href="http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A//www.appletell.com/apple/comment/how-will-iads-change-the-app-user-experience/">Today, Apple CEO announced “iAds,” part of iPhone OS 4; software for developers to make it easier to put ads in their applications. And for the first time while watching an Apple product announcement, I felt sick to my stomach.
I don’t mind ads. Ads should exist. They’re a great way to make a program “free” (as in beer) to download. I dutifully sit through ads on Hulu because I understand that this is how people are going to get paid for the work I’m enjoying. If there’s an ad-supported free app and an ad-free “premium” app, I’ll usually download the former to find out if I like it enough to buy the latter (or look for a better app that does the same thing).
iAds, however, makes me extremely nervous, and has a lot of unanswered questions.
iAds vs Google Ads
Steve made several not-so-subtle references to Google ads (“mobile ads”) in his presentation. Now, the thing I like about Google Ads (which is where they get most of their revenue) is that they’re small and unobtrusive. Steve, however, was positively crowing about how these iAds will dominate your screen, obscuring it completely. (Even as it leaves you “inside the app.” iAds is practically an application inside your application; indeed they demonstrated a Toy Story 3 app that featured a memory game, and a Nike build-your-own-shoe function. This is not a tiny banner ad tucked in between paragraphs of a story. This is something that blocks the app (for all their talk about how it doesn’t take you out of the application.) Now let’s say that Apple lets the user dismiss the ad as soon as he wishes. At what point does the developer get paid for the ad? How much time does the user have to spend in it? Can the developer insist that the user watch a certain number of ads, or spend a certain amount of time (ala Hulu) before he can use the “free” app?
You used to be acceptable
The worst aspect of Google Ads, however, is their draconian agreement with the sites that host their ad. If Google so much as suspects that you’re breaking the rules (artificially increasing clicks, asking people to click on ads, or anything that breaks the agreement), they shut you out and you receive nothing. There is virtually no arbitration process, no explanation or investigation…
…which sounds exactly like how Apple runs the App Store. If you have an app that’s accepted, becomes popular, and is making you a profit, Apple can at any time decide they don’t want it in their store and delete it immediately. Now what about iAds suggests that Apple will run it any differently than the App Store? If you, as a developer, turn your ad revenue over to them, you are giving them complete control of your distribution channel and revenue stream. Now Apple has two hooks into you, you have to create an app that conforms to their every-changing standards, and you have to worry about receiving a notification that your app no longer conforms to the standards of iAds (which they changed without explanation). Or better yet, suppose you to go the trouble of implementing iAds in your app, and Apple decides you’re not a “viable candidate” for their program?
Which ads?
I have no doubt Apple is working to create good-looking, slick ads. But will you get to choose which advertisers show up on your app? Suppose you have an app about living Green in your community and ads for “big box” stores show up? Will you get to say “No, I don’t approve of this company, I don’t want their ads?” Or will Apple say “you get to choose a category” or (perhaps even more likely) “we’ll choose the category most appropriate for you.” And when your customers complain, will Apple take the heat, or will you? Well, what happened when users had to wait for bug fixes to clear the approval process?
I’m not sure why Apple thinks it’s a good idea for them to get into the advertising business, other than money, or to take a stab at Google’s prime revenue stream. iAds seems like a colossal step backwards, though, the modern equivalent of the pop up ad, something even Safari blocks. Is this what we want? To go back to an era where we had advertising take over our screen and make us play a game in order to get back to the content we wanted? Is it any less obnoxious if it’s a slickly produced ad for Nike, rather than punching a Flash-based monkey to win a free iPod?
![Macworld | iWorld 2012: Appletell’s surprising finds [updated]](http://www.technologytell.com/apple/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2012/01/macworld2012-alljack2-184x70.jpg)
Ay, yay, yay! Wow.
Your paragraph here:
"Now, the thing I like about Google Ads (which is where they get most of their revenue) is that they’re small and unobtrusive. Steve, however, was positively crowing about how these iAds will dominate your screen, obscuring it completely. (Even as it leaves you “inside the app.” iAds is practically an application inside your application; indeed they demonstrated a Toy Story 3 app that featured a memory game, and a Nike build-your-own-shoe function. This is not a tiny banner ad tucked in between paragraphs of a story. This is something that blocks the app (for all their talk about how it doesn’t take you out of the application.)"
Re-watch the keynote. The ads ARE in fact a "tiny banner ad tucked in between paragraphs of a story." They look the exact same as most ads currently do in apps. They are just a small little banner. Nothing pops out and takes up the whole screen unless you tap on it.
Easy now, perhaps a little critical?
The ads only go full screen if you open them up, and the ones that Apple 'mocked up' actually looked quite good. If companies make their adverts to the same standard, I reckon people might actually appreciate them.
And your reference to the 'Flash-based monkey?' iAds are HTML 5, I think Steve made quite a big point of that.