Ad Supported iPhone Games Coming Soon

MacRumors · Jul 21, 2008, 03:33 PM

TechCrunch is reporting that Greystripe, an advertising network for mobile games, will be offering their services to iPhone developers.

Since 2006, Greystripe has distributed free games and apps to over 1,400 different mobile handset models and currently offers a catalog of 800 games. Greystripe allows developers to add pre-roll (before), interstitial, and post-roll (after) ads for use in their games.

This sort of approach appears to be the strategy that iPhone game developer Jirbo is taking. In speaking with Forbes, Jirbo's founder, Jonathan Zweig, said that they "may" consider adding ads to their free apps in the future. If you visit Jirbo's site, it appears this is exactly their strategy as they are already calling on advertisers: "If you want to be part of advertising on the millions of handsets that view Jirbo content each month, send us an email".

For now their strategy is simply to get on as many iPhones as possible with free or inexpensive games [Jirbo Games on App Store].

Quote:

Jirbo's formula is simple: create applications that build on familiar games and themes, add a dash of whimsy and top with rich graphics.

Jirbo, however, has gained some notoriety amongst iPhone developers after they renamed their applications with leading spaces so they would appear at the top of any alphabetical listing. They have since abandoned that plan.

With Apple's easy App Store upgrade process, Jirbo or other companies could easily integrate ads into existing games by including it future versions.

Republished from Touch Arcade

Article Link

io_burn · Jul 21, 2008, 03:42 PM

Developers have to defray the cost of the $99 SDK and the time they put in to developing the applications somehow...

bbplayer5 · Jul 21, 2008, 03:44 PM

If i see one ad on my mobile device, ill erase the program immediately.

Sky Blue · Jul 21, 2008, 03:44 PM

Jirbo is garbage.

NewSc2 · Jul 21, 2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbplayer5

If i see one ad on my mobile device, ill erase the program immediately.

So have you erased Safari yet?

ltcol266845 · Jul 21, 2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky Blue

Jirbo is garbage.

Ditto. I think a review I read said their BrickBreaker game was really good, so I downloaded it and hate it. Its wretched. Worse than being stuck on level 16 in the BB BrickBreaker

Rojo · Jul 21, 2008, 03:49 PM

I hope that developers who are planning to put ads in their apps will release two versions: one without ads at a higher price. I'd gladly pay more to never have ads on my apps.

io_burn · Jul 21, 2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbplayer5

If i see one ad on my mobile device, ill erase the program immediately.

So let me get this straight, you expect developers to fork out $100 of their own cash, and donate countless hours of their time developing applications for you to use out of the goodness of their heart?

starcrossed · Jul 21, 2008, 03:57 PM

I'm curious if Apple will actually allow this to happen. I understand that developers need money for their work, and consumers love the word "free". But it may become an issue of how annoying ads may become, and also if the ads going against Apple in any way. I think if the ads aren't coded into the app, and are sent to the app from a live server that the developers can change up at anytime, there's no telling if an ad might pop up from Rhapsody, Pystar, or an adult site that Apple might not. Although Apple has loosened the grip on the iPhone with the App store, there still playing big brother buy saying who can develop and what apps can do and be approved for the app store. My educated guess is Apple will say no.

I myself have been forking plenty of money on apps that seem worthy over the past week, so I have no problem paying if the developer wants to charge. My problem is we need some sort of demo route for high priced apps. Right now we are forced to judge based on reviews, screenshots and youtube videos which don't tell the whole experience.

BRussell · Jul 21, 2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by io_burn

So let me get this straight, you expect developers to fork out $100 of their own cash, and donate countless hours of their time developing applications for you to use out of the goodness of their heart?

No, people expect them to charge for the app. I sincerely doubt that Apple will even allow ads in apps - it just sounds to me like a way to get around Apple's 30% cut.

jessica. · Jul 21, 2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbplayer5

If i see one ad on my mobile device, ill erase the program immediately.

You can count me in on that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky Blue

Jirbo is garbage.

Precisely!

I would rather pay then to have ads on my phone where screen real estate is already limited.

Klaxons2012 · Jul 21, 2008, 04:10 PM

I'm not shy about purchasing money for a solid application, but it would be nice to evaluate a few applications before purchasing, and I believe advertising would help a few of those developers in providing a shareware type of app in the store.

io_burn · Jul 21, 2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell

No, people expect them to charge for the app. I sincerely doubt that Apple will even allow ads in apps - it just sounds to me like a way to get around Apple's 30% cut.

Haven't used Twitterriffic or Exposure, huh? Both sport discrete inline advertisements which you can buy a $9.99 version to be ad-free. The advertising revenue model only works if people actually view your advertisements. If developers want people to use their apps and in turn view their ads they're obviously going to have to be very responsible about their usage if they expect to make any money.

If any of you honestly think that there is piles of money to be made in any form of online or application advertising, I'd love to come live in whatever fantasy land you're currently residing in. This isn't 1999 anymore with advertisers throwing $1.00 out for each click through. An entire year's worth of hits on my web site, which amounted to close to 3 million page impressions, barely had me over Google's cutoff to where they'll mail you a check.

If developers recuperate the $99 spent on the SDK via advertising money I'd be amazed.

crees! · Jul 21, 2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by io_burn

So let me get this straight, you expect developers to fork out $100 of their own cash, and donate countless hours of their time developing applications for you to use out of the goodness of their heart?

Quote:

Originally Posted by io_burn

Developers have to defray the cost of the $99 SDK and the time they put in to developing the applications somehow...

Earth to IO. Charge for the app then. $99 is chump change for a serious developer. If a developer decides to not charge for an app then that's their choice and they have the ability to set a price too. Developers have their own motivation and reasoning.

As for ads. I can tell you my choice would be to delete the app immediately. It should be that apps state whether they're ad supported or not.

BRussell · Jul 21, 2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by io_burn

Haven't used Twitterriffic or Exposure, huh?

Ah, interesting.

higgalls · Jul 21, 2008, 05:20 PM

This is stupid.

We dont' want ads in our games.

Yes I understand that they have to pay $99 for the Developer SDK, and then put in countless hours to make the game, but they should then sell it if they want to make money off it, or offer it for free like every other company that gives away free games.
The argument that because they paid for the SDK Kit and they put time into it therefore they MUST earn money is garbage - just think about the whole Open Source community - it doesn't exist to make money.

I would happily pay some money for a game if it is good.

bradneal · Jul 21, 2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by io_burn

So let me get this straight, you expect developers to fork out $100 of their own cash, and donate countless hours of their time developing applications for you to use out of the goodness of their heart?

If the app is worth having, I'll gladly pay for it - but no frickin' advertising.

io_burn · Jul 21, 2008, 05:26 PM

I guess I'm just failing to see what a small advertisement while levels load, on a score board, or some other innocuous location does to cause such seething nerd rage. Valve has been keeping Counter-Strike going through in-game advertisements for quite some time now with great success.

Again, the ads simply cannot be obnoxious or the developer is shooting themselves in the foot. Advertisements only make money if they're viewed. If your app includes obtrusive advertising, no one is going to use it, and with no one viewing adds the developer makes no money. It's in their best interest to make sure the ads are as inconspicuous as possible.

I'm surprised most of you guys dare venture on to a site like MacRumors that has *gasp* advertising... Unless you're all using adblockers and as such stealing content from Arn.

AvSRoCkCO1067 · Jul 21, 2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell

No, people expect them to charge for the app. I sincerely doubt that Apple will even allow ads in apps - it just sounds to me like a way to get around Apple's 30% cut.

The New York Times application also supports in-line advertisements.

flipperanubi · Jul 21, 2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by io_burn

I guess I'm just failing to see what a small advertisement while levels load, on a score board, or some other innocuous location does to cause such seething nerd rage. Valve has been keeping Counter-Strike going through in-game advertisements for quite some time now with great success.

I'm surprised most of you guys dare venture on to a site like MacRumors that has *gasp* advertising... Unless you're all using adblockers and as such stealing content from Arn.

I don't own Counterstrike. Largely over that. I also cancelled my TiVo after one too many ads. I never cared to pay a $5 a month usage fee (I had one through DirecTV, so don't give me the line about the guide data, I already paid DirecTV for the guide data, so what's TiVo getting money for??) and then have ads shoved into the main menu. Apparently you can call them and complain and the ads go away, but I'd already cancelled the service.

Also, Macrumors is free. Not a $60 game that then force-feeds you ads. If it's free, yes, I'm a capitalist. Thus, the money has to come from somewhere. Ads are a good way to get money from rich people while letting poor slobs like me freeload off society.

A free game with an ad in an innocuous place, sure. I never mind the 8-pixel high ads in Beejive, cause they're out of the way and free.

XBox Live, on the other hand, gets me going. I pay $50 a year, and they still throw ads at me. What am I paying for? If $50 a year doesn't cover the service, then RAISE THE FEES! If it costs $200 a year to service me, then... DUH... charge me $200 a year. Or, raise the advertising rates and let me play for free. I don't really care. But I hate, hate, hate paying for ads.

I watch TV. TV is free. It has ads. Good and understood. However, when I'm paying for cable and they still have ads? WTF?? What am I paying for?

*has an evil plan to buy a movie studio and insert unskippable ads in the middle of the actual movies because people are so mindnumbingly used to being shouted at*

hexonxonx · Jul 21, 2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessica.

You can count me in on that one.

Precisely!

I would rather pay then to have ads on my phone where screen real estate is already limited.

I'll stay away from the free apps with ads and gladly pay money to get apps without ads.

11800506 · Jul 21, 2008, 09:26 PM

I also agree that Jirbo is garbage. I saw it on the App store and where it said that it was only remaining free for a limited time so I downloaded it and frankly it sucks

bbplayer5 · Jul 22, 2008, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by io_burn

So let me get this straight, you expect developers to fork out $100 of their own cash, and donate countless hours of their time developing applications for you to use out of the goodness of their heart?

Umm no, thats why I pay for the apps.

macduke · Jul 22, 2008, 01:13 AM

I hate ads. I undertake nearly every measure possible to see that they don't appear on my screen. I will not use apps that have advertising in them. If nobody downloads the apps, then they won't be made anymore. Does it download the ads from a server? What if you don't have good coverage? Will it keep the game from loading because its waiting to download the ads? I thought that was the whole point of native apps...you can use them without an internet connection.

aristotle · Jul 22, 2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell

No, people expect them to charge for the app. I sincerely doubt that Apple will even allow ads in apps - it just sounds to me like a way to get around Apple's 30% cut.

+1

I don't want this adware garbage from the Windows culture infecting the iPhone ecosystem.

If software is worth paying for, I'll buy it or donate to the project.

Jul 21, 2008, 09:26 PM	#22
11800506 macrumors 6502a Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington D.C. Area	I also agree that Jirbo is garbage. I saw it on the App store and where it said that it was only remaining free for a limited time so I downloaded it and frankly it sucks __________________ Unibody Macbook Pro / Aluminum iMac / eMac / Airport Extreme / iPod Touch

Jul 22, 2008, 01:13 AM	#24
macduke macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: KC	I hate ads. I undertake nearly every measure possible to see that they don't appear on my screen. I will not use apps that have advertising in them. If nobody downloads the apps, then they won't be made anymore. Does it download the ads from a server? What if you don't have good coverage? Will it keep the game from loading because its waiting to download the ads? I thought that was the whole point of native apps...you can use them without an internet connection. __________________ MBP 2.4ghz 4gb ram 500gb hd / 32gb iPhone 3g S⃣ www.duke-design.com - Graphic design, photography, and more!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Jul 21, 2008, 03:42 PM	#2
io_burn macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Naperville, IL	Developers have to defray the cost of the $99 SDK and the time they put in to developing the applications somehow...

Jul 21, 2008, 03:44 PM	#3
bbplayer5 macrumors 68000 Join Date: Apr 2007	If i see one ad on my mobile device, ill erase the program immediately.

Jul 21, 2008, 03:44 PM	#4
Sky Blue macrumors 68040 Join Date: Jan 2005	Jirbo is garbage.

Jul 21, 2008, 03:49 PM	#7
Rojo macrumors 65816 Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New York City	I hope that developers who are planning to put ads in their apps will release two versions: one without ads at a higher price. I'd gladly pay more to never have ads on my apps.

Jul 21, 2008, 03:57 PM	#9
starcrossed macrumors regular Join Date: May 2003 Location: San Antonio,TX	I'm curious if Apple will actually allow this to happen. I understand that developers need money for their work, and consumers love the word "free". But it may become an issue of how annoying ads may become, and also if the ads going against Apple in any way. I think if the ads aren't coded into the app, and are sent to the app from a live server that the developers can change up at anytime, there's no telling if an ad might pop up from Rhapsody, Pystar, or an adult site that Apple might not. Although Apple has loosened the grip on the iPhone with the App store, there still playing big brother buy saying who can develop and what apps can do and be approved for the app store. My educated guess is Apple will say no. I myself have been forking plenty of money on apps that seem worthy over the past week, so I have no problem paying if the developer wants to charge. My problem is we need some sort of demo route for high priced apps. Right now we are forced to judge based on reviews, screenshots and youtube videos which don't tell the whole experience.

Jul 21, 2008, 04:10 PM	#12
Klaxons2012 macrumors regular Join Date: Sep 2007	I'm not shy about purchasing money for a solid application, but it would be nice to evaluate a few applications before purchasing, and I believe advertising would help a few of those developers in providing a shareware type of app in the store.

Jul 21, 2008, 05:20 PM	#16
higgalls macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2008	This is stupid. We dont' want ads in our games. Yes I understand that they have to pay $99 for the Developer SDK, and then put in countless hours to make the game, but they should then sell it if they want to make money off it, or offer it for free like every other company that gives away free games. The argument that because they paid for the SDK Kit and they put time into it therefore they MUST earn money is garbage - just think about the whole Open Source community - it doesn't exist to make money. I would happily pay some money for a game if it is good.

Jul 21, 2008, 05:26 PM	#18
io_burn macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Naperville, IL	I guess I'm just failing to see what a small advertisement while levels load, on a score board, or some other innocuous location does to cause such seething nerd rage. Valve has been keeping Counter-Strike going through in-game advertisements for quite some time now with great success. Again, the ads simply cannot be obnoxious or the developer is shooting themselves in the foot. Advertisements only make money if they're viewed. If your app includes obtrusive advertising, no one is going to use it, and with no one viewing adds the developer makes no money. It's in their best interest to make sure the ads are as inconspicuous as possible. I'm surprised most of you guys dare venture on to a site like MacRumors that has gasp advertising... Unless you're all using adblockers and as such stealing content from Arn.