Apple reportedly shifting iAd focus away from apps to rumored 'iRadio'
Ahead of a possible "iRadio" debut at WWDC, Apple is now reported to be shifting its advertising strategy to take advantage of businesses looking to reach consumers through the company's Internet radio service.
According to people familiar with the change in advertising tactics, Apple has tasked iAd engineers and sales staff to support its much-anticipated music streaming service, dubbed "iRadio," which is rumored to be unveiled at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference on June 10, reports Bloomberg.
Sources said Apple CEO Tim Cook is searching for new ways to bring in advertising revenue after iAd failed to make a significant dent in the lucrative mobile ad market, which is currently dominated by Google. These people also claim Apple will slowly pull back from its role as a network serving up ads on mobile devices, instead refocusing its efforts on the as-yet-unreleased iRadio platform.
Leading the charge for iAd's new direction is Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue, and advertising chief Todd Teresi, who was hired away from Adobe last year.
The publication noted that iRadio is not likely to launch until later this year, when the next-generation iOS 7 is due for public consumption, though the service may make an appearance at WWDC if licensing deals can be wrapped up in time.
It was reported on Sunday that Apple inked an agreement with Warner Music Group for both music and publication rights. Previously, a deal was struck with Universal Music Group, but the world's second-largest label, Sony, is said to be at odds with Apple's proposed payment structure.
According to people familiar with the change in advertising tactics, Apple has tasked iAd engineers and sales staff to support its much-anticipated music streaming service, dubbed "iRadio," which is rumored to be unveiled at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference on June 10, reports Bloomberg.
Sources said Apple CEO Tim Cook is searching for new ways to bring in advertising revenue after iAd failed to make a significant dent in the lucrative mobile ad market, which is currently dominated by Google. These people also claim Apple will slowly pull back from its role as a network serving up ads on mobile devices, instead refocusing its efforts on the as-yet-unreleased iRadio platform.
Leading the charge for iAd's new direction is Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue, and advertising chief Todd Teresi, who was hired away from Adobe last year.
The publication noted that iRadio is not likely to launch until later this year, when the next-generation iOS 7 is due for public consumption, though the service may make an appearance at WWDC if licensing deals can be wrapped up in time.
It was reported on Sunday that Apple inked an agreement with Warner Music Group for both music and publication rights. Previously, a deal was struck with Universal Music Group, but the world's second-largest label, Sony, is said to be at odds with Apple's proposed payment structure.
Comments
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Sources said Apple CEO Tim Cook is searching for new ways to bring in advertising revenue after iAd failed to make a significant dent in the lucrative mobile ad market, which is currently dominated by Google. These people also claim Apple will slowly pull back from its role as a network serving up ads on mobile devices, instead refocusing its efforts on the as-yet-unreleased iRadio platform.
Why? iAds are the best ads available. This will be a turnoff more than anything.
Huh. You don't say.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157812/apple-reportedly-inks-iradio-licensing-deal-with-warner-ahead-of-wwdc#post_2337294
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Pushing away from iAd for apps or branching out iAd audio ads for iRadio?
First image, then audio, then… video. Ooh, I like that. Just like history.
If true, this will lay the groundwork for ads on AppleTV. Ads on AppleTV... This could be significant. Cutting out the cable companies, cutting out the middlemen everywhere in the entertainment product to consumers chain.
Hm, just last week Cook was publicly stating (during the Q&A at D11) that they are only in the ad business to support developers. Putting iAds into an own iRadio app wouldn't do anything for developers. Plus, people listen to a radio stream, mainly run it in the background... what would visual ads achieve here? And why would people pay for a service with mandatory ads? Not convinced this rumor makes much sense.
That was true last week just as its true today and will be true until this rumoured iRadio is launched. The ads would be audible, not visual, which means they are unique to what they have now. How they price it or arrange it could be done to help developers. For instance, Apple could still pay developers if iRadio is an API that connects to an app and every time an ad is then heard. Or they could funnel the profits from it to developers that use iAd to make the in-app ads more profitable for developers. Or (and I think this is most likely) they're doing it to pay for the licensing costs of streaming music, plus using it to strengthen the support iAd has which will hopefully increase support for in-app ads.
Jony!!! Get that gloss off that iAD icon!!!
Yeah, NOW you like the idea of targeted ads in return for a free service.
Without the subscription TV Show deal, iTV may have trouble existing. The whole point with a subscription is to guarantee viewers they get all the shows, and it's the best way to subsidise the cost of an actual TV - which in turn enables Apple to provide a complete end-to-end solution where they can make an amazing experience thanks to complete control. Ads would perhaps help this subsidisation strategy, but I think the best solution is a monthly contract, giving the people the content they want and no ads to interfere. That would be awesome. And to those who say they don't want a contract? Netflix, anyone? And don't say you can quit Netflix whenever you want, because no one does that less than once a year, really. Of course Apple could also sell the TV off-contract as an option, which would make everyone content.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Yeah, NOW you like the idea of targeted ads in return for a free service.
Who said anything about targeted? iAds shouldn't ever have to know anything about me to serve me an ad. No ad service should.
I've no doubt at all they'll be targeted IF the music service is ad-supported.
It'll be easy enough to determine if you get an ad tailored to your location. Personally I don't have an issue with it as I get value from the services I use but will you be calling Apple out for data-mining if the ads are "personalized "? We'll see soon enough how it's going to be done if the rumors are at all accurate.
Well so far the domain iRadio.com has not been taken over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Without the subscription TV Show deal, iTV may have trouble existing. The whole point with a subscription is to guarantee viewers they get all the shows, and it's the best way to subsidise the cost of an actual TV - which in turn enables Apple to provide a complete end-to-end solution where they can make an amazing experience thanks to complete control. Ads would perhaps help this subsidisation strategy, but I think the best solution is a monthly contract, giving the people the content they want and no ads to interfere. That would be awesome. And to those who say they don't want a contract? Netflix, anyone? And don't say you can quit Netflix whenever you want, because no one does that less than once a year, really. Of course Apple could also sell the TV off-contract as an option, which would make everyone content.
I agree there are a lot of different ways the "TV on the Internet" model might go. There could be room for both free and paid features... even within the same service. Free, sponsored AppleTV content and premium subscription content, available every way the cake can be sliced?
This would be best case scenario, though, clearly. And they could continue selling the Apple TV hockey puck also with the $29 contract option, but differentiate it from the iTV product by not bundling an App Store with it.
I hadn't even thought of the domain being used. However, it shows it's owned. It's even operational, as toolbar app and has been in service since 1995, which I find highly impressive. The whole thing is archaic looking and the Who Is results list an aol.com email contact, which is also impressive in some "WTF?" kind of way.
So will Apple buy this domain or license the name? I actually hope so. After 18 years I actually want this person to get a decent payout. If not, how would Apple proceed? I personally like iTunes Radio much better, and that's free.
edit: I'm just now realizing by "taken over" you specifically mean by Apple, not that it's not utilized by anyone.
Is there any .com address left with 6 letters or less?:\
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Is there any .com address left with 6 letters or less?
First try typing random letters: asdgog.com; Not even in existence.
Second try: eiey.com; not owned, template page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The ads would be audible, not visual, which means they are unique to what they have now.
The standout features of the existing iAds are their interactivity and their unobtrusiveness. Audio ads interrupting music are the least Apple-like thing I can think of. They would rather put an Intel Inside sticker on a MBP. What would advertisers deliver here? The same "quality stuff" they deliver to public radio stations and podcasters? There is no lower quality stuff on earth. There are tons of free and ad free Internet radio stations already, and I have another 200 as part of my cable package.
I could see a mandatory visual ad when skipping songs (beyond whatever limit), but I can't imagine Apple to go any further than that. They have made the least obtrusive devices and services for ages (no crippleware on any device, telcos are not allowed to pre-install their crappy apps, there are no ads in any free Apple product or service at all)... and now you expect them to re-do what killed radio in the first place? I may be wrong, but I do not think this is going to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
First try typing random letters: asdgog.com; Not even in existence.
Second try: eiey.com; not owned, template page.
skrunt.com
blompz.com
stuggr.com
qluke.com
mlingr.com
...all available...