Apple reveals iPhone OS 4 with iAd. Great revenue for developers!

[spaceman]

What iAd effectively does is giving everybody and their cousin an easy delivery mechanism for way more irritating ads you cannot even skip.

Bollocks.

As always, people's imagination runs wild and facts and common sense are no where to be seen. The ads do NOT interrupt the application unasked. You still need to click on them, just like any other fecking ad in the world. The only difference is that clicking on one will not open a browser but the ad will 'play' in the app itself.

[C00kie]

Fortunately, without CDMA support, iAds will be restricted to the little blue blobbies on the map to the right:

I might be moving to Montana soon...

[whyterabbyt]

OK IAd looks crap but the rest is a pretty sweet update - multitasking, email improvements, app folders - can't wait

The multitasking is an improvement, but its not 'real' multitasking as such.

The evolution of the iPod OS is startting to remind me of MacOS. Way back when, Macs didnt multitask at all, then in a later revision of the OS, they allowed some 'background' services/tasks to run alongside the 'main application' (which is where iPodOS4 takes you) then eventually they abandoned MacOS, went to OSX and finally caught up with Windows on that front.

I'm sure a couple of generations down the line the processor/battery combo will be up to proper multitasking, remains to be seen whether one of Apple's legacy-breaking 'core rewrites' is needed.

It will be amusing to see if this particular Slashdot comment holds up, though:

The Apple Hipster Douchebag Multitasking Roadmap

> Multitasking sucks and is unneeded. I don't want stupid multitasking I just want to focus on one app at a time.

> OMG!!! We are finally getting multitasking!!!

> Apple's half-assed multitasking is 'pretty slick' Apple 'invented' multitasking

[aMUSEd]

As long as the app store clearly differentiates between non ad suppiorted apps and ad supported apps I can avoid them. What is wrong is when an app is a paid for non ad supported one but then switches to an ad supported model when they have enough people hooked - they did that with Shopper, a very popular (now less so) shopping list app and it's completely unethical and greedy. I do not want ads on my iPhone at all.

[whyterabbyt]

I do not want ads on my iPhone at all.

Just out of interest, would the bandwidth used for ad transport be part of one's connection bill?

[spaceman]

I do not want ads on my iPhone at all.

Just out of interest, would the bandwidth used for ad transport be part of one's connection bill?

If you're sily enough to click on an ad then I would say yes.

Again, these ads are not forced onto you. This model is not there to interrupt your app experience and serve you an ad like a pre or mid-roll in a video. Ads are still just ads like they are now in the iPhone. Some apps show an ad at the top or bottom. No one forces anyone to click on them.

[whyterabbyt]

If you're sily enough to click on an ad then I would say yes.

the ad doesnt get on your phone by magic, though.

Again, these ads are not forced onto you.

well, yes and no. if you're running an 'ad enabled' program then they are. the default behaviour model (of the user) becomes that you have to switch off/avoid ads, same as one has to in browsers.

its just that there's more cooperative support for them in the OS which means that they're more seamless, cant block the applications, and a controlled revenue stream for Apple...

[spaceman]

If you're sily enough to click on an ad then I would say yes.

the ad doesnt get on your phone by magic, though.

Again, these ads are not forced onto you.

well, yes and no. if you're running an 'ad enabled' program then they are. the default behaviour model (of the user) becomes that you have to switch off/avoid ads, same as one has to in browsers.

its just that there's more cooperative support for them in the OS which means that they're more seamless, cant block the applications, and a controlled revenue stream for Apple...

I really can't see the problem myself. Currently, in many free apps, you get an ad. As in, a small image on the top or bottom of the app's interface. If you click on them it opens a browser. The ads generate revenue for the developer which pays for the free app.

That doesn't change. You would still only see a small image and you still need to click on it. The difference being that it will run an animated/interactive ad in the app itself, not in a browser, which may turn out to use less bandwidth than opening a full website in a browser.

No one currently uses ads in paid-for apps. I guess it's because people don't accept them (it's why they usually pay for an app, to get rid of ads) so using them in a paid-for app is commercial suicide.

That model stays the same, and it's the same as used in a hell of a lot of free software on PC and Mac.

[spaceman]

Btw, as far as I can tell, you are not downloading any ad 'code' by default, only when clicking on an ad.

[bmanic]

Oh and where the heck have you read that you can not skip the adds? Source please.

Ehh. You really think you as a user will be in charge of the situation? Can't wait to see you happily clicking away all those fullscreen video ads and feeling happy that you as a user are in control of things

Will an optional "skip this ad" button chosen by the advertiser make it all good?

I think you are still missing the point completely. The DEVELOPER of the software is in control of HOW the add is represented. He could even hide the adds on a separate page and urge users to check them out to help him/her with some extra revenues.

You are extremely cynical here without thinking rationally, imo. Like I already said: I've SEEN how adds are used in applications and it ranges from extremely annoying, constantly in-your-face to very subtle and possible to turn off in an options menu. Why on earth would this change?

This is why I asked you for a source containing facts. How much control DOES the developer have? I'm under the impression that they have total control in how/where/when to deliver an add. Apple just provides high quality adds. That's all. This is how I've understood it but I have no facts either only speculation.

Surely the developer of any said program can choose themselves HOW to incorporate the add into the program?

Yes. I'm talking about that choice the developers make. You as a user won't have a say in it - not even with your money _if the developer so chooses_.

We as user have the option of not buying the app! That's pretty strong choice right there and it has already been demonstrated several times how much influence large forums like Toucharcade.com and such have when it comes to apps/games with adds. I'm sure it isn't different with any other app. When the community thinks something is over the top and annoying the developer really can not afford to continue with the obtrusive adds.

Also, several developers that have addware software actually let you, the user, decide if you want to keep the adds turned on or off meaning the software becomes a kind of donation ware.

Like I said, it has already been the case in many programs. Heck the worst I've seen in a "free" utility app (some toolbox wannabe) was scrolling adds both on top and bottom, strategically placed so that you'd more often than not hit the damn things with your fingers. Boom! Instant closing of the app and website pop-up. How on earth can anything become MORE annoying than this? You couldn't remove the adds either.

By being fullscreen, you cannot close it, cannot skip it. Think about it for a second. See and read Apple's promotional material regarding iAd.

Ever seen that little 'x' in the corner?

I'd be very surprised if you can't skip an add. If this is the case then whoever uses those adds will have a huge problem with the community/users.

.. and this will ultimately lead to their demise. Do not underestimate the power of people complaining. It's happened before, it will happen again.

Uh oh. Forest and trees. Think about every single ad-supported website out there with their ads.

They're still there.

Not true at all. There are MANY websites that had over the top adds that have now changed their policies. Why on earth do you choose to dramatize this so much? You know it's bull.

An example: Reddit. There was a HUGE uproar to some of their adds and they got taken away. Another example: Gizmodo. They too had to change their old add policy due to complaints and sharp drop in traffic.

SimHQ (a website about flight simulators)

Pelit.fi (finnish website about games..)

Same with pretty much all the ad-supported free software.

But it's kind of beside the point. The point is that it's too easy for the developers and Apple is promising too great profits.

We'll see how it goes. My guess is some software will get bloated by adds, some wont, like it's ALWAYS been.

Why see the inevitable problematic situation when it could have been avoided?

How can it be avoided? Are you talking about a public uproar.. like don't support apple? ..like in "I have a choice because I can choose what to buy"?

Now you don't have any choice in the matter.

Oh so now suddenly I don't have a choice because it's about apps? I can not choose what software to buy?

You just learn the hard way which developers abuse the system and avoid them in the future. The big difference to the current situation is that there will be so much more of them.

This might be true for a while but I still have a choice. Hate adds? Don't use software that has adds in them. Pretty simple. Need that software? It's a "must have" and it has adds? Too bad. Contact the developer, voice your opinion, do something about it. Nothing has changed. Don't like the iAd system? Don't buy apple products.

Perhaps in some but I don't think the situation will change much. The market will decide. You sound like we, the users, have no choice in the matter.

That's the point - we don't. We have no way to opt out of advertising, paying for all your apps DOES NOT guarantee it.[/quote]

Of course it doesn't guarantee it. We might also die from a meteor strike tomorrow but such is life. Why so cynical? Adds work on the amount of users who see the adds. If it all becomes ridiculous people would not consider the platform viable any more and ditch the iWhateverDevice.

For instance websites with tolerable adds, like KvR, are still visited because they've struck a happy medium. If it would become ridiculous with pop-up adds and such nonsense then I'm pretty sure a huge amount of users would migrate to some other less offensive website.

It all goes in cycles like life in general. When something becomes over saturated somebody sees and opportunity to change it and going against the norm. If/when successful they get major exposure and thus make a profit. Change has happened and the cycle begins all over again.

Source please. What do you mean by there not being any opt-out option? Surely the developer can just say: Damn.. this was a bad idea. I'll just remove the adds for the next version.

No?

Ehh, come on. What I said was that you as a user have no way to opt out of advertising altogether, not even by paying for every single app.[/quote]

No you didn't. You perhaps meant to say it. I thought you were talking based on some fact that a user can not skip an add (click on the 'x' in the corner) or that apple doesn't let developers decide. I now know what you mean because you've been more specific. My "source please" comment was sincere as I thought you had some source of information I wasn't aware of.

"Source please". Read the whole iAd -thing again, it's all there.

I've read only the gizmodo report and endgadget coverage. I'm not too concerned about the iAd situation as I don't see it as anything that different from what is already possible/the norm.

I'm pretty sure the market will dictate some happy medium. Developers without adds and good products will have a field day and get all the cash if the market gets saturated with semi-crappy apps with tons of adds.

Well, such a happy medium hasn't happened anywhere else. RSS, ad-supported websites... Come on, you surf the web as much as I do, you know the reality

Perhaps my reality differs from yours? I've seen PLENTY of websites that have pulled back on advertising due to public outcry. I'm very surprised if you haven't.

With an ecosystem where there's no concept of demoing software at all, it's either taking a chance by paying for software or accepting ads and limited functionality, you really think that an OS-supported easy way to implement forcefed ads on both sides of the paid/free fence is a good thing?

Are you on some other internet than the rest of us?-)

I'm on the same net but I seem to have a different perspective to you. We all have different viewpoints. Some see a half glass full, some see it half empty.

NOTHING is ever force fed. YOU have a choice. If you really hate adds and stuff, don't use the internet, don't buy an iphone/ipod touch. I think the key thing here is our differing opinion of how much power we as individuals truly have. Am I an idealist and naive? Probably.. you should know that by now.

EDIT nr5: oh for f**ks sake! I suck at quoting things. Completely messed it up.

Cheers!
bManic

[whyterabbyt]

Btw, as far as I can tell, you are not downloading any ad 'code' by default, only when clicking on an ad.

Do you actually think that will stay that way, then, given how web-based ads have evolved?

[spaceman]

Btw, as far as I can tell, you are not downloading any ad 'code' by default, only when clicking on an ad.

Do you actually think that will stay that way, then, given how web-based ads have evolved?

Maybe not, but now you're talking about almost every ad serving model then, not something Apple or iPhone specific. Even Android (remember who made Android!), any OS on any device actually.

[bmanic]

I do not want ads on my iPhone at all.

Just out of interest, would the bandwidth used for ad transport be part of one's connection bill?

Very good question! It'd be interesting to hear how it counts into the bill. Here in Finland most seem to opt for the unlimited data/month plan as it's relatively cheap compared to the US but even then the phone companies might be interested in pushing adds just to bring up data charges.

Damn.. maybe there is a conspiracy in it after all!

Cheers!
bManic

[whyterabbyt]

Maybe not, but now you're talking about almost every ad serving model then, not something Apple or iPhone specific. Even Android (remember who made Android!), any OS on any device actually.

Im not sure what you mean. There's no ad-serving mechanism built into Android.

[bmanic]

OK IAd looks crap but the rest is a pretty sweet update - multitasking, email improvements, app folders - can't wait

The multitasking is an improvement, but its not 'real' multitasking as such.

The evolution of the iPod OS is startting to remind me of MacOS. Way back when, Macs didnt multitask at all, then in a later revision of the OS, they allowed some 'background' services/tasks to run alongside the 'main application' (which is where iPodOS4 takes you) then eventually they abandoned MacOS, went to OSX and finally caught up with Windows on that front.

On a jailbroken iphone the multitasking is completely genuine. You can run as many apps as you have memory and can easily confirm that they are truly running in the background (not just some advanced save state thing).

Why would they cripple something that is already fully functional? As I recall the old Mac OS just wasn't made for true multitasking to begin with. This isn't the case with iPhone OS afaik.

Cheers!
bManic