1) New iPhone 4 owner downloads a free flashlight app. Plays around with the one-button interface, gets bored.
2) Notices iAd, clicks on it.
3) Navigates around the ad more than he/she does the app.
I don't see the $1400/day revenue lasting much longer for this developer. If the user launches the flashlight app in the future, they'll just use the flashlight and quit. I doubt many people will actually touch the ads when they're searching for stuff in the dark.
It is all about volume and new iPhone sales. I'm sure it will last. Until there are 20 other LED Flashlight apps in the store. THAT will kill its revenues.
I think as the novelty of iAds wears off, the number of people who view them in otherwise empty apps will drop significantly. People who use the flashlight app could care less what was on the screen when all they want is the back to light up.
Considering implementing an LED flashlight is literally like 20 lines of code and a few .png files, I'm amused at how many (incredibly shoddily written) paid versions exist. I wonder what goes through a customer's head as he/she scrolls through pages of free versions to buy a $0.99 flashlight.
This developer earned $1,400 from serving adds to people who are standing in the dark holding their iPhone at arm's length so they can use it as a flashlight. Somehow I don't think the advertisers are getting their money's worth on that one.
I don't think there's anyway that it can be a sustainable trend. You'd have to have one hell of a product to get a positive ROI on that CPM (plus you have to add in Apple's take).
I imagine it's a lot of novelty of the platform, and the fact that iAd is a good bit more engaging than most of the other ad platforms. Eventually ad fatigue will set in though.
It's a huge rate, that's for sure. I'm sure it's due to the reasons you mentioned- these ads will remain viable for some time. The actual rate paid out is likely not sustainable, though. Same thing happened to AdSense when it launched- those who got into the private beta in April/May/June were doing gangbusters until the market settled down after that summer.
Sorry, I just realized this was a duplicate of the original HN post. I believe it does add to the discussion, however, because I was unable to access the Dropbox hosted image from work, yet it is compiled clearly in this article with additional information.
Is CTR actually clicking the ad and going to the advertiser's webpage or just interacting with the ad? If it's just like normal CTR, I don't see how iAds could result in a better performance. Maybe people like to play the mini-games, but no one would click through just because they liked the interactive aspect. The only reason to click through would either be curiosity or actual interest. Sure there's one developer who earned a jackpot, but what's the average payout for developers using iAds?
1) New iPhone 4 owner downloads a free flashlight app. Plays around with the one-button interface, gets bored.
2) Notices iAd, clicks on it.
3) Navigates around the ad more than he/she does the app.
I don't see the $1400/day revenue lasting much longer for this developer. If the user launches the flashlight app in the future, they'll just use the flashlight and quit. I doubt many people will actually touch the ads when they're searching for stuff in the dark.