On Sunday, November 20, 2011 7:45:01 AM UTC-8, MosToneDef wrote: > > Dear Google;
This isn't "Google", this is the "Android Developers" discussion group. > I've been a Chrome user since its release. I've visited your app > store many times. I recently received my Android phone and have been > perusing your Android Market. > > I've noticed one very disturbing theme in both the Chrome Store & > Android Market: The use of the word "Addictive". > Really? > I don't have to go into issues of how bad this word is and how it's > tagged into so many game descriptions. > You didn't have to post this drivel, either, but you did. The word isn't bad. "Fuck" is a bad word, "addictive" isn't. You are wrong. > Another argument that works too is: How does a game developer decide > There should be a comma before and after the word, "too". > their game is "good enough" to become addictive? Utilizing this word/ > term/phrase/social label as a sales gimmick, is gratuitous at best. > How does any marketeer decide what adjectives to apply to the product or service they market? Maybe you should Google for that information. > I would like Google to ask themselves these questions: > > > 1. Do we want to be recognized as a corporation that intentionally > produces content that we hope users will become addicted too? > "We"? Are you part of Google? > 2. What kind of consumer are we trying to attract with the term > "addictive"? > I think that's obvious - a game-playing consumer who wants to be fully engaged with the game. Duh. > > 3. Why is the developer of this app resorting to the word "addictive" > and why doesn't the developer resort to other responsible language to > sell their product? > Begging the question of what constitutes "responsible" language. Your whole fetish with the word "addictive" looks like irresponsible behavior to me, personally. I think you're addicted to political correctness. > > 4. What responsible language can the developer use instead of the term > 'addictive"? > First, define "responsible" language and why anyone should endorse your idiolectic use of the term. Calling your idea "responsible" and everyone else's "irresponsible" is fallacious - you have provided no reasoning to induce anyone to accept how you've framed the discussion. You just resort to rhetoric and baloney, devoid of logic or evidence or other merit. > > 5. When has the word "addictive" ever been a good word? > Since its inception. > 6. How is using the term "addictive" acceptable, but people who are > labeled "addicts", pariahs? > Different meanings in different contexts, Your arguments hold less water than a sieve. > 7. Do we need to rely on the word "addictive" as an ongoing selling > point? > "We" don't, but others are certainly free to. > > 8. Should Google have content that people simply want to use out of > need, not to fulfill an "addiction"? > "Need"? No one "needs" a smartphone, much less the games on one. The neuro-liniguistic programming evident in your phrasing inidcates that you have addiction issues, referring to luxuries as a "need" and being all obsessed over the word "addiction" in only one of its many meanings and connotations. > > 9. Does Google want to rely on the term "addictive" as a statement of > quality and playability? > Does Google do that in the first place? You have not provided any evidence that Google does this. > > 10. What is the difference between wanting to play a game & needing to > play a game? > You're the one who talks about "need". I suggest you answer that question. It's irrelevant to the marketing tactics to which you refer in any case. > 11. Is Google willing to accept that, when an addictive state of mind > is realized, ALL choice is removed from our consumer? > Facts not in evidence, thesis is bullshit anyway. > > 12. Are individuals who are performing any act out of obsession or > compulsion, having and enjoyable experience? > What individuals are those, and how does that have any relevance whatsoever to the marketing technique in question, that of using an innocuous word in one of its innocuous meanings? 13. Is our product something we want our customers to get better from? > "Our"? Who is "us" in this context? Google? You aren't complaining about Google's products. To what group or organization do you belong that is the antecedent for "our"? I ask that Google make some changes. I also ask anyone reading this to > To what? What independent developers do? How should Google decide to dictate free-speech limitations to people that don't work for it? > abstain from purchasing or interacting with any application that > contains the base word "addict" and all it's forms. > The word is "its", not "it's". > > Finally, a simple word search in the Android market proves my point. > You get multiple hits in games. And you get even more multiple hits in > self help apps....now that's strange. It's like a candy company > selling insulin. > No, it isn't. Your thesis is crap from the ground up. -- Lew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
