Report: Visual ads to show up on iTunes - Page 2

And your example of this... is a thread in which people are hating Apple and objecting to "El Steve-o"?

Sounds like Mac users aren't as one-sided as you think

I think chapter images are not compatible with MP3 format, which is the most common format for podcasts. I believe for chapter images to be shown, the podcast has to be in Enhanced AAC format (known as Enhanced Podcasts). Also, I doubt that Apple currently allows chapter images in Enhanced Podcasts to be ads.

The new change would have to be ads that are compatible with MP3 format podcasts. Maybe Apple will simply allow the album art for the podcast to be ads. Or maybe they are close to making chapters available for MP3 format, which would allow multiple ads to show during the MP3 podcasts.

I would expect a very good thing out of this:

Apple allows all podcasters to place ads during their podcasts. Revenue between Apple and Podcaster is shared 50/50. This would create an industry or provide a revenue stream to those who are making some interesting podcasts, and gives the company revenue to support the download costs.

Very similar to Google, how they transformed internet advertising by sending out checks to websites while they made billions themselves.

To me it's all not a big deal, since I don't sit at my computer listening to Podcasts, staring at iTunes.

Now if only Apple would update the visualizers in iTunes from 6 years ago. \

How would they stop podcasters from doing that? Tons of podcasts have audio ads already, why would apple object to podcasters inserting their own visual ads?


Who is "the company"? Apple doesn't have any download costs, all distribution (including the costs, which are often pretty high) is handled by the podcaster. Apple just provides fancy indexing and linking.

So you are saying that it's ok to advertise in the free software that Apple offers? Thanks for helping kill our Mac experience (which yes, I paid for). Itunes is free because it's a way to SELL product, I think it has gone far enough in that sense. I don't need more ads on top of it.

I'm assuming that podcasters must agree to some type of 'terms of service agreement' when they submit their podcast to iTunes. My guess is that Apple does not currently allow album art or Enhanced Podcast chapter art to be ads.

Instead of guessing, why don't you just look at that TOS and see for yourself?

...

Just checked, didn't find any mention of advertising being forbidden. It wouldn't make sense anyway - why would apple care about banning visual ads but be OK with tons of podcasts having audio ads?

Sell a product??? iTunes is available cross-platform. Apple isn't pushing iTunes in hopes that you use it and say "WOW, I so need to buy a Macintosh." Just like using WMP doesn't make me want to go out and buy a shitbox PC and license Windows on it ... it's a media player, not exactly one of the top selling points when the people at the Apple store accost you.

uhmm.... sell songs---that's the product dude. That, and iPods.

Are you changing your story now? Earlier you said you paid for your Mac and the software, but iTunes is free. I also don't have to use iTunes to buy anything. If I just want to catalog my music with it, I can. Using iTunes != Buying from iTMS or Buying an iPod. iTunes was free before iTMS was created and it's still a free application...

EDIT: Apple wants you to buy hardware - they could give a rat's ass about selling songs. Apple doesn't use iTunes to sell iPods. They lock you into iTunes after you've bought the iPod...

To all conservative free marketeers...

This is the price of the corporate version of the "free" market ... nothing is free and it will continue to erode life with the the commodification of everything. If you are upset about an add on iTunes, how can you not be angered by the price put on everything from clean water to the corporate control of public airwaves.

I don't mean to be partisan, but everything is connected.

That is not what "free" market is about. It is about free as in speech, not free as in beer.

no...no..no...

please don't do it.

What are you talking about? There's little (if any) connection between "free market" and "free speech."

The "free" in "free market" is the same kind of thing as the "free" in "free speech"...it is freedom...as opposed to the "free" in "free beer" which means "free of charge".

The original poster suggested by his post ("This is the price of the corporate version of the "free" market ... nothing is free...how can you not be angered by the price put on everything from clean water to the corporate control of public airwaves") that the "free market" system had something to do with things being free of charge. It doesn't. The free market is about having the freedom to choose.

Now, if he had used a different example...such as a monopoly that restricts your freedom to choose other means/providers/ways of obtaining a product or service...that would have made sense.

That had better be it, it better only be for certain podcasts and not apple profiting off the podcasts themselves, but the companies who "need it".

Maybe the new technology is simply allowing those static picture adverts to move. That had better be it all it is because if it's a constant advert window you best believe my itunes is going to HELL

Say again? Which "needy" companies are these?

The problem here, that I fell into myself at first, is that the article is vague on the actual implementation of this advertisement. After reading a more informative article on the subject, I found that it is, as others have mentioned, only podcasts that are rumored to display ads in the pre-existing preview pane.

This is really no big deal. In fact, I wouldn't even mind if they showed up on my ipod screen while playing free content. I don't have to look at it. It's free content; let the the advertisers pay. Nothing else would be affected. There is no rumor of advertisement being displayed for any other content.

I put it in quotes because I think a company like espn "needing it" is bs. Any real tv network that has podcast is doing so to get more users interested in the network.

More interest in the network = more viewers = being able to charge ad companies more for their tv commerical spots.

That's why I'm saying I hope this isn't apple attempt to advertise over everything, or advertise over every podcast even if the creator doesn't want it.

I hope all their trying to do is just making it easier for the bs company to advertise over their own podcast, in form of maybe a short video in the left corner attacted to their audio podcast.

Companies are in business to make $. Some are doing this through advertising. Some will use "teasers" to get you to buy/view/whatever the thing they are really selling so they can make $. I'd say ESPN (or anyone else) is free to put ads anywhere they want to. Of course it is a balance. Some people will ignore/avoid the ads. Some people will not watch at all because it does have ads. The higher the ad-to-real-desired-content ratio, the fewer viewers/listeners.

This is all where you/me/everyone get to excercise our freedoms...don't like the ads or ad-to-content ratio...find something else. Eventually they'll get the message.

Ads in OS X? I wish I knew what everyone was talking about with this. Perhaps my computer is an ad-free version.

I think podcasts are saved in a single Podcasts folder hierarchy under the main iTunes Music folder. Maybe you could alias or symlink that Podcasts folder to another location?

There ought to be a way to at least select a few main root folders directly within iTunes instead of everything being lumped under the one iTunes Music folder location. I don't mind (too much) having a single iTunes Library, just give me a bit more flexibility over where the content for it is stored.

But I agree iTunes has bloated to trying to do too much. And more recently added features are poorly implemented. Like folders -- create some folders with identical names and try differentiating them in certain contexts.

I didn't interpret his post the same way. I saw it as he was saying "in a free market, you should expect to have to pay for anything that can be charged for." In the case of iTunes, the payment would be being subjected to advertising.

"The free market is about having the freedom to choose."

That may be part of it, but it's debatable whether or not freedom to choose is what free market is "about."

What if Apple gave you a free copy of their OS in exchange for you having to be subjected to ads?

Interesting idea. Has anyone tried such a thing with Linux? Or even providing really low-cost (free?) computers with an ad-driven OS?

I think people are overreacting a bit here. Whatever this is, I'm sure it will be fine.

<Apple Fanboy moment>
Just trust in Apple. Steve would never let them do anything that would detract from the user experience. Steve knows what's best for us, just trust that Apple's got our back.
</Apple Fanboy moment>

The only problem I have with iTunes is the videos being thrown in with it. I'd like a separate app just for movies. People saying that iTunes is total crap because of added functionality that is in their eye's useless are totally overreacting.

And has anyone else noticed that playing movies in iTunes is slow? There's no full screen controls, and skipping around is jerky. I always hit command-r on the movie in iTunes and open it with Quicktime. (I'm speaking specifically about full length feature films that I've ripped, smaller movies are ok, but not TV shows or movies)

NO -- For Mac/iPod users, the term is INCLUDED...it is only "free" to non-iPod iwners who run windows.

ad-driven OS seems like an interesting proposition... you'd have to target adds very carefully, though (Google OS anyone?). and then there's the problem where advertisers would demand certain click-through rates or they would stop advertising... then the business model flops.

a few years ago there were some companies that paid you to watch ads while you surfed the net... AllAdvantage, CashFiesta, and some others. i think they're all gone now.

then you have more problems... what prevents you from getting a low-cost (ad-sponsored) computer and then reinstalling another add-free OS?

then there's the issue of ad-placement... will they appear all the time? will they appear when you boot, when you open applications, when you print a document? a small bar at the bottom of the screen? would it get in the way when you watch a dvd movie?

it's an interesting idea though. i wouldn't mind it if the cost of the computer is significantly lower. (30% at least.)

as for graphical ads in podcasts, bring it on. i wouldn't mind it. heck, makes looking at the screen more interesting. and remember that you dont HAVE to look at the ads, you can just open another app and work on that. this is not possible with audio ads.

sounds a lot like Net-Zero circa 1998...it didnt do so hot for dialup internet, and it would only be worse if it were in the OS its self...FYI: There are a lot of folks who would pay to run OSX on their beige hardware (ad-free of course)

Yah, all the time. Are you sure its turned on? The only ads it doesn't block are pop down ads.

A couple of companies have toyed with the idea (I think even Microsoft looked into it.) It universally pissed everyone off too much, I believe.

That sortof already happens: The $299 Dell special o' the moment comes loaded with bloaty ad/sales ware. You think Dell puts Muscimatch (with store), real (pushing their stuper-pass, games and store(rhapsody)), AOL, Quicken trial, and probably more since the last time I set up OEM home-grade PCs without a kickback?

Now: order the same thing from the "small business" side, get XP pro and little to none of the crap and includion of install media for Windows for about $100 more than the "blue plate special"

Sorry Chris, I was so vague that you missed my point. I wanted to be brief since I was being off topic a bit. What I meant of course was that a "free" market means the unconstrained market of goods and services. You are only ad-free as long as a company voluntarily keeps their goods and services ad-free. No one should have a problem with the philosophy or some of the basic "rights" of corporations regarding this small aspect of a free market, BUT we can't pretend that the market is really free, even in that sense. A "free" market forces everyone to compete even when competition makes the social, ecological and computing environments degraded. Wal-Mart forces other companies to lower wages and expectations of service. Cheap imported wood forces local logging companies to quickly clearcut to compete on prices. Microsoft forces other companies to lower services or pimp the computing arena to compete on price. The "free" market as formulated in America today encourages monopolies and a race to the bottom, unless you don't mind working your @$$ off (like Apple) to hold on to a devoted 5% of the market. That is the cost of a "free" market. Kind of like the cost of getting "free" cell service if you put a tower on your roof.

To topic: I assume Apple has kept ads to a very minimum (other than the QT "ad") so that the experience is better; it doesn't resemble a TV experience (which Jobs hates) and Apple margins were high enough not to need them. IF Apple changes this policy, it would most likely be in response to a market force of some sort that encourages Apple to go against its policy. We don't know if or when this happens, but the best thing is to complain to the company and hope that it factors your feelings into its bottom line.

I wish Apple would get rid of an annoying piece of advertising that's been in since the beginning (or at least version 2?): that annoying white Apple logo that pops up when you're trying to enjoy your music with visualizers.

That's the best logo in the whole world! How can you not want it there?!