Verizon signed the contract. Two-party agreement. Takes two to tango.
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
Zodiac killer says this killing people has been going on for five years…
Wasn’t part of the allegation that Apple’s ads compete with the devs’ ads and try to divert traffic away from their own offerings to getting people to buy directly from the App Store?
Wasn’t part of the allegation that Apple’s ads compete with the devs’ ads and try to divert traffic away from their own offerings to getting people to buy directly from the App Store?
No they can't, Apple owns 60% of the customers in this town. Android owns the other 40%. By pulling the app from the store, they immediately lose 60% of their potential customers. There is no competition for these customers. Apple has a monopoly.
Two words. Free advertising. Ads cost companies money. If apple wants to put out ads and allow the developers to use their tools and store… I don’t understand how anyone could complain about that.
Otherwise the developers have to still follow the same pricing structure AND pay for the ads. This “-gate” is the most ridiculous of the “-gates”.
Otherwise the developers have to still follow the same pricing structure AND pay for the ads. This “-gate” is the most ridiculous of the “-gates”.
It's not advertising for the company. The problem is with brand keyword bidding which. you clearly didn't do enough research to comment about this. The Forbes article was claiming that Apple made it more expensive for people to run brand keyword ads because Apple was overbidding. It would be a completely different article if Apple bid on behalf of developers for generic keywords rather than brand-based keywords or it was opt-in, Apple suggests this is opt-in but I'd rather have it be said from those 3rd party developers because opt-in in apple cases means they signed the contract allowing apple to bid brand keywords for AppStore links.
Are you saying that Apple is forcing them to be software developers? That’s messed up. At the very least quitting is an option but if Apple won’t let them leave than it’s an issue. Otherwise, they could make shoes instead.
Apparently, Apple trying to drive up sales of third party apps via their App Store has got everyone’s knickers in knots!
Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices, just like how McDonald’s has a monopoly on Big Macs. It’s never going to stick in court.
I can’t wait for the day when private relay extends to all apps as well, not just safari browser traffic.
What's being discussed into the more-pressing issue, OR, I believe, the reason behind Apple's quick response.
Less than a week ago, after losing their first appeal, Apple stated it would appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
And naturally, this is related to the Epic vs. Apple Judge's decision that Apple must let App Store consumers purchase IAPs via third-party websites, & do so by Dec 9th !
In other words, Apple doesn't want any (more) Bad Press right now !
The 9th Circuit would surely catch wind of it if it happens.
No, nice try, it's not about Epic - that's a "look over there" distraction...
Apple doesn't want its reputation damaged by people making false statements here saying Apple is acting shady regarding third-party ads. I don't blame them.
Can always tell the difference between those who know the subject material and those who don’t.
The complaint isn’t against ALL ads, just those specifically designed to draw traffic away from developers sites. This is done by identifying the ads the developers already have in place and then outspending them - PROVIDED there is a subscription involved.
it’s not done out of the kindness of Apple’s heart. Apple’s advertising arm has very specific parameters to know how much to spend, to make that 30% pay off. Very easy to dial in the parameters as well.
The complaint isn’t against ALL ads, just those specifically designed to draw traffic away from developers sites. This is done by identifying the ads the developers already have in place and then outspending them - PROVIDED there is a subscription involved.
it’s not done out of the kindness of Apple’s heart. Apple’s advertising arm has very specific parameters to know how much to spend, to make that 30% pay off. Very easy to dial in the parameters as well.
Last edited:
Lotus? I see that you're a man with a true passion and taste for cars. ?
Now, correct me if I’m wrong again, but When more people are after the same resource, the price always goes up. So, sure the price is higher since apple has big money bags and wants to do adds using these brand keywords, but that increase in price affects competitors too. Wouldn’t it? They aren’t JUST competing with the brands they are doing ads for, are they? So, while apple may have been routing folks to their payment platform, it is STILL an ad where people are seeing your product or service and costs for doing ads for competing services are higher as well…
I’ll admit, I am not in this space, and you are free to educate me, but this doesn’t sound like something entirely bad for the companies. Especially if it’s opt in as you say.
It's unethical when everyone else does it. It is not possible for Apple to be unethical. There's just no way. There has to be an explanation. No explanation will be considered for anyone else.
I agree with this, it's hardly any recognition to claim an ad as being an app from your App Store, that's all the majority of ads are is for games and apps from the App Store, you have no idea it's Apple placing the advert and collecting revenue from it, it's a clever almost free way to gain more revenue, but a little dishonest too.
I don’t know or not if the app store will be changed vs regulation or lawsuits. It may or may not. For now, the first test the epic case, apple came out unscathed.