6 ms·

> we already know by now Apple is positioning itself to become a major player in the advertising space We don’t know that. We know that they put ads in the App

> we already know by now Apple is positioning itself to become a major player in the advertising space We don’t know that. We know that they put ads in the App Store, that’s it. I wish they did not, because it made the store even more of an unusable mess, but it really is not even in the same league as Google and Facebooks, systematic surveillance. > increased pressure to sustained growth from shareholders This sounds truthy, but is there any evidence of this? Apple is famously the company that tells rent seekers after more ROI above all to fuck off (both Jobs and Cook). > I'm advocating for an open and interoperable ecosystem of operating systems, services and applications, which is the only way to ensure sustainable customer freedom. Now that’s a real point, which deserves more than being buried after a paragraph of half-truths (and I almost entirely agree, FWIW). > It's good to be passionate, but blind devotion is dangerous, After starting a post like this, it is disappointing that you fell in the trap you warned the OP about. Being contrarian and using mis-informed tropes is not a good way of having a rational discussion. It is not being cool or clever at all.

manigandham 4y ago
Everyone in adtech knows it. Apple (and Amazon) are both rapidly growing their advertising businesses. And 30% take rate of everything from your app including later subscriptions and services is extremely rent-seeking.
- etempleton 4y ago
  I don’t think Apple is seriously considering a major play in ads and if they are I think this signals pretty hard that they won’t be doing it off the back of consumer data. It just doesn’t make sense to their business strategy. Apple is premium, ads are the antithesis of premium. Just doesn’t make business sense.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Then don’t accept subscriptions via in app purchases? Many apps don’t including Netflix and Spotify.
  - manigandham 4y ago
    Workarounds existing doesn't negate the rent-seeking. Also the "necessary costs" argument for the App Store fees falls apart when the unmonetized apps are all free.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So the fact that you don’t have to use Apple’s in app subscriptions for users to be able to subscribe is irrelevant to the argument that apps have to use in app purchases for subscriptions?
      - manigandham 4y ago
        You're missing the point. The lack of alternative app stores or the ability to accept payments and control subscriptions via other gateways is the problem. You either use Apple app store/payments and accept the fee or you don't have any transaction ability in the app.
      - oblio 4y ago
        Let's simplify this. I want to make an iOS app. I've already paid Apple the $100 bucks per year or whatever it is, so I've "done my part". Then, I want to have in-app subscriptions and payments, and I found a great service, XYZ, that does this. So, on my own time, with my own device I bought (which by the way, in another money-grubbing move, HAS to be another Apple device, even though there are 0 solid technical reasons to force this), I write the app, I put in the integration for XYZ. Can I publish this to large amounts of iOS devices?
        scarface74 4y ago
        Can you do in app payments via any of the consoles, Roku, etc without the platform owner getting a cut?
        oblio 4y ago
        No, and that's not any better. Plus, are we actually comparing general use mobile computing devices to niche and mostly fixed computing devices?
sircastor 4y ago
> Apple is famously the company that tells rent seekers after more ROI above all to f off (both Jobs and Cook). One of my favorite CEO moments comes from Tim Cook on an earnings call: “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” And then more recently “If you're a short-term trader, do not invest in the Apple stock,” I understand both, but it’s so odd to hear a CEO tell people “no, we don’t want your money” and I will grant that Apple is luckily not in the position of needing it.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Doesn't matter what they claim, look at the numbers and what they're actually doing. Apple has a good product with the iphone but they aren't running a charity, it's a hugely profitable business that puts money over everything, even human lives (see how they aid the CCP's totalitarian regime as an example). For users to trust them as a guarantor of privacy and rights is naive at best if not outright idiotic. Since they comply with Beijing why would one assume they won't feed your data to Fort Meade and Brussels - who as a sidenote are planning to outlaw end-to-end encryption for major apps: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-control/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co...
- matwood 4y ago
  Keep in mind when a stock is trading the original company doesn't get any of that money unless they have shares. What Cook is saying is that Apple is in the enviable position of being to make long term plans. Not every decision can immediately be boiled down to an ROI calculation, but that's what short term thinkers want. For example, how much has Apple invested to develop this E2E system (the tech, support, etc...), and what is the ROI? IMO, over the long term it should have a positive ROI, even if I can't draw a direct link from quarter to quarter right now.
radlad 4y ago
> We don’t know that. We know that they put ads in the App Store, that’s it. I wish they did not, because it made the store even more of an unusable mess, but it really is not even in the same league as Google and Facebooks, systematic surveillance. They also put ads in Maps, Stocks, and News, and they "started asking people last year if they wanted to enable personalized ads on these apps."[0] > This sounds truthy, but is there any evidence of this? Apple is famously the company that tells rent seekers after more ROI above all to fuck off (both Jobs and Cook). "Inside the ads group, Teresi has talked up expanding the business significantly. It’s generating about $4 billion in revenue annually, and he wants to increase that to the double digits. That means Apple needs to crank up its efforts. "[0] Plus the advertise iCloud in the Settings app with a red badge, which is just annoying. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/08/15/apple-is-about-to-launch-a-bold-new-ads-strategy-leak-suggests/?sh=7a75c865a7ee https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/08/15/appl...
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  Curious. I use maps all the time. What ads are in there? Or is this a US only feature? (I don’t use stocks and news isn’t available outside the US, or atleast Singapore/Taiwan.)
  - pulvinar 4y ago
    No ads yet, but they say they're planning it. If we all complain loud enough maybe they'll change their mind, like they did here with encryption. https://www.macrumors.com/2022/08/15/apple-could-bring-ads-to-maps-search https://www.macrumors.com/2022/08/15/apple-could-bring-ads-t...
    - dcow 4y ago
      Become the screeching minority you always knew you could be (;
  - esskay 4y ago
    For a maps app I'd imagine it'll be more a case of businesses will be able to 'boost' themselves to people in the area. Slapping big banner ads across a maps app isnt going to generate much ROI given most people will be using it in carplay mode.
plusminusplus 4y ago
>> Apple is positioning itself to become a major player in the advertising space > We don’t know that "Apple’s VP of advertising platforms Todd Teresi has been asked to bolster annual revenue into 'double digits' from about $4 billion today" (Aug 2022) https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/08/15/apple-is-about-to-launch-a-bold-new-ads-strategy-leak-suggests/?sh=5e968c29a7ee https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/08/15/appl...
- helsinkiandrew 4y ago
  > Apple’s VP of advertising platforms Todd Teresi has been asked to bolster annual revenue into 'double digits' from about $4 billion today" (Aug 2022) Double digits isn’t a major player. Google and FB are already making nearly 200B ad revenue each. If every Apple app and device showed ads constantly it still wouldn’t come close to the views that fb and web pages get to display ads used by Google and Facebook.
  - afavour 4y ago
    Right but it pretty obviously signals intent. Double digits leads to triple digits.
    - aix1 4y ago
      > Double digits leads to triple digits. Just to put everything onto the same scale, 4 to "double digits" requires a 2.5X increase. "Double digits to triple digits" would require a further 10X increase.
      - NBJack 4y ago
        Basically take everything lost by Meta/Facebook directly attributed to ATT and you'll get a very clear picture on what they can very easily get back with their own ecosystem.
        the_other 4y ago
random314 4y ago
> We don’t know that The only way for a 2T business to grow is by expanding the Services business significantly, in some market that is already known to be close to half a trillion dollars in revenue. You really think Apple is trying to make small change with ads in Apple Maps?!
madeofpalk 4y ago
> Apple is famously the company that tells rent seekers after more ROI above all to fuck off (both Jobs and Cook). The App Store, and their demand of 30% of all revenue that passes through an iPhone is the most infamous example of digital platforms rent seeking.
- adamwk 4y ago
  Android has the same cut for their in-app purchases
  - paddez 4y ago
    No, Google gets a cut for purchases through the Google Play Store. Google does not take a cut if you use an alternative app store (which isn't possible on iOS)
    - musicale 4y ago
      I assume the 30% platform fee is the reason why nobody uses Google Play and everyone uses other app/game stores instead.
      - TheBrokenRail 4y ago
        Everyone uses Google Play because it's convenient. But as a notable example, Fortnite refused to use Google Play for a while precisely because of that 30% fee, and it worked out pretty well for them. Eventually they gave in and put Fortnite on Google Play. Although Google kicked them off later (they pushed an update which allowed users to bypass Google's 30% cut using their own payment system) so it's back to direct download from the website.
        scarface74 4y ago
        It worked out pretty well but they gave in. So why do you think it worked out pretty well if they came crawling back?
    - 4y ago
andrepd 4y ago
>We don’t know that. But apparently we know that they will never put ads or sell our data pinky swear! Despite the fact that they have already done so.
paulmd 4y ago
> After starting a post like this, it is disappointing that you fell in the trap you warned the OP about. Being contrarian and using mis-informed tropes is not a good way of having a rational discussion. It is not being cool or clever at all. Once a brand starts to build large-scale mindshare, there is of course the inevitable brand-wars fanboy faction, but there also pretty reliably seems to emerge an anti-brand faction - this pattern is consistent across NVIDIA, Apple, and many other leading-but-controversial companies. The mere mention of these companies in a positive context gets another faction reliably winding up about how awful they are and how everything they do is actually fake and a lie and intended to rip off customers unlike my favorite brand, etc. It's essentially another form of parasocial relationship - but it's a negative parasocial relationship instead of a positive one. People gain identity from opposing the brand-signifier rather than supporting it. The existence of fanboy factions is oft-observed at this point, but I rarely see anyone acknowledging the opposite side - the people who just are reflexively contrarian and negative about anything surrounding a brand, regardless of any counterbalancing concerns or factors. The hateboy, if you will. And blind hate is just as destructive to nuanced conversation as blind devotion. It's also destructive to actual progress - positive steps need to be acknowledged and encouraged even if you think it's still the overall worse option, and negative steps from a brand you favor need to be acknowledged even if you think they're still the overall better option. To do otherwise is to oppose actual progress over what amounts to parasocial tribalism - in both directions. The hateboys are just as toxic as the fanboys to reasoned discourse.
- gigel82 4y ago
  I can see your point, but wouldn't classify myself as an Apple "hateboy": I've been using iPhones since the 3GS (we have 4 iPhones in the family, 2 iPads and a MacBook). I've just been extremely disappointed by their hypocrisy around privacy (which is a subject I'm very passionate about). They've betrayed my trust when they announced the on-device scanning functionality a few years ago; yes, I know they eventually dropped it after massive pushback from everyone that understands its privacy implications but before doing that they treated us "screeching minority" like dirt, I've never seen such condescending behavior from a legitimate company, especially one that I previously respected. Their massive push in the ad space, combined with other scummy behavior (phone-home on macOS, backdoor access that sidesteps firewalls from 1st party apps, etc.) just paints a bleak future where all the big players (Google, Microsoft and now Apple) treat us like sheep; it's just so frustrating and sad...

manigandham 4y ago

Everyone in adtech knows it. Apple (and Amazon) are both rapidly growing their advertising businesses. And 30% take rate of everything from your app including later subscriptions and services is extremely rent-seeking.

etempleton 4y ago
I don’t think Apple is seriously considering a major play in ads and if they are I think this signals pretty hard that they won’t be doing it off the back of consumer data. It just doesn’t make sense to their business strategy. Apple is premium, ads are the antithesis of premium. Just doesn’t make business sense.
scarface74 4y ago
Then don’t accept subscriptions via in app purchases? Many apps don’t including Netflix and Spotify.
- manigandham 4y ago
  Workarounds existing doesn't negate the rent-seeking. Also the "necessary costs" argument for the App Store fees falls apart when the unmonetized apps are all free.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So the fact that you don’t have to use Apple’s in app subscriptions for users to be able to subscribe is irrelevant to the argument that apps have to use in app purchases for subscriptions?
    - manigandham 4y ago
      You're missing the point. The lack of alternative app stores or the ability to accept payments and control subscriptions via other gateways is the problem. You either use Apple app store/payments and accept the fee or you don't have any transaction ability in the app.
    - oblio 4y ago
      Let's simplify this. I want to make an iOS app. I've already paid Apple the $100 bucks per year or whatever it is, so I've "done my part". Then, I want to have in-app subscriptions and payments, and I found a great service, XYZ, that does this. So, on my own time, with my own device I bought (which by the way, in another money-grubbing move, HAS to be another Apple device, even though there are 0 solid technical reasons to force this), I write the app, I put in the integration for XYZ. Can I publish this to large amounts of iOS devices?
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Can you do in app payments via any of the consoles, Roku, etc without the platform owner getting a cut?
        oblio 4y ago
        No, and that's not any better. Plus, are we actually comparing general use mobile computing devices to niche and mostly fixed computing devices?

sircastor 4y ago

> Apple is famously the company that tells rent seekers after more ROI above all to f off (both Jobs and Cook). One of my favorite CEO moments comes from Tim Cook on an earnings call: “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” And then more recently “If you're a short-term trader, do not invest in the Apple stock,” I understand both, but it’s so odd to hear a CEO tell people “no, we don’t want your money” and I will grant that Apple is luckily not in the position of needing it.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Doesn't matter what they claim, look at the numbers and what they're actually doing. Apple has a good product with the iphone but they aren't running a charity, it's a hugely profitable business that puts money over everything, even human lives (see how they aid the CCP's totalitarian regime as an example). For users to trust them as a guarantor of privacy and rights is naive at best if not outright idiotic. Since they comply with Beijing why would one assume they won't feed your data to Fort Meade and Brussels - who as a sidenote are planning to outlaw end-to-end encryption for major apps: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-control/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co...
matwood 4y ago
Keep in mind when a stock is trading the original company doesn't get any of that money unless they have shares. What Cook is saying is that Apple is in the enviable position of being to make long term plans. Not every decision can immediately be boiled down to an ROI calculation, but that's what short term thinkers want. For example, how much has Apple invested to develop this E2E system (the tech, support, etc...), and what is the ROI? IMO, over the long term it should have a positive ROI, even if I can't draw a direct link from quarter to quarter right now.

radlad 4y ago

> We don’t know that. We know that they put ads in the App Store, that’s it. I wish they did not, because it made the store even more of an unusable mess, but it really is not even in the same league as Google and Facebooks, systematic surveillance. They also put ads in Maps, Stocks, and News, and they "started asking people last year if they wanted to enable personalized ads on these apps."[0] > This sounds truthy, but is there any evidence of this? Apple is famously the company that tells rent seekers after more ROI above all to fuck off (both Jobs and Cook). "Inside the ads group, Teresi has talked up expanding the business significantly. It’s generating about $4 billion in revenue annually, and he wants to increase that to the double digits. That means Apple needs to crank up its efforts. "[0] Plus the advertise iCloud in the Settings app with a red badge, which is just annoying. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/08/15/apple-is-about-to-launch-a-bold-new-ads-strategy-leak-suggests/?sh=7a75c865a7ee https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/08/15/appl...

philliphaydon 4y ago
Curious. I use maps all the time. What ads are in there? Or is this a US only feature? (I don’t use stocks and news isn’t available outside the US, or atleast Singapore/Taiwan.)
- pulvinar 4y ago
  No ads yet, but they say they're planning it. If we all complain loud enough maybe they'll change their mind, like they did here with encryption. https://www.macrumors.com/2022/08/15/apple-could-bring-ads-to-maps-search https://www.macrumors.com/2022/08/15/apple-could-bring-ads-t...
  - dcow 4y ago
    Become the screeching minority you always knew you could be (;
- esskay 4y ago
  For a maps app I'd imagine it'll be more a case of businesses will be able to 'boost' themselves to people in the area. Slapping big banner ads across a maps app isnt going to generate much ROI given most people will be using it in carplay mode.

plusminusplus 4y ago

>> Apple is positioning itself to become a major player in the advertising space > We don’t know that "Apple’s VP of advertising platforms Todd Teresi has been asked to bolster annual revenue into 'double digits' from about $4 billion today" (Aug 2022) https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/08/15/apple-is-about-to-launch-a-bold-new-ads-strategy-leak-suggests/?sh=5e968c29a7ee https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/08/15/appl...

helsinkiandrew 4y ago
> Apple’s VP of advertising platforms Todd Teresi has been asked to bolster annual revenue into 'double digits' from about $4 billion today" (Aug 2022) Double digits isn’t a major player. Google and FB are already making nearly 200B ad revenue each. If every Apple app and device showed ads constantly it still wouldn’t come close to the views that fb and web pages get to display ads used by Google and Facebook.
- afavour 4y ago
  Right but it pretty obviously signals intent. Double digits leads to triple digits.
  - aix1 4y ago
    > Double digits leads to triple digits. Just to put everything onto the same scale, 4 to "double digits" requires a 2.5X increase. "Double digits to triple digits" would require a further 10X increase.
    - NBJack 4y ago
      Basically take everything lost by Meta/Facebook directly attributed to ATT and you'll get a very clear picture on what they can very easily get back with their own ecosystem.
      - the_other 4y ago

random314 4y ago

> We don’t know that The only way for a 2T business to grow is by expanding the Services business significantly, in some market that is already known to be close to half a trillion dollars in revenue. You really think Apple is trying to make small change with ads in Apple Maps?!

madeofpalk 4y ago

> Apple is famously the company that tells rent seekers after more ROI above all to fuck off (both Jobs and Cook). The App Store, and their demand of 30% of all revenue that passes through an iPhone is the most infamous example of digital platforms rent seeking.

adamwk 4y ago
Android has the same cut for their in-app purchases
- paddez 4y ago
  No, Google gets a cut for purchases through the Google Play Store. Google does not take a cut if you use an alternative app store (which isn't possible on iOS)
  - musicale 4y ago
    I assume the 30% platform fee is the reason why nobody uses Google Play and everyone uses other app/game stores instead.
    - TheBrokenRail 4y ago
      Everyone uses Google Play because it's convenient. But as a notable example, Fortnite refused to use Google Play for a while precisely because of that 30% fee, and it worked out pretty well for them. Eventually they gave in and put Fortnite on Google Play. Although Google kicked them off later (they pushed an update which allowed users to bypass Google's 30% cut using their own payment system) so it's back to direct download from the website.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        It worked out pretty well but they gave in. So why do you think it worked out pretty well if they came crawling back?
  - 4y ago

andrepd 4y ago

>We don’t know that. But apparently we know that they will never put ads or sell our data pinky swear! Despite the fact that they have already done so.

paulmd 4y ago

> After starting a post like this, it is disappointing that you fell in the trap you warned the OP about. Being contrarian and using mis-informed tropes is not a good way of having a rational discussion. It is not being cool or clever at all. Once a brand starts to build large-scale mindshare, there is of course the inevitable brand-wars fanboy faction, but there also pretty reliably seems to emerge an anti-brand faction - this pattern is consistent across NVIDIA, Apple, and many other leading-but-controversial companies. The mere mention of these companies in a positive context gets another faction reliably winding up about how awful they are and how everything they do is actually fake and a lie and intended to rip off customers unlike my favorite brand, etc. It's essentially another form of parasocial relationship - but it's a negative parasocial relationship instead of a positive one. People gain identity from opposing the brand-signifier rather than supporting it. The existence of fanboy factions is oft-observed at this point, but I rarely see anyone acknowledging the opposite side - the people who just are reflexively contrarian and negative about anything surrounding a brand, regardless of any counterbalancing concerns or factors. The hateboy, if you will. And blind hate is just as destructive to nuanced conversation as blind devotion. It's also destructive to actual progress - positive steps need to be acknowledged and encouraged even if you think it's still the overall worse option, and negative steps from a brand you favor need to be acknowledged even if you think they're still the overall better option. To do otherwise is to oppose actual progress over what amounts to parasocial tribalism - in both directions. The hateboys are just as toxic as the fanboys to reasoned discourse.

gigel82 4y ago
I can see your point, but wouldn't classify myself as an Apple "hateboy": I've been using iPhones since the 3GS (we have 4 iPhones in the family, 2 iPads and a MacBook). I've just been extremely disappointed by their hypocrisy around privacy (which is a subject I'm very passionate about). They've betrayed my trust when they announced the on-device scanning functionality a few years ago; yes, I know they eventually dropped it after massive pushback from everyone that understands its privacy implications but before doing that they treated us "screeching minority" like dirt, I've never seen such condescending behavior from a legitimate company, especially one that I previously respected. Their massive push in the ad space, combined with other scummy behavior (phone-home on macOS, backdoor access that sidesteps firewalls from 1st party apps, etc.) just paints a bleak future where all the big players (Google, Microsoft and now Apple) treat us like sheep; it's just so frustrating and sad...