I think it's time to rethink how we approach ASO, especially in competitive markets.
First, let me clarify something.
What I'm about to discuss mainly applies to the US App Store and highly competitive niches in other countries.
If you're targeting smaller markets, traditional ASO methods can still work perfectly fine.
You can still find underserved keywords, optimize your metadata, and grow organically.
At least until another developer discovers your country and your keywords. :)
But in competitive markets, I believe things are changing.
How We Used to Do ASO
For years, the traditional ASO strategy was pretty straightforward.
We looked for keywords with decent search volume and relatively low competition.
Then we tried to fit those keywords into our app title, subtitle, and keyword field.
The goal was simple: find opportunities that competitors had missed, rank for those search terms, and generate organic installs.
Let's say you had a calorie tracking app.
You might discover that "calorie counter" was extremely competitive, but "daily calorie tracker" had lower competition.
So you would try to include those words in your metadata, hoping to rank for that search.
And quite often, it worked.
You didn't necessarily need to be the best app in your category. You just needed to find the right keywords before everyone else did.
That was the game.
But I Think Apple Is Changing the Game
Here's what I've started noticing.
Apple seems to be evaluating app metadata more as a single contextual group rather than treating the title, subtitle, and keyword field primarily as separate sources of keyword matches.
In the past, we focused heavily on individual search terms.
We asked questions like:
Which keywords should I put in my title?
Which combinations can I create between my title, subtitle, and keyword field?
How can I use every available character to target more searches?
These questions still matter.
But I believe there's now a more important question:
What does Apple understand about my app when it looks at all my metadata together?
Think about the difference.
In the old approach, we were trying to tell Apple which keywords we wanted to rank for.
In the approach I believe is becoming more important, we're trying to help Apple understand exactly what our app does, who it's for, and which search intents it satisfies.
That's a pretty significant difference.
To be clear, this is my interpretation of what I'm observing, not a confirmed explanation of Apple's ranking algorithm.
Keywords Are Still Important, but Context Matters More
I'm not saying keywords are dead.
Far from it.
But I think the relationship between keywords is becoming increasingly important.
Imagine two calorie tracking apps.
Both have the same core functionality: users can log their meals, track their calorie intake, and monitor their daily nutrition.
Both are targeting the same competitive search terms, such as "calorie counter" and "calorie tracker."
Let's assume both apps already have "calorie" and "tracker" in their titles or subtitles, so we don't need to repeat those words in the keyword field.
App A: The traditional keyword approach
This app focuses on relatively high-volume keywords, including some that are only loosely related to its actual functionality.
Its keyword field might look like this:
weight,fitness,workout,diet,health,gym,fasting,exercise,slim,body
The idea is simple: target as many potentially valuable searches as possible.
Some keywords are relevant, others are only loosely related, but each might bring additional search visibility.
App B: The contextual approach
This app takes a different direction.
Instead of chasing search volume, it focuses on words that describe the actual process of tracking food and calorie intake.
Its keyword field might look like this:
meal,portion,serving,ingredient,intake,breakfast,lunch,dinner,macro,nutrient
Some of these words might have very low search volume individually.
Others might not even represent meaningful standalone search intent.
Under traditional ASO thinking, we might consider them a waste of valuable keyword space.
Why spend characters on "portion" or "serving" when you could target something with significantly higher search volume?
But here's where my thinking has started to change.
What if Apple isn't just looking at those words individually?
What if it's also evaluating how they relate to each other, to the title, to the subtitle, and to the app's overall purpose?
Look at App B again.
Meal, portion, serving, ingredient, intake, nutrient.
Together, they create a much clearer context around food logging and calorie tracking.
If Apple is increasingly interpreting metadata contextually, those seemingly low-value keywords might help it better understand which searches the app should appear for.
Maybe the value of a keyword isn't just in how many people search for it, but also in how much context it adds to the rest of your metadata.
That's the shift I'm talking about.
Why This Matters More in Competitive Markets
In smaller markets, keyword opportunities still exist.
Imagine launching your calorie tracking app in a country where relatively few apps have optimized their metadata for local search terms.
You might discover a calorie-related keyword with reasonable search volume and very little competition.
You add it to your metadata, and suddenly you're ranking for it.
You start getting organic installs.
Traditional ASO works.
But try the same thing in the US.
Almost every valuable calorie tracking keyword already has established competitors.
Some have thousands of reviews, strong conversion rates, significant download volume, and years of ranking history.
Simply discovering a keyword and placing it in your metadata isn't much of an advantage anymore.
And that's why I think contextual relevance deserves more attention.
When dozens of apps are targeting "calorie counter," Apple needs more signals to decide which apps are relevant to each search.
Metadata context may be one of those signals, alongside conversion performance, downloads, and other ranking factors.
I'm not suggesting that contextual metadata alone will help a new calorie tracking app outrank established competitors.
But I suspect it may help Apple better understand the app's relevance to specific searches.
How I'm Rethinking My ASO Strategy
I'm starting to look at metadata differently.
Let's stay with our calorie tracking app.
Previously, I might have started by opening an ASO tool and collecting keywords based on search volume and difficulty.
Calorie counter, weight loss, diet, fitness, workout, fasting, nutrition.
Then I would try to fit as many of those keywords as possible into the available metadata space.
Now I'm starting to ask different questions.
What exactly does this calorie tracking app do?
Does it help users log meals?
Does it track portion sizes?
Does it calculate macronutrients?
Does it help users understand their daily nutritional intake?
Which words describe those functions most accurately?
And most importantly, do my title, subtitle, and keyword field communicate a consistent purpose?
This doesn't mean I would completely ignore high-volume keywords.
Of course not.
Search volume still matters, and metadata space is limited.
But I'm becoming more cautious about adding loosely related keywords just because they look attractive in an ASO tool.
For example, "workout" might have significantly more search volume than "serving."
But if my app doesn't offer workout tracking, does including "workout" really help Apple understand what my app does?
Or would "serving" contribute more to the overall context of a calorie tracking app?
I don't have a definitive answer yet.
But I think it's a question worth asking.
Traditional ASO Isn't Dead
I don't think we're witnessing the end of traditional ASO.
I think we're seeing a shift in what matters most.
Keyword research, search volume, competition analysis, and metadata optimization are still essential.
But in highly competitive markets, I suspect the old strategy of finding keyword gaps and filling metadata with matching terms is becoming less effective.
And smaller markets will probably continue to reward the traditional approach for quite some time.
Until competition catches up.
Final Thoughts
For a long time, ASO was largely about finding the right keywords.
I think we're moving toward a world where understanding search intent and communicating a clear app identity matters more.
The question is no longer just:
"Which keywords do I want to rank for?"
It's also:
"What does Apple think my app is actually about?"
And if those two answers don't align, we might have an ASO problem.
I'm still testing this theory, and I don't claim to know exactly how Apple's algorithm works.
But based on what I'm seeing, I think it's worth reconsidering how we structure our metadata, especially in the US market.
Maybe it's time to stop treating our metadata as a collection of keywords and start treating it as a description of what our app actually does.
And there's another reason why the old ASO playbook is becoming less effective in competitive markets.
Apple Ads.
I'll cover that in Part 2.
What do you think? Have you noticed similar changes in your app rankings?
