Google: “There has been a shift in our thinking…”

For many years when Google was under threat of regulatory action for manipulating its search results for its own commercial gain, the company used every trick in the book — including ignorance, incompetence, safe harbor, fair use, First Amendment and even web traffic beneficence — to avoid criticism in the press and investigation by regulators.

Above all, despite many examples to the contrary, Google appealed to manifest impartiality: its search results were algorithmically derived, untouched by human biases and thus fair. The list of grandiose promises and statements made by Google that turned out to be false and hypocritical is uncomfortably long. Unfortunately for the rest of us, regulatory capture being what it is and the rare penalties being laughable for a $275 billion company, there isn’t much of a black cloud left over Google to worry about, especially under the current U.S. administration.

So perhaps Google now feels freshly emboldened to tell it like it is. In any case, I was impressed by this frank admission in New York Times:

Even at Google, where algorithms and engineers reign supreme in the company’s business and culture, the human contribution to search results is increasing. Google uses human helpers in two ways. Several months ago, it began presenting summaries of information on the right side of a search page when a user typed in the name of a well-known person or place, like “Barack Obama” or “New York City.” These summaries draw from databases of knowledge like Wikipedia, the C.I.A. World Factbook and Freebase, whose parent company, Metaweb, Google acquired in 2010. These databases are edited by humans.

When Google’s algorithm detects a search term for which this distilled information is available, the search engine is trained to go fetch it rather than merely present links to Web pages.

“There has been a shift in our thinking,” said Scott Huffman, an engineering director in charge of search quality at Google. “A part of our resources are now more human curated.”

Not a shift, but a new admission of on-going reality, I’d say. Let’s hope for Scott Huffman’s sake he ran this by Google legal before it was published. Or better yet, let’s hope Google now stops the unbecoming pretensions to being philosophically open and algorithmically impartial.

An interim solution for iOS ‘multitasking’

There are many counterintuitive ‘rules’ in product design, these two are among the most intractable:

• The more successful a product, the harder it’s to upgrade.

• The more users say they want a product update, the more they complain when the change arrives.

It wouldn’t be unkind to ascribe both of them to the iOS platform: spectacularly successful and at the crossroads for the mother of all upgrades for both hardware and software, now commandeered for the first time by a single person who’s not named Steve Jobs. The financial impact of these design decisions is easily the 64-billion dollar question at Cupertino.

What has changed?

Having already sold over 120 million iPads in less than two years, Apple’s now making the sales pitch to hundreds of millions of potential post-PC consumers that iPads may be ‘OR’ devices, not just ‘AND’ adjuncts to their desktops and notebooks of yesteryear.

The iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010 created their respective industry segments, then went on to dominate what was mostly virgin territory with a simple proposition: One Device > One Account > One App > One Window.

Several years after their introduction, now with many competitors, Apple is under pressure to examine every link in that chain of platform definition. And the one most contested is the last: One Window. While it’s true that iOS apps can contain two (and sometimes even more) ‘views’ in one screen, like the standard Master-Detail views, two different apps cannot share the same window. A blog writing app on an iPad can, for example, dedicate portions of its single window to video, map, search engine results or tweet displays, but not specifically to Vimeo, Google Maps, Bing or Twitter apps. In the sandboxed territories of iOS, ‘One Device > One Account > One App > One Window’ is still the law of the land.

As iPads move into business, education, healthcare and other vertical markets, however, expectations of what iPads should do beyond audio, video, ebook and simple app consumption have gone up dramatically. After all, users don’t just inertly read in one app at a time but write, code, design, compose, calculate, paint, clip, tweet, and, in general, perform multiple operations in multiple apps to complete a single task in one app.

In iOS, this involves double-clicking the Home button, swiping in the tray to find the other app, waiting for it to (re)load fully, locating the app view necessary to copy, double-clicking the Home button, finding the previous app in the tray and waiting for it to (re)load fully to paste the previously copied material. That’s just one operation between two apps. Composing a patient review for a doctor or creating a presentation for a student can easily involve many such operations among multiple apps.

Indeed, among the major post-iOS mobile platforms like Android, Metro and BlackBerry, iOS is the most cumbersome and slowest at inter-app navigation and task completion. There have been a few mitigating advances: gestural swipes, faster processors and more memory certainly help but the inter-app task sharing problem is becoming increasingly more acute. Unfortunately, solving iOS’s multitasking problem in general involves many other considerations, including introduction of UX complexity and thus considerable user re-education, to say nothing of major architectural OS changes. It may thus take Apple longer than expected to find an optimal solution. What can Apple do in the interim then?

Is ‘Multi’ the opposite of ‘One’?

Systems designers know all too well: when you just don’t have the time, money, staff or technology to solve a given problem, there are ways to cheat. Steve Jobs would be the first to tell you: that’s OK. A well executed cheat can be indistinguishable from a fundamental architectural transition.

From a design perspective, the weakest link in the one-task-many-operations-in-different-apps problem is the iOS clipboard. The single-slot clipboard. The one that forces the user to shuffle laboriously among apps to collect all the disparate items one. at. a. time.

But with a multi-slot clipboard, if you were writing a report, for example, you could go to a web page, copy the URL, a paragraph, maybe a photo and a person’s email address in one trip. Now a single trip back to the initial app and you have four items ready to be pasted into appropriate places with no more inter-app shuffle necessary. Instant 4X productivity gain. Simply put, if you had a four-slot clipboard, you can instantly quadruple your productivity. For a ten-slot clipboard, 10X!

Well, obviously, it’s not that easy. First of all, Apple doesn’t believe in multi-slot clipboards and doesn’t even ship one with Mac OS X. Also, you couldn’t really have an ‘infinite-slot’ clipboard, for iOS would run out of memory quickly. Finally, a multi-slot clipboard would require a visible UI for the user to select the right content, thereby introducing some cognitive complexity.

None of these objections seem insurmountable, though. iOS already has a similarly useful ‘option selectors’ like the recent ‘share sheets’ from which a user can send stuff to Twitter, Facebook, email, etc. Limiting the clipboard to four slots would enable at least 250-pixel square previews of each slot’s contents for easy identification. The Clipboard could pop, move up, slide in from right or perform some other clever animated appearance. Yes, there could be a cognitive penalty for having to be concerned about system-memory management, but a bit of user training for the concept of ‘First In, First Out’ or a little alert to the user indicating memory-intensive copying would go a long way.

It’s not my job to suggest Jony Ive how this might be implemented in UI and UX. But until Apple has a more general solution to multitasking and inter-app navigation, the four-slot clipboard with a visible UI should be announced at WWDC. I believe it would buy Ive another year for a more comprehensive architectural solution, as he’ll likely need it.

Things Apple Has Not Yet Done

It’s hard to like Apple. To the dismay of conventional thinkers everywhere, the fruit company sambas to its own tune: makes the wrong products, at the wrong prices, for the wrong markets, at the wrong time. And, infuriatingly, wins.

Some of Apple’s ill-advised moves are well known. When other PC companies were shuttering their retail stores, Apple opened dozens in the most expensive locales. During the post-dotcom crash, instead of layoffs, Apple spent millions to hire and boost R&D. To the “Show us a $500 netbook, now!” amen corner Apple gave the un-netbook iPad, not at $999 but $499. The App Store and iTunes are still not open. Google hasn’t been given the keys to iOS devices yet…Clearly, this is a company that hasn’t learned the market-share-über-alles lesson from the Wintel era and is repeating the same mistakes, again. Like these:

• Media company — The slick design of Apple gadgets wouldn’t be nearly enough if it weren’t for the fact that Apple has quietly become the world’s biggest digital content purveyor. The availability of a vast library of media, coupled with the ease of purchase and the lock-in effect these purchases create, could easily tempt a lesser outfit to fashionably declare itself a “media company”. After all, Macromedia tried that with its AtomFilms purchase in 2000. Real and Yahoo dabbled in various forms media creation, acquisition and distribution. Microsoft fancied itself a part-media company with investments in publishing (Slate) and cable (MSNBC, Comcast). Amazon has several imprints of its own. Netflix is now an episodic TV producer. Google is investing hundreds of millions in original material for YouTube. Apple, on the other hand, has always resisted creating and owning content, because…

• Indies — … Apple plays for the fat middle part of the bell curve. Once a bit player in computers and consumer electronics, Apple’s now a giant. Whether it’s music, TV shows, movies or ebooks, Apple targets the mainstream, and the mainstream demands the availability of mainstream content from top labels, studios and publishers. It’s very tempting to urge Apple to sign deals right and left with independent producers in entertainment and publishing, to bypass traditional gatekeepers and ‘disrupt’ their respective industries, on the cheap. Unfortunately, beyond modest promotional efforts with indies, it doesn’t look like Apple’s likely to upset the mainstream cart from which it makes so much money.

Tapose

• Multitasking — “One device. One account. One app. One window. One task.” seems to be Apple’s current approach to Post-PC computing. If iPads are going to cannibalize PCs in the workplace or schools, iOS workflow patterns will have to evolve. Bringing multiple user accounts to the same device, showing two windows from two different apps in the same view with interaction between the two or letting all/most apps work in the background would necessitate quite a bit of user re-education in the iOS camp. It’s not clear for how long Apple can afford not to provide such functionalities.

• PDF replacement — Apple’s tumultuous love affair with PDF goes back nearly 25 years to Display PostScript during its NeXT prequel. PDF may now be “native” to Mac OS X and the closest format of exchange for visual fidelity, but it’s become slow, fat, cumbersome and not well integrated with HTML, the lingua franca of the web. While PDF is too entrenched for the print world, ePub 3.0 seems to be emerging as an alternative standard for interactive media publishing. Apple does support it, even with Apple-created extensions, but composing and publishing polished ePub material is still a maddeningly complex, hit-and-miss affair. iBooks Author is a great start, but its most promising output is iTunes-only. If Apple has big ideas in this space, it’s not obvious from its available tools or investments.

• HTML 5 tools — While iBooks Author makes composing app-like interactive content possible without having to use Xcode, Apple has no comparable semi-professional caliber tool for creating web sites/apps for the browser. Apple has resisted offering anything like a Hypercard-level tool for HTML that sits in between the immense but disjointed JavaScript/CSS open ecosystem and the powerful but hard-to-master Xcode. It has killed iWeb and still keeps iAd Producer mostly out of sight. Clearly, Apple doesn’t want more apps but more unique apps to showcase the App Store. HTML isn’t much of a differentiator there and until the ROI in HTML 5 vs. native apps becomes clearer to Apple, such tools are unlikely to arrive anytime soon.

Discovr

• Discovery tools — Yes, Apple has Genius, but that’s a blackbox. Genius is simple and operates in the background silently. It doesn’t have a visual interface like Spotify, Aweditorium, Music Hunter, Pocket Hipster, Groovebug or Discovr Music, allowing users to actively move around a musical topology visually, aided by various social network inputs. With its Ping attempt and Twitter and Facebook tie-ups, Apple has shown it’s at least interested in the social angle, but a more dedicated, visual and fun discovery tool is still absent not just for music but also for TV, movies, books and apps.

Pushpin

• Map layers — Over the last few years Apple has acquired several map-related companies, one of which, PlaceBase, was known for creating “layers” of data-driven visualizations over maps. Even before its messy divorce from Google, Apple has chosen not to offer any such map enhancements. When properly designed, maps are great base-level tools over which lots of different kinds of information can be interactively delivered, especially on touch-driven mobile devices where Siri also resides.

• iOS device attachments — One of the factors that made iPods and iPhones so popular has been the multi-billion dollar ecosystem of peripherals that wrap around or plug into them. However, besides batteries and audio equipment, there’s been a decided dearth of peripherals that connect to the 30-pin port to do useful things in medicine, education, automation, etc. Apple’s attention and investment in this area have been lackluster. Perhaps the new iPad mini coupled with the tiny Lightning Connector will rekindle interest by Apple and third parties in various domains.

Apple glasses

• Wearables — Google Glass is slated for production in a year or so, Apple’s known assets in wearable computing devices amount to a few patents. There’s much debate as to how this field will shape up. Apple may choose to augment iPhones with simpler and cheaper devices like smart watches that work in tandem with the phone, instead of stand-alone but expensive devices like Google Glass. So far ‘wearables’ doesn’t even register as a hobby in Apple’s interestgram.

Stylus

• Stylus — Apple has successfully educated half a billion users in the art of multitouch navigation and general use of mobile devices. That war, waged against one-year old babies and 90-year old grandmas, has been decisively won. However, until Apple invents a more precise method, taking impromptu notes, sketching diagrams and annotating documents with a (pressure sensitive) stylus remains a superior alternative to the finger. Some may consider the notion of a stylus (even one dedicated only to the specialized tasks cited above) a niche not worthy of Apple’s interest. And yet not too long ago 5-7 inch mobile devices were also considered niches.

• Games — Apple’s on course to become the biggest gaming platform. This without any dedicated game control or motion sensing input devices like the Xbox 360 Kinect and despite half-hearted attempts like the Game Center. Apple has been making steady progress on the CPU/GPU front on iOS devices and now the new Apple TV is also getting an A5X-class chip, capable of handling many console-level games. It remains unclear, however, if Apple has the desire or the dedicated resources to leapfrog not just Sony and Nintendo but also Microsoft in the games arena, with a strategy other than steady, slow erosion of the incumbents’ base.

• iOS Pro devices — Apple has so far seen no reason to bifurcate its iOS product line along entry/pro models, like MacBooks/MacBook Pros. iOS devices sell in the tens of millions every quarter into many complex markets in over 100 countries. Further complicating its SKU portfolio with more models is not the Apple way. More so than iPhones, an iPad with a “Pro” designation with specs to match has so far been not forthcoming. And yet several hundred million of these devices are now sold to business and education, where better security, provisioning, app distribution, mail handling, multitasking, hardware robustness, cloud connectivity, etc., will continue to be requested as check-mark items.

• Money — Apple hasn’t done much with money, other than accumulating about $140 billion in cash and marketable securities for its current balance sheet. It hasn’t yet made any device with NFC, operated as a bank, issued AppleMoney like Amazon Coins or Facebook Credits, offered a branded credit card or established a transactional platform (ignoring the ineptly introduced Passbook app). It has a tantalizing patent application for a virtual money transfer service (like electronic hawala) whereby iOS users can securely send and receive cash anywhere, even from strangers. With close to half a billion credit card accounts, the largest in the world, Apple has the best captive demographics for some sort a transactional sub-universe, but it’s anybody’s guess what it may actually end up doing with it or when.

Half empty or more to fill?

It would be easy and fun to spend another hour to triple this list of Things-Apple-Has-Not-Yet-Done. While not all of these would be easy to implement, none of them would be beyond Apple’s ability to execute. Most card-carrying AAPL doomsayers, however, would look at such a list and conclude: See, Apple’s fallen behind, Apple’s doomed!

There’s, of course, another way of interpreting the same list. Apple could spend a good part of the next decade bundling a handful of these Yet-To-Be-Done items annually into an exciting new iOS device/service to sell into its nearly half billion user base and beyond. Apple suffers from no saturation of market opportunities.

Apple will inevitably tackle most of these, but only in its own time and not when it’s yelled at. It’ll likely introduce products and services not on this or any other list that will end up rejiggering an industry or two. Apple will do so because it knows it won’t win by conventional means or obvious schedules…which makes it hard — for those who are easily distracted — to like Apple.

“Ordered Information” is not a paint job

At Davos 2013, CEO Marissa Mayer unveiled her vision for Yahoo’s rebirth, affirming it wants to be:

a feed of information that is ordered, the Web is ordered for you and is also on your mobile phone.

It’s a laudable vision. With the decline of traditional gatekeepers of information, the original directory of the Information Superhighway could conceivably become again an “orderer” of the abundance of information we live in. Yahoo also has an abundance of mobiles apps, on iOS alone: Search, Flickr, Mail, Finance, News, IntoNow, Messenger, TimeTraveler, Axis, MarketDash, Sportacular, Fantasy Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, Cricket and Football, as well as feeds into Siri queries and built-in Weather and Stocks apps.

It would thus appear Yahoo both “has content” and “gets mobile.” Unfortunately, when dealing with information for the past 15 years, Yahoo has been confusing “ordered information” with “content aggregation” and “task completion.” While ordered information is presumably better than unordered information, simple aggregation — and that’s all Yahoo has, for the most part — is still quite low on the online food chain, both for Yahoo’s bottom line as well as utility to its users.

What then for a company like Yahoo — cyclically self-described as a search, media, technology, portal and advertising company — could go wrong in a rebirth process? Let’s take a page from Yahoo! Finance, a property that has long dominated its space against old (Microsoft, AOL) and relatively new (Morningstar, Google) competitors, for it neatly displays the degree of trouble Yahoo is in.

Yahoo! Finance

Is it “ordered”?

Scanning top-to-bottom a page of stock quote for AAPL, there are three disparately located Search departure points [1, 2, 3] all styled differently: [1] “Search Web” is the most emphasized one of the three. And yet it’s for generic search, even though I’m already at a highly specialized finance site.

yahoo-123

[2] “Get Quotes” is finance-specific, but then [3], not a button but a text-link, is named “Finance Search” and yet, inexplicably, takes you to another page with a completely different UI and a generic searchbox with text-links to images, video, shopping, etc., not unlike the giant generic “Search Web” [1] just above it. Baffling for a company that still harbors search aspirations.

yahoo-4567

[4] Instead of a single banner ad, there are four small ad-buttons for competing trading tools right next to each other. I’m sure some people click on those, but what a waste of prime real estate for premium monetization.

[5] If you wanted to see the price of the stock you’re currently looking at in the context of Dow and Nasdaq as people would want to do, well, you’re out of luck. It’s to the left, on top the navigation column, above the ads.

[6] Why on earth is it necessary for Yahoo to display a Facebook Like button with running tally on an individual stock quote page? Believing Facebook Connect or Like can somehow be Yahoo’s friend in the long run is self-destructively naive.

[7] It’s a navigation column with a kitchen-sink attitude, one of half a dozen other section tabs on top of the page, likely bewildering for most casual users of the site and not quite comprehensive enough for professional traders.

yahoo-89101112

[8] You’d think “customize chart” (unlike other text-links, all lower-case) would allow you to customize the small chart in some meaningful way. Click it and you’re taken to, you guessed it, another page with a completely different, barren UI from the 1950s. It allows you to change nothing but the timespan of the chart to either 1 day, 5 days or 1 year. That’s customization for you, one which was available on the original chart itself to begin with, without having to navigate to another page under false pretenses.

[9] There comes the positively Amazon-ian “People viewing {current stock} also viewed:” inanity. People who love/hate AAPL apparently also love/hate/crave Chipotle and MasterCard. Seriously?

[10] I don’t have access to click rates on that “Trade Now” button, obviously, but I’m guessing those who do click are a small minority. Clearly this linkage to brokers is meant to generate significant origination revenue for Yahoo, but all those broker sites also provide roughly equal or better generic financial info. Somebody who trades at Schwab or Fidelity wouldn’t necessarily be wasting time at Yahoo, while trading.

[11] Also, don’t plan on having more than one broker to quickly go to, since you can only have one.

[12] I’m not entirely sure whether people actually compare brokers at Yahoo! Finance, but even if they do, they get to choose from only four pre-selected brokers, presumably paying Yahoo an origination fee.

yahoo-13-17

[13] Just two articles “featured”? What’s the logic behind featuring random articles here, other than cheap SEO linkage?

[14] One of the two articles “featured” is about RIM’s upcoming BlackBerry 10 phone. I know Eric Jackson has plenty of interesting things to say about AAPL, and does pretty much every single day, but this featured piece has absolutely nothing to do with Apple, the word doesn’t even appear anywhere in the linked article or the accompanying video. It is about RIM, as the title says, a company Apple hasn’t really been competing against for nearly two years now.

[15] (I’m not logged into Finance here but) I’m a proud resident of NYC without a car and yet this is a localized car service ad, from another state. Normally, I’d never see any of these ads, as I use an ad blocker.

[16] A river of news. Really, any text that seems to contain the words “Apple” or “AAPL” can end up here and does. No hierarchy or grouping. The “Filter Headlines” text-link on top takes you to another page with, yes, a completely different, barren UI from the 1950s that allows you to check/uncheck a uneditable list of third party news sources.

[17] Sector/Industry/Sub-Industry categorization of US stocks is an issue for nearly all finance services but, newsflash, Apple dropped “Computer” from its name over 5 years ago. Beyond semantics, this is completely nontrivial for a finance site. Readers shouldn’t be led to believe that nothing more than a small and declining percentage of Apple’s revenue comes from selling “Personal Computers.”

[18] As can be seen in the second column here, Apple’s market cap is 20 times Dell’s. They’re in different leagues and (except for desktops and notebooks) in totally different markets. Apple has stopped worrying about Dell many years ago. Since the title of the section reads “Comparison” (singular), of all Apple’s fierce competitors, Yahoo picked Dell? Furthermore, if you do click the text-link “More Competitors” (plural) you’re taken to another baffling page with random stuff thrown in, but with only a single competitor shown: you guessed it, Dell.

yahoo-19

[19] If the stock you’re investigating is an unfamiliar one, wouldn’t it be useful to see what the company does right on top? The “Business Summary” that describes what Apple does is way down. If you were in Wall Street looking for AAPL, it’d be across the river in Jersey City.

yahoo-20-22

[20] “Penny Stocks.” That cheesy ad pretty much says it all.

[21] Live by 3-column layouts, die by trailing, unbalanced empty space.

[22] “Sponsored Links”? Be respectful of the user, just call them “Ads,” especially if you are an advertising company. If you’re ashamed of carrying advertising detritus at the very bottom of your site, 50 feet below sea level, maybe it’s time to rethink the longer prospects of revenue generation at Yahoo! Finance beyond penny stocks and car mechanics?

yahoo-23

[23] The long list of data feeders to Yahoo is telling. Yahoo! Finance is obviously an aggregator and not a smart or a handsome one at that. Yahoo doesn’t generate all this stuff, you might say, companies that provide the data feeds to Yahoo do. For a company that wants to “order the information,” that is the problem, isn’t it?

A problem deeper than UI

In the latest quarter earnings call Marissa Mayer gave further indication of how this “ordered information” vision might be deployed:

Overall in search, it’s a key area of investment for us. We need to invest in a lot of interface improvements. All of the innovations in search are going to happen at the user interface level moving forward and we need to invest in those features both on the desktop and on mobile and I think both ultimately will be key plays for us.

If Yahoo wants simply to be the data provider to gatekeepers like Apple, Facebook and Google, it will be problematic since Yahoo is often not the originator of the data flow [23]. General-purpose feed business is not a high-margin opportunity in any case. As the simple analysis above shows when the underlying data layer is decoupled from the UX, especially at the hands of designers insufficiently enthused, the results are mediocre at best. In the long run, it’s difficult to “pretty up” data that you don’t control and derive meaningful profit/benefit from, ask Apple’s Maps team.

And yet, this is Finance, one of Yahoo’s strongest properties, not a minor beta product. It’s enough of an embarrassing UX debacle that I haven’t even mentioned any of the glaring visual design issues at all. No amount of interface pixel-dust will cover up the fundamentally broken opportunity to make financial information actually useful to consumers and semi-professionals, while making money doing it. For the user, it fails the first test: now that I’m presented with all this aggregated information, what do I do with it?

Product design starts right there: What Do I Do With It? Not at picking one of 41 shades of purple. Ordered information is great but hard…repainted information is cheap but insufficient. Here’s hoping Yahoo gets that this time around.

*

P.S. I don’t mean to single out Yahoo here. All the other financial sites, like Bloomberg or Reuters, also suffer from similar misunderstandings of how to make financial information usable and useful. I picked Yahoo because Marissa Mayer appears to be actively revamping various properties, Yahoo! Finance desperately needs TLC and I’d like to see Yahoo come out of its funk if for no other reason than as a balance to Google’s growing dominance in online services. This is clearly a things-I-noticed in-20-minutes kind of a superficial treatment. I simply scanned one stock quote page of one of the myriad sections at Yahoo! Finance. The list of things-that-went-wrong around the entire site must be enormous. It’s also obvious that Yahoo! Finance wasn’t made with passion, focus and much attention to detail, like a lot of Yahoo properties. That said, providing product design analysis from outside a company, without knowledge of its business goals, is fraught with danger So I’ll have to refrain from offering gratuitous advice to Yahoo on how to fundamentally reformulate their web and mobile Finance presence.

How many iDownloaders does it take to screw an App Store?

Search results for “iDownloader” at Apple App Store:

IDownloaders

Yes, it’s a big operation. Yes, there’ll be a million apps soon. Yes, many apps will inevitably be similar. Yes, shady developers steal other developers’ IP. Yes, all sorts of people try to game it. Yes, the power law may apply to revenues. Yes, you can’t please everyone all the time. Yes, other app stores may be worse. Yes, the App Store was once the crown jewel of Apple’s mobile empire.

Yes, there are many ways to spin this… None fits the bill as much as the notion that Apple’s inability or unwillingness to fundamentally improve categorization, discovery, navigation, display, promotion, fraud, pricing and reviews at the App Store has been most glaring.

Chomp change, indeed.