I would not call several plain text "sponsored links" at the top and right of Google searches "gratuitous, disruptive, and irritating". Where have you seen Google ads that fit into this category?
I hate the flash-based talking ads and the pop-over ones that you have to click to get rid of... I have never seen these on Google.
I always thought common consensus was that Google rules the desktop search world because their results are more relevant and their ads are clean and unobtrusive (unlike Yahoo, MSN, and the dozens of other cluttered crapfests that have died over the years).
My experience is that #2 is patently false... do you have any supporting evidence?
No I don't! Are you saying that most Android apps run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices?
Again, I don't pay much attention to the Android platform! But over the last 5-6 months I have read various articles by developers and sites like AI that claim that fragmentation is a big problem because of device hardware differences, different OS versions to support, and dependency on the carrier OS skins, etc.
Aside:
Currently most apps that run on the original iPhone will run on all the current device and OS versions. The iPad is the exception. It has its own unique iOS version (3.2). Apple forked iOS development so that they could develop the iPad and iPhone concurrently. The iPad will get the latest iOS 4, this fall.
Until then, As a developer, you need to decide on what devices to target and proceed accordingly.
It is not exceedingly difficult to target all the devices-- it just takes some decisions and some planning.
Another consideration is that iOS devices have a long life-- old iPhones get handed down as phones or iPod Touch, game-boy alternatives. So a savvy developer can target a large population of older devices.
As an iOS developer with fewer devices (from a single manufacturer) with no carrier embellishments-- fragmentation is a consideration. Screen sizes & resolutions are pretty easy to to handle. Feature differences (camera, GPS, cell radio) tend to be more black and white. When there is a major difference-- as in the screen real estate on the iPad vs the smaller iPhone and iPod Touch, in many cases you must completely rethink the app. Taking a an iPhone app and enlarging it for an iPad just doesn't work, in many cases. So, you design a different app for the iPad.
As I mentioned above, but you choose to ignore: Ads and Search are changing! We are in the early stages of that change. For now, people will continue to use Google/Yahoo/Bing search on the desktop, through the browser because they have little choice.
Increasingly, though, people set their browser to block pop-up windows, disable JavaScript and block Flash. Why? because browser searches increasingly present the user with disruptive, irritating and unwanted ads..
The user and the search service are enjoined in a battle-- where the user wants to get results and the search service wants ads and clicks.
I think that most users would be willing to accept browser/search ads in exchange for the service... if the ads are done properly.
But, the problem is that the search ads are not done properly... They Suck! They increasingly are an affront to the user and an impediment to productivity.
As I mention below, Googles latest ploy to redirect my searches is especially irritating-- to the point that every time it happens, I ignore the Google results and use a different search engine.
The Googles, Yahoos and Bings need to rethink their offerings as they are in danger of killing "the goose that laid the golden eggs".
I will still have to disagree with you there. I did a simple Google search on my phone and I get results laid out in the following order:
1. Images results
2. Relevant links to websites
3. News results
4. Video results
5. Book results
6. Similar suggested searches
7. Ad links
As you can see, the ads are placed all the way at the bottom of the screen, out of the way. The relevant search results in multiple media formats are presented up front for the user. I didn't see any indication of the engine trying to force or redirect me to their ads.
As for Flash ads. The only mobile OS that I'm aware of that'll run Flash is Android 2.2. The browser has an option to set Flash to run "on demand". Meaning that where the Flash item would normally be, the browser (and third-party browsers too it seems), will replace it with a clickable (tappable?) box. The Flash content will not run unless the user allows it to. Thus preventing the majority of those annoying Flash ads from getting in your face constantly.
Quote:
Actually, it is true! Some apps show ads, many do not! On iOS, even the ones that do show ads are limited, by the OS and the developer, in what they can present-- no popups, no Flash.
The advent of iAd, along with the limits placed on AdMob and others, should improve the user experience on iOS devices.
Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).
Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.
I'm glad to hear this. But my point still stands. It may be a 3% of your apps that have ads, but you have to multiply this by the platform group as a whole. And remember that Apple has just gotten started with iAds. My guess is that as time moves on, I suspect you'll see more of them in your apps.
Your point (if I read it correctly) is that apps are starting to push out browser searches, making Android useless. Yet here we are still with ads in your apps. That 3% multiplied by the whole of the platform (iOS or Android) still can generate a lot of money.
The more people that buy Android phones, the more Google search and the ads will be viewed. As long as Android continues to evolve as an OS and adds more innovative features and the OEMs continue to pump out evolved hardware, the people will continue to buy the devices and guarantee the continued life of Android. It's my belief that the life of Android is actually determined by the people, not whether or not Google sees "usefulness" in it.
In the latest Q2 earning call, Google's CFO said that Android development costs were "not material". Clearly, Google's got the money to easily cover its development so as long as people keep buying Android devices, all it does it add to Google's search.
Quote:
I suspect you meant to say "If the ad is of great quality...".
I agree with this, and yes the users, likely, won't be put-off by a tasteful banner.
A little bit of both. If the ad's done well, then yes, the user won't care. If the app itself is a really good one and the ad is placed in an unobtrusive place (as the majority of ad banners are), most users will be willing to accept it.
Quote:
As of today, I suspect AdMob (google) is responsible for most of the mobile ads on smart phone class mobile devices. I include the iPod Touch and iPad because, while not phones, they are potentially lucrative ad targets.
With an installed base of over 100 million devices and more than double the number of apps-- it makes sense, for purposes of this discussion, to focus on iOS devices.
AdMob may continue to serve ads to iOS devices, but they no longer are allowed to gather mobile analytics.
This precludes AdMob from targeting ads to iOS users except with a very broad brush.
I suspect, as the iOS platform evolves, iAd will be the predominant delivery vehicle for ads.
Further, based on Apple's track record, Steve's comments about iAd and Apples attention to "User Experience"-- i believe the ads will be targeted, high-quality, and well-received... with the user making the choice:
1) whether to receive any ads (pay or free programs)
2) minimalist, tasteful ad banners within the app
3) targeted to the user's current interests
4) user opt-in to view the ad without leaving the app
5) user opt-out an any time.
So, while it is true, that, likely, there will be ads in iOS apps-- they won't be anything like those served by browsers and search engines on the desktop.
If Steve has his way, the millions of iOS users will have a very positive ad experience.
I have no qualms here. I do hope that iAds will give all those benefits in the future. It's a good balance of user experience and Apple earning money off of ads.
Quote:
Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.
To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!
It is not too far a stretch to imagine that the typical Android app ad banner would look something like this:
Image removed to save space on the post
I'm assuming that you've never seen an Android app ad because it seems you don't own an Android device. It actually looks like this:
Notice how the ad itself sits at the very bottom of the screen where there's no content being displayed. Very out of the way. It rotates ads at a set cycle, but it does not move from that spot. I do believe that this is how Apple does its app ads as well.
And like Apple's iAds, there will be a variety of banner types. Ones that have a phone icon on it that allows you to call the company directly and ones that expand to show maps or be interactive.
Quote:
Several things at work here:
1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices.
So, it is natural to compensate for app deficiency with browser searches-- resulting in search growth on a fast-growing platform.
Yes, it's a smaller initial install base, but we all have to start from somewhere. This growth "spurt" doesn't seem to have any end in the near-term as every single new study that comes out shows yet more Android gain. Even with preparations by the carriers, the phones are still getting sold out within days. The people clearly want these phones.
I too will have to completely disagree with #2. Getting to the 2.x version of Android was the biggest hurdle in terms of app development. Now that 60%+ of devices are running 2.1 and above, the vast majority of Android apps are available to run on the majority of Android devices.
Quote:
Au Contraire! I am well aware of Apple's iAd offering in the mobile ad space. I watched the announcement and have been experimenting with iAd (since it became available in the SDK) as an iOS developer.
And it does matter what OS is pushed.
Apple has a goal of selling devices with the best user experience.
Android has a goal of selling ads.
Ad delivery has been marginally acceptable on the desktop, but sucks in the mobile environment.
On the desktop, you can open another window, do a search (blocking pop-ups, JavaScript, Flash) at your choice. Typically, the desktop user has multiple windows open, and is working on several things at once. If an ad is invasive, he can close the window, change windows, change apps and move on...
On the mobile device, the user operates differently-- the tendency is to spend small snippets of time: get in; do something; get out! If an ad is poorly targeted, poorly presented or invasive it is much more disruptive to the user and his productivity. If I am going to spend 20-30 seconds in an app, I don't, necessarily, want to be forced to spend another 30 seconds watching an ad, before I get to my purpose for using the app.
If you view Apple's iAd announcement, you will see that Apple's mobile iAds are targeted at improving the mobile user experience and enhancing the platform-- to sell more devices.
If you consider Google, they have no devices or platform to sell-- only ads.
If history is any guide, Google will attempt to get as many ads as they can, "in your face", as frequently as possible-- that's how they make their money.
I suspect that either:
1) Android will become a platform of poorly-targeted, poor-quality intrusive ads-- to the detriment of Android users and developers
2) Android will attempt to follow the iAd model with limited success (because of lack of incentive and lack of tenacity).
3) Google will abandon Android because it cannot deliver the "goods!"
Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!
Have you seen the Google I/O keynotes as well where they show off their ad experience? This is a link to the entire Google Day 2 keynote, but skip ahead to 38:00 where they show off how their ads work on Android:
In essence, it looks like your whole argument of Android failing because of the ads are based on limited knowledge of use of the platform.
I highly suggest you go and borrow an Android device from a friend and do a Google search and look at some of the apps with ads in them. You will find that:
1. The ads are targeted very well based on the user's past searches and location
2. The ads in the apps are very unobtrusive and clearly not "in your face" nor placed all over the place
3. There are a variety of ad types that will show in the app banners, but will not take up any more space that in the image I showed above, unless the user decides that the ad is interesting enough for them to click on.
No I don't! Are you saying that most Android apps run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices?
Again, I don't pay much attention to the Android platform! But over the last 5-6 months I have read various articles by developers and sites like AI that claim that fragmentation is a big problem because of device hardware differences, different OS versions to support, and dependency on the carrier OS skins, etc.
.
I really can't answer that definitively... I know there are some fragmentation issues, but there are also mechanisms built into the system to make it a relatively non-issue for end users. I have a somewhat recent device (Nov-09) and have had no app compatibility issues at all; but I started with a 2.x OS and the carrier has kept it up-to-date. I don't think there are many "envelope-pushing" Android apps (yet?), so that probably helps too!!
I'd guess there are issues with older (1.x) devices not being compatible with the newest software... which of course is only made worse by the manufacturer/carrier having the decision whether or not to update the device. But to your point, I agree there will be some fragmentation issues for any platform that is moving forward...
I will still have to disagree with you there. I did a simple Google search on my phone and I get results laid out in the following order:
1. Images results
2. Relevant links to websites
3. News results
4. Video results
5. Book results
6. Similar suggested searches
7. Ad links
As you can see, the ads are placed all the way at the bottom of the screen, out of the way. The relevant search results in multiple media formats are presented up front for the user. I didn't see any indication of the engine trying to force or redirect me to their ads.
As for Flash ads. The only mobile OS that I'm aware of that'll run Flash is Android 2.2. The browser has an option to set Flash to run "on demand". Meaning that where the Flash item would normally be, the browser (and third-party browsers too it seems), will replace it with a clickable (tappable?) box. The Flash content will not run unless the user allows it to. Thus preventing the majority of those annoying Flash ads from getting in your face constantly.
I guess I wasn't clear, but I rarely do a search on my iPhone. I was talking about desktop searches-- that are increasingly offensive.
I just did a Google search on the desktop and on my iPhone for nascar photo.
Here are the results on the iPhone:
I added the red ovals to highlight the search, and the fact that sponsored links are sometimes shown at the top (another is at the bottom).
The oval indicates the url of the page shown when I clinked the topmost search result (the sponsored link)
The page contains a Flash movie, apparently with a Flash splash image-- so nothing is shown (thankfully).
Now, lets see how Google works on the Desktop.
Here's our search result:
Again, I added the red ovals to highlight the search, and the fact that sponsored links are sometimes shown at the top (no other is at the bottom).
The oval indicates the url of the page shown when I clinked the topmost search result (the sponsored link)
This is what pisses me off-- Google has decided to link me to another page than the one I requested-- a page full of unrelated ads. Google goes through an intermediate redirection process to do this, and it takes 3 "back" clicks to get to the original search results.
Sometimes, Google doesn't like a simple search request and takes me to a separate Google page where I need to enter an anti-spam sequence of characters (from a distorted image) to proceed.
This is getting tedious, and I am using Google, less and less on the desktop, and almost never on the mobile devices
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
I'm glad to hear this. But my point still stands. It may be a 3% of your apps that have ads, but you have to multiply this by the platform group as a whole. And remember that Apple has just gotten started with iAds. My guess is that as time moves on, I suspect you'll see more of them in your apps.
I meant that 3% of the apps I have installed show any ads. What is a "platform group"? Ads have been available on the iPhone for a while (AIR, before Google bought AdMob, and before Android was available on any mobile device). i could be wrong, as there have not really been very many ads on iPhone apps (that I have seen).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
Your point (if I read it correctly) is that apps are starting to push out browser searches, making Android useless. Yet here we are still with ads in your apps. That 3% multiplied by the whole of the platform (iOS or Android) still can generate a lot of money.
Ahh... If you are saying that ads on 3% 0f 100 million iOS devices, I agree.
In fact the dynamic that Steve presented at the iAd announcement were so many potential ad views per hour (etc).
I agree that the potential is very powerful-- but it must be done correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
The more people that buy Android phones, the more Google search and the ads will be viewed. As long as Android continues to evolve as an OS and adds more innovative features and the OEMs continue to pump out evolved hardware, the people will continue to buy the devices and guarantee the continued life of Android. It's my belief that the life of Android is actually determined by the people, not whether or not Google sees "usefulness" in it.
Here's where we disagree. Google is becoming increasingly intrusive. I resent it, to the point of reducing (eliminating, where I can) the use of their service. It is counter productive.
I see nothing that suggests that Google is interested in anything but serving ads. I might be willing to view ads but that is my choice, not Google's, Apple's or anyone's.
If Google's Android customers purchase apps [predominately] with ads, as you suggest, that is their choice.
If Android customers still require heavy use of search (and associated ads) that tells me there is something missing in the platform-- that Google cannot, or will not provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
In the latest Q2 earning call, Google's CFO said that Android development costs were "not material". Clearly, Google's got the money to easily cover its development so as long as people keep buying Android devices, all it does it add to Google's search.
Yes, Exactly! The ads pay for everything! That tells me all I need to know about Googles motivation.
If Apple had the same motivation to provide iOS, it would be equally suspect!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
A little bit of both. If the ad's done well, then yes, the user won't care. If the app itself is a really good one and the ad is placed in an unobtrusive place (as the majority of ad banners are), most users will be willing to accept it.
I have no qualms here. I do hope that iAds will give all those benefits in the future. It's a good balance of user experience and Apple earning money off of ads.
I'm assuming that you've never seen an Android app ad because it seems you don't own an Android device. It actually looks like this:
Notice how the ad itself sits at the very bottom of the screen where there's no content being displayed. Very out of the way. It rotates ads at a set cycle, but it does not move from that spot. I do believe that this is how Apple does its app ads as well.
And like Apple's iAds, there will be a variety of banner types. Ones that have a phone icon on it that allows you to call the company directly and ones that expand to show maps or be interactive.
Yes, it's a smaller initial install base, but we all have to start from somewhere. This growth "spurt" doesn't seem to have any end in the near-term as every single new study that comes out shows yet more Android gain. Even with preparations by the carriers, the phones are still getting sold out within days. The people clearly want these phones.
I too will have to completely disagree with #2. Getting to the 2.x version of Android was the biggest hurdle in terms of app development. Now that 60%+ of devices are running 2.1 and above, the vast majority of Android apps are available to run on the majority of Android devices.
Have you seen the Google I/O keynotes as well where they show off their ad experience? This is a link to the entire Google Day 2 keynote, but skip ahead to 38:00 where they show off how their ads work on Android:
I took your advice and briefly watched the ad preso. The first thing I saw was an ad containing scrolling text at the top of the screen-- reminiscent of an animated GIF. In all honesty, there were things that were quite similar to iAd features.
But, I was uncomfortable with the emphasis-- on the ads rather than the benefit to developers. And, I find the presenter's mannerisms to be flippant, condescending and off-putting. I tried to look beyond these personal characteristics to see the content-- I found it difficult.
Later, I will try again, to discern the quality and the benefits of the Android ad platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
In essence, it looks like your whole argument of Android failing because of the ads are based on limited knowledge of use of the platform.
I highly suggest you go and borrow an Android device from a friend and do a Google search and look at some of the apps with ads in them. You will find that:
1. The ads are targeted very well based on the user's past searches and location
2. The ads in the apps are very unobtrusive and clearly not "in your face" nor placed all over the place
3. There are a variety of ad types that will show in the app banners, but will not take up any more space that in the image I showed above, unless the user decides that the ad is interesting enough for them to click on.
I hear what you say, but I saw what I saw!
I am downloading the Google press, it is quite large. When finished, I will create a short video of what I saw and post it here.
Update:
Below is the section of the Google video dedicated to Android ads.
1) the placement of the ad at the top of the screen
2) the animation of the ad which detracts from the app and potentially confuses the user
3) all ad formats (except the one patterned after iAd) leave the application-- maybe never to return*
4) some of the ads were imposed in the middle of the app's display (vertically)-- what's with that?
5) Does the Developer have control of which ads are shown> Where?
6) Can the user opt out?
* all of the ads except one use the "back button of the multi-tasking interface?" to return to the app-- it appears that a user of an app can easily use his way
The speaker says that Android is able to serve targeted ads based upon your location, browser history, search history.
Can the user opt in to this location, browser and search tracking?
Can the user opt out?
Is he warned that he is being tracked and monitored.?
With whom does Google share the detail analytic information?
This is what pisses me off-- Google has decided to link me to another page than the one I requested-- a page full of unrelated ads. Google goes through an intermediate redirection process to do this, and it takes 3 "back" clicks to get to the original search results.
Sometimes, Google doesn't like a simple search request and takes me to a separate Google page where I need to enter an anti-spam sequence of characters (from a distorted image) to proceed.
.
I'm confused -- are you pissed because the "sponsored links" are actually there, or because you get redirected to Shopica.com on your desktop?
Getting redirected to Shopica.com and frequently getting the CAPTCHA screen from normal searches are normally two clear signs that you are infected with some sort of malware.
This is *not* normal Google behavior...
I'm assuming you're running Safari on Mac, so I don't know what to tell you... I didn't think these things happened on Macs...
I'm confused -- are you pissed because the "sponsored links" are actually there, or because you get redirected to Shopica.com on your desktop?
Getting redirected to Shopica.com and frequently getting the CAPTCHA screen from normal searches are normally two clear signs that you are infected with some sort of malware.
This is *not* normal Google behavior...
I'm assuming you're running Safari on Mac, so I don't know what to tell you... I didn't think these things happened on Macs...
The sponsored links are tolerable-- though I think they should not be at the top of the list.
I am pissed about the redirection. iMac 24 with all the latest Mac OS X updates.
Never had a virus that I knew of -- but it's possible!
You think I don't know anything about you because this is an internet forum? And, I don't dislike you because you disagree with me. I dislike you because of who you are, as evidenced by your comments some time back to the effect that those who are not US citizens are essentially second class humans, among other things you have said and done in the past on this forum. I know you plenty well.
Second class humans? What the hell are you talking about? Dude get a grip, seriously.
You aren't a second class human, first class idiot yes.
Google isn't evil. They're just aimless plagiarists like the rest of the Apple copycats. Google just happens to throw their patchwork OS onto a lot more devices than the rest, a la Microsoft.
Google isn't evil. They're just aimless plagiarists like the rest of the Apple copycats. Google just happens to throw their patchwork OS onto a lot more devices than the rest, a la Microsoft.
Might as well call it Windroid Mobile.
So much mudslinging!
Call them whatever you like to make your ego feel good, but at the end of the day, you'll still have to call them and Android successful.
Comments
Oh, ok, I guess we should take self-serving PR spin as the definitive source on what companies are up to, they would never attempt to deceive us.
Again, ironic considering where you are...
I would not call several plain text "sponsored links" at the top and right of Google searches "gratuitous, disruptive, and irritating". Where have you seen Google ads that fit into this category?
I hate the flash-based talking ads and the pop-over ones that you have to click to get rid of... I have never seen these on Google.
I always thought common consensus was that Google rules the desktop search world because their results are more relevant and their ads are clean and unobtrusive (unlike Yahoo, MSN, and the dozens of other cluttered crapfests that have died over the years).
My experience is that #2 is patently false... do you have any supporting evidence?
No I don't! Are you saying that most Android apps run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices?
Again, I don't pay much attention to the Android platform! But over the last 5-6 months I have read various articles by developers and sites like AI that claim that fragmentation is a big problem because of device hardware differences, different OS versions to support, and dependency on the carrier OS skins, etc.
Aside:
Currently most apps that run on the original iPhone will run on all the current device and OS versions. The iPad is the exception. It has its own unique iOS version (3.2). Apple forked iOS development so that they could develop the iPad and iPhone concurrently. The iPad will get the latest iOS 4, this fall.
Until then, As a developer, you need to decide on what devices to target and proceed accordingly.
It is not exceedingly difficult to target all the devices-- it just takes some decisions and some planning.
Another consideration is that iOS devices have a long life-- old iPhones get handed down as phones or iPod Touch, game-boy alternatives. So a savvy developer can target a large population of older devices.
As an iOS developer with fewer devices (from a single manufacturer) with no carrier embellishments-- fragmentation is a consideration. Screen sizes & resolutions are pretty easy to to handle. Feature differences (camera, GPS, cell radio) tend to be more black and white. When there is a major difference-- as in the screen real estate on the iPad vs the smaller iPhone and iPod Touch, in many cases you must completely rethink the app. Taking a an iPhone app and enlarging it for an iPad just doesn't work, in many cases. So, you design a different app for the iPad.
.
Again, ironic considering where you are...
Actually, it's not ironic at all, since it has nothing to do with where I am.
As I mentioned above, but you choose to ignore: Ads and Search are changing! We are in the early stages of that change. For now, people will continue to use Google/Yahoo/Bing search on the desktop, through the browser because they have little choice.
Increasingly, though, people set their browser to block pop-up windows, disable JavaScript and block Flash. Why? because browser searches increasingly present the user with disruptive, irritating and unwanted ads..
The user and the search service are enjoined in a battle-- where the user wants to get results and the search service wants ads and clicks.
I think that most users would be willing to accept browser/search ads in exchange for the service... if the ads are done properly.
But, the problem is that the search ads are not done properly... They Suck! They increasingly are an affront to the user and an impediment to productivity.
As I mention below, Googles latest ploy to redirect my searches is especially irritating-- to the point that every time it happens, I ignore the Google results and use a different search engine.
The Googles, Yahoos and Bings need to rethink their offerings as they are in danger of killing "the goose that laid the golden eggs".
I will still have to disagree with you there. I did a simple Google search on my phone and I get results laid out in the following order:
1. Images results
2. Relevant links to websites
3. News results
4. Video results
5. Book results
6. Similar suggested searches
7. Ad links
As you can see, the ads are placed all the way at the bottom of the screen, out of the way. The relevant search results in multiple media formats are presented up front for the user. I didn't see any indication of the engine trying to force or redirect me to their ads.
As for Flash ads. The only mobile OS that I'm aware of that'll run Flash is Android 2.2. The browser has an option to set Flash to run "on demand". Meaning that where the Flash item would normally be, the browser (and third-party browsers too it seems), will replace it with a clickable (tappable?) box. The Flash content will not run unless the user allows it to. Thus preventing the majority of those annoying Flash ads from getting in your face constantly.
Actually, it is true! Some apps show ads, many do not! On iOS, even the ones that do show ads are limited, by the OS and the developer, in what they can present-- no popups, no Flash.
The advent of iAd, along with the limits placed on AdMob and others, should improve the user experience on iOS devices.
Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).
Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.
I'm glad to hear this. But my point still stands. It may be a 3% of your apps that have ads, but you have to multiply this by the platform group as a whole. And remember that Apple has just gotten started with iAds. My guess is that as time moves on, I suspect you'll see more of them in your apps.
Your point (if I read it correctly) is that apps are starting to push out browser searches, making Android useless. Yet here we are still with ads in your apps. That 3% multiplied by the whole of the platform (iOS or Android) still can generate a lot of money.
The more people that buy Android phones, the more Google search and the ads will be viewed. As long as Android continues to evolve as an OS and adds more innovative features and the OEMs continue to pump out evolved hardware, the people will continue to buy the devices and guarantee the continued life of Android. It's my belief that the life of Android is actually determined by the people, not whether or not Google sees "usefulness" in it.
In the latest Q2 earning call, Google's CFO said that Android development costs were "not material". Clearly, Google's got the money to easily cover its development so as long as people keep buying Android devices, all it does it add to Google's search.
I suspect you meant to say "If the ad is of great quality...".
I agree with this, and yes the users, likely, won't be put-off by a tasteful banner.
A little bit of both. If the ad's done well, then yes, the user won't care. If the app itself is a really good one and the ad is placed in an unobtrusive place (as the majority of ad banners are), most users will be willing to accept it.
As of today, I suspect AdMob (google) is responsible for most of the mobile ads on smart phone class mobile devices. I include the iPod Touch and iPad because, while not phones, they are potentially lucrative ad targets.
With an installed base of over 100 million devices and more than double the number of apps-- it makes sense, for purposes of this discussion, to focus on iOS devices.
AdMob may continue to serve ads to iOS devices, but they no longer are allowed to gather mobile analytics.
This precludes AdMob from targeting ads to iOS users except with a very broad brush.
I suspect, as the iOS platform evolves, iAd will be the predominant delivery vehicle for ads.
Further, based on Apple's track record, Steve's comments about iAd and Apples attention to "User Experience"-- i believe the ads will be targeted, high-quality, and well-received... with the user making the choice:
1) whether to receive any ads (pay or free programs)
2) minimalist, tasteful ad banners within the app
3) targeted to the user's current interests
4) user opt-in to view the ad without leaving the app
5) user opt-out an any time.
So, while it is true, that, likely, there will be ads in iOS apps-- they won't be anything like those served by browsers and search engines on the desktop.
If Steve has his way, the millions of iOS users will have a very positive ad experience.
I have no qualms here. I do hope that iAds will give all those benefits in the future. It's a good balance of user experience and Apple earning money off of ads.
Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.
To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!
It is not too far a stretch to imagine that the typical Android app ad banner would look something like this:
Image removed to save space on the post
I'm assuming that you've never seen an Android app ad because it seems you don't own an Android device. It actually looks like this:
Notice how the ad itself sits at the very bottom of the screen where there's no content being displayed. Very out of the way. It rotates ads at a set cycle, but it does not move from that spot. I do believe that this is how Apple does its app ads as well.
And like Apple's iAds, there will be a variety of banner types. Ones that have a phone icon on it that allows you to call the company directly and ones that expand to show maps or be interactive.
Several things at work here:
1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices.
So, it is natural to compensate for app deficiency with browser searches-- resulting in search growth on a fast-growing platform.
Yes, it's a smaller initial install base, but we all have to start from somewhere. This growth "spurt" doesn't seem to have any end in the near-term as every single new study that comes out shows yet more Android gain. Even with preparations by the carriers, the phones are still getting sold out within days. The people clearly want these phones.
I too will have to completely disagree with #2. Getting to the 2.x version of Android was the biggest hurdle in terms of app development. Now that 60%+ of devices are running 2.1 and above, the vast majority of Android apps are available to run on the majority of Android devices.
Au Contraire! I am well aware of Apple's iAd offering in the mobile ad space. I watched the announcement and have been experimenting with iAd (since it became available in the SDK) as an iOS developer.
And it does matter what OS is pushed.
Apple has a goal of selling devices with the best user experience.
Android has a goal of selling ads.
Ad delivery has been marginally acceptable on the desktop, but sucks in the mobile environment.
On the desktop, you can open another window, do a search (blocking pop-ups, JavaScript, Flash) at your choice. Typically, the desktop user has multiple windows open, and is working on several things at once. If an ad is invasive, he can close the window, change windows, change apps and move on...
On the mobile device, the user operates differently-- the tendency is to spend small snippets of time: get in; do something; get out! If an ad is poorly targeted, poorly presented or invasive it is much more disruptive to the user and his productivity. If I am going to spend 20-30 seconds in an app, I don't, necessarily, want to be forced to spend another 30 seconds watching an ad, before I get to my purpose for using the app.
If you view Apple's iAd announcement, you will see that Apple's mobile iAds are targeted at improving the mobile user experience and enhancing the platform-- to sell more devices.
If you consider Google, they have no devices or platform to sell-- only ads.
If history is any guide, Google will attempt to get as many ads as they can, "in your face", as frequently as possible-- that's how they make their money.
I suspect that either:
1) Android will become a platform of poorly-targeted, poor-quality intrusive ads-- to the detriment of Android users and developers
2) Android will attempt to follow the iAd model with limited success (because of lack of incentive and lack of tenacity).
3) Google will abandon Android because it cannot deliver the "goods!"
Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!
Have you seen the Google I/O keynotes as well where they show off their ad experience? This is a link to the entire Google Day 2 keynote, but skip ahead to 38:00 where they show off how their ads work on Android:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY3U2GXhz44
In essence, it looks like your whole argument of Android failing because of the ads are based on limited knowledge of use of the platform.
I highly suggest you go and borrow an Android device from a friend and do a Google search and look at some of the apps with ads in them. You will find that:
1. The ads are targeted very well based on the user's past searches and location
2. The ads in the apps are very unobtrusive and clearly not "in your face" nor placed all over the place
3. There are a variety of ad types that will show in the app banners, but will not take up any more space that in the image I showed above, unless the user decides that the ad is interesting enough for them to click on.
No I don't! Are you saying that most Android apps run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices?
Again, I don't pay much attention to the Android platform! But over the last 5-6 months I have read various articles by developers and sites like AI that claim that fragmentation is a big problem because of device hardware differences, different OS versions to support, and dependency on the carrier OS skins, etc.
.
I really can't answer that definitively...
I'd guess there are issues with older (1.x) devices not being compatible with the newest software... which of course is only made worse by the manufacturer/carrier having the decision whether or not to update the device. But to your point, I agree there will be some fragmentation issues for any platform that is moving forward...
I will still have to disagree with you there. I did a simple Google search on my phone and I get results laid out in the following order:
1. Images results
2. Relevant links to websites
3. News results
4. Video results
5. Book results
6. Similar suggested searches
7. Ad links
As you can see, the ads are placed all the way at the bottom of the screen, out of the way. The relevant search results in multiple media formats are presented up front for the user. I didn't see any indication of the engine trying to force or redirect me to their ads.
As for Flash ads. The only mobile OS that I'm aware of that'll run Flash is Android 2.2. The browser has an option to set Flash to run "on demand". Meaning that where the Flash item would normally be, the browser (and third-party browsers too it seems), will replace it with a clickable (tappable?) box. The Flash content will not run unless the user allows it to. Thus preventing the majority of those annoying Flash ads from getting in your face constantly.
I guess I wasn't clear, but I rarely do a search on my iPhone. I was talking about desktop searches-- that are increasingly offensive.
I just did a Google search on the desktop and on my iPhone for nascar photo.
Here are the results on the iPhone:
I added the red ovals to highlight the search, and the fact that sponsored links are sometimes shown at the top (another is at the bottom).
The oval indicates the url of the page shown when I clinked the topmost search result (the sponsored link)
The page contains a Flash movie, apparently with a Flash splash image-- so nothing is shown (thankfully).
Now, lets see how Google works on the Desktop.
Here's our search result:
Again, I added the red ovals to highlight the search, and the fact that sponsored links are sometimes shown at the top (no other is at the bottom).
The oval indicates the url of the page shown when I clinked the topmost search result (the sponsored link)
This is what pisses me off-- Google has decided to link me to another page than the one I requested-- a page full of unrelated ads. Google goes through an intermediate redirection process to do this, and it takes 3 "back" clicks to get to the original search results.
Sometimes, Google doesn't like a simple search request and takes me to a separate Google page where I need to enter an anti-spam sequence of characters (from a distorted image) to proceed.
This is getting tedious, and I am using Google, less and less on the desktop, and almost never on the mobile devices
I'm glad to hear this. But my point still stands. It may be a 3% of your apps that have ads, but you have to multiply this by the platform group as a whole. And remember that Apple has just gotten started with iAds. My guess is that as time moves on, I suspect you'll see more of them in your apps.
I meant that 3% of the apps I have installed show any ads. What is a "platform group"? Ads have been available on the iPhone for a while (AIR, before Google bought AdMob, and before Android was available on any mobile device). i could be wrong, as there have not really been very many ads on iPhone apps (that I have seen).
Your point (if I read it correctly) is that apps are starting to push out browser searches, making Android useless. Yet here we are still with ads in your apps. That 3% multiplied by the whole of the platform (iOS or Android) still can generate a lot of money.
Ahh... If you are saying that ads on 3% 0f 100 million iOS devices, I agree.
In fact the dynamic that Steve presented at the iAd announcement were so many potential ad views per hour (etc).
I agree that the potential is very powerful-- but it must be done correctly.
The more people that buy Android phones, the more Google search and the ads will be viewed. As long as Android continues to evolve as an OS and adds more innovative features and the OEMs continue to pump out evolved hardware, the people will continue to buy the devices and guarantee the continued life of Android. It's my belief that the life of Android is actually determined by the people, not whether or not Google sees "usefulness" in it.
Here's where we disagree. Google is becoming increasingly intrusive. I resent it, to the point of reducing (eliminating, where I can) the use of their service. It is counter productive.
I see nothing that suggests that Google is interested in anything but serving ads. I might be willing to view ads but that is my choice, not Google's, Apple's or anyone's.
If Google's Android customers purchase apps [predominately] with ads, as you suggest, that is their choice.
If Android customers still require heavy use of search (and associated ads) that tells me there is something missing in the platform-- that Google cannot, or will not provide.
In the latest Q2 earning call, Google's CFO said that Android development costs were "not material". Clearly, Google's got the money to easily cover its development so as long as people keep buying Android devices, all it does it add to Google's search.
Yes, Exactly! The ads pay for everything! That tells me all I need to know about Googles motivation.
If Apple had the same motivation to provide iOS, it would be equally suspect!
A little bit of both. If the ad's done well, then yes, the user won't care. If the app itself is a really good one and the ad is placed in an unobtrusive place (as the majority of ad banners are), most users will be willing to accept it.
I have no qualms here. I do hope that iAds will give all those benefits in the future. It's a good balance of user experience and Apple earning money off of ads.
I'm assuming that you've never seen an Android app ad because it seems you don't own an Android device. It actually looks like this:
Notice how the ad itself sits at the very bottom of the screen where there's no content being displayed. Very out of the way. It rotates ads at a set cycle, but it does not move from that spot. I do believe that this is how Apple does its app ads as well.
And like Apple's iAds, there will be a variety of banner types. Ones that have a phone icon on it that allows you to call the company directly and ones that expand to show maps or be interactive.
Yes, it's a smaller initial install base, but we all have to start from somewhere. This growth "spurt" doesn't seem to have any end in the near-term as every single new study that comes out shows yet more Android gain. Even with preparations by the carriers, the phones are still getting sold out within days. The people clearly want these phones.
I too will have to completely disagree with #2. Getting to the 2.x version of Android was the biggest hurdle in terms of app development. Now that 60%+ of devices are running 2.1 and above, the vast majority of Android apps are available to run on the majority of Android devices.
Have you seen the Google I/O keynotes as well where they show off their ad experience? This is a link to the entire Google Day 2 keynote, but skip ahead to 38:00 where they show off how their ads work on Android:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY3U2GXhz44
I took your advice and briefly watched the ad preso. The first thing I saw was an ad containing scrolling text at the top of the screen-- reminiscent of an animated GIF. In all honesty, there were things that were quite similar to iAd features.
But, I was uncomfortable with the emphasis-- on the ads rather than the benefit to developers. And, I find the presenter's mannerisms to be flippant, condescending and off-putting. I tried to look beyond these personal characteristics to see the content-- I found it difficult.
Later, I will try again, to discern the quality and the benefits of the Android ad platform.
In essence, it looks like your whole argument of Android failing because of the ads are based on limited knowledge of use of the platform.
I highly suggest you go and borrow an Android device from a friend and do a Google search and look at some of the apps with ads in them. You will find that:
1. The ads are targeted very well based on the user's past searches and location
2. The ads in the apps are very unobtrusive and clearly not "in your face" nor placed all over the place
3. There are a variety of ad types that will show in the app banners, but will not take up any more space that in the image I showed above, unless the user decides that the ad is interesting enough for them to click on.
I hear what you say, but I saw what I saw!
I am downloading the Google press, it is quite large. When finished, I will create a short video of what I saw and post it here.
Update:
Below is the section of the Google video dedicated to Android ads.
http://web.me.com/dicklacara/Misc/Go...%20-%20ads.mov
Note:
1) the placement of the ad at the top of the screen
2) the animation of the ad which detracts from the app and potentially confuses the user
3) all ad formats (except the one patterned after iAd) leave the application-- maybe never to return*
4) some of the ads were imposed in the middle of the app's display (vertically)-- what's with that?
5) Does the Developer have control of which ads are shown> Where?
6) Can the user opt out?
* all of the ads except one use the "back button of the multi-tasking interface?" to return to the app-- it appears that a user of an app can easily use his way
The speaker says that Android is able to serve targeted ads based upon your location, browser history, search history.
Can the user opt in to this location, browser and search tracking?
Can the user opt out?
Is he warned that he is being tracked and monitored.?
With whom does Google share the detail analytic information?
With the advertisers?
With the Governments?
Is this an invasion of privacy?
.
This is what pisses me off-- Google has decided to link me to another page than the one I requested-- a page full of unrelated ads. Google goes through an intermediate redirection process to do this, and it takes 3 "back" clicks to get to the original search results.
Sometimes, Google doesn't like a simple search request and takes me to a separate Google page where I need to enter an anti-spam sequence of characters (from a distorted image) to proceed.
.
I'm confused -- are you pissed because the "sponsored links" are actually there, or because you get redirected to Shopica.com on your desktop?
Getting redirected to Shopica.com and frequently getting the CAPTCHA screen from normal searches are normally two clear signs that you are infected with some sort of malware.
This is *not* normal Google behavior...
I'm assuming you're running Safari on Mac, so I don't know what to tell you... I didn't think these things happened on Macs...
I'm confused -- are you pissed because the "sponsored links" are actually there, or because you get redirected to Shopica.com on your desktop?
Getting redirected to Shopica.com and frequently getting the CAPTCHA screen from normal searches are normally two clear signs that you are infected with some sort of malware.
This is *not* normal Google behavior...
I'm assuming you're running Safari on Mac, so I don't know what to tell you... I didn't think these things happened on Macs...
The sponsored links are tolerable-- though I think they should not be at the top of the list.
I am pissed about the redirection. iMac 24 with all the latest Mac OS X updates.
Never had a virus that I knew of -- but it's possible!
.
You think I don't know anything about you because this is an internet forum? And, I don't dislike you because you disagree with me. I dislike you because of who you are, as evidenced by your comments some time back to the effect that those who are not US citizens are essentially second class humans, among other things you have said and done in the past on this forum. I know you plenty well.
Second class humans? What the hell are you talking about? Dude get a grip, seriously.
You aren't a second class human, first class idiot yes.
Might as well call it Windroid Mobile.
The sponsored links are tolerable-- though I think they should not be at the top of the list.
I am pissed about the redirection. iMac 24 with all the latest Mac OS X updates.
Never had a virus that I knew of -- but it's possible!
.
If you were on Win I would say you're probably infected...
Sounds like at least some sort of DNS redirect issue... may be a router problem? Definitely worth looking into...
Google isn't evil. They're just aimless plagiarists like the rest of the Apple copycats. Google just happens to throw their patchwork OS onto a lot more devices than the rest, a la Microsoft.
Might as well call it Windroid Mobile.
So much mudslinging!
Call them whatever you like to make your ego feel good, but at the end of the day, you'll still have to call them and Android successful.
Does Apple have to be the only sucessful company?