> 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.
> 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.
> "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]
This doesn't mean they need to do it with targeting/data mining. I swear all the data mining does is show me ads for stuff I just purchased 3 days ago, and that's with google-level surveillance.
I don't like the idea that we discuss this as a law of nature.
I am an iPhone user since three years ago but if at some point I get a better deal elsewhere, I'm off.
And with Apple I pay extra for premium, and there is only so many ads[1] one can shove in before the premium feel is gone.
As for the targeted ads, I share your feeling that the targeting is badly over hyped, except you are lucky compared to me:
Ads for products I bought 3 days ago would be wildly relevant compared to most of the ads I can remember from Google. It was almost always scammy-looking dating sites. For a decade. Don't know what I did wrong but it seems there was a fluke with my account. Or they just god more money from scammy-looking dating sites than from anyone else.
Oh, and when it wasn't ads for scammy-looking dating sites it was pay-to-win games, and based on the ads you could be forgiven for thinking they were made by the same folks.
[1]: I'm no hardliner here: contrary to many on HN I actually see value in some ads and think I have sometimes made better purchases/been reminded to do things I wanted to do anyway.
> It was almost always scammy-looking dating sites. For a decade.
Every time people tell me that AI is great, I remind them that the most frequent ads I see are: 'Goth Muslim hookups' and 'automatic chicken coop door'.
It unfortunately seems to work if you don't go out of your way to block all trackers everywhere and never sign up for anything. I don't personally get any ads I would ever give a crap about, but my wife has been complaining like crazy and constantly blowing up our family plan with data overages since I started ad-blocking at the DNS level because she's constantly being served ads for stuff she actually wants and tries to click on it only to get blocked by my DNS server when it tries to go through a known tracker redirect to grab conversion stats for their campaign or whatever, and then she switches from WiFi to data in order to use the ISP's DNS instead.
They either have to do way more ads, or way more targeted ads. Would you prefer an endless stream of low-relevance ads, or a few high-relevance ones that required massive amounts of data mining to produce?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
I can’t begin to imagine how irritated Tim Cooke is by the revenue Google and Facebook make from adverts on iOS and he clearly wants in on it.
Given that both those ad companies make revenue off iOS, it’s not unreasonable to aim for a similar level on the platform.
That's only the immediate goal. It would be bad for them to eat up the percentage of the market lost by their competition right away; that would get some unwanted attention regarding monopolistic behavior.
They clearly want a slice of that market, and they have the patience needed to wade in.
Tim Cook told ROI-focused investors to "get out of the stock."
Unfortunately now you've unlocked the "haven't you heard of platform fees (Google Play) or walled gardens (Nintendo eShop) before?" tangent.
There is no new information here - some people are perfectly happy with Apple's walled garden business model as it is and/or don't think Apple should be forced to change, while some think that Apple should be forced to change it so that customers can have more freedom or developers can collect more money.
You mean “infamous” as in what every other platform does - including Google and the console makers? The console makers even force game developers to pay a royalty on every physical game sold.
> 30% of all revenue that passes through an iPhone
A bit of hyperbole there. 30% of revenue from sales of digital goods after the first $1m (15% before).
I’ve probably spent $20k on Amazon using my iPhone this year alone. You don’t think Apple takes 30% of that, do you?
Besides, it’s so funny when people use “rent seeking” as a pejorative. Like, yes, the reason my landlord bought this house for a lot of capital up front was that they believed it would be profitable rent it for much smaller amounts for a long time. What, am I supposed to feel entitled to use the house for free?
A bunch of years ago I made several hundred thousand dollars from the App Store. You know how much I would have made without the app store? Zero. Do you think I begrudge the 30% I paid, any more than I begrudge the rent I pay for this house?
I understand people who dislike the Apple walled garden and want no part of it. I do not understand people who want all of the benefits but expect Apple to provide it for free.
> 30% of revenue from sales of digital goods after the first $1m (15% before).
Not quite - if you go over $1m in revenue you pay 30% on all revenue in the following year.
I honestly believe that if the App Store were to start now, they would feel entitled for a cut of all physical goods transactions that happen.
I don't believe Apple produces 30% of value when someone (hypothetically) signs up for Netflix on an iPhone. Apple's App Store actively hinders value creation when they prevent Netflix from using their existing saved credit cards to re-subscribe a user on an iOS device.
> Do you think I begrudge the 30% I paid, any more than I begrudge the rent I pay for this house?
It sounds like you saw value in something, and you paid for it. A competitive product would be able to stand on it's own and developers (and users) could make a decision on what product they wish to use - I'm sure that a lot of developers would continue to use Apple's payment infrastructure because they find it easier!
> I honestly believe that if the App Store were to start now, they would feel entitled for a cut of all physical goods transactions that happen.
There must be a name for this fallacy, where one bases their opinions on speculations about how things would be different today if their already-held opinions had been true long ago. Some kind of retroactive confirmation bias?
> It sounds like you saw value in something, and you paid for it. A competitive product would be able to stand on it's own and developers (and users) could make a decision on what product they wish to use - I'm sure that a lot of developers would continue to use Apple's payment infrastructure because they find it easier!
You're not paying for the payment infrastructure. You're paying for the discoverability and distribution. I cheerfully paid 30% to reach a few hundred thousand users when I could have reached, maybe, tens of users on my own. I find it hilarious when people explain how I was ripped off with exorbitant fees.
>Besides, it’s so funny when people use “rent seeking” as a pejorative
"People" including anybody from Marx to the left, all the way to Friendman and Hayek to the right, including Adam Smith...
Sorry, rent-seeking is milking assets without producing value (or with only minimal investment/maintainance costs). It's the opposite of a functional market.
>Like, yes, the reason my landlord bought this house for a lot of capital up front was that they believed it would be profitable rent it for much smaller amounts for a long time. What, am I supposed to feel entitled to use the house for free?
No, you're supposed to not want an economy where people don't mouch off of standing assets, but actually contribute to making value (and products and progress and stuff).
Rent-seeking 101: "Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality, and potential national decline."
The Apple ecosystem is not the App Store. They make money off the sales of physical products and their own services like iCloud.
Making money off of the App Store is pure rent seeking. It's maintainance and (very infrequent) improvement costs (negliblible compared to its profit) don't make it any less so. Heck, actual rented properties like houses also incur some maintainances costs on the owner.
> Besides, it’s so funny when people use “rent seeking” as a pejorative. Like, yes, the reason my landlord bought this house for a lot of capital up front was that they believed it would be profitable rent it for much smaller amounts for a long time. What, am I supposed to feel entitled to use the house for free?
They mean "rent" the econ jargon, not "rent" the thing you pay to your landlord.
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.
> 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.
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.
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-co...
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?
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.
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?
They're both Turing machines, if that's what you're getting at.
In practice, no, a console is not a general purpose computing machine.
On iOS, by design, you can install almost any kind of application even without jailbreaking it. Which people do, you can have Excel and Maps and IDEs and whatever.
Consoles, by design, do not allow that. It's almost strictly meant for games and media.
And again. I don't care. Both types of walled gardens should be abolished.
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.
> 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.
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...
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?!
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.