Talk:List of mobile app distribution platforms/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thanks

I created this table in the "apps store" page originally - before it moved to its own page - Its certainly grown - thanks to all who have contributed. I don't like the name but - should be simpler - most reader will not be developers, so it should be a simpler name. Thanks to all and to Brian and everyone else for running with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.192.169 (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below for reasoning of the name. It's basically to keep within Wikipedia policy, and I can't really see how it only makes sense to developers. Brian Reading (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Opera Mobile Store

Please add it. mobilestore.opera.com/ua,en,uah/blackberry/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.145.69 (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC) It's actually the same as http://m.pocketgear.com/, same interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.78.71 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I also agree that a user centric view is better, but think that the developer information is useful. Perhaps split into two tables if it gets too wide? PaleAqua (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sorting

I've fixed sorting for the "Established", Available apps, Download count, and Install base columns. Developer fee(s) is a little more difficult since the cost are not directly comparable in all cases. Is $200 or $99/year higher? To me $0 => $25 => $200 => $99 / year => $99 / year 1st 5 then $99/app => $750/app/update+$150 platform is probably close to the right order, but it's subjective. For now I've just turned sorting of that column off. PaleAqua (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Minimum os version by platform...

Brianreading and I have been going back and forth over whether the minimum version of the OS should be included in the table. Windows Marketplace for Mobile requires Windows Mobile 6.5+, which for many WM users is either unsupported, extremely complicated, and/or would require an upgrade fee of some kind. Contrast this with WebOS's App Catalog, which doesn't have a minimum OS and updates the OS automatically without needing to sync; Palm OS's Software Store, which doesn't have a minimum OS AFAIK; and iPhone OS's App Store and BlackBerry OS's App World, which - while they both have minimum OS versions (2.0, 4.5 respectively) - the upgrades are free and (at least with the iPhone) every device is eligible to be upgraded and the process is fairly straightforward. I'm not sure about Android's Market or the rest of the platforms, but this information is important to be able to gauge the potential market size and installed base for each platform. It is also possible to make the case that the ease of upgrading the OS is an important way to differentiate each platform. So, should this information be included in the table? ~ Paul^T+/_C 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw the back and forth... but not sure which way is right. The minimum OS version indeed does limit applicable market, but it's not the only factor. For example some, take a look at the iTunes App Store, some apps don't work on the iPod Touch but work on the iPhone, and at least one company is considering making apps require the iPhone 3Gs. The VZAppZone also makes an interesting case since it supports multiple platforms. I doubt all the apps will be available platforms. There is also bit of apple vs oranges here, for example the platform stores such as the Android Market or the Ovi Store vs the carrier stores such as VZAppZore or Sprint's Software Store (not yet in the table - http://softwarestore.sprint.com/ -- I'm fairly sure the Nextel store existed before the Apple one, not sure of the start date for the Sprint one). I wonder if the platform column should be dropped and replaced with a column showing if the store is a platform or carrier focused store. For platform focused stores the platform could be listed underneath in smaller text. I.e sans ref:

Name	Established	Status	Organizations (Platform)	Store Type	Available apps	Download count	Install base	Developer's cut per sale	Developer fee(s)	Development platform
Android Market	October 22, 2008	Live	Google, OHA (Android)	Platform	8,000 (August 2009)	Un­known	1 million (May 2009)	70%	US$25	Android SDK
Get It Now VZAppZone	Un­known	Live	Verizon Wireless, Intertek	Carrier	Un­known	Un­known	86.6 million (April 2009)	Varies	US$750/app per update; 1st platform included, then US$150/platform	Un­known

PaleAqua (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Palm App Catalog - Live on the 24th, $5 annual fee?

There are some sources saying the App Catalog is going live on the 24th. I've noticed that several of them have a timeline chart apparently from Palm that also lists a $5 annual member fee, see 9/22 11 pm. See: [3] and [4]. I haven't been able to find the same information at palms site itself. Not sure what if anything we should do with this information. PaleAqua (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Handango et al

Should Handango, Mobile2Day and other independend platforms be part of the list? After all this is not List of manufacture owned digital distribution platforms for mobile devices. --Krischik ^T 14:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Handango certainly belongs on this list. Mathiastck (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PocketGear is also a very good one and should be on this listJakrabbit27 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually PocketGear is another trade name for Mobile2Day - add an app in one shop and it appears in the other.. And they just bought Handango - however they re still separate shops. --Krischik ^T 12:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Added them --Krischik ^T 13:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Handango also does iOS, which isn't in its list. http://www.handango.com/catalog/SoftwareCatalog.jsp?storeId=2218&deviceId=2437&platformId=160&categoryId=7596&nop=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-US Platforms

Aren't there also European operators hosting their own content and increasingly also app-stores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.17.162.197 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for a late response, but yes. Feel free to add any content you don't see up there already. Brian Reading (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PocketGear is European - kind of as all shops operate multinational. Look under "Organizations" - there is more then one PocketGear shop. --Krischik ^T 13:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Visual Studio is free not only for students

Microsoft gives away VS for free: DreamSpark (mentioned, for students), BizSpark (for small businesses), WebSpark (web startups) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.96.26 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the store Closed?

One of the most important questions about an app store is whether it is of an open or closed nature. That is, whether handset users are locked into that store exclusively, or whether users are allowed to roam to other app stores. I think it would be worth a heading on the list, for comparison of app store policy between platforms.--Lester 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

installed base

the section "installed base" in the first table needs cleaning up. currently it is showing cumulative sales for the iphone (which is not the same as installed base), while i think the number for nokia is actually installed base, whereas the other numbers are just completely out of date. since it is so hard to get accurate numbers on this, this column should probably be removed. for now i will re-insert the installed base estimate for iphone, please don't revert without also changing the heading to "cumulative sales" or something like that. --Anderssl (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

also, i wonder if the "apps/device" figure is meaningful if you work with cumulative downloads versus user base - then you are assuming that all iphones that have gone out of use (in the us, ca. 25%) have been replaced by newer iphones and not some other platform. you need to compare cumulative downloads with cumulative sales - but then if you look at older platforms, such as symbian which has been around for very long, their cumulative numbers become ridiculous. --Anderssl (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The 25% number is based on AT&T's subscriber numbers. iPhones don't need cell service once they have been activated.[5] Old iPhones are still in use - some have even been hacked to run Andriod. To extrapolate that 25% of iPhones are no longer in use based on a year-old statement by AT&T is ludicrous. What is even more ridiculous is that he then applies that same 25% attrition to iPod Touch (and presumably iPad) sales as well, when there is no evidence (not even the tenuous subscription cost that could possibly be argued for the iPhone) for this assumption at all. The source is flawed and doesn't pass WP:V or WP:RS. Yes, we are talking cumulative sales with the Apple-reported 85M number, but until there is a verifiable, reliable source that states an accurate installed base number, there is no reason to use a flawed estimate when we have official numbers. ~ Paul^T+/_C 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that doesn't work. It comes from basic logic that if the total number of iphones sold to this date is 85 million, then the installed user base must be less than that number. Sure, some may be in use as ipods or whatever, but some will not be - they have been broken, lost, or just simply replaced by newer phones. Sure we can argue forever about what is the best estimate of this number and who will be the best source for it, but one thing is clearly established from the start: Presenting Apple's figure of 85 million sold phones as "installed base" is positively wrong.

As for Ahonen's math, there is no point in discussing that, the question is whether he is a reliable source or not. He is not just a random blogger, he has published numerous books on the subject, teaches a course at Oxford University and is often cited in the mass media. He is definitely more reliable than Apple's marketing department in this respect. --Anderssl (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put the unknown template in the table for now, until we have figured out a reliable source for installed base. --Anderssl (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiptop/Sidekick

The Danger Sidekick/Hiptop "Download Fun/Download Catalog" was actually one of the first "app stores" available on the market. This info should be included in the article.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-20010334-85.html

Sidekick's App store was closed for new submissions as of Sept 21, 2010 and was finally closed on March 2, 2011 preceding the entire platform being shuttered on May 31, 2011.

http://www.hiptop3.com/archives/danger-closing-developer-program http://www.hiptop3.com/archives/downloadable-content-goes-away-march-2nd http://www.hiptop3.com/archives/sidekick-service-to-shut-down-on-may-31st

--Ncmacasl (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC) --Ncmacasl (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Windows Marketplace for Windows Mobile 6?

As far as I can tell, the Windows Marketplace for Mobile, for Windows Mobile 6 phones, is still in operation, though it never really took off. See the website here: [6] Should it be added to this table?

--Arteitle (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the service is set to close on July 15, 2011

http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/10/microsoft-shutting-down-windows-mobile-market-my-phone-service/

--Ncmacasl (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Handster

Handster is another multi-platform store, claiming 20,000 unique daily visitors in their promotional email (not verified). —Preceding unsigned comment added by GFMobile (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Motorola Shop4apps

Motorola has its own Android store, apparently targeting China and Latin America.

http://developer.motorola.com/shop4apps/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GFMobile (talk • contribs) 19:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

AndroLib and Android Market

How come the statistics regarding Android Market's app count differ so greatly? Androlib (http://www.androlib.com/appstats.aspx) reports 420k (the day this was written) while Distimo, AppBrain (http://www.appbrain.com/stats/number-of-android-apps) and even Google themselves announced the count is around 220k.

And it's not like AndroLib is cheating, they actually list all these 400k and allow you to search the database and download them. Perhaps they include applications not found in the Android Market, thus being an un\official digital distribution platform of their own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haha01haha01 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Free IDE?

Can an IDE really be considered free when it comes with an OS that you need to pay? Xcode doesn't seems free at all on this web site: http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ You either need to pay $99/year or get the latest version of MacOS X. --Danbob999 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Consistency

Does it matter if an app store lists different information on the comparison table from the Wikipedia page the specific store? For example, Blackberry App World shows 43000 apps while its Wikipedia page shows 51445. Is it possible to keep them automatically in sync?

no graph?

I was looking for something like File:App graph 001.png, but with more (at least the 5th common stores) or containing other data... mabdul 18:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

fasmicro

Address Not Found - Does it still exist?

App Center - Nukona, Inc.

Does it still exist?

Nukona was acquired by Symantec in 2012. I've updated the entry with the latest information. 50.131.32.54 (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ibtikarati Appstore

Created in 2012, Ibtikarati, was shut down in 2014 by its founder, en, due to lack of funding which prevented the maintaining of the platform operations.

FastApp

Network Timeout - Does it still exist?

MobiHand

Address Not Found - Does it still exist?

MobiHand does not exist. In 2011 MobiHand stopped paying developers. Here is lawsuit CIV511913 against MobiHand, claim amount is $140000. In September 2012 MobiHand filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In 2014 bankruptcy case was closed without paying anything to creditors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmanotherAnn (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations for Established dates.

Should we get some citations for the dates in the "Established" column? I imagine it wouldn't be too hard, and you could probably use web.archive.org to get actual references to those dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunu10000 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1