What Developers Think About Apple's iAd

Nemilar writes "It's been about a week since Apple rolled out its new advertising platform, and developers of iPhone apps are watching the earliest returns to see how much money they can expect to make from these ads. One developer reported Thursday that he earned $1,400 in one day for his flashlight app. The amount iAds pay is 'a high number when you get it, but you don't get it very often,' said Dave Yonamine, the director of marketing at MobilityWare. The article discusses revenue potential in relation to the only other mobile ads platform, AdMob for Android, and claims that iAd paid as much as $148 for the same number of ads as $1 on AdMob; but this extreme ratio is likely to erode as the novelty wears off."

Comments

iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

And now the iAD gold rush starts....

Re:iAD

[SquarePixel]

Yeah, it's kind of funny that you get bombed with advertisement when just using your phone that you paid for up to $600 (monthly payments count up too), and still some Apple fanatics twist it as being somehow good and great.

This is also a mobile device where every little thing matters. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft started displaying popup ads while you are using the computer.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously going to claim that developers can't put ads on Android? At least the ads are limited in real estate and they dont do much of anything unless you opt to click on them. No ad is great, but they can make an an otherwise pay app, free for use.

I should also point out that the ads are only in third party software. There is no outcry because MS doesn't put ads in Windows, and Apple doesn't put ads in iOS. It leaves that up to the developer to find the balance point between 'irritating as hell', and 'acceptable'.

Re:iAD

[node_chomsky]

I hate advertising so much I have stopped watching live television. However, IAd is no more intrusive than any other form of mobile advertising you might have encountered in the past (i.e. browsing nearly any website). Additionally, this is a service that is packaged with mostly free software that you download voluntarily, so it's only as intrusive as you allow it to be.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's kind of funny that you get bombed with advertisement when just using your phone that you paid for up to $600 (monthly payments count up too), and still some Apple fanatics twist it as being somehow good and great.

This is also a mobile device where every little thing matters. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft started displaying popup ads while you are using the computer.

Why is this marked as flamebait? It seems like a reasonable expression of a reasonable viewpoint. I can see how some people could respond e.g. that there's a difference between an appliance and a PC that somehow makes ads okay on one and not the other (the smaller screen makes you more likely to want to share it with ads or something) but there's nothing offensive in that post.

</new here>

Re:iAD

[clang_jangle]

WTF are you talking about? There is certainly adware that runs on windows as well as on Mac OS. It's just a normal part of the [proprietary] software ecosystem, like shareware or trialware. Usually the advantage of adware is you can use the software while enduring the ad or pay money for the ad-free version.

This business of Apple being constantly praised uncritically or damned irrationally on slashdot is getting really old. Steve Jobs is neither your saviour nor the antichrist, and iAd is just a way for developers to offer an ad-sponsored software option.

Re:iAD

[erroneus]

Especially when Unlimited service through AT&T is cancelled. Are the advertisers prepared to subsidize the AT&T bill for these users who are bombarded with ads?

Re:iAD

[cervo]

But as people go, I dislike him. He is a threat to free software. Also he seems like a major jerk. He banned code generation just because flash made him cry like a baby. Someone as petty as that with too much power over your computing experience is dangerous.... He wants to make a walled garden where you will only run Steve Job approved software. When someone leaks an apple secret or jail breaks their device and posts steps on how to do it, he wants to call in the sharks with frikken lasers (lawyers). Even Bill Gates/Steve Balmer are not that bad.

I will admit he is great at making a total user experience. Compare the iphone to the phones before it. Look at the iPod. Even the Mac now has a better experience. And in the old days before the mag stagnated he was pushing the envelope which led to windows getting his ideas. He seems to know how to hire people with a good sense of a product vision as well. If he was a little more open, I would not be debating an iPad, I would have bought one already. Allowing him to form the future of computing would be dangerous, but one day things like the iPad or even a cell phone will be the future of computing....

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

You imply that only Apple 'fanatics' and their iHardware are using ads which is of course not true. You also claim $600 dollar costs for hardware when it costs you $199. You also mentioned MS not doing ads, when NONE of them (Apple, MS, or Android) puts ads into their OS, the developers do in their 3rd party apps. Your post is simple meme trolling, nothing more.

Why is this marked as flamebait? It seems like a reasonable expression of a reasonable viewpoint

Re:iAD

[NekSnappa]

The story is about the payout rate of Apples ad platform for their mobile platforms. I dot see anyone "twisting" it to seem like a good thing.

And it's not like the EVO and Droid X are any cheaper price wise than an iPhone, and yet there are plenty of apps in the Android Marketplace that are add supported.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

So don't buy Apple then. No big deal, it's your choice to make.

Re:iAD

[NatasRevol]

So you hate the walled garden in principle, but love it in practice? Seems reasonable.

However, (others) making fun of the iSheeple don't get this - most people don't care about the principles out in the real world. They just care about the practice part, which is why Apple sells so many iPods/iPads/iPhones.

Re:iAD

[AlXtreme]

However, IAd is no more intrusive than any other form of mobile advertising you might have encountered in the past (i.e. browsing nearly any website).

Ads on websites?

*hugs N900 with adblock plus*

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet there are thousands upon thousands of free apps in the app store. Seems if he was serious, he would prevent free apps, no?

Re:iAD

[SquarePixel]

You also claim $600 dollar costs for hardware when it costs you $199.

Ah, the telco's marketing bullshit is strong on this one.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, this is a service that is packaged with mostly free software that you download voluntarily, so it's only as intrusive as you allow it to be.

And furthermore, on the Android, many free apps have paid versions with no ads. If you REALLY don't want ads, then you support the developer another way: by sending a few dollars his way. Fair exchange in my opinion.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Kindly enlighten us with your math skills. Show us how your monthly bill translates to exactly $600 for the hardware? Then enlighten us how that same math doesn't apply to EVERY smartphone on the market. Do you think the cost of the EVO is significantly different? It actually costs the same for the base model but is has less memory (8GB vs 16 GB). Are EVO's magically free from Monthly costs? You argument was pointless and holds no water. The phone costs what it costs. Monthly charges by some random provider are meaningless.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong definition of "free" you used there mate.
Just saying.

Re:iAD

[tomhudson]

You also claim $600 dollar costs for hardware when it costs you $199

Try canceling your contract a month after you paid $199 for your iPhone - they'll bill you a cancellation fee for the cost of the subsidized phone ($20/month * 23 months left on your contract).

Re:iAD

[SquarePixel]

Kindly enlighten us with your math skills. Show us how your monthly bill translates to exactly $600 for the hardware? Then enlighten us how that same math doesn't apply to EVERY smartphone on the market. Do you think the cost of the EVO is significantly different? It actually costs the same for the base model but is has less memory (8GB vs 16 GB). Are EVO's magically free from Monthly costs? You argument was pointless and holds no water. The phone costs what it costs. Monthly charges by some random provider are meaningless.

Well, I don't live in the USA but here we tend to buy phones ourself and then get a mobile contract or prepaid sim. No monthly charges, you just pay for calls/sms/internet.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

When you had unlimited service through AT&T, you were still paying to download mobile advertising - you were just possibly paying less for it. Actually, if you're paying your ISP bill right now (and if you're not it's time to move out of your parents' basement) you're *still* paying for advertising.

You can start complaining when advertisers start delivering multi-gigabyte ads, or ads that start pushing the majority of people over their data allotment for the month. No, this doesn't count some jackoff with a jailbroken phone downloading torrents each month. He's not the majority.

Nimrod.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the EVO and Droid X run Linux, so they're fan-fucking-tastic to the average Slashbotter.

Re:iAD

[BasilBrush]

But as people go, I dislike him. He is a threat to free software. Also he seems like a major jerk. He banned code generation just because flash made him cry like a baby.

How old are you?

Re:iAD

[ahankinson]

One might argue that Steve Jobs is no more a threat to "free software" than Richard Stallman. Stallman believes that the GPL is superior to, say, the BSD or MIT licenses; a stance that is primarily idealogical. The GPL is not as free as the BSD license, but that's OK. Some people like it better that way. You have the choice. If you look at it from a certain, limited point of view, the GPL can be seen as the "iPhone" of the open source licenses in that it restricts what you can, and cannot do, with the software.

If you take everything coming from Apple as coming from Steve Jobs himself, then we could just as easily point to liberally-licensed projects like WebKit (LGPL), LLVM (NCSA License) and CLANG (BSD), libdispatch (Apache) or launchd (Apache) as arguments against your assertion that Jobs is against free software. Even the Apple Public Source License is certified by the FSF as a true Open Source license.

Re:iAD

[aliquis]

I doubt you get them from using the phone, rather some free apps?

But yeah, ads in apps much be pretty annoying, though I may rather have ads than pay. But Apple shareware usually have a quite hefty price for basic functionality, which is rather annoying. Back in the Amiga days, in Windows and more so in the open OSs one are so used to get functionality and tweaks for free.

But for some reason everything must cost money in the Apple world.

Want iTunes controls in your menu bar? Better pay. And so on.

Re:iAD

[MacGyver2210]

I think Jobs is the Antichrist. It has nothing to do with iAd though.

Anyone who responds to serious technical defects in their product with "Don't hold it that way" is a complete fool just out for your cash, and an asshole to boot.

I honestly wouldn't be so against Apple products if they would hire someone humble and intelligent to run the company, and allow function to win out over form once in a while.

Re:iAD

[cervo]

I didn't say he was against free software, I just said he is a thread. If everyone in the world gets an iPad then Steve Jobs will have right of approval on everything. Only software that he approves will be permitted. If he decides he doesn't want software xxx in his app store, whether that be web browser, mathematica clone, alternative video editing packages, he will deny them all. He could change his mind after he approved it (and frequently does according to experiences).

If the iPad was the only computing environment, I'm sure it would be very hard to make free software projects except for those running Objective C, not interpreting any code. If there is a new programming language, like say Google Go picks up and he doesn't like it, then he will decree any app not in Objective C will not be approved. Then he is free to introduce whatever limits he wants into his flavor of Objective C....

Re:iAD

[cervo]

I realize it seems bad. But the walled garden approach has good and bad. And I am aware the average customer who knows nothing about computers just cares about the experience, so the walled garden is good for them.

Until they want an App that apple has decided to give themselves a monopoly on. Without competition the prices tend to be higher. Look at what happened to Internet Explorer when Microsoft didn't have that much competition, it stagnated. Few would argue that today Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, etc. are not better than IE 6.0 was. Basically Steve can take a monopoly on whatever he wants by disapproving all the other applications from other developers. When consumers realize that it is more expensive, that's when the average consumer will care more about the walled garden approach.

But you are right it's not all bad. It does enable them to control the user experience a bit which does lead to a more polished product. In the older days on Unix one of the thing that would drive me crazy was that different apps had different ways of doing cut/paste and the shortcut keys would be different between apps.

But also it seems like the rules are arbitrary. As a developer I would not spend 6 months making something with the possibility my 6 months of works could be for nothing. He even changes his mind after he approves things based on public opinion or his latest spat of the moment....

Re:iAD

[cervo]

And in the app store how to you distribute your source code with the app? If you build a game with a scripting engine to add new levels, how do you distribute that app? If you write a new programming language to try out writing your own compiler, how do you distribute that?

Re:iAD

[Rich0]

Yup. Indeed, I'd prefer that the dominant ad platform for my phone be something that is built-in to the firmware.

Just makes it that much easier to turn them all off with one well-placed pair of slashes.

Re:iAD

[yabos]

Your post just shows you have no idea what iAd is. You don't get ads while using the phone. Some free app developers can decide to put ads in their apps, you can chose not to use those apps if you want to. There have already been apps with ads for a while, this is nothing new.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you extrapolate the contract value? Isn't it common for them to lock you into two years? Of course, it will be hard to know how much is making up for that $600.

Re:iAD

[cervo]

The problem is that it is tempting to still buy it :) Hence why I said debating :) The iPad is very polished, and Mac OSX is also very tempting. The walled garden approach of the iphone/iPad sets a bad precedent. But anyway they are still nice devices. If they don't become the absolute future, then it is no big deal, but if everyone gets an iPad/iPhone and the alternatives go away, then we have a problem...

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

"Buhuu, I am using this app that someone spent time to code and he is some money on showing me adds."
Pay for the app without advertisment, or do not use the "free" one.

Re:iAD

[cervo]

Another great example is admob. Steve has decreed that he does not like people getting sales numbers on his iPhone, so only advertisers who collect data he has approved will be permitted to exist. Then he invented his own platform. This is dangerous because previously people were using admob and he suddenly decided nope, I am changing the rules, you have to work my way. Then he invented a competitor which is not subject to the same rules. It gives him an unfair advantage. This is no big deal right now, because you are free to chose android. But if apple becomes the only game in town, then it is a problem.

If you are a company and your only products are apps in Steve's store, then you have to ensure you don't piss him off. But still you'd have to disclose to your investors the huge risks of Steve changing his mind, deciding to invent a competitor to you not subject to the same restrictions. Or all out, you spend a year making an app, Steve decides to build it into the iPhone and ban any apps doing the same thing because it is duplicating the functionality....

As a business that is very risky. It's just like the problem with investing in some foreign countries. When governments keep changing the laws/rules often less people will invest there. It is important to find places that offer consistent laws/processes. It's no different then Venezuela where Chavez suddenly decides to nationalize your business. Then he keeps jacking up the prices....

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr brush here is known to lust after steve jobs' wrinkled old pecker with a voracity that would make most fanboys blush and retreat back to their parents basements.

Go and fill that apple shaped hole in your heart with something more wholesome son, like god [i can do you a deal on a nice zip-up bible with futuristic aluminum effect on the cover...?]

Re:iAD

[toriver]

Why would you want to distribute the source with the app? There is no real mechanism for extracting it.

Instead you could have a link to where the user can download it from the web.

Re:iAD

[UnknowingFool]

He is a threat to free software. Also he seems like a major jerk.

In free do you mean open source or free as in no cost? You do realize that Apple contributes to many open source projects right? In fact you can get the backbone of OS X BSD system as Darwin. Chrome wouldn't exist without WebKit. LLVM, CalDAV, CUPS, etc.

He banned code generation just because flash made him cry like a baby. Someone as petty as that with too much power over your computing experience is dangerous.... He wants to make a walled garden where you will only run Steve Job approved software. When someone leaks an apple secret or jail breaks their device and posts steps on how to do it, he wants to call in the sharks with frikken lasers (lawyers).

You have to use the walled garden and their ecosystem when it comes to the iPhone/iPad devices. For Mac computers there isn't a walled garden. The walled garden exists because Apple is making products for the average consumer and not the average geek.

Even Bill Gates/Steve Balmer are not that bad.

That's laughable. Apple doesn't care what you do with any other system. They exercise tight control over their own ecosystem. The difference between them and MS is that MS reached out with their monopoly to harm competitors and partners as well as potential competitors in markets that they may or may not have had any products.

If he was a little more open, I would not be debating an iPad, I would have bought one already. Allowing him to form the future of computing would be dangerous, but one day things like the iPad or even a cell phone will be the future of computing....

Apple has already stated the reasons that the devices are closed. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy their products. In fact you are open to buy competing free and open devices like Android, Palm, HP's Slate (if it ever comes to market). Apple won't stop you.

Re:iAD

[gig]

iAds are not on the Web, they're in native apps. So it's not Adblock Plus that is protecting you, but rather your N900's complete lack of software. But on the other hand, you could use an iPhone and just not use App Store and get the same deal.

Re:iAD

[UnknowingFool]

The walled garden approach of the iphone/iPad sets a bad precedent. But anyway they are still nice devices. If they don't become the absolute future, then it is no big deal, but if everyone gets an iPad/iPhone and the alternatives go away, then we have a problem...

The walled garden existed before Apple. Many consumer devices are still walled gardens. I remember when Nintendo tightly controlled their games on the original NES. Ever wonder why none of the games didn't have the NES stamp of approval? The didn't approve any games they didn't like even if they were compatible. Many think that Verizon is some sort of savior with the Droid but I was on Verizon where they deliberately crippled phones so that you had to pay extra for capabilities built into the phone.

Re:iAD

[ahankinson]

I guess that was the point I was trying to make. SJ is as much a "threat" to free software as RMS is. If everyone in the world released their software under the GPL, would we have a truly "free" software ecosystem? No, because would still be restrictions that you have to play nice with. That's OK, but I don't think its fair to villianize SJ on the grounds that Apple wants to control its own platform.

Objective-C is an open language and compilers are available through GCC and CLANG. Apple has had a history of always contributing their work on Obj-C back to GCC, and now with the LLVM project they're doing a whole new Open Source compiler infrastructure that is GCC-compatible, but produces better results. This is available to the Mac, Linux, Windows, *BSD, etc. In other words, yes, there is a threat that Apple will always wall off its Obj-C implementation. There are similar threats that Oracle could do the same to Java, or Larry Wall could do to Perl, or Linus could do the same to the Linux Kernel, which is to say that there is always the possibility, but right now all signs point to No.

I get your point - I certainly don't want Apple to have anywhere near the amount of control over mobile computing as Microsoft had over desktop computing. It's a different ballgame now, though. I don't think they chose Obj-C out of malice like, say, ActiveX or Microsoft's own Java VM that guaranteed a lock-in to the platform. I think they did it to maintain a certain amount of mobility in a fast-moving market. Apple chose Obj-C because they only wanted to support Obj-C. From their perspective, this is an important choice. It guarantees a certain level of consistency, and the ability to change their entire platform's direction on a moment's notice.

Personally, I think it's going in the other direction. Obj-C is a legacy from the NeXT days and its days are numbered at Apple, at least as the sole language they support on the iPhone. It would be entirely like Apple to introduce a new language that compiles down to the same binary as code written in Obj-C, but is easier to write or learn, or comes with more bells & whistles as a feature of the language itself (e.g. easier to write threaded code). They use Obj-C because that's what their Mac developers know and they wanted to capitalize on that knowledge to get the platform off the ground. Now that the iOS is well and firmly launched, look for them to start branching out to include more features to entice more developers to join.

I keep bringing back the LLVM project, but you should really look at the features that project supports if you want to see where Apple is heading. With that project, they can give devs the option to write code in e.g. Python, and it compiles down to the same bytecode as the ObjC implementation. They're not funding the development of that project out of the kindness of their hearts - I think they have a business direction wrapped up in those features, and they're just waiting for it to mature.

Re:iAD

[frdmfghtr]

iAds are not on the Web, they're in native apps. So it's not Adblock Plus that is protecting you, but rather your N900's complete lack of software.

The poster was referring to ads on websites, not in apps, by pointing out Adblock Plus on his/her N900.

Re:iAD

[erroneus]

I run adblock and noscript... my wasted bandwidth is minimal. But I get what you are saying. And yes, it does bother me that TV commercials come across cable and satellite TV... I guess that's why I don't subscribe to those services... well that and there is no way I am going to sit in front of my TV long enough to "get my money's worth" for. (I would gladly pay subscription fees for my favorite TV series though... Bring Firefly back damnit!!)

And where spam email is concerned? Well I have noticed a lot less of it lately but also since I run my own email server I can control a lot more about it and my spam filtering is pretty good.

Yeah, I know the majority aren't smart enough to get upset over advertising, but when they figure it out, watch out!

Re:iAD

[UnknowingFool]

Yeah, it's kind of funny that you get bombed with advertisement when just using your phone that you paid for up to $600 (monthly payments count up too), and still some Apple fanatics twist it as being somehow good and great.

Where is this $600 that you speak of? That's nowhere near what I paid for my iPhone. And before you complain about having to pay for a data plan, you seem to gloss over some basic facts.

1. The iPhone is a smartphone. It requires a dataplan as does other smartphones like Blackberries, Androids, Windows Mobile, etc.
2. All telcos will charge you something for a data plan for a smart phone. Sprint charges less and rolls it into their normal plan. Verizon and AT&T charges are separate.

3. 1. This is also a mobile device where every little thing matters. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft started displaying popup ads while you are using the computer.

      Have you used a computer in the last 10 years? Adware/malware is everywhere on the PC. MS isn't directly responsible for them but malware often exploits security holes in Windows. Most free commercial applications whether on the computer or on your mobile device is supported by ads. If you don't like the Ads, you can choose to pay for another version or not use the App.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have an iPhone, but aren't Apple's binary sources unavailable? So you probably mean 4-8 strategically placed NOPs, or a JZ<->JNZ.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I cancel? The iPhone is only available on a single provider here in the US. What would canceling get me? I was aware of the single network when I bought it. If you buy an unsubsidized phone, in the US, or Europe, you'll find they cost about the same. The $600 dollar argument was pointless as it would apply to any comparable smart phone. They all require a provider if you actually intend to use them, and they all offer unsubsidized and subsidized costs that are comparable.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

The walled garden approach of the iphone/iPad sets a bad precedent. But anyway they are still nice devices. If they don't become the absolute future, then it is no big deal, but if everyone gets an iPad/iPhone and the alternatives go away, then we have a problem...

The walled garden existed before Apple. Many consumer devices are still walled gardens. I remember when Nintendo tightly controlled their games on the original NES. Ever wonder why none of the games didn't have the NES stamp of approval? The didn't approve any games they didn't like even if they were compatible. Many think that Verizon is some sort of savior with the Droid but I was on Verizon where they deliberately crippled phones so that you had to pay extra for capabilities built into the phone.

There were lots of games that didn't have the Nintendo seal of approval. Most games made by Tengen, Color dreams, and CodeMasters were unlicensed.

Re:iAD

[LynnwoodRooster]

Until those ads suck up your 2 GB monthly bandwidth allotment. Nothing like paying people to advertise to you!

Re:iAD

[UnknowingFool]

Another great example is admob. Steve has decreed that he does not like people getting sales numbers on his iPhone, so only advertisers who collect data he has approved will be permitted to exist. Then he invented his own platform. This is dangerous because previously people were using admob and he suddenly decided nope, I am changing the rules, you have to work my way. Then he invented a competitor which is not subject to the same rules. It gives him an unfair advantage. This is no big deal right now, because you are free to chose android. But if apple becomes the only game in town, then it is a problem.

You still can use AdMob. The change is that AdMob nor any ad service collect data on the user. That's different than a total ban. Steve Jobs did not invent his own platform. Apple bought another company to handle it. Yes it gives him an unfair advantage. But Apple is doing with ads what it did with music. You can get music online without using iTunes. It's not integrated though.

If you are a company and your only products are apps in Steve's store, then you have to ensure you don't piss him off. But still you'd have to disclose to your investors the huge risks of Steve changing his mind, deciding to invent a competitor to you not subject to the same restrictions. Or all out, you spend a year making an app, Steve decides to build it into the iPhone and ban any apps doing the same thing because it is duplicating the functionality....

Apple hasn't been as consistent with it's approval policies as many would like. But Steve does not personally approve any apps and the this hypothetical you've written doesn't align with reality.

As a business that is very risky. It's just like the problem with investing in some foreign countries. When governments keep changing the laws/rules often less people will invest there. It is important to find places that offer consistent laws/processes. It's no different then Venezuela where Chavez suddenly decides to nationalize your business. Then he keeps jacking up the prices...

That's always a risk with any software business with any platform. MS decides to "fix" a bug in their latest patch that breaks your Windows app. You'll have to release an update. Even in open source, a change could break your application as well.

Re:iAD

[insertwackynamehere]

You wish, no PRAY, that your melodramatic ramblings will come true to prove you right because you want there to be some sort of epic saga-worthy war between free software and corporate software but in the end your sophomoric battle for the freedom of people everywhere falls on deaf ears because like a white knight "rescuing" a girl from the arms of her lover (who you know FOR SURE is a total dick cause he's not you), you are trying to rescue an unaware and uncaring public from a percieved threat that everyone actually likes. You have no basis for your attacks except to build a fantasy world in which you save everyone around you from the mundane evils of non-FOSS software and that, my friend, is pathetic.

Re:iAD

[tomhudson]

The point is that the iPhone is not $199. Buy one, lose it or break it, and you'll have to pay more - a lot more - than $199 to replace it with an unsubsidized one, so your argument about "why would I cancel" is both pointless and misleading.

Re:iAD

[mistashizzle]

You people seem to think that if there weren't iAds there wouldn't be ads at all. Developers are going to try and make money. There were ads in the past and there would have been ads in the future even if Apple had not come out with their own. If you are concerned about your data then don't click on them and it wont be any more data usage than any other ad out there.

Re:iAD

[skandalfo]

This business of Apple being constantly praised uncritically or damned irrationally on slashdot is getting really old. Steve Jobs is neither your saviour nor the antichrist, and iAd is just a way for developers to offer an ad-sponsored software option.

Not a way, but the way when you're forced to play by Apple's rules. I mean, they amended the developer agreement to a point that would exclude any real competitors to their own newcomer ad service. Of course using an ad-based model or not is the software developer's choice. Users just can vote with their feet.

In the case of iPhone app developers, voting with their feet about iAd just requires them abandoning the whole Apple platform. Sooner or later, Apple will find that they can't get away with anything. I know most users who buy an iThing don't give a hoot about these issues... yet. But Apple are really walking by the line, testing the antitrust limits, patent-battling everyone else at the mobile space, alienating their developer base, and (as of today here in Spain) alienating their users by their exclusive deals with specific carriers.

I think that what goes around does indeed come around. It's to be seen how long can they keep their market share by being fashionable only. iPhone 4 came with no new ideas and only more of the same (more pixels, more cameras, more hype, more limitations by contract). Don't know about the iPad, but they should be worried in the mobile phone space.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no outcry because MS doesn't put ads in Windows

There are ads in Office 2010 starter though.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your douchebaggery precede your Apple hate or was it vice-versa?

Re:iAD

[insertwackynamehere]

"If the iPad was the only computing platform" is not an argument. That changes the playing field completely. Since there IS competition in the computing platform world, the iPad is not a threat to freedom no matter how locked down it is.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

iAds are not on the Web, they're in native apps. So it's not Adblock Plus that is protecting you, but rather your N900's complete lack of software.

The poster was referring to ads on websites, not in apps, by pointing out Adblock Plus on his/her N900.

So it wasn't flamebait, just waaaaaaaay off topic. And self righteous, and smug. Yup, on par for your average Helsinki Syndrome experiencer.

Re:iAD

[dogzilla]

This business of Apple being constantly praised uncritically or damned irrationally on slashdot is getting really old. Steve Jobs is neither your saviour nor the antichrist, and iAd is just a way for developers to offer an ad-sponsored software option.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not sure if geeks only have a binary emotional state, and now that Microsoft is increasingly irrelevant, Apple has been slotted into that Jungian archetype in their brains, but I *am* sure that the real world is a) a lot more nuanced that that; and b) almost 100% uncaring as to the opinion of slashdot posters re: the "worthiness" of a company.

Re:iAD

[pushing-robot]

Well, the Big Four music labels wanted to lock down their music. As a result the popularity of the iPod threatened to give Apple a monopoly on music sales. Then the labels were put in the embarrassing position of having to promote DRM-free music to stay in control of their own industry.

So it's only fitting that Verizon, who originally refused the iPhone because they couldn't lock it down enough, now has to promote an even more open platform to stay in the Smartphone market.

Apparently the best way to open up an industry is to just wait for the big corporations to paint themselves into a corner.

Re:iAD

[shutdown -p now]

No ad is great, but they can make an an otherwise pay app, free for use.

Interestingly enough, at least on Android, users do seem to be voting with their $$$ for "no ads". When there are two versions of app available, paid no-ad one and free ad-supported one, the paid one generally has higher ratings (sometimes the difference is really huge, like 5 stars for paid, 3 stars for free). And when an app only has an ad-supported free version, there are a lot of comments on its store page asking for a paid ad-free option...

Re:iAD

[harlows_monkeys]

That's nothing. I paid $2500 for a TV, and there are ads on it!

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

You distribute those things on unofficial, unsanctioned channels. Apple is under no obligation to make your every life's dream possible just because you're a freetard. That's not how the real world works.

Re:iAD

[The End Of Days]

you mean the free market works? say it ain't so

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

and your point is so far from the topic that started this subthread that i wonder why you even bothered. just had to be right about something, i guess?

Re:iAD

[The End Of Days]

no, sorry. richard stallman's rules don't drive every conversation about computing, no matter how fervently he wishes that were the case.

Re:iAD

[quadelirus]

"it's kind of funny that you get bombed with advertisement when just using your phone that you paid for up to $600"

Actually, you only get "bombed with advertisement" when you use an app that a developer worked hard on and the only way they get payed by your cheapskate self is by selling ads for the app. If you don't like the ads, buy non-ad apps. As a developer I am sick and tired of hearing claims that my years of training and honing my skills should be used only to make completely free AND ad-free apps for rich people who can afford $600 smart phones.

Re:iAD

[tomhudson]

So was the claim that the iPhone was only $199.00

Paying $600 (the real cost of an iPhone) and then having to pay additional money to download ads that apps display when used (because "all-you-can-eat bandwidth" plans are going the way of the dodo) is VERY relevant to the thread.

Those "free" apps aren't free at that point.

Re:iAD

[geminidomino]

WTF is Helsinki Syndrome?

Re:iAD

[PopeRatzo]

At least the ads are limited in real estate and they dont do much of anything unless you opt to click on them.

For now.

Let's revisit this situation in 12 months and see how many ads show up on smart phones, and how intrusive they are.

You would think that >$50/month for two years is payment enough for the use of a smart phone, but you would be wrong. Let's see how many really useful apps become "free" because of ads. Or maybe they'll be free for a limited time and then the prices will creep up again for the "premium" apps. There's only one direction this train goes: toward more advertising. Toward more obnoxious advertising as companies compete for attention.

Re:iAD

[supernes]

You can switch cell data off if you're afraid of the devastating effect a hundred or so kilobytes will have on your monthly bill.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

In free do you mean open source or free as in no cost? You do realize that Apple contributes to many open source projects right? In fact you can get the backbone of OS X BSD system as Darwin. Chrome wouldn't exist without WebKit. LLVM, CalDAV, CUPS, etc.

WebKit is a fork of KHTML (from KDE). In fact, they had some major trouble getting the changes Apple made back into KHTML because of Apples typical 'release as late as possible' policy.

I would say that nowadays most large IT corporations (except MS) contribute to open source projects in some way (look i.e. at the Linux kernel).

But if you look at the past, Apple mostly took existing open source software and forked it. They exploit OSS to make profit, without returning much value to to the community.

Re:iAD

[h4rr4r]

Webkit would not exist without KHTML, OSX would not exist without BSD, you have it backwards buddy.

Re:iAD

[mlts]

There is one advantage of a walled garden: It solves the dancing bunny problem. Because Joe Sixpack can't download a "media player" to watch the dancing bunnies, or a "Web extension" to watch a free pr0no video, he doesn't get his device or computer infected. And if the rooting/jailbreaking process is complicated enough that Joe Sixpack won't do it, the device is is decently protected from one major avenue of attack.

As of now, there are three major avenues of attack to compromise machines:

The first is a remote exploit, and this is addressed by firewalling and minimizing services available to the outside world. For a home user, they should be behind a solid firewall, so a remote exploit should be extremely difficult to accomplish.

The second are Web browsers and add-ons. This is one of the biggest sources for infection. For this to be addressed, OS makers, Web browser add-on providers, and Web browser makers need to get together and make a solution that isolates the browser instances, but still allowing a user to bookmark and save files.

The third are Trojan horses. No OS will protect against this. Joe Sixpack will try to get his dancing bunnies even if he has to sudo to root, pop up an Administrator command prompt, or log on as SECOFR on the AS/400 box. It sucks for us clued people who end up getting more and more locked out of devices.

I would love to see a balance. Some hurdle against rooting/jailbreaking to keep Joe Sixpack in his walled garden and make downloading dancing bunnies not worth his time, but for competent people can just get around to use their device to the fullest.

Re:iAD

[mindwhip]

When there are two versions of app available, paid no-ad one and free ad-supported one, the paid one generally has higher ratings (sometimes the difference is really huge, like 5 stars for paid, 3 stars for free)

Or maybe the only people that forked out for the paid version are the people who used the free version and really liked it so bought it then rated the paid version 5. The people that only thought the app was average stuck with the free version and rated it as they saw fit.

Who in their right mind would try a free version of an app, rate it 1 (since it was buggy and crashed a lot) then buy the paid version?

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has already stated the reasons that the devices are closed. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy their products. In fact you are open to buy competing free and open devices like Android, Palm, HP's Slate (if it ever comes to market). Apple won't stop you.

They would if they could!

Re:iAD

[exomondo]

So don't buy Apple then. No big deal, it's your choice to make.

The issue is where you've bought the device and been locked into a contract and then they make these changes.

Re:iAD

[Goaway]

Actually, Apple chose Objective-C because the entire OS X API is implemented and exposed through Objective-C, and iOS is an offspring of OS X. And the reason OS X uses Objective-C is because NeXT used Objective-C.

Re:iAD

[shutdown -p now]

You don't need to use ad-supported versions on Android to try them - all apps have a 24hr return/refund policy, enforced by the market. So if you want to try it, might as well just try the paid one and see how it works without the ads.

But yeah... I'd imagine that not all people keep that in mind, so your explanation makes sense.

Re:iAD

[mjwx]

Where is this $600 that you speak of? That's nowhere near what I paid for my iPhone.

You're quite right, that is nowhere near what you paid for your Iphone.

If you bought it on a contract you paid about 3 times that amount. If you terminate early you have to pay a fee for the handset or hand it back.

If you want to buy it outright you can start around US$850.

Re:iAD

[pgmrdlm]

you could use an iPhone and just not use App Store and get the same deal.

Then you would be purchasing the iCrap without the ability to have any aps at all. Oh, you forgot. iCrap only allows you to load applications that have been ok'd by the proprietary app store.
Have to love the apple fan club.

Re:iAD

[Bungie]

There were lots of games that didn't have the Nintendo seal of approval. Most games made by Tengen, Color dreams, and CodeMasters were unlicensed.

Yes but Nintendo restricted unlicensed cartridges with their 10NES protection scheme. Any NES built after 1987 would would continually reset itself if it couldn't authenticate with a 10NES chip which was only included in licensed cartridges.

Re:iAD

[Bungie]

While it may sound strange to you, most people aren't interested in writing scripts and compiling source code on their iPhone.

Re:iAD

[Kitkoan]

The term Helsinki syndrome has been used erroneously to describe Stockholm syndrome, popularized by the movie Die Hard.

Re:iAD

[Kitkoan]

I remember when Nintendo tightly controlled their games on the original NES. Ever wonder why none of the games didn't have the NES stamp of approval? The didn't approve any games they didn't like even if they were compatible.

Sorry, but thats wrong. The Nintendo Stamp of Approval was to help fight against/prevent another North American video game crash of 1983. The Atari and its lack of control of which games could be published/played caused havok on the video game market which in turn, made many stores not want to carry video games anymore. This is why when you look at video game console history that there are quite a few different consoles (even ignoring the cosmetically different ones) up until 1982. In 1983 the crash happened and nothing until 1985 when Nintendo released the NES in North America. Its success of course jump started the console market again causing systems to be made a year later to compete with the NES.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

In free do you mean open source or free as in no cost? You do realize that Apple contributes to many open source projects right? In fact you can get the backbone of OS X BSD system as Darwin. Chrome wouldn't exist without WebKit. LLVM, CalDAV, CUPS, etc.

WebKit is a fork of KHTML (from KDE). In fact, they had some major trouble getting the changes Apple made back into KHTML because of Apples typical 'release as late as possible' policy.

I would say that nowadays most large IT corporations (except MS) contribute to open source projects in some way (look i.e. at the Linux kernel).

But if you look at the past, Apple mostly took existing open source software and forked it. They exploit OSS to make profit, without returning much value to to the community.

Apple has become the new Disney. Take (advantage) of what is available to the public, alter it just enough to re-patent it and then refuse to let it go back into the public.

Re:iAD

[Meski]

About as popular as the iUD

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's not Adblock Plus that is protecting you, but rather your N900's complete lack of software.

As an N900 owner that had me in stitches.

Unfortunately it is true, luckily I can make my own apps and there is a hell of a lot in dev/testing but in terms of really polished apps, not a chance. But then, in Nokia's wisdom, this was never aimed at the same audience as the iPhone.

Still, that had me laughing, Hats off to you.

Re:iAD

[geminidomino]

Oh yeah. An episode of Babylon 5 made the same error.

Re:iAD

[Eraesr]

I didn't even know this and I bet a lot of other people don't know this either, hence the situation mindwhip described still holds up.

Re:iAD

[mindwhip]

All those small transactions followed by a refund make a mess of my credit card statement!

Actually I used to take full advantage of that until my credit card company started to phone me about multiple suspicious transactions on my account...

It is a (little) less hassle just to try the free version...

Re:iAD

[BasilBrush]

For now.

Actually that's a good argument for wanting developers to use iAd rather than roll their own. iAds are fixed banner sizes, and don't do anything unless you click on them. Whilst Apple could change that, that would be a very public and visible change.

What won't happen is that adverts creep to larger sizes, or animation without clinking. As could happen if developers were implementing their own schemes.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

But on the other hand, you could use an iPhone and just not use App Store and get the same deal.

Or on the other hand you could re-read the parent post- because you're just plain wrong. It specifically said that ad-block on the N900 removes adds from websites. That's all. Nothing about Apps. Just that you can block web adds on the N900.

Remind me again how you do that on the iPhone seeing as you 'can get the same deal'?

Re:iAD

[BasilBrush]

I think that what goes around does indeed come around. It's to be seen how long can they keep their market share by being fashionable only. iPhone 4 came with no new ideas and only more of the same (more pixels, more cameras, more hype, more limitations by contract).

The interesting point here is that you EXPECT some completely new idea with every release of an Apple device. With every other mobile phone company you just expect more of the same every time. But Apple you expect a new idea with every single new model. Your expectations from Apple are higher because Apple because Apple usually delivers exceptional products.

Well actually alongside all the stuff that you dismiss as more of the same (4 times as many pixels, front facing camera), there was something that was truly new that you forgot. The gyroscope.

Re:iAD

[BasilBrush]

Beautifully put.

Re:iAD

[mdwh2]

Are you seriously going to claim that developers can't put ads on Android?

So if ads can go on every other platform and this is no different, why do we have a story especially for Apple?

Either they're doing something to help this happen, or they're not. And if it's the former, if you're allowed to praise them for letting a small number of developers get rich quick on trivial applications, we're equally allowed to criticise a platform for becoming dominated with ads, and criticise the company that made this happen.

The OP is right. If Microsoft had a program to help push ads out to Windows PCs, there'd be no end of criticism. Saying "Oh, but look how money money this Windows developer is making from this trivial application" would hardly be much of a defence.

Re:iAD

[mdwh2]

Or he could stick with his perfectly good N900, which does has software btw, just not ones covered in ads. You won't hear about it here though amongst the three stories we get a day from a company with far less market share than Nokia...

Re:iAD

[mdwh2]

Although, since Iphone fans love to use the poor metric of Internet bandwidth to claim that the Iphone has the largest market share (not true by a long short), or make claims about how the Iphone magically makes people use the Internet because it's so good, I'm sure they'd love the idea of having yet more apps that do nothing but guzzle up bandwidth in the background, whilst the user does revolutionary things like run fart apps or shine a flashlight. It's great for the stats!

Re:iAD

[mdwh2]

Indeed, and if we went by his reasoning, then phones in the UK are entirely "free" (since we don't pay for the phone if you're on a contract). $199 for an Iphone is looking rather expensive.

Re:iAD

[dwightk]

:Steve Jobs will deny them all. He could change his mind after he approved it (and frequently does according to experiences).

I love synecdoche as much as the next person, but sometimes I can't tell if people realize that Jobs doesn't review the apps.

Re:iAD

[dwightk]

I'm genuinely interested in knowing if anyone has a source for iAds being downloaded over the cell network and counting against the limited bandwidth.

I would assume neither, but I would be extremely surprised if the latter was the case.

Re:iAD

[mdwh2]

If it's no different, I have to wonder why we have yet another Apple story about it.

Re:iAD

[MikeBabcock]

I'm pretty sure you two just have an English terminology barrier. You believe "using the phone" means "making a call with the phone" whereas the OP and I both think "using the phone" means anything involving the phone's hardware, which would include those apps, games, etc. that use iAd.

When using your iCalculator, you're using your phone.

Re:iAD

[UnknowingFool]

WebKit is a fork of KHTML (from KDE). In fact, they had some major trouble [wikipedia.org] getting the changes Apple made back into KHTML because of Apples typical 'release as late as possible' policy.

Um that's not what happened. Apple forked WebKit meaning they went their own direction with the code. Apple released new code so fast and furious and without complete documentation, that the KHTML developers could not backport Apple's changes quick enough. The factor you fail to acknowledge is that the KHTML developers liked Apple's changes so much to attempt to backport.

But if you look at the past, Apple mostly took existing open source software and forked it. They exploit OSS to make profit, without returning much value to to the community.

If you had actually used KHTML you would know that KHTML does a fraction of what WebKit does. If you actually follow WebKit, Apple continually revises and updates it. In fact Apple just announced WebKit2 which borrows from Chrome's idea of split process model but building it directly into the framework. Explain to me how that is not contributing to the community.

Re:iAD

[UnknowingFool]

The original complaint was that Apple is a threat to the open source community. I would think that taking an existing project like KHTML forking it, extending it, and releasing would be considered contributing to open source. As for Darwin, under the BSD license, Apple does not have to release any changes or modifications or source code at all. But they do release them to open source.

Re:iAD

[UnknowingFool]

If you bought it on a contract you paid about 3 times that amount. If you terminate early you have to pay a fee for the handset or hand it back.

And how is that different from any smartphone or telco? Singling out one product because you dislike the manufacturer is rather biased.

Re:iAD

[skandalfo]

The interesting point here is that you EXPECT some completely new idea with every release of an Apple device. With every other mobile phone company you just expect more of the same every time. But Apple you expect a new idea with every single new model. Your expectations from Apple are higher because Apple because Apple usually delivers exceptional products.

Well actually alongside all the stuff that you dismiss as more of the same (4 times as many pixels, front facing camera), there was something that was truly new that you forgot. The gyroscope.

You've betrayed yourself as yet another Apple Fanboy :-) I don't EXPECT anything from Apple. Even in the case I actually expected anything from them, then they would have failed to meet those expectatives.

I was just pointing at the fact that Apple competitors do already sell devices with both better hardware and better software than the ones the iPhone 4 has. Yes, the screen has more resolution than any other device, but its size is still 3.5", and I honestly think so many pixels in that size are way overkill to be of any use.

Regarding the gyroscopes, yes, I knew about them. More orientation sensors, then too.

What I mean is they have no more a significantly better product in the smartphone space. They definitely aren't in a position to keep making new enemies, even if what they're doing is squeezing the cow dry for their shareholders.

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention that, because that's exactly what Google's AdMob is designed for. To put ads on Mobile devices. Where's the outcry?

Re:iAD

[Anonymous Coward]

They use the metric reported by web trends, specifically as to the OS accessing the web page, not some 'bandwidth metric'.

As the emperor would say, "Your hate has made you stupid..."

Re:iAD

[BasilBrush]

Apple Fanboy? Well, boy not so much. I'm 45. I started out with Commodore Pet. The BBC Micro, followed by Atari ST, then Amiga. Programmed all of them, variously in BASIC, C, pascal and assembler.

Then I reluctantly moved to a PC in the early 90s, when it became apparent that all the other platforms were dying a death. Whilst I had the PC, I just found them to be an ugly kludge, both the hardware and Windows.

I got into an annual routine of trying the latest distribution of Linux to see if the assurances I was reading on the internet that it was ready for general use were true, and each year found that installation was horrible, getting any software to work required juggling of various required libraries, and when finally you had it working, the UI was rough copy of Windows, but worse. I also tried BeOS, which was nice, and very fast, but had very few apps available.

All in all, PCs took away all the enthusiasm for computers that I'd had in earlier years.

Until 2002ish I hadn't owned or even used any Apple products at all. But at that stage I sat down with a friend at his Mac G3 with 24" monitor and OSX to edit a video, and I was blown away. Here I saw a modern computer that was actually a pleasure to use.

Another friend lent me his iPod G1 whilst I was in hospital for a few days. Again, I was just blown away by what a pleasure it was to use.

Soon after I put in an order for a Mac and an iPod. When they arrived, I had a few switcher pains for a week or two as I learned different keyboard shortcuts, and different ways of doing things from what I was used to. But these were more than compensated by moments of sheer delight when I discovered things that were implemented so well.

So, yes, I'm certainly a fan. But that doesn't date back to old time Apple, and it's far from being uninformed. I'm a fan because I've tried the current era Apple products, and found them to be the best you can buy.

I don't EXPECT anything from Apple.

Well it certainly seemed like you do from what you wrote. New PCs and new phones in general, one expects to be faster, have more memory, or resolution. But in Apple's case you dismissed this normal expectation of evolutionary improvement. You criticised the iPhone 4 because to your eyes it didn't have anything revolutionary. Which means that you think it should have had something revolutionary. You expect Apple's new device to have some revolutionary new feature.

You're not unusual. Pretty much everyone who inhabits the tech internet world expects a revolutionary feature with each new Apple device announcement. Expectations for Apple are far higher than for other tech companies. Because Apple tends to be on the cutting edge and tends to deliver those revolutionary new features pretty often.

Regarding the gyroscopes, yes, I knew about them. More orientation sensors, then too.

Now, at that stage there is the temptation for me to return the labelling, and call you something at the opposite end of the spectrum from an "Apple Fanboy". Presumably a hardware keyboard would be "more buttons". 3D display would be "more dimensions". A fricking laser would be "more illumination". Basically you can dismiss anything new that Apple does as "more..." of some abstract category. Your attempt to do so reveals you are just trying to talk the Apple product down, rather than having a straight and honest discussion.

What I mean is they have no more a significantly better product in the smartphone space. They definitely aren't in a position to keep making new enemies, even if what they're doing is squeezing the cow dry for their shareholders.

Predictions that Apple will soon reach the limits of it's growth in whatever area, for whatever reason, have been made daily over the last decade as Apple's gone from strength to strength. Your prediction will be as wrong as all the rest. Whilst Apple retains it's current design ethic, i

Re:iAD

[node_chomsky]

It's as simple as not downloading the programs that have that feature, if you don't have enough self-control to not download shitty Ad-riddled apps, you deserve to be programmed by Madison avenue.

Good Luck

[Hinhule]

Getting iADBlock on the Appstore.

Re:Good Luck

[BlkRb0t]

I'll get FlashBlock instead, oh wait...

Re:Good Luck

[AHuxley]

Should be an option at that price point of device, never let me download an app with an ad :)

Re:Good Luck

[gig]

You're not forced to download anything. If you only want to use apps without ads, that is not just possible, it's easy. Very few paid apps even have ads. Ads are to support free apps.

Re:Good Luck

[mlts]

Maybe someone can make something that combines the functionality of AdBlock, BetterPrivacy, and DroidWall. The resulting app (likely available from Cydia) would drop a list of DENY ACLs into ipfw, as well as zero out cookies, shared objects, and other personally identifying data. Ideally maybe even block use of the GPS to apps that don't need it either don't get access to it, or get dummy values to throw off trackers.

Re:Good Luck

[tlhIngan]

Maybe someone can make something that combines the functionality of AdBlock, BetterPrivacy, and DroidWall. The resulting app (likely available from Cydia) would drop a list of DENY ACLs into ipfw, as well as zero out cookies, shared objects, and other personally identifying data. Ideally maybe even block use of the GPS to apps that don't need it either don't get access to it, or get dummy values to throw off trackers.

Already exists - at least at the network level. It's called IP Firewall and it's a Cydia paid app that pops up a dialog whenever an app wants to make a network connection. It's been used to spy on a number of apps that "phone home" way too often (apparently Fox's Top Gun game was one of the worst offenders).

The nice thing with iAd though is that a jailbroken app can probably disable the iAd framework completely. After all, it's built into the OS, so the library exists inside the OS and OS libraries can be replaced (jailbroken apps only).

As for GPS, CoreLocation already pops up that popup asking if you want to give the app permission to use your location when it's initialized. And CoreLocation is where the "Remote Kill Switch" lives for apps (which means only apps that use CoreLocation can be remotedly killed). Probably the most annoying thing would be it doesn't remember the setting...

iAds

[Anonymous Coward]

The service is called iAds. Is it really that hard to get a simple headline right?

Re:iAds

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost funny how close it is to Aids.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night and remember to tip the waitress.

Re:iAds

[DarkKnightRadick]

It's called Aids? Not sure if I want that on my phone. :p

Re:iAds

[complacence]

http://online.wsj.com/media/iad_D_20100709194420.jpg

Re:iAds

[Aladrin]

Check the link. In the picture in the background behind Jobs there's a logo for: iAd.

Re:iAds

[dominious]

Well look at that! They can't even spell their own product!!1

I felt this was relevant:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay, Droid X comes out on the 15th!

TrollAd

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment sponsored by the Geeks and Nerds association of Australia (GNAA).

Bees on your penis is the only way any of you fucking Apple fanboys are going to get laid. Also you got told again.

Troll ads by bluewaffle marketing

THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good thing for all concerned.

Buy more AAPL! before you lose out!

apple spews adds

[Anonymous Coward]

like it's 1984!

All heil apple!

Re:apple spews adds

[Deadguy2322]

I just love when the FSF-brainwashed Stallmanities call other sheep. Fucking neckbeard asswipes.

It's not funny at all. It's a religious obsession.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not at all funny that Apple consumers are willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for overpriced, and in some case crippled, products. It's not funny that they're willing to subject themselves to artificial limitations regarding the programming languages they can use to develop software, or how and where they can buy and sell that software. It's not funny that they'll subject themselves to ads in applications that they've paid for. It's not funny that they'll camp out in front of new Apple stores for days on end.

Those are all signs of a mental disorder. In many ways it's a religious obsession, where common sense is thrown out the window in favor of misleading oneself into believing complete bullshit, or worse, subjecting oneself to unnecessary pain and misery.

This is a real thing? Seriously?

[VendettaMF]

I've seen mentions of iAds in a few places now (mostly on the Unity3d forums) but had assumed it to be some childish trolling.

This is a real thing? Apple are pushing the deployment of banner ads onto their minuscule screens? For real?

WTF man, like seriously, WTF?

Ok, I know I'm not in their target market for any of their devices (I'm sentient and have a good understanding of computers), but even so this just leaves me flabbergasted. Why would anyone competent enough to accrue the ludicrous prices of Apple gear ever be persuaded to part with the cash for such crud?

Re:This is a real thing? Seriously?

[drinkypoo]

Well if you're not counting bytes then it's possibly a fair exchange to get a flashlight app for free and have it display an ad. Although anyone who would charge you for a flashlight app is a dick anyway

Re:This is a real thing? Seriously?

[VendettaMF]

No argument there, but for the OS/Hardware manufacturer to be encouraging this (and no doubt skimming the profits)?

Ah well, they have a locked down system, no doubt there'll be a blanket ban of all ad-blocking software and hosts file editing. Not much to be done except shop elsewhere and leave Apple and their victims to their inevitable security nightmare.

Re:This is a real thing? Seriously?

[BasilBrush]

No argument there, but for the OS/Hardware manufacturer to be encouraging this (and no doubt skimming the profits)?

Implicit in your posts is that in addition to not previously knowing about iAd, you also don't know about Admob. Google both creates Android and owns Admob.

Re:This is a real thing? Seriously?

[rainmouse]

Adds for a flash light app, how does it deliver those? Project adds onto whatever your trying to illuminate like a cruel twist of the batman beacon?

Re:This is a real thing? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and there's no requirement for any app on the Android ecosystem to use Admob? It's entirely possible to write an app that completely cuts out Google from the financial picture. The Android philosophy is inclusion, not exclusion. As a developer, you are free to choose what kind of ads, where the ads go, who serves the ads, even where your apps sells. As a customer, you are free to choose where your apps come from, be it the default Android Market or Adult Specialty Market (yes, a porn store! =P), etc.

Having multiple companies vying for app ad profits ensures companies like AdMob / Google remain competitive, since there are other companies targeting their profits. Can you say the same about iAd? I'm fairly sure that's one of the things VendettaMF was pointing to.

Re:This is a real thing? Seriously?

[intheshelter]

There's no requirement with Apple to use iAd either. All the things you mentioned (with the possible exception of porn ads) is possible on the Apple platform too.

So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[Tisha_AH]

This is just great. Now that AT&T is limiting the full capabilities of the iPhone/ iPad with data restrictions you get to "pay" for the bandwidth to download useless iAds.

They get you coming and going.

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[thetoadwarrior]

On the plus side they are nice shiny ads unlike anything you have seen before.

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[garysday]

True, thats unbelievable, I can imagine playing some game or messing around with some dumbass app on my iPhone and keep getting ads popping up, imagine an iAd everytime you completed a level of something like angry birds. .. Boy that would piss me off. If the App is *FREE* then I can tolerate some bullshit ads, if I have to PAY and get ADS as well, then they can KMFA.. G

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[Tuzanor]

So then don't use the free app and stop whining about not getting something for nothing.

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[Overzeetop]

If the App is *FREE* then I can tolerate some bullshit ads

I'm pretty sure that's the whole idea. Rather than dig you for $1 or 2 at the store, they'll put in iAds.

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[LynnwoodRooster]

What restricts a developer from including iAds in their paid-for application?

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[Duradin]

The same thing that restricted developers from putting ads in their paid-for apps before iAd.

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[Anonymous Coward]

What restricts a developer from including iAds in their paid-for application?

Bad reviews for being a douche.

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[mlts]

Absolutely nothing. I'm sure as time goes on, apps will end up just like Cable TV, where at the beginning there were no ads. Then ads were between shows. Now it is just as bad as OTA channels, except you get the "honor" of paying a monthly fee. It is only a matter of time before iAds show up in paid apps.

Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds

[tlhIngan]

What restricts a developer from including iAds in their paid-for application?

Simple - negative feedback.

Apple had to remove the star rating thing when you removed an app because it led to rating depression of apps. A user who paid for an app only to get ads in it could easily suffer the wrath of users who rate it 1 star with "it has ads, save your money".

I understand ads in apps, especially on platforms like Android where it seems users don't like paying for apps (or in some countries, they can't buy paid apps). So free apps makes a lot of sense. Also helps develop apps that keeps users coming back - those novelty apps don't generate much ad revenue as users play with them for 5 minutes then delete them.

iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Could someone please link to software on the App Store which can be used to block iAds?

I'm assuming Apple isn't so totalitarian as to require you to view adverts on your own property, but I can't find such an app anywhere.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I see the Apple fanboys are out. Because only a -1 Troll would suggest that it's unreasonable for a computing hardware provider to create an advertising platform to deliver adverts to your property and then ban software which stops you from having to see those adverts.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "your own property" of which you speak?

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

OK, good point, cults don't recognise property ownership.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not like it, please develop your own platform and release it to us with the restrictions you don't like removed. We'll be waiting.

Oh, what, you don't have the expertise, time and money to donate to this project so it will be out soon? That's right, time and expertise are not free!

If you truly feel that strongly, please put your time where your mouth is and get to work instead of complaining here.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

If you do not like it, please develop your own platform and release it to us with the restrictions you don't like removed. We'll be waiting.

"If you don't like it, leave and found your own nation. Otherwise put up with it." Grow up.

Oh, what, you don't have the expertise, time and money to donate to this project so it will be out soon? That's right, time and expertise are not free!

Bawwww, I worked so hard on my software and now someone wants to use it without me being able to force them to watch adverts. It's my right to express myself through software, and it's also my right to stop you from listening except on my terms. There was no progress in science and the useful arts before modern IP law.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[MacGyver2210]

I don't have to, Google already did it for me with Android.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[yabos]

Yeah, it's called don't use an app with ads if you don't want to see ads. Free apps that are ad supported are not new and the way to block it is to not download or use the app.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

No, the way to do it is to jailbreak and firewall off the ad servers - there are prepackaged solutions already available. But this is more challenging for the less technical - unlike similar Windows ad-blocking solutions, it doesn't "just work" to download software and click "Next" a few times.

I was thus keen to see an iAds-blocking solution on the App store which I could recommend and would probably use myself.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[gig]

You just go to oo.apple.com on an iOS device and you're opted out of targeted iAds. You choose apps without ads to avoid seeing ads altogether.

It's possible not only to use and enjoy an iOS device without iAds, you can even use one without App Store, because iOS fully supports the HTML5 API. You can install apps locally from any server.

Truly, there is a lot of sour grapes and ignorant bigotry coming from a lot of grumpy nerds whenever iOS is mentioned. If you don't like it, don't use it. Stop whining like little babies that other people like it. All these assumptions and misinformation is just tiresome. Become informed or STFU.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[toriver]

Does Android really have the ability of hacking apps to remove the developer's ad revenue? What is the hack called, "I'macheapdick" or something?

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[toriver]

I guess app developers then would want a way to detect a jailbroken device and in that case just show a single panel with "Fuck off, freeloader!" on it.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Cry me a river, toriver. You may think you have a right to control how people use their eyeballs just because someone's downloaded your frontend to cameraFlashLED.enable(), but most of us have moved on from that sort of society.

Enjoy the 2 minutes it would take for any method of detecting jailbreaking to be broken. But do carry on wasting time bouncing your evil-pirate(?)-thwarting updates to Apple until they ban your app for trying to detect jailbreakers using a "naughty API".

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Chris Johnson]

Oh, no, I'm assuming they are indeed that 'totalitarian', but I'm also going to assume they'll be coaxing all the app developers to use this but will not be placing ads on their own software. Think about it, who would pay them for that- themselves? Ads are for third parties to pay someone for your attention.

I'm weird about my attention. I try to produce a lot of things, only beginning with software, which must come out of my own attention and thought, and I am very fierce at defending my mental 'space'. There's one brick-and-mortar place that I'll carry a 'coupon card' for, and that's my primary supermarket. Every little hardware store and book place (okay, every big corporate one) insists on my carrying their savings card, or will claim that I can have an imaginary card that I don't even have to carry, but they're missing the point:

I know I only have that one supermarket card where I buy most of my food, and I don't have to think about that. Anything else, I don't have to remember or look up whether I have their card, because I won't- I say no thank you and pay effectively an 'I don't have to think about you' tax for the privilege of not having to care about the fucking place or consider them special in any way.

And that's the point: every dipshit corporate bookstore etc. wants to be my SPECIAL friend and have me thinking about them and their services constantly, and I'm sorry- I have to think about things to feed myself and my cats, or I won't come up with new stuff. I'm sure there are people who put burgers in sacks all day who can spend their time thinking 'I am a Borders/Hilton/Home Despot Preferred Customer and must seek out those places to consume at, for which I will be rewarded with special treatment!' but if that thought comes into my head it's one more thing to keep track of, purportedly for my benefit but actually not. My time isn't free...

Want to know the primary reason I got an iPhone? I rightly trusted that I would not ever, not once, have to crack a manual to fully use the thing. It would be 'discoverable' and require no training or special attention. It was... know the first thing I look for in reviews of app store items? Whether or not they show advertisements and such things, which is always revealed in reviews by someone who feels as I do. If they talk about sitting through ads, I'm already gone. I've rejected more than one app product, even free ones, for that.

I used to use an Apple product called Cyberdog. It was special- built on the OpenDoc extensible app framework, at the time it was the only thing where you could fire up web pages, email etc. and everything would just be there. Everything else, Netscape, Eudora etc, all fired up splash screens and made you watch effectively a little ad for the product you already were using. Why not spend the time you're already wasting letting the program load, thinking about the program itself rather than the task you intended to do using it? Right?

Apple's OSX stuff like Mail came out, and it was a flashback to the days of Cyberdog- and now I'm using all sorts of internet apps that just launch and go, such as Firefox from which I'm posting this. I'm looking at the interface and I've got a raft of little crap in the address bar, but not even a logo advertising that it is Firefox on the program window itself. I believe Safari also has a similar ethos.

If Apple is making an ad service, they will not be using it for their OWN stuff, and will not be requiring that app developers place ads- they might require that if app developers place ads, they MUST do so through Apple's setup, but that's typical Apple, typical 'any megacorporation'.

Jobs is the guy that once raged at a developer, insisting he make a program launch two seconds faster, counting up the number of yearly launches over the entire userbase and claiming the two seconds would save the equivalent of several HUMAN LIVES not spent sitting waiting for the program to launch. This guy is not going to stick me with click-throughs or wasted banner ad space

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

You just go to oo.apple.com on an iOS device and you're opted out of targeted iAds.

"Targeted" iAds, not iAds. So that's a no.

You choose apps without ads to avoid seeing ads altogether.

But I choose to not see ads, not to not use apps. So that's another no.

You're so good at offering me all these things I don't want. Next to me I have an empty Coke bottle, an aquarium reflector box and a secondary AA cell which no longer holds a charge - how could anything I advocate be unreasonable when I'm literally giving this shit away to you?

you can even use one without App Store, because iOS fully supports the HTML5 API.

Wow, that option sounds so appealing I can barely understand why there are so many thousands of apps and millions of app downloads.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

I shall use it if and as I please, and in the meanwhile I shall try to make it easier for the less technical to use as they please. Meanwhile, this great country (until the China Apple's just opened its first store in) gives you the freedom to take a different approach to me: in your case, you consider total praise or abandonment to be a true dichotomy. Enjoy! :-)

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Joe U]

Cry me a river, toriver. You may think you have a right to control how people use their eyeballs just because someone's downloaded your frontend to cameraFlashLED.enable(), but most of us have moved on from that sort of society.

Here's my 3 step process to resolve your complaint:

1. Write your own front end to cameraFlashLED.enable()
2. STFU
3. GTFO

Seriously, you want to download ad-ware but you don't want to watch the ads? Can you whine a little louder?

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Seriously, you want to download ad-ware but you don't want to watch the ads? Can you whine a little louder?

Thank you. You have summed up everything that is wrong with the Apple user community. I'll be adding that quote - attributed, of course - to my siguature rotation.

Excuse me while I go and watch 20 minutes of adverts. I skipped through them last time I recorded a movie and I'm feeling guilty that some corporation somewhere isn't getting my attention.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

i think the ACs point is that Apple is NOT "requiring" (your word) you to do anything! There is not a single iAd in iOS or any Apple bundled programs. iAd is an API for 3rd-party developers to OPTIONALLY include with their apps. If you download an app by a developer who chose to include iAds, delete the app! End of story! The choice is 100% in YOUR hands.

This frothing hysteria over everything Apple is getting ridiculous...especially when it comes from people who clearly don't know what they're talking about.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

But I choose to not see ads, not to not use apps. So that's another no.

Take it up with the developer of the Apps that you would use if not for ads then. It's illogical and nonsensical to blame Apple for decisions made by 3rd-party developers.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[vijayiyer]

If everything wrong with the Apple user community is that they don't feel a right to screw some developer working out of his house from making a living, then everything wrong may be right.

When you skip adverts watching a movie, you're not preventing someone from getting paid - that's already done in advance, and it's not a fair comparison.

When there are paid versions of apps costing $1, and free ad supported versions, I'd call taking the free one and blocking the ads both being a cheapskate and an asshole.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Pay attention. The issue I have with Apple is their not admitting iAds-blocking apps to the store.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

When you skip adverts watching a movie, you're not preventing someone from getting paid - that's already done in advance, and it's not a fair comparison.

Don't be obtuse. When you open a store and I neither buy stuff from your store nor recommend your store nor send others to buy something at your store nor do anything which causes money to enter your pocket, I'm not, "preventing you from geting paid," you child of the age of entitlement.

I, as the owner and user of my 'phone, get to choose whether I view or click on an ad. If either of those acts cause you to be paid, I get to choose whether to you are paid. But it isn't "preventing" you from being paid if I choose to do neither, just as I'm not "preventing" you from paying me just because I'm telling you right now that reading this post costs you $5.29 but you're not enabling the transfer of funds to my bank account.

Everyone else is welcome to pay you if they want, either directly or indirectly. No-one is preventing people from paying you if they choose to. You hint at morality in requiring people to pay you, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Pay attention. The issue I have with Apple is their not admitting iAds-blocking apps to the store. They are thus requiring you to view ads if you want to remain in their walled garden and enjoy the full range of apps.

"Stop enjoying the full range of apps, then!" is a cowardly answer from someone who walks away from the first sign of battle with the glimmer of defeat in his eye, content to do only precisely as he is told. It's also not addressing the fact that Apple's requiring you to watch ads as a condition of fully enjoying the App store.

Apple's partnership (i.e. profit-sharing) with developers on the iAds programme is also ethically questionable, but I wasn't raising that.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Joe U]

You know, you could always not use adware and pay upfront for what you use.

You sound like the type of person who would crack shareware.

Furthermore, when you quote me, make sure to add that I think Apple products on par with the average fisher price toy. Oh so shiny and pretty and designed for a preschooler.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Joe U]

You hint at morality in requiring people to pay you, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.

And you outright say you have no problems taking things for free that weren't meant to be free, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

Apple / iOS doesn't allow ANY programs that affect other running programs like that. I would think that would generally be seen as a huge security flaw! I wouldnt want any app to be able to access my mobile banking apps or password storing apps, etc.

So what exactly are you complaining about...?

Pay attention. The issue I have with Apple is their not admitting iAds-blocking apps to the store.

Your rants and ad hominems in this thread imply otherwise.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Apple / iOS doesn't allow ANY programs that affect other running programs like that. I would think that would generally be seen as a huge security flaw!

Yeah, allowing a firewall is a huge security flaw because it may affect the behaviour of other software... seriously, are you even thinking what you're saying? In other news, every piece of software negatively affects every other because there is contention for CPU, memory, storage space and battery power.

Your rants and ad hominems in this thread imply otherwise.

Feel free to point 'em out. I've criticised the Apple community but I've not criticised the community as a basis for another argument.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

They are thus requiring you to view ads if you want to remain in their walled garden and enjoy the full range of apps.

To quote a great philosopher, you can't always get what you want. The choice on the app store is

1) Refuse to use any apps with ads, even if this means buying the non-free variants.
2) Use all apps, including ad-supported and non-free.

Nobody with an iPhone today doesn't know about he app store. EVen more true for somebody on slashdot. I don't have a problem with any of these restrictions. If you do, the good news is that there is PLENTY of choice and freedom in the handset market. Go get a Droid. For others--developers and users alike--their decision making process may be different from yours. I will personally be interested in the future of AdMob on Android handsets...

Stop enjoying the full range of apps, then!" is a cowardly answer from someone who walks away from the first sign of battle with the glimmer of defeat in his eye, content to do only precisely as he is told. It's also not addressing the fact that Apple's requiring you to watch ads as a condition of fully enjoying the App store.

Ahh, so now we've gone from Evil Apple requires you to have ads to EVIL APPLE REQUIRES YOU TO CLICK ON AND WATCH ADS! How over the top are you going to be? You're the one who refused to use anything with ads. I personally have no problem with ads and even less with iAds which have so far been extremely unintrusive.

You know, the sucky thing about freedom is that you have to make choices...and you don't always get what you want.

Apple's partnership (i.e. profit-sharing) with developers on the iAds programme is also ethically questionable, but I wasn't raising that.

How so?

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

Yeah, allowing a firewall is a huge security flaw because it may affect the behaviour of other software... seriously, are you even thinking what you're saying? In other news, every piece of software negatively affects every other because there is contention for CPU, memory, storage space and battery power.

I'll respond to this, but first, are you a software developer or programmer?

Feel free to point 'em out. I've criticised the Apple community but I've not criticised the community as a basis for another argument.

You absolutely have. When your first post disingenuously asks a questions you clearly already knew the answer to, calling Apple totalitarian what exactly do you think you're doing?

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

And you outright say you have no problems taking things for free that weren't meant to be free, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.

How can a thing - in this case, the expression of an idea - mean to be anything? It just exists. You're not even making any sense.

In the US, you have a limited monopoly on the distribution of a subset of sufficiently original ideas and expressions. It is not even something you are inherently entitled to; it is merely what you are granted by society for promotion of sciences and the useful arts.

You are entitled to nothing, especially not to force other people to do things. This includes a lack of entitlement to force my eyes to look at adverts.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

I'll respond to this, but first, are you a software developer or programmer?

We'll say "yes" in the hope that you'll provide at least a moderately sophisticated argument.

You absolutely have. When your first post disingenuously asks a questions you clearly already knew the answer to, calling Apple totalitarian what exactly do you think you're doing?

None of this is ad hominem. You may want to review your dictionary of logic.

(I also had no concrete answer until after I'd posted. The vitriol of denial added credence to my fear, of course.)

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you could cheat the developer of the software you use out of a few cents?

Thief

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

The choice on the app store is

You choices right now are:
(1) Send me $100;
(2) Cut off all your hair.
See, it sounds just as ridiculous when I give you arbitrary instructions on what you can and cannot do.

My choice is to download apps and not view adverts. I can do this by jailbreaking and firewalling off the ad servers, but I want it to be simple for those who aren't technically minded. Apple are pretty much alone in the computing market by demonstrating an approach so totalitarian as to not permit this.

APPLE REQUIRES YOU TO CLICK ON AND WATCH ADS!

No, it doesn't require you to click on ads. Keep up.

I personally have no problem with ads and even less with iAds which have so far been extremely unintrusive.

That's great news for you. I respect your freedom to watch iAds all day long.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

We'll say "yes" in the hope that you'll provide at least a moderately sophisticated argument.

Barring a real answer from you I too will ask a question--are there any security implications with allowing any 3rd-party app to add/change/alter/update firewall/routing rules? Hardly the same thing as a program taking cycles (btw, the iPhone sends signals that requires programs to for instance release memory, so there already are builtin protections to cpu usage, memory, battery, etc that you tossed out)

None of this is ad hominem. You may want to review your dictionary of logic.

Here's what you said:

I'm assuming Apple isn't so totalitarian as to require you to view adverts on your own property...

Let's break it down.

Apple's (alleged) position -- no blocking iAds.

Your position -- you should be able to block iAds.

Throwing out the canard of "Oh, surely Apple isn't so totalitarian as to ..." doesn't change the fact that it's an ad hominem that doesn't have any impact on arguing whether 3rd-party apps should be able to block iAds or not.

(I also had no concrete answer until after I'd posted. The vitriol of denial added credence to my fear, of course.)

I haven't really seen any vitriol other than yours...?

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Joe U]

So, let's see the scenario you're playing out:

I create art, in some form or another.
I tell people, you can pay me $1 to see the art all you want or you can watch this ad instead.
You say, I'm not entitled to ask to people pay $1 to see the art OR watch the ad and see the art.
So, you instead find a way to see the art without paying or watching the ad.
And this is my fault for creating the art because it's an expression of an idea that just exists.

Conclusion: You're a cheap fuck who will justify his cheapness by rambling on about freedoms and being forced to pay or watch the ad, even though you got something out of it.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

You choices right now are:
(1) Send me $100;
(2) Cut off all your hair.
See, it sounds just as ridiculous when I give you arbitrary instructions on what you can and cannot do.

Non sequitur.

My choice is to download apps and not view adverts. I can do this by jailbreaking and firewalling off the ad servers, but I want it to be simple for those who aren't technically minded. Apple are pretty much alone in the computing market by demonstrating an approach so totalitarian as to not permit this.

Really? Can you do it on Android or Symbian or WebOS?

No, it doesn't require you to click on ads. Keep up.

Oh I see, when you kept saying "watch" ads I assumed you meant tap the banner view and watch the modal ad...since that's how iAd works. The base iAd banners are no different from banner ads that have been in apps for 3+ years now.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you don't want to see ads, pay for cable tv instead of getting it over the air"

"if you build it, they will come"

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

only if the phone is rooted I think. It basically writes to the phones hosts file

http://forum.bigtincan.com/index.php?topic=121.0

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

are there any security implications with allowing any 3rd-party app to add/change/alter/update firewall/routing rules

We have a lawyer in the house.

"Are there any possible dangers with knife ownership?"
"Yes."
"Aha, so knives /are/ dangerous and knife ownership should be outlawed!"

The answer is, of course, "yes" - and the answer is "yes" with every single piece of software you introduce on any device.

"Is it too dangerous to allow sane adults to buy a knife which has not been discovered to have unsuspected safety issues?"
"Of course not, idiot."

There is no reasonable danger whatever in providing firewall software which allows me to block particular servers. There is no reasonable danger in providing firewall software which allows me to fully reconfigure packet filtering and routing, as long as clear warnings are provided in the user interface.

Similarly, if you sell a sane adult a knife with the warning, "stabbing yourself with this knife may kill you" then it's unreasonable to argue that the knife should not be sold on the grounds that someone will both ignore their sense and the clear warning.

But, while we're nanny-stating, we really ought to remove the web browser from the iPhone - you can use that to enter your credit card details on every form on every site on the WWW if you have the time. The humanity!

Hardly the same thing as a program taking cycles (btw, the iPhone sends signals that requires programs to for instance release memory

Does it do it properly across the range of contended resources like, say, VMS systems have always done? I.e. are programs allocated CPU / memory / disk / etc limits? And, if iOS has more finely grained privilege control and resource limits than I've read about, why can't this privilege control include the ability to firewall out servers without including the ability to, say, allow free access to the telnet port?

Throwing out the canard of "Oh, surely Apple isn't so totalitarian as to ..." doesn't change the fact that it's an ad hominem

Argh. An ad hominem is an accusation about the character which is used to support an argument. I'm using an argument to judge the character.

I haven't really seen any vitriol other than yours...?

Well, perhaps my acerbic prose appears more vitriolic than those who respond with "asshole", "stfu" and ALL CAPS. But the vitriol of denial I accused all y'all of, i.e. the inability to just say "sorry, Apple won't allow that" without some proselytism on the Apple Way and the evil of people who refuse to look at adverts... woohoo!

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Non sequitur.

Exhaustive list of options I never agreed to / exhaustive list of options you never agreed to.

Really? Can you do it on Android or Symbian or WebOS?

Android: apk upload to my site, URL provision to the world, click. For example. (the use of Google Code is incidental)

The base iAd banners are no different from banner ads that have been in apps for 3+ years now.

Except for the conflict of interest between ad broker and app distributor.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

You say, I'm not entitled to ask to people pay $1 to see the art OR watch the ad and see the art.

Oh, not at all, you're absolutely entitled to ask people for whatever you want. You're just not entitled to force people to choose one from your list of choices.

So, you instead find a way to see the art without paying or watching the ad. And this is my fault for creating the art because it's an expression of an idea that just exists.

It's not your fault at all. The art was there, say in plain view from the entrance, and I chose to take a glimpse. It's entirely my fault that I saw it.

Wait, no, there is no "fault". You put something somewhere and I used my eyes to see it. It seems your hand is working and my eyes are working. Excellent!

even though you got something out of it.

I get something out of the air, but I don't owe the air anything. It's just there. I haven't taken it from you, have I? Actually, I lie, I've reduced the amount of air available to you - but I haven't taken any of your art when I glimpsed it from across the hall.

Ah, kids today, always thinking that someone is owed something and trying so hard to convince the world that it's them.

Now, if you want me to pay for your software, ask me to pay for your software and I'll make up my mind. But give me a free version which shows ads and I'll just block the ads!

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

There is no reasonable danger whatever in providing firewall software which allows me to block particular servers

That's probably true, but once you limit access to firewall/routing to only being able to block outgoing access to particular server, then it's of extremely limited utility as well. As I said before--everybody on slashdot knows about the App store, they know about Apple forbidding access to unpublished API's and no root access, etc ad infinitum (since Apple articles show up about daily!). That's just something that Apple is not going to allow. For most people I don't think it matters in the slightest--I know it doesn't for me.

You know what you COULD do? VPN your iPhone through a home server and do all the filtering you want there. Fair?

Does it do it properly across the range of contended resources like, say, VMS systems have always done? I.e. are programs allocated CPU / memory / disk / etc limits? And, if iOS has more finely grained privilege control and resource limits than I've read about, why can't this privilege control include the ability to firewall out servers without including the ability to, say, allow free access to the telnet port?

I believe the disk space limit is about 2gb per app. Memory constraints are more "what's available" (for instance the signal I mentioned). Same for processing power...not a hugew deal since multitasking has up to now been limited. iPhone can kill apps if it needs to. Not extremely fine-grained.

Argh. An ad hominem is an accusation about the character which is used to support an argument. I'm using an argument to judge the character.

Wikipedia has an article on the ad hom if you're unclear on why throwing the accusation of "totalitarianism" around the way you did is an ad hom. Additionally the definition of totalitarian might be helpful. Relevance to the subject at hand--zero.

Well, perhaps my acerbic prose appears more vitriolic than those who respond with "asshole", "stfu" and ALL CAPS. But the vitriol of denial I accused all y'all of, i.e. the inability to just say "sorry, Apple won't allow that" without some proselytism on the Apple Way and the evil of people who refuse to look at adverts... woohoo!

I haven't seen any of those STFUs you mention...and I've--since I think my first or second post--said EXACTLY that anybody with an iPhone knew what they are getting into, and if you don't like it, go for an Android or one of the plethora of other handsets... so I don't really know what you're talking about,

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

Exhaustive list of options I never agreed

But you DID agree to them when you signed onto the App store!

Except for the conflict of interest between ad broker and app distributor.

You didn't answer earlier what the ethical conflict is?

It's a win-win for Apple. If people choose free ad-supported apps, Apple and the Developer get ad money. If people choose paid-for ad-free apps, Apple and the Developer get ad money. The only "loss" would be free non-ad-supported apps...and popular apps that people like can't really be called a loss when somebody has to buy an iPhone/iPad/iPod to get to them!

Radio stations have programming (sometimes bought, sometimes created) and sell ads. CAble stations broadcast programs and have ads.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

But you DID agree to them when you signed onto the App store!

(1) Paste App store agreement term requiring me to look at ads;

(2) Explain way in which agreement with Apple becomes agreement with third party developer;

(3) Justify validity of general terms in click-through agreements, especially increased restrictions after purchase.

You didn't answer earlier what the ethical conflict is?

Except for the conflict of interest between ad broker and app distributor.

You're the monopoly distributor for add-ons for some system and you're now the major ad broker for some system. What possible ways could Apple's involvement in one area affect Apple's decisions in the other?

It's a win-win for Apple.

Erm, yes? It's always a "win" when you can convince or force people to refuse choices other than yours.

(Why do I want Apple to "win"?)

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Wikipedia has an article on the ad hom if you're unclear on

Wikipedia is precisely where you do not go if you're unclear on anything. It seems to have gone completely wild in extending the definition of "ad hominem" - mostly uncited, naturally - but it's managed to be at least correct in:
"argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise"
IOW, it is not ad hominem to imply, "If Apple acts that way, then Apple is totalitarian." Nor is it so to imply, "How typically ad hominem of Apple!" as long as I'm not using the predictability of Apple's behaviour as part of the argument.

why throwing the accusation of "totalitarianism" around the way you did is an ad hom.

Apple is leaning toward absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution. The definition is apt.

I haven't seen any of those STFUs you mention

Oh, Joe something I think a few posts down, and an "asshole" from vijay. lol, internet.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

Ok, I stand by my statement that your usage of totalitarian is an ad hom partly by virtue of the word totalitarian itself...needless to say I don't agree with your argument on the definition, but I think we'll just have to disagree on this one.

Oh, Joe something I think a few posts down, and an "asshole" from vijay. lol, internet.

Fair enough :p

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

(1) Paste App store agreement term requiring me to look at ads;

Oooh, this is ironic? You've been arguing that Apple REQUIRES you to watch ads, now you're arguing that they DON'T require you to look at ads?

You didn't like my VPN solution which afaict is perfectly legal, perfectly by the license, and nobody would try to stop you doing?

(2) Explain way in which agreement with Apple becomes agreement with third party developer;

No; in regards to installing any App you may want (ie, an iAd firewall app).

(3) Justify validity of general terms in click-through agreements, especially increased restrictions after purchase.

I hate EULAs and what not as much as the next guy, and I would HOPE That many terms would get stricken. However, I doubt that major ones would be eliminated.

You're the monopoly distributor for add-ons for some system and you're now the major ad broker for some system. What possible ways could Apple's involvement in one area affect Apple's decisions in the other?

Again ironic that after making the "Knives are dangerous, ban knives" against me, you yourself make the same argument? Apple MIGHT do something wrong, so Apple WILL Do something wrong. I don't buy it here :)

It's a win-win for Apple in that Apple wins if there are Apps without ads (more often pay apps) and Apple wins if there are Apps with ads (more often free apps). They even win if you jailbreak because you still had to pay $$ for an iPhone. Thus, what's their particular motivation to do ill here? any outcome that increases usage of the iPhone or usage of apps in the store is a positive one for them.

I should add that I don't know how Apple figures out what apps are on the "Featured Apps" page on the iPad, but on the iPhone the top apps are listed by gross sales, and downloads for free and downloads for pay.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

Oooh, this is ironic? You've been arguing that Apple REQUIRES you to watch ads, now you're arguing that they DON'T require you to look at ads?

You asserted that I agreed to it when I signed up. I was just asking for evidence that I agreed.

Apple MIGHT do something wrong, so Apple WILL Do something wrong. I don't buy it here :)

The knife example is fairly irrelevant unless the CEO of Knives Inc willingly becomes Secretary of Defense, or something.

Now Apple's had a history of rule-swaying in approvals based, among other things, on whether it's perceived the submitter as a direct competitor and whether it's been lambasted in the press (if I were writing an article, "On interpreters and Pulitzers" would be its title). Apple's now willingly added another variable to the sordid mix: ad revenue.

A few weeks of data and a few hours of number-crunching will identify which developers / genres of developers are most profitable not in terms of app purchases but in terms of ad-click behaviour of users. And, oh wait, big sponsors don't like that developer - how can we reinterpret/tweak the rules? Yes, better to speed feature development and approval for sponsors, just as Google is ultimately a data-mining operation and ad broker - and by hell does this show!

tl;dr Apple wants a slice of moist, cheap Google pie.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[shutdown -p now]

My choice is to download apps and not view adverts. I can do this by jailbreaking and firewalling off the ad servers, but I want it to be simple for those who aren't technically minded. Apple are pretty much alone in the computing market by demonstrating an approach so totalitarian as to not permit this.

Really? Can you do it on Android or Symbian or WebOS?

You definitely can on Android, though that requires rooting the phone (but then it's not claimed by the manufacturer to be illegal, unlike with iPhone).

For others, I don't see any legal restrictions there, but given that they don't have any centralized ad framework for apps to use - so each rolls out their own - it would be tricky to implement in practice.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

You didn't like my VPN solution which afaict is perfectly legal, perfectly by the license, and nobody would try to stop you doing?

It's cool - I do like and do use. I was really asking the question on behalf of those who don't know how to set up a VPN / jailbreak / etc.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[shutdown -p now]

While the guy you replied to is clearly a troll, after reading this thread, I can't help but notice something interesting.

Blocking ads in an ad-supported app (on any platform) is not at all different from blocking ads in a web site. The latter has been described numerous times on Slashdot, and while there were always some voices in support of "ad blocking is stealing!" POV, they were always few and far between (and quickly downmodded), and the mainstream opinion was always strongly "it's my box, and I can read websites the way I like on it, including suppressing ads".

And yet, in this thread, there is a huge number of responses that basically equate ad blocking on iPhone to stealing...

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the HTML5 API expose compass, gyroscope, accelerometers, contacts lists, touch gestures, background image changes, or anything else a normal native app can do? I'm fairly sure most of those do NOT have standard HTML5 APIs written for them yet. Considering how Apple's railing hard for HTML5 *STANDARDIZATION*, it would be fairly hypocritical of them to add their own, non-standard HTML5 APIs to support those features. Without most of these capabilities, then you'd just simply laugh at how gimped an HTML5 apps are compared to a native one -- the HTML5 store would just be a bullet point for PR instead of being a useful alternative.

Truly, there is a lot of half-truths and misinformation that grumpy Apple Fans like to spread, potentially misinforming others. (Yes, there are some on all sides of the camp) I don't like putting myself in a single-company-monopoly position, so I do my best to avoid those situations. There's never any benefit allowing a single company monopoly over anything. You just wind up stagnating progression (cell companies in US/Canada were laughably far behind Europe / Japan, the force-installed IE6 killed competition and no new browser features occurred for years, a multi-billion dollar money-printer finally added features Android, Symbian, etc. has had for a long time that really shouldn't have taken 4 years to develop -- folders for example, I can't imagine not having them considering how many apps I have), being charged extra for profits' sake (food cost at a "no-outside-food" venue), or even contributing to waste, etc.

Thankfully, most cellphone providers, mostly everyone is moving to the micro-USB standard (laptops are currently discussing what to use). I can go from a Samsung, to an LG, a Sony, or even any used model without cables... and can reuse older cables instead of wasting money and the environment buying yet another limited-use cable. I'm not forced to buy a $30-50 for a simple piece of copper and plastic to power my devices. Now even laptop providers are headed to use a unified charger: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100705PD203.html ) YAY!

I suspect there will be one major player missing out of it despite their clamours of using "open" standards, but that doesn't actually concern me -- I don't buy their products.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

And yet, in this thread, there is a huge number of responses that basically equate ad blocking on iPhone to stealing...

"Troll" here. The opinion of Apple-using /.ers may not represent the opinion of /.ers in general.

One of the more interesting ways you can waste your time in life is to guess which choir a particular speaker will attract. And if you utter something which is canon for the religion ("as a geek I entirely recommend and use ad-blockers") but heresy for the denomination ("as an Apple user I find ad-blocking to be stealing"), you'll get fairly passionate responses. The same applies IME with real religion.

Maybe it's a combination of feeling outnumbered, wanting to stand out, and knowing that your argument is tenuous and possibly comes only from self-interest (lots of small-time App store developers). Or maybe it's Sunday and everyone's trying to get away from the fucking football.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Moridineas]

You definitely can [xda-developers.com] on Android, though that requires rooting the phone (but then it's not claimed by the manufacturer to be illegal, unlike with iPhone).

So it it against the license or anything with Android to root, or is that just a feature?

THe link you provided is also interesting in that it DOESN'T mess with a firewall or proxying or anything, but rather is a simple host file fix.

Do you know if its possible to muck around with Android firewall? (I assume there IS A firewall?)

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[shutdown -p now]

So it it against the license or anything with Android to root, or is that just a feature?

It's not against the license to root Android, since that is just the OS, and open-sourced at that. A more interesting question would be whether it is legal to root specific Android phones.

There are some for which it is unambiguously clear, as it is an advertised feature - most notably, Nexus One. For others it's not advertised, but still available by the same (documented) means as on N1 - basically, any Android phone with an unsigned bootloader. On others, the bootloader is signed and prevents rooting (e.g. Milestone), unless some hacks are discovered.

In all those cases, however, I don't recall the manufacturer ever claiming that rooting their phone would be illegal. I think that some of those companies signing bootloaders might actually think that way, and don't voice their opinion simply because there haven't actually been any cases of gaining root there yet.

So the overall conclusion would be: there are no guarantees for every Android phone out there, but there are some Android phones for which it is definitely legal.

Do you know if its possible to muck around with Android firewall? (I assume there IS A firewall?)

It's Linux (the difference between Android and plain Linux distro is often rather overestimated), so it has the same firewall. Though you'll need to root the phone to get permission to tweak it, but it's definitely possible.

Furthermore, since Android Market does not have limitations on what kinds of apps can be published to it - in particular, apps that require a rooted phone are perfectly legal - there is a bunch of firewall GUI frontends available there.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[gnasher719]

Pay attention. The issue I have with Apple is their not admitting iAds-blocking apps to the store. They are thus requiring you to view ads if you want to remain in their walled garden and enjoy the full range of apps.

God, you are so stupid. If an application shows iAds advertisements then it does that because the developer decided that it should do that, so that the developer makes some money. If the developer decides that you shouldn't see iAds advertisements then you don't see them. If you don't want to see these adverts, don't download apps that show advertisement. There is no f***ing way that Apple builds an infrastructure so that you see advertisements that are vetted from advertisers guaranteed to actually make payments to the developer and then allows some app to interfere with this. In addition, if Apple wanted to allow iAd blocking then it would be part of the OS. These ads come through an API provided by Apple, from servers under Apple's controls. Apple could easily enable users to turn iAds off. They don't because developers need money to produce apps. If you don't want apps, don't complain to Apple, buy a Windows 7 phone.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Mandrel]

Blocking ads in an ad-supported app (on any platform) is not at all different from blocking ads in a web site. The latter has been described numerous times on Slashdot, and while there were always some voices in support of "ad blocking is stealing!" POV, they were always few and far between (and quickly downmodded), and the mainstream opinion was always strongly "it's my box, and I can read websites the way I like on it, including suppressing ads".

And yet, in this thread, there is a huge number of responses that basically equate ad blocking on iPhone to stealing...

Yes, good point.

I think the difference is that:

1. There's a greater resistance for paying for information (mainly websites) than tools (mainly apps), probably because tools are more consistently useful.
2. There are more sources of information on a topic than apps for a task, so a subscription to a particular site is hard to sell.
3. Apps can be bought outright, but web-based information and cloud apps usually require regular payments.
4. Subscriptions to web apps and information are usually more expensive than mobile apps.
5. Buying a mobile app for a particular device is an easy and consistent process, as opposed to the anarchy of the web.
6. For people who do not want ads, the no-ad paid option is more often available for mobile apps than for websites. (Though in their iPad apps newspapers are trying to continue the tradition of having ads even in subscription publications.)

So blocking ads on the web is only likely to become regarded as morally questionable when either a mature web-based micropayment system is in place, or some alternative way of getting paid for providing information is commonly available.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[drinkypoo]

Mostly I'm seeing responses which can be boiled down to "why should apple help you". I mean, if you're going to buy into Apple's walled garden, I think you're expecting not to be able to block the ads.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Mandrel]

possibly comes only from self-interest (lots of small-time App store developers)

This is probably true. Although there's a lot of small-time web-publishers of information, online apps, and downloadable native apps, go-getters have been attracted to the new mobile apps and its strongly-commercial culture. Developers with FLOSS mentality are turned off by the restrictions imposed, plus the need to buy devices and development kits.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just go to oo.apple.com on an iOS device and you're opted out of targeted iAds. You choose apps without ads to avoid seeing ads altogether.

It's possible not only to use and enjoy an iOS device without iAds, you can even use one without App Store, because iOS fully supports the HTML5 API. You can install apps locally from any server.

Truly, there is a lot of sour grapes and ignorant bigotry coming from a lot of grumpy nerds whenever iOS is mentioned. If you don't like it, don't use it. Stop whining like little babies that other people like it. All these assumptions and misinformation is just tiresome. Become informed or STFU.

Please show me how one can 'install an app locally from any server'. A real app, native objc one...

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

God, you are so stupid.

You have better manners on Macrumors. And you used to be quite reasonable before you got seduced by the fanboy environment.

If you don't want to see these adverts, don't download apps that show advertisement.

Why is it only in the Apple community that I get:

1. All options provided by your ingenuity rather than Apple are invalid and/or immoral;
2. If you don't like it, don't speak up about it - just get out of our clubhouse?

There is no f***ing way that Apple builds an infrastructure so that you see advertisements that are vetted from advertisers guaranteed to actually make payments to the developer and then allows some app to interfere with this.

So Apple creates for itself this conflict of interest, it's absolutely clear that it's taking advantage of it, and that's absolutely fine with you. How.. Apple.

This is like the way over 90% of Google's revenue is from ads so on its own browser platform it doesn't allow and host ad blocking extensions. Oh, wait, no.

(and before y'all axe)

if Apple wanted to allow iAd blocking then it would be part of the OS.

You're probably right there. Apple has a tendency not to like competing solutions on its iPhone, especially ones with more tweakability than Apple's own.

They don't because developers need money to produce apps.

Well, they need to pay Apple $99/year, yeah, but apart from that, not much more than any other decent development system. And you're surely not judging the App Store by the quantity of apps?

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the equivilant of sneaking into the circus to see the show for free. Yeah, you didn't take anything from anyone. If you're caught, it would be a small fine and a day in the local lockup. Or more likely a boot up your ass from security while getting tossed into the street.

Either way, you're still a cheap fuck no matter how you justify it.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[vijayiyer]

No, because your whole original point is you bitching that Apple isn't creating a mechanism for you to block the ads. So nothing is in public view - and you're bitching that it's not. Then you talk about a sense of entitlement when it's you who is the 20 something who read about an era of entitlement somewhere.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

So nothing is in public view - and you're bitching that it's not.

Offering a TV programme for free-to-air watching = in public view. Ads or no ads.

Offering a web page for free download = in public view. Ads or no ads.

Offering an app for free download = in public view. Ads or no ads.

Your sense of entitlement to modify how people behave when you put something in public view = unconscionable.

If you want money for your art, just ask for it. If you want to distribute a shareware style trial version, you can put a feature/time limit in it or just politely request that people pay if they find it useful. I'm not here claiming some right to the full version just because I have the trial version, just asserting my freedom to not have my device and/or eyeballs controlled by you.

To conclude, I don't know about your world, but in mine people give reward because they think it's deserved, not because they're forced to. You must live in a horrible environment where everyone's so begrudging!

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Anonymous Coward]

To conclude,

You're a cheap fuck, we got it.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[FuckingNickName]

You're a cheap fuck, we got it.

When it comes to not giving money to aggressive beggars, yup.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[Joe U]

We got it, developers are beggars, you're cheap, piracy is fine, your rights to disable ad-ware, unlimited rice pudding, etcetera, etcetera.

Go sneak into a movie or something.

Re:iAds-blocking app?

[toriver]

So in summary: The developer should just make the $1 app because leeches like you would get the ad-supported $0 version and then not uphold your end of the implied bargain by showing the ads.

Still a fucking cheapskate. Go make your own "write apps and don't get asny money!" platform and see how successful you are. You are NOT entitled to any apps. If you cannot play by the rules, get out of the game.

Marketing move

[kangsterizer]

Hmm 1400 USD in one day for an App which takes 20min to code.

I'm kind of supposing he's not going to get 1400 a day every day and that this is very much a marketing move right?
Else i'm releasing a flash light apps really soon :P

Re:Marketing move

[dimeglio]

What are you waiting for? In one hour, you can code at least 3 apps, each making $1,400. Sound like you probably have a better paying job. The coding part of application development is less than 5% of a full application development cycle.

Re:Marketing move

[Rockoon]

The coding part of application development is less than 5% of a full application development cycle.

umm.. its a flashlight app

Re:Marketing move

[kangsterizer]

Yeah Flash light app require extreme amount of engineering, market research and marketing. Not even talking about the innovation and creativity at work here, it's quite unique. (aka 1 person, 20min, grand total.)

Please...

Re:Marketing move

[Chris Johnson]

I'm not an iPhone coder, but if I was, I would really enjoy sabotaging all you silly people by putting out a flashlight app that did not have any ads in any way :)

The gratitude I'd get would be worth the effort, and being 'positioned' as a helpful, smart programmer who respects people's attention and wishes, is more valuable than being recognized as a dumbass who'll put out the 1000th flashlight app with an ad on it in hopes of being paid by foolish advertisers to market to other dumbasses who are by definition in the dark trying to see something other than the screen :D

Re:Marketing move

[PixetaledPikachu]

You should try helping starving children at third world countries instead of a bunch of shiny gadget owners. I'm sure those kids will appreciate your time and money more than those who could afford these expensive toys

Re:Marketing move

[kangsterizer]

I think you missed the sarcasm in my message

Re:Marketing move

[adamofgreyskull]

Meh, if that's your goal:
1. Code a flashlight app, stick an ad in it and send all ad revenue to "the third world".
2. Stick a green cap with a feather in it on your head and call yourself a modern-day frickin' Robin Hood
3. ????
4. Non-profit!

In fact, if it's not already, this should be a feature of iAd. Non-profits/charities should be able to sign up, and anyone who wants to support them can write iPhone apps, select their favourite charity and have proceeds sent direct to them, like you can do with auctions on eBay. Allow searching on "Charity Apps" and watch as a millions of people with more money than sense rush to buy and rate charity app versions of ones they already own so they can impress their friends. Brown badge to the first fart app for colon cancer. Blurry badge for the first flashlight app for myopia.

Re:Marketing move

[Threni]

Ah - but does it work in your left hand? You need to think of the testing too. Apple spent a lot of time testing their stuff to make sure the phone works in your left hand - you have to check the signal strength and everything. It takes ages to do it properly unless you just want to rush it out to meet an arbitrary deadline.

Re:It's not funny at all. It's a religious obsessi

[mister_playboy]

According to episode 3 of Futurama's current season Attack of the Killer App , they do all these things because the eyePhone is actually a mind control device. :)

And Steve Jobs = Mom... brilliant episode!

My kingdom for a mod point

[Overzeetop]

Exactly the point. This gets more "free" apps on the store while getting the developers (and apple, of course) some cash. Personally, I'm fine with it. I already pay for the best apps I use, but always look for free "utility" apps to use once or twice a year. As I understand it, the ad will be a small click-though type, where the banner is a low bandwidth type which will load some more advanced (and b/w intensive) ad on clicking.

Re:My kingdom for a mod point

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the point. This gets more "free" apps on the store

Unproven assertion. More likely, it will be like what happened to "shareware" years ago, when people went from producing many small free utilities, to many small "we want money for this" ones. Or what has happened in movie theaters in recent years - now you pay high prices AND get bombarded with a lot of TV-style ads.

Flashlight ads?

[nickspoon]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't buy a flashlight app that requires a data connection. :/

Re:Flashlight ads?

[nickspoon]

I mean, download it. Because it's free. (Whoops.)

Re:Flashlight ads?

[rolfwind]

You can turn off the data connection on an iphone entirely in settings. It's called airplane mode.

Apple fans have more money and are impulsive

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the large discrepancy between iAd and AdMob is simple.
There is more disposable income with the iPhone, iPod crowd that are addicted to the Appstore. They also have an Apple product because of status and therefore they tend to get a lot of apps and are ad-viewing, clickthru type personalities. Where as the rest of the world are more discerning, who only pick and choose the best and most useful Apps and are far less likely to clickthru on adverts.

Steve Jobs will give you AiDs personally ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...
captcha: buzzed

Re:It's not funny at all. It's a religious obsessi

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. They're almost as bad as those car owners. Seriously, no 3rd party apps, and more and more crippled every year. I've heard that there are cars that won't let you drive without seat-belts buckled, talk about crippled.

It's not just about $ ... iAds are better

[gig]

IAds are better ads. I wish they were available for websites. Google ads are the lowest-quality amateur bullshit ... Google has no fucking taste.

Re:It's not just about $ ... iAds are better

[pandrijeczko]

Then I apologise in advance for my sentience and reasoning ability as I have always strived to spend my hard earned cash based on informed judgement rather than blindly consuming the crap fed to me in advertising, all of which I consider to be bad.

As far as I'm concerned, if something is good value for money then word will get around and I'll find out about it.

Re:It's not just about $ ... iAds are better

[PixetaledPikachu]

Better ads. You're funny :D

How does it require a data connection?

[SuperKendall]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't buy a flashlight app that requires a data connection. :/

Although humorous, if you don't have a data connection you'll just not get an ad. That's the risk you take distributing an ad-based application...

Re:How does it require a data connection?

[geminidomino]

I dunno if he was being humorous. I had the same thought. I'm paranoid about apps connecting to the net that don't need to (NB: I have an android phone, not an iphone but the principle is the same), since once they get that "connects to the data network" notice in there for the add rotator, who knows what else it might try to slip out the back channel.

Slightly OT: Is it just me or has anyone noticed that AdMob (used to be used on iPhone apps before the Great Google War) ads are invariably for some really dodgy shit?

Speaking as an actual developer ...

[perpenso]

Speaking as an actual developer, Perpenso Calc for iPhone, the iAd Network has encouraged us to move a "lite" version up on the priority list. I don't accept the quoted revenue number, if accurate it is an anomaly, a freak outlier. However iAds does make publishing a gratis version of a paid app more attractive, even when starting from a low cost app like ours. When the barrier to entry for the full app is pretty low, a lite version just did not seem that necessary. With a potential revenue stream things move from "why bother" to "why not".

Re:Speaking as an actual developer ...

[webdesign-berlin]

I'm with you until ads doesn't annoy me I accept them for a free version. I had a lot apps (iphone / android) and as long the ad is placed in a little corner at the top or bottom and i could use the app without beeing forced to click it's a good alternative for paying something that i would drop of the phone some hours later cause it wasn't the right. there also should be a trial version for all paid apps cause i don't know if the app a.) works b.) works as mentioned and c.) help me what i was looking for.

Re:Speaking as an actual developer ...

[perpenso]

iAds are a little different, Apple specifies the dimensions. For example in landscape orientation a 480x32 pixel strip across the entire screen is reserved. In Perpenso Calc we sandwich this between the numeric display and the segmented control that lets you select scientific, hex or bill mode. So it is out of the way during normal use. However when you click on an ad Apple puts up a full screen window over your app to display an ad with pretty rich content. Dismiss this ad and you are still in the app. The ad in your app is not a simple link that takes you out of your app and delivers you to some web page.

Re:Speaking as an actual developer ...

[cowbud]

Yeah, they do it this way because they can't just kill that application ;) Unlike Android when you leave an application it dies in iOS. Yes they added "multitasking server/client support" but how many apps already do this? Don't confuse elegance with pure necessity.

Re:Speaking as an actual developer ...

[perpenso]

Yeah, they do it this way because they can't just kill that application ;) Unlike Android when you leave an application it dies in iOS. Yes they added "multitasking server/client support" but how many apps already do this? Don't confuse elegance with pure necessity.

iAds require iOS 4. In iOS 4 the app does not die when closed, it moves to an in-memory background state. Clicking on its icon moves it from background to foreground, it does not relaunch the app. Even apps built for older versions of iOS do this.

So I think we can chalk this up to elegance, or better yet effectiveness. The "normal" ad you see in your app is like an icon that launches the "real" full screen ad. Full screen with rich content allows advertisers to do much more compelling things.

WTF baby?

[AnAdventurer]

Who are these people that click on passive ads, I don't care if web browsing, facebook, playing a game or using utility software on your phone. I SO DO NOT get it. I get pay for click on search engines, I even use those when I am looking for something. But random (even if they track and compile my habits, the ads look random to me). So who are these consumers who click on banner advertising where ever it rears it's head? We have been hearing about location based pop ups and maybe it's in some markets, but that will be down right invasive and not the same as this passive banner ads. I am not going to click on an ad while I am playing chess on my phone, and then what? Go though a check out process using my phones input? I just don't see that paying off. It's not just the who, but also the end payoff for the advertiser. I just don't see it as a good choice. Maybe for large business that are interested in name recognition, but for the small advertiser.... Eh, I have lost my train of thought, what were we talking about?

Apple rolled out its new advertising platform

[countertrolling]

It's called Slashdot. It has actually been running for several years now.

Be nice if it didn't crash

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to put iAds in an app I developed, but the banner kept having memory issues (EXC_BAD_ACCESS) and crashing the entire application.

iSPAM

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Its not iAds, its iSPAM.

Fanboy revisionism.

[mjwx]

You do realize that Apple contributes to many open source projects right? In fact you can get the backbone of OS X BSD system as Darwin. Chrome wouldn't exist without WebKit. LLVM, CalDAV, CUPS, etc.

Apple didnt develop WebKit (KHTML), LLVM or CalDAV. They didn't develop or open source CUPS either, they purchased the source code in 2007. Please get your facts straight.

Secondly, Apple has more software patents then Microsoft. Apple does not open source what it can avoid open sourcing. They embody the reason the GPL v3 exists, Apple takes from OSS and gives little back, just enough to avoid legal action.

For Mac computers there isn't a walled garden.

OK then, I'll just run it up on my AMD Phenom gaming rig shall I. Make no mistake, Mac's are limited, maybe not as much as iDevices but it's still limited and locked down. Saying this is "better" is like Jane saying her new boyfriend is better because he only beats her half as much, you're ignoring the fact that it's locked down in the first place.

The difference between them and MS is that MS reached out with their monopoly to harm competitors and partners

No, both Apple and MS do this. The critical difference is that Microsoft has been successful. Apple will happily sue it's competitors (Apple Computers vs Microsoft, Apple Inc vs HTC and so forth) but it always ends up losing. MS on the other hand buys out competitors, strong arms suppliers and makes back room deals, so MS has been quite successful.

Re:Fanboy revisionism.

[BasilBrush]

You do realize that Apple contributes to many open source projects right? In fact you can get the backbone of OS X BSD system as Darwin. Chrome wouldn't exist without WebKit. LLVM, CalDAV, CUPS, etc.

Apple didnt develop WebKit (KHTML), LLVM or CalDAV. They didn't develop or open source CUPS either, they purchased the source code in 2007. Please get your facts straight.

Talking of "getting your fact's straight, and "fanboy revisionism", he said "Apple contributes to", not that they developed the projects from scratch.

In the case of Webkit, apple did indeed fork it from KHTML and vastly improve on it. Exactly what the free software movement wants people to do. Webkit rapidly became far superior to KHTML such that the KHTML team decided to just adopt Webkit. It's now the case that that the vast majority of what's in Webkit was written by Apple. What remains of KHTML is a small percentage of code.

LLVM wasn't started by Apple, but Apple hired the primary developer of LLVM for him to continue development of the open source tool whilst getting paid for it. Again, what the free software movement promotes as an answer to the problem of how open source developers put food on the table. Apple has a team of people working on LLVM now, and LLVM is on the verge of replacing GCC as the free software compiler of choice. Were it not for Apple's investment, it wouldn't be at that level for a long time yet, if ever.

As to CalDAV, you ought to take a look at the original RFC defining it, and see what fruit based company name is on it. It's a working group of course, as all the best standards are. And Apple was on it.

Apple takes from OSS and gives little back, just enough to avoid legal action.

Are you really so ill-informed or are you just a troll?

Re:Fanboy revisionism.

[UnknowingFool]

Apple didnt develop WebKit (KHTML), LLVM or CalDAV. They didn't develop or open source CUPS either, they purchased the source code in 2007. Please get your facts straight.

Please read more carefully: I said "Apple contributes to" open source. Apple did not start the projects listed. Just like many contributors to the Linux kernel did not start it; that was Linus Torvalds. It would not be where it is today without contributors.

Secondly, Apple has more software patents then Microsoft. Apple does not open source what it can avoid open sourcing. They embody the reason the GPL v3 exists, Apple takes from OSS and gives little back, just enough to avoid legal action.

Please read about BSD licenses. Under the terms of BSD, Apple is under no obligation to release Darwin at all. As for having more software patents, that is irrelevant to the subject at hand. As for giving little back, if you ever used KTHML before WebKit, you would know that your statement is false. WebKit does much, much more than KHTML and Apple is responsible for most of the enhancements like vast improvements to the JavaScript engine.

OK then, I'll just run it up on my AMD Phenom gaming rig shall I. Make no mistake, Mac's are limited, maybe not as much as iDevices but it's still limited and locked down. Saying this is "better" is like Jane saying her new boyfriend is better because he only beats her half as much, you're ignoring the fact that it's locked down in the first place.

Please look up the term "walled garden". Walled garden does not mean that you can't run code on any platform you choose. That term is "cross-platform". Specifically walled-garden means that the carrier or service provider has control over the applications and/or content/media. i.e. iPhone, Xbox Live. You can develop any application you want for the Mac without Apple's approval or ecosystem like Microsoft's Office for Mac, Mozilla's Firefox for Mac. It's not as free as Linux but it's the same OS's like Windows, Playstation, etc.

No, both Apple and MS do this. The critical difference is that Microsoft has been successful. Apple will happily sue it's competitors (Apple Computers vs Microsoft, Apple Inc vs HTC and so forth) but it always ends up losing. MS on the other hand buys out competitors, strong arms suppliers and makes back room deals, so MS has been quite successful.

I don't remember where Apple said to Intel: "If you don't stop developing a Java compiler, we will favor AMD in our next version of Windows."

You were saying?

[mjwx]

And it's not like the EVO and Droid X are any cheaper price wise than an iPhone

HTC Evo 4G = US$570
Samsung Galaxy S = US$620
Apple Iphone 3Gs 16GB = US$840

You were saying?

It appears the top end android phones are a full US$200 or 25% cheaper then the lowest end Iphones.

Re:You were saying?

[BasilBrush]

You're comparing the cost of two US phones, bought in the US, to the cost of an imported European phone shipped to the US. In case you didn't know all electronic products have a higher price in Europe to the US, so such grey market imports will always look expensive.

The unsubsidised (i.e. comes without a contract) cost of an iPhone, direct from Apple US, is $599.

Re:You were saying?

[mjwx]

In case you didn't know all electronic products have a higher price in Europe to the US, so such grey market imports will always look expensive.

In case you didnt know, people who order from the UK outside the EU do not pay VAT (effectively removing 20% of the retail cost) making it cheaper to order from the UK when you live in a nation which doesn't tax parallel imports. I paid A$580 for my Moto Milestone to get delivered, that's about US$520 at the current exch rate.

Secondly, the Samsung Galaxy S is an import from Korea, where Samsung makes the phones and the Evo 4G is not sold anywhere outside the US (HTC expressly designed it for Sprint) so please get your facts straight before posting fanboyish nonsense.

The unsubsidised (i.e. comes without a contract) cost of an iPhone, direct from Apple US, is $599.

Citation needed. I cant find one on the US site without an AT&T contract.

Re:You were saying?

[BasilBrush]

In case you didnt know, people who order from the UK outside the EU do not pay VAT (effectively removing 20% of the retail cost) making it cheaper to order from the UK when you live in a nation which doesn't tax parallel imports. I paid A$580 for my Moto Milestone to get delivered, that's about US$520 at the current exch rate.

I'm well aware you don't pay VAT on UK goods if you're outside the EU. So that's 17.5% saved on retail prices (not 20%). But that still doesn't make it worthwhile for Americans to do it. Australians perhaps, because they also suffer higher retail prices than the US. But not for Americans.

If you're going to quote US prices from a US site, then the comparison is for Americans, not Australians.

Secondly, the Samsung Galaxy S is an import from Korea, where Samsung makes the phones

Indeed, another look indicates it's not even compatible with US 3G, making your comparison even more stupid.

Evo 4G is not sold anywhere outside the US (HTC expressly designed it for Sprint) so please get your facts straight before posting fanboyish nonsense.

I never said it was dumbass.

Citation needed. I cant find one on the US site without an AT&T contract.

Look harder.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=OTY2ODA2OQ

Re:It's not funny at all. It's a religious obsessi

[pgmrdlm]

lol, that was a great episode. God, that was funny.
I was surprised that the apple fan club didn't cry about how they were being picked on.

How do you know.

[krischik]

And how do you know if the App uses advertising for revenue - before downloading? AFAIK there are only two groups (Free and pay) and not three groups (Truly gratis, subsidized and pay).

Martin

Re:How do you know.

[BasilBrush]

How do you know if any application for any platform is advert free before downloading?

Complete lack of software? ROFL

[Nursie]

The whole debian environment is a complete lack of software. Right.

Perhaps you meant complete lack of an app that gives you a button to make your phone fart.

iSPAM - maybe

[krischik]

Well, it is not SPAM if you agreed to it (by installing the application) and you have a reliable way to opt out again (by de-installing the application).

Still there is one tiny part which would qualify for SPAM: If the application does not specify before downloading that it is subsidized by advertising. I think the current differentiation between gratis is non is not enough.

Opera

[mdwh2]

It's true that ads can be okay, I did use Opera years ago when it had a free ad version.

But I have to laugh - now, everytime there's a story about Opera, you always get the inevitable complaints of "Opera has ads!", despite the fact that they stopped doing that years ago. Similarly for any story about adverts on the Internet, there's loads of criticism. Yet, when Apple come along and support a programme of actively helping developers fill their apps up with ads, suddenly it's okay, and anyone criticising is getting modded down. Because it's Apple.

F You... no really

[TravisO]

I can't stand self righteous a**holes like you... you'd be the first to complain about your ad free cable costing $500/month

Re:F You... no really

[node_chomsky]

ad free cable costing $500/month

This is a great reason not to have cable television service and find more fulfilling things to do with your time. The way advertising is defeated is by:

a. Not exposing yourself to advertising unless it's forced on you (i.e. billboards, etc.)

b. Not patronizing businesses that force advertising on you.

I assure you that the power of advertising is entirely based on your voluntary submission to it's message.

You don't

[krischik]

That is what I said: Currently you don't. I think the developer should be made to declare it.

Re:You don't

[BasilBrush]

That is what I said: Currently you don't. I think the developer should be made to declare it.

Every application for every platform? iOS, Android, WIndows, OSX, Linux, etc...? That would require legislation. In fact it would require international legislation. And its not something that is that important. People are advertised to everyday - billboards, newspaper ads, TV, radio.

How about you just assume that every free app you download has adverts, on the basis that developers usually have to make a living. Then you can be genuinely surprised on the occasions when they are advert free. After all, if someone in the street, or mall, or exhibition hall offers something for free, then I expect it'll be advertising something.

Of course when it comes to software, developers do usually declare if their software contains adverts. And it is generally clear from the screenshots. If they don't declare it, then people are going to mention it in the reviews, and give them a lower rating than they would otherwise. An of course developers who don't use advertising are free to list that as a benefit of their app.

Shop rules

[krischik]

Every application for every platform? iOS, Android, WIndows, OSX, Linux, etc...? That would require legislation.

Yes on both accounts. But "Shop legislation" is enough. User then can decide if they like to shop with a shop with more detailed informations or not.

Which of course means that it will never happen for iPhone.

And for me it is important as I live in a country where there is no flat rate data plan. That means I have to pay for mobile advertising to be delivered to me.

Martin