[OJFord]

Ranking by count the all apps installed by users who have previously searched for <term> might do it.

Not saying that's a good algorithm, but one _might_ be tempted to think that with enough users it should be fine. The 'bug' being that all Apple's users are Apple users, so Apple apps would get pushed high for any search.

I'm certainly not suggesting that's what happeened (or even that it would be something so simplistic), but it gives me an idea at least how something that, when presented only with the symptoms, seems so unbelievable.

[HelloMcFly]

Agreed, but the end result is that their algorithm pre-fix was clearly faulty and should be considered a mistake. Their gymnastics to the contrary just come across as either a bad-faith argument or self-delusion.

[Bud]

What comes across as cherry-picking to me is pointing out a single random inconsequential web search and the result it used to have in a previous year.

[yyyk]

Not a single search, but many searches done repeatedly over time, proving the result is highly unlikely to be happenstance. Oh, and the results only happened to changed after Spotify launched an official complaint. The WSJ article the NYT links to is even more detailed.

[Wowfunhappy]

Shouldn't "Facebook" also turn up near the top, in that case?