Oh thank you for your insight and wisdom-- as an IBM and AAPL shareholder, iOS developer and industry participant for 32 years, I guess I just missed all the points you raise. Especially iAd and AdMob -- that knowledge must be privy to a select few like yourself.
Well I am not one of those people that wants Google or anyone to rule the world. If Google offers a product that I find useful then I use it same as Apple products.
"I don't like you personally because you are full of yourself, intellectually dishonest, and, in my opinion, lacking a proper moral sense that governs your life"
To even make a comment like that on an internet forum about anyone is beyond words. You don't know anything about me or anyone else here to even make a comment like that. You are the worst of the worst because you hate someone based on their opinion or if they don't agree with you, which makes you nothing but pathetic.
With that kind of thought process I don't dislike you, I simply feel sorry for you.
You think I don't know anything about you because this is an internet forum? And, I don't dislike you because you disagree with me. I dislike you because of who you are, as evidenced by your comments some time back to the effect that those who are not US citizens are essentially second class humans, among other things you have said and done in the past on this forum. I know you plenty well.
Or could it possibly be that the NY Times jumped the gun to report and speculate on the outcome of something that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet and that we don't have all the information on?
Yes, we should be a bit concerned when it comes to something like net neutrality, but jumping the gun to condemn Google without fully knowing the situation behind the issue is stupid.
I trust the NYTimes before I trust what I read on PR Newswire. Google apologists may prefer the latter.
funny, you speak as though Android developers are less capable software engineers than, *clear throat-chin up* Apple software developers. The thing is that iPhone apps are coded in Java as are Android apps. They use the same language with the exception that as an Android developer, I have more CHOICE (PC, Linux, Apple) of what I want to work in. As an iPhone dev. (once again...) I don't.
We know a number of facts:
1. Apple said that a large number of apps rejected from the AppStore just didn't work at all.
2. Apple rejected a number of apps because they were of poor quality (they also rejected apps for other reasons, as well).
3. Many of the apps Apple rejected ended up on Android store.
4. Many apps initially rejected by Apple were improved by the developer to the point where they were acceptable.
Android store has no mechanism for rejection of inferior apps, so the apps that were rejected by Apple could end up there. The apps that were improved by the developer after Apple rejected them would not go through the same process on Android.
So, it is very reasonable to conclude that the AVERAGE app quality on Apple's store is better than on the Android store. That's not to say that there can't be both good and bad apps on either store, but on average, Apple is better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Besides jumping to the conclusion that sales will ?of course? be higher if you drop a price as opposed to the only real conclusion that you open up your product to a larger demographic because of the lower price, you?ve again ignored the fact that AT&T went from a profit sharing model to a model in which they paid Apple a lump sum for each iPhone sold, just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. Your argument is post hoc, ergo prompter hoc but you refuse to see the truth, just this spin you were told or have created yourself because you dislike any carrier that uses a GSM/3GSM-based network. It?s fraking silly!
Just be careful with the price/sales assumptions. While there is a basic 'law' that lowered price increases supply, that often fails - especially for consumer products. There are lots of cases where raising a price increased sales. I've seen it myself. For example, in a retail store I know of, a given mug was priced at $1 in the closeout section - and almost never sold. It was raised to $12 and moved to the collectibles section and sold like hotcakes. Price isn't everything.
I don't think we'll have any single company dominate the computer industry as it evolves into the mobile industry.
MIcrosoft will, likely, continue to dominate the desktop space-- though with an ever diminishing share of a diminishing market.
Android could become temporarily dominant in the mobile space. They are giving away a free OS in exchange for a path to advertising and search. But these are based on the desktop model, not the mobile model.
Ads and Search are changing for the mobile market. If nothing else, the mobile user has several attractive alternatives to unsolicited browser-based ads and search engine directed advertising.
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.
Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
The reason I don't believe that we will see Microsoft Deja Vu is that today's dynamics are different.
In circa 1976-1980 the primary microcomputer markets were: home personal; and hobbyists. Hobbyists were/are like todays geeks they tend to roll their own and not spend any money. User Experience is a non-issue as they get off bit-twiddling!
With the advent of VisiCalc, the Apple ][ began to penetrate business-- small business and divisions of larger enterprises.
Microsoft sold Basic and some peripheral devices (80-column cards for the Apple ][, etc.)
The IBM/PC changed the market. Suddenly, there were microcomputers with the respected name of IBM-- they were not toys (with fruity names) but serious business machines.
Microsoft, through luck, smart business-sense, and some double-dealing, latched onto the IBM name and became the dominant OS provider... Word, Excel and Office were not far behind. Later, they use their market dominance to gain control of the web browser segment, and eliminated other competitors with the fatal embrace.
Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.
Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.
Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.
Crazy? Maybe... Maybe not! It all depends on long term objectives and how to attain them!
Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!
.
great post, thanks for the insight, i now understand the use of the apps to circumvent google search. great job
I trust the NYTimes before I trust what I read on PR Newswire. Google apologists may prefer the latter.
Sure he may not have picked the best source, but you can't go off of a single article which doesn't have all the information is is just filling in the holes with speculation.
However, it's now being reported that the FCC halted the talks. So it seems like the NY Times article did its job in making consumer advocates go paranoid over the just the notion of an "agreement". It's both good and sad that this happened. Good that the threat (that you're so concerned about) of disrupting net neutrality is over for now. Bad that we will never really know what they companies and the FCC were discussing and its outcome. For all we know, it could have actually benefited net neutrality while improving the speed at which the content that we all like is delivered to us A shame, really..
Oh, right, after the backlash, Verizon is going to come out and honestly admit what they're up to? I can't believe you are posting a link to Verizon PR spin to try and discredit the NYTimes article.
Your paranoia is getting the best of you...
I prefer news from the source when available... as opposed to unsubstantiated speculation (NY Times) or regurgitators that often misreport and then spin erroneous data (blogs).
great post, thanks for the insight, i now understand the use of the apps to circumvent google search. great job
If you read my post in response to his lengthy one, you will realize that Dick's post is only 1/2 true.
Apps (especially the free ones) will still have ads in them that are served by AdMob (Google) and iAds (Apple). So even if you use apps to do your searches, you'll still see the ads that Google and Apple wants you to see if you had done a Google search.
Paid apps and apps that developers can support without needing the incoming provided by ads will "circumvent" a Google search. But with free apps taking up a large portion of the Market and App Store, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll see the ads Google and Apple want you to see.
Though I'm curious to know what he took back in his post after mine and whether or not it was a response to me.
1. Apple said that a large number of apps rejected from the AppStore just didn't work at all.
2. Apple rejected a number of apps because they were of poor quality (they also rejected apps for other reasons, as well).
3. Many of the apps Apple rejected ended up on Android store.
4. Many apps initially rejected by Apple were improved by the developer to the point where they were acceptable.
Android store has no mechanism for rejection of inferior apps, so the apps that were rejected by Apple could end up there. The apps that were improved by the developer after Apple rejected them would not go through the same process on Android.
So, it is very reasonable to conclude that the AVERAGE app quality on Apple's store is better than on the Android store. That's not to say that there can't be both good and bad apps on either store, but on average, Apple is better.
Facts are facts but they mean nothing if certain users find value in what's in the Android market, regardless of facts you present or what you think is valuable. It's really simple... if you download a app that and find no value in, give it a bad rating, state your reasons and don't do it again--why is this hard? It's 3 minutes of your life at best, don't make a big deal out of it. So Android has no mechanism for rejecting inferior apps, do you think it's going to stay like this? This whole thing started about four years ago, it's a system in progress and it's improving. Granted, there are a lot of useless apps--I just don't download them and move on with my life--it's not a big deal There's a section on the market for apps at a price--get those! Pay the programmers and move on. I know developers, I'm one myself--we want to code and don't care who it's for. I do not code in an Apple OS environment because I've never been presented with an opportunity to. But if someone asked me to learn it, I'd go get a "pee on Windows logo" t-shirt and code to Apple's specs. I guess there are developers who do care but most that I've worked with do not--we just want to work and preferably in an environment we're familiar with.
Again--Android OS presents us with a unique opportunity to experience what open source development is like on the masses. We know that Apple can set a trend and have everyone follow--yeah, we get it. Now let's examine something else... Why? because it's what human beings are good at, invention, innovation and creativity.
I prefer news from the source when available... as opposed to unsubstantiated speculation (NY Times) or regurgitators that often misreport and then spin erroneous data (blogs).
Right, paranoia == being highly skeptical of statements companies make when caught with their pants down. In this case, news from the source would only consist of talking to someone involved in the negotiations, you know, like journalists do, not from press releases issued by companies as damage control.
It's hard to believe someone could be so naive as you appear.
... Again--Android OS presents us with a unique opportunity to experience what open source development is like on the masses. ...
Open source development? Well, you can't mean the Android Market apps, since as far as I can tell, most of them are not open source. You can't mean Android, because it isn't really open source -- many proprietary pieces, "open" Android code tightly controlled by Google, and, the version being used in China is no longer Android, it's OPhone, with it's own proprietary pieces, and the Google spyware components replaced by PRC spyware components.
It's discouraging to see so much shallow, uncritical thought displayed on Internet forums.
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
<...>
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
Interesting points... I don't necessarily disagree... just a couple other thoughts:
Many (free) apps are supported by persistent ads on the screen. Google's acquisition of Admob allows them to play in this space without a middle-man. There are other alternatives; but none with the online advertising experience (and success) of Google. Even if they don't "dominate" the space, they should be a key player. Now that Apple has entered this space, Android is at least looking like a smart insurance plan should Apple decide to block Google from serving iPhone ads.
Ads in browser searches (so far) have not been intrusive. Google typically places the "sponsored link" at the very bottom of the list of results, and you don't see it until you scroll to the bottom. So in a sense, they are less intrusive than the persistent ads in most applications. Browsers are also "location aware" and integrate location into searches (if allowed), so this is not an exclusive advantage to native applications.
I do agree that native apps usually provide a better experience than brower apps. But Google also provides some pretty slick native apps of their own. "Places" gives me one-touch access to the closest restaurants, gas stations, etc or anything else (you can add your own keywords) based on my exact location. It typically works better than the dozens other non-Google apps that do the same thing because it is simple and intuitive, and is basically a direct tie-in to the information Google already has in the cloud. This is a huge advantage for Google... they have years of experience compiling information and finding ways for the most "relevant" info to surface. One of the "other" apps may have restaurant info and reviews from one or two sites; the Google app has this info from ALL sites, with the true junk sorted out.
As far as being able to monetize this -- Google currently shows "sponsored links" in the lists -- maybe one per 25 results. But the possibilities for innovation are endless. If a restaurant is interested in advertising on Google, I would think that "we showed a customer details on your restaurant and navigated them to your location" is as valuable as 1,000 random ad impressions on search results.
Right, paranoia == being highly skeptical of statements companies make when caught with their pants down. In this case, news from the source would only consist of talking to someone involved in the negotiations, you know, like journalists do, not from press releases issued by companies as damage control.
It's hard to believe someone could be so naive as you appear.
Actually, I find it rather ironic that someone posting on a Apple rumors website would seriously defend anonymous "inside sources" as reliable.
Most of the articles on this site prove that those sources are usually crap.
(Of course, individual posters getting riled up over crap sources = no surprise)
Your post is a bit confusing because it seems like you're talking about the NPD study itself and not my post that's been quoted. If that's not it, feel free to correct me. I just want to make sure I know what I'm responding to.
Sure. Sorry about the confusion. hit a wrong button. It is comment about the NPD... Here is something for you to compensate your "confusion":
I don't think we'll have any single company dominate the computer industry as it evolves into the mobile industry.
MIcrosoft will, likely, continue to dominate the desktop space-- though with an ever diminishing share of a diminishing market.
Android could become temporarily dominant in the mobile space. They are giving away a free OS in exchange for a path to advertising and search. But these are based on the desktop model, not the mobile model.
Ads and Search are changing for the mobile market. If nothing else, the mobile user has several attractive alternatives to unsolicited browser-based ads and search engine directed advertising.
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
People still do Google/Bing/Yahoo searches because they are used to it and that even with the ever-increasing amount of apps, not all of them can contain the information they're looking for. Either there isn't an app for what they're looking for yet, or the apps out there don't have the same vast amounts of data a search engine has stored.
As I mentioned above, but you choose to ignore: Ads and Search are changing! We are in the early stages of that change. For now, people will continue to use Google/Yahoo/Bing search on the desktop, through the browser because they have little choice.
Increasingly, though, people set their browser to block pop-up windows, disable JavaScript and block Flash. Why? because browser searches increasingly present the user with disruptive, irritating and unwanted ads..
The user and the search service are enjoined in a battle-- where the user wants to get results and the search service wants ads and clicks.
I think that most users would be willing to accept browser/search ads in exchange for the service... if the ads are done properly.
But, the problem is that the search ads are not done properly... They Suck! They increasingly are an affront to the user and an impediment to productivity.
As I mention below, Googles latest ploy to redirect my searches is especially irritating-- to the point that every time it happens, I ignore the Google results and use a different search engine.
The Googles, Yahoos and Bings need to rethink their offerings as they are in danger of killing "the goose that laid the golden eggs".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.
Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
In regards to apps bypassing ads, this is actually not true at all. If you haven't noticed, a lot of apps also include ads inside of them. This is one way that developers can keep their app free for the users. Sure there are apps that remove the ads once you pay for them, but there are still a huge portion of free, quality apps that displays a small ad banner.
Actually, it is true! Some apps show ads, many do not! On iOS, even the ones that do show ads are limited, by the OS and the developer, in what they can present-- no popups, no Flash.
The advent of iAd, along with the limits placed on AdMob and others, should improve the user experience on iOS devices.
Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).
Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
If the app is of great quality, I'm sure a lot of users are willing to deal with the small banner as a trade-off for being able to use it for free. Hell, most of the time I'm sure they don't even notice it.
I suspect you meant to say "If the ad is of great quality...".
I agree with this, and yes the users, likely, won't be put-off by a tasteful banner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
And who do you think is behind those ads? Let me make it easy for you. Google. And Apple if it's on an iDevice.
Like I said above, the ads are still part of the apps and are still delivered by Google on Android and Apple on iDevices. So regardless if you use an app to find your information or the search function, you're still viewing ads.
As of today, I suspect AdMob (google) is responsible for most of the mobile ads on smart phone class mobile devices. I include the iPod Touch and iPad because, while not phones, they are potentially lucrative ad targets.
With an installed base of over 100 million devices and more than double the number of apps-- it makes sense, for purposes of this discussion, to focus on iOS devices.
AdMob may continue to serve ads to iOS devices, but they no longer are allowed to gather mobile analytics.
This precludes AdMob from targeting ads to iOS users except with a very broad brush.
I suspect, as the iOS platform evolves, iAd will be the predominant delivery vehicle for ads.
Further, based on Apple's track record, Steve's comments about iAd and Apples attention to "User Experience"-- i believe the ads will be targeted, high-quality, and well-received... with the user making the choice:
1) whether to receive any ads (pay or free programs)
2) minimalist, tasteful ad banners within the app
3) targeted to the user's current interests
4) user opt-in to view the ad without leaving the app
5) user opt-out an any time.
So, while it is true, that, likely, there will be ads in iOS apps-- they won't be anything like those served by browsers and search engines on the desktop.
If Steve has his way, the millions of iOS users will have a very positive ad experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
Android is Google's way of bringing these small ad sliver to people on the go. The more Android devices that sell, the more ads that will be seen by the people. And the more reason Google has with continuing to develop Android so that it works better for the consumer as an OS so Google can deliver those ads.
Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.
To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!
It is not too far a stretch to imagine that the typical Android app ad banner would look something like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
Google has also stated that search in general has gone up 300% Q1 alone with Android. I believe this goes back to my statement above that, all the apps still won't be able to cover every single aspect of information like a Google search can.
Several things at work here:
1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices.
So, it is natural to compensate for app deficiency with browser searches-- resulting in search growth on a fast-growing platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.
Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.
Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.
Crazy? Maybe... Maybe not! It all depends on long term objectives and how to attain them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
It seems like you haven't heard that Apple is getting into the ads thing too with iAds. Free apps on iDevices have ads just like in Android. So it doesn't matter what OS is pushed. If the app is free, chances are high that there's a small ad banner somewhere in it.
Even Apple knows of how crucial ads will be for revenue (in-app and search) in the future. That's why they are trying to or have already locked out Google-served ads from iDevices because all it does is increase the amount of revenue for Google for every ad they sponsor that shows up on an iDevice.
Au Contraire! I am well aware of Apple's iAd offering in the mobile ad space. I watched the announcement and have been experimenting with iAd (since it became available in the SDK) as an iOS developer.
And it does matter what OS is pushed.
Apple has a goal of selling devices with the best user experience.
Android has a goal of selling ads.
Ad delivery has been marginally acceptable on the desktop, but sucks in the mobile environment.
On the desktop, you can open another window, do a search (blocking pop-ups, JavaScript, Flash) at your choice. Typically, the desktop user has multiple windows open, and is working on several things at once. If an ad is invasive, he can close the window, change windows, change apps and move on...
On the mobile device, the user operates differently-- the tendency is to spend small snippets of time: get in; do something; get out! If an ad is poorly targeted, poorly presented or invasive it is much more disruptive to the user and his productivity. If I am going to spend 20-30 seconds in an app, I don't, necessarily, want to be forced to spend another 30 seconds watching an ad, before I get to my purpose for using the app.
If you view Apple's iAd announcement, you will see that Apple's mobile iAds are targeted at improving the mobile user experience and enhancing the platform-- to sell more devices.
If you consider Google, they have no devices or platform to sell-- only ads.
If history is any guide, Google will attempt to get as many ads as they can, "in your face", as frequently as possible-- that's how they make their money.
I suspect that either:
1) Android will become a platform of poorly-targeted, poor-quality intrusive ads-- to the detriment of Android users and developers
2) Android will attempt to follow the iAd model with limited success (because of lack of incentive and lack of tenacity).
3) Google will abandon Android because it cannot deliver the "goods!"
Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!
If you read my post in response to his lengthy one, you will realize that Dick's post is only 1/2 true.
Apps (especially the free ones) will still have ads in them that are served by AdMob (Google) and iAds (Apple). So even if you use apps to do your searches, you'll still see the ads that Google and Apple wants you to see if you had done a Google search.
Paid apps and apps that developers can support without needing the incoming provided by ads will "circumvent" a Google search. But with free apps taking up a large portion of the Market and App Store, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll see the ads Google and Apple want you to see.
Though I'm curious to know what he took back in his post after mine and whether or not it was a response to me.
My post was lame! It was an emotional response to what I felt was a patronizing and condescending reply to my original post.
I regretted it, and removed it!
But, thanks to Chopper, who responded, I will repost it here-- with apologies:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Oh thank you for your insight and wisdom-- as an IBM and AAPL shareholder, iOS developer and industry participant for 32 years, I guess I just missed all the points you raise. Especially iAd and AdMob -- that knowledge must be privy to a select few like yourself.
/tuna alert
I gave it some additional thought, overnight, and prepared a more suitable response-- one that addresses the issues in my original post, and those in your response.
As to your contention that my response is 1/2 true-- here is the part of my latest post that addresses that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).
Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.
So my experience with 510 current iOS apps* is that 97% do not contain ads-- this is way off the mark when this poster claims: "Dick's post is only 1/2 true."
So, I must admit that my post is only 97% true!
* Many apps that we download are winnowed over time, for various reasons: poor quality; better similar app; upgrade; outgrow the need; universal app for all iOS devices replaces individual apps, etc. I estimate that we have downloaded 650-700 apps since the app store opened. Most of the deleted apps are older apps and did not include any ads! If I were to include these apps, likely, my overall experience with iOS apps containing ads is 1%-2% (lower than the 3% of current apps).
In addition, I must admit that I have no personal experience with the Android platform or Android apps. It could well be true, that for the Android platform 1/2 of the apps do contain ads-- it is up to the original poster to validate his claim!
Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.
To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!
I would not call several plain text "sponsored links" at the top and right of Google searches "gratuitous, disruptive, and irritating". Where have you seen Google ads that fit into this category?
I hate the flash-based talking ads and the pop-over ones that you have to click to get rid of... I have never seen these on Google.
I always thought common consensus was that Google rules the desktop search world because their results are more relevant and their ads are clean and unobtrusive (unlike Yahoo, MSN, and the dozens of other cluttered crapfests that have died over the years).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Several things at work here:
1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on al (or even the majority) of Android devices.
My experience is that #2 is patently false... do you have any supporting evidence?
Ok then. I agree and maybe disagree with various parts.
First, in regards to the NPD study, I have to disagree. It is about the handsets in this case. Like I said in an earlier post, the reason it's done is so that we can quantify the claim of "selling the most" in the US. In this case, it's mobile phones. It's so all the key players knows how well they and their competitors are doing in relation to each other in terms of sales. If these companies didn't have this information, they wouldn't know how well their current business model is doing and if anything needs to be adjusted.
Outside the NPD study, I do agree that it's also all about the platform as a whole. The Fake Steve blog post was an amusing read. Something tells me that Google probably doesn't mind if Apple ends up getting the "premium" top 10%. There's no doubt that Apple knows that they're doing. So does Google. Their goal has always been to get Android out to as many people as possible to expand Google's search potential as wide as possible. That's why Android is free it use and works on virtually any electronic device.
If Apple's happy sitting at the very tip of the mountain earning the highest profits and Google is happy owning most of the rest of the mountain, I see no issues.
Comments
Oh thank you for your insight and wisdom-- as an IBM and AAPL shareholder, iOS developer and industry participant for 32 years, I guess I just missed all the points you raise. Especially iAd and AdMob -- that knowledge must be privy to a select few like yourself.
/tuna alert
.
Sarcasm - 5/10
Reason - 0/10
Well I am not one of those people that wants Google or anyone to rule the world. If Google offers a product that I find useful then I use it same as Apple products.
"I don't like you personally because you are full of yourself, intellectually dishonest, and, in my opinion, lacking a proper moral sense that governs your life"
To even make a comment like that on an internet forum about anyone is beyond words. You don't know anything about me or anyone else here to even make a comment like that. You are the worst of the worst because you hate someone based on their opinion or if they don't agree with you, which makes you nothing but pathetic.
With that kind of thought process I don't dislike you, I simply feel sorry for you.
You think I don't know anything about you because this is an internet forum? And, I don't dislike you because you disagree with me. I dislike you because of who you are, as evidenced by your comments some time back to the effect that those who are not US citizens are essentially second class humans, among other things you have said and done in the past on this forum. I know you plenty well.
Or could it possibly be that the NY Times jumped the gun to report and speculate on the outcome of something that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet and that we don't have all the information on?
Yes, we should be a bit concerned when it comes to something like net neutrality, but jumping the gun to condemn Google without fully knowing the situation behind the issue is stupid.
I trust the NYTimes before I trust what I read on PR Newswire. Google apologists may prefer the latter.
funny, you speak as though Android developers are less capable software engineers than, *clear throat-chin up* Apple software developers. The thing is that iPhone apps are coded in Java as are Android apps. They use the same language with the exception that as an Android developer, I have more CHOICE (PC, Linux, Apple) of what I want to work in. As an iPhone dev. (once again...) I don't.
We know a number of facts:
1. Apple said that a large number of apps rejected from the AppStore just didn't work at all.
2. Apple rejected a number of apps because they were of poor quality (they also rejected apps for other reasons, as well).
3. Many of the apps Apple rejected ended up on Android store.
4. Many apps initially rejected by Apple were improved by the developer to the point where they were acceptable.
Android store has no mechanism for rejection of inferior apps, so the apps that were rejected by Apple could end up there. The apps that were improved by the developer after Apple rejected them would not go through the same process on Android.
So, it is very reasonable to conclude that the AVERAGE app quality on Apple's store is better than on the Android store. That's not to say that there can't be both good and bad apps on either store, but on average, Apple is better.
Besides jumping to the conclusion that sales will ?of course? be higher if you drop a price as opposed to the only real conclusion that you open up your product to a larger demographic because of the lower price, you?ve again ignored the fact that AT&T went from a profit sharing model to a model in which they paid Apple a lump sum for each iPhone sold, just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. Your argument is post hoc, ergo prompter hoc but you refuse to see the truth, just this spin you were told or have created yourself because you dislike any carrier that uses a GSM/3GSM-based network. It?s fraking silly!
Just be careful with the price/sales assumptions. While there is a basic 'law' that lowered price increases supply, that often fails - especially for consumer products. There are lots of cases where raising a price increased sales. I've seen it myself. For example, in a retail store I know of, a given mug was priced at $1 in the closeout section - and almost never sold. It was raised to $12 and moved to the collectibles section and sold like hotcakes. Price isn't everything.
These are good thoughts... well worth discussion!
I don't think we'll have any single company dominate the computer industry as it evolves into the mobile industry.
MIcrosoft will, likely, continue to dominate the desktop space-- though with an ever diminishing share of a diminishing market.
Android could become temporarily dominant in the mobile space. They are giving away a free OS in exchange for a path to advertising and search. But these are based on the desktop model, not the mobile model.
Ads and Search are changing for the mobile market. If nothing else, the mobile user has several attractive alternatives to unsolicited browser-based ads and search engine directed advertising.
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.
Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
The reason I don't believe that we will see Microsoft Deja Vu is that today's dynamics are different.
In circa 1976-1980 the primary microcomputer markets were: home personal; and hobbyists. Hobbyists were/are like todays geeks they tend to roll their own and not spend any money. User Experience is a non-issue as they get off bit-twiddling!
With the advent of VisiCalc, the Apple ][ began to penetrate business-- small business and divisions of larger enterprises.
Microsoft sold Basic and some peripheral devices (80-column cards for the Apple ][, etc.)
The IBM/PC changed the market. Suddenly, there were microcomputers with the respected name of IBM-- they were not toys (with fruity names) but serious business machines.
Microsoft, through luck, smart business-sense, and some double-dealing, latched onto the IBM name and became the dominant OS provider... Word, Excel and Office were not far behind. Later, they use their market dominance to gain control of the web browser segment, and eliminated other competitors with the fatal embrace.
Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.
Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.
Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.
Crazy? Maybe... Maybe not! It all depends on long term objectives and how to attain them!
Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!
.
great post, thanks for the insight, i now understand the use of the apps to circumvent google search. great job
I trust the NYTimes before I trust what I read on PR Newswire. Google apologists may prefer the latter.
Sure he may not have picked the best source, but you can't go off of a single article which doesn't have all the information is is just filling in the holes with speculation.
However, it's now being reported that the FCC halted the talks. So it seems like the NY Times article did its job in making consumer advocates go paranoid over the just the notion of an "agreement". It's both good and sad that this happened. Good that the threat (that you're so concerned about) of disrupting net neutrality is over for now. Bad that we will never really know what they companies and the FCC were discussing and its outcome. For all we know, it could have actually benefited net neutrality while improving the speed at which the content that we all like is delivered to us A shame, really..
Oh, right, after the backlash, Verizon is going to come out and honestly admit what they're up to? I can't believe you are posting a link to Verizon PR spin to try and discredit the NYTimes article.
Your paranoia is getting the best of you...
I prefer news from the source when available... as opposed to unsubstantiated speculation (NY Times) or regurgitators that often misreport and then spin erroneous data (blogs).
great post, thanks for the insight, i now understand the use of the apps to circumvent google search. great job
If you read my post in response to his lengthy one, you will realize that Dick's post is only 1/2 true.
Apps (especially the free ones) will still have ads in them that are served by AdMob (Google) and iAds (Apple). So even if you use apps to do your searches, you'll still see the ads that Google and Apple wants you to see if you had done a Google search.
Paid apps and apps that developers can support without needing the incoming provided by ads will "circumvent" a Google search. But with free apps taking up a large portion of the Market and App Store, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll see the ads Google and Apple want you to see.
Though I'm curious to know what he took back in his post after mine and whether or not it was a response to me.
We know a number of facts:
1. Apple said that a large number of apps rejected from the AppStore just didn't work at all.
2. Apple rejected a number of apps because they were of poor quality (they also rejected apps for other reasons, as well).
3. Many of the apps Apple rejected ended up on Android store.
4. Many apps initially rejected by Apple were improved by the developer to the point where they were acceptable.
Android store has no mechanism for rejection of inferior apps, so the apps that were rejected by Apple could end up there. The apps that were improved by the developer after Apple rejected them would not go through the same process on Android.
So, it is very reasonable to conclude that the AVERAGE app quality on Apple's store is better than on the Android store. That's not to say that there can't be both good and bad apps on either store, but on average, Apple is better.
Facts are facts but they mean nothing if certain users find value in what's in the Android market, regardless of facts you present or what you think is valuable. It's really simple... if you download a app that and find no value in, give it a bad rating, state your reasons and don't do it again--why is this hard? It's 3 minutes of your life at best, don't make a big deal out of it. So Android has no mechanism for rejecting inferior apps, do you think it's going to stay like this? This whole thing started about four years ago, it's a system in progress and it's improving. Granted, there are a lot of useless apps--I just don't download them and move on with my life--it's not a big deal There's a section on the market for apps at a price--get those! Pay the programmers and move on. I know developers, I'm one myself--we want to code and don't care who it's for. I do not code in an Apple OS environment because I've never been presented with an opportunity to. But if someone asked me to learn it, I'd go get a "pee on Windows logo" t-shirt and code to Apple's specs. I guess there are developers who do care but most that I've worked with do not--we just want to work and preferably in an environment we're familiar with.
Again--Android OS presents us with a unique opportunity to experience what open source development is like on the masses. We know that Apple can set a trend and have everyone follow--yeah, we get it. Now let's examine something else... Why? because it's what human beings are good at, invention, innovation and creativity.
Your paranoia is getting the best of you...
I prefer news from the source when available... as opposed to unsubstantiated speculation (NY Times) or regurgitators that often misreport and then spin erroneous data (blogs).
Right, paranoia == being highly skeptical of statements companies make when caught with their pants down. In this case, news from the source would only consist of talking to someone involved in the negotiations, you know, like journalists do, not from press releases issued by companies as damage control.
It's hard to believe someone could be so naive as you appear.
... Again--Android OS presents us with a unique opportunity to experience what open source development is like on the masses. ...
Open source development? Well, you can't mean the Android Market apps, since as far as I can tell, most of them are not open source. You can't mean Android, because it isn't really open source -- many proprietary pieces, "open" Android code tightly controlled by Google, and, the version being used in China is no longer Android, it's OPhone, with it's own proprietary pieces, and the Google spyware components replaced by PRC spyware components.
It's discouraging to see so much shallow, uncritical thought displayed on Internet forums.
These are good thoughts... well worth discussion!
<...>
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
<...>
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
Interesting points... I don't necessarily disagree... just a couple other thoughts:
Many (free) apps are supported by persistent ads on the screen. Google's acquisition of Admob allows them to play in this space without a middle-man. There are other alternatives; but none with the online advertising experience (and success) of Google. Even if they don't "dominate" the space, they should be a key player. Now that Apple has entered this space, Android is at least looking like a smart insurance plan should Apple decide to block Google from serving iPhone ads.
Ads in browser searches (so far) have not been intrusive. Google typically places the "sponsored link" at the very bottom of the list of results, and you don't see it until you scroll to the bottom. So in a sense, they are less intrusive than the persistent ads in most applications. Browsers are also "location aware" and integrate location into searches (if allowed), so this is not an exclusive advantage to native applications.
I do agree that native apps usually provide a better experience than brower apps. But Google also provides some pretty slick native apps of their own. "Places" gives me one-touch access to the closest restaurants, gas stations, etc or anything else (you can add your own keywords) based on my exact location. It typically works better than the dozens other non-Google apps that do the same thing because it is simple and intuitive, and is basically a direct tie-in to the information Google already has in the cloud. This is a huge advantage for Google... they have years of experience compiling information and finding ways for the most "relevant" info to surface. One of the "other" apps may have restaurant info and reviews from one or two sites; the Google app has this info from ALL sites, with the true junk sorted out.
As far as being able to monetize this -- Google currently shows "sponsored links" in the lists -- maybe one per 25 results. But the possibilities for innovation are endless. If a restaurant is interested in advertising on Google, I would think that "we showed a customer details on your restaurant and navigated them to your location" is as valuable as 1,000 random ad impressions on search results.
Right, paranoia == being highly skeptical of statements companies make when caught with their pants down. In this case, news from the source would only consist of talking to someone involved in the negotiations, you know, like journalists do, not from press releases issued by companies as damage control.
It's hard to believe someone could be so naive as you appear.
Actually, I find it rather ironic that someone posting on a Apple rumors website would seriously defend anonymous "inside sources" as reliable.
Most of the articles on this site prove that those sources are usually crap.
(Of course, individual posters getting riled up over crap sources = no surprise)
Your post is a bit confusing because it seems like you're talking about the NPD study itself and not my post that's been quoted. If that's not it, feel free to correct me. I just want to make sure I know what I'm responding to.
Sure. Sorry about the confusion. hit a wrong button. It is comment about the NPD... Here is something for you to compensate your "confusion":
http://www.fakesteve.net/
These are good thoughts... well worth discussion!
I don't think we'll have any single company dominate the computer industry as it evolves into the mobile industry.
MIcrosoft will, likely, continue to dominate the desktop space-- though with an ever diminishing share of a diminishing market.
Android could become temporarily dominant in the mobile space. They are giving away a free OS in exchange for a path to advertising and search. But these are based on the desktop model, not the mobile model.
Ads and Search are changing for the mobile market. If nothing else, the mobile user has several attractive alternatives to unsolicited browser-based ads and search engine directed advertising.
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
People still do Google/Bing/Yahoo searches because they are used to it and that even with the ever-increasing amount of apps, not all of them can contain the information they're looking for. Either there isn't an app for what they're looking for yet, or the apps out there don't have the same vast amounts of data a search engine has stored.
As I mentioned above, but you choose to ignore: Ads and Search are changing! We are in the early stages of that change. For now, people will continue to use Google/Yahoo/Bing search on the desktop, through the browser because they have little choice.
Increasingly, though, people set their browser to block pop-up windows, disable JavaScript and block Flash. Why? because browser searches increasingly present the user with disruptive, irritating and unwanted ads..
The user and the search service are enjoined in a battle-- where the user wants to get results and the search service wants ads and clicks.
I think that most users would be willing to accept browser/search ads in exchange for the service... if the ads are done properly.
But, the problem is that the search ads are not done properly... They Suck! They increasingly are an affront to the user and an impediment to productivity.
As I mention below, Googles latest ploy to redirect my searches is especially irritating-- to the point that every time it happens, I ignore the Google results and use a different search engine.
The Googles, Yahoos and Bings need to rethink their offerings as they are in danger of killing "the goose that laid the golden eggs".
The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.
Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
In regards to apps bypassing ads, this is actually not true at all. If you haven't noticed, a lot of apps also include ads inside of them. This is one way that developers can keep their app free for the users. Sure there are apps that remove the ads once you pay for them, but there are still a huge portion of free, quality apps that displays a small ad banner.
Actually, it is true! Some apps show ads, many do not! On iOS, even the ones that do show ads are limited, by the OS and the developer, in what they can present-- no popups, no Flash.
The advent of iAd, along with the limits placed on AdMob and others, should improve the user experience on iOS devices.
Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).
Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.
If the app is of great quality, I'm sure a lot of users are willing to deal with the small banner as a trade-off for being able to use it for free. Hell, most of the time I'm sure they don't even notice it.
I suspect you meant to say "If the ad is of great quality...".
I agree with this, and yes the users, likely, won't be put-off by a tasteful banner.
And who do you think is behind those ads? Let me make it easy for you. Google. And Apple if it's on an iDevice.
Like I said above, the ads are still part of the apps and are still delivered by Google on Android and Apple on iDevices. So regardless if you use an app to find your information or the search function, you're still viewing ads.
As of today, I suspect AdMob (google) is responsible for most of the mobile ads on smart phone class mobile devices. I include the iPod Touch and iPad because, while not phones, they are potentially lucrative ad targets.
With an installed base of over 100 million devices and more than double the number of apps-- it makes sense, for purposes of this discussion, to focus on iOS devices.
AdMob may continue to serve ads to iOS devices, but they no longer are allowed to gather mobile analytics.
This precludes AdMob from targeting ads to iOS users except with a very broad brush.
I suspect, as the iOS platform evolves, iAd will be the predominant delivery vehicle for ads.
Further, based on Apple's track record, Steve's comments about iAd and Apples attention to "User Experience"-- i believe the ads will be targeted, high-quality, and well-received... with the user making the choice:
1) whether to receive any ads (pay or free programs)
2) minimalist, tasteful ad banners within the app
3) targeted to the user's current interests
4) user opt-in to view the ad without leaving the app
5) user opt-out an any time.
So, while it is true, that, likely, there will be ads in iOS apps-- they won't be anything like those served by browsers and search engines on the desktop.
If Steve has his way, the millions of iOS users will have a very positive ad experience.
Android is Google's way of bringing these small ad sliver to people on the go. The more Android devices that sell, the more ads that will be seen by the people. And the more reason Google has with continuing to develop Android so that it works better for the consumer as an OS so Google can deliver those ads.
Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.
To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!
It is not too far a stretch to imagine that the typical Android app ad banner would look something like this:
Google has also stated that search in general has gone up 300% Q1 alone with Android. I believe this goes back to my statement above that, all the apps still won't be able to cover every single aspect of information like a Google search can.
Several things at work here:
1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices.
So, it is natural to compensate for app deficiency with browser searches-- resulting in search growth on a fast-growing platform.
Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.
Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.
Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.
Crazy? Maybe... Maybe not! It all depends on long term objectives and how to attain them!
It seems like you haven't heard that Apple is getting into the ads thing too with iAds. Free apps on iDevices have ads just like in Android. So it doesn't matter what OS is pushed. If the app is free, chances are high that there's a small ad banner somewhere in it.
Even Apple knows of how crucial ads will be for revenue (in-app and search) in the future. That's why they are trying to or have already locked out Google-served ads from iDevices because all it does is increase the amount of revenue for Google for every ad they sponsor that shows up on an iDevice.
Au Contraire! I am well aware of Apple's iAd offering in the mobile ad space. I watched the announcement and have been experimenting with iAd (since it became available in the SDK) as an iOS developer.
And it does matter what OS is pushed.
Apple has a goal of selling devices with the best user experience.
Android has a goal of selling ads.
Ad delivery has been marginally acceptable on the desktop, but sucks in the mobile environment.
On the desktop, you can open another window, do a search (blocking pop-ups, JavaScript, Flash) at your choice. Typically, the desktop user has multiple windows open, and is working on several things at once. If an ad is invasive, he can close the window, change windows, change apps and move on...
On the mobile device, the user operates differently-- the tendency is to spend small snippets of time: get in; do something; get out! If an ad is poorly targeted, poorly presented or invasive it is much more disruptive to the user and his productivity. If I am going to spend 20-30 seconds in an app, I don't, necessarily, want to be forced to spend another 30 seconds watching an ad, before I get to my purpose for using the app.
If you view Apple's iAd announcement, you will see that Apple's mobile iAds are targeted at improving the mobile user experience and enhancing the platform-- to sell more devices.
If you consider Google, they have no devices or platform to sell-- only ads.
If history is any guide, Google will attempt to get as many ads as they can, "in your face", as frequently as possible-- that's how they make their money.
I suspect that either:
1) Android will become a platform of poorly-targeted, poor-quality intrusive ads-- to the detriment of Android users and developers
2) Android will attempt to follow the iAd model with limited success (because of lack of incentive and lack of tenacity).
3) Google will abandon Android because it cannot deliver the "goods!"
Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!
.
If you read my post in response to his lengthy one, you will realize that Dick's post is only 1/2 true.
Apps (especially the free ones) will still have ads in them that are served by AdMob (Google) and iAds (Apple). So even if you use apps to do your searches, you'll still see the ads that Google and Apple wants you to see if you had done a Google search.
Paid apps and apps that developers can support without needing the incoming provided by ads will "circumvent" a Google search. But with free apps taking up a large portion of the Market and App Store, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll see the ads Google and Apple want you to see.
Though I'm curious to know what he took back in his post after mine and whether or not it was a response to me.
My post was lame! It was an emotional response to what I felt was a patronizing and condescending reply to my original post.
I regretted it, and removed it!
But, thanks to Chopper, who responded, I will repost it here-- with apologies:
Oh thank you for your insight and wisdom-- as an IBM and AAPL shareholder, iOS developer and industry participant for 32 years, I guess I just missed all the points you raise. Especially iAd and AdMob -- that knowledge must be privy to a select few like yourself.
/tuna alert
I gave it some additional thought, overnight, and prepared a more suitable response-- one that addresses the issues in my original post, and those in your response.
As to your contention that my response is 1/2 true-- here is the part of my latest post that addresses that:
Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).
Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.
So my experience with 510 current iOS apps* is that 97% do not contain ads-- this is way off the mark when this poster claims: "Dick's post is only 1/2 true."
So, I must admit that my post is only 97% true!
* Many apps that we download are winnowed over time, for various reasons: poor quality; better similar app; upgrade; outgrow the need; universal app for all iOS devices replaces individual apps, etc. I estimate that we have downloaded 650-700 apps since the app store opened. Most of the deleted apps are older apps and did not include any ads! If I were to include these apps, likely, my overall experience with iOS apps containing ads is 1%-2% (lower than the 3% of current apps).
In addition, I must admit that I have no personal experience with the Android platform or Android apps. It could well be true, that for the Android platform 1/2 of the apps do contain ads-- it is up to the original poster to validate his claim!
.
Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.
To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!
I would not call several plain text "sponsored links" at the top and right of Google searches "gratuitous, disruptive, and irritating". Where have you seen Google ads that fit into this category?
I hate the flash-based talking ads and the pop-over ones that you have to click to get rid of... I have never seen these on Google.
I always thought common consensus was that Google rules the desktop search world because their results are more relevant and their ads are clean and unobtrusive (unlike Yahoo, MSN, and the dozens of other cluttered crapfests that have died over the years).
Several things at work here:
1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on al (or even the majority) of Android devices.
My experience is that #2 is patently false... do you have any supporting evidence?
Sure. Sorry about the confusion. hit a wrong button. It is comment about the NPD... Here is something for you to compensate your "confusion":
http://www.fakesteve.net/
Ok then. I agree and maybe disagree with various parts.
First, in regards to the NPD study, I have to disagree. It is about the handsets in this case. Like I said in an earlier post, the reason it's done is so that we can quantify the claim of "selling the most" in the US. In this case, it's mobile phones. It's so all the key players knows how well they and their competitors are doing in relation to each other in terms of sales. If these companies didn't have this information, they wouldn't know how well their current business model is doing and if anything needs to be adjusted.
Outside the NPD study, I do agree that it's also all about the platform as a whole. The Fake Steve blog post was an amusing read. Something tells me that Google probably doesn't mind if Apple ends up getting the "premium" top 10%. There's no doubt that Apple knows that they're doing. So does Google. Their goal has always been to get Android out to as many people as possible to expand Google's search potential as wide as possible. That's why Android is free it use and works on virtually any electronic device.
If Apple's happy sitting at the very tip of the mountain earning the highest profits and Google is happy owning most of the rest of the mountain, I see no issues.
Actually, I find it rather ironic that someone posting on a Apple rumors website would seriously defend anonymous "inside sources" as reliable.
Most of the articles on this site prove that those sources are usually crap.
(Of course, individual posters getting riled up over crap sources = no surprise)
Oh, ok, I guess we should take self-serving PR spin as the definitive source on what companies are up to, they would never attempt to deceive us.