3 ms·

>> The arguments for paying for review, distribution, advertising, search, etc feel so disingenuous when the company is worth so much money and these apps are c

>> The arguments for paying for review, distribution, advertising, search, etc feel so disingenuous when the company is worth so much money and these apps are contributing to its bottom line. No, they are not. We are talking about hobby apps and maybe free ones. Those don't contribute to their bottom line. We might say they contribute to the platform. For hobbyist they make it viable. But for paying customers maybe they add a lot of low value junk to the store. If a developer doesn't feel their app is worth a few dollars, maybe it's not worth having on there at all.

mmastrac 4y ago
This is the same disingenuous argument. The $99/year isn't preventing junk from showing up on the AppStore, and a lack of $99/year payments doesn't make the Google Play store a dumpster fire of garbage apps. [1] The AppStore is currently filled with low-value junk published by people paying $99/year (1.8 million apps out there, of which most outside of the top X lists are terrible). Will hobby apps really decrease the average quality? I highly doubt it. [1] I'll admit that this appeared to be the trend early on, but in the long term both platforms have converged to something similar.
- coliveira 4y ago
  Exactly, the real reason that people don't want to realize is that the $99 is not to keep garbage out of the store, it is to take the $99 per year from each developer in the world.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >The $99/year isn't preventing junk from showing up on the AppStore It's not "preventing junk from showing up on the AppStore", but it does prevent "a whola lot more of junk from showing up on the AppStore" >and a lack of $99/year payments doesn't make the Google Play stor a dumpster fire of garbage apps You'd be surprised. Google Play store is notoriously more insecure and loaded with junk, with estimates that close to 90% of mobile spy/malware are on Android rather than iOS. "According to the whitepaper, Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of the observed malware infections, Windows/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones for less than 1%" (Panda Security) "Over 98% of mobile banking attacks target Android devices"

mmastrac 4y ago

This is the same disingenuous argument. The $99/year isn't preventing junk from showing up on the AppStore, and a lack of $99/year payments doesn't make the Google Play store a dumpster fire of garbage apps. [1] The AppStore is currently filled with low-value junk published by people paying $99/year (1.8 million apps out there, of which most outside of the top X lists are terrible). Will hobby apps really decrease the average quality? I highly doubt it. [1] I'll admit that this appeared to be the trend early on, but in the long term both platforms have converged to something similar.

coliveira 4y ago
Exactly, the real reason that people don't want to realize is that the $99 is not to keep garbage out of the store, it is to take the $99 per year from each developer in the world.
coldtea 4y ago
>The $99/year isn't preventing junk from showing up on the AppStore It's not "preventing junk from showing up on the AppStore", but it does prevent "a whola lot more of junk from showing up on the AppStore" >and a lack of $99/year payments doesn't make the Google Play stor a dumpster fire of garbage apps You'd be surprised. Google Play store is notoriously more insecure and loaded with junk, with estimates that close to 90% of mobile spy/malware are on Android rather than iOS. "According to the whitepaper, Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of the observed malware infections, Windows/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones for less than 1%" (Panda Security) "Over 98% of mobile banking attacks target Android devices"