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

221–230 of 231 posts

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

#221

Post by Mertax »

madeofpalk wrote: post #211
Mertax wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no incentive for Apple to become motivated to do this on their own. Google, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft all wish their app stores could be as lucrative as Apple’s, and most of these are trying to do exactly what Apple is doing. What other product exists that is able to take such a large revenue cut from 3rd party product enhancers? Is this possible outside of software? Don’t see why Apple would give that up unles…

That's kind of the point, right? What forces or incentives are there for Apple to change its practices or lower its prices?

The end user is not the consumer segment that cares about this. As evidenced by many comments in this thread, most Apple users value the curated app store and its payment features. App developers just enabled Apple to get away with it.

The market segment that would have to resist would be the app developers themselves, but no individual app is attractive enough to do that. Even Microsoft attempted to keep Office products off iOS for quite some time. The cat is out of the bag at this point. Ironically, it seems as long as Google/Android still commands a significant market share, it's unlikely to be viewed by the courts as a monopoly. That just means Google will try harder to become like Apple, but they're going to have an even harder time back-tracking the path they've gone down.

The thing about Apple is not only have they prevented in-app payment processing, they have also prevented side-loading. This combination makes the App store so powerful. Probably some of the reason why they don't support PWAs well etc...

From the Epic decision it sounds like the courts may be inclined to allow 3rd party in-app payment processing as long as Apple still gets a cut. It's debatable which would be "worse" for end-users -- allowing them to side-load or allowing 3rd party in-app payment processing. It's probably less debatable about which one Apple prefers.

From the developer side of things, if 3rd party in-app payments are allowed and Apple still gets a cut what was gained? If Apple is forced to allow side-loading, you better believe they're going to make enabling that feature seem as scary and obscure as possible to the end-user.

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

#222

Post by mcphage »

offtotheraces wrote: post #143
mcphage wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t entire understand the ad market, so sorry if this is a stupid question, but if Apple bids $97 per user and wins, then that’s more than the $70 per user Tinder would get, that makes sense. But since that user didn’t cost Tinder anything, aren’t they +$70 since Apple ate the acquisition cost, instead of +$27 where Tinder only had to spend $70 (under the no-Apple bid price) to earn $97?

You’re 100% right - don’t doubt your logic! :) 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 antitru…

> You’re 100% right - don’t doubt your logic! :)

Thanks ;-). I wasn’t sure there wasn’t something I was missing.

> the more reliant Tinder is on Apple, the worse for Tinder and the better for Apple.

So you’re saying that the long-term impact for going through Apple IAPs isn’t just the 30% margin, but also increased reliance on Apple, and less knowledge about their customer base? That makes sense, I get why Tinder wouldn’t want that. Thank you :-)

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

#223

Post by ladyanita22 »

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…

There's 4 times "Google" in your comment, but 0 "Apple".

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

#224

Post by ksec »

Terretta wrote: post #127

> 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 th…

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

Their experience is better when they signed up, mostly due to Apple's integrated API and enforcing standards.

Their experience is much worse when they have dispute. Because no user think of themselves as Apple's customers. They are using your App or Services. Telling them to go to Apple doesn't solve their problem.

If the experience is truly better, and if Apple owns every single transaction and relationship. Why is it the developers gets the blame every time when there is a problem while Apple sitting their enjoying their 15% to 30% commission?

Apple is muddling rent-seeking, developer tooling, support, discovery, distribution and services all into that 15-30%. And they happily dance around that one of these stance every time they are questioned.

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

#225

Post by ksec »

asimilator wrote: post #158
offtotheraces wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobile app operator here - let me clarify some things: 1. Until June it was impossible for a developer to issue a refund to an angry customer - Apple simply did not allow developers to do that, despite the app store being around for 13 years. This has led to untold frustration among developers - angry customers email us, leave horrible reviews, leave screeds on social media about how we “won’t” refund them, when in a…

> Apple doesn’t allow subscriptions priced at less than $0.99. Why not? What if I had a product that i wanted to sell for $0.50 a month? I’d pay $0.50 more. I just had the unpleasant experience of canceling a non-Apple controlled service. It sucked. Pages and pages of “are you sure you want to cancel” dark patterns. You guys did this to yourselves with absolutely shitty customer experience. Could not care less if App…

I'd argue there is no reason why Apple cant force a much better, simpler or even standardise canceling experience without taking away all the relationship between your client.

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

#226

Post by ksec »

offtotheraces wrote: post #150
Terretta wrote: post #127

> 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 th…

Mobile app operator here - let me clarify some things: 1. Until June it was impossible for a developer to issue a refund to an angry customer - Apple simply did not allow developers to do that, despite the app store being around for 13 years. This has led to untold frustration among developers - angry customers email us, leave horrible reviews, leave screeds on social media about how we “won’t” refund them, when in a…

I just thought one thing no one seems to have point out yet. Apple framed this as a standard practice in business.

Yes, in a Supermarket, they will advertise your product on your behave. But customer dont run to Kraft Heinz, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble or Coca Cola for refund. They go straight to the store they bought it with. Or a better analogy would be tools ( multi usage ) rather than consumables. Consumer buying a tool will still return their tools to Home Depot rather than making complain about the tools maker not doing refund. But with Software that is not the case. Nearly all software are treated as "services" by consumer whether they are charged with subscription or not. And customer will act the same if they bought a services from Walmart. Let say Disney+ or Netflix. They will go to Disney and Netflix to complain or refund, not Walmart.

I think this distinction is quite profound ( to me at least ). Because we often use the product analogy with Software and Subscription. We even have a term SaaS ( Software as Services ) when in fact nearly all software are in some way treated as services by consumers. And of course Software developer have long thought of it as services due to its constantly updating nature.

So this mismatch, between how App Store operate, how Apps are priced and how consumer behaves with software seems to be fundamentally wrong.

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

#227

Post by rkk3 »

echelon wrote: post #203
rkk3 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lenovo doesn't have to sell through Amazon while HBO, Netflix, et. al. are forced to sell through Apple. Except they aren't forced to sell through Apple, Netflix doesn't allow in app-purchases for this very reason.

If a customer finds HBO through Apple's ad, they'll be paying for the subscription via Apple. Apple gets a 30% cut. Apple did this all on their own, without telling app publishers. They're deliberately trying to get their 30% tax and shut out app creators. This is nefarious. Apple is cutting the legs out from the very apps that bring value to its users. This could be the basis of an antitrust case against Apple.

They aren't forced to use Apple as a distribution channel, just like Lenovo could also not sell computers on Amazon or at BestBuy and they probably make a higher margin when they sell D2C as well.

It's a cold blooded move by Apple, but I don't think its "nefarious". I'm very much against their rent seeking with the app store though.

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

#228

Post by Terretta »

ksec wrote: post #226
offtotheraces wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobile app operator here - let me clarify some things: 1. Until June it was impossible for a developer to issue a refund to an angry customer - Apple simply did not allow developers to do that, despite the app store being around for 13 years. This has led to untold frustration among developers - angry customers email us, leave horrible reviews, leave screeds on social media about how we “won’t” refund them, when in a…

I just thought one thing no one seems to have point out yet. Apple framed this as a standard practice in business. Yes, in a Supermarket, they will advertise your product on your behave. But customer dont run to Kraft Heinz, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble or Coca Cola for refund. They go straight to the store they bought it with. Or a better analogy would be tools ( multi usage ) rather than consumables. Consume…

On the contrary, the CDPR release debacle shows consumers expect the refund from the app store aka the console store front, whether Microsoft or Sony. They’re mad at CDPR, they want their money back from Microsoft or Sony. And given that noise level, Sony yanked Cyberpunk2077, just as Apple might. Or Walmart with a bad batch of ketchup.

Similarly, people buying from the app store BnL don’t go back to the app store to find the developer web site and go there to look up a support phone number to ask a human if they can please cancel by physically mailing a certified letter somewhere (how you cancel most first party subscriptions). They go to the subscriptions settings and cancel.

I’d argue that is indeed exactly like Heinz vs. Walmart or whatever.

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

#229

Post by Terretta »

jsmeaton wrote: post #139
Terretta wrote: post #127

> 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 th…

There are pros and cons. As one example my son purchased $500 of skins in Fortnite on Nintendo (I had the card saved, my fault since corrected). Trying to get that refunded was a huge drama because I had to go via Nintendo rather than Epic. In this specific scenario I would have preferred a first party resolution.

Interesting. I’ve had Apple proactively email me about parental controls along with an offer to refund what they seem to have considered excessive in-game currency IAPs.

I’d be amazed if the game publisher would have cared at all. No amount of future loyalty to the one game would have offset the cost of the refund. Same is not true for Apple or Nintendo.

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

#230

Post by Terretta »

cachehit wrote: post #153
Terretta wrote: post #127

> 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 th…

>You can no longer help the customer who’s buying your product with the following requests: Refunds, credit card changes, discounts, trial extensions, hardship exceptions, comps, partial payments, non-profit discounts, educational discounts, downtime credits, tax exceptions, etc. You can’t control any of this when you charge your customers through Apple’s platform. So now you’re forced to sell a product - with your n…

Unfortunately, from a user perspective, in aggregate, the reputation of Apple beats the median reputation of devs at doing all those things in a customer’s favor.

So odds are subscribe through apple has better experience.

You, as a dev, may offer better, for sure. But the user cannot count on that.

Post reply on HN