Getting Inspiration for Feature Elicitation: App Store- vs. LLM-based Approach

BackgroundSmartphone use is growing exponentially and will soon become the only mobile phone handset for about 6 billion users. Smartphones are ideal marketing targets as consumers can be reached anytime,...

Public displays are currently being used in a restricted context in which only small numbers of users can create and publish content. For developers, there is no easy and consistent way to share or offer their applications to a wide range of potential buyers. Likewise, display providers and users cannot browse through different kinds of applications and buy or subscribe them by using some sort of an application store. As we know from smartphones, application stores such as the Apple App Store or Google Play Store, are a great way for both developers and providers to offer applications to a wide range of interested persons. If such an application store exists for public displays, the number of applications might increase significantly and public displays might become more attractive to daily users. Within this Diploma thesis, we designed and developed an application store for public displays based to support the vision of an open display network. The application store can be used by two user groups: application developers and display owners. Application developers can distribute their applications with different kinds of billing models while display owners on the other side can use the application store to manage their displays, search and purchase applications and finally schedule purchased applications on their displays. The application store is therefore also a powerful management tool for public displays and supports different types of applications. Furthermore, the application store provides a rich set of APIs that can be used by these applications. For example, an API can be used to request information about all available public displays including detailed information such as the display location and its hardware. After developing and deploying the application store, we added within the evaluation process an initial set of ten already developed applications. The evaluation led to a number of design and implementation recommendations for public display applications that describe how these applications have to be designed in order to benefit from the open display network and the application store APIs, e.g. by using the configuration component for web-based applications and the displays API for generating localised content. In addition, we created the Dropbox Slideshow Application type and added a sample application to the application store for demonstration purposes. The second focus of the evaluation was performance testing: we showed the scalability of the application store. The overall performance increases linearly to the number of stored applications. The application store provides a common platform for content providers and display owners. By providing a rich set of APIs that can be used by third-party providers, it can enlarge lots of interesting and useful applications that will eventually make public displays more interesting for passers-by. In addition, the integrated billing model has a high potential for new business models for selling and purchasing applications and display times.

In April 2020, we published a paper titled “The Antitrust Case Against the Apple App Store.” Prompted by the growing antitrust concerns over various practices of Apple with regard to its App Store and in particular the obligation of certain app developers to use Apple’s proprietary payment system In-App Purchase (“IAP”) to accept user payments, the purpose of this paper was to discuss whether such concerns are (at least prima facie) valid, and if so, how they could be addressed under EU competition law. Based on a detailed analysis of the facts, we suggested several theories of harm and a set of remedies to address the concerns identified. Three months later, Sven Volcker and Daniel Baker published a detailed rebuttal of our initial paper, arguing there is no antitrust case against the Apple App Store and thus no need for remedies. We are grateful to Volcker and Baker for publishing their paper, as it is the first time a detailed defense of Apple’s App Store practices has seen the light of day. The fact that its authors advise Apple makes it particularly interesting as it may shed some light into on the stories told by Apple to regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Volcker and Baker’s reply also allows us to revisit our paper to see how our arguments hold up against their criticism. In this paper, we show that while at first sight Volcker and Baker’s paper may appear as a convincing defense of Apple’s practices, one does not need to scratch much beneath the surface to find major flaws in their reasoning. In many instances the arguments they put forward are superficial and unsupported by evidence, misleading, self-contradictory, or simply factually inaccurate. For example, the authors’ discussion of market definition is extremely weak, as it is largely predicated on the view that app developers do not multi-home among Google Play and the App Store – a view countered by data and the Commission’s findings in Google Android. Another example is how Volcker and Baker assert most categorically that IAP is the “digital checkout” without which the App Store business model would collapse, while in reality there are technical alternatives to IAP. Volcker and Baker also fail to answer a very simple question we put forward in our first paper: if Apple charges app developers a commission for the value delivered by the App Store, then why is such commission levied only on 16% of apps in the App Store? All in all, Volcker and Baker regurgitate Apple’s one-sided narrative, whereby app developers taking issue with the 30% commission are nothing more but free riders. Needless to say, there is a tension between the authors’ view that app developers’ sole contribution to Apple is in the form of a 30% commission, and their view that third-party apps are so crucial to Apple’s device-based business model that it would never dare to exclude them. A series of recent developments, such as the European Commission’s decision to open formal proceedings against Apple, the antitrust lawsuit filed by Epic Games in the United States, and the announcement by the ACCC of its inquiry into app marketplaces, will hopefully shed more light on the issues discussed in our papers. We hope that our research on Apple’s App Store practices will inform the ongoing debate.

PurposeThe objective of this paper was to review the functionalities and effectiveness of the free mobile health applications available in the Google Play and App stores used in Saudi Arabia, Italy, Singapore, the United Kingdom, USA, and India during the COVID-19 outbreak.MethodsThis study adopted a systematic search strategy to identify the free mobile applications available in the App and Google Play stores related to the COVID-19 outbreak. According to the PRISMA flowchart of the search, only 12 applications met the inclusion criterion.ResultsThe 12 mobile applications that met the inclusion criterion were: Mawid, Tabaud, Tawakkalna, Sehha, Aarogya setu, TraceTogether, COVID safe, Immuni, COVID symptom study, COVID watch, NHS COVID-19, and PathCheck. The following features and functionalities of the apps were described: app overview (price, ratings, android, iOS, developer/owner, country, status), health tools (user status-risk assessment, self-assessment, E-pass integration, test results reporting, online consultation, contact tracing), learning options (personalized notes, educational resources, COVID-19 information), communication tools (query resolution, appointments, social network, notifications), app design (data visualization, program plan), networking tools (location mapping – GPS, connectivity with other devices), and safety and security options (alerts, data protection). Also, the effectiveness of the apps was analyzed.ConclusionThe analysis revealed that various applications have been developed for different functions like contact tracing, awareness building, appointment booking, online consultation, etc. However, only a few applications have integrated various functions and features such as self-assessment, consultation, support and access to information. Also, most of the apps are focused on contact tracing, while very few are dedicated to raising awareness and sharing information about the COVID-19 pandemic. Likewise, the majority of applications rely on GPS and Bluetooth technologies for relevant functions. No apps were identified that had built-in social media features. It is suggested to design and develop an integrated mobile health application with most of the features and functionalities analyzed in this study.

Apple’s App Store has been a boon to app developers in Europe and throughout the world. The App Store offers a highly attractive sales and distribution channel allowing even the smallest start-up instant access to hundreds of millions of iOS users. Nevertheless, various criticisms have been leveled against Apple’s App Store practices under European Union competition rules. We find that Apple has no case to answer. Apple is not dominant on any appropriately defined market, as developers have numerous other options for acquiring customers and distributing digital content, including other mobile app stores, as well as other channels to reach the users of Apple iOS devices (i.e., iPhones and iPads). Nor do we see any indication that the way Apple monetizes the App Store – i.e., the charging of a commission on developer sales of digital content to iOS users through the App Store – or the rules and policies that underpin this business model, could be characterized as exploitative, exclusionary or discriminatory abuses under Article 102 TFEU. Similarly, we see no evidence that Apple’s non-price-related practices, such as the privacy settings on iOS devices, Apple’s app review process, or the App Store search algorithm raise competition concerns. Apple’s commission and associated policies appear in line with numerous benchmarks, leave ample means for distribution through other channels, do not appear to correspond to any anti-competitive motive, and are readily explicable based on a legitimate desire to protect user privacy, obtain a reasonable return on Apple’s extensive investments in the App Store, and maximize the success of the iOS platform and ecosystem as a whole.

Research on mining user reviews in mobile application (app) stores has noticeably advanced in the past few years. The main objective is to extract useful information that app developers can use to build more sustainable apps. In general, existing research on app store mining can be classified into three genres: classification of user feedback into different types of software maintenance requests (e.g., bug reports and feature requests), building practical tools that are readily available for developers to use, and proposing visions for enhanced mobile app stores that integrate multiple sources of user feedback to ensure app survivability. Despite these major advances, existing tools and techniques still suffer from several drawbacks. Specifically, the majority of techniques rely on the textual content of user reviews for classification. However, due to the inherently diverse and unstructured nature of user-generated online textual reviews, text-based review mining techniques often produce excessively complicated models that are prone to over-fitting. Furthermore, the majority of proposed techniques focus on extracting and classifying the functional requirements in mobile app reviews, providing a little or no support for extracting and synthesizing the non-functional requirements (NFRs) raised in user feedback (e.g., security, reliability, and usability). In terms of tool support, existing tools are still far from being adequate for practical applications. In general, there is a lack of off-the-shelf tools that can be used by researchers and practitioners to accurately mine user reviews. Motivated by these observations, in this dissertation, we explore several research directions aimed at addressing the current issues and shortcomings in app store review mining research. In particular, we introduce a novel semantically aware approach for mining and classifying functional requirements from app store reviews. This approach reduces the dimensionality of the data and enhances the predictive capabilities of the classifier. We then present a two-phase study aimed at automatically capturing the NFRs in user reviews. We also introduce MARC, a tool that enables developers to extract, classify, and summarize user reviews.

PurposeThe objective of this study was to review most of the existing free m-Health applications (Apps) that use the gamification approach to manage diabetes type 1 in both App and Google Play stores.MethodsFree mobile health applications “apps” that were related to diabetes mellitus have been identified in both App and Google Play stores. In order to cover all the mentioned applications, the following keywords, “game for type 1 diabetes” and “gamification for type 1 diabetes” were used in English and Arabic languages. All applications that were collected in the inclusion process were carefully analyzed, and the game name, game description, game features, game mechanics, game themes, and operating systems were recorded.ResultsA total of eight gamified applications related to type 1 diabetes were identified. Seven of these applications were in English language and only one application was in Arabic language. The applications were categorized into three main categories based on the theme of the application. The categories were taking care of a character, quizzes, and the storytelling theme. Moreover, there was no application that included the social networking feature.ConclusionThis study highlighted the most important features of the free mobile health applications “apps” for diabetes type 1 available in Google Play and App stores that can contribute to enhance the self-management of the diabetes condition by patients in Saudi Arabia. The identified applications have important characteristics that can be used in the future for the care and self-control of type 1 diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia.

BackgroundIn the app stores of mobile platforms, consumers are confronted with an enormous number of mobile apps. Over the past few years, considerable research has been undertaken into to identifying, characterizing, and evaluating apps, be it in health-related or other contexts. However, many of these projects are restricted to specific areas of application and offer little flexibility in adapting the applied criteria.ObjectiveThis paper presents an adaptable method for selecting and characterizing mobile apps listed in a mobile App Store (the Apple App Store). The method is based on filtering processes using predefined criteria, through a semiautomated retrospective App Store analysis (SARASA).MethodsTo illustrate the SARASA process, keyword-based filtering and metadata-based description, review, and ranking steps were applied to a dataset, more specifically, an April 2018 readout of the Medical category of the German App Store, with the aim of obtaining a list of cardiology-related apps.ResultsFrom the original list of 39,427 apps within the “Medical” category of the App Store on April 14, 2018, 34,382 apps with store descriptions in languages other than German were removed. For the remaining 5045 apps, keywords related to cardiology were applied to filter the output, obtaining a final total of 335 subject-specific apps for further analysis and description.ConclusionsSARASA provides an easy to use method for applying filtering processes to identify apps matching predefined, formal criteria from app stores. The criteria can be well adapted to the needs of users. Automatic and manual analyses are easily combined when using SARASA. In the future, additional features, such as algorithmic topic analyses, may supplement the process. Although the area of application is currently limited to Apple’s App Store, expansion to other stores is planned. The method stands or falls with the transparency of the app store providers and the manufacturers to make relevant meta-information available. It is up to them to liberalize information and restrict censorship to provide clients, customers, and users truly fair circumstances finding their way around the app market.

Purpose: Patient education and understanding has been shown to improve outcomes by enabling engagement. Information relating to ophthalmic disease and surgery is often complex, pertaining to microanatomy of the eye and adnexa. The use of three‐dimensional anatomical models in clinical consultations is one method that can improve patients' understanding of their ophthalmic condition(s) and procedure(s). Our research group surveyed the current app marketspace for virtual smartphone anatomical models that can be readily deployed in any ophthalmic clinic setting for the benefit of patients and clinicians alike.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of Google's ‘Play Store’ and Apple's ‘App Store’ – the two most commonly used app stores – using the key term ‘eye anatomy’. Apps were excluded if they were not related to ophthalmology and if they did not offer a 3D function that could rotate 360°. All relevant apps were evaluated by three parameters: 3D Features, Highlights individual anatomical features, and Cost.Results: The ‘Play Store’ generated 250 results of which 20 were relevant. The ‘App Store’ generated 211 results of which 12 were relevant. Between the ‘Play Store’ and ‘App Store’ there was an overlap of 7 apps. These apps offered a variety of 3D features including 360° rotation, X‐ray and animation modes, and virtual/augmented/mixed reality options. Of the relevant 25 Google and Apple apps, 76% (19/25) offered a function to highlight individual anatomical features. 32% (8/25) of these apps were free and the remaining 68% (17/25) had a price range from £0.89 to £36.62, averaging at £10.36 per app.Conclusions: The availability of medical smartphone applications has proliferated over the past two decades. Whilst there is a wealth of applications available to aid ophthalmology anatomy learning, further improvements and content regulation from specialists is required to maintain a high standard of content. This study is the first to systematically evaluate smartphone apps within the context of ophthalmic anatomy.

BackgroundThe substantial increase in smartphone ownership has led to a rise in mobile health (mHealth) app use. Developing tailored features through mHealth apps creates a pathway to address the health care needs of pediatric patients with cancer and their families who have complex care needs. However, few apps are designed specifically to integrate with pediatric cancer care.ObjectiveThis study reports a systematic search and analysis of mHealth apps available on the Apple App (iOS) and Google Play (Android) stores designed for pediatric cancer through a list of features that serve (1) patients, (2) caregivers, or (3) both audiences.MethodsFollowing PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we reviewed apps for pediatric patients with cancer and caregivers available as of January 30, 2024. We searched the Apple App and Google Play stores with a list of keyword combinations focusing on pediatric cancer care. The inclusion criteria were (1) specifically apps targeted toward pediatric patients with cancer, their families, or both; (2) available in either app store; and (3) available in English. Apps were assessed using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). The MARS is a quality assessment for mHealth apps, including components of engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and informational quality (5-point Likert scale items—1: low and 5: high quality).ResultsIn total, 22 apps were identified and 17 of those apps were available on both platforms. The most popular features (n=12) were resource sharing, symptom tracking, reminders, care team connections, journaling, community support, medication tracking, data visualizations, and appointment tracking. Features and interfaces were designed for caregivers (n=9) more frequently than the patients (n=7) while a subset of apps created options for both users (n=6). A total of 16 apps received positive reviews (mean 4.4, SD 0.59; Min=3.1, Max=5.0). A small subset (n=3) achieved over 5000 downloads; however, the majority (n=15) had fewer than 500. More than half (n=12) of the apps were not available in English. Apps requested access to a range of device functionalities to operate (mean 2.72, SD 3.13; Min=0, Max=10). Out of 22, a total of 17 apps were publicly accessible. The mean MARS scores for the apps ranged from 1.71 (SD 0.75) to 4.33 (SD 0.82). Overall, apps scored high on functionality (mean 3.72, SD 0.54) but low on engagement (mean 3.02, SD 0.93).ConclusionsOur review highlights the promising yet underdeveloped potential of mHealth apps in pediatric oncology care, underscoring the need for more inclusive, comprehensive, and integrative digital health solutions. Future developments should actively involve key stakeholders from the pediatric oncology community, including patients, families, and health care professionals, to ensure the apps meet specific needs while addressing linguistic and cultural barriers.

App stores have become the subject of controversy and criticism within antitrust. For instance, app developers such as Spotify and Epic Games (creator of Fortnite) allege that Apple’s 30 percent cut of all sales in the App Store violates the antitrust laws and is indicative of monopoly power. The idea is that iPhone users are locked into Apple’s walled garden iOS platform, which frees Apple to engage in misconduct in the App Store “aftermarket” to the detriment of users and app developers. This Article challenges the recent economic and legal characterizations of app stores and the nature of the alleged harm. First, this Article builds an accessible, economic framework to illustrate how app stores do not represent the same type of aftermarkets that were condemned in the Supreme Court’s landmark Kodak case. Importantly, the differences between Kodak-like aftermarkets and app store aftermarkets raise serious questions whether the digital revival of the aftermarket doctrine conforms with the economic realities of these markets. Second, the complexity of the commercial relationships found in app stores has raised questions regarding who has standing to seek antitrust damages in this type of market setting. This Article provides an overview of the development of the current doctrine of antitrust standing—focusing on Illinois Brick and Apple v. Pepper. Further, this Article contends that Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion in Pepper, which gave iPhone users the right to sue Apple over the 30 percent commission, was right for the wrong reason. Instead, Justice Gorsuch’s dissent offers a much more economically sound approach to antitrust standing—as his “proximate cause” standard does not artificially focus on identifying the “direct purchaser,” which is unnecessarily limiting for more complex commercial relationships. As the number of antitrust claims against various app stores proliferate, the consequences of faulty characterizations of app stores will only grow.

This paper studies the availability of apps and app stores across countries. Our research finds that users in specific countries do not have access to popular app stores due to local laws, financial reasons, or because countries are on a sanctions list that prohibit foreign businesses to operate within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, this paper presents a novel methodology for querying the public search engines and APIs of major app stores (Google Play Store, Apple App Store, Tencent MyApp Store) that is cross-verified by network measurements. This allows us to investigate which apps are available in which country. We primarily focused on the availability of VPN apps in Russia and China. Our results show that despite both countries having restrictive VPN laws, there are still many VPN apps available in Russia and only a handful in China. In addition, we have included findings of a global search for the availability of privacy-enhancing and other apps that are known to be censored. Finally, we observe that it is difficult to find out which apps have been removed or are unavailable on the examined app stores. As a consequence, we urge all app store providers to introduce app store transparency reports, which would include when apps were removed and for what reasons.

While online platforms are an enforcement priority for European competition authorities, the latter are only now turning their attention to app stores (after having scrutinized, among others, hotel booking websites, search engines and online marketplaces). However, app stores can be characterized as the quintessential multisided platform market, where a few players (Apple and Google) serve as intermediaries between third-party suppliers (app developers) and consumers in exchange for a commission fee. Moreover, these app stores are embedded in intricate mobile ecosystems with varying degrees of ‘openness’ to third parties. Increasingly, these third parties are complaining about allegedly anticompetitive practices. In particular, the operators of app stores—which are vertically integrated into the supply of apps—are said to preference the distribution of their own apps over those of competitors. Such ‘self-preferencing’ can take many forms. Music streaming app Spotify, for example, complains that it is being treated unfairly in comparison with Apple’s music app because of exorbitant commission fees, delayed approvals, restricted promotions, and limited integration with Apple’s broader ecosystem. Other apps claim they have simply been removed when the app store operator introduced its own competing app. App stores thus constitute the ideal case study to clarify the assessment of abuse of dominance in the platform economy. Firstly, this implies correctly delineating markets: do app stores operate in one or multiple markets (one for each ‘side’ of the platform)? Secondly, one needs to establish market power: do network effects entrench the market power of app stores, or is any market power transient in a digital context? Thirdly, under which theory of harm should one qualify the conduct of app stores: refusal to supply, margin squeeze, tying — or perhaps an independent theory of self-preferencing? Fourthly, can seemingly anticompetitive practices not be justified by the need for effective platform management? And finally, how does the new P2B Regulation impact the freedom of app store operators? In answering these questions, this paper offers a guide to both authorities and concerned businesses, when it comes to app stores as well as other multisided platforms.

This paper examines the phenomenon of the generic app store as a `foe', i.e. detrimental to Telcos' business, versus the role of a `friend', i.e. a valuable tool to compete in the emerging Telecom/Web landscape. Some successful app stores are run by device manufacturers and device OS vendors, and some Telcos are seeing a modest success too. The paper suggests that there is much more to gain from a Telco app store where apps enhance communications. The App Stores is a `friend' because it educates users to demand rich voice and - most importantly, to pay for apps, albeit small fees. It legitimizes the notion of a `disposable app', allowing Telcos to deliver `perpetual Beta' and get away with no user support. The plethora of popular Data apps through the app stores has marginalized Voice, but there is still great scope for related apps that `augment' reality. With IMS, Telco can differentiate app stores by offering multi-terminal, Fixed and Mobile synchronization facilities. Most of all, app stores are becoming the decisive factor in users choosing a network and a key interface to them that Telcos cannot afford to lose.

A systematic literature review: Opinion mining studies from mobile app store user reviews