

How to prevent the App Store from becoming the Crap Store - EtienneJohnred
http://www.taptaptap.com/blog/how-to-prevent-the-app-store-from-becoming-the-crap-store/

======
iigs
This thought occurred to me as well. I think it's of merit but Apple actually
has a really hard problem on their hands, namely that the app store UI is
terribly simple and at the moment doesn't appear to have a good way to
prioritize suggestions.

Given the metadata that they must have, it would be trivial to switch to gross
revenue, or rev * review score, or any number of other things, including time.
(Reddit/HN method of scoring articles)

For that matter there's no reason why they can't compare app store purchases
you've scored to the scores of other people who've purchased the same
application to suggest things. (Amazon "people who purchased..." or Netflix
way of doing things)

Hey Apple, give me the ability to affiliate your store. You can have 95%
control of the UI (I want a banner at the top) but I get to pick the sequence
things are offered for a given search. Give me 5%, I will make you rich.
(Netflix challenge way of doing things)

~~~
pistoriusp
At the moment they have a "Customers also bought" section, bottom right in
itunes.

And you can become an affiliate for the itunes store:
<http://www.apple.com/itunes/affiliates/>

------
vulpes
All this would do is force the prices the other way. People would be trying to
sell crap for more using WOM or some other way to inflate 'box office revenue'
and once they are on the list, instead of lowering the price to stay on it,
they'd be increasing it. While that will get rid of crapware for .99, it will
drive the prices of the same soft up, ultimately hurting the consumer. Best
solution to this is app genius that recommends apps based on what you want to
do.

Until that happens, use word of mouth to your advantage. Use Google Mobile App
as an example of online campaign. Once techies get your app on their phone,
they will be the platform for homing in their less tech friends to your apps.

~~~
Timothee
In a way, one issue with the App Store, is that it exists. Since people know
it's there, they'll check it out to see what's available. As opposed to
probably not looking for apps at all. (or less)

And finding a good way to rank the apps is not easy. By number of downloads
doesn't work well, by revenue wouldn't work I think, by rating might work a
little bit but then what? So, the App Store is in fact not a great place to
find good apps, just the most popular.

So, people go to the App Store but otherwise don't know where to go to find
apps or information about apps. But the presence of the store makes the word-
of-mouth a little bit more difficult because the store is supposed to be the
place, so I suppose in general, people don't look anywhere else. (I know I
don't) And people don't feel like sharing their discoveries as much.

Of course, I don't deny the huge benefit of the App Store. I would have never
installed that many applications otherwise. But it's "louder" and covers some
of the more traditional marketing and word-of-mouth.

------
mcormier
The author doesn't paint the complete picture.

The iPhone application they wrote, "Classics" was released after "Stanza"
(<http://www.lexcycle.com/>). Stanza is free, I believe they plan on charging
for their desktop software in the future. The main difference between stanza
and classics is that classics has fancier animations.

------
lacker
The author misses that the different parties have different goals. TapTapTap
wants to maximize app revenue. To do that, you do want to sort by revenue.
(Actually, probably something like revenue per last n impressions, so that
apps that have a traffic spike won't stay up there when the spike is over.)

But Apple makes most their money off the sale of iPhones. So they want people
to be happy when they use the app store, even if it doesn't make them as much
money directly. When someone downloads and enjoys a free app, that's
meaningless to TapTapTap, but it's great for Apple. You can't exactly measure
user enjoyment, but it's not unreasonable to suppose that "number of
downloads" is a better proxy for user happiness than "net revenue".

------
stcredzero
Mobile apps do not have to be driven by impulse. I was dating a med student
when ePocrates was all the rage for doctors and med students on Palm devices.
She had hers on a Sony Clie. ePocrates was great because you had searchable
pharmaceutical information that was also updated every time you synced. The
fact that it replaced a few big honking volumes was great. There was no App
Store back then. My impression was that advertising was largely word of mouth.

I intend to develop applications for specific niches, so I won't be depending
on being in the "What's Hot" lists. Instead, I will be providing something
that spreads by word of mouth because it has real value. (I'll also be hitting
up blogs and other media.)

------
unalone
Is that blog using Fertigo Pro for a font? That's incredible.

I don't know much about economics and the App Store, but I'd be inclined to
trust this article. TapTapTap makes some excellent apps. Classics is a
favorite.

------
DenisM
There is no busness like the show business.

If you have a hit you make it big, otherwise you get next to nothing.

------
briansmith
I think Apple wants apps to be $0.99 or free. Otherwise they would have been
ranking by revenue from the beginning.

~~~
LPTS
Apple wants apps to do everything that can be offloaded to a handheld. This
thing is in it's infancy. Apple gets to create this part of the 21st century
because no one else is up for it. You think the iPhone is a mature product?
Not even close.

~~~
Tichy
Apple did not create this part of the 21st century. There have been
applications for mobile phones for years now (and before the phones, there was
the palm pilot). I am sure there are way more applications available for other
mobile platforms than for the iPhone. #nitpicking

~~~
LPTS
The critical point is cognitive friction. The UI of the iPhone means that it
integrates with your brain much easier then a cell phone. There is a critical
point between UI, mind extension, and cognitive friction. The 21st century
potentials come from the way the exponentially better UI reduce cognitive
friction and let your mind interact with your phone more naturally.

It's like a primitive MMI. A cell phone isn't. That's the difference. This
isn't the last cell phone. It's the first MMI that follows you everywhere.

I think your view that apps are what is important is superficial, and what's
important is cognitive function. Getting human brains to work better with a
phone is what makes apple responsible for this part of the 21st century, not
the abilities of the phone per se.

~~~
Tichy
I thought the discussion was about the app store. Usability of the iPhone -
maybe. Maybe a bigger factor is mobile internet becoming cheaper. I haven't
been a user of mobile internet so far, but perhaps those Blackberry guys have
been using mobile internet long before the iPhone?

What exactly can be done with the iPhone now that wasn't possible before
(possibly with a slightly less pleasing UI)? Maybe it only adds one
ingredient: mass audience, which of course accounts for a lot.

~~~
LPTS
The app store is a seed. I'm talking about the tree it's going to grow into.
That's topical.

I can interact with it and have 100% of my brain available for the kinds of
thinking my brain is good at. Because interacting with it does not require
much of my brain (that good UI), it solves a bottleneck. If I use my iPhone to
manage information, it multiplies the efficiency of my thinking. A cell phone
doesn't do that.

There is a tipping point from UI and getting your mind into your phone where
you can get more of your mind free to think while you use your device. UI
represents the bottleneck between your brain and your device, so breaking that
bottleneck is as important a technological revolution as breaking a bottleneck
between different parts of your computer.

maybe you didn't do enough acid in college and don't consider every possible
description should include an observer, but how your brain interacts with your
machine (and environment) is as important a technological factor as anything
technological. Apple, and the other people that realize that get to invent the
21st century. There is a reason neuron valley will be the next silicon valley
over the next 20 years.

~~~
Tichy
Maybe I didn't do enough acid to believe that Apple is the shit. Palm Pilots
already were used to organize information, and they were much more open than
the iPhone.

It would like to like Apple, but somehow it is all too restricted. Take the
deeply flawed app store: since it is not open and not even HTML compatible, it
is impossible for other people to step up and improve on it. I hope that is
not the 21st century we are heading for.

Maybe the first time with the iPhone feels like a shot of a new, exciting
drug. But ultimately using it synchronizes you to Apples way of thinking, and
turns you into a drone.

~~~
LPTS
You are thinking days and weeks ahead instead of months and decades. I agree
the app store as it stands is crap. I think the ship has sailed on the app
store being crap. That's a short term, soluble problem. Long term, UI +
neurology will determine the 21st century we are headed for.

All the other corporations suck at integrating UI and the brain.

Watching people talk about the technology game as if what's happening right
now (i.e. last years decisions) matters on a larger scale is like watching
kindergardeners play soccer by mobbing the ball. While you're talking about
HTMML in the app store, they're thinking about 2010, 2020.

If the printing press was just invented, you'd be saying monks had been
copying books by hand forever, and were more open then the printing press.

~~~
Tichy
Just not betting on Apple, that's all. I think/hope the "corporations" only
have a couple of years left before open source takes over completely. At the
moment they still have some hold on the hardware, but open source hardware
will fix that. Apple hurts my brain because I can not amend it to my needs.

~~~
LPTS
but open source cannot compete with apple. That is like saying an army with no
generals, navy, air force or money will beat an army with a great general with
stealth bombers, battleships, and a building filled with hundred dollar bills
and gold bars. Just not gonna happen.

~~~
Tichy
In my opinion Linux has already beat Microsoft and Apple on the desktop, why
should it not be possible with hardware?

Open Source can have generals, too, and if money was the only issue, why
didn't Microsoft beat Apple?

~~~
LPTS
"Why didn't Microsoft beat Apple?"

Because the CEO of microsoft believes emulating the alpha male of a gorilla
exhibit in the zoo is the best way to lead people?

------
LPTS
Ship. Meet Sailed. Sailed, Ship.

