91–100 of 127 posts
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/27/tech/apple-screen-time-ap...
This is a good argument for having multiple app stores. I don't totally blame Apple's devs here: it's completely imaginable that small, innocent changes in what's no doubt an enormous codebase could have totally unpredictable effects on individual search rankings. The problem is that there's only a single point of articulation. If half a dozen app stores all got search results "mostly right", then little variations l…
Most recently, there was the decision to discontinue the affiliate referral program. Perhaps this was not "moving the numbers" significantly from Apple's perspective, but it did severely impact some sites that were great at covering domain-specific app niches in detail. And unlike Apple's in-house editorial, these were sites with writers with actual names meaning you can track their 1) quality of writing and 2) how the writer's individual preferences mesh with your own over time.
Related to that, Apple went on a bit of a "buying spree" from the independent Apple journalist community and the bylines of some writers I really liked just ... vanished. They're still out there, still writing, but part of the faceless Clone Army of Apple editorial. :-( So I'm glad those folks have stable jobs, but I'm mad at Apple for undermining good, independent tech journalism.
Going back further, to the misty dawn of the App Store, there's Apple's long-standing blockade on any app that functions like the App Store, i.e. curated app editorial. This essentially shut down another first-class (here, meaning "app") venue for app-centric selection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the legal system force Apple to do this? I get that it would prevent this type of scenario, but why should the the law care about this scenario at all?
Because it's less healthy for capitalism, and the government cares how the economy does.
Changing the tagline to "Predictive Weight Tracker" might have an interesting (positive) effect, for a variety of reasons. It seems likely Apple has downrated the phrase "weight loss" altogether. It's odd that the app marketing doesn't explain how it's useful once you reach a target, and doesn't offer any hint that it can be used to set weight gain targets for people who are looking to reach a new weight class. If I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should MS be forced to promote alternatives to IE?
MS had a monopoly on x86 operating systems, Apple does not have a monopoly on ARM operating systems.
I see nothing wrong with society demanding more accountability from those with more economic importance.
This is a good argument for having multiple app stores. I don't totally blame Apple's devs here: it's completely imaginable that small, innocent changes in what's no doubt an enormous codebase could have totally unpredictable effects on individual search rankings. The problem is that there's only a single point of articulation. If half a dozen app stores all got search results "mostly right", then little variations l…
I thought "give them time, and they'll come up with something better - better searching, better categories, better filters, make discovery smart and useful"
I thought, "they almost have 100,000 apps in the store, they will have to get this right to survive!"
so... yeah.
Edit: I do not expect it can help resolve the issue much, but I went and left the app a rating as I have used it and find it quite good. I realized I had neglected to do so until now ————- I do not understand the people agreeing with Apple that search results are not guaranteed. App Store search does not nearly exist to serve developers; it exists to help users. This app was number one for years and has good reviews.…
You're suggesting that the developer begin asking for a subscription for an app they already bought with the understanding that it was a one-time fee?
This does not sound to me like a recipe for happy customers, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable.
(You _might_ have more success releasing a "Happy Scale 2" and pushing all future updates there. This has the significant advantage of not making users feel forced to buy something new.)
Edit: I do not expect it can help resolve the issue much, but I went and left the app a rating as I have used it and find it quite good. I realized I had neglected to do so until now ————- I do not understand the people agreeing with Apple that search results are not guaranteed. App Store search does not nearly exist to serve developers; it exists to help users. This app was number one for years and has good reviews.…
> To the developer: before pulling the plug I strongly suggest trying a subscription model. You're suggesting that the developer begin asking for a subscription for an app they already bought with the understanding that it was a one-time fee? This does not sound to me like a recipe for happy customers, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable. (You _might_ have more success releasing a "Happy Scale 2" and pushing…
I think customers would prob prefer that to losing it, so they should at least try rather than simply throwing it away.
Happy scale 2 could work. Or maybe some new feature, not sure how best to work it. They’d be the one to know what their audience might support, but I think they should at least try.
Though hopefully search gets fixed and it won’t be necessary.