Apple developers are frustrated with gambling ads appearing across the App Store(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Apple developers are frustrated with gambling ads appearing across the App Store
https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/26/23424316/app-store-gambling-ads-listings-apple-developers
39 comments
For Apple, you are now a "user" not a "Customer":
When ads first appeared in the App Store in early iOS betas, many inside were very upset. It was an insult to our customers. We pushed back strongly. After a meeting where management pretended to listen to our concerns, it was evident they had no intention of changing their mind ... It was also doomed because Tim Cook saw the money Facebook, Google, and others were making from ads for apps ...
To me ads in iOS are particularly offensive because I took pride in making products that served the customer. Ads turn “customers” into “users” to be monetized for the real customers, the ad buyers. They fundamentally compromise the integrity of the product.
Because they love money?
All kinds of companies love money, doesn't mean they do everything and anything to get at them. Some, of course do. But that comes at a cost too. What you don't do sends a message about your brand too -- and can cheapen and devalue it.
They really love money.
Am I having a Mandela moment, or did Cook's "sometimes it's not about the damned money/profits" quote from a shareholders meeting get memory-holed? (Background: shareholder shows up at meeting, complains about environmental initiatives or summat. Cook unleashes quote. Damned if my search fu can find it.) EDIT: took another whack at it and found it:
https://macdailynews.com/2014/03/01/tim-cook-gets-angry-over...
"‘When I think about doing the right thing,’ he said, ‘I don’t think about an ROI… If that’s a hard line for you, then you should get [out] of the stock.'"
Mmmm, that's aging like a fine wine. But to give benefit of the doubt, I suppose gambling is a-okay for Mr. Cook. Myself, as an Apple shareholder for 20 years, eh, I'll occasionally darken the door of a casino, but I don't want to make money off gambling business.
But back to on-topic: yes, company actions can most certainly cheapen a brand. For instance, show enough gambling ads and IMO your "store" starts to look like there ought to be a payday loan place on one side, and a liquor store with bars on the windows on the other side.
https://macdailynews.com/2014/03/01/tim-cook-gets-angry-over...
"‘When I think about doing the right thing,’ he said, ‘I don’t think about an ROI… If that’s a hard line for you, then you should get [out] of the stock.'"
Mmmm, that's aging like a fine wine. But to give benefit of the doubt, I suppose gambling is a-okay for Mr. Cook. Myself, as an Apple shareholder for 20 years, eh, I'll occasionally darken the door of a casino, but I don't want to make money off gambling business.
But back to on-topic: yes, company actions can most certainly cheapen a brand. For instance, show enough gambling ads and IMO your "store" starts to look like there ought to be a payday loan place on one side, and a liquor store with bars on the windows on the other side.
So, seriously…
If Apple starts going down the road of Google, putting ads in everything, then can’t we pretty much be sure that the same perverse incentives that care nothing for our privacy will almost certainly follow, no matter how much Apple protests that they won’t do that?
And if so, why should we keep paying Apple the premium it charges?
If Apple starts going down the road of Google, putting ads in everything, then can’t we pretty much be sure that the same perverse incentives that care nothing for our privacy will almost certainly follow, no matter how much Apple protests that they won’t do that?
And if so, why should we keep paying Apple the premium it charges?
We shouldn’t, and I won’t. I’ll sell all my Apple hardware and convert to Linux on the laptop, Windows for the gaming rig (already there) and Pixel for phone. I’ve kept all my stuff on non-Apple/Google platforms like 1Password and Dropbox so switching will be trivial.
Ditching 1Password for bitwarden and self-hosting it with vaultwarden might also be an option depending on your needs and experience.
I’m happy to pay $60 or whatever it is a year to let them manage it for me.
Bitwarden's managed service is just $10/year (or free if you don't need TOTP), and it's FOSS.
> road of Google, putting ads in everything
At least when I open the Play Store the only ads are for apps, and none are gambling apps...
At least when I open the Play Store the only ads are for apps, and none are gambling apps...
Even worse. Since there are people at Google who care about people being able to control their devices, you don't have to run any apps that have Google ads on devices that Google sells. There is no such escape hatch on iOS.
I doubt Apple will go down that path, the past few years have shown how badly advertising can hurt the reputation of a company (see Facebook, Google)
Does reputation matter if there are no alternatives? For those who are looking at good quality hardware and a software ecosystem that works for basic use cases, they might have to continue to tolerate Apple products even if they introduce ads.
Advertising can be helpful if it’s done carefully, with taste (Daring Fireball is a good example).
Apple it would appear are losing their taste which is a real shame, because they’re willingly giving up their edge over Google.
If I’m forced into ads, I trust Google to do them better.
I find it remarkable that the rest of Apple internally hasn’t politically shot the ads division in the face yet.
Apple it would appear are losing their taste which is a real shame, because they’re willingly giving up their edge over Google.
If I’m forced into ads, I trust Google to do them better.
I find it remarkable that the rest of Apple internally hasn’t politically shot the ads division in the face yet.
Apple isn't Apple without Steve Jobs...
Is the future of advertising just 100% gambling ads? Looks to be that way anytime I watch a baseball game.
It's profitable and addictive, so it's the natural next step up from 'games' with loot boxes that cluttered the ads.
Now, consider the mistake of clicking and checking out 1 or 2 of them. They will intesify 20x in your ad "feed"...
It's going to be funny watching Apple make the same mistakes as every other massive corporation that decides to allow user generated content as Advertising.
"Apple doesn't believe in ads!"
Whoops
Whoops
Apple believes less and less in making great products for users.
They’ve fallen into the growth-at-all-costs mentality that ruins everything. If they can do almost nothing and make money they’re doing it.
I don’t see why gambling apps are on the store at all. Isn’t there a rule against them anyway?
So in the end, surprise surprise, the ads exist. And since crypto scams and gambling apps take in tons of money, they have the most to buy ads.
I miss Steve.
They’ve fallen into the growth-at-all-costs mentality that ruins everything. If they can do almost nothing and make money they’re doing it.
I don’t see why gambling apps are on the store at all. Isn’t there a rule against them anyway?
So in the end, surprise surprise, the ads exist. And since crypto scams and gambling apps take in tons of money, they have the most to buy ads.
I miss Steve.
Apple is increasingly becoming a deeply corrupted institution. It will not have a respected legacy in 5-10 years.
“You’re a recovered addict? I would recommend gambling!”
Saw this coming with Eddy Cue taking over the App Store from Phil Schiller.
This is not accurate. "Phil Schiller is an Apple Fellow, responsible for leading the App Store and Apple Events." https://www.apple.com/leadership/phil-schiller/
Moreover: "Schiller is still very much in the thick of the action at Apple, where he continues to put in long hours, according to people familiar with this role. The duties he held on to — overseeing the App Store, Apple’s distribution hub for software designed for devices like the iPhone — has positioned him at the center of the Apple business that is attracting the most scrutiny from antitrust regulators in the U.S. and abroad." https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/13/phil-schiller-profile/
Moreover: "Schiller is still very much in the thick of the action at Apple, where he continues to put in long hours, according to people familiar with this role. The duties he held on to — overseeing the App Store, Apple’s distribution hub for software designed for devices like the iPhone — has positioned him at the center of the Apple business that is attracting the most scrutiny from antitrust regulators in the U.S. and abroad." https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/13/phil-schiller-profile/
That's what they always say when someone is moves on, is sidelined, or is moved to a cosmetic role ("nothing changed, they're as active as ever").
That's missing the point. (Also it's an unfalsifiable claim.) Phil Schiller took over the App Store from Eddy Cue 7 years ago. So the OP got it backward. https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/17/10412204/apple-phil-schi...
>(Also it's an unfalsifiable claim.)
Nothing wrong with those, if they're also true. Sometimes you have to go by experience, not evidence.
Nothing wrong with those, if they're also true. Sometimes you have to go by experience, not evidence.
> Sometimes you have to go by experience
Are you a current or former Apple employee?
Anyway, "Eddy Cue re-takes App Store from Phil Schiller" is not even a rumor. That's coming from nowhere.
Are you a current or former Apple employee?
Anyway, "Eddy Cue re-takes App Store from Phil Schiller" is not even a rumor. That's coming from nowhere.
>Are you a current or former Apple employee?
By the experience of the kind of vacuous things companies say time and again when someone is sidelined/has moved on/and so on, only to be proven BS.
I'm not an employee at an acquired SaaS startup either, but I do know from similar experience that 9 times out of 10, "nothing will change", "we now have more resources to make an even better product" etc, means the product you'll loved and used will be either become unrecognizable or will shut down within a year or so...
In this case, if "Phil Schiller took over the App Store from Eddy Cue 7 years ago. So the OP got it backward" then that's probably not the case. But the general principle remains...
By the experience of the kind of vacuous things companies say time and again when someone is sidelined/has moved on/and so on, only to be proven BS.
I'm not an employee at an acquired SaaS startup either, but I do know from similar experience that 9 times out of 10, "nothing will change", "we now have more resources to make an even better product" etc, means the product you'll loved and used will be either become unrecognizable or will shut down within a year or so...
In this case, if "Phil Schiller took over the App Store from Eddy Cue 7 years ago. So the OP got it backward" then that's probably not the case. But the general principle remains...
> But the general principle remains...
I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.
The OP made a factual mistake. I corrected it, with documented evidence.
Whether Schiller is fully engaged now or not isn't even the main question. The main question about the OP's comment is, where in the world did "Eddy Cue" come from?
I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.
The OP made a factual mistake. I corrected it, with documented evidence.
Whether Schiller is fully engaged now or not isn't even the main question. The main question about the OP's comment is, where in the world did "Eddy Cue" come from?
>I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.
The exact same thing I argued since my first comment in this thread.
You're arguing for Schiller vs Cue. I didn't comment on that.
I merely meta-remarked that the 9to5 quote given as supporting evidence doesn't mean much, since those kind of assurances are given by companies to journalists all the time, and especially when they're not true at all.
I'm positing that such claims are not good gauges of what's going on - regardless of the particulars of this case.
The exact same thing I argued since my first comment in this thread.
You're arguing for Schiller vs Cue. I didn't comment on that.
I merely meta-remarked that the 9to5 quote given as supporting evidence doesn't mean much, since those kind of assurances are given by companies to journalists all the time, and especially when they're not true at all.
I'm positing that such claims are not good gauges of what's going on - regardless of the particulars of this case.
Sorry, I totally missed this thread. I'm speaking to the inside baseball around the App Store that was reported in The Information. Link here: (but it's behind a paywall) https://www.theinformation.com/articles/for-apples-app-boss-...
I think that stepping down is probably a strong word, but Eddy's ownership of "services" and "services revenue" is twisting his arm in lots of ways towards how the App Store monetizes. I can't really imagine Phil's entire philosophy around the App Store doing a 180 so quickly if it wasn't for some pressure.
Some quotes:
Yet while it’s hard for Apple to deny how lucrative the App Store has become, people who have worked closely with Schiller say he has often left money on the table in the past, making decisions on advertising, privacy and content based on what he believes is best for users.
Meanwhile, Schiller was less willing to compromise when it involved other categories of games—for example, social casino games, which allow players to bet on virtual prizes by purchasing virtual currency. After Schiller took over the App Store, his editorial team refused to feature such games over concerns that they were addictive for some users, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. The policy frustrated some Apple business management employees who were advocating for social-casino developers, as that category generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually for the App Store.
Schiller was originally opposed to Apple’s search ads business, which displays a single ad at the top of search results on the App Store, and for years was against adding ads to the Today tab and app product pages, as he believed this would degrade the user experience, according to two people familiar with the matter. Apple hasn’t announced when the new ads will show up in these sections of the App Store.
I think that stepping down is probably a strong word, but Eddy's ownership of "services" and "services revenue" is twisting his arm in lots of ways towards how the App Store monetizes. I can't really imagine Phil's entire philosophy around the App Store doing a 180 so quickly if it wasn't for some pressure.
Some quotes:
Yet while it’s hard for Apple to deny how lucrative the App Store has become, people who have worked closely with Schiller say he has often left money on the table in the past, making decisions on advertising, privacy and content based on what he believes is best for users.
Meanwhile, Schiller was less willing to compromise when it involved other categories of games—for example, social casino games, which allow players to bet on virtual prizes by purchasing virtual currency. After Schiller took over the App Store, his editorial team refused to feature such games over concerns that they were addictive for some users, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. The policy frustrated some Apple business management employees who were advocating for social-casino developers, as that category generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually for the App Store.
Schiller was originally opposed to Apple’s search ads business, which displays a single ad at the top of search results on the App Store, and for years was against adding ads to the Today tab and app product pages, as he believed this would degrade the user experience, according to two people familiar with the matter. Apple hasn’t announced when the new ads will show up in these sections of the App Store.
ndlzk(1)
I pay for the device, I pay for services, I pay for the apps and app subscriptions, heck, I even pay for device peripherals (cases, and so on). Why the fuck does Apple need to make a buck selling ads to me too?