I can't comment on the competence (or otherwise) of the Galaxy Store review process, but charging up-front for a mobile app is nearly always a mistake. You'll nearly always do better with a "free" app and one or more in-app purchases to unlock the full functionality, even if the "free" version is a very limited demo.
I know that some people are instinctively repulsed by such a model, but there are good reasons why users prefer it. There is real value in being able to install an app, see that it actually runs on your device, explore the interface and perhaps try some of the features before actually paying anything. Most app stores do have refund policies that amount to a free trial, but there's a big psychological difference between trying an app for free and paying for an app that you can get a full refund on (subject to terms and conditions).
I wish paid apps had a 24-hour return window or something like that. It feels like it would be a win-win for everyone, as users would feel more comfortable taking a chance on paid apps.
I vaguely remember the Google Play Store (before it had that name) having something like this, never understood why they got rid of it. They must have concluded it made the store less profitable, but I wonder what data they were looking at, or if they interpreted it correctly.
I would be willing to go with this IFF the cost to activate the app were disclosed up front. But in my experience, it never is. (On Google's store you'll typically see some fine print saying "in-app purchases from $0.50 to $20.00", which tells me very little.)
The intention seems to be to get me hooked before I can invoke any judgment calls. I've had similar experiences with car salesman.
The bottom line is that I'm not willing to begin the experience/transaction without a clear idea of what the final outcome might be.
The reason I dislike this is because it will always be a free app. I say that in the sense that they will include tracking and advertising and even if you "pay to remove" you have no real guarantee.
It's better to have a paid app that does not have the code/permissions required to even engage in advertising and tracking in this way. Preferably the paid app doesn't even have IAP at all.
Looking through the Google Play store, nearly every "Top Free" app clearly states that data is collected and data is shared with third parties. Nearly every "Top Paid" app clearly states that no data is collected and no data is shared with third parties.
App stores could offer free trials for paid-up-front apps, or generous refund windows.
As far as I know the major ones don't offer this, Apple for sure doesn't. I think the store runners would much rather see developers use subscription pricing that gives them a recurring cut as well.
I think free-to-play games have ruined this model for everyone. Now people see "in-app purchase" and immediately associate it with "paying for every interaction" instead of "one-time payment to purchase full functionality "
I think it is vastly disingenuous to suggest that the ads and spyware in most free apps are somehow “good for the user”.
These are simply economic realities that are forced on app developers, because the market place for paid sustainable apps has been mostly destroyed by free alternatives.
These days good apps are almost without exception either a) subsidised by a major corporate (eg. Insta) or b) paid (eg. Procreate). Free apps are mostly exploitative spam, hunting for whales to sustain the developers.
App stores are an example of corporate stupidity. If you really want a successful phone product, good apps will do it for you. But since the benefit is indirect, corporations are unable to make the correct decision - they go for the easy money.
It used to be that customers had enough leverage to provide incentives to corporations to make better decisions. But in their wisdom, corporations have decided that they are better off without customer feedback.
We have gotten to this point by allowing corporations to dominate our political process, changing us from an above average democracy into a corpocracy. It is not good for us, and in the long run not good for them.
At least the developers are able to easily get in touch with this Ron guy - seems he is being genuinely helpful. That alone makes it a better experience than other stores.
Ron appears to be the PR/support person, not a developer. But yes, compared to companies like Google, Facebook, Apple... it's nice to actually get human responses
Galaxy Store is a garbage adware. Always runs in background. And if you accidentally open it it will start downloading "recommended apps" without your permission.
I've never experienced this recommended app installation that you're talking about.
Otherwise, I completely agree. Samsung should just use Google Play or the System update process to manage system app updates, etc.
I can see their concern with relying completely on gPlay, as there may be instances where the permissions needed for a system app go beyond the allowances of gPlay, but there are other ways to avoid those issues, and the Galaxy Store is trash.
What monopoly? The Samsung Store is the alternative to the official Google Play store. Any Samsung android phone that has the Samsung Store also has the Play Store, no?
With Android 12, anyone can make an app store. Previously you had to let the user approve a bunch of prompts for every install or update, but the new API allows silent background updates just like on manufacturer apps.
Of course you need explicit permission from the user to install apps (that just makes common sense) but I've been using F-Droid Basic which works like a treat.
Only Amazon has tried to launch an alternative app store so far, and I'm it sure if they use the new API that makes automatic updates possible. However, there's nothing standing in anyone's way to bring competition to this market.
If you can come up with a better store, you can take one of the many open source app stores out there and add a sales feature to turn it into a business venture and take on Google and Samsung. I'm not sure how this will go down on iOS when they will eventually allow installing external apps, but I imagine the situation may be quite similar.
What is the issue here? App store-level enforcement that apps be reasonably priced? How is that bad? This sounds like a net win for consumers. It's already frustrating enough dealing with developers charging through the roof for garbage products.
I get that it's frustrating waiting for an app to be approved... But there's nothing really technical, novel, or useful to others in this post except that, perhaps you should price at $9.99 instead of $10 in the Samsung store for reasons that are not terribly apparent.
I think this is just the developer is trying to resolve his frustration by "yelling for the manager" to make a PR incident.
I find it a useful piece of information for people who'd want to venture into making paid apps that the galaxy store can be like that
But honestly just flag and move on
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Apps must not have unreasonably high prices. The price $10 is too high.
Yet a Nigerian scammer continues offering an app for $300, even after an employee reports it.
Well, there's the I Am Rich app[0], which essentially did nothing and cost US$999.99.
The crux was, however, that the developer was totally upfront about what you got for the price and apparently there still were douchebags around forking over the cash to buy "status".
Apple yanked the app due to the publicity. Which I thought was wrong. It didn't violate any App store rules and it was honest and up front in the description of the app.
Prices just have to be consistent so as long as most scams stay in that price range? But would love to see that rejection: “This scam is underachieving and will be blocked until the price exceeds $300.”
[+] [-] jdietrich|2 years ago|reply
I know that some people are instinctively repulsed by such a model, but there are good reasons why users prefer it. There is real value in being able to install an app, see that it actually runs on your device, explore the interface and perhaps try some of the features before actually paying anything. Most app stores do have refund policies that amount to a free trial, but there's a big psychological difference between trying an app for free and paying for an app that you can get a full refund on (subject to terms and conditions).
[+] [-] Wowfunhappy|2 years ago|reply
I vaguely remember the Google Play Store (before it had that name) having something like this, never understood why they got rid of it. They must have concluded it made the store less profitable, but I wonder what data they were looking at, or if they interpreted it correctly.
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|2 years ago|reply
The intention seems to be to get me hooked before I can invoke any judgment calls. I've had similar experiences with car salesman.
The bottom line is that I'm not willing to begin the experience/transaction without a clear idea of what the final outcome might be.
[+] [-] criley2|2 years ago|reply
It's better to have a paid app that does not have the code/permissions required to even engage in advertising and tracking in this way. Preferably the paid app doesn't even have IAP at all.
Looking through the Google Play store, nearly every "Top Free" app clearly states that data is collected and data is shared with third parties. Nearly every "Top Paid" app clearly states that no data is collected and no data is shared with third parties.
[+] [-] stetrain|2 years ago|reply
As far as I know the major ones don't offer this, Apple for sure doesn't. I think the store runners would much rather see developers use subscription pricing that gives them a recurring cut as well.
[+] [-] gizmo686|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] old_bayes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wokwokwok|2 years ago|reply
I think it is vastly disingenuous to suggest that the ads and spyware in most free apps are somehow “good for the user”.
These are simply economic realities that are forced on app developers, because the market place for paid sustainable apps has been mostly destroyed by free alternatives.
These days good apps are almost without exception either a) subsidised by a major corporate (eg. Insta) or b) paid (eg. Procreate). Free apps are mostly exploitative spam, hunting for whales to sustain the developers.
[+] [-] talkingtab|2 years ago|reply
It used to be that customers had enough leverage to provide incentives to corporations to make better decisions. But in their wisdom, corporations have decided that they are better off without customer feedback.
We have gotten to this point by allowing corporations to dominate our political process, changing us from an above average democracy into a corpocracy. It is not good for us, and in the long run not good for them.
[+] [-] jshen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rozab|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ldoughty|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phyphy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neodymiumphish|2 years ago|reply
Otherwise, I completely agree. Samsung should just use Google Play or the System update process to manage system app updates, etc.
I can see their concern with relying completely on gPlay, as there may be instances where the permissions needed for a system app go beyond the allowances of gPlay, but there are other ways to avoid those issues, and the Galaxy Store is trash.
[+] [-] stuartjohnson12|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madeofpalk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeroenhd|2 years ago|reply
Of course you need explicit permission from the user to install apps (that just makes common sense) but I've been using F-Droid Basic which works like a treat.
Only Amazon has tried to launch an alternative app store so far, and I'm it sure if they use the new API that makes automatic updates possible. However, there's nothing standing in anyone's way to bring competition to this market.
If you can come up with a better store, you can take one of the many open source app stores out there and add a sales feature to turn it into a business venture and take on Google and Samsung. I'm not sure how this will go down on iOS when they will eventually allow installing external apps, but I imagine the situation may be quite similar.
[+] [-] brookst|2 years ago|reply
Might as well complain that Walmart has a “monopoly” on selling things in Walmart stores.
[+] [-] rchaud|2 years ago|reply
Back in the day some cheaper Samsung models came with the Amazon App Store installed.
[+] [-] lopkeny12ko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nulld3v|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xbadcafebee|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ldoughty|2 years ago|reply
I think this is just the developer is trying to resolve his frustration by "yelling for the manager" to make a PR incident.
[+] [-] sebstefan|2 years ago|reply
But honestly just flag and move on
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
[+] [-] SSNLF|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CaptainZapp|2 years ago|reply
The crux was, however, that the developer was totally upfront about what you got for the price and apparently there still were douchebags around forking over the cash to buy "status".
Apple yanked the app due to the publicity. Which I thought was wrong. It didn't violate any App store rules and it was honest and up front in the description of the app.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
[+] [-] ppetty|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Crosseye_Jack|2 years ago|reply
EDIT: however, you should be allowed to set the pricing of your app however you like.