Apple Changes App Ranks, Rejects Pay Per Install 94
tlhIngan writes "Recently, Apple changed their App Store ranking algorithm to stop ranking apps by download counts and instead use something else, akin to the recent Google changing of their Marketplace ranking algorithm to give more weight to apps' actual usage. As a side effect, Apple has also started rejecting pay-per-install apps ('freemium' apps that request the user to install companion apps to earn in-game currency). These apps were often used to game the charts by artificially inflating the download count and raising the ranking of the app in the App Store. No word on how companies like TapJoy (one of the largest 'culprits') will react."
"Freemium"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, "freemium"? That has to be the worst mangling of the English language since "doorgasm."
Re:Well, I doubt they'll like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right? I can't believe some store owners want to have a say in what they sell.
Isn't this America?!?!?!?!
Re:"Freemium"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised anyone on Slashdot is old enough to have had doorgasms. Or floydgasms. Or stonegasms.
Although, you've gotta give to to kids today. Given my choice, I'd prefer a gagagasm anyway.
Ignore the apple haters (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignore the apple haters, as you should in any thread. They experience an inverse effect of the JOBS RDF, where their personal reality bends and distorts until Apple is always wrong. It makes them do dumb things like promote flash and hate unified, consistent UIs.
Anyway, I'll be glad that Apple is changing their rank system. Searching for apps in the interface is useless because companies gaming the system put endless piles of utter, complete crap. If browsing on the phone pretty much only the hand-picked featured items are worth a look.
Re:Well, I doubt they'll like it. (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this different from what any store does? If I go to Sears I may not be able to buy the same stuff I can get at Target. Walmart may choose not to stock albums by certain groups or NC-17 videos. In a slightly closer model, I can't get all the xbox arcade games I want to play on my WII or even my PC.
Given that there are other smartphones out there with other stores, in what way is Apple's behavior different from any retailer. They choose what they stock. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Re:Well, I doubt they'll like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I wouldn't call people idiots I think this is the key point. Right now you either are saavy enough to know what you're getting and not buy an iPhone/iPad if it doesnt fit your needs or not techy enough that you'll never miss what you don't have.
I also think ever since the early days of video games we've let this into our lives repeatedly. If I wanted to play Sonic, I needed a Sega. If I liked Mario Bros more, I bought NES.
In my experience, the decision was basically similar to this. I got an iPhone because it did what I wanted and had a large and established app store. I knew it wouldn't have everything but nothing does. If the value of having something not availble though Apple is high enough, I can switch phones.
Re:"Freemium"? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that Freemium isn't new, I don't think that it meets your definition for 'crippleware'. For instance, Dropbox, Pandora and Rhapsody both offer free services that are enough for a majority of users. Dropbox has a 5-9% rate (depending on who is giving the numbers) of paying customers... the rest are using the free product. The free product isn't crippled, or have 'anti-features'... The only thing you pay for is additional space. Rhapsody offers free stations, and a limited ability to listen to specific songs. Pandora gives free stations, and a limited ability to skip over songs you don't like. Hell, even Redhat offers it's OS as 'Freemium'... you get 'premier support' if you pay for it ;-)
Demo != freemium
Shareware != freemium
Economics evolves as well, trying to keep up with technology. Things change, regardless of how much grumpy old men complain about it.