Are iTunes Links Being Downranked by Google?

[lordofthereef]

Apple did this with the phone. Entered a very mature market with a product that was so so much better then the market and people switched. Saying you can't enter an established market and turn heads . . .. well you can. It's just very hard, you need a superior product. MS's Bing is just not a superior product. And by superior you need to be better in ways people can understand. Technically better doesn't matter squat in people's eyes. The iPhone 1 was inferior in many ways but it was sexy, and made the basic tasks much easier. That's why people loved it.

Bing on the other hand, looks nice but it does nothing Google does not do on the surface. Yes it's search algorithm is much less biased then the Google's one. But that's the technical specifics most people don't care about. MS need to do something to make Bing one step ahead of MS. Advertise Bing everywhere, give it features that make it a dream to use and find the exact search results you want. But this is tough as there's not many features you can add to a search engine. Type in what you want to search and press search. All the rest is the algorithm working in the background.

This is MS's task ahead of it. Either leave Bing as is, 2nd fiddle to Google, or really think hard on how to make it more attractive.

I reckon the number one way to do this is to get Bing to be the default search of choice on iOS devices. Yes in this instance MS needs Apple. A partnership of sorts. MS promise to keep Bing up to date, looking pretty (to the Apple standard of pretty) and the search algorithm unbiased. And Apple's end of the bargain is they have good stable non google search as the default on iOS. I'm sure MS would be up for it. Apple just not need to be too demanding on their wants. Apple has a history of having all their wants met or walking from the negotiating table.

Apple want less and less to do with google. Maps is one example of this. And MS want more Bing exposure. And this would mean by proxy more MS exposure. I know Apple had the whole Apple vs PC ads. Even one about the many different Vista versions. But Apple needs to put this aside and work with MS. Both parties benefit here. And it is a win vs the big enemy. That being google.

I never said or implied it was impossible. Just unlikely. And frankly, I don't think apple has enough to gain by making their own search engine, unless of course they code in a little bit of their own bias when doing searches, which is certainly also possible.

In terms of maps, it's up in the air which side is trying to distance themselves from the other. I have heard many claims that google simply didn't want to agree with apple's terms any longer. I had also read google wasn't allowed tondontheirnown turn by turn. On the flip side, I've read google refused, when asked by Apple, to downturn by turn. So who donee believe? Which side is right? Unless you have some insider information, which I would certainly love to hear, I don't think we can concretely say Apple is distancing themselves from google. If I may add my opinion, I think google is the one adding the distance. Look at push email. They killed that for new devices registered past 01/31/13. That was 100% Google's move.

Opinions differ on just why the iPhone was and continues to be so successful. I would put the sexy factor as number one with full Internet web browsing a close second. But they also entered the market a little differently. Before, smartphones were for the business class. If you weren't a businessman who had to check his emails on the fly, you simply didn't have a smartphone (yes, exceptions existed, as they do with nearly everything). I am not sure how one would do that with a search engine, which is used by the rich, the poor, the business tycoon, or the small business owner. Again, not saying it can't be done. I'm simply saying I are this as a different case, and one where apple really doesn't have all that much to gain. As I mentioned before, Apple isn't one to give out free services to non Apple users in the n first place.

I can see apple supporting bing. But really only if they feel Google is truly censoring search results. Based on a few of my searches, it's up in the air for me. I got plenty of searches that I thought should turn up an iTunes app and got nothing. I got plenty that showed just iTunes. I got plenty that showed just google play. And I got plenty that showed both. The thing with conspiracy theories is that the theorists get all up in arms. The companies don't react like we do. They don't just build a new search engine because they feel their app should be at the top. It simply doesn't work that way.

 

[lakshwadeep]

I could probably count on one finger the number of times I wanted an iTunes link for an app. Actually, most of the times, it's been direct links from a site to their app. That's what searching on iTunes or on an iOS device is for.

 

[larrybeo]

Seems Right To Me

If I am going to google "Twitter iPhone" I'm not going to be looking for the app itself or a link to app itself. I'm going to be looking for information/news about the app. Who doesn't know where to get the Twitter app from? The fact that many of us haven't thought about Googling an app to get it proves the direct links don't belong on the page.

 

[Weegee1]

Nothing Apple can do about it. It's THEIR search engine.

It's called unfair competition. Apple could also pair with MS to promote Bing, which I wouldn't like.
Anyway, the answer to the article headline is a "no" from me. The search works fine.

----------

If I am going to google "Twitter iPhone" I'm not going to be looking for the app itself or a link to app itself. I'm going to be looking for information/news about the app. Who doesn't know where to get the Twitter app from? The fact that many of us haven't thought about Googling an app to get it proves the direct links don't belong on the page.

You specified "iPhone" as a keyword, so you shouldn't get anything related to the Android app, only the iPhone app.

 

[samcraig]

I google "twitter iphone" and it comes up 6th. And that included the 5th link being the "images" link

 

[larrylaffer]

There really needs to be a serious competitor to Google in search. Bing doesn't seem to be gaining a lot of traction - surely Apple has the resources to give it a try.

 

[Millah]

Unlike Apple corporation, which is an altruistically charitable organization...not some money sucking, rule bending creature.

Apple's doing it for love...money is just an incidental side effect.

I missed the part where the person you were quoting alluded to that in any way. If I'm reading his comment correct, he simply said just like any other corporation. He was mocking the fact that Google put themselves on this pedestal of "Don't be evil" when they behave just any other corporation, Apple included. The difference is Apple didn't have "Don't be evil" as their company motto.

No need to start getting antsy and putting words in peoples mouths.

 

[subsonix]

If this was marketing from Google, they would loose user's trust in that they provide accurate and neutral search results, ranked by page rank and not by subjective internal business interests.

The more spread out their interests get the more likely this is to happen. Accurate and neutral is also tied in with what Google knows about your interests.

 

[kas23]

filthy Schmidt..

That sounds like a close friend of Dirty Sanchez and Hot Carl.

 

[thelink]

April fools!

oh wait.....

 

[entatlrg]

Google is evil, it's only going to get worse.

 

[the8thark]

I never said or implied it was impossible. Just unlikely. And frankly, I don't think apple has enough to gain by making their own search engine, unless of course they code in a little bit of their own bias when doing searches, which is certainly also possible.

In terms of maps, it's up in the air which side is trying to distance themselves from the other. I have heard many claims that google simply didn't want to agree with apple's terms any longer. I had also read google wasn't allowed tondontheirnown turn by turn. On the flip side, I've read google refused, when asked by Apple, to downturn by turn. So who donee believe? Which side is right? Unless you have some insider information, which I would certainly love to hear, I don't think we can concretely say Apple is distancing themselves from google. If I may add my opinion, I think google is the one adding the distance. Look at push email. They killed that for new devices registered past 01/31/13. That was 100% Google's move.

Opinions differ on just why the iPhone was and continues to be so successful. I would put the sexy factor as number one with full Internet web browsing a close second. But they also entered the market a little differently. Before, smartphones were for the business class. If you weren't a businessman who had to check his emails on the fly, you simply didn't have a smartphone (yes, exceptions existed, as they do with nearly everything). I am not sure how one would do that with a search engine, which is used by the rich, the poor, the business tycoon, or the small business owner. Again, not saying it can't be done. I'm simply saying I are this as a different case, and one where apple really doesn't have all that much to gain. As I mentioned before, Apple isn't one to give out free services to non Apple users in the n first place.

I can see apple supporting bing. But really only if they feel Google is truly censoring search results. Based on a few of my searches, it's up in the air for me. I got plenty of searches that I thought should turn up an iTunes app and got nothing. I got plenty that showed just iTunes. I got plenty that showed just google play. And I got plenty that showed both. The thing with conspiracy theories is that the theorists get all up in arms. The companies don't react like we do. They don't just build a new search engine because they feel their app should be at the top. It simply doesn't work that way.

I agree. The whole iPhone thing is a related but also very different as you pointed out.

But there is this.

MSN Search first launched in the third quarter of 1998 (this evolved to bing)
Google search - Launched September 15, 1997

So it seems both started around the same time. Before either became as large and powerful as they are today. I do agree you just don't make a search engine out of nothing because a few people are wearing tin foil hats. My theory was take a search algorithm already very well known and tested, the MS one, and put it on the worlds most popular mobile OS, iOS. There's no new search algorithms to be made. It's all ready there. And with Apple trying to distance themselves from google . . . both sides (Apple and MS) can win.

And you talk about Apple not giving out services for free. And they wouldn't. MS and Apple would get ad revenue from the search. Like google do. As well as the fees paid to be put higher up in the search algorithms by companies. That would keep both sides happy on the money side of things.

If I may add my opinion, I think google is the one adding the distance. Look at push email. They killed that for new devices registered past 01/31/13. That was 100% Google's move.

Of cause you can. And I agree 100%. Google email is the only email I know of where you can't delete emails properly off the server from an app client. You have to go to the google web interface to do it. Very annoying to say the least. At the moment I have 2009 messages I have to delete properly from the google servers via the web interface. Yes you can select the lot and delete them. But a web interface for email is so 2000's. Everyone has their favourite mail app these days.

I can see apple supporting bing. But really only if they feel Google is truly censoring search results.

I see it more like if Google anger Apple too much to a point they totally want nothing to do with them, they'll move. But I see Apple not wanting to do search on their own (a good move) and also not seeing the MS/Apple search alliance on the table either. So they do nothing. Who knows what the future will hold.

 

[Steve-Owen]

Just deleted Google apps, switched to Bing

Goggle is an unfair player. They have lots of rules for others, and yet play fast and loose with their own guidelines when it serves their own purposes. Goodbye Google Maps. Goodbye Chrome (as a alternate browser - although never used, as it sucks). Also just switched to Bing. That is, until Apple comes out with a search engine.

 

[r2shyyou]

phillipduran is correct. If you (or the mods) try to ban all chat that not 100% directly related to the article in question you'd have half the forums deleted overnight. And there is nothing wrong with spin off conversation. It can generate some very good topics. And a lot can be learnt from that.

Here's the issue: I never said that there was anything wrong with spinoff conversation or that there was anything wrong with anyone adding their two cents to a topic in a discussion forum, just that it shouldn't be done as a direct response to someone else, via quoting that person's post (mine, in this case), if it isn't going to relate to that quoted post.

To go back to the source of this little "misunderstanding," I noted that it would be "interesting" and possibly risky for Google to be intentionally downranking iTunes links if they were in fact doing that. However, if you hadn't seen that bit that I'd written and had instead only seen the immediate response to it, you'd think that I mentioned something about Apple doing something about it (or that they should do something about it) and that perhaps Google wasn't "in the right" to be downranking anything. And therein lies the problem since I never said anything about any of that.

The response was akin to putting words in my mouth, which, discussion forum or not, is never okay (unless it's a joke, in which case it's still circumstantial, as far as I'm concerned).

All that aside, as I believe others have already mentioned, I don't think (don't know, though) that Google can just do whatever they want with the rankings of their search results. I imagine that, aside from blacklisting illegal content, they essentially have to give every website a fair chance of getting ranked at the top of their results. That no doubt means that a large majority of websites will never even make it close but to intentionally or artificially suppress certain sites from having the chance to get there, especially when they've been there for a while now, at least from what I've seen when searching for apps, would be both interesting in terms of business choices and possibly risky in terms of consumer backlash and government oversight with respect to antitrust regulations, if the latter would even apply here (hence the question mark following the term 'risky' in my original post).

 

[ziggyonice]

Wouldn't be surprised if Google is doing this intentionally. Did a Google search for "Plants vs Zombies app."

1st result? Plants vs Zombies on Google Play - Android. Has 11,800 ratings on their store.

7th result? Plants vs Zombies on the App Store - iOS. Has 43,000 ratings on the App Store.

Hmm.

 

[Shrink]

I missed the part where the person you were quoting alluded to that in any way. If I'm reading his comment correct, he simply said just like any other corporation. He was mocking the fact that Google put themselves on this pedestal of "Don't be evil" when they behave just any other corporation, Apple included. The difference is Apple didn't have "Don't be evil" as their company motto.

No need to start getting antsy and putting words in peoples mouths.

OK, first...I promise I won't get antsy. (I'm not allowed to use rolleyes smilie either...no rolleyes, no antsy...got it!)

Am I supposed to put any faith or belief in a corporate motto? As if it meant anything?

You said "...he...said...like any other corporation...". Ok, so I responded citing another corporation in my reply. Sorry, did I miss something there?

And let me be clear...I am not defending Google, or any other corporation, for the matter (Apple definitely included). It is my horribly cynical belief that corporations are in the business of making money and, in gereral, doing that in any way they can that doesn't get the Board Of Directors put in prison for long periods of time. And, sometimes, even employing practices that has that outcome.

Sorry I have such a lousy attitude...old and crotchety guy!

 

[dazza611]

Apple should do search, buy Yahoo would be a good place to start.

 

[Analog Kid]

I think people have the cause and effect backwards here... Google didn't create search to drive users to Android. They created Android to make sure they don't lose their stranglehold on search (well, advertising really) as people go mobile. Search is where a lot of their money is right now, and most of their identity, while I'm not sure Android is more than a rounding error in their cash flow statement.

If they start playing fast and loose with the integrity of their core product, to drive traffic to their free OS, it's time to short GOOG in a big, big way.

Apple need to start up their own search engine.

If they're not working on one now, they're insane.

Nothing wrong with experimenting, but if they release a search engine at this point, they'd be insane. Apple should be working under the opposite logic to Google's above. If it doesn't sell hardware, it's a waste of resources. This drive for Google, Amazon and Apple to all try and look the same is making me nuts...

What I really, really, really don't want is a Google search to give me Google-centric results and an Apple-search to give me Apple centric results. We have enough silo-ing of information along political dimensions these days, I don't want further silo-ing along tech dimensions.

If I am going to google "Twitter iPhone" I'm not going to be looking for the app itself or a link to app itself. I'm going to be looking for information/news about the app. Who doesn't know where to get the Twitter app from? The fact that many of us haven't thought about Googling an app to get it proves the direct links don't belong on the page.

Your common sense has no place here, friend.

 

[Dalgarnif]

For a company that professes itself to "don't be evil" it certainly does many things (this is just one small example) that are truly evil from an internet perspective. I find them to be just the opposite of their motto in so many areas that it's a shame from where they began.

A search should return the most commonly used threads. If Google wants to enhance their revenue by having their customers pay to appear at the very top than that is fine - but these should be highlighted so we know that these are not necessarily the actual top desired search results.

In the long run Google hurts only themselves by making their search engine less credible to its hoped for users. While I bear no grudge against Google, their unfair search results are beginning to not meet my needs. I think I will try Bing and Yahoo for a while and see how I like them and I would encourage others to vote with their feet on the same way.

 

[Stella]

I'm sure the glitch will be fixed soon..

I highly doubt Google are doing this deliberately.. search results have to be accurate otherwise people will use something else.. and advertisers will get pissed off.

 

[Benjamins]

Nothing Apple can do about it. It's THEIR search engine.

once you have a monopoly on something, you cannot just do what you want. And if I am not mistaken, Google does have a monopoly on search at the moment.

 

[lordofthereef]

I agree. The whole iPhone thing is a related but also very different as you pointed out.

But there is this.

MSN Search first launched in the third quarter of 1998 (this evolved to bing)
Google search - Launched September 15, 1997

So it seems both started around the same time. Before either became as large and powerful as they are today. I do agree you just don't make a search engine out of nothing because a few people are wearing tin foil hats. My theory was take a search algorithm already very well known and tested, the MS one, and put it on the worlds most popular mobile OS, iOS. There's no new search algorithms to be made. It's all ready there. And with Apple trying to distance themselves from google . . . both sides (Apple and MS) can win.

And you talk about Apple not giving out services for free. And they wouldn't. MS and Apple would get ad revenue from the search. Like google do. As well as the fees paid to be put higher up in the search algorithms by companies. That would keep both sides happy on the money side of things.


Of cause you can. And I agree 100%. Google email is the only email I know of where you can't delete emails properly off the server from an app client. You have to go to the google web interface to do it. Very annoying to say the least. At the moment I have 2009 messages I have to delete properly from the google servers via the web interface. Yes you can select the lot and delete them. But a web interface for email is so 2000's. Everyone has their favourite mail app these days.


I see it more like if Google anger Apple too much to a point they totally want nothing to do with them, they'll move. But I see Apple not wanting to do search on their own (a good move) and also not seeing the MS/Apple search alliance on the table either. So they do nothing. Who knows what the future will hold.

Unless I am mistaken, Bing was essentially a rebuild? I could be wrong. At the very least, it was a rebranding, and one that I feel was more detrimental than anything else.

What I meant by apple not giving anything for free is that with everything they have done this far, you need and apple device. Literally. Everything. Everything they do is to sell devices. Could they turn around and do something else? Of course. I'm a veterinary surgeon but I could go make pizzas if I wanted to. Would it be a smart decision? Maybe, but it sure doesn't seem so on the surface, right?

Apple partnering with MS to push Bing would likely be a long term commitment. Very long term. Again, possible, just not probable. That's all I'm saying. Anything is possible, after all.

 

[Eric E. Schmidt]

a glitch in the matrix.

 

[the8thark]

Here's the issue: I never said that there was anything wrong with spinoff conversation or that there was anything wrong with anyone adding their two cents to a topic in a discussion forum, just that it shouldn't be done as a direct response to someone else, via quoting that person's post (mine, in this case), if it isn't going to relate to that quoted post.

Well you do have a point. If you want to quote someone, at least try to talk about the quoted text, or don't quote them in the first place. Spin off conversation does not need a direct quote.

To go back to the source of this little "misunderstanding," I noted that it would be "interesting" and possibly risky for Google to be intentionally downranking iTunes links if they were in fact doing that. However, if you hadn't seen that bit that I'd written and had instead only seen the immediate response to it, you'd think that I mentioned something about Apple doing something about it (or that they should do something about it) and that perhaps Google wasn't "in the right" to be downranking anything. And therein lies the problem since I never said anything about any of that.

The response was akin to putting words in my mouth, which, discussion forum or not, is never okay (unless it's a joke, in which case it's still circumstantial, as far as I'm concerned).

All that aside, as I believe others have already mentioned, I don't think (don't know, though) that Google can just do whatever they want with the rankings of their search results. I imagine that, aside from blacklisting illegal content, they essentially have to give every website a fair chance of getting ranked at the top of their results. That no doubt means that a large majority of websites will never even make it close but to intentionally or artificially suppress certain sites from having the chance to get there, especially when they've been there for a while now, at least from what I've seen when searching for apps, would be both interesting in terms of business choices and possibly risky in terms of consumer backlash and government oversight with respect to antitrust regulations, if the latter would even apply here (hence the question mark following the term 'risky' in my original post).

From what I have read, (feel free to say if I am wrong) companies pay google to have certain links rate higher in certain search terms. For example, Amazon could pay Google to have a specific Amazon link appear higher when people search for "amazon fire" or "kindle fire". So in this way it is all about money. I don't know the rules on this or if it's a bid process or what. Also not sure if there is any regulations on this to stop google monopolising the market. I think there should be. MS had that issue in the 90's. And paid Apple a bit to help themselves. We all know what happened there. I just don't think anyone's questioned google to say "prove to us (ie the government) that you are not monopolising search and skewing it your way. Actually I'd like to know what's google's response to a question of that nature would be.

It would be pretty risky for google to skew search in the way people are claiming they might be. But if they did it very slowly over many years people might just not notice. Definantly a topic we all should be watching. because search is how a lot of us get our information.

 

[samcraig]

Wouldn't be surprised if Google is doing this intentionally. Did a Google search for "Plants vs Zombies app."

1st result? Plants vs Zombies on Google Play - Android. Has 11,800 ratings on their store.

7th result? Plants vs Zombies on the App Store - iOS. Has 43,000 ratings on the App Store.

Hmm.

What does the # of ratings have to do with where they wind up in search? Hmmm indeed.