Over the past several years, it's become clear that Apple is now seeing that there's more value in not having ads than there is in owning advertising on iOS. This indicates that going forward, Apple can court more satisfied customers--the people who pay a premium for its high-end hardware--by offering more privacy than from offering more private ads.
....
Advertisers hated working with iAd, but not because it failed to improve the ad experience, or because it was technically inferior, or because it failed to engage audiences. Advertisers hated that Apple's iAd was preventing them from gaining full access to user demographics and behaviors--the way Google, Adobe and the other mobile ad networks were working to facilitate.
Whenever I encounter a Galaxy owner that insists their phone is better than my iPhone, I point out the privacy issues. They don't grasp it or they don't care. Some people just don't care about their privacy. However, many do and most would if they really took the time understand the significance.
It is this very stance that Apple has taken on consumer privacy that has caused me to give them my loyalty. As with any relationship, trust is essential.
Translation: DO ANYTHING! SELL ANYTHING! HAND OVER PICTURES OF OUR CHILDREN TO WHOEVER ASKS FOR THEM, BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE RECOVER THE MONEY I'VE LOST ON APPLE SHARES!
I'd have more sympathy for you if… Mmm, no I don't think I would have any sympathy for you. You took a punt, you lost. Get over it.
whatever dude. The fact is most people deal with ads and don't really care. Facts are facts.
Apple is running a business. The fact they are not willing to share data with adverstisers is costing the company tens of billions of dollars. As a shareholder I have a right to question their lack of monitizing the user base.
The problem is Cook thinks he's running a non-Profit organization. IMO, he needs to be replaced by someone who knows how to run a business and maximize strategic moats. Cook is better off running a charity as this point.
The fact is Apple could easily destroy Google search and advertising if Tim Cook wasn't so stubborn and allowed Apple users data to be shared. But Cook is on some misguided quest to protect people's data. A quest that no one really cares about. I don't care if my data is shared on a HIGH LEVEL with adverstisers if it means better services. This will only get worse with more A.I. built into platforms. Cook and Apple will be left in the dust after being DECADES behind in gathering data. Just so Cook can brag about privacy. Something the user don't really give a crap about.
what nonsense. I trust Cook knows what he's doing more than some anonymous whiner on a web forum. I value my privacy and am willing to pay more for devices that understand that.
Irrespective of what information advertisers are given access to, my information (including location) is continuously being gathered by Google for advertising and I find it creepy as do many other people. The author is completely correct, Apple are headed towards an Ad free business model and running iAd makes no sense to this. Most of Apple's customers are like myself, I hate adverts, I don't have time for adverts, and I'm willing to pay to not have adverts.
Would you pay a monthly subscription for an ad-free version of Apple Insider? Say, $5?
Over the past several years, it's become clear that Apple is now seeing that there's more value in not having ads than there is in owning advertising on iOS. This indicates that going forward, Apple can court more satisfied customers--the people who pay a premium for its high-end hardware--by offering more privacy than from offering more private ads.
....
Advertisers hated working with iAd, but not because it failed to improve the ad experience, or because it was technically inferior, or because it failed to engage audiences. Advertisers hated that Apple's iAd was preventing them from gaining full access to user demographics and behaviors--the way Google, Adobe and the other mobile ad networks were working to facilitate.
Whenever I encounter a Galaxy owner that insists their phone is better than my iPhone, I point out the privacy issues. They don't grasp it or they don't care. Some people just don't care about their privacy. However, many do and most would if they really took the time understand the significance.
It is this very stance that Apple has taken on consumer privacy that has caused me to give them my loyalty. As with any relationship, trust is essential.
EDIT: LOL! In their haste to "dislike" posts from certain posters it's humorous if/when an Apple fan votes-down a pro-iOS post where the advantages of iOS over Android are highlighted.
It's time to be patient. Apple is going to mop the floor with Google's carcass. It's only a matter of time.
When that happens who will you use to hate/blame/use as a diversion? Someone has to act the part of the foil. Maybe MS will rise from the ashes?
disagree, there are plenty of markets with no villain. who do you hate in the food processor world? vacuum cleaner business? etc. nobody...you just use what you feel is a solid brand and derive value. why is that?
The much shorter and truer explanation of the failure of the iAd program is simply this:
iAds by Apple's own description and admission were intended to be "classy," "High-end," "entertaining," and most of all, "acceptable" adverts aimed at the "discerning few," and running on the world's highest-end OS platform where the price of admission is a $1000 a year device.
In other words, (elitism aside), they were based on the currently very popular but entirely faulty, idea that there are some adverts that people "don't mind," and that if adverts were "cool enough" that people would actually like to receive them. They were supposed to be better than other ads. They were supposed to be ads that people would want to see.
While everyone in the technorati has been waffling on for many months now about how "some adverts are okay," and how "people don't mind tasteful adverts," the complete failure of iAds strongly argues for the reverse. It puts the lie to the whole idea that there is a way to advertise to people that doesn't bother anyone or that isn't intrusive. Advertising is by it's very nature intrusive and bothersome. That's literally how it works.
Advertisers (and advertisement "appeasers" like Gruber), have been chasing this "unobtrusive advert" Unicorn for ages now. No one seems willing to admit the obvious which is that it's a faulty idea based on absolutely nothing factual at all. One person's "acceptable" advert is the next person's intrusive nightmare of course and never the twain shall meet.
Slowly but surely Apple is squeezing the air out of Google's advertising balloon. Meanwhile Google's struggle to find another income stream to replace search/advertising is going nowhere... as hair-brained acquisitions are oft to do.
People keep saying this but it seems wishful thinking more than anything else. Kind of like when DED said Google was ready to abandon Android because of IP issues. If Wall Street is concerned about Google's search revenue they have a funny way of showing it. If you look at a 1 year chart Google is up 40%. That same chart for Apple? Down 9%. If Apple doesn't post a record holiday quarter or guidance is weak for this quarter Google will likely Google will likely be back on top. The difference in market cap between two companies is now only $55B.
According to John Gruber Scott Forstall was the only executive that was a big believer in iAd; nobody else's heart was in it. He's surprised it lasted this long after Forstall left. My opinion? The more things that leave Eddy Cue's plate the better.
"If you look at a 1 year chart Google is up 40%. That same chart for Apple? Down 9%."
I recommend reading this for a different perspective:
I think the main problem is that Apple's stance on privacy doesn't sit well with the needs of advertisers. If Apple hadn't abandoned iAds then it would end up pretty barren a year from now, which would look even worse. They made a choice: privacy or ads – they went with privacy so it best to just throw in the towel now.
Except iAd isn't going away as a platform; it's just becoming all programmatic. The question I have is will Apple still be able to control the privacy aspect now that they're no longer directly involved?
Privacy doesn't mean NOT collecting users' information. Steve Jobs had the best view when it came to privacy:
disagree, there are plenty of markets with no villain.
Not this market. . .
If there's not a real threat one always seems to be invented. Why is that?
Tribalism. It's exploited by the media and corporations, and is the reason that these kind of sites exists.
Which brings to mind.
You aren't an Apple user (I did read that you had an old mac or something); you aren't here for the camaraderie, so likely, you are here to keep an eye on Google's interests, a very tribal impulse.
disagree, there are plenty of markets with no villain.
Not this market. . .
If there's not a real threat one always seems to be invented. Why is that?
Tribalism. It's exploited by the media and corporations, and is the reason that these kind of sites exists.
Which brings to mind.
You aren't an Apple user (I did read that you had an old mac or something); you aren't here for the camaraderie, so likely, you are here to keep an eye on Google's interests, a very tribal impulse.
LOL. Actually it is more for the camaraderie.
As I think I'd mentioned to you before I don't have any monetary interest in any tech company any longer, even selling off the few remaining shares of Qualcomm some time back a few weeks.
Tribalism. It's exploited by the media and corporations, and is the reason that these kind of sites exists.
Which brings to mind.
You aren't an Apple user (I did read that you had an old mac or something); you aren't here for the camaraderie, so likely, you are here to keep an eye on Google's interests, a very tribal impulse.
LOL. Actually it is more for the camaraderie.
As I think I'd mentioned to you before I don't have any monetary interest in any tech company any longer, even selling off the few remaining shares of Qualcomm some time back a few weeks.
Well then, I'm excited to tell you that I will receive my Apple Pencil today, comrade!
Tribalism. It's exploited by the media and corporations, and is the reason that these kind of sites exists.
Which brings to mind.
You aren't an Apple user (I did read that you had an old mac or something); you aren't here for the camaraderie, so likely, you are here to keep an eye on Google's interests, a very tribal impulse.
LOL. Actually it is more for the camaraderie.
As I think I'd mentioned to you before I don't have any monetary interest in any tech company any longer, even selling off the few remaining shares of Qualcomm some time back a few weeks.
Well then, I'm excited to tell you that I will receive my Apple Pencil today, comrade!
As a Maps user I don't see a lack of ubiquity. Apple maps is on all of the systems I use.
It is the ubiquity for the advertiser that counts. It does not matter if a advertiser can address all devices of a user, he wants to address all users, irrespective of the device they have. If the iPhone has only 20 % market share than only 20 % of the target population can be addressed.
So much stupidity it's hard to decide which post to comment on. Eenie meenie miney mo....
It was reported by multiple firms (Custora, IBM and Adobe) that during the big holiday shopping season, around 77% of all mobile shopping was done on iOS. If anyone was running a mobile shopping site (and advertising for it), who do you think they want to target? The users who account for 77% of the business or the users who account for the other 23%?
Your Android market share is meaningless. Advertisers and businesses go where the money is - and that's on iOS, not Android.
On a side note, since Apple is no longer doing ads themselves, how will all the black & white losers claim that since Apple and Google both serve ads, that they are somehow equal in terms of the data they collect on users (you know who I'm taking to). This allows them to place Apple and Google in the same boat regarding data mining or privacy.
I miss the days when the original YouTube app on iOS and AppleTV, for all its faults, was also 100% ad free. Now when I watch AppleTV's YouTube app, it displays ads, and some ads cannot be skipped.
Idiocracy was not supposed to be a "how-to" video, but the future of Internet TV could very well be this:
I miss the days when the original YouTube app on iOS and AppleTV, for all its faults, was also 100% ad free. Now when I watch AppleTV's YouTube app, it displays ads, and some ads cannot be skipped.
You could try YouTube Red (App Store, but less expensive "elsewhere" FWIW) Cancel later if it still doesn't work like you'd wish.
Comments
It is this very stance that Apple has taken on consumer privacy that has caused me to give them my loyalty. As with any relationship, trust is essential.
A person's got to eat...
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/01/17/sometimes-the-grass-really-is-greener-on-the-other-side-six-major-things-i-think-ios-does-better-than-android/
EDIT: LOL! In their haste to "dislike" posts from certain posters it's humorous if/when an Apple fan votes-down a pro-iOS post where the advantages of iOS over Android are highlighted.
If there's not a real threat one always seems to be invented. Why is that?
iAds by Apple's own description and admission were intended to be "classy," "High-end," "entertaining," and most of all, "acceptable" adverts aimed at the "discerning few," and running on the world's highest-end OS platform where the price of admission is a $1000 a year device.
In other words, (elitism aside), they were based on the currently very popular but entirely faulty, idea that there are some adverts that people "don't mind," and that if adverts were "cool enough" that people would actually like to receive them. They were supposed to be better than other ads. They were supposed to be ads that people would want to see.
While everyone in the technorati has been waffling on for many months now about how "some adverts are okay," and how "people don't mind tasteful adverts," the complete failure of iAds strongly argues for the reverse. It puts the lie to the whole idea that there is a way to advertise to people that doesn't bother anyone or that isn't intrusive. Advertising is by it's very nature intrusive and bothersome. That's literally how it works.
Advertisers (and advertisement "appeasers" like Gruber), have been chasing this "unobtrusive advert" Unicorn for ages now. No one seems willing to admit the obvious which is that it's a faulty idea based on absolutely nothing factual at all. One person's "acceptable" advert is the next person's intrusive nightmare of course and never the twain shall meet.
I recommend reading this for a different perspective:
http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2016/1/11/the-two-apples
Privacy doesn't mean NOT collecting users' information. Steve Jobs had the best view when it came to privacy:
Which brings to mind.
You aren't an Apple user (I did read that you had an old mac or something); you aren't here for the camaraderie, so likely, you are here to keep an eye on Google's interests, a very tribal impulse.
As I think I'd mentioned to you before I don't have any monetary interest in any tech company any longer, even selling off the few remaining shares of Qualcomm some time back a few weeks.
So much stupidity it's hard to decide which post to comment on. Eenie meenie miney mo....
It was reported by multiple firms (Custora, IBM and Adobe) that during the big holiday shopping season, around 77% of all mobile shopping was done on iOS. If anyone was running a mobile shopping site (and advertising for it), who do you think they want to target? The users who account for 77% of the business or the users who account for the other 23%?
Your Android market share is meaningless. Advertisers and businesses go where the money is - and that's on iOS, not Android.
On a side note, since Apple is no longer doing ads themselves, how will all the black & white losers claim that since Apple and Google both serve ads, that they are somehow equal in terms of the data they collect on users (you know who I'm taking to). This allows them to place Apple and Google in the same boat regarding data mining or privacy.
Idiocracy was not supposed to be a "how-to" video, but the future of Internet TV could very well be this: