Google Says It Will Start Downranking Non-Tablet Apps In the Play Store (arstechnica.com) 50
Google is changing the Play Store ranking algorithms to increase the visibility of apps that better support large screens. Google detailed the changes in a blog post: "Apps and games that adhere to our large screen app quality guidelines will now be ranked higher in search and Apps and Games Home. This helps users find apps that resize well, aren't letterboxed, and support both portrait and landscape orientations. Editors' Choice and other curated collections and articles will also consider these criteria going forward, creating new featuring opportunities for optimized apps." Ars Technica reports: The large-screen app guidelines have various tiers, but they recommend keyboard, mouse, and stylus support, a two-pane tablet layout, drag-and-drop support, and foldable display awareness. The post also reiterates some improvements that Google has already rolled out, like showing tablet screenshots to tablet users and downranking apps that crash a lot.
The big news is that the search results will switch to a two-pane layout on big screens. The search result list will live on the left-hand side, and tapping on each result will load a details page on the right. Previously, the results page was a stretched-out phone interface, with results on the left and nothing on the right. It would be nice if the top charts got this two-pane design, too, but that hasn't changed yet. Google says these changes are "just the beginning of our journey in creating a tailored Play Store experience for large screens." So hopefully, Google's developers will follow Google's developer guidelines soon.
The big news is that the search results will switch to a two-pane layout on big screens. The search result list will live on the left-hand side, and tapping on each result will load a details page on the right. Previously, the results page was a stretched-out phone interface, with results on the left and nothing on the right. It would be nice if the top charts got this two-pane design, too, but that hasn't changed yet. Google says these changes are "just the beginning of our journey in creating a tailored Play Store experience for large screens." So hopefully, Google's developers will follow Google's developer guidelines soon.
Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is all about automating everything without concern for the corner cases.
Re:Dumb (Score:5, Informative)
The one that does not fit in a pocket
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
And what about apps where they are designed to be used on the go - where a tablet would be impractical?
What kind of tablet do you have where it cannot be used on the go?
The one that doesn't fit in my shirt-pocket.
Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the size of phones these days, you must have a giant shirt pocket.
I have an iPhone 8 Plus. It fits in a T-shirt or dress shirt pocket. Sticks out a little far; but it's not stupid-tall or anything.
Re: Dumb (Score:4)
"Take away pockets, and you limit womenâ(TM)s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious writing, or to travel unaccompanied".
Re:Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying there is no use for apps. But 90% of what is out there could be made responsive web interfaces and skip all this Google and Apple business.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire idea of apps is quite a step back. With CSS3 you can make web apps that scale to fit the container (font-size: XXvmin). Unlike apps they work on any device that has a browser rather than the duopoly we have now. Also with HTTP caching and service workers they can work while disconnected.
I'm not saying there is no use for apps. But 90% of what is out there could be made responsive web interfaces and skip all this Google and Apple business.
So, Steve Jobs had it right all along, with Web Apps being what the iPhone ecosystem was originally built around.
BTW, iPhones still support Web Apps, completely free from the App Store, its Rules, and its Fees...
Wonder why the Walled Garden App Store Haters don't just use those?
Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied (Score:3)
BTW, iPhones still support Web Apps, completely free from the App Store, its Rules, and its Fees...
Wonder why the Walled Garden App Store Haters don't just use those?
For a long time, Apple WebKit has been years behind Firefox on web platform feature support. This discourages developers of applications that depend on those features from developing the applications as web applications. See "Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied" by Alex Russell [infrequently.org].
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, iPhones still support Web Apps, completely free from the App Store, its Rules, and its Fees...
Wonder why the Walled Garden App Store Haters don't just use those?
For a long time, Apple WebKit has been years behind Firefox on web platform feature support. This discourages developers of applications that depend on those features from developing the applications as web applications. See "Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied" by Alex Russell [infrequently.org].
So, Apple decided to wait on implementing somebody's vendor-specific stuff?
So what?
I'm sure Mozilla and Google don't rush out and implement every new WebKit/Safari feature, either.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Mozilla and Google don't rush out and implement every new WebKit/Safari feature, either.
Could you give examples of WebKit features that Mozilla has declined or unduly delayed?
It's more a question of degree. I used Firefox as an example because Mozilla doesn't just implement every feature that the Chromium team tosses over the wall. As described in the article I cited, Apple has a history of being even more "cautious" than Mozilla, especially with features that let a web application replace an Apple-curated, Apple-taxed native application. In particular, Apple dragged its bottom jeans for years
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Mozilla and Google don't rush out and implement every new WebKit/Safari feature, either.
Could you give examples of WebKit features that Mozilla has declined or unduly delayed?
It's more a question of degree. I used Firefox as an example because Mozilla doesn't just implement every feature that the Chromium team tosses over the wall. As described in the article I cited, Apple has a history of being even more "cautious" than Mozilla, especially with features that let a web application replace an Apple-curated, Apple-taxed native application. In particular, Apple dragged its bottom jeans for years on the Push API for notifications in a messaging web application. Safari also has that annoying "Typing is not allowed in full screen" error message when trying to use a virtual gamepad in a web game.
I believe that Apple had security concerns over the way PushAPI was designed. But that is all behind us now, or soon will be (I honestly don't watch that closely).
So, when Mozilla "delays" something, they're being cautious (of which I approve); but when Apple does the very same thing, the "motive" is automatically "dragging its bottom jeans" for some imagined anti-competitive reason?
Got it!
Question of degree: Apple is much slower (Score:2)
I believe that Apple had security concerns over the way PushAPI was designed.
Such as the business security concern for the loss of $300 per developer-year[1] plus 30% of App Store IAP revenue plus revenue from MPEG LA patent licenses.
It's more a question of degree. [...] Apple has a history of being even more "cautious" than Mozilla
So, when Mozilla "delays" something, they're being cautious (of which I approve); but when Apple does the very same thing, the "motive" is automatically "dragging its bottom jeans" for some imagined anti-competitive reason?
As I said, question of degree. On average, when Apple delays implementing a web platform feature, it delays far longer than Mozilla does. This additional delay is conspicuous in areas where delay benefits Apple by preventing web applications from substituting for native applications.
[1] Estimated at $1,000 per 5 years for a Mac that can run the latest v
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that Apple had security concerns over the way PushAPI was designed.
Such as the business security concern for the loss of $300 per developer-year[1] plus 30% of App Store IAP revenue plus revenue from MPEG LA patent licenses.
It always comes down to some imagined sinister motive with you morons. Give it a rest, willya?
WTF does handling PushNotifications have to do with any of that bullshit you just spewed?
BTW, it's 15% unless you have more than $1 million in sales, and also 15% for any Subscription after 1 year.
As for MPEG-LA licensing fees, Apple is certainly not alone.
It's more a question of degree. [...] Apple has a history of being even more "cautious" than Mozilla
So, when Mozilla "delays" something, they're being cautious (of which I approve); but when Apple does the very same thing, the "motive" is automatically "dragging its bottom jeans" for some imagined anti-competitive reason?
As I said, question of degree. On average, when Apple delays implementing a web platform feature, it delays far longer than Mozilla does. This additional delay is conspicuous in areas where delay benefits Apple by preventing web applications from substituting for native applications.
So says you.
[1] Estimated at $1,000 per 5 years for a Mac that can run the latest version of Xcode and $99 per year for Apple Developer Program membership
A reasonable Mac mini for anything but macOS game development is more in the $5-700 world these days; and you can probably stretch that to 7 years. Y
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does handling PushNotifications have to do with any of that bullshit you just spewed?
The price of turning a web application into a native application solely for the ability to perform push notifications was the price of becoming authorized to make and publish a native application.
As for MPEG-LA licensing fees, Apple is certainly not alone.
I'm aware. Apple still benefits from use of MPEG formats instead of WebM formats.
On average, when Apple delays implementing a web platform feature, it delays far longer than Mozilla does.
So says you.
So says the article I cited as well.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does handling PushNotifications have to do with any of that bullshit you just spewed?
The price of turning a web application into a native application solely for the ability to perform push notifications was the price of becoming authorized to make and publish a native application.
Could you rephrase that gibberish in English, please?
As for MPEG-LA licensing fees, Apple is certainly not alone.
I'm aware. Apple still benefits from use of MPEG formats instead of WebM formats.
...and so do Apple's Users; because MPEG is more compatible and versatile overall. That's the part your myopic, paranoic outlook keeps conveniently omitting. Why?
VP9 (which is what we're really talking about here) is also exquisitely shitty for certain tasks, for example live-encoding, because there are essentially no hardware encoders for same. In stark contrast, Apple's Media Engine in their SoCs is an absolute MPEG Beast; why would Apple want to throw
The need for Push API explained (Score:2)
Could you rephrase that gibberish in English, please?
A messaging website is a website that lets users send messages to other users. These could be public messages, as on Slashdot, other Slash/Rehash instances, phpBB or FlaskBB or XenForo or Discourse instances, Kbin or Misskey or Mastodon instances, Stack Overflow, or the website formerly known as Twitter. Or they could be private messages, as on Discord, Slack, or Skype. Say the user of a messaging website receives a message between visits to the website. The web platform offers a Push API so that the websit
Re: (Score:2)
Apps for going out and about. While I'm driving (no I don't want my car talking to my phone!), while I'm walking around, doing yard work (and I need to look up a plant/bug). All things where I don't carry a giant device around but rather want a small one on my person.
For me I'm either using a laptop or using my phone. I have a few tablets and never found them practical in any way. You can't type on them easily (writing paragraphs and pa
Wi-Fi tablet without Wi-Fi (Score:2)
A client for a network-dependent application cannot run on a Wi-Fi-only tablet where there is no available hotspot.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like one of the big players has some excess tablets they need to move.
Re: (Score:1)
Why (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Why is this only happening now and not 10 years ago?
Because artificially decreasing the visibility of certain apps irrespective of their profitability because they don't fit corporate managements 'vision' for the future of mobile apps is anti-competitive crap and Google didn't think they'd bought enough US politicians with enough pull in the justice system to get away with it until now?
Re: (Score:2)
chromebook - window manager (Score:2)
why can they not sort out a decent window manager for android ?
you can run android apps on a chromebook but they look not grea... fully approve this message - just force tablet/4k phone/tablet/desktop view and be done with it...
regards
John Jones
Re: (Score:2)
why can they not sort out a decent window manager for android ?
you can run android apps on a chromebook but they look not grea... fully approve this message - just force tablet/4k phone/tablet/desktop view and be done with it...
regards
John Jones
Android has Tablets?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bunches, most any non-consumer handheld you see. iOS tablets are for hospitals and consumers.
. . .And Pilots and Factory Managers and Construction Forepersons and Salespersons and Field Technicians and Data Collectors and Students And Artists and Musicians and Architects and Doctors and . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah exactly. We'll still use iPads sometimes when durability isn't important, but usually in that case someone will want something more functional like a Surface so the iPads are for stuff with custom hardware where there are only mobile apps for whatever reason. The MDM software for iOS tends to be a bit more user friendly, though.
Not sure what kind of environments you are speaking-of; but any tablet can be economically protected from a reasonably-hostile environment.
But, if you are talking about throwaway Tablets, then I guess no-name Androids are good enough for some applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
E.g. Lab environments where the equipment is subject to decontamination, you can't really wrap it in a third party case without giving contaminants extra places to hide so you have to do rugged devices.
What non-encased Android Tablets are intrinsically more rugged than an iPad?
"Ruggedized" Tablets don't count; because those have cases with mire cracks and crevices than an Elephant's hide!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ruggedized ones I've seen are pretty suitable, although the ones designed for medical applications do tend to look odd with too many rubberized bits to hold up to hard decon. But the warehouse application stuff works well in a lab, the smaller models are even air/water tight and have tool-less user replaceable batteries that can be hot swapped. Having a dedicated barcode reader module instead of depending on the camera is a plus, too, since depending on the application you will need to disable the cameras for security.
The world has sleds that have dedicated BT barcode readers. I worked with one for an iPhone when developing some barcode functions for an ERP package. They work much better than using any onboard camera.
I don't think iPads were designed to fit every single possible Application; no single product can be. There are bound to be other Tablets that are worse-performing Tablets, per se; but have attributes that suit some applications better than iPads.
Horses for courses.
headline is not accurate (Score:2, Informative)
Right in TFS it says
[...] Google detailed the changes in a blog post: "Apps and games that adhere to our large screen app quality guidelines will now be ranked higher in search and Apps and Games Home [...]
They are up-ranking, not down-ranking...
It's like ranking TLS enabled web sites getting a higher rank than non-TLS enabled sites which retain their original ranking, it's just that TLS enabled sites get an *extra* modifier up.
Re:headline is not accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
well my friend, search ranking IS a zero sum game, so when one thing is ranked up, everything else is ranked down.
Re: (Score:2)
well my friend, search ranking IS a zero sum game, so when one thing is ranked up, everything else is ranked down.
Not everything else. Only the things above the original rank of the thing and below the up-ranked rank of the thing move down.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Uprank m...
abcdefghijklnopqrstymvwxyz
Only nopqrsty got ranked down. Everything else retained the same rank.
A better solution ... (Score:1)
A better solution would be to rank the apps based on the target installation device ... if my target is a phone, I don't really WANT a tablet-optimized app, I want something that's optimized for phone use. If my target is a tablet, great, tell me what works well there but don't downrank an app that doesn't have tablet optimization if it doesn't NEED that (I've got a tablet and plenty of phone apps work just fine on it with no optimizations whatsoever). And for heavens sake don't start downranking apps tha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nudging (Score:5, Insightful)
Proof the Fedral Trade Commision is a Farce! (Score:2)
Who cares about rank? (Score:1)
When I look for an app, I consult reviews, not some bogus Google ranking.
Google knows best (Score:2)
For example, they know that social media is important, so they brought you Google+ and forced you to use it then abandoned it. They also know that content aggregation is important, so they made an RSS feed reader called Google Reader then abandoned it. They also know what's best in compression, so they came up with webp, which looks like hot garbage, but google knows best. They know that domains are important, so they sold off that division to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Broken Screen (Score:2)
I've got a broken screen (from the battery swelling) on a Pixel 5 and have backed up most of my data but a few apps force Portrait mode and the data I need.
And the developers mark the apps as unable to backup because ... dunno. They can restrict backups to encrypted which might be reasonable but, no, they want me to write a key on a piece of paper instead of having an encrypted backup. It's r/assholedesign worthy.
Next try is a USB-C/HDMI hub which will probably work, but jeez! If I could rotate into land