3 ms·

"This is much better than a central authority ..." Some people like curation. They prefer a central authority like Macy's, or Slate, or Trader Joe's, or DNSBL

by dalke 12y ago

"This is much better than a central authority ..." Some people like curation. They prefer a central authority like Macy's, or Slate, or Trader Joe's, or DNSBL make decisions for them. Apple is providing a curated shopping center for their customers, many of whom chose Apple because it provides a curated experience. Can you convince me that people who want a curated experience are better served only when all stores (remember that Google, Amazon, and Blackberry approved the app) have no curation? I can understand how your view will be better for some app developers. But if Apple's review has no stick, only carrot, can you convince me that it will overall be better for its customers? If they follow your suggestion, what would make their products different from the other stores?

k2xl 12y ago
There is a big difference between Macy's and an online app store/portal. For one, it costs Macy's money and opportunity to put something on the shelf. It costs Apple barely anything. Web portals have been around for a long time with Flash games (Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc). The best games get voted to the top by customer feedback (ratings and reviews).
- 2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
  This at best shows that alternate models can work. It doesn't answer the question, if Apple switched to a more open model, would it be good for their customers? I for one, like that there is some level of curation.
- dalke 12y ago
  And yet of the sites I read, only one - HN - has rankings by customer feedback. Slate, like most other online magazines, provides a curated experience determined by the editors. These have also been around for a long time, even though it costs the magazine "barely anything" to acquire a bunch of SEO dreck and put it on the shelves as well. Planet Python aggregates blogs from people who mostly talk about Python. The selection is hand-picked, which makes it another curated experience - even though it could aggregate many more blogs for "barely anything." I picked TJ's for a reason - where most grocery stores might have 5-10 brands for a given product, TJ's might have 1-3, and likely a store brand. This works because they do more curatation work to find something close to the Pareto frontier. I believe some people go to TJ precisely because it limits the effect of the paradox of choice. This also means customers switch from item brand loyalty to store brand loyalty, which is "bad" for producers of nationwide brands, but "good" for TJ and presumably its customers. MCRed in this thread makes the brilliant observation that Google's GMail curates the email experience by removing spam - even though it costs "barely anything" for them to include the spam in the main mailbox. People love that curated experience, even though it doesn't help the scammers improve their operations. Can you convince me that Apple would do better without curation? Not that it could work, but that it would be better?
interpol_p 12y ago
It's very important to note that if its good for customers it's great for developers. If customers trust the store, and it's a pleasant place to shop, then customers are more likely to spend money.

by dalke 12y ago

k2xl 12y ago

There is a big difference between Macy's and an online app store/portal. For one, it costs Macy's money and opportunity to put something on the shelf. It costs Apple barely anything. Web portals have been around for a long time with Flash games (Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc). The best games get voted to the top by customer feedback (ratings and reviews).

2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
This at best shows that alternate models can work. It doesn't answer the question, if Apple switched to a more open model, would it be good for their customers? I for one, like that there is some level of curation.
dalke 12y ago
And yet of the sites I read, only one - HN - has rankings by customer feedback. Slate, like most other online magazines, provides a curated experience determined by the editors. These have also been around for a long time, even though it costs the magazine "barely anything" to acquire a bunch of SEO dreck and put it on the shelves as well. Planet Python aggregates blogs from people who mostly talk about Python. The selection is hand-picked, which makes it another curated experience - even though it could aggregate many more blogs for "barely anything." I picked TJ's for a reason - where most grocery stores might have 5-10 brands for a given product, TJ's might have 1-3, and likely a store brand. This works because they do more curatation work to find something close to the Pareto frontier. I believe some people go to TJ precisely because it limits the effect of the paradox of choice. This also means customers switch from item brand loyalty to store brand loyalty, which is "bad" for producers of nationwide brands, but "good" for TJ and presumably its customers. MCRed in this thread makes the brilliant observation that Google's GMail curates the email experience by removing spam - even though it costs "barely anything" for them to include the spam in the main mailbox. People love that curated experience, even though it doesn't help the scammers improve their operations. Can you convince me that Apple would do better without curation? Not that it could work, but that it would be better?

interpol_p 12y ago

It's very important to note that if its good for customers it's great for developers. If customers trust the store, and it's a pleasant place to shop, then customers are more likely to spend money.