From their ad copy they say 65% of all downloads come from app store search. If this is true, this is bad news for FB. A huge chunk of FB revenue comes from mobile app install ads bc that was the only method large app developers had to send users to their apps. I previously worked at a gaming firm that spent $5M/month on these types of ads.
If App Store search is effective, this will swing ad budgets away. FB still has all the demographic and audience info, but arguably none of that is important bc all you want to do in those types of ads is attract users who spent. Apple is at the top of the chain, they can do this better than FB bc they have reliable transaction data and FB has to rely on properly instrumented SDKs, then use machine learning to figure out who "might" be a spender, then have the marketing person optimize those ads. Wouldn't you rather just say, target anyone who has previously made a purchase in a game and be done with it?
Another note. I once created a niche utility app that I eventually had to takedown because as an indie dev it was difficult to rise above the ranks, even if the apps above mine were super shitty. I'm going to resurrect that app tonight bc for the first time this might be an effective form of user acquisition. FB ads were terrible bc it is not intent-based and Adwords were terrible because people don't search Google for apps then pull out their phones to download apps (or search in Safari then switch to App Store).
I only use the search when I know what app I'm looking for. Wouldn't that would drive up the numbers artificially -- as I had the intention of downloading the app before I began searching.
I wouldn't think so, not if they're saying a percentage of all downloads come from search, as opposed to a percentage of all searches lead to a download.
But searching is the only way (sane) people find anything on the App Store. When was the last time you browsed the store until you found the cool new app you just read about?
Whenever I use the App store, I'm on a mission. But it's also a mission to get free stuff, so maybe I'm not even part of the equation.
FB will still be better for "app discovery" that was not intended by the user.
How many times do you visit the App Store without already had an intent to download a specific app or a specific app category? Compare that to how often you visit the FB timeline. The intrusiveness of FB ads hitting your brain when you had no internal motivation for look for another app is why FB ads will continue to be powerful.
Yea, historically FB is for demand generation and Google for capturing intent. There wasn't really a good solution for iOS. Adwords weren't terribly effective on iOS but Android may be a different story. So I'm sure FB isn't shaking in their boots or anything but I do think there are sizable budgets dedicated to FB bc that was the only truly scalable method of user acquisition on iOS.
What we call this in the industry is "attribution" and there is a whole sub-industry to deal with this bc it is a complex problem. In short, gaming right now uses last-click attribution so the last advertiser gets credit. FB does influence behavior for sure, though that is difficult to quantify.
Yeah, so Apple are essentially putting themselves in as the end-point of the funnel, which will cause advertisers using last-click to attribute more value to them versus FB/other mobile networks.
"View through" conversions are quite a large area, especially in programmatic. MTA is an important field, but would obviously need to be implemented with some form of in-app tracking tied to your ad providers.
This is bad for everyone except Apples revenue and already rich app-makers.
First off, it's bad for the end user since app quality has nothing to do with the amount spent on advertising. It is also bad for indie developers since they won't be able to compete with big businesses. Most likely, the indie made app you love will be harder to find since other apps will be shown instead.
This sucks and is a totally greedy move from one of the largest corporations in the world.
As an indie game developer I disagree with you. Spending money on ads promoting my game is the only way I've managed to get any traction. I don't need to spend big money either. You need advertising or having a big network that can promote your game for free. Simply making a good game doesn't cut it unless you're lucky.
I tend to disagree with you. First off it will decrease app disconverability. Second, many of indie developers depend on the incode from in-app advertisement. Now, after the release of AppStore Ads, the money will go directly to Apple instead of small Indie developers.
So, the two sort of priorties we set on the team as they were working on it was, if we're going to do this, we have to do it in a way that, number one, protects user privacy. There are many ways that companies do it where they're not protecting privacy and we need to understand that. And secondly, how do you do it in a way that gives advantages to small and indie developers, because it's easy to imagine a system that didn't do that.
And so, we set out to think of all the things we could do to make that possible. And there's a long list of things. And I won't go through all of them to bore you all, but there are many things.
Things like:
- First of all, there's no minimum bid. So we don't set a bar, if you have a very small amount of money, you can just do what you can with a small amount of money.
- The fact that we're going to work really hard to try to make relevance the top priority, over bid, for why something gets shown. That the users are the ultimate deciders of what gets shown, based on their clicks, they're a big input to what is relevant to the search result.
- The fact that we're going to work hard to try to police and improve the whole metadata system if we find, as it easily could be abused to hurt [small] developers.
- The fact that — and this has been a hotly-debated thing — the fact that you can do conquesting. You can use someone else's brand in your ad words that you want to use. As we thought about it, that is more likely to benefit the small developer than the big developer. Because the big developer isn't going to pick on a lot of small developer terms, but a small developer can try to latch on to a big developer's name. If I want to search for Angry Birds and your game, you can. Right? And so we think that that can help them.
- The fact that there's no exclusivity. So a large developer cannot say, "And I want to be the top bid, and I'm going to spend everything I can to buy out this term." There will be no exclusivity, there's going to be a rotation there, and as that rotation appears, the relevance will help drive it further.
We're trying everything we can, and I think one of the best things is, right now, once we're in beta throughout the summer, the downloads the users get from the ads are real downloads to benefit the developer, but we're not charging [for ads] during the beta time. So there's a chance for everybody to get in and try it out, help us learn from it, and drive real downloads and real business without any marketing spend.
So we're trying to think of things we can do, and we'll think of more. We'll take feedback and see what's happening, and where it works and doesn't work, and where it feels like they're getting stomped on, and we'll try to do all that we can to make it better.
Not a TLDR but from the transcript [1] under "On App Store search ads":
...how do you do it in a way that gives advantages to small and indie developers, because it's easy to imagine a system that didn't do that.
First of all, there's no minimum bid. So we don't set a bar, if you have a very small amount of money, you can just do what you can with a small amount of money.
The fact that we're going to work really hard to try to make relevance the top priority, over bid, for why something gets shown. That the users are the ultimate deciders of what gets shown, based on their clicks, they're a big input to what is relevant to the search result.
The fact that we're going to work hard to try to police and improve the whole metadata system if we find, as it easily could be abused to hurt [small] developers.
The fact that — and this has been a hotly-debated thing — the fact that you can do conquesting. You can use someone else's brand in your ad words that you want to use. As we thought about it, that is more likely to benefit the small developer than the big developer. Because the big developer isn't going to pick on a lot of small developer terms, but a small developer can try to latch on to a big developer's name. If I want to search for Angry Birds and your game, you can. Right? And so we think that that can help them.
The fact that there's no exclusivity. So a large developer cannot say, "And I want to be the top bid, and I'm going to spend everything I can to buy out this term." There will be no exclusivity, there's going to be a rotation there, and as that rotation appears, the relevance will help drive it further.
We're trying everything we can, and I think one of the best things is, right now, once we're in beta throughout the summer, the downloads the users get from the ads are real downloads to benefit the developer, but we're not charging [for ads] during the beta time. So there's a chance for everybody to get in and try it out, help us learn from it, and drive real downloads and real business without any marketing spend.
My instinct is to agree. Instead of making the App Store better so that it's easier for users to find the right app at the right time, this will make the interface even more cluttered. As a result, I will spend more time searching for apps on Google.
If advertising was their main revenue stream, I'd understand it. But it's not, and it's hard to ever imagine it being so. Apple have already pulled away from mobile advertising, so this looks more like a revenue-grab than a long-term strategic move.
this "greedy" perspective is growing more prevalent and tiresome on HN. i would speculate increase is due to increase in younger users not in the real world and international users with different perspective on economics/competition.i'm sure this will get downvoted
Well, I am seldom the first one to shout greedy but in this case they really could focus on creating a better appstore experience for free but did not.
They already own the app distribution on iOS completely and is already making huge amounts of money (I would guess) on that 30% cut. Do they really need to make the extra money that comes of this?
Sure, it will make their revenue go up even more but at the expense of users and smaller developers. That is what I believe, but if that really is what is going to happen I guess we will find out.
eh app store is really feast or famine for businesses. zero middle ground. could help smaller guys. theres a whole niche industry where smaller biz's pay money to get promotion from 'social influencers' to boost downloads. apple just improving this work-around solution.
Not sure why this is downvoted, granted it's not just because of the review process but app (and especially game) quality is night and day between Android and iOS, both because of the review process and because of the barriers to entry being decently higher for iOS.
You can talk about the problems with walled gardens all day and I'd agree with the majority of what you're saying, but I gotta be honest, when you're inside the walled garden it is pretty nice that they keep the riff-raff out, in this case the riff raff being the low budget (and frequently IP infringing) crapware games.
> app quality has nothing to do with the amount spent on advertising
Is that really true though? If I have a bad app that nobody wants and I'm not planning on improving, spending money advertising it would be a waste. The only people who spend money advertising are those that think they can convert those impressions to money, usually by providing value to customers.
For many many years, the number one reason people told me why they used apple products was privacy and that with apple I'm not a product. It's how they could justify paying the high premium for apple products.
It would be very interesting if they get into the advertising business. Harvesting data about my usage it and using that data to charge more for ads that are well targeted.
It would mean that in addition to apple selling a product at a premium, the users would also become a product.
Combine this with things like the disappearing head phone jack, and apple is becoming actively hostile towards its users.
This isn't general advertising. It's only on the App Store and is based on the keywords you enter into a search in the store. They rolled this out because it's basically impossible for an unknown developer to get noticed anymore on there. Apple haters will use any new product to criticize the company, but this seems fairly benign and fills a need among developers.
> it's basically impossible for an unknown developer to get noticed
They could improve the search algorithm to solve this. Perhaps redesign the app store UI to better accommodate new apps. Or they could stagnate for years and then solve the problem by charging developers more.
Developers (including myself) are already paying these fees to Google, Facebook and Bing in the form of app install ads. We'll likely get more more bang for the buck directly on the App Store though, so IMO it's a win for developers.
Your media mix will likely shift, but you'll still be paying Facebook, Google etc. as well. Btw take a look at Twitter if you aren't already. I've had good results there.
Currently it's easier to find apps BY NAME on Google. There are tons of improvements. Filter out paid apps, in-app purchase ones. Filter by category, ratings. Do not destroy ratings after each update.
>> They rolled this out because it's basically impossible for an unknown developer to get noticed anymore on there.
Lol This is what will happen in reality an unknown developer starts trending with the next Meerkat, only for a Twitter to push 10M$ worth of Ads for its Periscope (Development cost 5M$ ~ half the marketing budget) on App Store and bury the "unknown developer"
Think about it this way, All app installs must go through the app store, and by introducing ads at the second last stage, the entire "word of mouth" funnel is now under threat. So unless the the user has a "direct deep link" (E.g. via the app website, or ahem FB Ads) to the app store page, That user is much more likely to be lost to a competitor.
To expand my example: Earlier someone would have their friend mention "Meerkat", leading them to search for Meerkat and they would be guaranteed to find Meerkat un-distracted by any other well funded competitor. Now Apple has essentially exploited its "Walled garden" monopoly on installs, by introducing Ads in the second last steps used in 65% of cases.
If you think this is a "good thing" for developers you are gravely mistaken and iOS devs are being taken for a ride.
> They rolled this out because it's basically impossible for an unknown developer to get noticed anymore on there.
I feel like this is kinda missing the point. The solution for app discovery (not that I really think there is one) isn't "sell ads". Organic discovery is always going to be far superior.
Before they can do that they need to implement a search that actually works... I've never understood why the app stores are not just websites similar to amazon. The goal is to make it easy to locate an app whether you have the device or not- limiting access to the knowledge of the existence of an app seems like a fail in brand awareness.
True that Apple's App Store search sucks. I'll give an example: search for Get@ and see the results. Now search for GetAt and you'll see an app called Get@. If you allow @ symbol in the app name then your search should return that app when searched for it.
Anyone remember iAds ? They have tried to get into the ad business and failed. Since this is more limited in scope and you can figure out intent better maybe this will be more successful .
If the service is free, you could be the product (on not, like Linux), but you could be the product even if you paid.
Many physical newspapers cost money and had ads (even the reputable newspapers such as the NYT), and likely sold your information (whatever they had, that is) to the highest bidder.
If they had a way to track you, they would in a heartbeat.
I suspect they're doing it now because they realize they're the last company to _not_ abuse their users' privacy. Now that users have absolutely nowhere else to turn, Apple has no reason not to play that game.
(b) The situations you're describing hasn't really changed since Facebook added ads, so they could've had that "realization" much earlier.
(c) Apple is positioning itself as a privacy-focused company with (for example) their lawsuit regarding iPhone unlocking and their implementation of differential privacy for their machine learning algorithms. It'd be stupid to give that up and risk a triple-digit-billion-business (iPhone) for what's bound to be a small fraction of that (ads in the App Store).
> It'd be stupid to give that up and risk a triple-digit-billion-business (iPhone) for what's bound to be a small fraction of that (ads in the App Store).
You don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend.
Yeah, but running doesn't just mean "have better privacy" than the competition (i. e. Samsung/Google). Privacy is only one of many dimensions Apple is competing on, and running up the score there may still help them when the competition is better along other dimensions, like those cool self-igniting firework-phones I keep hearing about.
I won't try to claim that Apple is or isn't abusing their users' privacy, but they're definitely not new to advertising. They ran iAd for years until they shut it down recently.
I had the same feeling about Microsoft and I'm currently moving away from that platform. Most users seem OK with being tracked and identified so I doubt they will lose business because of it. At least until the new third reich comes by and exterminate those they don't like.
It's extremely difficult to get noticed on the app store because it's so huge now. I think this was a necessary move.
Apple does harvest your data, but they don't sell it. You're not a product.
The headphone jack is an entirely different situation. It was a necessary move on Apple's part in order to push industry standards towards wireless. I'm sure in a few years, we're all going to laugh about all the wires and cables we used to have everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually Apple got rid of all ports on all their devices.
Do any of the big ad companies sell your data? Google? Facebook? It's the same thing. I don't want them to need to learn everything about me. What they want to do with that info is secondary.
Android / iPhone are becoming completely incompatible at a hardware level. Lightning instead of USB. No headphones. No SD card. Next it'll be some proprietary SIM card standard. It's almost like their afraid someone is going to crack iOS to run on and Android handset the way macOS can run on a PC
To be fair, the SD card has been abandoned by the Google Nexus line as well. It caused a lot more problems than solved. Now that storage is relatively cheap, more manufacturers are removing it.
This is...insane. The whole point of the App Store is to help in discovery and I already pay a 30% cut for my app. And now they want to charge me for promoting my app in their store. This should just be a built-in part of the App Store story for the customers. This is why Apple customers pay a premium. Instead Apple sees an opportunity here to make even more money off me / the app authors?
Hats off to Apple. First, they charge developers to even develop for their platform (though this has become free off late). They only allow developing on their Macs. Then they take 30% cut of apps and also in-app purchases. And now they want more money to promote stuff in their store. I don't know what to say. I am sure this will be a raging success as well :/
> The whole point of the App Store is to help in discovery and I already pay a 30% cut for my app.
Actually, the point of the app store was distribution. That's what the 30% cut was for IIRC. And that's how they sold it, by comparing it to the 50% and more cut that older, traditional channels took at the time of introduction. I don't think they ever even thought about discovery, which would explain why the app store has become such a mess in the first place!
> And now they want to charge me for promoting my app in their store. This should just be a built-in part of the App Store story for the customers. This is why Apple customers pay a premium. Instead Apple sees an opportunity here to make even more money off me / the app authors?
I don't think making money is the main consideration for Apple here. Advertising can also play a useful role as a market mechanism (keyword: "price discovery"). For example, if you spend money to promote your app, you signal confidence in its value proposition. Also, you might be more selective in your targeting. Etc. So the money itself is almost incidental, what we really want here is the information aggregation and surfacing function of a competitive market, the most efficient matching of offers (app makers) and bidders (app users) across an extremely heterogeneous collection of agents.
But it needs to be set up correctly (this is what all the mechanism design literature is all about). Hopefully it is, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
> Actually, the point of the app store was distribution. That's what the 30% cut was for IIRC.
Nobody was paying Apple 30% because that was cheaper than distributing yourself. They paid 30% because without paying that their app wouldn't get discovered, by design.
Now Apple has decided 30% only buys you the privilege of being able to pay more to be discovered.
I suppose you can't discover that which doesn't exist, but it sounds more like you're shorhorning an argument that doesn't fit. The App Store is a piece of shit for finding apps and this will only help that experience. You're free to advertise anywhere; users can still search for you exact app name, same as they always could.
What distributor of software ever charged 50%? Retailers of CD-ROM games (when they were a thing) and video games do not charge that kind of markup.
You are crazy if you think this is a way for Apple to do anything other than capture some of the existing market of app ads, which has been incredibly lucrative for Facebook. They have so many ways to get more information about how useful an app is likely to be for you that they don't use, they don't need another signal.
> Retailers of CD-ROM games (when they were a thing) and video games do not charge that kind of markup.
Maybe not anymore but the app store was launched in 2008. If you look at the percentage a writer or a band makes from a physical book resp. studio album, 50% actually looks very optimistic. Don't forget, there were multiple layers involved, including shipping, wholesalers, retailers, etc. and everybody wanted a cut. There's a reason desktop software to this day has a much higher price anchor than mobile!
2008? I started making retail software in 1995 and believe me in those days stores often only took 10 - 20% of the retail price for CD-ROMs because they drove buyers into the store.
My point was that "distributors" or retailers never took 50% as the original post suggested.
If you believe that the reason desktop software has a higher anchor price point than mobile is the multiple layers, please explain why the price point on the Steam store is so much higher than the app store.
But did retail press your disks and prepare your packaging? Did they provide analytics?
Your Steam analogy is flawed due to selection bias - Steam is about games, and games are more similar to movies than apps. People want entertaining content (and a good amount) for that initial price.
Does Steam allow for freemium? What about ad-driven games?
The old "app stores" run by carriers before the iPhone charged way more than 50%. From memory the best deal I ever heard anyone getting was when they charged 70%.
It is a built-in part of the App Store. But the app store is so crowded that once you fall off the front page, there's not much you can do within the store (besides hope that Apple decides to feature you after some big update). The reason why search ads are actually good for customers is because it promotes apps that are backed by companies that a) still care about their app, and b) can afford to actually promote the app. This means the app is much more likely to be under active development and to be usable in the future. And surely any company that's interested in search ads is already purchasing ads on web search engines and whatnot, so it really shouldn't be a big deal.
This is poor logic. Promoting has nothing to do with how well supported the app is. All we will see is people with money push their apps and trying to make up for that money at the cost of the customer.
> Promoting has nothing to do with how well supported the app is.
I think it could, to a certain extent. If someone stops supporting an app, I think there's a decent chance they wouldn't both paying money to promote it. At least for the kind of throw-away crap apps that are out there.
People are already paying to promote apps though. I've heard of plenty of app developers paying for huge numbers of app installs in bulk in order to get them to the App Store's top downloaded lists. This is Apple trying to capture some of that market and bring it away from these kinds of shady practices.
for many search terms, and in my opinion, yes. a typical use case on an app store is searching for something like the example given on apple's promo page here: "photo filters". neither the app store or google has enough intelligence to make a decision about what the best result is, given a query that vague and returning that many results. the most useful thing they can actually display is likely an ad.
try searching for something like "car insurance" on google with adblock turned off - the majority of the visible page area will be used by some sort of ad unit, and the native results are pretty useless.
That's how supermarkets work, too. They get a cut of the sales price, and if you want your product to stand out, you pay for a more prominent placement.
Well, exactly. That is what is terrible about this. The goal of App Store must be to help the user find the best product that is suited based on the search. It's purpose must be to delight it's users. The users and app authors are already paying Apple in many ways. So instead of seeing this an algorithm/engineering problem, Apple has now turned it's Store into some super market. The goal of a supermarket is hardly to "delight" you. And neither do they have your best interests in mind. When/what is last delightful supermarket you went to?
In supermarkets, they are. To most consumers, one brand of milk might as well be another brand--even if the tastes is different, it's slight enough to be negligible. So just shelving everything as 'milk' is good enough for the supermarket to handle is distribution duty. Now if one particular brand wants to do better than its competitor, it can pay for placement closer to the checkout section, or pay for a big promotional area for it.
The same might be true with apps. Yes apps have differences, but its not really clear that such differences are enough that there is clearly one app better suited for a purpose than another. Nor is it clear that you can both (a) divine the suitability of any app and (b) match that up with a consumer with any degree of accuracy versus alternatives.
If the above were true, central planning via the app store would be great. Since it's not... well our best known solution is capitalist market action which opening up the store to advertisement allows.
Supermarkets are probably one of the least usable markets in existence though. It's almost impossible to go into a supermarket without an understanding of what you need and leave better off. You have to go in with expert knowledge of everything you need. Hardly a role model for marketplace design.
Also, I think it's worth combining this news with the fact that they restricted the length of app titles in order to combat app store seo. Why not just fix search in the first place? This definitely feels like an engineering shortcoming on Apple's behalf.
The whole point is not discovery. It's distribution. If you take away the app store, there's nothing to download.
Search ads give companies a legitimate way to promote apps within the app store, outside of editorial or bad tactics to game search results (title keyword stuffing, keyword highjacking etc).
The App Store is where the customers are, so it makes sense to allow advertising here. Otherwise the alternative Google or Facebook where you're changes of conversion are such a great deal less because you're so far removed from the channel.
It's like the difference between being offered fries at the fast food counter compared to a banner ad. It's clear it's going to be better for all involved to be offered something in the better context.
Pretty sure it isn't just about discovery considering you couldn't have an app on an iPhone without Apple. This is just an inevitability of a walled ecosystem.
It was always free to develop. You needed an paid developer account in order to sign apps to adhoc install it on your phone to test it. This is now free.
Still need a paid developer account in order to publish to the App Store.
Apple already has this information, so this is only putting it to use. Plus, they continue below:
> Advertisers have the ability to select user segments based on this information when setting up their campaigns to guide the delivery of their ads. However, no user segment can be smaller than 5,000 people. No individual user data may be exported from Search Ads, ensuring that only aggregate campaign delivery information is available and no individual user data is ever exposed to advertisers.
So individual developers don't have access to this information.
I find it strange they prefer Ads as part of the solution to discovery problem. Apple App Store Search SUCKS. And I have no idea why. It is not that they cant do search ( Spotlight in Mac ), but they cant do search at scale.
It is also to get some of the Ads revenue from Google and mainly facebook, where Apps install is a huge deal.
This was actually the original idea of pay-per-click search ads. GoTo.com was founded on the idea that paid listings would be of higher quality and relevancy, because websites that pay more are likely better sites.
The idea has some merit: you can't spam the search engine with completely irrelevant ads, because users will click them and thus charge the advertiser, but they'll quickly leave the site because it isn't relevant to their search.
Modern pay-per-click (PPC) does yield management and ranks ads based on the click-through-rate (CTR) multiplied by the PPC. So if you create irrelevant ads that no one ever clicks on, they'll stop being shown in favor of more relevant ads with a higher CTR.
Apple has terrible App search, so this is an opportunity for Google to provide a better app search/discovery system so that Apple doesn't get away with charging for ads to fix their terrible search and discovery.
This will be interesting. I have a feeling that once Apple get a taste of sweet search ad revenue, they won't be able to let Google own overall search without a fight. I know Apple have been rumoured to be working on a search engine for a long time, but Siri aside, it never seemed to reach fruition. I think this could give them some renewed focus on that, though.
This is interesting. On one hand it discontinued the iAd product and allowed Developers to go to third party Ad networks. On the other hand it provides a better experience for the user by serving ads when the intent of the user is clear and generating revenue off of it.
I think if Apple prices correctly it has the potential to reduce in-app ads considerably at the same time increasing revenue for Apple because most ads in apps are to download other apps and if relevant apps are served up via Search Ads it could be a better business model than iAds.
This is a huge opportunity for Apple's own ad network, iAd, to really take off. Now that they have the advertisers who are willing to spend money and the information on iOS users who actually spend money in the App Store, this makes iAd much more valuable. Apple loves to control their ecosystem so having their own ad network implemented in majority of ad-revenue-based iOS apps would work out quite well.
If App Store search is effective, this will swing ad budgets away. FB still has all the demographic and audience info, but arguably none of that is important bc all you want to do in those types of ads is attract users who spent. Apple is at the top of the chain, they can do this better than FB bc they have reliable transaction data and FB has to rely on properly instrumented SDKs, then use machine learning to figure out who "might" be a spender, then have the marketing person optimize those ads. Wouldn't you rather just say, target anyone who has previously made a purchase in a game and be done with it?
Another note. I once created a niche utility app that I eventually had to takedown because as an indie dev it was difficult to rise above the ranks, even if the apps above mine were super shitty. I'm going to resurrect that app tonight bc for the first time this might be an effective form of user acquisition. FB ads were terrible bc it is not intent-based and Adwords were terrible because people don't search Google for apps then pull out their phones to download apps (or search in Safari then switch to App Store).