But that's the problem isn't it? Devs aren't making money on the Android Market. It may work in theory but there doesn't seem to much evidence of it working in practice.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's App Store Review Guidelines Offer Remarkably Candid View of App Store Philosophy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But that's the problem isn't it? Devs aren't making money on the Android Market. It may work in theory but there doesn't seem to much evidence of it working in practice.
good news.
hopefully this will allow us to get rid of the "stand in, wannabe" MR.app(s).
I agree. What I would love to see is a "professional" application store with a membership fee of around a $1000 (yes, a thousands dollars) a year that will filter out a lot of the boho's who don't have real jobs and have no promotional budget.
I bet the app offerings would drop from a quarter million to a few thousand and a few hundred or dozen in specific categories. Thus, making for a much more pleasureful experience for both consumer and serious professional developer.
But devs can have an app in android market and have that same app available for download at their personal webpage... they still are making money it just isnt "tracked" by google that way. And with the free apps, its doesnt matter where its available the more places the better.
remember also that in the next Android release there will be the ablitity to push app installs over the air from my home computer, similar to chrome to phone for web and maps. This function will not be limited to just apps in the market, any dev with outside resources can make an app push updates.
Which begs the question: why the heck did we need more Fart programs back when there were less than 250,000 apps?
Sure seems to have worked in the past.
(Actually, it's good to see Apple talking more. It's just fun to poke at the wording of the rules.)
how refreshing. it's as if there's a real human being there, thinking about things and making decisions and explaining them, instead of a mystery man behind a curtain, veiled in corporate-speak. wouldn't it be great if politicians were so straightforward? if product and service descriptions were described with such candor? kudos to apple.
Totally agree with the statement. I've got tired of trawling through pages and pages of apps, the majority of which are rubbish.
Apple should do a refining process and clear out the crap. For example flashlight apps. They should refine the number of flashlight apps down to just say 10 high quality quality apps and trash the rest.
The app store is great with like 250,000+ apps but only like 10,000 of those are really high quality useful apps.
Apple should do a refining process and clear out the crap. For example flashlight apps. They should refine the number of flashlight apps down to just say 10 high quality quality apps and trash the rest.
The app store is great with like 250,000+ apps but only like 10,000 of those are really high quality useful apps.
As a user and purchaser of apps in the app store I support this 100%.
I know how they had to allow a bit more freedom early on, but it would have been good if they could have kept a tighter reign on things all along. I know some will cry censor ship, I will cry quality control.
I know how they had to allow a bit more freedom early on, but it would have been good if they could have kept a tighter reign on things all along. I know some will cry censor ship, I will cry quality control.
Because the first few made a bunch of money for awhile (of which 30% went to Apple), and, more importantly, probably sold a few more iPod Touches by making the device seem even rad or whatever to (mentally) pre-teen boys with money. But the best apps weren't known until Darwinian selection weeded out the others. Now that that particular app fad is dying out, more weeding is no longer very profitable for anybody.
But some new (stupid) fad will come along I'm sure.
Unfortunately, your (and the review team's) opinion of the best (fart|flashlight|talking animal) app is probably not the same as kids who may well be spending more on junk from the app store than you.
And I might just be working on yet another flashlight app right now!
Why shouldn't I have just as much a chance at App store shelf space for my "cr*p"? Unfortunately, your (and the review team's) opinion of the best (fart|flashlight|talking animal) app is probably not the same as kids who may well be spending more on junk from the app store than you.
And I might just be working on yet another flashlight app right now!
Well if the kids dont like the selected 10 best apps then tough, adults know best
lol.I agree everyone should have their chance to have their apps listed, but if it was only 10 spaces available it would force them to make better apps to muscle in on whats already selected.
I hope your flashlight app is going to be the most amazing flashlight app ever created?
You don't understand how google search works if that is what you think. They exclude websites all the time from their search data. People are blacklisted and delisted from Google Search. You don't think Google lists every website in the world regardless of what it does do you? Because they don't. Google bans websites, domain and domain owners from their search engine for quality issues.
Which begs the question: why the heck did we need more Fart programs back when there were less than 250,000 apps?
Well, the guidelines do specifically say that programs might toes a line which requires them to refine the guidelines and add new rules. That's probably what happened. The first one was funny, the next 100 got old fast, and now they've got a rule saying "ok, no more".
The first person to tell a joke gets the biggest laughs. Everyone else who tells the same joke is told, "yeah yeah, we heard that one already". Doesn't mean it wasn't funny the first time.
Double standards
What about apps that rip kids off, telling them their buying 'shells' in a game, when it turns out they're actually really spending $60 of their parents cash?
Just seen that on Watchdog in the UK. Apple are happily profiting of the kids they're apparently protecting.
What about apps that rip kids off, telling them their buying 'shells' in a game, when it turns out they're actually really spending $60 of their parents cash?
Just seen that on Watchdog in the UK. Apple are happily profiting of the kids they're apparently protecting.
Plus it's not true. There have been numerous examples of people running to the press and getting their apps approved a couple days later.
Relaxing their development restrictions too...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/09/09statement.html
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/09/09statement.html
Reasonable
I find it very reasonable that Apple took time to release this and that they state that it is a living document. Good job, Jobs.
I find it very reasonable that Apple took time to release this and that they state that it is a living document. Good job, Jobs.
I agree 100%. Too bad they didn't do this sooner before all the useless apps got approved.
No one is forcing you to buy them.
I love how everyone is so eager to take away other people's options.
There's already a perfectly capable porn app on the iPhone called safari. I'm sorry that you can't buy Vivid Entertainment Video Player for the iPhone.
Yes, you're right about that, but I dislike having to wade through through the junk.
To rephrase what you said: Apple takes a stand on a policy of "Preserve the User Experience" and, unlike many companies that change philosophies with the seasons, seems to stick by it for decades.
This stand becomes popular with a certain segment of the population. By all accounts this is also a very, very profitable segment of the population. This segment of the population becomes loyal to the brand because they seem to stick to their philosophy.
They keep getting the products they want. Apple keeps getting more profitable.
Why on earth would either of those want to change this? If you're hoping they might start saying something else because it's "getting really, really old" I would suggest that you will waiting a long time.
Interesting though that no one seems to put it in those terms when considering what physical world stores curate what they offer. I can't force Walmart, Aldi's or Tesco to put a product I make on their shelves, and no one makes a human rights case out of it.
If this were a government making these guidelines, then I might see this line of thinking.
But as a private entity, it's really simple. Does Apple figure it will be better for business to keep our these apps or to allow them? Either way, it's Apple's choice to make, and their risk if it's the wrong choice, and their reward if it's the right choice. To me, that's how it's supposed to work.
And as a single data point, I give Apple lots of my money, and I like the curated approach will make it more likely that I will give Apple more money in the future.