
Get Rid of the App Store’s “Top” Lists - co_pl_te
http://www.marco.org/2013/06/17/app-store-top-lists
======
tolmasky
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.

~~~
zimpenfish
A friend suggested that once.

He unsuggested it after I walked through the umpteen problems involved in
implementing this over hundreds of millions of accounts.

~~~
thwarted
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.

~~~
zimpenfish
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?

~~~
thwarted
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.

~~~
zimpenfish
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.

------
pflats
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.

That's the App Store we have.

~~~
gfodor
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.

~~~
hayksaakian
> It's probably the biggest example I can think of where Apple really shows
> that they are unquestionably not Google.

I think you give Google too much credit. The Play store is about as abysmal,
sans the OS-tied updates. (Search, lists, SEO, etc. are BAD).

~~~
ibrahima
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.

~~~
zarify
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.

~~~
ibrahima
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.

~~~
zarify
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.

------
po
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.

~~~
MBCook
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.

~~~
reaperhulk
iOS 7 adds some new APIs to help with game score submission cheating.

------
trevmckendrick
Arguing why Apple should incentivize higher priced software is a common but
mistaken refrain amongst developers.

Apps are complements to the iPhone and iPad. Spolsky has a great post about
the competition between complements here:
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html)

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.

------
Kylekramer
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.

~~~
runjake
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.

~~~
Kylekramer
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.

But, of course, we are feeding the troll.

~~~
schrodinger
I think that the point is that Google makes money regardless of whether you
get an Android or an iPhone. Apple does not.

~~~
evilduck
Google was making _more_ money from iPhone users individually due to higher
engagement than Android users.

~~~
josephlord
Is this still true or was that only while Apple were paying for Google Maps?

~~~
evilduck
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.

------
SimianLogic2
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.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
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.)

~~~
SimianLogic2
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.

------
credo
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._

~~~
salmonellaeater
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.

~~~
__alexs
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?

~~~
salmonellaeater
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:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Score](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Score)

------
gurupanguji
> 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. =(

------
supercoder
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.

Marco is completely out of touch.

~~~
ihuman
In the past, when he had apps in the App Store, he still said that there
should be no "Top" list.

~~~
kybernetyk
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.

------
Aloisius
_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)

------
adventured
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.

------
thufry
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.

------
danmaz74
"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.

------
gfodor
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.

------
vxNsr
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.

~~~
StavrosK
Don't they all have trials? The Play Store does (sure, it's 15 minutes, but
that's usually enough for most people).

------
chj
Trial mode is the most important. Everything else is secondary.

I don't care if you get rid of top list or not, because not every app can
enter top list nor be selected by apple's god hand.

------
djent
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.

------
spaghetti
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.

~~~
weavie
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

------
hayksaakian
Lists are pointless, all we need is good search.

That's why the Web works - search is a solved problem.

Search on app stores is archaic and abysmal -- you'd think Google could solve
this kind of problem.

~~~
smackfu
Search isn't a solution for discoverability though. A lot of people use those
top lists to see "what are the new games that are out?"

~~~
hayksaakian
How does it work on the web? You search for sites known to promote games
(let's say IGN) and they link you to games.

Why does Google/Apple need to curate everything?

------
gozmike
Marco's hit the nail on the head with this one.

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.

------
seeingfurther
Apple should create a new category for 1 year. App stores for apps. The best
one at the end of the year becomes the official app store.

~~~
xentronium
> The best one at the end of the year becomes the official app store.

The best one defined as _top_ 1 in app stores for apps category? :-)

------
OliC
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.

------
orky56
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.

------
Steko
The alternatives presented are either not easy or not very compelling,
especially given that they would reduce Apple's income.

I'd be happy with a few more category levels. Exile the pay to win games to
their own corner and hopefully introduce some sensible limits.

------
chillericed
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.

------
TheQwerty
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.

Video:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Od2SuL2igA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Od2SuL2igA)

Certainly worth a watch before agreeing with Marco that no one in the world
cares about a user's experience on Android devices after they're sold.

------
programminggeek
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.

------
gcb0
maybe what we need nowadays is a curated list of categories for apps... yahoo
can do that and go full circle.

~~~
gcb0
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.

------
icodestuff
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).

------
kybernetyk
> exclusively showing editorially selected apps

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.)

------
dirkdk
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.

[http://blog.mobtest.com/2013/05/app-engagement-is-a-much-
bet...](http://blog.mobtest.com/2013/05/app-engagement-is-a-much-better-
metric-than-downloads/)

------
kunle
Probably the right answer is some combination of

\- 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.

------
tehwalrus
_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?

------
wwwong
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.

~~~
Aqua_Geek
Getting rich may not be the goal, but they're doing pretty well for
themselves: they've paid out $10B to devs[1], so they've made ~$4.2B.

1\. [http://9to5mac.com/2013/06/10/tim-cook-talks-numbers-at-
appl...](http://9to5mac.com/2013/06/10/tim-cook-talks-numbers-at-apples-
wwdc-2013-keynote-407-retail-stores-1m-daily-visitors-6m-registered-devs-
more/)

------
Sealy
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.

This would keep the top list 'fresh'.

------
Osiris
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.

------
cncool
"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.

------
bigd
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?

------
csense
This problem is solved with HN headlines by, roughly, making older upvotes
worth exponentially less.

Anyone want to comment on the merits and drawbacks of applying a similar
solution to an app store, and any ideas for mitigating the problems?

Anyone want to build a startup: An Android app store with HN-inspired ranking
system?

------
Lockyy
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.

------
tuananh
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.

------
Terretta
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.

------
briandilley
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.

------
chj
The problem with top list is it rarely changes. Day after day, you are seeing
the same and expecting the same. What's the point?

------
mbesto
So what's the solution then? I don't see a better alternative...

------
pratyushag
Stop complaining and game the damn thing i you think it's that easy!

------
ddoolin
No. I like to know which apps are most likely not to suck, thanks.

------
codereflection
Ironically this post is currently at the "Top" of HN. :/

~~~
nwh
Chosen by vote, not by the number of visitors who clicked the outgoing link.

------
Yhippa
Are they having trouble getting people to download the Vespa app?

------
ellicottvilleny
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.

