Apple Hires Adobe Executive Todd Teresi to Run iAd Program

[mdriftmeyer]

Fixed that for you.

Flash is a pile of dung on Linux, FreeBSD and every other version of UNIX based Operating Systems.

The only platform that people accept it is Windows and that's mainly due to people not smart enough to study their memory allocation and once shown how much of a pig it is they then get pissed off.

 

[KnightWRX]

Flash is a pile of dung on Linux, FreeBSD and every other version of UNIX based Operating Systems.

Gee, I wonder why :

7.2.3 Firefox and Adobe® Flash™ Plugin
The Adobe® Flash™ plugin is not available for FreeBSD. However, a software layer (wrapper) for running the Linux version of the plugin exists. This wrapper also supports Adobe Acrobat® plugin, RealPlayer® plugin and more.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/desktop-browsers.html



Adobe doesn't make any Flash versions for the BSDs or "other version of UNIX based operating systems". They only make a Linux version and while not perfect, it's mostly been fine since the early days (I use to be a big newgrounds junky back in my early KDE 1.0 days, running the Netscape plug-in in Konqueror).

 

[eye]

Congrats, sir! You officially have the least cool job at Apple.

 

[SandynJosh]

Originally Posted by *LTD*
When it comes to Flash on Mac

Fixed that for you.

And it's exactly the pi$$-poor performance of the Mac version that got Apple to not allow Flash for the iOS platform. Had Adobe improved the performance in a timely manner ( and I'm specifically meaning how it uses resources and the power draw if the app) then none of this would be an issue.

Such a resource hog makes a platform unstable and degrades battery life to where it lessens the user experience. Adobe blew their chance to have Flash on the iOS platform by not keeping the Mac version on par with the Windows version.

----------

Congrats, sir! You officially have the least cool job at Apple.

As a burger-fliper you must be speaking from a gamer perspective.

He's in marketing where there is a lot of challenging and exciting things to do, and since iAds hasn't done so well in the past, he has nowhere to take the department but up. It's anything but a drone position.

 

[cvaldes]

Congrats, sir! You officially have the least cool job at Apple.

Uh, no.

This is a very high-level sales position. He is going to be cutting million dollar deals. Not the ideal job for everyone, but top sales people are typically well compensated for successes.

In Teresi's case, his main task is to keep the ad revenue flowing so developers of free apps will have enough monetary incentive to continue developing for iOS. Remember that Apple is a software/services-driven company; they use that superiority to their best advantage on their proprietary hardware where they have thick margins.

In a Fortune 500 tech company, the people that have the "least cool jobs" are in the admin division, usually folks like entry-level facilities planners -- the folks who planning the move of Group A from Building 3 to Building 15 while Group C moves from Building 15 to Building 7. Other under-appreciated admin folks are payroll accountants and the A/P folks who process expense reports.

Corporate security folks are always poorly thought of, even when they are managers on the company payroll, not the hired goons driving SUVs between buildings. The entry-level corporate security folks are the ones snapping your photo for your card key on your first day of employment.

*Those* are jobs that aren't considered "cool" at a high-flying tech firm.

 

[SmalTek]

iTV is the future for iAds

Google has an almost universal reach online so they can make ads that you barely see, but the relatively minuscule number of click throughs on billions of ads does really well for them.

I see internet and mobile (iPhone included) ads as absolutely useless waste of money for the companies that pay for ads. I suspect that out of that "minuscule number of click throughs" 90% are fake clicks, generated by clickbots.

The only way ads can be not an absolutely useless waste of money is when the viewer is forced to watch them, like on TV and to a less degree in printed media.

So I agree here with MisterK: iTV is the only reasonable way for iAds. iAds on iPhone - waste of money for fools who pay for them...

 

[patent10021]

Congrats, sir! You officially have the least cool job at Apple.

Yeah, I'm sure he's thinking the same thing while at the same time being envious of you.

 

[peb123]

Mmmmm

Reminds me of the scene in the Spaceballs movie when the Spaceballs crash land on the Planet of the Apes!

 

[japanime]

I really hope this doesn't end up making iAds more prevalent. I hardly notice them at all these days and hope to keep it that way! (although this is probably EXACTLY what Apple would like to change)

Remember, though, that a lot of free apps are dependent on iAd revenue to make them profitable to the developers.

 

[xyster]

About time!

Good, now Apple can work on expanding iAd's reach to more markets. Little inconsequential places like China, Japan, Canada and the Benelux.

You hear Apple? Start taking iAd seriously!

 

[Rafterman]

Todd Teresi - soon to be the most hated man at Apple among iOS users. After all, who doesn't love a guy who wants to bring ads to our applications?

Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

-Futurama

 

[samcraig]

Plus, I read that developers who had high iAd population rates did really well financially compared to other ad networks, and polling indicates that consumers have higher product/service/company name recognition than other ad programs. That sounds pretty effective to me.

Other than lack of advertisers, what problems do you have with iAd?

Advertising is just another revenue model that fills a niche, and is very beneficial to the app ecosystem.

Well that's great for developers (who are making money off of iAds. But guess what? The LACK of advertisers is exactly why people make statements that iAds isn't a success. For iAds to be successful it needs advertisers. That's where the money comes from to pay developers. And that "supply" has never been what it should/could be.

When Jobs was alive, Apple's iAds were an extremely difficult route for even the most optimistic advertisers because Apple demanded pretty much full control. So not only do you have an agency dealing with their client (which is a long and sometimes arduous process) - then you have Apple who would demand control over content, presentation, etc. Very few agencies want to deal with that additional headache. And the entry costs were high.

Things have progressed since then with Apple lowering the entry point and I believe backing off some of the control they demanded. But that ship might have sailed.

With some fresh blood and new perspective - maybe Teresi can get things moving.

At the end of the day - for the ADVERTISER (you know - the one paying the bills) - they want results. And that's not just how many impressions they were promised and got delivered - but conversion rates. How much did the ad cost and how many sales were made.

 

[Dr McKay]

The only platform that people accept it is Windows and that's mainly due to people not smart enough to study their memory allocation and once shown how much of a pig it is they then get pissed off.

Im pretty happy with my processor using aproximately 2% and maybe 150MB of RAM when watching Flash Videos in Full HD.

And it's exactly the pi$$-poor performance of the Mac version that got Apple to not allow Flash for the iOS platform. Had Adobe improved the performance in a timely manner ( and I'm specifically meaning how it uses resources and the power draw if the app) then none of this would be an issue.

Such a resource hog makes a platform unstable and degrades battery life to where it lessens the user experience. Adobe blew their chance to have Flash on the iOS platform by not keeping the Mac version on par with the Windows version.

Let's not open this can of worms again, it's been debated to death on this forum about who is to blame, and noone wins.

 

[psac]

Is he 16?

I'm just surprised that nobody has mentioned the guy looks like he'd be carded at any bar in the US.

 

[cvaldes]

Todd Teresi - soon to be the most hated man at Apple among iOS users. After all, who doesn't love a guy who wants to bring ads to our applications? :roll eyes:

The decision to feature ads in any given app is entirely up to the developer.

If the Huffington Post app has iAds, it was the Huffington Post's decision to put those there, not Apple. There are other Internet ad agencies as well (AdMob is owned by Google). If I run an app that has AdMob ads, should I blame Google? No, again, the decision to put those there was up to the developer who wrote the app.

 

[Rafterman]

The decision to feature ads in any given app is entirely up to the developer.

If the Huffington Post app has iAds, it was the Huffington Post's decision to put those there, not Apple. There are other Internet ad agencies as well (AdMob is owned by Google). If I run an app that has AdMob ads, should I blame Google? No, again, the decision to put those there was up to the developer who wrote the app.

Yes, but it's Apple that's bringing the infrastructure to the developers. Making it easier for developers to add ads to their apps is not something we users are rooting for.

 

[HitchHykr]

And whos fault is that? Certainly not Apples.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not blaming Apple at all, not one bit. I just don't want people to think that they can just write a whatever app and add iAds and money would be rolling in....

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I should hope that's Apple's biggest problem. Oh no, an ad-based revenue steam isn't quite working out. :roll eyes:

I have no illusions that Apple is a successful company, but thanks or pointing that out for the ten-thousandth time! I forgot! Since Apple is a successful company, I changed my mind and now I think iAd is awesome.

Apple's main business is game-changing products.

Apple convinced people to defend even more internet advertising. I guess that is a game changer.

As a consumer I won't lose any sleep over the alleged mediocre performance of an ad revenue scheme.

I'm quite certain that is exactly the type of thing you lose sleep over.

Developers are already making the most money from Apple's platform to begin with.

But it's not because of iAd.

Despite not having a large number of advertisers, the ads themselves are generally fantastic. I actually WANT to see them because instead of being a stupid little animated graphic that takes me out of my app to a crappy website not built for a phone, they're media-rich e-brochures targeted to my interests.

Because they don't have a large number of advertisers, they generally aren't targeted to a user's interests.

It's no better than Flash based ads which so many people on these boards (including me) hate with good reason.

Do you actually take time to explore iAds that have no relevance to you?

 

[eye]

Yeah, I'm sure he's thinking the same thing while at the same time being envious of you.

Weirdest reply ever.

 

[albusseverus]

I for one, am happy to see the beginning of the end of iAds. Maybe they can sell it to Adobe and sink both companies. Now if only Premier didn't work with video in any format without a lot of stuffing around…

 

[samcraig]

I for one, am happy to see the beginning of the end of iAds. Maybe they can sell it to Adobe and sink both companies. Now if only Premier didn't work with video in any format without a lot of stuffing around…

If Apple does, indeed, make a TV - they will most certainly keep iAds very much alive. I can see it now - reduced cost for content - but the occasional ads at the bottom of the screen, etc...