• On CHOW: Sexy vampire party
September 29, 2008 12:01 PM PDT

Apple tweaks App Store listings

by Tom Krazit
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 8 comments

Apple has made a few changes to the way applications are listed in the App Store.

(Credit: CNET)

Apple made a few changes to the App Store over the weekend that should cheer up developers, even if the underlying issues remain unaddressed.

Reviews for App Store applications must now be filled out by someone who has actually purchased the application in question, making it more difficult for developers to pump up their own application with favorable reviews as well as for rival developers to "Astroturf" a competitor's application with fake reviews. Applications will also now be listed according to their original release date; before this weekend, an update to an application reset the release date to the time when the application was released, changing the order in which applications are listed in the App Store. (Links via AppleInsider.)

As developer Matt Gemmell noted, the move at least shows Apple is listening to some developer concerns over how the App Store is run. However, the basic question of what is permitted on the App Store, and what isn't, remains unanswered.

It seems probable that Apple has been simply overwhelmed this quarter with iPhone applications, as we draw near the three-month anniversary of the launch of the App Store, and that further changes may be afoot as the concept matures. Apple's quiet deliberate nature has frustrated developers to date, but those frustrations may ease if Apple can address some of the major concerns while keeping focused on the main goal: selling a bunch of iPhones.

Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom.
Recent posts from Apple
Schiller: No apologies for App Store approval process
Another iPhone worm, but this one is serious
Game developer cuts back on Android in favor of iPhone
How smoking can ruin your Mac
Apple: 'Enterprise' is as enterprise does
Analyst: Timing of the Apple tablet is irrelevant
Dear Apple, about the next iPod
Are these Apple's 2009 Black Friday deals?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (8 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Goodbye Helicopter September 29, 2008 12:38 PM PDT
now let's see who complains about some other aspect here...
Reply to this comment
by kaibelf September 29, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
I'm actually very happy with this set of changes, for two very specific/annoying reasons:

1. Every time I've been going onto the app store to see "what's new," I have been seeing almost nothing but .0.1 updates to junk I either tried before or have no interest in, so now there's actually a chance of finding something without digging for 8 years.

2. The reviews have been sucking horribly for a while. From the 1-star gems ("Thiz sounds like a stupid idea, and the name iz dum!) all the way up to the fluff 5-star ones ("I loved this one program this company released about 5 years ago.... i forget what it was, but I'm sure I'll love this app once I get an iphone! kthx!")
Reply to this comment
by artistjoh September 29, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
I always thought that rapid upgrades were a good thing and were encouraged by the incentive of keeping an app up among the latest releases which are naturally the apps that get the most eyeballs.

On the other hand reviews that were by people who obviously had not purchased an app were a waste of time and should never have been allowed.
Reply to this comment
by Tom Krazit September 29, 2008 1:24 PM PDT
I hear what you're saying, but there was the concern that people were putting out minor updates just to goose their ranking, and forcing people to constantly update their app needlessly. Now Apple will have to watch out for people who release entirely new rebranded apps rather than calling them significant point releases, but I think that's a better gamble.
by kaibelf September 29, 2008 1:43 PM PDT
Yes, I agree with Tom. I have one app which does nothing (swear to god) but split a check for a restaurant. It's been updated like.... 7 times in the past month, and only once has there been any added functionality. The last 3 updates have been within 2 weeks, but no crash complaints, and no details, so I have no idea what they are actually doing.
by goodspeed8701 September 29, 2008 1:08 PM PDT
at the end apple sux
Reply to this comment
by ibeetle September 29, 2008 1:27 PM PDT
I wish this was the case with every review comment filed with all retailers. A week does not go by that I do not see at least one one (1) star review on Amazon from people that never read the book or bought the product they are complaining about.

Recent example, the game Spore. One reviewer said he would never buy the game, never play the game even if it were free. Then he typed some chant in capitol letters about F#@k the RIAA. And then made some incoherent disparaging remark about Sony.

Another review on a Dyson vacuum cleaner I was looking at said his excuse for the one star review was because he had, years earlier bought a different model and he just didn't like it (no other reason). So he was going to go through Amazon and give all models of Dyson products one star reviews.
Reply to this comment
by mbenedict September 29, 2008 10:58 PM PDT
My friend has a great Free app on the App Store. But if you look at the reviews, you see a few one star ratings with really nasty and obviously false comments.

Why? These bad reviews were written by paid-app authors who feel threatened by my friend's free app. I mean, why would anyone pay money for their app when they could just use my friend's? Those developers must be losing a lot of money.

Unfortunately these App Store changes will do nothing to stop this kind of review gaming.
Reply to this comment
(8 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

E-tailers linked to 'scam' blame customers

Priceline, Classmates.com, and Orbitz say customers should read the fine print before complaining about being charged to join loyalty programs they didn't want.

The 411 on early-termination fees

Verizon Wireless has doubled its early-termination fees for smartphones, but what does it mean for the rest of the industry?

About Apple

At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Erica Ogg and other reporters will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies and others strike back against the iPhone. E-mail Erica at erica.ogg@cnet.com.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Apple topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right