Gurman: Apple Planning to Show Ads in Maps App Starting Next Year

[compwiz1202]

There are very few things in the world that piss me off more than ads.

If they are relevant and don't block everything, I don't mind so much. I hate the ones like I bought a TV and I get TV ads. I don't need more TVs right away. Be smart and send ads for stuff I would use WITH a TV.

 

[Mousse]

I’m all for voting with your $$$. For me, if I use Apple Maps less what to use more?

Paper maps and a TomTom or Garmin.

Grandpappy Moses (rest his soul) would scoff at using GPS and would only grudgingly use a map. "Dead reckoning and the stars is all a man needs to navigate the wilderness for 40 years."😁

 

[salutcemoi]

If they are relevant and don't block everything, I don't mind so much. I hate the ones like I bought a TV and I get TV ads. I don't need more TVs right away. Be smart and send ads for stuff I would use WITH a TV.

This tbh

 

[compwiz1202]

Reminder advertising is big business e.g., everyone knows Coke and Pepsi yet look how much they spend on advertising each year to keep their brand in the minds of consumers.





You may know they exist but if travelling, you may not know where they exist and a Maps search ad could be an opportunity for McD to highlight their presence over a Burger King, Wendy's, etc.

Also, I imagine some of these ads will be about more than just identifying a business location and could also promote new products, offers, sales, etc. that the user may be unaware of.

I absolutely did not need any ads to remind me McD existed with them on near every exit food sign And same with the Coke/Pepsi one, I prefer Coke, but if Pepsi yanked back all their ad revenue and halved their price, I would go with them every time.

 

[I7guy]

Paper maps and a TomTom or Garmin.

Grandpappy Moses (rest his soul) would scoff at using GPS and would only grudgingly use a map. "Dead reckoning and the stars is all a man needs to navigate the wilderness for 40 years."😁

While I do have a garmin nuvi as a backup, it has several advantages on long trips over apple maps. (and of course several disadvantages when compared to phone or built-in nav gps). And while I can read paper maps easily don't want to go back to those days.

 

[webkit]

That Apple wants to "triple" ad-revenues I believe is a fallout from this pending EU regulations, that could result in billions of lost revenues for Apple.

That didn't answer my question.

My question was, "what was Apple's adding search ads to the App Store in 2016 in response to?"

 

[vipergts2207]

There is no bloatware and times change. I don't know about others but I can put up with non-intrusive ads, done in a way that protects my privacy. With pending regulations, the ad-free days are over. Apple, imo, has to increase revenue to offset the potential loss in revenue. People will decide if they want to stick with Apple.

Yep, what Apple wanted back then was good for everybody. Today it is not.

As long as ads are clearly identified and I can skip them, I will be okay with those ads.

I wonder when Apple will dump the iOS naming scheme and start calling it adOS.

You said Apple wasn't benevolent. They are. They still are a for-profit company and have to sell goods and services at a price point that people are willing to buy and Apple makes the profit they want.

benevolent: serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose.

The world's most valuable corporation donating a tiny fraction of their profits to charity doesn't magically make them benevolent. However do feel free to let me know when they decide to follow in the steps of Newman's Own.

Seems to have gotten under your skin.

Projection. Also a word for word repeat of what I said lmao.

 

[Mousse]

I wonder when Apple will dump the iOS naming scheme and start calling it adOS.

May as well call it AdiOS then, because a lot of bitter iPhone users will be saying adios.

 

[vipergts2207]

That didn't answer my question.

My question was, "what was Apple's adding search ads to the App Store in 2016 in response to?"

An honest answer would be for the same reason as in 2022, the insatiable need for never ending growth and profits.

 

[I7guy]

I wonder when Apple will dump the iOS naming scheme and start calling it adOS.

I'm sure Apple gathers requirements from MacRumors posters. You never know.

benevolent: serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose.

Yes. They have given donations to multiple unrelated causes.

The world's most valuable corporation donating a tiny fraction of their profits to charity doesn't magically make them benevolent.

What a surprise. Another MacRumors poster telling someone else what they should be giving.

However do feel free to let me know when they decide to follow in the steps of Newman's Own.

This makes no sense. Apple is not a 501(c) company. In case you weren't aware, Apple is a for profit organization that has a corporate gift given program.

Projection. Also a word for word repeat of what I said lmao.

Projection...exactly what is happening...lol.

 

[I7guy]

That didn't answer my question.

My question was, "what was Apple's adding search ads to the App Store in 2016 in response to?"

The question isn't relevant to what is being discussed as tripling ad-revenue as a potential fallout from pending legislation.

 

[vipergts2207]

I'm sure Apple gathers requirements from MacRumors posters. You never know.

I'm just wondering if we'll see Apple be truthful about the reality of their product offering.

Yes. They have given donations to multiple unrelated causes.

What a surprise. Another MacRumors poster telling someone else what they should be giving.

This makes no sense. Apple is not a 501(c) company. In case you weren't aware, Apple is a for profit organization that has a corporate gift given program.

So now you admit Apple is not some benevolent charitable organization, but a for-profit enterprise. Glad we cleared that up.

Projection...exactly what is happening...lol.

Are you just going to continue to repeat what I say? This is no different than the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" children's rhyme.

 

[I7guy]

I'm just wondering if we'll see Apple be truthful about the reality of their product offering.

Depends I suppose on whose version of the truth.

So now you admit Apple is not some benevolent charitable organization, but a for-profit enterprise. Glad we cleared that up.

Yes, I admit that apple is not a benevolent charitable organization. They are a benevolent for profit corporation. Glad we cleared that up.

Are you just going to continue to repeat what I say?

Yes.

This is no different than the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" children's rhyme.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.

 

[lartola]

Depends I suppose on whose version of the truth.

Yes, I admit that apple is not a benevolent charitable organization. They are a benevolent for profit corporation. Glad we cleared that up.

Yes.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.

No, just a for profit corporation. Not benevolent at all. Rather the opposite.

 

[I7guy]

No, just a for profit corporation. Not benevolent at all. Rather the opposite.

benevolent

bə-nĕv′ə-lənt

adjective​

1. Characterized by or given to doing good.
2. Suggestive of doing good; agreeable.
3. Relating to a charitable organization that operates without making a profit.
4. Having a disposition to do good; possessing or manifesting love to mankind, and a desire to promote their prosperity and happiness; disposed to give to good objects; kind; charitable.
5. Having a disposition to do good.
6. Possessing or manifesting love for mankind.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

 

[vipergts2207]

Depends I suppose on whose version of the truth.

Oh, does your reality have a version of iOS without ads baked in? That must be a nice “truth”, but the rest of us live back here in the real world.

Yes, I admit that apple is not a benevolent charitable organization. They are a benevolent for profit corporation. Glad we cleared that up.

When 99.x% of their income goes to profit making, that’s not benevolent. I’m sure Putin treats those he likes rather generously. Doesn’t make him benevolent.

Yes.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.

Honestly, I have no response for these puerile comments.

 

[webkit]

The question isn't relevant to what is being discussed as tripling ad-revenue as a potential fallout from pending legislation.

You're the one that made it a topic of discussion by suggesting a specific motive/reason behind Apple potentially looking to add search ads to Maps. Apple is hardly new to the search ad business having launched these types of ads in the App Store back in 2016. It would be logical that their motive to expand their search ad business today would be similar to their motive to have gotten into that business in the first place back in 2016, especially given the success they’ve had. Yet you seem to think differently and want to make excuses for Apple and instead blame recent "outside forces" (upcoming EU regulations). I say "seem" since you still haven't answered my question. So, again, what do you think their motive was six years ago?

 

[I7guy]

[…]


When 99.x% of their income goes to profit making, that’s not benevolent. I’m sure Putin treats those he likes rather generously. Doesn’t make him benevolent.


[…]

Using Putin as an analogy? Well done /s Being benevolent doesn’t exclude profit making in the real world.

The rest of the post is just nonsense and beating the horse to death. No need to go around in circles.

Apple plans to triple its ad revenue. Those who don’t like it will move on.

 

[I7guy]

You're the one that made it a topic of discussion by suggesting a specific motive/reason behind Apple potentially looking to add search ads to Maps. Apple is hardly new to the search ad business having launched these types of ads in the App Store back in 2016. It would be logical that their motive to expand their search ad business today would be similar to their motive to have gotten into that business in the first place back in 2016, especially given the success they’ve had. Yet you seem to think differently and want to make excuses for Apple and instead blame recent "outside forces" (upcoming EU regulations). I say "seem" since you still haven't answered my question. So, again, what do you think their motive was six years ago?

Glad you understand the point being made. The fact that apple did have ads previously, but recently declared they would triple their ad business is very coincidental to the pending EU regulations.

 

[vipergts2207]

Using Putin as an analogy? Well done /s Being benevolent doesn’t exclude profit making in the real world.

Sure, but you don’t get to claim that characterization when it’s less than 1% of what you do. By that definition pretty much everyone could be described as benevolent.

The rest of the post is just nonsense and beating the horse to death. No need to go around in circles.

You can admit to not having a response. It’s ok.

Apple plans to triple its ad revenue. Those who don’t like it will move on.

Maybe, but in that meantime we can all discuss what an anti-user, trash move it is.

 

[vipergts2207]

You're the one that made it a topic of discussion by suggesting a specific motive/reason behind Apple potentially looking to add search ads to Maps. Apple is hardly new to the search ad business having launched these types of ads in the App Store back in 2016. It would be logical that their motive to expand their search ad business today would be similar to their motive to have gotten into that business in the first place back in 2016, especially given the success they’ve had. Yet you seem to think differently and want to make excuses for Apple and instead blame recent "outside forces" (upcoming EU regulations). I say "seem" since you still haven't answered my question. So, again, what do you think their motive was six years ago?

You’re not going to get a response to your question because there’s no justifiable response other than “to make more money” which kind of tears a hole in the argument that this is only being done because of new regulations.

 

[I7guy]

Sure, but you don’t get to claim that characterization when it’s less than 1% of what you do.

By whose yardstick?

By that definition pretty much everyone could be described as benevolent.

Horses for courses. I can claim Apple was benevolent and you can claim they weren't.

You can admit to not having a response. It’s ok.

No need to respond to nonsense.

Maybe, but in that meantime we can all discuss what an anti-user, trash move it is.

Or we can discuss the possible regulations that may have pushed Apple to want to increase it's ad revenue.

 

[I7guy]

You’re not going to get a response to your question because there’s no justifiable response other than “to make more money” which kind of tears a hole in the argument that this is only being done because of new regulations.

Moving the goalposts doesn't get a response.

 

[vipergts2207]

By whose yardstick?
Horses for courses. I can claim Apple was benevolent and you can claim they weren't.

Ok you win, by your definition of “benevolent” Apple is benevolent. And so is everybody else. You’ve removed all real meaning from the word by using it as such. Apple’s benevolent. I’m benevolent. You’re benevolent. Putin is benevolent. Everyone.

No need to respond to nonsense.

Quite rich coming from the guy playing a game of copycat…

Or we can discuss the possible regulations that may have pushed Apple to want to increase it's ad revenue.

You’re certainly free to put that idea out there. We’re also free to laugh at and ridicule the absurdity of the claim as well as post historical examples of Apple doing this same thing sans the threat of new regulations.

 

[I7guy]

Ok you win, by your definition of “benevolent” Apple is benevolent. And so is everybody else. You’ve removed all real meaning from the word by using it as such. Apple’s benevolent. I’m benevolent. You’re benevolent. Putin is benevolent. Everyone.

Condescension is a good deflection tactic . Nobody here can hold the claim to be a keeper of the universal truth.

Quite rich coming from the guy playing a game of copycat…

You’re certainly free to put that idea out there. We’re also free to laugh at and ridicule the absurdity of the claim as well as post historical examples of Apple doing this same thing sans the threat of new regulations.

Yup. I believe that everybody is free to discuss, move the goal posts, use strawman examples, etc