It was humans, specifically human curation. You see, Apple has understood for years that people want human guides, rather than guidance from intelligence machines/bots. Nowhere is this more apparent than in its Apple Music service, which has human curators to help guide your music discovery on the service. (Having human guidance matters a lot when you have half the smartphone population of some countries using the service.)
Designed for humans
It’s the same at the App Store, where humans manage the process and the store itself. Those humans are allegedly the same ones who submit the suggested winners for the App Store Awards, which are selected by those editors. The principle should be that the editors pick the apps that most deserve praise for pushing app design boundaries.
Looking at this year’s awards, Apple has clearly made a few decisions in the background pertaining to how it chooses the apps. This year’s winning iPhone app, Tiimo, is remarkable in that it attempts to be a to-do app for neurodivergent people, which is laudable. What is less remarkable is its lack of a native Mac app. (Users are directed to the web app for desktop interactions.) Apple commentator John Gruber seems quite critical of the choice. I’m less so, but it does strike me that if accessibility is to be seen as a differentiator within the awards, then it would be even better served by giving it a dedicated category.
