Apple makes iAd available in 70 more countries, now active in 95 regions

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2014
Apple on Tuesday announced to developers that it has extended iAd support to an additional 70 countries, with the advertising network now in 95 countries around the world.




The expanded iAd availability was announced through Apple's developer webpage, which notes additional countries include those in the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Australia.

The aggressive iAd rollout foreshadows Apple's intentions for the branded advertising platform, which has failed to live up to initial expectations. Apple is pressing for more comprehensive placement for its clients, good examples being integration with iTunes Radio and the introduction of full-screen interstitial video ads in August.

Apple also reminded developers that iAds can be created using iAd Workbench, the company's easy to use campaign generation, modification and tracking tool. Further, iAd Producer was recently updated with new capabilities, including support for fullscreen iPhone banner ads. Apple's iAd Workbench is open to anyone with a valid Apple ID.

Just last week, rumors suggested Apple is working to integrate Apple Pay with its iAd platform by including interactive buy buttons for advertised products. According to reports, the system could roll out in time for the lucrative holiday shopping season.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12

    95 ‘regions’ reminds me of the background work I’m doing for Ameriwank, creating alt-regions of the expanded US (midwest, southwest, etc.). But even there I don’t know that there’ll be 95 of them.

     

    Why not “Apple makes iAd available in 70 more countries; total climbs to 95”?

     

    Anyway, I still strongly believe that video iAds could revolutionize channel streaming on the Apple TV. Get the same programming as on an OTA channel, but with intelligent, interactive ads instead of the OTA ad stream at commercial breaks. Pick the ads that pertain to you, never show the bad ones again. Saves consumers, companies, and agencies millions of dollars to never waste time seeing another cute dancing animal again or what have you.

     

    And by making ads interactive, the time would pass more quickly. Or you could save yourself the trouble and just buy the show from iTunes and auto-stream it commercial free at the exact time it was shown OTA.

  • Reply 2 of 12
    bitmodbitmod Posts: 267member

    They should bring the price down by about 5000% - make it accessible for more interesting local companies.

     

    They will get there eventually, the price has been dropping annually since their $1,000,000.00/ad debut in 2010 with 5 clients.

  • Reply 3 of 12

    is Apple making any significant profit with this, or is it more on the "ping" side of things?

  • Reply 4 of 12
    Has anybody find list of those 70 countries? Or all 95%?
  • Reply 5 of 12
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,292member
    Why would anyone want ads on Apple TV? I'd rather everything goes subscription like Netflx with zero ads and no cable contract required. Once we get there think about it ... one day no political ads. So no need for $billions wasted on election runs.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    Why would anyone want ads on Apple TV? I'd rather everything goes subscription like Netflx with zero ads and no cable contract required. Once we get there think about it ... one day no political ads. So no need for $billions wasted on election runs.

    I'm sure they would find a way to waste it differently.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

    Once we get there think about it ... one day no political ads. So no need for $billions wasted on election runs.

     

    Yes, let’s vote for candidates who don’t even tell you their positions. I guess that’s a better system¡

  • Reply 8 of 12
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,292member
    Yes, let’s vote for candidates who don’t even tell you their positions. I guess that’s a better system¡

    Think a bit beyond the immediate system. I see nothing wrong with an opt in system to learn about candidates. Why would you defend it being forced upon you like it or not? In fact, if people had to actually opt in to learn a candidate's views I suspect the material they would be seeing would be far better quality and we'd see a sharp decline in tit for tat name calling. It would also drastically reduce costs. They could have their own apps on Apple TV and the like where you could select if you wish and watch as long as you like. An app could direct you to national or local campaigns. After all the concept isn't new, Fox News and MSNBC already have this model.

    By the way I say this as one who has produced TV commercials for politicians and Sheriffs.
  • Reply 9 of 12
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,292member
    I'm sure they would find a way to waste it differently.

    Well I can't argue with you there. :D
  • Reply 10 of 12
    Yes, let’s vote for candidates who don’t even tell you their positions. I guess that’s a better system¡

    Show me voters that have a clear understanding of candidate's positions. Or politicians ;)
  • Reply 11 of 12
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,292member
    Show me voters that have a clear understanding of candidate's positions. Or politicians ;)

    I think many of us here do actually, AI is full of smart people.

    They want to have access to money, the ability to line up great jobs post their political careers, very secure pensions, and medical coverage for life and know even if accused found guilty of a felony they keep all that.

    Did I miss anything?
  • Reply 12 of 12
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

    Think a bit beyond the immediate system. 

     

    Oh, I have. Election Day needs to be a federal holiday, obligatory to all businesses, everywhere, and all non-essential personnel therein.

     

    You have no excuse not to take the day, go to your local voting station, and read about every candidate. Their position, their beliefs, their plans, etc. Each presented in an identical way on their own leaflets and posters, with charts created therefrom that simply aggregate that data, not change it in any form, for quick and easy comparisons. Additionally, their voting records will be made available to compare to their claims and stated positions. No commentary made thereon, simply available in the same format for you to decide what it really means to vote for someone who says, to use a topical example, “I don’t vote the way Barack Obama does,” but who has voted 97% identically with the man.

     

    If you’re in any way intelligent whatsoever, you’ll know all or most of this before election day anyway. If you’re not, at least you have absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to 1. vote 2. know for whom you’re voting and for what they stand/who they have historically been, and 3. 

     

    Remember: not voting is a vote for the winner. It’s why the idiots calling for a revote for Puerto Rico’s statehood, for example, need to be silenced, not appeased. It doesn’t matter if the number of people who didn’t vote plus the number of people who voted against a bill is greater than the number of people who voted for the bill. The bill passes because only votes matter.

     

    In fact, if people had to actually opt in to learn a candidate’s views...


     

    I don’t like this, but perhaps I misunderstand it.

     

    After all the concept isn't new, Fox News and MSNBC already have this model.


     

    Do you mean to say that “opt in” refers to the concept of a media platform artificially biasing its output toward one candidate/party or another? It’s a separate argument entirely, but I take issue with the legal ability of the media to lie to suit its needs. No issue with dedicating less or more time to a candidate, but the thought of being able to lie without recourse makes me physically ill.

     

    Anyway, opt in. From an individual’s standpoint, do you mean that “opt in” would refer to them choosing specifically which information to see, receiving none initially? If so, I don’t like that. I prefer “opt out”, wherein you’d get everything initially and choose to ignore that which is wrong (not that with which you don’t agree, but that’s my delusional fantasy world in which people actually care about objective Truth over, well, their delusional fantasies).

Sign In or Register to comment.