Prominent Apple apps in App Store search results face more criticism

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 57
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    cropr said:
    mjtomlin said:

    So?   That seems right to me:  If I am looking for an app -- say a spreadsheet program -- I will want to see what Apple has to offer more than anything else.
    If someone is searching for a spreadsheet app the first one that should pop up is Excel. 

    Wrong! When you buy an iPhone and it says it comes with “Numbers” many people will search for it driving it up the list. 
    Don't take your preference as the standard for all Apple users.

    There exists only one spreadsheet program in a professional environment and it is called Excel.   Numbers might look great but as a spreadsheet program it is just horribly limited.

    I didn’t assume my preference reflected anyone else’s preference. What I said was that when you buy an iPhone it comes with free software. A majority of people who couldn’t give a crap about spreadsheets, might be interested in downloading Numbers just to check it out. That’s got nothing to do with Excel being the “go to” spreadsheet for professionals. Whether they like or use Numbers doesn’t matter, it could still potentially be searched for by more people, especially since all those people are Apple users.
    edited September 2019
  • Reply 42 of 57
    mjtomlin said:
    Abalos65 said:
    jbdragon said:
    mjtomlin said:

    "There's nothing about the way we run search in the App Store that's designed or intended to drive Apple's downloads of our own apps," said Schiller. "We'll present results based on what we think the user wants." 

    So why did they tweak the App Store search algorithms then? Saying we did nothing wrong but we changed our algorithms anyway makes it seem like they were doing something wrong and corrected it after being outed by the WSJ and NYT.

    Did you read?

    They tweaked the algorithm so that grouping results by “producer” excluded Apple’s apps, but apparently left others as is.
    Yes, Apple handicapped themselves to give others more of a chance. It's really UNFAIR to Apple, but I get it. People like to bitch. I don't think some people will be happy unless Apple is NEVER listed at all in any search.
    Do you read the NYT article about the ranking of the App Store? Are the examples they showed fair in your assessment?
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/09/technology/apple-app-store-competition.html

    Depends... honestly... Everyone who searches the App Store is an Apple customer and user, first and foremost. It stands to reason a majority of people not in-the-know might very well search for Apple apps when they first get their devices. That would in fact sway results in Apple’s favor more often then not. The tweak Apple put in place might just be a handicap to get around that?

    These articles are great when they only run with a single scenario - usually sensationalizing the negative. 
    But do you agree that the examples shown were a problem? iMovie being above any other music app when searching for 'music' seems like a problem to me. Shining a light on this (and Spotify making a complaint) resulted in better search results now, so I appreciate NYT writing the piece. Why is this sensationalizing?
    FileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 43 of 57
    GulaakGulaak Posts: 12unconfirmed, member
    It's no surprise Apple customers see no issue with this. They've been conditioned to accept everything Apple does, no matter what. Disgruntled forum comments mean nothing if you still line up to buy their products.
  • Reply 44 of 57
    Gulaak said:
    It's no surprise Apple customers see no issue with this. They've been conditioned to accept everything Apple does, no matter what. Disgruntled forum comments mean nothing if you still line up to buy their products.
    Nope. I assure you every one of us has on record made criticisms of these products (as well as countless others), so to claim we’re all brainwashed lemmings is rather idiotic. But most of us enjoy the value we receive in exchange for our dollars, and use reason when discussing these topics.
    edited September 2019
  • Reply 45 of 57
    The last one to ever complain about Apple's search results will be Google. They would't dare risk their own search result strategy.
  • Reply 46 of 57
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,328member
    Gulaak said:
    It's no surprise Apple customers see no issue with this. They've been conditioned to accept everything Apple does, no matter what. Disgruntled forum comments mean nothing if you still line up to buy their products.
    Everyone who uses Apple's App Store is an Apple customer - by definition. So if every Apple customer is conditioned, through some mysterious mechanism you've yet to explain, to accept everything Apple does, including how Apple manages search queries in its App Store, then why are we reading about this in an Apple focused forum that is probably composed of a lot of Apple customers? Wouldn't every one of us simply state: "we're totally cool with how the App Store works because we are Apple customers, so go booger off NYT." To flip your logic the other way, you state that the only reason one should post negative comments on a forum topic is if they are not an Apple customer, i.e., they don't line up to buy Apple products. This doesn't make any sense either - why complain about something that does not impact you in any way? Should people who don't own BMWs join a BMW oriented forum to complain about some aspect of BMW's products that they don't like? Is anyone's life actually that dull?

  • Reply 47 of 57
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,328member
    Apple is clearly the only party who has intimate knowledge of how their search algorithms work. I also assume that Apple's algorithms are comprised of much more than simply metadata matching and mixed metadata associations. They probably have several weighting factors that consider customer download and usage data such as the number of purchases over time, frequency of app use (activity, dormancy), duration of app use, user rating distribution, volume of user data managed by apps, etc. In other words, grabbing a snapshot of query results from trivial metadata based queries, e.g., "music," is not going to reveal very much at all about the inner workings of the actual algorithms. In fact, Apple's algorithms may also inject some purposeful dithering to reduce modalities as well as some (probabilistically injected) boosting to prevent some lower search-algorithm-ordered results from always being starved out of the higher end of the search-algorithm-ordered results. Seeing a somewhat different order of results from repeated queries based on the same trivial metadata criteria may be exactly what Apple intended. The takeaway here is that Apple is trying to provide a user friendly and app-developer-friendlier way so app buyers can comb through the millions of apps in the App Store without being completely buried and confused.  

    In all likelihood Apple's built-in apps, which are now in the App Store, have weighting factors that push them up the results order due to their massive adoption, usage, ratings, and activity rates and ubiquitous footprint on all Apple platforms. Apple is being very clear that they are not engaged in any nefarious and/or disingenuous behavior to boost their apps at the expense of apps from other vendors. The accusations will undoubtedly continue until Apple discloses the inner workings of their algorithms, which they will never do - hopefully. In fact, the situation could be much worse if Apple fully disclosed the algorithms and their behaviors because some app vendors would no doubt try to game the system and render it useless. Not going to happen? Just take a look at the Yellow Pages.

     
    pscooter63
  • Reply 48 of 57
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    Abalos65 said:
    mjtomlin said:
    Abalos65 said:
    jbdragon said:
    mjtomlin said:

    "There's nothing about the way we run search in the App Store that's designed or intended to drive Apple's downloads of our own apps," said Schiller. "We'll present results based on what we think the user wants." 

    So why did they tweak the App Store search algorithms then? Saying we did nothing wrong but we changed our algorithms anyway makes it seem like they were doing something wrong and corrected it after being outed by the WSJ and NYT.

    Did you read?

    They tweaked the algorithm so that grouping results by “producer” excluded Apple’s apps, but apparently left others as is.
    Yes, Apple handicapped themselves to give others more of a chance. It's really UNFAIR to Apple, but I get it. People like to bitch. I don't think some people will be happy unless Apple is NEVER listed at all in any search.
    Do you read the NYT article about the ranking of the App Store? Are the examples they showed fair in your assessment?
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/09/technology/apple-app-store-competition.html

    Depends... honestly... Everyone who searches the App Store is an Apple customer and user, first and foremost. It stands to reason a majority of people not in-the-know might very well search for Apple apps when they first get their devices. That would in fact sway results in Apple’s favor more often then not. The tweak Apple put in place might just be a handicap to get around that?

    These articles are great when they only run with a single scenario - usually sensationalizing the negative. 
    But do you agree that the examples shown were a problem? iMovie being above any other music app when searching for 'music' seems like a problem to me. Shining a light on this (and Spotify making a complaint) resulted in better search results now, so I appreciate NYT writing the piece. Why is this sensationalizing?

    Personally I do agree, there is/was an obvious problem with Apple’s search “algorithm”. There’s no reason those other apps should’ve come up in the results. Honestly, I have never seen results like that in the App Store, ever. I definitely would’ve noticed and I’m surprised a lot of others had not noticed and said something about it back then?

    The sensational part is starting the article by mentioning that the App Store is a $50 billion/year industry, thus implying that by “stacking” search results Apple is trying to push out competitors to grab as much of that money for themselves. The fact that all those Apple apps are FREE was not mentioned in the article. Furthermore, financially speaking, it’s in Apple’s best interest to place pay-for 3rd party apps at the top of the list, including one’s they compete with, like Spotify. That wasn’t mentioned either.

    Any intelligent and unbiased “journalist” would’ve laid out all those facts and asked “To what end?” Was it simply a new algorithm running amok due to massive amounts of users searching for Apple’s built-in/free apps? Or did Apple lose their minds in pushing money-making apps out of reach for users to purchase, leaving a 30% fee of those possible sales on the floor?

    There is no realistic advantage for Apple to “stack” their apps over competitor’s, in fact it’s counter to why Apple runs the App Store... to make money.
    edited September 2019 FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 49 of 57
    "There's nothing about the way we run search in the App Store that's designed or intended to drive Apple's downloads of our own apps," said Schiller. "We'll present results based on what we think the user wants." 

    So why did they tweak the App Store search algorithms then? Saying we did nothing wrong but we changed our algorithms anyway makes it seem like they were doing something wrong and corrected it after being outed by the WSJ and NYT.
    What's the scope of "something wrong"? Having the right approach to something but making a misstep along the way is still defensible as "doing nothing wrong" - if the intention is honest, small mistakes can be forgiven.
  • Reply 50 of 57

    So?   That seems right to me:  If I am looking for an app -- say a spreadsheet program -- I will want to see what Apple has to offer more than anything else.
    If someone is searching for a spreadsheet app the first one that should pop up is Excel. 
    Why?  Because you use Excel?   Few independent users -- the type who use the App Store do.   It is mostly a commercial product due its high cost.
    Who uses numbers? If anything people that want a free product are using Google Docs. 
    I only use Numbers.
  • Reply 51 of 57


    gatorguy said:
    mjtomlin said:

    So?   That seems right to me:  If I am looking for an app -- say a spreadsheet program -- I will want to see what Apple has to offer more than anything else.
    If someone is searching for a spreadsheet app the first one that should pop up is Excel. 

    Wrong! When you buy an iPhone and it says it comes with “Numbers” many people will search for it driving it up the list. 
    It does if you search for Numbers. If you search for spreadsheet Google Sheets comes up first, then Excel. Which I guess makes sense as I forgot there is no free version of Excel.
    All the results may differ from what they were 30 days ago. At one point a few weeks back if you searched for "Music" the first 8 results were all Apple apps, with Spotify for example kinda buried down at #11 I think, tho that may not be 100% accurate. 

    In any event Apple has made a couple of changes since July besides the grouping by developer tendency which was claimed to be one reason for Apple apps surfacing so prominently. 
    If I worked in Apple public relations or communications I’d be telling Tim Cook Apple is starting to look reactionary, like they’re only doing things because they got caught or were outed by the media. Take this story for example. One gets the feeling Apple was alerted it was coming so they made changes because of it. And then of course the Siri changes that were announced after the Guardian published its story. Apple making changes after they got caught doing things that weren’t disclosed to users. It’s not a good look. Especially for a company that prides itself on being different/more ethical than every other tech company.
    At which point Cook would ask who you are, excuse himself and pick up his phone, call Steve Dowling and ask which idiot in his department hired this handwringing reactionary who just wasted his time.
    pscooter63
  • Reply 52 of 57
    rwx9901 said:
    It's their app store they can do what they want.
    Screw you. The iPhone would be NOTHING without the hard work and amazing apps developers have made. With ONLY Apple apps it would suck. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 53 of 57
    mjtomlin said:

    So?   That seems right to me:  If I am looking for an app -- say a spreadsheet program -- I will want to see what Apple has to offer more than anything else.
    If someone is searching for a spreadsheet app the first one that should pop up is Excel. 

    Wrong! When you buy an iPhone and it says it comes with “Numbers” many people will search for it driving it up the list. 
    But numbers suck compared to excel. 
  • Reply 54 of 57
    lkrupp said:

    gatorguy said:
    mjtomlin said:

    So?   That seems right to me:  If I am looking for an app -- say a spreadsheet program -- I will want to see what Apple has to offer more than anything else.
    If someone is searching for a spreadsheet app the first one that should pop up is Excel. 

    Wrong! When you buy an iPhone and it says it comes with “Numbers” many people will search for it driving it up the list. 
    It does if you search for Numbers. If you search for spreadsheet Google Sheets comes up first, then Excel. Which I guess makes sense as I forgot there is no free version of Excel.
    All the results may differ from what they were 30 days ago. At one point a few weeks back if you searched for "Music" the first 8 results were all Apple apps, with Spotify for example kinda buried down at #11 I think, tho that may not be 100% accurate. 

    In any event Apple has made a couple of changes since July besides the grouping by developer tendency which was claimed to be one reason for Apple apps surfacing so prominently. 
    If I worked in Apple public relations or communications I’d be telling Tim Cook Apple is starting to look reactionary, like they’re only doing things because they got caught or were outed by the media. Take this story for example. One gets the feeling Apple was alerted it was coming so they made changes because of it. And then of course the Siri changes that were announced after the Guardian published its story. Apple making changes after they got caught doing things that weren’t disclosed to users. It’s not a good look. Especially for a company that prides itself on being different/more ethical than every other tech company.
    For you everything Apple does is either illegal, immoral, unethical, anti-competitive, anti-consumer, so your opinion is of little value to anyone except those who thrive on negativity.
    And for you Apple NEVER does anything wrong and is always better and right no matter what. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 55 of 57

    I didn't read the linked article so the question is, are the results skewed to display Apple apps prominently, or are the apps actually popular, which is why they appear on top?

    All of Apple's apps are free, right?

    I'm not sure how I feel about Apple deliberately supressing their apps from Search. For a non-techie User, it could be confusing.

  • Reply 56 of 57
    mjtomlin said:
    Abalos65 said:
    mjtomlin said:
    Abalos65 said:
    jbdragon said:
    mjtomlin said:

    "There's nothing about the way we run search in the App Store that's designed or intended to drive Apple's downloads of our own apps," said Schiller. "We'll present results based on what we think the user wants." 

    So why did they tweak the App Store search algorithms then? Saying we did nothing wrong but we changed our algorithms anyway makes it seem like they were doing something wrong and corrected it after being outed by the WSJ and NYT.

    Did you read?

    They tweaked the algorithm so that grouping results by “producer” excluded Apple’s apps, but apparently left others as is.
    Yes, Apple handicapped themselves to give others more of a chance. It's really UNFAIR to Apple, but I get it. People like to bitch. I don't think some people will be happy unless Apple is NEVER listed at all in any search.
    Do you read the NYT article about the ranking of the App Store? Are the examples they showed fair in your assessment?
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/09/technology/apple-app-store-competition.html

    Depends... honestly... Everyone who searches the App Store is an Apple customer and user, first and foremost. It stands to reason a majority of people not in-the-know might very well search for Apple apps when they first get their devices. That would in fact sway results in Apple’s favor more often then not. The tweak Apple put in place might just be a handicap to get around that?

    These articles are great when they only run with a single scenario - usually sensationalizing the negative. 
    But do you agree that the examples shown were a problem? iMovie being above any other music app when searching for 'music' seems like a problem to me. Shining a light on this (and Spotify making a complaint) resulted in better search results now, so I appreciate NYT writing the piece. Why is this sensationalizing?

    Personally I do agree, there is/was an obvious problem with Apple’s search “algorithm”. There’s no reason those other apps should’ve come up in the results. Honestly, I have never seen results like that in the App Store, ever. I definitely would’ve noticed and I’m surprised a lot of others had not noticed and said something about it back then?

    The sensational part is starting the article by mentioning that the App Store is a $50 billion/year industry, thus implying that by “stacking” search results Apple is trying to push out competitors to grab as much of that money for themselves. The fact that all those Apple apps are FREE was not mentioned in the article. Furthermore, financially speaking, it’s in Apple’s best interest to place pay-for 3rd party apps at the top of the list, including one’s they compete with, like Spotify. That wasn’t mentioned either.

    Any intelligent and unbiased “journalist” would’ve laid out all those facts and asked “To what end?” Was it simply a new algorithm running amok due to massive amounts of users searching for Apple’s built-in/free apps? Or did Apple lose their minds in pushing money-making apps out of reach for users to purchase, leaving a 30% fee of those possible sales on the floor?

    There is no realistic advantage for Apple to “stack” their apps over competitor’s, in fact it’s counter to why Apple runs the App Store... to make money.
    It could well just be a mistake, however I disagree that there is no advantage to Apple. While there is potentially a short term revenue decline by having only free apps at the top, it is much more likely, with these kind of results, that people will only see Apple Music as a music streaming option. This is obviously beneficial for Apple in the long term. They would much prefer a Apple Music subscriber over a Spotify subscriber (where they do not take the 30%, so Apple makes no money). 
    edited September 2019
  • Reply 57 of 57
    1348513485 Posts: 343member
    If I worked in Apple public relations or communications I’d be telling Tim Cook Apple is starting to look reactionary, like they’re only doing things because they got caught or were outed by the media. Take this story for example. One gets the feeling Apple was alerted it was coming so they made changes because of it. And then of course the Siri changes that were announced after the Guardian published its story. Apple making changes after they got caught doing things that weren’t disclosed to users. It’s not a good look. Especially for a company that prides itself on being different/more ethical than every other tech company.
    Uh, so if they respond quickly you think they're being reactionary because they're doing something wrong. But of course if they take their time then they're being non-responsive because they have something to hide because they were doing something wrong.

Sign In or Register to comment.