Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Facebook Ads 1790% More Profitable on iOS Than on Android

FirstNTenderbit said:
How is this related to the topic of the post? :(

On topic: Does this mean iOS users are more susceptible to ads on Facebook? IDK. I've read multiple comments on MR about how much people hate ads. Now all of a sudden because iOS has more profitable ad penetration on FB ads are okay. iOS FTW?

I've realized (sometimes I need reminding) for a while now that what we think in tech forums has almost no relation whatsoever to the general populace. Basically all I see is iOS users on FB spend more on products and services advertised on FB. That says nothing nor bad about them.

Does anyone think the advertising success achieved through FB with iOS users might make Apple double down on iAds? Meaning iAds becoming more pervasive throughout iOS.

All of the above is from the perspective of a consumer, not developer.
Click to expand...

:confused: How does that logic work? "We are making less money per ad on Android, so we'll just put in fewer ads."

I see it as a benefit for iOS users. More money for development and fewer ads to meet revenue goals.
 
Maybe most of the good (return/investment ratio) ad places on Android are taken by Google? Google is the owner of that OS.
 
samcraig said:
As a consumer I am going to go with Android being the winner here. Why? Because if in-app ads aren't profitable - maybe we'll see less of them. So the fact that one platform is making a case for them - as a consumer - is not a "win"
Click to expand...

A more likely explanation is that Google made a non-plane field for FaceBook to compete with itself for the ad business on the Android platform. As a customer, that means you'll eventually getting all of your information from only one supplier -- Google, which normally means more biased information.
 
Picka said:
Android users are less gullible than iPhone users. Who would have thought it... :D
Click to expand...

It's more likely that Google (via Android OS level services) deceived the FaceBook app to display a lot of irrelevant ads to you, so that the ads are more irritating to you and much less informative.
 
Picka said:
Android users are less gullible than iPhone users. Who would have thought it... :D
Click to expand...

well you asked for it...
If you can afford Apple products, you probably have a good job; which you got because you're not an idiot, hence you can afford to buy stuff.
 
CBJammin103 said:
If in-app ads aren't profitable, then developers can't afford to price their apps at expected price-points. There are enough people who want free or 99¢ apps to make in-app ads reasonably useful to the consumer.

For my part - I would pay money to remove ads. The "sweet spot," to me, is an ad-supported app with a paid ad-removal in-app-purchase... free for those who don't care, ad-free for those who do.
Click to expand...

Same here. I like the iAP to remove ads.

As long as the icon doesn't have a brightly colored "FREE" or "AD" banner across its icon like some free versions do (Even if they don't have a paid version, they sometimes have the banner)
 
Dontazemebro said:
What are these ads that they speak of? Never seen one on my S4 a day in my life.

Ad blocker ftw.
Click to expand...

I use an adblocker on my Nexus 4 and 7 in Firefox just like on my computers.

Yes, sites have the right to make money from ads, but I also have the right to block those ads.

For the few short weeks I had my Mini Jailbroken, I had an adblocker installed on it as well.
 
Would be nice to pay for something and still not get ads or commercials like some type of membership service. Right Time Warner Cable? We will always have advertising no matter what we pay for.

Think about a future like in the movie Minority Report. Personal ads targeted to you specifically no matter where you are with a scan of your retinas.

----------
JackieInCo said:
I use an adblocker on my Nexus 4 and 7 in Firefox just like on my computers.

Yes, sites have the right to make money from ads, but I also have the right to block those ads.

For the few short weeks I had my Mini Jailbroken, I had an adblocker installed on it as well.
Click to expand...

I often wonder how those ad blockers work. Do they actually block from sending to you or you still receive them(money still goes to advertisers)and just blocked from viewing them. Would make sense with all that extra useless data that's being sent to your phone eating up your data usage.
 
OrangeSVTguy said:
I often wonder how those ad blockers work. Do they actually block from sending to you or you still receive them(money still goes to advertisers)and just blocked from viewing them. Would make sense with all that extra useless data that's being sent to your phone eating up your data usage.
Click to expand...

Depends on the adblocker, the best ones (imo) alter your hosts file to reject connections from a huuuuge list of adservers. This kind requires root access / jailbreak. The entries are all pointed to 127.0.0.1
 
gotluck said:
Depends on the adblocker, the best ones (imo) alter your hosts file to reject connections from a huuuuge list of adservers. This kind requires root access / jailbreak. The entries are all pointed to 127.0.0.1
Click to expand...
That's good to know. That's one thing I missed with being jailbroken. The adblock for safari. It was a paid app but worth it.
 
Probably because of AdBlock.

----------
djtech42 said:
Who actually taps these ads on purpose and not on accident?
Click to expand...

On my Mac, I did that a few times to some ad just because it was so annoying that I wanted to make them pay. That was before I discovered AdBlock.
 
samcraig said:
As a consumer I am going to go with Android being the winner here. Why? Because if in-app ads aren't profitable - maybe we'll see less of them. So the fact that one platform is making a case for them - as a consumer - is not a "win"
Click to expand...

That is a pretty poor analysis and complete ignores the harsh consequences of such realities.
 
OrangeSVTguy said:
I often wonder how those ad blockers work. Do they actually block from sending to you or you still receive them(money still goes to advertisers)and just blocked from viewing them. Would make sense with all that extra useless data that's being sent to your phone eating up your data usage.
Click to expand...

I assume that it detects if it's an ad just from the HTML source (like an <img> tag) then prevents the browser from downloading the resource at all if it's an ad.

----------
samcraig said:
As a consumer I am going to go with Android being the winner here. Why? Because if in-app ads aren't profitable - maybe we'll see less of them. So the fact that one platform is making a case for them - as a consumer - is not a "win"
Click to expand...

If in-app ads aren't profitable, apps aren't profitable. You should see where that's going.

The best thing for the consumer is for apps to have profitable ads, but that particular consumer (and not others) has an ad blocker.
 
Consultant said:
Actually, Google censors ad-blockers
http://obamapacman.com/2013/03/eff-google-android-play-store-ad-blocker-censorship/
Click to expand...

“In a shocking move, Google has recently deleted AdBlock Plus from the Android Play Store. This is hugely disappointing because it demonstrates that Google is willing to censor software and abandon its support for open platforms as soon as there’s an ad-related business reason for doing so.”

Is it just me, or do Linux people get some kind of hormone rush from the word "open"?

----------
BaldiMac said:
That doesn't explain why iOS ads earn 6x the revenue per click. :)
Click to expand...

When you click an ad, it usually takes you to a site with more ads, and those ads are blocked if you have AdBlock.

----------
BaldiMac said:
:confused: How does that logic work? "We are making less money per ad on Android, so we'll just put in fewer ads."

I see it as a benefit for iOS users. More money for development and fewer ads to meet revenue goals.
Click to expand...

If the research is correct, they should not even use ads but take payment for the apps instead. But then they have to deal with piracy.

----------
ghost187 said:
This may be very controversial but, I believe Google would shut down Android overnight in exchange for embedding all of Google's services into iOS (if Apple were to make such an offer).
Click to expand...

For sure. The whole point of Android is to get people in the Google ecosystem. They don't make any money selling it.
 
Last edited:
Not a surprise really...developers realized long ago that ad supported apps made close to nothing on Android vs. iOS. I cannot say what the main reasons are really...but after a failed early attempt to make more than $50/month on an ad-supported android app that had the same number of users as my $1000/month iOS ad supported app...we quickly realized it was not financially sound to continue to support android.

This is definitely not good long-term for android because developers need to make money one way or another off apps...otherwise, there is no incentive to build them...

My guess...higher quality apps will continue to come more consistently to iOS vs. Android...I'm not sure this matters really because Android users tend not to download or consume apps very much...
 
djtech42 said:
Who actually taps these ads on purpose and not on accident?
Click to expand...

No idea, 99.99% of advertising is completely useless on me for a few reasons. Block them whenever possible. One I saw someone on You Tube getting worried that ads were not running yet and my only thought was, don't worry no one watches ads anyway. (I know some do, the people that never figure out how to do anything with a computer even after using it for hours each day for over a decade)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back