If you like the piecemeal Windows model, there are lots of options in the Windows PC space (Best Buy is lousy with them).
Apple sells the complete experience. That's a big part of the differentiation. They tend not to outsource critical parts of the
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ad Agencies Receiving iAd Details as Apple Looks to Hinder Rival Ad Networks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple sells the complete experience. That's a big part of the differentiation. They tend not to outsource critical parts of the
Rhetorical. Apple sell screwdrivers, and because I am not helpless, I will adapt these screwdrivers as I please.
If London is so homogeneous that a complete Apple solution is precisely what satisfies so many people as-is, then I tire of London.
Whaa? I thought hardly any of a modern Mac's hardware was designed or built by Apple employees? I'm not talking about the looks and high level feature list, but the CPU, support chips, motherboard, LCD, etc.John.B said:
AdMob, Google etc are huge networks. They can easily use something like cookies and get enough statistics on each user across different apps to sort of identify them without access to the phone serial number. This is not all that different than what they do on desktop browsers. However, Apple provides so much better access to the rest of the phone that I'd expect most developers to switch to Apple's platform very quickly. Google will have a very similar access to Android phones. In 2 years Microsoft should get there as well.
Why should Apple share that data in the first place?
The fundamental assertion that other ad networks deserve access to the underlying analytics data is off the mark. Just because Google has built a business model around it doesn't mean the business model deserves to succeed.
Using that logic, you could make a similar claim that Yahoo and Microsoft "deserve" access to Google's fundamental search indexing algorithm. It makes about as much sense.
My guess is that the executive team at Google is realizing this morning that they are getting a taste of their own medicine...
I'm not talking about who builds the hardware, I'm talking about the complete design of the system. Try to keep up.
Original post edited for clarity.
Then you have to make a decision. OS X is only sold with Apple hardware. 'Retail' versions of OS X are upgrades and are specifically sold to go with Apple hardware. Apple pays for much of the R&D vis hardware sales, so they don't sell OS X for other systems.
So you can either buy Apple hardware to run OS X, do without OS X, or steal it and use it illegally. (And before I have to hear all the tirades, read the Apple v Psystar decision. It is 100% crystal clear that installing OS X onto non-Apple hardware is illegal theft of intellectual property for anyone, not just for-profit groups - at least in the U.S.).
Then you can buy an iPhone and use it without iTunes. Granted, you'll have slightly less usability, but if you really don't like iTunes, that's always an option.
Sure. You can fix it - by building your own hardware and software from scratch. Until you do, though, you don't have the right to steal someone else's intellectual property and use it in violation of the EULA.
Thanks for the edit after I replied, it helped me to keep up
.Honestly, the longevity of the machine is to me a critical part of the system experience, and that's often determined by whether and to whom you outsource your low level hardware design/building. For example, there's no better contrast than HP's old HP 48 series with the HP 49/50 built by generic calculator giant Kinpo. On the Apple side, simple performance issues are of course determined by the choice of third party graphics card and CPU; quality of screen is determined by LCD manufacturer. We can even go right down to choice of fan (actually, this is an extremely important decision for a hard-to-open box!). I can't see how these aren't critical parts of the experience.
I buy the box containing the software, which I agree not to copy. I don't agree to the EULA, and if you don't like this, you are welcome to prevent me buying the box, its being the only thing I can actually steal.
Gotta wonder what Flurry, who just posted an effusive report on Apple gaming (in order to drive developer business to themselves, I imagine), is thinking right now. Now everyone will be quoting their report, then turning to Apple for the ad placement. Ouch.
Nielsen would disagree with you. Diaries and equipment to record what's watched are used by people profiled across the world.
TV and radio advertisers very much examine their viewers, and the ad you see while you're watching X will be based on the products considered likely to be bought by viewers of viewer of X.
TO my understanding, developers have to chose when they submit their apps if it will be commercial (cost money) OR be free (ad based)! Is it even possible in the system right now to do a commercial app WITH ads? Wouldn't it HAVE to be a free app???
Good advice! I would try a lot of apps with ads to see if I like them first if developers did that!
Exactly! Although I'll be honest, I probably would sometimes now with the cool iAd ads that are pretty much apps themselves just to play with them and see the design and functionality!
P.S. Could Apple get in trouble over locking all this developer and ad stuff down now too? Man the Apple and Google battle is going to get worse and worse lol!
None. Apple sells the ads and controls there content precisely because they don't want the spam/scam ads or the porn/viagra ads.
Because there not! Apple is saying privacy is king. People seem to think Apple is going to blocking sending of identifying information to ad services while using it in ads itself. Nothing has indicated this. Apple has long been against targeted ads that depend on tracking user information. iAd and the SDK terms have nothing to do with each other and there is no indication at all that iAd would violate those terms itself.
You said it very well. It's the lesser of the 2 evils. "Free apps = ads", it's not pleasant, but it's a necessary fact of life. Might as well skim some cream of the of the top. I won't fault Apple or any other company for it.
__________________
"9 out of 10 Apple sites agree that only the most positive or outlandish analyst predictions should be reported on. I hope macrumors has the decency to redact all mention of the IDC report." MR user pixelcruncher on 04/15/2010
http://tinypic.com/r/iqgc93/5Defining "greed" is subjective. Walmart sells those large bottle of hand sanitizers for $9.00 and at the end of each checkout is a bottle of them for customers to use. Does that mean it's costing Walmart $9.00 so everyone can fend off H1N1? No! They buy those bottles for only a couple of dollars, probably. Is selling it for $9.00 "excessive", "just right" greed? IDK?
__________________
"9 out of 10 Apple sites agree that only the most positive or outlandish analyst predictions should be reported on. I hope macrumors has the decency to redact all mention of the IDC report." MR user pixelcruncher on 04/15/2010
http://tinypic.com/r/iqgc93/5Not to mention a 100 different fart apps.
"100 Adult Dirty Jokes" (app) clicking on a description of if, seeing a screen cap of it and explaining: "Daddy, what's a rimjob?"Apple keeping it classy.
__________________
"9 out of 10 Apple sites agree that only the most positive or outlandish analyst predictions should be reported on. I hope macrumors has the decency to redact all mention of the IDC report." MR user pixelcruncher on 04/15/2010
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=iqgc93&s=5I don't think so, but they can't stop me trying - and asking them to make it easier
.
Targeted advertising is different from statistics based one where you determine likely demographics of the users or viewers based on a small sample. Nielsen helps with the latter. Many online ad networks wants to do former kind. As it stands, there is nothing to stop ad networks from picking the advertisements based on the type of apps, just like the ones advertising through broadcasters or newspapers, but that is not as valuable a service as real targeted ones.
Haha.
Yeah I am surprised Microsoft and Yahoo! have not sued Google for not letting them run their own ads on google search.
I don't think so, but they can't stop me trying - and asking them to make it easier
haha A handle (or a kickstand!!!) on an iPad would make it easier to use. But then again, this is the same company that still doesn't offer a flash on their camera, only got around to copy-&-paste on their iPhone last year and will only now offer multitasking buy this summer.
The way the should control (keyword here) should be quite amusing.
__________________
"9 out of 10 Apple sites agree that only the most positive or outlandish analyst predictions should be reported on. I hope macrumors has the decency to redact all mention of the IDC report." MR user pixelcruncher on 04/15/2010
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=iqgc93&s=5
Just to be clear, when an ad network says they share information about their users with their advertisers it doesn't mean they share information about individual users. What advertisers want to know, and what ad networks share, is information about the average income level of those on the network, the average number of apps a typical user might have, age, sex and the like.
-------
MacFly123 asked: "TO my understanding, developers have to chose when they submit their apps if it will be commercial (cost money) OR be free (ad based)! Is it even possible in the system right now to do a commercial app WITH ads? Wouldn't it HAVE to be a free app???"
Not true. In order to have a paid app on iTunes you have to be a recognized developer within Apple's system -- something that costs you $99 a year and some paperwork. Once you are a developer you can charge for your apps, if you choose. Whether they have ads or not is irrelevant.
If you go through a third party developer, though, the app has to be free. Examples are all the apps developed by Handmark and other developers like LSN for individual magazines, newspapers and local broadcasters -- they are all free, and some contain ads, some don't. If you go to one of those automated app makers, you can design an app in ten minutes. At the end of the process they ask you if you want to add AdSense or AdMob ads.
-------
MacFly123 asked: "TO my understanding, developers have to chose when they submit their apps if it will be commercial (cost money) OR be free (ad based)! Is it even possible in the system right now to do a commercial app WITH ads? Wouldn't it HAVE to be a free app???"
Not true. In order to have a paid app on iTunes you have to be a recognized developer within Apple's system -- something that costs you $99 a year and some paperwork. Once you are a developer you can charge for your apps, if you choose. Whether they have ads or not is irrelevant.
If you go through a third party developer, though, the app has to be free. Examples are all the apps developed by Handmark and other developers like LSN for individual magazines, newspapers and local broadcasters -- they are all free, and some contain ads, some don't. If you go to one of those automated app makers, you can design an app in ten minutes. At the end of the process they ask you if you want to add AdSense or AdMob ads.
It seems like this iAd capability could be used for a lot more than just advertisements. The ability to pop into what is effectively a separate application without loosing one's place in the parent application would seem to have possibilities for some pretty creative uses.