Airpush are quite happy to support developers who want to deceive their users.
Live Chat Transcript:
Me: What are your guidelines for notifying end-users about notification area ads?
You are now speaking with Lisa of Sales.
Lisa: Hello
Me: Hi
Lisa: Welcome to Airpush Lisa: Are you a developer or advertiser?
Me: developer
Lisa: Great Lisa: Regarding your question, you can which users will receive your ad and that too how often Lisa: adjust*
Me: How does a user know which app is sending the ads?
Lisa: It will be reflecting your developer's dashboard once you start listing your apps
Me: i.e. User X updates a dozen apps and suddenly starts getting notification ads. How do they know which app is creating them? Me: I'm talking about end users here Me: not developers or advertisers
Lisa: ok Lisa: There is an API key through which you can control the user engagements Lisa: by a push notofication ad
Me: I don't understand how that sentence relates to my question.
Lisa: in this case, the users will receive the ad any time an ad is pushed to a device, whether or not the user actually views the ad or not.
Me: I asked how a user knows which app triggered an ad.
Me: are ads labelled with the originating app name?
Lisa: He will be receiving it in a push notification tray
Me: are ads labelled with the originating app name?
Lisa: Just give me a moment. let me check
Me: To repeat an earlier example - User X updates a dozen apps and suddenly starts getting notification ads. How do they know which app is creating them?
Lisa: for each app they need to setup airpush sdk so they will get the report data in their airpush controlpanel
Me: That doesn't answer my question. Do you understand what I'm asking you? Me: Imagine I am a user. Me: I install several apps and one of them contains Airpush. Me: I suddenly get notification ads and want to know which app is creating them. How can I tell? Me: Are you still there?
Lisa: It depends on the app setting and cannot control that Lisa: And the ads are not labelled with the originating app name?
Me: If a user dislikes the ads - is there any way for him to know which app caused it? I'm worried I'll get bad ratings.
Lisa: No Lisa: The user will not know
Me: Hopefully users won't know it's my app that's doing it so they won't uninstall my app.
Lisa: No don't worry about that. Lisa: Here you can also benefit through inactive users as you can configure your settings to deliver ads to users who haven't used an app for X days
Me: And they won't know it's me?
Lisa: No not at all.
Me: Cool. Me: OK. You seem quite happy to support developers who knowingly spam their users. Do you mind if I publish a transcript of this conversation so other people can see how little regard you have for end-users? Me: Hopefully it will hasten the speed at which your nasty company goes out of business
Lisa: Surely it will not.
Me: It's a very revealing conversation.
Me: Thank-you for being so candid.
Lisa: But I believe we maintain our privacy
Me: Who's privacy?
Lisa: And as long as we receive good responses, we will definitely look up to everyone's reputation
Me: Do you receive good responses from end-users?
Lisa: Yes definitely.
Me: Like all the users of APN Droid who have been leaving 1 star reviews and complaints on the Market?
Lisa: Anyways you can download our SDK and start listing your apps if you are happy with it.
---------------------- Your party has left this session. ----------------------
29 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 50.1 ms ] threadI love Android, and I don't want it to be known to the general public as the virus and spyware ridden OS on smartphones.
Sure, it makes sense that you need one, given that it's essentially a small computer, but apps that make it into the official market place or one that's held in high regard should screen apps for exactly this type of behaviour.
Wait, why isn't Canonical already on this?
Because this isn't innovation, it is exploitation.
Printer drivers seem to be nothing more than a sick in-joke as to who can make the biggest, most useless pieces of software.
Plenty of business models require that the user trade a negative benefit for a positive benefit. To succeed, you just have to ensure the net value to the user is positive. Yes, new ways of advertising are jarring at first, but some people will buy into it and adoption and acceptance start from there.
The company singled out here is clearly implementing this concept very poorly and possibly causing irreparable damage to this new advertising method, but it's the company's approach that is problematic, not the method itself.
Some users give bad ratings to many types of ad units, including rich media ads and full page interstitials. That doesn't mean a developer should avoid them.
As long as you don't implement this, you are being disingenuous.
Not that I really care that much, to be honest: I bet that AirPush will shut down and be completely forgotten in a matter of months.
I also had a conversation with "matt" from airpush when this story broke on reddit.
http://pastebin.com/c8cpd5H8
Needless to say, they've done nothing to refresh their image in the Android community's eyes.
At Airpush developers are required to put a notice on their Details page in the Android Market. Also, when an Airpush ad is sent to the device, the icon used in the notification bar is your App's icon.
Link - http://www.airpush.com/faq/#can-users-determine-which-app-is...
With this change, as a user would you find Airpush as an acceptable monetization option for the developer? This makes it purely a user's choice.
Please note we have already offered a "Permissions API" which many developers are using to create their own opt-in and opt-out procedures, but we are now taking the additional step of FORCING it in our SDK.
Comments are much appreciated.
As an aside, I installed the test application on the marketplace to experience my default notification sound at the same time as the alert was pushed. Cluttering my notification tray is one (undesired) thing, but the sound just pushed it over the top. Is that the behavior the ads will take as well?
I respect trying to push monetization of free apps in a new direction, but I also consider my notification bar to be sacred. Even one additional useless (to me) notification means I trust the rest of them just a little bit less. With moving toward Priority Inbox for gmail, and turning off most other notifications, I would be quite disappointed to realize an application I installed was cluttering it with ads.
Can't we agree that user choice is the best option here? Or would you only be happy if the entire concept was eradicated? The latter doesn't make sense to me.
"Check this box to install malware: X"
For me, AirPush is in that category.
Come on asherisaac, be honest and imagine that you leave the company you work for so you can assess its business model more objectively: do you still think it's okay? Honestly?
We believe that with a solid opt-in in place, users should be able to support the developer by receiving Airpush ads.
Our mistake was we gave full control to the developers to build custom opt-in and opt-out using our Permissions API, whereas going forward we will FORCE a standardized opt-in dialog box.
you've already enraged the community who builds apps, so your forthcoming ban from the marketplace might not even be necessary
i'm personally hoping Google takes a section from the ToS you've undoubtedly breached and sues you into oblivion