Divide by at least 10
I suspect the real people and real apps (not resubmissions by a new fake person with minor changes) are orders of magnitude lower. It is a living - for some.
Google has revealed that it booted “more than 700,000 apps” and 100,000 developers out of its Play digital tat bazaar during 2017. That’s about 1,900 a day and 70 per cent more than Google banished last year. The news isn’t all bad: Google said 99 per cent of the bad apps were binned by tools that employ machine learning, so …
This is why the 99$ per year +iDevice developer is a thing.
Yo have to spend at leas 150$ to try to pass defences.. and invest in automating associating idevices to accounts.
At 100.000 devs expelled, that would have been 15 million dollars of added expense.. not huge, but a dent, and most low level hackers are deterred.. or deterred enough to go to Android.
They should put a 1000$ deposit, that you will get back after a year. THAT would deter most of them.
It would also make tracking them way easyer.
I like the deposit idea - that would virtually kill multiple accounts overnight.
It would also cull small devs with nice ideas - but those might just slog on until they have the dosh to register. Hopefully it would also slam the door on worthless copycat submissions.
The real question is : how heavy would the backlash be ?
@Tigra07 - stop and think for a moment: when was the last time you installed a "paid" app?
The sad fact is that the undercutting mentality has led to a culture in which a lot of people are unwilling to pay for apps, especially on Android (I have had Android owners openly and unashamedly admit that if they find an app they want has a price tag associated, they will look for a free alternative rather than pay). Ultimately, this has put us in a position where most apps rely on adverts to generate any kind of return.
Now factor in that above all else, Google's business model is based on selling advertising space on anything they control, and in recent times they have demonstrated time and again that all they care about is their profit margin: long gone are the days of "don't be evil"
So yes, they could put such a restriction in place. Similarly, they could put some better form of curation on their store. But they won't.
"Ultimately, this has put us in a position where most apps rely on adverts to generate any kind of return."
No, it means you have to try harder. Whilst you can sell any old shite on Apple's marketplace and braindead plebs will buy it, as 99p is nothing to someone thank has spunked a grand on a phone. Android will have free alternatives to your tat. The free version might ever be better than your tat.
It's not that users aren't willing, it's that opensource OS has lots of opensource apps, and a generally free culture, and your tat isn't worth paying for not unless you put some real effort in.
"Whilst you can sell any old shite on Apple's marketplace and braindead plebs will buy it, as 99p is nothing to someone thank has spunked a grand on a phone."
Having spent a significant chunk of 2011-2015 making games for mobile - both paid and ad supported, on iOS, Android and Windows Phone - I can assure you that all mobile marketplaces are equally shite.
"Android will have free alternatives to your tat. The free version might ever be better than your tat...
It's not that users aren't willing..."
"it's that opensource OS has lots of opensource apps, and a generally free culture, and your tat isn't worth paying for not unless you put some real effort in."
Next time there's a big football match on the telly, go into your local pub and ask a random selection of those watching it how they feel about Android being open source and having open source apps. I would be very surprised if a single soul cared - heck, I'd be surprised if more that a handful even knew what being open source meant.
Basically, you are trying to justify the worst offender in what is a ridiculously over-saturated sector by assuming that the average person has a developer's viewpoint towards open source, and by assuming that Android buyers behaviour is driven by market-savvyness and not greed. But Google's entire public- facing offering is built on the premise of everyone going after the "free" option - gmail, web search, google docs, youtube, google drive... the average person does not give a crap that they are giving away their privacy, all they care about is that they do not have to pay money for it.
I sincerely hope that if you ever consider releasing any software, you get someone else to do your market research.
You clearly don't get it. Opensource OS tends to draw Opensource apps and drags in closed source free apps
Things you pay for multiple times on iOS (phone version, tablet version, apple tv version), are far more likely to be free on Android. If you are bold enough to put a price on yours, it had better not only be good, but substantially better than the free stuff.
This is nothing to do with bloke in the pub, or if they know or care about opensource
And yes ,as a matter of fact, I do have some pay apps on the Google Play store, with a couple of thousand of purchase. I also have some free ones where there is no point trying to charge, as I did my market research (but the app was a derivative of something else, easy to do, and a loss-leader for my pay apps).
You also seem to think all Android owners are total plebs that don't know what they are giving up in exchange for "free" stuff. No wonder nobody wants your apps, you not only think they are cretins, it's clear your favorite platform is fruity.
"You clearly don't get it. Opensource OS tends to draw Opensource apps and drags in closed source free apps"
Okay, let's have some links to ratios of open to closed source apps on both major platforms please. Because the funny thing is, from my experience, the vast majority of app developers - regardless of OS - are more concerned about making enough to keep a roof over their heads that contributing to the open source community.
Also, the vast majority of mobile apps are games. Is Unity3D open source? Is Unreal Engine?
And you have clearly missed my point that the vast majority of mobile users are average people who don't care whether their app is open or closed source. They don't give a rat's backside about the enrichment of the developer community. However, they do care about the contents of their wallets and bank accounts and - again, regardless of what OS they use - they will generally go for a free application as opposed to a paid one unless they are looking for something highly specialised, or the paid app has a reputation of being vastly superior to any free app offering the same functionality.
So no, I don't think that Android owners are plebs - nor iOS owners. I do however think that people are easily lured by the promise of "free" stuff, be it apps, TV channels, online services, membership to organisations, whatever. I also believe that most people are still not very savvy when it comes to online privacy, and because of their far greater reach, I believe Google is a far more dangerous entity than Apple in this regard.
At the end of the day, "nobody wanted my apps" (on Android and iOS) because I did not market them very well; I fully admit that I underestimated just how saturated the mobile market - again on both major platforms - has become. My decision to jump out of developing for mobile - and indeed, developing on mobile for profit - was largely fuelled by the number of people trying to sell me "user acquisition" at a B2B conference I was exhibiting at - "Only 50c per install, you'll probably need a minimum of 10-20,000 installs to get some traction".
But then this is not really about market success or failure, is it...?
" it's clear your favorite platform is fruity."
It's about the fact that I have dared to criticise Android - made abundantly clear by the knee-jerk "you prefer iOS and think that Android owners are idiots" remark. In fact, my mobile platform of choice is the Nokia 1100 - no spyware (either fruity or robot-y) and a removable battery with a life of around 10 days. Alas, I need a smartphone for my day-job (not writing mobile apps, incidentally).
But this is just knocking my head on a wall, isn't it? By disregarding my comment about "all mobile markets" (drawn largely from the aforementioned UA agents, whose offerings were for both iOS and Android) and deciding to tar me with the "iOS" brush, you have clearly placed yourself in the opposite camp, singing the song I have heard from many of its faithful about open source, and ignoring how the current marketing model is hurting devs, regardless of platform.
... and let's have some links to those apps while you're at it.
Remember the complaint leveled at WinPhones, no "apps".
Those of us who had and liked using our Windows Phones kept saying that most of these trillions of apps were (cr)apps. But it was enough damage to deter buyers and probably developers too. Herd mentality as much as anything.
As for what is in the Appstore. It's amazing how few are of any quality, and how many seem to be identical in every detail bar a few bits of cosmetic detail.
There are vast numbers of apps. Many, many more than could actually be sold. Most not worth paying for. Some just different rewrapped versions of the same app. People will only use them if they're free because they aren't worth cash or even the effort to pay. Should a game ( it's mostly games) require cash to play it people will either look for a free version - because there will probably be a free version- or just find a different time waster.
The only apps that can make it in the paid market are the ones that are actually worth paying for. I have paid the cost of a very small number of utility apps that add something to my phones. There are very few things that people would want to pay for. And if there is a free alternative anyway, why would you?
Only the app developers can say whether they would be prepared to create small programmes to sell on a phone platform in the hope that people will pay for them. But that's business. You invest time and money and hope to earn. No different to inventing a new kind of paper clip or writing a novel.
The apps that I paid for were "freemium". I liked the free version and found them useful so I decided to fork out a little bit of money for the full version.
On my PC I have paid for software and free software. Mostly free/Open Source software because many of the paid programmes are priced for business use not SOHO use. Photoshop Elements is affordable. Serif (Affinity they call themselves now) is affordable. So over the years I've paid for some of these. But on my Android phone and tablet I can see very little that I would actually need or want to pay for.
> Google has revealed that it booted “more than 700,000 apps” and 100,000 developers out of its Play digital tat bazaar during 2017.
> That’s about 1,900 a day and 70 per cent more than Google banished last year.
Last year was 2017, so in 2017 70% more apps where kicked out than in 2017?
Or maybe you missed the new year and meant 2016?
"1,900 rotten apps bounced out of Google Play every day in 2017"
but it actually means "1,900 rotten apps prevented from entering Google Play every day in 2017"
Big difference. Nobody ever saw these apps, they were never live. The writer is despete for and Google or Android clickbait he can lay his grubby hands on,
Fixing the symptom of bad apps in the store but not the problem of malware developers being able to automate abuse. This another reason why people hate Google so f'ing much. Google's apps support enormous amounts of spam and phishing on the Internet but Google filters it when using the same apps to view content. People say, "I get so much less spam on GMail than my ISP's mail" or "Google Groups is much cleaner than my ISP's Usenet feed" when all of that trash is actually Google's fault.
If you have a app that slurps up all the users data, scans all the users stored media, accesses the users private Whatsapp and Facebook messages and then sends all that data back to some "cloud" somewhere all that is required is that the developer makes a vague reference to what is slurpped in a "privacy" policy and share the profits made from the sale of said private data to advertisers (and others) with Google then you won't have to worry about getting booted off the Play Store.
Just claim the app is a cleaner/antivirus/battery-saver and your good to go!
Then to get users to download your app you can inject Java into shared links in Webview using foreign advertising SDK's and the Facebook Graph API that hijacks other users browsers with fake virus warnings linking back to your app on the Play Store and use the users Google and Facebook access tokens to create 5 star reviews to make your app look legit.
(Sorry, I'm ranting again)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019