If HBO Max is considered a ‘reader’ app then couldn’t they remove IAP signup like Netflix and Spotify did?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Allegedly Buys Ads for Subscription-Based Apps to Collect More Commission [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not to despicable with them yet but definitely hypocritical.
Long time Apple user and all my tech products are by them but I'm seeing some inconsistencies in their messaging. Google stood up to China, Apple didn't. Yet Apple is the one who pushes all the human rights stuff.
Apple sold us on pro-privacy and ad-free experiences. Yet, Apple News app ads are as intrusive and obscene as anywhere else - and now you hear more and more that it seems they block others just so they can sell to you more.
I was willing to accept all the ecosystem lock in and elevated costs that go with it, but getting a little disappointed with the Shangri-la they sold me.
If I had an app on the App Store and Apple made ads for it and paid for them to be posted, I'd be good with that. What's the problem?
Except that it means that the results in the app store really are rigged. Rigged in favour of some developers, and against others.
100% developers sign off that Apple can promote apps which appear in the App Store.
Indeed they did, when they put their app in the Apple App Store.
Apple has been showing off other companies apps in their advertising for years.
Anyone remember “there’s an app for that?”
A lot of those apps they showed also had websites.
Not sure how this is any different, and it most definitely isn’t illegal.
Shady definitely, but not illegal.
The problem is that this isn't what's happening. If you has an app and never advertised, and Apple came to you and said "hey, we're going to promote your app for free", that would be awesome.
Instead, Apple is allegedly finding apps that are already successfully acquiring subscription users on their own (although outside of the App Store, where Apple doesn't get a cut) and secretly competing with their advertising in order to both drive up user acquisition cost and get a percentage of what that dev would already be bringing in on their own by driving new users to the app store sign up.
They are misrepresenting the popularity of apps in the store. The more you sell, the higher you rank.
Okay, so now imagine you had an app in the App Store, but Apple made and paid for the ads of your rival, so your rival jumped above you in the rankings? See the problem?
“Hey, Apple, I want to tell folks IN the App I post on YOUR store that they should subscribe from outside the store.”
“OK, Dev. And I’m sure you won’t mind me buying ads for OUTSIDE the store telling olks they can subscribe IN the App as that’ll bring you even MORE money, with no cost to you”
If someone who ISN’T a subscriber currently, subscribes just because they see Apple’s ad, such that a person that wasn’t a customer (wasn’t paying for a subscription) signs up in app, that’s a win for Apple’s advertising effort AND as a side effect, free money for the developer at a total cost to the developer of… let’s see, carry the one… ZERO dollars.
And really, if there are actual customers out there willing to pay for their service that a developer hasn’t reached yet? Then, apparently Apple’s ad efforts are more effective that whatever the developer has been settling for. It would be interesting to see if any of these companies see record revenue as a result.
“OK, Dev. And I’m sure you won’t mind me buying ads for OUTSIDE the store telling olks they can subscribe IN the App as that’ll bring you even MORE money, with no cost to you”
If someone who ISN’T a subscriber currently, subscribes just because they see Apple’s ad, such that a person that wasn’t a customer (wasn’t paying for a subscription) signs up in app, that’s a win for Apple’s advertising effort AND as a side effect, free money for the developer at a total cost to the developer of… let’s see, carry the one… ZERO dollars.
And really, if there are actual customers out there willing to pay for their service that a developer hasn’t reached yet? Then, apparently Apple’s ad efforts are more effective that whatever the developer has been settling for. It would be interesting to see if any of these companies see record revenue as a result.
I get it, but that advertising drives users to the App Store where I have my app. It drives users to the store to see apps like my apps. Without that ad, maybe the users don't know about the App Store or learn about my competitors app or my app or apps like my app. It's beneficial for everyone. Maybe I should improve my app so Apple wants to highlight it as well.
This is the most pro-Capitalist thing I've ever said - I'm a little stunned.
Ha, I had the same thought (posted above). As far as I can tell, this is exactly how all retailers that carry other brands, operate.
Not necessarily. Some companies have more than one way you can sign up for their services. One way is to go to their website and sign up for an account and then later download the app. Apple doesn’t get a subscription revenue cut that way. The other way is to first download and install the app and then via the app sign up for an account. In this case Apple gets a recurring subscription revenue cut. Apple’s advertising is pushing that 2nd way of doing it.
I think this demonstrates that Apple is profiting more from the popularity of third-party apps and services than those services are profiting from their exposure to new customers in the App Store. It's been that way for a long time, but Apple is still clinging to their 2009 business model.
I wish it worked how you describe. They won't see your app. It is a link to the other one, and as every developer knows, searching for "AAAA" often results in a page of apps more like "ZZZZ". You can actually search for an exact app name and a different one comes first.
I’d suggest that if a developer has in app subscriptions and doesn’t want users to utilize them, they should remove that capability rather than complain that Apple is making their app more visible.
THIS IS COMPLETELY LEGAL! Amazon does this ALL THE TIME! But of course, no one cries foul because they love getting their Nescafe the next day to their door.. OMG.. Apple is a FOR PROFIT business. The APP store is a MARKETPLACE, doesn't anyone get this?
The developer gains either way (albeit minus a fee), apple gains, and the consumer gains - unpopular opinion , i know
We're not talking about small developers who wouldn't otherwise get those sales. We're talking about well-known companies with their own advertising who are already finding customers, and Apple is trying to intercept those sales to grab a commission.
To rework the way-overused retail store analogy, it's like Apple putting up signs in the Wal-Mart parking lot redirecting customers to their own store next door.
Even Apple knows the end is near and is fighting to keep the money flowing as long as possible … should spark yet another investigation, the question is now when it will be enough to topple the tower rather than if
1) Colgate doesn't have its own store that Wal-Mart is competing with.
2) I'm guessing Wal-Mart coordinates these efforts with Colgate rather than doing it surreptitiously.
My understanding is that unless it's a reader app (which some but not all of these are) then they're not allowed to remove subscription options that are available elsewhere or Apple will kick them from the store.
Of course, there's the new ruling that devs can include a link to their own payment solution alongside Apple's but that hasn't been implemented yet.