3 ms·
I disagree. The truth is, some of my most used apps are the least important and/or cheapest. This is why, if we went with a pay by usage app store plan, the tru
by nmesse 11y ago
I disagree. The truth is, some of my most used apps are the least important and/or cheapest. This is why, if we went with a pay by usage app store plan, the true winners would be the addictive, least useful apps.
I use the Spotify app 24/7, yet I use Editorial and Pythonista (both costing around $7), an app I value to a much greater degree, sometimes just -8h daily. And the truth is, while OmniOutliner is so much usefuler than say Pinterest, people spend a lot more time on Pinterest.
Don't get me wrong, I do see why the losers are probably the 99¢ apps, after all, you probably do not use those on a concurrent basis. Yet, if we go by the hourly usage, people use social networks like Pinterest and Facebook, games like Temple Run, and music services, to a much greater degree overall.
- gress 11y agoSure but that's easily fixed by stipulating that ad supported services are not eligible for the payout.
- nmesse 11y agoAha, but of course, these services and time wasters will just adapt to have no ads. Essentially, I fear that all apps will take the approach of being excellent time wasters or services (because that's what they're being paid for), and killing all the truly great apps that that have around 20 people using them, yet cost around $7. And are not as addictive as these time wasters. Some apps try to minimize the time spent in their apps (a losing strategy in this new economy) because people pay them for a fast, frictionless service (think Drafts), but put less time into them than a browser or addictive game.