I was recently shopping at on-line at J.Crew and was shocked to find out that almost all of the products for sale are from J.Crew.
18
Thank you. Just canceled their music. I can find a better deal. And even if I can't, I'm tired of supporting them
3
As a consumer, I trust the store will present results ranked in order of popularity and relevance to my search. If Apple puts its own products at the top of a list that is assumed to be ranked by merit, they should label those apps as 'promoted', just as they label the top position as 'sponsored'. That way, the consumer will know how far to scroll down to find the 'true' results of their search.
5
So what? It's Apple's platform and why shouldn't they promote their stuff first?
27
What most people defending Apple here don't get is that Apple is destroying the competition by displaying Apple Apps in a manner that gives them a very competitive advantage. People don't have time to scroll down until the 50 Apps.
Second, as per a Washington post article, Apple has been copying successful applications and replicate them by using all the data It collects from its App store. Apple has put many small companies out of business, while sitting on $200 Billion cash.
Apple under Steve Jobs was an innovative company. Since then, Apple is just another company looking to take advantage of its position. It doesn't help that the media always gives Apple free advertising each time Apple launches a new product. Apparently, Apple can do no wrong.
13
@Chaks
Name some companies that Apple has put out of business. You have apparently forgotten that Microsoft copied Apple's operating system, and that Samsung copied the Apple watch.
9
Odd how if you mention any other company, the critical comments flow fast and free. Mention Apple and there are a million defenders of its anticompetitive practices.
So either Apple has a very large fan base who love the company so much they're more than willing to devote significant time to writing comments defending it or... ?
6
@John
Odd that nobody seems to remember that Microsoft copied Apple's operating system, and that Samsung copied the Apple iPhone.
9
Here's an idea: Apple is a brand.
Apple's brand is that it is trustworthy. It doesn't transmit malware or indulge in payola. Everybody (except possibly journalists and lawyers) understands that Apple takes the "walled garden" approach to protecting its brand. You don't like that, you can take your chances with Android. Many do. Others don't. Those who do sometimes regret their choice.
17
Its their store. The consumer has other options if not satisfied.
14
Big tech now has complete control over whether your business succeeds or not.
Circa 2003-2009, my website appeared on the first page of Google results. The URL for my website, which was acquired very early, is an exact description of what I do. There is no URL out there that more precisely describes my job.
After an algorithm change, my site was buried under dozens and dozens of absolutely irrelevant search results and pay-to-play ads.
Thankfully, I my business was already well established. But if I had started it today? Forget about it. Either you pay up for ads or you die.
Also--if you haven't noticed, Google's mobile searches no longer have a functionality that allows for skipping pages of search results--it's always "load more." So now if you're not on the first few pages, your website will never be seen, as few people have the patience to click "load more" multiple times. Yet another subtle way Google skews search results and drives people to websites that pay to play.
9
Imagine Apple is a hotel with its own coffeeshop and cafeteria. Since the hotel is located in a mall, the guests have the choice to go to any number of restaurants--Japanese, Italian, Mexican, Indian, et al which are nearby inside the Mall. But more guests staying in the hotel use Apple Cafeteria (that offers all kind of ethnic flavors) for convenience, among other reasons. Will NYT criticize Apple Hotel of running a monopoly and curbing competition? Apple Phone is not even functional without some of the in-house Apple Apps. Most of the non-Apple Apps sold in the App Store are simply terrible. What is this fuss about?
12
This is an Apple platform- they should have a tab that is exclusively Apple apps and leave the search function for everything else.
Many likely install Apple apps - from a known quantity - over unknown publishers that may be doing even more nefarious things with their data than Apple or even Facebook ends up doing with their data.
It appears that the search terms used as examples are too simplistic and general to yield anything but results by the best SEO manipulators. Who looks for just Music or just TV? Perhaps we need an SEO Search 101 school for users so that they can find what they are looking for and defeat those gaming the algorithm. After all a search engine is only as good as the results it gives us.
1
Amazing! Capitalists acting like capitalists! How...refreshing.
7
A lot of comments here are missing the point. Its not that its an AD followed by apples version. Its the fact its an AD, apples version then 100 apple applications 100% unrelated to what you searched for.
If you went to the hospital for a broken bone. Do you want a dentist, an eye doctor, a dermatologist, a cardiologist, a pediatrician, an OB/GYN then finally a doctor that can fix your arm?
9
As Gomer Pyle would have said, "Surprise, surprise!"
4
Duh. Really shocking.
3
It appears that the search algorithm is more nuanced than your article indicates. I tried the searches mentioned and got different results. Moreover, I got different results for "music" AFTER searching for "podcast." This might indicate that the algorithm learns user preferences from previous searches.
I find that my own use of apps is mostly geared toward programs that I have heard of editorially. For example, I wanted an app that would play lossless music formats (FLAC) which Apple's music apps don't handle. I tried several, but now use Vox. Why? Among other reasons, it is compatible with Car-Play so I can use it in the car. I found it by name in the App Store not from a search.
Looking through my iPhone I find that I use very few Apple apps. For the most part that is because third-party apps offer features that Apple's own apps do not.
Apple opened up features of the iPhone to developers which had previously been "sandboxed." A great example is the camera. One can now get photo apps that allow the phone to take "raw" images like TIFF and DNG rather than JPEG. This has led to several excellent photo apps.
Bashing the search algorithm oversimplifies the issue. In fact, Apple has opened up features of the phones to developers that were off limits to everyone except Apple previously. Apple to some extent dumbed down its own apps for the mass market whereas independent developers have stepped in to offer much more specialized apps for more knowledgeable users.
6
This seems a bit like complaining that Costco puts it’s Kirkland brand on display in prominent locations... Apple store = Apple products.
11
Apple has removed Apple Music in response to this article. Complete removal was the only way to keep your readers from seeing how biased the search results are. One can only hope that Apple is busy replacing their self-promotional, monopolistic algorithm and not just waiting for the furor to pass.
4
Here is a point I never see made in articles on this subject. In situations where Apple offers a free app that does not have in-app purchases, like Podcasts as far as I can tell, they are actually costing themselves revenue, at least in the short term. Remember Apple gets a 30% cut of app purchase prices and any in-app purchases. So if someone downloads a free Apple app rather than a non-free competitor, Apple loses out on that revenue stream. I don't think there is advertising on those free Apple apps either.
Obviously there are probably other advantages for people to be using Apple's apps, but this is at least worth a mention.
As to apps like Apple Music, which does involve a subscription revenue stream, that is another issue.
7
Apple has always conveniently played catch-up, whether that concerned the environment (at one point San Francisco threatened to ban its employees to buy Apple products for government use unless Apple cleaned up its act), workers' rights (slogan outside their main manufacturer in China along the lines of "Work hard today or find yourself without a job tomorrow"), and coercing app developers, music artists, and book publishers to succumb to hefty royalties. It is not a decent company by any measure. Add insult to injury is that it promotes itself as the epitome of fair play.
2
@Rilke
What "hefty royalties"? What is the source of your claim that "San Francisco threatened to ban its employees to buy Apple products".
2
@D. Smith In less time than it took you to reply, a search on Google would have revealed:
https://www.cultofmac.com/562243/apple-settles-e-books-lawsuit/
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/apple-scores-lowest-on-greenpe/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jul/11/san-francisco-apple-green-credentials
I am a Mac user and an Apple investor, that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye when they do wrong, on the contrary, valid criticism makes for a better company.
2
I’m glad Schiller and Cue pointed out the obvious: a search for “maps” pulls up Apple’s app first because THAT’S THE NAME OF THE APP. It is literally called “Maps.” Same for Music, Wallet, Calendar, Camera, Messages, Phone, Mail, News, etc.
That being said, it is pretty useless/unacceptable that the algorithm was displaying totally unrelated Apple apps for searches...glad to see it has been fixed.
5
This misses the larger point that Apple deliberately engineered and dumbed-down its smart phone to create a monopoly storage and distribution strategy, to control app developers and capture customers to collect economic rents. That was the money sitting offshore given back en bloc to shareholders after the Trump Tax cut. Apple, a for-profit company, had no other use for the money.
What Apple has done, (and taught others to do), is to close “open systems” architecture, and to eliminate “upward compatibility” of software for no benefit to customers.
Open systems and upward compatibility of software were the towering architectural achievements used by computer and software competitors that fought the IBM mainframe monopoly since the mid-60’s until it was finally crushed.
They massively increased usability and functionality of computers and drove down costs, of software, to nearly free.
I was an early user of both the iPad and iPhone and quickly found both products to be mostly useless because of the stifling architectural control. I would love to have a mobile, hand-held computer that had all the open software, power, and inter-operability of my PC, and perhaps some Chinese startup will create an open-Pad or open-Phone running an open version of Linux.
5
@Paul
And if I hand the time, I might want to customize the software of my thermostat, my toaster, my microwave, my blender, and my car. For consistency, I'm sure you've already railed against the tyrannical manufacturers of those devices as well.
4
I fail to see how this harms the consumer, especially since the promoted Apple products are mostly provided free of charge. It may indeed be detrimental to some publishers of “free” apps who make their money by shoveling ads down their users’ throats, but after all, Apple provides them with a supervised sales environment and a potential market of over a billion devices. Should it also be tasked with providing them a marketing boost?
One might also point out that a little less whining and a little more diligence on the part of the user will go a long way in making a SW search successful. You can’t have your hand held every step of the way!
4
In other news... Supermarket decides to hide own brand goods behind third party goods because "it's only fair"!
Shareholders of supermarket wonder why it spends money building its own store and warehousing system and decides not to use that investment in promoting its own brand products over third party goods?
Shareholders think company directors are a bit stupid...
4
And when you open a Chevy app what do you think you get, FORD?
I'm gonna help my competition, NOT!
4
This is the dumbest article I have ever read on this subject. Of course Apple list theirs first. Notice the word Open next to them? This is a reminder that these apps are part of the suite of apps that come with iOS and don’t need to be purchased. If the user wants a different app that does the same thing, free or paid, the user is free to download them. What’s wrong with Apple reminding the user they already have an app built-in as part of package. The user doesn’t have to use them they still have choices. I’m sorry this is just a dumb article that ‘s a waste of time.
4
This is no different than Amazon using UPS, only to buy trucks and start shipping themselves.
Oh, I get it! This is one of those money making deals!
They don't even have to blame humans anymore. They can just blame algorithms. How convenient!
1
When you buy an iOS device you buy into the Apple ecosystem and they have never pretended that the app store was a free and open marketplace. I would not expect that they would push 3rd party products ahead of their own, nor would anyone using common sense.
Further, Apple's in house apps are not designed to skirt the privacy standards developers are supposed to follow.
Non-story. Go buy a Fandroid- a data mining platform masquerading as a mobile OS. 3rd rate apps, no privacy and poor security. Fandroid is a knock off OS and you are the product.
4
PERHAPS, people who own APPLE products prefer MAC applications.
3
Apple apps are more popular than those from third parties, and therefore search results on iPhone are accurate. Why the NYT thinks there's something wrong with that is a question for the NYT, not Apple.
I've noted an anti-Apple bias in the NYT for years. This is more of the same.
3
@Jeff
It’s not being anti-Apple. Just cluelessness unbecoming of a tech reporter.
1
Funny to see the Apple fanboys rationalizing the Apple ripoff.
6
Wow, the store they own and develop for their devices, and can only work on their devices, has their apps. Wow. Shocking. Not. I expect this sort of clickbait elsewhere. Should Amazon not be allowed to showcase their cheaper Amazon basics? Should Walgreens not be allowed to showcase Walgreen label products? Ridiculous.
4
I learn about new apps from Macworld or The New York Times, truth be told, because I know Apple will try to push its own apps whenever I search a generic term in the App Store. Advice independent of Cupertino is handy to have.
3
Why is this such a big surprise? Apple's own apps are mostly free and basic to its devices—in other words, Apple users should have those apps to get the most out of their iPhones, iPads, whatever, and accordingly have been made easy to find.
1
I find this to be a non-issue, but the NYT often follows the pack when it comes to click-bait Apple articles. The apps in question, that show up often at the top of these searches, are usually apps that come pre-loaded on the iPhone. That is, the user already has them on their iPhone and odd though it sounds, may not know it. That said, I find that Apple often makes their super-simple apps less than full featured. I assume that this is intentional. This leaves plenty of room for independant developers to add new features and attract buyers by making them more useful. For photo edits for instance, I much prefer Photoshop Express over Apples own editing tools.
The issue I currently have with the App Store is the proliferation of third party junk apps that try to trick kids (like my teens) into a yearly subscription by offering a '3 day free trial', which morphs into a $35.99 yearly charge. I'm currently sending Apple my two-bits on why they should shut these 'developers' out of the whole system. They're exploiting kids.
2
Sorry "other developers", but I'll be using the Apple app. I've been an iPhone user for about 8 years now and in the last few years I've been deleting as many non Apple apps from my phone as I can. I am sick of being a marketing tool to every company in exchange for a free app.
My iPhone is a tool, not a toy, so most apps are useless from the get go. While Apple doesn't have a flawless record, I hate sharing my information with so many companies. Each new app is yet another company who may or may not value my privacy. Using exclusively Apple apps means one company has my information, not 20.
In 2017, I deleted half of the apps from my phone, turned off permissions for most of them that remained and converted to an Apple app when available. If I need a non Apple app, say Delta, for a flight, I'll delete the app the day I get home.
I even use Apple's inferior app (Maps) to not have a Google product on my iPhone. I have deleted all of Alphabet apps and all Facebook apps.
7
I ran a craft business and while I created my own kits, I also sold other people's. But since it was my business, guess whose kits I featured prominently? Kind of the right of the business owner. If you don't like it, buy another company's product.
4
In 90% of the cases, the first Apple app that opens after one of those sample searches is the built-in free app that is already loaded on the iPhone. In these cases, it says "Open", not "Get". Apple is just letting you know your phone may already do what you are looking for.
5
No one forces anyone to buy Apple products. In spite of the lavish attention they get, the vast majority of phone users don't have an iphone, and we get along just fine. If this sort of thing bothers you, switch.
5
From my experience, Apple has no best in class apps. The closest to a best in class app is Time Machine, released in 2008 in the Steve Jobs era. And even that app is vulnerable to a catastrophic loss where a user could lose all their data.
There is also a noticeable difference in quality between Apple's iOS apps & Mac OS apps. My guess is the best engineering talent works on iOS & the lesser talented on Mac OS.
For example, the Photos app on iOS works perfectly but in my case, the Mac OS version has been a failure in syncing with iCloud for over a year. Apple has been unable to fix the problem. (And some users have no problems with the Mac version).
Besides favoring their own Apps in the App Store, the iOS market is totally controlled by Apple. There is no other way an average user can get an app on an iPhone except via the App store.
Apple makes it very easy for a bad actor to change the AppleID password with just the 6 digit unlock code. The iPhone checks in on every launch of an app. Once the user is locked out of their account, none of the apps will run. Once locked out of my Ap[ple ID it took Apple 32 days to restore my access.
The Mac OS remains open. Most apps do not come from Apple's App Store but directly from developers or cloud web sites. Apple is slowly trying to change this.
The key takeaway from this article is that under Tim Cook, Apple's key constituency is Wall Street and not end-users.
I'm not ready to switch but I don't trust Apple anymore.
9
An early morning theft of a new credit card at the mail sorting center, followed by "spoofing" a phone number to activate the card, followed by a chip-authorized purchase of a gold iPhone ($1,331.75) at an Apple Store BEFORE the store was open, sorta points to Apple employees participating in a theft ring, right??? What an ingenious way to boost their sales.
In the dictionary, under the word "proprietary" it should say: see Apple. The lemmings are all responding - that it's their right (buyers to buy, Apples to sell). But anybody that has used Apple products for any length of time and beyond the phones knows how frustrating user experiences have been over the years. I have computer speakers that fit exactly one computer (none before, none after) - a proprietary output jack size. I have at least five completely incompatible video outputs on different machines. Three completely incompatible power supplies. On and on. Caveat Emptor, sheeples.
1
@Dale M
Yes, many people moaned and moaned when Apple ditched the 30 pin connector for the Lightning. Mostly because they didn’t want to buy new cables. Sorry but time marches on and tech changes, usually for the better. I have a cabinet full of tech (old computers, etc) that works perfectly but is utterly obsolete. First world problem.
4
The NYT's own graph, "Share of keywords for which
Apple apps have ranked first", shows that only 1.2% of keyword searches put an Apple app first. Why isn't that number being highlighted? Is there a bit of muckraking zealotry at work here?
5
@Darth Vader "Most of the tracked searches were obscure, but Apple’s apps ranked first for many of the popular queries. [list of words]" Yes, 1.2% of keywords, but first for many of the keywords you'd expect people to search, which were listed in the article.
2
This is an antitrust problem, one that (like the "new", "nicer", STILL-a-Convicted-Monopolist Microsoft's power over "Secure" Boot certificates, SD cards' initial format, and UEFI) could still be resolved if we still had a working antitrust law, one we desperately need again.
But this is also a curated-internet problem, where even Sane media like the Times begs its websites' users to use needless, creepy, marketer-friendly "apps" from centralized, tyrant-targetable "app stores" instead of the actual Web.
Don't.
*warmly hugs the largely DE-centralized and heavily-mirrored system of package repositories used by GNU/Linux systems, which also often allow you to make your own packages with ease*
3
Who cares? Supermarkets place their own label products in prominent locations every day.
4
@Left Handed
My neighborhood WF has eliminated many of my fav products....replaced them with their own 365 brand. Bezos is smart but I just buy those items I like (and miss) online, directly from company if possible.
2
I don't know if this is entirley relevant but could this also be part of a startegy to prioritize apple products? Prior to 2017 Apple completely redesigned the AppStore, and since some new Apple iOS updates, they changed many requirements that forced old apps to be partially, sometimes entirely, re-coded almost from scratch.
It affected millions of apps that were working just fine until Apple made the announcement.
We had a very innovative free pubic health app that helped local pregnant women pick the fish with the highest benefit and lowest risk during pregnancy. It functioned very well and was well-received.
We couldn't afford to re-code it and so it is no longer on the app store but can be found on the web. www.benefishiary.com
It was quite useful to be able to access it directly on the iphone. I am sure we are not the only public service app that may have been affected.
1
Excellent report, but also good to remember it is Apple's own store, after all. Other vendors such as Spotify are simply guests.
12
The assertion by Apple exec Schiller that “We’ll present results based on what we think the user wants” is quite the howler that could only be true in a world where users want only Apple products. These users did exist briefly back when Apple led the market in both fanbois and graphics designers, but the only people who think that way now live in a space-ship building in Cupertino.
Of -course- Apple totally rigs the search results towards its own products. Of course Amazon totally rigs its search results quite blatantly although now they often seem content to let the third party vendors battle it out and just collect fees. Of course they all abuse their monopolies, because their primary goal is your money or your personal information, and not how relevant the search results are to you. They don't care about you but they do their darndest to make it appear that way.
Act acordingly - don't trust them at all for anything, do your own research, and keep their "personalizations" at bay with a very long ten foot pole. Don't let big tech companies decide what's best for your life because it won't be to your benefit. We're starting to see that pretty clearly these days.
3
I have been using Apple products long before the iPhone and the Apple software products are better integrated with the hardware. They rarely change the way you do things on their platform, unlike competitors who seem to think it is a good idea to swap around functions for regularly performed tasks. Apple makes software writers conform to their standard Os commands, which chafes and restrains the creators away from their desire to innovate (play with) the operating system. This means a user doesn’t have to remember new commands that differ from app to app on other platforms. I feel that Apple takes the time to weed out substandard or malicious publishers. If an author or company is issuing software that harvests passwords or otherwise tries to compromise your phone, table or laptop that publisher will be banned from the App Store. Other apps of this ilk can just jump to competing store after competing store doing their damage to non-Apple products. Yes Apple can be arrogant and pig headed. If they do anything that makes their product more difficult for the consumer they hear about it and even do something about it, (sometimes). The advantage a publisher has with the Apple App Store is that users aren’t afraid to spend money to get apps they want. The sales for the Android and Microsoft stores bear this out.
9
So Apple stacks the deck in favor of its own podcast app? No wonder the company feels no need to compete! And it’s no surprise that the Apple podcast app has a well-documented glaring bug that’s been around for years: the podcast app won’t display the most recent podcast for any given podcast! It always displays the second to last podcast! There are clunky workarounds but there’s no excuse for this type of bug.
2
This is another example of why Elizabeth Warren's legislations to break up tech companies is so necessary. Preventing Apple from listing their own apps in the store they control is a first step.
2
This has not been my experience. Quite the opposite, in fact. I actually prefer Apple's apps, and make every attempt to use them whenever possible. Why? Many third-party apps have a tendency over time not to be updated, and eventually become stale only to be replaced by something better, usually for a fee. While this has always been the case with computer software in general, it is particularly true for IOS apps.
Also consider the issues of security and privacy. Do you know who writes the apps or the country of origin? I suspect this is the last thing a potential buyer considers. While Apple tries to vet the apps in the App Store, it is not reasonable to conclude that all are "clean" and doing only what the developer advertises. Check the manufacturer's website, and search for any reported issues before installing any third-party software. This goes for all computing platforms, not just IOS.
In reality, I often fail to find an Apple product as the first candidate in the App Store when looking for something specific. But I wish I did.
8
This is becoming less of a problem as Apple's share of the smartphone market is down to 15%, and falling.
2
@JustInsideBeltway
Maybe so, but they still walk away with the lion’s share of smart phone profits. Any kid in biz school will tell you that market share ain’t all.
Apple created the App Store. They pretty much created the very existence of apps on smartphones and basically smartphones for that matter.
Apple opened the doors for thousands of developers and companies to earn significant amounts of money. Why shouldn't they be able to do this?
I am not sure I see the story here. So what?
22
@Noah, in the early 1900s, Congress, in response to monopolists that controlled the railways, newspapers, and other industries, passed a set of antitrust laws that prohibit companies from using their monopolistic position in one area (e.g., AppStore) from using that power to compete unfairly in other areas (e.g., apps). This is a bedrock principle of antitrust law that has served the United States for over a century. I suggest you read up on it. Wikipedia has a great article on “United States Antitrust Law,” which is a great place to start.
6
@Defector
You have apparently forgotten that there was a time when non-Apple apps could be purchased anywhere, but Apple decided that quality could be guaranteed via the App Store. After several months, Google decided that a store was a good idea.
3
This is not news to me. The search function in the iOS app store has been terrible from day one. I never go there unless I already know which app I want to download. That is really the only way to find what you want.
Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon are each monopolists who are abusing their monopoly power and causing significant harm. Their own individual circumstances are unique, and the nature of their abuse is also unique. In general, the harm includes a number of things. They are strangling competition. Prices are too high. They are using a monopoly in one market to obtain a monopoly in another market. Consumers lose access to competing products that are by all accounts better. They are destroying the beneficial potential of the internet. They are facilitating the sabotage of democracy and vital democratic institutions like the Constitutional free press.
8
@Robert Apple behaves in a fundamentally different way than FB, Google, and Amazon. Regarding Apple strangling competition, are you referring to some of the changes coming in iOS 13? iOS owners have not loss access to apps made by non-Apple designers. I don't use the stock iOS apps for anything. How is Apple destroying the internet's potential or sabotaging democracy? That was largely FB and to a lesser extent Google. There is also plenty of access to non-Google products as well. I don't use Google search for instance; and Google cannot keep me from using another service, like Duck Duck Go (which is quite good).
5
@Robert
Monopoly- the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
None of them are monopolies.
I'll grant you that Facebook undermined democracy by helping the Russians help Trump.
6
@Ken
Thanks for your reply. I don't mean to say that all of these four companies perpetrate all of these wrongdoings. I mean to say that one or more of them do each of the things listed here.
1
When I go to a Target store, I am not surprised to see Target brand merchandise prominently displayed. It is similarly true when I go to a Safeway, their Safeway brands are prominently displayed. When I go to a Macy*s, the same sort of thing happens. So, I have not been surprised to see Apple apps prominently displayed when I go to Apple’s App Store. I’m pretty sure that Target, Safeway, and Macy*s have all studied the best placement of their merchandise and follow that algorithm in placing their merchandise.
Since I rarely go to the App Store without knowing what I want to find, and can enter the name of the App, I have not been bothered by Apple’s placement of their apps. So, can we expect a anti-competitive lawsuit against Target, et al.?
Over Full Disclosure: I have been an Apple fan since 1986, when I got a Mac Plus. I worked in mainframe and PC programming from 1975 through 2003. In my job, I had to negotiate through the byzantine intricacies of IBM and Microsoft architecture every day at work. I did not want to work that hard at home, on my time. Since 1986, my main personal computer has been a Mac. (Prior to that it was an Osborne.) I am typing this on an iPad, with my iPhone next to me, and an Apple Watch on my wrist. And since I liked their products so much, I have owned Apple stock since the late 1980s. I have had a couple of Windows based machines for work issues over the years, but without any work issues, they tended to gather dust.
15
@AS Pruyn
Any kind of product that can be purchased at Target can also be purchased at other stores, so Target isn't stifling competition when they favor their house brand in their stores. Apple on the other hand makes it impossible for you to buy apps for your iPhone anywhere except at the Apple store. That's a very different situation.
24
@T
But you are not forced to stay in Apple’s eco system. You are free to go to other stores like Android. So Apple isn’t stifling competition either. Apple only has 14% of the handset market anyway.
@AS Pruyn Sorry but your retail store analogy doesn't hold up.
It isn't that Target or Safeway features their brands prominently. That's called marketing. They even price them cheaper even if the product is sourced from the same brand name company.
Imagine going into a retail store & first, you cannot browse the aisles. You have to go to the front of the store and look at the directory.
So you look for Breakfast Cereal & the directory says it is in aisle 6.
Mixed in with the house brand cereal is the house brand canned fruit, the house brand pasta, & the house brand jam.
And all this house brand stuff is made in the store's own factory and often is imported from China or infected with bugs.
Where are the Cheerios? On the bottom shelf across from aisle 6 and not so easy to find. Or worse, they're not even on aisle six, they're in the soap aisle.
You do know that grocery stores never put the house brand on an end-cap, floor display, or in the check-out line. Those spaces are SOLD to manufacturers for huge slotting fees.
Grocery stores have a limited amount of shelf space. I knew a person in the grocery business who told me of a buyer with a 2-minute hourglass on his desk.
The rep from the food companies would sit down, the buyer would flip the hourglass and say 'You talk, I listen". Then he asks the rep which of the rep's other products he should remove to make room for the new item. And how much was the company willing to pay. It's a brutal business.
2
An excellent in depth report.
I have an app NeilsTravels - in both iTunes and Google play.
It's a travel forum app which is free.
I just spent thousands of dollars to upgrade it to the latest American design.
Thank you for giving me some clues on including key words in descriptions so folks can find my app.
However, this bias towards Apple apps is not surprising as many below point out.
It's their store and you would think they would showcase their products.
I have said it before and what our government found out with Microsoft - alleging anti competitive practices is one thing and finding them guilty is completely different.
Even IBM - long before dawn of smart phones - dodged anti trust bullet.
I think this is a very complex issue and I believe that eventually technology will triumph in breaking this so called monopoly.
1
An excellent in depth report.
I have an app NeilsTravels - in both iTunes and Google play.
It's a travel forum app which is free.
I just spent thousands of dollars to upgrade it to the latest American design.
Thank you for giving me some clues on including key words in descriptions so folks can find my app.
However, this bias towards Apple apps is not surprising as many below point out.
It's their store and you would think they would showcase their products.
I have said it before and what our government found out with Microsoft - alleging anti competitive practices is one thing and finding them guilty is completely different.
Even IBM - long before dawn of smart phones - dodged anti trust bullet.
I think this is a very complex issue and I believe that eventually technology will triumph in breaking this so called monopoly.
I am sorry, what part about "private enterprise" are people not getting? I have never had an app I sought blocked by Apple or not available on their site - I am not "harmed" by this strategy. I find that people want search engines and stores (are you getting this people? stores, where the owner gets to pick what merchandise you get to see everywhere else) are some kind of public good. Nope, they are money makers. And if you have a 401K or mutual fund you gave benefitted from their success. Trump and his cronies need to stop attacking legitimate business practices or make their attacks on all entities doing the same thing.
23
@E Campbell, how do you know you’re not harmed? Suppose you wanted to download a podcast app, but because you never bothered to scroll past the 15 or so un-related apple apps, you never found out about an app that is superior to Apple’s podcast app and would have perfectly suited your purposes? And how would you feel if you were the author of that other, superior app, and never given the opportunity to compete against the Apple product on merits alone?
3
@E Campbell
Fair enough. But what part of Monopoly are people not getting? Market economy works best in the presence of fair competition. When monopoly prevails not only consumers suffer but so do marginalized competitors who stand no chance of challenging the biggest player. Prices go up, innovation stagnates, choices dwindle. Unfair profit margins can even undermine the exchange of goods and services as savings get sucked out of the majority of population.
4
Microsoft Version 2.0! There were competitors to MS products?
2
@JR
LibreOffice is pretty good these days. Not proprietary like that other office suite that shall not be named
1
There are many good sites that review apps and these are to be used to see what is available and to compare various options. The Apple app store will take you to any specific app you type in. If you type in one general word they might do what any company might do: give their offerings some priority. If you are looking to find out about pickup trucks, you shouldn't start at a Ford dealer and be surprised that the first suggestion is not a Dodge Ram.
10
@Hugh Nazorm I have not spent my life looking for apps. They came on my Apple phone or I get one from the Apple store. The motor vehicle market is concentrated but there are still half-a-dozen or more different distribution networks worldwide. What percentage of App distribution does Apple handle? I don't know.
1
@Hugh Nazor That would be a good analogy if there was a competitive market for iPhone app stores... of course, there is not. If you want to install an app on an iPhone, you have to use the App Store, which Apple vets and controls. That's why antitrust law exists - to put some controls around enterprises which have natural monopolies, or can abuse their power to crowd out competitors.
My takeaway from this is more astonishment that the App Store search algorithm was so bad and no one fixed it until regulators complained. I mean Compass as the second natural search result for "podcast"? Either Apple was intentionally favoring its own results, or no one cared that the results were irrelevant and unhelpful. Neither interpretation is favorable to Apple.
2
@Dan I don't think the search algorithm was "bad". I think it did exactly what Apple wanted it to - steer users to Apple apps. Although Apple does get a percentage of the other apps sold on the app store, it is to their benefit to have users become more dependent on their own apps, both from a marketing standpoint and also from a support standpoint.
1
None of this is really surprising, and I expect it will get worse unless Apple manages to innovate a major new product that isn't just a spinoff of the iPhone.
Manipulating the App store search results and relentless in-app steering to paid Apple services results in revenue that helps boost Apple's revenue when iPhone sales slow and people put off phone replacements for 2-3 years.
Apple has always had an iron grip on the iPhone platform, refusing a lot of common sense changes that would broaden its use as a small computing platform.
2
This whining seems a bit precious and naive. Complaining that the Apple-owned App Store promotes Apple products, especially when accessed with an Apple-designed device? How about complaining that a supermarket chain puts store brand products up front? Or that another currently trendy supermarket sells mostly their own brand?
Too many users of consumer tech seem to think that these commercial ventures should be run for their benefit, and do not seem able to work a bit harder. Instead of searching in the App Store, how about searching the internet first (and with a few more words to describe the desired app more precisely--the horror of typing more letters!).
36
@Bob Krantz When you search for maps. You shouldn't get Apple podcasts, apple music, apple TV, etc. It shouldn't take scrolling half way down the list to get something not apple.
Per your supermarket question, the difference is a supermarket might stock their eye level shelves with their products but I don't have to walk to the back to get something else.
Apple knows the vast majority of people will see an ad then apple podcast maybe scroll down a little farther see other unrelated apps then pick the ad or apples.
What kind of logic is that? search the internet first then once you find what you want go to the app store and type in the name. I will assume you use google and if you typed in 'best 4k TV' you probably wouldn't want the first page to be AD then google maps, google docs, google phones, etc til you get to the 2nd or 3rd page.
20
@Bob Krantz The analogy to supermarkets is apt only if you could get apps for iPhones elsewhere. If you want to get an apple pie, you could get it at a supermarket, who may prominently display apple pies made by their own bakery, but if you don't like their apple pies, you can get them at another supermarket or an independent bakery. As things stand, you cannot get apps for iPhones through a different store, so the practice by Apple is abuse of its monopolist power, especially given that it is also promoting products that are unrelated to users' original search.
22
@Bob Krantz when I got into the cereal aisle at the grocery, I might indeed see the store brand, but next to that is Kellogg's. . .a superior product.
I don't need to sort through the store brand, then the store brand laundry detergent, then the store brand toilet paper, then the store brand potato chips, then the store brand cookies before I get to the kellogg's.
14
It's Apple's website. It should be free to feature its own products. I suppose you have an issue with a supermarket that features its private label brands, too?
6
It is not a website. It is the App Store, the only way to download & install apps on iphones.
1
Apple should be free to feature whatever it wants in its app store.
Consumers should be free to get their apps from any source they want, including competing app stores, freeing themselves from Apple’s control, but also losing its protections.
7
@Charlie B The issue with that is third party stores will have lax standards compared to Apple.
Substandard apps will hurt Apples image.
@Charlie B As it stands now, if you have an iOS device (iPhone, iPad, iPod), you are stuck with the App Store unless you "jailbreak" your device. Apple has a vested interest in what goes through the App Store, as it provides a certain level of protection. They make at least a cursory inspection of the apps looking for malware. But with the added security comes limits to the freedom to have what you want. Kind of like the real world we live in.
If Apple makes an app that does what I need, it is usually my preference. Apple's apps generally have deeper integration with iOS and other Apple apps on my iPhone, and they are less likely to have bugs than apps produced by third parties. Apple's development and testing teams are more robust than all but the largest software companies.
31
@Todd R. Lockwood I couldn't agree more. As a UI designer since the mid 90s, and an app designer since the onset of iOS, I'm much more inclined to trust software designed and minted by embedded UX teams. Not that Apple softs don't have their share of bugs, but their QA and engineering teams are more in-tune with their operating environments than even the largest 3rd parties.
3
@Todd R. Lockwood, that’s perfectly fine, but you must admit that apple apps are not the most feature packed. Have you ever, for example, compared Apple’s calendar app with Informant? No? Well, maybe you have simple needs when it comes to a calendar app, and Apple apps are good enough for you. But if you one day find yourself wanting something better, you might resent not being able to find quality alternative products that many developers work very hard to create— because they think that they can do better than Apple, and many of them, in fact, do.
3
Looks like they had some bad code that they didn't test on some very basic cases. Knowing Apple, they probably hardly tested it, if at all. I have a feeling that it will be difficult to turn this into a successful anti-trust case. The example given in the article, about people searching for the word 'office' is a pretty good counter-example to any claims of malintent.
I've had an I-Phone since 2009. I didn't even know you could buy an Apple app. I've never even seen one. When I go into the app store, I type in what I'm looking for, see it's name come up and click on it. end of story.
27
@Schwartzy
The maddening thing about using the Apples app is the dishonestly. Apple uses the platform to hijack customers and misdirect them to bogus solutions. Don't believe me?- try it yourself!
This article may help shine light on the abuse. Apple has a reputation built on superior products but this one has been a slimy cesspool for years.
2
@Schwartzy That works if you know the EXACT name of what you are looking for. But if you are looking for a category, not so much. And, if you don't spell the search exactly as the app is named, also not so good. I have searched for many apps on the iOS app store, but always scroll down to see if there is something that appears to fit my needs better. I don't just take the first thing that comes up. And neither should anyone else.
2