Because if they improve discoverability for free, then who will buy their adverts? The worse the store is at pointing you at the correct apps, the more ads people will buy (so less work for them and more $$$, win/win).
It isn't helped by how large of a stranglehold Google has gained on the Android ecosystem. Amazon is the next largest, but still tiny by comparison. Piracy might outnumber Amazon frankly.
Back then, iOS search was purely utter crap, finding totally unrelated things (including notoriously if you searched google maps, you would not find it... apple hardcoded the search for google maps to return google maps after all the internet poking fun at them).
And Android search was awesome, some keyword tweaking and we would soar in searches that were relevant to us (ie: people really looking for the sort of product we offer).
Then iOS made the first "discoverability improvement" change that pissed us off... they changed the interface so that instead of showing a list of results, it started to show more detailed results, but much less per page (back then some devices showed only 2 results per page depending on the orientation)
meaning that for us that were in position 50 in searches, we went from being on the fifth "finger slide" of the user, to be on the 200, 300... meaning our users on iOS sunk, fast.
Still, Android was our saviour then... so we stuck with Android (we still make iOS stuff ,but don't expect much from it).
Then it was google turn do do things, they started to "improve" their search, they "improved" so much, that now searching our company name (that is very unique), sometimes show competitors apps in first place instead.
Searching the exact name of our apps frequently don't work anymore either (back "then", 2 years ago, it searching for another app name of yours was a API usage example when you wanted to link from one app to another).
So... yep, both Google and Apple stealthly make discoverability worse, instead of better.
Now most of our income comes from third-party stores, not iTunes or Google Play
For the publisher/developer, discoverability is a challenge. There are certainly steps that you can take to improve your app store presence (keywords in titles, on point descriptions, etc.). So much of the app marketplace depends on word-of-mouth marketing. Build a good app, and people will find you...regardless of how app store search works.
Isn't this like saying that for listeners of Top 40 radio stations music discovery isn't a problem?
Do you think if Google started including ads in their search results, it would affect the discoverability problem of non-sponsored web pages?
I wish that Google would concentrate on its core strength and develop a search system for apps that directs its users to what they will appreciate and enjoy rather than what will cost them the most money, and that would encourage developers to aim for quality rather than exploitation.
Sorry I can't stand the mental gymnastics argument they used.
Indie developer A has the top search result for "crazy panda game" in google play, Developer B pays to get the top sponsored result, Developer A is forced to pay up to get the spot back.
This sucks.
Generally speaking I think it will be good for consumers in the long run as well. This will surface the apps that are making money (which is in some way a proxy for providing value, usually) faster than the apps that are simply most popular.
"Advertisements are a good thing because they help surface the products that are making money (which is in some way a proxy for providing value, usually) faster than the products that are simply most popular."
If I think of any advertisement I see, ever, then value has absolutely nothing to do with it. Axe, Jack Daniel's, any laundry detergent, McDonald's, cars.
In fact, most advertisements themselves stopped trying to pretend to be "better". Of that list, only laundry detergents talk about how they are better than competitors. Which is still complete bollocks, of course.
Since when do ads have anything to do with the value of the product? How would that be any different for apps?
I'm not trying to be coy, I seriously don't understand what you said.
If you agree with that, then my argument is that over the long term, the amount of money a company can spend on marketing is related to the amount of money they make per customer. If you sell a $1 product, you can not afford ads that cost $3 per conversion. If you sell a $30,000 product, you can afford pretty expensive ads. Of course n the short term this can get skewed. A company can dump money into ads in an unsustainable way, but that always seems to correct itself (see: Fab).
Given that a product is generally priced to some extent related to its value, the higher value products will have higher revenue per user, which will allow them to bid more for advertising.
That means we are more likely to see these ads bought by companies that make decent money on their apps. I'd love to see more high quality apps at the top of the listings, and I'd also love to be able to promote my (hopefully) high LTV apps at the top of the listings.
* Age of the app
* Average rating
* Eliminate publishers X, Y, Z
* Number of installs/downloads
* Paid / in-app purchases / ad-supported / completely free
* Size in MB (sometimes my connection sucks and I want to find a small game)
* Adult content
* Category of the app (game / office / tool / etc)
Obviously a winning move for google, but not really a win for anybody else (besides people trying to arbitrage ads for these new, search-result-displacing slots).
However, before we start booing Google...
Facebook already holds unarguably the biggest part of this already, and Google heading closer to the center of that particular arena will likely result in a net positive for publishers.
My guess for would be that this will push Facebook little by little to specialize in iOS ad-mongering.
How so? Pay to Play (the marketing slogan for this initiative practically writes itself) seems a net negative to me. Searching for a particular game? Prepare to see nothing but Zynga, King and whatever other well capitalized companies can afford to dominate the top of the lists. Google will have even less incentive to fix natural discoverability.
Comparing Facebook's mobile ad channel (in content) to Google's mobile ad channel (in SERPs) is like more akin to comparing AdSense to AdWords. We won't see Google take a share of the pie from Facebook, we'll probably just see the pie get bigger as Google makes more ad inventory available.
1. https://i.imgur.com/JDY7ptq.png
2. https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/4de57439b8fe09b90440b8e82...
1. This allows apps which are new to not just rely on something unreliable as App store optimization to get downloads. 2. This will force app developers to think about monetization more seriously and possibly even get rid of free apps culture. 3. You can get users at the point of their query. Facebook gets you passive users. For example on FB you might need to reach 100 people to find one person who has a problem solved by your app, but using this you can find the exact people looking for apps which solve the problem your app is about. 4. The argument about Zynga and King owning the sponsored are false. It is like saying Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook are going to own the search results on Google. 5. Improvement in organic search doesn't need to happen without starting sponsored results.
I don't like this form of paid promotion within Google Play because it means that users will see fewer quality apps in their searches and more expensive apps. It will be harder for users to find enjoyable games and easier for them to find addictive, extortionate games that constantly demand the purchase of gems and coins and other upgrades. When there exist two applications that perform the same function, paid promotions will ensure that the Google Play user will first see the one that will end up costing him the most, rather than the one that would best serve his purpose.
> How is this different from having sponsored results in the search results on Google?
Google earns money through sales and in-app purchasing of the apps found on Google Play. This is not true of the web search results found at google.com. Because of this, it serves Google's interests to direct Google Play users to apps that extract more money, whereas with Google Search, Google is motivated to return the most relevant possible links.
> 1. This allows apps which are new to not just rely on something unreliable as App store optimization to get downloads.
This will make it harder for new apps and new developers to be discovered, not easier. Everyone can compete in the app store optimization arena equally by researching and changing keywords and descriptions in their app copy. However only apps that have an average per-user revenue that exceeds the promotional placement price will be able to justify competing with these paid promotional placements.
> 2. This will force app developers to think about monetization more seriously and possibly even get rid of free apps culture.
Yes, this will encourage developers to work harder to monetize their users. I would prefer if developers were motivated to work harder to please their users instead.
> 3. You can get users at the point of their query. Facebook gets you passive users. For example on FB you might need to reach 100 people to find one person who has a problem solved by your app, but using this you can find the exact people looking for apps which solve the problem your app is about.
Yes, this makes it more efficient for developers to purchase users. Being bought and sold more easily is bad for the users. From the user's perspective, it would be better to have an honest response from a Google Play search. One that finds them the app that best suits their purpose as effectively as Google Search finds them useful web pages.
> 4. The argument about Zynga and King owning the sponsored are false. It is like saying Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook are going to own the search results on Google.
Zynga and King.com buy an incredible amount of advertising space. They will certainly take advantage of this promotional opportunity, but it isn't these two companies that will dominate all search results. In every niche in both games and applications there will be some app whose developer has figured out the best way to prey on human psychology by withholding features, ransoming data or peddling in-game content to maximize revenue from each download. With paid promotional placements, those apps will be each dominate over apps that are designed to be the most useful or entertaining.
>5. Improvement in organic search doesn't need to happen without starting sponsored results.
No, but with promotional placements Google will be motivated to make the organic search results less relevant. Google profits more when their ads are clicks and when the more expensive apps are installed.
With promotional placement in the Google Play search results, Google is double-dipping from the app economy by charging 30% from app sales plus charging developers to even make those sales in the first place. Since Google gets to chose the outcome of searches in their app store, they will be doubly motivated to disregard app quality and rank the long-term priciest apps most highly.
Do they mean when I buy someone's app and send them my money that they are taking the credit for "paying" the developer? If so then that's wrong. My bank doesn't pay my bills. I pay my bills using my bank's system.
"we paid more than $7 billion to developers"
No, the Marketplace enabled $7 billion in transactions between the customers and the developers, that would have been a more correct way to state it.
