Jump to content

[TOPIC: topicViewTemplate]
[GLOBAL: userSmallPhoto]
Photo

Facebook Audience Network - Corona revenue share?
Started by PXL artificer Jan 14 2016 07:07 PM

66 replies to this topic
[TOPIC CONTROLS]
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
[/TOPIC CONTROLS]
[modOptionsDropdown]
[/modOptionsDropdown]
[reputationFilter]
[TOPIC: post.html]
#26

roj

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
roj
  • Observer

  • 27 posts
  • Corona Staff

ubj3d.android, your calculation is correct.  you will make $346,750.



[TOPIC: post.html]
#27

dmglakewood

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
dmglakewood
  • Contributor

  • 395 posts
  • Corona SDK

ubj3d.android, your calculation is correct.  you will make $346,750.

This to me is disturbing because please don't take this the wrong way but corona sdk doesn't provide any value to me. I can make the same apps in a handful of other languages that are either truly free, charge a 1 time fee or charge a 1 time yearly fee that is much less then the thousands if not hundreds of thousands I would have to give you guys. I like corona, don't get me wrong but I like corona for like 1k a year above that I have no problem liking some other framework. In your eyes you're seeing it as "without us you wouldn't make anything, so we charge a fee for our service" when that's just simply not the case.



[TOPIC: post.html]
#28

ubj3d.android

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
ubj3d.android
  • Contributor

  • 741 posts
  • Corona SDK

ubj3d.android, your calculation is correct.  you will make $346,750.

 

Thank you for your good wishes, but I am afraid I will not come close to that number.

 

But my question was, why would someone pay $18,000/year if he can e.g. pay a developer to make him the plugin for e.g. $1000 once?



[TOPIC: post.html]
#29

PXL artificer

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
PXL artificer
  • Contributor

  • 312 posts
  • Corona SDK

Ok, so let me see if I understand it correctly, please let me know if I made some mistake:

 

  • For the first 10k impressions you get 16.5%
  • From 10k to 40k (10k+additional 30k) you get 12.5%
  • From 40k to 1m you get 10%
  • After 1m Perk takes 5%

 

So, let's say I'm nowhere near the 1 million impressions per day (maybe in the future, who knows! :D),

instead for this specific app I make around 150k impressions per day.

 

In this case, 150k a day, your share goes like this:

  • first range: 10.000 at 16.5% 
  • second range: 30.000 at 12.5%
  • third range: 150.000 - 40.000 (of the first two ranges) = 110.000 at 10%

Let's calculate it, at a bad eCPM of 0.5 dollar

 

  • 10.000 imp x 0.5 eCPM x 0.167 (16.5% perk share) = 0.835$
  • 30.000 imp x 0.5 eCPM x 0.125 (12.5% perk share) = 1.875$
  • 110.000 imp x 0.5 eCPM x 0.1 (10% perk share) 5.5$

0.835 + 1.875 + 5.5 = 8.21$ per day X 365 days = 2,996 $ per year

 

this is going to be the real cost of Corona SDK per year. If your eCPM is around 1$, well double that at almost 6.000$/year

 

Please let me know if I didn't understand the model correctly and made some mistake in calculating the share.

 

Now you could say, yeah, but we're successful if you're successful, and while you're paying 3.000 dollars for Corona you made much more money, and that's true (it's about 24.000$), however I don't see how this point makes sense.

 

At around 3000$ per year, Corona Enterprise Unlimited is cheaper (2,388$ per year) or I could just get Corona Cards iOS and Android (1000$ per year) and pay someone to make an ad plugin without the revenue share.

 

So please, I hope I made a mistake on my calculations and that's not the real figure... otherwise it doesn't make sense using Corona even for small developers.

 

The freemium model works well in apps because casual player doesn't generally know what is really going to end up paying in the end, but I don't see how this model could work in a business environment where we analyse and think well of the real and hidden  costs of what we use.


  • dmglakewood likes this

[TOPIC: post.html]
#30

roj

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
roj
  • Observer

  • 27 posts
  • Corona Staff

If you have an enterprise license, you're free to create a plugin for yourself that works the way you'd like for FAN.  


  • ToeKnee likes this

[TOPIC: post.html]
#31

JonPM

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
JonPM
  • Corona Geek

  • 1,077 posts
  • Corona SDK

 

At around 3000$ per year, Corona Enterprise Unlimited is cheaper (2,388$ per year) or I could just get Corona Cards iOS and Android (1000$ per year) and pay someone to make an ad plugin without the revenue share.

 

So please, I hope I made a mistake on my calculations and that's not the real figure... otherwise it doesn't make sense using Corona even for small developers.

 

I think this is exactly the point.  most small one-person developers can't afford the enterprise license and to pay someone to make a plugin for them.  Hence this is where Roj's model comes into play.  As a small developer you can use these "premium" services and share impressions with zero out of pocket.

 

However I think a model that would work well for everyone is to have a Corona Free model (with impression sharing), and a Corona Paid model without imp sharing (at the $2388/yr).  Or apply the same model to the each plugin individually.  For instance, have the FAN plugin available for free with shared impressions, or something like $500/yr without.  I think this would (mostly) satisfy both types of developers.   



[TOPIC: post.html]
#32

PXL artificer

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
PXL artificer
  • Contributor

  • 312 posts
  • Corona SDK

I don't disagree with you ubj3d but I want to mention that Roj didn't come up with this model. There are other companies that charge a percentage of your impressions. For example AdTapsy charges 10% of your impression using the same mechanism. They inject their id to one out of 10 impressions.

 

But AdTapsy is an ad mediation tool, not a SDK. I would be all in favour of Perk using the revenue share model on their Corona Ads.

 

 

If you have an enterprise license, you're free to create a plugin for yourself that works the way you'd like for FAN.  

 

That's probably what I'll end up doing. Or maybe using Corona for Android and Corona Cards iOS since the majority of my revenue is on that platform. 

I'm not an expert, and you guys surely know better, but it looks to me that you're basically pushing everyone besides hobbyists and smaller developers to get Enterprise or Cards (even if they don't actually need it) only to not be subjected to the revenue share.

And many of those devs would have no issue at all in paying for the basic version of Corona, as it is now, only without the revenue share, at almost the same price of Enterprise.

I mean, if in one year you end up paying in share more than a Enterprise or Cards license it's an obvious choice. 

(btw, I'm just wondering if you're thinking to raise the costs (or discontinue) Enterprise and Cards to discourage that.)

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to offer a:

1. Corona Free with the revenue share model through Corona Ads. Other ad platforms (admob, FAN, etc) only available as mediation in Corona Ads.

2. Corona Pro, priced a little lower than Enterprise, with the choice to use Corona Ads or other ad platform without share. 

OR

2. No paid Corona Pro, instead the ability to purchase admob/fan/etc plugin licenses to not be subjected to impression sharing. 

 

 

@JonPM: Actually, the Enterprise License starts at 79/month, so less than 1.000$ per year. My example of 2388$ is for the Enterprise Unlimited that is absolutely overkill in my case. So consider the threshold at around 1.000 usd/year. 



[TOPIC: post.html]
#33

JonPM

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
JonPM
  • Corona Geek

  • 1,077 posts
  • Corona SDK

I see.  Regardless, I think Corona needs to offer more options here.  It's obvious the plugin market is where they will generate revenue, while keeping Corona free.  But again there should be an option to "lease" the FAN plugin for say $29/mo without imp sharing, or free with.  Corona shouldn't impose themselves as a business partner in each of it's developers companies. 



[TOPIC: post.html]
#34

Vince_

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
Vince_
  • Contributor

  • 305 posts
  • Enterprise

I just want to add that revenue sharing for plugins that connect to 3rd party services makes no sense. Corona didn't build and maintain Facebook's ad network or infrastructure, so why is it entitled to any percentage of our revenue from it?

 

Any other developer could have made this plugin and put it up on the plugin marketplace for free, or for a flat monthly rate. If you want to earn money to maintain the plugin then just sell it for a monthly fee. Literally everyone in this thread would rather pay a flat monthly rate, and I'm sure the majority of other users would too.

 

If you want Corona to grow with it's users then do something similar to what you had before -- it could be free for users earning < 100k/year, and anyone who makes over that should buy a pro license. Maybe users over 500k/year would need the enterprise license. Charge flat rates for your plugins, and open up the marketplace to allow other developers to sell and take a percentage of that. Finally, I don't know the details behind Corona Ads' monetization, but I assume you will be making plenty of money on the backend if it is successful. I want Corona to succeed so that I can keep using it, but forcing users to potentially give up thousands of $$$ just because you provided an API to Facebook's ad network is ludicrous. I hope you don't do the same with Vungle or any other 3rd party ad network.

 

Lastly, as someone  who wants to make a deal with a publisher to market and distribute my game, this whole revenue sharing model seems like it would make my game less attractive to the publisher. And it would mean that I earn even less after Google/Apple, the publisher, and now Corona takes a cut of my sales.



[TOPIC: post.html]
#35

dmglakewood

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
dmglakewood
  • Contributor

  • 395 posts
  • Corona SDK

My 2 cents (as a long time user (and multiple pro subscription payer)).

 

3 paths..

  1. If you use the free Corona and Free Plugin expect rate share on ads (Personally in would like to see a maximum cap on total revenue).
  2. If you are making more than $10,000 a year just get on enterprise and develop your own ad connector (and maybe sell it).
  3. If you don't like the rules move on to another platform and leave the benefits of Corona behind.

At the end of the day of Corona if does not make cash they may fold. I don't want to see that.

Enterprise isn't all that it's cracked up to be. It adds a layer or multiple layers of complexity to corona that no longer makes it simple to code certain things. I would love to pay the enterprise rate but still have the ability to show ads quickly or load in plugins without having to do it all in native. Not to mention that with enterprise you then have to have wrappers for every OS. You can't just click build for iOS or build for Android and be done with it. I don't think anyone here is arguing that payments, in fact it's quite the opposite. People are willing to pay and that model kept corona alive and thriving for many years. Why not offer the free model with rev sharing and a paid model for those who would rather just shell out the cash to no give up a percentage of their company? 



[TOPIC: post.html]
#36

FearTec

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
FearTec
  • Contributor

  • 218 posts
  • Corona SDK

No one likes paying more, no one likes apples app guideline rules and we are all here to make a buck or two. I came to corona because XCode was a right pain in the butt. I hope Corona remain viable and I feel for the engineers who are working every day dealing with the legacy wrappers in corona that talk to Xcode/iOS and Java/Android, OSX/Win/etc.

Maybe a middle tier would be a good idea, I use to pay pro and now few like a leecher on free, but I don't want to use ads (and if I did I would not want to give away too much for nothing.

Edit: fixed typos.

P.S I don't have any apps on the stores at present (building a new big one though)

[TOPIC: post.html]
#37

FearTec

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
FearTec
  • Contributor

  • 218 posts
  • Corona SDK

P.S simon.fearby is my day job acc and and FearTec is my private acc.

[TOPIC: post.html]
#38

PXL artificer

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
PXL artificer
  • Contributor

  • 312 posts
  • Corona SDK

Enterprise isn't all that it's cracked up to be. It adds a layer or multiple layers of complexity to corona that no longer makes it simple to code certain things. I would love to pay the enterprise rate but still have the ability to show ads quickly or load in plugins without having to do it all in native. ... I don't think anyone here is arguing that payments, in fact it's quite the opposite.

 

Exactly on point dmglakewood.

The issue is not the cost of Enterprise/Card license but the added complexity in using Enterprise.

I have no problem in paying for Enterprise, it's just that Corona standard is enough for me...

 

With the current revenue share model I'll need to get Enterprise or Card, with the only purpose to use a native ads plugin, otherwise I would end up paying much more than a Enterprise license. Simple math.

This model is unbalanced and definitely punishing against developers relaying on ads (I mean, developers selling only Paid apps clearly will not be subjected to any revenue share, so... they'll be basically using Corona for free)  

 

I'm all for a Freemium Corona with impression share on an Entry product (even if it would have been more logical applied on something like Corona Ads, instead of third party ad platforms)... but we need more "Pro" solutions besides Card & Enterprise. There's no way you can apply this freemium impression share model on (even small-mid) professionals.

We need something between Free and Enterprise.

 

Anyway, there's not much else I can say... Right now I'll probably end up buying a Corona Card license, at least to publish new apps this year. After that, I'm not sure.



[TOPIC: post.html]
#39

simon.natt

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
simon.natt
  • Contributor

  • 137 posts
  • Corona SDK

+1 for what PXL Artificer and others have mentioned. A premium Corona product without the complexities of enterprise and which isn't subjected to the rev share would be the most suitable solution. 



[TOPIC: post.html]
#40

Vince_

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
Vince_
  • Contributor

  • 305 posts
  • Enterprise

Also should add that Corona announced they are working on a new version of Corona Cloud -- this time lead by Chris aka develephant. That would be another potential revenue stream and I'm sure many people would gladly pay for it, assuming there is some sort of tiered pricing based on usage.



[TOPIC: post.html]
#41

simon.natt

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
simon.natt
  • Contributor

  • 137 posts
  • Corona SDK



[TOPIC: post.html]
#42

dmglakewood

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
dmglakewood
  • Contributor

  • 395 posts
  • Corona SDK

That video is skewed to only show one side of things.

 

1. Everyone knows that ad companies take a cut that's a no brainer. The difference is if admob takes too much of a cut and revenue drops we can easily switch that to something else. Not only that but you're talking about a company who is giving me money vs a company that is only taking my money. 

2. Sure there are a lot of companies that are going with the rev sharing but it ends up screwing over more users then it helps. Candy crush is free but they've made over a billion dollars off of it from people that are pretty much forced to pay for the free game. Rev sharing is essentially like mico transactions from your developers. Sure it's not money technically coming out of my pocket but it's blocking money from going into my pockets. 

 

3. With the pick axe scenario ...that's all fine and dandy as long as the gold miners are new. I'm a very established gold miner and if you came to me and said hey Dave I will give you this pick axe for free even though you've already spent thousands of dollars on my pick axes in the past, but I'm going to take 16% of your minning operations...I'd not only laugh I'd bring my whole crew over and tell them what happened so they could get a good laugh too. 

 

4. The real estate scenario is a great way to show the difference bwteen a poor / middle class person vs a person who is well off. A wealthy person would for sure take the 5k real estate agent because they know everything the house sells for above the 5k is profit. They have the extra income and it's a smarter move to make then to give a percentage away. Apps are no different. If you have an established well off developer they know giving up a % is a dumb move. They realize that spending money upfront will net them more in the long run. 

 

The idea of growing as I grow to me rubs me the wrong way. I'm not growing because of corona sdk I'm growing because of what I do and what my team does. Corona isn't paying hundreds of thousands of dollars are year to promote my apps and make sure they move though the markets they way they should be. Corona isn't running a/b tests and optimizing my user retention and session lengths. Corona isn't paying a team of network guys to make sure our servers never go down. Corona isn't monitoring ecpms of all the major ad networks and making sure you serve the highest paying ad network at the time. Corona isn't running live user testing to see how users navigate the apps and see if there are any place that could be enhanced. If you guys actually helped make me money I would gladly pay you a percentage. If you told me Dave we made you an extra 5,000 this month but we want 50% of it I would say cool no problem, you deserve it. That's not the case though you are saying Dave good job on making us money this month.

Simply put corona just allows me to program a little easier compared to native. Beyond that though there are a ton of other frameworks out there that would allow me to do what I'm already doing. I love personally corona I just think there needs to be another option. It seems like you are against the subscription model so what about rev sharing until you reach 1000$ paid in for the year. Then after that you're no longer rev sharing you paid in your dues and the rest are for the user? What about the ability to purchase an ad plugin for X amount or use it free with rev sharing. There are a bunch of ways corona can make money from me and I'm willing to pay up. I don't want to be forced out of corona sdk and have to use corona enterprise because I want to avoid rev  sharing. There has to be a way we can both benefit without me paying 200k a year. 


  • simon.natt likes this

[TOPIC: post.html]
#43

Vince_

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
Vince_
  • Contributor

  • 305 posts
  • Enterprise

 

What about three versions of the AD plugin?

 

1) Free Ad Plugin but 20% cut.

2) $499/y plugin but 10% cut capped to $100k.

3) $1,999/y Ad plugin with 5% cut capped at $10k/y.

 

If Corona wants to do this for their own Corona Ads network then I'm all for it. It's their network, their infrastructure, they have to handle the advertisers, etc, so of course they should get their share. But to take that much just because they provide us an api to a 3rd party network that any developer here could have made and shared for free in the marketplace (take a look at the Chartboost plugin from Ingemar) just doesn't make sense to me.


  • ubj3d.android likes this

[TOPIC: post.html]
#44

dmglakewood

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
dmglakewood
  • Contributor

  • 395 posts
  • Corona SDK

> What about the ability to purchase an ad plugin for X amount or use it free with rev sharing

 

What about three versions of the AD plugin?

 

1) Free Ad Plugin but 20% cut.

2) $499/y plugin but 10% cut capped to $100k.

3) $1,999/y Ad plugin with 5% cut capped at $10k/y.

 

Divides the risk between the axe seller and the miner?

 

If I was to implement Ad's I would prefer a 20% cut under $50k then 10% cut under $100k and 5% cut over $100k.

 

 

The market place and selling plugins may be a good way for corona to get income (core API's free) and say Augmented Reality, Siri, TouchID, iWatch, HealthKit would be paid plugins that you opt into.

 

I am not interested in Corona Cloud as I use digitalocean.com self managed servers and IBM cloudant.com (CouchDB) and it costs peanuts.

 

 

I do think Corona need a way to make money from the platform though. The good thing is they have a plan.

#3 would be the cheapest at 12k per year and in my opinion that's way too much. Unity which is way more robust then corona sdk probably ever will be is what 1k I think it is for life. I personally think that it should be capped at what corona enterprise cost. So no matter what you will never be charged more then what the top license is. 



[TOPIC: post.html]
#45

dmglakewood

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
dmglakewood
  • Contributor

  • 395 posts
  • Corona SDK

I agree, Corona is a classic "Value Proposition" business model.

 

"You give value up front then ask for a return on your investment."

 

A free platform to develop apps on is certainly good value.

 

 

A perfect example of a value based proposition business is the Sean Wes Podcast, they have hundreds of AD FREE/Quality podcasts to help people identify, do and make a living from their passion.

 

Check out the podcasts here: http://seanwes.com/podcast-archive/

 

All they ask for is listeners who get value from the Podcast join the Community (where you get more value )

 

 

I think now is the time for Corona to "Ask in return", as they cant give , give and give forever.

 

No one is trying to get out of paying them. I think everyone in here agrees they would be willing to pay for corona. Corona has 300,000 developers I think they said. Lets say 1% are willing to pay 500$ a year that would be 1.5 million dollars per year. Why not take the 1.5 million for the 1% and allow the 99% of the other devs to use the rev sharing. 



[TOPIC: post.html]
#46

PXL artificer

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
PXL artificer
  • Contributor

  • 312 posts
  • Corona SDK

What about three versions of the AD plugin?

 

1) Free Ad Plugin but 20% cut.

2) $499/y plugin but 10% cut capped to $100k.

3) $1,999/y Ad plugin with 5% cut capped at $10k/y.

 

But then a single plugin would cost more than a Enterprise license. On Corona Ads however could work.

 

I'm not really against the rev sharing model.

I think Corona needs a way to be profitable and the rev sharing model could work. We know Freemium works, there are tons of games and apps using this model and they're making a lot of money. Sure, often in Freemium quality takes a dip, but I'm sure they can do better.

The problem (since the Demo/Regular, then Free/Pro and now Free/Enterprise+Card versions of Corona) is that they weren't monetising on their entry level solution and only relaying on the Pro users wasn't enough.

 

But trying to fit all developers in this Freemium model can't possibly work.

 

There should be a product progression, starting from Free (with revenue share) but arriving to Professionals (Enterprise, Card and I really hope a Pro version). 

The Free edition is an awesome solution for developers just starting so they don't have to pay upfront (and at the same time Perk can monetise) , but there should be options if one day they'll be successful (Pro version).

 

I've read many times in this post: "If you're successful, we are successful". It's great, but that shouldn't just mean "ok, since we take a share, if you're making money we're making money", it should be something like:

 

"We'll help you grow. First with a Free edition with revenue share so you don't have to worry about licenses and you can just start releasing your app and making money today.

But at the same time, we want you to succeed. We want you one day to be able to call this your day job and Corona your favourite SDK.

And when you'll decide to take your app development to the next step, here's our Corona Pro line." 

 

 

.... Actually that bring me to ask: What are the plans of Perk regarding their license based products (Enterprise / Card)? 



[TOPIC: post.html]
#47

PXL artificer

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
PXL artificer
  • Contributor

  • 312 posts
  • Corona SDK

It is kinda the odd one out Simon.

 

Right now we have:

1. Corona SDK

2. Corona Enterprise Small Business at $948/year

3. Corona Enterprise Unlimited at $2388/year, with a bunch of things maybe useful to larger team (not really sure)

4. Corona Cards at $499 for platform (iOS / android / WP free for now)

 

Corona Enterprise is something for very specific needs. I guess it's useful for dev teams that need to tweak and access native code. Not really sure the benefits of Unlimited, besides having no revenue limit (the basic Enterprise has a $500k limit).

 

Cards does something basically similar but it's simpler and in short you can add a Corona View directly in a UIView in xCode.

Both Enterprise and Cards allow you to add native plugins, so just using those two solutions you can add your own ad network and skip the revenue sharing discussion.

 

These products (Enterprise & Cards) in theory should be aimed to very specific dev needs, but if the revenue share model will be applied on other ad platforms they'll be the only logical, although flawed, solutions for pro users.

 

I'll probably just move to Cards, since getting both licenses is around $1k and it's simpler to implement than Enterprise. But as you said... what if corona ditch these pro solutions? 

 

I mean, I'd really like to know what are the plans with Enterprise and Cards before switching...


[TOPIC: post.html]
#48

dmglakewood

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
dmglakewood
  • Contributor

  • 395 posts
  • Corona SDK

> PXL artificer

 

It sounds like Enterprise is the odd one out? Maybe corona should ditch it or tweak it?

 

I'd like to pay to go enterprise (or a step below enterprise) but I can't see the extra value or reason for the extra hastle.

They are great for those who need it, but a lot of what I love about corona goes away with enterprise or cards. You can't just do ads.show() to show an ad you have to load in the jar files, modify the manifest, place the code into java and then hook up a listener so the lua files can speak with java. It's just a lot of extra work to do simple things.



[TOPIC: post.html]
#49

ubj3d.android

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
ubj3d.android
  • Contributor

  • 741 posts
  • Corona SDK

If Corona wants to do this for their own Corona Ads network then I'm all for it. It's their network, their infrastructure, they have to handle the advertisers, etc, so of course they should get their share. But to take that much just because they provide us an api to a 3rd party network that any developer here could have made and shared for free in the marketplace (take a look at the Chartboost plugin from Ingemar) just doesn't make sense to me.

+1



[TOPIC: post.html]
#50

gamebit.labs

[GLOBAL: userInfoPane.html]
gamebit.labs
  • Contributor

  • 177 posts
  • Corona SDK

Thanks for the question.  We've been working hard on the Facebook Audience Network plugin and are excited to release it in the very near future - as you can tell docs are up already!

 

Re: other monetization plugins, our general thought is that we'd like to succeed with our publishers' success.  As such, we're working on models like the one in place for Facebook Audience Network but they will vary in arrangement (some will be ratios but with different rev-shares, some will be tiered rev-shares based on volume, others you'll have an indirect relationship with an ad network but will benefit from better rev-shares we have with the network, etc)

 

At the end of the day, our goal is to have Corona SDK always be free, derive revenue based on publisher success, and then re-invest these earnings in further platform growth/expansion.  

 

I would not even bother simulating all the calculations above because taking revenue share from our ad monetisation is unfair. I am very appreciative for Corona SDK, and I was paying for the Pro version before it became free. 

 

However, I am using Corona SDK because it helps us to develop apps faster, writing less codes and deploying across multiple platforms (this is the main and only reason) - so we have MORE TIME to handle/struggle with other components of this business to succeed. 

 

I would not argue if Corona takes rev share for Corona Ads (which ad network does not?), because becoming an ad network you're building an entire infrastructure & having to deal with other ad networks and advertisers - to deliver optimized ads (which we developers want no part of/unable to do so due to our scale). 

 

So Roj, if Corona really wants rev share from ad networks (except for Corona Ads), please make an official statement on your website and give us a timeframe to migrate away from Corona SDK - because this is not what we signed up for. 

 

Ben




[topic_controls]
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
 
[/topic_controls]