[HN Gopher] Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription ... ___________________________________________________________________ Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps Author : jitl Score : 162 points Date : 2021-11-14 14:16 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.forbes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.forbes.com) | indymike wrote: | This is monopolistic behavior all the way. Let's leverage our | cash to make it more expensive to get customers, and force app | publishers to sell their product through our channel. This needs | to be stopped. Now. | ChildOfChaos wrote: | How? Apple is spending it's money to help promote apps on it's | service, i feel like people attack apple whatever they do. | | But doesn't this help defend a 30% app fee, when apple is also | paying marketing costs to help the app get more customers | through it's service? | mthoms wrote: | Apple are bidding on exact (trademarked) product name matches | (eg "HBO Max" and "Tinder"). | | You might have an argument if Apple was bidding on more | general keywords like "online dating" to send traffic to the | App Store's Tinder page. | | Apple are trying to intercept purchases and/or raise ad costs | for the mentioned companies. | DutchKevv wrote: | Not if it doesn't add another 30% of customers. | | Not even taking in account the rise of advertising for the | app creators self, the loses you have from not being able to | redirect to your own website, giving specific incentives that | Apple doesn't allow etc etc etc. | | So no, it's not just bashing, and that's the reason Apple | does it secretly | lordnacho wrote: | I wonder if this is similar to Uber Eats or Deliveroo getting | people to sign up with the help of some particular restaurant's | menu, where that restaurant might have its own ordering site. If | people get used to using the aggregator the restaurant loses out | on the cut. | haxal wrote: | Could this be because the volume of searches and people that even | open the App Store app daily is so low that now that ATT is in | play advertisers aren't spending as much on marketing for iOS | apps? | tyingq wrote: | The FTC generally cares more about screwing the end buyer than | screwing the app developer. So this probably won't end well for | Apple, since it sounds like steering buyers to a more expensive | option. | Brian_K_White wrote: | It's actually an interesting question how nefarious or harmful | this actually is. | | We obviously know why Apple is doing it and why the apps in | question don't like it. | | But a couple things occurred to me: | | You could view this like Amazon giving away your book or android | app in a promotion. As I understand it, they still pay the author | as if it were a sale, so the author seemingly has nothong to | complain about. Even that still seems wrong to me but that's the | argument Amazon uses. That is essentially, no, litterally, Amazon | advertizing your product for their own purposes. | | Another argument Apple and Apple devotees and general "invisible | hand" worshippers may try to use is: Any sales generated by the | ads would not have existed without the ad, and so it's not taking | anything from the app developer. | | I don't really buy either theory, but it does take some thinking | to describe a mechanism by which they cause harm and should be | considered invalid. | | They hold enough water to convince a lot of people who want to be | convinced, and the arguments against just sound kind of weak and | whiny. | lupire wrote: | Apple would ban you from app store and therefore all of iOS if | you did in the app store what they are doing on Google | (advertise to sell subscription via a different channel). | | Its predatory monopolistic behavior. | echelon wrote: | This shows just how much a monopoly Apple has over brand <--> | customer interaction. | | They say that their app store not allowing side loading is for | user safety. | | In actuality, it forces the brand/company/startup into a place | where they're completely shackled. They pay 30% taxes, have no | customer relationship, and have to step through every hoop to | satisfy apple. | | The handicap their browser so you can't get new runtimes or | deploy software via alternate means. Good luck launching your | media startup on iPhone without an app. | | Now this. They're clearly trying to gobble up any interest in | other apps and force them into the payment shackles. | | This is a fucking monopoly! Please stop this, department of | justice! Apple has undue power in computing! Every company has | to go through them to reach 50% of consumers, and apple is | extorting us! | | Apple says you're welcome to go to consumers another way, and | then they do this. Look at their actions. | RNCTX wrote: | "nothing will fundamentally change" | | -- the person currently in charge of the DOJ, when running | for office, speaking to donors. | schwede wrote: | To me it's an issue if Apple refuses to stop if a particular | business asks them to. That seems like an easy measuring stick. | offtotheraces wrote: | I run a big portfolio of mobile apps, and the discussion around | this is misguided. It's not about Apple taking 30% of the | revenue generated from these ads. | | It's about Apple driving up the user acquisition costs for | these companies so much so that it become entirely uneconomical | for them to buy ads that direct users to their own websites, | and instead the campaigns that target users to download the app | - which results in 30%-to-Apple IAP subscriptions - become much | more attractive again. So Apple is trying to make the cost of | running these ads so prohibitive to the companies that they | stop trying to drive web subscriptions and instead go back to | driving app subscriptions only, where Apple gets 30% of | everything. | | As you can see it's even more sinister than it first appears - | it's not a short term land grab, it's a long term strategy to | prevent developers from legitimately acquiring users outside of | Apple's walled garden. | | (Looking at the economics make this even more clear. Let's say | Tinder has a $100 subscriber LTV (lifetime value). If the user | purchases the subscription in the app, Apple takes $30 of that, | so if Tinder wants to run a marketing campaign on Google, | Facebook, etc that drives an app install, they can't pay more | than $70, otherwise their spend has a negative margin. | | On the other hand, if tinder can use these ads to get people to | subscribe on the Tinder website, they have a ~$97 LTV ($100 | minus 3% payment processing fee via stripe/adyen/etc). So now | they can run a campaign on Google where they can spend up to | $97 to acquire a user, much more than the $70 before. And | because Google and Facebook inventory availability scales non- | linearly with your maximum bid, a 38% increase in acquisition | cost allowable could mean a 100% increase in available | inventory, and potentially higher quality inventory at that. | | But if Apple - with their unlimited cash pile and not caring | about negative margins - comes in and soaks up all this | inventory by bidding the same $97 for every user, all of a | sudden the cost for Tinder to acquire these users goes way up | and becomes negative margin. At that point, the rationale thing | for tinder to do is stop running these campaigns. This means | they stop getting web subscriptions, stop diversifying their | business away from Apple, and Apple maintains its iron grip on | Tinder. | | Remember, in this case Apple is paying $97 to acquire a user | who will generate $30 for them (30% of the $100 LTV), so | they're massively in the hole on this spend. But they don't | care because their goal isn't to profitably acquire users; | their goal is to make the costs for Tinder to create a more | diversified business so high that Tinder stops trying to. | That's some f-ed up sh*t. | [deleted] | renewiltord wrote: | Unlike predatory pricing, you can't really price people out | of this permanently. | | Tinder in this example is still getting the customer. Google | is still getting paid. | | So the moment Apple stops buying the ads, they're both ready | to participate again. So how is it a long term play? | makeitdouble wrote: | > how long | | I think we can assume Apple is getting enough out of it to | run this scheme permanently. | | Unlike Tinder, they can get extra revenue from the user | staying in the ecosystem (active credit card registered for | IAP), getting used to Apple's service, and keep buying | Apple devices. Their LTV of the user is not just the 30% | cut. | Joeri wrote: | You do it while a service is growing, to capture most of | the subscribers. Once growth dies down you stop buying and | while the subscriber base will slowly bleed from app to | web, you can ride the revenue stream from the growth fase's | subscribers for a long time. | offtotheraces wrote: | You're right on two accounts: - Google gets paid no matter | who pays, so they don't care - Tinder still gets the | revenue (and at better margins bc they're not actually have | to pay for that user anymore - Apple is paying) | | And even your last point is not wrong: at some point Apple | may stop doing this. But that could be year's away, and in | the meantime, they're throwing their big stack around to | make it too costly for developers - who Apple supposedly | partners with - to build businesses that are less dependent | on Apple's whims. Plus, Apple uses the fact that most | subscribers to app store products subscribe on the app | store itself to bolster their case with regulators that no | reform is needed bc consumers are overwhelmingly happy to | use Apple's IAP systems. But if Apple is putting it's | finger on the scales in order to actively drive users away | from web subscriptions, then they heavily misleading these | regulators about the true "choices" consumers are making. | jefftk wrote: | Sorry, where in the article do you see that Apple is running | these ads in a way that loses them money? | offtotheraces wrote: | The article doesn't have to say it because it's just the | way that google ads work. It's a bidding-based system, so | at the most basic level the person who bids the most wins | the auction and their ad is shown. If the LTV of a customer | is $100, and there's a 3% processing fee for web | transactions, then Tinder will bid up to $97 to acquire a | customer. So Apple has to pay at least that much to acquire | that same customer in order to win the ad auction. Once | Applr has paid that $97, the user now downloads the app and | subscribes via Apple's IAP system. Apple takes 30% of those | revenue while Tinder gets 70%; so Apple gets 30%*$97 = $29. | So they've spent $97 and received $29 ----> they have a | negative $68 margin on that spend. | jefftk wrote: | I agree that that's one way it could work, but it seems | really unlikely to me that Apple would be willing to lose | so much money on a project like this. Some other | possibilities that I think are more likely: | | * Apple has a higher LTV estimate than Tinder for this | traffic. | | * Tinder has less available capital, so they are not able | to outbid Apple even though they think that they would | still earn lots of money at that price. | | * Perhaps someone who is looking to subscribe to Tinder | is likely to succeed even without advertising, but | without Apple's ads it won't be via Apple's IAP. The | amount it's worth to Tinder for a subscriber to come to | them directly instead of via Apple and the amount it's | worth to Apple for a subscriber to come in via IAP are | about the same. | | (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, but not search ads. | Speaking only for myself) | offtotheraces wrote: | Remember, it's not that much money for Apple especially | considering their whole app store business model depends | on taking their 30% tax. Maybe we're talking about | $50m/yr vs app store revenues of $10b (?) a year (and | 70%+ margins per docs in recent court cases). They would | absolutely be willing to lose this money if it extended | their stranglehold on app developers - it's the same | reason they fight tooth and nail in every jurisdiction | around the world to prevent regulation of their app store | behaviors and fees (Japan, Korea, Netherlands, UK, | Australia, Arizona, US federal, etc). These lawyers | probably cost them about $500m/yr (without revealing my | identity trust me that thats a very reasonable estimate). | | As to your bulletes points: | | - Tinder is owned by Match Group who - before Tinder - | spent 20 years building a paid acqusition machine. In | order to do paid acquisition you have to deeply | understand the LTV of your users. That methodology, | refined iver years at Match was ported to Tinder (just | read Matchs earnings calls). While Apple has access to | all ybe transaction data of apps on iOS, so do then | defelopers, who are highly resourced and highly motivated | to understand their LTV/CAC. So no, I dont believe for a | second that Applr has an advantage here. And even if they | did, applr only collects 30% of the revenues - how could | they ever guy profitable when bidding for the same slots | as the developers who Are getting 70%? | | - Capital - nope. Match produced close to a billion | dollars a year in cash flow. HBO billions. Capital isn't | an issue for either of them. | | - I disproves this hypothesis with the LTV illustration | above. To be clear: Theres no scenario where apple can be | profitable on this spend when they can only ever get 30% | of what the consumer spends. | jefftk wrote: | Sorry, I don't understand how your response applies to my | third point? Tinder would not be willing to spend | $97/user because that is only worth it for users they | would not otherwise acquire. In this case, I'm positing | that these are users who already want to subscribe to | Tinder, and are going to do it somewhere, the only | question is whether Apple can get them to sign up through | the IAP flow and take a 30% cut. If I'm thinking about | this right, this means that it is worth just as much to | Apple to get one of these users to sign up through IAP as | it is worth to Tinder to get one of these users to sign | up directly? | treis wrote: | Both ads are shown though with Apple in the 2nd slot. So | HBO is bidding more and I doubt Apple is going into | negative margins. | offtotheraces wrote: | Again, by definition theyre going into negative margins | because they can only ever get 30% of the revenues; how | could they compete with the developer who gets 70% of the | revenues without going negative? | treis wrote: | They're not beating the developer. They're getting the #2 | slot. | nicodjimenez wrote: | Thanks for this insight! Very interesting. | mcphage wrote: | I don't entire understand the ad market, so sorry if this is | a stupid question, but if Apple bids $97 per user and wins, | then that's more than the $70 per user Tinder would get, that | makes sense. But since that user didn't cost Tinder anything, | aren't they +$70 since Apple ate the acquisition cost, | instead of +$27 where Tinder only had to spend $70 (under the | no-Apple bid price) to earn $97? | makeitdouble wrote: | On the Amazon part, the harm is caused by your book losing | value during the Amazon give away and a while after. | | For instance any other seller of your book is affected, so you | potentially lose distribution channels. | | Customers also get attracted to Amazon, but your book is only | seen as a bait, and when it goes back at the regular price it | will be less desirable (some will have negative feelings of | having missed the sale, some will keep seeing your book as | something only worth giving away). | | If your book has a short shelf life and you didn't expect much | of it, or if it's a stepping stone into a series and you could | have given it away anyway, Amazon footing the bill is a boon. | Otherwise it probably shortens the life of your book. | Aulig wrote: | >Any sales generated by the ads would not have existed without | the ad, and so it's not taking anything from the app developer. | | This argument is not very convincing in my opinion, as it looks | like Apple is purchasing ads for brand keywords. If the ad | wasn't there, the customer would go to the brands website, | which would be ranked #1 without the ad. | quitit wrote: | The example shows the brand name being ranked 1st. For this | to be a poor result for the brand it would require | cannibalisation rates to be high enough to push the 15/30% | fee higher than their margin - that's not realistic because | the app store price would never be at a loss to begin with | (with many alreadying increasing the app store fee to match | the 15/30% cut.) In all likelihood the end result is a net | profit for the developer at the expense of their competitors. | | Also neglected for consideration: the developer doesn't pay | for these ads - and the scarcity isn't high enough to | meaningfully affect bid pricing over regular competition. | tmoravec wrote: | Without the Apple's ad, wouldn't there be some _other_ ad | instead? Presumably a competitor's, or the brand's own, | paying the Google tax? | GeneralTspoon wrote: | Yes, but if their own ad converts the user to a paying | customer, they don't pay 30% of their revenue to Apple. | Hamuko wrote: | It never ceases to amaze me how much Apple is willing to trash | its reputation just for some pocket money. I can't imagine this | or the App Store ads to actually make that much money, and both | make Apple look terrible. | FridayoLeary wrote: | Most of Apples' worst excesses seem to be around the management | of the app store. Even Tim Cook expressed frustration at the | lack of leadership in that department. I don't think this is | representative of Apple as a whole. Although the company must | accept full responsibility for even their lowest common | denominator. | pfortuny wrote: | > Apple is trying maximize the money they're making ... | | And that is the problem with our modern companies. The only | morals is making money. What a pitiful excuse. | bogwog wrote: | That's capitalism, and it's not always bad. | | It only becomes a problem when there's no regulation, which is | exactly what's happening here. Apple has too much market power, | and the government is doing nothing to regulate them. The only | way Apple will stop doing evil and harmful things like this is | if A) government steps in or B) Apple decides to stop trying to | grow. B will never happen (it's basically impossible for a | publicly traded company) | | The same is true for the other tech giants. | | Either we need one big action (break them up), or a lot of | small actions (force them to change specific business | practices) | FridayoLeary wrote: | can you explain to me this attitude, which i see a lot? | Obviously the entire reason for a companys' existence is to | make money why should we expect anything else? Also this is | true for every company in history. Of course we must demand | companies meet minimum moral standards such as not using slaves | (which would be unthinkable today in 2021 _cough_ ) but those | must be imposed on them by law. This is a genuine question | please feel free to enthusiastically disagree with me and | explain why i'm wrong. | | [Edit: I should clarify that i meant that a company needs no | other reason to exist, not that a ethical company is | impossible] | betterunix2 wrote: | "Obviously the entire reason for a companys' existence is to | make money" | | That is not actually true. Corporations are a tradeoff for | society: a corporation fulfills some societal need in | exchange for investors receiving limited liability and a | chance to profit. We have every right to question whether or | not this arrangement is beneficial or harmful to society, and | every so often a corporation will be broken up when society's | needs are not being met. | | Don't think that profit, limited liability, or anything about | the current arrangement is a given or a natural right or | anything like that. It is a system we use to accomplish | certain shared goals, nothing more. | reaperducer wrote: | _the entire reason for a companys ' existence is to make | money_ | | This is incorrect. There are many reasons a company can exist | other than to make money. The company I work for, for | example, does not have making money as its primary goal. | | There's nothing wrong with a company making money. The | problem is people who believe that companies should only make | money, or make all the money they can at whatever cost. | | There are actually people on HN who think companies have some | legal obligation (usually under the cliche of "shareholder | maximization") to do anything to make money. This is false. | | Companies are created by and for humans. They should work for | humans. | bmitc wrote: | In my view, it's bad because there's no end to the growth of | a company's wealth, and thus power. Companies are treated as | individuals when it's convenient for them, and not so when | it's inconvenient. As companies gain more and more money, it | becomes much easier to commit crimes and abuse their power to | gain even more money and even more power, and yet, the | likelihood of them being held accountable decreases. | Comapnies can commit crimes that would land an individual in | prison, and yet companies are usually at most fined in | amounts much lower than the money they earned committing | crimes. This creates serious problems in society, where | companies are able and _enabled_ to essentially act as | sociopaths with limitless power. | rahoulb wrote: | > Obviously the entire reason for a companys' existence is to | make money why should we expect anything else? Also this is | true for every company in history. | | In Elizabethan times, company charters (and the subsequent | right to create and hoard profit) was granted by the queen as | a reward for the company doing the work required by the | state. Money was a secondary reason for a company's | existence, their primary reason was to further the interests | of the monarchy and by extension the country. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > Obviously the entire reason for a companys' existence is to | make money why should we expect anything else? | | The way this is supposed to work is that you make flour and I | want flour so I give you money and you give me flour. Then | you make more money by automating the production of flour so | you can sell it to me for a lower price even though you now | have higher margins. And try to take market share from | competitors who are doing the same thing. The profit motive | increases efficiency. This is growing the pie. | | The nefarious way to make money is to swipe somebody else's | piece. This is rent seeking. It causes prices to increase | with no increase in value. It is to be destroyed. | howinteresting wrote: | Companies are legal fictions of the state, with privileges | like limited liability. Therefore the state can impose | requirements on how the same companies behave as well. | | For example, a company could be made to serve the interests | of employees rather than just shareholders. This can be done | by, for example, requiring a certain percentage of the board | of directors to be employee representatives. | pokot0 wrote: | This! I see so many people who seem to have forgotten that | companies exist only to serve the people. When society is | run to protect companies over the well being of the people, | thay have lost their reason to exist in the first place. | | On the flip side, I see numerous posts and comments on HN | that blame companies for not behaving more ethical. This is | complete nonsense to me; you can't expect companies to | autoregulate when they are designed to follow only 2 | things: laws and market. Since as we know now we have | little control over what the market wants, the real control | is through regulation. | | But the US has done a very poor job at selecting their | politician leadership for a long time now.... that's where | people who wants to do something needs to look at.. | foerbert wrote: | I think it's both reasonable and important to criticize | companies for behaving unethically even when it's not | illegal. At the end of the day the "company" itself is | incapable of doing anything. Humans are the ones actually | making these decisions and then actually carrying them | out. | | Unfortunately we don't and likely won't ever know who | exactly did what. The best we can do is point at the | company as a whole and say that some people over there | decided to do bad things, nobody else in that group | stopped them, and then some of those people went and did | the bad thing. I don't see why that's not a reasonable | critique when we cannot be more specific. | | I think that it is also important to do so. The more we | perpetuate the idea that companies can't be blamed for | bad-but-not-illegal behavior the more we help enable | people to make those sorts of decisions as part of a | company. They can't be blamed personally - it was the | best decision for the company and that's what companies | do, you know? | | We also help reduce negative feelings towards the | companies when they do behave unethically. You can't | actually blame them - they're a company after all, right? | But this actually helps enable companies to get away with | it. Negative public perceptions can impact the ability of | a company to make money. I don't see why we should be | trying to reduce this kind of influence. | pokot0 wrote: | I agree with you. I think it is perfectly healthy to | criticize companies and even boycott their products if we | don't share their values. This is what I referred to by | "controlling the market". Unfortunately this has | historically provided very little results imo. | | What I was referring to is the expectation that this | criticism can make the difference; I don't think it can, | for mostly one single reason: if you happen to make | progress and magically turn 99% of the people running | companies ethical, you have created a huge incentive for | being evil. Someone acting unethical will reap the | benefit without competitor. | | I tend to see these dynamics as balances and movement | from balances when something changes. I think changing | laws changes the balance point and after a shake, the | system will settle somewhere else. Trying to persuade | managers to be ethical it's just a fight against the | balance that you will eventually lose. | foerbert wrote: | Public criticism does not change things only via boycott. | I agree with you about boycotts and their at-best | questionable usefulness. | | The more meaningful aspects are the fact it creates a | negative reputation, and that reputation impacts all | interactions with the company. A bad reputation adds an | additional cost to interacting with you (be it customers, | workers, or business partners), and that needs to be | constantly paid for somehow. | | Additionally, there's some level of 'acceptableness' for | the individuals of a company to do unethical things, | which also plays a role. You addressed this in your 99% | hypothetical, which I would agree with if it was done in | a vacuum. However it's not. In practice if 1% of | businesses were behaving in some way the rest refused on | ethical grounds, lawmakers would be be falling over | themselves to address it. Obviously such an example is | unlikely to appear, but I hope you get my point. Moving | the needle on acceptable behavior also moves the needle | on what acceptable regulations of behavior. | | I also largely agree on many of these factors being a | dynamic balance. It's just that public criticism is | _already_ a factor in the current balance. Some level of | criticism is required to maintain it, lest we move | towards a balance that sees even more bad behavior. | FridayoLeary wrote: | > When society is run to protect companies over the well | being of the people, thay have lost their reason to exist | in the first place. | | According to you, seeing as almost every country in | history was run exclusively for the benefit of the ruling | class, none of them had a reason to exist? | | > But the US has done a very poor job at selecting their | politician leadership for a long time now. | | Agreed. But i think it's a problem in the system itself. | The us have a binary choice between hilary/biden and | trump with no middle ground. | pokot0 wrote: | > According to you, seeing as almost every country in | history was run exclusively for the benefit of the ruling | class, none of them had a reason to exist? | | Hmm... with "reason to exist" I meant the reason why they | were "created" in the first place. This is an interesting | article that expands on how corporation "rights" have | changed since foundation (take the historical data points | more than the underlying political bias): https://www.ame | ricanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r... | | > Agreed. But i think it's a problem in the system | itself. The us have a binary choice between hilary/biden | and trump with no middle ground. | | Indeed! I believe the problem in the system is even | deeper. Regardless of your values or your preferred | policies, I really feel hilary/biden/trump is a very poor | display for the United States. The selection process that | brought them there is not working. Smart people avoid | going into politics in the first place because of this | selection process. People don't want to spend their days | arguing with a guy with bogus claim that is only trying | to bring them down. | pfortuny wrote: | "Making money" is not a humane endeavour. Just that. | | Helping people, raising a family, being virtuous... | | "Making money" is just so void of content. | | Companies either exist for human beings or are just | despicable. | | But this is just my opinion obviously. | tauwauwau wrote: | Money corrupts everything, it replaces the original | motivation. | | If companies didn't have to maximize x% of the profit made on | the investor's money per quarter/year, they will be able to | focus on product/service, customer and employees more. It may | result in less profit but it will be better for the society | as a whole. | | We can see this happening when some company is acquired | solely for sucking money out of it. Sometimes it leads to | worsening of the service/product made by original company, y% | of employees get fired because new owners don't care about | the product or the employees. Money saved by using cheaper | but worse raw material and firing employees shows up as | profit. | | Because money is sole motivator, we end up over optimizing a | company's operations around it. This could be seen everywhere | when Covid started. Hospitals didn't have have back up PPEs. | Auto makers didn't have parts/chips in inventory for | emergencies. They're optimized to order the amount they need | in immediate future, without any serious thought to | contingency. | | When an Amazon worker is asked to self x products across the | warehouse in y minutes, like a machine without a thought to | the well being of the worker, its because Amazon has to show | profit to the investors. | | We don't have product making companies anymore, we have stock | making companies. They don't sell goods, services, they sell | stocks. | _hyn3 wrote: | > Money corrupts everything, it replaces the original | motivation. | | What do you believe the original motivation was, if it | wasn't money? | tauwauwau wrote: | To me original motivation is solving a problem and | innovation. If you come up with an idea to create a | service/product, you may be invested in the innovation in | the beginning. But, as soon as you start making it using | other people's money, it starts being less about the | product. | | [Edit] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg&ab_cha | nnel=batxg... | | Richard Feynman, explaining if "it" was worth the Nobel | Prize. | | "...I already got the prize. Prize is the pleasure of | finding the thing out, kick in the discovery, the | observation other people use it. Those are the real | things..." | betterunix2 wrote: | "Money corrupts everything" | | BS. One of the only things Ayn Rand got right was her view | of money: it is one of the greatest forces for good humans | have ever invented. Money allows us to settle our disputes | without violence; money is what enables peaceful trade; | money is how we moved beyond palace economies. | | Sure, money can corrupt some things, but on the whole money | has likely saved many lives and in all likelihood the free | societies we have today could never have existed without a | monetary system. | pfortuny wrote: | Like lust, laziness, envy, pride, and wrath... Avarice is | one of the primary wrong impulses. Yes. | | What have we done with love, mercy... | spacedcowboy wrote: | Money is nothing but a sophisticated barter system. | Instead of "I will give you 3 apples from my tree for a | dozen eggs from your hens", there is an indirection | through a standardized property - money. Now we can say | my apples are worth 4 shekels each and your eggs are | worth 1 shekel each, and we can still agree on the same | transaction. | | The difference (some would argue, improvement) is that | shekels have a worth of their own, so can be stored | against harder times, which may not have been possible | with the goods they bought. Of course, that shekel value | being variable over time, can equally lead to riches or | ruin, and requires a more sophisticated treatment by | perhaps insufficiently sophisticated participants; snakes | _and_ ladders. | | In any event, societies existed well before this "money" | thing came along, even free ones. High technology | societies _do_ need a money system, I think; for | automated transactions to take place, there needs to be a | standardized good-exchange valuation, but not all high- | tech societies are free, and not all free societies are | high-tech. Freedom seems orthogonal to money. | FridayoLeary wrote: | >Money is nothing but a sophisticated barter system. | | I think we are all in agreement there. But it has such | sophistication and is so amazingly efficient that it has | an intrinsic value as a mere concept. This is because it | enables activities that would otherwise be impossible. A | good analogy would be a computer program. This i think is | where we differ. But i think it's obvious that money is | more than "nothing"- after all it sustains the entire | banking industry. | | >The difference (some would argue, improvement) is that | shekels have a worth of their own, so can be stored | against harder times | | Again this isn't (and was never) the true reason for | money. It was only a security against the money and | helped people to visualise the concept better (i know i'm | oversimplifying but i think that's the basic idea) | robocat wrote: | > Money is nothing but a sophisticated barter system. | | Money is the core of a distributed optimisation system. | How does society decide whether to fix a pothole, eat | some oranges, advertise a game? The hugely complex chain | of suppliers is balanced via money - every actor in the | chain is optimising locally using profit as the objective | function. Legal agreements are the mechanism to ensure | the money flows for the correct goods/services, and | society sets constraints (laws/regulations) to enforce | goals that are not monetary. | | The economics 101 narrative for how money was created is | an extremely limited view. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "Money allows us to settle our disputes without violence" | | What? Money is the cause of like70% of all violence | noirbot wrote: | Sure, but if it's 70% of the remaining smaller pie of | violence, that's still an improvement. If money wasn't a | thing, you wouldn't be like "Relationships cause 70% of | violence. Relationships are the root of all evil" | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "70% of the remaining smaller pie of violence, that's | still an improvement." | | What leads you to believe that the pie is smaller than it | was without money? I have never seen any kind of | statistics like "hunter gatherers had more wars". How you | you even formulate the null hypothesis for this? | noirbot wrote: | I'm not claiming that I can back up that statistic, just | pointing out that the state of something being an issue | in the status quo doesn't mean it couldn't have been a | net advantage over what it replaced. | bmitc wrote: | I fully agree that money is a serious problem, but I have | come to the conclusion that the true source of violence | in society is simply humans. Everything else is simply a | medium or catalyst for violence. | tauwauwau wrote: | I agree with you to a certain extent, also I didn't mean | to disregard the value that money provides by giving us a | way to assign a quantifiable value to things. That's | entirely different and in that way it can be counted as | one of the greatest innovations in human history. | | I was talking about the human greed that is exploited by | money. | | Also, if you're going to fight a war with another | country, money doesn't mean much does it? Unless you have | a global currency that both sides can agree on. | Ultimately wars were fought for resources (Non | ideological ones). Money is just paper/coins which you | can print anytime you want if you control the resources. | hownottowrite wrote: | Steve Jobs certainly never did anything because of money. | The iPhone is just his gift to the masses. | nemothekid wrote: | > _We don 't have product making companies anymore,_ | | The problem with this sentiment is it's always presented as | some new found discovery, and not as an inherent outcome of | a capitalist economy. It was in 1973, 48 years ago now, | that Ford did the infamous calculation on not to recall the | Ford Pinto because the cost of recall was less than their | calculated law suit risk - a move that would have killed | their customers; and then further still Milton Friedman | defended this decision. | | We haven't had "product making companies" as the norm for | at least 50 years now. What era are you talking about? | tauwauwau wrote: | I was talking about the current era. But you're right, it | has been like that for a long time, modern technology | just has made it more efficient. | | My comment was hyperbolic, it should have been more | moderate. | varispeed wrote: | I think the problem is that some big corporations are allowed | to avoid paying tax, essentially getting huge competitive | advantage over SMEs. The anomalous capital they were able to | amass further enables them to corrupt governments to ensure | regulatory capture and that any investigations in their tax | affairs get dropped. | _hyn3 wrote: | That's one (gigantic) problem, but not necessarily _the_ | problem. | londons_explore wrote: | Who wins... Google... | tinus_hn wrote: | Is this different from a tv store buying ads for specific tvs | that link to that store? | ComodoHacker wrote: | I think it's different because a store is competing with other | stores, not with tv manufacturer. | tinus_hn wrote: | If you assume tv manufacturers are not themselves stores that | sell tvs. | | Would you mind people putting up ads for buying an iPhone in | their store? | FridayoLeary wrote: | This isn't terrible since it's possible that many apps providers | can't afford the ads. But i think it's unacceptable unless the | app owner is given a choice, and a clear cut choice with obvious | opt in and opt out buttons. Also, it wouldn't hurt to make it | clear to the consumer that Apple is paying for the ad. | Hamuko wrote: | How many of the ads Apple buys are for small developers who | couldn't afford it and how many are for massive companies that | could absolutely afford it? | mdoms wrote: | This is covered in the article. It's high value apps like | Tinder and HBO Max. | yunohn wrote: | > that many apps providers can't afford the ads | | The impacted apps are "high value" - they make both sides a lot | of money. | | > Impacted businesses include major brands such as dating apps | like Tinder, Plenty of Fish, and Bumble, media giant HBO, | education and learning publisher Masterclass, and language | learning service Babbel. | reaperducer wrote: | _But i think it 's unacceptable unless the app owner is given a | choice, and a clear cut choice with obvious opt in and opt out | buttons_ | | Didn't some other tech company do this recently? Something like | eBay or Etsy, where the company was promoting the items for | sale, and then taking a cut of that sale? I seem to remember it | because the sellers were mad that it was opt-out, rather than | opt-in. | andrewstuart wrote: | Dirty tricks. | | All the money in the world isn't enough for Apple. | | I wonder if Google can be said to be colluding with Apple on | this. | threeseed wrote: | App developers have signed a contract giving permission for | Apple to do this. | | There is nothing illegal or dirty about this and frankly I fail | to see how it is that different to bidding on competitor's | search terms. | mymllnthaccount wrote: | How's this different than googling for a Lenovo laptop and seeing | ads for Lenovo's website versus Amazon? | mdoms wrote: | Does Amazon take a 30% cut of every transaction made on that | laptop in perpetuity? | treis wrote: | Lenovo doesn't have to sell through Amazon while HBO, Netflix, | et. al. are forced to sell through Apple. | rkk3 wrote: | > Lenovo doesn't have to sell through Amazon while HBO, | Netflix, et. al. are forced to sell through Apple. | | Except they aren't forced to sell through Apple, Netflix | doesn't allow in app-purchases for this very reason. | mleo wrote: | This more akin to Booking.com placing ads for hotels in an | area. The hotel gets revenue and Booking.com gets commission, | and sometime advertising recovery fees on top. | | Developers of apps should be allowed to opt out of this, or | really should be an opt in feature. | howinteresting wrote: | Amazon doesn't get recurring revenue from selling Lenovo | laptops. | paulryanrogers wrote: | There is a third party taking a large commission for the sale | and any recurring service. | | It's like if Amazon put out ads for Lenovo but bundling a | protection plan and taking a referer cut. | cma wrote: | Just outbid Apple by paying Google 24% of your gross income, | likely >50% of your profit (assuming Apple has 6% payment | processing/gift card and bandwidth costs; from the Epic trial we | know Google has 6% costs). | | Apple's cost is probably significantly less here as it is a small | app and most of the bandwidth is in the streaming, which Apple | doesn't help with. | donarb wrote: | Doesn't look so secret to me. The ad shows the address as | apple.com. | bellyfullofbac wrote: | Not secret, but still, they're taking the publisher's money, | imagine if it was your service: if the users subscribe through | your website, you get 100%, and if they subscribe through | Apple, they pocket 30% and you get 70%. | | Apple is relying on the subscribers' not knowing of this money | grab... | pentae wrote: | It would show the app store url, which most would assume to be | the developer themselves pushing the app store link and not | Apple itself | syspec wrote: | Speculation | rkk3 wrote: | Ruthless move by Apple - but brands like HBO should just take | Netflix's queue and not allow in-app purchases. | | I was actually surprised to learn some of the app native brands | mentioned (Tinder, Bumble) even had a way to sign-up for a | subscription outside of the app. Seems like they would actually | benefit from apple placing adds. | TheJoeMan wrote: | Which is why I see this will be a non-issue if on Dec 9th the | anti-steering goes away. Then Apple places ad->user | downloads->app says "hey it's cheaper on tinder's | website"->user decides for themselves | DutchKevv wrote: | Unless the app itself cost money to download, then it's to | late. | | You could create a bootstrap page after first install, bit | that makes it feel like unfair cause the app was 'free' on | the app store. | | So once again Apple got it all figured out how to make stuff | difficult for creators and make money while doing it | jpalomaki wrote: | They key piece is that article claims Apple is doing this so that | they can get their 30% transaction fees. | | If customer pays on the app developers website, Apple is not | getting cut. If customer downloads the app and makes payment | there, Apple gets their money. | thrwn_frthr_awy wrote: | I see. So to a end-user it may not make much difference whether | they sign up via the web site or app, but if Apple can get in- | between, they can cleave 30% of the user's lifetime revenue. | Hiding email, credit card info already entered, subscription | management,... there are reasons to want to run everything | through Apple, but it's interesting to see this behind the | scenes as it can really change Apple's incentives. | sam0x17 wrote: | Lovely corporate ethics. I posted this in our company slack room | as an example of how not to act for bizdev | | Google benefits too much from this sort of arrangement to have | any incentive to stop it, even though these are unauthorized | advertisements that are specifically against Google's AdWords TOS | (side note, I wonder if there is a legal avenue to follow when a | vendor doesn't follow their own TOS? An interesting thought...). | | This is also a recurring issue with all of Google's advertising | revenue -- malicious behavior such as fraudulent clicks, | unauthorized ads, etc., are a decent portion of the revenue | stream, and Google is financially incentivized to keep these | sorts of abuse going until the ruse is up and the accuracy of | their system is called into question publicly in a way that | scares away advertisers, but with NDAs and corporate secrecy, it | is far too easy to keep things unbalanced, and keep abuse like | this in the dark. | | Business models like this demonstrate just how dire the need for | regulation is in some areas of the tech world, particularly among | FANG. | threeseed wrote: | a) It is not against AdWords TOS provided you have permission | to use their trademarked terms. Which Apple has since in the | Developer agreement [1] they have been assigned permissions to | use logos, trademarked terms etc in marketing material. | | b) Google is incentivised to tackle abuse within their system. | It's ridiculous and baseless to say otherwise. Lack of | integrity in an ad marketplace very easily can translate to | lost dollars. But unfortunately with spoofing being trivial | it's simply hard to detect and manage abuse. | | c) There is no regulation that will prevent this. App | developers have signed a legally binding contract. | | [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/terms/apple- | de... | [deleted] | gpm wrote: | a, b) yes | | c) regulations and laws trump contracts, not the other way | around. | kingcharles wrote: | Not necessarily. You can waive your legal rights. e.g. | agreeing to talk to the police waives your 5th Amendment | right against self-incrimination. | spzb wrote: | Surely if 30% fee wipes out your profit margin, you don't offer | in-app subscriptions. Netflix doesn't. | Tronno wrote: | Netflix has special agreements with Apple. Other apps have been | rejected for doing the same thing: | | https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/25/21302931/hey-email-servic... | threeseed wrote: | Would add that it's 15% for App Developers earning < $1 million | a year. | fzil wrote: | yes, but they aren't running these apps for small apps like | that. The ads according to TFA, are for giants like Tinder, | HBO Max etc. The little guy making < $1M would obviously | appreciate the free publicity. | globnomulous wrote: | Sorry for the mildly off-topic comment, but does anyone else find | the writing horrible, almost impenetrable? The first sentence | alone seems to have four or five bizarre syntactic and semantic | ambiguities. I really have no idea what it's supposed to mean. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-14 23:00 UTC)