Apple: “Come to the AppStore and sign up for HBOMax!”
HBO: “Shhhh! Don’t tell people that!”
HBO: “Shhhh! Don’t tell people that!”
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
There's actually a pretty good chance that this costs the developer money on the whole, while the consumer gets the exact same price they would have otherwise. Honestly, depending on how much Apple is spending on advertising, they might not even be making that much off of this arrangement, although they're basically the only ones that might benefit from this.
This is an arbitrage situation.
Let's say developer A's cost per acquisition is $10, in return, they get 100% of a $100 subscription fee. Net profit is $90
Apple makes an ad, developer A's cost per acquisition is $0 because they aren't doing anything, but developer A gets a free 70% of $100 or $70 subscription fee. Net profit is $70
If you were developer A, it makes MORE SENSE to do your own advertisements in order to get $20 extra profit. And this would purely be in year 1. year 2/3/4 the developer still owns Apple $30 each year when they could have had a one-time cost of $10....
Apple is being shady af here. It's one thing if developers know about this and agree to it, but if Apple is doing this without developer knowledge, wow. Despicable behavior.
Let's say developer A's cost per acquisition is $10, in return, they get 100% of a $100 subscription fee. Net profit is $90
Apple makes an ad, developer A's cost per acquisition is $0 because they aren't doing anything, but developer A gets a free 70% of $100 or $70 subscription fee. Net profit is $70
If you were developer A, it makes MORE SENSE to do your own advertisements in order to get $20 extra profit. And this would purely be in year 1. year 2/3/4 the developer still owns Apple $30 each year when they could have had a one-time cost of $10....
Apple is being shady af here. It's one thing if developers know about this and agree to it, but if Apple is doing this without developer knowledge, wow. Despicable behavior.
Same thing with Google. Put in product X and product Y is the first listing.
I definitely get it, if Apple promotes YOUR app, it's seems like a death sentence to similar apps.
Their promotion is definitely beneficial, but at the same time, Apple is not going to promote an app that isn't top notch for its purpose, right? So, that app is doing well because of Apple's promotion or because it's a really nice app? I, like many other [most?] people, don't just randomly download an app JUST because of an ad, like anything in life, I look around and see what else is available first then decide what to buy. If Apple promoted a crap app, you think it would just start killing it in the revenue? No, people would destroy that app and Apple for promoting it.
Except the companies Apple is doing it with don’t need their advertising. If your company is one nobody has ever heard of, then sure that deal might make sense. Who hasn’t heard of HBO? I’ve never seen an ad for a streaming service and thought “yeah I’m going to click this and sign up.” Go offer Walmart this deal for your services and see what they say.
It used to be illegal, until Ronald Reagan’s “deregulation.”
You are not a great business owner I'm sorry if you think this is an automatically a good deal...
It depends on a lot of factors, actually.
This has already been shown to be true in the past. I just wish the store worked the way that you think that it does, because your way is much, much fairer.
Wrong.
A) They have to be in the App store since sideloading isn't permitted on ios/ipad os and can't be done without a lot of workarounds. They have no choice as there is no way they can't be in the app store and miss out on all those users.
B) Apple is buying ads for companies that don't wan't Apple to advertise for signing up for subscriptions through the Apple installed apps vs them signing up on the developers webpage. This is despicable behavior. No way another company should be able to place ads for another if that company doesn't want them to.
Either you’re missing what Apple’s doing or you’re being intentionally obtuse. Promotion within the App Store would make sense. No they don’t need hide apps. Apple is advertising apps on the broader web, taking cuts of sales from developers when ads from the devs themselves would get them the customers they’re seeking. If I start researching Westworld and start getting ads for HBO, Google may serve up the HBO ad or the Apple ad. If they serve up the latter, HBO is out money they shouldn’t have been. And since Apple competes in this same market with ATV+, this would seem to potentially be anti-competitive.
There's a huge difference. That is a co-operative agreement. I'm assuming you don't work in retail but Coca-Cola usually pays for those ads and marketing. Not the supermarkets. Both parties agree to it as well. Developers are actually asking Apple not to place these ads and Apple and Google continue to run them. Huge difference.
Wow. This is much ado about nothing. Imagine getting mad at Best Buy for advertising your product for sale because they make a profit off the sale.
The wording of this article is also misleading in how they claim the developers are "losing millions". If the only reason people are buying your product is due to Apple advertising it, you are earning money you wouldn't have otherwise.
Reading the quotes in the article make this look even worse for the developers that complain about this process. They claim that their business is essentially unsustainable if people buy their product through the app store. This makes no sense. They have their app in the app store, but if they sell through the app store, they lose money? So, remove your app from the app store then? It's laughable.
Actually, since they so react negatively against customers buying their product via the app store, it's not just laughable, but outright insulting to these customers. If you buy via the app store, they don't want you as a customer.
Disclaimer: I only read the article to the part where they make the ridiculous claim that "the user experience is much worse" when buying via the app store.
The wording of this article is also misleading in how they claim the developers are "losing millions". If the only reason people are buying your product is due to Apple advertising it, you are earning money you wouldn't have otherwise.
Reading the quotes in the article make this look even worse for the developers that complain about this process. They claim that their business is essentially unsustainable if people buy their product through the app store. This makes no sense. They have their app in the app store, but if they sell through the app store, they lose money? So, remove your app from the app store then? It's laughable.
Actually, since they so react negatively against customers buying their product via the app store, it's not just laughable, but outright insulting to these customers. If you buy via the app store, they don't want you as a customer.
Disclaimer: I only read the article to the part where they make the ridiculous claim that "the user experience is much worse" when buying via the app store.
Last edited:
Or this would get HBO money it wouldn’t have gotten as posted above. Seems like a win/win.
It doesn't necessarily increase the value of the company it just increases the per share price and nobody is forcing anyone to sell any shares. So I don't see the issue?
Ummm Apple not placing ads without the developers permission?
I'm sure it's one of only those two things.
Again, HBO can just stop accepting subscriptions through the app if they don't want people subscribing in app. @boss.king points out this may not be true for other types of apps (Tinder is mentioned in the article, I don't know their model), but it's certainly true for HBO because Netflix does exactly this.
Either way, I don't see the problem with Apple promoting their services.
Saying that competing for subscription revenue is somehow anticompetitive is, well, either missing what's happening or being intentionally obtuse.