How Apple Stacked the App Store With Its Own Products (nytimes.com) 52
Top spots in App Store search results are some of the most fought over real estate in the online economy. The store generated more than $50 billion in sales last year, and the company said two-thirds of app downloads started with a search. But as Apple has become one of the largest competitors on a platform that it controls, suspicions that the company has been tipping the scales in its own favor are at the heart of antitrust complaints in the United States, Europe and Russia. From a report: Apple's apps have ranked first recently for at least 700 search terms in the store, according to a New York Times analysis of six years of search results compiled by Sensor Tower, an app analytics firm. Some searches produced as many as 14 Apple apps before showing results from rivals, the analysis showed. (Though competitors could pay Apple to place ads above the Apple results.) Presented with the results of the analysis, two senior Apple executives acknowledged in a recent interview that, for more than a year, the top results of many common searches in the iPhone App Store were packed with the company's own apps. That was the case even when the Apple apps were less relevant and less popular than ones from its competitors. The executives said the company had since adjusted the algorithm so that fewer of its own apps appeared at the top of search results.
The Times's analysis of App Store data -- which included rankings of more than 1,800 specific apps across 13 keywords since 2013 -- illustrated the influence as well as the opacity of the algorithms that underpin tech companies' platforms. Those algorithms can help decide which apps are installed, which articles are read and which products are bought. But Apple and other tech giants like Facebook and Google will not explain in detail how such algorithms work -- even when they blame the algorithm for problems. [...] On Aug. 21, Apple apps ranked first in 735 of roughly 60,000 search terms tracked by Sensor Tower. Most of the tracked searches were obscure, but Apple's apps ranked first for many of the popular queries. For instance, for most of June and July, Apple apps were the top result for these search terms: books, music, news, magazines, podcasts, video, TV, movies, sports, card, gift, money, credit, debit, fitness, people, friends, time, notes, docs, files, cloud, storage, message, home, store, mail, maps, traffic, stocks and weather. In July this year, the company pushed some changes to its app store algorithm to handicap its apps to help other developers, it told The New York Times.
The Times's analysis of App Store data -- which included rankings of more than 1,800 specific apps across 13 keywords since 2013 -- illustrated the influence as well as the opacity of the algorithms that underpin tech companies' platforms. Those algorithms can help decide which apps are installed, which articles are read and which products are bought. But Apple and other tech giants like Facebook and Google will not explain in detail how such algorithms work -- even when they blame the algorithm for problems. [...] On Aug. 21, Apple apps ranked first in 735 of roughly 60,000 search terms tracked by Sensor Tower. Most of the tracked searches were obscure, but Apple's apps ranked first for many of the popular queries. For instance, for most of June and July, Apple apps were the top result for these search terms: books, music, news, magazines, podcasts, video, TV, movies, sports, card, gift, money, credit, debit, fitness, people, friends, time, notes, docs, files, cloud, storage, message, home, store, mail, maps, traffic, stocks and weather. In July this year, the company pushed some changes to its app store algorithm to handicap its apps to help other developers, it told The New York Times.
News? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this news?
Yes.
No it isn't. None of these companies are regulated. In the the darwinian process that lets the scum float to the surface of the swamp all ethics or fair play is lost. This isn't news, its affirmation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think the original poster asking "Is this news?" was not questioning whether Slashdot should discuss the news article, but rather asking the qestion "Is it unexpected (surprising to anyone, news to anyone) that Apple would feature their apps in the Apple App Store as opposed to letting their apps appear in results according to some ranking process.
If that is the case then it is still a foolish question. Just because something is unsurprising does not mean it is not important and/or worth discussing.
Re: (Score:3)
If they don't provide the ability for third party software distribution platforms and lock the only method of discovering and downloading software to be within their ecosystem, then YES, they have an obligation to keep the store fair and not push their own stuff at the exclusion of everyone else.
If Apple wants to push their own software in their software distribution portal, that would be fine if - and only if - they allowed third party software distribution portals.
But they don't.
Which means they effective
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they have an obligation? If I buy a Nokia feature phone and I can only get app and firmware updates directly from Nokia's website, that's OK, right? Why does making the phone "smart" open the manufacturer up to additional obligations, in your opinion? Or do you think Nokia has an obligation to release tools for open development on their device? Is Sony obligated to make their Blu-Ray player firmware open? Does KitchenAid have an obligation to provide an open platform for their digital toasters?
Re: (Score:2)
Why does making the phone "smart" open the manufacturer up to additional obligations
It doesn't...But charging app developers a fee (up to 30% of price/revenue) to be on the store and then undercutting those same developers does.
Re: News? (Score:2)
How does giving third parties access to the system impose additional obligations? The developers "signed" a contract when they got their dev account. They knew what they were getting into.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're been selling their phone on the basis of third parties being able to produce apps, then yes, they have that obligation. It's a moral and practical obligation, as opposed to a government mandate,
Maybe it's both things, depending on which government we're talking about.
they will fuck up their own market if they're seen as untrustworthy liars. Their customers will leave,
I dunno, I mean, everyone thought Microsoft was full of it since long ago... But they managed to keep going anyway. People are loyal to brands, because they like logos, and they hate to admit that they're wrong. Apple's got a great logo.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who buys based on logo alone is a "fashionista". "Fashionistas" are not known to be very bright and get by in the world with phy$ical looks and the willingness to sell their ass in whatever way to accomplish their shallow goals.
Apple is no longer a 'smart' brand, no more than Gucci is.
Re: News? (Score:2)
So what? So Apple gives you better open access and you think that somehow obligates them to give you MORE access? Feel entitled much?
Re: (Score:2)
If Nokia had a monopoly on cell phone sales (by merit, or not isn't relevant) and they then used that monopoly to force people to pay a Nokia surcharge on every text message sent, that would be abuse of a monopoly.
Apple has a monopoly on cell phones in this country. They are using that monopoly to force unfair business practices on another market (The App Market)
They can of course choose not to participate in that secondary m
Re: (Score:2)
In what world is a 40.8% market share of phone sales in North America a monopoly?
Re: (Score:2)
The share between Android and iOS in the US is close to 50/50 in installed user base, which makes it closer to a Duopoly, but since both are engaging in the same (defined) monopolization practices, I suspect they will both be beaten down as monopolies.
Re: News? (Score:2)
Apple is not a monopoly of anything. They are not even number one in any market in which they operate. Get your head out of Apple's ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd recommend getting your head out of your own ass.
Re: News? (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that determination + the basic other facts of what the App Store is, means the Class Action suit that spurned the Supreme Court challenge is a foregone conclusion now.
Apple's only legitimate argument that they weren't monopolizing the market was that they don't set the price.
The Supreme Court has decided that a store that adds a markup with a commanding positio
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I refuse to buy Lockkle products, out of principle.
Yes Android has it's own issues, but there is far more freedom on that platform than Lockkle/LockOS.
It seems the only people who have root access to the Lockkle phone you bought and paid for is Lockkle and malicious hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They have an obligation to remove the malwareous "feature" that they added to their OS which doesn't allow the users to install software from whereever the user wants to, though. Had they (and Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft) been prosecuted for that back as each company tried that scam, this whole issue would be nearly-forgotten history by now.
Code signing is fine, but the owner should be making the trust decisions, n
Re: (Score:2)
The government has the responsibility to create a sound context and structure for the economy.
Stability, security, the rule of law are all part of that. In addition, one of the most important tasks here is to prevent monopolies and market dominance.
Once the market is no longer fair and you get monopolies or at least very skewed markets, the system will collapse.
So yes, obviously the government must be involved here. If not, capitalism is doomed in the long run.
This is economics 101, how can you think it wou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thug Apple Spin Squad is strong in you.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Apple have an obligation to maintain a community software distribution platform?
Nope, but since they do maintain it they have an obligation to do so without violating antitrust laws. But no need to get the government involved. We all know corporations are above the law right!
Magnet for violence (Score:1)
I believe that it wasn't intentional... (Score:1)
...but that doesn't mean they're not responsible for the consequences.
Usually, it comes up in the context of favouring certain groups over others—white/light skin over dark skin in facial recognition, for instance—but encoding bias into an algorithm is something that at this point is well known and something that everyone needs to account for. Did the programmers at Apple go out of their way to make sure that Apple apps appeared at the top? Probably not. (Frankly, given how bad their app store s
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine part of this has to do with Apple's excessively generic branding. Like Apple Music. If you search for "music", are you looking to the idea of music, or are you looking for the Music brand?
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly they might put some weight on the publisher of a given app, so that when, say, Niantic pushes another game out they get up high on the lists because a lot of people have downloaded Pokemon Go. So what happens to the 'Apple Inc.' publisher in such a case? First of all, EVERY IPHONE has several Apple apps installed. Instant boost to the rankings.
I am Jack's (Score:1)
Stacked? More like a built-in advantage (Score:3, Interesting)
They're the first-party developer. Simply by virtue of being the first-party, of course most of their apps will get more clickthroughs, downloads, and use than others, which are exactly the sorts of metrics used to determine how apps rank within the App Store. Even when their apps are worse than competitors' (Google Maps vs. Apple Maps), I'd expect them to punch above their weight, simply because Apple users weigh the benefits differently than the general public. I'd be shocked if Apple's apps weren't at the top in most categories in which they compete.
Elsewhere, I saw reported a quote to the effect of, "We're fine admitting when we make a mistake. We didn't make a mistake here. Our apps earned their top spots fair and square, but we're okay with handicapping ourselves to give others a chance, so that's what we did."
Calling it "stacked" seems like the sort of whining about things being "unfair" that you'd hear from a child who's unable to best the biggest kid in the class in an arm wrestling match. It's not stacked, but some people do have a natural advantage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft is arguably a first party developer for the Windows platform. Of course, they are now forbidden to promote their first party software over any other software.
iOS is an operating system, that many in the apple community argue is a good enough desktop replacement, and that there is no need for Windows and MacOS. Therefore it will be the same as Windows an MacOS.
It is inevitable that the laws will go against Apple at some point. If they appear to 'stack the deck' in their favor, they will eventually
Re: (Score:2)
They're the first-party developer. Simply by virtue of being the first-party, of course most of their apps will get more clickthroughs, downloads, and use than others, which are exactly the sorts of metrics used to determine how apps rank within the App Store.
When I search for stuff in the Play Store, Google's apps are rarely the top result. Even when searching for them by name, they are often second (or lower.)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply by virtue of being the first-party
You can use that argument if Apple didn't have a long history of duplicating functionality from 3rd parties and then retrospectively kicking off / demoting those third parties for breaking the App Store policy of duplicating core functionality.
https://knowyourmeme.com/photo... [knowyourmeme.com]
Re: (Score:1)
They're the first-party developer. Simply by virtue of being the first-party, [...]
It's not surprising that Apple Music is the first result when you search for "music", it's an app for listening to music and even the apps *name* is "music".
However, what Apple is doing becomes clear when you look at their competitors.
When you search for "podcast", and the first podcasting app that is not made by Apple is in fourteenth place after a dozen non-podcasting apps, that's a problem.
When you search for "music" and Spotify is hundreds of listings down;
When you search for "tv" and Netflix is hundred
Re: (Score:2)
Taken to a logical extreme this position would have us all buying hardware from one company, but the operating system (software) from another. With Linux this is possible, but not with any other operating system. And I don't think I would want it to be otherwise.
My personal experience has been that sometimes it works to buy from multiple categories (hardware, software, services) from the same vendor, often times not, but I don't have a strict rule one way or the other. I evaluate each on a case-by-case
Re: (Score:2)
How young do you have to be to not know why we have those laws?
Re: (Score:2)
One of the metrics of a whether or not they're a monopoly is their pricing power. Ie, are they forced to compete on price? The answer is no.
One does not need to be forced to buy something to be a monopoly. They only need to have a categorical dominance of a market in some region or criteria.
So no, it's nothing like that.
It's more like manufacturers being pissed off that Walmart only has Walmart pro
Makes no economic Sense (Score:1)
If we're talking about the iOS App Store (as opposed to the Mac App Store), it would make ZERO sense (and ZERO CENTS) for Apple to "promote" its Apps over others in the same Category.
Why? It's simple: With (I think) NO exception, Apple's iOS Apps are FREE to those owning iOS Devices. So, why would Apple displace potential sales of PAYING Apps (some of which that have ongoing "subscription" revenue streams and other In-App purchases (another thing Apple Apps do not have), with their completely FREE Apps?
So,
Re: (Score:1)
The counterargument here is pretty obvious. They're doing the same thing as almost every other tech company has been doing for years (including Google). They're giving away apps for free to make the barrier for leaving their ecosystem more costly (in time and effort) to consumers. I am pretty much guaranteed to buy an Android phone when mine dies, because I have used Google apps for years (Docs, Gmail, Music, Maps, Photos, Search, Chrome, etc.) and the time to migrate everything would be significant. Mo
Re: (Score:2)
They make money on Apple Music subscriptions, sales in Apple Books, and lots of other "services". They're trying to increase "services" revenue as device sales stagnate.
Have you seen the App Store recently (12.4)? (Score:1)
Have you seen the App Store recently (12.4)?
They have completely killed browsing for apps.
You can see the top 200 popular apps but that is all.
They have given way to app recommendations and a culled list of Apple favorites.
If you are an app developers that pays to be listed and their is way for Apple to make more money by supplanting your App, there is no visibility to end users unless they search by name.
This is the very definition of anti-competitive.
They are using their hardware to force users into softw
Re: (Score:1)
Have you seen the App Store recently (12.4)?
They have completely killed browsing for apps.
You can see the top 200 popular apps but that is all.
They have given way to app recommendations and a culled list of Apple favorites.
If you are an app developers that pays to be listed and their is way for Apple to make more money by supplanting your App, there is no visibility to end users unless they search by name.
This is the very definition of anti-competitive.
They are using their hardware to force users into software "choices" with deceptive practices.
If there were other options for consumers, there would be less call for regulatory concern, but apart from "jail-breaking", users can only go through their source.
Liar.
I just fired up the iOS App Store on 12.4.1, and you can most certainly either Browse by Category (make sure you notice the "See All" link), plus you can also FIND by "Type/Category" by using the "Search". I typed in "Synth", and got dozens of hits, all relevant, and many without "Synth" or "Synthesizer" in the Title.
So, you are either spectacularly stupid, or simply (as I suspect) have an Anti-Apple agenda.
Or, maybe both.