Having a constraint based on the time since the last release is probably
insufficient since publishers who want to abuse the market in this way would
not be deterred, and there would be enough of them that even if only a small
proportion of them could publish a rank adjusting update, they would still
blot out new releases.
Also the software I write tends to have long release cycles (too long
probably). That is partially a consequence of me trying to do too much, but
I like to think that its also a reflection that I spend a lot of time trying
to get an application right first time. Promoting updated applications might
penalize authors such as myself, though that wouldn't cause me to change my
approach; I enjoy trying to produce high quality software.

Returning to the thrust of your original post, I think the core problem is
that applications are not very discoverable. I think there's an irony that
Google (though it is just one member of the OHA), a company whose ascendency
has been in large part due to its ability to promote the discoverability of
information through the analysis of openly networked data, is now backed
into a very closed market environment where it differentiating strengths are
mostly neutralized.

A contributing factor to this situation is surely the demands of carriers
and perhaps even the nature of the contract with market publishers.
Nevertheless, a web-based market that provided canonical links to
applications for other websites, together with syndicatable XML based feeds
would, I believe, in a relatively short time create an information
infrastructure that would provide Google's search engine with the data
needed to find relevant high quality applications.

I appreciate that such a move could represent a threat to independent
services such as AndAppStore, though it could present opportunities if the
application database was vendor neutral but that does seems unlikely from my
limited perspective.

Tom.

2009/4/20 Al Sutton <[email protected]>

>  Hi Tom,
>
> You can use release limits to stop that kind of behaviour.
>
> Basically you limit the position in the new release table so that a new
> release doesn't get a position boost unless the prior release has either
> dropped down to a certain position or the prior release was made more than,
> say, 7 days ago.
>
> Al.
>
> ---
>
> * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ *
>
> ======
> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
> company number  6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
> 152-160 City Road, London,  EC1V 2NX, UK.
>
> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
> subsidiaries.
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Gibara
> *Sent:* 20 April 2009 08:55
>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [android-discuss] Re: Comparison of iPhone & G1 app selling
>
> Hi Al,
> Re updated apps: the alternative in an unmoderated market is that one can
> simply publish faux updates as often as one wants to push one's application
> back up the rankings; in the absence of a better idea I prefer Google's
> current approach to this.
>
> Tom
>
> 2009/4/20 Al Sutton <[email protected]>
>
>>
>> Josh,
>>
>> He also raised the following points;
>>
>> - Presentation of applications
>> - By default all apps are in one bucket (so apps which generate the 30%
>> for
>> Google et al. and help a developer pay bills get no extra visibility).
>> - Apps which developers release updates for have the same visibility as
>> apps
>> that developers abandon after a single release.
>>
>> Now I know that you can filter by paid or free only apps, but how many of
>> us
>> would have found that option easily?
>>
>> Al.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ *
>>
>> ======
>> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
>> company number  6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
>> 152-160 City Road, London,  EC1V 2NX, UK.
>>
>> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
>> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
>> subsidiaries.
>>
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Steiner
>> Sent: 20 April 2009 05:11
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: [android-discuss] Re: Comparison of iPhone & G1 app selling
>>
>>
>> Just needed to point out that his criticism seemed to boil down to that
>> the
>> app on iPhone sold in 1 day as much as the android app did in
>> 3 weeks.  If you take his estimation of deployed devices, 20-to-1 which is
>> probably in the ballpark... you should see exactly that number of sales.
>>  3
>> weeks = 21 days.  Hardly newsworthy if you ask me.
>>
>> That said, his critsicisms of the Market's flaws are dead on and should be
>> fixed.
>>
>> -J
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > http://twitter.com/markusN
>> >
>> > One app, two platforms, and some conclusions that hopefully Google
>> > will take on board.
>> >
>> > Al.
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> > * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ *
>> >
>> > ======
>> > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
>> > company number  6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
>> > 152-160 City Road, London,  EC1V 2NX, UK.
>> >
>> > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
>> > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
>> > subsidiaries.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Android Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to