I bet the old ads will disappear very quickly once this goes live. If you're a developer with an ad supported app, you'd have to be crazy not to want to use these ad in your next update. The users will like it better and so will the dev, since they're making more money from ads.
And so will Apple as they make more money, and at the same time get to have a say in the advertising game (html5). I don't think the agencies are ceding control to Apple. Apple is simply offering a better way to position ads. As the user experience also is better and the format different the agencies get more to work with. Ultimately the Agencies and advertisers will decide if the iAds will work better. They have a new canvas - no they have to get creative.
Personally I rarely click on ads. I may see an ad which will make me head for the company website, but clicking on the ad - its just not in my DNA. Makes me feel like a sucker.
Nice pic, the iAd branding may help but don't you think people will ignore the ad simply because it's an ad. For me to consciously to click on an interactive ad I would have had to have been informed via word of mouth, that this ad is worth clicking and the demos don't seem any different than going to product's website for an interactive experience. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great move in many ways I just don't see it generating many more clicks than the current setup.
Correct. In fact, it's quite possible that other banner ads would simply emulate that little iAd flourish to confuse customers. If I was a banner ad company, I might do it just for the additional clicks.
I bet the old ads will disappear very quickly once this goes live. If you're a developer with an ad supported app, you'd have to be crazy not to want to use these ad in your next update. The users will like it better and so will the dev, since they're making more money from ads.
I'm not sure they will make more money using iAds. The split will remain the same, as Jobs mentioned ("standard agency split").
Of greater interest to me and perhaps to others, is when Apple starts to intrude upon Google's web advertising dominance. Why not roll out iAd as a general web service? All ads are created using HTML5, so I see this happening after a trial run on the thousands of apps.
I have a feeling that developers will migrate to iAd in droves because it's simply better. If this happens, Google's attempt to prevent Apple from entering the Ad business will be useless. I hope this happens
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Day Breakfast
The ads will be created by HTML5 programmers and served live (ie no wifi and no 3g/Edge, no ad) through the OS from Apple servers. Apple recently received a patent for serving ads through the OS. All the developer of the app has to do is tie his/her app into the Apple ad server via an API and collect 60% of the revenue. That's pretty compelling for the app creator and could help drive quality app creators to the Apple iPhone ecosystem. Because Apple is serving the ads they'll have a lot of analytics to kick back to the agencies/advertisers.
iAD is part of 4.0's deep plumbing, so they'll certainly only be seen on Apple mobile devices in the beginning.
But if they're effective (and they seem well-designed in terms of finding that intersection between those "emotional and interactive" axes Steve defined), isn't it highly likely that someones else will clone the approach, i.e., in Android and Win Phone 7 (and in various ways on Macs and PCs)?
And if Apple gets serious about being in the ad biz - the business that provides 95% of Google's revenue, and which along with Craig's List, has brought the newspaper and magazine businesses to their collective knees - might they not logically find ways to place their own iAd like inverts into non-Apple programs?
There is precedent. Non-iAd ads can already be placed in i-apps. Apple makes iTunes and Safari (and via a subsidary, Filemaker Pro) for Windows. And has come out of nowhere multiple times to become a driving force in the retail music biz and then the movie and TV rental and sales biz. And is becoming one in the gaming industry and soon in the book biz. Not to mention impacting sales in the P&S camera/vidcam area.
So if they can extend this new opportunity, I certainly suspect they might.
And, yeah, I too remember when Apple was in the computer business. One thing's for certain. They weren't kidding when they changed the corporate name.......
iAD is part of 4.0's deep plumbing, so they'll certainly only be seen on Apple mobile devices in the beginning.
But if they're effective (and they seem well-designed in terms of finding that intersection between those "emotional and interactive" axes Steve defined), isn't it highly likely that someones else will clone the approach, i.e., in Android and Win Phone 7 (and in various ways on Macs and PCs)?
And if Apple gets serious about being in the ad biz - the business that provides 95% of Google's revenue, and which along with Craig's List, has brought the newspaper and magazine businesses to their collective knees - might they not logically find ways to place their own iAd like inverts into non-Apple programs?
There is precedent. Non-iAd ads can already be placed in i-apps. Apple makes iTunes and Safari (and via a subsidary, Filemaker Pro) for Windows. And has come out of nowhere multiple times to become a driving force in the retail music biz and then the movie and TV rental and sales biz. And is becoming one in the gaming industry and soon in the book biz. Not to mention impacting sales in the P&S camera/vidcam area.
So if they can extend this new opportunity, I certainly suspect they might.
And, yeah, I too remember when Apple was in the computer business. One thing's for certain. They weren't kidding when they changed the corporate name.......
You raised a good point but Apple's core business is not advertisement. Google derives most of its profits from it (btw Google didn't even come up with this idea by themselves but stole the concept of AdWords from idealab). I don't see Apple's iAd expanding to other platforms as the perception is that Apple is forced into this defensive move in order to prevent another company like Google to control the mobile advertising business in light of the fact that the majority of traffic is driven by Apple's own devices.
Maybe you are right and iAd will expand and this "forced" play into the ad business will turn out to be a whole new business opportunity for Apple. Should have hold on longer to AAPL...
Thanks for the link. I hadn't actually thought of iAds like that before. Mark over on Gizmodo was positively frothing and grabbing pitchforks (sorry for referencing another site). However, I am of two minds about it currently but I like the way you have extrapolated out an idea like that.
If this is as you say (sorry, I didn't read your web site) I believe Apple would still have to pay a licensing fee to Amazon.com for their "1-click" patent.
Comments
I bet the old ads will disappear very quickly once this goes live. If you're a developer with an ad supported app, you'd have to be crazy not to want to use these ad in your next update. The users will like it better and so will the dev, since they're making more money from ads.
And so will Apple as they make more money, and at the same time get to have a say in the advertising game (html5). I don't think the agencies are ceding control to Apple. Apple is simply offering a better way to position ads. As the user experience also is better and the format different the agencies get more to work with. Ultimately the Agencies and advertisers will decide if the iAds will work better. They have a new canvas - no they have to get creative.
Personally I rarely click on ads. I may see an ad which will make me head for the company website, but clicking on the ad - its just not in my DNA. Makes me feel like a sucker.
Nice pic, the iAd branding may help but don't you think people will ignore the ad simply because it's an ad. For me to consciously to click on an interactive ad I would have had to have been informed via word of mouth, that this ad is worth clicking and the demos don't seem any different than going to product's website for an interactive experience. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great move in many ways I just don't see it generating many more clicks than the current setup.
Correct. In fact, it's quite possible that other banner ads would simply emulate that little iAd flourish to confuse customers. If I was a banner ad company, I might do it just for the additional clicks.
I bet the old ads will disappear very quickly once this goes live. If you're a developer with an ad supported app, you'd have to be crazy not to want to use these ad in your next update. The users will like it better and so will the dev, since they're making more money from ads.
I'm not sure they will make more money using iAds. The split will remain the same, as Jobs mentioned ("standard agency split").
Of greater interest to me and perhaps to others, is when Apple starts to intrude upon Google's web advertising dominance. Why not roll out iAd as a general web service? All ads are created using HTML5, so I see this happening after a trial run on the thousands of apps.
I have a feeling that developers will migrate to iAd in droves because it's simply better. If this happens, Google's attempt to prevent Apple from entering the Ad business will be useless. I hope this happens
The ads will be created by HTML5 programmers and served live (ie no wifi and no 3g/Edge, no ad) through the OS from Apple servers. Apple recently received a patent for serving ads through the OS. All the developer of the app has to do is tie his/her app into the Apple ad server via an API and collect 60% of the revenue. That's pretty compelling for the app creator and could help drive quality app creators to the Apple iPhone ecosystem. Because Apple is serving the ads they'll have a lot of analytics to kick back to the agencies/advertisers.
iAD is part of 4.0's deep plumbing, so they'll certainly only be seen on Apple mobile devices in the beginning.
But if they're effective (and they seem well-designed in terms of finding that intersection between those "emotional and interactive" axes Steve defined), isn't it highly likely that someones else will clone the approach, i.e., in Android and Win Phone 7 (and in various ways on Macs and PCs)?
And if Apple gets serious about being in the ad biz - the business that provides 95% of Google's revenue, and which along with Craig's List, has brought the newspaper and magazine businesses to their collective knees - might they not logically find ways to place their own iAd like inverts into non-Apple programs?
There is precedent. Non-iAd ads can already be placed in i-apps. Apple makes iTunes and Safari (and via a subsidary, Filemaker Pro) for Windows. And has come out of nowhere multiple times to become a driving force in the retail music biz and then the movie and TV rental and sales biz. And is becoming one in the gaming industry and soon in the book biz. Not to mention impacting sales in the P&S camera/vidcam area.
So if they can extend this new opportunity, I certainly suspect they might.
And, yeah, I too remember when Apple was in the computer business. One thing's for certain. They weren't kidding when they changed the corporate name.......
They can enable you to buy ANYTHING with a single click.
Not just apps.
Anything.
For all my thoughts:
http://www.derekmartin.ca/2010/04/09...-game-changer/
iAD is part of 4.0's deep plumbing, so they'll certainly only be seen on Apple mobile devices in the beginning.
But if they're effective (and they seem well-designed in terms of finding that intersection between those "emotional and interactive" axes Steve defined), isn't it highly likely that someones else will clone the approach, i.e., in Android and Win Phone 7 (and in various ways on Macs and PCs)?
And if Apple gets serious about being in the ad biz - the business that provides 95% of Google's revenue, and which along with Craig's List, has brought the newspaper and magazine businesses to their collective knees - might they not logically find ways to place their own iAd like inverts into non-Apple programs?
There is precedent. Non-iAd ads can already be placed in i-apps. Apple makes iTunes and Safari (and via a subsidary, Filemaker Pro) for Windows. And has come out of nowhere multiple times to become a driving force in the retail music biz and then the movie and TV rental and sales biz. And is becoming one in the gaming industry and soon in the book biz. Not to mention impacting sales in the P&S camera/vidcam area.
So if they can extend this new opportunity, I certainly suspect they might.
And, yeah, I too remember when Apple was in the computer business. One thing's for certain. They weren't kidding when they changed the corporate name.......
You raised a good point but Apple's core business is not advertisement. Google derives most of its profits from it (btw Google didn't even come up with this idea by themselves but stole the concept of AdWords from idealab). I don't see Apple's iAd expanding to other platforms as the perception is that Apple is forced into this defensive move in order to prevent another company like Google to control the mobile advertising business in light of the fact that the majority of traffic is driven by Apple's own devices.
Maybe you are right and iAd will expand and this "forced" play into the ad business will turn out to be a whole new business opportunity for Apple. Should have hold on longer to AAPL...
I totally think iAds are a game-changer, and here's why:
They can enable you to buy ANYTHING with a single click.
Not just apps.
Anything.
For all my thoughts:
http://www.derekmartin.ca/2010/04/09...-game-changer/
Thanks for the link. I hadn't actually thought of iAds like that before. Mark over on Gizmodo was positively frothing and grabbing pitchforks (sorry for referencing another site). However, I am of two minds about it currently but I like the way you have extrapolated out an idea like that.
Cheers.
iAd is more about creating pull towards HTML5 and sending a signal to Google to stop dicking around with Flash.
I totally think iAds are a game-changer, and here's why:
They can enable you to buy ANYTHING with a single click.
Not just apps.
Anything.
For all my thoughts:
http://www.derekmartin.ca/2010/04/09...-game-changer/
If this is as you say (sorry, I didn't read your web site) I believe Apple would still have to pay a licensing fee to Amazon.com for their "1-click" patent.