---
title: Apple Ads measurement pitfalls — AdServices isolation, match rate, storefront country, CPP comparisons
slug: apple-ads-measurement-pitfalls
summary: Thomas Petit's list of ways Apple Ads numbers mislead — AdServices attribution can't be compared with SKAN-measured channels, MMP-vs-Apple install "match rate" (80–90% is good), App Store storefront ≠ user location (up to ~30% non-US installs on US campaigns), and custom product page results that look 10× better only because they serve a different audience.
domain: mobile-apps
tags: [user-acquisition, apple-ads, attribution, adservices, custom-product-pages, measurement]
related: [apple-ads-keyword-revenue-optimization, apple-ads-attribution-without-mmp, custom-product-pages-for-ads, skan-aem-capi-for-app-campaigns, last-click-attribution-biases, apple-ads-brand-vs-non-brand, high-rpd-country-bundles-for-app-ads]
sources: [yt:EYfeV7fkCeI]
updated: 2026-10-24
---

# Apple Ads measurement pitfalls

## TL;DR
- **AdServices** (Apple's own attribution) doesn't rely on ATT consent or SKAN. That makes it useful, but Apple Ads results "live in isolation". **Never compare** them with SKAN- or fingerprint-measured channels, and never blend in brand.[^1][^2]
- Track **match rate** = MMP-attributed installs ÷ Apple-reported installs. **80–90% is doing great.** Monitor it, because it shifts, and on non-search placements it looked very different.[^3]
- **Country = App Store storefront**, not IP location. On US campaigns, users from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Nigeria using the US store can be ~**30%** of installs, bought at US prices.[^4]
- **CPP vs default page comparisons are biased.** CPPs served only on newer iOS versions reach a different audience. "CPP spends 10× more at half the CPA" isn't a valid win. Compare CPPs with each other, before/after.[^5][^6]
- Apple's headline stats ("65% of downloads follow a search", 70% → 43% of visitors search) are **sales points**, mostly driven by big-brand searches. Don't plan around them.[^7]

## Details
**Market-share illusions.** A 2022 Branch/Financial Times figure claimed Apple went from 5% to 58% of installs after ATT. That was only *attributed* installs: other channels moved to unattributed SKAN. Petit's estimate: ~$8–10B Apple search ad revenue vs ~$100–150B total app ad spend, so under 10%.[^2]

**Non-search placements** (Today tab, search tab, product pages): don't buy them for direct-return performance, and be careful how you measure them. Some advertisers (Glovo, Google) spend heavily there for other reasons.[^8]

**Interface gaps** (2023): no post-install data in Apple's UI, even though Apple has purchases and retention in App Store Connect. Third-party Apple Ads tools (faster UI, MMP integration, configurable graphs) pay off for big or multi-app accounts. Small single-app accounts can live with Apple's UI. SplitMetrics' extension shows search popularity, which is exponential, so 38 vs 47 matters.[^9][^10]

## Disagreements / caveats
- Adapty (2026) markets user-level deterministic Apple Ads attribution and says Apple Ads users show higher LTV than other channels ([[apple-ads-keyword-revenue-optimization]]). Petit's isolation point says to read such cross-channel comparisons cautiously.
- Talk recorded July 2023. Apple has since renamed Search Ads to Apple Ads and added placements; specifics (iOS version gates, UI) may have changed.

## See also
- [[custom-product-pages-for-ads]] — how to use CPPs
- [[last-click-attribution-biases]] — why search channels look better than they are
- [[people/thomas-petit]]

[^1]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 25:49 — Thomas Petit
[^2]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 27:20 — Thomas Petit
[^3]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 28:50 — Thomas Petit
[^4]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 30:21 — Thomas Petit
[^5]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 18:40 — Thomas Petit
[^6]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 19:35 — Thomas Petit
[^7]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 02:25 — Thomas Petit
[^8]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 17:05 — Thomas Petit
[^9]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 05:37 — Thomas Petit
[^10]: yt:EYfeV7fkCeI @ 07:27 — Thomas Petit