I would prefer Apple first provide a way to filter by business model; Free, Free with adverts, Free with in-app purchases, etc.
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
I would prefer Apple first provide a way to filter by business model; Free, Free with adverts, Free with in-app purchases, etc.
This is the most insane conversation. Apple hosts the App Store, and allow others to pay them to use their store. It's Apple's App Store, I see no reason why they shouldn't (even if they were) pushing their apps to the top. Sounds like a bunch of whiners.
Imagine how much easier it would be for the 5i's and other data creeps to install their intrusive malware if Apple was forced to open up iOS to 3rd party app stores and side loaded apps.
As things are is perfectly good as far as Apple doing its best for privacy.
I see articles like this as nothing but a manipulated media attempt to undermine Apple's thwarting of privacy violators - both government spies and tech rivals (Google & Amazon).
As things are is perfectly good as far as Apple doing its best for privacy.
I see articles like this as nothing but a manipulated media attempt to undermine Apple's thwarting of privacy violators - both government spies and tech rivals (Google & Amazon).
I searched for "Music app" and Apple Music was 1st (if you exclude the paid ad for Amazon's Prime Video)
1) Apple Music
2) Music Apps (Dylan Companjen)
3) Offline Music Cloud Pop Player (CONG WANG)
4) Spotify
5) iMusic Player (WEI FU)
6) YouTube Music
7) Audiomack
8) SoundCloud
9) Pandora
10) Trending Music
Attachments
When you buy a toaster at a supermarket they don't ban you from buying bread from any other store.
No...not at all
the APP store works like this....to use your "tyres" analogy. The only place I can buy tyres is from the Apple store. The only way to sell tyres is via the Apple store. The only tyres I can fit to my car can only be sourced from the Apple store....the first tyres advertised are always tyres made by Apple.
Uh, the poster I replied to said they used the search term "Spotify". You want to try again?
HMMM, so the Fox Street Journal says. Let's test it: "Spreadsheet". results:
Sure sounds like favoritism to me. BTW I love Numbers, won't touch Excel, Google sheets is kind meh! so, My preferences should be Numbers first.
Sounds like Faux News to me
[doublepost=1563913477][/doublepost]
Ummmm, so you searched for Music and got Music, Briliant. Didn't it return your precise search term? I am failing to see your so called scandal here. I searched Spreadsheet and Numbers was like number 9 or something. I bet if I search Numbers, I'll get Numbers first. Oh look it worked, I must be so smart.
- Google Sheets
- Microsoft Excel
- iSpreadsheet
- Utility Spreadsheet
- Simple Spreadsheet
- Smartsheet
- Google Docs, synch, edit
- Office suite
- Numbers
Sure sounds like favoritism to me. BTW I love Numbers, won't touch Excel, Google sheets is kind meh! so, My preferences should be Numbers first.
Sounds like Faux News to me
[doublepost=1563913477][/doublepost]
Ummmm, so you searched for Music and got Music, Briliant. Didn't it return your precise search term? I am failing to see your so called scandal here. I searched Spreadsheet and Numbers was like number 9 or something. I bet if I search Numbers, I'll get Numbers first. Oh look it worked, I must be so smart.
I would expect that a search for a specific app would put said app at the top.
I was merely replicating the WSJ's test where I use a basic search term like "maps," "music," or "books"
When searching for "Books" like the WSJ did, I get
1) Apple Books
2) Amazon Kindle
3) Audible audiobooks
4) Nook
5) Wattpad
When searching for "Maps," I get
1) (Apple) Maps
2) Google Maps
3) Waze
4) Maps+
5) AllTrails
[doublepost=1563913596][/doublepost]
*facepalm*
Is the WSJ asking other competing news services/publications to write articles for them like Apple wants app developers to write apps for the Apple App Store? No.
I know a lot of people are attacking these analogies for coke being forced to sell Pepsi, but everyone trying to compare it to a leasing agent makes no sense either. Apple built the device themselves, marketed and sold it themselves, and have created their own marketplace which people consider safe in direct contrast to competing platforms.
The reality is that this trying to construe it as illegal to have direct control over how your own devices work and present information. There is an attempt here to equate the internal functioning of the device to the external market as a whole.
I cannot think of ANY example where a company is forced to accept others into their network outside of their interests except for situations where a company controls a standardized service. Apple devices are not an industry standard.
Trying to define apple devices as a monopoly in smartphones/computers is clearly impossible.
I really hope litigators don’t try and make a new status quo and start demanding that apple itself is a standard platform. One of the primary reasons I like apple stuff is because of how well they curate things. While they don’t always make the exact same choices I would, they often come very close, and as an end result I don’t have to sort through a ton of options I could care less about. In situations where there option isn’t good enough, then I’ll search out another option, but again, I appreciate being able to do so largely free of concerns about personal privacy if I’m downloading a weather app due to all the restrictions and limitations apple places on the process of submitting and maintains apps for their platform.
I think it makes some sense to strip Apple Music, apple news, and and this new apple media producer and say they need to be separate companies. It makes some sense that apple is strong-arming out competition by branching into whole new industries.
But to suddenly say that apple can’t deliver the experience they want to deliver on their device seems asinine, and while it might be a nice kick in the pants to a lot of companies bottom line, it ultimately isn’t a consumer friendly status quo to set.
The reality is that this trying to construe it as illegal to have direct control over how your own devices work and present information. There is an attempt here to equate the internal functioning of the device to the external market as a whole.
I cannot think of ANY example where a company is forced to accept others into their network outside of their interests except for situations where a company controls a standardized service. Apple devices are not an industry standard.
Trying to define apple devices as a monopoly in smartphones/computers is clearly impossible.
I really hope litigators don’t try and make a new status quo and start demanding that apple itself is a standard platform. One of the primary reasons I like apple stuff is because of how well they curate things. While they don’t always make the exact same choices I would, they often come very close, and as an end result I don’t have to sort through a ton of options I could care less about. In situations where there option isn’t good enough, then I’ll search out another option, but again, I appreciate being able to do so largely free of concerns about personal privacy if I’m downloading a weather app due to all the restrictions and limitations apple places on the process of submitting and maintains apps for their platform.
I think it makes some sense to strip Apple Music, apple news, and and this new apple media producer and say they need to be separate companies. It makes some sense that apple is strong-arming out competition by branching into whole new industries.
But to suddenly say that apple can’t deliver the experience they want to deliver on their device seems asinine, and while it might be a nice kick in the pants to a lot of companies bottom line, it ultimately isn’t a consumer friendly status quo to set.
Well if I search 'Spotify' it shows me just that. Followed by Spotify for Artists and many other apps like Deezer, Amazon Music, SoundCloud, Youtoube Music etc. Apple Music is ranked 16th.
Last edited:
*facepalm*
Did you read what the WSJ article is about? It's about Apple favoring their own apps (particular apps that Apple makes money with through their subscription services) above other competitors. And as I've shown, the WSJ's findings are true because my search result for "music" favored Apple's Apple Music subscription service over others by listing it 1st.
Apple gives their spreadsheet app, Numbers, away for free. There is no subscription service with it like there is with Apple Music or Apple News+ which is the 1st/top listed result when I search for "magazine"
Most drug stores I go to literally show the competitors price compared to their store brands on the self
[doublepost=1563914615][/doublepost]
If having an alternative App Store is important to you buy one of the countless phones running android
Well I get different results, Apple Music is never ranked first.
Attachments
The music app is free for non Apple Music subscribers as well its where you listen to all music synced from iTunes
The only problem with this analogy is that if you do not want and/or like a selected stores products, and how they featured them, you could simply go to another store where the selection of products suited your better. In this particular "App Store" case, there is ONLY one store from which you are allowed to go to for whatever your needs or requirements are concerning the iPhone. That is the crux of the dispute, and why the Supreme Court, along with the EU are questioning that you're only allowed to go to the Apple App Store on their devices. No other options (like direct downloads or sideloading..etc.) are practically possible on any Apple mobile device.
If they didn't completely control their devices entire ecosystem, and all access to that ecosystem (iOS), then whatever their official App Store practices and preferential policies are would be moot.
Now, imagine if they had the same exclusive "Apple Store Only" on their desktop macOS - which one day soon, might come to pass as they try to further "integrate" iOS with macOS.
Yes, they likely did pay for the placement. That, however, doesn't make my assessment of gaximus' quote any less accurate. His claim was Walmart does the same thing. They do not do the same thing.