When announcing iPhone OS 4.0, Steve Jobs said that Apple has "no plans to become a worldwide ad agency" - but it appears that he's planning to do just that. Jobs' goal: to get one billion ad impressions per day by the end of the year. Among the 100 new features that Jobs promised for iPhone OS 4.0 is iAd, a service that will …
So Apple are looking at popular app's in the app store (kindle for instance) as well as the advertising methods used by app's in the app store, and adding them to the OS itself rendering the app's (kindle) and advertising methods, useless pretty much?
What the hell kind of competition is that?
The lack of support for Multitasking on the 3G iPhone is irritating. I read the live blog from Endgadget and the quote from someone on stage was that "the hardware will not support it". I'm sorry, but I've had Palm Pre style multitasking in the form of the ProSwitcher app from Cydia for ages. It doesnt slow the performance of the phone (any more then 3.0 did anyway) and the battery impact is negligible.
nice way to force us fanboys to upgrade, Jobs, nice
I was surprised by the multitasking announcement. So many iPologists have claimed that the iPhone doesn't need to multitask on the grounds that it copied Palm (pre-Pre) in a magical and revolutionary (yet, apparently, irritating) way.
"Folders for grouping similar apps" sounds a lot like Palm too. I'm glad I didn't "upgrade" my Treo.
Fuck that shit, one more reason not to buy apple
Running out of iWords
Just when you thought they could iCreate anything else...ugh.
I know the comments in these articles tend to turn into a complete bash-the-fuck-out-of-Apple fest, but it's these sorts of insipid "features" that just make me want to puke. Why would anyone want to upgrade to 4.0? Because it now has ads?
Any fanbois who can defend the Devil's spawn, please present your arguments in light of this next round of iShit.
What's even worse is the way that Steve Jobs will actually force you to buy one of his products. Thanks to one of the newest apps, called iwishyoudallgoaway, every single citizen will be compelled to buy a new iPhone.
There is an alternative, of course: if you don't want one, don't bitch about it and don't feckn well buy one.
There, I think that's sorted for ya.
... iWishyoudallgoaway? Please?
You're singling that out?
It's a substantial step up the conversational ladder from Slappy's effort.
Before you Apple hateboys get fired up...
The purpose of iAds is to keep free apps free. iAds is just an Apple alternative to the other mobile ad networks that developers of free apps ALREADY use. There are ALREADY ads in apps. iAd won't change that, but it will make the experience better for the user as clicking an ad won't quit the app.
Further, Jobs did NOT say he aimed for 1 billion impressions per day. He said,
"The average user spends over 30 minutes every day using apps on their phone. If we said we wanted to put an ad up every 3 minutes, that's 10 ads per device per day. That would be 1b ad opportunities per day"
Note the use of the word, "if". He was just playing with numbers to give an example of where iAd might go. Apple aren't going to be using iAd to force you to watch ads every opportunity they get. The world is not coming to and end. Chill out.
The purpose of iAds is to quickly get Apple a foothold in the potentially very lucrative mobile ad market.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean it wasn't also designed to be an improvement for the user. Apple is a business, after all. You can't really expect the to design stuff without making a profit.
they may well start to force you to watch the ads, that's what their recently filed patent was for:
The choice is no choice
My only request would be that in addition to the O/S supporting an ads capability can it also support an ads off switch so that I can make the 'choice' as to if I want ads or not.
As for making applications cheap, your statement is correct it normally also means that the worst type of rubbish gets the most advertising as a result pushing out the high investment, no patch, got it right first time products. Thats why we are in a continuous patch cycle for nearly all our products nowadays, but call it market competitional advantage in terms of releasing unfinished products into the marketplace.
What I dont see is the 'Choice' being provided to the consumer in terms of enabling or disabling a feature or product when the purchase channel is singular such as the itunes store.
As a matter of fact in terms of choice despite my reservations of Google effectively prying the same practices, this is the one saving grace of Android, that at least if I really wanted to I can develop and install my own products without having to be pipelined through a potential exclusion zone.
I think its a shame that Apple although the manufacturers of good products feel that they have to take an dictatorial line when dealing with the customer. My observation is that this has excluded both great minds and good customers, because the approach is one of marketing not development.
I recently noted a person who had to have an iphone not because of the features but because is was a social inclusion. When you looked into the eyes of said individual you could see the breezey landscape in the distance, there was no understanding of the tech nor the capability and for that social inclusion it cost £700, it may as well have been a block of cheese.
At the same time I note a form of social exclusion occuring as Banks and others pedal 'iphone' clients to their services so that they can tap into this mindless set of individuals. I say exclusion because the same services have not been developed for other platforms. So to get the services you have to have an iphone. What next exclusion from the human race perhaps.
Big brother we are watching you very closely.
has it ever occurred to His Steveship...
...that we just don't plain feel like looking at the goddamn' ads?
What we want are ad free free apps! Just like free tech news website The Reg is ad free, don't see adverts all over these pages ... oh wait!
I hate adverts as much as the next person, but I am quite happy with the idea of free = you get adverts and paid = no adverts; what I object to is paid content plus adverts.
"The Reg is ad free, don't see adverts all over these pages ... oh wait!"
I don't see ads all over these pages either. I expect that's because they are fairly discretely placed to one side of the screen. The trouble is, on a device the size of the iPhone there's no such place as the side of the screen. There's only "in the way" and "IN YER FACE!!".
Then again, I'm presumably not part of iSteve's target market, since I don't see myself as an opportunity for monetization. Maybe this is all for the best. A world where Apple have a monopoly on advertising strikes me as a brilliant idea, since I don't own any Apple hardware.
I don't like ads either
but these, as I understand it, are to keep apps free. Theoretically, they should only be in free apps. Regardless, however, they are in-app ads - you don't have to download and use an app if it has ads, you still have choice.
That's an unfortunate name...
Everyone has iAds
My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (iAds iAds iAds)
The pope has got it and so do you (iAds iAds iAds iAds iAds )
C'mon everybody we got quilting to do (iAds iAds iAds iAds iAds)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has iAds!
But is it good iAds ior bad iAds?
porn!??!? OMG, OMG.... let's just not even go there... OMG, no way.
Paris - haha, well
I think he just sold a million more Androids with that line.
Is can see it now! Apple didn't ban porn for some moral reason. It's a sales strategy...
2011, we'll be seeing headlines like:
"iPhone OS 5.0; introducing the iPorn 1.0"
... And probably even new iPorn "utilities" xD
and let's not forget it's impossible for you or your kids to view porn using safari
Apple banned porn not for some moral reason, but because someone told them that things to do with sex was a gateway for viruses!
/Mines the one with the 'all clear' results in the pocket.
Ad spam in every app!
So the only apps I can put on my iphone 3G will be spammed with ads, and I can't write and load my own apps without a several month approval process. And many App developers like Google can't get half their apps on the phone either.
Brilliant. Thanks Steve. I've got eight months left on my contract too. Think I'll buy the Nexus One anyway.
Here we go again
More Apple-hater ignorance...yawn.
The only apps that will have ads in them are free apps. You either pay for an ad-free app or get a free app with ads in it. Or did you expect developers to provide you with great free apps out of the goodness of their hearts?
Also, I love how you start buy slagging off ads and then praise the NUMBER ONE ADVERTISING COMPANY IN THE WORLD, and that you'll buy their phone instead. Warped thinking indeed.
You realise that nothing will actually change from the user's perspective here... many free apps (whether they be iPhone, Android or whoever) already serve ads from AdMob or other services. The only thing that might change is that you won't get booted out of the app by clicking on the ad (if you happen to be the sort of weirdo who clicks on ads).
"The only apps that will have ads in them are free apps"
Got that in writing, signed in blood from St Steve have we? No? Then don't be surprised if paid-for apps also start getting adverts. That's a bit like saying "I paid for access to the Times Online so I don't expect to see any adverts at all" - Naiive at best. Yes, many paid apps will stay advert free. I bet games get adverts very quickly - I'm sure the likes of EA would like to cross-sell their latest releases when you fire up one of their games that you paid £5 for.
Don't panic, the sky is not falling...
"Then don't be surprised if paid-for apps also start getting adverts"
And what's to stop this from happening already? What's to stop a developer putting ads in their paid for apps now using AdMob or another service? Nothing, that's what.
So why aren't we already seeing hundreds of ads in paid for apps? Because devs know that it would be commercial suicide to annoy their users with an ad in an app they've paid good money for. People would just buy something else. Devs won't start plastering ads all over their paid apps simply because Apple has become an ad broker. And if you think Apple will start putting ads in the main phone apps (mail, messages etc.) you need to up your dose. All they would do with a move like this is hand sales to their competitors.
All iAds is is another ad service for app devs to choose from. Like a website owner can select to display ads from Google, DoubleClick, FastClick etc, an app dev can now choose from iAds or AdMob etc. Apple just want a piece of the mobile ad market and they're persuading people to use their ad system by improving the user experience and not dumping users out of an app when they accidentally tap an advert (let's face it, no one taps on purpose!). When and where devs choose to show the ads won't change. It's not up to Apple where a dev positions an ad now, and using iAds won't change that.
Seriously, calm down.
Surely iAd equivalent will soon be in Nexus One phones? Google is the worlds largest advertising company after all.
My question is ... while Apple and Google are fighting for mobile advertising revenues, where is Microsoft?
Indeed! I mean, I paid for that damn magazine I was reading last night, and most of it is ads. I pay for the damn cable TV, but of every 10 laps of an F1 race, I don't see 2 or 3 because they cut to stupid (and repetitive) ads (that's Speed TV for you).
So yeah, pay for the apps and keep hoping you won't see ads forever... It has been like that so far in desktops, as far as I know. But it's not guaranteed at all that it will be the same in these "new and marvelous new paradigms".
Gotta be the worst product name Apple has come up with yet. Especially when people mis-capitalize it as Iad or iad. It looks more or less like a random character string at that point. Or "Lad" if you're using a sans font.
Yeah this does look pretty much like Apple just measured up the ways other people were making money on it's devices and decided to go ahead and keep that money for themselves. Honestly nobody can even sort of compete with this Lad nonsense since it has native OS access, so they're entirely locking out everyone else.
One day I hope this sort of behavior comes back around to them, but I have a sinking feeling that they'll get away with whatever they want, pretty much until the world ends...
That's not too bad compared to typing too fast and getting the placings of A and I switched and then accidentally adding an "s" to the end of the word.
The one with the HTC TyTN and Nokia N97 in the pockets, thanks.
Well, according to my girlfriend iPad is still the reigning champion of bad name awards. She shakes her head every time she hears the name.
with their big bust up n all, who started moving first... Google into the business of selling phones or Apple into online advertising.
iAds perhaps not great on a small screen
Based on the various snapshots of the presentation, it would appear that the app embedded Ad buttons will take up valuable screen space. This may not be an issue on the larger iPad, but it could get annoying on an iPhone.
When will this madness stop?
Apple, look here:
Even that had multitasking, in 1985, and it still wasn't the first. Let me give you a pre-fuck off for when you'll say how cool/amazing it is when you'll push it.
You mean task switching
Multitasking in Windows before 95 was released? You are making me laugh! All Windows could do was task switch which was painfully obvious when I switched from the Amiga to a Windows 3 PC in 1994. Whereas my Amiga has true pre-emptive multitasking which worked pretty much as we expect today, the multitasking in Windows 3 was just meant you could have several apps loaded at once. Switch something to the background and it pretty much stopped.
Blatently not true
Windows 3.0 didn't just switch tasks, if you opened 2 apps they both worked.
Multitasking has been around for ever, and think about it. On a single core processor how exactly can you multi task with out 'switching'? I think you'll find that back in the day, all multi tasking was done the same way.
Oh, and lets not forget that in 94, surely that was windows 3.11?
"I think you'll find that back in the day, all multi tasking was done the same way."
I think you'll find that back in the day, VAXes and other unix-type boxes had proper pre-emptive multitasking. The poster above just chose a bad example in Windows. The distinction being that the old Windows versions essentially 'hibernated' the background taks until they were switched to, whereas other systems employed 'time-slicing' to allow the background tasks to actually get a share of the processor time too.
If we're talking about other things that the iPhone is bringing to the party late, then why not focus on the idea of a hierarchical file system? I mean, it's not like that was invented some time in the 1970s is it?
Co-operative multi-tasking is still multi-tasking
Incorrect. Windows 3 had co-operative multi-tasking, and task switches were performed when you relinquished control by polling the message queue for your application - as long as your application was processing messages, tasks would be switched correctly. If you decided to sit in a loop and not poll the Windows message queue, you would lock up the system.
OS 4.0 sneak peek
Take a peek at these two videos showing new features http://www.iphonehelp-mike.com/iphone-os-4-0-video-including-main-new-features/
People were bitching that the iPhone OS didn't have multitasking, and now that it does, the bitching hasn't stopped - just changed. I fear the OS will never make you happy. Best go back to your Windows 1.0 and Palm Pre.
Someone said this re the iAds feature:
"I think he just sold a million more Androids with that line."
How naive can you get. Android is produced by the biggest advertiser in the world (that would be Google). Why do you think Google did it? Fun? (Pssst, it's advertising stupid).
Ads in Android?
Can be easily switched off by using AdFree.
Android - no thought control.
How stupid can you get?
How stupid can you get?
The OP was referring to the "android has porn" line, not the iAds stuff.
Try re-reading the article
I think you'll find that was a reference to the pr0n store which Jobs said Android has and a route they don't want to go down........
I call fanboi
Someone said this re the iAds feature:
"I think he just sold a million more Androids with that line."
I think you'll find that the comment was made regarding the android porn store, a la iPorn
Makes more sense... sending people to a platform that natively supports porn rather than driving them from a platform that natively supports ads.
I have a total of 7 apps from iTunes on my old Gen1 iPod Touch. All utilities of one kind or another. It is, however, useful for emails and Podcasts. Not much else really.
I wonder if this new SDK and upcoming apps will encourage me to upgrade my old Touch.
"Background location uses cell-tower triangulation rather than a power-hungry GPS circuitry to supply location info to apps that don't need, for example, the highly accurate location information used by turn-by-turn navigation"
This isn't quite true. What was announced was that for backgrounded GPS apps, the GPS hardware will only be fired up when the user changes cell. It's an alternative to constantly polling for a location (i.e. when the phone knows that its location has changed), and still gives GPS-level accuracy.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015