While I don't care either way if this exists or not, I do worry that this will further result in Google ignoring the "discoverability" problem in the Google Play app store.<p>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).<p>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.
Allowing developers to pay for promoted placement is a terrible idea for Google Play's users, for app developers and for Google. Google Play users will now see more exploitative apps that are visible in search results not because they have earned high ratings from users or have a low uninstall rate, but because they are able to extract more money from each user to pay for their placement. App developers with quality products -- especially those with small development studios like my own -- will be put at a further disadvantage from the likes of King.com, Supercell and Zynga, whose high ARPU can justify this sort of promotion. And while Google will initially be able to extract more cash from the app economy than the 30% it already does, by diluting the value of Google Play search results for their users and by incentivizing developers to make exploitative rather than quality products, mobile device owners will become more motivated to migrate to other app stores and possibly other platforms.<p>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.
Another way for Google to tax developers:<p>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.<p>This sucks.
This is a huge change. I personally am very excited about it. At the moment if you want to drive installs to a mobile app, the primary channel is Facebook. It's hard to reach customers any other way. I have worked on apps with a relatively high customer LTV, and we could afford to pay for something like this, but there was no way to do it.<p>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.
I'm not quite sure how much I like this. I can see my search results getting populated with a bunch of apps that I don't want, like "Game of War". This will be interesting to see how this plays out.
What Google needs to do is create a proper search engine for the apps. Filters should include:<p>* Age of the app<p>* Average rating<p>* Eliminate publishers X, Y, Z<p>* Number of installs/downloads<p>* Paid / in-app purchases / ad-supported / completely free<p>* Size in MB (sometimes my connection sucks and I want to find a small game)<p>* Adult content<p>* Category of the app (game / office / tool / etc)
A New Way for Google to accept your money in an auction for placement slots (that displace actual search positions).<p>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).
This is obviously Google trying to grab a piece of advertising budgets of apps and impact of this on "discoverability* will remain to be seen as emergent property later on. Definitely not the primary driver behind this feature.<p>However, before we start booing Google...<p>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.<p>My guess for would be that this will push Facebook little by little to specialize in iOS ad-mongering.
Will these promoted apps be as dangerous as websites promoted by browser search? I got this one just now [1]. Virustotal for "Firefox" from that site [2].<p>1. <a href="https://i.imgur.com/JDY7ptq.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/JDY7ptq.png</a><p>2. <a href="https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/4de57439b8fe09b90440b8e829f880b2875a93645205627aa1102005cb5a322a/analysis/1424960473/" rel="nofollow">https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/4de57439b8fe09b90440b8e82...</a>
I might be missing something here but why is everybody hating on Google for this? How is this different from having sponsored results in the search results on Google? I feel this is great for a number of reasons:<p>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.
"In fact, in the past year, we paid more than $7 billion to developers distributing apps and games on Google Play."<p>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.
The biggest improvement they could make is having the Apps category NOT include games. Discovering useful and/or interesting apps is so damn hard because of games being included.
This is a great example of Google doing what Google does best. With one slot gone, app publishers will need to focus on an ASO much more. SEO remains one of the most effective ways of marketing on web, and so too will ASO be in the app marketplace.
My gripe with this is that it further monopolizes the ad network market. On the web AdSense and AdWords are king. At least on mobile we have several choices, of which AdMob isn't even the best. I guess Google will be king of this arena too.
If it were anyone else, I'd say this was pretty dubious, but Google knows better than anyone else how to make search ads work for everyone so... we'll see.