Dude, you got your argument reversed. To keep your analogy Microsoft would try to hinder Google from placing ad ... And everybody here would scream bloody hell in that case.
T
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
Dude, you got your argument reversed. To keep your analogy Microsoft would try to hinder Google from placing ad ... And everybody here would scream bloody hell in that case.
T
FYI, I am an iPhone developer, I just haven't submitted an app yet. I don't think you understood me. My point was that, from what I have seen, when an app is submitted by a DEVELOPER, they must choose if the app will be classified as commercial in which case they set a price that the app will cost, or they do it as free in which case they can choose to put ads in it. There are other enterprise options etc. but that is what I saw in iTunes Connect and I don't know of any paid apps that have ads. If a developer chooses to charge for an app and make it commercial then they must submit their financial, business, and tax information to Apple and be approved before hand. At least that is how it went when I set up my company to develop. Has it changed?
Exactly. Watch the keynote people. Ya gotta click. The ads don't take you out of the app or into Safari either.
Are you saying there is an ongoing riot right now, as Microsoft's Bing page does not run ads from Google's network?
The CNN Mobile app is $1.99 but is still chocked full of ads:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cnn-mobile/id331786748
Read the reviews from all the "happy" users to see how well this is going over with people...
One thing I'd like to see is a filter in the App Store search engine to flag ad-supported apps in the paid app results.
It was about YOU back in the days when you had to type pr#6, but since Steve came back it's always been about the buck. It's why he was kicked out to begin with, so what did you expect the focus to be when he came back?
Selling an entire line of products targeted to kids and technologically insecure people who need the latest tech to feel important, and getting them all HOOKED. And then you're surprised and think he tricked you into giving Apple access to information about you to build a marketing profile to sell more stuff to you.
It's abundantly clear reading these comments that the vast majority are kids and people with sophomoric tendencies, which is the profile he was targeting to get hooked on his product to being with. Get a clue, it's not about YOU.
One of the least sophisticated posts I've seen here. Did you join just to post this drivel?
Wow dude. I wonder if you also say, "I don't want ads on my TV - I pay enough for it".
Get this - most of those billions of downloaded apps are free.
Ads make it possible for most free apps to even exist.
Apple simply wants to make a stylish entry into that nascent but rapidly expanding mobile ad market with a sexy platform that could possibly generate more compelling ads that might be even entertaining/informative for the end-user, and certainly quite profitable for the shareholder.
If I were you, I would buy some AAPL now
I think we all agree... that's why we're against ANYONE having the right to this information. Who's to say the iAds is any more beneficial than AdMob?
Like others have suggested, it should either be a choice (allow the advert companies to have this info) or just block it completely. Giving one competitor access to this info at the expense of others is a monopolistic move.
Hence the outrage.
Except there is nobody that claims that Apple will be providing the unique device identifier or MAC address or whatever to the advertisers. Hence, no reason for outrage, well not yet...
Apple will inevitably have more info about users as Apple knows a lot more about them due to its control of iTunes. If Apple ever gains 90% marketshare in smartphones, the calculations could be a bit different, but between Blackberry, Android, WinMo and Nokia, that is very unlikely to happen, so I don't see a need to feel agitated. I hope in the end there will be three or four big competitors in smartphone OS market, unlike the desktop.
Including ads on a paid app is akin to paying to see a movie at the Theatre, then sitting through a series of ads before the show begins. Both situations suck. That Apple is moving in this direction is very disturbing.
No and that wouldn't be the same either. To again keep that analogy alive. It would be Bing Ads offering far more detailed knowledge about the customer than Google would be allowed to offer. By that Googles service would be less valuable ..
I do to some extend agree on your other point, that Apple hasn't officially annouced anything yet so all that discussion is based on rumors. You give Apple the benifit of the doubt .. that is great. I read it a little differently but for a final assesment we should indeed wait for a official statement.
Yes Apple will have more information on me, but it shouldn't be allowed to monetize them.
To formulate it in a unambigous way .. if Apple would allow iAd customers more informations about the customers than it would allow other players to gain, that would be an outragous move and could have legal consequences.
T.
Oh the irony that some will try to view this in a positive light...
Anyways, I thought that they'd at least limit adds to the $.99, or free apps, but now I've read that that's not the case.
Well, now I'll just have to wait for some other poor sap to bite on an app that I might want, so that I can find out if any BS has been iAdded to it.
Do the Android phones have this kind of vomit?
Anyways, I thought that they'd at least limit adds to the $.99, or free apps, but now I've read that that's not the case.
Well, now I'll just have to wait for some other poor sap to bite on an app that I might want, so that I can find out if any BS has been iAdded to it.
Do the Android phones have this kind of vomit?
I like that Apple is playing hard ball, but some day they may face the DOJ as Microsoft did. It is fine for them to control ads in apps but what about web ads. Are web ads something else Apple will try to control on their iPhone OS devices once they cement the app ads? That kind of play may get slapped if they get the nerve to extend their control.
Google is a one trick pony. Now their bread and butter is about to getsliuced! Apple will be able, according to them, have 1 billion ad looks a day which mean 360 billion a year. So in about 3 years Apple will have aided their advertisers with about 1 trillion ad looks. Dang!
Game on.
Game on.
I think it is more the exception than the rule.
The more outraged user are at this sort of thing, the less inclined developers will be to try to put it in. If the CNN app is any indication, it shouldn't be difficult to find this information from the negative reviews.
God, I hope you are using hyperbole. Clearly, most want ads, otherwise this crap wouldn't exist.
That's the same thing, it is simply possible to target more specifically with the internet since they can focus down to a single IP address, or actually a single session of browsing. The only difference you are saying is basically, "TV is bad at it, internet is better."
I am upset that Apple would use my personal information for their own profit, providing it or using it for 3rd party advertising affiliates. I think it's disgusting that anyone does this, despite that it is a prolific behavior of marketers and advertisers and all big business. I thought my dealings with Apple were between myself and Apple, but now they are going to use it without my permission for ad targeting.
"Don't use apps with ads"
A number of apps I paid for later then put ads in with updates and there is nothing I can do about it except never use the app I paid for again. Complaining to the developers didn't change anything.
"Don't use apps with ads"
A number of apps I paid for later then put ads in with updates and there is nothing I can do about it except never use the app I paid for again. Complaining to the developers didn't change anything.
Including ads on a paid app is akin to paying to see a movie at the Theatre, then sitting through a series of ads before the show begins. Both situations suck. That Apple is moving in this direction is very disturbing.
You do realize that every theater in the world does this (except for rare showings). They're known as trailers. Usually there's about 20-30 minutes worth, some before the stated start time, and some after. I'm always impressed if a movie starts within 10 minutes of it's stated showtime, usually it's closer to 20 minutes after.
Now, yes, I would prefer that paid apps didn't have ads, but let's face it, most developers can't make money off a 99¢ app, unless it's one of the top-selling apps on the store. If we want to continue to see cheap or free apps regularly, there's gonna have to be a way for those devs to make money. I'm willing to put up with well-designed and non-instrusive ads to achieve that, if it means I get a good product. From everything I'm seeing, iAd will only help that, not cause more problems like the variety of ad solutions out there now (AdMob is ok, but their ads still usually get in the way too much).
jW
That's a good one. You're suggesting that they go after Apple as a monopoly for monopolizing Internet advertising? Last time I checked, Google has a pretty high share (75% or so?). Apple has next to zero.
Why in the world would the DOJ care if Apple gets aggressive? If anything, they should be applauding.
That's probably the best example ever of how much advertising people are willing to put up with. I pay $7.50 for a seat in the theatre, $4-5 for popcorn, $4 for a blasted Coke, and the STILL make me sit through half an hour of ads.
If they can convince people to do that, having a couple of ads in your free software is no big deal at all.
Sorry for not getting back sooner to address this.
My concern is that the value presented to advertising firms isn't that high unless they're tied to specific events which requires data mining. This leaves just bland blanket advertising.
Low advertising revenue for development houses will lead to development houses having to charge for full functionality products to cover the costs. I can see free demonstration time limited/cut down versions of the products being iAd enabled to add to revenue.
This will, undoubtedly, put pressure on the current issue of not allowing targetted advertising in order to increase revenues. It's likely that Apple's first iAd product iteration will not contain this functionality due to not fitting the timelines. Second or third iteration would see the introduction of additional advertising tools.
In the end - you are correct, it makes sense for app developers to offer non-Ad versions for a 'premium' (read normal cost) and then suppliment income with iAd enabled variants.
The jewel in the iAd crown will be replacing the advertising within web pages and providing an alternative to Google.
I can also see the current google anaylitics communication that occurs with every safari web page access being replaced by iAd shortly too..
Back to basics
This is just a new symbiosis between advertisers and content providers. Would you insist on buying your newspaper without ads or watch TV without commercials? The good thing about iAds is that the advertising will improve in quality. And advertising new products, better products, lower prices is an important part of our economical infrastructure. And has always been.
This is just a new symbiosis between advertisers and content providers. Would you insist on buying your newspaper without ads or watch TV without commercials? The good thing about iAds is that the advertising will improve in quality. And advertising new products, better products, lower prices is an important part of our economical infrastructure. And has always been.