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

121–130 of 231 posts

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

#121

Post by tangjurine »

offtotheraces wrote: post #101
jefftk wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that that's one way it could work, but it seems really unlikely to me that Apple would be willing to lose so much money on a project like this. Some other possibilities that I think are more likely: * Apple has a higher LTV estimate than Tinder for this traffic. * Tinder has less available capital, so they are not able to outbid Apple even though they think that they would still earn lots of money at that pri…

Remember, it's not that much money for Apple especially considering their whole app store business model depends on taking their 30% tax. Maybe we're talking about $50m/yr vs app store revenues of $10b (?) a year (and 70%+ margins per docs in recent court cases). They would absolutely be willing to lose this money if it extended their stranglehold on app developers - it's the same reason they fight tooth and nail in…

> Theres no scenario where apple can be profitable on this spend when they can only ever get 30% of what the consumer spends.

I mean, maybe if tinder's margin was less than apples, but that's pretty unlikely.

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

#122

Post by javajosh »

That Apple would do this is interesting, but more interesting to me is Google's position, and obligation, here. There was a throw-away line in the article about Google "not doing anything about it". What could or should Google do about it? Has Google mediated between competitive ad-buyers in the past? I am not sympathetic to goog in general but it seems like that line puts them in a no-win situation: either they err for not doing anything, or they err for doing something (but not the right thing). Indeed, in this case it would seem the corrective action would better come from Apple than from Google. (Also note this whole play feels like Apple trying to get creative with ways to productively bleed off ridiculously huge capital reserves in a low risk way. It would be ironic for Apple if this blows up into a big thing, but somehow I really doubt it will. )

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

#123

Post by mmahemoff »

It's a good thing for those developers.

The fact Apple can afford to do this simply reminds us of the fact they can demand a 70-30 split (85-15 after 1 year) and deem themselves the exclusive payment provider. That's the controversial part, which is what this issue reduces to.

Whatever the "fair" revenue split is, once you accept it exists, it's a net positive for the developer that Apple is reinvesting to grow the pie.

If anyone's hurt by this, it's their smaller competitors who won't get the same love from Apple's ad arbitrage team.

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

#124

Post by andrekandre »

ericmay wrote: post #116
kingcharles wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

  > You can’t sell yourself into slavery or sign away your freedom of religion or speech.
is this because of court rulings or explicit in law?

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

#125

Post by gzer0 »

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.

Terms and conditions do not supersede the law of the courts.

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

#126

Post by noobquestion81 »

threeseed wrote: post #83
sam0x17 wrote: post #71

Lovely corporate ethics. I posted this in our company slack room as an example of how not to act for bizdev Google benefits too much from this sort of arrangement to have any incentive to stop it, even though these are unauthorized advertisements that are specifically against Google's AdWords TOS (side note, I wonder if there is a legal avenue to follow when a vendor doesn't follow their own TOS? An interesting thoug…

a) It is not against AdWords TOS provided you have permission to use their trademarked terms. Which Apple has since in the Developer agreement [1] they have been assigned permissions to use logos, trademarked terms etc in marketing material. b) Google is incentivised to tackle abuse within their system. It's ridiculous and baseless to say otherwise. Lack of integrity in an ad marketplace very easily can translate to…

I think it would be completely crazy if apple did this without entering into a special contract with google. Theres no way some sales engineer just signed up for a google ads account one day

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

#127

Post by Terretta »

> When people buy access to a service via a subscription in an iOS app, they are essentially Apple’s customers. For privacy reasons Apple does not provide much information about them to the apps or businesses that run the apps. That means it’s hard to do customer service, address issues, or solve any problems.

> “The user experience is much worse,” a marketing executive from one company told me. “When you buy with the developer, they have a relationship with you ... when you buy from Apple: sorry, you’re Apple’s customer, not ours, and if you have a problem with a subscription … we can’t really help them.”

Now interview a real user of subscriptions instead of a brand marketing executive and ask them if the user experience is worse.

PS. Even when not confronted with such a piece, remember that Forbes is no longer the business journalism folks may have grown up with. For the past decade, it’s a blogging platform for independent contributors:

> Each contributor flies solo with his own blog. He is responsible for conceiving and creating the content, ensuring its accuracy and building an engaged, loyal readership. Forbes provides the technology and compensates some of the contributors, but otherwise, like all entrepreneurs, contributors are left to sink or swim on their own.

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forb...

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

#128

Post by kayodelycaon »

andrekandre wrote: post #124
ericmay wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> You can’t sell yourself into slavery or sign away your freedom of religion or speech. is this because of court rulings or explicit in law?

The 13th amendment in the US makes slavery illegal except as punishment for a crime. 1st amendment rights have been asserted in case law.

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

#130

Post by stefan_ »

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…

"A reseller offering both trade mark goods and competing products is not precluded from using the trade mark in advertising, provided that the reseller safeguards the legitimate interests of the trade mark owner. The German Federal Court has found that if a trade mark is used misleadingly in advertisements originating from a Google search resulting in the exploitation of a trade mark in a way that guides the public to third-party products, such use may provide a ground for the trade mark owner to oppose the use of the trade mark."

This was specifically re: Amazon using a trademark in AdWords to redirect sales to Amazon, where they then of course also sell competitor products.

This might be moot of course if you granted Apple rights to your trademark in whatever agreements, but then these agreements are also frequently found inapplicable so ymmv.

Post reply on HN