251–259 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual article uses fewer. Some monster chose to change it.
My understanding is the rules on less vs fewer are not strict and in this case it's fine, just like 20 items or less is actually fine. Regardless, it's just made up BS, like the rule that sentences cannot end in a proposition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it's just optics. As a user, I personally don't want to see or download apps that are broken, neglected, or completely left for dead. Maintained apps are usually the best ones right?
> Maintained apps are usually the best ones right? microsoft windows has been maintained thru to the present, but has become increasingly unusable since Win 7. so, no, false.
But also I'm not sure that's a great example anyway because I'm sure most people would want to find Microsoft apps on the app store regardless of what you think about their "usability" or maintenance. Usability is a different metric that's more arbitrary
Earlier quoted context omitted.
quoting from a nice piece: https://lmnt.me/blog/app-stores-and-payment-methods.html "It still blows my mind how little the App Store has improved over the last decade. It’s barely changed. Almost every bad thing about the App Store still exists. And almost every good thing that happened for app distribution and payment methods is just the result of regulation."
It's almost as if monopolies are bad for innovation. Who would've thunk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Because they want developers to use the latest version of their API." But the parent commenter's company software did not need to be updated to be useful to the company. Its only purpose was to control hardware made by the company.
As I said, it is useful for the users to have software that is complying with the latest version of the API, and it is good that Google is enforcing it
Off-topic to the comments here, I am impressed by how the poster has described their issue so eloquently! They mentioned 6 reasons for why they have an issue with the banner : each of the 6 is a valid concern and put very eloquently and clearly. I suppose I only noticed this because I am used to speaking/writing/reading/listening mid-quality English in day-to-day life as a programmer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the manufacturer has to do is publish an APK on their website. If all apps did this, Google would have no power. It's very easy for a volunteer to host the APK somewhere in an archiving effort. Much easier that it ever has been on iOS.
Yeah, but if you're a new app, Google doesn't let you have your APK signing keys, so you either have to go through Google to get an APK you can publish (with all the resources), or users can't cross-upgrade because on phone storage is tied to the signing key.