Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 231 posts

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#111

Post by chongli »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #3

This isn't terrible since it's possible that many apps providers can't afford the ads. But i think it's unacceptable unless the app owner is given a choice, and a clear cut choice with obvious opt in and opt out buttons. Also, it wouldn't hurt to make it clear to the consumer that Apple is paying for the ad.

If the providers can't afford the ads, they can't afford to pay Apple a 30% commission. If, on the other hand, they can afford to pay Apple a 30% commission, then they can afford an ad spend up to 30% to direct potential subscribers to subscribe directly, avoiding the Apple commission.

Netflix decided they couldn't afford the 30% commission, so they don't offer subscriptions in-app. It's really as simple as that.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#112

Post by amelius »

pfortuny wrote: post #2

> Apple is trying maximize the money they’re making … And that is the problem with our modern companies. The only morals is making money. What a pitiful excuse.

You can't blame these managers really, because what else are they good for? It's like being a software engineer while not allowed to write any code.

Dark patterns and raking in money is what these managers do and take pride in. The system we've created made that so.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#113

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #24

It's actually an interesting question how nefarious or harmful this actually is. We obviously know why Apple is doing it and why the apps in question don't like it. But a couple things occurred to me: You could view this like Amazon giving away your book or android app in a promotion. As I understand it, they still pay the author as if it were a sale, so the author seemingly has nothong to complain about. Even that s…

Yesterday there was some discussion of "Project Bernanke", so-called "quantitative easing" for DoubleClick's AdX. One could see similarities.

Here, Apple is helping certain "preferred" iOS app developers win against other iOS app developers. Apple stands to profit, the preferred developers stand to profit, but not other developers (and possibly users who will never discover their apps).

There, Google was helping Google Ads users, i.e., "preferred" DoubleClick AdX auction participants, to win against other participants in AdX auctions. Google profits (and brags about it in its internal presentations), Google Ad users may profit, but not the users of Google Ad alternatives.

Big Tech wants to facilitate "winner-take-all" scenarios. Healthy competition and parity amongst competitors (for user attention) reduces the profitability of the "tech" company business model. Big Tech would rather that user attention only be focused on what is most popular, creating more desirability to advertise to that single audience. A "Top 20" mobile app list, or top of page 1 of SERPs.

Concentration of web traffic, 80/20, network effects, and so on. Winner-take-all. The most ideal conditions for selling apps or ad services. The issue is not that they are doing this, it is in how are they doing it. They run and control the so-called "platforms" for advertising and sales and use that privileged position to manipulate outcomes that favour themselves. (And stifle competitors.)

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#114

Post by dagaci »

It might be legal etc... and app developers and companies seem to have signed away basically control of their app distribution, tradmarks and promotions to Apple the the small letters. But all the same it seems to be a bit sleezy and low for Apple to try and get money by spoofing other companies and brands in fake ads.

I get why Google doesnt, care, since Ads is their core business. But does Apple which already makes oceans of cash need to go this low for that little bit of extra $$$

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#115

Post by alisonkisk »

DutchKevv wrote: post #75
TheJoeMan wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why I see this will be a non-issue if on Dec 9th the anti-steering goes away. Then Apple places ad->user downloads->app says “hey it’s cheaper on tinder’s website”->user decides for themselves

Unless the app itself cost money to download, then it's to late. You could create a bootstrap page after first install, bit that makes it feel like unfair cause the app was 'free' on the app store. So once again Apple got it all figured out how to make stuff difficult for creators and make money while doing it

Huh? Subscription apps are free to install.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#116

Post by ericmay »

kingcharles wrote: post #103
gpm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a, b) yes c) regulations and laws trump contracts, not the other way around.

Not necessarily. You can waive your legal rights. e.g. agreeing to talk to the police waives your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Not quite. There is some gray here. You can’t sell yourself into slavery or sign away your freedom of religion or speech.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#117

Post by notahacker »

quitit wrote: post #88
Aulig wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Any sales generated by the ads would not have existed without the ad, and so it's not taking anything from the app developer. This argument is not very convincing in my opinion, as it looks like Apple is purchasing ads for brand keywords. If the ad wasn't there, the customer would go to the brands website, which would be ranked #1 without the ad.

The example shows the brand name being ranked 1st. For this to be a poor result for the brand it would require cannibalisation rates to be high enough to push the 15/30% fee higher than their margin - that’s not realistic because the app store price would never be at a loss to begin with (with many alreadying increasing the app store fee to match the 15/30% cut.) In all likelihood the end result is a net profit for t…

It doesn't need cannibalisation rates to be high enough to push the fee higher than their margin to be worse off, it just needs (delta between direct and App Store margin) * cannibalisation to be greater than the opportunity cost of users who would have given up trying to subscribe to HBO if they hadn't seen Apple's search result [assuming click costs/volume differences roughly even out]. I don't think it's exactly difficult for people to find a link to HBO Max from those results if the one that says "Download the HBO App" isn't there

Sure, they still make profit from the Apple signup, but less than they would have done if people were signing up from their website.

Needless to say if the App Store price is increased 1:1 to match so the developer definitely doesn't lose, it's a terrible deal for the consumer instead (if you're Googling, it's not even like Apple can claim the App Store is adding value with simplicity of discovery...)

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#118

Post by Lhiw »

dagaci wrote: post #114

It might be legal etc... and app developers and companies seem to have signed away basically control of their app distribution, tradmarks and promotions to Apple the the small letters. But all the same it seems to be a bit sleezy and low for Apple to try and get money by spoofing other companies and brands in fake ads. I get why Google doesnt, care, since Ads is their core business. But does Apple which already makes…

What's the issue? A marketplace is finding ways to drive traffic to its platform? It's literally their only job.

This is like eBay promoting sales of items on their marketplace using advertising.

Which they've done for years.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#119

Post by dudus »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #113
Brian_K_White wrote: post #24

It's actually an interesting question how nefarious or harmful this actually is. We obviously know why Apple is doing it and why the apps in question don't like it. But a couple things occurred to me: You could view this like Amazon giving away your book or android app in a promotion. As I understand it, they still pay the author as if it were a sale, so the author seemingly has nothong to complain about. Even that s…

Yesterday there was some discussion of "Project Bernanke", so-called "quantitative easing" for DoubleClick's AdX. One could see similarities. Here, Apple is helping certain "preferred" iOS app developers win against other iOS app developers. Apple stands to profit, the preferred developers stand to profit, but not other developers (and possibly users who will never discover their apps). There, Google was helping Goog…

Exactly and the crux is how can you prove the download would happen regardless of the ad put out by apple . This is an attribution problem on the ad space and nobody has solved it yet. Google has been trying to push complex attribution rules but they are not in a position to do it because they are insentized to attribute the sales to their own ads.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#120

Post by RileyJames »

tmoravec wrote: post #89
Aulig wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Any sales generated by the ads would not have existed without the ad, and so it's not taking anything from the app developer. This argument is not very convincing in my opinion, as it looks like Apple is purchasing ads for brand keywords. If the ad wasn't there, the customer would go to the brands website, which would be ranked #1 without the ad.

Without the Apple's ad, wouldn't there be some _other_ ad instead? Presumably a competitor's, or the brand's own, paying the Google tax?

Yes, but an ad to a competing product would become very expensive, as it wouldn’t convert and it’s cost (cpc) would increase as it is deemed less relevant.

Or the the developer would run their own ad.

But those are very different propositions to a middle man running a ‘genuine’ ad which simply takes a cut.

Post reply on HN