Slashdot Mirror
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."
Getting iADBlock on the Appstore.
http://online.wsj.com/media/iad_D_20100709194420.jpg
Check the link. In the picture in the background behind Jobs there's a logo for: iAd.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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'.
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.
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.
Caveat Utilitor
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.
Tisha Hayes
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?
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't buy a flashlight app that requires a data connection. :/
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.
The coding part of application development is less than 5% of a full application development cycle.
umm.. its a flashlight app
"His name was James Damore."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
The poster was referring to ads on websites, not in apps, by pointing out Adblock Plus on his/her N900.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
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.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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".
"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.
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.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
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...
That's nothing. I paid $2500 for a TV, and there are ads on it!
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...
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Webkit would not exist without KHTML, OSX would not exist without BSD, you have it backwards buddy.
Its not iAds, its iSPAM.
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.
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.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
The term Helsinki syndrome has been used erroneously to describe Stockholm syndrome, popularized by the movie Die Hard.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
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.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.