The thing is, unless iAd adds some specific Apple-exclusive spin (or Apple specifically excludes other ad platforms on iPhone), I don’t see iAd offering lower prices (through the heavy hand of the market), better relevancy (through a wider breadth of advertisers), or a more robust platform/infrastructure (through past experience) than what Google can and already does offer with Google Ads for Mobile and Admob. I mean I really do see iAds as becoming something akin to MobileMe-- it will gain a bit of traction, but it won’t overtake the incumbent. Again, this is all assuming it offers a similar set of features to Google Ads for Mobile.
How unfortunate. Jobs simply has an allergy to Adobe, it would seem.
actually, there is an interesting realization i had after a few minutes of cussing after reading the announcement.
by blocking the flash compile and introducing iAds, jobs has made a developer have to decide either/or, which-one-first, or spend-more-money to develop for both iphone and android. there is no longer an easy button you can push to deploy to both.
which is so evilly brilliant you have to respect the guy for playing hardball.
Well according to the presentation, the user click through rates on standard app ads (mostly Admob I’d think) is quite low because they result in the app you’re in shutting down and the safari browser opening. The iAds are almost like mini apps on their own. So for example, if I want to advertise my own app, I could create a small ad on AdMob and hope someone notices or clicks on it (fairly unlikely), or I could create an iAd, where the user could go into it, try out my game and purchase it all without leaving the original app they were in. Since this iAd feature is built in to the OS, it’s not really something that AdMob or Google could compete with on the iPhone platform.
There are some other ad networks and ad delivery services that have richer experiences than plain Admob text and graphic banners (see medialets full-screen interstitials). I frankly don’t think many companies and publishers are going to go with ads that are above and beyond graphic banners simply because they can be considered nuisances to the user-- a developer already faces significant lashback with text or graphic banner ads as is (see redwagon’s post on the first page).
I don’t think it is at this stage yet. You can still create an app for both platforms from one codebase with some other middleware solutions. But if Apple moves to block apps that were written by any sort of middleware aside from the approved ipos sdk components, then that will be a different matter.
granted, this is a very rudimentary app, but our own experimentation led us to believe there is good promise here. enough to give it a try for at least rapid prototyping.
there are a shitload of flash-developers and designers and action script is way faster than objective-c to prototype (and maybe even) deploy wiith.
That is indeed a very well penned article that pretty much mirrors exactly what i’ve been saying about Android around here and other forums. This guy actually “Sees the whole picture”-- something that tech bloggers and end users are not very prone to doing.
This was the best short quote from the article:
Of course before Android, Palm OS and Symbian were the “Microsoft of the smartphone market”, so I wouldn’t necessarily hold that metaphor to mean Android will have some sort of everlasting grip.
[quote=“mabagal”]
actually this was the whole promise of Flash CS5, which is why so many flash developers are up in arms today. here is a video demo of this.
“one codebase, five platforms” AIR CS5 demo. techandcover.com/2010/04/05/ … um=twitter[/quote]
Yes, I know about AIR and their multi-platform runtime strategy. My point is that even without flash-compiled-to-obj-c, there are still many automated and semi-automated multiple-platform middleware solutions for simultaneously launching to Android out there. The question is: will Apple cut those off at the knees too, or was yesterday’s announcement strictly targetting Flash?
[quote=“mabagal”]
actually, lower octane does matter because even before the motor pings any decent, modern, knock-sensor-equipped control system is going to cut back a whole boat load of timing, and thus, power and performance. and any decent performance engine management system is calibrated near the knock limit of the recommended fuel.[/quote]
But putting lower octane gas in your tank won’t cause your motor to explode, so technically it does no harm. Yes, your output may be diminished slightly but it’s not always observable and depending on your driving condition it also has little effect.
Nevertheless, I’m miffed that OS4 will not include multitasking on the 3G and 2G. Oh well, I have to jailbreak to use the phone anyway, somebody will write a hack to bypass that I’m sure.
[quote=“mabagal”]From my understanding, yes, they did. The implementation of this is probably something like sign or watermark at compile.
techcrunch.com/2010/04/08/adobe-flash-apple-sdk/[/quote]
I think this is just going to push more people into jailbreaking their phones and provide a boon to developers who aren’t bothered about the app store.
[quote=“redwagon”]There are already free aps or trial versions out there with ads in them, and I delete them as soon as I see they have them. While I might pay for an ad-free app, I will not buy apps that have in ads in them, simple as that. I get enough spam mail and SMS as it is without being bombarded with this crap.[/quote]My sentiments exactly.
Thanks to those who took the time to illuminate the topic. Some of you have a very good understanding of what is happening. My problem is that I don’t care about any of that stuff. I just don’t want things I have no interest for showing up on my screen. I don’t think that’s asking too much considering what the price tag is on these toys.
You have to understand that that is like saying because your Macbook Pro cost $2000 that you expect to browse the web without ads (yes, I am aware that there is software available to do this, just as is there is software available to do this on Android). The money you paid for your smartphone has no connection at all with the monetization of the content you get on it. If you don’t want to see ads then don’t download ad-supported software =D
Edit: I do have ad-blocking software on my Androids, but it is only present to block ads in the browser (phone’s memory is limited enough and bandwidth scarce enough that I don’t need to waste both downloading ad images, tyvm). None of my installed apps have ads. They are either part of the system, open source, closed but without ads, or paid for.
I was thinking more about high quality, organic, hand-dyed yarn. Knit meeself a pair of mittens… These banners are a waste of my attention span, but I don’t have to pay to use this forum so I wouldn’t dare complaining.
[quote]You have to understand that that is like saying because your Macbook Pro cost $2000 that you expect to browse the web without ads[/quote]I think it’s a bit different than that. If you buy a Macbook Pro and you install Apple software, you do not have to put up with third party ads cluttering your screen if you use the software, do you?
No one likes programs that have pop ups and advertising. I don’t think I should have to put up with third party ads when purchasing a program/application from the apps store. That blows.
[quote]which basically means ceasing to use the internet.[/quote]I don’t think so. Many applications do not/will not require an internet connection but they will have embedded adds in them that may or may not require an internet connection at all.
[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]I think it’s a bit different than that. If you buy a Macbook Pro and you install Apple software, you do not have to put up with third party ads cluttering your screen if you use the software, do you?
No one likes programs that have pop ups and advertising. I don’t think I should have to put up with third party ads when purchasing a program/application from the apps store. That blows.[/quote]
iAds are not something every app (and certainly not the stock apps) will use. It is an optional ad serving component that developers can use as one possible way among many to monetize their apps. Typically apps are distributed in three flavors: paid (no ads), ad-supported, and lite (no ads, but the functionality is limited, encouraging you to buy the full version). You will not see any change from existing behaviors because of iAds. It’s simply an Apple-flavored replacement for the existing ad solutions already being used by app developers.
What mabagal meant is that if you cannot accept free w/ ads as a monetization system, then you would have to pretty much give up using the internet [as the internet is largely powered and paid for by ads nowadays]
