I suddenly reflected on the absurdity of
a. paying for hardware
b. paying for apps
c. paying for airtime
... in order to see ads.
a. paying for hardware
b. paying for apps
c. paying for airtime
... in order to see ads.
Why should a product just have one revenue model? If it weren't for advertising, these products would have to charge more to generate the same revenue.
(Disclosure: I haven't had cable in about ten years.)
Also, do you think a developer would make more money with a free, iAd version over a paid app? If so, developers would obviously be more enticed to offer a free, iAd version, which would also make Apple more money (40% of iAd revenue versus 30% for paid apps).
The alternative? Pay for your software, too. There's no reason it should be free.
The main reason Google ads worked so well for so long is because they are topical and their format was new. Word on the vine is that the click-through rates for most text ads is falling...
History repeats.
The prevailing popular opinion? Doesn't matter. Everybody's a poker player. A BAD poker player. They say they won't pay, but they will. I'm sure if you told people they could have free food, they would turn around and tell the next restaurant that they wouldn't pay. But when they got hungry outside of the free food hours, or they really felt like indian tonight instead of food caplets, they would.
I think geeks, having a slightly better than average ability to get software for free, BELIEVE their own poker-playing, but of course, they will also pay. The proof is there.