App Store - Criteria for app approval?

[s2mikey]

I agree. I also look for "lite" versions. I know there is a paid version with added functionality available most likely.

Perhaps it is just me, but I am often ticked off when people complain about why app developers want to charge for their work. Just today, I discussed this with someone that wanted an app that cost 99 cents. She was looking for a free alternative.

Ya know, maybe we should dump the whole free app thing. Seriously, people should be compensated for their work. I've pulled down some amazing apps that cost me a whopping $2 bucks or less. Hard to complain about that! Just better explanations and app store clarification would go a long way in helping.

 

[richsadams]

Ya know, maybe we should dump the whole free app thing. Seriously, people should be compensated for their work. I've pulled down some amazing apps that cost me a whopping $2 bucks or less. Hard to complain about that! Just better explanations and app store clarification would go a long way in helping.

Agreed. I've used some apps and thought "how in the world can they make an app that does all of this for a couple of bucks?" Then that old "it's volume baby, they make it up in volume!" axiom rings in my head.

Still, then it makes me wonder, did I pay too much for that $30 computer application that did half as much a few years ago?

Whatever the case, we are totally spoiled by inexpensive apps now. Just hope all of the developers are making ends meet!

 

[s2mikey]

Agreed. I've used some apps and thought "how in the world can they make an app that does all of this for a couple of bucks?" Then that old "it's volume baby, they make it up in volume!" axiom rings in my head.

Still, then it makes me wonder, did I pay too much for that $30 computer application that did half as much a few years ago?

Whatever the case, we are totally spoiled by inexpensive apps now. Just hope all of the developers are making ends meet!

Yeah really - there MUST be incentive for people to create newer/better apps. Just wait to see how many posts there will be complaining about the lack of apps should developers stop making them!

Good point about what we used to pay for stuff - a good app for windows was $30 bucks or more. Outrageous, I tell ya

 

[Heaviside]

Though I agree with earlier comments about the need to compensate app developers and not expect them to work for free, I do think one point has been somewhat overlooked.

I remember when I first bought my iPad being somewhat taken aback at it being such a "clean slate". Though it came with a few basic apps, to get any functionality at all I had to go through the apple store. As I was used to the pc world, with relatively free access to a lot of content and functionality (say Silverlight and---dare I utter the word?---Flash, Open Office, and so on almost ad infinitum) I felt severely limited at first. I bought the iPad primarily to do my research using pdf docs and notewriting tools, so the selling point for me was the availability of Goodreader at what I thought was a reasonable price and several freebie (though bare bones) note taking apps. And the relatively large screen compared with dedicated e-book readers, though I do like to read fiction on my Nook with its e-ink.

I only began to appreciate the truly amazing capabilities of the iPad for other uses because of the availability of free or very cheap apps fo other things. Without them, I would still be using it strictly for my original purpose. But I am frustrated a great deal when I see an app (such as a thirty buck notetaking app mentioned on another thread) that has no trial version so that I can test drive it before laying out the bucks.

Not trying to argue any points that have been raised, just recounting my own experience and reactions, be they enlightened or beknighted!

 

[jsh1120]

Though I agree with earlier comments about the need to compensate app developers and not expect them to work for free, I do think one point has been somewhat overlooked.

I remember when I first bought my iPad being somewhat taken aback at it being such a "clean slate". Though it came with a few basic apps, to get any functionality at all I had to go through the apple store. As I was used to the pc world, with relatively free access to a lot of content and functionality (say Silverlight and---dare I utter the word?---Flash, Open Office, and so on almost ad infinitum) I felt severely limited at first. I bought the iPad primarily to do my research using pdf docs and notewriting tools, so the selling point for me was the availability of Goodreader at what I thought was a reasonable price and several freebie (though bare bones) note taking apps. And the relatively large screen compared with dedicated e-book readers, though I do like to read fiction on my Nook with its e-ink.

I only began to appreciate the truly amazing capabilities of the iPad for other uses because of the availability of free or very cheap apps fo other things. Without them, I would still be using it strictly for my original purpose. But I am frustrated a great deal when I see an app (such as a thirty buck notetaking app mentioned on another thread) that has no trial version so that I can test drive it before laying out the bucks.

Not trying to argue any points that have been raised, just recounting my own experience and reactions, be they enlightened or beknighted!

All well taken points, Heaviside. One point bears mentioning, I think. It's my understanding (and like always I could be wrong) that Apple prohibits "trial" apps since they fall under the prohibition against forcing a user to "re-up" for an app they've already purchased. Arguably, of course, that's what you do when you "subscribe" to a periodical, but I believe the reasoning there is that your "app" still works as it did when you purchased it. You're only paying for more content. In view of that prohibition, the "in app" purchase option emerged.

Personally, this entire area is just one of my many complaints about the Apple App Store as an adjunct to iTunes. The absence of clear designations of app functionality for various iOS devices leaves it to developers to stick "HD" on apps specifically designed for the iPad. And even for apps that are supposed to be "universal" or even in the worst case designed specifically for the iPad one often finds that an app works only in portrait mode (having been developed for the iPhone.)

In view of the these problems and the terrible search capabilities in the App Store, I resort to third party tools such as AppShopper to identify apps and if possible consult a developer's website before purchase. Frankly, it seems silly to invest such effort in researching features/pricing/etc for an app (and I sometimes just plunk down a buck and put up with the consequences) but there appear to be few other options.

 

[s2mikey]

All well taken points, Heaviside. One point bears mentioning, I think. It's my understanding (and like always I could be wrong) that Apple prohibits "trial" apps since they fall under the prohibition against forcing a user to "re-up" for an app they've already purchased. Arguably, of course, that's what you do when you "subscribe" to a periodical, but I believe the reasoning there is that your "app" still works as it did when you purchased it. You're only paying for more content. In view of that prohibition, the "in app" purchase option emerged.

Personally, this entire area is just one of my many complaints about the Apple App Store as an adjunct to iTunes. The absence of clear designations of app functionality for various iOS devices leaves it to developers to stick "HD" on apps specifically designed for the iPad. And even for apps that are supposed to be "universal" or even in the worst case designed specifically for the iPad one often finds that an app works only in portrait mode (having been developed for the iPhone.)

In view of the these problems and the terrible search capabilities in the App Store, I resort to third party tools such as AppShopper to identify apps and if possible consult a developer's website before purchase. Frankly, it seems silly to invest such effort in researching features/pricing/etc for an app (and I sometimes just plunk down a buck and put up with the consequences) but there appear to be few other options.

Good stuff here. It's just the whole App store and how it "flows" that I don't care for. The searching is an atrocity, you got that right. I have come up with the strangest search returns....just the goofiest stuff sometimes!

Maybe they'll revamp the store someday. Apple always makes very usable products but the app store doesn't always fit that criteria.

 

[richsadams]

Tunesque

Good stuff here. It's just the whole App store and how it "flows" that I don't care for. The searching is an atrocity, you got that right. I have come up with the strangest search returns....just the goofiest stuff sometimes!

Maybe they'll revamp the store someday. Apple always makes very usable products but the app store doesn't always fit that criteria.

There's an app for that (free)!

Mac App Store - Tunesque

➜ Search for music, videos, movies, and TV shows on your local iTunes store
➜ Search for iOS and Mac apps on your local App Store
➜ Search iTunes U for podcasts and documents
➜ Works with your local store of choice
➜ Automatically detects the best store for your country based on your iTunes preferences
➜ Features a simple but effective expandable interface for finding the right results

I haven't tried it, but it might be worth a look. Here's Macworld's review:

Tunesque 1.1.3 Utility Software Review | Macworld

 

[Bob Maxey]

All well taken points, Heaviside. One point bears mentioning, I think. It's my understanding (and like always I could be wrong) that Apple prohibits "trial" apps since they fall under the prohibition against forcing a user to "re-up" for an app they've already purchased. Arguably, of course, that's what you do when you "subscribe" to a periodical, but I believe the reasoning there is that your "app" still works as it did when you purchased it. You're only paying for more content. In view of that prohibition, the "in app" purchase option emerged.

Personally, this entire area is just one of my many complaints about the Apple App Store as an adjunct to iTunes. The absence of clear designations of app functionality for various iOS devices leaves it to developers to stick "HD" on apps specifically designed for the iPad. And even for apps that are supposed to be "universal" or even in the worst case designed specifically for the iPad one often finds that an app works only in portrait mode (having been developed for the iPhone.)

In view of the these problems and the terrible search capabilities in the App Store, I resort to third party tools such as AppShopper to identify apps and if possible consult a developer's website before purchase. Frankly, it seems silly to invest such effort in researching features/pricing/etc for an app (and I sometimes just plunk down a buck and put up with the consequences) but there appear to be few other options.

Not sure about your issue. If it is a trial app, it is probably a free app and if you want the full application, you must purchase it. That is how it has always worked and long before the App Store. There is only one place to purchase apps for most users and that is the App Store. No other way to sell apps to most users, unless their devices are Jailbroken. Devs are forced into following Apple's terms and conditions. If you do not want to, you are forever out of the iDevice App Business. But it is Apple's arena and if developers do not want to play, too bad.

Or they can put their stuff in a repo and kiss Apple goodbye. Smiley.

As I understand it, devs can offer in-app purchases and upgrades just as long as the sale goes through the App Store.

I agree about iTunes search capabilities. I recently looked for a Steven Segal movie andsearchedcheded for his name, only one or two movies came up.