Talk:List of mobile app distribution platforms

Cydia

There should be some mention of Cydia, and other unauthorized distribution channels/app stores. [1] [2] --Anderssl (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Cydia isn't really new platform. It's just a front-end to apt. Brian Reading (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the word 'new' in the name of this article. --Anderssl (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but Cydia isn't of the same type. It's a front-end to apt, and that makes it distinctly different from what the article describes. Brian Reading (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that. It could be because I am not a computer scientist, but then again part of my point is that this should not only be framed as a computer science article. (Well all right it could be, in which case it would be appropriate to start a new article about mobile application stores, dealing with the business/media side of things... but i think this kind of content forking is undesirable.) And since I am doing a PhD in mobile application development, it should be possible to explain this in a way that I can understand. In what way is Cydia not a digital distribution platform for mobile devices? And what _exactly_ is a digital distribution platform for mobile devices, anyway? --Anderssl (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apt is specifically a means of tracking packages that are installed through many different sources. Basically, there is no one source, but a combination of many sources for the applications that are installed using this application. Therefore, there is no specific platform, just a piece of software. I'm using a combination of two accepted terms as a descriptive phrase for the title, not a term itself. Don't get hung up on it as a whole. Instead, ask yourself what a digital distribution platform is along with a mobile device, and you should be able to understand what it means. Why not try googling these terms if you're still not sure? Brian Reading (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so before I tried to gently hint that you shouldn't patronize, but rather try to engage with the substance of my arguments. I am fully capable of googling these terms without being told to do so. The point is that I am questioning whether they have a precise meaning that is fitting for the topic of this article. Is Itunes, for instance, a DDPMD? Why not? How about Kindle? What is the difference between a platform and a piece of software, in this context - and on what basis is Cydia just a piece of software, and not a distribution network for mobile applications? Point being, that to follow your rationale one needs to accept that this article is exclusively about a computer science concept, in which case there is an obvious need for a separate article which covers the other aspects of this phenomenon. That's the only reasonable way I can interpret your line of arguing - so I'll go ahead and create the article Mobile application store so we can have somewhere to discuss the things that obviously can not be included in this article. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you find it inappropriate. --Anderssl (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes iTunes would fall under the current description. The name should probably be modified on this basis (however it should be a descriptive phrase, not a term as you've proposed). Cydia is not a network of anything. It's sort of like the difference between a web browser and the world wide web. The web browser is merely a piece of software, as is Cydia. The difference between a platform and a piece of software is the infrastructure involved. These concepts might be related to computer science, but they are defined. I don't follow your reasoning, but I guess I'll have to see if the article you create merits a deletion. Brian Reading (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Suggest this article be renamed List of mobile application stores. Shorter, closer to common language and more accurate as far as I can see. The term "application store" is used in this WSL article which discusses the phenomenon, I guess with the prefix mobile omitted since the context made it unnecessary. --Anderssl (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A "mobile application store" is ambiguous. For example, one may buy a Windows Mobile game from a brick and mortar store, which would make it a "mobile application store". The key here is that these stores/platforms are unique in the way that the applications are distributed. I also can't find the term "application store" anywhere in that article. Either way, one, five, or even ten sources are simply a small amount of individual journalists (as opposed to the general population) that have used the term before. It is a not a definitive way to say what is "common language". Brian Reading (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, somehow I had mixed up urls so the link went to the wrong article. I have corrected it now.

From the article: "Apple started the applications-store trend in July when it opened its App Store for iPhone customers." [...] "The rise of application stores is drawing traffic away from the so-called "walled gardens" of wireless carriers" [...] "Most carriers are still working on strategies for their own applications stores" etc.

I agree that the mode of distribution is important here, but these things are still a form of online stores, as reflected in most of the names used - App Store, Ovi Store, Android Market etc - and part of their significance is that they are claimed to have the potential to change the mobile software/content business.

As for common language, I have not claimed to find a definite solution, just one that is better than a term that is overly technical and so far doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the world except in the name of this wikipedia article. If you can counter that with a source, please go ahead. --Anderssl (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'mobile applications store' is apparently used also in this report by In-stat, which appears to be some kind of business research consultancy. Google gives a bunch of other examples. --Anderssl (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how a name like "App Store" implies the mode of distribution. As I see it, there is no accepted short-hand term that exists. As per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms regarding naming conventions with neologisms, "[i]t can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Therefore, I don't see any issue with a long, descriptive name. Brian Reading (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how "digital distribution platforms for mobile devices" is plain English, whereas "mobile application store" is not. I also fail to see how the first alternative is more descriptive - my point is exactly the opposite. These are a form of online stores, built on technical platforms which are not terribly different from other online stores. Long before the app store, anyone could post an application (e.g. a jar package) on a website with a link that users (with unlocked phones, as is common in many European countries) could click on to have that application downloaded and installed directly on their phone - I have done that myself. The main difference with the new setup is that a direct portal to the stores are preinstalled on phones - and that the phones are too a larger degree opened up for user-installed applications. To me, as to the authors of that WSJ article and the market research report, that is a new and distinct way of doing business more than it is a new way of distributing software.

Quote: "I can't see how a name like "App Store" implies the mode of distribution." Me neither... And that was the point I was making. It implies a mode of doing business. --Anderssl (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

I have presented several verifiable reliable sources in English, some of which call the subject of this article "mobile application stores", some of which call it "app stores". No sources have been presented for the current name. I encourage anyone who knows a source to add it here. --Anderssl (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mobile application store" is plain English in a sense, but it's too ambiguous to not be a neologism when used as the title of this article. A "mobile application store" simply means a store that sells mobile applications. In plain English, it doesn't describe a major concept; these applications are being distributed without any physical media. Basically the use of the term "mobile application store" would denote a neologism simply because it would need to imply digital distribution which isn't detailed in plain English.

You're helping to prove my point here. You've said it yourself. Some reliable sources call it one thing, while others call it something else. Read my last response again. There's is no accepted term yet. My title is a description, not a term. Brian Reading (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so by that rationale, a Bookstore, a Record shop, an Online music store or a Rental shop are not major concepts, since these can all both be delivering physical media or digital content. And the bookselling article should be forked into two articles, one named 'Physical distribution platform for paper-bound media' and another named 'Digital distribution platform for electronic reading devices', since "bookselling" is obviously too ambiguous and can be called many things. --Anderssl (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those are accepted terms, thus there are no neologisms involved. Brian Reading (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Brian Reading. There's no name yet. Let's wait until one emerges rather than trying to coin one. WillSmith (London) (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blank spaces

Firstly, this is a really handy chart/list. Very interesting and informative. I had a question... Are all the blank spaces due to a lack of information, or because they are non-applicable? For example, the Apple App Store has nothing listed under "Developers Fees", is that because there aren't any, or because it is unknown? This is really just a matter of curiosity. If indeed there are no fees it should say so. Again, good job! -- Atama ^chat 23:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're due to lack of information, but could most likely be filled in with some research. Brian Reading (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified this in the article now. Brian Reading (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Column Order

Won't most visitors to this page be end-users comparing the features of the stores, probably before choosing a phone? Currently the 'available appls' column is way over to the right, after developer-centric columns. I propose the 'available apps' column moves towards the lefthand side. WillSmith (London) (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the table, in its current form, is much too developer-centric. There are far more readers who will be end-users rather than developers. Thus, I will go ahead and move that column to the left, and propose the deletion of other columns such as "Developer's cut". Brian Reading (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

App Store developer fee

The App Store developer fee is $99 USD per year, not a one-time fee. Here's an excerpt from the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement:

12. Term and Termination

12.1 Term
The Term of this Agreement shall extend until the one (1) year anniversary of the original activation date of Your Program account (“Eﬀective Date”). Thereafter, subject to Your payment of annual renewal fees and compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Term will automatically renew for successive one (1) year terms, unless sooner terminated in
accordance with this Agreement.

I changed the article back to reflect this. Brian Reading (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]