Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Nov 2012 23:01 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "The abuse of push notifications is spreading across the App Store. As a result, users are starting to reflexively reject app requests to send push notifications. I always allow apps to send me push notifications, just so I can see what other app developers are doing. Here is a collection of valueless, invasive, and annoying push notifications that I've received recently." Perfect illustration of why one of the usual arguments for strongly curated application stores - quality control - is, as it stands now, pure nonsense. A decent quality control system would bar all these applications from the store. Similar stuff is going on in the Windows 8 application store: a never-ending stream of ugly, pointless crap nobody cares about. Heck, many of them do not even have a tile icon! The end result is that whether you go to Google Play or the App Store, 99.9% is crap. I would much rather have a very restrictive, quality-focussed store - but with an option to enable sideloading. The way application stores work today in no way leads to better quality applications than with plain-old internet distribution. In fact, I'd argue things have gotten worse, not better, due to application store spam.
Thread beginning with comment 542218
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Saladar on Mon 12th Nov 2012 23:25 UTC
Member since:

So app stores have become the new mail order catalogs. Just flood the (whatever) and even if just 1 out of 100 buys something, it's profitable.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hmm
by WorknMan on Tue 13th Nov 2012 05:07 in reply to "Hmm"
WorknMan Member since:

So app stores have become the new mail order catalogs. Just flood the (whatever) and even if just 1 out of 100 buys something, it's profitable.

Ya, pretty much. For me, rather than having a super-curated app store, I'd rather have one that is honest about whether the app is REALLY free or not.

Honestly, I don't mind paying for apps, but I hate downloading apps marked free, only to find that they're infected with adware, or you have to make an in-app purchase to get the full functionality. If it costs money, then just make me pay for the f**king thing up front, with a free trial preferable.

Point being, I blame app store vendors for a lot of this.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Hmm
by sparkyERTW on Tue 13th Nov 2012 13:49 in reply to "RE: Hmm"
sparkyERTW Member since:

You sadly have to blame the market somewhat, too. The number of "I don't buy apps" people I've come across is far more numerous than those that do. So while I too would prefer to shell out at least a few bucks to avoid adware, developers and publishers see me as the minority case.

Of course, I already get a bit leery about app stores. As a frequent user of open source software, I get a little antsy when I read the list of permissions apps want and know that no independent review has ever or can ever be done to ensure the app isn't abusing its allowances.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Hmm
by Nelson on Tue 13th Nov 2012 16:49 in reply to "RE: Hmm"
Nelson Member since:

I agree. I'd love to see clearer up front descriptions about the app in the Marketplaces.

At least on Windows this metadata is already available (for Advertising and In app Purchasing) so you can get a lot more descriptive than they currently are

"This app is paid + includes in app purchasing." or "This app is free + includes in app advertising"

Also, I'd love for a clear description on what upgrading from Trial does. This should be a hard requirement.

Reply Parent Score: 2