or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › IDC offers scathing prediction of certain death for Apple's iAd program
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IDC offers scathing prediction of certain death for Apple's iAd program

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 
Apple is reported to be reaching out to advertisers to improve its iAd program, but its third place share of the market doesn't seem to reflect the bumbling failure it is being portrayed as by IDC's marketing analysts.

A report by the Wall Street Journal describes iAd as being a disaster, saying that advertisers' "response so far has been tepid," and complaining that marketers are turned off by iAd's "high price tag" and "Apple's hard-charging sales tactics and its stringent control over the creative process."

The report, titled "Apple's Rare Compromise," stated that "Apple is now discussing ad deals with a minimum commitment of just $400,000, according to a person familiar with the matter."

In reality it was publicly reported back in July that Apple had begun offering new iAd packages for as little as $300,000 to woo new advertising clients such as Citigroup and JC Penny, as Apple continued to expand its program outside of its initial million dollar iAd launch clients.

The article also stated that while Apple makes its money from hardware, not ad sales, the "state of the [iAd] service could affect developer loyalty to its platforms over time," imagining in print that software developers "are increasingly interested in building software for Android devices and getting advertising checks from Google," a daring observation made without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Apple working with clients to improve iAd

The report did indicate that Apple's iAd team had established a training program with media buying agency OMD, to gain new insight into the mobile marketing world.

As part of the program, Apple reportedly invited 30 senior marketing executives from companies including Clorox, PepsiCo and JC Penny to its campus to engage in sessions with the company's designers and product teams. While a first for Apple, campus meetings like these are something that has become a "standard tactic" for "ad-dependent" tech firms "like Google, Yahoo and Facebook," the report noted.

IDC, which tracks mobile advertising market share, said Apple's share of the market has dipped from 19 percent at the end of last year (when it was tied with Google), to 15 percent this year. Google has edged up to a 24 percent share this year.



However, Apple entered the mobile advertising business by purchasing Quattro Wireless at the end of 2009, back when that firm had only a 9 percent share of the market. Google then had a 27 percent share, but as IDC reported last fall, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo "swiftly lost share" after Apple's iAd debuted in July 2010.

Google has since won back a portion of its initial position, but Microsoft has fallen from 10 to 7 to 6 percent share over the past three years, while Yahoo has dropped from 12 to 9 to 8 percent share over the same period.

Unlike the ad-centric paid search results businesses of Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing, Apple entered the market with iAd to incentivize App Store development, and did not expect to turn a huge profit from its new advertising business.

The idea that Apple is dramatically losing market share in terms of ad dollars collected is therefore an intriguing way to portray iAd as a failure, particularly given the poor performance of the mobile ad market overall.

IDC predicts iAd will fade away

IDC analyst Karsten Weide failed to connect those dots when interviewed by the Wall Street Journal however, announcing instead that "Apple we believe will, over time, fade into the background," in the market for mobile ads, largely because Apple's iAd program only advertises to iOS devices.

Weide said iAd "was attempted to make sure that even consumers advertising experience on Apple devices was perfect, but it hasn't really worked."

Apple is currently straddled with 15 percent of the $630 million mobile ad market, putting it in third position behind Google and Millennial Media, but ahead of Jumptap, Microsoft and Yahoo.

Apple's share is actually larger than Microsoft and Yahoo combined, making it curious why the Wall Street Journal and IDC worked so hard to portray iAd's $95 million in revenue as a fumbling failure destined for certain death.

Apple paid $275 million for Quattro Wireless at the end of 2009, after losing its bid to acquire AdMob, which Google paid $750 million for in its parallel efforts to enter the mobile ad market.
post #2 of 56
Let's face it, Apple is not an ad agency, but they should form revenue sharing deals with a number of smaller, smart, nimble agencies who are willing.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #3 of 56
15% doesn't seem too bad for the time Apple has been at the mobile ad game.

The analysis seems rather short-sighted as it makes no mention of the potential game-changing effect that Siri will have on Google and others ability to advertise(at least on iOS). Once Apple is able to fluidly connect Siri with iAd it will be a whole other story.
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
post #4 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

15% doesn't seem too bad for the time Apple has been at the mobile ad game.

No kidding! Talk about some odd reporting. Quattro Wireless had 9% of the mobile ad business in late 2009. Apple bought them and, in 2 years, increased that to 15% of the mobile ad business.

And this is bad?
post #5 of 56
Not because they question iAD (I do as well) but their numbers are known to be dead wrong:

"Apple is currently straddled with 15 percent of the $630 million mobile ad market,"

Given we know for 100% certainty that Google alone has a $2.5 billion/year run rate on mobile (with 2/3 coming from iOS), the 630 million is just dead wrong on all accounts.

Can I get a job making lots of money making up opinions based on faulty data?
post #6 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

15% doesn't seem too bad for the time Apple has been at the mobile ad game.

The analysis seems rather short-sighted as it makes no mention of the potential game-changing effect that Siri will have on Google and others ability to advertise(at least on iOS). Once Apple is able to fluidly connect Siri with iAd it will be a whole other story.

The question is, why would I want this? We all complain about Google raping our identities for ads, why is it okay for Apple to do the same? Apple does not need the revenue from ads, and I'm pretty sure they created iAd in an attempt to simply limit Google's income. Apple has your money when you buy the device, and make you want to buy another device by selling you apps, getting you into iTunes, iBooks, etc., and providing top-notch support when any issues come up.

OTOH, Google has your identity, and then sells it for profit. Not exactly the type of company I want Apple, who seems to be one of the leaders in customer privacy, to turn into.
post #7 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Let's face it, Apple is not an ad agency, but they should form revenue sharing deals with a number of smaller, smart, nimble agencies who are willing.

We don't really need more Ads in general. It's completely stupid, and it is a bad way for Apple to push growth. You go to a site like google to search for things. They collect information. They do serve ad content, but you are not paying google to search their database. You are paying Apple for a phone and any applicable apps.
post #8 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Let's face it, Apple is not an ad agency, but they should form revenue sharing deals with a number of smaller, smart, nimble agencies who are willing.

Yes, It all seems a bit of a half assed effort. If the big Apple Television thing happens life for iAds may change, but I wouldn't bank on it.
post #9 of 56
It's not such a bad thing that Apple sucks at selling its customers.
post #10 of 56
iAds is supposed to be a way for developers to generate income from Apps.

More good, cheap/free apps for the iOS platform is good for Apple. The only relevant question from this perspective is does the iAds income from an iOS app equal or exceed that from an Android app (or is it at least sufficient to tip the balance in favor of developing for iOS)?

If, and this is a big if, thanks to market share of Android and great mobile ad revenue, developers start prioritizing Android development then that would be a problem.

The way to get an answer to that would be to hear from developers with large-volume ad-supported apps on both platforms.
post #11 of 56
iArrogant- When iAd launched July 2010, Apple originally asked marketers to commit to spend at least $1 million dollars. Today, less than 1.5yrs later $300,000.

iBlunder- Apple has also introduced more flexibility to a pricing structure that had befuddled advertisers, ad executives say.
Instead of charging marketers every time a user taps on an ada policy which often led to ad budgets quickly being exhaustedApple is willing to put a cap on what it charges for the taps, according to the person. Advertisers pay $10 every time an ad is viewed a thousand times and $2 every time it is tapped on.

iFail- "Apple said, 'Let's try to disrupt the advertising business.' On this one, they didn't succeed," says Alexandre Mars, head of mobile for Publicis Groupe SA. "They know that they need to adapt themselves now if they want to survive - even if it is Apple."


Read the complete article at: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...#ixzz1gOFlJA00

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #12 of 56
I think iAd is important as an enticement to developers. iAd continues to generate revenue for the best developers well after their apps have reached market saturation.

I would like to see Apple purchase Hulu and use iAd as their advertising platform for a reinvigorated, re-envisioned Apple version of Hulu. If Apple could offer a basic programming package for iTV supported by advertising revenue from iAd they would virtually ensure the success of both iAd and iTV in my opinion.
post #13 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

I think iAd is important as an enticement to developers. iAd continues to generate revenue for the best developers well after their apps have reached market saturation.

I would like to see Apple purchase Hulu and use iAd as their advertising platform for a reinvigorated, re-envisioned Apple version of Hulu. If Apple could offer a basic programming package for iTV supported by advertising revenue from iAd they would virtually ensure the success of both iAd and iTV in my opinion.

I would love apple to buy them too. But I don't know off the top of my head anything apple has given for free.
I guess iTunes- which is a great media organizer- but we know that's a means to an end. I guess they could use Hulu and have it exclusively on apple tv- but I'm not sure if that'd even be allowed (and almost impossible to recapture the money they would have purchased it for). That'd be a ton of ad revenue just to recapture the purchase price if it was open market. Same thing with Netflix- it just doesn't seem profitable enough for apple- and they don't "open source" anything. I dont see it fitting.... BUT- I, too, wish they would.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #14 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

iAds is supposed to be a way for developers to generate income from Apps.

Where do you think that income is coming from? Advertisers! Advertisers feel they are not getting their money's worth with iAd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

More good, cheap/free apps for the iOS platform is good for Apple. The only relevant question from this perspective is does the iAds income from an iOS app equal or exceed that from an Android app (or is it at least sufficient to tip the balance in favor of developing for iOS)?

Give iOS app developers a larger cut? Wrong perspective to have if you want to iAd to survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

If, and this is a big if, thanks to market share of Android and great mobile ad revenue, developers start prioritizing Android development then that would be a problem.

It's already a problem.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #15 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

15% doesn't seem too bad for the time Apple has been at the mobile ad game.

The analysis seems rather short-sighted as it makes no mention of the potential game-changing effect that Siri will have on Google and others ability to advertise(at least on iOS). Once Apple is able to fluidly connect Siri with iAd it will be a whole other story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post

No kidding! Talk about some odd reporting. Quattro Wireless had 9% of the mobile ad business in late 2009. Apple bought them and, in 2 years, increased that to 15% of the mobile ad business.

And this is bad?

Yes it is.

Since iAd is only on iOS devices, and iOS devices have a 28% market share, shouldn't iAd have 28% market share as well?

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #16 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

iArrogant- When iAd launched July 2010, Apple originally asked marketers to commit to spend at least $1 million dollars. Today, less than 1.5yrs later $300,000.

iBlunder- Apple has also introduced more flexibility to a pricing structure that had befuddled advertisers, ad executives say.
Instead of charging marketers every time a user taps on an ada policy which often led to ad budgets quickly being exhaustedApple is willing to put a cap on what it charges for the taps, according to the person. Advertisers pay $10 every time an ad is viewed a thousand times and $2 every time it is tapped on.

iFail- "Apple said, 'Let's try to disrupt the advertising business.' On this one, they didn't succeed," says Alexandre Mars, head of mobile for Publicis Groupe SA. "They know that they need to adapt themselves now if they want to survive - even if it is Apple."


Read the complete article at: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...#ixzz1gOFlJA00

iWhoCares - the total mobile display market is $630MM? So the difference between 15% and 24%(Google) market share is roughly $57MM. Apple just sold that many iPhones, iPads, and MACs in Grand Central Station over the weekend.
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

I would love apple to buy them too. But I don't know off the top of my head anything apple has given for free.
I guess iTunes- which is a great media organizer- but we know that's a means to an end. I guess they could use Hulu and have it exclusively on apple tv- but I'm not sure if that'd even be allowed (and almost impossible to recapture the money they would have purchased it for). That'd be a ton of ad revenue just to recapture the purchase price if it was open market. Same thing with Netflix- it just doesn't seem profitable enough for apple- and they don't "open source" anything. I dont see it fitting.... BUT- I, too, wish they would.

Your statements confound me.

"...I don't know off the top of my head anything apple has given for free."

While iCloud is essentially rebranding of MobileMe, iCloud is an outstanding service primarily because it is free.

The "PC Free" feature in iOS 5 shouldn't be under appreciated either; "PC Free" implies and realistically allows use of iOS devices without requiring a computer. In the instance of iPad this almost certainly costs Apple some sales of MacBooks.

AppleTV includes Netflix, YouTube and a few other services that, while they make a more compelling value proposition for AppleTV almost certainly reduce iTunes revenue from movie rentals (and TV shows).

iTunes Movie Trailers is free as well albeit (most likely) another revenue stream (although I am unsure how the app generates revenue).

Apple provides updates to their entire iOS product line for a couple of years at no cost. Although this may not seem important immediately, the implication is that Apple wants you to be sufficiently satisfied with their current products that upgrading is a compelling value proposition rather than compulsory.


"...they don't "open source" anything..."

You should review the following website for an extensive list of Apple's contributions to the open source community.

http://www.apple.com/opensource/
post #18 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

15% doesn't seem too bad for the time Apple has been at the mobile ad game.

The analysis seems rather short-sighted as it makes no mention of the potential game-changing effect that Siri will have on Google and others ability to advertise(at least on iOS). Once Apple is able to fluidly connect Siri with iAd it will be a whole other story.

If you were to ask Siri where the closest coffee shop is, do you want her to tell you the closest one or the one that paid for an ad?

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #19 of 56
You all are forgetting one thing not factored into this report designed to circumvent the impenidny threat that is Apple in the advertising arena, that is already beginning to unseat traditional means of advertising (print), and is now moving into the Internet arena.

iOS "mobile" devices may be the only thing that run iOS and iAd under the purview of this incomplete (intentionally incomplete and thus misleading) analysis report. Apple came into the living room, if no one has remembered that, via the use of a small, $100 box that's also such a threat cable and internet providers are scrambling to determine a way to circumnavigate it without encountering anti-trust violations (they ARE "Utilities", after all) :

Apple TV

I can't say that apple will build an actual television. With their history it would be overpriced and buggy, but I can see them building a set top box, as they already have, with increased functionality, and it runs iOS, and thus in theory also be compatible for iAds.

That now provides an entirely new market and audience, especially ad people begin to decouple from traditional cable tv offerings and the model leans more and more to a la carte service that promises to change the paradigm.

(I take many articles with a grain of salt here on AI, as I overheard an HP exec stating they were dropping tablet devices completely due to not being able to complete with apple) but I do believe they changes their name to Apple Inc and now consider themselves a "consumer electronics" company for a reason and they will produce a device that changes televising in the next year.

I mean, that should have been obvious when they installed a mini hdmi on the Mac Mini and shrunk the Apple tv to a box that no longer could hold a HDD.

The message was clear:
if you want a media pc, get a mac mini.
If you want to have streamlined access to iTunes and programming, get an Apple TV.
Also, the price and it's foot print ENSURED many would purchase it and if they can find a way to slash the price further, I guarantee you, they WILL.

This article is FUD.

Apple's iAd is actually a HUGE threat to the advertising industy and their lobbies.
post #20 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

You all are forgetting one thing not factored into this report designed to circumvent the impenidny threat that is Apple in the advertising arena, that is already beginning to unseat traditional means of advertising (print), and is now moving into the Internet arena.

iOS "mobile" devices may be the only thing that run iOS and iAd under the purview of this incomplete (intentionally incomplete and thus misleading) analysis report. Apple came into the living room, if no one has remembered that, via the use of a small, $100 box that's also such a threat cable and internet providers are scrambling to determine a way to circumnavigate it without encountering anti-trust violations (they ARE "Utilities", after all) :

Apple TV

I can't say that apple will build an actual television. With their history it would be overpriced and buggy, but I can see them building a set top box, as they already have, with increased functionality, and it runs iOS, and thus in theory also be compatible for iAds.

That now provides an entirely new market and audience, especially ad people begin to decouple from traditional cable tv offerings and the model leans more and more to a la carte service that promises to change the paradigm.

(I take many articles with a grain of salt here on AI, as I overheard an HP exec stating they were dropping tablet devices completely due to not being able to complete with apple) but I do believe they changes their name to Apple Inc and now consider themselves a "consumer electronics" company for a reason and they will produce a device that changes televising in the next year.

I mean, that should have been obvious when they installed a mini hdmi on the Mac Mini and shrunk the Apple tv to a box that no longer could hold a HDD.

The message was clear:
if you want a media pc, get a mac mini.
If you want to have streamlined access to iTunes and programming, get an Apple TV.
Also, the price and it's foot print ENSURED many would purchase it and if they can find a way to slash the price further, I guarantee you, they WILL.

This article is FUD.

Apple's iAd is actually a HUGE threat to the advertising industy and their lobbies.

I will only add that Apple poses a credible potential threat to television manufacturers, subscription television service, game consoles, entertainment software and advertising as we know today.

If Apple can provide a competitively priced alternative to the current model with competitive advantages such as the following then their long term success is assured:

iCloud integration
Subscription television service supported via a nominal fee and iAd advertising (ala Hulu)
iTunes integration
App Store
Multi-user "mission control" (think of a digital version of the proverbial front of the refrigerator with a family schedule, home voicemail, intra-family messaging)
Game Center with obligatory game console functionality
Siri interface
FaceTime


The key is to make the user experience so compelling that the average user doesn't feel they need to connect several different devices or services (cable box, Blu-ray player, game console).
post #21 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

15% doesn't seem too bad for the time Apple has been at the mobile ad game.

The analysis seems rather short-sighted as it makes no mention of the potential game-changing effect that Siri will have on Google and others ability to advertise(at least on iOS). Once Apple is able to fluidly connect Siri with iAd it will be a whole other story.

You must be kidding. If you want to instantly kill a feature on an iPhone is to plug any sort of advertising into it. People who use Siri want unbiased answers, not what company Apple is currently hawking.
iAd looks to have been a failure from what it was portrayed as. It was sold as the next great thing in advertising, and it isn't even close. Probably their 15% now is less than what it was before. With all the fanfare that it was kicked off with, I've seen a lot of advertisers disappear off the map.
post #22 of 56
iAds exists for one major reason. The fear that Google can greatly subsidize Android phones because of ad revenue in the future. Unless Apple had a Google ad competitor they would not have been able to counter that.

The current failure of iAds is not a problem because mobile ads are not as big an industry. However iAd gives Apple a foot in the ad industry and experience which will help them compete if this market ever becomes big enough. Apple is still tweaking iAd to see what works. It will be a while before they getnitnright.

It's currently best to look at iAd as a hobby in the same vein as the AppleTV.
post #23 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post


OTOH, Google has your identity, and then sells it for profit. Not exactly the type of company I want Apple, who seems to be one of the leaders in customer privacy, to turn into.

And IMO this is what fuels the negativism and bias in the Ad market against Apple. These people and their surrogates (IDC) want Apple to sell their customers privacy down the road by allowing the marketeers to make the big bucks. Apple won't and thus the negative press and analysis.
post #24 of 56
As a consumer I prefer iAds. They're simply nicer and less intrusive.

As a developer I like iAds. They provide 90% of my ad income while only accounting for 30% of the ads I show. I wish there were more full iAds available. What a lot of people don't realise is that there are two types of iAd. The full-on advertiser ones and the lower-end itunes product ones (which cost and pay less). The lower-end itunes ads pay at least as much as other networks (and there isn't a shortage of them), while the full iAds pay much more.

It seems some advertisers don't like the fact that they have to pay more for the more up-market iAds option. Or is it that the smaller advertisers can't afford it and are jealous?

From my perspective if iAds went by the wayside I'd stop making ad supported apps. Without iAds it's not viable. iAds are effectively supporting the other mobile ad platforms at present.
post #25 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

Yes it is.

Since iAd is only on iOS devices, and iOS devices have a 28% market share, shouldn't iAd have 28% market share as well?

No, because the other mobile advertising platforms are on iOS as well as the other mobile OSes. What you are suggesting is it should have a 100% stake of the iOS ad market. Which (Aside from obviously being hopelessly optimistic if we sandbox it to mean ads on Apps) is simply impossible, because there are mobile ads on mobile sites as well as Apps and iAd is only used in Apps. As it is, the number suggests Apple has a better than 50% share of mobile ads on iOS anyway, which is a healthy position to be in.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #26 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohn View Post

You must be kidding. If you want to instantly kill a feature on an iPhone is to plug any sort of advertising into it. People who use Siri want unbiased answers, not what company Apple is currently hawking.
iAd looks to have been a failure from what it was portrayed as. It was sold as the next great thing in advertising, and it isn't even close. Probably their 15% now is less than what it was before. With all the fanfare that it was kicked off with, I've seen a lot of advertisers disappear off the map.

Not kidding. As a company Apple will want to monetize Siri as more than just an iOS feature to sell phones/iPads if it can. How that gets implemented is the important thing.


You: Hey Siri, where is the nearest coffee shop I can get lunch at?
Siri: There are 9 coffee shops within 2 miles? Would you like me to find those offering specials today?
You: Yes, but no Starbucks.
Siri: Let me get you those options.


I am not all that creative but a person can see how Siri could get specific merchant's products in front of iOS users pretty easily. And like most Apple features aspects it could be turned on/off or customized.

Some people like being advertised to and being told about sales/deals/values.
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
post #27 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

We don't really need more Ads in general. It's completely stupid, and it is a bad way for Apple to push growth. You go to a site like google to search for things. They collect information. They do serve ad content, but you are not paying google to search their database. You are paying Apple for a phone and any applicable apps.

You make it sound as if Apple is scattering ads across it's user interface and native apps. iAds are a strictly optional feature available to third party app developers, often used to subsidize an app's cost or even allow t to be offered for free. Apple is clearly not trying to increase ads on its devices. They're simply trying to offer mobile app developers an alternative ad platform that focuses on delivering a more consistent, less annoying experience. Think less annoying and tacky ads for ad-supported apps.
post #28 of 56
These market studies are known to be hired hands. I would not be surprised if it were commissioned by Google.

Didn't the same company predicted Windows Phone surpassing iOS?
post #29 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

"...they don't "open source" anything..."

You should review the following website for an extensive list of Apple's contributions to the open source community.

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Yes, Apple has contributed to open source projects in the past, and that's admirable. Giving back to the community that helped make you successful is a good thing. It's unfortunate that more recently, the past few years, they appear they might be using their patents to put up roadblocks to standards instead of assisting. An interesting read from ArsTechnica on this subject:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-standards.ars
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

Yes it is.

Since iAd is only on iOS devices, and iOS devices have a 28% market share, shouldn't iAd have 28% market share as well?

Nope. That would be true only if it was impossible for other ads to appear on iOS devices. Since iOS devices support all the ad networks, one would definitely expect the iAds share to be less than the iOS share (as long as iAds are available only on iOS, that is).

Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohn View Post

You must be kidding. If you want to instantly kill a feature on an iPhone is to plug any sort of advertising into it. People who use Siri want unbiased answers, not what company Apple is currently hawking.
iAd looks to have been a failure from what it was portrayed as. It was sold as the next great thing in advertising, and it isn't even close. Probably their 15% now is less than what it was before. With all the fanfare that it was kicked off with, I've seen a lot of advertisers disappear off the map.

I think it's misleading to call it a failure. As pointed out in the article, Apple's share is greater than the company they bought. And that's doubly impressive because iAds only runs on iOS devices while Quattro ran on all devices. And the fact that Apple's ad revenue is greater than Yahoo and Microsoft combined is certainly not horrible. Given that fact, why are they saying that Apple is failing in ads, but not Microsoft or Yahoo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

These market studies are known to be hired hands. I would not be surprised if it were commissioned by Google.

Especially when the data does not support the conclusions - as in this case. And when the conclusions are clearly biased. Why aren't they claiming that Microsoft and Yahoo are failing? Apple sold more ads than the two of them combined, yet Apple is the one that has failed? WTF?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Especially when the data does not support the conclusions - as in this case. And when the conclusions are clearly biased. Why aren't they claiming that Microsoft and Yahoo are failing? Apple sold more ads than the two of them combined, yet Apple is the one that has failed? WTF?

Because it's Apple and anything journalists can hang a fail tag on belonging to them gets views and clicks. IMO, had Apple not made it such a high-profile announcement a couple years ago no one would even be paying attention. Does any media scrutinize MS mobile ad revenues? Not really since they haven't proclaimed it to be a high priority. At one time Apple did, which invited attention.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

And IMO this is what fuels the negativism and bias in the Ad market against Apple. These people and their surrogates (IDC) want Apple to sell their customers privacy down the road by allowing the marketeers to make the big bucks. Apple won't and thus the negative press and analysis.

This is probably exactly the case, just like the criticism from the publishing industry over subscriptions, and IDC, like Gartner, are whores who always produce the analysis that the client pays for.
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, Apple has contributed to open source projects in the past, and that's admirable. Giving back to the community that helped make you successful is a good thing. It's unfortunate that more recently, the past few years, they appear they might be using their patents to put up roadblocks to standards instead of assisting. An interesting read from ArsTechnica on this subject:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-standards.ars

Yes, and Apple is STILL CONTRIBUTING to open source projects now. You make it sound like they don't do that any more.

I agree that they could be doing more, though.
post #34 of 56
By far, most of Google’s mobile ad revenue comes from iOS. iAd or no iAd, there is no evidence here of developers abandoning iOS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, Apple has contributed to open source projects in the past, and that's admirable. Giving back to the community that helped make you successful is a good thing. It's unfortunate that more recently, the past few years, they appear they might be using their patents to put up roadblocks to standards instead of assisting. An interesting read from ArsTechnica on this subject:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-standards.ars

And yet Apple is sued by others more than they sue. There was a clear diagram of this a few months back. The game exists, and Apple can’t choose not to play.

Meanwhile look what Apple has done for open, cross-platform, standards-based mobile AND desktop app development (a.k.a. web apps): they made it their first iOS development platform and then kept expanding it to this day even after the App Store appeared. They made web apps installable on the home screen, with an icon, local storage and automatic updaes. They supported accelerometer, multitouch, full-screen deployment with no browser clutter, CSS animation, and all kinds of HTML5/CSS3 standards and proposed standards long before Google did. In fact, Safari still supports more standards, and is better for web apps, than the Android browser (example, webkit DeviceOrientation, which Apple has supported robustly for ages and Google hasn’t). Apple has pushed the development of real apps, as has Google, but simultaneously, Apple keeps improving (more than Goole does) the development of open apps that Apple has no control over. Most recently: Apple added the ability for open web apps to choose between browser-style scrolling (good for reading) and app-style (more momentum, good for lists). They’re still paying attention to the details of making NON-App Store, uncontrolled, open-to-all development great.
post #35 of 56
IDC, like other pronasticatng people and organizations, don't go with facts. They gain power and influence by trying to create the situations they are predicting.

This is another case of either wanting to cause apple stock to drop, or an attempt to stem the success of iAds.

It's always safe in the u.s. to assume everything you hear and read is a lie. You'll be rarely disappointed.
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

Not kidding. As a company Apple will want to monetize Siri as more than just an iOS feature to sell phones/iPads if it can. ...

Not necessarily. In the age of diminishing privacy, there will be money to be made by not abusing trust and violating privacy in the Google model of commoditizing persons. Apple has an opportunity to essentially sell privacy as a feature, one which people will be willing to pay for as an alternative to Google's Big Brother is watching you, and selling you, ecosystem.
post #37 of 56
IDC is probably out to lunch. But if Apple wants to ensure iAd's success, they could always offer more enticing terms...
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

Yes it is.

Since iAd is only on iOS devices, and iOS devices have a 28% market share, shouldn't iAd have 28% market share as well?

Since Android supposedly has > 50% market share, shouldn't Google Mobile Ads have > 50% market share as well?
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

We don't really need more Ads in general. It's completely stupid, and it is a bad way for Apple to push growth.

It's also a way for developers to give you apps for "free". You may not like ad-supported games and news and whatnot, but other people do.

Or they like it more than actually paying a buck for an app....
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

They're simply trying to offer mobile app developers an alternative ad platform that focuses on delivering a more consistent, less annoying experience. Think less annoying and tacky ads for ad-supported apps.

Yes, but they're pricing themselves out of the market. A near half-million dollar commitment? Please.

They could still maintain standards and quality control WITHOUT such requirements.

And speaking of in-app ads, those would be a fantastic way for DEVELOPERS to advertise new apps... except that new developers can't afford the rates.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › IDC offers scathing prediction of certain death for Apple's iAd program