Yesterday there was some discussion of "Project Bernanke", so-called "quantitative easing" for DoubleClick's AdX. One could see similarities.
Here, Apple is helping certain "preferred" iOS app developers win against other iOS app developers. Apple stands to profit, the preferred developers stand to profit, but not other developers (and possibly users who will never discover their apps).
There, Google was helping Google Ads users, i.e., "preferred" DoubleClick AdX auction participants, to win against other participants in AdX auctions. Google profits (and brags about it in its internal presentations), Google Ad users may profit, but not the users of Google Ad alternatives.
Big Tech wants to facilitate "winner-take-all" scenarios. Healthy competition and parity amongst competitors (for user attention) reduces the profitability of the "tech" company business model. Big Tech would rather that user attention only be focused on what is most popular, creating more desirability to advertise to that single audience. A "Top 20" mobile app list, or top of page 1 of SERPs.
Concentration of web traffic, 80/20, network effects, and so on. Winner-take-all. The most ideal conditions for selling apps or ad services. The issue is not that they are doing this, it is in how are they doing it. They run and control the so-called "platforms" for advertising and sales and use that privileged position to manipulate outcomes that favour themselves. (And stifle competitors.)
Exactly and the crux is how can you prove the download would happen regardless of the ad put out by apple . This is an attribution problem on the ad space and nobody has solved it yet. Google has been trying to push complex attribution rules but they are not in a position to do it because they are insentized to attribute the sales to their own ads.
Here, Apple is helping certain "preferred" iOS app developers win against other iOS app developers. Apple stands to profit, the preferred developers stand to profit, but not other developers (and possibly users who will never discover their apps).
There, Google was helping Google Ads users, i.e., "preferred" DoubleClick AdX auction participants, to win against other participants in AdX auctions. Google profits (and brags about it in its internal presentations), Google Ad users may profit, but not the users of Google Ad alternatives.
Big Tech wants to facilitate "winner-take-all" scenarios. Healthy competition and parity amongst competitors (for user attention) reduces the profitability of the "tech" company business model. Big Tech would rather that user attention only be focused on what is most popular, creating more desirability to advertise to that single audience. A "Top 20" mobile app list, or top of page 1 of SERPs.
Concentration of web traffic, 80/20, network effects, and so on. Winner-take-all. The most ideal conditions for selling apps or ad services. The issue is not that they are doing this, it is in how are they doing it. They run and control the so-called "platforms" for advertising and sales and use that privileged position to manipulate outcomes that favour themselves. (And stifle competitors.)