4 ms·

I'm actually glad to see editorializing disallowed in app titles. If everybody did it, the store would be a mess. I mean, it's already a mess, but even more s

I'm actually glad to see editorializing disallowed in app titles. If everybody did it, the store would be a mess. I mean, it's already a mess, but even more so.

NoGravitas 5y ago
"No ads" isn't editorializing, though. Unlike "best" or "#1", it's a statement of fact, and a fact that is probably useful to shoppers.
- baseballdork 5y ago
  Could this be in response to apps indicating that they don't have ads even though they do?
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    Or apps which don't have ads when first installed, but ads later get added in an update. The user will likely never see the updated app name.
  - petschge 5y ago
    In that case these apps should be banned, not the use of "no ads" in titles.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.
- otterley 5y ago
  The presence or omission of a fact is often the result of a conscious editorial choice. It is frequently the intent, not the nature of the words themselves, that underscores the editorial nature of the statement.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Buy Uncle Miller’s Corn Flakes — 100% arsenic free!
    - zepto 5y ago
      Avoid toxic chemicals - drink Coca Cola!
      - Spivak 5y ago
        Aspartame just hits different ya know?
    - otterley 5y ago
      Exactly. Another textbook example is the language describing meat as coming from pork with “no hormones added” even though it’s unlawful to add hormones to pork grown for human consumption. Sure, it’s a fact; but the choice to include it is made to provide a marketing boost over competing brands that might not have the language on the packaging.
      - duffyjp 5y ago
        Wow, that's incredibly dishonest to consumers! My turkey states "no hormones added," I assume that's also unlawful like pork? It should be illegal to advertise you're not doing something that is illegal in the first place if the intent is to imply others are in fact doing it.
        otterley 5y ago
        Correct, both pork and poultry.
        Spivak 5y ago
        The ability to use your regulatory obligations in your marketing materials and spin them as a positive is the carrot for companies to enthusiastically comply.
avereveard 5y ago
But the need does not exists in a void - the store does not allow to filter in searches apps with ads or microtransactions.
sneak 5y ago
Yes, this is definitely the reason, and it's unrelated to the fact that the store is operated by an ad company. Lie to yourself, but please don't lie to others.
TrueGeek 5y ago
The problem (with both app stores) is there are really three types of apps: paid, free, requires subscription. Devs are having to use titles to make it clear which is which since the stores aren't letting them use categories. It's frustrating (for both user and developer) when a user downloads an app expecting it to be free only to find it won't work if you don't pay monthly.
- SquareWheel 5y ago
  I agree. I'd also like to see information for things like one-time, subscription-based, or repeatable in-app purchases (eg. "gems"). Apple does a better job of displaying this information than Google. Sometimes I check what IAP are available on the iOS variant of an app I'm interested in, just to get a better idea.

I'm actually glad to see editorializing disallowed in app titles. If everybody did it, the store would be a mess. I mean, it's already a mess, but even more so.

NoGravitas 5y ago

"No ads" isn't editorializing, though. Unlike "best" or "#1", it's a statement of fact, and a fact that is probably useful to shoppers.

baseballdork 5y ago
Could this be in response to apps indicating that they don't have ads even though they do?
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Or apps which don't have ads when first installed, but ads later get added in an update. The user will likely never see the updated app name.
- petschge 5y ago
  In that case these apps should be banned, not the use of "no ads" in titles.
- rscoots 5y ago
  That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.
otterley 5y ago
The presence or omission of a fact is often the result of a conscious editorial choice. It is frequently the intent, not the nature of the words themselves, that underscores the editorial nature of the statement.
- Spivak 5y ago
  Buy Uncle Miller’s Corn Flakes — 100% arsenic free!
  - zepto 5y ago
    Avoid toxic chemicals - drink Coca Cola!
    - Spivak 5y ago
      Aspartame just hits different ya know?
  - otterley 5y ago
    Exactly. Another textbook example is the language describing meat as coming from pork with “no hormones added” even though it’s unlawful to add hormones to pork grown for human consumption. Sure, it’s a fact; but the choice to include it is made to provide a marketing boost over competing brands that might not have the language on the packaging.
    - duffyjp 5y ago
      Wow, that's incredibly dishonest to consumers! My turkey states "no hormones added," I assume that's also unlawful like pork? It should be illegal to advertise you're not doing something that is illegal in the first place if the intent is to imply others are in fact doing it.
      - otterley 5y ago
        Correct, both pork and poultry.
      - Spivak 5y ago
        The ability to use your regulatory obligations in your marketing materials and spin them as a positive is the carrot for companies to enthusiastically comply.

avereveard 5y ago

But the need does not exists in a void - the store does not allow to filter in searches apps with ads or microtransactions.

sneak 5y ago

Yes, this is definitely the reason, and it's unrelated to the fact that the store is operated by an ad company. Lie to yourself, but please don't lie to others.

TrueGeek 5y ago

The problem (with both app stores) is there are really three types of apps: paid, free, requires subscription. Devs are having to use titles to make it clear which is which since the stores aren't letting them use categories. It's frustrating (for both user and developer) when a user downloads an app expecting it to be free only to find it won't work if you don't pay monthly.

SquareWheel 5y ago
I agree. I'd also like to see information for things like one-time, subscription-based, or repeatable in-app purchases (eg. "gems"). Apple does a better job of displaying this information than Google. Sometimes I check what IAP are available on the iOS variant of an app I'm interested in, just to get a better idea.