4 ms·

Apple has more choice because it won't let apps compete? > If someone posts an app before you that is to similar to what you post, they will tell you no. sear

Apple has more choice because it won't let apps compete? > If someone posts an app before you that is to similar to what you post, they will tell you no. search "2048 game" and let me know how many similar games they said no to.

withinboredom 3y ago
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you force people to differentiate to compete, then there will be more innovation and diversity. That also means there’s less incentive to create “yet another journaling app” because you don’t know what is “too similar” for the reviewer. (Real example: “you can’t list this because it has a similar feature to X” rebuttal: “X has many features, but we are focusing on simplicity and this feature is our only feature we intend to support. For privacy, we won’t sync or do any of the other fancy things X does.” Their final response: “it’s still too similar” — all paraphrases). In order to compete in established verticals, your app has to be nearly feature complete and “different enough” as well as be completely polished. This is quite a gamble when starting out. > search "2048 game" and let me know how many similar games they said no to. I don’t know how old the rules are for this. I just know it currently exists. Also, it’s possible that a number of them were submitted at the exact same time and there was a race condition allowing the market to be flooded.
- asp_hornet 3y ago
  Fair points. It sounds like perhaps your position is more against their opaque and inconsistent application of their policies than the policies themselves which I can agree with.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    I’m against the policy itself. If I’m running a flea market, I don’t want it full of hot dog stands. That’s because there is only so much physical space. If I search the App Store for hot dog stands, the space is unlimited. There’s so much they could do there (a/b testing similar apps to find the “best ones” like YouTube, comes to mind). Since there’s no competition, they don’t innovate nor do they see that the old rules don’t and shouldn’t apply. Their search is so bad, it’s a miracle people don’t install malware.
- intended 3y ago
  This is a weird premise overall. Aren't both positions nonsense? People test an app out on Android. If it works, they will make an iOS app. That would make innovation across mobile devices, not android/apple. Wouldnt it?
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Android is even more expensive (in time, and money) to get up and running, these days. For example, they force you to go find your country's D-U-N's number provider, which usually costs time and money -- unlike the US, where looking up your own number is free. Then they verify it. Apple just looks it up for you, for free. When you register as a person, Apple just requires basic supporting documentation and doesn't require a real device. Google requires that you have a specific brand of device in-hand to sell an app, and won't let you use smaller, less known brands (at least in the US, even if the brand is popular where you live). This means you need to drop nearly $1,000 USD on a phone, just to make a free app. Apple is $99, all-in. The play store (for me) was approx 955 + 25 + 15 to get an app listed. So no, Apple is probably a less expensive gamble. Especially if you already have access to a mac (rented or paid).

withinboredom 3y ago

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you force people to differentiate to compete, then there will be more innovation and diversity. That also means there’s less incentive to create “yet another journaling app” because you don’t know what is “too similar” for the reviewer. (Real example: “you can’t list this because it has a similar feature to X” rebuttal: “X has many features, but we are focusing on simplicity and this feature is our only feature we intend to support. For privacy, we won’t sync or do any of the other fancy things X does.” Their final response: “it’s still too similar” — all paraphrases). In order to compete in established verticals, your app has to be nearly feature complete and “different enough” as well as be completely polished. This is quite a gamble when starting out. > search "2048 game" and let me know how many similar games they said no to. I don’t know how old the rules are for this. I just know it currently exists. Also, it’s possible that a number of them were submitted at the exact same time and there was a race condition allowing the market to be flooded.

asp_hornet 3y ago
Fair points. It sounds like perhaps your position is more against their opaque and inconsistent application of their policies than the policies themselves which I can agree with.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  I’m against the policy itself. If I’m running a flea market, I don’t want it full of hot dog stands. That’s because there is only so much physical space. If I search the App Store for hot dog stands, the space is unlimited. There’s so much they could do there (a/b testing similar apps to find the “best ones” like YouTube, comes to mind). Since there’s no competition, they don’t innovate nor do they see that the old rules don’t and shouldn’t apply. Their search is so bad, it’s a miracle people don’t install malware.
intended 3y ago
This is a weird premise overall. Aren't both positions nonsense? People test an app out on Android. If it works, they will make an iOS app. That would make innovation across mobile devices, not android/apple. Wouldnt it?
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Android is even more expensive (in time, and money) to get up and running, these days. For example, they force you to go find your country's D-U-N's number provider, which usually costs time and money -- unlike the US, where looking up your own number is free. Then they verify it. Apple just looks it up for you, for free. When you register as a person, Apple just requires basic supporting documentation and doesn't require a real device. Google requires that you have a specific brand of device in-hand to sell an app, and won't let you use smaller, less known brands (at least in the US, even if the brand is popular where you live). This means you need to drop nearly $1,000 USD on a phone, just to make a free app. Apple is $99, all-in. The play store (for me) was approx 955 + 25 + 15 to get an app listed. So no, Apple is probably a less expensive gamble. Especially if you already have access to a mac (rented or paid).