Which is interesting as to why Google alienated themselves from Apple.
They could have gone hand-in-hand with Apple down the yellow brick road right to the bank but instead decided to compete with Android.
Google could of had it all.
Could 'have' had it all.
The point is that Google makes more on each iPhone than they do on Android phones so they might make MORE if they had never introduced Android.
From an end-user perspective... Apple (iOS) doesn't allow for plugins that alter or block content, such as AdBlock, et al. In addition, some of the app designers cleverly place the ads close to menu options, resulting in frequent mis-click of the ads (which I find annoying). That has to account for a part of this.
I realize I could set up a passive filtering proxy on my LAN to block the ads, but I'm too lazy -- ;-) Most end-users would not know what that means.
Not surprising. iSheep are obviously more susceptible to advertising.
And we have more money to spend.
I wonder what Android's eCPM is in China. I hear they like cheap smart phones there.
It seems to be fairly universally accepted that a large proportion of the Android installed base is on devices that are smartphones in name only, especially in less developed countries. I'd expect the associated eCPM values to be approximately zero.
It seems to be fairly universally accepted that a large proportion of the Android installed base is on devices that are smartphones in name only, especially in less developed countries. I'd expect the associated eCPM values to be approximately zero.
Fairly universally accepted - except by the Android shills who hang out here.
In another thread, several of them jumped all over me for even suggesting that some Android phones are actually feature phones.
It seems to be fairly universally accepted that a large proportion of the Android installed base is on devices that are smartphones in name only, especially in less developed countries. I'd expect the associated eCPM values to be approximately zero.
Yeah, I'd guess that people in the US buying an iPhone 4S and Samsung Galaxy S III's are going to average about the same. I'd even hypothesis that you could probably make a correlation between your month bill for service and the add revenue you generate for a given country.
It seems to be fairly universally accepted that a large proportion of the Android installed base is on devices that are smartphones in name only, especially in less developed countries. I'd expect the associated eCPM values to be approximately zero.
Fairly universally accepted - except by the Android shills who hang out here.
In another thread, several of them jumped all over me for even suggesting that some Android phones are actually feature phones.
IMO, a common element to many of the anti-Apple arguments that appear on these threads is the attempt to derail the fundamentals of a discussion by focussing instead on debatable minutia. So yes, technically they probably are smartphones if they are running some version of Android, and voilà - you give the trolls the opening to display their skills.
It seems to be fairly universally accepted that a large proportion of the Android installed base is on devices that are smartphones in name only, especially in less developed countries. I'd expect the associated eCPM values to be approximately zero.
Yeah, I'd guess that people in the US buying an iPhone 4S and Samsung Galaxy S III's are going to average about the same. I'd even hypothesis that you could probably make a correlation between your month bill for service and the add revenue you generate for a given country.
Comparable phones, comparable costs - yes - that seems like a reasonable hypothesis.
Which is interesting as to why Google alienated themselves from Apple.
They could have gone hand-in-hand with Apple down the yellow brick road right to the bank but instead decided to compete with Android.
Google could of had it all.
Apple would only partner with other companies if it's advantageous. If there's lots of money to be made and Apple can figure out how to cut out the middleman, I imagine they would. So it's questionable whether Apple and Google would have a long-term intimate relationship with or without Android.
Which is interesting as to why Google alienated themselves from Apple.
They could have gone hand-in-hand with Apple down the yellow brick road right to the bank but instead decided to compete with Android.
Google could of had it all.
Apple would only partner with other companies if it's advantageous. If there's lots of money to be made and Apple can figure out how to cut out the middleman, I imagine they would. So it's questionable whether Apple and Google would have a long-term intimate relationship with or without Android.
I'm not sure about that. Google makes more advertising revenue via iOS anyway. What, exactly, has Android bought them? Would Apple have felt the need to pursue search, maps, ads etc. as aggressively if Google had played nice with them?
I'd hope by now my use of the sarcmark (irony mark) would be well known."
The problem is it is virtually impossible to see for those of us older than 50 and have not wiped their glasses in the last few minutes. /self pity moan
The problem is it is virtually impossible to see for those of us older than 50 and have not wiped their glasses in the last few minutes. /self pity moan
Another problem is that in some fonts it doesn't have a descender at all! It just becomes a lower-case I.
So viewing the forums on some devices makes Solipsism look like an Android apologist.
Apple would only partner with other companies if it's advantageous. If there's lots of money to be made and Apple can figure out how to cut out the middleman, I imagine they would. So it's questionable whether Apple and Google would have a long-term intimate relationship with or without Android.
Replace Google with Apple in your post and it reads the same.
Apple would only partner with other companies if it's advantageous. If there's lots of money to be made and Apple can figure out how to cut out the middleman, I imagine they would. So it's questionable whether Apple and Google would have a long-term intimate relationship with or without Android.
That's true. Google has proven themselves to be untrustworthy across the board. Apple would have been ripped off no matter what they trusted Google with.
I'm not sure about that. Google makes more advertising revenue via iOS anyway. What, exactly, has Android bought them? Would Apple have felt the need to pursue search, maps, ads etc. as aggressively if Google had played nice with them?
I imagine you remember that Android wasn't about Apple anyway. In the beginning it was reported as Google's "protection" against being locked out of search revenue by Microsoft. In fact Apple's interest in partnering with Google in the first place had to do in part with negating Microsoft didn't it? No doubt Apple and Steve Jobs knew all about Android before they ever brought Google into the circle of trust and apparently weren't all that concerned....
Or maybe it was just keeping your (potential) enemies closer?? I don't know.
I'm not sure about that. Google makes more advertising revenue via iOS anyway. What, exactly, has Android bought them? Would Apple have felt the need to pursue search, maps, ads etc. as aggressively if Google had played nice with them?
I imagine you remember that Android wasn't about Apple anyway. In the beginning it was reported as Google's "protection" against being locked out of search revenue by Microsoft. In fact Apple's interest in partnering with Google in the first place had to do in part with negating Microsoft didn't it? No doubt Apple and Steve Jobs knew all about Android before they ever brought Google into the circle of trust and apparently weren't all that concerned....
Or maybe it was just keeping your (potential) enemies closer?? I don't know.
Yes - I wasn't trying to imply that Google created Android for any particular reason. They started the program well before iOS took off, and redirected it when the direction that iOS was taking became apparent. While they presumably recognized the merits of iOS, they cannot have known just how successful it would be in redefining the smartphone. But MS became largely irrelevant, and so now the questions stand - how has Android actually benefitted Google, and what would have been the Google / Apple relationship if they had not pursued it?
It would appear that Apple is beating them in their core competency.
Could be a factor of the math.
Companies report sales but not returns. So who knows how many of those android phones were sold, returned by the customer and replaced with something else. a 10-25% of those Android sales could be duplications which mean that the actual units in use are less than they seem.
It's also possible that many of those Android phones were bought for reasons that don't involve going on line or even more important, games. Games are probably the top source of smart phone ads. If folks aren't gaming, they aren't seeing ads. Or at least not as many ads. thus the numbers shaking out the way they do.
And of course keep in mind that this was the results from one browser not an independent combined survey. I'm sure that Opera is very popular but something tells me that with Android users Google's own Chrome is equal to perhaps a bit more popular as it is likely the one that comes on the phones natively. Between that and that those in game/app ads aren't counted in this 'report', well it's easy to see the math is likely very skewed. The truth is probably a tad different. And what about the companies that are serving up the ads. I bet that Google's Adsense is still the most popular service network, particularly over iAds. It has the reputation and when you sign up for it you get into the whole thing of being on all platforms mobile and desktop. If you are going to spend money on an ad you want the most return for the investment and that's not iAds but Adsense (at least of those two) so what Google lacks on the user side with Android being the lower figure they will more than make up for with Adsense being used on websites viewed on iOS devices and ads in iOS apps.
The main graphic shows "Android" vs "iPhone"… *sigh* there it is again. That inability to meaningfully differentiate between a platform (OS) and a device.
Given that they also include the iPad they are covering the platform v platform issue. Although they should also include the iPod Touch just to show that they are covering the whole platform even if the results will be like 0.001%
And they report it as 'iPhone' because it helps to prove the point that a single phone lineup by a single company is, in their sketchy math, beating a whole platform with dozens of players.
And they report it as 'iPhone' because it helps to prove the point that a single phone lineup by a single company is, in their sketchy math, beating a whole platform with dozens of players.
I am honestly not trying to be controversal but why are you treating eCPM as evidence that any OS is superior to any other OS?
At the risk of being presumptuous, I don't get the impression that you are involved in on line advertising. My online advertising budget is small fry but if it were large I don't think that I would specifically target any OS, let alone browser unless I had reason to believe that the conversion rate was significantly different between OSes for my specific product.
I just don't get the Apple Good/Android Bad flag waving about advertising returns. If it were sales/customer satisfaction/column inches I might understand your triumphant tone., but advertising? In the cold light of day what does it tell us; that the non_apple firms serving the adverts are better at targeting apple customers, or that they are more susceptible to advertising or that all apple customers are so rich that they buy anything offered to them, by the same token are android owners tight fisted and not dumb enough to fall for crappy adverts on apps that they they were too tight to pay for. Personally I don't believe that either set of generalisations are true.
Are you advocating that I should start clicking on 3rd party adverts, and then buy the advertised stuff, on websites that I visit just so that I can claim bragging rights about my OS/browser of choice?
What next? Bragging rights about which mobile OS customer is more likely to be mugged?
Comments
Could 'have' had it all.
The point is that Google makes more on each iPhone than they do on Android phones so they might make MORE if they had never introduced Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Not surprising. iSheep are obviously more susceptible to advertising.
And we have more money to spend.
I wonder what Android's eCPM is in China. I hear they like cheap smart phones there.
From an end-user perspective... Apple (iOS) doesn't allow for plugins that alter or block content, such as AdBlock, et al. In addition, some of the app designers cleverly place the ads close to menu options, resulting in frequent mis-click of the ads (which I find annoying). That has to account for a part of this.
I realize I could set up a passive filtering proxy on my LAN to block the ads, but I'm too lazy -- ;-) Most end-users would not know what that means.
It seems to be fairly universally accepted that a large proportion of the Android installed base is on devices that are smartphones in name only, especially in less developed countries. I'd expect the associated eCPM values to be approximately zero.
Fairly universally accepted - except by the Android shills who hang out here.
In another thread, several of them jumped all over me for even suggesting that some Android phones are actually feature phones.
Yeah, I'd guess that people in the US buying an iPhone 4S and Samsung Galaxy S III's are going to average about the same. I'd even hypothesis that you could probably make a correlation between your month bill for service and the add revenue you generate for a given country.
IMO, a common element to many of the anti-Apple arguments that appear on these threads is the attempt to derail the fundamentals of a discussion by focussing instead on debatable minutia. So yes, technically they probably are smartphones if they are running some version of Android, and voilà - you give the trolls the opening to display their skills.
Comparable phones, comparable costs - yes - that seems like a reasonable hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
Which is interesting as to why Google alienated themselves from Apple.
They could have gone hand-in-hand with Apple down the yellow brick road right to the bank but instead decided to compete with Android.
Google could of had it all.
Apple would only partner with other companies if it's advantageous. If there's lots of money to be made and Apple can figure out how to cut out the middleman, I imagine they would. So it's questionable whether Apple and Google would have a long-term intimate relationship with or without Android.
I'm not sure about that. Google makes more advertising revenue via iOS anyway. What, exactly, has Android bought them? Would Apple have felt the need to pursue search, maps, ads etc. as aggressively if Google had played nice with them?
The problem is it is virtually impossible to see for those of us older than 50 and have not wiped their glasses in the last few minutes. /self pity moan
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
The problem is it is virtually impossible to see for those of us older than 50 and have not wiped their glasses in the last few minutes. /self pity moan
Another problem is that in some fonts it doesn't have a descender at all! It just becomes a lower-case I.
So viewing the forums on some devices makes Solipsism look like an Android apologist.
????
Replace Google with Apple in your post and it reads the same.
That's true. Google has proven themselves to be untrustworthy across the board. Apple would have been ripped off no matter what they trusted Google with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I'm not sure about that. Google makes more advertising revenue via iOS anyway. What, exactly, has Android bought them? Would Apple have felt the need to pursue search, maps, ads etc. as aggressively if Google had played nice with them?
I imagine you remember that Android wasn't about Apple anyway. In the beginning it was reported as Google's "protection" against being locked out of search revenue by Microsoft. In fact Apple's interest in partnering with Google in the first place had to do in part with negating Microsoft didn't it? No doubt Apple and Steve Jobs knew all about Android before they ever brought Google into the circle of trust and apparently weren't all that concerned....
Or maybe it was just keeping your (potential) enemies closer?? I don't know.
Yes - I wasn't trying to imply that Google created Android for any particular reason. They started the program well before iOS took off, and redirected it when the direction that iOS was taking became apparent. While they presumably recognized the merits of iOS, they cannot have known just how successful it would be in redefining the smartphone. But MS became largely irrelevant, and so now the questions stand - how has Android actually benefitted Google, and what would have been the Google / Apple relationship if they had not pursued it?
Googlestan Information Minister Eric Schmidt had the following comment:
Quote:
In six months, everyone will advertise on Android first. Android is winning!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Interesting, since Google's main business is ads.
It would appear that Apple is beating them in their core competency.
Could be a factor of the math.
Companies report sales but not returns. So who knows how many of those android phones were sold, returned by the customer and replaced with something else. a 10-25% of those Android sales could be duplications which mean that the actual units in use are less than they seem.
It's also possible that many of those Android phones were bought for reasons that don't involve going on line or even more important, games. Games are probably the top source of smart phone ads. If folks aren't gaming, they aren't seeing ads. Or at least not as many ads. thus the numbers shaking out the way they do.
And of course keep in mind that this was the results from one browser not an independent combined survey. I'm sure that Opera is very popular but something tells me that with Android users Google's own Chrome is equal to perhaps a bit more popular as it is likely the one that comes on the phones natively. Between that and that those in game/app ads aren't counted in this 'report', well it's easy to see the math is likely very skewed. The truth is probably a tad different. And what about the companies that are serving up the ads. I bet that Google's Adsense is still the most popular service network, particularly over iAds. It has the reputation and when you sign up for it you get into the whole thing of being on all platforms mobile and desktop. If you are going to spend money on an ad you want the most return for the investment and that's not iAds but Adsense (at least of those two) so what Google lacks on the user side with Android being the lower figure they will more than make up for with Adsense being used on websites viewed on iOS devices and ads in iOS apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
The main graphic shows "Android" vs "iPhone"… *sigh* there it is again. That inability to meaningfully differentiate between a platform (OS) and a device.
Given that they also include the iPad they are covering the platform v platform issue. Although they should also include the iPod Touch just to show that they are covering the whole platform even if the results will be like 0.001%
And they report it as 'iPhone' because it helps to prove the point that a single phone lineup by a single company is, in their sketchy math, beating a whole platform with dozens of players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
And they report it as 'iPhone' because it helps to prove the point that a single phone lineup by a single company is, in their sketchy math, beating a whole platform with dozens of players.
I am honestly not trying to be controversal but why are you treating eCPM as evidence that any OS is superior to any other OS?
At the risk of being presumptuous, I don't get the impression that you are involved in on line advertising. My online advertising budget is small fry but if it were large I don't think that I would specifically target any OS, let alone browser unless I had reason to believe that the conversion rate was significantly different between OSes for my specific product.
I just don't get the Apple Good/Android Bad flag waving about advertising returns. If it were sales/customer satisfaction/column inches I might understand your triumphant tone., but advertising? In the cold light of day what does it tell us; that the non_apple firms serving the adverts are better at targeting apple customers, or that they are more susceptible to advertising or that all apple customers are so rich that they buy anything offered to them, by the same token are android owners tight fisted and not dumb enough to fall for crappy adverts on apps that they they were too tight to pay for. Personally I don't believe that either set of generalisations are true.
Are you advocating that I should start clicking on 3rd party adverts, and then buy the advertised stuff, on websites that I visit just so that I can claim bragging rights about my OS/browser of choice?
What next? Bragging rights about which mobile OS customer is more likely to be mugged?