3 ms·
While some (if not most) of the practices sound laughable or downright (Nigerian-scam-ish) fraudulent by Silicon Valley standards, they are brutally effective a
by smilekzs 11y ago
While some (if not most) of the practices sound laughable or downright (Nigerian-scam-ish) fraudulent by Silicon Valley standards, they are brutally effective at siphoning revenue from the huge rise of technically-illiterate new smartphone users in Mainland China, especially in the economically under-developed regions. (think Soviet-esque industrial towns, coal mines, etc.)
Another interesting practice covered by this article is the practice of not only blatantly copying features, but also deliberately naming them as synonyms (in the colloquial Chinese sense) to the original. In my experience most people never tell a difference. I would imagine such practice getting sued and/or bashed to death were it implemented in SV...
- lazaroclapp 11y agoI don't really think I would enjoy using those apps more than the single-purpose sparse-content apps that are the norm in the US/EU market. However, I fail to see in which way those are more fraudulent or scam-ish than S.V. apps. About the only difference in that regard that I see on that list is that those apps integrate stores where you can buy stuff, in addition to ads trying to get you to buy stuff. Does the fact that the Ad link on the FB or Youtube app take you out of the app and into Amazon.com make it any more "legitimate", per se? I do see some security implications with the whole "lots of custom browsers connecting to random open Wi-Fi hotspots", though.