Apple Introduces iAds Mobile Advertising Platform

[paradox00]

History lesson: the WWW was not created as an advertising instrument. It was hijacked (quite literally) for that purpose. Web content was always intended to be free and that is precisely what I expect. If someone wants to make money, a website isn't the way to go. I have exactly zero sympathy for whiners who don't get this.

It was originally a military network designed to share radar information, it was "hijacked" long before ads came into play. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You just want free stuff. Ad free of course.

Most people don't work for free. If there is no way to make money on web content, people won't create that content. Without ads, we would have near the amount of information available to us right now, so deal with it. If the ads are as creative as the examples Apple provided, I will actually be clicking on some ads because they will actually provide value to me. That seems like a win for everyone involved.

We need a "like" button in here. Or a thumbs up, or something. Anyway,

LIKE!!!

Reading reviews usually does the trick, but the presence of ads should be disclosed.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

If the ads are as creative as the examples Apple provided, I will actually be clicking on some ads because they will actually provide value to me. That seems like a win for everyone involved.

Look around the web sometime. The ads will not be as creative as Apple showed. They will be dreck like everything else.

I know ads are lame and no one likes them, so iAd seems like it's stupid, but it's not. They are trying to address the problem with ads by making them more interesting and interactive and making them less annoying to actually view (by not dropping you from your app). This is good.

Advertisements are not inherently a bad thing. It's how we've gone about presenting them that have given us the idea that all advertisement is stupid and annoying. They can be interesting and they can be artistic. iAd is the first step toward giving ads actual value..

Apple cannot make ads more interesting simply by being Apple or offering an ad network. iAd is about one simple thing to Apple:

they want a slice of those ads that developers are putting in their free apps. The race to the bottom in App pricing resulted in devs needing to put ads in their apps. Like a mob boss, Apple just wants their cut.

Ads becoming "interesting and artistic" will not happen because of iAd. The features that Apple touts - animation, full screen, video - this is all done currently on the web. Not every advertiser is Pixar or Nike (Apple partners). You going to get funeral homes, douche commercials, viagra, and Extenze, allergy medicines, and vacuum cleaners. You are going to get every product under the sun. And not all of them will be interesting.

iAd cannot give designers, copyrighters, or CEOs any more talent than they already have.

 

[mrrydogg]

Apple can't ensure people make good ads. They can't magically force people to become good designers or programmers. The app store itself is evidence of that.

The mere existence of iAd isn't going make people turn out great advertising. It will just bring more crap to our hand held devices.

Your missing the entire philosophy and factual evidence behind this move.
Steve said it himself in the presentation. No one clicks these lame banner ads on their iPhone or any phone for that matter! The philosophy is that they have created an infrastructure that will allow advertisers to create more memorable ad campaigns on a mobile device. They will truly be interactive and have the potential to be somewhat fun (based on the demo). An app within an app basically.

Your right, iAd's mere existence won't turn out great advertising, but if you actually want to reach this large market sector and actually want them to click on your ad and actually want them to buy your product, then what Apple is saying is that you have to think in the realm of iAd. Those lame ads you showed only exist because people accidentally scroll over something or randomly click the wrong section of a web page, I would hardly say they represent successful ad campaigns, only that they are memorable for how lame they are.

The short answer is that if you want to advertise to a growing iPhone/Touch user base, Apple has showed you a far more successful way to do that.

They are saying, "create ads like this, using our software and framework, and people WILL click on it".

If they don't, guess what, iAd goes away because they have no customers.

Ads becoming "interesting and artistic" will not happen because of iAd. The features that Apple touts - animation, full screen, video - this is all done currently on the web. Not every advertiser is Pixar or Nike (Apple partners). You going to get funeral homes, douche commercials, viagra, and Extenze, allergy medicines, and vacuum cleaners. You are going to get every product under the sun. And not all of them will be interesting.

iAd cannot give designers, copyrighters, or CEOs any more talent than they already have.

No they can't. But your still missing the point, if no one clicks the ad on their mobile phone, then what's the point? Apple is making a grand statement that they believe they have found a way to attract mobile users to ads. If you want them to host a simple banner, then so be it. No one will click it.

If you want them to host something interesting, they are banking on your ad dollars being out to good use. If their wrong, well then their wrong.

Creating crap ads is easy, no doubt about it, but what's the point of an ad if no one buys the product?

 

[a cat *miaow*]

Apple can't ensure people make good ads. They can't magically force people to become good designers or programmers. The app store itself is evidence of that.

This is what Apple showed off for cool new ads:

This is the sad reality of online advertising. I'm so happy Apple is facilitating more ads on my iPod touch.

This one appeared in the "clothing" section of yahoo.com

The mere existence of iAd isn't going make people turn out great advertising. It will just bring more crap to our hand held devices.

This is the reality. You can do a quick test yourself to see if it is or not.. adverts as of now, with a little more time investment can be made interactive, with animation, with sound, with 'fold outs', right? And if you do that they work better? Hmmm well, I don't know which banners will be at the top and bottom of this page as you read this but I would happily guarantee neither of them will have any of those features.

When this is released, we'll see a few amazing adverts by maybe Apple themselves, Audi maybe... a couple of clothing brands..... and that will be it. The rest of the ads will pop-up with the same banner ad that the company sell on every other website, just this time: full-screen!

I still think it's actually great for developers and providers of content to the iPhone/Touch but what was shown at the event is in no way going anything like what you see in the future.

History lesson: the WWW was not created as an advertising instrument. It was hijacked (quite literally) for that purpose. Web content was always intended to be free and that is precisely what I expect. If someone wants to make money, a website isn't the way to go. I have exactly zero sympathy for whiners who don't get this.

Question: How long do you spend on the internet yesterday? And, how much did that cost you?

Are you saying all the business that make money, create jobs and develop new industries that never before existed are a bad idea?

You do know it costs money to put a site online and maintain it don't you?

 

[kettle]

Question: How long do you spend on the internet yesterday? And, how much did that cost you?

Are you saying all the business that make money, create jobs and develop new industries that never before existed are a bad idea?

You do know it costs money to put a site online and maintain it don't you?

In the UK for me, about £1 per day.

 

[nastebu]

aimed more at iPad

Really, I think this is aimed more at the iPad and enticing magazines onto the iPad model. If ads are somewhat annoying in an app, in a magazine this has real potential to make virtual magazines something really interesting for both an advertiser and also for readers. If you're interested in a product, this kind of interactive ad will actually be useful.

 

[adammull]

What bothers me is that people keep saying "Just buy PAID apps and you won't have ads!!!"

Where did Steve say paid apps won't have ads? If you think developers of paid apps will just turn down even more income you're insane. I pay $110 a month for satellite and it is full of ads just as much as free OTA Networks are full of ads.

That is such a dumb argument. He never intimated or said that. I see iAd as being prevalent in a lot more than people are making out, especially on the iPad.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Creating crap ads is easy, no doubt about it, but what's the point of an ad if no one buys the product?

For the advertiser: A waste of money and time.

For Apple: they will now get paid regardless if the product sells. It is better for Apple (higher rates) if they can show that people buy products from ads on their network, but that will come in time as they figure out the buying habits of Apple users.

 

[Bleubird2]

What Job's said is still mostly accurate, he is just using adjectives to paint Google in a bad light.

a. that will just fuel the fire under the DoJ giving Google a hard time about the acquisition. So he gets to stick it to Google indirectly.

b. it deflects from the corporate (including CEO/Chairman) screw up that they couldn't complete the due diligence in 45 days because they had an "ad hoc" acquisition procedure. Job's isn't going to say "we/I screwed up and Google was more nimble than us".


Just as it is tell that someone didn't follow up with a "but wait ...." question to the "just in the US" after earlier Jobs threw out that 1 billion ad views. Well a huge chunk of those 10 million iPhone OS devices are going to be outside the US. If going to limit themselves to just the US that number was just blowing smoke.

I guess that clears that up. I think that big businesses (including Apple) try to get away with anything they can. When Steve Jobs complains about Google, he sounds like a big baby. I know several people would disagree with me here, but business is business and I'm sure that Steve is no saint either.

 

[Gomff]

I have to say, I have misgivings about iAds in so many levels.

Firstly, Is this the thin end of the wedge? Marketing people are constantly climbing over each other to find the next new way of getting eyes to look at ad messages and I think they're going to be rubbing their hands with glee at this. From a business and share holder point of view, getting people to look at ads on their phones / iPads is a marketing man's dream but from a user point if view, personally I think it's a nightmare.

Secondly, how long is it until iAds are in every app, paid or unpaid just as a matter of course? If Apple are going to all this trouble to create a platform for advertising, people are going to start using it for no other reason than that they can.

Thirdly, How long before iAds end up on the Mac? or in Mac applications?

Seems to me Apple need to ease off the gas trying to please shareholders and come out with some new Macs and software updates. I can't help thinking the slow down in hardware releases in the Mac line is a direct result of Apple putting their resources into marketing and extra revenue strategies. I'd rather pay a premium and not be distracted by advertising. I want an app to do what I bought it for, nothing more nothing less.

Hate ads!

 

[godknows]

I know what one thing people are complaining about.
Coz I am one of those who are hoping that iAds are not going to be on every single free app, coz apple says it's very easy to implement.

And Mr. Jobs, this time put on your efforts to censor the ads, as much as you do for apps, and avoid those "you are the 999,999,999,999th visitor to the site", "download the new smileys and screensavers" or other scams and viruses.

P.S. and give us a way to limit the no. of ads we see... at least 3 minutes before the next one you promised

 

[godknows]

I guess that clears that up. I think that big businesses (including Apple) try to get away with anything they can. When Steve Jobs complains about Google, he sounds like a big baby. I know several people would disagree with me here, but business is business and I'm sure that Steve is no saint either.

That statement should have been dismissed. Google is just doing business, and Jobs is just complaining. None of our business.

 

[kate-willbury]

good job apple. basically this is the equivalent of all of those annoying flash ads some of you people constantly whine about. except this time, you don't have the option to block them with adblock etc etc!

 

[Sarcasmo]

Look around the web sometime. The ads will not be as creative as Apple showed. They will be dreck like everything else.

Apple cannot make ads more interesting simply by being Apple or offering an ad network. iAd is about one simple thing to Apple:

they want a slice of those ads that developers are putting in their free apps. The race to the bottom in App pricing resulted in devs needing to put ads in their apps. Like a mob boss, Apple just wants their cut.

Well said. Apple wants to take 40% for the "privilege" of being able to create ads using Apple's proprietary software on the off chance that someone might click through a more interesting ad. Judging by the general response to adverts here, not going to happen.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but how long before ONLY apps with iAds will be allowed to be sold through the store?

And for you fanboys out there who think Apple values "user experience" over say, money, Apple thanks you. Steve Jobs is now so confident that he has introduced software to make ads better, while taking a 40% cut from already hamstrung developers, and you guys call it ice cream.

 

[TheJae]

I hate ad cause they are boring and intrusive at times but Apple's implementation is fun and interactive.

Apple can count me in as users who willingly click on ads.

 

[macbookairman]

Well said. Apple wants to take 40% for the "privilege" of being able to create ads using Apple's proprietary software on the off chance that someone might click through a more interesting ad. Judging by the general response to adverts here, not going to happen.
........

Keep in mind that the 40/60 split for advertising profits is pretty standard for advertising. Apple isn't the only one doing that.