There's some apps that have seen little to absolutely no activity after approval. Is there a system in the iTunes store that says "if an app hasn't had any activity from the dev or a download in 30 days it gets pulled, but can be resubmitted & rejected if it's just the same build that was submitted"? I just think the AppStore's 200,000 app count would be shaved by like 100,000 if they counted what people actually use and download or gets updates.
Why would they? It'd be incredibly unfair to the developers. Blocked was practically unknown until HUGE spike in sales sent it to the #1 spot.
That's all fine and dandy for a legit app, or if it doesn't see sales in 30 days it's more incentive for the dev to improve on the next build/submission to try to get some sales going. But I highly doubt the 20th variation of ifart or some other straight worthless no purpose "iblue screen" (make your screen blue for five seconds and do it again) is going to get a big break if any break at all. I think it would be a nice way to tighten up the standards in the store while also cleaning it up a bit.
Undiscovered gems like Sword and Poker contradict this argument. It's the stuff that get's popular that's usually stupid.
The reason the app store became so successful was because it allowed anyone to release an app. If they start to regulate it by what they think will sell, it would change everything. It would also be a waste of resources. Having those apps lying around isn't hurting anythings. An unknown app could suddenly become popular. Some obviously won't, but it's not up to Apple to decide that.
In the grand scheme I guess Apple doesn't care... They get the $99 dev fee no matter if it's crap or good. But Apple obviously treats devs that bring in the most revenue with exclusive advertisements, first whack at updates... They've shown bias judgment on apps that do well to promote the device & games (can't say it's for the dev as much as its for apple) Why can't the reverse also be true
