Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Programming Apple

Apple Dominates App Store Search Results, Thwarting Competitors (wsj.com) 44

Apple's mobile apps routinely appear first in search results ahead of competitors in its App Store, a powerful advantage that skirts some of the company's rules on such rankings, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. From the report: The company's apps ranked first in more than 60% of basic searches, such as for "maps," [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source] the analysis showed. Apple apps that generate revenue through subscriptions or sales, like Music or Books, showed up first in 95% of searches related to those apps. This dominance gives the company an upper hand in a marketplace that generates $50 billion in annual spending. Services revenue linked to the performance of apps is at the center of Apple's strategy to diversify its profits as iPhone sales wane. While many of Apple's products are undoubtedly popular, they are held to a different standard by the App Store. Apple tells developers that downloads, user reviews and ratings are factors that influence search results. Yet more than two dozen of Apple's apps come pre-installed on iPhones and are shielded from reviews and ratings.

[...] Audiobooks.com, an RBmedia company, largely held the No. 1 ranking in "audiobooks" searches in the App Store for nearly two years. Then last September it was unseated by Apple Books. The Apple app had only recently begun marketing audiobooks directly for the first time. "It was literally overnight," said Ian Small, Audiobooks.com's general manager. He said the change triggered a 25% decline in Audiobooks.com's daily app downloads. [...] Apple's role as both the creator of the App Store's search engine and the beneficiary of its results has rankled developers. They contend Apple is essentially pinning its apps No. 1, compelling anyone seeking alternatives to consider Apple apps first. [...] Phillip Shoemaker, who led the App Store review process until 2016, said Apple executives were aware of Podcasts' poor ratings. Around 2015, his team proposed to senior executives that it purge all apps rated lower than two stars to ensure overall quality. "That would kill our Podcasts app," an Apple executive said, according to Mr. Shoemaker, who has advised some independent apps on the App Store review process since leaving Apple. The proposal was eventually rejected, Mr. Shoemaker said.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Dominates App Store Search Results, Thwarting Competitors

Comments Filter:
  • So you are saying that Apple doesn't want 23893 apps named something like "Apple Maps+++" like happens on the Play Store? I hate Apple crap, but this is one of the big downsides of the Play Store for Android. Someone tells me that I should try some app, I go and look for it and then I'm confronted with 25 apps all named about the same...

    • Then Apple is free to fix that issue in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Maybe they should let someone else run their app store if it is too hard.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Then Apple is free to fix that issue in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

        Rights of others? On a proprietary store?

        They have no rights. If you come into MY store and start selling or saying things I don't want you to, then I have every right to tell you to "Go back to where you came from"!

        Don't like it?! Well, some very large and very well armed police will come and remove you. Say anything and you're resisting arrest and they will shoot you.

        Got it?!

        The USA is not a free country. We're ruled by corporations/billioniares. The US government of the corporations, for the corpora

    • Came here to say: "As a user, I expect that as a feature."
    • Android has the problem because they only charge an account a small fee at the time of account creation. Meanwhile,Apple charges 99$ annually and hence mostly gets serious developers and apps which filters out 90% of the trash.
  • This should help Spotify's case immensely.
  • Thug Apple strikes again. Who woulda thunkit? Antitrust news at 11.

    • by Matheus ( 586080 )

      Apple just wanted to join in the Gov't regulated fun! They were jealous of all of the attention Microsoft and Google were getting from the feds and had to jump into the game (Since they can afford the Billions in $$ of penalties and explicit restrictions on doing exactly what they are now doing for themselves...)

      ug. Any bets on who smacks Apple first for this: US or EU? My bet is on EU.

  • But as soon as they realize most of the Apple-made apps suck, they'll move on to the competition.

  • by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @03:48PM (#58974616) Homepage

    The concept that a single company creates the proprietary hardware, OS, software, and runs a store to sell apps for that platform is fundamentally anti-competitive. We should not have allowed this to happen, and we should break companies like Apple up when we see this happen.

    The FTC should forbid cable providers from owning TV stations, forbid allow music companies from owning radio stations, and forbid movie studios from owning streaming providers. Stop the vertical markets, stop the monopolies.

    • You forgot to mention how they extort a 30% cut from all sales on apps from the app store.
    • It's necessary to make the argument that Apple has significant market power to fall afoul of US anti-trust laws, with their share of smartphone hardware and software profits I don't think it's going to be that hard for regulators to do that.

      If that happens then all their anti-competitive behavior (restricting applications, proprietary APIs, shipping their own default applications, etc) becomes illegal just like what happened to Microsoft. Though Apple is worse because it's not like you can even replace thei

      • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        It's necessary to make the argument that Apple has significant market power to fall afoul of US anti-trust laws,

        This is the traditional line of thinking, and I think it is a mistake. Company size is irrelevant. Consumer choice and conflict of interest is all that matters.

        If an oil company wanted to buy an electric car company, regulators should not ask "How big is this oil company?" It should not be that Valeura oil can buy Tesla Motors but Exxon-Mobil can't. Any such merger would be a mistake because of the inherent conflict of interest. With the cable+TV station example, the merger should be forbidden because

        • It's necessary to make the argument that Apple has significant market power to fall afoul of US anti-trust laws,

          This is the traditional line of thinking, and I think it is a mistake.

          I agree, perhaps that came across as opinion rather than a statement of the state of anti-trust law but I do agree with you.

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Working...