Talk:App Store (Apple)

Pure PR Page

This page seems to be pure Apple propaganda. There are important questions raise in Gizmodo and other tecc blogs about how Apple is managing third party software. The flavor of it being that software may not be like pop songs because of the long development cycle for quality applications. The invasion of low-quality free or "almost free" software could deter serious software development. It seemslike all rankings are based on instant downloads. This is an important aspect it seems that needs to be brought forward in this article. HuskyMoon (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Get a clue noob, or get off the Internet. I removed the non-sensical "Challenges" section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you perform any form of editing, you have to sign your comments. From your IP address it seems very clear where thos comments come from. There are obvious challenges with the App Store, like any other channel. It does a dis-service to Apple to actually delete it from this page. 75.55.198.250 (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

These two comments are unsigned and seem to have edited the article in a very biased way and deleted sourced comments. I suggest signing your comments. HuskyMoon (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press

According to the Apple App Store in the United States of America, the Associated Press (AP) is not called "News", but "Mobile News Network". The column title is also has the word type, so before I changed the name, I wanted to make sure type did not over-rule the actual name of the AP's application for iPhone/iPod Touch. (Nicolaususry (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Improve the stub

Since the App Store got a lot of software, let's try to list them all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.112.177 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I Am Rich merge suggestion

I Am Rich is an interesting example of potential problems with the app store (users accidentally buying apps, or apps not doing what they should... or anything at all) and applications (eg art). Probably worth merging, and would help balance the PoV. samj (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I vote to merge it. The text is even very similar. The Asian Guy 12:05, 13 October 2008 (EST)
• I vote not to merge it. Jrdewintheamp88 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• I vote to merge it. I Am Rich wreaks of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Also, Jrdewintheamp88 vote should be discounted per WP:JUSTAVOTE Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, I think this should be a sub-topic on the App Store page. If that can grow to be long enough to warrant a full page, then we know what to do. Thomasmallen (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• I vote to merge it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.148.9 (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's been merged. Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unmerging since the content has been removed and there was a previous AfD to keep. If we are going to have something merged with a previous AfD like that we shouldn't just merge and then remove it. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm remerging, per per the consensus here. The content shouldn't have been removed and the person who removed it should have been issued a warning against removal on his talk page. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The AfD closed with keep - it could have closed with merge. This seems to me to be an attempt to sidestep the community. I think the original article should be reinstated, and so I have done so. Orpheus (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And what about the consensus here? You say I'm trying to sidestep the consensus of the AfD and then sidestep the consensus here?

Besides, to quote User:Sgeureka, "WP:Articles for deletion should not be misused for merge/redirect proposals. ... Deletion means the edit histories are lost to non-admins, merging/redirection means anyone can access the edit histories".

For the purposes of merges, the consensus here takes precedent (never mind the fact that this consensus was established after the AfD).

Per this, I am reverting your edits to I Am Rich. Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is hardly a wide-ranging consensus. There's one editor who thinks it would be good to mention here to balance the PoV, your bluelink collection , an editor in favour of s(t)ubsuming the page and two votes (I assume you're happy to discount both of those if you're going to discount the "keep as article" one). Now we have two editors in favour of keeping as a separate article and the opportunity to debate it. I suggest listing this at WP:PM given that it's obviously a contested merge. Also, it's entirely proper to use AfD consensus to justify keeping an article rather than merging it. The editor on the talk page you linked makes an assertion based on a misunderstanding. AfD isn't *just* for deletion, it's to discuss the fate of an article whose relevance or value to the project is disputed. Plenty of AfDs end in "merge" - this one ended in "keep". You should respect that by at least looking for more consensus than "me too, me three, done" before you replace an article with a redirect. Orpheus (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually four. PoV, myself, Thomasmallen, and 70.89.148.9. 4v2. So the consensus is still to merge. Is your case so weak that you have to pretend as if people who voted to merge don't exist simply to bolster your own position?

Also, this was listed at WP:PM. And then I merged it.

And still, you persist in ignoring the consensus here that was taken after the AfD. If those people that participated in the AfD want to chim in, they're free to do so. It is very inappropriate, however, for you to presume to speak on their behalf. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how is 70.89.148.9's "I vote to merge it" any more valid than Jrdewintheamp88's "I vote to not merge it" which you dismissed out of hand? I'm not ignoring consensus - I'm pointing out that you're justifying your actions based on a very, very thin consensus. Much more thin than the AfD, which should at least give you pause. If WP:PM didn't generate any further debate then perhaps we should list at WP:3 or some other kind of dispute resolution.

Incidentally, the editor you referred to as PoV is actually samj. Orpheus (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

70.89.148.9 and Jrdewintheamp88's votes are just as valid. Unless I'm miscounting, I think you included Jrdewintheamp88's vote in your total?

Also, I didn't list it in WP:PM - it was listed in there by another editor (well, it was tagged for proposed merge, so I assume that that lists it in WP:PM) and I followed up on that Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't include either vote. Either way, the number of editors who think the article should be merged and the number who think it should not be are about the same - but more importantly, both numbers are small. Listing at WP:PM is not automatic, it's a manual step taken to generate a wider debate about a proposed merge. It's not necessary to list there for non-contentious merges, but I think this one has become contentious. We need more community involvement to generate a lasting consensus. Orpheus (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to take this to DRV or something. ViperSnake151 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Relist

Relisted per the request at DRV, I just added merge tags to both articles to give proper notice. Keep this discussion open until at least 14:19, 28 September 2008 (five days from now). Then, if there is sufficient discussion (the above discussion can be included), post a notice at WP:AN and request an Admin close the discussion using top and bottom archival templates. Please continue the discussion below this message. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll kick this off. I think that having a large section on one application in what is a fairly short article gives unwarranted prominence to that application's effect on the app store itself. On the other hand, the application has relevance beyond just the app store - it's a good (albeit simplistic) example of a Veblen good, for instance. Those, to me, suggest that keeping this information as a separate article will enhance the encylopedia, which is what we're all here for. Orpheus (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you think the discussion of I Am Rich on this page gives it unwarranted prominence, shorten it. Maybe remove the what it says, or something. Besides, the author could probably legitimately claim a copyright violation, there.

And being a "good (albeit simplistic) example" of a Veblen good is completely irrelevant. Is it really so hard to link to I Am Rich instead of I Am Rich? And even if it were, just make I Am Rich, itself, a redirect to App Store#I Am Rich, and problem solved. Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You could use exactly the same argument to demerge and establish as a separate article. Remember that deletion policy says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." We're supposed to be biased towards keeping articles unless there's a compelling reason. WikiProject Deletion, of which you are a member, states:

We are not here to go after huge swaths of badly written articles. The icon of scissors is to remind us to trim carefully. Whenever possible, FIX. Whenever possible, SOURCE. Whenever possible, FIND THE NOTABILITY. Before nominating for deletion it is a good idea to check for notability and to make some attempt at finding reliable sources. If there are some, then include them and try to improve the articles. If there is truly nothing there, then and only then go ahead with the nomination for deletion.

The article has plenty of sources. Its notability has been established (by AfD). It's a bit long for a subsection of App Store as they both stand, so what is the reason to not have a separate article? Orpheus (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to delete - I'm trying to merge. As for "the reason to not have a separate article" - see my earlier post (you know - the one that you've ignored, since you failed to address any of the points mentioned in it) Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's not delete in the pure technical sense. I'm using the word as a shortcut for "Remove the separate article status of I Am Rich". It's effectively a delete from the perspective of a casual reader. Yes, I'm aware of the visible history and all that - but the end result is that 99% of Wikipedia's readers won't know the difference between this and deletion.

I was attempting to address your point - which one did I miss? Orpheus (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article was deleted, then it's also quite likely there wouldn't be any discussion of it in App Store, either. That's the difference between deletion and merging. When you merge, the material still exists, albeit in another article.

The point I feel you failed to address was where I proposed the article be shortened. I'm also not sure if you addressed my App Store#I Am Rich vs. I Am Rich point? Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Then if the material still exists, why is it necessary to put it into this article and remove it from the original article? The I Am Rich app relates to more than just the iPhone Application Store. Making it a subsection of this article implies that it is purely related to the App Store, which isn't true. From the deletion debate: "This one relates to a number of other topics (The App Store, online scams, iPhone, Apple, etc.) without falling completely within them." I don't think that making the section shorter is a solution, either - we're supposed to assume that articles are going to be expanded, and this one has enough sources that it's plausible it will be. Taking out the transcript to make it artificially shorter doesn't seem like a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Regarding ease of linking, that's what I meant when I said you could turn it around - "Is it really so hard to link to I Am Rich instead of I Am Rich?". It's a non-argument either way. Orpheus (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Relating to other topics has no bearing on whether or not a merger ought to take place. Take a look at Holy Grail#Modern retellings. Hit Ctrl + F5 and do a search for Stargate. You'll see it says as the "Sangreal". Your suggestion is basically akin to suggesting that the now-redirected Sangreal article ought not be redirected and instead ought to be it's own article on the basis it's linked to from articles that wouldn't otherwise link to Ancient technology in Stargate. It's akin to suggesting that WP:NOT#DICT be spun out into it's own article and that, in general, all subsections (as denoted by the Number sign) that are being linked to ought to be spun out. And that's absurd.

You say my I Am Rich vs. App Store#I Am Rich is a non-argument. Wrong. You're suggesting App Store#I Am Rich is a wholly inferior link simply because it has a pound sign in it. My question is.. why?

Remember, in my proposal, I Am Rich and App Store#I Am Rich would both take you to the same thing. In your proposal, they wouldn't. In fact, in your proposal, the latter wouldn't even exist.

Also, as I said, I think there's a very valid reason to take out the transcript - copyright. Wikipedia does not own the copyright to the message that I Am Rich displayed Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use buddy. ViperSnake151 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there's a distinct lack of interest in this - any objections to closing it off? Orpheus (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the elapsed time, I'm going to assume not, so I'll be bold and take off the merge tags. Orpheus (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that there wasn't any consensus either way, I don't believe I would be overstepping my bounds to merge them, again. In the interests of being civil, I won't, but please do keep that in mind. Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look through Wikipedia:What is consensus? at some stage. It would be a bit on the nose to repeat a controversial action because of a perceived lack of consensus either way. Orpheus (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Applications Availability Worldwide

There should be some note about the availability of apps in the worldwide stores, eg, iSSH is avail in US, Switzerland but not in Singapore. Any reason why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.36.226 (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar Services

There should be some mention of similar services such as Google's Android Market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.66.221 (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

no there shouldn't. This isn't a shopping site. Unless there is a direct tie between the products they don't belong in this article and need to be removed.--221.138.100.168 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Expand Tag

I have added the Expand tag:

To this article. There is some very incorrect and badly written information. Stealth (talk)

Baby Shaker

Out of curiosity, if anyone got baby shaker before it was removed, would they be allowed to share it with others? I'm not trying to obtain it because I don't approve of baby shaking (at least in Halo, you're killing people who can defend themselves) and I don't think I would find someone who has it anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.222.73 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, apps like Baby Shaker are still protected just like other apps. The difference is you just can't buy it from the store anymore. Brianreading (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Any App can be cracked and shared with the jailbroken community. Dmarquard (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Generic term?

Does anyone have sources indicating that "App Store" is also being used as a generic term, referring to Android Market, Nokia's Ovi, Palm's app store (whatever it's called) etc? It seems sensible to me, I'm definitely already using the term that way, but are there any more notable sources. ;) If so maybe there should be some mention of it in the article (cf. recently reverted edits). --Anderssl (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any reliable source that has used it as a true generic term. I think that even if a journalist were to use something like "Palm's App Store", it would simply be another syntax (albeit a somewhat unclear one) for "Palm's version of the App Store", rather than a catch-all term for any similar service. I think if this were to be worded as something like "App Stores are becoming very successful.", then this could seen as a true generic term. Brian Reading (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If people and journalist's are using terms like "Palm's app store" or "Google's app store" (especially if uncapped) that is definitely a use of the phrase as generic term. Doing some googling is quite revealing here - under the "related searches" heading you get suggestions like "blackberry app store", "palm app store" etc, indicating that a lot of people use the term "app store" to refer to the various brand stores. (It's pretty obvious honestly, who goes around remembering what all these stores are officially named? And who cares?)

In the media: Reuters: ...that's true of the crop of virtual mobile retailers called "app stores." (From a story called "In app store war, BlackBerry, Google hold own". NY Times' blog, under the heading "Nokia's App Store": "Those who can use the Ovi store will find it similar to other app stores" (also referring to the store as "app shop" and "the Ovi app-store"). Wired, in the story "BlackBerry App Store Gets a Name": "The company[RIM] has said earlier it plans to launch its app store in March." Gizmodo has a story referring to Android Market as "Google's App Store" in the headline. See also this blog, proposing a "Flasn App Store": "There are lot of app stores germinating lately...".

These are just a handful of examples. Seems to me there definitely should be some mention about the use of app store as generic term in the article, as an encyclopedia should reflect the distinction between terms as used in language and trademarked brands... --Anderssl (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an encyclopedia should certainly make a distinction between terms used in language (generally speaking of course) and trademarked brands, however I still disagree with your definition of a generic term, as reasoned above. As far as who goes around remembering these names, I certainly do. It hasn't been a real difficulty for me.

You have shown some examples of the generic term in reliable sources, and even in my sense of it. I will concede that there is some usage out there, but are there any sources that claim this specifically? It would make for a stronger argument to phrase it well in the article. For example, we could say "The term "app store" has also become a generic term to refer to any similar service for mobile devices." versus something like "The term "app store" has been used by Sinead Carew of Reuters and Roy Furchgott of the The New York Times as a generic term to refer to any similar service for mobile devices." The reasoning for the difference in wording is to avoid using weasel words. We also could not use the former sentence, because that would constitute as original research in that we would be synthesizing published material to advance a position. Brian Reading (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but still don't quite agree. The problem with weasel words is when you use them in stead of giving sources for a claim. So I think we can say "Some people use the term as a generic term to refer to any similar service for mobile devices" followed by a few refs to some of the examples I listed below. The point is that this is a current phenomenon which is obviously real (as shown by my examples), but too recent to have entered the dictionary. Some of the advantage of Wikipedia is that we don't have to wait for the slow editorial processes of traditional reference works to recognize a phenomenon - if we have to wait for the term to enter Webster's dictionary before we can write about it, some of the purpose of Wikipedia seems to be lost, in my mind. --Anderssl (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the following page is relevant: List of generic and genericized trademarks - to see how similar issues have been handled in other articles. The article Band-Aid, for instance, only cites one anecdotal use of the term to support the claim of generic use; Walkman gives no sources. --Anderssl (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and added this to the lead. --Anderssl (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly not being bold, it's being impatient. We were in the middle of a discussion, and you just went on with it. Firstly, did you really read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words? I mean, the epitome and first example used to illustrate weasel words is the "Some say..." format. Did you not read the portion that mentions "It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source."? How about the part where it says that "Sentences like Some people think... lead to arguments about how many people actually think that." So no, giving sources is an improvement over NOT having sources, but it is certainly not a substitute for clarity.

Secondly, as I noted before, you ARE synthesizing material. In order for that to not be true, you'd need a source saying that "App Store" has become a generic term. What you've done is take several sources, analyzed the text of each, found similarities through comparison, and drew your own conclusion. That's a stark contrast. This is part of original research, and it's not allowed here.

Your point claiming that it is a fact, but it is too new to have been published is only hurting your argument, not helping it. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." That sentence comes from Wikipedia:Verifiability, and it's one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. If you don't follow this, you are participating in another aspect of original research. As per Wikipedia:No original research: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research. [...] If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a discovery. Once your discovery has been presented in a reliable source, it may be referenced."

Lastly, you've claimed that examples of similarly bad practices on Wikipedia is not relevant. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and things like that can easily slip through the cracks. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be cited properly though. Basically, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress. Brian Reading (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, time to calm down a little. I'm sorry if you find my edit impatient, you are free to revert it if you don't think it's appropriate.

Yes, I have read WP:WEASEL. And in all due respect, I think you are misreading it a little. Nowhere in that page does it say that the grammatical construction "Some say..." is always a weasel word that should be avoided - rather, it is just an example of something that can work as a weasel word. Read the very first sentence on the page: "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." That is obviously not what is happening here, I think we both agree that verifiable sources have been given, which answer the questions posed on the weasel page - such as "Who says that? When did they say it?" etc. As for the question of "how many says that", my edit does provide an answer - at least 3 writers in mainstream global media outlets - and I'm not sure why we would need to search for a more specific number than that?

The core of the disagreement, rather, seems to be the question of synthesis. In my opinion you are, again, streching the concept. I am not synthesizing, I am Compiling facts and information. The sentence I have added to the article is a fact - yes, some (notable) sources are using the term that way - and the references added to the end of the sentence document that fact directly. There is no analysis involved, just simple and direct deduction. I do accept your point that the argument would be stronger if, say, the term was included in a traditional dictionary, but as I said above I don't think that is a necessary requirement for including mention of this use of the term here.

"Lastly, you've claimed that examples of similarly bad practices on Wikipedia is not relevant." No I have not. I have claimed the opposite - that they are relevant - but I haven't drawn the conclusions that you seem to be crediting me with. I'm not saying that because Walkman or Q-tips doesn't give any sources, sources aren't necessary. However I don't think it is necessary to find a dictionary entry or an article that discusses the use of one specific brand name as generic term, in order to document that such use is taking place - and I am providing these examples to show that I'm probably not alone in thinking so. Anyway, this is a fair and square disagreement, so I think it's time to ask for a third opinion. --Anderssl (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you beat me to it. :) Adding 3O template. --Anderssl (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. As far as your last point, it was a typo by me. Please remove the "not" in the first sentence, to make more sense of it. Hopefully someone can remedy this situation for us. I'd also like to point out that I have not reverted your edit specifically to show that I'm assuming good faith, and that I'm being open-minded to your argument. Brian Reading (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

OK, somebody asked on Wikipedia:Third opinion, so here I am. I normally avoid editing articles for which I'm offering a third opinion in a dispute, but the solution seemed so obvious here that I couldn't resist.

I have rephrased the contentious sentence to remove the weasel word and state the simple fact that the term "app store" has appeared as a generic term. The reference supporting that statement appear to be adequate. I am not convinced that the sources suggest the term has become a generic term in a universal sense; they only indicate that the term has been used as a generic term, so that's all we should say about it. That seems to be a reasonable compromise between claiming it is now a generic term, and deleting the sentence altogether. That's my opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, that WAS kind of obvious. :) This is basically what I meant to say all along (I also do not mean that we should state that the term has universally become a generic term). Thanks for the help! --Anderssl (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Brian Reading (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparison table

I like this table that someone put in, with info to compare the different app stores! I took the liberty of adding some more info. But I also think a couple of the columns could be cut. The 'status' one - aren't they pretty much all 'Live' now? And the developer's fees, and links to the developer web sites - that sounds a little like information for specially interested (like me, incidentally) - maybe not so interesting for the general public (could be put in the articles for the different stores though, so it's available for those who are specially interested). Objections? --Anderssl (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Great table, but it should be in a different article. Please comment below in the discussion for this. Thanks! Brian Reading (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of app stores split proposal

I propose that this section be split into a new article entitled Comparison of digital distribution platforms for mobile devices. My main reasoning for this is that it does not fit into the topic of this article. Brian Reading (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except for the article name... I tried to google "digital distribution platforms for mobile devices" to see if it was used anywhere, and I can't find any examples. Whereas the term "app store" seems to have fairly widespread use. We should aim to use the same terms which are used elsewhere. --Anderssl (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparison articles (which should still be called "List of…", per WP:LISTNAME) compare different options. App stores are determined by platform, so I would reccomend adding it to List of smartphones if it hadn't been deleted. But get it out of this article, sure. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While someone viewing the App Store article might be interested in this information, it isn't exclusively about the Apple App Store; the Apple store is only one store on the list. I support moving it to its own article, and perhaps link to it in the "See Also" section. -- Atama^chat 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "app store" used in that generic way (as Anderssl suggests) is not wide-spread, and would only serve to cause confusion. A digital distribution platform and a mobile device are two concepts that are fairly well detailed on Wikipedia. I do think it's important to follow the naming conventions, and thus I will modify my proposal to be List of digital distribution platforms for mobile devices. Brian Reading (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no Wikipedia article called Digital distribution platform - which makes it hard to discuss this, since we haven't really clarified what exactly a ddp is. My point is that these 'app stores' are something more than technical platforms, they are also (arguably) online stores, entertainment services, publishers etc. And those aspects may be more important in the end than the technical platforms they are built on, much like the website Wikipedia is arguably more important than the software MediaWiki. But go ahead, I don't want to be a hairsplitter, we can come up with a better name later. --Anderssl (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Both Digital distribution and Template:Digital distribution platforms are here on Wikipedia. Another related article is Content delivery network. I guess I will just go ahead and create it as you suggested. We can discuss the name there as needed. Thanks for all of your input. Brian Reading (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? What is there to compare? These are not in competition. Unless there are device that can access and use multiple stores, comparisons are meaningless. They're not in competition with each other.--221.138.100.168 (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apps

I have created a new artice named Apps, in reference to mobile phone applications. Please note that it is a neutral article and so does not refer iPhone as if it owns the term. Please do not change the name as per 'Special' naming conventions. I am informing you all of this because it is a stub, so please feel free to improve the article - which can be found here. Thanks --Graham •talk 09:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about that. You're trying to create pov that the term refers to something which it does not. App and apps have been used for years as shorthand for application and applications. A single article from the BBC doesn't change that. Nothing can.--221.138.100.168 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

CNBC's "Planet of the Apps" documentary

CNBC's "Planet of the Apps" documentary (see http://www.cnbc.com/id/34316207 ) covers some interesting aspects of the App Store. - Bevo (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Apps and Downloads

Steve Jobs said today on the Event of Apple, that there are 185,000 Apps in the App Store with over 4 billion Downloads.

--Maurice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.201.200 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a source? `-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for example this site:

http://www.unwiredview.com/2010/04/08/apple-iphone-os-4-gets-official-multitasking-included-will-be-out-in-the-summer/

--Maurice

Thanks :). I've updated the page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No Problem. ;-)

--Maurice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.200.18 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nokia and the Ovi Store

Although Ovi Store was released after the App Store, Nokia S40 and S60 phones had a "Download!" application, which predates the App Store and indeed the iPhone.

Adobe Flash Ban and other bans?

So far I've heard that apps made with the Adobe Flash cross-compiler or Monotouch are prohibited, as well as apps with the word "Android" in their description. Should these also be mentioned in the article? 174.55.189.19 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)