Apple Wants 1/8th Of Your iPhone Back – Don’t Give It To Them

Make no mistake, iAds are the iPhone user’s worst enemy. If Buzz Lightyear were at the unveiling, he’d have rocket-punched Apple right in the face.

With today’s announcement of iAd, a turnkey solution for developers to add advertisements to their applications, Apple has empowered the small developer to be rewarded (assumingly) every single time a person uses software – all without building an internal ad sales team of their own. It’s pretty neat, from a business perspective.

From a user’s perspective, it’s absolutely horrifying.

This point may sound hypocritical. After all, I write for a major website that makes a lot of money off the ads you see (and sometimes, ugh, hear). But there are many differences between what Apple is doing and what exists in the advertising world as we know it.

For one, software has almost always been an ad-free space, a sort of neutral zone in the war for a consumer’s heart and mind. Aside from a few instances (like Madden advertising real products on in-game billboards), if you bought a piece of software on a mobile phone or a PC, it was free from ads. If you downloaded a free piece of software on the PC, it might have an ad, but usually it was just to get you to buy the software – and it usually didn’t sit on the screen at all times.

Which brings me to my second point about why iAds look particularly sinful – even when ads appear on the web (or most PC-based software) now, you’re talking about a relatively small image, in terms of overall real estate, that you can escape by scrolling down a page. That Motorola DEXT ad in the upper right hand corner of Gizmodo? (You may or may not see it – I have no clue what sort of deal our sales department has cut with them.) You could fit almost 30 of those ads on the 24-inch monitor I’m using right now to read Gizmodo – and I have a second laptop monitor on which I can hold even more information. But on the iPhone, bar ads (like we see in iAd) take up roughly one-eighth of the screen at all times – a screen that’s designed to be tiny so that it can fit in your pocket meaning that most of us struggle to read the thing in the first place.

As far as I’m concerned, that particular ad is sucking away one-eighth of my experience, jamming its nose in my portal to a device that I paid (a lot) to own and use. One-eighth is too much in my book, and it infuriates me that the guy who sold me this phone is the same guy selling someone a means to take part of that phone from me.

By now, some of you think I’m a grumpy, ranting lunatic. Some of you think, “Well just don’t use apps that have ads in them, idiot. Paid apps, for instance, will probably remain ad-free.” This reasonable response brings me to my third point:

We shouldn’t expect any apps to stay ad-free, at least when keeping history in mind, because Apple has made no restrictions (that we’ve heard about) to keep ads out of paid apps. Remember when pay TV was a safe haven from broadcast ads? Then what happened? Basically every pay TV network followed the broadcast advertising model. Now, we have ads on everything on TV. And after we learned to skip them, we’ve developed ads in our TV – superfluous product references integrated into a storyline for no other purpose than profit.

But there’s a difference between television advertising, in its current state, and Apple pitching every developer on integrating its ad solution. Apple selling iAds is the equivalent to Sony or Samsung selling part of your TV to advertisers, not a content provider – artists gone businessmen, essentially – like NBC cutting into their own programming to sell you a product and fund said programming.

You see, it’s not that I don’t think anyone should have the right to advertise through my phone. If NYT puts an ad in their app, I understand. They constantly generate non-reusable content. The NYT is not a piece of code that’s written once, like DoodleJump; it’s a publication that’s built from the ground up every day.

Apple’s already built, shipped and more than funded the iPhone they sold you – in both a for profit sale and the healthy chunk they’re taking from AT&T’s monthly bill. Now they want part of that phone back – one-eighth to be exact – and they’re pitching every platform developer along with every consumer on the idea.

Hopefully, developers will see “ad-free” as a selling point, and we won’t be so dim-witted as to be sold on anything less.

Discuss

(16 Comments)
  • [–]

    Matt

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 9:18 AM

    I hear ya. I was looking at my mums laptop yesterday and noticed a similar thing. Almost a quarter of the top part of the screen taken up with Microsoft toolbar crap. On the phone it’s even more important to keep it clean

  • [–]

    JLD

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM

    Actually scrap that, there are four identical optus ads on every page of Gizmodo today. I can’t keep reading, they’re driving me nuts. I’ll come back tomorrow and hope they’re gone.

    • [–]

      Stefan

      Friday, April 9, 2010 at 10:25 AM

      If your running Firefox you can get Ad block Plus, just select the ads, and block :P, no more anoying distractions

  • [–]

    Shane

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 9:27 AM

    I guess alot of it will come down to users. If you find two apps that do the same job, but find one is “pushing” ads at you, you may consider not using it. I would, especially if I’ve paid for it.

    The few free apps that I’ve used with ads in them are generally annoying and smack of consistency issues.

    What happens when ladies lingerie starts getting advertised to teenage boys…how wait…can the content be controlled? How would you control it?

    I don’t doubt it has a good potential and as developer I can appreciate why it would be tempting to use it, but if the ads have no relevance to the app, then I think it’s useless…

    Then you have the issues of people abusing developers because the content of the ads, where they have no control over them.

    Now I know if the system is smart, it will be using “targeted” ads, but since when have they actually worked anyway? And how do you tell the difference between me, my wife or my kids using my iphone?

  • [–]

    Tom

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM

    It was worse when you had the scrolling ads as well as the clickable yellow background. My eyes burned for weeks!

    What irritates me is that without an adblocker there’s no way to get rid of them. What’s the incentive for the average user to click on them? They don’t go away after you’ve done that.

    Back on topic – we’ll have to wait and see just how bad the intrusion is, and how many developers choose to use it. From a business point of view, I can definitely see the appeal, but it’s a very quick way of getting negative reactions from your consumers if you keep shoving full screen video of ads in their faces.

  • [–]

    Greg

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 10:18 AM

    The web has ads? Guess I never noticed. ABP is marvellous.

  • [–]

    Chris Brown

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM

    What about the cost of the data to download all of these cool video and animated ads!

    I can imagine a weather app would use 2Kb to download the weather and another 200K to download the ad!

  • [–]

    David

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 12:05 PM

    I don’t see the problem with this.

    Many ‘FREE’ aps do this already – apple is just making an easy way to consolidate all of that advertising and allowing a way to make money from the advertising in one easy place.

    Google has an ad system for the iPhone and basically they want to take that back.

    I would imagine that this would not be included in paid apps, but what is so bad about having an ad on the top of the screen if you can have that same paid app for free?

    Sounds pretty decent to me, and I like the idea of apple rolling all of the ads into one format. At least they wont be ugly and obtrusive, but instead it will be built into the interface so it still looks pretty.

    And guess what… maybe these ads will serve a purpose, and provide you with something that you MIGHT even like or consider picking up.

  • [–]

    egon

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 1:17 PM

    Gizmodo AU has had DISGUSTING ads in the past that are far more obtrusive than these. Remember the massive Nokia N97 campaign or whatever that was with the frame around the whole page? The ANZ one with the horrible banners down the sides of the page? Yeah. A bit hypocritical IMO. I’m not a big fan of this ad scheme either, it just smells a bit off for Gizmodo to be getting on the high horse about it. Granted the ad situation on Giz AU has improved, and I’m not sure if the US readers ever suffered the same horrific ads that AU readers did, but yeah.. just saying.

  • [–]

    whatiris

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 1:45 PM

    There’s only one small request I’d have for iAds supported software – the App Store entry should show that the software contains ads. That way I can continue to avoid purchasing ad supported software. I wouldn’t want to pay for something and then discover that it was also ad supported.

  • [–]

    Jamie Carl

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 2:54 PM

    Yay! I’m starting to love Apple for this move. Hopefully soon they will come out with even more innovative ways of shooting themselves in the foot so that they soon die and we can live in an Apple-free world.

  • [–]

    Michael

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 3:00 PM

    This actually has the potential to greatly increase the quality of apps being produced. Developers will be fighting to create an app that gets the most downloads/usage, which will then attract more advertising revenue.

    I can see developers of new apps producing 2 versions now, one which is paid for by the user and another that is free but contains advertising.

    This may be an angel in disguise, as an apple…

  • [–]

    Gareth Redshaw

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 3:02 PM

    so what exactly is new here?
    ads in apps isnt new

    apple is just playing catchup to admob/google and controlling a part of the revenue chain they were missing

    a debate isnt what i was expecting to read here, this reads like an art students essay explaining business to an economics professor

  • [–]

    RK

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM

    iAdBlock, the new app from Apple! Only $50!

  • [–]

    Realism

    Friday, April 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM

    I like the idea of immersive ads on stuff I’m interested in, even if I don’t need to play the game. The scatter-gun approach of current web advertising is useless and is the reason why content providers are considering disasterous walled garden business models. I don’t click on ads and I buy a lot of tech.

  • [–]

    Dave

    Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 10:44 AM

    “that you can escape by scrolling down a page” while reading this article a giant yellow obnoxious Optus ad is scrolling down the page with me, taking up half as much screen real estate than the content does.
    A small disclaimer and admission of guilt at the beginning of your article doesn’t forgive being a hypocrite.
    Apple have as much right to use this as Gawker does.

Join The Discussion