Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Dec 2011 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 499394
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-15
Indeed. If users aren't aware of the application or game at all then there's also no income.
Complain to the appropriate party instead of the developer. Developers aren't responsible for maintaining the app store or its policies.
Oh, really? Where did I say anything even remotely like that? Please, do point me to a direct quote. Besides there is nothing stopping the developer from selling their applications or games on BOTH the app store and on their own website, but in your rage-infuced state you are blissfully ignorant of that fact.
Perhaps, if your target audience is geeks.
So far I haven't met a single non-geek person who had ever even heard of Softpedia or similar services. Besides, how about e.g. Download.com bundling adware with software ( http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/06/014244/downloadcom-bundling... ), including F/OSS software? A geek would know something's wrong but a non-geek wouldn't. A generic app store that's handled even remotely responsibly protects the users from atleast this kind of stuff, something that you again decide to blissfully ignore.
I hope that's a typo.
Pot calling kettle black.