Just read an article that says that the growth in App Stores is creating confusion in consumers. Too many choices no such a good idea? Don't know! What do you think?
Just read an article that says that the growth in App Stores is creating confusion in consumers. Too many choices no such a good idea? Don't know! What do you think?
The iTS, including the App Store, has always been a visual clusterf&@k to me. When I use them I usuly go through my iPhone's portal instead of iTunes. With so much content I'm not sure what they could do to improve it but to me it's always been a visual eyesore.
The iTS, including the App Store, has always been a visual clusterf&@k to me. When I use them I usuly go through my iPhone's portal instead of iTunes. With so much content I'm not sure what they could do to improve it but to me it's always been a visual eyesore.
That's something else.
The question, and the article, was referring to other application stores from other vendors for other phones.
But, as you bring up the confusion with Apple's App Store, I would agree.
It's long past time for Apple to have come up with a far better scheme for categorizing apps.
At the very least, we need several more top categories.
We also need sub-categories within the main ones.
With books, for example. It's simply become impossible to find anything. We need it to be broken down into a good number of categories, like a real book store. What happens when a really large number of books is there, like tens of thousands?
The same thing is true everywhere.
I also think that free apps should be in a separate section in each category. so there would be free books and paid for books.
It's become far too unwieldy. I imagine that Apple was caught unawares by the vast influx of apps, and were unprepared for it. But even so, by now it should have become obvious that some major revision was overdue.
Hopefully, we'll hear of some overhaul at the ADC shortly.
The question, and the article, was referring to other application stores from other vendors for other phones.
But, as you bring up the confusion with Apple's App Store, I would agree.
It's long past time for Apple to have come up with a far better scheme for categorizing apps.
At the very least, we need several more top categories.
We also need sub-categories within the main ones.
With books, for example. It's simply become impossible to find anything. We need it to be broken down into a good number of categories, like a real book store. What happens when a really large number of books is there, like tens of thousands?
The same thing is true everywhere.
I also think that free apps should be in a separate section in each category. so there would be free books and paid for books.
It's become far too unwieldy. I imagine that Apple was caught unawares by the vast influx of apps, and were unprepared for it. But even so, by now it should have become obvious that some major revision was overdue.
Hopefully, we'll hear of some overhaul at the ADC shortly.
And it doesn't help that the front page on any given genre is always larded up with impossible to parse categories like "new and notable" or "what's hot" or "staff favorites" or "stuff our algorithms thought would appeal to you" or even, I noticed, "apps from the TV commercials."
The whole iTunes Store system (and not just the App Store) is heavily skewed toward impulse buys and marketing, at the expense of coherent browsing.
Maybe that works for music (doesn't please me, but whatever), but for apps it's crazy making. And it reinforces the idea that apps, on the iPhone, are just an extension of the tweener music buying mindset, things you buy on a whim or because your friends bought it or some corporation convinced you needed it, to be used for a day or two and tossed when the next glittering thing that catches your eye comes along.
Maybe Apple could do some kind of "Pro" store, sans funny noises and beer and cute animation apps, with useful categories and an uncluttered main page.
Mainly an uncluttered main page. The iTunes Store has evolved into some kind of hyper-caffeinated carnival slash cheesy five and dime. Just a little peace and quiet would be so very welcome.
And it doesn't help that the front page on any given genre is always larded up with impossible to parse categories like "new and notable" or "what's hot" or "staff favorites" or "stuff our algorithms thought would appeal to you" or even, I noticed, "apps from the TV commercials."
The whole iTunes Store system (and not just the App Store) is heavily skewed toward impulse buys and marketing, at the expense of coherent browsing.
Maybe that works for music (doesn't please me, but whatever), but for apps it's crazy making. And it reinforces the idea that apps, on the iPhone, are just an extension of the tweener music buying mindset, things you buy on a whim or because your friends bought it or some corporation convinced you needed it, to be used for a day or two and tossed when the next glittering thing that catches your eye comes along.
Maybe Apple could do some kind of "Pro" store, sans funny noises and beer and cute animation apps, with useful categories and an uncluttered main page.
Mainly an uncluttered main page. The iTunes Store has evolved into some kind of hyper-caffeinated carnival slash cheesy five and dime. Just a little peace and quiet would be so very welcome.
I wonder if they have a decent knowledge of who is buying the apps. I also wonder if they have a decent amount of information on who is buying which apps.
I suppose they would have to beef up their staff for the app store in order to get the ability to look at an app to categorize it properly. Some apps seem to be in the wrong place, and of course, too many apps are in several places.
It would be good if the had this on some database with enough meaningful fields for us to type in a category, or several, and have those apps come up.
Even when i've seen an app, I can't always easily find it again.
I don't mind the "staff favorites" and such. Lots of people like that kind of thing. I often look through the selections. But it's the regular categories that have problems.
We need to have an alphabetical choice, a last in choice as now, a specific category choice, etc.
We'll be seeing 50,000 apps before too long. in another year, we'll see 100,000. a lot of that will be books, but even without that, there will be 60,000 actual apps.
No way to search that, considering that we often aren't even sure if we want something until we see it.
There is another article on App Stores, they say that the Android Market will take over the Apple App Store. It seems that sales of android phones will grow by a stunning 900% if that is the case then a whole new market full of opportunities opens up. It just wont be Apple where we go to but other providers with different content, we will have more providers that meet our tastes and needs. Well you can read it in the article but just though it was interesting, this seems to just be the beginning!
No we don't have a co-marketing agreement. To be honest, we don't know any of the people at AppleInsider. We're just active in several developer forums and only became aware of this one when Flurry was being discussed.
And honestly, I don't think that agreeing that our data is not statistically significant is what I'd call promoting flurry ;-) What we're good at is providing real-time data about how users interact with individual applications. Every once in a while we can roll up data from across large groups of apps to spot a trend and share them, like we did wrt developer activity across the four platforms we cover. Read Write Web covered that news and that discussion eventually found its way here into this forum. That's pretty much it.
While at first it may seem that you're saying Flurry isn't providing good data, rest assured that savy readers aren't taking it that way. Instead, I'm impressed that you've stepped forward to clarify exactly what the numbers mean. They are useful metrics. Just perhaps not in the way implied by this AI article.
Comments
Just read an article that says that the growth in App Stores is creating confusion in consumers. Too many choices no such a good idea? Don't know! What do you think?
Ciao!
Article @ http://smartphone.biz-news.com/news/...sing-consumers
Hello
Just read an article that says that the growth in App Stores is creating confusion in consumers. Too many choices no such a good idea? Don't know! What do you think?
Ciao!
Article @ http://smartphone.biz-news.com/news/...sing-consumers
Welcome.
Good article.
It makes sense.
Welcome.
Good article.
It makes sense.
The iTS, including the App Store, has always been a visual clusterf&@k to me. When I use them I usuly go through my iPhone's portal instead of iTunes. With so much content I'm not sure what they could do to improve it but to me it's always been a visual eyesore.
The iTS, including the App Store, has always been a visual clusterf&@k to me. When I use them I usuly go through my iPhone's portal instead of iTunes. With so much content I'm not sure what they could do to improve it but to me it's always been a visual eyesore.
That's something else.
The question, and the article, was referring to other application stores from other vendors for other phones.
But, as you bring up the confusion with Apple's App Store, I would agree.
It's long past time for Apple to have come up with a far better scheme for categorizing apps.
At the very least, we need several more top categories.
We also need sub-categories within the main ones.
With books, for example. It's simply become impossible to find anything. We need it to be broken down into a good number of categories, like a real book store. What happens when a really large number of books is there, like tens of thousands?
The same thing is true everywhere.
I also think that free apps should be in a separate section in each category. so there would be free books and paid for books.
It's become far too unwieldy. I imagine that Apple was caught unawares by the vast influx of apps, and were unprepared for it. But even so, by now it should have become obvious that some major revision was overdue.
Hopefully, we'll hear of some overhaul at the ADC shortly.
That's something else.
The question, and the article, was referring to other application stores from other vendors for other phones.
But, as you bring up the confusion with Apple's App Store, I would agree.
It's long past time for Apple to have come up with a far better scheme for categorizing apps.
At the very least, we need several more top categories.
We also need sub-categories within the main ones.
With books, for example. It's simply become impossible to find anything. We need it to be broken down into a good number of categories, like a real book store. What happens when a really large number of books is there, like tens of thousands?
The same thing is true everywhere.
I also think that free apps should be in a separate section in each category. so there would be free books and paid for books.
It's become far too unwieldy. I imagine that Apple was caught unawares by the vast influx of apps, and were unprepared for it. But even so, by now it should have become obvious that some major revision was overdue.
Hopefully, we'll hear of some overhaul at the ADC shortly.
And it doesn't help that the front page on any given genre is always larded up with impossible to parse categories like "new and notable" or "what's hot" or "staff favorites" or "stuff our algorithms thought would appeal to you" or even, I noticed, "apps from the TV commercials."
The whole iTunes Store system (and not just the App Store) is heavily skewed toward impulse buys and marketing, at the expense of coherent browsing.
Maybe that works for music (doesn't please me, but whatever), but for apps it's crazy making. And it reinforces the idea that apps, on the iPhone, are just an extension of the tweener music buying mindset, things you buy on a whim or because your friends bought it or some corporation convinced you needed it, to be used for a day or two and tossed when the next glittering thing that catches your eye comes along.
Maybe Apple could do some kind of "Pro" store, sans funny noises and beer and cute animation apps, with useful categories and an uncluttered main page.
Mainly an uncluttered main page. The iTunes Store has evolved into some kind of hyper-caffeinated carnival slash cheesy five and dime. Just a little peace and quiet would be so very welcome.
And it doesn't help that the front page on any given genre is always larded up with impossible to parse categories like "new and notable" or "what's hot" or "staff favorites" or "stuff our algorithms thought would appeal to you" or even, I noticed, "apps from the TV commercials."
The whole iTunes Store system (and not just the App Store) is heavily skewed toward impulse buys and marketing, at the expense of coherent browsing.
Maybe that works for music (doesn't please me, but whatever), but for apps it's crazy making. And it reinforces the idea that apps, on the iPhone, are just an extension of the tweener music buying mindset, things you buy on a whim or because your friends bought it or some corporation convinced you needed it, to be used for a day or two and tossed when the next glittering thing that catches your eye comes along.
Maybe Apple could do some kind of "Pro" store, sans funny noises and beer and cute animation apps, with useful categories and an uncluttered main page.
Mainly an uncluttered main page. The iTunes Store has evolved into some kind of hyper-caffeinated carnival slash cheesy five and dime. Just a little peace and quiet would be so very welcome.
I wonder if they have a decent knowledge of who is buying the apps. I also wonder if they have a decent amount of information on who is buying which apps.
I suppose they would have to beef up their staff for the app store in order to get the ability to look at an app to categorize it properly. Some apps seem to be in the wrong place, and of course, too many apps are in several places.
It would be good if the had this on some database with enough meaningful fields for us to type in a category, or several, and have those apps come up.
Even when i've seen an app, I can't always easily find it again.
I don't mind the "staff favorites" and such. Lots of people like that kind of thing. I often look through the selections. But it's the regular categories that have problems.
We need to have an alphabetical choice, a last in choice as now, a specific category choice, etc.
We'll be seeing 50,000 apps before too long. in another year, we'll see 100,000. a lot of that will be books, but even without that, there will be 60,000 actual apps.
No way to search that, considering that we often aren't even sure if we want something until we see it.
There is another article on App Stores, they say that the Android Market will take over the Apple App Store. It seems that sales of android phones will grow by a stunning 900% if that is the case then a whole new market full of opportunities opens up. It just wont be Apple where we go to but other providers with different content, we will have more providers that meet our tastes and needs. Well you can read it in the article but just though it was interesting, this seems to just be the beginning!
Ciao!
http://smartphone.biz-news.com/news/...le-s-app-store
No we don't have a co-marketing agreement. To be honest, we don't know any of the people at AppleInsider. We're just active in several developer forums and only became aware of this one when Flurry was being discussed.
And honestly, I don't think that agreeing that our data is not statistically significant is what I'd call promoting flurry ;-) What we're good at is providing real-time data about how users interact with individual applications. Every once in a while we can roll up data from across large groups of apps to spot a trend and share them, like we did wrt developer activity across the four platforms we cover. Read Write Web covered that news and that discussion eventually found its way here into this forum. That's pretty much it.
Peter Farago
VP Marketing
www.flurry.com
http://blog.flurry.com
http://twitter.com/FlurryMobile
Thanks for stepping in and clearing things up!
While at first it may seem that you're saying Flurry isn't providing good data, rest assured that savy readers aren't taking it that way. Instead, I'm impressed that you've stepped forward to clarify exactly what the numbers mean. They are useful metrics. Just perhaps not in the way implied by this AI article.