Apple testing new App Store design that blurs the line between ads and results
123 points
by ksec
1 hour ago
| 24 comments
| 9to5mac.com
| HN
mdasen
48 minutes ago
[-]
This is what basically everyone else has done over the past decade. Google used to put a different background behind ads in its search (https://www.fsedigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Google...). It made it really easy to tell what was an ad and skip over it quickly. Now it's a lot harder to quickly notice what's an ad and what isn't.

Sites used to have banner ads. Now they show posts that look exactly like the organic posts in your feed, just with a small "sponsored", "promoted", or "ad" mark somewhere. Half the time the post is large enough that it takes up my entire screen and the "sponsored" mark is below and off-screen.

If you go on Amazon, the "sponsored" text is much smaller and light gray rgb(87,89,89) while the product text is near-black rgb(15,17,17). They want to make the sponsored text less visible. Sometimes it's even unclear if the sponsored tag applies to a single product or a group of products.

It's shocking that Apple hasn't done this trick yet when everyone else started doing it years ago.

reply
2OEH8eoCRo0
3 minutes ago
[-]
Apple's whole selling point is they aren't pulling the same crap that the everyone else is. It's not a defense of Apple to say they're just doing what everyone else has already been doing. Think different?
reply
echelon
35 minutes ago
[-]
It ought to be illegal to host ads for registered trademarks (+/- some edit distance).

Especially if you have a marketplace monopoly.

Especially if you used overwhelming force to turn the "URL Bar" into a search product and then bought up 90% market share where you can tax every single brand on the planet.

Google is the most egregious with this with respect to Google Search. It ought to be illegal, frankly.

Google Android is a runner up. Half the time I try to install an app, I get bamboozled into installing an ad placement app (and immediately undo it). Seems like Apple is following in the same footsteps.

Amazon isn't blameless here, either.

So much of our economy is being taxed by gatekeepers that installed themselves into a place that is impossible to dislodge. And the systems they built were not how the web originally worked. They dismantled the user-friendly behavior brick by brick, decade by decade.

Google "Pokemon" -> Ad.

Google "AWS" -> Amazon competitively bidding for their own trademark

Google "Thinkpad" -> Lots of ads.

Google "Anthropic" or "ChatGPT" -> I bet Google is happy to bleed its direct competitors like this.

What the fuck is this, and why did we let it happen?

Companies own these trademarks. Google turned the URL bar into a 100% Google search shakedown.

I'm thinking about a grassroots movement to stop these shenanigans.

reply
atonse
1 hour ago
[-]
More and more evidence that the a-holes with spreadsheets are taking over at Apple and they’re completely devoid of any ideas on the software side.

I heard someone randomly say that they should replace Tim Cook with Scott Forstall. I chuckled at the idea but this might be a great idea.

Apple is having its Ballmer moment. Google did too before AI lit the fire under their feet.

Who is going to be Apple’s next Nadella? Steve Jobs was the original.

reply
asadotzler
19 minutes ago
[-]
That is what's expected when you put a glorified accountant in charge and he decides Wall St. is the real customer and the stock price is the real product and users and consumer technology are an afterthought.
reply
yomismoaqui
1 hour ago
[-]
Can we use "ensheetification" to describe this phenomeon? (sure I'm not the first to use this word)
reply
imagetic
21 minutes ago
[-]
reply
fsflover
12 minutes ago
[-]
reply
GrowingSideways
30 minutes ago
[-]
What does it imply that the other term does not? Enshitification is the inevitable result of the tendency of profit to revert to zero. This is basic schumpeter (not to mention marx).
reply
master_crab
27 minutes ago
[-]
I heard someone randomly say that they should replace Tim Cook with Scott Forstall. I chuckled at the idea but this might be a great idea.

Fadell might also be a good choice. Either way it should be someone currently outside Apple. The company needs an external eye to review its processes and cruft that built up under Cook (nothing negative against the guy, but what worked 5-10 years ago won’t necessarily work 5-10 years down the road).

reply
BanAntiVaxxers
1 hour ago
[-]
Has Nadella had one original thought? He simply passes through whatever the board orders.
reply
drecked
53 minutes ago
[-]
Nadella turned Microsoft completely around. Before Nadella, for about 2 decades, Microsoft’s entire purpose seemed to be to stuff Windows into everything. Changing this was a massive undertaking that was largely unimaginable within MS.

Unfortunately now under Nadella AI is taking the role Windows used to play, but even there he understood the importance of AI before most of his competitors did which is what allowed Microsoft to gain such a substantial footing in OpenAI.

reply
chroma205
1 hour ago
[-]
> Has Nadella had one original thought? He simply passes through whatever the board orders.

No.

But for mega-tech CEO salary, I’d probably do exactly the same.

reply
coliveira
47 minutes ago
[-]
It takes a person with massive personality disorder to do this kind of stuff. I'm glad I'm not doing it, whatever the amounts of money in play.
reply
lapcat
1 hour ago
[-]
What has Nadella done for Windows users? It appears to me that Windows is becoming every bit as enshittified as macOS, if not more so. And isn't Microsoft experimenting with advertisements in Windows?
reply
raw_anon_1111
19 minutes ago
[-]
Microsoft doesn’t care about Windows. It’s been clear for years that their focus is on Azure, Office, and enterprise sales.

The enterprise is going to choose Windows regardless for the masses and even if consumers make a mass exodus to Apple (not going to happen because of price) or Linux (even less likely) they are out of $30 they charge OEMs.

reply
apercu
30 minutes ago
[-]
So, yea, the latest IOS and MacOS are pretty terrible and user hostile, but they are miles from the issues with the latest Windows OS.
reply
nikitaga
35 minutes ago
[-]
How is MacOS as enshittified as Windows? It doesn't have ads, doesn't push AI on you, their online services are trivial to ignore once and never think about again, etc. I haven't tried Tahoe, and sure, its new glass UI is shit, but merely incompetent UI design is not "enshittification" and is not in any way equivalent to what Microsoft does in Windows.
reply
madeofpalk
21 minutes ago
[-]
macOS absolutely, definitely, 100% has ads.

Buy a new Apple Watch and notice that the settings app with have a [1] badge trying to upsell you to buy AppleCare+. They obscure dismissing these by clicking the "Add AppleCare Coverage" button and then having a button that says actually no.

reply
pixelready
4 minutes ago
[-]
The undissmissable badges in settings irk me to no end. Using language like “finish setting up” in iOS to describe me opting out of Apple Intelligence by choice as leaving MY device in some sort of “unfinished state” is user hostile too. With the amount of effort it takes me to push back constantly on these dark patterns, I know for a fact all my less tech savvy friends and family just aren’t bothering and that’s what they count on.

Not as egregious as what windows is doing with copilot everywhere or sneakily flipping user-toggled options during updates, but it’s all some degree of gross.

reply
runjake
30 minutes ago
[-]
I've been getting intrusive first-party ads in Apple's OSes for at least the past 3 major OS releases. News+, Fitness+, Music, Apple TV+, etc etc.
reply
bigyabai
15 minutes ago
[-]
macOS does have ads, their online services are worse than Windows, and installing basic software like Homebrew and Git is like having teeth pulled.

Windows is absolutely miserable, but with WSL installed it's far and away the better dev environment. I say that as someone who dailies Linux and hates all three OSes.

reply
shantara
34 minutes ago
[-]
It recently occurred to me that it’s been years since it was possible to find some new and interesting app just by browsing the App Store, like it used to be when iPhone and Android were first introduced. Now I open the store knowing in advance what exactly I’m looking for and take care not to accidentally click on a lookalike.
reply
hightrix
18 minutes ago
[-]
I've had success finding games in the Apple Arcade by just browsing. The bonus is that the games are all included with Apple+ and don't have any ads or microtransactions.

That said, I completely agree that you cannot find any interesting apps by just browsing the App Store as a whole.

reply
yieldcrv
22 minutes ago
[-]
Discovery is social

If you’re optimizing for searchers (SEO) you’ve been out of the loop for a decade or catering almost exclusively to the elderly

reply
Y_Y
19 minutes ago
[-]
I still do this but with F-Droid (or one of the nice frontends like Droidify).

Will some new player come and give us some golden years of VC handouts and pre-enshittification decency? I hope so, but the barriers to entry are mighty.

reply
echelon
28 minutes ago
[-]
Same on Android.

Except on Android when you search for something and you get the big "match found" with "install" button, it's an ad and the real result is hidden like a search result.

This practice ought to be illegal. These are trademarks, and monopolies are injecting themselves as market makers in a bidding war they created.

This isn't enshittification. This is Roman Empire collapse. It doesn't work anymore.

reply
hu3
21 minutes ago
[-]
At least in Android you can use F-Droid which is Play Store for open-source apps.

I installed a regex powered notification blocker yesterday. Works as a charm.

reply
teekert
6 minutes ago
[-]
With stuff like this, this is just a really bad idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46323041

You can't tell family to search for things in the app store anymore, I always provide direct links. It's just to dangerous otherwise.

reply
yalogin
38 minutes ago
[-]
Services business is a slippery slope, everyone succumbs to the YoY revenue growth push and they all gravitate towards the same dirty tactics. They even tried turning the hardware into a subscription model but I guess it didn’t gain much traction.
reply
Noaidi
34 minutes ago
[-]
Apple annual gross profit for 2025 was $195.201B, a 8.04% increase from 2024. Apple annual gross profit for 2024 was $180.683B, a 6.82% increase from 2023. Apple annual gross profit for 2023 was $169.148B, a 0.96% decline from 2022.

Seems like this is just plain old greed...

reply
Y-bar
11 minutes ago
[-]
It seems a significant amount of that revenue is now from services (App Store, in-app purchases, subscriptions,…).
reply
b3ing
13 minutes ago
[-]
This will always be a thing, the click metrics dictate it and to justify the costs to the company advertising and the low # of clicks, something has to be done to save the new revenue Ads give. They might as well add modal (psudeo popup) ads, because they will be there in 15yrs.
reply
sergiotapia
55 seconds ago
[-]
Google does the same where an ad is the first result. :(
reply
ChrisMarshallNY
38 minutes ago
[-]
I find that's the case already. They also force you to go through their ad-splattered gauntlet, every time you reopen the app.

It's pretty much worthless, to me. I always use direct app links, from the developers' sites.

I shudder to think of it getting worse.

reply
SkyPuncher
30 minutes ago
[-]
Every now and then, normally while I’m bored before departing on a plane, I’ll scroll the App Store. It’s all ads at this point. Lists and lists of “top [x]” most of which are clearly just paid lists.

I never visit the App Store outside of that. If I need an app, I search for it and go directly to its listing page (yes, technically the App Store) or install it directly from my Home Screen.

reply
cdrnsf
29 minutes ago
[-]
Not only are Apple's services bad, they've becoming inescapable. It's rumored that they'll add ads to maps as soon as next year.

Music.app is simply an ad for Apple Music, Books.app is like reading in a Barnes and Noble while someone from marketing looks over your shoulder and their TV app features their own shows to an overbearing degree — everything else is becoming more of an afterthought.

reply
tfrancisl
49 minutes ago
[-]
Oh, so the Google playstore since... forever. Or at least as long as I can remember. If you have a "search" feature on your <anything app> it should filter down to exactly what you would expect, no sponsored positions, no irrelevant apps as ads, etc.

Shame apple is going towards the dark pattern of ads as results.

reply
spogbiper
1 hour ago
[-]
the change is more subtle than I expected but this does seem like a step in the wrong direction

a bigger older problem is the number of copycat applications allowed in the app store. for example the listing for the official microsoft authenticator app (free and used in many corporate environments) is surrounded by results with similar looking icons and titles. these look a likes also work for MFA but charge a monthly subscription. not exactly a scam since they do work, but its obvious they are only there to confuse users into paying for something thats free.

reply
avalys
30 minutes ago
[-]
Not obvious to me that this is worse or as user-hostile as many seem to presume.

Previously the blue background made the ad result look more highlighted and more prominent.

Now it is just like the other results - not special or better.

Yes, the HN audience knows the visual convention indicates that the blue background represents an ad. Does your everyday user know that or do they assume the blue results are better?

reply
bigyabai
3 minutes ago
[-]
> Does your everyday user know that or do they assume the blue results are better?

Deceptive UI is the issue. By removing distinctions between ads and normal results, you're going from a frying pan situation straight into the fire.

reply
PlatoIsADisease
1 hour ago
[-]
Wont make a difference. People are already in the Walled Prison and moms/teens/lower-middle class people are shamed for not being able to afford the $50/mo to buy an iphone. They had numerous privacy and security issues that caused literal deaths of VIPs. Their quality is always 2nd best if we are being generous.

If they haven't switched yet, its not going to happen. Apple knows this. Late users are always punished like my parents who still have a landline and cable tv.

reply
pm
43 minutes ago
[-]
Quality is 2nd best to what? And people haven't switched to what? Android? The situation is no better on Google OS.

Apple's App Store ad initiatives have always been woeful, and doubt it makes enough revenue to warrant a separate line item on their public accounting reports. Some executive has seen yet another overfunded company potentially making bank with an ad-based business model (OpenAI, et al.), and has thought they could extract Google-level ad revenue due to the App Store's exclusivity. It could also be a response to potentially competing App Stores given their rocky relationship with the EU.

It will have little effect, on revenue or user experience. The greater tragedy is the organisational decay that led to this being greenlit in the first place.

reply
Noaidi
30 minutes ago
[-]
> And people haven't switched to what? Android? The situation is no better on Google OS

Agree. Even GrapheneOS is hell to use. I tried both PixelOS and GrapheneOS on a Pixel 9 and ended up returning it. If I was not homeless I would switch to a flip phone and just use a Linux desktop.

reply
bigyabai
10 minutes ago
[-]
> The greater tragedy is the organisational decay that led to this being greenlit in the first place.

Is it? I feel like that would only be tragic if you expected the App Store monopoly company to care about users instead of profits.

For most of us on the sidelines this is a real "told you so" moment.

reply
nabbed
59 minutes ago
[-]
>it probably helps increase click-through rates which ultimately boosts Apple’s revenue in its ads business

I assume that means it increases the number of times users install the wrong app (possibly with serious consequences)?

reply
kibwen
41 minutes ago
[-]
Why should Apple give a shit? Companies like Apple are sociopathic profit-maximizers, and users are cattle to be milked and slaughtered.
reply
hopelite
1 minute ago
[-]
This feels like a conversation about irrelevant matters. App Store with the advent of AI integration? I see AI suggesting or responding with an app or extension to ad specific abilities or features based on stated objectives. I don’t see myself going to some App Store. I haven’t even “browsed” one in years because they all seem extremely static, having reached a peak saturation and static state.

Frankly, Apple could have probably just totally replaced the App Store a long time ago if they were not slaves to financial reports by simply integrating app search into spotlight more closely or prominently… pull down, search “ai app” (or whatever) and you’re provided with a list of app results.

App updating could and should have been integrated into the settings app.

These kinds of things will only increasingly start biting the Apple as Google has been forced to face the abyss of the death of the common search they’ve dominated for decades now. O don’t think Apple has faced that existential Grim-reaper yet… what do you do when the app ecosystem, OS UI/UX advantages, and even hardware quality has vanished through the cascading integration of AI? I do t know that Apple has faced that yet or at least has been left blindsided, considering what I’ve been seeing from them.

reply
mrweasel
36 minutes ago
[-]
The lines where pretty blurred already. If you search for the exact name of an app, I think that needs to go first in the results, the ads can be the third or forth. Having ads show up before the "correct" app is incredibly dangerous in a world where so much of our digital life is in various apps. Often the people see is actively trying to trick people into installing the wrong thing, making the ad less visible is going to get a lot of people scammed.

How the hell Apple does not see this is beyond me. All of their fancy security in iOS is worthless if they allow people to be tricked into installing scam-ware.

reply
Noaidi
35 minutes ago
[-]
Wow, how much greed will we all tolerate?

Apple annual gross profit for 2025 was $195.201B, a 8.04% increase from 2024.

And still, they feel they can do this? I have never seen a better sign of a monopoly in my life.

reply
JKCalhoun
1 hour ago
[-]
En-something-ification…
reply
andy_ppp
1 hour ago
[-]
Just a reminder that paid for gaming of the search results on Amazon is around a $60bn business for them.
reply
WesolyKubeczek
57 minutes ago
[-]
App Store's UX has always been a show of excrement, and its search is wonky as hell. I can't imagine myself use that to discover apps, after having been shoved tons of dreck results up my behind the last time I've tried it.

I'd rather ask for app recommendations on 4chan or Reddit than browse App Store.

reply
etchalon
1 hour ago
[-]
This is the Apple I've always worried would emerge.
reply
raw_anon_1111
14 minutes ago
[-]
You mean the same Apple who will remove an app like Tumblr for a little consensual nudity posted by people and is too afraid of what Trump might say to remove X which is allowing none consensual undressing of women just by posting a picture and telling Grok to remove clothes - including CSAM?
reply
realusername
23 minutes ago
[-]
It's been like this for a while, the top results for a lot of known apps are scam impersonators.

So much for the so called "safety" of the appstore.

In fact, they had so many ChatGPT fake apps showing as top results that they had to do something as users couldn't find the real one and it reached the news.

reply
pixl97
1 hour ago
[-]
Capitalism pretty much demands it. Some companies can delay it for awhile, but the numbers must go up and eventually expansion because of a better product reaches it's natural limit.
reply
gtowey
1 hour ago
[-]
Corporations always operate at the lowest morality level of any member of the company. Lots of executives can say no to dark patterns, but it only takes one to say yes. Then that exec gets to report the successful revenue boosting metrics. They will tend to get promoted and soon the entire leadership team is filled with people with the lowest ethical standards.
reply
lapcat
54 minutes ago
[-]
> Lots of executives can say no to dark patterns, but it only takes one to say yes.

I think the situation is a lot more stark than this. Unless they're desperate, the board of directors of corporations will install an MBA as CEO. In most cases, the only time this doesn't happen is at the founding of the company, when a founder is CEO. But if the founder doesn't maintain controlling interest, the founder can be replaced.

The promotion of Steve Jobs to interim CEO of Apple in 1997 was a rare exception. Apple fired its CEO, and the company was in danger of bankruptcy. They were running out of options and feeling the aforemention desperation. Note how the situation was very different in 1985, when the board of directors chose John Sculley over Steve Jobs in a power struggle. At the time, they weren't financially desperate.

reply
etchalon
44 minutes ago
[-]
Basically, yes.

With compensation so completely tied to "did our stock go up since you joined?", it's a whole thing.

reply
stalfosknight
16 minutes ago
[-]
Why must Apple do this?

They're already rolling in profits that dwarf the national budgets of most countries. And I say this as a shameless Apple fanboy.

reply
bigyabai
5 minutes ago
[-]
Maybe it's time to stop being shameless. The App Store monopoly has a direct impact on the quality of first-party services you consume.
reply
cute_boi
18 minutes ago
[-]
Wow! They force you to use their app store, and now they have the gall to trick users into installing ads—and there will be multiple ads.
reply
BartjeD
1 hour ago
[-]
Enshittification, the sequel.
reply