Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

1) more demand in auctions means higher prices. so if apple is taking the second slot they’re almost certainly increasing the cost of the 1st slot for hbo. which is apples whole point: to increase the cost (literal and figurative) of hbo’s efforts to get people to sign up via web rather than via app.

2) in the world of search marketing - including both on google and the app store - there is a strong belief by brands that they MUST be the #1 paid result for their branded search terms, no matter what. so what you’re seeing here is hbo saying “we always have to be #1 on our branded search no matter the cost”. This is exactly why people complain constantly about google showing competitors ads when the original company’s brand is specifically searched for by the user - effectively the competitor is freeloading on the incumbents brand searches to drive traffic (by paying to show ads on those searches). Google doesn’t care because they make more money this way (more competition for the branded keyword drives up CPCs).

all of this is to say that apple being in the #2 slot doesn’t say anything about the intent of their actions here, which is to make it uneconomical for companies to move users off apples rails onto their own systems.

The problem is that what you describe is the short term positive impact to Tinder. But that’s far outweighed by the long term negative of having your whole business dependent on the whims of Apple. For example, anytime Tinder wants to make an app update, Apple has to approve it. Well, if Tinder goes after Apple with regulators by filing complaints and pointing to antitrust violations, Apple now has the power to mess with Tinders business. Or if Tinder wanted to offer its users a 20% discount as an inducement to subscribe directly with Tinder rather than through Apple, Apple can and does prevent them from doing that right now by refusing to allow Tinder (or any developer) to reference in the app the fact that lower prices can be achieved by subscribing via web. The examples are countless, but essentially the more reliant Tinder is on Apple, the worse for Tinder and the better for Apple.

a) They can click through to a Tinder site, where they subscribe directly.

b) They can click through to the App Store, where they end up subscribing via Apple's in-app purchases. Apple gets a 30% cut.

Assuming your $100 LTV from before, in (a) Tinder makes $97 and Apple makes $0 while in (b) Tinder makes $70 and Apple makes $27. Tinder clearly prefers (a) while Apple prefers (b), but by how much?

Tinder: they make $97 - $70 = $27 more in (a)

Apple: they make $27 - 0 = $27 more in (b)

This means both companies are willing to bid approximately the same amount, since their profit on winning, relative to what would've happened otherwise, is $27.

Spoken like someone who has never tried to cancel anything where they had a direct relationship with the publisher

As an individual, I would rather buy a newspaper subscription from Apple instead of paying for a 13 week subscription from the paper directly, billed monthly.

As an enterprise, I don’t want to be stuck dealing with a mercurial and pain the ass middleman like Apple for anything significant to my business. I have the market power to get terms from a company like Adobe or whatever, but with Apple, we get a very polite “Fuck you, we’re Apple, you are not Apple. Be thankful we are selling our beautiful things to you.”

The reasons why I can’t stand Apple for B2B are why they are delightful to Spooky23, the individual consumer.