Apple to Unveil 'iAd' Mobile Ad Platform on April 7th?

[Azmordean]

While I'm glad to see any competition against Google, it's uncomfortable to see Apple have Google-envy. It could make Apple take their eye off of their core products.

In many ways this is what is and has been happening to Microsoft. They have massive Google-envy. Vista and Office 2007 were not exactly well received and they were developed during the peak of Microsoft's Google-envy. They have mended their ways a bit though since then.

I hope Apple doesn't get too distracted by their battle with the evil empire (Google).

Funny, you say Google is the evil empire but I was commenting not long ago that Steve is starting to look kind of like the emperor =P.

More seriously... I agree with you about Apple... I think they are kind of barking up the wrong tree here if this is indeed true. There's nothing wrong with entering new business arenas, but usually changing your whole business/revenue MODEL is not the best plan. Apple's model is not ads, it is selling devices and to a lesser extent, selling software. Their whole focus, elegant hardware with tightly integrated software, simply doesn't transfer to an "ad model."

Google's revenue/business model has always been advertising. They don't build hardware at all (I consider the Nexus One an HTC device). They make products which are web based (Gmail, Maps, etc) or are designed to get people ON the web (Chrome, Android), use these products as a method of collecting non-personal information then use the products and the resulting information to serve ads.

These two models could not be more different. Google entered the mobile market only because they feel mobile web is where future web growth - and thus future web advertising growth - is going to be. I'm speculating, but they likely felt BlackBerry wasn't tapping many consumers, and the iPhone was limited because it is only on AT&T and is a locked down device, which some consumers do not prefer. Thus they created software (or, bought and tweaked software) for mobile devices and released it at low cost (or free?) to partners who have made handsets with it. Again, the Google model is to get people online. To GIVE AWAY the product, as it is a means to their commercial end - serving more ads.

There is nothing inherently wrong with either business model, but they are vastly different. If Google started trying to package up Picasa in a slick retail package and sell it, I'd say they were barking up the wrong tree. Picasa is great but that's not their model. I think Apple is making the same mistake here. This whole thing smacks of "lets go after Google" rather than "this is something we want to get into." I think if this occurs, we may well see a rare "Apple Failure" here.

 

[kwiiboy]

icantbelieveitsnotbutter. Sorry.

The new iMGOINGTORAPEYOURWALLETDRY.

 

[aaronsullivan]

iBad

At least you admit it.

Seriously, though. No matter how bad you think the iNames are, iJokes are just boring now. It's like popping up on boards and telling the chicken-cross-the-road joke. Maybe some people still get a kick out of it, I guess. My 4 year old daughter laughed at the chicken joke last night.

 

[aaronsullivan]

i think i'll have to side the camp that says this is bogus.

Why do you feel the need to side with a camp, though? Why say something that can't be proven at the moment? Why don't I just keep my mouth shut?

 

[lifeinhd]

I hate web ads, especially video ads like YouTube has started to use. There's so much content available on the web that if a video starts off with a 30-second advertisement, I just hit the back button and find another video. Or I'll switch to another app and wait until my video is ready. Now imagine that Apple makes some content in their iTunes Store free, supported by ads. Because you're on a mobile device without multitasking, you're going to be forced to watch that ad; you aren't at liberty to simply switch what program you're in. And it's not like you can simply go back and choose a different video, because Apple only has one of each movie/song/tv show/app/etc available on their Store. Not to mention you have to use their store, because you can't go to Hulu because they've blocked Flash. Apple's got you locked in.

If they start forcing you to interact with ads, it's over. My MacBook Pro, PowerBook, iPod touch, iPod nano, PowerMac G4... every Apple product I own will be sold, replaced with an i7 laptop that I can get for $1000. The main thing that's keeping me using Apple products is OS X, but if they make a boneheaded move of that magnitude, I can overlook the brilliant OS and move to Linux no problem. Somehow I doubt I am alone in this mindset.

 

[Mr Fish]

Yo dawg

Yo dawg,

Listen, we heard you like iPads, and we heard you like ads, so we went and put an iAd in your iPad, so you can iAd, while you iAdd, on your iPad! That's what I'mm talkin' about!

 

[nagromme]

I can see 10 potential objections to this:

1. The fear that ads served by Apple will provide a worse user experience than the ads already served by other services (seems extremely unlikely to me; ads already include everything from video to interactivity, and ideally you don’t get any of that unless you choose to tap--but with or without Apple, that’s always been up to the developer; do we really think Apple’s going to force unto us some whole new type of ad that’s more obnoxious than the status quo?)

2. The fear that ads served by Apple will be a real pain for developers to deploy, compared to other services (again extremely unlikely)

3. The fear that these ads won’t take the place other services, they’ll be in addition, so we see more ads than ever before: Apple-served ads alongside other services’ ads (again extremely unlikely: if a developer wants 2 ads they’ll show 2 ads—one more ad services won’t help them do that)

4. The fear that Apple will force developers to stop using other ad services they’ve already contracted with and designed their apps to use (again extremely unlikely)

5. The fear that Apple will include ads with the built-in apps, so you pay a fair price for hardware and then are also forced to watch ads (absurd)

6. The belief that more options for developers is a bad thing (but the option to show ads has always existed, with or without Quattro or Apple, and the option to sell paid apps is not going away—so buyers can keep voting with their wallets, and some people will always prefer free while others prefer paid)

7. The belief that Apple will allow ads in paid apps—like cable TV (maybe, maybe not—it could make sense in some cases where an app requires expensive servers forever—but developers won’t have to USE that option and few will: because that has ALWAYS been allowed, and users have always been free to take it or leave it—or give bad reviews)

8. The belief that free content should not exist at all, not even as an option for those who want it (but I for one do!)

9. The belief that good, quality free content doesn’t cost anything to create, and therefore should never have ads (but in fact it does cost something)

10. The fear that Apple might succeed in this business, and harm other ad companies that deserve more of that money themselves (I can’t see myself caring)

 

[MikhailT]

I hate web ads, especially video ads like YouTube has started to use. There's so much content available on the web that if a video starts off with a 30-second advertisement, I just hit the back button and find another video. Or I'll switch to another app and wait until my video is ready. Now imagine that Apple makes some content in their iTunes Store free, supported by ads. Because you're on a mobile device without multitasking, you're going to be forced to watch that ad; you aren't at liberty to simply switch what program you're in. And it's not like you can simply go back and choose a different video, because Apple only has one of each movie/song/tv show/app/etc available on their Store. Not to mention you have to use their store, because you can't go to Hulu because they've blocked Flash. Apple's got you locked in.

If they start forcing you to interact with ads, it's over. My MacBook Pro, PowerBook, iPod touch, iPod nano, PowerMac G4... every Apple product I own will be sold, replaced with an i7 laptop that I can get for $1000. The main thing that's keeping me using Apple products is OS X, but if they make a boneheaded move of that magnitude, I can overlook the brilliant OS and move to Linux no problem. Somehow I doubt I am alone in this mindset.

Umm, you are alone in that mindset because normal people would just refuse to buy iPhone/iPad. To get rid of all the computers because a phone is forcing you to watch advertisting for free content, makes absolutely no sense to me. I can assure you, iPhone/iPad won't be the only ones doing this, all the smartphones will have the same ads for those free content. That's the price you get for wanting free content, if you don't want ads, you pay for it.

 

[cwwilson]

iAd? Really Apple? Really?

Just no.

 

[aaronsullivan]

Now imagine that Apple makes some content in their iTunes Store free, supported by ads. Because you're on a mobile device without multitasking, you're going to be forced to watch that ad; you aren't at liberty to simply switch what program you're in. And it's not like you can simply go back and choose a different video, because Apple only has one of each movie/song/tv show/app/etc available on their Store. Not to mention you have to use their store, because you can't go to Hulu because they've blocked Flash. Apple's got you locked in.

Hulu will most likely have flash-free options in the near future. YouTube already does. CBS.com is testing right now. I find it astonishing that you can't do anything but stare at the screen of your mobile device while an ad is on. Do you wear a VR helmet all day or something?

I really, really dislike ads myself to the point of sheltering my daughter from them as much as possible, but the situation could be improved dramatically. Carefully targeted ads that are also determined by location could be more bearable and at times even --dare I say it?-- useful.

I look forward to Apple's approach on this. I expect a couple of upsides along with the bad.

 

[Stevamundo]

iPuke is coming!!!!!

Steve Harper reveals after iAd, the next revolutionary product that Apple will make is iPuke.

"iPuke is revolutionary new product bag from Apple that is designed to attach on the side of your iPad, iPod, iPhone and yes even on your old and obsolete Apple computers that Apple doesn't give a damn about.

Steve Jobs says, "That the iPuke is for our long time customers that still cares about Apple computers. If they read about our wonderful new products like the iPad, iPod, iPhone or iAd endlessly on sites like MacRumors, now they have a convenient place to throw up without running to their toilets." Jobs also added, “AN'T I COOL!”

The IPuke comes in three sizes. Small for $99, Medium for $199 and Large for $299.

Apple says “iPuke: making puking convenient.”

 

[RalfTheDog]

While I'm glad to see any competition against Google, it's uncomfortable to see Apple have Google-envy. It could make Apple take their eye off of their core products.

In many ways this is what is and has been happening to Microsoft. They have massive Google-envy. Vista and Office 2007 were not exactly well received and they were developed during the peak of Microsoft's Google-envy. They have mended their ways a bit though since then.

I hope Apple doesn't get too distracted by their battle with the evil empire (Google).

The Os and Office markets are spinning rapidly to irrelevance. If Microsoft were to keep them as their main focus, Microsoft would continue to dominate a rapidly shrinking market. Most people don't get excited over upgrading their operating system anymore. Even fewer people camp out three days in advance to pick up the newest version of Office.

If Microsoft wants to remain a company, they need to shift focus away from their current products and find new markets. If Apple wants to maintain it's momentum, they need to shift there primary focus away from laptop and desktop computers and move it to mobile devices and services.

That is not to say, Microsoft needs to stop making versions of Windows or Office. That is not to say Apple should stop making Laptops and desktops. They should no longer be the core business.

That is what iThink.

 

[dicklacara]

Except that you forgot iBook, iBooks, iMovie, iDVD, iLife, iCal, iSight, iChat, iWork, iPhoto, iDisk, and iWeb.

Did I miss anything? I feel like I am. Point being it's a lot more than your little list.

iCame, iSaw, iConquered! (veni, vidi, vici)

*

 

[dicklacara]

Hmm, can't help but think this is why Jobs didn't want Flash on his devices.

You remove the current standard for advertising and then create a system that only you control to allow advertisers back on...and with the rigerous controls, I don't think he'll be allowing plugins or addons to block this out.

Bingo!

... to all you iDudes and iDudas out there... we have a winner!

 

[lifeinhd]

I can assure you, iPhone/iPad won't be the only ones doing this, all the smartphones will have the same ads for those free content. That's the price you get for wanting free content, if you don't want ads, you pay for it.

Yes, but it won't be nearly as bad on most other phones because I can simply switch apps when an ad comes on. If I open a video on my Droid Eris and a 30-second ad pops up, I can just check my email while the ad plays in the background. Can't do that on an iPhone.

And if I don't want ads, I can usually find a free version of a video on the internet somewhere without them. In fact, the main place I see video ads nowadays is YouTube. I don't watch Hulu, but I watch a lot of Top Gear on Streetfire.net and have never once seen an ad. Hell, if you know where to look you can watch full movies on the internet without ads or having to pay (or having to open uTorrent either).

 

[dicklacara]

The ads will be on Apps. Some devs will choose to only release an ad-supported app, but most will offer a paid version as well. It only makes sense and if it's as easy to implement as Apple has suggested it will be, there would be almost no reason not to offer both.

This is a great idea, btw. If you want the free version, go for it. The dev still gets some income and you only have to deal with some ads. If you DO find the ads too distracting or annoying to deal with you have an option to pay up and clear them away. All without leaving your phone or device.

I suspect that Apple will rework the concept of "targeted direct advertising" to the benefit of users, sellers and advitisers, alike.

What if the user:

-- agreed to accept a quota (number/minutes) of ads, per whatever, in return for whatever.
-- could specify the topics/products/services that were of interest to him
-- could rate the ads ala TiVo thumbs up/down
-- could skip any ad (but wouldn't count in view quota)

This could benefit me-- I would get advertisments of interest to me!

It would benefit The sellers-- their products are being shown to interested [supposedly] qualified buyers!

It would benefit advertisers-- they would be able to measure the effectiveness/acceptability of their ads and adjust them accordingly.

... Personally, being an old fart, maybe I want to see the scooter ads and tho sexy 70-year-old women with facelifts... are you listening, Nancy?

Any more facelifts and she'll be wearing a goatee
--Phyllis Diller

I can remember (back in the 1950's and 1960's) when merchants gave GreenStamps (Blue Chip Stamps, etc.) with every purchase. You could save them (in booklets) until you had enough to exchange them for merchandise/services (TV, Toaster, Vacation, etc.)

It became so popular that people would buy stuff, just to get the stamps to exchange.

People would collect all types of stamps and trade, say GreenStamps, to others for, say Gold Stamps.


If iAd catches on, a secondary market could evolve where: users traded quotas and ads among themselves... My quota is 10 ads, but I watched 15... I have 5 to trade...

The mind boggles... this could resemble the floor of the stock exchange

*

 

[dicklacara]

At least you admit it.

Seriously, though. No matter how bad you think the iNames are, iJokes are just boring now. It's like popping up on boards and telling the chicken-cross-the-road joke. Maybe some people still get a kick out of it, I guess. My 4 year old daughter laughed at the chicken joke last night.

What did the doe say when she came out of the forest?

"That's the last time I'll do that for a couple of bucks".

*

 

[dicklacara]

I can see 10 potential objections to this:

1. The fear that ads served by Apple will provide a worse user experience than the ads already served by other services (seems extremely unlikely to me; ads already include everything from video to interactivity, and ideally you don’t get any of that unless you choose to tap--but with or without Apple, that’s always been up to the developer; do we really think Apple’s going to force unto us some whole new type of ad that’s more obnoxious than the status quo?)

2. The fear that ads served by Apple will be a real pain for developers to deploy, compared to other services (again extremely unlikely)

3. The fear that these ads won’t take the place other services, they’ll be in addition, so we see more ads than ever before: Apple-served ads alongside other services’ ads (again extremely unlikely: if a developer wants 2 ads they’ll show 2 ads—one more ad services won’t help them do that)

4. The fear that Apple will force developers to stop using other ad services they’ve already contracted with and designed their apps to use (again extremely unlikely)

5. The fear that Apple will include ads with the built-in apps, so you pay a fair price for hardware and then are also forced to watch ads (absurd)

6. The belief that more options for developers is a bad thing (but the option to show ads has always existed, with or without Quattro or Apple, and the option to sell paid apps is not going away—so buyers can keep voting with their wallets, and some people will always prefer free while others prefer paid)

7. The belief that Apple will allow ads in paid apps—like cable TV (maybe, maybe not—it could make sense in some cases where an app requires expensive servers forever—but developers won’t have to USE that option and few will: because that has ALWAYS been allowed, and users have always been free to take it or leave it—or give bad reviews)

8. The belief that free content should not exist at all, not even as an option for those who want it (but I for one do!)

9. The belief that good, quality free content doesn’t cost anything to create, and therefore should never have ads (but in fact it does cost something)

10. The fear that Apple might succeed in this business, and harm other ad companies that deserve more of that money themselves (I can’t see myself caring)

+++ QFT

*

 

[Ninakix]

The Os and Office markets are spinning rapidly to irrelevance. If Microsoft were to keep them as their main focus, Microsoft would continue to dominate a rapidly shrinking market. Most people don't get excited over upgrading their operating system anymore. Even fewer people camp out three days in advance to pick up the newest version of Office.

If Microsoft wants to remain a company, they need to shift focus away from their current products and find new markets. If Apple wants to maintain it's momentum, they need to shift there primary focus away from laptop and desktop computers and move it to mobile devices and services.

That is not to say, Microsoft needs to stop making versions of Windows or Office. That is not to say Apple should stop making Laptops and desktops. They should no longer be the core business.

That is what iThink.

Just because a product doesn't breed excitement doesn't mean it's not a valuable business arena. OS's are the bread and butter of the computing world, you can't really do that much without them. Pointing out, also, that if Apple or Microsoft were to reduce their skills in producing these OS's, you can bet that someone (probably a maker of a version of Linux) would move into this space. These products have partly done so well because Apple has its own OS and software system. Sure, other products/bussinesses may appear more challenging/requiring more resources because Apple doesn't have the same organizational expertise in producing those things, but I would still say the OS is at the core of Apple's business. It would be inane to try to dispute that.

 

[thetexan]

The big picture is as follows:

-Apple will build into the SDK some APIs for advertising using this new services.
-If you will display ads in an application, you must use these APIs for iAd. The excuse will be "for a more unified user experience from application to application" but the real answer is of course money.
-You'll get 70% ad revenue, Apple 30%.

I guarantee you Steve Jobs is pissed off beyond belief that applications are $0 in the app store yet they are still profitable for developers. To add insult to injury, Google is actually making revenue off free applications in the iTunes app store yet not Apple.

 

[Maserati7200]

They then developped "the sims".
So last the final apple killer product wil be.... the "I"!

They already did

 

[talkingnewmedia]

You guys seem to be coming at this from a completely different angle than I am as a media person.

First, I will admit that your prospective may be right but here is my view . . .

Everyone seems to see ads in mobile media as a complete negative. Yet year after year millions and millions of people buy magazines like Vogue, GQ, and other magazines specifically for the ads -- ads are part of the content they want. Same goes for newspapers: what is the Thanksgiving Day edition of any newspaper without all those ads?

If Apple is designing a mobile advertising platform that helps in the porting and creation of interesting and creative new advertising for mobile products, particularly for the iPad, this will be a dramatic development in electronic publishing.

Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but if print publishing is going to die, then electronic publishing only can succeed if advertisers support it AND readers embrace the advertising instead of being repelled by it.

No one likes advertising that is intrusive and irrelevant. But advertising that is relevant, creative and persuasive will always have a place in publishing.

That's my take. But what do I know, I'm a media guy.

 

[theneweyes]

Well, kind of makes sense. Why should Google be an advertising monopoly? Times are changing. On the other hand, I'm nostalgic about the iBook days, where the "i" part stood for a company dedicated to it's customers without gimmicky advertising.

 

[greygray]

One day Apple will force MR to make all their usernames start with an "i". Please. The "i" moniker is starting to sound real stupid.

 

[AidenShaw]

One day Apple will force MR to make all their usernames start with an "i". Please. The "i" moniker is starting to sound real stupid.

That would be a good April fool's trick - tweak the boards to show all names as i<name>

iAiden