It's awesome that they didn't want to engage in predatory behavior, but what they did was self-predatory, which is no better! The opposite of exploitative game design isn't a life of asceticism; it's value for money.
I'm not a big gamer, but on the first page of my phone's springboard I count $300+ of apps, some of which have ongoing subscription costs. That's money that I paid because I got value. I'm happy with every one of those purchases, no developer starvation required!
One objection I take to your post is that I don't believe the narrative that the App Store is just a lottery. As an example, Tripit raised $7m, built an app that makes my life better, charges me $40/yr, and sold to a corporate buyer for $120m. That's a fantastic, real business.
On the flip side, these guys built an app with ARPU of $0.013.
Tripit didn't win a lottery; they provided big value and got paid because of it.
Tripit and every other VC-backed company is in a completely different business than indie devs making apps. The product that companies like Tripit are selling, right from the beginning, is the company itself, not some free or cheap app. The app is just a marketing vehicle to increase the price of the company.
The amazing thing is that PG himself has been clearly saying this for years. And we still refuse to accept it!
Blindly copying VC-funded startups' surface tactics is the second leading cause of indie developer homelessness.
If you are in the business of business, you've got to sell. Successful entrepreneurs, whether VC-funded or bootstrapped, know how to sell.
If you are funded, it would be stupid to try and do anything that doesn't increase the valuation of your company. The best founders know how to weave a compelling story, and are always selling their company. Always.
The most successful bootstrapped entrepreneurs are always selling their product. Notice how patio11 does not miss an opportunity to somehow weave in a mention of one of his products, while still coming across as the most helpful guy ever (because he is). And when he's blogging about SEO and other useful stuff for other entrepreneurs? He's selling his consultancy services.
If you're not selling, it's not a business. It's a hobby.
You don't sell, but you promote your expertise and your personal brand for consulting, and offhandedly refer to how successful you are, with a indirect touch that is less off-putting and generates a bit of subtle mystique about "how does he do it? what is he talking about?"
A famous patio11-esque statement is a comment like "If you think that's a good sales technique, you don't understand the mindset of middle-aged schoolteachers" (while not repeating the fact that you market a product to that specific demographic.)
Can't fault that much. It would be extremely sacrificial to complete avoid saying "BCC" at all or ever mentioning that you generate X-figure returns for your consulting gigs, and spammily redundant to re-explain the whole Bingo Card business in every post.
You give away far more honest value (good, detailed advice) than you take away in "promotional references", contrasted against link-litter posts like this:
You are like a human Google, giving away good, in-depth information, with a side of context-relevant promotion for your consulting business, but the information is valuable even without "clicking to learn the secret" or "buying the book". If all advertising were like that, the Internet would be a much nicer place.
He's already written why that'll never happen, but I'm on his mailing list and I suspect him of building up the steam to leverage that financially. It'll likely be repeat-sales oriented and have a greater-than-$10 customer lifetime value. I can't wait to be fleeced, because at least we know he'll be focused on providing me with value.
Wow. I don't like this comment at all. I have been following Patrick's online participation when there was no Hacker News and all geeks (including Patrick) used to hang out at Business of Software forum (at JOS). I can definitely say that he genuinely likes to share his knowledge and help others out. I really don't think he is getting any BCC or AR customers through his participation in these forums.
If they had not sold the company they could have just kept running on the revenues and distributing dividends back to the owners. That's a lot different than a business that needs to "sell or die."
I'm not a big gamer, but on the first page of my phone's springboard I count $300+ of apps, some of which have ongoing subscription costs. That's money that I paid because I got value. I'm happy with every one of those purchases, no developer starvation required!
One objection I take to your post is that I don't believe the narrative that the App Store is just a lottery. As an example, Tripit raised $7m, built an app that makes my life better, charges me $40/yr, and sold to a corporate buyer for $120m. That's a fantastic, real business.
On the flip side, these guys built an app with ARPU of $0.013.
Tripit didn't win a lottery; they provided big value and got paid because of it.