WSJ: Apple Apps Unfairly Dominate App Store Search Results

[Treebark]

Like it or not some people see Apple as holding a mobile monopoly in the app market, even Bill Gates somewhat implied this with his comments, see: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/24/...orms-network-effect-android-mistake-microsoft

Developers, opponents, and even lawmakers are asking questions.

Examples from other sectors where there are brands on nearly equal footing are not analogous (Ford in Chevy dealer lots, Coke in Pepsi machines).

I don't see Apple as a monopoly, and nothing wrong if they promote their products over others, but part of that is because I like their products.

But something like this isn't exactly helpful to them.

 

[now i see it]

any app popping up at the top of the list after a search query isn't significant if other relevant (competitive) ones are listed soon after. I could see someone complaining if their app was listed #30 on a search list and Apple's was #1, but everything that turns up (in any order) within the first 15 listed is essentially on equal ground.
Does anyone just blindly download the first app that appears after a search? I doubt it.

 

[macduke]

Don't tell them that most of these apps are installed by default on users' devices too! You don't even have a choice before you buy it. /s

 

[DZakDad]

How odd, I just did a search on WSJ.com and all of the search results were wsj.com links.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Ya don't say?!

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

So what? They are the one who developed the platform and put all the work, time, and money in making it. So why shouldn’t their apps be featured first? It’s not like people can’t scroll to see their other options. I have no problem with that.

 

[The_Martini_Cat]

Why would you search the app store for the maps app? It's on your computer for free. It's a damn good app too, I use it practically every day.

And since the name of the app is "Maps", I would expect it to show up on a search, even though the search is one I would not have any reason to conduct.

 

[cardfan]

Searched for "maps" just now. Google maps listed first. Apple maps second.

The only thing I'd see as a concern (if i cared enough) is not having reviews for apple's apps if that's supposedly a component in all this.

 

[gaximus]

How are you people coming...


up with the same terribly themed analogies?


What the WSJ is claiming, from an analogy standpoint, is this:
Apple is a flea market that charges it's tenants yearly rent for their booth and takes a cut of each of the tenants sales. But to get to the tenants booth, you have to run the gauntlet of Apple booths before getting to the tenant.

They are claiming Apple is the landlord, business partner, and -here's the crux- competitor that puts it's wares up front.

So if I owned a mall, and a restaurant franchise, I wouldn't be allowed to put my restaurant at the front of the food court?

 

[kazmac]

Um, no kidding WSJ.

You know WSJ has provided some excellent coverage on some of Apple’s problems (Please do something on iPad touch disease WSJ), but this article is a non-starter.

 

[falainber]

Does it really matter? The apps are all free....

Apple Music is free?

 

[Quu]

Um..... Bezos has nothing to do with the WSJ.

Haha, I got it mixed up so bad. Edited my post

 

[dannyyankou]

If you search Maps, Apple’s app literally called “Maps” displays first 60% of the time? Shocking!

Seriously though, it would make everyone happy if they added filters for relevance and popularity.

 

[Labeno]

If I built an app search engine, I would create search criteria that would list stuff first that made the customer happy:

• Free
• no in-app purchases
• no annoying ad banners
• protect privacy

Apple may have done something similar. Notice that the search criteria is not design to benefit Apple, but a side effect is that Apple apps are list first. This is what I want as a customer, not annoying apps.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Apple Music is free?

Apple Music is a stand-alone app?

 

[AtomicDusk]

In other news, is liquid water wet? We'll find out after sports; now to you, Tom.

I mean come on WSJ what an idiotic piece of 'journalism'. The first listed of HDMI on Amazon is an Amazon Basics cable. This isn't new. It's their platform, and they can use it how they like.

 

[69Mustang]

So if I owned a mall, and a restaurant franchise, I wouldn't be allowed to put my restaurant at the front of the food court?

You could put your restaurant wherever you wanted to put your restaurant. My analogy was just a more accurate description of what the WSJ is claiming Apple is doing. I am criticizing the terribly incorrect analogies, not rendering an opinion on the WSJ claim.

 

[mjbadagliacco]

Not that I agree with the WSJ assessment... but your analogy. It's terrible and wrong. Walmart does not feature it's own products in store. They feature branded products more prominently. Most stores feature the branded products.

Ummmm NO!

 

[Wowmail]

It's called Business 101:

My Company, My products get promoted over competitors.

Apple has a fidicuary responsibility to stock holders. Not the world, Not other compeditors, Not employees, Not the loonies on either side who scream scream scream.. Just stock holders. STOCK HOLDERS.

Disclaimer: I do not own Apple Stock, just a lot of their gear

 

[Icaras]

Apple Music is free?

The Apple Music app is free, yes.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Man - there are some really bad takes and completely incorrect analogies in this thread.

 

[falainber]

Apple Music is a stand-alone app?

How is that relevant? That's the type of app that brings revenues and the Apple version of it happens to haver special placement in App Store which is the essence of this story.
[doublepost=1563906374][/doublepost]

The Apple Music app is free, yes.

By your definition every app is or can be made free (that is until you want to actually use it). It's a revenue generating app. It's not free.

 

[Icaras]

How is that relevant? That's the type of app that brings revenues and the Apple version of it happens to haver special placement in App Store which is the essence of this story.

You have a point. Apple could give Music, News, and TV equal treatment as third parties then. But any other app (Notes, Calenders) is a non issue.

 

[jtinch]

Why should it be any other way?

It doesn’t make it a monopoly.

Is "not a monopoly" the standard that Apple should be held to?

 

[keysofanxiety]

Man - there are some really bad takes and completely incorrect analogies in this thread.

No there aren’t! I’ll try to explain.

It’s like if you’ve got a car and it’s got four wheels. You suddenly get a puncture on one and take it to a garage. The garage said that your spare tyre is also flat, so you buy a new tyre from them.

They fit the new tyre onto your car and advise you buy another to put as a spare. You decline but say you’ll think about it later.

The third party apps are like the alloys on the wheels and Apple is like the garage. The car is the App Store.

The flat spare tyre that you choose to keep is the consumer. The spare tyre that you didn’t buy is the cloud where the App Store is housed.

Does that make more sense?