I would guess you are right--except I think this may been even less than that...
Apple doesn't HAVE to introduce anything new: podcasts ALREADY contain chapter images if the creator chooses to use that.
If there are any NEW changes to iTunes, this article fails to mention them. The article does NOT support the headline: "Apple Computer may soon disrupt the purity of its iTunes interface by introducing visual advertising spots that would appear within the ubiquitous jukebox application."
I think chapter images are not compatible with MP3 format, which is the most common format for podcasts. I believe for chapter images to be shown, the podcast has to be in Enhanced AAC format (known as Enhanced Podcasts). Also, I doubt that Apple currently allows chapter images in Enhanced Podcasts to be ads.
The new change would have to be ads that are compatible with MP3 format podcasts. Maybe Apple will simply allow the album art for the podcast to be ads. Or maybe they are close to making chapters available for MP3 format, which would allow multiple ads to show during the MP3 podcasts.
Apple allows all podcasters to place ads during their podcasts. Revenue between Apple and Podcaster is shared 50/50. This would create an industry or provide a revenue stream to those who are making some interesting podcasts, and gives the company revenue to support the download costs.
Very similar to Google, how they transformed internet advertising by sending out checks to websites while they made billions themselves.
To me it's all not a big deal, since I don't sit at my computer listening to Podcasts, staring at iTunes.
Now if only Apple would update the visualizers in iTunes from 6 years ago. \
Originally posted by DML Also, I doubt that Apple currently allows chapter images in Enhanced Podcasts to be ads.
How would they stop podcasters from doing that? Tons of podcasts have audio ads already, why would apple object to podcasters inserting their own visual ads?
Quote:
Originally posted by mugwump
Revenue between Apple and Podcaster is shared 50/50. This would create an industry or provide a revenue stream to those who are making some interesting podcasts, and gives the company revenue to support the download costs.
Who is "the company"? Apple doesn't have any download costs, all distribution (including the costs, which are often pretty high) is handled by the podcaster. Apple just provides fancy indexing and linking.
So you are saying that it's ok to advertise in the free software that Apple offers? Thanks for helping kill our Mac experience (which yes, I paid for). Itunes is free because it's a way to SELL product, I think it has gone far enough in that sense. I don't need more ads on top of it.
How would they stop podcasters from doing that? Tons of podcasts have audio ads already, why would apple object to podcasters inserting their own visual ads?
I'm assuming that podcasters must agree to some type of 'terms of service agreement' when they submit their podcast to iTunes. My guess is that Apple does not currently allow album art or Enhanced Podcast chapter art to be ads.
I'm assuming that podcasters must agree to some type of 'terms of service agreement' when they submit their podcast to iTunes. My guess is that Apple does not currently allow album art or Enhanced Podcast chapter art to be ads.
Instead of guessing, why don't you just look at that TOS and see for yourself?
...
Just checked, didn't find any mention of advertising being forbidden. It wouldn't make sense anyway - why would apple care about banning visual ads but be OK with tons of podcasts having audio ads?
So you are saying that it's ok to advertise in the free software that Apple offers? Thanks for helping kill our Mac experience (which yes, I paid for). Itunes is free because it's a way to SELL product, I think it has gone far enough in that sense. I don't need more ads on top of it.
Sell a product??? iTunes is available cross-platform. Apple isn't pushing iTunes in hopes that you use it and say "WOW, I so need to buy a Macintosh." Just like using WMP doesn't make me want to go out and buy a shitbox PC and license Windows on it ... it's a media player, not exactly one of the top selling points when the people at the Apple store accost you.
Sell a product??? iTunes is available cross-platform. Apple isn't pushing iTunes in hopes that you use it and say "WOW, I so need to buy a Macintosh." Just like using WMP doesn't make me want to go out and buy a shitbox PC and license Windows on it ... it's a media player, not exactly one of the top selling points when the people at the Apple store accost you.
uhmm.... sell songs---that's the product dude. That, and iPods.
uhmm.... sell songs---that's the product dude. That, and iPods.
Are you changing your story now? Earlier you said you paid for your Mac and the software, but iTunes is free. I also don't have to use iTunes to buy anything. If I just want to catalog my music with it, I can. Using iTunes != Buying from iTMS or Buying an iPod. iTunes was free before iTMS was created and it's still a free application...
EDIT: Apple wants you to buy hardware - they could give a rat's ass about selling songs. Apple doesn't use iTunes to sell iPods. They lock you into iTunes after you've bought the iPod...
This is the price of the corporate version of the "free" market ... nothing is free and it will continue to erode life with the the commodification of everything. If you are upset about an add on iTunes, how can you not be angered by the price put on everything from clean water to the corporate control of public airwaves.
I don't mean to be partisan, but everything is connected.
What are you talking about? There's little (if any) connection between "free market" and "free speech."
The "free" in "free market" is the same kind of thing as the "free" in "free speech"...it is freedom...as opposed to the "free" in "free beer" which means "free of charge".
The original poster suggested by his post ("This is the price of the corporate version of the "free" market ... nothing is free...how can you not be angered by the price put on everything from clean water to the corporate control of public airwaves") that the "free market" system had something to do with things being free of charge. It doesn't. The free market is about having the freedom to choose.
Now, if he had used a different example...such as a monopoly that restricts your freedom to choose other means/providers/ways of obtaining a product or service...that would have made sense.
Isn't that where album art and podcast chapter images ALREADY appear? And can already be turned off?
So isn't this just (some) podcast creators putting an ad there instead of a more useful image?
I've read the article. How is this Apple doing anything? How is this a change to iTunes at all? Are people just responding blindly without reading the article first?
It just sounds like podcast creators trying to get some compensation using the existing (and optional) chapter art feature, which seems like their choice to me.
Frankly, I'd rather have an image in the corner I can hide, than audio ads in the podcast--which I also think are fair enough if the podcast needs money. (Better an advertiser's money than mine.)
Am I missing something obvious that has people so upset? What makes everyone assume this isn't chapter art, which is how the article seems to describe it?
People are talking about ads added by Apple in some new way to the iTunes UI, but where are they getting that from? The article uses some loaded language like that because the writer probably doesn't know how iTunes currently works.
Maybe there's something horrible in the works, but nothing in the article tells me so. I'll save my rants against Apple until that time.
That had better be it, it better only be for certain podcasts and not apple profiting off the podcasts themselves, but the companies who "need it".
Maybe the new technology is simply allowing those static picture adverts to move. That had better be it all it is because if it's a constant advert window you best believe my itunes is going to HELL
The problem here, that I fell into myself at first, is that the article is vague on the actual implementation of this advertisement. After reading a more informative article on the subject, I found that it is, as others have mentioned, only podcasts that are rumored to display ads in the pre-existing preview pane.
This is really no big deal. In fact, I wouldn't even mind if they showed up on my ipod screen while playing free content. I don't have to look at it. It's free content; let the the advertisers pay. Nothing else would be affected. There is no rumor of advertisement being displayed for any other content.
I put it in quotes because I think a company like espn "needing it" is bs. Any real tv network that has podcast is doing so to get more users interested in the network.
More interest in the network = more viewers = being able to charge ad companies more for their tv commerical spots.
That's why I'm saying I hope this isn't apple attempt to advertise over everything, or advertise over every podcast even if the creator doesn't want it.
I hope all their trying to do is just making it easier for the bs company to advertise over their own podcast, in form of maybe a short video in the left corner attacted to their audio podcast.
I put it in quotes because I think a company like espn "needing it" is bs. Any real tv network that has podcast is doing so to get more users interested in the network.
More interest in the network = more viewers = being able to charge ad companies more for their tv commerical spots.
That's why I'm saying I hope this isn't apple attempt to advertise over everything, or advertise over every podcast even if the creator doesn't want it.
I hope all their trying to do is just making it easier for the bs company to advertise over their own podcast, in form of maybe a short video in the left corner attacted to their audio podcast.
Companies are in business to make $. Some are doing this through advertising. Some will use "teasers" to get you to buy/view/whatever the thing they are really selling so they can make $. I'd say ESPN (or anyone else) is free to put ads anywhere they want to. Of course it is a balance. Some people will ignore/avoid the ads. Some people will not watch at all because it does have ads. The higher the ad-to-real-desired-content ratio, the fewer viewers/listeners.
This is all where you/me/everyone get to excercise our freedoms...don't like the ads or ad-to-content ratio...find something else. Eventually they'll get the message.
Comments
Originally posted by nagromme
I would guess you are right--except I think this may been even less than that...
Apple doesn't HAVE to introduce anything new: podcasts ALREADY contain chapter images if the creator chooses to use that.
If there are any NEW changes to iTunes, this article fails to mention them. The article does NOT support the headline: "Apple Computer may soon disrupt the purity of its iTunes interface by introducing visual advertising spots that would appear within the ubiquitous jukebox application."
I think chapter images are not compatible with MP3 format, which is the most common format for podcasts. I believe for chapter images to be shown, the podcast has to be in Enhanced AAC format (known as Enhanced Podcasts). Also, I doubt that Apple currently allows chapter images in Enhanced Podcasts to be ads.
The new change would have to be ads that are compatible with MP3 format podcasts. Maybe Apple will simply allow the album art for the podcast to be ads. Or maybe they are close to making chapters available for MP3 format, which would allow multiple ads to show during the MP3 podcasts.
Apple allows all podcasters to place ads during their podcasts. Revenue between Apple and Podcaster is shared 50/50. This would create an industry or provide a revenue stream to those who are making some interesting podcasts, and gives the company revenue to support the download costs.
Very similar to Google, how they transformed internet advertising by sending out checks to websites while they made billions themselves.
To me it's all not a big deal, since I don't sit at my computer listening to Podcasts, staring at iTunes.
Now if only Apple would update the visualizers in iTunes from 6 years ago.
Originally posted by DML Also, I doubt that Apple currently allows chapter images in Enhanced Podcasts to be ads.
How would they stop podcasters from doing that? Tons of podcasts have audio ads already, why would apple object to podcasters inserting their own visual ads?
Originally posted by mugwump
Revenue between Apple and Podcaster is shared 50/50. This would create an industry or provide a revenue stream to those who are making some interesting podcasts, and gives the company revenue to support the download costs.
Who is "the company"? Apple doesn't have any download costs, all distribution (including the costs, which are often pretty high) is handled by the podcaster. Apple just provides fancy indexing and linking.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
iTunes is free.
So you are saying that it's ok to advertise in the free software that Apple offers? Thanks for helping kill our Mac experience (which yes, I paid for). Itunes is free because it's a way to SELL product, I think it has gone far enough in that sense. I don't need more ads on top of it.
Originally posted by minderbinder
How would they stop podcasters from doing that? Tons of podcasts have audio ads already, why would apple object to podcasters inserting their own visual ads?
I'm assuming that podcasters must agree to some type of 'terms of service agreement' when they submit their podcast to iTunes. My guess is that Apple does not currently allow album art or Enhanced Podcast chapter art to be ads.
Originally posted by DML
I'm assuming that podcasters must agree to some type of 'terms of service agreement' when they submit their podcast to iTunes. My guess is that Apple does not currently allow album art or Enhanced Podcast chapter art to be ads.
Instead of guessing, why don't you just look at that TOS and see for yourself?
...
Just checked, didn't find any mention of advertising being forbidden. It wouldn't make sense anyway - why would apple care about banning visual ads but be OK with tons of podcasts having audio ads?
Originally posted by futuretheory9
So you are saying that it's ok to advertise in the free software that Apple offers? Thanks for helping kill our Mac experience (which yes, I paid for). Itunes is free because it's a way to SELL product, I think it has gone far enough in that sense. I don't need more ads on top of it.
Sell a product??? iTunes is available cross-platform. Apple isn't pushing iTunes in hopes that you use it and say "WOW, I so need to buy a Macintosh." Just like using WMP doesn't make me want to go out and buy a shitbox PC and license Windows on it ... it's a media player, not exactly one of the top selling points when the people at the Apple store accost you.
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Sell a product??? iTunes is available cross-platform. Apple isn't pushing iTunes in hopes that you use it and say "WOW, I so need to buy a Macintosh." Just like using WMP doesn't make me want to go out and buy a shitbox PC and license Windows on it ... it's a media player, not exactly one of the top selling points when the people at the Apple store accost you.
uhmm.... sell songs---that's the product dude. That, and iPods.
Originally posted by futuretheory9
uhmm.... sell songs---that's the product dude. That, and iPods.
Are you changing your story now? Earlier you said you paid for your Mac and the software, but iTunes is free. I also don't have to use iTunes to buy anything. If I just want to catalog my music with it, I can. Using iTunes != Buying from iTMS or Buying an iPod. iTunes was free before iTMS was created and it's still a free application...
EDIT: Apple wants you to buy hardware - they could give a rat's ass about selling songs. Apple doesn't use iTunes to sell iPods. They lock you into iTunes after you've bought the iPod...
This is the price of the corporate version of the "free" market ... nothing is free and it will continue to erode life with the the commodification of everything. If you are upset about an add on iTunes, how can you not be angered by the price put on everything from clean water to the corporate control of public airwaves.
I don't mean to be partisan, but everything is connected.
Originally posted by MacGregor
To all conservative free marketeers...
This is the price of the corporate version of the "free" market ... nothing is free and
That is not what "free" market is about. It is about free as in speech, not free as in beer.
please don't do it.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That is not what "free" market is about. It is about free as in speech, not free as in beer.
What are you talking about? There's little (if any) connection between "free market" and "free speech."
Originally posted by wilco
What are you talking about? There's little (if any) connection between "free market" and "free speech."
The "free" in "free market" is the same kind of thing as the "free" in "free speech"...it is freedom...as opposed to the "free" in "free beer" which means "free of charge".
The original poster suggested by his post ("This is the price of the corporate version of the "free" market ... nothing is free...how can you not be angered by the price put on everything from clean water to the corporate control of public airwaves") that the "free market" system had something to do with things being free of charge. It doesn't. The free market is about having the freedom to choose.
Now, if he had used a different example...such as a monopoly that restricts your freedom to choose other means/providers/ways of obtaining a product or service...that would have made sense.
Originally posted by nagromme
What am I missing?
"only in the lower-left corner"
Isn't that where album art and podcast chapter images ALREADY appear? And can already be turned off?
So isn't this just (some) podcast creators putting an ad there instead of a more useful image?
I've read the article. How is this Apple doing anything? How is this a change to iTunes at all? Are people just responding blindly without reading the article first?
It just sounds like podcast creators trying to get some compensation using the existing (and optional) chapter art feature, which seems like their choice to me.
Frankly, I'd rather have an image in the corner I can hide, than audio ads in the podcast--which I also think are fair enough if the podcast needs money. (Better an advertiser's money than mine.)
Am I missing something obvious that has people so upset? What makes everyone assume this isn't chapter art, which is how the article seems to describe it?
People are talking about ads added by Apple in some new way to the iTunes UI, but where are they getting that from? The article uses some loaded language like that because the writer probably doesn't know how iTunes currently works.
Maybe there's something horrible in the works, but nothing in the article tells me so. I'll save my rants against Apple until that time.
That had better be it, it better only be for certain podcasts and not apple profiting off the podcasts themselves, but the companies who "need it".
Maybe the new technology is simply allowing those static picture adverts to move. That had better be it all it is because if it's a constant advert window you best believe my itunes is going to HELL
Originally posted by ecking
That had better be it, it better only be for certain podcasts and not apple profiting off the podcasts themselves, but the companies who "need it".
Say again? Which "needy" companies are these?
This is really no big deal. In fact, I wouldn't even mind if they showed up on my ipod screen while playing free content. I don't have to look at it. It's free content; let the the advertisers pay. Nothing else would be affected. There is no rumor of advertisement being displayed for any other content.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Say again? Which "needy" companies are these?
I put it in quotes because I think a company like espn "needing it" is bs. Any real tv network that has podcast is doing so to get more users interested in the network.
More interest in the network = more viewers = being able to charge ad companies more for their tv commerical spots.
That's why I'm saying I hope this isn't apple attempt to advertise over everything, or advertise over every podcast even if the creator doesn't want it.
I hope all their trying to do is just making it easier for the bs company to advertise over their own podcast, in form of maybe a short video in the left corner attacted to their audio podcast.
Originally posted by ecking
I put it in quotes because I think a company like espn "needing it" is bs. Any real tv network that has podcast is doing so to get more users interested in the network.
More interest in the network = more viewers = being able to charge ad companies more for their tv commerical spots.
That's why I'm saying I hope this isn't apple attempt to advertise over everything, or advertise over every podcast even if the creator doesn't want it.
I hope all their trying to do is just making it easier for the bs company to advertise over their own podcast, in form of maybe a short video in the left corner attacted to their audio podcast.
Companies are in business to make $. Some are doing this through advertising. Some will use "teasers" to get you to buy/view/whatever the thing they are really selling so they can make $. I'd say ESPN (or anyone else) is free to put ads anywhere they want to. Of course it is a balance. Some people will ignore/avoid the ads. Some people will not watch at all because it does have ads. The higher the ad-to-real-desired-content ratio, the fewer viewers/listeners.
This is all where you/me/everyone get to excercise our freedoms...don't like the ads or ad-to-content ratio...find something else. Eventually they'll get the message.