Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Probably the scariest post i have seen in a while and not sure if everyone would agree with your sentiment.

Looks Like Apple will put there polish on the Ad industry. I can't wait to see the new revolutionary ideas in the Ad space.

I don't like ads but if its done by Apple, I know I'll enjoy them.

iDisk

:apple:
 
Do you all think apple will force developers of free apps to use their service instead of AdMob, or just encourage them?

Forcing them would possibly be an antitrust problem, so I'd expect little more than encouragement (for example, being able to arrange payments and administer ads through iTunesConnect accounts).
 
True, and my idea is based upon much speculation. Apple already seems to be competent enough to help advertise the content they distribute (via the iTunes Music Store/App Store).

I'd just like to believe that Apple could do more with this acquisition than capitalize off of in-app ads. Though, if this can be used to make in-app ads easier to implement, more relevant and less intrusive while earning them revenue at the same time, it won't be such a bad thing. At least not as bad as those who feel this will cause an exodus of Apple customers.

Good conversation guys. Here is my two cents:

There is no reason to buy this company unless they wanted their expertise in a new area -- in this case, the tablet.

A question: what would prevent publishers from quickly adopting the Apple tablet as their preferred mobile media format? A way to monetize the publication.

Quattro Wireless sees themselves as assisting publishers publish to the iPhone by helping them integrate advertising into their apps, right? They also help advertisers use the formats they have created.

They seem to be doing a good job of this, but that alone doesn't seem like a good reason to buy them. If Apple wants their tablet to dominate the "reader" market (admitting the new tablet will not simply be a reader like what Skiff introduced) then they need to convince publishers that there are new revenue opportunities if they adopt the tablet as a format.

The problem I see is that so many publishers are completely unprepared for this new market -- heck, most traditional publishers are still struggling with the web.

But here is where the idea of "self-publishing" (I would prefer to call it "small publishing" because I still see it as a commercial venture) comes in: the creation of a viable "tablet media" could allow individuals or small companies to publish directly to a tablet format that is advertising supported (thanks to Quattro). This new form of media could compliment print publishing, or compete with it head on.

I personally believe the technology is way ahead of the publishing industry and that for mobile publishing to succeed new players may have to enter the scene. If we are all waiting for the folks at USA Today to show us what they can do on an Apple tablet we may be waiting a long time.

In the end, it is all speculation. Apple may have bought Quattro because they liked the name. ;)
 
I'm guessing its mobile advertising. Call me crazy, but given the IP of the company they just bought and their new department, I think its clear.

It will not happen overnight - but I could see GPS aware ads on the iPhone. For example, the GPS sees that you have entered into a Wal-Mart, at which time you will get a push notification about razors and soap.

I kinda like this idea. Maybe I am weird like that.
 
Good conversation guys. Here is my two cents:

There is no reason to buy this company unless they wanted their expertise in a new area -- in this case, the tablet.

...

Quattro Wireless sees themselves as assisting publishers publish to the iPhone by helping them integrate advertising into their apps, right? They also help advertisers use the formats they have created.

They seem to be doing a good job of this, but that alone doesn't seem like a good reason to buy them.

Money is a very good reason to buy them. Apple is unable to monetize the vast majority of apps in the appstore, yet Apple must pay for the infrastructure for reviewing, storing, and delivering these apps. Apple takes only 30% of the price of PAID apps, and nothing for ad-supported apps. Apple intends to continue to grow the appstore and the majority of the apps in the store will continue to be free, and most of those free apps will be ad-supported.

So how can Apple manage to make a little bit more money (beyond hardware sales) from the sale of free, ad-supported apps, in a manner that will scale the money as the number of apps (and hence the cost of their review, storage, and distribution) grows?

Well, one way would be to take a cut of the ad revenue.

So apple compares the cost of creating an ad network vs. the cost of making this purchase, and here we are.
 
And what makes you think that Quattro has expertise in the tablet area?

It's called speculating. ;)

But if the tablet is going to run a version of the iPhone OS, which is itself a version of OS X, then the leap would be a short one, wouldn't it? Who better to get the ball rolling on tablet formats than a company that already has experience with the iPhone?

As for Apple taking a cut of ad revenue, cmaier . . . Do you see the New York Times splitting their revenue with Apple? No way.

But, Apple wins either way. As I wrote on another site, Apple sells things: they created the iTunes to sell iPods, the app store to support the iPhone. If they could convince publishers to adopt their tablet they will sell a lot of tablets.

Competition is nice, but media needs dominate formats. Hearst does not want to have to design a mobile version of Sports Illustrated for the the Apple tablet, then redesign it again for the Kindle, and again for the Sony reader, and again for the Skiff Reader, etc. etc.

But I am only speculating. The good news is that a lot will become obvious by the end of the month.
 
It's called speculating. ;)



As for Apple taking a cut of ad revenue, cmaier . . . Do you see the New York Times splitting their revenue with Apple? No way.

what are you talking about? WHo said anything about the NY Times?

The vast majority of free apps are from independent publishers who use ad networks (for example, google adsense) to place ads in their apps. In exchange, Google pays the independent publisher (after taking their own cut). Advertisers bid for placement in the ads.

This is what Quattro is about. Advertisers pay them for placement, and Quattro pays the software developers after keeping a cut.

Huge publishers like Hearst and NY Times obviously have their own ad sales team and infrastructure, though for all I know they also use ad networks to fill in gaps.
 
what are you talking about? WHo said anything about the NY Times?

You made a simple statement: Well, one way would be to take a cut of the ad revenue.

That is what I responded to.

I agree that there is a very good chance they Apple is interested in ad networks -- I wouldn't put it past them. I also agree that finding a way to monetize free apps has to be something Apple desires, if only to offset the costs you mentioned.

Looking at the Quattro gallery, these guys are doing a lot interesting things beyond even advertising.
 
You made a simple statement: Well, one way would be to take a cut of the ad revenue.

That is what I responded to.

I thought it was obvious that since Quattro isn't even the predominant ad network in the mobile space (Admob, adsense, etc.) that my statement didn't imply that every developer must give a cut of its ads to apple. In fact, in another post in this thread I pointed out the antitrust implications if Apple mandated that ads be placed through its own network.
 
Linear content --> "In between" ads .......... Fragmented content --> "alongside" ads

Do you realise how insane this comment is?

Um, no. Hey, I didn't design the world, I just live in it. :p

Full page ads are far more distracting than banner ads. You only have to look at the ad supported iPhone apps to see that.

Okay, well... then consider television advertising as an alternative metaphor. Unlike the intricately interlinked web, TV content and magazine content are both consumed in a linear fashion: beginning to end. (You can skip around within a channel/issue of course, but only in a linear, front-to-back way.) This allows TV commercials and (most) magazine ads to exist "in between" pieces of content rather than simultaneously alongside it. In this way, the ads are not attempting to actively distract your eyes from your task at hand of consuming content, as web banner ads do. Rather, they temporarily take over completely from the content. (There are continuous attempts to replicate this on the web. In my opinion, only Hulu has managed to do it in a way that isn't annoyingly invasive: basically replicating the TV commercial approach.)

Web content, of course, is not consumed in a linear way; it's consumed in a largely fragmented way, often from multiple sources. There is no opportunity in that paradigm for "in between" advertising. Web advertisers have no choice but to try to distract you with "alongside" advertising because the web paradigm simply doesn't provide any other place for them to insert their messages during the consumption experience.

Assuming Apple's tablet is not marketed primarily as a web browser, but rather as a published content-consumer, the tablet experience might more closely emulate the linear content of television channels and magazine issues. If so, then Apple too could offer full-screen "in between" advertising to its content providers... and the Quattro folks might just be the ones to execute that job.

Personally, I think the whole idea of "ad supported" software is an evil joke and why there are ads of any kind on the iPhone I just don't understand. I pay $800-$900 dollars for a device, I pay $70 a month for the privilege of using it, and it has ads on it?

People will eat dirt out of the yard if you present it to them the right way I guess. :rolleyes:

So um, if you subscribe to a magazine, you expect to get issues with no ads in them? :confused:
 
Better targeted ads should mean less of your time wasted.
I mean does any one really want to see the whole ad break taken up with Feminine Hygiene and weight loss products.

Well, if these are really well targeted ads...
 
But if the tablet is going to run a version of the iPhone OS, which is itself a version of OS X, then the leap would be a short one, wouldn't it? Who better to get the ball rolling on tablet formats than a company that already has experience with the iPhone
I doubt Quattro has more experience with the mobile OSes than Apple does.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.