Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> They have the resources to not have these problems.

I'm not sure they do have the resources. We're talking about companies with a user base larger than literally any country on Earth.

The basic problem is that these companies are taking on problems that nobody should ever take on. "Mass curation" is not a problem that can be solved by anyone, and not a thing that should be attempted by anyone. This is why we need personal freedom and not global gatekeepers.



They definitely have the resources to look into apps with X thousands of users before cutting them.

And you have to pay to join the store.


There are 3.5 million apps in Google Play, and each app can receive a virtually unlimited number of updates.

What value exactly would you specify for X? And how many apps in Google Play have at least X thousand users?


Well I said X because it doesn't really matter. I'm very confident that my argument is true for X=100, and it's probably true for notably smaller numbers. I don't need exact statistics to know that it's much much less than 3.5 million.

And this isn't about a deep check for every single update, this is about deeper checking in case of blocks and bans, which happen at a much slower rate.


Of course as the number of apps that are coddled or given special treatment gets smaller, the easier it gets to coddle or give special treatment to apps. But how does that help the Play Store overall? How is it fair that a few developers are given special treatment, while everyone else still suffers from the same arbitrary rejections?


If all popular apps gets sane treatment, that's a lot better than no apps getting sane treatment.

By definition, those are the most impactful decisions.

And "this impacts a lot of people so be careful" is the mildest and least problematic kind of "special treatment".


As an indie developer, I disagree.

Besides, the small decisions are collectively impactful too. Take 3 million apps, and add up all of their users. Multiple smaller apps may collectively have more users than 1 larger app.

It feels like giving special treatment to more famous apps is just a strategy for Google or Apple to avoid bad press, without making their stores much better.


> It feels like giving special treatment to more famous apps is just a strategy for Google or Apple to avoid bad press, without making their stores much better.

That's what they do now. I'm suggesting a massive expansion on what apps they treat better, because 'famous' is a very small group.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't treat all apps well. It's just that it's less clear how much that would cost.

What's clear right now is that they aren't even trying.

Also we probably shouldn't have 3 million apps to start with. I bet a lot of those are below even the lowest reasonable quality bar.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: