Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 259 posts

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#41

Post by edg5000 »

LWIRVoltage wrote: post #15

... These sorts of patterns do not help at all, and will hurt those who have critical need for apps without a lot of users. Speaking as somebody, who owns some mid-grade thermal cameras that stopped production in the past few years after a decade run, that depended on and are solely controlled and run on apps that were removed from the app store or no longer can run on modern phones because they are in 32-bit format…

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.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#42

Post by skizm »

rockyj wrote: post #37

All this just confirms for me the fact that how important the web is, thankfully it is still open / neutral and a good mobile web app is important for smaller devs. Thankfully the web has always been neutral, which has allowed all these monopolies to thrive and exploit it, otherwise who knows which proprietary app hell we would be in.

Nothing stopping Google or Apple from adding warnings to websites. They do control chrome / safari.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#43

Post by duxup »

freedomben wrote: post #8
rahimnathwani wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that "frequently returned item" warning really useful. It's a reminder to look at the 2 star and 3 star reviews. Sometimes it's just a sizing issue. At other times some subset of people have a specific issue. The issue may or may not be something that affects me (e.g. some people can't operate something that doesn't have really clear instructions).

I do too, but I think it's important to consider that these are actually pretty different. In the Google example, the banner is being displayed because of something that isn't necessarily the fault of the dev and isn't itself an indicator of problematic behavior (and indeed is the starting position for all developers of a new app), whereas at least Amazon (presumably) is basing it off of actual performance data that…

It's not even clear if frequently returned item is a fault of a given seller. May sellers are involved in the "same" item on Amazon.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#44

Post by strongpigeon »

xnx wrote: post #19

Is Google Play like the Apple app store where Apple takes a smaller cut for apps with fewer users? If so, there's obvious financial incentive for Google to push more people to a smaller number of apps.

In a way yes, though it's revenue based (if you make less than $1M/year) rather user based. I don't think it has much of a financial impact though as, from what I remember, the long tail of apps doesn't make them very much money in comparison to the whales.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#45

Post by toast0 »

duxup wrote: post #11
rahimnathwani wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that "frequently returned item" warning really useful. It's a reminder to look at the 2 star and 3 star reviews. Sometimes it's just a sizing issue. At other times some subset of people have a specific issue. The issue may or may not be something that affects me (e.g. some people can't operate something that doesn't have really clear instructions).

I find the “frequently returned item” warning totally confusing. It usually isn’t reflected in their reviews that I can tell…. I have to wonder if there’s some sort of strange meta where people search for one thing buy something and not realize that they’re actually looking for something else that’s difficult to search.

Or buy something and the warehouse ships them another. I bought something from amazon where reviews said about half the people got the wrong product, and I got the wrong product, returned it and got the wrong one again, and then they wouldn't let me try again.

In a twist, I had previously attempted to order the right product from a different vendor, but I put the wrong one in the cart, and had to pay a restocking fee to return it. They sent me the right one when I ordered it properly.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#46

Post by strongpigeon »

tlogan wrote: post #38

It would be great if they added something like a “frequently uninstalled app” label. That’s much more helpful for users. But I get why Google prefers this kind of warning — it supports their ad business. (I really want “frequently uninstalled” label for games: because games are very often 100% different than what they show or describe)

In what way does it support their ads business?

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#47

Post by tlogan »

strongpigeon wrote: post #46
tlogan wrote: post #38

It would be great if they added something like a “frequently uninstalled app” label. That’s much more helpful for users. But I get why Google prefers this kind of warning — it supports their ad business. (I really want “frequently uninstalled” label for games: because games are very often 100% different than what they show or describe)

In what way does it support their ads business?

Because if a developer spends heavily on ads — especially misleading ones for games — they’ll get a lot of installs, and the warning disappears.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#48

Post by toast0 »

edg5000 wrote: post #41
LWIRVoltage wrote: post #15

... These sorts of patterns do not help at all, and will hurt those who have critical need for apps without a lot of users. Speaking as somebody, who owns some mid-grade thermal cameras that stopped production in the past few years after a decade run, that depended on and are solely controlled and run on apps that were removed from the app store or no longer can run on modern phones because they are in 32-bit format…

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.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#49

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

robertlagrant wrote: post #21
pk97 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

exactly. Imagine the audacity of this company. I have a paid app and they are already charging me a percentage of the revenue. And behind my back they have begun running this banner.

I doubt they're aware of you enough to do it behind your back. They're more wanting to flag this "Bank of 4merica" app you're about to install has 8 other users.

Why would they allow this hypothetical app in the first place?

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#50

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

MattDaEskimo wrote: post #28
_fat_santa wrote: post #4

Why does it seem like Google is trying to kill Android, or at least their app ecosystem. - They now require a DUNS number to submit an app - You now need 10-15 people to "QA" your app before submitting - Now this. It just seems that Google wants the "major" apps and nothing else.

My leading theory is they're preparing for a increasing onslaught of spam "vibe-coded" shovelware

"I love sowing but I hate reaping"
Post reply on HN