Here's an idea: show me the top lists without the apps I already own! Why do I need to see Mountain Lion at the top of the App Store constantly in the #1 position? Just so I can know how little Mac Software gets sold and completely dissuade me from ever considering writing Mac software again? EIGHT of the top 10 apps are Apple apps. Most of which people probably already own (I happen to own all of them). Is this the image of the app store they want? If you really want to compell people to download Mountain Lion, just make it a banner at the top of the store that shows up if you don't have it!
The same applies to the iOS App store though. After I owned Angry Birds, why on Earth did I have to look at it as #1 for years? Showing a top 10 with apps you already own filtered out is good for everyone. The top selling apps still show up for new users. After its purchased, it gives other apps a chance to percolate up, which means more sales for everyone, and more 30% cuts for Apple.
EDIT: I'd like to point out that the OP's reference to a purely "editorial" list has the exact same problem. I don't understand why the Apple ecosystem seems hell bent on refusing to take advantage of the digital age. Creating a one-size fits all top 10 list, or editorial list, is a fine strategy for a brick and mortar store where they have to show everyone the same thing at the front of their store. And mind you, this is the absolute easiest online market place feature you can possibly program: don't show me what I already own and thus am literally incapable of repurchasing.
Why does Mountain Lion being at the top mean very little Mac software gets sold? Is it really that surprising that the OS itself is the most popular software on the store?
Perhaps not Mountain Lion per se, but by your own description it effectively turns the top 10 into a top 9, and for no reason. Now, when that is expanded to the point where the practical reality is that non-apple apps are basically competing for two slots in the top 10, then yes, you start to feel like maybe not that much software is being sold on the Mac App Store. When a spreadsheet program that hasn't seen a major revision in 4 years still chops the charts, yes, it feels like its probably not worth it.
More importantly, as a user, I've simply become blind to the top 10 charts on the Mac App Store completely. I have no desire to visually scan for the 2 apps that might be different.
You might find the genius lists go some of the way toward solving this problem for you. They try show things you're likely to be interested in, and don't show stuff you already own.
"Try" being the keyword there. Despite my very clear patterns of app consumption (action & puzzle games), Genius keeps suggesting me different podcast apps because I bought one 2 years ago (hint: nobody needs more than one). It has proven completely useless.
This seems a problem Amazon has as well. Because I bought an extra power adapter for my tablet, the My Amazon list is now full of various power adapters...
I am really unfamiliar with iOS but it blows my mind that this doesn't exist already. It seems like a no-brainer for a feature, especially since Apple basically invented the modern mobile app store.
I'm wary of this. Would like it as an option, but I don't necessarily want my app to change between uses, especially if it's something I need to use quickly. Loading up something with a changed UI, or data changes that need to happen, or whatever, when I wasn't expecting it.... won't make me a happy camper. A notification and ability to trigger the update from in the app would be nice, and having the option of 'auto update' would be nice too. I just don't necessarily want it to be the default with no option to opt out.
I think that as developers, we'll need to be very careful to update things incrementally to not jar users. But overall, it should be a win in that just like with a website, the user is always using the latest code. No need to maintain several old versions of web service APIs, which should have a good effect on reducing bugs.
The great thing is that Google has replaced their old Featuring concept with 2 sections of slots based on a recommendation algorithm. It recommends you a particular game/app based on what you have already installed on your device and other data. Despite this, it still recommends you games/apps you already have installed. Very surprising indeed!
From what I understand, google is even going further. They're ranking based on the usage of installed apps. ie. an app installed and never used is ranked much lower than one that's installed and used daily.
I think Apple should keep their software out of the top 10, but I think there is a bit of social reinforcement by having stuff you own in the top 10. You can feel like a taste maker if you got an app before it made it to the top 10, feel like part of the in crowd because you own 1, 2, and 3 etc. Editorial list? Sure filter the heck out of it.
Developers in particular like to know what spot on the charts their app got to. By not filtering the results everyone has a definitive view of the placement of these apps.
So they should filter the top list like you mention, but show a definitive list online.
This could be provided as a separate option on iTunes connect. If it was purely to cater for developers it doesn't need to be in the main app store interface.
This is solved in a distributed fashion. The end user machines know which apps they have, and the ordering of the top 11 doesn't change if you already have the first one. So you ship down identifiers for top 20 or 50, which, even with metadata, is going to be smaller, bytewise, than the average apple.com homepage. When you go to display them, you remove the ones the user has and display the top 10 of the remaining set. If there are none left, request another block of apps. The size of the first block to send can be honed in on over time based on the number of subsequent blocks requested by clients.
But even doing this server side isn't that bad, calculating the difference between two sets, the top 100 apps and the apps a user owns, iterating with more if the size of the result is less than 10, is a lot less work on a per-user per-request basis than a lot of sites do to customize their experience.
Of course, Apple most likely doesn't want anyone to know which app is the 11th or something, which means a lot of server side processing to customize the exact list of 10 sent to the client. Sites like Facebook already do this kind of stuff for calculating the timeline for hundreds of millions of accounts.
Why do you want to ship more data to the client - which they're paying for, btw - to solve a problem that most of them seem to not care the blindest bit about? And why do more work on the server side when you don't have to?
I appreciate there's a nerdy "IT MUST BE CORRECT" aspect to this but Apple are making billions - why would they bother doing work and creating potential support problems for themselves to gain maybe a fraction of a percent more?
Nice way to move the goal posts. You said He unsuggested it after I walked through the umpteen problems involved in implementing this over hundreds of millions of accounts. which has nothing to do with how much money Apple makes, or what fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of Apple's income it would take to implement and maintain, or what kind of support problems there would be. Considering how Apple already doesn't do anything with the top 10 lists, they could continue to ignore a new implementation and have the same set of support problems/costs. There's nothing about "IT MUST BE CORRECT", in fact making it customized per user means there is no single "correct" top 10 list to show.
You're welcome to start listing the actual umpteen problems that a billion dollar company would incur rather than just talking out of your ass about "Apple's billions" to a bunch of people, myself included, who have most likely implemented similar personalization systems at countless other sites using a lot less human, financial, and processing capital than Apple has. Apple "wastes" a megabyte for a picture of a wave on their current home page. Any change here is likely to move the needle in a positive direction more than the increased sales from having a massive picture of a wave on their home page.
Every engineering problem involves the "how much effort vs how much profit" calculation. In fact, in a sane environment, it's the first problem you solve before you start thinking about intersecting millions of lists.
As a user-side filter, this is actually not that difficult to implement (assuming the device caches the list of purchased app ids for the current iTunes account, or even easier just the apps that are already installed on this device).
It means it'll take multiple requests to get all the results, sure, but if you weigh the initial request statistically (for the first 10, I think we'll need 12..) and so on, you can avoid even that.
Multiple requests that the client is paying for over a possibly flaky network connection and now you have to handle all sorts of edge cases and errors that you didn't before.
The app store (at least in the UK) has always been hideously slow and rubbish, even on a fast connection. I don't even try on cellular data anymore (to look at stuff, not even download/update.)
As I said, this wouldn't involve much more in the way of data transfer than the current setup. I assume that 15 apps instead of 10 preloading is the same order of magnitude; the latency is the kicker, not the tiny bandwidth required for metadata and icons.
Really? Sounds like about 20 seconds to throw a database query together to generate the list. Cache it until the user makes a purchase or we redo the statistics. If you consider the work involved in generating the top 10 list a per user filter is next to nothing in added computation time. Especially since it is just a marketing tool not something that needs to be updated in real time.
Now you've gone from "find the top 10, cache it once" to "find the top 10 200M times, cache it 200M times" (and 200M is lower than you need.)
Say you find the top 500 apps instead and cache that. You still have to iterate over that 200M times, looking up each users list of apps (~50-100 on the average, I have 400+ in my list), intersecting them, making sure there's still a top 10, and caching the results.
Either way, you've done a load of work - that needs development, maintenance, testing - to gain what?
The app store is already making billions for Apple with "flawed" top 10s. You might gain a few 10s of millions by implementing this scheme. What's the point?
They are already tracking what the user owns, what the user has installed on the device, and needs to be updated on each device the user owns, hell if you have genius turned on they track how much you use each app, or listen to each song. But whoa buddy filtering a top ten list is way to hard?
to gain what To not annoy users and gain a little bit more of that perfection they are known for. Increase purchases by a few percent. Not striving hard when you are at the top is how you end up in MS, IBM, and every other fallen giant's shoes.
Fully agree with that, just not the technically challenging part considering they can take 100 times more data and apply much harder algorithms at their scale.
...the point is to gets 10s of millions. Simply because they are already making a lot does not mean they should avoid optimizations. If they had that attitude, they would have "stopped" at whatever number was deemed to be enough. "Why make X change, they are already makings 100s of millions with the appstore?" A business's goal is to maximize profit. This is a clear option that has minimal costs in comparison to the returns that even you recognized. You are trying too hard not to be wrong.
But that's Google's entire raison d'etre = fast search results that are relevant. In theory, someone with faster and/or more relevant search results could steal Google's #1 place.
Who's going to steal Apple's #1 app store place if they can't be arsed doing per-user top 10 lists?
I'd argue that the biggest issue is simply that the App Store interface is terrible, and that results load far too slowly. The prominence of the Top List is only a symptom of that.
Suppose you were at at a new bookstore, and each table of books was in its own little room, each isolated from the next. Once you think you want something, you have to unlock the book's acrylic case to take it out and read the dust jacket.
You wouldn't go browsing in that store the way you would at a Barnes and Noble. If the deals were good enough, you might check out the Bestsellers Room and the "Recommended By Our Staff" Room. You might even stop by the "10 Bestselling Books About Home Improvement" Room, if that's what you're looking for. But there's no way you're going room to room to room to room to room in hopes finding something else.
It's stunning to me how the App Store has so many downloads and so much revenue and yet still is such a huge piece of trash.
It needs to be much faster. It needs to be more engaging. The search needs to be improved. The taxonomy needs a massive overhaul. Users need to be more encouraged to review apps and the review process itself needs to be overhauled. App sellers need to be able to perform legit SEO on their keywords and get insights into where their downloads are coming from. Even buying an app feels sluggish and unresponsive. The recommendation system is crap because they recommend similar apps not complementary apps. The whole thing is just begging to be rebuilt, it's basically the same as when it first launched.
It's a huge optimization problem and it's absolutely embarrassing they are not constantly A/B testing, iterating, and improving the experience. It feels like they have no data science team at all working on this product. The fact that the App Store only changes with iOS updates shows they are approaching this product incorrectly. They should have dozens of experiments running all the time trying to drive up install rates. It's probably the biggest example I can think of where Apple really shows that they are unquestionably not Google.
It's hard to underestimate just how much of a boost Apple will see if they actually build a real, first-class, fast shopping experience into the App Store.
I wasn't comparing them in terms of app stores per se but the fact they don't really seem to be aggressively optimizing the UX on the store the way Google does with most of its (other) products. If Apple were doing it right, after this much time and this much data had been collected the App Store should basically be fast as hell and reading my mind when I log in, like Amazon does.
I worked at Etsy for a number of years which has many similar attributes as the App Store, and lots of slow, steady progress was made by running many experiments and aggressively maintaining performance. I'd be licking my chops at the low hanging fruit if I were the one tasked with starting to hill-climb the App Store UX. There are so many things you could try, and with the type of traffic the App Store gets, 1% experiments could almost certainly get you sufficient data to really drive up conversion rates without negatively impacting many users along the way.
Eh, I just got an iPad for my mom, after owning several Android phones and tablets, and my sister used to use an iPod touch as well. We both agreed that the App Store is a piece of trash. It's slow, confusing to navigate around, and doesn't auto update your apps (I think I heard that's coming in iOS7?). It looks the same as it did on my sister's old 2G iPod touch.
Meanwhile, the Play Store search and navigation used to suck, but they've both improved a lot, and they keep the highlighted content fresh and relevant, which surprises me coming from Google (though not having used an iOS device extensively I don't know how often they update their featured content, but from this post it sounds like not often enough). They've fixed most of the stupid issues they had before and I actually like using it now.
I've found pretty much the opposite for the Play Store. I like that it's relatively fast and much more responsive than the App Store (which is quite frankly terrible), but finding anything I actually want is a pretty dismal experience as well (this is unrelated to the quality of the actual apps themselves).
All the navigation is counter-intuitive (What do you mean swiping to the left doesn't go back and instead takes me to categories or who knows where? Why doesn't the back button take me back to my search results? etc). The curated front screen rarely seems to have anything new and interesting on it (for apps anyway, I never look at the media part of it), whereas the App Store constantly has new featured apps which are actually good. The first six months I had my Nexus 7 the "here's stuff you might like for your tablet" section didn't change.
I quite like my Nexus 7 and am considering switching to Android for my next phone now that I've found a few apps that I can bear using (and some of them are actually well designed to boot), but apart from automatic updating, the Play Store is not one of the attractions.
Err, why would swiping to the left go back? This isn't a standard UI pattern in Android at all, and honestly I don't think it even makes any sense. The back button always takes you back to your search results in my experience, I don't know what else it would take you to.
Hrm, apologies. I was at work and didn't have my Nexus on me. With the back button description I was mixing up its behaviour with the other back button (the one at the top left with the 'back' arrow). That's the one that dumps you out of your search results and back to the main category. I'm not sure if it's because I'm primarily an iOS user that I expect the '<' indicator next to it to mean "go back to the last thing you looked at".
The swiping thing was referring to the category pop-out in the main sections (Apps etc) which makes it feel like it should do something else. In retrospect I probably should have waited until I had gotten home and double checked whether what I remembered was correct before commenting. Having a flip through it, the store is less awful than it was last time I paid it any serious attention - having a decent stable of usable apps I haven't had much cause to go looking for new stuff lately.
Plus they've now got that single sign-in feature which does make the installing process better. And you can download apps from the browser, rather than iTunes, meaning you can use any computer.
as opposed to using the store's own search interface. Now I only do that when I'm looking for something the store will filter out (wrong device type, wrong country, etc.). I suspect the web search is still a bit better, but closing to the point where it is usually not worth the hassle is still a big step.
That being said, I'm surprised this has been such an issue, for either store. I'd have thought making sure your search results are better than a blind web search would be a standard thing to look at.
I agree with your sentiment but be factually accurate if you've looked at the iOS 6 App Store on day one it would differ in a plethora of small details then the one we have now.
You might be right but until there is actual confirmation from Apple that they perform data-driven experiments to improve the App Store, based upon the many glaring problems that have been left unfixed for years I have to assume there isn't anybody at the switch performing legitimate experiments to drive these design changes.
It's not just the App Store, it's the entire iTunes store experience. It often takes half a dozen seconds or longer to load each page, and the search is bad.
Two anecdotes: I wanted to buy an Iain M. Banks audiobook. I misspelled his name Ian M Banks, zero results. No hint that he exists. I wanted to give my dad A Game of Thrones for father's day, also on audiobook. The other entries in the series were there, but it isn't. Apparently it's not available? Even following the direct link from the author's site to iTunes doesn't work: https://itunes.apple.com/us/audiobook/game-thrones-song-ice-... (this may be excusable, if there's some weird negotiation thing going on or something, it was just surprising)
There's a lot that they do right, and I spend a lot of money in the iTunes store, but I never look forward to it because it's so slow and I experience so many errors.
I had the exact same observation but for another Apple app ecosystem: Game Center. I could not care less how I rank in the global rankings for an iPhone app. Do I care that some 10 kids or idiot savants have scored 100x higher than me? Not really. Maybe if I had actually joined a league or something I would like to know how I ranked globally but otherwise, that's not what you want to show people by default.
There is some pride in knowing that you are one of the 10 best people in the world at the iPhone version of carcassone but that pride gets to be enjoyed by exactly 10 people. Everyone else gets to see their relatively low scores compared to total strangers.
As someone who was once ranked 81st in the world on a game, it was a blast to see that my score was that high. Maybe it should only tell you past 1000, but it's a great little reward.
Over time the app became more popular and and I lost my rank, but it was still cool.
I wish Apple would fix the rampant cheating. While my rank was 81st, it was realistically ~60th because many of the top scores were simply cheaters who scored MAX_INT when that was at least 10,000x higher than the next closest score. That is the thing I find discouraging about looking at the scores, that every game is topped by cheaters.
Percentiles I think greatly help the appearance of rankings. Knowing you are in the top 95% vs. knowing you're a measly 2 standard deviations above the mean.
This creates opportunities for games themselves to showcase your rank relative to your social network. This is more meaningful and naturally reinforces engagement within the game, something the game developer cares more about than Apple.
Candy Crush handles this well, I think, via facebook integration. Amongst other things, it shows you the top three scorers on a level out of your facebook friends.
Basically, the less apps cost, the more iPhones Apple will sell. It makes the entire ecosystem more attractive to consumers because they know there's 100's of thousands of apps they can buy for < $5.
Imagine how much less your mom would want an iPhone if she scrolls through the App Store and finds mostly stuff that's $20 or $30. The platform becomes too expensive for casual users, who are 95%+ of iOS customers.
Seems to be blaming a lot of ills of the App Store that are larger or unrelated than the top list to the top list. Rich get richer is just the nature of the beast in capitalism. The rock bottom prices are more due to the elasticity of price of phone apps compared to many products. After all, you have prominently reported top lists for movies/games/music for decades and they certainly aren't getting cheaper. Top lists are probably not a good way to encourage quality, but they are hardly the root of the problem and they do encourage sales in a relatively dispassionate way.
High quality trolling by claiming Google doesn't care if people hate Android phones, though.
He may be trolling, but its probably not far from the truth.
Other than releasing the Android source, Google doesn't really play any part in most Android devices on the market. Further, their store is plagued with malware and shady apps that never get removed. I know because I've reported them and continue to see the same apps by the same developers on the Play Store.
On the manufacturer's side, they rush out devices with subpar hardware (and hardware bugs), build, and software. And getting system updates is a game of prayer.
It's important to remember that for Google, Android is a means to an end: to get people using their services and in turn get eyes on ads and gather demographic info. They aren't selling Nexus devices at cost/a loss for nothing.
> Further, their store is plagued with malware and shady apps that never get removed. I know because I've reported them and continue to see the same apps by the same developers on the Play Store.
I often read the Reddit Android and Android developer subrredits. Sometimes someone points out some sketchy malware in a post that they reported. Maybe other people report it as well. If the app (and often the developer) are still there two hours later, that's a long time. Usually Google kills it within minutes. Usually these are fake things (say "Call of Duty for Android" by "Acme Inc.") which needs a dozen permissions and are obviously probably BS.
As I said, probably multiple people are flagging the malware which people on Reddit are discussing, so maybe that is why Google responds to them but is not as responsive to your messages.
OK? And for Apple, iOS is a means to end: to get people using their services and get their money alongside getting their money upfront. It just so happens that delivering quality experiences are a good way of achieving both Google and Apple's ends. People who hate their phones don't see as many ads as people who enjoy their phones.
The gap may not be as wide anymore, but I wouldn't be surprised if it still holds true. Pretty much every traffic stat report I've seen shows iOS users still account for about 75% of all mobile traffic.
I started to formulate a reasoned reply, but honestly forget that: your comment is garbage through and through. Marco sounds like a bitter man about Android, as he always has been, and he has literally NOTHING to say about the platform that is worth listening to.
This submission includes a completely irrelevant, baseless, nonsensical, troll slur against Google/Android by the perpetual troll Marco Arment (who is absolutely stewing that his anti-Android screeds over the years fell on deaf ears). How this trollbait garbage made it to the top of the front page is a mystery, especially given the hilariously naive, valueless observation Arment is making, which in a nutshell is "I am planning an app and want to imagine a world where only I am advantaged".
Gruber is an Apple fan who is interesting. Arment is never interesting. He is a boring person.
Android has at least been trying new things, though none of them are great. And they've stuck with the same bizarre game categories that have been in place since day one.
I think when people say they dislike the "Top" lists, what they're really saying is "I'm already fairly well known and could easily get editorial featuring if we moved to an editorial-only model." This type of system would actually be much worse for indie developers, I think, as they would have to have a connection somewhere to have any hope of getting featured (much like you need to know someone to get onto Steam). Most of us dont have $20-$40k to buy our way onto a top list, but knowing that we could without having to have a publisher or hookup at Apple is a great equalizer.
New and Notable is actually a very good example of Apple showing pretty decent (and even handed) editorial review. By and large, anybody putting something with a reasonable amount of care and attention, gets some exposure there in their category.
I'm wondering if the Appstore has gotten large enough that an independent review site/app could make money? And, I mean a honest to goodness review site - not these scammy "pay to play" apps that have been plaguing the app store recently.
Also - if you could just survey a list of 10,000 honest users - that would be pretty good as well.
The sad thing, is some amazing apps on the store (for example, gymbuddy, one of the great weight lifting apps) have languished because only those people who actually use the app seriously would appreciate how much better it is than the competition. I.E. Can you imagine what the WeightLifting App Section in the AppStore would like if you surveyed a 100 lifters who had tried out a dozen or so apps before deciding on the one they like? Likewise for people who make pastries, check the weather, survey tree's, watch the tides, etc, etc...
No, I'm pretty sure that when people say they dislike the "Top" lists, what they're really saying is pretty much what Marco wrote here.
Editors' picks are always a wild card because you don't know on what basis the picks are happening. But your assertion that they're always about the "connections" you have strikes me as, well, very anecdotal. I have some experience on both the submitting and receiving side of magazines, and generally speaking what gets your story accepted is the quality of your story. People often assume you need "connections" to get into big name markets, but big name markets attract big name authors and that makes the barrier of entry much higher. I have no inside knowledge of Steam, but I suspect that's very likely what goes on there: the more developers want to be on Steam, the harder it will be to be on it.
Of course, Apple already has editors' pick lists which I've heard really do boost app sales significantly; the question is really whether dropping Top 10 lists would flatten the curve further; I suspect the sales would remain vastly overweighted toward the featured apps no matter what, but perhaps if the featured apps were rotated frequently that would help. I rather like one of the other commenters' ideas of keeping the top 10 lists, but just removing apps you've already purchased from them.
The App Store search is pretty bad, as other people have commented. (A lot of people think the changes to the store in iOS 6 made it worse, but it's not like it was good to start with.)
While it may be a problem that top ten rankings can be bought (I haven't seen any evidence that it is a problem), without those organic downloads from the top of the charts it would be much much harder to build a growth business out of the app store. Turning off the top rankings seems like it would prevent there from ever being another Angry Birds or Instagram... discovery is too hard otherwise.
Even an editor ranking is ephemeral. Say you're right and the cream rises to the top--how long would a feature last? A week? Two weeks? Maybe a couple hundred thousand free downloads?
I don't know what the organic/non ratio is at most companies relying on paid installs, but my gut would say it's somewhere on the order of 1:1 or better. If you remove the organic installs, CPIs would essentially double overnight and most of these businesses would no longer be able to sustain themselves.
Marco is correct in pointing out that the "top" list approach has a few flaws.However, I think that the "top" list (in addition to Apple's featured list) is the best solution among a list of sub-optimal solutions.
He seems to suggest the top-lists should be replaced by a list of apps that Apple classifies as "great software". However, Apple already shows a list of featured apps and this list already has a huge impact on app rankings (and IMO Apple will never be able to create a perfect and comprehensive list)
From my experience, I'd say that removing the top-lists will hurt the ecosystem (most users as well as many developers). For example, one of our iPad apps was #1 in the Finance category for six weeks. The media first mentioned this app several days after it became #1. Apple also featured the app a few days after the app became #1 (the app was never priced at the lowest price tiers). The app got initial traction organically and the #1 ranking helped it get even more traction.
It isn't realistic to expect Apple to be able to pick a list of "great apps". Following up on my example, we launched a new version of the iPad app a couple of weeks ago, but Apple isn't featuring it on the "new and noteworthy" list even though the app has hundreds of reviews with 2/3 of them being 5-star reviews and another 1/4 being 4-star reviews
Relying solely on Apple's featured list and on media-connections or advertisements may work for one class of developers, but for many other developers, the (category-specific) top-lists are helpful. I also think that the top-lists are helpful for users. Removing the list isn't going to make it any more easy for users to search through a million apps in the app store.
Another option is to fix algorithm used to sort the top-list. It's similar to search results, in that a purchase from the top list should be attributed to two* factors: 1) the app's quality, and 2) its current position in the list. Basically, you can separate the effect on purchases of the position in the list from the effect of the app's quality, and then sort apps based on their quality rather than raw purchases.
*Maybe I should say, at least two factors. You can go really deep when constructing rankings.
So apps should have a sort of ELO ranking where they fight with apps in the same category (possibly multiple categories simultaneously) for dominance and the fight is implemented as which app gets bought when displayed to a user at the same time as another similar app?
The ELO ranking is more suited to explicit head-to-head matchups, but its statistical basis could be adapted to app rankings. You could basically collect statistics for each app position (#1 averages 1000 purchases/day, #2 averages 500, etc.) and then estimate the quality of each app based on how its purchase rate differs from the expected average for that position.
Google and other advertisers face a similar problem with sorting ads, which suggests some other relevant inputs:
> It’s a lot like the Android market. Nobody — not Google, not the manufacturers, and certainly not the carriers — gives a shit if you hate your Android phone or put that cheap tablet in a drawer after a month. They’re optimizing for “top” lists, so they compete on price, flashiness, and huge retail incentives, usually at the expense of quality and long-term satisfaction.
I don't get how or why Apple cares about users using their product more than Google. Because they provide support? Apple support for iTunes is terrible. Try getting a refund for an accidental buy by someone else.
However, we do have a case in point -- Instapaper on Android. I plunked my money when it came about thinking that it was going to be a great experience. A couple minor updates and Marco didn't care less about the pain it was. He played his self fulfilling statement for sure.
These random Google and Android are <insert random expletive> because they don't give a(n) <insert random expletive> statements are unbecoming and disappointing. =(
Thats fine for someone to say with no apps in the app store.
His previous app kept around 7 - 8 in his category chart and so he definitely benefited from the top charts.
Giving total exposure control to Apple would be an absolute nightmare for most developers that didnt have the exposure Marco does.
There are plenty of good apps, that Apple arent sometimes interested in, that users are, that do well by climbing the charts rather than being picked by some guy in Cupertino.
Yes, because he's a pretty well known and pretty well connected blogger/dev in the Apple community. He would have gotten 'editorially selected' in his scenario on the first day.
I agree Apple shouldn't have total exposure control.
That doesn't mean that Top Charts is not intrinsically broken. Third parties game the top charts just as much (Or even more) then Apple does. In fact Apple is working towards a system that doesn't have any third party or first party control, Apps Near Me.
The rich get richer: everyone who downloads an app by browsing the “top” list reinforces or increases the rank of the apps already on it, entrenching their positions and reducing the visibility of anything below the first few pages.
Can't you fix this by simply excluding installs that happened via the top list from counting towards the top list? If you install it via search or someone's website or even Apple's editorial area, it counts, otherwise, it shouldn't.
Seems like a straightforward way to get rid of the feedback loop.
(everyone should probably do this for top lists, "people who viewed this viewed that" systems and probably even some recommender systems)
I find myself agreeing at a basic level with these arguments (which have been around as long as such lists have).
However, I've yet to see anybody back up their emotion-driven claims with enough facts and data to actually make a conclusive argument (ie to prove their position).
Over and over and over again these types of posts / articles pop-up, and say things just like this: "It encourages shallow, least-common-denominator apps with rock-bottom prices" --- and proceed to not actually provide any data. A single subjective statement isn't good enough.
My point is, from a subjective / emotional / weak-on-data standpoint I agree. I don't regard that as a valid argument for change however, as this is a big deal for the apps business. Bring the truck-load of data with you next time (and every time you make such arguments) and let's really end the discussion once and for all. I've seen various relevant clips of data floating around, with a narrow focus; I have to believe someone could put together a comprehensive, overwhelming data-based argument if these claims are in fact true.
The "Top" lists benefit Apple, which is why the feature remains. "Top Free" lists apps that have managed to get large user bases, such as Whatsapp and Facebook. These apps help Apple get their customers using more apps, which lock them into iOS. "Top Sales" and "Top Grossing" are even more obvious -- while they do encourage the skeeziest business models, they are apps that are proven to make money, and whatever money they make, Apple gets 30% of that.
"Top" lists won't go away until their presence starts hurting Apple.
"Nobody — not Google, not the manufacturers, and certainly not the carriers — gives a shit if you hate your Android phone or put that cheap tablet in a drawer after a month. "
This is a very misinformed comment. Google doesn't make any money from the initial sale of Android devices, it only makes money if people actually use them, so the opposite is true.
More than getting rid of the top list is that the App Store has a search model from 1995. Let me buy keywords, run experiments, optimize paid placements, and give me tools to perform SEO for organic search. Let me track conversions more easily and bid on a CPI basis for search placements. Build algorithms to figure out paid vs. legit reviews and use these signals to perform search ranking. Add more metadata to apps and give users more degrees of freedom to explore, rate, and discuss apps. App Store search is just as much of a black box as the day it launched. For crying out loud Apple, just copy Google on this one, and there will be a massive lift in revenue for everyone.
The option to trial an app is the reason I like the WP Store (lack of apps notwithstanding).
The other nice thing that WP Store has is top-rated apps (or the ability to sort by rating) while this is still subject to some of the "top downloaded" issues it's a step in the right direction.
I can almost remember a time when the Apple App Store had good enough content - it may be because I was young and had lower standards, or because the content was actually decent. I am ashamed to see so many Mafia Wars clones and DLC EVERYTHING apps in the Top section. Fortunately, Apple has made it very annoying to even look at the Top section, by making it have a horizontal scroll instead of a vertical scroll, and I almost never want to see what's there.
I have a few thoughts on this in no particular order:
- It would be interesting if the top list gaming mentioned in the article was eliminated by replacing download or install count with something more meaningful like "frequency of app open" or "average time spent in the app per day". These can still be gamed but it's harder than just gaming a metric that relies only on download or install count.
- There should still be some sort of collaborative filtering. I favor improving the top list's ranking algorithm over getting rid of the top list.
- Giving new apps more chance to succeed or exposure could be implemented similar to how HN includes job postings. Namely the listing is put in the top spot of "the list" for a bit and slowly falls down. In the app store the new app should probably fall rapidly unless user-engagement is high. How to measure that? Download count is too easy to game so other metrics would need to be used.
- I think developers should be mindful that they're selling to (in general) everyone and not just other developers. When Marco mentions "high-quality" apps he's speaking from a developer's perspective. And developers often care a lot about details that the general public doesn't notice or doesn't care about if they do notice.
- The app store should be faster. The iTunes load time feels too long these days.
That would involve sending a message to apple every time you opened and closed an app. How would you feel if Apple was storing details about how often you used your various apps on their servers? I'm sure a lot of people would be outraged
^^^^ This. Apps are a great user experience but App stores really suck for discovery. And given that Google previously worked at solving this problem, you'd think they'd be all over it.
Yeah having almost 700,000 apps in the app store. A search engine would definitely help.
How about spiders for apps. I mean they can look for high page rank sites that links to an app for example. they can then score these based from the inbound links.
During our seed round, we had an angel promise us what we thought was a small fortune (!00k) on the condition that 80% of it be used to pay for chart-boosting apps.
We thought hard about it and even got on a few calls with US companies (recommended to us by others in the community) who said they invoked a variety of "white-hat" techniques (whose vague descriptions sounded quite grey to me...) to guarantee a quick rise in rankings and app store success. These are companies that are operating despite Apple making efforts to stop this gaming of the app store.
Ultimately, we were not comfortable with accepting the term sheet with this clause and we never closed on the deal. I'm thrilled that this happened and I didn't have to give a dime to these sleaze balls.
Creating a system that's based on download count rather than curation at this scale isn't good for Apple and it isn't good for iOS Users. There is awesome stuff coming out of both indie dev shops and bigger development houses alike. Apple would do well to drive users towards software that makes its devices sing than to reward whoever has engineered an insidious viral loop or brought a briefcase of cash down to Boston black hats.
I would imagine that Apple like the headlines they get from runaway app successes like Angry Birds. Along with the subtle "Write apps for iOS and become the next Rovio!" message they send out. These massive hits are usually initially fueled by the "Top" lists so I don't see them being removed any time soon.
As long as revenue is still getting to Apple, Apple should encourage an environment where users are maximizing their utility from playing games they enjoy and using apps they like. This can only be done by understanding who the person is and/or marketing relevant products. PR & media should take advantage of the nascent nature of this industry and focus squarely on this through bundles, their own curated content, etc. and legitimize mobile despite the small screen and price. App Gratis is an innovative (?) example of this but I'm sure there are many more to be created. If done properly, Apple will begin to realize that the overall market can be maximized by easing their restraints.
I hear your points as it relates to the "Top Free" list and there is obviously a lot of room for improvement on discovery, but in response to:
> The “top” list simply rewards developers for getting as many people as possible to buy or download the app once. There’s no reason to optimize for longer-term satisfaction or higher engagement after purchase.
I personally find tremendous value from browsing the "Top Grossing" list. Being in the "Top Grossing" list is some indication on both long term satisfaction and engagement. It tells me that the application has generated real value for their customers and they are speaking with the wallets and not just with their ratings/reviews.
Google actually had, what I thought was, a very interesting session about getting discovered in the Google Play store.
They're using 80+ signals to steer recommendations including the user's install history, location, and G+ network/reviews. I'd bet Apple is doing much of the same - they may even have had similar sessions at WWDC.
Um, people like top lists. It is the cheapest and easiest filter. It is the same principle that Google operates on. Make a list of the thing with the most downloads, links, etc. and that is often/usually over time the best. I'm reasonably sure that their search system works largely off of downloads, ratings, reviews, etc.
It's not an infallible system, but life isn't about being fair. It's not apple's job to ensure fairness, it's Apple's job to do a good job delivering what people want. A lot of people want what is popular, even if it's not always the best.
oh, and by curated list i mean by quality, not by revenue, as is with apple store and google store/market/play/whatever it's going to be called tomorrow.
I don't agree with one of the premises, namely that editorial picks will be more "fair". I work at a company that competes directly with Apple in many areas. The app I worked on was never featured anywhere, despite getting to the top 3 in our category, and top 15 free overall. Being in the top 10 or even top 25 is the only traffic driver anyone competing with Apple will ever have, unless you're competing with something Apple acknowledges as completely broken (ie, you're Google Maps).
With the top list system I at least have some chance to get there. With 'editorially selected apps' I wouldn't because I have neither contacts to Apple nor to A-list bloggers.
Apple doesn't select apps for features solemnly on quality. There are other factors that sometimes have the stink of corruption to them. (Like the angry birds story: Only a success after Rovio got a publisher who could call up Apple and talk about a feature.)
Both Apple and Google should take app engagement instead of pure downloads as the main metric to base these top lists on. As Marco says, pure downloads becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, easy to game and does not expose you to new interesting apps.
- editorial (although this can be gamed in a different way - a bunch of PR/marketing folks with strong relationships with Apple employees would suffice),
- reviews/ratings (also gameable)
- some algo for how long users continue to own/open/use an app after they download it (almost impossible to game, because it's linked to fundamental use).
With this combo - the rich will still get richer, but at least they will continue to be quality.
many buyers appear to be buying from them as their primary store-browsing channel
I just realised - I don't think I've ever "browsed" the app store. I've only ever searched for the thing I'm looking for, and used the first 10 results to gauge whether it exists. It didn't seem worthwhile because I knew there were squillions of apps, so why try to read through them one by one?
At the end of the day, Apple's goal isn't to get rich off the App Store. It's to do what they can with the App Store to continue driving sales of iPhones and iPads. At the moment, what they believe is that by promoting apps (via these lists) that promote and show off the iPhone/iPads in the best light is the way to do it.
I think 'top' lists have their purpose but with the addition of a 'time decay' factored in. A perfect analogy is the Hacker News front page to rank trending stories. Over time, the posts will drop down the list based upon a combination of both popularity and how long it has been there.
I've owned my Macbook Pro for a year and a half and I've never opened the App Store except when that annoying "Updates" notification pops up that has no close button.
Correction: I did just download the 10.8.4 update from the App Store and I found one app online a while back that only offered a download link through the App Store.
"The “top” list simply rewards developers for getting as many people as possible to buy or download the app once. There’s no reason to optimize for longer-term satisfaction or higher engagement after purchase."
This is clearly false. If you have a free app, you obviously want that so you get money from in-app purchases / ad revenue.
I'd be curious to see some math on this. The top ranking is probably following a power law, such as the most cited papers etc. etc. Now, what other weighting algorithm would you suggest? how to find the most interesting nodes? did someone ever published a proper study? What clustering will be predicted?
I am most annoyed by the Google Play store being unable to seperate games and apps correctly. The app section is littered with games making it difficult to browse apps without being crushed by them. The games have their own section. They should stay in it to prevent this clutter.
The problem with top-n list is the 'long tail' apps. They got very little or none exposure. Apple just need to work on that by adding more novelty and serendipity into the recommendations.
Something Apple could do to let users optionally markedly improve quality of the gaming category "top lists" would be a preference setting to exclude apps with In App Purchases.
what makes you think that the criteria for "top" is actual based in reviews? it may or may not be, but a smart thing to do would be to base it on another pre calculated score. something like the formula that reddit uses would work good because it degrades over time. that said, I'm willing to bet that apple cooks that list based on a number of factors.
Apple gives zero fucks about Developers. ZERO point ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO fucks. Developers are part of their sweatshop app store that makes billions for apple. We paid over a billion dollars out to app developers, says Tim Cook. Yea, and most app-store developers are working for $0.002 an hour. Nice. Fuckers.
The same applies to the iOS App store though. After I owned Angry Birds, why on Earth did I have to look at it as #1 for years? Showing a top 10 with apps you already own filtered out is good for everyone. The top selling apps still show up for new users. After its purchased, it gives other apps a chance to percolate up, which means more sales for everyone, and more 30% cuts for Apple.
EDIT: I'd like to point out that the OP's reference to a purely "editorial" list has the exact same problem. I don't understand why the Apple ecosystem seems hell bent on refusing to take advantage of the digital age. Creating a one-size fits all top 10 list, or editorial list, is a fine strategy for a brick and mortar store where they have to show everyone the same thing at the front of their store. And mind you, this is the absolute easiest online market place feature you can possibly program: don't show me what I already own and thus am literally incapable of repurchasing.