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 Releases 'iAd Gallery' App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iAds are cool
My experience with iAds has been good, you sometimes see interesting stuff. But what I like about them most is that somehow they don't seem intrusive or annoying. They're just a a record in tableview that we can just easily flick pass.
Normal ads on website stick on the banner or sidebar if you don't have any adblock plugins installed, and that makes those so annoying.
My experience with iAds has been good, you sometimes see interesting stuff. But what I like about them most is that somehow they don't seem intrusive or annoying. They're just a a record in tableview that we can just easily flick pass.
Normal ads on website stick on the banner or sidebar if you don't have any adblock plugins installed, and that makes those so annoying.
Would not surprise me if Apple Inc. thought about charging for it…
Absolutely.
Luckily technology has enabled me to now have a virtually ad free web/television/film viewing "experience".
Apple think differently, of course.
How about an app that displays the apps that have iAds.
But I downloaded it our of curiosity. I couldn't help myself
But I downloaded it our of curiosity. I couldn't help myself
Absolutely. Don't we have enough adverts in our lives already?
(well I imagine most do. I either watch TV shows recorded on my HDD or live on BBC. I don't read printed magazines or newspapers. Adblocker in Firefox. Play DS or PSP whilst waiting for films to start. Live in the countryside (no billboards!). It's lovely!)
There's another, much more messed up story behind this app. For those too lazy to click on the link, basically Apple decided to reject a third-party app that has the same functionality as the iAd Gallery for -- get this -- "lack of functionality". Then it turns around and develops the exact same app.
If what Apple has done here doesn't demonstrate anti-competitiveness, then I don't know what does.
If what Apple has done here doesn't demonstrate anti-competitiveness, then I don't know what does.
I wish we could see the number of apps sold. I'd be willing to bet that this app will get over 10,000 downloads within a few months.
And what was the motivation of the third party app makers? To make a fast buck out of serving ads to people more interested in the ad than the product. That is bad for advertisers and probably the real reason the app was rejected.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
Yup. The developers of said app must've known they were playing with fire. Apple helped these advertisers make their apps, they should be the one allowed to showcase them.
So why bother? If you don't like it, don't download it. There are thousands of apps in the store that I don't like or have no interest in. No need to comment everywhere how much I dislike them and how much every user of those is a brainless idiot. there is a very simple solution with basically two options:
(1) if you (think you) like it -> download and try
(2) if you don't like it, don't download it
It is not that this app is forced to be installed on your phone. It is your choice.
I always enjoyed the creative iAds, I downloaded the app and found to my surprise that it even shows me (in the US) some of the European ads which I otherwise wouldn't have seen.
The only thing I wonder about is: is Apple getting money if people click on the ads? (my guess would be no)
I didn't think that there could be a bigger time waster than Facebook.
But here it is, congratulations iAd app!
But here it is, congratulations iAd app!
Been tried, been rejected.
Nice try though. An app where you make money every time someone taps the screen - you must have been wetting yourself with excitement.
I remember a girl/woman submitting such an app to Apple.
It was rejected on the grounds:
'Not required => redundant'.
I see something changing now.
That is the very first thing I thought of. I remember that rejection and how ridiculous it was for 2 reasons.
1: She was trying to promote Apple's iAds! How does it hurt Apple?
2: Has Apple seen all the apps that could easily be called "not required" or "redundant"?
Its a rediculous app...i mean who would want to see an app that is just to make you see adds...no use
disappointed in apple for sure...
disappointed in apple for sure...
What makes them worthless?
Anyway, you live by the Apple you die by the Apple. Your choice to make your choices theirs.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
Exactly. That's the good and bad part. I love Apple products, but I hate blatant hypocrisy when I see it. This is certainly one of those cases.
They're worthless because the user's likelihood of clicking on each iAd is not related to the user's interest in the product. They'll probably just click on all of them, just to see what they look like.
That's a really bad platform for advertisers, where they're basically paying per click to exhibit to a very cynical audience (eg rival advertisers, agencies etc).