4 ms·
Another big difference is that those mobile ads are only in the Search and YouTube apps, and not in the Play Store app itself (although the ads link directly to
by w1ntermute 12y ago
Another big difference is that those mobile ads are only in the Search and YouTube apps, and not in the Play Store app itself (although the ads link directly to the Play Store). From a usability standpoint, putting app ads directly in the Play Store is a terrible idea. I can see users easily getting confused about whether a listing is part of the Store proper, or an ad in the Store. That's probably a big reason this hasn't happened.
- chatmasta 12y agoThen again, that was an argument made against Adwords when it first debuted. But that worked out pretty well for a Google (admittedly, it's debatable whether users are entirely clear on what's a sponsored result and what's not). Here's a related question: what's stopping Facebook, or any company for that matter, from making its own App Store? It could list both Android and iOS apps, and simply link to each app's original listing in its native App Store. The problem, of course, is that if this was in the form of an app it could not be part of the iTunes App Store. But the search experience in both major app stores is sorely lacking, and if some other big company with reach wants to improve on that -- desktop or otherwise -- it would be a welcome improvement.
- walterbell 12y agoWould the business model be advertising? There's a bunch of app review sites which seem to rely on affiliate revenue from iTunes.
- lnanek2 12y agoThey already pretty much shove movies and books in your face when you want apps now, so sponsored app results aren't really any different than what they have already done to the app store. In fact they might actually be more what the user is looking for.