Apple will end the year with 21 percent of the market, according to estimates provided to Businessweek.com by researcher IDC. Google’s share will drop to 21 percent, from 27 percent last year, when combined with results from AdMob, the ad network it bought in May. Microsoft will drop to 7 percent, from 10 percent.
That 21% that Apple now has is from a standing start, and from having exactly 0% of the market before iAd came into existence. They snagged some of Yahoo’s market too!
This lady is comedy gold. She should be doing Sarah Palin impressions on Saturday Night Live. Not running an ailing internet company…
Earlier this year Apple introduced its iAd service to create premium ads for marketers on the iPhone.
“That’s going to fall apart for them,” Bartz said about Apple’s iAd service. “Advertisers are not going to have that type of control over them. Apple wants total control over those ads.”
Sure advertisers don’t like it. They don’t like much. Other than sales.
Apple exerting control while they setup things, just as they did with the App Store, is not going to scare them away though. Certainly hasn’t so far. Apple still exerting control once they have authoring tools they can let advertising agencies play with isn’t gonna scare them away either.
What does scare advertisers away is when your search traffic drops. Eh, Mzzz Bartz?
The 13 per cent rise in Yahoo shares over Bartz’s tenure has lagged the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s 24 percent rise and the Nasdaq Composite’s 49 percent rise during the same period.
You can now purchase iAd advertising to promote your app to millions of users across the iAd Network. With iAd for Developers, users can download apps from the App Store without leaving the app they’re in. It’s easy to get started, contact us today and learn how you can drive more downloads of your app with iAd for Developers.
The developer writes, “This is from a utility app that was released today. I was quite surprised by the return, though I’m not sure if it will keep up. It seems that people may still be enjoying the novelty of iAds.”
Things are looking good for Apple’s walled garden. iAds are generating higher click-through rates than AdMob ads do — five times as much according to this one developer, who unleashed his stats online.
The Next Web reports, “Click Through Rates are around five times higher and iAd’s eCPM (Effective cost-per-thousand impressions) – which is calculated by dividing total earnings by total number of impressions in thousands – is off the charts in comparison to one developers Ad-Mob’s results…”
Very very subjective figures. But impressive nonetheless. What worries me is that many more devs. are now going to be tempted to abuse us with ads in paid software.
I hate ads. I hate ads on websites. I hate ads in apps. I hate ads on TV. In fact I even boycott certain products and websites if their ads annoy me sufficiently. What is funny is that even Ars’ own writers hate ads! I have ads here on this site. If you want to click on them feel free. If you don’t, or want to block them, that’s cool too. I won’t complain either way.
Now onto Ken Fisher’s op-ed tripe over at ars technica. A site I love by the way, but whose growing propensity for having more and more intrusive ads in their content over the last year or so I find increasingly objectionable :
So the company that has made an advertising platform a major part of its iOS strategy is also hawking an ad-blocking technology for its Web browser, where it has no stake in ads. App Store: use our unblockable ads, developers! They help you get paid for your hard work! Web: hey, block some ads, readers! They’re annoying!
If Developers put adverts into paid apps they are not going to be popular. People will vote with their wallets on that one. Apple has also clearly stated, on more than one occasion that it will not approve apps which are blatantly vehicles for Ads.
Apple, to me, seem to have a better grasp on how annoying ads can be than the management at Ars.
What’s more, most web users and responsible designers tend to agree that intrusive ads on the web are annoying. Whilst most app designers and users tend to also be in agreement that if you want an app for free you must tolerate ads. If you pay then you shouldn’t.
Ars obviously have an agenda here because they depend on web ads for their revenue, apparently despite having sold out to Condé Nast a while back. Condé Nast, by the way, is the same company that also brings us the ad-fest that is Wired (among other websites). Wired barely loads in Safari for me anymore as it stumbles over a virtual scrap yard of Flash and other garish advertising blocks so big and resource intensive that they often swamp 75% of my HD monitor, and the same percentage of my day to day work machine’s available CPU load! It is worth noting that Ars didn’t have anywhere near so many ads before it was bought by Condé. Nor was it so defensive of them either.
So in the end we’re left with a) an open platform where Apple is willing to toy with Web publishers, modify their content presentation, and suppress their ads, and b) Apple’s curated, closed platform, where everything is done by Apple’s rules or it’s not done at all.
A few people responded to Ken’s article stating that the idea behind iAd is that it is less invasive when compared to advertising solutions like AdMob, as ads can be viewed without quitting an application. (Something that AdMob could do too if they simply refined their free Framework, and talked to developers using their service.)
[Ken's] response: if the ads are so great that no one in their reasonable mind would block them, then Apple should give us the ability to block them and put this conviction to the test. What’s the risk? Apple gives users the ability to make the call on websites. Give users the ability to make the call on Apps.
As of April this year Apple sold 75 million iPhone and iPod touch units, devices capable of delivering video via Wi-Fi and 3G connectivity. Add to that figure 2 million iPads and counting. By the end of the year Apple should have about 90 million smart mobile devices in the wild. That makes a proprietary amalgam greater than what the TV networks had in 1959 and one that easily serves as a foundation for a pending broadcast network that will be delivered not through tall radio towers, but through small wireless hubs and the Internet.
Call it the Apple Broadcast Network. iAd is how Apple plans to pay for it.
The problem with innovation in the TV industry is the go to market strategy. The TV industry has a subsidized model that gives everyone a set top box for free. So no one wants to buy a box. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask us… ask Google in a few months.
In some ways this comment reminded me of the no we’re not working on a phone, or mice should only ever have one button comments from Steve in the past.
With a TV service being offered as a streaming service over the web, Apple faces potentially high bandwidth costs, but they also have infinite reach. If you have the required bandwidth you can receive their programming – in any country. And you can also be fed their adverts via iAd.
Sure it will most likely roll out in the US first. But the ultimate aim will be for many many more countries.
Apple has to bring everyone to the table first and it won’t be an easy sell. The television networks won’t own iAd so they won’t get 100% of the revenues as they do now. But, 100% of Hulu is not providing Zucker with the sustainable revenue model he needs. On its own NBC can’t seem to muster improved ad rates from even existing clientele. That opens the door for Apple. If iAd moves ad rates up to where it becomes a viable option Zucker is under due-diligence to consider it.
Negotiating with intransigent, greedy knuckle-heads is what Apple has been doing with the music and movie industry for the last 10 years. The TV industry probably seems like a pushover to them by comparison.
It’s all speculation, as the article I link to itself says. But it is compelling speculation nonetheless.
To dish out ads at scale in the TV app market Samsung may have to purchase or start an ad network that will stand between advertisers and the devices that carry ads. Samsung execs are coy about company plans, but such a move would position Samsung as a threat not just to Apple but also to cable companies.
If anyone doesn’t want to use iAds, then they won’t use iAds. It’s very simple. It’s not like Apple is saying that iAds is the only allowable way to show ads in apps.
Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Device Data may not be provided or disclosed to a third party without Apple’s prior written consent. Accordingly, the use of third party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited.
But the fact remains that Apple want you to use iAd and nothing else on its devices.
Whilst I think that Gruber’s comment is typically snarky, and deliberately obtuse. I don’t necessarily agree with Kathryn either. Her observations are spot on. But it seems as if she’s never heard of Apple before. Because most of the things she finds so objectionable are just the way Apple rolls. She needs to get used to it.
Apple introduced Gianduia last summer at WOWODC (World of WebObjects Developer Conference), an independent event scheduled near the company’s own WWDC event in June. It is likely that more information will surface at this year’s WOWODC and WWDC events.
Gianduia, named after an Italian hazelnut chocolate, is “essentially is browser-side Cocoa (including CoreData) + WebObjects, written in JavaScript by non-js-haters,” according to a tweet by developer Jonathan “Wolf” Rentzsch.
After watching the NDA demo Apple gave for the new framework at WOWODC last year, Rentzch also tweeted, “Blown away by Gianduia. Cappuccino, SproutCore and JavascriptMVC have serious competition. Serious.”
When you consider that Flash is a multimedia layer beneath which you can run games and videos, with a user interface and some GUI controls over the top (abstracted away for each platform), then perhaps Gianduia is a “replacement” for it. But it’s also quite a bit more. It’s effectively a cut down version of Cocoa which runs in a browser.
What is going to make cool stuff happen alongside the nice Cocoa widgets in Gianduia is all the HTML5 Canvas tricks that WebKit-based browsers like Safari or Chrome can do, and Gianduia allows you to implement.
I am guessing that this is going to have some relevance for iAd also.
Think bridging the gap between Cocoa / Cocoa Touch and “The Cloud”.
UPDATE : Some info on the “AdLib” Framework :
What was more interesting is that there was an entire framework running this web application. The framework weighed in at 4,300 lines of code, and was unmistakably an Apple-born API. Every class and constant was prefixed with the letters “AD” and some of the classes include ADTabBarController, ADScrollPane, ADViewController, ADView, ADToolbar, and dozens more.
What does the AD prefix stand for? I don’t know. The framework itself was contained in a file called AdLib-ug-ipad.js, so for the time being let’s call it AdLib.
…
So It looks like Apple has no intent to release these tools to developers to create iPad interfaces. I was informed that GitHub (the company that was hosting the code snippets) received a DMCA takedown notice from Apple for the code, and has removed it. If you are still interested in seeing the code, visit http://help.apple.com/ipad/mobile/interface/ with a browser using an iPad user agent.
Some people are theorising that more fuel could be being added to the smoldering rumour that is a possible Apple antitrust investigation.
It seems that Adobe have indeed had a quiet word in the odd governmental drone’s ear about Flash and the lack thereof on the iPhone. But that would not really in itself be enough to kick this bonfire off.
In recent days some potential iAd advertisers, and their agents, have been whining (albeit subtly) in the press about the cost of Apple’s new mobile advertising platform. Their complaints have been about both the price of the adverts themselves and the fact that Apple have the audacity to charge for making iAds because there are no publicly available tools yet.
And finally it seems that the likes of AdMob are irked about being cut out of Location Awareness, and user habit snooping by clause 3.3.9 in the updated iPhone OS Developer Contract.
If people keep throwing enough flammable things on an antitrust bonfire do they think they can get this thing to ignite?
I think it might just get bigger and smoulder some more, before everyone just looks a bit embarrassed and finds something else to do.
