We all see how well "lack of control" worked for the Android marketplace. There is a difference between learning from history and misapplying history. This feels pretty baseless. It basically comes down to competency and competitiveness more then "amount of control". They have shown competency so now they just need to make sure it stays competitive. I would say that control is probably a positive in this case. If Apple didn't try to control that platform they would just be pushing banner ads like everyone else. This is basically just a FUD attempt. Trying to make it fail by spreading doubt.
No, it would be $50 Million. But point well taken.
"Hey they didn't report the whole story:
"Yahoo CEO predicts demise of Apple's iAd mobile ad network while sharing a moca with Michael Dell".
circa 1997 and an executive IT event Dell said, "What would I do (to save Apple)? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders,".
Now ... had he Instead of making a uncalled for dig at Apple, he invested $1m in cash on that very same day... Well lets just see.
Oct 6th 1997 (date of Dells quote) - AAPL Stock: Closed at 5.45 (split adjusted). So, $1 M in cash (pocket change for Michael at that time) would have bought apx 183,000 shares 183,486 to be exact... Now lets just see... 183,486x272.00 (todays AAPL mid-day price) oh lets just call it 50 BILLION dollars. Oh and to really pour salt into the wound, DELL market cap today? 24 BILLION.
While hindsight it always 20/20 ... that's GOTTA hurt! "
How can you tell when a CEO it bullshitting? When her lips are moving.
Seriously, there is no downside to executives making these kinds of prognostications. First, because everyone expects it. Second, because when they are proven wrong a few years down the road, no one remembers or cares. Third, because CEOs come and go so regularly that there usually is no day of reckoning for such statements. (Michael Dell being the most famous exception)
Personally, I would like to be able to do research and such without have to view a commercial each and everytime I do something - putting money in some elses pocket and wasting my time it just turns me off of that product and/or company.
Their control over the App Store has not destroyed it: there have been a few high profile defections but that's all. I guess it all depends on the type of control: are they just stopping annoying or tasteless ads, or is it more than that?
It's more than that. Much more. Apple hasn't released the tools to create iAds. Apple is actually putting them together using the designs and media provided by the advertisement agencies. Thus, there is an extra entity in the ad development loop, and I can't imagine that advertisers particularly enjoy that part of it.
I am bullish on Apple (and its associated stock AAPL) but I have not been entirely convinced that iAds is going to be a panacea. It could easily fail, but that would hardly be devastating to Apple or its brand. Ads can still be delivered via other means, such as AdMob, etc. (I'm not saying the other means are as cool, but I'm just saying that many advertisers may not like the pain/reward ratio of committing to an iAd.)
For me, it's not how good or bad, how much control or not, anyone has or gives.
If the add is about something I want more information, Ill click on it - that's the end of the story.
Is Apple's system causing grieve for yahoo? Is she stating the obvious in that Apple will fail again
only to run with her tail between her legs.
Just because someone is doing something different then most everyone else, doesn't make it good or bad. Let time tell. If in fact SJ and Apple need to make some changes for it to work, or make them billions more, then they WILL make the needed changes. Slower then others, yes likely. He / Apple will try REAL hard to make theirs the industry standard, but in the end, even SJ / Apple can and will bend if need-be.
As soon as Yahoo comes out with a successful phone, and ad system, then they can comment based on experience.
"That's going to fall apart for them," Bartz reportedly said of iAd. "Advertisers are not going to have that type of control over them. Apple wants total control over those ads."
As opposed to: "I see Apple doing really well with iAds. Finally users of it's iOS devices are going to see quality ads as opposed to the garbage we've delivered them".
Did we expect anything less from a competitor? We'll see.
[added] I don't want to see any ads on my iOS devices from anybody...period!
She's dead wrong. Advertising professionals all use macs. Advertising professionals all want the most standardized branded environment. Advertisers want statistics. Advertisers want in App ads. Advertisers want micro-targeted, contextual ads. iAd delivers exactly what we want.
To do an online ad campaign we currently need to make up to 10 versions of the same Flash ad to work with different ad servers for different publications, different size requirements, and several different click tracking versions with different embeds. This extra production and management is very expensive and also leads to difficulty doing statistical analysis as the different ad serving platforms provide data in different formats.
Beyond the production savings and the huge, affluent audience, iAd also allows consumers to choose to let the ad take over the whole window and provide a totally immersive branding experience. This is what we've been looking for for years, and iAd makes it smooth and not intrusive to the end user.
From the media planning standpoint, iAd is a no brainer - it's totally stats and demographically driven and give the ability to micro-target, so it is HIGHLY efficient.
How easy is it to convince your clients of the benefits from the perspective of ROI. Many products do not lend themselves to analysis of advertising results. Although high profile companies realize that brand marketing is a long term project, what is the price of iAd versus some other media and are clients receptive to iAds? As an ad agency, how do you plan to keep yourself in the loop if Apple is doing all the creative and production?
Even if Yahoo is wrong, it's even more annoying to read people talking what companies should and shouldn't do when they're not doing jack-shit themselves.
Just my 2 cents.
This from the person whose posts are primarily jack-shit about what Apple should and shouldn't do..... ah, the irony......
What in the world does that have to do with anything?
Love her or hate her, Carol has more balls than just about anyone in the industry.
Don't really care about Carol's (or anyone else's) balls. But someone, somewhere, needs to figure out an intelligent way to make advertizing work. How many times have you been to a web page, and dicovered far more than half of the display is non-requested content? Pull up any newspaper site and you'll see an example. The news is crammed into a minor column, and the rest of my cinema display is filled with ads. Worse, may of othem play unrequested audio. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
Now fairly, I understand why this is, and I don't expect anything for free. In some sense this is just like advertizing on the print/dead tree versions. It pays the freight. And like broadcast TV, the ads pay for the content (even though I pay a cable subscription fee?)
But golly, when I get the newspaper, I can toss many of the ad sections. When a commercial runs on TV, I can go hit the head (or even simply buy/rent the ad-free show on iTunes or DVD.) If I could have a similar option for content online that was a reasonable cost, I might buy upfront at a reasonable cost for content I really wanted.
But it would have to be intelligently done. Kinda like buying a proxy-USPS service. I sure would like to have a junk mail filer for my US mail service, but I know those bulk mailings pay to keeps stamp costs down.
Not to say that that Ms Bartz is wrong, but seriously...pretty much everything Apple does, someone, somewhere, insists is going to be a huge failure. Those people are often leaders of other large tech or tech-focused companies.
They also have a nearly perfect track record for being wrong.
From the iPod/iTunes to OS X to the iPad, one naysayer after another spouts forth this stream of drivel unaided by any actual facts and unencumbered by the memory of how wrong similar past predications have been.
Who can forget Ballmer (and half the cell phone manufacturers) laughing at the iPhone. Or Dell laughing at Apple as an entire company. Or record executives insisting that nobody really wanted to buy or sell music online.
I'm not sure if it's because they really don't understand Apple's strategy, or they just have a really short and selective memory, or some other reason entirely. But it's both amusing and a little sad.
I'm not one of those devout fans who believe Jobs & Co can do no wrong, but I think it's time for everyone to admit that they definitely have a clue about what works, and know how to execute their game plan.
I predict iAds will be a great success, as Apple defines it, which is generally quality, loyalty, and consumer happiness, not just raw numbers or gross incomes (although gross income is a happy side effect of making customers happy).
Didn't someone also say that Apple should close up shop and give shares back to shareholders? Now Apple is mopping the floor with everyone.
This will be her famous last words. Too bad that she said it out loud and on record. If I had to guess, we will hear about this again and she will look dumb.
"Yahoo CEO predicts demise of Apple's iAd mobile ad network while sharing a moca with Michael Dell".
circa 1997 and an executive IT event Dell said, "What would I do (to save Apple)? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders,".
Now ... had he Instead of making a uncalled for dig at Apple, he invested $1m in cash on that very same day... Well lets just see.
Oct 6th 1997 (date of Dells quote) - AAPL Stock: Closed at 5.45 (split adjusted). So, $1 M in cash (pocket change for Michael at that time) would have bought apx 183,000 shares 183,486 to be exact... Now lets just see... 183,486x272.00 (todays AAPL mid-day price) oh lets just call it 50 million dollars.
While hindsight it always 20/20 ... that's GOTTA hurt!
Times 4. The stock has split twice since 1997. Split 2:1 in 2000 and Split 2:1 in 2005.
Comments
"Hey they didn't report the whole story:
"Yahoo CEO predicts demise of Apple's iAd mobile ad network while sharing a moca with Michael Dell".
circa 1997 and an executive IT event Dell said, "What would I do (to save Apple)? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders,".
Now ... had he Instead of making a uncalled for dig at Apple, he invested $1m in cash on that very same day... Well lets just see.
Oct 6th 1997 (date of Dells quote) - AAPL Stock: Closed at 5.45 (split adjusted). So, $1 M in cash (pocket change for Michael at that time) would have bought apx 183,000 shares 183,486 to be exact... Now lets just see... 183,486x272.00 (todays AAPL mid-day price) oh lets just call it 50 BILLION dollars. Oh and to really pour salt into the wound, DELL market cap today? 24 BILLION.
While hindsight it always 20/20 ... that's GOTTA hurt!
Seriously, there is no downside to executives making these kinds of prognostications. First, because everyone expects it. Second, because when they are proven wrong a few years down the road, no one remembers or cares. Third, because CEOs come and go so regularly that there usually is no day of reckoning for such statements. (Michael Dell being the most famous exception)
(a) a couple of flash based ads on the right margin
(b) an extra ad crossing slowly the screen over the information you desperately try to find, and
(c) few more static text based ads inserts here and there...
Good luck...
So well, I, myself, believe that I am equally entitled to predict the soon to come demise of Yahoo outrageously ad based web portal...
Their control over the App Store has not destroyed it: there have been a few high profile defections but that's all. I guess it all depends on the type of control: are they just stopping annoying or tasteless ads, or is it more than that?
It's more than that. Much more. Apple hasn't released the tools to create iAds. Apple is actually putting them together using the designs and media provided by the advertisement agencies. Thus, there is an extra entity in the ad development loop, and I can't imagine that advertisers particularly enjoy that part of it.
I am bullish on Apple (and its associated stock AAPL) but I have not been entirely convinced that iAds is going to be a panacea. It could easily fail, but that would hardly be devastating to Apple or its brand. Ads can still be delivered via other means, such as AdMob, etc. (I'm not saying the other means are as cool, but I'm just saying that many advertisers may not like the pain/reward ratio of committing to an iAd.)
Thompson
If the add is about something I want more information, Ill click on it - that's the end of the story.
Is Apple's system causing grieve for yahoo? Is she stating the obvious in that Apple will fail again
only to run with her tail between her legs.
Just because someone is doing something different then most everyone else, doesn't make it good or bad. Let time tell. If in fact SJ and Apple need to make some changes for it to work, or make them billions more, then they WILL make the needed changes. Slower then others, yes likely. He / Apple will try REAL hard to make theirs the industry standard, but in the end, even SJ / Apple can and will bend if need-be.
As soon as Yahoo comes out with a successful phone, and ad system, then they can comment based on experience.
Skip
"That's going to fall apart for them," Bartz reportedly said of iAd. "Advertisers are not going to have that type of control over them. Apple wants total control over those ads."
As opposed to: "I see Apple doing really well with iAds. Finally users of it's iOS devices are going to see quality ads as opposed to the garbage we've delivered them".
Did we expect anything less from a competitor? We'll see.
[added] I don't want to see any ads on my iOS devices from anybody...period!
She's dead wrong. Advertising professionals all use macs. Advertising professionals all want the most standardized branded environment. Advertisers want statistics. Advertisers want in App ads. Advertisers want micro-targeted, contextual ads. iAd delivers exactly what we want.
To do an online ad campaign we currently need to make up to 10 versions of the same Flash ad to work with different ad servers for different publications, different size requirements, and several different click tracking versions with different embeds. This extra production and management is very expensive and also leads to difficulty doing statistical analysis as the different ad serving platforms provide data in different formats.
Beyond the production savings and the huge, affluent audience, iAd also allows consumers to choose to let the ad take over the whole window and provide a totally immersive branding experience. This is what we've been looking for for years, and iAd makes it smooth and not intrusive to the end user.
From the media planning standpoint, iAd is a no brainer - it's totally stats and demographically driven and give the ability to micro-target, so it is HIGHLY efficient.
How easy is it to convince your clients of the benefits from the perspective of ROI. Many products do not lend themselves to analysis of advertising results. Although high profile companies realize that brand marketing is a long term project, what is the price of iAd versus some other media and are clients receptive to iAds? As an ad agency, how do you plan to keep yourself in the loop if Apple is doing all the creative and production?
No, it would be $50 Million. But point well taken.
Post corrected.... thanks for the heads-up as I typed 'billion' I knew it didn't sound right. (oh well)
What we see above from Yahoo is the corporate version.[/QUOTE
When some animals are scared they piss themselves as a defense mechanism (or something).
What we see above from Yahoo is the corporate version.
LOL!
A variation of that is called "poohing your knickers"
.
Even if Yahoo is wrong, it's even more annoying to read people talking what companies should and shouldn't do when they're not doing jack-shit themselves.
Just my 2 cents.
This from the person whose posts are primarily jack-shit about what Apple should and shouldn't do..... ah, the irony......
Not worth even 2¢.
What in the world does that have to do with anything?
Love her or hate her, Carol has more balls than just about anyone in the industry.
Don't really care about Carol's (or anyone else's) balls. But someone, somewhere, needs to figure out an intelligent way to make advertizing work. How many times have you been to a web page, and dicovered far more than half of the display is non-requested content? Pull up any newspaper site and you'll see an example. The news is crammed into a minor column, and the rest of my cinema display is filled with ads. Worse, may of othem play unrequested audio. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
Now fairly, I understand why this is, and I don't expect anything for free. In some sense this is just like advertizing on the print/dead tree versions. It pays the freight. And like broadcast TV, the ads pay for the content (even though I pay a cable subscription fee?)
But golly, when I get the newspaper, I can toss many of the ad sections. When a commercial runs on TV, I can go hit the head (or even simply buy/rent the ad-free show on iTunes or DVD.) If I could have a similar option for content online that was a reasonable cost, I might buy upfront at a reasonable cost for content I really wanted.
But it would have to be intelligently done. Kinda like buying a proxy-USPS service. I sure would like to have a junk mail filer for my US mail service, but I know those bulk mailings pay to keeps stamp costs down.
They also have a nearly perfect track record for being wrong.
From the iPod/iTunes to OS X to the iPad, one naysayer after another spouts forth this stream of drivel unaided by any actual facts and unencumbered by the memory of how wrong similar past predications have been.
Who can forget Ballmer (and half the cell phone manufacturers) laughing at the iPhone. Or Dell laughing at Apple as an entire company. Or record executives insisting that nobody really wanted to buy or sell music online.
I'm not sure if it's because they really don't understand Apple's strategy, or they just have a really short and selective memory, or some other reason entirely. But it's both amusing and a little sad.
I'm not one of those devout fans who believe Jobs & Co can do no wrong, but I think it's time for everyone to admit that they definitely have a clue about what works, and know how to execute their game plan.
I predict iAds will be a great success, as Apple defines it, which is generally quality, loyalty, and consumer happiness, not just raw numbers or gross incomes (although gross income is a happy side effect of making customers happy).
Didn't someone also say that Apple should close up shop and give shares back to shareholders? Now Apple is mopping the floor with everyone.
This will be her famous last words. Too bad that she said it out loud and on record. If I had to guess, we will hear about this again and she will look dumb.
Just like Dell?
Hey they didn't report the whole story:
"Yahoo CEO predicts demise of Apple's iAd mobile ad network while sharing a moca with Michael Dell".
circa 1997 and an executive IT event Dell said, "What would I do (to save Apple)? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders,".
Now ... had he Instead of making a uncalled for dig at Apple, he invested $1m in cash on that very same day... Well lets just see.
Oct 6th 1997 (date of Dells quote) - AAPL Stock: Closed at 5.45 (split adjusted). So, $1 M in cash (pocket change for Michael at that time) would have bought apx 183,000 shares 183,486 to be exact... Now lets just see... 183,486x272.00 (todays AAPL mid-day price) oh lets just call it 50 million dollars.
While hindsight it always 20/20 ... that's GOTTA hurt!
Times 4. The stock has split twice since 1997. Split 2:1 in 2000 and Split 2:1 in 2005.
That puts the value just about $200 million.