I always knew Apple was doing this out of their kind heart. The balanced relation between Apple and developers is so beautiful and touching that it brings a tear to my eye.
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 Defends Its Ads for Third-Party Apps, Says It Regularly Communicates With Developers and Has Been Running Them for Five Years
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So apparently 9to5Mac.com got the response from Apple !
Had to go to their site to get my answer !
Had to go to their site to get my answer !
I wouldn't be shocked if it was from Apple's attorneys taking issue with some of the very damaging comments here about Apple being shady, when in fact that was not the case.
Apple regularly communicates with developers... ? good joke!
Since many years, nothing changed:
www.imore.com
developer-tech.com
Internally the same BS:
Since many years, nothing changed:
Developers and customers need better communications from Apple
In many ways, Apple is a more open, forthcoming company than it used to be. But in key areas the company is still troublingly closed. I've been making a living with Macs long enough to remember the er
www.imore.com
Developers aren’t happy with Apple’s surprise release of iOS 14
Turns out developers want more of a heads up before a major OS update is pushed to over one and a half billion users.
developer-tech.com
Internally the same BS:
Last edited:
There isn't one. There are many people out to harm Apple and they use very deceitful tactics and reporting to make it happen.
You're missing the 15% - 30% of life long lost revenue from Apple ads directing consumers to subscribe in app vs. a developers ad that would direct the consumer to subscribe on their website. It's pretty significant. It's not a one time sale either. It's a sub.
No, a company is to serve the state in the utopia, capitalism is bad remember?
But...... thats not how this works.
People are already searching google for a brand they already know they want to use, to subscribe directly from the vendor.
Apple is jumping in and saying here is a link, come subscribe.
They aren't building brand awareness. They are siphoning off 30% that the vendor was otherwise going to make on their own. And they are causing the actual brands to have to pay more in their own advertising to compete against what Apple is bidding to advertise on their brand name.
This isn't like Walmart advertising a can of green beans when you can't buy from Green Giant direct.
- If an app already has lots of brand awareness, it’s questionable whether Apple is actually bringing in new customers vs. “sniping” people who are already searching for the app but click the ad at the top rather than the organic result.
- In this case, if the customer signs up within the app, Apple will get 15% for the entire duration of the subscription vs. zero if the customer signed up through the Web site. So, to the extent that the customer would have signed up anyway, this is a loss for the developer.
- As an example. Tinder owner Match says it pays nearly US$500 million in fees to the app stores annually, the company's single largest expense.
- Apple’s bidding on ads increases the cost of ads that the developer is buying.
- You could look at this as Apple using its arguably too-high fees against the developer that is paying them. They would rather pay lower fees than pay more for this “service.”
- There’s some asymmetry here because most developers aren’t allowed to purchase Google ads that use Apple trademarks like “Mac” for better targeting, but yet Apple is placing ads using the names of the developers’ products, even though they don’t want it to.
- Apple doesn’t seem to have commented on the allegation that there’s no way to opt out.
Last edited:
There is no guarantee that the customer is going to buy direct until they do. Maybe Apple is securing revenue by showing them they could manage the payment on their device. As long as the price is the same having Apple between my credit card and the seller is a benefit for the customer.
This is the same point as above, so I will repeat that signing up via the app has added value. There are subscriptions that I have let laps because the developer charges too much but when they contact me directly about saving money by paying directly I decline because I want the same product for less.
This conflicts with the point you were trying to make before. Even if the price increases all traffic is resulting in increased sales. So their need to buy ad space decreases and the advertising expense is partially moved to payment to Apple. Who, again, closed the deal.
This doesn't make sense to me. Who is you, them, and the service?
And? It's not fair. Why does that matter?
They could pull their app from the app store.
Apple is actually advertising a better experience which most likely translates to a higher conversion rate. With Apple, I see an HBO MAX ad on my device, I click, I download, I choose a plan, and I subscribe. With a first-party HBO MAX ad, I click, I navigate some offers, I register, verify my email, I dig out my credit card, I enter in all the info, then, if I'm lucky, I'm kicked to an App Store link, I download the app, I log in.
Apple saves me a lot of friction.
Let's be honest, Apple is not siphoning off 30%. Any of these companies could turn off in-app purchases and entirely disincentivize Apple from doing this, but all of them have determined that this is an acceptable way for users to sign up for their service because they see some benefits to it so they allow it.
Last edited:
Of course, everyone wants a piece of Apple's mammoth wallet.
You mean, Apple wants your wallet.
Actually they probably have your credit card in THEIR wallet already, inside the Apple Wallet App.
OMG Forbes....seriously!! I kept getting clickbait articles from Forbes in Apple news and I was under the impression they were reputable until such times that I kept reading their articles and realised what a complete and utter joke they were so chose to not show their items any longer in options!! They are completely disgraceful and nothing less than an embarrassment to society as far as I'm concerned. They're no better than Facebook.
because the devs will get business they never would have gotten?
Of course they want to. They have agreed to a contract where they have appointed Apple to be their marketeer.
Unless developers are agreeing to contracts they don't agree with.
You have no clue how marketing works. This is an arbitrage opportunity that's lost for the developer.
They wouldn't have been duped if they had any journalistic standards and verified their sources prior to going to print.
Do you know for a fact that this is occurring? Otherwise it's pure speculation like the "article".