
Will Apple only allow apps to run ads served by them in the future? - jasonlbaptiste
http://jasonlbaptiste.com/commentary/prediction-apple-ads-serve-quattro-wireless-ban-iphone-apps/
======
zefhous
People aren't understanding the purpose of this "ban."

They aren't banning location-based ads, they are banning the use of the Core
Location framework when it is being used _only_ for advertising.

They are protecting a good user experience. For privacy reasons, applications
that use Core Location need to ask for permission to do so. They don't want a
bunch of ad-based apps asking the user for permission when they don't really
need to know any location info. It's that simple.

If you know the user's location anyway, you can show location-based ads.

I'm not saying that Apple isn't going to try to take over the ad market for
their devices, but all the recent speculation based on the news of the ban is
just short-sighted.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
im not necessarily saying they're "connected". Moreso, reading all those
speculative posts sparked this post in my mind.

~~~
spooneybarger
speculation piled on top of speculation- where that gets us is not a place i
want to go.

------
udfalkso
Checking the current location requires extra battery use. Apple doesn't want
your app draining their user's battery if you're only using it for showing
them ads. This may be all that it's about.

~~~
loumf
It would also be really confusing to the user. I download a game or some other
app where location isn't useful and all of the sudden I get a popup asking me
if I trust this application with my location information. Then if I do, I just
get targeted ads, not app functionality. Probably there isn't a local ad for a
lot of places (or I just don't notice that it's local), so this just seems
weird to the user.

------
spooneybarger
why is something this short, this speculative, this completely lacking in any
real foundation already at 16 points?

hacker news, i cry for you.

~~~
Sujan
I would say because it is an interesting thought. And btw, the title of the
submission is much 'better' than the post's.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
Yeah, I realized that when submitting the post. a) prediction isn't allowed
(was removing regardless for here) b) it's phrased better.

------
mikedouglas
They don't need to ban third party ad networks to undercut their prices, but I
agree at least one is likely to happen.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
this is very true. that also gets around some of the possible antitrust
issues.

------
mattmaroon
The logic here is astoundingly bad.

"Developers will love it too, as it will serve as a semi loss leader, the same
way the iTunes store does"

Wait, the iTunes store that rakes 30% of app transactions? That's a loss
leader? It's a break-even leader in music, but is probably enormously
profitable in apps.

"Payouts and rates that put AdMob to shame." Having one ad network compete for
developers, rather than dozens (all of which compete on one point: how much
developers make off of them) will lead to higher CPMs? Please repeat high
school economics.

~~~
loumf
It's actually quite a bit more if you only consider payment processing (more
like 10-20% for fully automated like the AppStore). But if you throw in
everything else, it's about fair -- I wouldn't consider it cheap.

------
GHFigs
I think you need to be more explicit in step 2. It's obvious that Apple will
be making a mobile advertising play, and it may well resemble what you
describe, but the idea that that they would ban every other ad network is a
stretch.

That they "love to control everything" is not convincing. It seems to me that
they are usually motivated by an unwillingness to _depend_ on third-parties
for things central to their business, not that they intend to actively disrupt
anybody else's business just for the sake of control. What beef does Apple
have with Fusion Ads or The Deck, and application developers that currently
use them?

In truth, I'm not even convinced that they intend to open up that ad network
for third-party developers, and not simply use it for themselves. Consider
U.S. patent application #20090265214:

 _Among other disclosures, an operating system presents one or more
advertisements to a user and disables one or more functions while the
advertisement is being presented. At the end of the advertisement, the
operating system again enables the function(s). The advertisement can be
visual or audible. The presentation of the advertisement(s) can be made as
part of an approach where the user obtains a good or service, such as the
operating system, for free or at reduced cost._

Ordinarily I'd dismiss this as merely speculative and not likely to see the
light of day, but this lists Steve Jobs listed among the inventors.

------
davidedicillo
I don't think this is going to happen, but for sure I can see them offering
some very optimized tool that developers can use, like private API that 3rd
party ad networks won't be able to access.

------
gyardley
Advertisements requiring the granularity provided by Core Location are a tiny
sliver of an already small mobile advertising market. The vast majority of
mobile advertising campaigns are targeted at the country level, and the user's
IP address is all that's needed. A small number are targeted to the state or
designated marketing area (essentially a metropolitan region). Mobile IP isn't
perfect for those, but it's better than nothing. In other words, this barely
impacts the mobile advertising industry at all.

I suspect Apple will release an Advertising SDK that relies on Quattro, take
30% of the profits - less than most advertising networks take - and cut
developers a single check, which will be mighty convenient. However, Apple's
not likely to enforce that developers use only their advertising SDK. Many
iPhone application developers that use advertising know that using multiple ad
sources and doing some simple yield optimization performs better than a single
ad source - even the most privileged ad network doesn't perform as well as
multiple ad networks used in conjunction. Banning an AdMob or a Millenial or a
Google AdSense would result in significant backlash.

I believe zefhous is completely right - this is about protecting the user
experience, nothing more.

------
jrockway
I doubt this "scares Google shitless". There are plenty of advertising
companies Google doesn't own. (Ever see a billboard or watch TV? Those are not
Google's ads.)

I have to wonder what the value of ads on a mobile phone is anyway, especially
on a phone without multitasking. I imagine the click-through rates are very
low, and that conversion rates are zero. The only value that could possibly
arise is increased brand-recognition of the advertiser.

(My experience with ads on Android is that they are usually annoying enough
for me to insta-uninsall the app. They provide no value, but they do ensure
that I stop using your app and consider someone else's paid version.)

------
aresant
If they pursued that path they would be nailed with an antitrust suit the day
after they announced that position.

~~~
smanek
I'd be very surprised if Apple constituted a monopoly in the phone (or even
smart phone) market.

~~~
tptacek
That's because they're nowhere close to a monopoly in the smart phone market.

