IAd Is The Coming Fall Of Apple

I don't get it. The piece quotes Jobs as suggesting that Apple will exercise the same amount of censorship as a broadcast-TV network. The broadcast networks seem to be reasonably good at not allowing really extreme stuff without getting in trouble for first-amendment violations. (Controversies crop up every few years, like the recent one about abortion and the Super Bowl, but no one suggests that they pose an existential threat to the networks.) Why would this be any harder for Apple?

Given the failure to address this obvious question, I found the self-satisfied tone of the piece pretty obnoxious.

The question is, will it take all of Apple down with it?

The answer is, No, it won't.

I registered on this site so I could make this comment.

Anti-apple fanatics really need to their head out of their asses. Now I'm no fanboy, but anybody with half a brain can realize that the iAd platform will undoubtedly generate revenue - and probably lots of it.

The article claims that censorship will be iAd's downfall. Since when has censored advertising been the downfall (or even mild hinderance) for any company?

This author is very obnoxious... He needs to objectively assess the iAd platform. Perhaps then he'll realize that there is a gold mine worth of potential in iPhone advertising.

Good lord. I need some kind of super-flag to hammer this kind of idiotic, vitriolic, nonsense into the nearest incinerator. Though by the tone of it someone already missed the incinerator, hit the author, and caused serious brain trauma.

Because of an offhand comment during a Q & A about possibly filtering some ads, the logical conclusion is that Apple is going to censor political and advocacy adverts. Well, perhaps. Then the logical conclusion of that is that the government will, in some kind of bizarre revenge strategy, spring into action with anti-trust lawsuits against Apple (for what is not made clear), whilst the Pope calls for a holy war against all things Steve hath made? The conclusion of the chain is that this might take down all of Apple?

Freedom of expression doesn't guarantee that a network has to carry your expression, and there are plenty of advert vendors who filter their content aggressively (many print magazines, children's outlets etc). This does not cause the implosion of the underlying company, nor a jihad directing users to march on the corporate HQ.

I would seriously suggest that the author, who spent $500 for a device he hates and maintains a weblog all about hating this device, would find a better use of his time and money in therapy.

Another case of a zealot jumping on a phrase and taking it to the extreme. He demonstrates little experience of the advertising "reality" for a start.

This is getting boring now.

(speaking as a consumer editorialized ads are tentatively a good concept - keep the crud out please!)

There seems to be nothing of value here except an apocalyptic headline attached to a prime parasitic topic with a dash of political paranoia sprinkled on top for flavor. But since we're on the topic anyway:

My guess is Apple is going to target iAd as a premium advertising platform largely pitched to Fortune 500 companies who are already carefully protecting their brands from controversy. The same type of companies who buy TV ads, magazine ads, etc. Just look at the demos Apple presented: Nike & Disney. You'll probably see lots of ads for video games, movies, music, TV shows, clothing, restaurants, etc. Safe stuff. For political advertising I would guess Apple might have a no-negative policy or simply not accept any political advertising at all. Apple certainly has no obligation to be a dumb aggregator of advertising. They can carve out their own niche as they always do.

How is iAd any different than any other ad agency out there? The truth is that it's not.

Look at online ad agencies. I am or used to be a publisher with the top three Burst Media, Fastclick/ValueClick, and Tribal Fusion. Like any ad agency, they have rules. No porn, for example. But more importantly, they target users and in the end let them choose what goes on their website. So with those controls, I, who ran a site regularly visited by children had the option to say no to political, religious, and sex-related ads.

The network's filters varied. Some had me choose 'no religious ads' whereas others literally gave me a look at each and every ad that could run on my website and I could reject specific ones.

Google's adsense similarly allows a plethora of advertising into their system but give you filters to control your specific site.

The same treatment online ad agencies give to website publishers, Apple will likely give to app developers. If iAd launches without these filters, then you mitt have a point but who honestly thinks that they will break away from ad agency norms and do a reckless move like that? Certainly nothing that Steve said would seem to indicate that that is their desire...

Confused. TV networks routinely reject advertisements for a variety of reasons.

Google AdSense seems to be doing OK.

This guy is just pushing this because he thinks the fairness doctrine is a good thing.

But the problem with the fairness doctrine is that it necessarily violates the fundamental right of the individual to keep or dispose of his property as he chooses. Put another way, you have a right to say whatever you want, as long as you pay for it yourself or with voluntarily-acquired assets.

Censorship is a concept that only makes sense when you're talking about the government. (The government should not be allowed to censor anyone, no matter how many people vote for it democratically.)

Both online and mobile ad networks have always had the ability to reject any ad they please for whatever reason they please, without the slightest bit of controversy.

iAds will fail if the ads are too time-consuming and expensive for agencies to make or if granular targeting is passed over in favor of what looks like an interactivity fetish - making the ads visually impressive but not especially effective. Success or failure, Apple's editorial policy will have nothing to do with it.

Interesting, but I'm doubtful that the Justice Department or FCC are going to regulate an ad network that only runs on a particular (albeit a very popular) kind of phone.