Google's mismanagement of the Android Market
nanocr.eu
nanocr.eu
Apple's app store actually feels like a store. It's fun to spend money there. There are many different ways to discover new apps of all types. Each one typically has as much info and screenshots as I want to see.
In the Android Market, I have the category charts that never change, the firehouse of junk and spam that is "just in", or search, which is only really useful if you already know the name of the app you want. The descriptions are tiny, the screenshots are ugly and often missing, and the comments are mostly YouTube caliber.
If they can't make it fun to buy Android apps then the whole platform is going nowhere.
Applications on OSX are a bit nicer, as there's rarely an install/uninstall process at all, and an enormous amount of the people I know with macs have bought several smaller applications for various minor needs. Nothing that can't be faked by text files / Excel, but a nicer interface makes a difference. Things like Sparkle also mean people update far more frequently. I don't see that much in my Windows-using friends, especially in the non-geek sectors. But OSX has a much smaller market share, and I have a feeling that a lot of the successes are due to things like MacHeist, pulling in $1/2 million+ over a couple days, which do make buying software fun. One can argue that they also dilute the money pool by devaluing them when not on sale, but the amount of effect that has is nebulous at best.
-- There's no in-app upgrade option. If you install a lite or trial edition you have to search the Market for the full version and install it on top of your lite/trial version. So if you happen to search for an app, buy it, and install it sometimes it just won't work (because you were supposed to install the lite/trial first)
-- Apps without meaningful descriptions should be deleted or hidden by default. A changelog is not a description.
-- Apps that start off saying "doesn't work with..." should be deleted or hidden by default or only shown on the Android devices it does work with.
-- It would be fantastic if you could sort searches by downloads, ratings, etc. You'd think since Google is a search company they could figure this one out. Maybe in 2.2?
Related to that, the 325 character limit for app descriptions is absurd.
In my experience, it's rare that an app cannot be adequately described in that space.
However, I do agree that with apps of increasing complexity (WaveSecure comes to mind), you'll have to leave out a lot to fit in the space. In these cases though, I feel the rating and comments should give the user enough push to try the app, after which your app can describe itself all it wants.
It's possible to add a link in your app to the full version, such that when it's clicked, the market page will open and the user can just click 'purchase'. It's not exactly in-app, but it works pretty well.
POINT 1 -- There's no in-app upgrade option.
True, but you can quite easily link RIGHT TO the app you require your user to purchase. It's actually super easy to do, I don't know why some don't do this. However, maybe you are referring to the ability for an app to initiate a self-update, in which case, I'd love to know how to do this.
POINT 2 -- Apps without meaningful descriptions should be deleted or hidden by default. A changelog is not a description.
App developers are given 325 characters to tell the entire story of their apps AND describe why we require an update. It's awful. Have you ever written a Haiku? Every time I try to create an app description AND include a changelog, it's like geeky Haiku.
I feel like an idiot replacing the word "for" with a "4" because of this space limitation. It's embarrassing.
POINT 3 -- Apps that start off saying "doesn't work with..." should be deleted or hidden by default or only shown on the Android devices it does work with.
App developers can put a target SDK, minimum SDK and even max SDK in their Manifest. I'm not sure why more don't.
-- It would be fantastic if you could sort searches by downloads, ratings, etc. You'd think since Google is a search company they could figure this one out. Maybe in 2.2?
Agreed.
Though I'd like to one-up this and ask that there be a "Featured Apps" option where Google employees show off obscure but cool apps.
Then, how about a "Sports" category in Games? I for one would be really happy to see this.
Seen Sparkle[1]? It's all the rage in the OSX world. Thousands of applications use it. It'd be a good place to start. Beyond that, there's also Google's Update Engine[2], also for OSX, which does updates file by file, and I believe can even work with just changesets (Sparkle replaces the whole .app bundle). At least, I think Update Engine was started by Google...
Or, if you want to go for "epic" in-place self-updating, something could be done which mimics how some Linux kernel upgrades can be swapped while the OS is running. That's a neat trick. I believe Nginx can do the same, it'd probably be an easier start. Unless the binary is locked when downloaded, I don't see why that at least shouldn't be possible.
Though, all that said, IANA Android developer, and don't know what limitations are in place. Could be it's just flat out impossible, I honestly don't know.
[1]: http://sparkle.andymatuschak.org/ [2]: http://code.google.com/p/update-engine/
Sparkle doesn't exist to upgrade your app from e.g. paid to free.
It was chosen for conceptual design of something which has radically changed the application-updating playing field by being so successful. Normal people update regularly with Sparkle; how many have you seen ignore a Java / Windows / Adobe update for the thousandth time?
Uh no it's pretty major.
> compared to it not being open source, so it's not an ideal one to begin with
Sparkle is not open source? Are you high? http://github.com/andymatuschak/Sparkle
Unless you live in one of the countries listed on http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/bin/answer.py?an... you can't sell paid apps.
Too bad for all those Indian & Chinese developers who've built out the Apple AppStore's inventory. On Android those positions in the catalog get filled up with free, half finished apps that the developer abandoned when they realized they couldn't sell it.
And those free apps remove opportunities for paid apps to develop.
[1] Yes - I understand a lot of apps come from countries on the list. I still argue it excludes more than it includes.
[edit: corrected link to country list]
Google needs to make their Android store more like Apple's app store. The openness is getting filled by crap / spam / questionably-legal apps.
Someone actually admitting that there's a benefit to filtering! Who saw that coming?
Personally, I'd think a multiple-store method should work best, where each store can control what's in it. A "kid-safe, parent-approved" store would be useful, as would "experimental", "anything goes", and "cryptic dogma but generally good". A way to select which ones you want to look in, and you're golden.
Though I realize I've just described a package manager with configurable sources.
(unless this is possible currently? haven't heard anything, and it would make the blog post nearly a moot point...)
--- edit:
I was referring to the openness of the store, not the platform, as evidenced by referring to "[Google's] Android store". Maybe it would've been clearer if I said "Android Marketplace"? Should I edit it while there's time? The openness of the platform is utterly fantastic, I wouldn't want them to change that for anything.
Depends how strict the app store policy is I guess. If Apple allowed this option then I'm sure a lot of geek and non-geek users would take up the option.
> Personally, I'd think a multiple-store method should work best
Agreed. Payments would be difficult and I guess they would want to discourage a 'pirate store' as well. But different listing criteria would be useful.
> I was referring to the openness of the store, not the platform
>> Someone actually admitting that there's a benefit to filtering! Who saw that coming?
I don't think the idea that assisting users to filter their options was ever controversial or surprising. With your multiple-store idea the openness of any particular store wouldn't be such an issue.
Granted, it's the only store, so it's a different situation. It's just a nice reversal, where Android fanbois have been ripping on Apple fanbois for having such a closed store, and now the benefit of that closing is being made apparent. There's not much Android ripping here, most people here are at least somewhat geeky, and would love to see Android become bigger and better than iWhatever.
edit: as to the first point, I'll still say "very few", unless drastic steps are made to make it easy to choose from the very first interaction. There's a lot of change-fear out there in normal people - change means you don't know where your favorite button is any more, and it now breaks in new and exciting ways instead of the ones they could somewhat predict.
Of course, the problem with this is that Google is completely awful at product management. As far as engineering goes they have a great deal of success but I don't think anyone would deny that their customer service is abysmal.
They work as autonomously as possible, and don't like stepping on peoples toes. The Marketplace needs some strictness, if you want to download dodgey ringtone apps, you can go to the browser and get the install from there. But the marketplace should be far better than it is now. Not even just talking about the fact there is dodgey apps there, the search function isn't the best... THE SEARCH FUNCTION GOOGLE! I tend to go to those app review sites and use the bar code scanner, which I shouldn't have to do to find apps from the worlds best search company.
I don't and do believe that the fact that he wants makes him worse than a retarded dingo.
His only valid complaint is that google can't seem to get their ass out of their own payment system, which is indeed a tragedy.
Google's system has problems. Apple's system has problems. Apple's curation has almost entirely been focused on eliminating duplication (even if better) of Apple-provided solutions.
Fewer. Comparatively, at the very least.
[1]: think I recall seeing that number recently, though I don't remember where. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Do you have any sources to back that assertion up? In the WWDC keynote, Jobs indicated that the three major reasons for rejecting apps were bugs, use of private APIs, and apps not delivering what they promised, which would be a direct contradiction of your claim.
Filtering would work in a metascore comprised of several metrics. The metrics would be opaque and Google would tune them regularly like it does with it's search ranking.
Example metrics might be:
1. 'Spam' score based on app description.
2. 'Spammy Developer' score based quite simply on the number of apps released by this developer (this would immediately clean up most dross but people would quickly find ways to game it)
3. User ratings (weighted by the rating given to that user by other users)
4. Ratings derived from Google's web rankings of the app's web presence
Problem solved. Can I have some money for that please Google?
I doubt they would have grown so big, or been able to win their recent lawsuit, if they'd had to green light every item that went up in advance.
Zero have been removed.
Some of the best apps simply aren't popular. Locale is an essential, but it's $9.99 price point (!!!) makes it unattractive to all but the most hardcore users. Free ringtones may be useless, but people like free, even if it's shitty.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think we're going to see a lot of quality-of-life (and fragmentation) issues ironed out once Android hits a more stable release cycle where development is more focused on optimization and bugfixes than adding new features.
That being said, damn browsing Google's App Store sucks. It's horrible. Seriously, there needs to be some much better organization, lengthened app descriptions, easier to use and better filters, and just an overall better experience.
Android is open source and manufacturers can use it without the consent of Google, but to include the goodies above they have to go through a vetting process (not saying that's a bad thing).
A completely open source implementation / replacement of the Google apps would be very useful.
That said, the market certainly is not perfect yet. But not too bad, either.
Whether you like apple or not and there is certainly much to not like about them even if you like most of their products, you can't ignore that they have built the strongest digital ecosystem out there. Stronger than FaceBook or any other competitor.
Contrary to most others this ecosystem is built on paying customers which is quite an accomplishment. It includes both music, video, applications and now the Apple Store app which gives you access to the apple products. I don't even want to know how many people will be tempted to press buy on that one.
This is not about ignorance of mass, it's about reducing the friction to almost zero while still maintaining some level of quality.
In all other business situations this is the main goal.
What really baffles me about the Android App store is just how much friction there is. It's a complete mess to be quite honest.
Even though google should be applauded for their open approach, let's not forget that they do this for one thing and one thing only. To expand the reach of their adds.
>Earlier this week, CNET ran an article critical of the permission model of the Android Market. Google’s response to the criticism was that “each Android app must get users’ permission to access sensitive information”. While this is technically true, one should not need a PhD in Computer Science to use a smartphone. How is a consumer supposed to know exactly what the permission “act as an account authenticator” means? The CNET opinion piece “Is Google far too much in love with engineering?” is quite relevant here.
Is it?
Just to be clear, it is my belief that on the iPhone all apps have the run of every bit of functionality provided by the sandbox. Meaning if one app can access contacts, all apps can access contacts. If one app can get your location, all apps can get your location. If one app can pull your contacts and your location and send it to a web service, then all apps can do the same.
On Android this isn't the case at all. On install you had to explicitly confirm the required rights.
The Android model is a thousand times better, at least assuming they avoid user fatigue where people simply OK anything.
It could see improvements for sure, though. For one I'd like to see optional permissions. When I installed Barcode Scanner I was a bit perplexed as to why it asked to access my contact list. Turns out it's because it can create barcodes from contacts. Nonetheless, that should be an optional permission that I could set to yes (checked), no (red x), or ask on demand (cleared), defaulting to ask on demand. It would make me far less nervous about apps that seem to unnecessarily ask for the kitchen sink.
Edit: it works now