Apple don't make money directly from very much of their software, but their software enhances their ecosystem, so is worth it.
Apple likely doesn't make any money from iCloud, as most accounts will be on the free tier, but it enhances their ecosystem.
An Apple MVNO may not make much, or any money, but if it gives any Apple mobile device anywhere in the world the best mobile data signal available then that's a massive enhancement to the Apple ecosystem.
It's the complete ecosystem that sells the hardware, the software, the cloud services and the customer service as a complete package.
And who's going to let Apple resell cellular service at break-even or a loss? AT&T and Verizon? Doubtful. So then we're stuck with T-Mobile and Sprint. I still don't see what the point is. Do that many people have issues with their carriers? And would those issues magically go away if Apple was selling the service? I just don't see what's in it for Apple other than a lot of headaches.
I think Apple should hire a group of unsavory gentlemen. I'm not saying they should order a hit but some threats could come in handy. Have some of these thugs have a meeting with some of these 'journalist'. And explain to them that lies and bullshit will no longer be tolerated.
Didn't they already do that during the iPhone 4 Gizmodo fiasco?
that isn't why - the income they make from iAds is small. Apple has said they wanted to give devs a way to earn money while promoting ads that are more considerate to users than google's.
Of course Apple cared about the money potential. They didn't buy Quattro for nearly $300M or bid big on AdMob expecting to lose money. Apple always expects to profit from their ventures. They set their sights high as a matter of fact, expecting to seize 50% of the mobile ad market almost immediately and requiring advertisers to ante-up $1M if they wanted in, while Apple would keep $400K of it for themselves (60% shared with developers serving ads and 40% for Apple). The money Apple gets from iAds isn't "small" because they want it to be. it just happened that way so far.
That it hasn't yet turned out to be as successful as what they expected sure doesn't mean they were simply being altruistic when they decided to compete in mobile ads. It wasn't just about "the developers" or "the users". IMHO it was also about Apple wanting their cut of something the devs apps already had, and believing it was going to be a significant amount of revenue as time went on. It still may be. They keep hiring long-time advertising execs, tweaking the rates, and modifying the rules on what they'll share about "you" with advertisers to get their business. They're mimicking Google ad offerings like an ad exchange, and like Google and other mobile ads providers dropping buy-in prices from the original $1M down to $50 today. They're also integrating iAd with more Apple services like Apple music and news features, and according to rumor their soon-to-appear TV platform. They're trying.
nope. Apple has clearly stated their reasons for bundling native vector maps, and it wasn't because Google was in that sector. it was because they couldn't get what they desired in that sector using google's offering.
…without handing Google access to user data, and adding extra Google branding.
Of course Apple cared about the money potential. They didn't buy Quattro for nearly $300M or bid big on AdMob expecting to lose money. Apple always expects to profit from their ventures.
They almost NEVER, however, buy companies or services to profit DIRECTLY from them. They almost always use them to add value to their saleable products.
I think Apple foresaw the stinking, uncontrollable cesspool that is online advertising services, scripting sleazy redirects and surreptitious downloads and audio ads (remember those?) in complete disregard for what the people hosting them have expressly requested, and have positioned themselves to both save users from them with the newly built-in content blockers, AND provide a "clean" alternative service for developers to use who wish to not alienate users.
Just a thought. I don't actually know what DISadvantages iAd offers to developers.
If it's an improvement to the platform, it doesn't need to make money. It helps sell the platform.
Of course Apple cared about the money potential. They didn't buy Quattro for nearly $300M or bid big on AdMob expecting to lose money. Apple always expects to profit from their ventures. They set their sights high as a matter of fact, expecting to seize 50% of the mobile ad market almost immediately and requiring advertisers to ante-up $1M if they wanted in, while Apple would keep $400K of it for themselves (60% shared with developers serving ads and 40% for Apple). The money Apple gets from iAds isn't "small" because they want it to be. it just happened that way so far.
That it hasn't yet turned out to be as successful as what they expected sure doesn't mean they were simply being altruistic when they decided to compete in mobile ads. It wasn't just about "the developers" or "the users". IMHO it was also about Apple wanting their cut of something the devs apps already had, and believing it was going to be a significant amount of revenue as time went on. It still may be. They keep hiring long-time advertising execs, tweaking the rates, and modifying the rules on what they'll share about "you" with advertisers to get their business. They're mimicking Google ad offerings like an ad exchange, and like Google and other mobile ads providers dropping buy-in prices from the original $1M down to $50 today. They're also integrating iAd with more Apple services like Apple music and news features, and according to rumor their soon-to-appear TV platform. They're trying.
Did Apple say that? Nope, but of course Apple wants to make money but these are the same analysts that predict doom for Apple on a yearly basis. They also predicted the devices would fail. Their analysis can been taken with a grain of salt.
They almost NEVER, however, buy companies or services to profit DIRECTLY from them. They almost always use them to add value to their saleable products.
...saleable products like iAd. All the pretending that since Apple doesn't make much money from ads yet that they aren't interested in turning that around is pretty silly isn't it? Surely you've noted the investments they've been making, the hiring they've been doing, and their new willingness to share more about "you" with advertisers, aligning closer with other ad providers services, in order to attract their money. If not you should read a bit.
Apple don't make money directly from very much of their software, but their software enhances their ecosystem, so is worth it.
Apple likely doesn't make any money from iCloud, as most accounts will be on the free tier, but it enhances their ecosystem.
An Apple MVNO may not make much, or any money, but if it gives any Apple mobile device anywhere in the world the best mobile data signal available then that's a massive enhancement to the Apple ecosystem.
It's the complete ecosystem that sells the hardware, the software, the cloud services and the customer service as a complete package.
And who's going to let Apple resell cellular service at break-even or a loss? AT&T and Verizon? Doubtful. So then we're stuck with T-Mobile and Sprint. I still don't see what the point is. Do that many people have issues with their carriers? And would those issues magically go away if Apple was selling the service? I just don't see what's in it for Apple other than a lot of headaches.
The carriers were forced by the government to allow the MVNOs onto their networks. They wouldn't have a choice but allow Apple resell their service had they chosen to.
Here's what it says: "Founded in 2001 as a joint venture betweenVirgin Group, Singapore Telecommunications Limited and Sprint Corporation, Virgin Mobile USA commenced operations in June, 2002 as a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)...."
Not a MVNO because it was owned by a carrier. Sprint/Virgin and Nextel/Boost started out very similar. The partner did (very successful) marketing, while the carrier ran the operation with in house assets and call centers. That's still the current operation, except Virgin Group/Boost Mobile Australia has no ownership stake, but receives licensing fees.
...saleable products like iAd. All the pretending that since Apple doesn't make much money from ads yet that they aren't interested in turning that around is pretty silly isn't it? Surely you've noted the investments they've been making, the hiring they've been doing, and their new willingness to share more about "you" with advertisers, aligning closer with other ad providers services, in order to attract their money. If not you should read a bit.
That's very clever. Snip the ENTIRE part of the post where I explain exactly why I believe you're wrong and just restate your point.
I'd argue, but I can see the bananas in your ears and know you can't hear me.
Apple just made more money with a "failed" product in an untested market (Apple Watch) than Google, the King of Online Advertising, did, after well over a decade of owning the market.
Google entered phone manufacturing, high-speed Internet service and a wireless service... I don't see a huge backlash by competitors yet.
Google's entry into FTTH actually has caused some backlash by other ISP's in those markets, some of them just outright abandoning the market entirely. But this is more of a "ISP doesn't want to compete by offering lower prices to all of their customers, so they would make more money by abandoning any market they would have to compete with Google in."
ISP's are in collusion with each other to not undercut each other. Otherwise we would see Japan and Korea levels of Fiber and Internet access. Where you get Gigabit Internet for 20$
That's very clever. Snip the ENTIRE part of the post where I explain exactly why I believe you're wrong and just restate your point.
I'd argue, but I can see the bananas in your ears and know you can't hear me.
Apple just made more money with a "failed" product in an untested market (Apple Watch) than Google, the King of Online Advertising, did, after well over a decade of owning the market.
Of course Apple made a boat -load of money on other stuff. So? They still followed Google into the advertising market. That was what the original OP asked. You're simply trying to change the conversation to something else.
No. I'm making an argument that they might not be in advertising to make piddling small-change money from advertising, but to improve the value of their platform - to developers, and to the people buying the devices.
And that is EXACTLY what NolaMacGuy wrote in the post you were replying to when I first quoted you.
Comments
And who's going to let Apple resell cellular service at break-even or a loss? AT&T and Verizon? Doubtful. So then we're stuck with T-Mobile and Sprint. I still don't see what the point is. Do that many people have issues with their carriers? And would those issues magically go away if Apple was selling the service? I just don't see what's in it for Apple other than a lot of headaches.
I think Apple should hire a group of unsavory gentlemen. I'm not saying they should order a hit but some threats could come in handy. Have some of these thugs have a meeting with some of these 'journalist'. And explain to them that lies and bullshit will no longer be tolerated.
Didn't they already do that during the iPhone 4 Gizmodo fiasco?
Just yanking your chain sog!
What isn't why?
You probably forget that iAd was expected to add $Billions to Apple's coffers.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/20/app_store_iads_projected_to_become_8_of_apple_stock_value
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/108566/apples-iad-platform-called-a-billion-dollar-opportunity
Of course Apple cared about the money potential. They didn't buy Quattro for nearly $300M or bid big on AdMob expecting to lose money. Apple always expects to profit from their ventures. They set their sights high as a matter of fact, expecting to seize 50% of the mobile ad market almost immediately and requiring advertisers to ante-up $1M if they wanted in, while Apple would keep $400K of it for themselves (60% shared with developers serving ads and 40% for Apple). The money Apple gets from iAds isn't "small" because they want it to be. it just happened that way so far.
That it hasn't yet turned out to be as successful as what they expected sure doesn't mean they were simply being altruistic when they decided to compete in mobile ads. It wasn't just about "the developers" or "the users". IMHO it was also about Apple wanting their cut of something the devs apps already had, and believing it was going to be a significant amount of revenue as time went on. It still may be. They keep hiring long-time advertising execs, tweaking the rates, and modifying the rules on what they'll share about "you" with advertisers to get their business. They're mimicking Google ad offerings like an ad exchange, and like Google and other mobile ads providers dropping buy-in prices from the original $1M down to $50 today. They're also integrating iAd with more Apple services like Apple music and news features, and according to rumor their soon-to-appear TV platform. They're trying.
nope. Apple has clearly stated their reasons for bundling native vector maps, and it wasn't because Google was in that sector. it was because they couldn't get what they desired in that sector using google's offering.
…without handing Google access to user data, and adding extra Google branding.
You probably forget that iAd was expected to add $Billions to Apple's coffers.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/20/app_store_iads_projected_to_become_8_of_apple_stock_value
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/108566/apples-iad-platform-called-a-billion-dollar-opportunity
Of course Apple cared about the money potential. They didn't buy Quattro for nearly $300M or bid big on AdMob expecting to lose money. Apple always expects to profit from their ventures.
They almost NEVER, however, buy companies or services to profit DIRECTLY from them. They almost always use them to add value to their saleable products.
I think Apple foresaw the stinking, uncontrollable cesspool that is online advertising services, scripting sleazy redirects and surreptitious downloads and audio ads (remember those?) in complete disregard for what the people hosting them have expressly requested, and have positioned themselves to both save users from them with the newly built-in content blockers, AND provide a "clean" alternative service for developers to use who wish to not alienate users.
Just a thought. I don't actually know what DISadvantages iAd offers to developers.
If it's an improvement to the platform, it doesn't need to make money. It helps sell the platform.
Did Apple say that? Nope, but of course Apple wants to make money but these are the same analysts that predict doom for Apple on a yearly basis. They also predicted the devices would fail. Their analysis can been taken with a grain of salt.
...saleable products like iAd. All the pretending that since Apple doesn't make much money from ads yet that they aren't interested in turning that around is pretty silly isn't it? Surely you've noted the investments they've been making, the hiring they've been doing, and their new willingness to share more about "you" with advertisers, aligning closer with other ad providers services, in order to attract their money. If not you should read a bit.
Here's a start you can build on:
http://advertising.apple.com/news/
Yep
Most cars, especially luxury vehicles, have their own internal cellular phone for emergency, service data, concierge services, updates, etc...
If there is any crumb of truth to this rumor, it likely would be for a segmented network for specialized use such as in a car...
The carriers were forced by the government to allow the MVNOs onto their networks. They wouldn't have a choice but allow Apple resell their service had they chosen to.
Here's what it says: "Founded in 2001 as a joint venture between Virgin Group, Singapore Telecommunications Limited and Sprint Corporation, Virgin Mobile USA commenced operations in June, 2002 as a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)...."
Not a MVNO because it was owned by a carrier. Sprint/Virgin and Nextel/Boost started out very similar. The partner did (very successful) marketing, while the carrier ran the operation with in house assets and call centers. That's still the current operation, except Virgin Group/Boost Mobile Australia has no ownership stake, but receives licensing fees.
...saleable products like iAd. All the pretending that since Apple doesn't make much money from ads yet that they aren't interested in turning that around is pretty silly isn't it? Surely you've noted the investments they've been making, the hiring they've been doing, and their new willingness to share more about "you" with advertisers, aligning closer with other ad providers services, in order to attract their money. If not you should read a bit.
Here's a start you can build on:
http://advertising.apple.com/news/
That's very clever. Snip the ENTIRE part of the post where I explain exactly why I believe you're wrong and just restate your point.
I'd argue, but I can see the bananas in your ears and know you can't hear me.
Apple just made more money with a "failed" product in an untested market (Apple Watch) than Google, the King of Online Advertising, did, after well over a decade of owning the market.
Google's entry into FTTH actually has caused some backlash by other ISP's in those markets, some of them just outright abandoning the market entirely. But this is more of a "ISP doesn't want to compete by offering lower prices to all of their customers, so they would make more money by abandoning any market they would have to compete with Google in."
ISP's are in collusion with each other to not undercut each other. Otherwise we would see Japan and Korea levels of Fiber and Internet access. Where you get Gigabit Internet for 20$
No. I'm making an argument that they might not be in advertising to make piddling small-change money from advertising, but to improve the value of their platform - to developers, and to the people buying the devices.
And that is EXACTLY what NolaMacGuy wrote in the post you were replying to when I first quoted you.