App limiting does not seem like an effective way of tackling the issue of discoverability. Google Search does a good job of discoverability without using that strategy.
Why can't you just improve discoverability using some kind of intelligent ranking system based on things like ratings, downloads, % active installs, spam markings. Give devs rankings based on their existing apps so that their new apps can be ranked accordingly (since there is initially no data on those apps). More specifically, how would you tackle the case of a dev who is releasing 10 or 20 bilingual dictionaries? How do they get the right visibility? On May 19, 5:21 pm, Shane Isbell <[email protected]> wrote: > My intention is to allow additional apps on a case-by-case basis. > > When thinking about any new app store one of the most critical issues is > discovery: how are people going to find an app they want? What I'm trying to > do here is to reduce the resistance between a user finding an app they want > and actually purchasing that application. Having lots of apps that people > don't want means lower sales for top apps. > > So you can put your five top apps in front of users without having to worry > about being flooded by dictionary apps, free apps, spam apps or apps that > have little potential of generating sales (dead space). Every bad app loses > your top app sales. > > Does this make sense? > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:34 AM, westmeadboy <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I agree with plusminus. A limitation of 5 apps doesn't make any sense. > > > 1. Over time, any given dev will release more and more apps. Also, as > > the dev (house) grows it has the capability to release more apps in > > any given time frame. Both of these indicate that a hard app limit > > does not make sense. > > > 2. If there is no support for add-ons then you need to provide a way > > for devs to make their various "flavours" of an app visible - see what > > I wrote about bilingual dictionaries. > > > 3. Provide a way for users to mark apps or devs or both as spam and > > then use that spam information to decrease app/dev visibility/ranking > > in search results. > > > On May 19, 4:06 pm, plusminus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Huh 5 Apps... I have 29 in there while I'm writing this. More in the > > > pipe =D > > > > On 18 Mai, 18:33, Shane Isbell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Everyone, thanks for the feedback. To reduce spam. I've decided to > > limit the > > > > number of apps to 5 for zappmarket. > > > > > Based on developer feedback (which was great), I've also decided to > > scrap > > > > version 1 of zapp. Either I couldn't address specific needs of > > developers > > > > (like piracy) or many core needs were being addressed elsewhere. > > Developers > > > > did provide a few key pain points in regards to selling apps that > > aren't > > > > being addressed but this requires a completely different approach to > > > > traditional app markets. I'm working on a new version of zappmarket to > > > > provide a solution. I'm still at least a month away (no specific date), > > but > > > > I'll keep you guys posted. > > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Maps.Huge.Info (Maps API Guru) < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps a limit of 5 with additional apps upon approval by Google. It > > > > > could be a simple thing like Godaddy has for requesting IP's. You get > > > > > one, you can get two more by just asking and if you want more than > > > > > that, you have to have a good reason. > > > > > > -John Coryat > > > > > > On May 4, 2:27 pm, Shane Isbell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So maybe put a hard limit to the number of apps a single developer > > can > > > > > > upload? > > > > > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, westmeadboy < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > There are lots of bilingual dictionary apps out there. One > > company has > > > > > > > over 100 I think. Clearly they use the same engine for each and > > just > > > > > > > change the content. Not sure if this is considered spam. > > > > > > > > Ideally they would just have one app on the market and then > > through > > > > > > > that app users could pay for/download whatever > > content/dictionaries > > > > > > > they want. > > > > > > > > The problem with this is that the content/dictionaries would not > > have > > > > > > > the necessary visibility in the Market. Therefore, the vast > > majority > > > > > > > of users, when searching for say a Chinese-English dictionary, > > would > > > > > > > not realise they could use that app to fulfil their needs. > > > > > > > > When searching the Market, I'd like to see Google Search-style > > results > > > > > > > where apps from the same dev are grouped so you only see the > > first 3 > > > > > > > and a link to "more apps", just like how Google Search groups > > results > > > > > > > by website. > > > > > > > > When browsing a category, I would do a similar kind of grouping. > > > > > > > > I really hope Google Market brings in proper support for add-ons > > which > > > > > > > would make all this a little easier to manage. > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 6:45 pm, Eric F <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I would say junky apps would include Themes, Background > > Wallpapers > > > > > and > > > > > > > > Content as apps. > > > > > > > > > Themes are everywhere, for home screen replacements I don't > > even have > > > > > > > > installed. They aren't spam, I'm sure many of them are actually > > > > > > > > reasonably decent and shouldn't be removed from the market. But > > I > > > > > > > > think they should when uploaded to the market be required to > > put in > > > > > > > > some kind of "requires aHome to be installed". And the end > > user's > > > > > > > > market should have a setting for "Hide add-ons for not > > installed > > > > > > > > apps". And while apps like Locale, the big draw is the number > > of > > > > > > > > plugins it has for it, so if users didn't see that they might > > not > > > > > > > > understand how big that ecosystem is, so having that option be > > off by > > > > > > > > default would be ok with me (even though I think most users > > would > > > > > > > > prefer it on) > > > > > > > > > The Background Wallpapers and Content as apps is where someone > > > > > creates > > > > > > > > an app that does nothing more than say, show 1 funny image (as > > > > > opposed > > > > > > > > to connect to a remote site and allow users to browse through a > > whole > > > > > > > > content set). Or the app is just a scanned version of a comic > > book, > > > > > > > > etc. For one thing, it would benefit the user the most if > > content > > > > > > > > providers adopted a sub-platform for distribution that wasn't > > the > > > > > > > > market (but I think billing, and getting paid is something hard > > to do > > > > > > > > so I don't see this happening). But it would be better if > > people > > > > > > > > downloaded some e-Reader type application off the market, and > > then > > > > > > > > bought comic books through that application. Better user > > experience, > > > > > a > > > > > > > > user who wants 1000 comic books on his/her phone doesn't have > > an app > > > > > > > > drawer that is ungodly, etc. > > > > > > > > > Since it's unrealistic that the above will ever happen, I don't > > know > > > > > > > > how much thought went into the market categories. Did they do > > market > > > > > > > > research to figure out what the top N categories were for > > > > > applications > > > > > > > > and games? Or did some person out there just pick them out of a > > hat? > > > > > > > > But a good temporary solution is stuffing these dumb content > > apps > > > > > into > > > > > > > > their own categories and allowing users to have a filter > > settings in > > > > > > > > the market. So that they can say "Filter out the following > > categories > > > > > > > > when browsing" and "Filter out results in the following > > categories > > > > > > > > while searching". Then you could even have a parental control > > there > > > > > to > > > > > > > > assist with the Girly apps. > > > > > > > > > Then the only remaining part of the system is what to do when > > the > > > > > > > > spammy app makers don't categorize or tag their apps correctly. > > And > > > > > > > > the solution there is to make app developers sign an agreement > > that > > > > > > > > states that they understand that their submitted > > categorizations etc. > > > > > > > > are only hints to the market, and that final meta-data is > > decided by > > > > > > > > some kind of voting/ranking/wiki community style. > > > > > > > > > Market needs vast improvements.. soon. > > > > > > > > > -E > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 8:34 am, Shane Isbell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What kinds of junky paid apps are there on the Android > > Market? I > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > slideshows of pretty girls is one type of junky app. Are > > there any > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > types that flood the market, distracting from the higher > > quality > > > > > paid > > > > > > > apps? > > > > > > > > > As developers, if there were types of apps you'd like to see > > > > > stripped > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > the Android Market, what kind would they be? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Shane Isbell (Founder of ZappMarket) > > >http://twitter.com/sisbellhttp://twitter.com/zappstorehttp://zappmark. > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > 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]<android-discuss%2Bunsubscribe@ > > > > > > > googlegroups.com> > > <android-discuss%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com> > > > > > <android-discuss%[email protected]<android-discuss%252Bunsubsc > > > > > [email protected]><android-discuss%252Bunsubsc > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > > > > > > groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 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]<android-discuss%2Bunsubscribe@ > > > > > > > googlegroups.com>... > > read more » -- 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.
