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。
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。
“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。”
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)