Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jun 2012 15:54 UTC
Windows "More than 100,000 applications have now been published in the Windows Phone Marketplace and new content is currently being added at the rate of 313 applications per day. At the time of writing, 100,145 applications have been published. Of these, 26,493 were added in the last three months and 9,391 were added in the last month. These applications come from just over 23,825 different publishers." Is there anybody out there who still places any value on these numbers, whether they be for Android, iOS, or WP7? Considering virtually all Android, iOS, and WP7 applications are useless, ugly, buggy crap (with only a few being somewhat tolerable - never actually good, because good software doesn't exist), I honestly don't really care. But hey, another check mark on the list of PR talking points.
Permalink for comment 520919
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Unfortunately, sites like Engadget
by MollyC on Tue 5th Jun 2012 20:28 UTC
Member since:

a few years ago began hyping these kinds of numbers as the be-all and end-all, and so app count began being used in lame fanboy wars (see TemporalBeing's post above, for an example).

The sad fact is that a huge portion of mobile apps available for a given platform are garbage, and another huge portion consists of glorified RSS feeds. Some of the latter are actually quite nice (nicer than the corresponding RSS feed, mobile web page, or full web page), but how many of those is a user going to install? I saw an article yesterday where someone was speculating (or even advocating) that in the future the "web" as we know it would near-dissappear and everyone would use these mini-web apps to access the internet rather than browsers. I hope that doesn't happen. I don't want to install an "app" for every site I might want to browse.

THe current state of things is what you would expect to result from a system where apps sell for zero to five dollars. You get a huge number of cheap garbage or inconsequential fluff.

Reply Score: 4