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

61–70 of 126 posts

Re: Search Ads

#61

Post by coev »

georgeecollins wrote: post #54
HSO wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point of the App Store is to help in discovery and I already pay a 30% cut for my app. Actually, the point of the app store was distribution. That's what the 30% cut was for IIRC. And that's how they sold it, by comparing it to the 50% and more cut that older, traditional channels took at the time of introduction. I don't think they ever even thought about discovery, which would explain why the app store…

What distributor of software ever charged 50%? Retailers of CD-ROM games (when they were a thing) and video games do not charge that kind of markup. You are crazy if you think this is a way for Apple to do anything other than capture some of the existing market of app ads, which has been incredibly lucrative for Facebook. They have so many ways to get more information about how useful an app is likely to be for you t…

> What distributor of software ever charged 50%? Retailers of CD-ROM games (when they were a thing) and video games do not charge that kind of markup.

The mobile carriers often charged upwards of that rate to game publishers.

Re: Search Ads

#62

Post by the_common_man »

WesleyJohnson wrote: post #60
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…

> First, they charge developers to even develop for their platform (though this has become free off late). How has it become free? Honest question, as I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I meant the 99usd fee really per annum. It's only free if you are not publishing on the store. AFAIK, this was not free previously.

Re: Search Ads

#64

Post by slackoverflower »

This is a huge opportunity for Apple's own ad network, iAd, to really take off. Now that they have the advertisers who are willing to spend money and the information on iOS users who actually spend money in the App Store, this makes iAd much more valuable. Apple loves to control their ecosystem so having their own ad network implemented in majority of ad-revenue-based iOS apps would work out quite well.

Re: Search Ads

#65

Post by colechristensen »

Hbthegreat wrote: post #63
cmsj wrote: post #2

Anyone else getting an error when saving credit card information?

This should instantly stand out to you as being a bad idea.

Why?

It's a credit card, you're not liable for fraudulent charges and you're saving it with the largest company in the world (market cap).

Re: Search Ads

#66

Post by roryisok »

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…

You should get one of those hotstring expansion apps like expander and program ' bc ' to make ' because '. I keep reading it as British Colombia

Re: Search Ads

#67

Post by roryisok »

jgalt212 wrote: post #56
brian-armstrong wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wired headphones aren't going anywhere, Apple or no.

in the sense that Lightning did not kill USB, you are correct, sir.

Android / iPhone are becoming completely incompatible at a hardware level. Lightning instead of USB. No headphones. No SD card. Next it'll be some proprietary SIM card standard. It's almost like their afraid someone is going to crack iOS to run on and Android handset the way macOS can run on a PC

Re: Search Ads

#68

Post by electrum »

physcab wrote: post #31
gnopgnip wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook Atlas has multi-touch attribution: https://atlassolutions.com/insights/measuring-business-resul...

Re: Search Ads

#69

Post by obtino »

roryisok wrote: post #67
jgalt212 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the sense that Lightning did not kill USB, you are correct, sir.

Android / iPhone are becoming completely incompatible at a hardware level. Lightning instead of USB. No headphones. No SD card. Next it'll be some proprietary SIM card standard. It's almost like their afraid someone is going to crack iOS to run on and Android handset the way macOS can run on a PC

> No SD card.

To be fair, the SD card has been abandoned by the Google Nexus line as well. It caused a lot more problems than solved. Now that storage is relatively cheap, more manufacturers are removing it.

Re: Search Ads

#70

Post by electrum »

ksec wrote: post #59

I find it strange they prefer Ads as part of the solution to discovery problem. Apple App Store Search SUCKS. And I have no idea why. It is not that they cant do search ( Spotlight in Mac ), but they cant do search at scale. It is also to get some of the Ads revenue from Google and mainly facebook, where Apps install is a huge deal.

This was actually the original idea of pay-per-click search ads. GoTo.com was founded on the idea that paid listings would be of higher quality and relevancy, because websites that pay more are likely better sites.

The idea has some merit: you can't spam the search engine with completely irrelevant ads, because users will click them and thus charge the advertiser, but they'll quickly leave the site because it isn't relevant to their search.

Modern pay-per-click (PPC) does yield management and ranks ads based on the click-through-rate (CTR) multiplied by the PPC. So if you create irrelevant ads that no one ever clicks on, they'll stop being shown in favor of more relevant ads with a higher CTR.

Post reply on HN