I'm no ad expert, but I have to think if Apple starts advertising my app, more people are seeing my app.
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
So is Google owned by HBO? If not, then it's not in HBO's parking lot.
I'd say this is like AT&T putting a billboard advertising iPhones near the offramp to an Apple Store.
Last edited:
Sure. Which begs the question of why Apple wants to force a dev's hand to remove that option.
Not at no cost. Devs pay an annual fee to list their app, and a cut for every app sold through the store. But that doesn't mean Apple should be entitled to a percentage of every dollar the dev ever makes. If I sell a service in multiple places, I should be allowed to advertise my service in the way I see fit, whether that's directing to my site or the app store.
Yes, because they wanted more of their revenue. Prioritized is a nice way of saying targeted. I'm sure when other apps become lucrative, they'll be "prioritized" too.
If you don’t see how what I laid out is anti-competitive I can’t help you. Allowing HBO to distribute an app on the App Store doesn’t magically negate that.
Since these ads seem to driving traffic to the app in the iOS AppStore, I would assume that Apple is paying a premium to advertise only to users on iPads and iPhones. (otherwise what's the point if you can't get a direct conversion?) This is probably a market that HBO (and others) are not advertising to. Well, they could be, but sending iPhone users to a web-based sign up and then a link to the app is probably not good for seamless conversions which is why Apple is probably doing well here. Telling me I can download the app and subscribe in a few moments is a widely different message than chasing weblinks and digging out my credit card.
Last edited:
They aren't forcing anyone's hand. They're allowing both options to exist, but preferring the one that benefits them when they advertise. Seems sensible...
So, if you think $99 and 30% of free is what's keeping the AppStore alive, you might want to revisit that logic. They aren't entitled to a percentage of every dollar the dev makes, only those that Apple helped motivate through their platform, service, or advertising.
You seem to be saying the dev can't advertise how they want to-- they absolutely can. Just as Apple can.
Yes, that's how business works. You invest to earn and prioritize the allocation of capital to endeavors with the greater returns.
Your whole point was that devs can remove the button if they're not happy. Remove the button or lose revenue seems pretty forced to me.
Who said 30% of free? They make money off of in app purchases and subscriptions, which they would still do even if they stopped doing this sketchy middleman ad stuff. And they certainly seem to be making record profits.
If it's perfectly acceptable then why is it being done in secret? Why isn't Apple boasting about the money its spending to put a spotlight on these great devs in order to bring them more attention? The answer is that, regardless of its legality, it's a sketchy business practice.
Advertising isn't necessary if you have a monopoly or strong market share. Needing to buy advertising to sell your products is evidence for competition, the exact opposite off antitrust.
Anticompetitive? This is the textbook definition of competition.
That doesn't seem forced, that seems like common sense. If the button is costing you more than it's making you, remove it. I don't think it takes an MBA to work the numbers on that.
See the update.
Apple did say they spent about $1m over 11mos. advertising Fortnite.
Just as importantly though, secret doesn't mean unacceptable.
They are faking. They are also raping the other shareholders, and the company. Exsanguinate? Bleeding something dry. They also pay less taxes on that money as it's categorized differently I believe. It's cheating...
Pretending to be your competitor in ads in order to take 30% of their revenue is textbook competition? I thought it was designing a better product at a lower cost.
I’m not sure you really got the premise based on your response. Maybe you can lay it out for a to ensure we are on the same page.
And that would be Apple's actions directly leading to a worse outcome for the consumer. How do you not see the issue there?
My main issue was with it being in secret. If that's not the case then devs can plan around it. I can only go off the details on hand at the time. But yes, they were doing this in secret then it would be unacceptable.
Or, extrapolating from your logic, you could argue that Apple should charge for iOS updates, because why would it do all that work for a complicated product that customers can just download for free? Of course, this ignores the fact that both iOS and the App Store help make iPhones and iPads successful, and Apple gets paid back from the exclusive manufacture of those devices.
I do advertising as my primary job and this is totally normal in the e-commerce business. E-commerce buy branded keywords and direct users on their site, competing with the brand owner and other e-commerce
Remember a subscription can be forever. It's not a one time purchase, once Apple has the subscription through their appstore that's 15% to 30% forever.
The main point isn't about what's more profitable anyway. It's about some developers not wanting Apple to advertise for them. Shouldn't Apple just respect those wishes? I think the point most people are trying to make is that it's the developers product and they should be able to dictate who advertises it and how.
Now we’re back to the charity argument: People would be happier if they could get their things for free.
Most of the competitive parts of business are done in secret. Is it unacceptable that the iPhone schematics are secret, or the product roadmaps, or acquisition negotiations?
So Apple should raise the price of their iPhones to subsidize HBO’s customers?
Is it? You have all the developers contracts in front of you? Even if it is I believe if parts of contracts are written in bad faith they can be rendered void but not 100% positive. Either way it's dirty to run ads for someone who doesn't want you to advertise for them.
Hopefully developers start running ads that undercut the app store subscription fees at least 10% otherwise as a consumer if the sub is the same price what do I care who's pockets are getting lined? You want people to subscribe directly through a website make it worth the effort.
Well, yes, the more accurate analogy would be Apple putting up signs just outside the entrance to Wal-Mart's parking lot.
Actually I'd be curious to know what kinds of searches Apple is targeting with its ads. If someone is searching for something generic like "streaming movies online" and an Apple ad leads them to HBO, that seems fine. But if someone is searching for HBO and an Apple ad diverts them to their own store, that's sleazy, and undermines the claim that Apple is bringing customers to developers.