I will have to see for myself, but if these ads are the least bit intrusive I will simply not get an iPhone. Leave the ads on search results and TV where they belong.
If you have no problem with banner ads they shouldn't be a problem. I believe the user has to tap to activate them, and they can't be used as a forced in between page. The developer could probably still use a combination of iAds and Google ads however.
The add demonstration was pretty conclusive - they DON'T want ads to be intrusive - which is why they decided to step in and manage it for the users. YOU decide if you click on the ad, YOU decide if you want to continue to watch the ad or "x" out of it. And since it floats above your running application - once it ends or you "x" out of it, you are returned to your application, non the worse for the experience. Unlike current ads which spill you out to a website link and disrupt your gameplay or app use.
I'm going to be clicking on as many iAds as possible. AAPL gets $1 per click!
I wonder if the meaning of "competitor" will be examined by the feds. ISTM that a case could be made that Apple is trying to use its market power in the mobile app market to stifle competition in the mobile ad market.
Time will tell. The hubris part would only come into play if they get slapped for it.
Well Apple isn't saying Google can't put ads on iPhones. Apple is allowing Google to sell ad views, but not also pull certain types of data from Apple produced devices. It can be argued that this helps protect Apple proprietary customer information from competitors, which if true would be completely allowable. But how does that square with how the desktop world has evolved? There it is open wild-west terms on full data extraction from the user, even without the users permission.
Things are different in mobile with the vertical market control, but are they different enough to avoid falling on the wrong side of the law for stuff like ad data collection???
Google also owns DoubleClick who is the largest "3rd-party" ad server. Although they have been slow to the mobile game (DoubleClick, that is), it's ironic that they are now banned from tracking iAds. Advertisers will need to find other solutions, and ones that may not play nice with their primary tracking platform.
I also wonder whether Apple has crossed the restraint-of-trade line on this. But they have the best lawyers and they are probably hinging their arguments on the nuance of allowing information sharing with independent advertisers and ad servers but not those affiliated with Apple's mobile device and platform competitors. Notice also, the ban is on information sharing not on actual posting of mobile ads. So iPhone apps can still contain AdMob ads, they just can't give AdMob any information that would benefit Google's Android business. Pretty smart lawyering I think, at least from a non-lawyer's POV.
Somebody show me PROOF that any government agency is "investigating" Apple. Go on, I'll wait. I don't mean point me to some blogger or some newspaper rag speculating or quoting some unnamed source. Show me actual concrete proof that Apple is under investigation.
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be investigated - not my point. My point is somebody tossed this rumor out into the blog universe and now it is being taken as fact. I've not heard one peep out of the government yet.
We'll see how well apple does in the ad business. It seems to me that apple trying to block google ads from their apps. I don't know if iAds can provide as much revenue right away for developers as google ads can already, but perhaps over time they could be more competitive.
It's just I have a hard time seeing apple as an ad company. Something just does not feel right about that.
blocking stats gathering apps, not the ads themselves. These are compliance rules that an app can easily obey, and it shouldn't be surprising that Apple doesn't want Google getting inside info on their upcoming devices.
Lie. Google made offer after expiration of "buy-out window". Apple had 40 days to buyout AdMob. And only after the windows Google made the offer.
They knew that. That is why they put "snatched" in quotes. When dealing in the Apple world, words can mean anything you want.
Indeed, it is a badge of honor to take a word which clearly means X, but also maybe sometimes means Y, and to claim therefore that Apple is exactly the same as hated competitor Z, because both are Y. It is truly bizarre.
Search for "walled garden" in recent posts. You will see several to the effect "They say Apple has a walled garden? Well really, we can torture the term to mean that Company Z is REALLY the one with the "walled garden".
The add demonstration was pretty conclusive - they DON'T want ads to be intrusive - which is why they decided to step in and manage it for the users. YOU decide if you click on the ad, YOU decide if you want to continue to watch the ad or "x" out of it. And since it floats above your running application - once it ends or you "x" out of it, you are returned to your application, non the worse for the experience. Unlike current ads which spill you out to a website link and disrupt your gameplay or app use.
Once the iPhone is able to multitask, how is this any different from any web ad? All I see is that Apple embedded a browser into apps to see only ads, but no other content.
And as far as "You decide whether to click the ad": that is precisely the same as current ads in any app.
So, an "Ass" right back at you in hopes you learn to communicate in a more friendly and reasonable manner. Anyhow - how in fact do you know what actually transpired - we only have claims from those allegedly involved in the deal - right?
There is no dispute whatsoever about the facts of the matter.
Do you think Google is pissed at paying 2-3x more for an Ad company to then have Apple come out and grab 50% of mobile advertising?
Of course they are. But if Apple gave a level playing field in the appAd market, Google would likely not be pissed.
As things are now, Apple is alleged to be using its market power in the mobile app market in order to stifle competition in the handset market, in which Apple has serious competition.
It remains to be seen whether it is alleged that Apple is now using this market power in order to lessen competition in the mobile ad market.
Loosing a lot of respect for Apple with their iOS devices. MUST find alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macosxp
I will have to see for myself, but if these ads are the least bit intrusive I will simply not get an iPhone. Leave the ads on search results and TV where they belong.
Its posts like these that have me scratching my head. Where were you before iAds? Admob has been the leading provider for developers of ad-supported apps on the iPhone and other platforms, such as WebOS, for a good while now.
Well Apple isn't saying Google can't put ads on iPhones. Apple is allowing Google to sell ad views, but not also pull certain types of data from Apple produced devices. It can be argued that this helps protect Apple proprietary customer information from competitors, which if true would be completely allowable. But how does that square with how the desktop world has evolved? There it is open wild-west terms on full data extraction from the user, even without the users permission.
Things are different in mobile with the vertical market control, but are they different enough to avoid falling on the wrong side of the law for stuff like ad data collection???
ISTM that Apple is saying that any ad company of any level of ethics can access this information, except for those ad companies who also happen to compete with Apple handsets.
"Agencies will now be allowed to collect user data, but only after receiving their consent.
"As noted by Peter Kafka at MediaMemo, the modified section 3.3.9 says that information can only be provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."
"For example," it continues, "an advertising service or provider owned or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems of development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent."
Somebody show me PROOF that any government agency is "investigating" Apple. Go on, I'll wait. I don't mean point me to some blogger or some newspaper rag speculating or quoting some unnamed source. Show me actual concrete proof that Apple is under investigation.
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be investigated - not my point. My point is somebody tossed this rumor out into the blog universe and now it is being taken as fact. I've not heard one peep out of the government yet.
Comments
I will have to see for myself, but if these ads are the least bit intrusive I will simply not get an iPhone. Leave the ads on search results and TV where they belong.
If you have no problem with banner ads they shouldn't be a problem. I believe the user has to tap to activate them, and they can't be used as a forced in between page. The developer could probably still use a combination of iAds and Google ads however.
The add demonstration was pretty conclusive - they DON'T want ads to be intrusive - which is why they decided to step in and manage it for the users. YOU decide if you click on the ad, YOU decide if you want to continue to watch the ad or "x" out of it. And since it floats above your running application - once it ends or you "x" out of it, you are returned to your application, non the worse for the experience. Unlike current ads which spill you out to a website link and disrupt your gameplay or app use.
I'm going to be clicking on as many iAds as possible. AAPL gets $1 per click!
Do you think Google is pissed at paying 2-3x more for an Ad company to then have Apple come out and grab 50% of mobile advertising?
Maybe, but they might have prevented Apple from grabbing 80%.
I understand your point.
I wonder if the meaning of "competitor" will be examined by the feds. ISTM that a case could be made that Apple is trying to use its market power in the mobile app market to stifle competition in the mobile ad market.
Time will tell. The hubris part would only come into play if they get slapped for it.
Well Apple isn't saying Google can't put ads on iPhones. Apple is allowing Google to sell ad views, but not also pull certain types of data from Apple produced devices. It can be argued that this helps protect Apple proprietary customer information from competitors, which if true would be completely allowable. But how does that square with how the desktop world has evolved? There it is open wild-west terms on full data extraction from the user, even without the users permission.
Things are different in mobile with the vertical market control, but are they different enough to avoid falling on the wrong side of the law for stuff like ad data collection???
I also wonder whether Apple has crossed the restraint-of-trade line on this. But they have the best lawyers and they are probably hinging their arguments on the nuance of allowing information sharing with independent advertisers and ad servers but not those affiliated with Apple's mobile device and platform competitors. Notice also, the ban is on information sharing not on actual posting of mobile ads. So iPhone apps can still contain AdMob ads, they just can't give AdMob any information that would benefit Google's Android business. Pretty smart lawyering I think, at least from a non-lawyer's POV.
Yes, time (and the courts) will tell.
Why do you say that Apple has the best lawyers?
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be investigated - not my point. My point is somebody tossed this rumor out into the blog universe and now it is being taken as fact. I've not heard one peep out of the government yet.
So I think it's Google more than Apple who has been infected with hubris. .[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why Google's attributes even enter into it.
We'll see how well apple does in the ad business. It seems to me that apple trying to block google ads from their apps. I don't know if iAds can provide as much revenue right away for developers as google ads can already, but perhaps over time they could be more competitive.
It's just I have a hard time seeing apple as an ad company. Something just does not feel right about that.
blocking stats gathering apps, not the ads themselves. These are compliance rules that an app can easily obey, and it shouldn't be surprising that Apple doesn't want Google getting inside info on their upcoming devices.
Lie. Google made offer after expiration of "buy-out window". Apple had 40 days to buyout AdMob. And only after the windows Google made the offer.
They knew that. That is why they put "snatched" in quotes. When dealing in the Apple world, words can mean anything you want.
Indeed, it is a badge of honor to take a word which clearly means X, but also maybe sometimes means Y, and to claim therefore that Apple is exactly the same as hated competitor Z, because both are Y. It is truly bizarre.
Search for "walled garden" in recent posts. You will see several to the effect "They say Apple has a walled garden? Well really, we can torture the term to mean that Company Z is REALLY the one with the "walled garden".
I seriously doubt they are going to add "ad company" to any of their marketing, nor make a big deal out of it.
Ummm....They already have made a big deal out of it, bragging that they haven't even gotten started but are taking X% of the ad market already
Sheesh.
The add demonstration was pretty conclusive - they DON'T want ads to be intrusive - which is why they decided to step in and manage it for the users. YOU decide if you click on the ad, YOU decide if you want to continue to watch the ad or "x" out of it. And since it floats above your running application - once it ends or you "x" out of it, you are returned to your application, non the worse for the experience. Unlike current ads which spill you out to a website link and disrupt your gameplay or app use.
Once the iPhone is able to multitask, how is this any different from any web ad? All I see is that Apple embedded a browser into apps to see only ads, but no other content.
And as far as "You decide whether to click the ad": that is precisely the same as current ads in any app.
So, an "Ass" right back at you in hopes you learn to communicate in a more friendly and reasonable manner. Anyhow - how in fact do you know what actually transpired - we only have claims from those allegedly involved in the deal - right?
There is no dispute whatsoever about the facts of the matter.
Do you think Google is pissed at paying 2-3x more for an Ad company to then have Apple come out and grab 50% of mobile advertising?
Of course they are. But if Apple gave a level playing field in the appAd market, Google would likely not be pissed.
As things are now, Apple is alleged to be using its market power in the mobile app market in order to stifle competition in the handset market, in which Apple has serious competition.
It remains to be seen whether it is alleged that Apple is now using this market power in order to lessen competition in the mobile ad market.
I'm going to be clicking on as many iAds as possible. AAPL gets $1 per click!
Why not just go down to the Apple Store and throw a C-Note on the counter? Is there any difference?
I will have to see for myself, but if these ads are the least bit intrusive I will simply not get an iPhone. Leave the ads on search results and TV where they belong.
Its posts like these that have me scratching my head.
Well Apple isn't saying Google can't put ads on iPhones. Apple is allowing Google to sell ad views, but not also pull certain types of data from Apple produced devices. It can be argued that this helps protect Apple proprietary customer information from competitors, which if true would be completely allowable. But how does that square with how the desktop world has evolved? There it is open wild-west terms on full data extraction from the user, even without the users permission.
Things are different in mobile with the vertical market control, but are they different enough to avoid falling on the wrong side of the law for stuff like ad data collection???
ISTM that Apple is saying that any ad company of any level of ethics can access this information, except for those ad companies who also happen to compete with Apple handsets.
"Agencies will now be allowed to collect user data, but only after receiving their consent.
"As noted by Peter Kafka at MediaMemo, the modified section 3.3.9 says that information can only be provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."
"For example," it continues, "an advertising service or provider owned or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems of development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent."
Good luck with that, Apple.
Why do you say that Apple has the best lawyers?
Best is impossible to define in this context. Apple's lawyers are, very likely, excellent or better. Masterful, probably.
Somebody show me PROOF that any government agency is "investigating" Apple. Go on, I'll wait. I don't mean point me to some blogger or some newspaper rag speculating or quoting some unnamed source. Show me actual concrete proof that Apple is under investigation.
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be investigated - not my point. My point is somebody tossed this rumor out into the blog universe and now it is being taken as fact. I've not heard one peep out of the government yet.
I love this forum.