the outliers that overly game the system. If you are an app that just grabs data from the app store and repackages it in a slightly different format, then you are probably hosed. If you have a really powerful promotion app that people can use to buy their way to the top, then you are also probably hosed. However, if you are an app portal that has some kind of added value, that provides a service that the app store doesn’t provide and in general enhances the ecosystem, it’s probably going to be a rough couple months of uncertainty and maybe a couple rejections, but I’m sure the rule will eventually be clarified and there will be a way to keep publishing your app.”

“And by the way, sometimes Apple posts these clauses as a warning to developers but doesn’t enforce it unless it continues to get out of hand.”

“At the end of the day, if you have a business strategy that revolves around creating a discoverability portal or promotion service, you have to know what you are getting yourself into. Apple has and will change the playing field whenever they feel it best serves their interests. Look at OpenFeint, Plus+, and Tapjoy. Make money while you can, but just know that Apple can (and should if it hurts consumers) shut down your business model at any moment.”

“My opinion is that management of the app store is a good thing in the long run. This is the biggest reason why apps are so much more successful in the Apple App Store than on Android.”(source:gamesindustry.biz)