IDC offers scathing prediction of certain death for Apple's iAd program

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    iAds exists for one major reason. The fear that Google can greatly subsidize Android phones because of ad revenue in the future. Unless Apple had a Google ad competitor they would not have been able to counter that.



    The current failure of iAds is not a problem because mobile ads are not as big an industry. However iAd gives Apple a foot in the ad industry and experience which will help them compete if this market ever becomes big enough. Apple is still tweaking iAd to see what works. It will be a while before they getnitnright.



    It's currently best to look at iAd as a hobby in the same vein as the AppleTV.
  • Reply 22 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post




    OTOH, Google has your identity, and then sells it for profit. Not exactly the type of company I want Apple, who seems to be one of the leaders in customer privacy, to turn into.



    And IMO this is what fuels the negativism and bias in the Ad market against Apple. These people and their surrogates (IDC) want Apple to sell their customers privacy down the road by allowing the marketeers to make the big bucks. Apple won't and thus the negative press and analysis.
  • Reply 23 of 55
    As a consumer I prefer iAds. They're simply nicer and less intrusive.



    As a developer I like iAds. They provide 90% of my ad income while only accounting for 30% of the ads I show. I wish there were more full iAds available. What a lot of people don't realise is that there are two types of iAd. The full-on advertiser ones and the lower-end itunes product ones (which cost and pay less). The lower-end itunes ads pay at least as much as other networks (and there isn't a shortage of them), while the full iAds pay much more.



    It seems some advertisers don't like the fact that they have to pay more for the more up-market iAds option. Or is it that the smaller advertisers can't afford it and are jealous?



    From my perspective if iAds went by the wayside I'd stop making ad supported apps. Without iAds it's not viable. iAds are effectively supporting the other mobile ad platforms at present.
  • Reply 24 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post


    Yes it is.



    Since iAd is only on iOS devices, and iOS devices have a 28% market share, shouldn't iAd have 28% market share as well?



    No, because the other mobile advertising platforms are on iOS as well as the other mobile OSes. What you are suggesting is it should have a 100% stake of the iOS ad market. Which (Aside from obviously being hopelessly optimistic if we sandbox it to mean ads on Apps) is simply impossible, because there are mobile ads on mobile sites as well as Apps and iAd is only used in Apps. As it is, the number suggests Apple has a better than 50% share of mobile ads on iOS anyway, which is a healthy position to be in.
  • Reply 25 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iJohn View Post


    You must be kidding. If you want to instantly kill a feature on an iPhone is to plug any sort of advertising into it. People who use Siri want unbiased answers, not what company Apple is currently hawking.

    iAd looks to have been a failure from what it was portrayed as. It was sold as the next great thing in advertising, and it isn't even close. Probably their 15% now is less than what it was before. With all the fanfare that it was kicked off with, I've seen a lot of advertisers disappear off the map.



    Not kidding. As a company Apple will want to monetize Siri as more than just an iOS feature to sell phones/iPads if it can. How that gets implemented is the important thing.





    You: Hey Siri, where is the nearest coffee shop I can get lunch at?

    Siri: There are 9 coffee shops within 2 miles? Would you like me to find those offering specials today?

    You: Yes, but no Starbucks.

    Siri: Let me get you those options.





    I am not all that creative but a person can see how Siri could get specific merchant's products in front of iOS users pretty easily. And like most Apple features aspects it could be turned on/off or customized.



    Some people like being advertised to and being told about sales/deals/values.
  • Reply 26 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    We don't really need more Ads in general. It's completely stupid, and it is a bad way for Apple to push growth. You go to a site like google to search for things. They collect information. They do serve ad content, but you are not paying google to search their database. You are paying Apple for a phone and any applicable apps.



    You make it sound as if Apple is scattering ads across it's user interface and native apps. iAds are a strictly optional feature available to third party app developers, often used to subsidize an app's cost or even allow t to be offered for free. Apple is clearly not trying to increase ads on its devices. They're simply trying to offer mobile app developers an alternative ad platform that focuses on delivering a more consistent, less annoying experience. Think less annoying and tacky ads for ad-supported apps.
  • Reply 27 of 55
    These market studies are known to be hired hands. I would not be surprised if it were commissioned by Google.



    Didn't the same company predicted Windows Phone surpassing iOS?
  • Reply 28 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


    "...they don't "open source" anything..."



    You should review the following website for an extensive list of Apple's contributions to the open source community.



    http://www.apple.com/opensource/



    Yes, Apple has contributed to open source projects in the past, and that's admirable. Giving back to the community that helped make you successful is a good thing. It's unfortunate that more recently, the past few years, they appear they might be using their patents to put up roadblocks to standards instead of assisting. An interesting read from ArsTechnica on this subject:



    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-standards.ars
  • Reply 29 of 55
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post


    Yes it is.



    Since iAd is only on iOS devices, and iOS devices have a 28% market share, shouldn't iAd have 28% market share as well?



    Nope. That would be true only if it was impossible for other ads to appear on iOS devices. Since iOS devices support all the ad networks, one would definitely expect the iAds share to be less than the iOS share (as long as iAds are available only on iOS, that is).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iJohn View Post


    You must be kidding. If you want to instantly kill a feature on an iPhone is to plug any sort of advertising into it. People who use Siri want unbiased answers, not what company Apple is currently hawking.

    iAd looks to have been a failure from what it was portrayed as. It was sold as the next great thing in advertising, and it isn't even close. Probably their 15% now is less than what it was before. With all the fanfare that it was kicked off with, I've seen a lot of advertisers disappear off the map.



    I think it's misleading to call it a failure. As pointed out in the article, Apple's share is greater than the company they bought. And that's doubly impressive because iAds only runs on iOS devices while Quattro ran on all devices. And the fact that Apple's ad revenue is greater than Yahoo and Microsoft combined is certainly not horrible. Given that fact, why are they saying that Apple is failing in ads, but not Microsoft or Yahoo?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post


    These market studies are known to be hired hands. I would not be surprised if it were commissioned by Google.



    Especially when the data does not support the conclusions - as in this case. And when the conclusions are clearly biased. Why aren't they claiming that Microsoft and Yahoo are failing? Apple sold more ads than the two of them combined, yet Apple is the one that has failed? WTF?
  • Reply 30 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Especially when the data does not support the conclusions - as in this case. And when the conclusions are clearly biased. Why aren't they claiming that Microsoft and Yahoo are failing? Apple sold more ads than the two of them combined, yet Apple is the one that has failed? WTF?



    Because it's Apple and anything journalists can hang a fail tag on belonging to them gets views and clicks. IMO, had Apple not made it such a high-profile announcement a couple years ago no one would even be paying attention. Does any media scrutinize MS mobile ad revenues? Not really since they haven't proclaimed it to be a high priority. At one time Apple did, which invited attention.
  • Reply 31 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post


    And IMO this is what fuels the negativism and bias in the Ad market against Apple. These people and their surrogates (IDC) want Apple to sell their customers privacy down the road by allowing the marketeers to make the big bucks. Apple won't and thus the negative press and analysis.



    This is probably exactly the case, just like the criticism from the publishing industry over subscriptions, and IDC, like Gartner, are whores who always produce the analysis that the client pays for.
  • Reply 32 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Yes, Apple has contributed to open source projects in the past, and that's admirable. Giving back to the community that helped make you successful is a good thing. It's unfortunate that more recently, the past few years, they appear they might be using their patents to put up roadblocks to standards instead of assisting. An interesting read from ArsTechnica on this subject:



    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-standards.ars



    Yes, and Apple is STILL CONTRIBUTING to open source projects now. You make it sound like they don't do that any more.



    I agree that they could be doing more, though.
  • Reply 33 of 55
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    By far, most of Google’s mobile ad revenue comes from iOS. iAd or no iAd, there is no evidence here of developers abandoning iOS



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Yes, Apple has contributed to open source projects in the past, and that's admirable. Giving back to the community that helped make you successful is a good thing. It's unfortunate that more recently, the past few years, they appear they might be using their patents to put up roadblocks to standards instead of assisting. An interesting read from ArsTechnica on this subject:



    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-standards.ars



    And yet Apple is sued by others more than they sue. There was a clear diagram of this a few months back. The game exists, and Apple can’t choose not to play.



    Meanwhile look what Apple has done for open, cross-platform, standards-based mobile AND desktop app development (a.k.a. web apps): they made it their first iOS development platform and then kept expanding it to this day even after the App Store appeared. They made web apps installable on the home screen, with an icon, local storage and automatic updaes. They supported accelerometer, multitouch, full-screen deployment with no browser clutter, CSS animation, and all kinds of HTML5/CSS3 standards and proposed standards long before Google did. In fact, Safari still supports more standards, and is better for web apps, than the Android browser (example, webkit DeviceOrientation, which Apple has supported robustly for ages and Google hasn’t). Apple has pushed the development of real apps, as has Google, but simultaneously, Apple keeps improving (more than Goole does) the development of open apps that Apple has no control over. Most recently: Apple added the ability for open web apps to choose between browser-style scrolling (good for reading) and app-style (more momentum, good for lists). They’re still paying attention to the details of making NON-App Store, uncontrolled, open-to-all development great.
  • Reply 34 of 55
    IDC, like other pronasticatng people and organizations, don't go with facts. They gain power and influence by trying to create the situations they are predicting.



    This is another case of either wanting to cause apple stock to drop, or an attempt to stem the success of iAds.



    It's always safe in the u.s. to assume everything you hear and read is a lie. You'll be rarely disappointed.
  • Reply 35 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post


    Not kidding. As a company Apple will want to monetize Siri as more than just an iOS feature to sell phones/iPads if it can. ...



    Not necessarily. In the age of diminishing privacy, there will be money to be made by not abusing trust and violating privacy in the Google model of commoditizing persons. Apple has an opportunity to essentially sell privacy as a feature, one which people will be willing to pay for as an alternative to Google's Big Brother is watching you, and selling you, ecosystem.
  • Reply 36 of 55
    IDC is probably out to lunch. But if Apple wants to ensure iAd's success, they could always offer more enticing terms...
  • Reply 37 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post


    Yes it is.



    Since iAd is only on iOS devices, and iOS devices have a 28% market share, shouldn't iAd have 28% market share as well?



    Since Android supposedly has > 50% market share, shouldn't Google Mobile Ads have > 50% market share as well?
  • Reply 38 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    We don't really need more Ads in general. It's completely stupid, and it is a bad way for Apple to push growth.



    It's also a way for developers to give you apps for "free". You may not like ad-supported games and news and whatnot, but other people do.



    Or they like it more than actually paying a buck for an app....
  • Reply 39 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


    They're simply trying to offer mobile app developers an alternative ad platform that focuses on delivering a more consistent, less annoying experience. Think less annoying and tacky ads for ad-supported apps.



    Yes, but they're pricing themselves out of the market. A near half-million dollar commitment? Please.



    They could still maintain standards and quality control WITHOUT such requirements.



    And speaking of in-app ads, those would be a fantastic way for DEVELOPERS to advertise new apps... except that new developers can't afford the rates.
  • Reply 40 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post


    If you were to ask Siri where the closest coffee shop is, do you want her to tell you the closest one or the one that paid for an ad?



    What customers think they want is irrelevant to Apple. You are assured that the establishments listed have been approved by Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.