Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What Developers Think About Apple's iAd

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the thin-gold-plating dept.

Advertising 263

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."

cancel ×

263 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

iAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865712)

And now the iAD gold rush starts....

Re:iAD (-1, Troll)

SquarePixel (1851068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865748)

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 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865820)

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'.

It's not funny at all. It's a religious obsession. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865832)

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.

Re:It's not funny at all. It's a religious obsessi (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866000)

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

And Steve Jobs = Mom... brilliant episode!

Re:It's not funny at all. It's a religious obsessi (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866418)

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.

Re:iAD (5, Insightful)

node_chomsky (1830014) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865834)

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 (1, Flamebait)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865954)

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 (2, Interesting)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866740)

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 (2, Insightful)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866804)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865972)

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 (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866460)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866872)

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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865838)

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 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865910)

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 (-1, Troll)

SquarePixel (1851068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865968)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866064)

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 (1)

SquarePixel (1851068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866090)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866504)

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 (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866086)

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 (4, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865840)

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 (-1, Offtopic)

cervo (626632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865906)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865936)

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

Re:iAD (0, Troll)

cervo (626632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866540)

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 (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866776)

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 (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865946)

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 (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866426)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865958)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866076)

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

Re:iAD (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866436)

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 (2, Insightful)

toriver (11308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866696)

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 (1, Flamebait)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866206)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866652)

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 (4, Insightful)

ahankinson (1249646) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866280)

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 [gnu.org] as a true Open Source license.

Re:iAD (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866400)

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 (2, Informative)

ahankinson (1249646) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866796)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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 (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866580)

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 (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866728)

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 (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866310)

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 (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865900)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866106)

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 (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866816)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866546)

"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 (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865912)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866188)

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

Re:iAD (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866282)

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 (4, Informative)

yabos (719499) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866472)

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 (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866858)

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.
    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.

Good Luck (4, Funny)

Hinhule (811436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865720)

Getting iADBlock on the Appstore.

Re:Good Luck (4, Funny)

BlkRb0t (1610449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865780)

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

Re:Good Luck (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865914)

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

Re:Good Luck (1)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866672)

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.

iAds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865746)

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

Re:iAds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865766)

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 (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865774)

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

Re:iAds (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865814)

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

Re:iAds (1)

dominious (1077089) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865964)

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

I felt this was relevant: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865760)

Yay, Droid X comes out on the 15th!

TrollAd (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865788)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865792)

This is a good thing for all concerned.

Buy more AAPL! before you lose out!

apple spews adds (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865808)

like it's 1984! [defectivebydesign.org]

All heil apple!

This is a real thing? Seriously? (-1, Flamebait)

VendettaMF (629699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865844)

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? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865866)

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? (0, Troll)

VendettaMF (629699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865932)

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? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866152)

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 [admob.com] . Google both creates Android and owns Admob.

Re:This is a real thing? Seriously? (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866404)

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?

So you pay for your data plan to get iAds (2, Insightful)

Tisha_AH (600987) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865864)

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 (2, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865896)

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 (1)

garysday (1264950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865898)

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 (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866026)

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 (4, Insightful)

Tuzanor (125152) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866018)

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

My kingdom for a mod point (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866066)

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.

iAds-blocking app? (0, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865952)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32865998)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866104)

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

Re:iAds-blocking app? (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866212)

OK, good point, cults [partywithjoe.net] don't recognise property ownership.

Re:iAds-blocking app? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866218)

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? (1, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866284)

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 [apple.com] 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 [gutenberg.org] before modern IP law.

Re:iAds-blocking app? (2, Informative)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866714)

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? (0, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866826)

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? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866336)

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

Re:iAds-blocking app? (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866726)

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? (3, Insightful)

yabos (719499) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866498)

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? (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866576)

No, the way to do it is to jailbreak and firewall off the ad servers - there are prepackaged solutions [gadgetsdna.com] 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? (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866738)

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? (-1, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866794)

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? (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866894)

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? (0, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866924)

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? (1)

Chris Johnson (580) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866798)

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 on HIS programs (that he gets other people to write for him). If he lets other people show that they value my attention less, fine.

I'll run ads myself on some things, like a comic or whatever. I'm not doing so now. When I did, it was to other comics, generally... almost like a shout-out. We all have learned to overlook or block ads in SOME contexts. I'll avoid (with extreme prejudice) contexts where I think ads should never be, and yet they are... usually it's a tip-off that a content or software provider thinks they are SO ENTITLED to my attention for their thing, that they can afford to spread that attention around a bit without asking.

Ah, no ;)

Marketing move (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32865970)

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 (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866056)

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 (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866468)

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

umm.. its a flashlight app

Re:Marketing move (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866592)

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 (1)

Chris Johnson (580) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866830)

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

Flashlight ads? (2, Insightful)

nickspoon (1070240) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866100)

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

Re:Flashlight ads? (1)

nickspoon (1070240) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866108)

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

Apple fans have more money and are impulsive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866162)

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 ... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32866242)

...
captcha: buzzed

It's not just about $ ... iAds are better (0, Troll)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32866660)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?