Of course they are. That slop is unmaintainable.

Probably people who thought they could make an app with AI, realised it's not possible to make good software without actually learning how software is made, and never opened Cursor or whatever again.

I agree that AI slop is bad, but I don't really agree with their method of determining if an app is abandoned (no updates in 2-3 months).

Sometimes apps don't need updates. Some Linux apps don't receive major updates for years. I used backupninja (https://0xacab.org/liberate/backupninja) for long time even though sometimes there's 2-3 years between releases, because it did what I needed. (I switched to Borgmatic at some point though).

I didn't update one of my apps for over a year because it already did everything I needed, and I wasn't receiving any major feature requests. There's still some bugs I need to fix but I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Maintenance is always the hard part.

It's unsurprising.

Normal development: Start work on new project, design it really well, start work, get bored after a week. Project 10% towards first release. Oh well.

Vibe coding: Have a buggy mess ready in a few hours, spend the next few days improving it somewhat, get bored after a week, app was already released by the time you quit.

The sloppiness of people relying on slop.

Have some self-respect. Don't put vibe-coded software where other people might run it.

Why they didn't measure a baseline of general apps and non-AI apps abandonment rate?

Without a contrast the information is useless?

For all we know the abandonment rate of general new apps might be 98% or maybe 2%, who knows they didn't gave us that number.

As far as I know they didn't even measure it. They only took 120 apps labeled as AI without trying to get any contrasts data. Incredibly poor methodology.

I'm not surprised, not in the slightest