4 ms·

Apple operated iAd before shutting it down. One of the former iAd execs said this to the WSJ [1]: >“I don’t believe they are interested in this capability beca

by IBM 9y ago

Apple operated iAd before shutting it down. One of the former iAd execs said this to the WSJ [1]: >“I don’t believe they are interested in this capability because they have a strict policy around what they do with user data,” Crawford said. “IAd has great assets and great capabilities, but they are going to follow Apple’s policy to the letter of the law.” So they crippled a potential new revenue stream because of their privacy policy. [1] https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/13/drawbridge-hires-apple-ad-executive-to-track-users-across-devices/ https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/13/drawbridge-hires-app...

headsoup 9y ago
Exactly, Apple just doesn't need ads because of their physical product and brand strength. If you rely on ads, what actual value are you (or could you be) providing that you're not charging for. And then, why not, why choose ads instead and data harvesting? If Facebook started charging for their services, would people happily start paying or would they suddenly realise there are equal/better alternatives once cost is a factor? Will be interesting to see what happens with Apple if the i-products do ever decline significantly. (I believe their Brand is strong enough to sell their other services effectively so long as they get the price right).
FireBeyond 9y ago
You don't consider it at all possible that "because privacy" is the PR spin on it? When iAd launched, it required mid six digit buys for ads. Users complained that they only would see the same half-dozen ads. Over the course of the next two years, that was steadily reduced, low six digits, fifty thousand, and the complaints stayed the same. Before iAd shut its doors, you could get ad buys for a minimum of _fifty dollars_. I tend to be a bit skeptical that instead of the platform being a failure, Apple realized after a few years of cutting buy prices that "hey, privacy is important". That sounds a lot more like a PR soundbite.
- IBM 9y ago
  Those ads were priced that high for a reason, to keep garbage off the iPhone. iAd only really made sense as a way to enable developers to make money from their apps in a high quality way. All the stipulations don't make sense for a pure ad-tech business. And I don't think a former iAd exec has any reason to be doing PR for Apple when the purpose of that WSJ story and his cooperation with it was to pimp his new job/startup.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    > Those ads were priced that high for a reason, to keep garbage off the iPhone. Perhaps so. And only a few companies bought ads, which pissed off their customers (the ones that Apple is "fighting to protect") because of the repetition. So Apple lowered the barrier. A failure to realize. Not sure how this is a dispute of what I said, or somehow proves that iAd wasn't a failure, but a planned exit. > And I don't think a former iAd exec has any reason to be doing PR for Apple when the purpose of that WSJ story and his cooperation with it was to pimp his new job/startup. If you think that Apple (or any company of that size) doesn't have non-disparagement agreements with any corporate officer or down to SVP level, at the _very minimum_, you're mistaken. Even those "we screwed up" articles you see are very carefully stage managed. They're (almost exclusively, save some very isolated high profile situations) scripted as a PR effort to manage customer satisfaction.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  Exactly, they failed to monetize their installed base through ads, so decided to call it a "feature".

by IBM 9y ago

headsoup 9y ago

Exactly, Apple just doesn't need ads because of their physical product and brand strength. If you rely on ads, what actual value are you (or could you be) providing that you're not charging for. And then, why not, why choose ads instead and data harvesting? If Facebook started charging for their services, would people happily start paying or would they suddenly realise there are equal/better alternatives once cost is a factor? Will be interesting to see what happens with Apple if the i-products do ever decline significantly. (I believe their Brand is strong enough to sell their other services effectively so long as they get the price right).

FireBeyond 9y ago

You don't consider it at all possible that "because privacy" is the PR spin on it? When iAd launched, it required mid six digit buys for ads. Users complained that they only would see the same half-dozen ads. Over the course of the next two years, that was steadily reduced, low six digits, fifty thousand, and the complaints stayed the same. Before iAd shut its doors, you could get ad buys for a minimum of _fifty dollars_. I tend to be a bit skeptical that instead of the platform being a failure, Apple realized after a few years of cutting buy prices that "hey, privacy is important". That sounds a lot more like a PR soundbite.

IBM 9y ago
Those ads were priced that high for a reason, to keep garbage off the iPhone. iAd only really made sense as a way to enable developers to make money from their apps in a high quality way. All the stipulations don't make sense for a pure ad-tech business. And I don't think a former iAd exec has any reason to be doing PR for Apple when the purpose of that WSJ story and his cooperation with it was to pimp his new job/startup.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > Those ads were priced that high for a reason, to keep garbage off the iPhone. Perhaps so. And only a few companies bought ads, which pissed off their customers (the ones that Apple is "fighting to protect") because of the repetition. So Apple lowered the barrier. A failure to realize. Not sure how this is a dispute of what I said, or somehow proves that iAd wasn't a failure, but a planned exit. > And I don't think a former iAd exec has any reason to be doing PR for Apple when the purpose of that WSJ story and his cooperation with it was to pimp his new job/startup. If you think that Apple (or any company of that size) doesn't have non-disparagement agreements with any corporate officer or down to SVP level, at the _very minimum_, you're mistaken. Even those "we screwed up" articles you see are very carefully stage managed. They're (almost exclusively, save some very isolated high profile situations) scripted as a PR effort to manage customer satisfaction.
ucaetano 9y ago
Exactly, they failed to monetize their installed base through ads, so decided to call it a "feature".