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

Search Ads

searchads.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 126 posts

Re: Search Ads

#31

Post by physcab »

gnopgnip wrote: post #30
physcab wrote: post #19

From their ad copy they say 65% of all downloads come from app store search. If this is true, this is bad news for FB. A huge chunk of FB revenue comes from mobile app install ads bc that was the only method large app developers had to send users to their apps. I previously worked at a gaming firm that spent $5M/month on these types of ads. If App Store search is effective, this will swing ad budgets away. FB still h…

How do you account for the users that saw an ad, and then searched on the app store instead of clicking the add?

What we call this in the industry is "attribution" and there is a whole sub-industry to deal with this bc it is a complex problem. In short, gaming right now uses last-click attribution so the last advertiser gets credit. FB does influence behavior for sure, though that is difficult to quantify.

Re: Search Ads

#32

Post by zbuttram »

CatMtKing wrote: post #21
physcab wrote: post #19

From their ad copy they say 65% of all downloads come from app store search. If this is true, this is bad news for FB. A huge chunk of FB revenue comes from mobile app install ads bc that was the only method large app developers had to send users to their apps. I previously worked at a gaming firm that spent $5M/month on these types of ads. If App Store search is effective, this will swing ad budgets away. FB still h…

I only use the search when I know what app I'm looking for. Wouldn't that would drive up the numbers artificially -- as I had the intention of downloading the app before I began searching.

I wouldn't think so, not if they're saying a percentage of all downloads come from search, as opposed to a percentage of all searches lead to a download.

Re: Search Ads

#33

Post by ljk »

the_common_man wrote: post #29
Kronopath wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are already paying to promote apps though. I've heard of plenty of app developers paying for huge numbers of app installs in bulk in order to get them to the App Store's top downloaded lists. This is Apple trying to capture some of that market and bring it away from these kinds of shady practices.

Yes, so let it be free of charge. Why is there any cost involved here for the app developer?

Probably because Apple can..

Re: Search Ads

#34

Post by ivv »

the_common_man wrote: post #17

This is...insane. The whole point of the App Store is to help in discovery and I already pay a 30% cut for my app. And now they want to charge me for promoting my app in their store. This should just be a built-in part of the App Store story for the customers. This is why Apple customers pay a premium. Instead Apple sees an opportunity here to make even more money off me / the app authors? Hats off to Apple. First, t…

That's how supermarkets work, too. They get a cut of the sales price, and if you want your product to stand out, you pay for a more prominent placement.

Re: Search Ads

#35

Post by hkmurakami »

physcab wrote: post #19

From their ad copy they say 65% of all downloads come from app store search. If this is true, this is bad news for FB. A huge chunk of FB revenue comes from mobile app install ads bc that was the only method large app developers had to send users to their apps. I previously worked at a gaming firm that spent $5M/month on these types of ads. If App Store search is effective, this will swing ad budgets away. FB still h…

FB will still be better for "app discovery" that was not intended by the user.

How many times do you visit the App Store without already had an intent to download a specific app or a specific app category? Compare that to how often you visit the FB timeline. The intrusiveness of FB ads hitting your brain when you had no internal motivation for look for another app is why FB ads will continue to be powerful.

Re: Search Ads

#36

Post by joemi »

the_common_man wrote: post #29
Kronopath wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are already paying to promote apps though. I've heard of plenty of app developers paying for huge numbers of app installs in bulk in order to get them to the App Store's top downloaded lists. This is Apple trying to capture some of that market and bring it away from these kinds of shady practices.

Yes, so let it be free of charge. Why is there any cost involved here for the app developer?

If it were free, wouldn't everyone do it, thereby negating any benefit?

Re: Search Ads

#38

Post by zbuttram »

the_common_man wrote: post #29
Kronopath wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are already paying to promote apps though. I've heard of plenty of app developers paying for huge numbers of app installs in bulk in order to get them to the App Store's top downloaded lists. This is Apple trying to capture some of that market and bring it away from these kinds of shady practices.

Yes, so let it be free of charge. Why is there any cost involved here for the app developer?

So instead of ads you want a system where random relevant apps are floated to the top of searches? How is that helpful for anyone?

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Apple is only doing what every other search system with embedded ads at the top does.

Re: Search Ads

#39

Post by joemi »

the_common_man wrote: post #27
eridius wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a built-in part of the App Store. But the app store is so crowded that once you fall off the front page, there's not much you can do within the store (besides hope that Apple decides to feature you after some big update). The reason why search ads are actually good for customers is because it promotes apps that are backed by companies that a) still care about their app, and b) can afford to actually promote the…

This is poor logic. Promoting has nothing to do with how well supported the app is. All we will see is people with money push their apps and trying to make up for that money at the cost of the customer.

> Promoting has nothing to do with how well supported the app is.

I think it could, to a certain extent. If someone stops supporting an app, I think there's a decent chance they wouldn't both paying money to promote it. At least for the kind of throw-away crap apps that are out there.

Re: Search Ads

#40

Post by physcab »

hkmurakami wrote: post #35
physcab wrote: post #19

From their ad copy they say 65% of all downloads come from app store search. If this is true, this is bad news for FB. A huge chunk of FB revenue comes from mobile app install ads bc that was the only method large app developers had to send users to their apps. I previously worked at a gaming firm that spent $5M/month on these types of ads. If App Store search is effective, this will swing ad budgets away. FB still h…

FB will still be better for "app discovery" that was not intended by the user. How many times do you visit the App Store without already had an intent to download a specific app or a specific app category? Compare that to how often you visit the FB timeline. The intrusiveness of FB ads hitting your brain when you had no internal motivation for look for another app is why FB ads will continue to be powerful.

Yea, historically FB is for demand generation and Google for capturing intent. There wasn't really a good solution for iOS. Adwords weren't terribly effective on iOS but Android may be a different story. So I'm sure FB isn't shaking in their boots or anything but I do think there are sizable budgets dedicated to FB bc that was the only truly scalable method of user acquisition on iOS.
Post reply on HN