Apple updates App Store to address developer misuse
Apple over the weekend instated a series of changes to the way its App Store operates in an effort to knock out loopholes that were being exploited by some developers seeking an unfair advantage.
Reviews
In particular, the store now requires that users purchase or download an application before they able to post a review of that particular application.
Users attempting to post a review of application that they haven't downloaded are now met with a dialog box stating: "In order to write a Custom Review for this item you must have purchased or downloaded it."
Apple hopes this move will mitigate the number of bogus, or agenda-driven reviews that have been used to raise or lower an applications overall rating, sometimes at the hands of developers themselves.
App Updates
Similarly, and more critically, the company also made changes to the way applications appear on the App Store after receiving a minor update.
In the past, all applications were categorized based on their 'release date.' However, Apple had been determining release dates based on the last date the application received an update, rather than the first time it appeared on the store as a 1.0 application.
As a result, applications receiving updates would be pushed back to the first page of their respective category listing, often appearing on the App Store home page within iTunes as well, and the first page of category listings viewed on an iPhone or iPod touch.
The result was an immediate jump in sales, as noted by Krishna Vegesna, whose company TouchMeme offers three applications on the App Store. He posted the graph (below) illustrating this behavior, where each spike in sales coincided with the release of one of his app updates.
"With the latest update to the AppStore, the above behavior is no longer holds true (and I am glad it doesn’t)," he said. "This is because the applications are now categorized according to the ‘Actual Released Date’ rather that the last updated date."
Given Apple's changes, new version 1.0 applications will have a longer shelf life on the first page of category listings, as they won't be bumped down in the listings as quickly due to an influx of minor app updates.
The moves should also allow developers to shift their focus to "real innovation in functionality rather than focusing on who pushes the update first," Vegesna said. At the same time, however, he raises the concern that tactical developers may now focus on rolling out new apps to generate high profits rather than improving their existing ones.
Reviews
In particular, the store now requires that users purchase or download an application before they able to post a review of that particular application.
Users attempting to post a review of application that they haven't downloaded are now met with a dialog box stating: "In order to write a Custom Review for this item you must have purchased or downloaded it."
Apple hopes this move will mitigate the number of bogus, or agenda-driven reviews that have been used to raise or lower an applications overall rating, sometimes at the hands of developers themselves.
App Updates
Similarly, and more critically, the company also made changes to the way applications appear on the App Store after receiving a minor update.
In the past, all applications were categorized based on their 'release date.' However, Apple had been determining release dates based on the last date the application received an update, rather than the first time it appeared on the store as a 1.0 application.
As a result, applications receiving updates would be pushed back to the first page of their respective category listing, often appearing on the App Store home page within iTunes as well, and the first page of category listings viewed on an iPhone or iPod touch.
The result was an immediate jump in sales, as noted by Krishna Vegesna, whose company TouchMeme offers three applications on the App Store. He posted the graph (below) illustrating this behavior, where each spike in sales coincided with the release of one of his app updates.
"With the latest update to the AppStore, the above behavior is no longer holds true (and I am glad it doesn’t)," he said. "This is because the applications are now categorized according to the ‘Actual Released Date’ rather that the last updated date."
Given Apple's changes, new version 1.0 applications will have a longer shelf life on the first page of category listings, as they won't be bumped down in the listings as quickly due to an influx of minor app updates.
The moves should also allow developers to shift their focus to "real innovation in functionality rather than focusing on who pushes the update first," Vegesna said. At the same time, however, he raises the concern that tactical developers may now focus on rolling out new apps to generate high profits rather than improving their existing ones.
Comments
On the other hand, it may push developers to put out real updates more often. Who knows?
One more thing they ought to change is the ability to "vote down" reviews. There was one app I was following that had some negative reviews due to a pretty major flaw. But, the flaw was corrected in an update, yet that negative review still resides at the top. Doesn't seem fair.
Reviews should be attached to a particular version of the software. You can already "vote them down" with the "Was this review helpful?", but why should we have to maintain that?
Also, popularity ratings should reset when the price of an app changes.
This could actually be bad? while good in theory, I have a feeling this means app developers will release useless updates three times as frequently just so they can be pushed back to the front page. We?re going to have to begin downloading crap left and right just to get rid of the notice from the App Store.
On the other hand, it may push developers to put out real updates more often. Who knows?
I think you've misunderstood the article. Apps are no longer sent to the front page when updated, so this will actually cut down on pointless 0.0.1 updates every other day. Since apps notify you when an update is available, this should work well on the app store, although obviously shouldn't be replicated in other software list, eg Apple's OS X application web pages.
The only catch is for the poor developer who makes a rubbish v1.0 followed by a brilliant v2.0 and doesn't get much recognition. Still, you win some, you lose some. Good to see Apple listening to comments on the App store.
Why can't we have the choice of listing apps by release date or update date? Why can't we write a comment about an app without having to rate it? Why aren't reviews dated and why aren't readers given the option of sorting reviews by date? Why aren't reviews tied to the version they were written about? If a better app exists elsewhere (for more or less money), why should a knowledgeable person have to buy an inferior app (or a lemon) just to let the rest of us know?
I should hope updated apps see spikes in revenue! I often hold off on buying an app until I see its short-comings have been addressed by an update. How will I know this has happened if I can't list apps by update date?
Why can't we view all apps anymore, not just in categories?
Why are the issues Apple has tried to address in their new store front not such a big deal on sites like VersionTracker.com or MacUpdate.com?
There are literally hundreds of apps that are only of interest to specific members of specific communities or countries or companies that should be swept out of the main store area. The categories are far too general and one can't search within them. You can search the entire store (including music, movies and a bunch of other junk you don't need), but you can't search just the apps. You certainly can't search just the games, and the only category for games is "games" so you can tediously flip through page after page of boring repetitive games, or you can search for the game *if* you already know the name. It's almost impossible to find anything.
Further, the categories themselves are not the easiest to find. I know several people, who have looked at the app store maybe two or three times before they even find the tiny category list on the left hand side. Two very intelligent people I know were surprised recently when I argued with them that there are over a thousand apps in the store, because they had been using the more prominent "show all" buttons on the main page and were only being shown a hundred or so.
The whole store is very poorly designed if you ask me. They would be better off taking it out of the app and putting it online a la Amazon at this stage. At least then you could do an intelligent search of the contents.
The perceived (but not necessarily actual) need for iTunes to remain "simple" is holding back the whole thing. The iTunes store is a big, big, world-wide media store and should be treated as such. This is in direct competition with the iTunes designers idea that iTunes should be a simple easy to use application. Both are right, but both cannot co-exist for long.
At the least, I'd like to see Apple go back and remove reviews from people that didn't purchase the app. These juvenile "First" reviews frustrate me. I'm sure these children wouldn't like someone to spray paint "First" on their car or house.
Unfortunately, unscrupulous developers are still going to be able to stack reviews. It would be easy enough to pay a friend to buy the app and then post a provided "marketing review".
At the least, I'd like to see Apple go back and remove reviews from people that didn't purchase the app. These juvenile "First" reviews frustrate me. I'm sure these children wouldn't like someone to spray paint "First" on their car or house.
That doesn't make sense since Apple will get 30% of the that sale (Unless the developer is so desperate that he is welling to pay for a review). I've seen many reviews that people express their dislike about what the application does or the price and not how it works (clearly they did not try it out).
Unfortunately, unscrupulous developers are still going to be able to stack reviews. It would be easy enough to pay a friend to buy the app and then post a provided "marketing review".
Pay a friend? What kind of friends do you have?
That doesn't make sense since Apple will get 30% of the that sale (Unless the developer is so desperate that he is welling to pay for a review). I've seen many reviews that people express their dislike about what the application does or the price and not how it works (clearly they did not try it out).
It is not a perfect world. Over the long haul, if the app sucks, people will say so in volume. I doubt any of us have the kind of money and the number of friends to write a nice review. Eventually, they both run out.
Pay a friend? What kind of friends do you have?
Developers are more or less in the drivers seat here and I don't think that any of these iTunes changes will really alter that.
Sure, if all the apps are 2 bucks, then it's trivial for developers (making hundreds of thousands we hear) to pay for all their competitors apps and give them poor reviews. It may even be financially do-able to pay for hundreds of such negative reviews. There is not really much you can do about that without getting all 1984 on the reviewers.
I do like the change however, because it's fairly clear to me (at least at the moment), that this kind of thing is not a big problem. The major problem with reviews is the average dufuss who has nothing better to do other than go through the app store slagging apps that he never actually used. The other related problem is those that use a review to say something real original like "ITunes sucks" or "why should we pay for this when jail-breaking is free."
At least this change will eliminate those guys, because, lets face it, "those guys" are too f-ing cheap to actually PAY for anything.
Pay a friend? What kind of friends do you have?
When I said "pay a friend" I meant reimburse the "reviewer" for the purchase of the app. For the developer that means only 30% of the cost of the app to get the friend qualified to put up the review.
While it is true that for some apps the initial bogus reviews will be swamped with valid reviews, there are a lot of paid apps that have a very small number of reviews (2 - 10). In those cases, every 5 star review drives up the average and is more than worth the cost.
And before I get spammed, I'm speaking theoretically. I have never paid anyone to buy my apps or suggested to anyone to stack a review.
Thanks to this nonsense, my game (Rogue Vertex), was released on Sept 14th but was immediately buried under a rush of new updates... so we never got on the first page of anything.
I submitted an app update on Wednesday (adds some new features and some polish) and I was hopeful that we'd finally appear on a "new games" list somewhere. Now, it appears on page 3 of the action games category. That's better but I definitely missed out on my moment in the spotlight due to Apple's slowness in properly categorizing my game and the rush of updates that pushed me back several pages before I was even visible on the store.
I agree with the above post though - users should be able to sort by update release dates, and the original release date.
For one thing the date has actually rolled back to the SUBMISSION date not the original RELEASE date. That makes no sense, given the variable queue length.
For another, this is a known issue going back as far as August that occurred for SOME applications when editing meta data. I'm willing to bet that when trying to fix the iTunes database after the weekend problems they've triggered it for all apps. See these threads for reference.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....17099�
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....18774�
I often hold off on buying an app until I see its short-comings have been addressed by an update. How will I know this has happened if I can't list apps by update date?
If there is a particular application you're interested in, I suggest you remember the app or write it down somewhere, so you can look it up at another time. If you can't do this simple task, then the application really isn't all that important to you.
If I see an application I'd like to have at some point, I click the "Tell a friend" option and email the app store link to myself. This allows me to build a list of apps I'm interested in and check back on them in the future.
However I do agree, there should be an option to sort by update date.
Why are the issues Apple has tried to address in their new store front not such a big deal on sites like VersionTracker.com or MacUpdate.com?
The iTunes store is a market place, those other sites you mentioned are update aggregates, specifically designed to let you know of updates, they are not responsible for fair listings or sales, there is no liability.
Developers do have the upper hand though. I really hope Apple implements some sort of fair refund-policy or developers should provide a "lite" version that is free so the user can try it out. I purchased too many apps out there that should never have been released in the first place and it just makes me hesitant to want to purchase anything from the App store.
I don't understand how a really wonderful videogame that takes hundreds of man-hours to develop can be put out there for $5-$10 (very reasonable) yet other developers put absolute crap that looks like it's been put together in 30 minutes and hope for a quick buck and vanish.
I'm curious how the Android market will be. I suspect it will be far worse than the red-light district in Thailand compared to Apple.
I know certain developers tend to whine about the approval process that Apple does but personally, I think Apple should do more to crack down on wannabe developers putting useless junk out there. It really diminishes the experience.
I know that one developers crap is another user's treasure. I also know that one cannot define "offensive" stuff but I could spot it when I see it.
If you make solid high-quality software, it will always sell well. If you get upset that Apple decides to reject your app for being utter crap, it probably was. I'm surprised Apple is approving so much nonsense out there. 90% of what is out there is junk.