What Developers Think About Apple's iAd 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."
Good Luck (Score:4, Funny)
Getting iADBlock on the Appstore.
Re:Good Luck (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So you pay for your data plan to get iAds (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds (Score:5, Insightful)
My kingdom for a mod point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So you pay for your data plan to get iAds (Score:4, Insightful)
The same thing that restricted developers from putting ads in their paid-for apps before iAd.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Marketing move (Score:2)
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? :P
Else i'm releasing a flash light apps really soon
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The coding part of application development is less than 5% of a full application development cycle.
umm.. its a flashlight app
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 defini
Flashlight ads? (Score:2, Insightful)
How does it require a data connection? (Score:3, Informative)
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...
WTF baby? (Score:2)
iSPAM (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not iAds, its iSPAM.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called Aids? Not sure if I want that on my phone. :p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check the link. In the picture in the background behind Jobs there's a logo for: iAd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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',
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:iAD (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:iAD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking as an actual developer ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Speaking as an actual developer ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Speaking as an actual developer ... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, they do it this way because they can't just kill that application ;) Unlike Android when you leave an application it dies in iOS. Yes they added "multitasking server/client support" but how many apps already do this? Don't confuse elegance with pure necessity.
iAds require iOS 4. In iOS 4 the app does not die when closed, it moves to an in-memory background state. Clicking on its icon moves it from background to foreground, it does not relaunch the app. Even apps built for older versions of iOS do this.
So I think we can chalk this up to elegance, or better yet effectiveness. The "normal" ad you see in your app is like an icon that launches the "real" full screen ad. Full screen with rich content allows advertisers to do much more compelling things.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The poster was referring to ads on websites, not in apps, by pointing out Adblock Plus on his/her N900.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:iAD (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
How old are you?
Re:iAD (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
If the iPad was the only co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:iAD (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Webkit would not exist without KHTML, OSX would not exist without BSD, you have it backwards buddy.
Fanboy revisionism. (Score:3, Informative)
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 rea
Re: (Score:2)
You wish, no PRAY, that your melodramatic ramblings will come true to prove you right because you want there to be some sort of epic saga-worthy war between free software and corporate software but in the end your sophomoric battle for the freedom of people everywhere falls on deaf ears because like a white knight "rescuing" a girl from the arms of her lover (who you know FOR SURE is a total dick cause he's not you), you are trying to rescue an unaware and uncaring public from a percieved threat that everyo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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. [wikipedia.org] 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 [thegameconsole.com] that there are quite a few different consoles (even ignoring the cosmetically different ones) up until 1982. In 1983 the crash happene
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes but Nintendo restricted unlicensed cartridges with their 10NES [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 compu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:iAD (Score:4, Funny)
That's nothing. I paid $2500 for a TV, and there are ads on it!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:iAds-blocking app? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If everything wrong with the Apple user community is that they don't feel a right to screw some developer working out of his house from making a living, then everything wrong may be right.
When you skip adverts watching a movie, you're not preventing someone from getting paid - that's already done in advance, and it's not a fair comparison.
When there are paid versions of apps costing $1, and free ad supported versions, I'd call taking the free one and blocking the ads both being a cheapskate and an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
You hint at morality in requiring people to pay you, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.
And you outright say you have no problems taking things for free that weren't meant to be free, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.
Re: (Score:2)
So, let's see the scenario you're playing out:
I create art, in some form or another.
I tell people, you can pay me $1 to see the art all you want or you can watch this ad instead.
You say, I'm not entitled to ask to people pay $1 to see the art OR watch the ad and see the art.
So, you instead find a way to see the art without paying or watching the ad.
And this is my fault for creating the art because it's an expression of an idea that just exists.
Conclusion: You're a cheap fuck who will justify his cheapness b
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you could always not use adware and pay upfront for what you use.
You sound like the type of person who would crack shareware.
Furthermore, when you quote me, make sure to add that I think Apple products on par with the average fisher price toy. Oh so shiny and pretty and designed for a preschooler.
Re:iAds-blocking app? (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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'. The
Re: (Score:2)
OK, good point, cults [partywithjoe.net] don't recognise property ownership.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Pay attention. The issue I have with Apple is their not admitting iAds-blocking apps to the store. They are thus requiring you to view ads if you want to remain in their walled garden and enjoy the full range of apps.
"Stop enjoying the full range of apps, then!" is a cowardly answer from someone who walks away from the first sign of battle with the glimmer of defeat in his eye, content to do only precisely as he is told. It's also not addressing the fact that Apple's requiring you to watch ads as a conditio
Re: (Score:2)
They are thus requiring you to view ads if you want to remain in their walled garden and enjoy the full range of apps.
To quote a great philosopher, you can't always get what you want. The choice on the app store is
1) Refuse to use any apps with ads, even if this means buying the non-free variants.
2) Use all apps, including ad-supported and non-free.
Nobody with an iPhone today doesn't know about he app store. EVen more true for somebody on slashdot. I don't have a problem with any of these restrictions. If you do, the good news is that there is PLENTY of choice and freedom in the handset market. Go get a Droid. For others--
Re: (Score:2)
The choice on the app store is
You choices right now are:
(1) Send me $100;
(2) Cut off all your hair.
See, it sounds just as ridiculous when I give you arbitrary instructions on what you can and cannot do.
My choice is to download apps and not view adverts. I can do this by jailbreaking and firewalling off the ad servers, but I want it to be simple for those who aren't technically minded. Apple are pretty much alone in the computing market by demonstrating an approach so totalitarian as to not permit this.
APPLE REQUIRES YOU TO CLICK ON AND WATCH ADS!
No, it doesn't require you to click
Re: (Score:2)
You choices right now are:
(1) Send me $100;
(2) Cut off all your hair.
See, it sounds just as ridiculous when I give you arbitrary instructions on what you can and cannot do.
Non sequitur.
My choice is to download apps and not view adverts. I can do this by jailbreaking and firewalling off the ad servers, but I want it to be simple for those who aren't technically minded. Apple are pretty much alone in the computing market by demonstrating an approach so totalitarian as to not permit this.
Really? Can you do it on Android or Symbian or WebOS?
No, it doesn't require you to click on ads. Keep up.
Oh I see, when you kept saying "watch" ads I assumed you meant tap the banner view and watch the modal ad...since that's how iAd works. The base iAd banners are no different from banner ads that have been in apps for 3+ years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Non sequitur.
Exhaustive list of options I never agreed to / exhaustive list of options you never agreed to.
Really? Can you do it on Android or Symbian or WebOS?
Android: apk upload to my site, URL provision to the world, click. For example. [google.com] (the use of Google Code is incidental)
The base iAd banners are no different from banner ads that have been in apps for 3+ years now.
Except for the conflict of interest between ad broker and app distributor.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 l
Re: (Score:2)
But I choose to not see ads, not to not use apps. So that's another no.
Take it up with the developer of the Apps that you would use if not for ads then. It's illogical and nonsensical to blame Apple for decisions made by 3rd-party developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay attention. The issue I have with Apple is their not admitting iAds-blocking apps to the store.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple / iOS doesn't allow ANY programs that affect other running programs like that. I would think that would generally be seen as a huge security flaw! I wouldnt want any app to be able to access my mobile banking apps or password storing apps, etc.
So what exactly are you complaining about...?
Pay attention. The issue I have with Apple is their not admitting iAds-blocking apps to the store.
Your rants and ad hominems in this thread imply otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple / iOS doesn't allow ANY programs that affect other running programs like that. I would think that would generally be seen as a huge security flaw!
Yeah, allowing a firewall is a huge security flaw because it may affect the behaviour of other software... seriously, are you even thinking what you're saying? In other news, every piece of software negatively affects every other because there is contention for CPU, memory, storage space and battery power.
Your rants and ad hominems in this thread imply otherwise.
Feel free to point 'em out. I've criticised the Apple community but I've not criticised the community as a basis for another argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, allowing a firewall is a huge security flaw because it may affect the behaviour of other software... seriously, are you even thinking what you're saying? In other news, every piece of software negatively affects every other because there is contention for CPU, memory, storage space and battery power.
I'll respond to this, but first, are you a software developer or programmer?
Feel free to point 'em out. I've criticised the Apple community but I've not criticised the community as a basis for another argument.
You absolutely have. When your first post disingenuously asks a questions you clearly already knew the answer to, calling Apple totalitarian what exactly do you think you're doing?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll respond to this, but first, are you a software developer or programmer?
We'll say "yes" in the hope that you'll provide at least a moderately sophisticated argument.
You absolutely have. When your first post disingenuously asks a questions you clearly already knew the answer to, calling Apple totalitarian what exactly do you think you're doing?
None of this is ad hominem. You may want to review your dictionary of logic.
(I also had no concrete answer until after I'd posted. The vitriol of denial added credence to my fear, of course.)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll say "yes" in the hope that you'll provide at least a moderately sophisticated argument.
Barring a real answer from you I too will ask a question--are there any security implications with allowing any 3rd-party app to add/change/alter/update firewall/routing rules? Hardly the same thing as a program taking cycles (btw, the iPhone sends signals that requires programs to for instance release memory, so there already are builtin protections to cpu usage, memory, battery, etc that you tossed out)
None of this is ad hominem. You may want to review your dictionary of logic.
Here's what you said:
I'm assuming Apple isn't so totalitarian as to require you to view adverts on your
Re: (Score:2)
are there any security implications with allowing any 3rd-party app to add/change/alter/update firewall/routing rules
We have a lawyer in the house.
"Are there any possible dangers with knife ownership?" /are/ dangerous and knife ownership should be outlawed!"
"Yes."
"Aha, so knives
The answer is, of course, "yes" - and the answer is "yes" with every single piece of software you introduce on any device.
"Is it too dangerous to allow sane adults to buy a knife which has not been discovered to have unsuspected safety issues?"
"Of course not, idiot."
There is no reasonable danger whatever in providing firewall software which allows
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)