I'm actually glad to see editorializing disallowed in app titles. If everybody did it, the store would be a mess. I mean, it's already a mess, but even more so.
The presence or omission of a fact is often the result of a conscious editorial choice. It is frequently the intent, not the nature of the words themselves, that underscores the editorial nature of the statement.
Exactly. Another textbook example is the language describing meat as coming from pork with “no hormones added” even though it’s unlawful to add hormones to pork grown for human consumption. Sure, it’s a fact; but the choice to include it is made to provide a marketing boost over competing brands that might not have the language on the packaging.
The ability to use your regulatory obligations in your marketing materials and spin them as a positive is the carrot for companies to enthusiastically comply.
The problem (with both app stores) is there are really three types of apps: paid, free, requires subscription. Devs are having to use titles to make it clear which is which since the stores aren't letting them use categories. It's frustrating (for both user and developer) when a user downloads an app expecting it to be free only to find it won't work if you don't pay monthly.
I agree. I'd also like to see information for things like one-time, subscription-based, or repeatable in-app purchases (eg. "gems").
Apple does a better job of displaying this information than Google. Sometimes I check what IAP are available on the iOS variant of an app I'm interested in, just to get a better idea.
