[HN Gopher] Apple developers are frustrated with gambling ads ap...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Apple developers are frustrated with gambling ads appearing across
       the App Store
        
       Author : JohnTHaller
       Score  : 75 points
       Date   : 2022-10-26 16:53 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
        
       | coldtea wrote:
       | I'm frustrated with ALL and ANY ad appearing across the App
       | Store.
       | 
       | 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?
        
         | mensetmanusman wrote:
         | Because they love money?
        
           | coldtea wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | drekipus wrote:
             | They _really_ love money.
        
             | mikestew wrote:
             | 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.
        
       | mensetmanusman wrote:
       | "You're a recovered addict? I would recommend gambling!"
        
       | nickphx wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | ndlzk wrote:
        
         | kweingar wrote:
         | > Gambling app ads have even started showing up beneath apps
         | meant to help users recover from a gambling addiction
         | 
         | I don't need Christianity to know that this shouldn't be
         | happening
        
       | bobbylarrybobby wrote:
       | Is the future of advertising just 100% gambling ads? Looks to be
       | that way anytime I watch a baseball game.
        
         | JohnTHaller wrote:
         | It's profitable and addictive, so it's the natural next step up
         | from 'games' with loot boxes that cluttered the ads.
        
         | coldtea wrote:
         | Now, consider the mistake of clicking and checking out 1 or 2
         | of them. They will intesify 20x in your ad "feed"...
        
       | nullfield wrote:
       | 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?
        
         | throwaway5959 wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | nullfield wrote:
           | Ditching 1Password for bitwarden and self-hosting it with
           | vaultwarden might also be an option depending on your needs
           | and experience.
        
         | woojoo666 wrote:
         | 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)
        
       | georgebarnett wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | leoh wrote:
       | Apple is increasingly becoming a deeply corrupted institution. It
       | will not have a respected legacy in 5-10 years.
        
       | nickv wrote:
       | Saw this coming with Eddy Cue taking over the App Store from Phil
       | Schiller.
        
         | lapcat wrote:
         | 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/
        
           | coldtea wrote:
           | 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").
        
             | lapcat wrote:
             | 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...
        
               | coldtea wrote:
               | > _(Also it 's an unfalsifiable claim.)_
               | 
               | Nothing wrong with those, if they're also true. Sometimes
               | you have to go by experience, not evidence.
        
               | lapcat wrote:
               | > 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.
        
               | coldtea wrote:
               | > _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...
        
               | lapcat wrote:
               | > 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?
        
               | coldtea wrote:
               | > _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 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.
        
       | adam_arthur wrote:
       | "Apple doesn't believe in ads!"
       | 
       | Whoops
        
         | MBCook wrote:
         | 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.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-26 23:02 UTC)