iAds is supposed to be a way for developers to generate income from Apps.
More good, cheap/free apps for the iOS platform is good for Apple. The only relevant question from this perspective is does the iAds income from an iOS app equal or exceed that from an Android app (or is it at least sufficient to tip the balance in favor of developing for iOS)?
If, and this is a big if, thanks to market share of Android and great mobile ad revenue, developers start prioritizing Android development then that would be a problem.
The way to get an answer to that would be to hear from developers with large-volume ad-supported apps on both platforms.
In a market based economy, people speak with their dollars. So if you want to "hear" from developers, simply observe where they are spending their money. It's in the App Store, not Google Android Market nor Amazon's appstore, and certainly not in the WP marketplace.
The only apps to make it to Android are ones that are really easy to port. And as soon as they show up, there's a half dozen reposts of it with malware tacked on, as the "community" steals bootleg versions of it on the side. So I wonder how that's going to change.
Because it's Apple and anything journalists can hang a fail tag on belonging to them gets views and clicks. IMO, had Apple not made it such a high-profile announcement a couple years ago no one would even be paying attention. Does any media scrutinize MS mobile ad revenues? Not really since they haven't proclaimed it to be a high priority. At one time Apple did, which invited attention.
When did Apple claim that it was a 'high priority'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco
Yes, but they're pricing themselves out of the market. A near half-million dollar commitment? Please.
They could still maintain standards and quality control WITHOUT such requirements.
And speaking of in-app ads, those would be a fantastic way for DEVELOPERS to advertise new apps... except that new developers can't afford the rates.
When did Apple claim that it was a 'high priority'?
I'll reword that to a "high-profile announcement" of iAds, which to me says it was high-priority. I don't recall Apple ever using those words if that's what you're asking.
I'll reword that to a "high-profile announcement" of iAds, which to me says it was high-priority. I don't recall Apple ever using those words if that's what you're asking.
What high profile announcement? If it was a high profile announcement, they would have had a separate press event. It was tacked on at the end of a keynote. Apple never made it a high priority or made it look like it was a major part of their plans.
What high profile announcement? If it was a high profile announcement, they would have had a separate press event. It was tacked on at the end of a keynote. Apple never made it a high priority or made it look like it was a major part of their plans.
Ah, you feel it was mentioned in passing. Then I suppose we'll just disagree since it's a judgement call apparently. With the amount of time Steve Jobs took up with it at the developer's conference he treated it as pretty important, don't you think? It got plenty of attention too. Isn't that high-profile?
I will only add that Apple poses a credible potential threat to television manufacturers, subscription television service, game consoles, entertainment software and advertising as we know today.
If Apple can provide a competitively priced alternative to the current model with competitive advantages such as the following then their long term success is assured:
iCloud integration
Subscription television service supported via a nominal fee and iAd advertising (ala Hulu)
iTunes integration
App Store
Multi-user "mission control" (think of a digital version of the proverbial front of the refrigerator with a family schedule, home voicemail, intra-family messaging)
Game Center with obligatory game console functionality
Siri interface
FaceTime
The key is to make the user experience so compelling that the average user doesn't feel they need to connect several different devices or services (cable box, Blu-ray player, game console).
As much as I hate to admit it, consoles is where apple will have problems with complete saturation.
If I could believe apple would be able to overtake that market I wouldn't have a PS3 (first generation. I have some old games I like to be able to play) and a Wii.
If there was a way they could do that without infringing on The Move System from Sony, the controller format for the Wii, or even the Kinetic System from Microsoft, I feel they might actually have a chance, but until then, I worry they will not even be able to come close.
Apple would build cars furniture, if they could figure out a way to competitively price it and somehow make it fit under their company model.
And we would buy them, no matter how overpriced they may be.
There is also one thing I forgot -
The next step for apple would be to modify front stage into an iOS style interface and add that to the mini to make a new mid level machine as well.
Must make you really sad to be such a huge phandroid.......
Just noticed you had tacked this on.
FWIW, I'm not a huge phan-anything.
In fact I don't believe I've ever dissed an Apple device here. They make great products and have a great game-plan, but there's worthy products from competitors too. Neither Apple nor anyone else builds a product without flaws, or makes the right business decisions (IMO) everytime.
The question is, why would I want this? We all complain about Google raping our identities for ads, why is it okay for Apple to do the same?
Er, because Apple doesn't? Because Apple wanted to provide an option that doesn't? Because Apple wanted - probably more than anything else - to show the advertising world that ads don't have to be garish, annoying and cheesy to be successful. To demonstrate that if you make a quality and engaging ad - people will willingly engage with them (and they often do with iAd)
Quote:
Apple does not need the revenue from ads
Your right. They don't.
Quote:
and I'm pretty sure they created iAd in an attempt to simply limit Google's income.
While I'm sure there was a bit of that, but I do sincerely believe that they simply wanted to show it can be done better.
OTOH, Google has your identity, and then sells it for profit. Not exactly the type of company I want Apple, who seems to be one of the leaders in customer privacy, to turn into.
Why do you think they are going to change their stance on privacy just because they have iAd? Just because everyone else races to the bottom?
Because if there is one thing Apple is known for, it's following what everyone else is doing
You do realize that Hulu doesn't own any of the content they provide and that any agreements they have for said content are probably nullified by an acquisition like you are advocating?
Why people continually push for Apple (or any company) to acquire Hulu mystifies me...
As a developer I like iAds. They provide 90% of my ad income while only accounting for 30% of the ads I show. I wish there were more full iAds available. [..] From my perspective if iAds went by the wayside I'd stop making ad supported apps. Without iAds it's not viable. iAds are effectively supporting the other mobile ad platforms at present.
Thanks for the behind the scenes view. What a surprise, Apple once again goes for quality and not quantity. No wonder there is so much confusion and fear but the "insiders".
Here's a radical thought - iAd will go belly up when it stops being enough of a benefit for Apple to support it. I have a sneaky suspicion they are still in learning mode. Apple has lots of irons in the fire, and they tend to laser-focus on only a few areas at a time, coming back and making substantial improvements of things at varying schedules - look at the first vs. second generation Apple TV. People were saying the same thing about the Apple TV - it's tanking, loss leader, not worth it, going to be discontinued and then *bang* - ATV2 - a total reboot. Still not ideal, but I think as good as it can be in the current morass that is idiotic hidebound content providers.
It's also a way for developers to give you apps for "free". You may not like ad-supported games and news and whatnot, but other people do.
Or they like it more than actually paying a buck for an app....
I clearly misunderstood the concept (or forgot about it since its debut), so yeah that was stupid on my part. I do like that IOS has been good for developers, including small developers.
Not necessarily. In the age of diminishing privacy, there will be money to be made by not abusing trust and violating privacy in the Google model of commoditizing persons. Apple has an opportunity to essentially sell privacy as a feature, one which people will be willing to pay for as an alternative to Google's Big Brother is watching you, and selling you, ecosystem.
I'm sorry but there is a false logic in your statement.
Just because Apple creates a system within iOS/iAds/Siri/iCloud or however to advertise to users based on purchases/searches/Siri inquiries does not at all mean that Apple will abuse trust or violate privacy. Is there possibility for it? Sure. Apple's overall track record leads me to believes it will follow a different path.
And I have to say to those that disagree fundamentally with advertising, and I don't disagree with those folks, I would have to say there is a huge population that wants those advertisements. All the better if Apple can do it with the same quality and precision that is true to most of its products and services.
"...I don't know off the top of my head anything apple has given for free."
While iCloud is essentially rebranding of MobileMe, iCloud is an outstanding service primarily because it is free.
The "PC Free" feature in iOS 5 shouldn't be under appreciated either; "PC Free" implies and realistically allows use of iOS devices without requiring a computer. In the instance of iPad this almost certainly costs Apple some sales of MacBooks.
AppleTV includes Netflix, YouTube and a few other services that, while they make a more compelling value proposition for AppleTV almost certainly reduce iTunes revenue from movie rentals (and TV shows).
iTunes Movie Trailers is free as well albeit (most likely) another revenue stream (although I am unsure how the app generates revenue).
Apple provides updates to their entire iOS product line for a couple of years at no cost. Although this may not seem important immediately, the implication is that Apple wants you to be sufficiently satisfied with their current products that upgrading is a compelling value proposition rather than compulsory.
"...they don't "open source" anything..."
You should review the following website for an extensive list of Apple's contributions to the open source community.
iCloud isn't the greatest thing ever if you don't have an Apple device. It's more of a way to push people towards Apple products. With and iMac and iPhone- iCloud is incredible. Take the iPhone with a Windows PC... VERY blah. So I would think its more "iLife" like. Buy this, get this benefit (which is true).
PCFree was just keeping up with the competition IMO.
YouTube- the competition has. Netflix- The competition has. Hulu- the competition has (so I could see Hulu Plus being added one day). I was talking about them BUYING Hulu. I don't see the benefit in them purchasing a company such as Hulu and giving the product for free or charging their $5-10/month. What is the benefit? Its not like they can only keep it exclusively on the Apple TV. I guess they could- but I don't know if it'd be legal to exclude (I wish they would- don't get me wrong- I'm just saying I don't see it as possible).
Trailers = Nothing.
The iOS update is really awesome. No doubt. Forgot that.
iCloud isn't the greatest thing ever if you don't have an Apple device. It's more of a way to push people towards Apple products. With and iMac and iPhone- iCloud is incredible. Take the iPhone with a Windows PC... VERY blah. So I would think its more "iLife" like. Buy this, get this benefit (which is true).
PCFree was just keeping up with the competition IMO.
YouTube- the competition has. Netflix- The competition has. Hulu- the competition has (so I could see Hulu Plus being added one day). I was talking about them BUYING Hulu. I don't see the benefit in them purchasing a company such as Hulu and giving the product for free or charging their $5-10/month. What is the benefit? Its not like they can only keep it exclusively on the Apple TV. I guess they could- but I don't know if it'd be legal to exclude (I wish they would- don't get me wrong- I'm just saying I don't see it as possible).
Trailers = Nothing.
The iOS update is really awesome. No doubt. Forgot that.
Ummmmm....Hulu is owned by NBC, which is owned by Comcast (XFINITY) now, I believe....
Comments
iAds is supposed to be a way for developers to generate income from Apps.
More good, cheap/free apps for the iOS platform is good for Apple. The only relevant question from this perspective is does the iAds income from an iOS app equal or exceed that from an Android app (or is it at least sufficient to tip the balance in favor of developing for iOS)?
If, and this is a big if, thanks to market share of Android and great mobile ad revenue, developers start prioritizing Android development then that would be a problem.
The way to get an answer to that would be to hear from developers with large-volume ad-supported apps on both platforms.
In a market based economy, people speak with their dollars. So if you want to "hear" from developers, simply observe where they are spending their money. It's in the App Store, not Google Android Market nor Amazon's appstore, and certainly not in the WP marketplace.
The only apps to make it to Android are ones that are really easy to port. And as soon as they show up, there's a half dozen reposts of it with malware tacked on, as the "community" steals bootleg versions of it on the side. So I wonder how that's going to change.
Because it's Apple and anything journalists can hang a fail tag on belonging to them gets views and clicks. IMO, had Apple not made it such a high-profile announcement a couple years ago no one would even be paying attention. Does any media scrutinize MS mobile ad revenues? Not really since they haven't proclaimed it to be a high priority. At one time Apple did, which invited attention.
When did Apple claim that it was a 'high priority'?
Yes, but they're pricing themselves out of the market. A near half-million dollar commitment? Please.
They could still maintain standards and quality control WITHOUT such requirements.
And speaking of in-app ads, those would be a fantastic way for DEVELOPERS to advertise new apps... except that new developers can't afford the rates.
See post #24. You are wrong.
When did Apple claim that it was a 'high priority'?
I'll reword that to a "high-profile announcement" of iAds, which to me says it was high-priority. I don't recall Apple ever using those words if that's what you're asking.
I'll reword that to a "high-profile announcement" of iAds, which to me says it was high-priority. I don't recall Apple ever using those words if that's what you're asking.
What high profile announcement? If it was a high profile announcement, they would have had a separate press event. It was tacked on at the end of a keynote. Apple never made it a high priority or made it look like it was a major part of their plans.
Meanwhile, in related news:
http://tinyurl.com/6ojmhcc
Must make you really sad to be such a huge phandroid.......
What high profile announcement? If it was a high profile announcement, they would have had a separate press event. It was tacked on at the end of a keynote. Apple never made it a high priority or made it look like it was a major part of their plans.
Ah, you feel it was mentioned in passing. Then I suppose we'll just disagree since it's a judgement call apparently. With the amount of time Steve Jobs took up with it at the developer's conference he treated it as pretty important, don't you think? It got plenty of attention too. Isn't that high-profile?
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/08/app...sing-platform/
I will only add that Apple poses a credible potential threat to television manufacturers, subscription television service, game consoles, entertainment software and advertising as we know today.
If Apple can provide a competitively priced alternative to the current model with competitive advantages such as the following then their long term success is assured:
iCloud integration
Subscription television service supported via a nominal fee and iAd advertising (ala Hulu)
iTunes integration
App Store
Multi-user "mission control" (think of a digital version of the proverbial front of the refrigerator with a family schedule, home voicemail, intra-family messaging)
Game Center with obligatory game console functionality
Siri interface
FaceTime
The key is to make the user experience so compelling that the average user doesn't feel they need to connect several different devices or services (cable box, Blu-ray player, game console).
As much as I hate to admit it, consoles is where apple will have problems with complete saturation.
If I could believe apple would be able to overtake that market I wouldn't have a PS3 (first generation. I have some old games I like to be able to play) and a Wii.
If there was a way they could do that without infringing on The Move System from Sony, the controller format for the Wii, or even the Kinetic System from Microsoft, I feel they might actually have a chance, but until then, I worry they will not even be able to come close.
Apple would build cars furniture, if they could figure out a way to competitively price it and somehow make it fit under their company model.
And we would buy them, no matter how overpriced they may be.
There is also one thing I forgot -
The next step for apple would be to modify front stage into an iOS style interface and add that to the mini to make a new mid level machine as well.
Must make you really sad to be such a huge phandroid.......
Just noticed you had tacked this on.
FWIW, I'm not a huge phan-anything.
In fact I don't believe I've ever dissed an Apple device here. They make great products and have a great game-plan, but there's worthy products from competitors too. Neither Apple nor anyone else builds a product without flaws, or makes the right business decisions (IMO) everytime.
The question is, why would I want this? We all complain about Google raping our identities for ads, why is it okay for Apple to do the same?
Er, because Apple doesn't? Because Apple wanted to provide an option that doesn't? Because Apple wanted - probably more than anything else - to show the advertising world that ads don't have to be garish, annoying and cheesy to be successful. To demonstrate that if you make a quality and engaging ad - people will willingly engage with them (and they often do with iAd)
Apple does not need the revenue from ads
Your right. They don't.
and I'm pretty sure they created iAd in an attempt to simply limit Google's income.
While I'm sure there was a bit of that, but I do sincerely believe that they simply wanted to show it can be done better.
Heck, we don't even have to speculate: http://articles.businessinsider.com/...nteractive-ads
OTOH, Google has your identity, and then sells it for profit. Not exactly the type of company I want Apple, who seems to be one of the leaders in customer privacy, to turn into.
Why do you think they are going to change their stance on privacy just because they have iAd? Just because everyone else races to the bottom?
Because if there is one thing Apple is known for, it's following what everyone else is doing
I would like to see Apple purchase Hulu
You do realize that Hulu doesn't own any of the content they provide and that any agreements they have for said content are probably nullified by an acquisition like you are advocating?
Why people continually push for Apple (or any company) to acquire Hulu mystifies me...
Since iAd is only on iOS devices, and iOS devices have a 28% market share, shouldn't iAd have 28% market share as well?
Only if Apple blocked all other ad networks. Which they don't.
As a developer I like iAds. They provide 90% of my ad income while only accounting for 30% of the ads I show. I wish there were more full iAds available. [..] From my perspective if iAds went by the wayside I'd stop making ad supported apps. Without iAds it's not viable. iAds are effectively supporting the other mobile ad platforms at present.
Thanks for the behind the scenes view. What a surprise, Apple once again goes for quality and not quantity. No wonder there is so much confusion and fear but the "insiders".
Here's a radical thought - iAd will go belly up when it stops being enough of a benefit for Apple to support it. I have a sneaky suspicion they are still in learning mode. Apple has lots of irons in the fire, and they tend to laser-focus on only a few areas at a time, coming back and making substantial improvements of things at varying schedules - look at the first vs. second generation Apple TV. People were saying the same thing about the Apple TV - it's tanking, loss leader, not worth it, going to be discontinued and then *bang* - ATV2 - a total reboot. Still not ideal, but I think as good as it can be in the current morass that is idiotic hidebound content providers.
It's also a way for developers to give you apps for "free". You may not like ad-supported games and news and whatnot, but other people do.
Or they like it more than actually paying a buck for an app....
I clearly misunderstood the concept (or forgot about it since its debut), so yeah that was stupid on my part. I do like that IOS has been good for developers, including small developers.
Not necessarily. In the age of diminishing privacy, there will be money to be made by not abusing trust and violating privacy in the Google model of commoditizing persons. Apple has an opportunity to essentially sell privacy as a feature, one which people will be willing to pay for as an alternative to Google's Big Brother is watching you, and selling you, ecosystem.
I'm sorry but there is a false logic in your statement.
Just because Apple creates a system within iOS/iAds/Siri/iCloud or however to advertise to users based on purchases/searches/Siri inquiries does not at all mean that Apple will abuse trust or violate privacy. Is there possibility for it? Sure. Apple's overall track record leads me to believes it will follow a different path.
And I have to say to those that disagree fundamentally with advertising, and I don't disagree with those folks, I would have to say there is a huge population that wants those advertisements. All the better if Apple can do it with the same quality and precision that is true to most of its products and services.
Your statements confound me.
"...I don't know off the top of my head anything apple has given for free."
While iCloud is essentially rebranding of MobileMe, iCloud is an outstanding service primarily because it is free.
The "PC Free" feature in iOS 5 shouldn't be under appreciated either; "PC Free" implies and realistically allows use of iOS devices without requiring a computer. In the instance of iPad this almost certainly costs Apple some sales of MacBooks.
AppleTV includes Netflix, YouTube and a few other services that, while they make a more compelling value proposition for AppleTV almost certainly reduce iTunes revenue from movie rentals (and TV shows).
iTunes Movie Trailers is free as well albeit (most likely) another revenue stream (although I am unsure how the app generates revenue).
Apple provides updates to their entire iOS product line for a couple of years at no cost. Although this may not seem important immediately, the implication is that Apple wants you to be sufficiently satisfied with their current products that upgrading is a compelling value proposition rather than compulsory.
"...they don't "open source" anything..."
You should review the following website for an extensive list of Apple's contributions to the open source community.
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
iCloud isn't the greatest thing ever if you don't have an Apple device. It's more of a way to push people towards Apple products. With and iMac and iPhone- iCloud is incredible. Take the iPhone with a Windows PC... VERY blah. So I would think its more "iLife" like. Buy this, get this benefit (which is true).
PCFree was just keeping up with the competition IMO.
YouTube- the competition has. Netflix- The competition has. Hulu- the competition has (so I could see Hulu Plus being added one day). I was talking about them BUYING Hulu. I don't see the benefit in them purchasing a company such as Hulu and giving the product for free or charging their $5-10/month. What is the benefit? Its not like they can only keep it exclusively on the Apple TV. I guess they could- but I don't know if it'd be legal to exclude (I wish they would- don't get me wrong- I'm just saying I don't see it as possible).
Trailers = Nothing.
The iOS update is really awesome. No doubt. Forgot that.
iCloud isn't the greatest thing ever if you don't have an Apple device. It's more of a way to push people towards Apple products. With and iMac and iPhone- iCloud is incredible. Take the iPhone with a Windows PC... VERY blah. So I would think its more "iLife" like. Buy this, get this benefit (which is true).
PCFree was just keeping up with the competition IMO.
YouTube- the competition has. Netflix- The competition has. Hulu- the competition has (so I could see Hulu Plus being added one day). I was talking about them BUYING Hulu. I don't see the benefit in them purchasing a company such as Hulu and giving the product for free or charging their $5-10/month. What is the benefit? Its not like they can only keep it exclusively on the Apple TV. I guess they could- but I don't know if it'd be legal to exclude (I wish they would- don't get me wrong- I'm just saying I don't see it as possible).
Trailers = Nothing.
The iOS update is really awesome. No doubt. Forgot that.
Ummmmm....Hulu is owned by NBC, which is owned by Comcast (XFINITY) now, I believe....