App store shenanigans
cdixon.org
App store shenanigans
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: App store shenanigans
#2A more difficult question is how you solve problems in a gigantic marketplace like the App Store. Better verification of sellers? Verification of review comments? Limiting cross-linking of apps? Tougher review process by Apple?
All of these would engender more criticism against Apple for policing their "walled garden" but is there a better way to solve it?
Re: App store shenanigans
#3A more difficult question is how you solve problems in a gigantic marketplace like the App Store. Better verification of sellers? Verification of review comments? Limiting cross-linking of apps? Tougher review process by Apple? All of these would engender more criticism against Apple for policing their "walled garden" but is there a better way to solve it?
It is not like the criticism has really hurt them any. I say go whole hog on it, and crack as many skulls as needed. If Apple is going to claim that they hold an iron fist over their customers' devices to deliver a better experience, they better actually deliver a better experience.
Re: App store shenanigans
#4A more difficult question is how you solve problems in a gigantic marketplace like the App Store. Better verification of sellers? Verification of review comments? Limiting cross-linking of apps? Tougher review process by Apple? All of these would engender more criticism against Apple for policing their "walled garden" but is there a better way to solve it?
I think a simple flagging mechanism ("this is crap, Steve wouldn't want it in the store, take another look") would suffice. A supposedly curated app store should be enforcing a certain level of quality.
And if they're not doing it already, only publish reviews from accounts with a credit card.
Re: App store shenanigans
#5A more difficult question is how you solve problems in a gigantic marketplace like the App Store. Better verification of sellers? Verification of review comments? Limiting cross-linking of apps? Tougher review process by Apple? All of these would engender more criticism against Apple for policing their "walled garden" but is there a better way to solve it?
I'm wondering what would happen if people could pick between different app stores for their phone, much like how a Linux system allows you to get packages from multiple repositories.
Benefits to third parties: They could host their own "app store" and monetize however they like
Benefits to developers: They could put their products in any store that will take them, or perhaps try for Apple's "high quality" store for potentially(?) higher gains.
Benefits to Apple: They could police all they want and people's claims of "Too much policing!" would be groundless since consumers can just switch stores, though it may be harder to monetize
Is this how Android works with Amazon's "app store" competing with the Android marketplace? How is that working out?
Re: App store shenanigans
#6A more difficult question is how you solve problems in a gigantic marketplace like the App Store. Better verification of sellers? Verification of review comments? Limiting cross-linking of apps? Tougher review process by Apple? All of these would engender more criticism against Apple for policing their "walled garden" but is there a better way to solve it?
I think a simple flagging mechanism ("this is crap, Steve wouldn't want it in the store, take another look") would suffice. A supposedly curated app store should be enforcing a certain level of quality. And if they're not doing it already, only publish reviews from accounts with a credit card.
Don't you need a credit card anyways to sign up? I had to have a credit card (or a gift card) when I made my iTunes account.
Re: App store shenanigans
#7>>But when you look on the desktop web you see the overall ratings are vastly lower and that they seem to game the system by releasing "new versions" to reset their ratings and then probably paying people to write positive reviews
I've made this point in the past (though not about this app/company or about payments)
imo Apple made a mistake in resetting app ratings after every new update/release. Developers who release poor quality 1.0 apps benefit from the ratings reset and I can see why some people may see this as a benefit.
However, the two problems I see with the resets are
1. It makes it easier for companies to game the rating system
2. It is a disincentive for developers (of highly rated apps)to update their apps. I'm planning on an update for a recent iPad app. However, that update will reset the 4.5 rating obtained through the 271 ratings received by the 1.0 version of the app in the past five months.
Re: App store shenanigans
#8A more difficult question is how you solve problems in a gigantic marketplace like the App Store. Better verification of sellers? Verification of review comments? Limiting cross-linking of apps? Tougher review process by Apple? All of these would engender more criticism against Apple for policing their "walled garden" but is there a better way to solve it?
Simply calculating stars using a weighted average would help this particular case. If ratings for previous versions counted for half as much as ratings for the current version, users would get a better sense from the overall rating.
That said, the mechanic of different versions being rated independently is very important. Apps can go from great to broken or broken to great in any given update.
As a user, you can dodge a lot of the spammy stuff by focusing on paid apps.
Re: App store shenanigans
#9[deleted]
Re: App store shenanigans
#10A more difficult question is how you solve problems in a gigantic marketplace like the App Store. Better verification of sellers? Verification of review comments? Limiting cross-linking of apps? Tougher review process by Apple? All of these would engender more criticism against Apple for policing their "walled garden" but is there a better way to solve it?
Perhaps the same way one might solve a 'real world' (ie physical store) issue. You create the network equivalent of the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'.
Typically the way that works is that someone diligently looks at every app and provides a rating based clear and transparent metrics. They do this in a largely unsung fashion as early adopters or randomly curious people begin to validate that their ratings correlate strongly with actual quality.
Then, once they reach critical mass, the app vendors will attempt to corrupt them (or at least influence them) by sending them 'free' apps or 'previews' which don't exactly match what they actually ship. Depending on whether or not this new effort has been around the block before they will either lose all credibility once they highly rate and app where the 'review copy' was significantly different than the 'store copy.' Or they have some other fail mechanism (like not actually reviewing the app instead trusting some third party's opinion)
If they dodge that bullet they will begin to grow in influence as more and more people will start using their ratings but that will also increase the demand rate ("Why haven't you rated app Donglefritz yet?") now it will switch from being something they were doing because they and their friends were tired of all the crappy apps and gaming the app store ratings, and it will start feeling like work because they are feeling pressure to get more and more apps rated. Also apps they rate poorly will start complaining, and some of them might try to intimidate them with legal proceedings (justified or not).
Suddenly the value equation will be all pear shaped, they will want to stop but too many people are counting on them. They will want to find some way to 'monetize' all this work since they are getting poor reviews at their day job (or no sleep) because of all the time they are spending rating iPhone/pad apps. They start taking advertisements and have to deal with how an app they rate poorly actually gets lots of downloads because the same app is advertised in their tool or on their site. The ad isn't an endorsement but they need to figure out how to explain that to their customers who previously only had messages coming from them that were not paid for.
Typically it is at this point where they 'sell' their brand, apologize and move on with their new found wealth swearing that 'next time' they won't cave in like that. Their new owners will milk the brand by turning it into a pay for play mouth piece for app vendors which will easily double their investment (since the brands legitimacy will die more slowly than the value of the rankings).
Once the brand is completely discredited and usage has dropped it will quietly fold and disappear never to be heard from again.
Oh, I'm sorry you wanted a solution? :-)