Top spots in App Store search results are some of the most fought over real estate in the online economy. The store generated more than $50 billion in sales last year, and the company said two-thirds of app downloads started with a search…
Apple’s apps have ranked first recently for at least 700 search terms in the store, according to a New York Times analysis of six years of search results compiled by Sensor Tower, an app analytics firm. Some searches produced as many as 14 Apple apps before showing results from rivals, the analysis showed.
Presented with the results of the analysis, two senior Apple executives acknowledged in a recent interview that, for more than a year, the top results of many common searches in the iPhone App Store were packed with the company’s own apps. That was the case even when the Apple apps were less relevant and less popular than ones from its competitors. The executives said the company had since adjusted the algorithm so that fewer of its own apps appeared at the top of search results.
Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president who oversees the App Store, and Eddy Cue, the senior vice president who oversees many of the Apple apps that benefited from the results, said there was nothing underhanded about the algorithm… The executives said the company did not manually alter search results to benefit itself. Instead, they said, Apple apps generally rank higher than competitors because of their popularity and because their generic names are often a close match to broad search terms.
MacDailyNews Take: Obviously, it’s nothing nefarious, it’s simply the naming of the apps that affected search results: Music, Maps, TV, Podcasts, Wallet – these are all generic terms and also the names for Apple apps, so any properly working search algorithm should return those results at or near the top, because, duh, that’s what the user is looking for! Artificially suppressing Apple apps is in fact making the search algorithm less effective for users, in the name of avoiding the suggestion of impropriety, not actual impropriety.
Bottom line, due to outside political pressure, Apple felt forced to degrade the user experience, making it less effective in the name of “fairness.”