Apple Admits It Ranked Its Files App Ahead of Competitor Dropbox (theverge.com) 68
During the Epic v. Apple trial, an email chain surfaced that reveals Apple seemingly admitted "it manually boosted the ranking of its own Files app ahead of the competition for 11 entire months," reports The Verge. This comes after two monstrous reports by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times showed Apple's App Store clearly and consistently ranking its own apps ahead of competitors. Apple claimed it had done nothing wrong. The Verge reports: "We are removing the manual boost and the search results should be more relevant now," wrote Apple app search lead Debankur Naskar, after the company was confronted by Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney over Apple's Files app showing up first when searching for Dropbox. "Dropbox wasn't even visible on the first page [of search results]," Sweeney wrote. As you'll see, Naskar suggested that Files had been intentionally boosted for that exact search result during the "last WWDC." That would have been WWDC 2017, nearly a year earlier, when the Files apps first debuted. The email chain actually reflects fairly well on Apple overall. Apple's Matt Fischer (VP of the App Store) clearly objects to the idea at first. "[W]ho green lit putting the Files app above Dropbox in organic search results? I didn't know we did that, and I don't think we should," he says. But he does end the conversation with "In the future, I want any similar requests to come to me for review/approval," suggesting that he's not entirely ruling out manual overrides.
But Apple tells The Verge that what we think we're seeing in these emails isn't quite accurate. While Apple didn't challenge the idea that Files was unfairly ranked over Dropbox, the company says the reality was a simple mistake: the Files app had a Dropbox integration, so Apple put "Dropbox" into the app's metadata, and it was automatically ranked higher for "Dropbox" searches as a result. I'm slightly skeptical of that explanation -- partially because it doesn't line up with what Naskar suggests in the email, partially because Apple also told me it immediately fixed the error (despite it apparently continuing to exist for 11 months, hardly immediate), and partially because the company repeatedly ignored my questions about whether this has ever happened with other apps before. The most Apple would tell me is that it didn't manually boost Files over competitors, and that "we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor" as a general rule.
But Apple tells The Verge that what we think we're seeing in these emails isn't quite accurate. While Apple didn't challenge the idea that Files was unfairly ranked over Dropbox, the company says the reality was a simple mistake: the Files app had a Dropbox integration, so Apple put "Dropbox" into the app's metadata, and it was automatically ranked higher for "Dropbox" searches as a result. I'm slightly skeptical of that explanation -- partially because it doesn't line up with what Naskar suggests in the email, partially because Apple also told me it immediately fixed the error (despite it apparently continuing to exist for 11 months, hardly immediate), and partially because the company repeatedly ignored my questions about whether this has ever happened with other apps before. The most Apple would tell me is that it didn't manually boost Files over competitors, and that "we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor" as a general rule.
Not completely. (Score:5, Informative)
You see, there are these things called "trusts" that we don't like so there is lots of anti-trust legislation. When a company pushing their own product like this, that's called anti-competitive behavior which can leave them in a legally tenuous position.
So yes, just because they own the platform, they cannot do anything they like because the law still applies to them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a monopoly, and has abused its position as a monopoly in the market. [protonmail.com]
This is a fact, not an opinion. You are mistaken.
You are now informed of the facts. If you continue to say that Apple is no a monopoly, you will no longer be mistaken, you will be lying.
If it were MacOS/Windows (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think people would be all that outraged if Explorer.exe or Finder showed up over Dropbox in similar searches on those platforms. The metadata explanation makes a lot of sense. Files' third-party integrations are great, and don't really prioritize iCloud over others.
Probably because it would be the least thing that Windows is hated for. Seriously, you can’t be suggesting that Windows gets a pass from criticism.
And no, the metadata doesn’t makes sense, unless you think slowing down phones
Re: (Score:2)
The metadata explanation doesn't pass the most basic test. That a properly designed search would prioritize a hit in the app title over one in the metadata.
Happens everywhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only does this happen on every digital store it also happens at every physical store.
Then why lie about it?
Re: (Score:2)
I view it less as a lie and more as multiple issues confounding themselves as one. I doubt (but am not sure) Dropbox was not on the first page of results for “Dropbox”. For “file manager dropbox” or “cloud file manager” I have vague recollections from the time that the “files” integration was made that it was hard to find a good solution— the apps that were listed in search were nothing fantastic. (At the time, the Apple Files app was miserable, which
Re: (Score:2)
I view it less as a lie
You are awesome. Do I get to lie to you all the fucking time, like they are, and get the same pass?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Happens everywhere. (Score:2)
General true, but own-brand premium labels are a different matter. At least here, most supermarkets launched their own premium labels, typically advertised and displayed ahead of third party brands. They do this where there isn't already a synonymous brand against which they can't compete with a premium alternative (e.g. soft drinks, spirits).
Supermarkets like Lidl create a range of brand names, typically sounding like local names, yet all owned by Lidl. These brands definitely get prominence.
Re: (Score:2)
Third party brands pay for higher placement. It can be as simple as including some display materials, posters, etc. If there is no money then the stores do whatever they feel is necessary to optimize their own profits.
Sadly Apple doesn't appear to offer an option to pay them for higher placement. And if they did, the world would be upset by it even though it's a long standing practice in retail.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no expectation of fairness in physical store and showcases. It is not a secret to anyone who cares to know. And considered the number of people who work in physical stores, it can't be a secret.
But search engine results are expected not to be tampered with. Since the early days, Google insisted times and times on that point and it has become the general expectation, warranted or not. If present, non-organic search results are supposed to be marked as such. And because digital stores can be managed
Re: (Score:2)
But search engine results are expected not to be tampered with
I don't know, it's been in the news often enough. And we see enough ads about becoming an "SEO" that we should know better by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only does this happen on every digital store it also happens at every physical store. Walmart and Target rank their store brands higher and put them front and center over other brands that don't pay them a lot of money for prevalent shelf placement.
Yes, but if I buy a Target brand washing machine, it wont refuse to wash non-target bought clothing.
The same isn't true with Apple, with Apple you have no choice. Your "Apple" Iphone will only work with the Apple approved store.
this is not news (Score:3, Insightful)
i was doing this with a major cable provider almost a decade ago
if anyone remembers youtube at the start of the lockdown, all of the moderators were stopped while their offices shutdown and all of the hidden videos started trending.
why would anyone think this is anti-trust related is beyond me. if that's the case better tell your local supermarket to stop putting all those jars of preggo on display when you first walk in. its unjustly enriching the supermarket at the expensive of ragu...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, only way I see this actually being wrong on Apple's part is if they specifically said they don't do it and then did it.
"we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor"
Are you seeing what you want to see, or are you seeing what’s there?
Have you ever been curious as to why you think the way you do? They’ve studied it. They’ve formed hypothesis. There are plausible explanations. Food for thought if nothing else.
Do you not see any inherent problems wi
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't read their argument as being about the benefit of the doubt, but about claimed standards.
For example, Zuckerfuck claims to be pro free speech, so when he craps on free speech it's offensive. Google claims to label their sponsored results, if other results are also sponsored then that's offensive. But does Apple claim to not position their apps at the top of their store? I honestly don't know, I've never owned anything that runs iOS and have hardly used any such devices at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, only way I see this actually being wrong on Apple's part is if they specifically said they don't do it and then did it.
Google gets in trouble for placing its products above others in search results, even if the organic search results would have put them on top anyways, in fact there are numerous pending lawsuits against them for exactly that. I don't see why this wouldn't also apply to Apple in their app store.
They are the ONLY fucking option (Score:2)
That is the issue.
All these morons talking about target or Walmart or whatever store doing the same thing. Complete straw-man argument from the Apple apologist.
The difference is that no one FORCES you to shop at Walmart.
Apple, on the other hand does force you to shop in their store and ONLY in their store.
In this case, it is clearly an anti-trust issue.
If Google did it, you can still install a different store. Amazon store, samsung, Hauwei and others as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a poor analogy, but a poor analogy is not a straw man. Please do not use that term until you learn what it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's a bit funnier, because Mondelez employees (Modelez makes Oreos) have been caught hiding their competitor's products (Hydrox) on shelves.
Hydrox was the original (badly named) sandwich cookie - the Oreo was created in response to the publi
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, Hydrox isn't being sold anymore.
orly? [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Apple ranking its own File app ahead of others is not the same thing as a supermarket (e.g. Kroger, Aldi) putting up a more prominent display of Prego pasta sauce over Ragu because
(1) The supermarket doesn't own Prego, Campbell Soup does.
(2) The supermarket gets paid by Campbell Soup for prominent product placement locations. If Ragu wants their products to be placed in more attractive or high traffic locations or eye-level shelves, they can pay the supermarket for it.
(3) From what I've seen, supermarket /
Supermarkets are not Monopolies (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly this.
There are NO other options for iphones.
Re: (Score:2)
if that's the case better tell your local supermarket to stop putting all those jars of preggo on display when you first walk in.
That is not a bad analogy to start with. Assuming Apple = the supermarket, note that this supermarket makes their own store brand for many products. And they always display their store brand first, over other brands. But they tell you that they don't, it's just that their brand is the most popular. Also, they are the only one of 2 supermarkets on the entire planet. They also sell ovens. And if you bought their brand of oven it only works with products from this supermarket. And there's only 2 brands
Re: (Score:2)
And they always display their store brand first, over other brands.
Thats the exact opposite of what they do. Why you a lying fuck right now?
Its as if you guys dont understand that supermarkets sell the prime shelf places to the highest bidders. What. The. Fuck. They have done this very thing for at least 50 years (my lifetime) and probably much much longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the exact opposite of what they do.
Did you even read the title and summary of the article! The entire discussion is about how Apple actually did that!
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being a fucking liar just to score some strange version of social cred, because I'm here to make sure it fucking costs you, liar.
Re: (Score:2)
you claimed the local grocery store does it too
I did no such thing. This is a post about Apple. The local supermarket is a metaphor for the Apple store. I even explicitly stated that in my post in case it was not 100% clear already.
Seems sketchy, but... (Score:1)
...grocery stores have been doing this forever. They place their own brands (or more profitable brands) in strategic locations in their own stores so they are seen/purchased first. Is this only looked down upon because it's Apple doing it?
Re:Seems sketchy, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me know when switching to a different grocery store requires buying a new $1,000 telephone. Then that analogy will be relevant. :-)
It's bad because the store is the only way to get content onto an iOS device. There are a lot of things Apple does that are problematic from an antitrust persepctive solely because they don't allow competing app stores.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of things Apple does that are problematic from an antitrust persepctive solely because they don't allow competing app stores.
But Apple has electrolytes. It’s what plants crave!
Re: Seems sketchy, but... (Score:2)
Yeah, it's often as simple as moving to the next town over or to the other side of the city when you have a limited selection of stores. That or a significantly longer travel time to reach an alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Yesterday I went to ASDA to get some food, but stopped off at M&S to buy coffee because I prefer the M&S coffee... Why didn't some Apple fanboy stop me saying it wasn't legal to shop in different supermarkets.
BTW, what posters keep referencing here is called the Gruen Transfer [wikipedia.org] and has absolutely nothing to do with abusing vendor lock in as supermarkets struggle to prevent you from shopping at other stores (store cards are about the best they can do, hoping you don't realise the point
Re: (Score:1)
...grocery stores have been doing this forever. They place their own brands (or more profitable brands) in strategic locations in their own stores so they are seen/purchased first.
I don't know what grocery store you shop at, but at all the places I go to for groceries (Kroger/Ralphs, Vons/Albersons, Aldi, Costco, Walmart, Target, Whole Foods), they do not place their generic house brands in more prominent locations than the brand names.
Vying for prime product placement locations is fiercely competitive and financially lucrative for the supermarkets, so it doesn't make sense for a supermarket to place their house brands in those premium and prominent location.
The name brand manufactur
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I know this one!
Is it because grocery stores don’t claim to do otherwise?
The fact is, some people have a mental illness which cause them to consider lies ‘dishonest’ and not ‘divine’.
I know, right? Some people!
I mean, here you guys are
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the strategic shelves of a supermarket are literally for rent to the highest bidder. If you have your own brand of peanut butter, you can make a bid to have the supermarket place your product on whatever shelf you pay them for.
WHY ? (Score:1)
Dropbox is worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I’ve switched myself to NextCloud. Cross platform, easy, and self-hosted (although there are plenty of commercial free/freemium hosts available as well). I made the mistake of trying to sync my data via the iPad app rather than just dumping it to a NAS and rsync’ing it to NextCloud but not the end of the world.
I just don't see how... (Score:3)
As for me (Score:2)
its almost like we don't recognize... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple implies that the App Store does not have paid product placement, and specifically said "we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor".
So, yes, for the purposes of App Store searches, we do not recognize paid product placement because there isn't supposed to be any.
This is a GOOD IDEA! (Score:1)
Isnâ(TM)t okay for a store to recommend produ (Score:1)
I use both products (Score:2)
Just like my supermarket (Score:2)
Their brands are at eye-height, for the competition I have to get on my knees.