Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Bolding mine.Multitasking release gives iAd developers grip on iPhone, Ipad users
• iPhone, iPad now able to multitask
• Jobs announces pop-up ads for apps
• One billion ads per day rolled out
WAS Apple's announcement the iPhone was now about to multitask just a giant smokescreen for the fact its apps will now carry ads?
Because it seems that in announcing the new operating system for Apple's mobile platforms, boss Steve Jobs gave with one hand while taking away with the other.
All the excitement over multitasking served to overwhelm the fact that iPhone and iPad users' beloved apps will now be plastered with ads.
One billion of them, in fact. Per day.
At exactly the same time US regulators threatened to block Google's proposed acquisition of mobile advertising firm AdMob - which Apple wanted to buy - Jobs released details of Apple's compensatory acquisition of Quattro Wireless.
At last night's launch, Jobs told the crowd Google was off the mark with its Android mobile OS, claiming users now spent "all their time in apps", not searching mobile devices.
But searching isn't Android's strong point - multitasking is, and it's the reason Google's tilt into mobile devices is gaining momentum, particularly with the release of the Motorola Droid, which sold 250,000 units in its first week on sale in the US.
So while multitasking isn't exactly new to mobile devices, advertising is. Well, good advertising is, according to Jobs, who said the current model "sucks".
TheRegister reports Jobs spent a lot of time explaining how Apple would make ads better, telling developers that their apps would now carry iAds that "combine the interactivity of standard web ads with the emotion provided by television ads". The iAds would be embedded in applications, and therefore won't close the app, popping up in a seperate window that can be closed with an "x" button and reveal the app behind it in the the state it was left.
Now that's multitasking for you.
And while Jobs promised Apple had no plans to become a "worldwide ad agency", he then went on to promise the crowd at the OS 4.0 launch that Apple could garner "one billion ad impressions per day by the end of the year".
His maths? An average user spending 30 minutes a day inside apps, receiving an iAd every three minutes on 10o million devices equals one billion ads a day. Sixty per cent of the cash raised would go to the advertisers, 40 per cent would remain with Apple.
And obviously, as with apps from its store, Apple will have to approve all ads before they host them.
From what I've seen the current ads in apps are the equivilent of a banner ad on a webpage - they don't actually stop or interupt the app from running. This new way of doing it seems to be a lot more intrusive.Stark wrote:Heaps of apps already have ads; its not like 100% of apps are suddenly going to use this. I imagine it's just a framework to more efficiently or uniformly deliver ads (and make Apple money). Does anyone seriously think Apple will make everyone look at an ad every three minutes regardless of what they're doing?
A lot more iPads would be blended if that were true.
No this is more equivilent to website popup ads. You know, the ones every hates and use specific software to avoid?Jason L. Miles wrote:This is the equivalent of fucking adwords, but inside apps. The developer has to use them.
My point was that some people are making it out like they are being inserted by the OS into anything and everything, when they are simply there to be used by the app developer. Whether the actual form is popup only or allows embedded is yet to be seen, unless you've downloaded a 4.0 SDK and looked at the implementations. I'd be very surprised if it did not allow embedded adwords style ads, it seems like a dumb profit hole to leave open.atg wrote:No this is more equivilent to website popup ads. You know, the ones every hates and use specific software to avoid?Jason L. Miles wrote:This is the equivalent of fucking adwords, but inside apps. The developer has to use them.
So, you've looked at the SDK and license agreement? You have some kind of internal documentation? Do you have any evidence of Apple having more than a few (read three or four) really consistent criteria on the app store at all? EDIT: By this I mean undocumented criteria. It seems to me that there are a lot of different reviewers, and an app might get by one, but not by another on some of this semi-undocumented shit. Especially the "minimal additional functionality" one.I've got no issue with 'free' or 'lite' apps supporting themselves with banner style ads as has been done up until now, but Apple doesn't get a cut of any of that I'm guessing, hence this. Anyone willing to bet that any apps that don't make use of this, but instead try to use the banner-style ads get removed from the app store? lol
Fair enough.Jason L. Miles wrote:My point was that some people are making it out like they are being inserted by the OS into anything and everything, when they are simply there to be used by the app developer. Whether the actual form is popup only or allows embedded is yet to be seen, unless you've downloaded a 4.0 SDK and looked at the implementations. I'd be very surprised if it did not allow embedded adwords style ads, it seems like a dumb profit hole to leave open.atg wrote:No this is more equivilent to website popup ads. You know, the ones every hates and use specific software to avoid?Jason L. Miles wrote:This is the equivalent of fucking adwords, but inside apps. The developer has to use them.
My thoughts there were just idle musing, hence the 'I'm guessing' & 'lol'. Though I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it was the case, I wouldnt' be terribly surprised if it wasn't either.So, you've looked at the SDK and license agreement? You have some kind of internal documentation? Do you have any evidence of Apple having more than a few (read three or four) really consistent criteria on the app store at all? EDIT: By this I mean undocumented criteria. It seems to me that there are a lot of different reviewers, and an app might get by one, but not by another on some of this semi-undocumented shit. Especially the "minimal additional functionality" one.I've got no issue with 'free' or 'lite' apps supporting themselves with banner style ads as has been done up until now, but Apple doesn't get a cut of any of that I'm guessing, hence this. Anyone willing to bet that any apps that don't make use of this, but instead try to use the banner-style ads get removed from the app store? lol
You do realise that no-one was questioning why you have Macs right?Seriously, lets wait until we can actually tell what's up is up before getting out the fanboi/hater shit. I have three computers, one PC and two Macs. I got the macs because I was being asked to support them at work, and I like to know what I'm doing. They're just fucking tools.
Though I'm considering getting one again for the same reason.I was emphasizing the tools thing, or trying to.atg wrote:You do realise that no-one was questioning why you have Macs right?Seriously, lets wait until we can actually tell what's up is up before getting out the fanboi/hater shit. I have three computers, one PC and two Macs. I got the macs because I was being asked to support them at work, and I like to know what I'm doing. They're just fucking tools.
On the iPad front, my belief is that there are some interesting implications in specific niches of my industry. As a consumer, as soon as Netflix and iBooks were announced for iPhone, I stopped caring.Havok wrote:Hmm, so reading through 4 pages of thread and... I have no idea what an iPad is for.
Is it a bigger e-reader? Yes. Is it a laptop? No. Is it a bigger iPhone? Sorta. Is it big enough to be obtrusive to carry? Yes. Is it as obtrusive as carrying around a laptop? No. Is it more obtrusive than an iPhone? Yes. Is it ergonomically functional? No. What is the point of it? No one knows. Does every one want one? Yes.
Probably not. I'm not a fan for different reasons.P.S. Am I like, the only person on the planet that thinks that Apple's design aesthetic is cheap looking and ugly?
Most people I know in real life don't like their design scheme, just the ease of use, but I'm not a fan of Apple anyway. I defend it because I like the theory, and I'll benefit from the competition that's resulting from it: I'm an artist so a mobile tablet PC is something that would really improve my quality of life.Havok wrote:P.S. Am I like, the only person on the planet that thinks that Apple's design aesthetic is cheap looking and ugly?
I don´t think that it´s particularly ugly but it´s become boring over the years esspecially because everygody and his dog has copied the style.Havok wrote: P.S. Am I like, the only person on the planet that thinks that Apple's design aesthetic is cheap looking and ugly?
Nope.Havok wrote:P.S. Am I like, the only person on the planet that thinks that Apple's design aesthetic is cheap looking and ugly?
What's so great about iBooks? Amazon has had a Kindle app on the iPhone for about a year.Jason L. Miles wrote:As a consumer, as soon as Netflix and iBooks were announced for iPhone, I stopped caring.
I have several e-book apps. Kindle, B&N, Bookshelf. I want iBooks for the simple reason that I'm not sure that there won't be exclusives for it that I want.Dominus Atheos wrote:What's so great about iBooks? Amazon has had a Kindle app on the iPhone for about a year.Jason L. Miles wrote:As a consumer, as soon as Netflix and iBooks were announced for iPhone, I stopped caring.
And in case you didn't know, if you buy an iBook, you'll only be able to read it on your iPhone/Pad. Kindle has a PC and Mac client. Not to be a fanboy, but it's definitely my favorite way to read a book.
Personally, I am still trying to figure out what could it do that this baby can't:Hmm, so reading through 4 pages of thread and... I have no idea what an iPad is for.
Is it a bigger e-reader? Yes. Is it a laptop? No. Is it a bigger iPhone? Sorta. Is it big enough to be obtrusive to carry? Yes. Is it as obtrusive as carrying around a laptop? No. Is it more obtrusive than an iPhone? Yes. Is it ergonomically functional? No. What is the point of it? No one knows. Does every one want one? Yes.
I have to agree. While I love the lines on my iPod Classic and the build quality, the style of Apple is getting really quite predictable and dull. I used to like the look of the MacBook Air (even if its specs are atrocious), but then Dell made something not only better looking and better equipped (and cheaper), but thinner too. And it didn't have that fucking giant glowing Apple logo on it.salm wrote:I don´t think that it´s particularly ugly but it´s become boring over the years esspecially because everygody and his dog has copied the style.Havok wrote: P.S. Am I like, the only person on the planet that thinks that Apple's design aesthetic is cheap looking and ugly?
How many apps are in the Lenovo App Store?Zixinus wrote: Other than run and use licensed Apple software and hardware that is.
Really...you aren't. I personally think the newer MacBooks have a pretty sleek design, but the generations before that? They looked like chiseled silver bricks to me. Ugh. I hoped that Apple would change that look in their next line of MacBooks...I'm glad they did.Havok wrote:P.S. Am I like, the only person on the planet that thinks that Apple's design aesthetic is cheap looking and ugly?
Um...considering that the IdeaPad S10-3t runs on Windows 7? Probably every Windows app that does not require huge amounts of processing power.Skgoa wrote:How many apps are in the Lenovo App Store?
