Hacker News Reader

Comment by SquareWheel | Hacker News Reader

I'm actually glad to see editorializing disallowed in app titles. If everybody did it, the store would be a mess. I mean, it's already a mess, but even more so.

View on HN

"No ads" isn't editorializing, though. Unlike "best" or "#1", it's a statement of fact, and a fact that is probably useful to shoppers.

Could this be in response to apps indicating that they don't have ads even though they do?

In that case these apps should be banned, not the use of "no ads" in titles.

That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.

Or apps which don't have ads when first installed, but ads later get added in an update. The user will likely never see the updated app name.

The presence or omission of a fact is often the result of a conscious editorial choice. It is frequently the intent, not the nature of the words themselves, that underscores the editorial nature of the statement.

Buy Uncle Miller’s Corn Flakes — 100% arsenic free!

Avoid toxic chemicals - drink Coca Cola!

Aspartame just hits different ya know?

Exactly. Another textbook example is the language describing meat as coming from pork with “no hormones added” even though it’s unlawful to add hormones to pork grown for human consumption. Sure, it’s a fact; but the choice to include it is made to provide a marketing boost over competing brands that might not have the language on the packaging.

Wow, that's incredibly dishonest to consumers! My turkey states "no hormones added," I assume that's also unlawful like pork?

It should be illegal to advertise you're not doing something that is illegal in the first place if the intent is to imply others are in fact doing it.

Correct, both pork and poultry.

The ability to use your regulatory obligations in your marketing materials and spin them as a positive is the carrot for companies to enthusiastically comply.

The problem (with both app stores) is there are really three types of apps: paid, free, requires subscription. Devs are having to use titles to make it clear which is which since the stores aren't letting them use categories. It's frustrating (for both user and developer) when a user downloads an app expecting it to be free only to find it won't work if you don't pay monthly.

I agree. I'd also like to see information for things like one-time, subscription-based, or repeatable in-app purchases (eg. "gems").

Apple does a better job of displaying this information than Google. Sometimes I check what IAP are available on the iOS variant of an app I'm interested in, just to get a better idea.

But the need does not exists in a void - the store does not allow to filter in searches apps with ads or microtransactions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com