Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WSJ: Apple Apps Unfairly Dominate App Store Search Results
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is free if you choose so. Nothing is stopping you from just syncing your iTunes library to it and using it like so without ever having to subscribe to Apple Music.
And Notes doesn’t bring revenue in to Apple.
NOT ONLY THAT, but Apple has stepped-up their Bullying of Unique & Innovative third-party apps in the past week OR so !
It is absolutely a Monopoly & it needs to be broken up !!!
It is absolutely a Monopoly & it needs to be broken up !!!
There is a big difference between Amazon and App Store. Every Amazon seller can also sell their products elsewhere including directly to the customer. When iOS apps can be sold/distributed directly to iPhone owners bypassing App Store, you might start using your analogy.
So? It's their app store. So tired of this "MUST MAKE LIFE FAIR!" BS
Honestly I'm still trying to figure out what a tyre is
You beat me to this. In my local Walmart whenever a new food choice shows up it's only a matter of time before they reduce the quantity they carry and replace it with a Great Value alternative.
It’s like a tire, except spelt correctly.
The important part is not whether the app can be used for free but whether it can bring revenues to the app developer. It can and thus by placing it above other similar apps Apple gains an unfair advantage. Just another argument against Apple in the ongoing (and incoming) antitrust lawsuits.
I am agreeing with you that "subscription based apps" such as Music, News, and TV should be treated equally as all other apps. But to think Apple must treat the rest of it's app repertoire the same is preposterous. When I go to Best Buy, I see entire sections focused soley on Insignia products (a Best Buy brand) at the point of sales right before the cash registers. And that stuff have actual price tags. I don't see anyone going to Best Buy and policing them about their product placement of their brands in the store. When that kind of regulation starts happening at brick and mortar shops, let's have this discussion again. But in the meantime, it's all fair game.
Apple is also providing an app store environment for developers to sell their apps, fronting the entire eCommerce, infrastructure, server, and bandwidth to those apps. And lets not forget marketing too (i.e: email newsletters). It's similar to Best Buy paying to keep a roof, lights, and shelf space for everyone else's products.
Last edited:
It is amazing how many people in this thread completely overlook the third party developers' inability to sell their app elsewhere.
I think the issue with Apple is that they promote their App Store as a platform for independent developers to offer services. It's the same reason Amazon is coming under fire about using their e-commerce platform to their advantage, such as using seller data to launch their own competing products, manipulating search results, etc. https://t.co/mNLxKkYPOo?amp=1
/sees keys spell spelled as spelt
{rages}
It's obvious keysofanxiety does not realize we are the center of the universe.
- Murica dammit
I’m pleased to see that at least a couple people in the thread get it here
Without commenting directly on the wisdom of allowing companies to do what Apple (and many, many) others are doing, I would advise consideration of two things:
1) There have been times in US history where Congress or the Courts have decided to limit a company's ability to be both a producer and operate the "marketplace"--however that is designed. One area to think about is the history of the automotive industry. Think about all the regulations and case law that, in effect, tries to keep manufactures separate from dealerships. Generally . . ideally. . . with the aim of benefitting the consumer. Supposedly . . .
2) This is more about Amazon (to a greater degree) than Google and Apple (lesser degree). Throw in Facebook somewhere . . . but really Amazon is the biggest player doing this. One can actually argue that maybe Walmart and Target do more of this than anyone but Amazon. There are lots of people who think the regulations and case law focusing on end users has to be updated to focus on (and benefit) smaller manufactures and sellers. To create a "healthy" marketplace as opposed to lower prices . . . which one seriously cannot argue Amazon hasn't been focused on.
Again, I am not saying which way I come down on it. But do all the people who dislike that Tesla cannot sell their cars the way they want where they want . . . are they also OK with Amazon continuing to squeeze the small players out of the market? Have you driven through small (and some not-so-small) city downtowns recently?
1) There have been times in US history where Congress or the Courts have decided to limit a company's ability to be both a producer and operate the "marketplace"--however that is designed. One area to think about is the history of the automotive industry. Think about all the regulations and case law that, in effect, tries to keep manufactures separate from dealerships. Generally . . ideally. . . with the aim of benefitting the consumer. Supposedly . . .
2) This is more about Amazon (to a greater degree) than Google and Apple (lesser degree). Throw in Facebook somewhere . . . but really Amazon is the biggest player doing this. One can actually argue that maybe Walmart and Target do more of this than anyone but Amazon. There are lots of people who think the regulations and case law focusing on end users has to be updated to focus on (and benefit) smaller manufactures and sellers. To create a "healthy" marketplace as opposed to lower prices . . . which one seriously cannot argue Amazon hasn't been focused on.
Again, I am not saying which way I come down on it. But do all the people who dislike that Tesla cannot sell their cars the way they want where they want . . . are they also OK with Amazon continuing to squeeze the small players out of the market? Have you driven through small (and some not-so-small) city downtowns recently?
True... you can't sell iOS apps to iOS users without using the iOS App Store.
But I hear this little startup galled Google has an app store... and apparently they have 3 billion users...
So if developers are looking for another store to peddle their wares... that might be an option.
Just had a look on the Google Play Store for ‘maps’.
Guess what came up?!
Of course Apple and Google will promote their own ops and services highly.
Not forcing you to install them though.
‘if we want to go down this road, it makes more sense to look at the fact you cannot change the default Mail app for instance in IOS, or browser.....
Guess what came up?!
Of course Apple and Google will promote their own ops and services highly.
Not forcing you to install them though.
‘if we want to go down this road, it makes more sense to look at the fact you cannot change the default Mail app for instance in IOS, or browser.....
True... you can't sell iOS apps to iOS users without using the iOS App Store.
But I hear this little startup galled Google has an app store... and apparently they have 3 billion users...
So if developers are looking for another store to peddle their wares... that might be an option.
I didn't know you could sell iOS apps on google's app store.
I might be a little late to the party but just wanna add, if I search for ‘maps’ google maps is the first thing showing up and if I search ‘music’, it’s Spotify.
Nevertheless there has to be some kind of ranking and since it’s their own store and platform I wouldn’t mind to see their own apps ranked on first place.
Nevertheless there has to be some kind of ranking and since it’s their own store and platform I wouldn’t mind to see their own apps ranked on first place.
a search for "maps" on google gets the first hit as maps.google.com
a search for "email" on google gets a first hit to sign into Gmail
I'm sure Apple will say their apps showing first on searches is due to some algorithm where it populates based on popularity, or downloads of a free service, I wonder if it is based upon the popularity of all the apps from a certain developer (Apple) and how that developer is generally more popular. Allowing users to "delete" certain stock Apple apps, means Apple's apps in generally have already been 'purchased' from the app store and thus a more popular iOS app developer in general than many others.
^maybe XYZ-Maps is specifically a more popular app, BUT that developer only makes that one app, so Apple's entire catalog of apps are more popular and that developer gets the top hit for Maps....if that makes any sense out there.
a search for "email" on google gets a first hit to sign into Gmail
I'm sure Apple will say their apps showing first on searches is due to some algorithm where it populates based on popularity, or downloads of a free service, I wonder if it is based upon the popularity of all the apps from a certain developer (Apple) and how that developer is generally more popular. Allowing users to "delete" certain stock Apple apps, means Apple's apps in generally have already been 'purchased' from the app store and thus a more popular iOS app developer in general than many others.
^maybe XYZ-Maps is specifically a more popular app, BUT that developer only makes that one app, so Apple's entire catalog of apps are more popular and that developer gets the top hit for Maps....if that makes any sense out there.
Developers have been selling their apps on multiple platforms for years.
So I was saying... if you don't like Apple's policies... you can go elsewhere.
as an apple user i prefer it this way. but to keep up with the general tone of the thread -
they better start selling some chrome books at the apple store now!!!
they better start selling some chrome books at the apple store now!!!