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

[I7guy]

The fact is apple states in 2010:
He set out the bold ambition that iAd would compete with Google to capture 50% of the mobile-ad market.

They then had 6% of the market. Now they have about 20% after they made addspace stricter on iOS as they can abuse their first party data.

They effectively compete by lowering everyone’s standard down to their level forcefully.

Apple: Surpassing Google As Biggest Ad Company? (NASDAQ:AAPL)

Apple is entering the digital advertising space. Thanks to ATT, the company could be the biggest ad company by revenue in the world. Read why here.

seekingalpha.com

And they already tripled their add revenue by doing their act.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/10/17/apple-tripled-its-ad-market-share-after-blocking-c/

The mountain of evidence points to this being just an ongoing process

So your opinion it’s an ongoing process and my opinion it’s been ongoing but a substantial change brought about by EU regulations.

 

[I7guy]

[…].

You seem pretty convinced that Apple is being FORCED to potentially add search ads to Maps […]

I’m convinced tripling the ad revenue has in part the fallout from EU regulations, with Apple Maps being more of priority fallout from that.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Privacy and ads are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to provide relevant adds? Yes it is.

So your suggesting apple has lousy ads? Worse user experience doesn’t impact privacy, it impacts sales.

Yes apple have lousy adds, if they had great adds they would have a bigger market share. Worse user experience doesn’t need to affect sales, especially when zero alternatives exist.

And adds are worse user privacy.

Yes it is.

By what metric. They are forced according to you to recoup their potentially lost future revenue.

I like how people play fast and loose with others’ money.

Nobody is playing with anyone money. With public available information and public statements by apple they make little to no profit on the appstore.

App Store wildly successful, but not hugely profitable for Apple

Despite a record quarter for the largest mobile application store on the market and Apple taking a 30 percent cut of all sales, the App Store for the iPhone and iPod touch is still not a big revenue generator for the handset maker.

appleinsider.com

Need the ads to offset the revenue loses due to eu regulations.

No they don’t. They have other options. They don’t need the add revenue.

Why don’t you give them the money to do so?

I did when I bought my apple devices. And potential future devices

Maybe tell the EU to retract this legislation.

How about apple leave the market.

Great what do you want apple to do? I’m glad people are annoyed at apple. Vote with your $$$ and dump your apple gear. That will show them.

To exit the add market when it comes to iOS. I expect my information to stay on my phone and not be used for any form of advertising as they originally have advertised as a selling point.

They can use whatever adds they want in 3d party applications and the AppStore.

There is zero possibility to vote with your $$$ when everyone does it. I’ll do it the moment an OS with zero adds exist again. Currently apple have the fewest adds.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So your opinion it’s an ongoing process and my opinion it’s been ongoing but a substantial change brought about by EU regulations.

Their history shows this as something inevitable. EU might have accelerated it. But it would always happen

 

[I7guy]

Their history shows this as something inevitable. EU might have accelerated it. But it would always happen

Yes I agree. The loss of potentially billions accelerated the push to find new revenue streams.

 

[I7guy]

If you want to provide relevant adds? Yes it is.

Could be they will not provide relevant ads.

Yes apple have lousy adds, if they had great adds they would have a bigger market share. Worse user experience doesn’t need to affect sales, especially when zero alternatives exist.

So worse user experience and non-relevant ads. Reminds me of the joke about the two old ladies in a restaurant:
-one says the food is lousy and the other says and such small portions.

And adds are worse user privacy.

I think it depends on how non-relevant the adds are.

By what metric. They are forced according to you to recoup their potentially lost future revenue.

By an opinion.

Nobody is playing with anyone money.

You are.

With public available information and public statements by apple they make little to no profit on the appstore.

App Store wildly successful, but not hugely profitable for Apple

Despite a record quarter for the largest mobile application store on the market and Apple taking a 30 percent cut of all sales, the App Store for the iPhone and iPod touch is still not a big revenue generator for the handset maker.

appleinsider.com

Irrelevant you can’t tell other companies it’s only a fraction of their income or it’s not a lot of money.

No they don’t. They have other options. They don’t need the add revenue.

No they don’t.

I did when I bought my apple devices. And potential future devices

Give them extra, like your tax refund, if you are sure apple can afford it. Help them along.

How about apple leave the market.

Sure that option is on the table.

To exit the add market when it comes to iOS. I expect my information to stay on my phone and not be used for any form of advertising as they originally have advertised as a selling point.

They can use whatever adds they want in 3d party applications and the AppStore.

There is zero possibility to vote with your $$$ when everyone does it. I’ll do it the moment an OS with zero adds exist again. Currently apple have the fewest adds.

It might be better to sell your apple gear.

 

[vipergts2207]

Nope that’s your theory.

It's not though. It's literally part of yours. You even admitted it, dude lmao.

Edit: Apple maps is a fallout.

Nope, only one assumption. Apple will lose billions.

Indeed, you are assuming Apple will lose billions. Saying Apple is trying to triple ad revenue specifically because of the aforementioned loss in the EU is also an assumption. There's at least two assumptions you've made.

 

[I7guy]

It's not though. It's literally part of yours. You even admitted it, dude lmao.





Indeed, you are assuming Apple will lose billions. Saying Apple is trying to triple ad revenue specifically because of the aforementioned loss in the EU is also an assumption. There's at least two assumptions you've made.

The thing is you can’t prove those two events are not linked. Therefore there exists the possibility that may be apples thoughts.

 

[bmark]

Does anyone even use Apple Maps? Their mapping software is garbage!

 

[lartola]

It’s not black and white. You just seem to support any de apple does irrespective if it’s good or bad for consumers as long as it’s potentially good for the shareholders you support it

And everything Apple does, potentially good for shareholders, is usually bad for consumers. Therefore we can say I7guy just blindly supports anything Apple does.

 

[vipergts2207]

The thing is you can’t prove those two events are not linked. Therefore there exists the possibility that may be apples thoughts.

It’s your supposition, it’s your responsibility to show that it’s true. It’s been shown Apple was already doing this kind of thing before, which is far weightier evidence than anything you’ve managed to provide.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Could be they will not provide relevant ads.

Then nobody will pay them for said addspace. And it fails again and goes back to google or Facebook.

So worse user experience and non-relevant ads. Reminds me of the joke about the two old ladies in a restaurant:
-one says the food is lousy and the other says and such small portions.

Customers aren’t the one paying for adds. It’s companies that pay for that. The user experience just suffers the consequences as the merchandise.

When it comes to adds you are the product for sale.

I think it depends on how non-relevant the adds are.

How about non existent. Non relevant adds are just in the way.

By an opinion.

Can you provide data supporting your assertion? Considering I have provided data supporting my view of it being an ongoing proces. If EU didn’t have their laws they wouldn’t have had adds is the logical conclusion by you. Something we know is not accurate.

You are.

Irrelevant you can’t tell other companies it’s only a fraction of their income or it’s not a lot of money.

I’m not. They haven’t earned this money and are just future projects potential revenue. Apple doesn’t own fire money they haven’t earned yet.

No they don’t.

They can innovate, invent a new device as they have done numerous times before. Increase the price of their devices as they have done numerous times before.

Come with a new service as they done numerous times before.

Give them extra, like your tax refund, if you are sure apple can afford it. Help them along.

Apple can afford it. They don’t need my money to invest in things. That’s what they use their profits for. Or go to a bank loan

Sure that option is on the table.

It might be better to sell your apple gear.

Why would I sell My apple gear when I already have departed from my money to buy what replacement equipment?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And everything Apple does, potentially good for shareholders, is usually bad for consumers. Therefore we can say I7guy just blindly supports anything Apple does.

Shame considering 60-80% of what apple does is good for consumers. It just happens that 10%~ are just extremely horribly but extremely good for investors

 

[webkit]

I’m convinced tripling the ad revenue has in part the fallout from EU regulations, with Apple Maps being more of priority fallout from that.

How are you convinced when Apple has been in the mobile advertising business for decades and has been trying to grow that part of the business for decades, dating back to at least 2010 with things like iAd. Long before EU regulations. While iAd didn’t work out as well as they hoped, Apple's search ad business has been very successful and has grown significantly over the past five years or so. It's therefore only natural that they would look to expand it even further regardless of EU regulations.

The reality is that significantly growing mobile advertising revenue has been something they'd been hoping to do for a long time but it's only been in recent years that they finally found a business model that works well for them. It's the success of their search ad business, not the EU regulations, that is driving this push for even more success.

Given all of this, it doesn't make sense to conclude that Apple has been FORCED to consider expaniding their ad business because of proposed EU regulations. You'd have to ignore the fact that the various things I mentioned above ever happened.

 

[I7guy]

It’s your supposition, it’s your responsibility to show that it’s true. It’s been shown Apple was already doing this kind of thing before, which is far weightier evidence than anything you’ve managed to provide.

It’s my opinion and the thing is it can’t be disproved. Doesn’t mean it’s true, just means it can’t be disproved.

 

[I7guy]

Then nobody will pay them for said addspace. And it fails again and goes back to google or Facebook.

That may be.

Customers aren’t the one paying for adds. It’s companies that pay for that. The user experience just suffers the consequences as the merchandise.

Yes, one will have to make the call of what they want to do if they are annoyed enough.

When it comes to adds you are the product for sale.

It depends on how it’s implemented.

How about non existent. Non relevant adds are just in the way.

Privacy is preserved though.

Can you provide data supporting your assertion? Considering I have provided data supporting my view of it being an ongoing proces. If EU didn’t have their laws they wouldn’t have had adds is the logical conclusion by you. Something we know is not accurate.

The only data you olprivided is that apple did this previously. And no it’s just opinion.

I’m not. They haven’t earned this money and are just future projects potential revenue. Apple doesn’t own fire money they haven’t earned yet.

You can’t be saying apple is rich, they can afford it.

They can innovate, invent a new device as they have done numerous times before. Increase the price of their devices as they have done numerous times before.

Sure they could do 100’s of things to make up the money that is being lost due to EU regulations.

Come with a new service as they done numerous times before.

Sure they can do this too. Maybe post some examples of things apple should do.

Apple can afford it. They don’t need my money to invest in things. That’s what they use their profits for. Or go to a bank loan

There you go telling others how to manage their money.

Why would I sell My apple gear when I already have departed from my money to buy what replacement equipment?

Because you dislike the ads?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It depends on how it’s implemented.

Privacy is preserved though.

It doesn’t depend. It’s 100% always you are the product. Companies pay for the ability to show you adds to potentially buy their product.

If the adds want to be effective they must be relevant to the person looking them up.

If I look after windys hamburger I don’t need to see an add for McDonald’s(I would find it annoying). And only reason I would see that add is because they know that I’m looking for food and shows this add

If I look up food restaurant and see an add for paint shop 10 hours away in a different country it would be literally wasted expensive add space

Privacy can’t by definition not be maintained

The only data you olprivided is that apple did this previously. And no it’s just opinion.

Data apple did it in the past. Data apple did it recently. Data apple is doing continuously. And data apple increases their add market share by 300% after they banned the common ways adds are run

Apple puts more adverts in App Store after ad-tracking ban - BBC News

After a move to limit ad tracking by other companies, Apple expands its own advertising business.

www.bbc.com

You don’t build this infrastructure over a few weeks. This is years in the making.

You can’t be saying apple is rich, they can afford it.

Their money their investment.

Sure they could do 100’s of things to make up the money that is being lost due to EU regulations.

No money is lost. You can’t lose something you don’t have yet. Future earnings aren’t realized.

Sure they can do this too. Maybe post some examples of things apple should do.

Apple car, apple router, apple consol, apple game studio,

There you go telling others how to manage their money.

I’m not telling them how to manage their money.

The money isn’t theirs until it’s earned.
If apple made 10 billion dollars and later had to return 9 billion, that’s a loss.

If Apple thought they would make 10 billion but earned 1 billion, they didn’t suffer a 9 billion dollar loss.

Because you dislike the ads?

And do what? Buy google gear and still suffer adds?

I bought apple gear because of privacy and zero adds. The belief I’m the customer not the product.

So I will just have to tolerate it until I can jailbreak my device and remove it or side load the apps without adds.

 

[I7guy]

It doesn’t depend. It’s 100% always you are the product. Companies pay for the ability to show you adds to potentially buy their product.

It doesn’t matter if you are the product if privacy is preserved.

If the adds want to be effective they must be relevant to the person looking them up.

Who determines relevancy?

If I look after windys hamburger I don’t need to see an add for McDonald’s(I would find it annoying). And only reason I would see that add is because they know that I’m looking for food and shows this add

That’s google for you. Apple should not do what google is doing.

If I look up food restaurant and see an add for paint shop 10 hours away in a different country it would be literally wasted expensive add space

Do you pay for the bits? I would ignore ads I do t find relevant.

Privacy can’t by definition not be maintained

I disagree based on how it’s implemented.

Data apple did it in the past. Data apple did it recently. Data apple is doing continuously. And data apple increases their add market share by 300% after they banned the common ways adds are run

Did it in the past and now apple is ramping up according to them.

Apple puts more adverts in App Store after ad-tracking ban - BBC News

After a move to limit ad tracking by other companies, Apple expands its own advertising business.

www.bbc.com

You don’t build this infrastructure over a few weeks. This is years in the making.

You don’t know what was developed when. Everything you suggest is predicated on an opinion.

Their money their investment.

No, you are clearly telling them they are rich and can afford it.

No money is lost. You can’t lose something you don’t have yet. Future earnings aren’t realized.

Money will be lost.

Apple car, apple router, apple consol, apple game studio,

If apple is smart they will listen to you.

I’m not telling them how to manage their money.

Yes you are by saying :” they are rich and can afford it”.

The money isn’t theirs until it’s earned.
If apple made 10 billion dollars and later had to return 9 billion, that’s a loss.

If Apple thought they would make 10 billion but earned 1 billion, they didn’t suffer a 9 billion dollar loss.

And do what? Buy google gear and still suffer adds?

I bought apple gear because of privacy and zero adds. The belief I’m the customer not the product.

So I will just have to tolerate it until I can jailbreak my device and remove it or side load the apps without adds.

All of this is just nonsense. You have yet to prove there is no correlation between the impending EU rules and the ramp up of ads.

While ads in maps are going to annoy me, I can imagine the push back if ads displayed on CarPlay screens.

 

[lartola]

Shame considering 60-80% of what apple does is good for consumers. It just happens that 10%~ are just extremely horribly but extremely good for investors

No you got it wrong, 60-80% of what Apple does is bad for consumers. Just look at their main product, the iphone: extremely thin, sealed -both of which make it hardly repairable and not upgradable-, very expensive, the screen cracks easily, software too restrictive. Not one thing of it is good for consumers.

 

[vipergts2207]

It’s my opinion and the thing is it can’t be disproved. Doesn’t mean it’s true, just means it can’t be disproved.

Hitchen’s razor takes care of that rather easily then. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Glad we settled that one.

 

[vipergts2207]

All of this is just nonsense. You have yet to prove there is no correlation between the impending EU rules and the ramp up of ads.

See above. It’s nobody else’s responsibility to disprove your claim. The burden of proof on the truthfulness of your claim lies with you.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It doesn’t matter if you are the product if privacy is preserved.

Who determines relevancy?

The company paying for the add-space.

That’s google for you. Apple should not do what google is doing.

Indeed, but it’s what they are doing

Do you pay for the bits? I would ignore ads I do t find relevant.

I find adds annoying when they exist where they shouldn’t be. Example in my 1.000$ phone.

Did it in the past and now apple is ramping up according to them.

You don’t know what was developed when. Everything you suggest is predicated on an opinion.

It’s predicated on past and continuing actions

No, you are clearly telling them they are rich and can afford it.

I’m telling them it’s not my responsibility to subsidize their inventions more than i already did with my initial investment in their gods and services.

Money will be lost.

Unsubstantiated claim.

If apple is smart they will listen to you.

Yes you are by saying :” they are rich and can afford it”.

As before. I’m not their bank or venture capitalist. I won’t pay for their R&D without return on investment

All of this is just nonsense. You have yet to prove there is no correlation between the impending EU rules and the ramp up of ads.

Unsubstantiated claims you made. Your opinions foundation is speculation without evidence, correlation with no causation. I have provided evidence for my claim.

You don’t prove there is no link, you have to prove a link exist. Q

The DMA was first drafted in December 2020.

The EU’s Digital Markets Act: There Is A Lot To Like, but Room for Improvement

After lengthy consultations and many rumors and leaks, the European Commission has released its public draft of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which, along with the Digital Services Act (DSA,) represents the first major overhaul of EU Internet legislation in the 21st Century. Like the DSA, the...

www.eff.org

Apple published their new advertisement rules in September of 2020 to be launched with iOS 14.

Apple, under pressure from advertisers and developers, will wait 6 months to enforce new privacy rules

Apple and Facebook are fighting again. This time it’s about ads and privacy.

www.vox.com

Apple delayed it to early 2021.
And as a result they tripled their market share by the end of 2021.

Apple Tripled Its Ad Market Share After Blocking Competitors from Targeting Consumers | The Motley Fool

The company that added a middling U2 album to half a billion customers' music libraries without asking and is currently being sued for allegedly...

www.fool.com

While ads in maps are going to annoy me, I can imagine the push back if ads displayed on CarPlay screens.

 

[I7guy]

The company paying for the add-space.

Indeed, but it’s what they are doing

I find adds annoying when they exist where they shouldn’t be. Example in my 1.000$ phone.

It’s predicated on past and continuing actions

I’m telling them it’s not my responsibility to subsidize their inventions more than i already did with my initial investment in their gods and services.

Unsubstantiated claim.

As before. I’m not their bank or venture capitalist. I won’t pay for their R&D without return on investment

Unsubstantiated claims you made. Your opinions foundation is speculation without evidence, correlation with no causation. I have provided evidence for my claim.

You don’t prove there is no link, you have to prove a link exist. Q

The DMA was first drafted in December 2020.

The EU’s Digital Markets Act: There Is A Lot To Like, but Room for Improvement

After lengthy consultations and many rumors and leaks, the European Commission has released its public draft of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which, along with the Digital Services Act (DSA,) represents the first major overhaul of EU Internet legislation in the 21st Century. Like the DSA, the...

www.eff.org

Apple published their new advertisement rules in September of 2020 to be launched with iOS 14.

Apple, under pressure from advertisers and developers, will wait 6 months to enforce new privacy rules

Apple and Facebook are fighting again. This time it’s about ads and privacy.

www.vox.com

Apple delayed it to early 2021.
And as a result they tripled their market share by the end of 2021.

Apple Tripled Its Ad Market Share After Blocking Competitors from Targeting Consumers | The Motley Fool

The company that added a middling U2 album to half a billion customers' music libraries without asking and is currently being sued for allegedly...

www.fool.com

As is typical in this internet battle of taking points, nobody is swayed by the arguments and there is always a counter-omit to a point. Having said that I hope you enjoy the ads, because imo, these regulations just pushed forward with velocity what may have taken some time to implement.

 

[vipergts2207]

As is typical in this internet battle of taking points, nobody is swayed by the arguments and there is always a counter-omit to a point. Having said that I hope you enjoy the ads, because imo, these regulations just pushed forward with velocity what may have taken some time to implement.

You know, taking this comment at face value for a moment, if implementation of these ads were simply placed on an accelerated time table because of new regulations, then it was still worth enacting them. Ads may come to iOS a couple years sooner than they may have originally, but these regs will rein in Apple’s behavior for decades to come.

 

[I7guy]

You know, taking this comment at face value for a moment, if implementation of these ads were simply placed on an accelerated time table because of new regulations, then it was still worth enacting them. Ads may come to iOS a couple years sooner than they may have originally, but these regs will rein in Apple’s behavior for decades to come.

These regs are a bad thing. Of course we don’t know apples response yet to these regs, but ad revenue is a low hanging fruit. And an easy way to increase revenue. Earning revenue for apple and making the experience worse for apple customers.

As pogo says: “we have met the enemy and they are us “.