So the most interesting thing about this, is that Google has already been awarded a patent on ads that are generated based on user location with mobile devices. So how does apple do this (if this is what they plan), do they cut a deal with google between the ad method and multi-touch on android, I suppose it depends on what the largest revenue stream for apple is, or what they see as the largest stream.
Someone, somewhere has to pay for these things which could explain why Nokia is getting into it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
It's looking more and more like the iPad and web advertising is going to drive a whole new wave of jailbreaking. Apple just doesn't seem to get how opposed many of their customers (especially outside of the USA), are to this kind of captive "can't opt out" advertising.
If I can't block ads on the web while using the iPad, then there is not much point in using it for web browsing at all.
I click on ad links on sites like Appleinsider because it pays for them.
It doesn't mean I have to buy anything or give more than a cursory glance to what opens in another tab before I close it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Ditto. I think I clicked on an ad once by mistake but I can't remember intentionally doing so.
I've always wondered who those people are that actually read an ad, then think "Gee, I should click on this and see what they want to tell/sell me." It boggles the mind that people are so uniformly foolish.
Wow ! Now Apple is going to take their hands in the Ad market too. I can only imagine the ads that are coming soon at 7 April onwards.
I'm interested to see their take.
Why do we think it's just mobile ads?
Could they be about to announce that iTunes TV shows can be free if watched with ads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
I want the ability to turn that hsit off!!
That would be good. Watch the ads, or pay for the show.
Same goes for app ads of course... pay or ads.
And remember that cable TV channels are partly funded by ads, partly by subscription - so there's no reason a paid app might not use ads to be cheaper (but not free).
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz
Oh God. Yet more advertising?
I'm hoping it's less advertising. I mean, targeted ads are worth much more than regular ads, so theoretically you could have less. They're also (hopefully) of more interest to us consumers.
Apple will have to have twisted advertisers minds to get them to try it though. They'll be pushing for the same number of ads but all targeted, and we DON'T need that.
Rather, 2 ads per ad-break (instead of 8) on a TV show?
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz
Just what we need, sucking up your bandwidth and using up more of your monthly allowance. Next you won't be able to run apps unless you have a live internet connection
They have to have an offline solution - if only for iPod Touch and iPad Wifi!
No reason that targeted ads can't be loaded (synced) occasionally. It also means that when selecting a TV show to watch it can immediately show a 30second ad (while it caches the beginning of the show) and then straight into watching. It even means that on slower connections, when it calculates how much of the show needs to be downloaded before you can start watching, it can factor in the pre-loaded ads and start more quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz
Just picture how much fun it will be if you are listening to a song, then when the song ends you get a blaring advertisement before the next song starts.
Kind of like radio now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
neither google nor apple should know where I am or what I could potentially buy....
An option to not give information would be good and go a long way. If you had a choice between targeted ads (2 per ad-break on TV) or regular 8 ads per break - is the privacy worth it to you?
There were very similar rumors before Android launched... "Google will make smartphones free", etc. Finally they are as expensive as everything else, data rates are the same, and Google is paying commissions to the telcos. Benefit for the consumer? Zilch.
While this may be a possibility in a distant future, I do not think mobile ads generate enough revenue to really bring data tariffs down ? all statistics I have seen so far say: nobody clicks on them. And seriously, how much is the statistical data from iTunes worth for others? Apple will not lead the own clients to different music and movie portals. What else does this data tell you? What car a person might like? His/her favorite clothing, vacation destinations, investment strategies? I do not think so. My boss looks like he was born in a tux, drives the biggest Jag available, and he listens to stuff I could not even tell from industrial noise, and I know he bought "Rachel Getting Married" on iTunes... Which ads would be appropriate for him?
As somebody else said, the acquisition of Quattro Wireless happened only a few weeks ago. The maximum output I expect is maybe a new component in Interface Builder (add ad panels by simple drag and drop, provide a developer account number, done) and a mechanism to make an app ad-free by means of an in-app-purchase. Ad revenues will be paid out from the developer account... and that would already be quite comfortable.
While this may be a possibility in a distant future, I do not think mobile ads generate enough revenue to really bring data tariffs down ? all statistics I have seen so far say: nobody clicks on them. .....
Unless you are saying non-mobile online ads are somehow different than mobile ads - and unless you can explain that difference - how would you explain the $180 billion market cap of Google?
Unless you are saying non-mobile online ads are somehow different than mobile ads - and unless you can explain that difference - how would you explain the $180 billion market cap of Google?
I was only talking about mobile online ads, meaning ads displayed in mobile apps and those displayed on pages especially designed for mobile phones. As consultants we have access to the statistics for several companies and on average the views to clicks ratio is about 15-20 times more favorable on non-mobile pages. This of course is on top of mobile page views being a lot less anyhow. I can't explain the difference, as this would certainly require serious research, but I would assume that three important factors are: 1. connection speeds (needing longer to follow an ad will reduce the willingness to do it), 2. charges/bandwidth consumption (consider that outside the US mobile data tariffs normally do have usage caps, or even come with heavy excess charges once you exceed these allowances) and 3. mobile users seem to have different habits, e.g. don't visit the same 20 pages every day, but rather look up things ad hoc when needed - this leads to lower numbers of page views and there are really less "premium spots" going for premium rates (when compared to the "full" pages). Google's market cap at this point mainly reflects ads served to desktops and laptops.
I'm really not in favor of the move toward targeted, location-based ads, at all. Some of you think this makes them "better" because they're "more relevant". I think it makes it worse, because neither google nor apple should know where I am or what I could potentially buy....but just buying into their ecosystem seems to void my rights in that regard, apparently.
Here, here! Someone who actually "gets it".
There's a reason that allowing location information has to be explicitly enabled by individual users. BECAUSE IT'S INVASIVE! Except for emergency services, where special privileges exists.
If someone wants to open up their life to physical tracking, go for it. But leave me out, and make sure there is a way to use products without invasive requirements.
Just like with the iPod Touch, until there is a jailbreak available, and I have some mechanism to disable tracking crap, I won't be buying an iPad. But probably will as soon as that stuff is available.
An option to not give information would be good and go a long way. If you had a choice between targeted ads (2 per ad-break on TV) or regular 8 ads per break - is the privacy worth it to you?
Abso-frickin-lutely!
Others? What do you guys think? It really seems that many people (especially younger folks) are either in a huge hurry (sub-seconds count!), lazy and/or unconcerned about privacy. In so many ways. Why would anyone allow ANY large data-mining company to track your movements? And or individual aggregated/disaggregated purchasing habits, etc., etc.
Many (MANY) kids don't seem to care, but for generations people have fought for freedom from this type of monitoring (mostly from government), and now people are handing over absolutely massive amounts of data in the name of fun and games and/or saving a buck here and there. It's sad that as a society we're trending this way without really thinking about the ramifications.
I was only talking about mobile online ads, meaning ads displayed in mobile apps and those displayed on pages especially designed for mobile phones. As consultants we have access to the statistics for several companies and on average the views to clicks ratio is about 15-20 times more favorable on non-mobile pages. This of course is on top of mobile page views being a lot less anyhow. I can't explain the difference, as this would certainly require serious research, but I would assume that three important factors are: 1. connection speeds (needing longer to follow an ad will reduce the willingness to do it), 2. charges/bandwidth consumption (consider that outside the US mobile data tariffs normally do have usage caps, or even come with heavy excess charges once you exceed these allowances) and 3. mobile users seem to have different habits, e.g. don't visit the same 20 pages every day, but rather look up things ad hoc when needed - this leads to lower numbers of page views and there are really less "premium spots" going for premium rates (when compared to the "full" pages). Google's market cap at this point mainly reflects ads served to desktops and laptops.
[Apple] "retains a tight relationship with its iPhone developers"
Overstating it a little too much perhaps. They have a relationship yes. And yes it looks like it might work. But I'm really not sure that it's a tight relationship.
Is it likely that most app developers have ever met with someone from Apple? No
Talked shop for a bit? No
Asked them about their business? No
Spoken to them on the phone even? Still a No.
Tight relationships take time and genuine engagement, and cannot be achieved via an SDK and a series of emails.
[Apple] "retains a tight relationship with its iPhone developers"
(...)
Tight relationships take time and genuine engagement, and cannot be achieved via an SDK and a series of emails.
Nor can such a relationship be achieved via 99-cent fart apps.
It's pretty clear there exists at least two levels of iPhone developers: those with truly tight relationships (the ones who got pre-release iPads for example), and those under tight reins (those who have to abide by Apple's will if they want a presence on the App Store).
Unless you've had a productive in-person meeting with Jobs himself, you're probably one of the latter.
Nor can such a relationship be achieved via 99-cent fart apps.
It's pretty clear there exists at least two levels of iPhone developers: those with truly tight relationships (the ones who got pre-release iPads for example), and those under tight reins (those who have to abide by Apple's will if they want a presence on the App Store).
Unless you've had a productive in-person meeting with Jobs himself, you're probably one of the latter.
I don't think that's realistic-- how many Windows developers have ever met Bill Gates or Ballmer?
I've dealt with Apple since 1978 as:
-- customer (end user)
-- customer Computer Store owner (main store less than 1 mile from Apple HQ)
In each relationship I felt I had the proper level of support and access to appropriate Apple people.
Oddly, my first encounter with Steve Jobs was when I was demoing the Apple ][ to about 20 people in our Sunnyvale store (say, Feb 1979)...
... a voice from the crowd said "You're doing it wrong". Steve stepped up and gave the best damn Apple ][ demo I've ever seen. (Woz and a few other Apple higher-ups were also present)
Ads with . . . the User Experience in mind! I'm lmao, and peeing a bit too.
Edit spelling. Kept falling asleep, before bed, lol, but I have to get my AI fix every day.
EMEMBER WHEN Pro Care and One to One was one program for $99 and all the theater people were creatives? Now you can hardly find a trainer that knows Logic let alone FCP and forget about Shake. I know it's gone but remeber those traing books? It was like kindergarden for iLife.
Why can't Apple put money into motion? AE still ruled all post homes and Motion could be made into anawesom program just as easy as FCPcould run all codecs with ease like iMovie if they put some time and money into it.
How about some $$$ for Logic so I can edit a track while still in arranger or do easy crossfades using templates
great program but it still lacks thing that are very easy to do in Nuendo.
You guys and your privacy concern, you don't get it, none of the information that is used to send mobile advertising to you can personally identify you!
Another thing, this is only a tool built into the SDK that will give developers an easier option to work with instead of using 3rd party services that are currently being used anyway.
Also we don't know how exactly it's going to work. Steve Jobs says "ads suck" so we can expect something to be different than what Goog or other advertisers plan to do. Chances are, we the user, won't even care. The end user is not a developer so its not that big a deal.
In each relationship I felt I had the proper level of support and access to appropriate Apple people.
Oddly, my first encounter with Steve Jobs was when I was demoing the Apple ][ to about 20 people in our Sunnyvale store (say, Feb 1979)...
... a voice from the crowd said "You're doing it wrong". Steve stepped up and gave the best damn Apple ][ demo I've ever seen. (Woz and a few other Apple higher-ups were also present)
*
Sounds like a pretty big involvement across the range there. Not too many people have had that length of time involved across multiple points of the business. It's a pretty cool story about Jobs's impromtu presentation too. Sounds like he's always had something of a gift for presenting, even when the product and the methods assisting presentation were nowhere near what they are today.
Comments
It's looking more and more like the iPad and web advertising is going to drive a whole new wave of jailbreaking. Apple just doesn't seem to get how opposed many of their customers (especially outside of the USA), are to this kind of captive "can't opt out" advertising.
If I can't block ads on the web while using the iPad, then there is not much point in using it for web browsing at all.
I click on ad links on sites like Appleinsider because it pays for them.
It doesn't mean I have to buy anything or give more than a cursory glance to what opens in another tab before I close it.
Ditto. I think I clicked on an ad once by mistake but I can't remember intentionally doing so.
I've always wondered who those people are that actually read an ad, then think "Gee, I should click on this and see what they want to tell/sell me." It boggles the mind that people are so uniformly foolish.
If I can't block ads on the web while using the iPad, then there is not much point in using it for web browsing at all.
I'm sorry but this is just terribly terribly terribly ... retarded.
A free fart app with an ad for Gas-X.
It would probably be very popular with teenagers.
Wow ! Now Apple is going to take their hands in the Ad market too. I can only imagine the ads that are coming soon at 7 April onwards.
I'm interested to see their take.
Why do we think it's just mobile ads?
Could they be about to announce that iTunes TV shows can be free if watched with ads?
I want the ability to turn that hsit off!!
That would be good. Watch the ads, or pay for the show.
Same goes for app ads of course... pay or ads.
And remember that cable TV channels are partly funded by ads, partly by subscription - so there's no reason a paid app might not use ads to be cheaper (but not free).
Oh God. Yet more advertising?
I'm hoping it's less advertising. I mean, targeted ads are worth much more than regular ads, so theoretically you could have less. They're also (hopefully) of more interest to us consumers.
Apple will have to have twisted advertisers minds to get them to try it though. They'll be pushing for the same number of ads but all targeted, and we DON'T need that.
Rather, 2 ads per ad-break (instead of 8) on a TV show?
Just what we need, sucking up your bandwidth and using up more of your monthly allowance. Next you won't be able to run apps unless you have a live internet connection
They have to have an offline solution - if only for iPod Touch and iPad Wifi!
No reason that targeted ads can't be loaded (synced) occasionally. It also means that when selecting a TV show to watch it can immediately show a 30second ad (while it caches the beginning of the show) and then straight into watching. It even means that on slower connections, when it calculates how much of the show needs to be downloaded before you can start watching, it can factor in the pre-loaded ads and start more quickly.
Just picture how much fun it will be if you are listening to a song, then when the song ends you get a blaring advertisement before the next song starts.
Kind of like radio now?
neither google nor apple should know where I am or what I could potentially buy....
An option to not give information would be good and go a long way. If you had a choice between targeted ads (2 per ad-break on TV) or regular 8 ads per break - is the privacy worth it to you?
This is, indeed, an intriguing possibility.
There were very similar rumors before Android launched... "Google will make smartphones free", etc. Finally they are as expensive as everything else, data rates are the same, and Google is paying commissions to the telcos. Benefit for the consumer? Zilch.
While this may be a possibility in a distant future, I do not think mobile ads generate enough revenue to really bring data tariffs down ? all statistics I have seen so far say: nobody clicks on them. And seriously, how much is the statistical data from iTunes worth for others? Apple will not lead the own clients to different music and movie portals. What else does this data tell you? What car a person might like? His/her favorite clothing, vacation destinations, investment strategies? I do not think so. My boss looks like he was born in a tux, drives the biggest Jag available, and he listens to stuff I could not even tell from industrial noise, and I know he bought "Rachel Getting Married" on iTunes... Which ads would be appropriate for him?
As somebody else said, the acquisition of Quattro Wireless happened only a few weeks ago. The maximum output I expect is maybe a new component in Interface Builder (add ad panels by simple drag and drop, provide a developer account number, done) and a mechanism to make an app ad-free by means of an in-app-purchase. Ad revenues will be paid out from the developer account... and that would already be quite comfortable.
While this may be a possibility in a distant future, I do not think mobile ads generate enough revenue to really bring data tariffs down ? all statistics I have seen so far say: nobody clicks on them. .....
Unless you are saying non-mobile online ads are somehow different than mobile ads - and unless you can explain that difference - how would you explain the $180 billion market cap of Google?
Unless you are saying non-mobile online ads are somehow different than mobile ads - and unless you can explain that difference - how would you explain the $180 billion market cap of Google?
I was only talking about mobile online ads, meaning ads displayed in mobile apps and those displayed on pages especially designed for mobile phones. As consultants we have access to the statistics for several companies and on average the views to clicks ratio is about 15-20 times more favorable on non-mobile pages. This of course is on top of mobile page views being a lot less anyhow. I can't explain the difference, as this would certainly require serious research, but I would assume that three important factors are: 1. connection speeds (needing longer to follow an ad will reduce the willingness to do it), 2. charges/bandwidth consumption (consider that outside the US mobile data tariffs normally do have usage caps, or even come with heavy excess charges once you exceed these allowances) and 3. mobile users seem to have different habits, e.g. don't visit the same 20 pages every day, but rather look up things ad hoc when needed - this leads to lower numbers of page views and there are really less "premium spots" going for premium rates (when compared to the "full" pages). Google's market cap at this point mainly reflects ads served to desktops and laptops.
*
I'm really not in favor of the move toward targeted, location-based ads, at all. Some of you think this makes them "better" because they're "more relevant". I think it makes it worse, because neither google nor apple should know where I am or what I could potentially buy....but just buying into their ecosystem seems to void my rights in that regard, apparently.
Here, here! Someone who actually "gets it".
There's a reason that allowing location information has to be explicitly enabled by individual users. BECAUSE IT'S INVASIVE! Except for emergency services, where special privileges exists.
If someone wants to open up their life to physical tracking, go for it. But leave me out, and make sure there is a way to use products without invasive requirements.
Just like with the iPod Touch, until there is a jailbreak available, and I have some mechanism to disable tracking crap, I won't be buying an iPad. But probably will as soon as that stuff is available.
An option to not give information would be good and go a long way. If you had a choice between targeted ads (2 per ad-break on TV) or regular 8 ads per break - is the privacy worth it to you?
Abso-frickin-lutely!
Others? What do you guys think? It really seems that many people (especially younger folks) are either in a huge hurry (sub-seconds count!), lazy and/or unconcerned about privacy. In so many ways. Why would anyone allow ANY large data-mining company to track your movements? And or individual aggregated/disaggregated purchasing habits, etc., etc.
Many (MANY) kids don't seem to care, but for generations people have fought for freedom from this type of monitoring (mostly from government), and now people are handing over absolutely massive amounts of data in the name of fun and games and/or saving a buck here and there. It's sad that as a society we're trending this way without really thinking about the ramifications.
Egocentric? I don't get that. Anyway, not that I like ads, I don't. But I think the name iAd is cute.
Tap that iAd on your iPad, lad
Egocentric in my ears because the "i" sounds like an "I". Like in "I, Robot". There is no "we", "us" in Apples universe.
I was only talking about mobile online ads, meaning ads displayed in mobile apps and those displayed on pages especially designed for mobile phones. As consultants we have access to the statistics for several companies and on average the views to clicks ratio is about 15-20 times more favorable on non-mobile pages. This of course is on top of mobile page views being a lot less anyhow. I can't explain the difference, as this would certainly require serious research, but I would assume that three important factors are: 1. connection speeds (needing longer to follow an ad will reduce the willingness to do it), 2. charges/bandwidth consumption (consider that outside the US mobile data tariffs normally do have usage caps, or even come with heavy excess charges once you exceed these allowances) and 3. mobile users seem to have different habits, e.g. don't visit the same 20 pages every day, but rather look up things ad hoc when needed - this leads to lower numbers of page views and there are really less "premium spots" going for premium rates (when compared to the "full" pages). Google's market cap at this point mainly reflects ads served to desktops and laptops.
Makes sense. Thanks.
Overstating it a little too much perhaps. They have a relationship yes. And yes it looks like it might work. But I'm really not sure that it's a tight relationship.
Is it likely that most app developers have ever met with someone from Apple? No
Talked shop for a bit? No
Asked them about their business? No
Spoken to them on the phone even? Still a No.
Tight relationships take time and genuine engagement, and cannot be achieved via an SDK and a series of emails.
[Apple] "retains a tight relationship with its iPhone developers"
(...)
Tight relationships take time and genuine engagement, and cannot be achieved via an SDK and a series of emails.
Nor can such a relationship be achieved via 99-cent fart apps.
It's pretty clear there exists at least two levels of iPhone developers: those with truly tight relationships (the ones who got pre-release iPads for example), and those under tight reins (those who have to abide by Apple's will if they want a presence on the App Store).
Unless you've had a productive in-person meeting with Jobs himself, you're probably one of the latter.
Nor can such a relationship be achieved via 99-cent fart apps.
It's pretty clear there exists at least two levels of iPhone developers: those with truly tight relationships (the ones who got pre-release iPads for example), and those under tight reins (those who have to abide by Apple's will if they want a presence on the App Store).
Unless you've had a productive in-person meeting with Jobs himself, you're probably one of the latter.
I don't think that's realistic-- how many Windows developers have ever met Bill Gates or Ballmer?
I've dealt with Apple since 1978 as:
-- customer (end user)
-- customer Computer Store owner (main store less than 1 mile from Apple HQ)
-- Supplier (IBM PCs, LANS, competitive hardware/software etc)
-- Contractor (Point of Sale System)
-- Developer (Mac, iPhone, iPad)
In each relationship I felt I had the proper level of support and access to appropriate Apple people.
Oddly, my first encounter with Steve Jobs was when I was demoing the Apple ][ to about 20 people in our Sunnyvale store (say, Feb 1979)...
... a voice from the crowd said "You're doing it wrong". Steve stepped up and gave the best damn Apple ][ demo I've ever seen. (Woz and a few other Apple higher-ups were also present)
*
Ads with . . . the User Experience in mind! I'm lmao, and peeing a bit too.
Edit spelling. Kept falling asleep, before bed, lol, but I have to get my AI fix every day.
EMEMBER WHEN Pro Care and One to One was one program for $99 and all the theater people were creatives? Now you can hardly find a trainer that knows Logic let alone FCP and forget about Shake. I know it's gone but remeber those traing books? It was like kindergarden for iLife.
Why can't Apple put money into motion? AE still ruled all post homes and Motion could be made into anawesom program just as easy as FCPcould run all codecs with ease like iMovie if they put some time and money into it.
How about some $$$ for Logic so I can edit a track while still in arranger or do easy crossfades using templates
great program but it still lacks thing that are very easy to do in Nuendo.
Another thing, this is only a tool built into the SDK that will give developers an easier option to work with instead of using 3rd party services that are currently being used anyway.
Also we don't know how exactly it's going to work. Steve Jobs says "ads suck" so we can expect something to be different than what Goog or other advertisers plan to do. Chances are, we the user, won't even care. The end user is not a developer so its not that big a deal.
I don't think that's realistic-- how many Windows developers have ever met Bill Gates or Ballmer?
I've dealt with Apple since 1978 as:
-- customer (end user)
-- customer Computer Store owner (main store less than 1 mile from Apple HQ)
-- Supplier (IBM PCs, LANS, competitive hardware/software etc)
-- Contractor (Point of Sale System)
-- Developer (Mac, iPhone, iPad)
In each relationship I felt I had the proper level of support and access to appropriate Apple people.
Oddly, my first encounter with Steve Jobs was when I was demoing the Apple ][ to about 20 people in our Sunnyvale store (say, Feb 1979)...
... a voice from the crowd said "You're doing it wrong". Steve stepped up and gave the best damn Apple ][ demo I've ever seen. (Woz and a few other Apple higher-ups were also present)
*
Sounds like a pretty big involvement across the range there. Not too many people have had that length of time involved across multiple points of the business. It's a pretty cool story about Jobs's impromtu presentation too. Sounds like he's always had something of a gift for presenting, even when the product and the methods assisting presentation were nowhere near what they are today.