Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Advertising Iphone Apple

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Developers Think About Apple's iAd

Comments Filter:
  • Re:iAds (Score:3, Informative)

    by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @08:43AM (#32865814)

    Check the link. In the picture in the background behind Jobs there's a logo for: iAd.

  • Re:iAD (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 11, 2010 @08:47AM (#32865820)

    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', and 'acceptable'.

  • Re:iAD (Score:5, Informative)

    by yabos ( 719499 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @10:45AM (#32866472)
    Your post just shows you have no idea what iAd is. You don't get ads while using the phone. Some free app developers can decide to put ads in their apps, you can chose not to use those apps if you want to. There have already been apps with ads for a while, this is nothing new.
  • by gig ( 78408 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @11:18AM (#32866714)

    You just go to 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 little babies that other people like it. All these assumptions and misinformation is just tiresome. Become informed or STFU.

  • Re:iAD (Score:3, Informative)

    by ahankinson ( 1249646 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @11:29AM (#32866796)

    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 always contributing their work on Obj-C back to GCC, and now with the LLVM project they're doing a whole new Open Source compiler infrastructure that is GCC-compatible, but produces better results. This is available to the Mac, Linux, Windows, *BSD, etc. In other words, yes, there is a threat that Apple will always wall off its Obj-C implementation. There are similar threats that Oracle could do the same to Java, or Larry Wall could do to Perl, or Linus could do the same to the Linux Kernel, which is to say that there is always the possibility, but right now all signs point to No.

    I get your point - I certainly don't want Apple to have anywhere near the amount of control over mobile computing as Microsoft had over desktop computing. It's a different ballgame now, though. I don't think they chose Obj-C out of malice like, say, ActiveX or Microsoft's own Java VM that guaranteed a lock-in to the platform. I think they did it to maintain a certain amount of mobility in a fast-moving market. Apple chose Obj-C because they only wanted to support Obj-C. From their perspective, this is an important choice. It guarantees a certain level of consistency, and the ability to change their entire platform's direction on a moment's notice.

    Personally, I think it's going in the other direction. Obj-C is a legacy from the NeXT days and its days are numbered at Apple, at least as the sole language they support on the iPhone. It would be entirely like Apple to introduce a new language that compiles down to the same binary as code written in Obj-C, but is easier to write or learn, or comes with more bells & whistles as a feature of the language itself (e.g. easier to write threaded code). They use Obj-C because that's what their Mac developers know and they wanted to capitalize on that knowledge to get the platform off the ground. Now that the iOS is well and firmly launched, look for them to start branching out to include more features to entice more developers to join.

    I keep bringing back the LLVM [] project, but you should really look at the features that project supports if you want to see where Apple is heading. With that project, they can give devs the option to write code in e.g. Python, and it compiles down to the same bytecode as the ObjC implementation. They're not funding the development of that project out of the kindness of their hearts - I think they have a business direction wrapped up in those features, and they're just waiting for it to mature.

  • by Moridineas ( 213502 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @11:59AM (#32866996) Journal

    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.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @11:59AM (#32867002)

    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...

  • by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @12:26PM (#32867208)
    Speaking as an actual developer, Perpenso Calc for iPhone [], the iAd Network has encouraged us to move a "lite" version up on the priority list. I don't accept the quoted revenue number, if accurate it is an anomaly, a freak outlier. However iAds does make publishing a gratis version of a paid app more attractive, even when starting from a low cost app like ours. When the barrier to entry for the full app is pretty low, a lite version just did not seem that necessary. With a potential revenue stream things move from "why bother" to "why not".
  • by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @02:10PM (#32867866)

    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:iAD (Score:2, Informative)

    by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <> on Sunday July 11, 2010 @04:12PM (#32868736) Journal

    So was the claim that the iPhone was only $199.00

    Paying $600 (the real cost of an iPhone) and then having to pay additional money to download ads that apps display when used (because "all-you-can-eat bandwidth" plans are going the way of the dodo) is VERY relevant to the thread.

    Those "free" apps aren't free at that point.

  • Re:iAD (Score:3, Informative)

    by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @06:33PM (#32869694)

    Webkit would not exist without KHTML, OSX would not exist without BSD, you have it backwards buddy.

  • Fanboy revisionism. (Score:3, Informative)

    by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @08:39PM (#32870430)

    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.

    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 reason the GPL v3 exists, Apple takes from OSS and gives little back, just enough to avoid legal action.

    For Mac computers there isn't a walled garden.

    OK then, I'll just run it up on my AMD Phenom gaming rig shall I. Make no mistake, Mac's are limited, maybe not as much as iDevices but it's still limited and locked down. Saying this is "better" is like Jane saying her new boyfriend is better because he only beats her half as much, you're ignoring the fact that it's locked down in the first place.

    The difference between them and MS is that MS reached out with their monopoly to harm competitors and partners

    No, both Apple and MS do this. The critical difference is that Microsoft has been successful. Apple will happily sue it's competitors (Apple Computers vs Microsoft, Apple Inc vs HTC and so forth) but it always ends up losing. MS on the other hand buys out competitors, strong arms suppliers and makes back room deals, so MS has been quite successful.

  • Re:iAD (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bungie ( 192858 ) on Sunday July 11, 2010 @10:53PM (#32871022)

    There were lots of games that didn't have the Nintendo seal of approval. Most games made by Tengen, Color dreams, and CodeMasters were unlicensed.

    Yes but Nintendo restricted unlicensed cartridges with their 10NES [] 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.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson