PDA

View Full Version : Advertisments on iTunes to Discount Prices?




MacRumors
Aug 1, 2007, 06:14 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TechDigest.tv reports (http://techdigest.tv/2007/08/apple_may_be_pl.html) on hints that Apple is exploring advertising options on its iTunes store. During a recent UK Copyright Tribunal, iTunes CP Eddie Cue is quoted as describing the possibility of advertising in the iTunes store. A footnote in the discussion reveals:
In fact, the iTunes service is funded through retail sales revenue and not at present as a result of advertising. But, said Mr. Cue, Global Vice-President of iTunes, iTunes may well carry advertising in the future -- hence their interest in these Applications.

One system described is in-line advertising as described by "the placement of third party advertising at the start, end or during actual delivery of a Repertoire Work to a customer by way of a permanent download".

The discussion appears to be hypothetical and the original report "stresses" that these discussions were on the "potential of ad-funded downloads" rather than any specific plan. And notes that ads may be delivered on content whose price has "been artificially depressed to reflect such revenue." (ie. discounted).

There had been rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/09/18/apple-selling-ads-on-itunes/) that Apple was exploring advertising options for iTunes with older claims (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/04/25/ads-in-the-itunes-and-podcasts/) that Apple was looking at a way to incorporate ads into Podcasts.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/01/advertisments-on-itunes/)



Wayfarer
Aug 1, 2007, 06:18 PM
Ads in iTunes? Pfftt... NOT gonna happen! :mad:

slidingjon
Aug 1, 2007, 06:18 PM
If ads get stuck in the middle of TV shows, I will stop buying! It's one of the things that makes buying from iTunes worth it for me.

coolfactor
Aug 1, 2007, 06:24 PM
If iTunes starts cluttering up their service with advertising, I will be quite upset and take steps to let them know that. They are already getting hundreds of my dollars (I know they only keep a small percentage), but I feel ads would just drive people away from the service.

Keep it simple and friendly, please.

OutThere
Aug 1, 2007, 06:26 PM
If I'm on the iTunes store, I'm already about to buy music from Apple...is it really necessary to pester me with ads to buy stuff from other people?

rendezvouscp
Aug 1, 2007, 06:28 PM
As in the post, the only reasonable application of this is in podcasts; the entire store is an advertisement in and of itself, so it wouldn't make sense to put advertising on the pages of the store.
-Chasen

arn
Aug 1, 2007, 06:31 PM
and only where the Licensed Service is offered to the User at a price which has been artificially depressed to reflect such revenue.

sorry... didn't stress this quote enough, edited article.

Basically, ads would discount the content otherwise based on that comment.

So for example, $9.99 movie without ads vs (less than $9.99) movie with ads (as an made-up example)

arn

gphoto
Aug 1, 2007, 06:33 PM
sorry... didn't stress this quote enough, edited article.

Basically, ads would discount the content otherwise based on that comment.

So for example, $9.99 movie without ads vs (less than $9.99) movie with ads.

arn

That's cool. It would let every have what they want.

OhEsTen
Aug 1, 2007, 06:34 PM
Ads in iTunes? Pfftt... NOT gonna happen! :mad:

True Dat. Apple would never eff up the end user experience like this. I can see them perhaps selling some ad "space" on iTunes main pages - but if Apple did this I would imagine that the advertisers would need to adhere to a very strict set of guidelines

DsurioN
Aug 1, 2007, 06:34 PM
Hmm... Advertising seems so un-appleish. Perhaps if they only had ads while you're downloading or something, so people have something to look at while they're staring at their progress bar :)

SkyBell
Aug 1, 2007, 06:37 PM
True Dat. Apple would never eff up the end user experience like this. I can see them perhaps selling some ad "space" on iTunes main pages - but if Apple did this I would imagine that the advertisers would need to adhere to a very strict set of guidelines

"Free pr0n!!!!!!!!!!1111OMFG!!!!!1111"

matticus008
Aug 1, 2007, 06:37 PM
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan. People who complain about the "high" cost of iTunes Store products would have an alternative. Everyone else would continue as normal, just like they do today, without being bothered by ads.

Zwhaler
Aug 1, 2007, 06:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (LGE-VX9900/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

i dont see why apple needs ads... Theyve made 3 billion dollars from song sales already! And no ads in podcasts please!

illicium
Aug 1, 2007, 06:42 PM
Worst. Idea. Ever.

arn
Aug 1, 2007, 06:42 PM
And no ads in podcasts please!

I think some podcasters would disagree with you on that. :)

arn

I WAS the one
Aug 1, 2007, 06:43 PM
Apple need to let go this once and for all... I mean... the only people that benefit from ads it's the podcasts producers, if Apple want to charge for ads on them, that means that we the people that make podcasts are gonna be broke !:mad:

ajhill
Aug 1, 2007, 06:43 PM
Okay, well maybe it was stars or something like that. But Apple is getting more and more closely tied to Google and those people just love ads. They'd be nothing without ads.

Just one question for everyone out there: Has anyone every bought anything that they saw in an online ad? Or clicked on an online ad? I never have. For me online ads are just annoying. I don't pay them any attention.

I would imagine people would tire of the iTunes music store if ads were flashing at them or things were flying by, or popping up constantly. Most ad supported websites end up looking like some sleezy downtown district ala the old 42nd street. Don't need them. Don't want them...

LillieDesigns
Aug 1, 2007, 06:48 PM
when I think of ads I think of getting ready to buy Prison Break and then an add popping up saying something like "Be sure to check out 'Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader on Tuesdays ay 8PM only on FOX!"

I made that add up and I don;t watch either show, but for examples sake that seems more reasonable. Unless they say "Buy Pepsi" at the beginning of a song and charge me $0.10 for it.

SMM
Aug 1, 2007, 06:55 PM
Worst. Idea. Ever.

The 'worst' ever? You have lived a charmed life.

I have not been to a pro sport event since they started selling the names of stadiums and event centers.

kwood
Aug 1, 2007, 06:55 PM
sorry... didn't stress this quote enough, edited article.

Basically, ads would discount the content otherwise based on that comment.

So for example, $9.99 movie without ads vs (less than $9.99) movie with ads (as an made-up example)

arn

So if it were done this way, what is stopping a person from simply removing the commercials with a video editing program?

BWhaler
Aug 1, 2007, 07:01 PM
Worst. Idea. Ever.

iJawn108
Aug 1, 2007, 07:01 PM
"Get your free sample of herbal viagra"
:eek:

*switches to ubuntu*

DaBrain
Aug 1, 2007, 07:04 PM
I think some podcasters would disagree with you on that. :)

arn

Well whipty freaking do for them! Too bad! They can then keep their CRAP! IM sick of advertising spewing their crap!

Were constantly bombarded by this trash. They do this, then they will never get a dime from me.

I know what I want and am quite capable of shopping for it when needed.

I can just here some jerk speaking on an iPod ad:eek: at 2,000 miles an hour, like yeah we need that!

Gimme a break!

MacFly123
Aug 1, 2007, 07:09 PM
I think some podcasters would disagree with you on that. :)

arn

Several of the video Podcasts I watch already have ads in them :(

Peace
Aug 1, 2007, 07:18 PM
If Apple were to initiate click thru ads in iTunes it would only be because the revenue model has changed.
Meaning Jobs gave in to the big 3 on a price increase per song and a bigger slice of the pie for the recording industry.

blashphemy
Aug 1, 2007, 07:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C25 Safari/419.3)

GOD NO!!!!!

iTunes is one of the most successful music stores in the business. Why fix that which isn't broken?! If iTunes puts in ads lets hope they make an equally "smart" decision and allow people to return their purchases so that I can return every song, TV show, and movie that I have ever bought!

Although I would be pacified if it gave me dirt-free over the air iTunes music downloads on my iPhone... Are you listening, Apple? ;)

joepunk
Aug 1, 2007, 07:33 PM
If ads are added then I guess I could live with ads say at the end of an itunes show :)

not going to happen though.

Hairball
Aug 1, 2007, 07:45 PM
I only see this as negative if true. Once ads roll in for one place, then maybe they would be used in another place here or another place over there. I think the real reason for possibly using ads is due to the fact that Universal (and other rumored record companies) want Apple to charge for their content, but Apple wants to keep the price at $.99. Apple can keep the price the same, if they receive revenue from other areas, ADs.

KEEP iTUNES AD FREE!!!!!

uraniumwilly
Aug 1, 2007, 07:51 PM
Advertisements? In my iTunes?

You uh, you sayin you want a piece of me? Is that what you're sayin? What is that you want? You want a piece of me?

Why I oughta...

MacTheSpoon
Aug 1, 2007, 08:07 PM
This sounds fine to me, as long as the discounted TV shows with embedded ads are also available in a regularly-priced format without ads, too. And as long as the ones without ads remain at their current price. People can then decide which format they want.

twoodcc
Aug 1, 2007, 08:08 PM
i wouldn't mind previews of newer movies, but not ads. especially in music (which i'm guessing they are only talking about movies)

breath of apple
Aug 1, 2007, 08:24 PM
Apple, offering clean, simple, elegant products and interfaces is what makes you so classy! Please don't allow your products and interfaces to become cluttered with ads! :apple:

DavidLeblond
Aug 1, 2007, 08:31 PM
Give us the option of having ad supported free TV shows. I'd go for it and get rid of cable.

chr1s60
Aug 1, 2007, 09:05 PM
Why do this? Are they trying to make people not want to use iTunes? Throwing advertisements in is going to drive people away from iTunes.

Next they can throw in some advertisements on the iPod and iPhone so we are forced to hear them before we listen or watch something. Apple should just be happy with whatever money they make from iTunes right now.

synth3tik
Aug 1, 2007, 09:17 PM
Ads would suck. I don't mind paying the current prices, especially if it means not having to look at ads. The ads are why I only watch shows from iTunes to begin with.

gifford
Aug 1, 2007, 09:54 PM
"Just one question for everyone out there: Has anyone every bought anything that they saw in an online ad? Or clicked on an online ad? I never have. For me online ads are just annoying. I don't pay them any attention."

This is very true, in over a decades worth of surfing, i can safely say I have not bought a single item because of an internet ad. My mind blanks them off.

ortuno2k
Aug 1, 2007, 10:06 PM
If you really think about it, Apple already has their some ads in the iTunes store. Just look at the "Just for you" feature, and the rest of the subtle "ads" and you'll see they're ads, in one way or another, but still are.
Now, if they start adding 3rd party ads, that would get REALLY annoying - I think it would piss a lot of people off, myself included. I don't buy a lot of stuff off the iTunes store - I still purchase CDs - but the few singles I buy would be gone if there's an ad in one of them.

iMike360
Aug 1, 2007, 10:21 PM
That is the one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas.

Right up there with taking dinosaurs off that island.

gkarris
Aug 1, 2007, 10:29 PM
I just watched this evening on my :apple:TV a Jeff Foxworthy show that was free from iTunes and at the end, was an ad for the DVDs. I guess I don't mind as the show was free anyways.

But, if we have to pay for the show and have ads... :mad:

Elijahg
Aug 1, 2007, 10:41 PM
Anyone else remember Sherlock in OS 9 which had ads... That got slammed pretty quickly.

MacPossum
Aug 1, 2007, 10:53 PM
Worst. Idea. Ever.

QFE. iTunes doesn't need to be swamped down by adds. I'll pay the current prices to keep adds out.

thuff13
Aug 1, 2007, 11:02 PM
I don't get why people are so against advertisement. If some company wants to pay for me to watch a video I'm all for that.

Besides, Apple may have to start doing this and make their TV shows free or they aren't going to be able to compete. All the networks show full episodes of TV shows for free on their websites now. Why should we pay for them when we can watch them for free any time we want? And there aren't a ton of ads either, I think ABC shows like 3 30 second ads during an hour long show, I can live with that. I also believe that ABC shows them in higher resolution than you can get on iTunes and I heard that they are going to start showing them in HD.

Apple needs to change something. I won't pay for a TV show when I can get it in better quality for free and I'm sure there are a lot of people that feel the same way.

SkyBell
Aug 1, 2007, 11:22 PM
"Just one question for everyone out there: Has anyone every bought anything that they saw in an online ad? Or clicked on an online ad? I never have. For me online ads are just annoying. I don't pay them any attention."

This is very true, in over a decades worth of surfing, i can safely say I have not bought a single item because of an internet ad. My mind blanks them off.

I've done it once or twice, and the items were pretty good.

You gotta actually pay attention to the ads. Sometimes you can get good deals.

QFE. iTunes doesn't need to be swamped down by adds. I'll pay the current prices to keep adds out.

But would you pay more? Obviously, the current price isn't enough.

irun5k
Aug 1, 2007, 11:51 PM
So lets see... I buy Apple hardware, buy the OS, use their music store to buy music, and for some reason that wouldn't be enough? They want to make a few extra bucks off of me after all that?

To me, the advantage of actually PAYING for things is to avoid advertisements. For example, some things are free, and you see, watch, or listen to advertisements to help pay for them. For example, I pay for OS X, so my weather widget doesn't have advertisements. OTOH, if I go to weather.com, I see advertisements because I'm not funding weather.com in any other way.

Unless iTMS starts giving away music, you can GUARANTEE that any future revenue they make of advertising eventually won't be passed along to the consumer.

It is just like government passing a new tax for some supposed specific reason. After a few years it is just part of the overall income for the government. It is like in FL where the state lottery was introduced to benefit education. Well, guess what- they used the tax money the ordinarily would have spent on education for other purposes while leaving the education funding the same.

megfilmworks
Aug 1, 2007, 11:55 PM
I think it would be nice to pay for a commercial free tv show or get it for free with commercials.

arn
Aug 2, 2007, 12:15 AM
Unless iTMS starts giving away music, you can GUARANTEE that any future revenue they make of advertising eventually won't be passed along to the consumer.

From the article:

...the ads would be delivered on content whose price has "been artificially depressed to reflect such revenue." (ie. discounted)

arn

powerbook911
Aug 2, 2007, 12:41 AM
I would *not* want to see ads. I'd pay not to have them.

Do not do this Apple. iTunes is a program on our computer. You can advertise the music on the main iTunes page and some Apple products, but not third party stuff. Please! We want a clean experience.

Analog Kid
Aug 2, 2007, 12:46 AM
Advertising: the death of culture.

arn
Aug 2, 2007, 12:50 AM
I would *not* want to see ads. I'd pay not to have them.

You all need to get some perspective here. Apple will almost certainly not replace a successful business model with an entirely ad supported model. But I think you fail to realize the flexibility of this.

Are you saying you would pay $9.99 for a movie instead of

$6.99 for a movie with ads?
$3.99 for a movie with ads?
$0.00 for a movie with ads?

Would you pay $1.99 for a TV show instead of

$.99 for a TV show with ads?
$.49 for a TV show with ads?
$.00 for a TV show with ads?

Regardless, I'm sure Apple will let you buy the full price ad-less versions still.

arn

ppc_michael
Aug 2, 2007, 12:50 AM
Don't like it. iTunes' pricing is simple, you know that you'll get an album for $9.99. Adding different options starts to get confusing.

The DRM-free stuff is about as complicated as I think pricing should get.

irun5k
Aug 2, 2007, 01:16 AM
From the article:
quote: ...the ads would be delivered on content whose price has "been artificially depressed to reflect such revenue." (ie. discounted)

arn

Yeah, I get it....I get it. So lets say that before this advertising happens, all the songs on iTMS go up to $1.19 due to demands by the record labels. Apple does us a "favor" and introduces banner advertising into iTMS and shaves the price back down to .99. Lets say two years pass and the record labels demand more money. So the price goes back to $1.19. Two more years, and more demands. The price is now $1.39. At this point, Apple decides to add advertisements INTO the actual media to do us another favor and get the prices back down to $1.19.

After these hypothetical four or five years are over, we're overrun with advertisements AND paying more for our product. Mark my words, this is the way it will play out. There is no way to guarantee that the subsidy is preserved. And the subsidy creates artificially low prices which the record labels will want no part of. Much like Apple didn't want AT&T subsidizing the iPhone. It erodes the perception of value in the product being sold.

ibook30
Aug 2, 2007, 01:20 AM
You all need to get some perspective here. Apple will almost certainly not replace a successful business model with an entirely ad supported model. But I think you fail to realize the flexibility of this.

Are you saying you would pay $9.99 for a movie instead of

$6.99 for a movie with ads?
$3.99 for a movie with ads?
$0.00 for a movie with ads?

Would you pay $1.99 for a TV show instead of

$.99 for a TV show with ads?
$.49 for a TV show with ads?
$.00 for a TV show with ads?

Regardless, I'm sure Apple will let you buy the full price ad-less versions still.

arn

I hope you're right - it's a lot more exciting if you are!
If Apple can deliver content for free or almost free (by inserting ads) they could become quite a media force.

If everyone with iTunes on their PC, an iPhone or (someday) a wifi iPod can download content for free (or almost free) with ads, then Apple could become the ABC / BBC / etc. of the wireless internet age.

Apple doesn't make a lot of money on iTunes purchases. But Television networks make a WHOLE lotta money by purchasing content, then adding adverts, and reselling it (often for free) over the airwaves.

matticus008
Aug 2, 2007, 01:27 AM
You all need to get some perspective here. Apple will almost certainly not replace a successful business model with an entirely ad supported model. But I think you fail to realize the flexibility of this.
I think you're fighting an uphill battle here. Getting people to read even a short summary appears impossible based on these few pages.

Yeah, I get it....I get it. So lets say that before this advertising happens, all the songs on iTMS go up to $1.19 due to demands by the record labels. Apple does us a "favor" and introduces banner advertising into iTMS and shaves the price back down to .99.
Yeah, okay. The alternative is that you pay $1.19 because the prices go up anyway. What is the problem with offering the option for a discounted price in exchange for an advertiser picking up the difference?

After these hypothetical four or five years are over, we're overrun with advertisements AND paying more for our product. Mark my words, this is the way it will play out.
It's the way it will happen either way. Prices WILL go up over the long term, like everything else ever sold. Do you know that normalized for inflation, an iTunes song "should" be $1.14? Prices are already artificially low, thanks to inflation. Anything Apple does to keep that true for those who care about it (including ads) is a Good Thing.

You're only "overrun" with advertisements if you choose them under this model. You're more than welcome to pay the actual price and skip the ads. I know I'll continue to, but I can't justify telling everyone else they can't get a discount if they're willing to watch a short ad.

Analog Kid
Aug 2, 2007, 01:53 AM
I think you're fighting an uphill battle here. Getting people to read even a short summary appears impossible based on these few pages.


Yeah, okay. The alternative is that you pay $1.19 because the prices go up anyway. What is the problem with offering the option for a discounted price in exchange for an advertiser picking up the difference?


It's the way it will happen either way. Prices WILL go up over the long term, like everything else ever sold. Do you know that normalized for inflation, an iTunes song "should" be $1.14? Prices are already artificially low, thanks to inflation. Anything Apple does to keep that true for those who care about it (including ads) is a Good Thing.

You're only "overrun" with advertisements if you choose them under this model. You're more than welcome to pay the actual price and skip the ads. I know I'll continue to, but I can't justify telling everyone else they can't get a discount if they're willing to watch a short ad.
No, I read the summary just fine. I'm tired of ads infiltrating every last area of my life. Just like I tire of walking down the street and being asked for "any part of $1.35", I tire of people hawking their wares everywhere I go and I tire of the ads getting increasingly intrusive because I've learned to ignore them.

This site is free in large part due to advertisements. I'm happy for that. Apple's business model isn't as an advertising channel though. They're a product company. Sure, I might be able to continue paying more to not have my download packaged with ads but that doesn't change the fact that their business model will have fundamentally changed. When Apple is facing a weak quarter, someone is going to suggest they might get more "click through" and meet their revenue targets if they make the ads bounce.

The iTunes music store has people flocking to it now, and I see no reason to change anything. If Universal wants to charge 5 bucks for a download, don't change the nature of the iTunes store to accommodate them-- let them rot while they wonder if the goose meat is better than the golden eggs.

Belly-laughs
Aug 2, 2007, 03:01 AM
I don't get why people are so against advertisement. If some company wants to pay for me to watch a video I'm all for that.

Pay you? Uh-hum, I believe you actually pay 1-5% (or more) ad-charge on most advertised products. Ads are not free, people. You pay for them.

matticus008
Aug 2, 2007, 03:12 AM
No, I read the summary just fine. I'm tired of ads infiltrating every last area of my life.
So buy the version without the ads. Where is the issue? Advertising is pervasive and ubiquitous and this change doesn't affect your user experience one iota. If you don't buy the content, you won't be exposed to the ads. It's that simple.

Advertising is only valuable to a certain extent, and it is therefore largely self-correcting. If the ad space exceeds the number of advertisers, it becomes devalued and diminishes. Companies seeking to advertise are going to present their ads to you somehow. Wouldn't you rather have a choice?
This site is free in large part due to advertisements. I'm happy for that. Apple's business model isn't as an advertising channel though. They're a product company.
You're not buying Apple products, though, and the iTunes business model is nothing BUT a glorified advertising channel. They run it to sell iPods and to make money by being a dominant market force. iTunes content isn't Apple's, and respective owners could easily choose to inject ads into the files themselves. Providing a mechanism where the ads aren't mid-stream commercials gives the user the choice of paying or sitting through an ad, instead of making that determination for everyone.

japanime
Aug 2, 2007, 04:01 AM
Am I the first to notice that the word "advertisements" is misspelled as "advertisments" in the headline?

Do I get a gold star? :D

MrCrowbar
Aug 2, 2007, 05:34 AM
It's true that ads are very annoying because it's about random stuff you don't need, don't want, or already have. I actually like the kind of ads that show me a great deal for something I actually want so I don't have to look for it. In a few decades, that should work.

But I'm totally against ads in iTunes. It's already expensive as it is, quality is usually average to bad. $0.99 for a 320 kbps AAC file would be acceptable, since that's better than CD quality (provided the studio compressed the 96 kHz 24 bit master to AAC with a quality compressor).

As for TV shows, I wouldn't mind 60 seconds of advertising in a 20 minute show like scrubs if the download was free. Those series are made for TV broadcasting anyway and sometimes you miss the hard cut in the plot when there's no commercials. Right now, I record everything on my Mac (eyeTV) and skip the commercials. Takes 5 seconds if you keep the apple remote close to you.

I recently watched the Simpsons Movie in the theatre in Germany. Haven't been in theaters in years because I don't like talking crowds and it's too much to pay for watching a movie once. But in the middle of the movie there was a pop up ad, IN THE MOVIE, of a popular TV station, it even said "yes, we take all the adspace we can". I shouted "boo", left the theatre and downloaded the movie at home.

Either you get stuff for free with loads of advertising, or you pay to get it without ads. That's how it should be and you should have a choice.

k2k koos
Aug 2, 2007, 07:02 AM
NO ADVERTISING ON iTUNES, IT's hard enough to escape commerce as it is, TV is spoiled due to it, when was the last time we watched a complete program from start to finish without a stupid commercial break????
I HATE them, and DO NOT SPOIL iTunes. It's fine as it is.

There..... that feels better...... :apple:

willybNL
Aug 2, 2007, 07:19 AM
Ads in iTunes? Pfftt... NOT gonna happen! :mad:

Think before you write: It is very good to have a choice. Do I want to have free, of do I want to pay extra and get it sponsor-free.

Choice is what makes live good. So don't be so short to say NOT, while it could be choice for others.

I VOTE YES!

willybNL
Aug 2, 2007, 07:24 AM
Ow by the way, to all screaming NO that you don't want to have the choice:
when did you give MacRumors your $50 (figure of speech) to cancel your ads?... because if you hate commercials you would pay that too right? :)

The world runs on commercials, so let apple start with iAdunes :P (as long as the old model stays in place of course).

EagerDragon
Aug 2, 2007, 07:51 AM
I sure hope that they change their mind. I do not mind the .99 and 1.29 per tune, if they want to advert then I want it DRM free and at a cost of $0.0 per tune, not discounted.

and no FRICKING PopUps

happylittlemac
Aug 2, 2007, 07:51 AM
No, no and NO! If iTunes where to start introducing any ads when at all, I will stop using iTunes and download my music from P2P don't we already get bombarded by ads enough, either from internet, email and TV?

kddpop
Aug 2, 2007, 08:54 AM
im on the fence on this issue.

choice is good. if you're willing to pay to not see the ads, great. if you want cheaper/free media, you'll have to watch the ads. i get that. and i see that as good.

but, at the same time, i cringe at the thought of more space for drug companies to convince me that i've got the latest problem that their drug can fix. (this is just one example but one that, to me, has become overly tiresome)

so, im still on the fence. but i would like to think that any ads in any itunes media would have to meet some sort of aesthetic criteria. perhaps that's asking too much.

fence sitting,
-kyle

Applespider
Aug 2, 2007, 09:00 AM
I read this as potentially already happening with the free Singles of the Week.

They are advertised on the front page by the record company who presumably pay Apple for the privilege of getting their record in front of millions of users at a very 'depressed' price. The royalties that go to the artist are presumably paid out of that advertising revenue...

guitarman777
Aug 2, 2007, 09:04 AM
As in the post, the only reasonable application of this is in podcasts; the entire store is an advertisement in and of itself, so it wouldn't make sense to put advertising on the pages of the store.
-Chasen

I totally agree that the store itself is an advertisement (helloooo, the whole world is buying songs and movies and TV shows that are advertised constantly every day via countless other mediums, that's a no-brainer if you ask me). Podcasts I'm not so sure; think of all the independents who create podcasts. I sure wouldn't want a commercial for Meow Mix stuck somewhere within my podcast.

I highly doubt having advertisers to "cover the costs" will make songs and movies free. There's no possible way; that'd be business suicide on the part of the advertisers. Think of the amount of money they'd have to deliver in massive dump trucks to cover the costs of the countless media files purchased every day. If anything, I see the price of media on the iTunes store going up instead of down. Just a hunch.

DON'T DO IT, APPLE!!!

mtrctyjoe
Aug 2, 2007, 09:09 AM
Is CRAPWARE next? :confused:

Antares
Aug 2, 2007, 10:00 AM
Anything that leads to lower prices! If I could pay $0.69 rather than $0.99 on the condition of viewing an ad while it downloads, I'm okay with that. I think of it like this....$0.69: regular, 128K DRM AAC with an ad while downloading; $0.99: regular, 128K DRM AAC with no ads; $1.29: 256K AAC, DRM free, no ads.

Porchland
Aug 2, 2007, 10:11 AM
True Dat. Apple would never eff up the end user experience like this. I can see them perhaps selling some ad "space" on iTunes main pages - but if Apple did this I would imagine that the advertisers would need to adhere to a very strict set of guidelines

I could see Apple partnering with TV shows that already rely on sponsorship to create some cheaper (or free) downloads. FX shows like "Nip Tuck," "Rescue Me" and "Damages" often start their seasons with uninterrupted episodes that are sponsored by a single, major advertiser. Extend it to iTunes, give the advertiser some play on the TV shows's iTunes page, and offer the show for free.

I wouldn't mind downloading an entire season of "Damages" with a brand-laced iTunes page and 15-second ad at the beginning if the whole season was free. Shows are already subsidized by heavy product placement, and this is just an extension of that.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't want to PAY for a show and have to endure ads. (That really urks me at movie theaters.) I'm just saying I wouldn't mind a brand sponsorship very much if the show is free. The "Best Week Ever" daily podcast is a perfect example.

Analog Kid
Aug 2, 2007, 10:16 AM
So buy the version without the ads. Where is the issue? Advertising is pervasive and ubiquitous and this change doesn't affect your user experience one iota. If you don't buy the content, you won't be exposed to the ads. It's that simple.I think you're missing the point here-- Apple will have changed their business model to where they are looking at ads as a revenue source. Someone at Apple will be responsible for maximizing this revenue. Of course they will enter the business gingerly, but it will inevitably grow because a business, by nature, tries to grow all profit channels. Advertising is only valuable to a certain extent, and it is therefore largely self-correcting. If the ad space exceeds the number of advertisers, it becomes devalued and diminishes. Companies seeking to advertise are going to present their ads to you somehow. Wouldn't you rather have a choice?Advertising has not been self correcting in my experience-- in general once the first ad appears it's merely a harbinger for more. It's a runaway train. If you think one of the hottest properties on the web is going to want for advertisers, you don't understand how this works. Right now Apple is in control of the user experience and their motivations are to make it as pleasant as possible for me so they sell more music/video because that's their only revenue source. Once they start in with advertising their motivations change and subsequently my user experience is destined to change.

And companies are notorious for not facing reality on stuff like this... iTMS sales drop? It's almost certainly not going to be seen as the advertising that's doing it, it will probably be blamed on P2Ps or some such. Why? Because the guy who's job depends on maximizing ad revenue will present all kinds of statistics in the meeting making that point.

Of course advertisers are going to look for a way to get in my face, but Apple is currently a check on that. The network ads at the beginning and end of the Daily Show disappeared not long after they started and I'm that was Apple's doing-- Apple didn't see any money from the ads and they were affecting their customers experience. Their customers were under the impression they were paying for the show to get it ad free and Apple enforced that.
You're not buying Apple products, though, and the iTunes business model is nothing BUT a glorified advertising channel. They run it to sell iPods and to make money by being a dominant market force. iTunes content isn't Apple's, and respective owners could easily choose to inject ads into the files themselves. Providing a mechanism where the ads aren't mid-stream commercials gives the user the choice of paying or sitting through an ad, instead of making that determination for everyone.
iTMS is a glorified retail channel. That's very different. And, as you point out, it's meant to sell more of Apple's products. When the market saturates with iPods, I expect that to change and iTMS will become a profit center of its own.

As an example of the difference, look at Shell. They sell gasoline. Now some of their stations are also selling time on big flat panel displays above the pumps to harass me while I'm stuck waiting to fill up. I don't use those stations... In some cases those stations used to offer me a better experience because of location, cleanliness, and what-not. Now I've lost that.

Content providers can't do whatever they want with their files. Apple controls the channel. Apple sees no revenue from the ads so they have no motivation to allow them-- especially if it's hurting their primary goal of selling iPods. Regardless, the fact that the content isn't theirs just compounds the problem-- we'll have to deal with ads from the content provider and Apple.

I know "user choice" is supposed to be what drives the industry, but one of the things that's made Apple successful is making the right decisions about where to limit user choice. Maybe adding the option for ad supported content will make more people happy-- I'm just expressing my opinion that I won't be one of those people.

ChrisA
Aug 2, 2007, 11:25 AM
We can prevent this from ever hapening. I use a web proxy based filter that has a long list of URLs and domain names asociated with on-line ads. My web browser uses this proxy and 99% of all ads are blocked. No only am I not bothered by the ad but many times when you _think_ a site is slow what is really slow is the server severing up the ads. With a proxy the ads are not just "blocked" the request for the ads is simply never send. Because it is not send I don't have to wait for it and the site is faster.

What we a uses need to do is promote this kind of technology and keep lists of companies to have ads on iTunes. When companies know that placing an ad on iTunes gets them added to a commonly used "black list" they may decide not to place the ads. The key is "commonly used". Right now these kinds of filters are to hard for most users to setup and keep updated

There are several of these proxy based filters I used and liked "bannerfilter" and now I'm running "squidgaurd".

gkarris
Aug 2, 2007, 11:27 AM
Don't get me wrong -- I don't want to PAY for a show and have to endure ads. (That really urks me at movie theaters.)


So, if they're doing it in the movie theaters...

vandlism
Aug 2, 2007, 11:50 AM
So would the ad-supported media become iTunes minus ?

They probably have enormous traffic routed through the store, and free television with an ad sounds like a good deal to me. I just don't want it interrupting my music or movie (with the exception of the Simpsons movie, that was hilarious).

shamino
Aug 2, 2007, 12:14 PM
My opinion is going to depend on what they actually mean by advertising.

If they want to slip banner ads into the iTunes Store interface, fine. That's just a web page. They can do what they want.

If they change the iTunes application to display ads when I play my music (most of which comes from my ripped CDs), I'll get very upset. I might even stop using iTunes altogether and start looking for another way to manage the music on my iPod.

If they start inserting ads into purchased content, I'll stop purchasing anything. Even if it's free, I refuse to listen to an ad before every song my iPod plays. If I want that, I can listen to the radio.

The article implies inserting ads into downloaded content, but it also says that this is all just brainstorming, and we have no clue what, if any form this advertising will actually take.
As in the post, the only reasonable application of this is in podcasts...
Podcasts are the least likely to change. Apple doesn't serve any podcast content. Although the iTunes application performs the download, the file comes straight from the original source's server, not from Apple.
Meaning Jobs gave in to the big 3 on a price increase per song and a bigger slice of the pie for the recording industry.
We know he did that. The article about Eminem's most recent lawsuit says that Apple is paying Universal $0.70 per download. It was $0.65 when the iTunes Store got started.
Don't like it. iTunes' pricing is simple, you know that you'll get an album for $9.99.
No you don't. Album pricing is quite variable. The per-song pricing, for tracks purchased individually, is fixed. The price for albums varies quite a bit.
It's the way it will happen either way. Prices WILL go up over the long term, like everything else ever sold.
Not everything. In the technology sector, prices generally go down over time.

But inflation doesn't matter. iTunes purchases are already overpriced - the per-song price is higher than the price for buying tracks on CD (unless you're dumb enough to pay MSRP for your CDs.) Because of this, I only buy from iTunes when I only want one song and I don't expect to like anything else by that artist. If they raise the price (or insert ads for the same price), then I'll buy even less than I do now.

And I can assure you that I'm not the only one who will do this.

CmdrLaForge
Aug 2, 2007, 02:10 PM
I think some podcasters would disagree with you on that. :)

arn

It really depends if Apple would share the profit with the podcasters or not. If they share it it would be really really great. If they don't - well they would definitely loose my podcast in their directory.

rendezvouscp
Aug 2, 2007, 02:15 PM
Podcasts I'm not so sure; think of all the independents who create podcasts. I sure wouldn't want a commercial for Meow Mix stuck somewhere within my podcast.

Podcasts are the least likely to change. Apple doesn't serve any podcast content. Although the iTunes application performs the download, the file comes straight from the original source's server, not from Apple.

I would presume that if this had something to do with podcasts that Apple would offer a service to add advertisements for a kickback; there are ad networks for podcasts currently, but I honestly don't think it's something Apple would get into.
-Chasen

k2k koos
Aug 2, 2007, 03:04 PM
Ow by the way, to all screaming NO that you don't want to have the choice:
when did you give MacRumors your $50 (figure of speech) to cancel your ads?... because if you hate commercials you would pay that too right? :)

The world runs on commercials, so let apple start with iAdunes :P (as long as the old model stays in place of course).

to be honest, no I don't want to pay to be an user of this site, but I'd rather have no adds on the site at all, it makes sites look unorganized, messy, distracting etc , although I understand that adds may fund the up keep of the site, so I'll deal with it, and there is not yet loads of adds here (and I hope that stays that way).
In the case of iTunes store though, no need ad all for adds, it is a revenue making store already, no need for distractions and other garbage.:apple:

matticus008
Aug 2, 2007, 03:18 PM
Not everything. In the technology sector, prices generally go down over time.
We're not talking about the technology sector. We're talking about the media/entertainment sector, where prices do not drop. It's also specious to correlate technology (where initial costs for new products are high but fade rapidly) with lowering prices when in fact mature technology stabilizes and adjusts with inflation.

iTunes purchases are already overpriced - the per-song price is higher than the price for buying tracks on CD (unless you're dumb enough to pay MSRP for your CDs.)
I would have to disagree. Given an average 12-13 track album with an MSRP of $18 and usually myself paying $12.99 for that album, I'd say that the pricing is basically equal in most cases. The quality is certainly less, and having to pay $1.29 to remedy that does make the pricing unequal. But the price is more for the convenience and a la carte nature of it. Instant gratification and hand-selecting usually carry some sort of price premium.
I think you're missing the point here-- Apple will have changed their business model to where they are looking at ads as a revenue source.
I can assure you that they already look at advertising as a revenue source. They collect money from all sorts of companies for product placement on their site, prominent placement on the iTunes Store home screen, store displays and the like. If your intent is to say that this is a line Apple hasn't crossed, that's simply not the case.
If you think one of the hottest properties on the web is going to want for advertisers, you don't understand how this works.
I didn't say that. I said advertising as an industry is self-correcting. If a location becomes nothing more than a billboard, the costs and revenues collapse. Apple has the incentive to continue to control the flow by making ads a limited sandbox. They've managed to balance advertising well enough as it is, since you've apparently not noticed it all over the place.
Once they start in with advertising their motivations change and subsequently my user experience is destined to change.
That would be true if Apple didn't do any sort of advertising now, but it isn't, so it's not.
iTMS sales drop?
What sales drop? Discounted prices would only add to sales. There is no conceivable impact. That's like refusing to buy from iTunes if they sell rap music. If you don't want it, don't buy it and continue as is. Anything else is unfounded FUD.
Their customers were under the impression they were paying for the show to get it ad free and Apple enforced that.
And there's the rub! If they specifically choose to select an ad-supported product, that expectation does not exist.
Now some of their stations are also selling time on big flat panel displays above the pumps to harass me while I'm stuck waiting to fill up.
Big flat screens that also offer useful services and pertinent advertising. If you expect some sort of serene retreat while surrounded by cars, street noise, and gas fumes, you've got another thing coming. Some of those ads show sales on soda, bargains on snacks, and some even let you order right from the pump so you only pay once. It's extremely useful for travelers. It's also not much different from when they used to interrupt the muzak with commercials. You managed to tune those out.
Content providers can't do whatever they want with their files. Apple controls the channel. Apple sees no revenue from the ads so they have no motivation to allow them
Not true. Many of the free videos and podcasts contain ads--that's how the content providers make their money when providing at a deeply discounted price. It's already there. Apple is just looking to take the ads out of the files, which IMPROVES the user's viewing experience. It's not for charity, though--Apple gets a cut of that money. But it works in everyone's favor.

I get the "temptation" and "ad creep" arguments you're making. I just don't see any historical reason to believe it. They started advertising in their stores at least four years ago. It's still tastefully done and highly contained. All they have to do is do that again. This is all just an idea they're toying with, anyway. They'd be insane NOT to look at it seriously, regardless of whether or not they choose to do it.

Analog Kid
Aug 2, 2007, 10:37 PM
There is no conceivable impact.
Some of those ads show sales on soda, bargains on snacks, and some even let you order right from the pump so you only pay once.
Apple is just looking to take the ads out of the files...
it works in everyone's favor.
They started advertising in their stores at least four years ago.

I get the feeling you and I have very different views on advertising in general and I think we're imagining very different things when it comes to advertising on iTMS...

A Pittarelli
Aug 2, 2007, 10:39 PM
tis an inevitable shame, i was actually kindof surprised this didnt happen earlier.

shamino
Aug 3, 2007, 10:11 AM
I would have to disagree. Given an average 12-13 track album with an MSRP of $18 and usually myself paying $12.99 for that album, I'd say that the pricing is basically equal in most cases.
Then you're getting ripped off. I typically pay $6-7 per CD. BMG Music is one great source. There are many others, especially if you perform on-line searches to find the best price instead of impulse-buying what you see on a store's shelves.

winterdude010
Aug 3, 2007, 10:17 AM
I don't think people would buy discounted movies or tv shows if it had ads in it. The whole point of downloading those things (at least TV shows) is to have them be ad-free. Apple could lose sales if they implemented advertising into the downloads. And they would be quite ugly in the iTMS

matticus008
Aug 3, 2007, 02:54 PM
Then you're getting ripped off. I typically pay $6-7 per CD. BMG Music is one great source. There are many others, especially if you perform on-line searches to find the best price instead of impulse-buying what you see on a store's shelves.
You can't directly compare wholesale distributors with retail sellers. I'm going with numbers from retailers: Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy. You're not getting "ripped off" by paying below MSRP at a retail outlet, nor does it mean you're impulse buying anything.

Clearinghouses are a great way to save money, but they do not reflect actual market pricing--in fact, their entire purpose is below-market pricing. There is no conceivable logic that would lead to an expectation for iTunes to compete with below-market sellers. Next you'll be saying that $4 used CDs mean that BMG is overpriced.

If someone asks you, "what does a pair of jeans cost here?" it would be misleading to tell them $55 without qualifying that as at the outlets, as you have done with CD pricing. When they went to the retailer and saw the $75 price tag, they'd think you a liar or a fool.

shamino
Aug 5, 2007, 11:46 AM
You can't directly compare wholesale distributors with retail sellers. I'm going with numbers from retailers: Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy. You're not getting "ripped off" by paying below MSRP at a retail outlet, nor does it mean you're impulse buying anything.
You're changing the subject.

I said that iTunes is overpriced because it is trivially easy to get music for a much lower price.

You point out that most retail stores don't charge that little. Big deal. The fact that most retail stores rip off their customers doesn't mean I have to shut up and enjoy Apple's high prices or think well of the record labels that want them to go even higher.

BMG may be a clearinghouse, but they're still not selling at a loss. Those prices come directly from the fact that you are buying directly from the distributor, eliminating the 100% markup that retailers apply to every CD sold. The only thing different between a BMG sale and a retail sale is that a retail sale includes a 50% profit margin for the retailer.

The fact that the "industry standard" is to rip off customers doesn't mean it's anything close to a fair price.
If someone asks you, "what does a pair of jeans cost here?" it would be misleading to tell them $55 without qualifying that as at the outlets, as you have done with CD pricing. When they went to the retailer and saw the $75 price tag, they'd think you a liar or a fool.
If you asked that question, I'd quote you a price much less than that. And I would have no problem telling them to go buy from Wal*Mart or Target in order to get that price.

You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with shopping around to get the best price. If you want to go around paying double what stuff is worth because you choose to only buy from expensive stores, that's your problem. It doesn't magically make the merchandise more valuable.

matticus008
Aug 5, 2007, 04:04 PM
I said that iTunes is overpriced because it is trivially easy to get music for a much lower price.
A product cannot be overpriced when compared to something outside of its market segment. A Corvette is not an overpriced Miata. Buying a CD is not the same as buying a track on iTunes, and buying a CD at a retail establishment is not the same as buying a CD at a below-market clearinghouse or a used CD store.

The subject has always been the same. You're declaring a product overpriced by comparing it against a product against which it was never designed to compete. It doesn't hold water. iTunes is a retailer. It competes against retailers--Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, Tower. It also provides value-added services like a la carte availability and instant gratification, like other online services.

The fact that you have some other, cheaper path to the goods is irrelevant to the economics of the situation. Congratulations on finding the lower-cost option. That doesn't mean that market-price goods are overpriced. In fact, it's contrary to the definition. It means that you're buying underpriced goods.

If you asked that question, I'd quote you a price much less than that. And I would have no problem telling them to go buy from Wal*Mart or Target in order to get that price.
Again, you wouldn't be answering their question. They didn't ask where to go to get the cheapest possible price on somewhat similar goods. They wanted to know what that pair of jeans costs at that retailer. And you're still trying to wedge them into your value set and giving them faulty information.
You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with shopping around to get the best price.
No, I don't. There is something inherently wrong with faulty comparisons, though. You can't compare directly a pair of Walmart jeans with a pair of Express jeans, you can't compare a Hyundai with an Audi, you can't compare the $299 Dell special with a Mac Pro. They serve different markets, and it is false, misleading, and overly simplistic to claim that the products serve the same purposes.

Using a below-market source as a baseline boggles the mind. They may be effectively equivalent for you, but that doesn't make them categorically so. I cannot abide categorical condemnation based on some arbitrary subset of relevant factors.