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.
Apple Partnering with Inline Video Ad Company?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
umm...i think that's where the industry _has been_ for the last 50 or so years...
to the industry, there are two kinds of programming: "content" and "filler." commercials, of course, being the "content", and the series/movies/etc being "filler."
for years now, we have been moving toward personal audio/video devices and the ability to control what we listen to or watch, thus avoiding being marketed to. the price we pay usually pales in comparison to the "lost revenue" that the marketers are missing out on. they would love to get their tentacles back around us.
i can't even begin to understand the mentality that would allow someone to say, "yeah, i don't mind being subjected to marketing as long as they entertain me afterward." if you have a _choice_ why in the world would you choose ads? i mean, the dollar cost of purchasing is so low that it doesn't really matter whether you watch it once and delete it or keep it forever. avoiding mind pollution is priceless.
Consider this rumor with the news that the new iPods can only play video out through some kind of new-fangled chip and you have everything pointing to a distribution model. I think Apple is finally moving toward a subscription service, and if so I think it would be great if they had the option for it to be ad-subsidized. I could ditch tv altogether and just get the stuff I want to see and have the option of paying for it or watching it with commercials.
bluebomberman
macrumors 6502a
Right, but I don't see why Apple needs the assistance of a specific startup in this endeavor - splicing ads into a Quicktime file isn't exactly a technical challenge that I would expect to daunt Apple (makers of Final Cut Studio and Quicktime).
The only reason I can think of for this investment is that Apple wants to develop technology to somehow gauge the effectiveness of any ads embedded within the file - something that goes beyond the number of downloads of a given episode. Like tracking number of plays, or whether the ads generated clicks to advertisers' sites. Which brings up the potential for phoning home, something that raises serious privacy concerns that Apple has largely avoided getting entangled with.
Deal Breaker
I love iTunes and the Apple store but incorporating ads into the music I purchase is a deal breaker for me. I would pay more than double for music WITHOUT ads and if there was no choice, I would start buying my music in CD format AGAIN.
I love iTunes and the Apple store but incorporating ads into the music I purchase is a deal breaker for me. I would pay more than double for music WITHOUT ads and if there was no choice, I would start buying my music in CD format AGAIN.
NOOOOOOOooooooooooooo....
What happened to the company that wanted to think different ? Why do they want to force adds on us, and by this just follow what others are already doing ? We can all go back and watch television again if this is where things are going to.
While I agree with Arn that add-contented movies/shows can exist next to non add-contented ones, the move towards adds is in my opinion clear : we start by offering the two side by side, and after a while the add-less shows get discontinued ('cause after all, an "overwhelming" number of our customers wanted only the add-based shows 🙄)
One last thing : Apple might get away with this in the states, but my guess is Europe will not be so enthusiastic about this. There are enough add-less TV stations available here (or stations with limited adds, not interrupting shows everey 10 minutes), imho giving add infested content for download no chance at all. Maybe that's why we still don't have an iTunes Movie store over here ? FYI, many people here feel an iPod Video (in whatever form) is an utter waste of money : there's hardly any content out at all (save for a couple of video podcasts), so why buy one ?
What happened to the company that wanted to think different ? Why do they want to force adds on us, and by this just follow what others are already doing ? We can all go back and watch television again if this is where things are going to.
While I agree with Arn that add-contented movies/shows can exist next to non add-contented ones, the move towards adds is in my opinion clear : we start by offering the two side by side, and after a while the add-less shows get discontinued ('cause after all, an "overwhelming" number of our customers wanted only the add-based shows 🙄)
One last thing : Apple might get away with this in the states, but my guess is Europe will not be so enthusiastic about this. There are enough add-less TV stations available here (or stations with limited adds, not interrupting shows everey 10 minutes), imho giving add infested content for download no chance at all. Maybe that's why we still don't have an iTunes Movie store over here ? FYI, many people here feel an iPod Video (in whatever form) is an utter waste of money : there's hardly any content out at all (save for a couple of video podcasts), so why buy one ?
nagromme
macrumors G5
This story is not about putting ads in music. That won't happen 😱
I'm very much in favor of ad-supported content existing. There is no WAY I would spend $30-$50 a year for a TV show (with few exceptions). But I still do want to watch a couple, and the ads are more tolerable to me than the $50. If I can't fast-forward, I can still mute and walk away.
To each his own, of course.
tjcampbell
macrumors 6502a
I don't know about this - their site really looks rather unprofessional to me. They're in the video ad business but never even show a single example video anywhere. They ask their customers to provide info by filling out Word and Excel documents. On top of that, much of their grammar seems rather poor to me: (BTW, please excuse my own mistakes - English isn't my first language.)
Add to that a completely empty news page and the unfortunate company slogan "Who's yo' daddy?", and it just doesn't look like a company I'd want to do business with.
I might be completely off here. Maybe they're devoting all their time towards making a better product and have no time left to improve their website, but a site like this just isn't good advertising for a company. That's especially bad, if you're in the advertising business...
Add to that a completely empty news page and the unfortunate company slogan "Who's yo' daddy?", and it just doesn't look like a company I'd want to do business with.
I might be completely off here. Maybe they're devoting all their time towards making a better product and have no time left to improve their website, but a site like this just isn't good advertising for a company. That's especially bad, if you're in the advertising business...
SPUY767
macrumors 68020
Beat me to it.
Yup, they're gonna put ads right in the middle, nay, right in the BEST PART of your favorit songs that you've paid for. Seriously, grow up. They will either offer shows at a reduced rate or for free with varying levels of ad content. The stuff we pay full price for, including our music will remain ad free. And seriously, did you even read the headline? a video ad company.
Whay you're going to see are adds that change dynamically. You likely won't see the same ad in a TV show if you were to watch it twice.
macduke
macrumors G5
unless its for a quick (free) view, people want to own their content. they don't want some half-assed implementation either. people hate advertisements!! the last thing i want to listen to while i'm on my iphone is "head-on, apply directly to the forehead! head-on, apply directly to the forehead! head-on, apply directly to the forehead!". see how annoying that was? ironically, i got a headache just typing that.
*applies head-on directly to my forehead and calms down*
i predict this will fail just like ad supported dialup in the 90's.
*applies head-on directly to my forehead and calms down*
i predict this will fail just like ad supported dialup in the 90's.
Loge
macrumors 68030
If advertisers have paid to place the ads, then they will want assurances that you will not be able to FF.
As to hacks, well that's just more cat and mouse. At this rate, Apple will soon be spending more resources blocking hackers than developing new products.
Just say no to ads.
Hating ads is like an American pastime -- and I'm sure, people being people, they aren't all that popular throughout the first world. But when the iTunes Store video launched I thought the stupidest thing in the world was taking the ads out of the TV programs. I think the problem was, video downloads of TV were an unproven quantity, therefore the networks couldn't get advertisers to pay extra for ads in the downloadable versions and they couldn't get other advertisers, or they didn't discount steeply enough, to place ads in them. So they just yanked out the ads, no pay no play. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
We may hate ads. I can't think of the last time I know I bought something because of an ad -- it was probably for one of the kids based on their requests. I'm not susceptible. My toddler son was, very much for a while, but when after some time he got the idea we don't usually buy for me what I point out on the TV ads, he's become less susceptible. But the point is either a lot of people are quite susceptible or advertisers believe they are. (Man, they work the kids on the children's networks, let me tell you. It's a good thing our toddler prefers movies on DVD to TV for video recreation.)
All that being said, ads are an excellent source of revenue that may decrease consumer convenience but well holds down consumer pricing. I think NBC's crazy wholesale price hike was a put-up a job, so they could not renew in order to do their own restrictive rental-based service without having to take the heat for their content no longer being available to iPod owners, which is a pretty big number in the downloadable media arena (the copyright enforcement argument was garbage as Apple has pretty well managed to tighten up FairPlay so certainly there's no quick, easy way to strip DRM from iTunes music; and I've never heard of a good FairPlay stripper for iTunes video; everything I've read indicates iTunes has *reduced* piracy as many "free" downloaders will choose to pay iTunes for an official license rather than download for free).
But in general advertising could help with a lot of these price point arguments. Most people will take pay+ads over not having access to the content for iPods at all, especially over this "expires in 72 hours" mess. The only thing NBC could be after in this is you miss a show, don't record, you pay for a time-limited viewing, then if you're a fan you buy the overpriced DVD version at the end of the year. If you buy through iTunes, you already have the season at the end of the year, no need to buy their outrageously priced DVDs -- the productions costs of which mind you have already been paid for and profit taken from advertising during the season.
I'm all for dealing with ads if it means more content choice available to consumers. You don't have to buy the ad-supported material if it bothers you that much.
iTunes has given TV networks the opportunity to make money an extra time for their content, and if allowing ads gives them yet another extra time and keeps providing the content, then I can deal with it. Not everyone will run ads. iTunes Store music labels want DRM, but look at EMI: not all labels insist on DRM, and that extra $.29 per track is and it isn't, as the album price has remained the same.
pubwvj
macrumors 68000
Horrid
Wow. This is such a horrible idea. A large part of the point of buying music, DVDs, etc is to avoid the advertisements. I don't want to waste my time watching ads for products. If I want those products I'll go find them. If I'm not looking for them, I don't need them, don't want them and don't want to waste my time and money on them. Inline ads will be a huge turn-off and a product killer.
Wow. This is such a horrible idea. A large part of the point of buying music, DVDs, etc is to avoid the advertisements. I don't want to waste my time watching ads for products. If I want those products I'll go find them. If I'm not looking for them, I don't need them, don't want them and don't want to waste my time and money on them. Inline ads will be a huge turn-off and a product killer.
rockthecasbah
macrumors 68020
I agree, but even now DVDs have trailers and ads in them before you can get to the main menu! It doesn't really affect me because I don't buy video period from the iTMS, but if i were to, I would much rather pay a couple extra bucks and not have ads. It kinda defeats the purpose of buying really.
If a local TV channel can afford to buy a movie & show it (as well as pay their staff & other overheads), and fund that by selling ads & showing them... then certainly its affordable for Apple to do the same.
However, I really hope they don't almost replicate the existing setup. I mean, really, if they force us to watch the ads... that must be worth more than when we can avoid them (so we should be able to watch less, right?). And if Apple shows ads that are customised to viewers needs... then we should be able to watch fewer ads and still watch them free.
Add to that the option to link to more information (websites, infomercials etc) .. and I hope that there really is an option to watch far fewer ads but to far greater effect, while giving us free TV.
I'm not aware of the video out chip for the new iPods but I would seriously doubt Apple would rely on that to enforce things. For 2 reasons. 1) Wouldn't do anything for watching on the iPod (not using video out then.) 2) They would never rely on something that less than 1% of iPod users currently have. In other words, there are 110million+ iPods out there without this restriction (OK, not all of them have video but tens of millions do!) If they relied on some new hardware thing they'd be helpless against their own installed user base!
be well
t
AtHomeBoy_2000
macrumors 6502a
Exactly! i have recently been watching all the episodes of Jericho on CBS' online distrobution. THe 30 second ads were annoying, but not bad. It's just their player that is buggy. FOr a one hour show, i can live with three 30second "brought to you by" ads.
LizKat
macrumors 604
Got my vote on that, and I have put my money on it at the iTunes store already, buying individual shows or season passes. Now if they want to offer a dual model with a choice of ads (product is "free" or cheaper) or pay more for an ad-free version, great, bring it on. I suppose there will be flak no matter what Apple does. Those guys must have to stop for Yoga classes on the way to the bank, you think? The stress of success...
I have never purchased anything from an ad on a website. I will never do so. I specifically try to avoid companies that advertise this way. If Apple brings ads to iTunes content, they won't get my money. For about the past year, I've noticed that ads have slowed down access to many websites I regularly visit, including several Mac sites. It's always some stupid ad that hangs while loading. I just don't understand how corporate pinheads keep dreaming that this model will someday work. Stupid!
So either:
Apple content: Pay money + Ads
Bittorrent: Free + No ads
That's a great alternative to piracy, apple 😉
Apple content: Pay money + Ads
Bittorrent: Free + No ads
That's a great alternative to piracy, apple 😉
What's there to hate about ads when you can fast forward through them? Last time I checked, every iPod with video has that capability.
this thread is hilarious. many of you guys were saying 'ads!?!, no, that's the worst idea ever! Then Apple decides they might do it and you're like, 'oh, no big deal'
Come on fanboys