They say you shouldn't watch how the sausage is made. Seems like
you shouldn't watch how it's sold, either.
Apple Quietly Buying Ads Via Google For High-Value
Subscription Apps To Capture App Publisher Revenue
As John Koetsier notes, Apple has been running ads for a number
of apps in competition with the ads run by the companies who make
the apps. The difference, of course, is that the Apple ads direct
traffic to the App Store where Apple takes 30 percent.
The use of quietly here is a little ridiculous: what is Apple
supposed to do, take out an ad saying it's taking out ads? It's
also highly unlikely that the app vendors mentioned—Tinder, Bumble,
HBO, and others—have been unaware of this activity until just
recently. These aren't indie developers, these are companies with
marketing departments. They're well aware of the ad landscape for
That doesn't mean that what Apple is doing isn't still kind of
gross. Or net as the case may be.
This would be all well and good if Apple were just
adding to the advertising being done for the apps, but the
online ad market being what it is and largely controlled by a
company that shall remain nameless (feel free to Google its name if
you're curious), the ads compete with vendor ads for both space and
cost as Apple's bids drive up the prices for ads.
According to Apple, all is well.
…the company says that it regularly engages in conversation with
developers about the ads it places and many developers express
their appreciation for this support.
Many are saying we're the best.
The Macalope wonders if the conversation is a calling them up
and discussing it kind of conversation or a sending them an email
saying We've updated the App Store terms and conditions, pray
we do not update them further kind of conversation.
Apple indicated that this is no different from retailers running
ads for the products they sell, and is a very standard business
Is it just like a grocery store advertising Hellmann's
mayonnaise? (Or Best Food's mayonnaise depending on whether you're
on the correct coast or the incorrect one, no the Macalope will not
say which one he thinks is which.) Not really, no. Generally
speaking, people don't buy mayonnaise directly from Unilever. Most
people don't even know both Hellmann's and Best Foods are owned by
Unilever. Even fewer know that the websites for Hellmann's and Best
Foods are weird mirror universe-type experiences that remind
the Macalope that Fringe was a pretty darn good TV
Even if Unilever would sell you some mayo direct, it's not like
it's going to sell you one jar of it. Not even Bev from Lansing who
brings that same damn potato salad to every barbecue can warrant
buying in the bulk quantities Unilever insists upon. But you can
and people do buy apps and app subscriptions from vendors' websites
all the time. In fact, people were doing it long before the App
Store, not to hear Apple talk about it.
Apple likes to play it fast and loose when comparing digital
goods to physical goods. This is just like with physical goods! Oh,
you mean the goods that you don't take any cut on the sale
of from iOS apps? Oh, not that much like physical goods.
Then you mean like the physical goods that vendors can put all
kinds of information on to direct buyers to their website to find
more informat- WE SAID NOT THAT MUCH LIKE PHYSICAL GOODS.
This isn't something new. Apple says it's been doing this for
five years. It's possible that this is a story now because these
app makers want to add fuel to the fire for legislative or legal
action against Apple's App Store rules. And, if it is, well…
While the Macalope is honestly unsure of where the right place
to draw the line on sideloading is, he's very sure of where to draw
the line on letting developers tell people in the app that they can
subscribe on their website. Developers should 100 percent be
allowed to let people click a button to go and subscribe on their
website. The convenience of paying within the App Store ecosystem
should be enough to keep most purchases within the App Store and it
incentivizes Apple to make it super convenient. That's supposed to
be the value that Apple is adding.
The richest company in the history of companies is often its
most annoying when it is trying to further maximize its richness at
the cost of others without providing any real value.