I would have liked to see Apple block ads entirely. If you want to release a free app, do so. If you want money, charge a buck for it. There is nothing worse than releasing a free app littered with ads. And now that behaviour seems sanctioned by Apple.
I do applaud them for trying to make ads sexy and fit into the iPhone ecosystem, but I think their efforts are misguided...
Their efforts are not misguided, thousands of developers will now have another option besides Google to monetize on Apple's platform: Apple.
Nobody can release a platform that does not allow ads, you're asking for the desolation of your platform.
Nobody seems to figure out that iAds could be a good thing when it comes to reading the newspaper apps, that usually have 3rd rate ads and nonsense on them. They will now sport something that is easier on the eyes for the user, and probably more interesting.
I personally don't like ads, who does, but I don't also rule the world. So let's deal with it.
Overall, good showing for Apple.
All you people who are constantly disappointed that the iPhone doesn't breast feed your kids, get a life.
You are aware that every time you use the internet or do a Google search you're sending "usage statistics" whether you want to or not?
In fact, if you're really worried about this you might consider never using any Google software, because their entire business model is based on collecting and selling such stats.
I've never used Google software and never had a Google account for that very reason. If you want to keep supporting their invasions of privacy, go right ahead.
Nothing says more about the intentional confusion created between "free" and "free with ads" as this does. I guess the idea that "free" apps might be actually, you know ... free is old fashioned nowadays?
As is the idea that someone might be making and distributing things for "free" that are actually intended simply as free items?
I don't mind that so much as search results that say "Free Download" which is technically correct but then you read that the free download is the trial version of the app.
Version Tracker is notorious for this. Search for an app or app topic and you see "Freeware" which traditionally means the app is free but when you download the app it tells you that it is a trial. This is not freeware.
I always wondered why the Flash supporters think they could get away with saying that HTML can't provide interactive ad content. It's the retort that is really clutching at straws. Of course HTML can do interactive ads it's always had that ability it's just Flash developers have too great an ego to admit that.
This ad thing proves that Flash is becoming less and less relevant which can only be a good thing for the Web.
I only hope developers will come up with an app that will block ads from appearing, like ClickToFlash blocks Flash ads. I'm afraid Apple may not allow an ad-blocking app, though.
I always wondered why the Flash supporters think they could get away with saying that HTML can't provide interactive ad content. It's the retort that is really clutching at straws. Of course HTML can do interactive ads it's always had that ability it's just Flash developers have too great an ego to admit that.
This ad thing proves that Flash is becoming less and less relevant which can only be a good thing for the Web.
I like Steve's response about developer tools for iAds. It's HTML5 so devs can use whatever tools they want. Right, but there are no tools. That is one of the things that Flash developers depend on - authoring tools. Animations with the sophistication typically found in Flash are super difficult to achieve with HTML5. Near impossible for your average graphic designer.
"We tried to buy a company called AdMob, and Google came in and snatched them because they didn't want us to have them"
So it looks like Apple wanted to buy AdMob after all and they did not intentionally left the deal to Google like some have speculated. And it sounds like Steve is sending a not so subtle message to the FTC
I am looking forward to seeing the battle unfold in mobile ads. AdMob is in a dominant position today they might come to regret their decision not to partner up with Apple.
I like Steve's response about developer tools for iAds. It's HTML5 so devs can use whatever tools they want. Right, but there are no tools. That is one of the things that Flash developers depend on - authoring tools. Animations with the sophistication typically found in Flash are super difficult to achieve with HTML5. Near impossible for your average graphic designer.
I was wondering the same thing. Sometimes what is not said is equally as important.
And this is the end of support for Apple for me. No more Macs or iPhone. I don't want to support yet another advertising company. I guess back to Microsoft and Windows.
OK. Interesting ideas about the existential status of "free", but can you point me to any other medium or market wherein this distinction obtains? ...
It's just the original meaning of "free" when used in a commercial context. "Free" means (or used to mean) "free of payment or encumbrance" as in it's free to the end user and free to use. It's implicit in the statement (or again perhaps just *used* to be), that there are no contracts, no liens, no hidden fees or obligations.
It's just plain old "free" in other words.
I am guessing that this definition of "free" perhaps no longer obtains. I'm not sure what we should call the actually, really , just plain old free stuff though, if "free" can now mean "advertising gimmick." There will have to be a new word made up. FreePlus? FreePrime? ReallyFree?
It'd be helpful if authors of books being displayed on iBook could include ads just like developers.
Hmmm interesting... Never really gave thought to AD supported books...
Quote:
As young Harry pondered the troubling events unfolding around him he reached for a cold can of Pepsi sitting on the table beside him. He could hardly believe how quickly all his worries seemed to drift away as the cold can of Pepsi was reaching his lips.
I dunno... doesn't sound right at all...
All jokes aside... it actually is an interesting possibility depending on the books content.
I like Steve's response about developer tools for iAds. It's HTML5 so devs can use whatever tools they want. Right, but there are no tools. That is one of the things that Flash developers depend on - authoring tools. Animations with the sophistication typically found in Flash are super difficult to achieve with HTML5. Near impossible for your average graphic designer.
Coda, Espresso, Flux, TextEdit, BBEdit, Smultron, TextWrangler. Nope. No tools for creating HTML 5 content.
It's not difficult at all. This whole "Difficult for designers" thing is crap. It doesn't take long to understand HTML at all and the code reuse for HTML5 and CSS is far less than Flash. All in all it's just "designers" being lazy.
iAd is great. I liked the presentation and the standards compliance. Being able to get back to the app after checking out the ad is also good.
My favorite is Jobs saying that search has not happened on mobile apple's approach to mobile ads could actually make them and the devopers money, lower app prices and drive more hardware sales. Win win win all around.
It's just the original meaning of "free" when used in a commercial context. "Free" means (or used to mean) "free of payment or encumbrance" as in it's free to the end user and free to use. It's implicit in the statement (or again perhaps just *used* to be), that there are no contracts, no liens, no hidden fees or obligations.
It's just plain old "free" in other words.
I am guessing that this definition of "free" perhaps no longer obtains. I'm not sure what we should call the actually, really , just plain old free stuff though, if "free" can now mean "advertising gimmick." There will have to be a new word made up. FreePlus? FreePrime? ReallyFree?
Well, I'm not against the idea of completely free, but the fact is that in a commercial context I don't think "free" has ever meant anything but some kind of advertising. Think about it: what possible motivation does a company have to give its wares away outside of advertising?
Now it's true that some offers get the PR on the front end, you know, like "free gift with every purchase", but there are plenty of long standing commercial "free" things (all kinds of swag with the company name on them, OTA television, local scene newspapers, logo bedecked clothing, etc.) and more recent things (most of the internet) that are in fact contingent on advertising that comes with the offer.
And I don't see that as violating the meaning of the word in this context, either. An ad might be irritating, but it's hardly an encumbrance or obligation, and typically you can just look away, skip or mute them. Hulu, for instance, is "free" by most people's lights, certainly compared to cable or paid download, but it does put up a number of non-skippable ads.
I would be amazed if companies started literally giving things away for free in the sense you mean-- without any attachment to their brand.
I don't understand at all the complaints here. All of the following only exist for free because they are supported by advertising
broadcast television (except PBS, which depends on viewer donations)
broadcast radio stations
all major web browsers (they make money from searches)
millions of web sites including social web sites, online newspapers and magazines, every search engine, even AppleInsider, etc, etc.
In addition there are other things that cost money but are still largely supported by advertiser revenue, such as cable tv channels, printed newspapers and magazines, satellite radio, etc. These things would be far more expensive without the advertising revenue.
Every time an ad is blocked or a commercial is skipped with tivo, the people providing that content are denied an opportunity to get paid for their hard work. Which hurts the future product from whatever service the ads are blocked on as it means less money to invest in a better product in the future.
Steve didn't say iAds were just for free apps, but rather for free and inexpensive apps. Quality apps take a lot of time and effort to develop, It's a good thing for users that there is a fairly easy way for developers to generate a revenue stream from their work without charging a high price for their app.
And, if anything, having an ad based revenue stream is going to be an ongoing motivation for a developer to improve their app. If you pay for an app, the developer doesn't make more money by getting you to use the app more. If it's ad supported, not only is it less expensive or free to acquire, but the more you use the app, the more the developer makes. That is a strong motivation to continue to make the app better so it'll get used more.
Comments
I would have liked to see Apple block ads entirely. If you want to release a free app, do so. If you want money, charge a buck for it. There is nothing worse than releasing a free app littered with ads. And now that behaviour seems sanctioned by Apple.
I do applaud them for trying to make ads sexy and fit into the iPhone ecosystem, but I think their efforts are misguided...
Their efforts are not misguided, thousands of developers will now have another option besides Google to monetize on Apple's platform: Apple.
Nobody can release a platform that does not allow ads, you're asking for the desolation of your platform.
Nobody seems to figure out that iAds could be a good thing when it comes to reading the newspaper apps, that usually have 3rd rate ads and nonsense on them. They will now sport something that is easier on the eyes for the user, and probably more interesting.
I personally don't like ads, who does, but I don't also rule the world. So let's deal with it.
Overall, good showing for Apple.
All you people who are constantly disappointed that the iPhone doesn't breast feed your kids, get a life.
You are aware that every time you use the internet or do a Google search you're sending "usage statistics" whether you want to or not?
In fact, if you're really worried about this you might consider never using any Google software, because their entire business model is based on collecting and selling such stats.
I've never used Google software and never had a Google account for that very reason. If you want to keep supporting their invasions of privacy, go right ahead.
This quote is priceless.
Nothing says more about the intentional confusion created between "free" and "free with ads" as this does. I guess the idea that "free" apps might be actually, you know ... free is old fashioned nowadays?
As is the idea that someone might be making and distributing things for "free" that are actually intended simply as free items?
I don't mind that so much as search results that say "Free Download" which is technically correct but then you read that the free download is the trial version of the app.
Version Tracker is notorious for this. Search for an app or app topic and you see "Freeware" which traditionally means the app is free but when you download the app it tells you that it is a trial. This is not freeware.
I always wondered why the Flash supporters think they could get away with saying that HTML can't provide interactive ad content. It's the retort that is really clutching at straws. Of course HTML can do interactive ads it's always had that ability it's just Flash developers have too great an ego to admit that.
This ad thing proves that Flash is becoming less and less relevant which can only be a good thing for the Web.
I only hope developers will come up with an app that will block ads from appearing, like ClickToFlash blocks Flash ads. I'm afraid Apple may not allow an ad-blocking app, though.
I always wondered why the Flash supporters think they could get away with saying that HTML can't provide interactive ad content. It's the retort that is really clutching at straws. Of course HTML can do interactive ads it's always had that ability it's just Flash developers have too great an ego to admit that.
This ad thing proves that Flash is becoming less and less relevant which can only be a good thing for the Web.
I like Steve's response about developer tools for iAds. It's HTML5 so devs can use whatever tools they want. Right, but there are no tools. That is one of the things that Flash developers depend on - authoring tools. Animations with the sophistication typically found in Flash are super difficult to achieve with HTML5. Near impossible for your average graphic designer.
So it looks like Apple wanted to buy AdMob after all and they did not intentionally left the deal to Google like some have speculated. And it sounds like Steve is sending a not so subtle message to the FTC
I am looking forward to seeing the battle unfold in mobile ads. AdMob is in a dominant position today they might come to regret their decision not to partner up with Apple.
I like Steve's response about developer tools for iAds. It's HTML5 so devs can use whatever tools they want. Right, but there are no tools. That is one of the things that Flash developers depend on - authoring tools. Animations with the sophistication typically found in Flash are super difficult to achieve with HTML5. Near impossible for your average graphic designer.
I was wondering the same thing. Sometimes what is not said is equally as important.
This really could be the first spadeful of earth on the coffin of Adobe Flash, especially if Apple do release the rumoured HTML5 authoring tools.
OK. Interesting ideas about the existential status of "free", but can you point me to any other medium or market wherein this distinction obtains? ...
It's just the original meaning of "free" when used in a commercial context. "Free" means (or used to mean) "free of payment or encumbrance" as in it's free to the end user and free to use. It's implicit in the statement (or again perhaps just *used* to be), that there are no contracts, no liens, no hidden fees or obligations.
It's just plain old "free" in other words.
I am guessing that this definition of "free" perhaps no longer obtains. I'm not sure what we should call the actually, really , just plain old free stuff though, if "free" can now mean "advertising gimmick." There will have to be a new word made up. FreePlus? FreePrime? ReallyFree?
It'd be helpful if authors of books being displayed on iBook could include ads just like developers.
Hmmm interesting... Never really gave thought to AD supported books...
As young Harry pondered the troubling events unfolding around him he reached for a cold can of Pepsi sitting on the table beside him. He could hardly believe how quickly all his worries seemed to drift away as the cold can of Pepsi was reaching his lips.
I dunno... doesn't sound right at all...
All jokes aside... it actually is an interesting possibility depending on the books content.
I like Steve's response about developer tools for iAds. It's HTML5 so devs can use whatever tools they want. Right, but there are no tools. That is one of the things that Flash developers depend on - authoring tools. Animations with the sophistication typically found in Flash are super difficult to achieve with HTML5. Near impossible for your average graphic designer.
Coda, Espresso, Flux, TextEdit, BBEdit, Smultron, TextWrangler. Nope. No tools for creating HTML 5 content.
It's not difficult at all. This whole "Difficult for designers" thing is crap. It doesn't take long to understand HTML at all and the code reuse for HTML5 and CSS is far less than Flash. All in all it's just "designers" being lazy.
My favorite is Jobs saying that search has not happened on mobile
It's just the original meaning of "free" when used in a commercial context. "Free" means (or used to mean) "free of payment or encumbrance" as in it's free to the end user and free to use. It's implicit in the statement (or again perhaps just *used* to be), that there are no contracts, no liens, no hidden fees or obligations.
It's just plain old "free" in other words.
I am guessing that this definition of "free" perhaps no longer obtains. I'm not sure what we should call the actually, really , just plain old free stuff though, if "free" can now mean "advertising gimmick." There will have to be a new word made up. FreePlus? FreePrime? ReallyFree?
Well, I'm not against the idea of completely free, but the fact is that in a commercial context I don't think "free" has ever meant anything but some kind of advertising. Think about it: what possible motivation does a company have to give its wares away outside of advertising?
Now it's true that some offers get the PR on the front end, you know, like "free gift with every purchase", but there are plenty of long standing commercial "free" things (all kinds of swag with the company name on them, OTA television, local scene newspapers, logo bedecked clothing, etc.) and more recent things (most of the internet) that are in fact contingent on advertising that comes with the offer.
And I don't see that as violating the meaning of the word in this context, either. An ad might be irritating, but it's hardly an encumbrance or obligation, and typically you can just look away, skip or mute them. Hulu, for instance, is "free" by most people's lights, certainly compared to cable or paid download, but it does put up a number of non-skippable ads.
I would be amazed if companies started literally giving things away for free in the sense you mean-- without any attachment to their brand.
broadcast television (except PBS, which depends on viewer donations)
broadcast radio stations
all major web browsers (they make money from searches)
millions of web sites including social web sites, online newspapers and magazines, every search engine, even AppleInsider, etc, etc.
In addition there are other things that cost money but are still largely supported by advertiser revenue, such as cable tv channels, printed newspapers and magazines, satellite radio, etc. These things would be far more expensive without the advertising revenue.
Every time an ad is blocked or a commercial is skipped with tivo, the people providing that content are denied an opportunity to get paid for their hard work. Which hurts the future product from whatever service the ads are blocked on as it means less money to invest in a better product in the future.
Steve didn't say iAds were just for free apps, but rather for free and inexpensive apps. Quality apps take a lot of time and effort to develop, It's a good thing for users that there is a fairly easy way for developers to generate a revenue stream from their work without charging a high price for their app.
And, if anything, having an ad based revenue stream is going to be an ongoing motivation for a developer to improve their app. If you pay for an app, the developer doesn't make more money by getting you to use the app more. If it's ad supported, not only is it less expensive or free to acquire, but the more you use the app, the more the developer makes. That is a strong motivation to continue to make the app better so it'll get used more.
"To opt-out of iAds on a device running iOS 4, you must enter the following address into the device's web browser:
http://oo.apple.com
If you have multiple Apple mobile devices running iOS 4, you will need to opt out on each device.
If you still encounter difficulties, please visit the support website at: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228"
Jobs was alluding to the fact that Google makes nearly all of its revenues from paid search placement on the desktop
This! The voice of an engineer, not brainless blogging microbe. ``Ah-uh! They are paid by advertising!"
Good to know Apple is lead by knowledgeable and realistic guy.