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

201–210 of 231 posts

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

#201

Post by heavyset_go »

commoner wrote: post #191
wayoutthere wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chargebacks are no panacea for dark patterns; issue too many and you’ll start getting your card blacklisted from payment processors. I did this a couple times with an online retail store that was especially egregious on the dark patterns (sneaking things into your cart on checkout, etc) and my card would get rejected at certain gas pumps and online stores for the next 6 months. It wasn’t all of them, but a good 25% s…

I have never heard of a universal blacklist for chargebacks (spanning multiple unrelated businesses), and I don't think it exists. I've charged back transactions for legitimate reasons (such as fraud and false advertising) on quite a few occasions, and I've never received any kind of penalty. Even if there were such a blacklist, you could simply ask your card issuer to change your card number to get around it. In fac…

Companies, especially retailers, pass around lists of problem customers.

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

#202

Post by dmitriid »

madeofpalk wrote: post #164
asimilator wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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’m all in favour, as a user, for Apple IAP subscriptions. But shouldn’t “the market” be able to send a signal that they prefer that? Shouldn’t Apple’s IAP actually be able to compete on its merits (like the better experience that we both prefer!) rather than arbitrary platform lock-in? If, faced with actual competition, users and/or developers do not chose Apple IAP, wouldn’t this signal to Apple that they need to d…

> But shouldn’t “the market” be able to send a signal that they prefer that?

Ah yes. "The market".

People forget that before Appstore mobile apps were distributed through stores controlled by mobile operators. With "store tax" at 70% or higher.

Then Apple came along and decided to take only 30%. It turns out that this (and superior phones) is exactly what users prefer.

But wait, now it's somehow not the proper "market", there's some other "proper market" that must make it right.

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

#203

Post by echelon »

rkk3 wrote: post #41
treis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lenovo doesn't have to sell through Amazon while HBO, Netflix, et. al. are forced to sell through Apple.

> 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.

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

#204

Post by echelon »

mcphage wrote: post #142
howinteresting wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon doesn't get recurring revenue from selling Lenovo laptops.

Lenovo doesn’t get recurring revenue from selling Lenovo laptops, either.

Oh, but Apple sure does!

They get their 30% subscription fee. And they get to control the customer relationship. App publishers have a really shitty deal here.

Mobile computing would be so much better for competition if this had become a Microsoft / Google duopoly rather than have Steve Jobs with his perverse app store model. We'd have web downloadable apps and a better mobile web.

We now have a cartel for 50+% of American consumers. The cartel is so greedy that it's now placing ads to confuse and ensnare consumers even more.

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

#206

Post by huhtenberg »

bagels wrote: post #168
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…

There are minimum per transaction fees for most processors, so if you go at this alone, and you'd find that charging very small increments may not be feasible.

And I'm sure Apple, being a small fish that they are, would be able to negotiate custom fee schedule to accommodate very small transactions. They just don't want to.

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

#207

Post by graftak »

sharken wrote: post #198
ev1 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I say cancel in one tap, what I mean is I have a list of every subscription I am holding, and I pick that one and it goes. I do not want any kind of retention, I do not want to be messaged in any way, just stop renewal. I do not want to call in, live chat, give a reason, etc.

So sort of a one-click buy experience, only for cancelling a subscription. I think that would be great, except many companies care more about holding on to users than the user itself. But i think it's a great idea, it could even be listed as a feature/badge when signing up. [X] Easy one-click cancellation.

The App Store provides just that

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

#208

Post by weird-eye-issue »

jpalomaki wrote: post #9

They key piece is that article claims Apple is doing this so that they can get their 30% transaction fees. If customer pays on the app developers website, Apple is not getting cut. If customer downloads the app and makes payment there, Apple gets their money.

That is why the ad links to the Apple App Store...

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

#209

Post by chrischen »

wayoutthere wrote: post #178
chrischen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s already a solution to dark patterns: chargebacks. Apple probably makes it worse by taking this avenue away because if you try to chargeback apple they probably just suspend your account.

Chargebacks are no panacea for dark patterns; issue too many and you’ll start getting your card blacklisted from payment processors. I did this a couple times with an online retail store that was especially egregious on the dark patterns (sneaking things into your cart on checkout, etc) and my card would get rejected at certain gas pumps and online stores for the next 6 months. It wasn’t all of them, but a good 25% s…

While it’s possible Stripe implement this implicitly via their “fraud detection” machine learning model I’ve never heard of any blacklists currently being used and I operate an online retailer.

That being said you’d have to be purchasing from shady merchants quite a lot and using lots of chargebacks (and presumably losing them) to be blanketed.

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

#210

Post by sokoloff »

jefftk wrote: post #160
offtotheraces wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you saying that the clearing price for the ad inventory they’re competing over is $27? (If so I’ll explain why that’s not the case)

Yes: I would expect them each to be willing to bid up to $27

I would expect Tinder might be willing to bid more than $27 (per conversion) even if they only ever used Apple payments.

Any marginal conversion that Tinder creates (either against a competitor or non-consumption) is worth over $50 net to them using Apple payments. ($50 would assume a generous $20 marginal cost to serve.)

That doesn’t mean that the data that Tinder’s ROAS team is looking at will guide them to spend more than $27 in this case, only that it might.

Likewise Apple could spend $27 on every customer they converted who was already going to be paying Tinder on the web to buying via the App Store plus $27 for every user they added to Tinder who paid on the App Store who would have not bought or would have gone to a competitor (minus any credit Apple would have earned there) plus an amount of cashflow and enterprise value created by people seeing ads for Apple’s store and concluding that Apple has more/better apps than their competitors.

If we confine only to first-order effects and assume advertising is exclusively about changing payment preferences of users who would convert anyway, I’d expect both companies to be willing to bid close to $27.

Post reply on HN