|
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| For all of those app stores, the current approach prints them money and lets them claim impartiality, while still allowing some control through acceptance rules, ToSes and automated security measures. All those things scale well. Any other approach I can think of ends up having corner cases that involve human support or interfacing with regulatory systems - and these things do not scale well. |
|
| ▲ | whstl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And the iPhone/iPad AppStore is also a wasteland, in relative terms. It just happens to also have a few software people actually need. But those apps are like a single tiny oasis in the middle of the Sahara desert. |
|
| ▲ | xp84 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't know if curation is really the problem. Nearly every other platform has a search that when you search for "Mr Beast" on YouTube or "Elon Musk" on X they know you mean the popular one and not some 2-bit dork's fan page or parody that happens to have those words in the title/keywords. I think they just (A) have no idea what they're doing when it comes to search and (B) the scamware that fills all their App Stores makes Apple a ton of extra money compared to people finding the real apps which usually are monetized outside the app store due to Apple's absurd revshare. |
| |
| ▲ | leakycap 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't know if curation is really the problem. A lack of oversight is what I see as the problem, and the solution would require a significant human element. Expecting a retailer to know/inspect the product they collect margins on shouldn't be a big ask. The retailer has to know what they're selling, but Apple seems to turn a blind eye to shady listings because of the way Mac App Store results are shown and the lack of useful filtering available to the user. | | |
| ▲ | thenthenthen 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lack of care, like previous commenters mentioned, each sale is a sale, and 30% to Apple. It does not matter what you sell. One step deeper and it does matter what you sell: it seems to incentivise spammy apps, why block these money makers?! It is all about money. Nothing else. | | |
| ▲ | seviu 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | When we propose alternatives the answer is that they want to protect customers. But they don’t protect their cash cow from massive daily influxes of scam apps. It’s better one million scam apps generating 50k per month and drowning my two or three apps for which I spent months of work than a few thousand quality apps from which everybody would profit. Let’s be real it takes a special kind of mad developer to try to make a business that relies on the AppStore. First if you are unlucky you get rejected on day one or two. And if you aren’t and are wildly popular you risk Apple copying your business model. Because deep down some people at Apple despise the App Store developers and think they can do much better. This has been at the core of Apple culture for ages. Anyway we legit indie developers who care about our products get drowned in irrelevance. Who cares. |
|
| |
| ▲ | whstl 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Nearly every other platform has a search that when you search for "Mr Beast" on YouTube or "Elon Musk" on X they know you mean the popular one and not some 2-bit dork's fan page or parody that happens to have those words in the title/keywords. Well, that's what you expect as a user and as a technology person, but as the TFA demonstrates, this doesn't apply to Google without an ad-blocker. |
|
|
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is not my experience. In fact, I just tried searching for "Microsoft Word" in the Mac App Store, and it was the first hit (with other Office apps coming next). I did a search for "Instapaper" and again, first hit. On my iPhone I did the same thing, there was a single sponsored app as the first item (and oddly completely unrelated), and the first app after that was the one I typed. |
