I asked a relative to look for RealVNC on the Play Store and install it. Once they were done, I asked them to fulfill a basic task inside RealVNC and they were really confused by my instructions. I took a look at their phone, lo and behold, they had installed a different app. I asked them to repeat the install procedure while I watched. They punched in “realvnc” in the search box, two identically formatted results appeared. Their finger instinctively clicked the Install button on the top result. It was an ad. 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦
Everyone here knows everything you said. I’m merely providing a current example of where things are today and I’m making a moral judgement that this design has become too counterproductive for the user. Not sure if you stand on the other side of this and if you do, that’s fine. You may have your reasons to support Alphabet’s corporate interest. I don’t in this case. Therefore I feel it’s justified to make things less productive for Alphabet. You suggested nothing can be done other than removing the ad altogether. I suggested a way to solve the issue I highlighted without removing the ad.
I understand your concern. I absolutely don’t support alphabet LOL. I don’t even use the Play Store. I just don’t think they can shoulder 100% of the blame here and I think your description of “two identically formatted results” is disingenuous. The two apps do not share a name or a description. The closest thing is that they have a similarly-colored icon.
Assume it’s not disingenuous. Instead picture observing a user confusing the two and draw a conclusion other than they’re an idiot. But you already said you understand this design makes users more likely to click on the ad. Do I have to explain the common elements of the layouts in a wireframe? Do I have to go into the differences in noticeability between more and less prominent design language elements in order to explain in what way they’re identical? Come on, cut some slack and assume better.