App store shenanigans

(Disclaimer: I'm an indie iOS/Android developer, so I may be more biased on this issue.)<p>There are a number of apps of this type. "Real FBI GPS Phone Tracker Pro" (under various names) is another repeat offender. The description goes on to say that the application uses GPS satellites to pinpoint the location of any phone number, "It works, guaranteed!" and then as a last sentence mentions that it's a gimmick. This app repeatedly comes up to top 100 paid under different names and publishers. As soon as one version disappears, another comes up with another author and app name, but very similar description.<p>Example (top 41 right now in the US App Store): <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/phone-tracker-spy-pro-locate/id379314242?mt=8" rel="nofollow">http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/phone-tracker-spy-pro-locate/...</a><p>What's fascinating is that the reviews (if you browse through them) fall into two buckets: 5 star reviews proclaiming that it works, and highly negative reviews. This smells fishy. The 5 star reviews must be fabricated, if I know any better.<p><pre><code> ★★★★★ Buy it! by loganczyz Buy this app!! I would of paid millions for it ★★★★★ awesome technology by Reynagreen It should be prohibited .... big brother .. </code></pre> Word on the street is that these happen from operations that commandeer thousands of iTunes accounts to purchase and leave reviews, floating these apps to the top.<p>As a developer, I do find it kind of a bummer to spend many hours on my apps and then see these make it. Of course, I do know I should spend more time building apps and promoting them through creative means rather than being angry at the status quo.<p>However, I don't buy the argument that "people want these kinds of apps". I see the typical customer as a click-happy teenager who wants it to work, buys it, sees it doesn't work, and then forgets about the 99 cents wasted. In the meantime, the scammer gets wealthier.<p>I suppose this is no different from selling muscle supplements, acai berries, or get-rich-quick books, but still. Ugh.

I've worked with a lot of applications that have bought installs, because that was how my last company, Flurry, made money.<p>In my experience, an application that buys installs but lacks broad appeal falls off of the top lists as fast as it bought its way there. If it's up there long enough for Chris Dixon to notice, it's because there's a significant number of people who actually want the thing.<p>Chris's line of criticism both assumes that everyone's like us - they aren't, and there's a substantial demand for what you and I might consider 'crap'. The criticism also assumes that without this sort of gaming, the App Store would somehow be a meritocracy, which is ridiculous. Take away the install-purchasers, and the overwhelming majority of applications that appear on a 'top' list are there because a) they're already ridiculously well-known elsewhere, like Facebook, or b) they were previously given exposure on the front page of the App Store due to an editorial decision by an unknown Apple employee.<p>I suspect Apple will close off this particular line of business eventually - there's got to be a reason why they're tracking just how often and how long we use our applications, and I suspect it'll be for a usage-based revamping of the 'top free' and 'top paid' lists. But when that happens, the top lists still won't be fair, they'll just be a better reflection of Apple's editorial tastes.

<i>&#62;&#62;But when you look on the desktop web you see the overall ratings are vastly lower and that they seem to game the system by releasing "new versions" to reset their ratings and then probably paying people to write positive reviews</i><p>I've made this point in the past (though not about this app/company or about payments)<p>imo Apple made a mistake in resetting app ratings after every new update/release. Developers who release poor quality 1.0 apps benefit from the ratings reset and I can see why some people may see this as a benefit.<p>However, the two problems I see with the resets are<p>1. It makes it easier for companies to game the rating system<p>2. It is a disincentive for developers (of highly rated apps)to update their apps. I'm planning on an update for a recent iPad app. However, that update will reset the 4.5 rating obtained through the 271 ratings received by the 1.0 version of the app in the past five months.

A more difficult question is how you solve problems in a gigantic marketplace like the App Store. Better verification of sellers? Verification of review comments? Limiting cross-linking of apps? Tougher review process by Apple?<p>All of these would engender more criticism against Apple for policing their "walled garden" but is there a better way to solve it?

I thought the whole point of having a closed and reviewed platform is that you keep all this stuff out.<p>Hard to believe that these apps have been reviewed in anyway - the app store is starting to look like Facebook a few years ago<p>The only way to explain it is that Apple don't really care since they take their cut anyway.

Chris calls out Tapjoy as a means to buy your way to the top 25; however, that's not entirely fair, imo. Increasing App Store ranking is a side effect of any promotion/advertising service. While the incentivized nature of Tapjoy brings into question the quality of these acquisitions, it's ultimately a fair and honest method to promote your app.<p>On the other hand, services like <a href="http://appmagenta.com" rel="nofollow">http://appmagenta.com</a> and <a href="http://gtekna.com" rel="nofollow">http://gtekna.com</a> are downright shady. With enough money, you can buy enough fake downloads to reach the #1 spot in the App Store

Everyday Apple approves around 900 NEW iOS and 50 new Mac Apps in the App Store[1]. In such a huge market, it is quite likely that some would try to game it.<p>The human curation approach falls flat on such a scale. Machine learning and natural language processing can help us in mining the App Store to detect anomalous behavior and improve the search and discovery of apps.<p>The statistical models of temporal distributions of ratings and rankings are still emerging and such hightlighting provide a useful resource to train the models. So if you see something, say something.<p>[1] <a href="http://twitter.com/iapps_in" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/iapps_in</a>

This happen at a much bigger scale really. At Amazon.com too for example. New software versions, camera models, etc. all get fresh ratings and comments, even though sometimes people do mention older versions in their comments.<p>My point is that it's not just the relatively small app developers, even the big names are playing this game routinely.<p>I heard in a course on stock investing that mutual fund managers also do this. If their fund fails in the market, they close it and reappear with a different name.<p>Even with this loophole, much thanks to Amazon which created the rating system benefiting the end users in spite of the damage it at times brings to the manufacturers. Amazon had to choose between manufacturers good vs. end-users good when creating this system, and they boldly chose the latter.

There's already a refund mechanism; it's just buried, inconvenient, and kinda hard to figure out.<p>I bet a lot of the crapps would go away if more users knew they could get a refund when they got scammed.