Apple has revolutionized how we think about ads, you just don't know it yet. | Hacker News Reader

Apple has revolutionized how we think about ads, you just don't know it yet.

austinstartup.com

30 pointscwilson25 comments

Open articleView on HN

"Apple has revolutionized how we think about ads, you just don't know it yet."

Sounded like hyperbole.

I read the article, and came to the conclusion that it is hyperbole.

Is there any blog headline that 1) contains the company name "Apple", and 2) is not massively exaggerated?

It's far too early to make sweeping pronouncements on this. We still don't know about (just to name a few):

* pricing models (CPM? CPC? CPA?)

* rates ($30 CPM? $10? $2? auction-based?)

* minimums ($50K spend? $10K? no minimum self-serve?)

* brand safety (can brands control where they run?)

* ad targeting (geo? demo? contextual?)

* ad availability (does everyone who wants ads get them?)

* accessibility (can any advertiser submit and run an ad?)

While I could and would be happy to be proven wrong, assuming that every developer of every application that wants to run ads is going to automatically receive high-quality, well-designed, engaging ads from major brands is a great way to get yourself disappointed.

This doesn't sound like anything boutique advertising networks like The DECK (http://decknetwork.net/) haven't already done.

I actually specifically mention The Deck in the article and that it's very similar. The difference? This is about to be in front of everyone who uses free apps on the app store (assuming iAd adoption is good). That's a lot of people.

Essentially it has the potential to be MUCH bigger then The Deck or Fusion Ads.

Can the downvoters please explain why?

I did not downvote but The Deck is to traditional CPM advertising what a golf membership at Pine Valley is to a public course outing.

The Deck is premium. To be invited to The Deck, means that you are influential in the millions.

I'd also like to clarify that I don't think iAd is even a competitor to The Deck or Fusion. Those two services have their niche carved out and their partners are VERY happy with their relationships. I don't think either of them are going anywhere anytime soon.

The way I primarily think about ads is through the filter of an adblocker, apple didn't convince me yet.

I must find a way to use this statement somewhere!

Is it just me, or is iAd only for companies with reasonably deep pockets? I mean, it looks neat and all, but you actually have to spend the time designing the flow, the artwork and programming the interactivity. How many small businesses can afford to spend several grand on design on top of their campaigns?

Despite Apple's fancy demos, I wouldn't be surprised if most ads are just an image that links to a landing page. Especially since you need to write your fancy ads entirely in javascript (or maybe Objective-C?).

I smell an opportunity here.

Or you could simply buy an ad and post an animated GIF...

The main conclusion seems to be that "anything with the iAd logo is safe." I find that ludicrous on its face; any malware ads or scams will simply mimic the iAd logo, much like a few less-reputable AdSense look-alikes already exist. The apps running ads from networks with such hostile ads might get pulled, but it'll simply be a game of whack-a-mole.

I also don't know that advertisers will want overly iAd-branded ads, as that would risk diluting their own brand. But if it's not very overtly Apple-branded, the users won't feel any familiarity and the argument falls down again.

As for Google worrying about it, right now they're probably more worried about the FTC blocking the AdMob purchase and thus blocking them from even entering the mobile advertising space to begin with.

"If Apple can convince its users that it’s safe to click anything with the iAd logo they will have single handedly changed the perception users have of ads, resulting in more clicks and more money made by both Apple and developers"

Makes sense.

The problem is that Apple doesn't filter apps on quality. They filter on TOS that are designed to protect their own interests.

It is in their interest to prevent the annoyance of their customers. If the ads are obnoxious, then this significantly degrades the UX. I've stopped using the Keeper app for precisely this reason. It was "free," but I paid in startup wait time and annoyance by the ads.

If Apple can convince its users that it’s safe to click anything with the iAd logo they will have single handedly changed the perception users have of ads, resulting in more clicks and more money made by both Apple and developers.

Apple could go one better and steal a play from reddit.com:

Let the users vote up/down the ads! Not only would this feedback into pressure to maintain quality, relevance, and ethical practices in the ads, it would be a goldmine of realtime information usable by marketers. In addition, it would reduce the amount of effort and expense it would take for Apple to police the ads to maintain quality.

pretty strange that the article doesnt mention google, since this revolution has already happened, are people scared to click google ads? their revenue suggests not.

apple are just putting an ad network on a different medium

Here's why I think they are a game changer:

http://www.derekmartin.ca/2010/04/09/iads-are-a-game-changer...

"Apple has revolutionized how we think about ads, you just don't know it yet."

I think I hate ads in software and I am not sure if this is going to change that.

"(apps are the new website after all)"

Is this true, or hype?

my vote is "hype."

It's ridiculous hype.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com