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

[whyterabbyt]

Lets just get it clear what this ad-delivery mechanism is.

It allows developers to embed 'ads' in their applications. When you click on an 'ad' from within an application, it allows the application to be paused or suspended while a new application which constitutes the 'ad payload' to be played. when the payload is finished with, the original application can be restored.

the 'ad' is the bit in the application. the 'payload' or 'presentation' that that ad triggers is ostensibly a new application, or bit of media. its the voluntary part. the trigger, the button, the 'ad' itself isnt voluntary.

its like there was a big button on your TV remote, and when they play an ad for tampons you can press the button, and then it runs a fully interactive game featuring 'absorby the magic tampon' and when you're done with that it returns you back to your TV program where you were watching.
In this case, the 'ad' is the bit you have no choice over. The 'game' is the 'payload'.

spaceman; I think you're arguing as though the 'ad' is the 'payload' and only that. Its not. In this system of Apple's the ad is still the ad, and the payload is what you get from following the ad. The payload might be a bigger, cleverer, more interesting ad, maybe, but you still got the original ad delivered to you whether you like it or not.

[spaceman]

And that's where the discussion started.. it is not a FORCE DELIVERY at all. Where did you get that? No one is going to be forced to look at ads. That's just nonsense

So the big flash animated panels on Yahoo and the like which lead to website pages with bigger pictures, text, and videos aren't in themselves 'ads' is that what you're saying?
And the 'ads' are actually the bits it gives you after you click on them?
Really?
If there's no content at all being displayed to you, how the hell do you find the 'ad'?

And if there is ANY content being displayed, even if its just some text which says 'click here for more info on the Superspudmo 5000', how does that not count as an 'ad'? And ad that you have no choice in seeing (cf 'forced delivery')

Sorry, you're losing me here. What do big Yahoo flash panels have to do with ads in free apps on an iphone?

What I've been arguing all along is that the ads already present in free apps on the iphone will be no different form the ads you'll find in free apps when Apple's new ad delivery system is in place. The only difference is what happens when you click on the ad.

I haven't used many other phones lately in a lot of depth, but are you saying that there are no free apps on other platforms (like Android) that display a small ad in between content?

[headquest]

Iadds are being sold as something good for the consumer - gimme a break

No, it's being sold as something good for the developer actually. But as everyone should know, it's actually best for the ad broker.

And by and large, it's something that is BAD for the person who, erm, buys the phone. But hey - who cares about them anyway? - clearly not Apple in this instance.

[whyterabbyt]

Sorry, you're losing me here. What do big Yahoo flash panels have to do with ads in free apps on an iphone?

They're both ads. They both require bandwidth to get to the user. I started off, if you remember, asking who's paying for the bandwidth for the ad you get on your iphone?

What I've been arguing all along is that the ads already present in free apps on the iphone will be no different form the ads you'll find in free apps when Apple's new ad delivery system is in place. The only difference is what happens when you click on the ad.

Actually you were arguing that you werent being forced-delivered ads. Now you're saying there are already ads there. How did they get there if they werent force-delivered?

I haven't used many other phones lately in a lot of depth, but are you saying that there are no free apps on other platforms (like Android) that display a small ad in between content?

No, Im not saying any such thing, nor am I denying any such thing, nor am I commenting on anything related to free aps on other platforms . Its not even vaguely related to what Im saying.

[spaceman]

Iadds are being sold as something good for the consumer - gimme a break

No, it's being sold as something good for the developer actually. But as everyone should know, it's actually best for the ad broker.

And by and large, it's something that is BAD for the person who, erm, buys the phone. But hey - who cares about them anyway? - clearly not Apple in this instance.

So again, do you honestly believe that the iPhone is and will be the only phone on Earth where you can find a small ad in an application?

[whyterabbyt]

So again, do you honestly believe that the iPhone is and will be the only phone on Earth where you can find a small ad in an application?

Do you believe that the 'payload' of ads delivered on the iphone is only downloaded when the user clicks on the ad? Are Apple expecting the ADD-kid of today to wait for their flashy 'absorby the tampon' adgame to download?

[spaceman]

Sorry, you're losing me here. What do big Yahoo flash panels have to do with ads in free apps on an iphone?

They're both ads.

What I've been arguing all along is that the ads already present in free apps on the iphone will be no different form the ads you'll find in free apps when Apple's new ad delivery system is in place. The only difference is what happens when you click on the ad.

Actually you were arguing that you werent being forced-delivered ads. Now you're saying there are already ads there. How did they get there if they werent force-delivered?

I haven't used many other phones lately in a lot of depth, but are you saying that there are no free apps on other platforms (like Android) that display a small ad in between content?

No, Im not saying any such thing, nor am I denying any such thing, nor am I commenting on anything related to free aps on other platforms . Its not even vaguely related to what Im saying.

But that's what I've been talking all along. There have been little ads like that in free apps on the iPhone probably as long as there have been iPhones.

Ok, you argue that it's forced because you can't remove them, and well, yes, that is right and so yes, that is forced, but you don't have to install the free app that has the ad in it. You can pay 59p or whatever for the paid app and not see ads at all.

That's where all the confusion comes from for me.. I cant see any difference at all with the current situation.

People here have been talking as if the iphone will all of a sudden be full of ads everywhere, even in paid apps. that's just nonense.

[spaceman]

So again, do you honestly believe that the iPhone is and will be the only phone on Earth where you can find a small ad in an application?

Do you believe that the 'payload' of ads delivered on the iphone is only downloaded when the user clicks on the ad? Are Apple expecting the ADD-kid of today to wait for their flashy 'absorby the tampon' adgame to download?

The ad-delivery code is already there (as it's part of the OS now) but yes, I do expect the ad content itself to get downloaded only when you click on the ad. Just like a website would load in the browser at the moment when you click on an in-app ad. But who knows, maybe developers will pre-load the first ad.

Maybe it's all annoying, but then again, if you use a free version of an app instead of a paid version then you need to expect something in return. I used the free version of Twitterific for a long time and never even noticed the little add, nor did I care.

[Goratrix]

You can pay 59p or whatever for the paid app and not see ads at all.

Right. Just like you can pay for a movie ticket and not be bothered by any ads, because you already paid to see the movie. Or just like you can buy a DVD and enjoy the movie YOU PAID FOR without being forced to see any ads.

Do you happen to live in an alternative reality???

[whyterabbyt]

The ad-delivery code is already there (as it's part of the OS now) but yes, I do expect the ad content itself to get downloaded only when you click on the ad. Just like a website wouldn't load in the browser at the moment when you click on an in-app ad. But who knows, maybe developers will pre-load the first ad.

See, thats what I suspect. If there's a significant lag in loading the ad, then noone will bother with them. Apple aren't dumb enough to 'let them get away' (*) so there'll be some way around that. That might be a cap on payload sizes, pre-caching, streaming, or whatever. But some of the possibilities cost bandwidth.

(* per-click revenue models wont be as compelling for the advertisers if there's complex content to build, so something based on the amount of time they spend 'in' the payload makes more sense)

[spaceman]

You can pay 59p or whatever for the paid app and not see ads at all.

Right. Just like you can pay for a movie ticket and not be bothered by any ads, because you already paid to see the movie. Or just like you can buy a DVD and enjoy the movie YOU PAID FOR without being forced to see any ads.

Do you happen to live in an alternative reality???

uh?

Don't know if you've ever seen an iPhone and used one (I'm guessing you haven't), but none of the apps on it that I have paid for have ads in them. You know why? Because people wouldn't buy the app to start with. As for every app there is, you have, potentially, ten other companies making the same app.

You don't, however, have ten companies making the same DVD and you have few companies running cinemas as well. But I bet you're not sending emails to them complaining about an ad before the movie. Btw, did you know you can leave the cinema during the ads? You can use your legs for that. It's free.

And let's not mention the fact that a DVD is f**k of a lot different than an app on a phone.

But thanks for joining the discussion anyway.

[spaceman]

The ad-delivery code is already there (as it's part of the OS now) but yes, I do expect the ad content itself to get downloaded only when you click on the ad. Just like a website wouldn't load in the browser at the moment when you click on an in-app ad. But who knows, maybe developers will pre-load the first ad.

See, thats what I suspect. If there's a significant lag in loading the ad, then noone will bother with them. Apple aren't dumb enough to 'let them get away' (*) so there'll be some way around that. That might be a cap on payload sizes, pre-caching, streaming, or whatever. But some of the possibilities cost bandwidth.

(* per-click revenue models wont be as compelling for the advertisers if there's complex content to build, so something based on the amount of time they spend 'in' the payload makes more sense)

I doubt it will be a very different load than opening a company's website in a browser though, as is the case currently when you click on an add. Loading a whole website on the one hand, and opening just an ad on the other.. could be even better. That is, of course, if they don't actually do tons of pre-loading.

I think they wouldn't get away with that though if herds of people start complaining about expensive data bills.

[whyterabbyt]

Don't know if you've ever seen an iPhone and used one (I'm guessing you haven't), but none of the apps on it that I have paid for have ads in them. You know why? Because people wouldn't buy the app to start with as for every app there is you have potentially ten other companies making the same app.

so you dont think that there will be significantly more ads in free and paid apps as a result of this being incorporated into the iPod OS?

So why Job's focus on how many 'ad-clicks' they expect to be able to leverage?

[spaceman]

Don't know if you've ever seen an iPhone and used one (I'm guessing you haven't), but none of the apps on it that I have paid for have ads in them. You know why? Because people wouldn't buy the app to start with as for every app there is you have potentially ten other companies making the same app.

so you dont think that there will be significantly more ads in free and paid apps as a result of this being incorporated into the iPod OS?

Definitely not in paid apps. It's simply not accepted by users.

Free apps? Not sure. There's not much room on the screen to take up. More ads would mean cripple functionality, in my opinion. People would just uninstall it.

We can't just pretend that the user has no say in all of this. He may not be able to remove the ads but he can easily avoid the app altogether. It's a very competitive market and you don't want to piss off users.

[Goratrix]

Don't know if you've ever seen an iPhone and used one (I'm guessing you haven't), but none of the apps on it that I have paid for have ads in them. You know why? Because people wouldn't buy the app to start with as for every app there is you have potentially ten other companies making the same app.

Yes, but by giving developers a guaranteed easy-to-implement revenue stream, things will change. You will have 10 companies making the same app, all with ads. There will not be any companies making ad-free apps, because the margins on iphone apps are too low. The added market share gained by offering an ad-free alternative will not outweight the lost revenue from ads, especially when the market share gain is not guaranteed (how many users will REALLY prefer an ad-free app? especially considering the competing apps are never "the same"), but the ad revenue is.

I suspect this was part of the plan from the beginning, to offer cheap apps at huge volumes and very small margins and then use this massive user base for advertisement. Apple has surely learnt a few things from Google.