Slashdot Mirror
Google Moves To Upgrade App Store, Aims To Help Developers Bolster Revenue (reuters.com)
Google plans to double down on its efforts to help developers of Android apps build their businesses as concerns mount that the app economy has reached saturation. The company is sharpening Google Play store recommendations with AI and expanding support for various payment platforms, among other initiatives, reports Reuters, citing company's top executive. From the article:Many smartphone users, meanwhile, appear to have tired of downloading apps altogether, especially as messaging services like Snapchat perform more of the functions that once required a separate app. Games remain a focus of the Google Play store, and Nintendo is building a version of its popular Super Mario Run game for Android, said Sameer Samat, who leads product management for the Google Play store. The store is also expanding to new platforms, including wearable devices, virtual reality headsets and Google's Chromebook laptops. "What we are excited about is giving developers that single entry point for more and more of the computing ecosystem," said Samat. Google has eased the once-complicated process of developing apps for the Play store, said James Knight, a former Google employee who launched Pembroke, a consultancy that helps developers convert Apple-compatible iOS apps to Android. A big part of Google's new effort involves emerging markets, where Android is stronger relative to the iPhone. To improve app recommendations for users, the Play store has also made extensive use of machine learning, a branch of artificial intelligence that gleans insights from vast troves of data.
>> concerns mount that the app economy has reached saturation
This was always a zero-sum game. I've owned ten different Android phones and four tablets now. I'm still waiting for the first time I actually need to *purchase* an app (or in-app content).
The whole point of "app stores" is to get developers to write apps for a platform, and then for competing apps to beat the price down to zero, thus providing the original platform provider and its users with (essentially) free apps. From what I see it's working perfectly as designed.
How is that different from your PC? When is it the last time you bought a Web browser, a ZIP utility, a SSH client, a text editor, a messaging client or a media player? Never, right? Why do people expect it to be any different on phones?
Phone app stores were like gold rushes. There was some money to make at the very beginning but it wasn't meant to last.
>> How is that different from your PC?
It's not. The model also worked for Microsoft. In fact, they worked it in two directions by bleeding out PC makers, who fell over themselves to build lower-and-lower margin boxes, while mainly Microsoft and consumers benefited.
App store search is so bad, you can't even type in the exact name and get the resulting app in the first page of results.
My only guess is that they do this to allow tiny independent app writers to have at least marginal success, the idea being that even if you have 250 high quality apps that meet all user needs, the media is still going to smash Google over the head saying "Google App Store has only 250 apps!" even though they're obviously of much higher quality.
With intentionally bad search, this gives small app writers a shot at the revenue pie, even if their app is crap, because they're psuedo-randomly floated to the top of most searches.
That's all I can figure, at least. How google can be so good at indexing something they don't control, the internet, and so bad at indexing something they have total, iron grip control over, their apps, app ecosystem and app store.... they must be intentionally making search bad. I can't figure it out otherwise. App search is universally bad since they released the Play store, and Apple's app store search isn't much better, either.
moox. for a new generation.
Google play is just a billion flashlight apps. Touch screens such also. To hell with mobile.
I'll stick to the laptop.
and consumers benefited.
Exactly, so it's a good thing. We all benefit from having these free apps. It's not only Google and Microsoft. The open source community also rely on this. You don't have to buy gzip because there is a good one and it's free.
All my apps come from F-Droid. I don't even have a Google account.
I've paid for my apps in my phone/tablets because the extras are useful to me. But once I settle for an app why would I ever search for a similar one if I'm already satisfied with the one I'm having?!
I believe this is the biggest issue with the store. People buy a few apps and then the're done with it.
And also because there are so many low quality apps out there that pretend to do the same but fail in some areas that users fail to find what the're looking for and just settle with what they have. If it works, it works. Ok, not perfect but whatever.
Exactly. On PC, Microsoft wants the hardware to be as cheap as possible, so users will spend on their software. On Android/iOS, Samsung and Apple want that people spend in hardware, with software as cheap as possible. Same applies to Google, as they want more users as possible, to fetch user data.
What they should do is really try to remove shovel apps that try to use any new popular app with a similar name to get installed. If tomorrow an app called Pork Pig started to get news coverage, I'll search in Google Play and find several similar apps, like Pork Pig Guide, Pork Pink, etc, etc.
Bolster app developers? How about bolster customer service. Most of the time my experience has been the refund process is broken. Why even have a button to uninstall a paid product?
What Google's app store really needs.
As a long-time Android user, I have some major suggestions....
1) Add local categories and be geography aware. When looking for news apps, should I really have to wade through ones that deal in local news for states thousands of miles away? Same for banking -- I am unlikely to need an app for a bank not even in my part of the country. Ditto for restaurants and other local businesses. Also, if I really AM interested in something from a distant city (say I am planning a trip), I am sure that an easy way could be added to turn on that area,
2) Categorize existing apps. I have been using Android for many years. Instead of "my apps" just being a chronological list of things that I have installed or purchased, why not let me categorize them into such categories as "must have," "games to play one day," "stuff I don't need often" and so on? Setting up a new Android device often means scrolling through pages and pages of apps that I do not currently want to install now (yes, I can have it install the same apps that are on a different device, but I don't always want to do that).
3) Maybe have a filter to exclude stupid games with in-app purchases? If I want to spend money on a game, I will just buy one where I own it. I will never buy anything within a game.
It also used to bother me that apps were sorted into two categories: games and apps. The top recommended games for me were all games, and the top-recommended apps for me were also mostly games! Maybe, just maybe, I want to install an app on my phone that is NOT a game -- an amazing thought, but it does happen. Fortunately, Google seems to have fixed that recently.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I'm the same way, I look for the free version of the app. Use it, enjoy it, if I can't live without it, I purchase the reasonably priced "pro" version for 2-5 bux, I'll gladly purchase it to support the developers. Other than that it's free apps.
One phone and three tablets: The phone is a disappointment.
Really, I've done it because certain functions are paid-app only (with no competitors), because I don't want to be annoyed by advertising, or, so the developer is motivated to maintain the app. Also the apps cost a few dollars so I am happy to buy a better, competing product in a year.
For a once-only purchase of (permanent) content, see above. For pay-per-play purchases; it is a way to suck money from idiots.
That forces the app developer to maintain the app for free: In the PC world, apps developed 'for profit' almost never become free apps, just abandoned. When android apps are abandoned, they disappear from the Play store. I bought an app a few months ago and it has been abandoned: The Play store still validates my license and I can use it, it just doesn't exist anywhere else, not even in the 'My apps' list.
"The company is sharpening Google Play store recommendations with AI..."
Yeah, because you really need powerful AI to have an intern do a search for 'Plants vs Zombies' once a week and make sure there's not five pages of scam apps and guides followed by the real app on Page 6.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
This was kind of interesting for me to read today as I happened to be in the Play store and glanced at the recommendations.
I was intrigued to see I had a whole section that was recommendations for a bunch of mobile telcos: Vodafone, EE, Three, Telstra. I thought this was weird until I remembered I had two apps from different providers (one in UK and one in Australia), and I'd had two others installed in the last year (one more in UK and one in the USA).
So it's easy to see from the perspective of their algorithm why they might want to recommend more of the same types of apps. The reality is of course those apps are more or less totally useless if you're not with the specific providers. So it's relevant while at the same time being a waste of time.
I guess it's inevitable that marketers will figure out a way to use this to promote other phone plans.
Ah, this change is aimed at helping developers make more money. So I guess that means figuring out the permissions will just get harder, and I'll be visiting the Play store even less than I do now.