@Apple’s advertising business has more than tripled its market share in the six months after it introduced privacy changes to iPhones that obstructed rivals, including @Facebook and @Google, from targeting ads at consumers.
*A Thread*
Search Ads now drives 58% of all iOS app installations that can be tied back to paid ads, according to @Branch, whose basket of data comprises 250 major apps including BuzzFeed, Instacart, Strava and Starbucks. That’s more than three times its 17% share a year ago
What has made Search Ads suddenly attractive is not any new feature but the fact that Apple has rendered the rest of the ad industry “blind” in the iOS universe, says @kochavaofficial, whose own data has Search Ads up 69% since June, while rivals are down 43%(!) on average.
One app spending more on Search Ads is SpotHero, but it declines to use Apple’s retargeting tool b/c it worries of being out of compliance with Apple’s own privacy rules(!):
“Apple was unable to validate for us that Apple’s solutions are compliant with Apple’s policy.”
Full story: Apple’s privacy changes create windfall for its own advertising business on.ft.com/2YW0DTi
A lot more in this earlier article from April — in case anyone’s interested.
Obtained documents from Tencent explaining how CAID and QAID work. The reason for its own IDFA solution, per someone familiar, is WeChat is big enough to do this on its own -- 1.2bn users. It doesn't need the China Ad Association.
It's taken me a while to understand this but @Facebook is unlikely to be hurt by Apple's move. Yes, they need to rebuild their ad infrastructure b/c attribution becomes difficult, but 1st-party data now becomes paramount. Facebook has 2.7bn users. They will thrive.
Sen Klobuchar said @Apple and @Google “operate at gatekeepers, with the power to decide how or whether apps can reach iPhone and Android users.”
“Just because a company creates a successful innovative business that consumers like doesn't give it a free pass to harm competition or ignore our antitrust laws.”
“In 2020, consumers are estimated to have spent $72.3bn in Apple's App Store and $38.6bn in Google's Play Store. Applying their standard commission rates to these amounts net Apple and Google billions of dollars.”
*Thread*
Overnight both @Apple and @EpicGames released hundreds of pages of new documents, containing lots of colour based on discovery and recent depositions. I stayed up reading so you don't have to. Here's what I learnt (couple *bombshells* in here)
Epic argues that Apple’s App Store review process is “cursory” and that Apple doesn’t recruit reviewers with sophisticated tech backgrounds.
When the App Store first began, applicants were considered qualified if they “understood how to use a Mac”, “understood how to use an iPhone”, “understood a little about the Apple brand”, “could breathe . . . could think”.
Apple-Epic hearing started a few minutes early. “We are going to be hear for hours, I suspect,” says Judge Gonzales, who threatens to mute people if they regurgitate arguments she’s already aware of.
Thread begins...
Gonzales begins by grilling Katherine Forrest - Epic’s lawyer - and says it’s not acceptable Epic hasn’t produced documents for discovery.
“Well, Apple has already produced. So, I find it to be convenient for you, not convenient for anybody else.”
Judge wants to define the relevant market, “the area of effective competition.” Says Clearly “this is where I have the most questions.”
Last week I wrote about rampant app inflation in the @Apple App Store. Quick addendum, from the cutting room floor, via thread.
Apple: how app developers manipulate your mood to boost ranking via @FT on.ft.com/2DVgtng
Apple claims its store is curated and that they heavily invest to make sure apps work and that reviews are accurate. But it’s simple to find examples where 5-star reviews are bogus and the the star ratings are at best questionable and likely fraudulent.
Eg The 50th (now 63rd) ranked lifestyle app is “Make Money - Earn Easy Cash.” It has 26 one-star reviews in the last two weeks alone, with multiple reviewers calling the app “fake,” “a scam”, “horrible” or citing “terrible customer service.”