[Macworld]

Post your comments for Apple does the right thing with App Store reviews, at last here

[Ron99]

I mostly agree but not 100%. For example, I see ebook type apps that charge for the content which is free if you have Stanza or other ebook readers. Not all users may realize there are free alternatives to these paid apps. I do not want to have to buy a paid app to write a review saying that the seller is charging for free content. There are probably other examples of developers trying to charge for content or services that are free elsewhere. Another example are apps that wrap a custom front end on things like google translate etc. Sometimes they add a bit of extra functionality but not always.

[applecrate]

I have ignored the ratings from the start because they were essentially unmoderated. 'Why should I buy this list app for 1.99 when "Notes" does the same thing?' That was a real review from someone who never came near the app. Multiply that by tens of thousands and that was the review base for apps.

Bravo, Apple.

[bonesb]

I concur with the decision and wondered often when the purge would happen - it's about time.
The only sad side to the purge is that sooooo many of the doltish remarks were a good read when there's nothing on the tube. Now we're back to having to read the Craigslist personals for a cheap laugh!

[Sigil]

I wish they would adopt this policy with all iTunes reviews.

[hagen]

>Critics point out that dishonest developers can create “sockpuppet” accounts or use friends and family to artificially boost the ratings of their products.
Ah, so these critics aren't thinking obviously. Prior to this new position, developers and their families could go in and make any comments at will. Now they need a "sock" (?) account created. Sounds better to me.
Stupid critics.

[randyg]

It's called free enterprise. Let the buyer beware. Do your homework before you buy an app if it's that important. Otherwise, it's not Apple's place to coddle and warn the buyer. Most apps have a website associated with them where you can go check it out. Apple did the right thing with this decision, if you haven't downloaded the app (paid or free) you shouldn't have the right to comment on it.

[doglesby]

I still don't understand why you wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water, Peter. Did you think that Apple couldn't tell which reviewers had actually downloaded the app?
As you said though, this is long overdue.
@Ron99, that is exactly the attitude this policy is designed to prevent. You have no idea what value may be added by the other choices. Plenty of people bought Classics knowing full well that all those books are public domain. They wanted the elegant presentation. Losing that kind of "help" is a small price to pay to avoid the gaming of the system that was going on.

[Ron99]

Doglesby, I do mostly (98%) agree with Apple's move and your stance on it. I was not so much knocking apps like Classics but more some of the standalone classic books that they try to sell for $0.99 each. All of those are are available for free on Stanza and I imagine you can download them for free on Classics as well once you've purchased it. My problem is more the charging a buck for each book that they probably downloaded for free and then formatted into a standalone app.

[doglesby]

Ron99 said:

Doglesby, I do mostly (98%) agree with Apple's move and your stance on it. I was not so much knocking apps like Classics but more some of the standalone classic books that they try to sell for $0.99 each. All of those are are available for free on Stanza and I imagine you can download them for free on Classics as well once you've purchased it. My problem is more the charging a buck for each book that they probably downloaded for free and then formatted into a standalone app.

And I realize that that is probably the case. However, a book downloaded for free and typeset into the most beautiful iPhone-optimized presentation is wort a buck to some people. If you don't buy it, you can't know if that's the case. I suppose an ideal rating system would take into account the fact that someone who does this (dump an ascii title from Project Gutenberg on the App Store) once has probably done so with all his titles and allow some sort of bleed-through from reviews of one of his "apps" to the others. Ultimately the altruism you describe is much rarer than the abuse this policy defends. Web ratings systems rely on strength in numbers, you have to trust that the truth will out regarding unscrupulous book sellers.

[kronos46]

I like the new policy. But, It was funny seeing an App rated for 2 stars and the select few would rate it 5 stars saying that everything worked picture perfectly (Like an App works 100% as stated). Those will be missed. I mainly looked to read the latest review on an App anyways. Seems the easiest if there were bugs that should be fixed. This way you could tell if they were fixed.

[montgomery_burns]

All user submitted reviews on the iTunes Store have no time or date stamp. Without time or date information, how is anyone supposed to know which version of an application is being reviewed?

[kronos46]

Yes, The reviews should be time & date stamped.
But if you select the most recent review and it will give you the date of the most recent review, and rearrange the reviews from most recent to the first. I find that way works for me.