![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Apple to Charge $1M to Put Ads in Mobile Apps?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I have a feeling some people here don't know how the existing ad model works based on how they think Apple is being intrusive.
Currently, an app developer creates an app, and can partner with admob, or google, or whoever, and they will send you a small library that you can link your app with. With this library, it gives you some APIs so you can put ad banners on your UI. Usually, developers will create a "pro" version and a "free" version of their app, with the free one having an ad banner somewhere.
With Apple's new ad service, developers can use Apple's APIs to put ads instead of partnering with a 3rd-party company and using their APIs.
So either way, it's the app developer that chooses whether or not to place ads, and with either Apple or a 3rd-party company, it will use your data connection to download them.
Currently, an app developer creates an app, and can partner with admob, or google, or whoever, and they will send you a small library that you can link your app with. With this library, it gives you some APIs so you can put ad banners on your UI. Usually, developers will create a "pro" version and a "free" version of their app, with the free one having an ad banner somewhere.
With Apple's new ad service, developers can use Apple's APIs to put ads instead of partnering with a 3rd-party company and using their APIs.
So either way, it's the app developer that chooses whether or not to place ads, and with either Apple or a 3rd-party company, it will use your data connection to download them.
meh i block pretty much every ad site at the router level so most dont show up on my iphone at home or work
but when im not home its annoying when you click one by accident... wasted bandwidth too...i cant give these to my guys at the ofice in a corporate environment if this is how its going to be... iphone on exchange is better than blackberry with BES sadley but not if the adverts are going to pick up
but when im not home its annoying when you click one by accident... wasted bandwidth too...i cant give these to my guys at the ofice in a corporate environment if this is how its going to be... iphone on exchange is better than blackberry with BES sadley but not if the adverts are going to pick up
NexusNeedOne
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 57
i hate apple, and i've voted by never buying a single apple device..
this is me except my family members still buy their products.
They need to at least come up with a Flash to HTML5 video cloud converter like Skyfire is doing on Android.
I just wish Adobe could actually prove them wrong - I remember on my Pre that Adobe originally said Flash coming right after launch (June 2009), then "Coming this fall!", then "Coming this winter!" then "Coming 1st quarter of 2010" then "Coming 1st half of 2010" then "Coming in June 2010"......The pre's browser is pretty similar to the Iphones (both based off webkit) and Adobe can't seem to get Flash really working on a device where the maker WANTS them to have it working..
This is the same WSJ that every six months or so publishes a story that says that Verizon is getting the iphone next year due to someone's diplomatic comment on the situation. Why believe them this time? It's probably someone who said they could charge $1 million an ad one day and they are reporting it as a potential for launch.
Sort of. Flash is scripted with ActionScript, a dialect of ECMAScript, which is effectively just the ECMA-standardized version of JavaScript. The similarities sort of end there, though.
So basically it's Apple wanting to further lock down their platform by providing ads too. Just watch, eventually they will lock out third-party ad services in the Dev EULA too just like they did for Dev tools.
What an amusing thread. This doesn't make ads appear on your i<device>. It is just the ads that will show up if I developer selects to have ads in the app (usually as part of their free version).
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your nerd raging! Rage on good sirs, rage on!
/ goes to make popcorn.
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your nerd raging! Rage on good sirs, rage on!
/ goes to make popcorn.
Matthew1034
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 251
the only thing i'd ever buy from apple is whatever the hell they're smokin'.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
evanisthecoastie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,708
A funny thing happened to me. I read about the I ad stuff and informed myself on the truth of it rather than immediately believing in all the fud spewed about it from jim-bob the resident apple hater fanboy club president at work.
BRILLIANT.
seriously people, inform yourselves and be an actual consumer. Companies do things that we hate all the time. That is the appropriate time to whine. this is not one of those times.
But then again i hold too much faith in hoping someone will actually be non-bias about something and become a smart person.
BRILLIANT.
seriously people, inform yourselves and be an actual consumer. Companies do things that we hate all the time. That is the appropriate time to whine. this is not one of those times.
But then again i hold too much faith in hoping someone will actually be non-bias about something and become a smart person.
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
"Apple is planning to charge advertisers a penny each time a consumer sees a banner ad, ad executives say. When a user taps on the banner and the ad pops up, Apple will charge $2. Under large ad buys, such as the $1 million package, costs would rack up to reach $1 million with the various views and taps."
1 cent per view isn't that bad really, I suppose, and 2 dollars for a click...
Especially when you know the market is composed solely of people with far more money than sense, and a willingness to swallow inane (and essentially information free) advertising claims such as "magical and revolutionary" and get even MORE excited to spend their hard earned but seemingly unwanted money...
Basically the only people who actually BUY anything from a banner ad!
So, with a captive audience like THAT, who WOULDN'T be willing to pay significantly more to con... er advertise to retards... err... iPhone users? Now, thanks to Aids... er... iAds, a marketer's wet dream has come true.
1 cent per view isn't that bad really, I suppose, and 2 dollars for a click...
Especially when you know the market is composed solely of people with far more money than sense, and a willingness to swallow inane (and essentially information free) advertising claims such as "magical and revolutionary" and get even MORE excited to spend their hard earned but seemingly unwanted money...
Basically the only people who actually BUY anything from a banner ad!
So, with a captive audience like THAT, who WOULDN'T be willing to pay significantly more to con... er advertise to retards... err... iPhone users? Now, thanks to Aids... er... iAds, a marketer's wet dream has come true.
You join the forum and call iPhone users retards on the first day? signed up to pick a fight? Google's the largest advertiser on the internet and guess what they own? Why, Android of course. But hey, if you want to join the forum to blindly hate something and show your (lack of) intelligence, thus, welcome aboard.
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
You join the forum and call iPhone users retards on the first day? signed up to pick a fight? Google's the largest advertiser on the internet and guess what they own? Why, Android of course. But hey, if you want to join the forum to blindly hate something and show your (lack of) intelligence, thus, welcome aboard.
Hit a nerve, did I?
First of all, why do you mention Android? Do you think that I have some 'love' for that smartphone? You'd be thoroughly wrong.
What is clear is that Apple iPhone users are in general ... retards... Look at the one above DEFENDING Apple, and seeming to claim that Apple has done a good thing by its customers by making it possible to force feed them advertising. When has any customer of any company ever asked to pay to be forced to see ads and then went on to a tech forum to say "apple does a good thing"?
THAT is why I say iPhone users are retards.
As for when I joined, yes, you'd be right I did join just to comment, simply because I can't remember the original account I signed up a couple years back. Yes, I read this site often and have done so for quite awhile. Now, please explain why YOU commented. *I* commented on the ARTICLE and the information in it. Your comment was an utter waste of bandwidth as it added nothing to the conversation except to help prove MY point.
I guess I'm just getting too old for this shit. I've been a netizen since 1995, and 'in my day' we used to get pissed off at all the banner ads. In fact we used have special programs that blocked them. You see we hated being considered nothing but advertising fodder, fed bullshit in annoying blinking text, and our precious bandwidth wasted by banners for crap you couldn't PAY us to use, let alone expect us to buy it...
I guess I'm just not trendy and hip enough to see why being forced to pay to be fed bullshit by marketers is a "good thing", as one fanboy said.
I guess I'm just not as 'smart' as you.
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
I think Steve Jobs just came...
Did you SERIOUSLY just tell us to shut up and be good little consumers? And you WEREN'T joking?
My god.
Yep, too old for this shit...
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
Nope - he said go research and make your own mind up. A commendable suggestion, but something you must have missed in your nerdgasm moment
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
Nope - he said go research and make your own mind up. A commendable suggestion, but something you must have missed in your nerdgasm moment
Perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. He said:
"Companies do things that we hate all the time. That is the appropriate time to whine. this is not one of those times."
So no, he wasn't telling us to get informed, he was informing us we were wrong "to whine", because he had 'informed' himself, came to the conclusion it was "brilliant", then came here to tell us to stop whining and be good little consumers.
Maybe you should take your nose out of Steve Jobs' butt? You might get a clearer view of the monitor.
evanisthecoastie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,708
You seriously mis-represented everything I had to say.
It's ok though. I forgive you.
It's funny how he quoted 4 sentences the first time, then he cut out the first sentence to remove the word "inform".
This is a lateral move as far as ads are concerned.
Didn't I already explain what the existing ad model was?
This is a lateral move as far as ads are concerned.
No, you didn't hit a nerve. You basically confirmed what I thought of you. What was your old nick by the way?
Only thing worse than the ads is the actual game.
I tried playing it for a few months last year. But the servers constantly crashed and i had a lot of other issues with the game so it stopped being fun.
i think some of you guys really enjoy the fighting too much lol.
about this post. the cost does sound very high, but instead of comparing this to tv or print ads, why arent we comparing it to google ad costs? Does anyone know how these numbers compare to what google charges to place ads on search results? That would be a closer comparison. Both from a potential exposure perspective and the large influence google and apple have on their markets
Apple is looking to do the same thing with thier platform by offering their own ad service. Of course since they are also the platform developer, they have a huge advantage being able to integrate ads into the apps themselves. That should really draw devs to use their ad service versus the other guys. I mean if you really want to force consumers to see an ad, what better way then to force it within the app.
On a related note, im sure you all have seen the news report about people at the FTC wanting to block google buying admob becuase of a worry about controlling the market. Apple isnt buying another company, but they are leveraging an advantage other companies will be hard pressed to compete with on the Ad side. I mean how much different is that from buying a company to do the same thing. Im not saying whether thats good or bad, but when you hear a company like Apple (or Google) offering services natively integrated with the OS (at the app level anyway), its starts to sound alot like things MS has gotten in trouble for in the past.
Maybe mobile OSes get a pass and they can be as closed as they want, or maybe you can get away with that stuff when there are 'substantial' competitors, but its clear that this a trend getting bigger: Apple, Google, and MS all consolidating services built into the OS instead of relying on 3rd parties. Each is doing it at different paces, but all seem to be heading that way. Apple really got the ball rolling and seem to be leading the trend, but it doesnt look to stop there.
Consumers that are annoyed by ads will still be annoyed by them, Apple doesnt solve that problem. So its a win for devs, but not directly for consumers. Indirectly, if the ads do lead to money for developers that would otherwise fold, then it is benefiting the consumer.
On a lighter note, wouldnt be funny if someone came along and tried to create an app taht blocked ads? I mean if its such an open platform, then it would be like firefox or other browsers that have pop up blockers, ad blockers, etc that you can choose to add. Now i know Apple wouldnt allow such an app to exist, but there is no denying that there would be alot of people that would use such an app if it existed just as they use it on a pc.
about this post. the cost does sound very high, but instead of comparing this to tv or print ads, why arent we comparing it to google ad costs? Does anyone know how these numbers compare to what google charges to place ads on search results? That would be a closer comparison. Both from a potential exposure perspective and the large influence google and apple have on their markets
Apple is looking to do the same thing with thier platform by offering their own ad service. Of course since they are also the platform developer, they have a huge advantage being able to integrate ads into the apps themselves. That should really draw devs to use their ad service versus the other guys. I mean if you really want to force consumers to see an ad, what better way then to force it within the app.
On a related note, im sure you all have seen the news report about people at the FTC wanting to block google buying admob becuase of a worry about controlling the market. Apple isnt buying another company, but they are leveraging an advantage other companies will be hard pressed to compete with on the Ad side. I mean how much different is that from buying a company to do the same thing. Im not saying whether thats good or bad, but when you hear a company like Apple (or Google) offering services natively integrated with the OS (at the app level anyway), its starts to sound alot like things MS has gotten in trouble for in the past.
Maybe mobile OSes get a pass and they can be as closed as they want, or maybe you can get away with that stuff when there are 'substantial' competitors, but its clear that this a trend getting bigger: Apple, Google, and MS all consolidating services built into the OS instead of relying on 3rd parties. Each is doing it at different paces, but all seem to be heading that way. Apple really got the ball rolling and seem to be leading the trend, but it doesnt look to stop there.
Consumers that are annoyed by ads will still be annoyed by them, Apple doesnt solve that problem. So its a win for devs, but not directly for consumers. Indirectly, if the ads do lead to money for developers that would otherwise fold, then it is benefiting the consumer.
On a lighter note, wouldnt be funny if someone came along and tried to create an app taht blocked ads? I mean if its such an open platform, then it would be like firefox or other browsers that have pop up blockers, ad blockers, etc that you can choose to add. Now i know Apple wouldnt allow such an app to exist, but there is no denying that there would be alot of people that would use such an app if it existed just as they use it on a pc.
Google text ads (AdWords) are inexpensive because they're not only very basic but also because many text ads can be placed in a small area (which reduces costs for advertisers). As for how much Google charges, there is no flat fee. It's based on keyword bidding. Some keywords are very inexpensive. Others are quite expensive. It varys with demand.
iAds are very different. The basic "ad" is a small banner which expands when tapped into something potentially very complex and elaborate. Apple demonstrated mock-up ads they designed for Toy Story 3 and Nike, and they both had a lot of visually-complex interactivity, animations, video and sound (the Toy Story 3 ad had a minigame, video clips, audio clips, links and so forth). The idea being that users are going to be spending a fair amount of time within each ad, looking at all the multimedia, playing games or buying things in a mini-store. Or at least that's what Apple expects to happen.
I don't doubt that the jailbreaking community may try to build in some sort of ad-blocking functionality in, if possible. I do think it's a little silly though. If you've used an iPhone, you know how unobtrusive banner ads within apps are, and iAds appear to be no different.
As far as a native app, no, that isn't possible. iPhone apps have very limited control over the OS and over other apps. About the most they can do outside their own instance is send push notifications (and now local notifications with OS 4.0), and there are even some fairly strict limits as to what the can do with that.
Well i was refering to pricing be similar and not the functionality per se. The pricing Apple wants doesnt seem so unreasonable if you compare it to the exposure a company can get through google search results. That was the point i was trying to make. This mobile os ad market is still new, so there really isnt anything to compare it to. The market (i.e. consumers) will decide whether their pricing is fair or not.
Yeah, i was just joking about that considering thier OS is definitely off limits to that degree. I just think its crazy how it seems like the mobile OS market is mirroring the desktop OS market. Only in the mobile case, closed and proprietary is a must and is supported, while the desktop market demands openness and fewer proprietary options.
HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
Do you really think I give a shit?
As for my old nick, it would be some variant of the current one, but I never posted much if at all with it, so I doubt you will have come across me before. I'm sure you would remember if you had ...
Do you really think I give a shit?
As for my old nick, it would be some variant of the current one, but I never posted much if at all with it, so I doubt you will have come across me before. I'm sure you would remember if you had ...
I've been around the block for 8+ years on my old nick. I remember quite a few names.
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
Oh really? Let's see, shall we?
I read this as saying that you are not an "Apple hater" but not necessarily a fanboy based on this alone. You are also saying that you "informed" yourself about this subject. I personally believe that consists of nothing more than reading a couple of Apple fanboy articles from sites like Gizmodo, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did a little more research than that.
Is that a fair assessment of that paragraph?
Next you appear to give your verdict:
All caps, even! So my guess is yes, you are a fanboy. You may disagree, but in this case it makes no difference to the argument.
Here you assume others HAVEN'T informed themselves, simply because they didn't come to the same retarded fanboy conclusion you did - they don't think it's "BRILLIANT" so they must be ignorant or misinformed, because YOU couldn't possibly be wrong... no sir! YOU'RE "informed"!
Secondly you seem to think being a "consumer" is a good thing to aspire to! That alone qualifies you for fanboy status! You seem to want to be a 'good little consumer' - which is why you think force fed advertising is a good thing.
And here it is. The whole point of your post. First you tell us you're "informed" and we are not, then you give us your verdict that it's brilliant, then you tell us that we should be "actual consumers" simply because we don't agree with you and thus must not understand what is being talked about.
Now you tell us that we should shut up because you have decided "this is not one of those times" - even calling it "whining" rather than a less loaded term. You clearly think that anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject is "whining" in some childish manner.
Finally after assuming we were uninformed, that we would agree with you if we informed ourselves, and telling us to basically shut up and be good little consumers, you then go on to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is both biased and stupid.
You can argue that my interpretation is the least flattering to you, but the fact is, I am NOT reading anything into your post that any REASONABLE person couldn't or wouldn't have read. I think it's pretty clear from this analysis, as well as the overall tone of your post, that I have NOT misrepresented you - in fact I think I was more than fair.
Personally I think your definition of "informed" doesn't go much further than reading Apple PR from fanboy sites like Gizmodo or Engadget which you take to be gospel truth, and I doubt you even did much of that kind of "informing" yourself.
Now, I have quoted word for word your entire post with my analysis and reasoning. If you think I have misunderstood you, then do you care to clarify what you were TRYING to say?
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
I have posted my full analysis of his post above. I had assumed that even the fanboys would be able to understand my reply without me having to do such a detailed analysis. Feel free to read it and THEN tell me I'm wrong. You seem to be all for "informing" yourself, so let's see you try it!
As for the model, yes you did explain it. Quite well actually. I don;t remember ever disagreeing with you that that is how it works. Care to point out where I did? Don't bother, actually, because I know what you (a fanboy) REALLY meant: I don't know how it works because if I did I would agree with you. Once again, you are wrong.
I know how it works AND I think it sucks. They are NOT mutually exclusive, despite what you fanboys might think. I WON'T change my mind "if only I was informed", and I do "get it".
iAds is like Aids - I don't like or want either of them. That goes for Google ads too.
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
Not at all. Well maybe a bit pissed off by the constant bullshit from most of the tech media regarding Apple products, but "mad"? No. Why do you ask?
KarmakazeNZ
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 18
To be honest, I consider "arguing on the internet" to be a form of mental exercise, sort of like going for a mental jog. I do indeed enjoy it (could you tell?
) as I am sure most of us do (or would we even be here?).Actually, it's not that high - 1c per banner view and 2 dollars for a click. Seems pretty reasonable from the advertisers perspective when you consider the market. The fact Apple is charging what appears to be ten times more than the industry standard shows just what Apple thinks of their users; they are saying to advertisers "You can't find a better group of people to sell to... these fools will buy anything, just look at iFart! So, it's worth ten times more."
True. In fact Apple is going much further than that. They are really trying to kill the personal computer market altogether. They are trying to change it into a "information device" or "entertainment device" market with little closed systems thoroughly controlled from top down capable of very limited or no cross platform compatibility, and the users becoming simple consumers of media and information.
Apple basically want to become technological "fast food" vendors, selling throwaway products that aren't worth what we pay for them and are less "nutritious" than cheaper "healthy food", but are more trendy and convenient for the "Average Joe".
Firstly, I HATE being called a "consumer". Don't you think that label is worse than "fanboy"? It's so dehumanising. At least "fanboy" recognises your humanity.
Secondly, surely a developer that is struggling, is struggling because they are not making products people want? So how is it a benefit to the "consumer" for a company that makes stuff people don't want to be kept afloat by forcing me to view advertising? The only thing I could see that could come close to being considered beneficial would be if people actually wanted the product but weren't willing to pay for it, but were willing to see ads. But that only JUST makes it. If people don't even want to pay for it, how beneficial could it be? The reality is, ad revenue is the reason we have so much malware. Does anyone think we would have the proliferation of browser hijackers etc if it wasn't for the advertising revenue that allowed those assholes to make money doing it?
So "beneficial" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
CoolWebSearch... beneficial or not? I think you can guess my opinion.
What I can't believe is that ANY user is defending advertising! In all my life I've never seen someone want MORE advertising on their phone/computer/tv... until the Apple fanboys were asked, that is...
I really shouldn't feed trolls, but... I would imagine most people aren't 'defending' advertising because it doesn't need to be defended. You may not enjoy it, but a lot of people aren't content with creating something for free. When something is offered for free these people often include ads to generate revenue. This is how things work in the real world.
I was thinking TechieSooner, but I don't know if it fits the M.O.. Regardless of who it is, it's entertaining as hell to watch. It's like watching a passenger slam into a concrete wall at 80 MPH. Your natural inclination is to turn your head in horror, but at the same time, you can't quite look away...
Nah, Technie is a Microsoft lover, but I don't think I ever see him rage on like this. I'm thinking someone else with a nick that starts with a K. I can't remember his name, but he used to rave about everything and insult everyone. But boy I've never seen the words retard and fanboy being used so many time on one page by one person lol