ellipsis flag icon-blogicon-check icon-comments icon-email icon-error icon-facebook icon-follow-comment icon-googleicon-hamburger icon-imedia-blog icon-imediaicon-instagramicon-left-arrow icon-linked-in icon-linked icon-linkedin icon-multi-page-view icon-person icon-print icon-right-arrow icon-save icon-searchicon-share-arrow icon-single-page-view icon-tag icon-twitter icon-unfollow icon-upload icon-valid icon-video-play icon-views icon-website icon-youtubelogo-imedia-white logo-imedia logo-mediaWhite review-star thumbs_down thumbs_up

Why iAds will fail


Apple's new iAd proposition has been generating a great deal of discussion lately, most of it positive, and most of it remarkably short-sighted. It seems most people, including Steve Jobs, have forgotten the basic lessons of computing and the internet. People who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The iAd has no future, and neither does the iPhone/iPad. I will show why iAds must inevitably die, and how Steve Job's strategy for iPhone and iPad will inevitably lead Apple into becoming at best a marginal niche player, at worst an ex-business.

Layered model
We need to start by remembering what the smartphone platform is. First, let's forget the archaic concept of a "mobile phone." The iPhone is no more of a phone than a PC running Skype. The majority of iPhone time, money, and resources lies in apps. iPhones, just like smartphones running Google's Android or Microsoft's WinOS, are not phones but small computers that happen to have telephone capabilities. They may have started as phones, but they outgrew that classification a couple of years back. The only serious difference between a smartphone and a computer is size and the fact that smartphones are inherently location-aware. You will notice that the creators of smartphone operating systems are all computer companies.

As computers, smartphones are subject to the multi-layered business model common to all computers. Technology manufacturers, such as Nokia and Samsung, build the physical hardware. Above them we have the providers of operating systems, of whom the major players are Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Other companies provide apps and services. Some services are delivered directly through the operating system, such as SMS and phone calls, while others are delivered within applications themselves. Under this model, advertising falls into the category of services, while widgets combine apps with services.

Understanding the dynamics of this marketplace requires recognizing where the power lies, and how it shifts as technology evolves.

The smartphone marketplace
Hardware manufacturers make their money by selling new phones. They have no interest in making phones that last forever, or that can be upgraded via software. Just like PC manufacturers, their only chance of continuous revenue is by continually developing new models. The best way to sell a new model is to provide new capabilities, but opportunities for new capabilities are limited if the operating system does not provide access to them. Since operating systems are more difficult to develop than applications and services, and cannot upgrade as quickly, the emphasis on exploiting new capabilities inevitably falls on the app developer and service provider community. Thus the success of smartphone hardware providers is inextricably linked with the development of an active mobile app marketplace and a dynamic service provider community.

Irrespective of the capabilities of the hardware, both apps and services are limited by the capabilities of the operating system. If the operating system does not permit access to a new hardware capability, then that capability cannot be exploited. If the operating system does not provide an efficient development environment, then it may be difficult to exploit the new capability in a cost-effective manner. Thus hardware manufacturers, application developers, and service providers are all dependent on the operating system. 

Operating system vendors can make money from both sides of the equation. They can license the operating system to the hardware manufacturer, and they can charge licensing for apps built on their platform, or for developer kits and support. 

Operating systems are only attractive to hardware manufacturers to the degree that they offer future-proof access to new capabilities the manufacturer may one day create, and to the degree that the operating system is attractive to application developers and service providers.

Next page >>

It is important to remember that developers do not build applications for hardware, they build applications for operating systems. If the app works on Android, it makes no difference who built the hardware, the app will work on all Android phones. 

Operating systems are attractive to application developers and service providers to the degree that they offer profitable development paths. For a developer, profitability is a combination of ease of development (which determines cost), and the deployed base of the operating system, which determines the size of the market. No one is interested in developing an application for an operating system no one uses. 

The critical component in all this is the customer. In order for everyone to make money, people have to purchase the hardware, apps, and services. Smartphones, like all other computers, sell on the basis of what you can do with them. People buy IT equipment (laptop, PC, or mobile) on the basis of the applications they can run on it. The item purchased needs to be able to do what the customer wants it to. There are so many programs around for PCs today that this is rarely a consideration -- almost every conceivable application you could want is available.

As a result we have largely forgotten that capabilities are central to sales. However, there are many instances in which purchasing a Mac is not an option because the required software does not exist, which shows that applications still control purchases.

This creates feedback loops in the smartphone marketplace -- hardware is sold on the basis of the range of apps available. The range of apps available is dependent on the operating system. The success of the operating system depends on providing a good platform for apps and services. An operating system is attractive to a mobile hardware manufacturer only if they think it will help them sell hardware, and in order to sell, they must have apps and services. 

So an operating system's success is dependent on being an attractive platform for developers. In order to be attractive, the operating system must have (or promise) a large installed base. Thus hardware will sell if there are apps and services. There will be apps and services if there are customers. There will be customers if the operating system is widely deployed. An operating system will be widely deployed if it sits on a popular hardware platform, or as many less-popular hardware platforms as possible, and if there are attractive apps or services for it. Everybody feeds everyone else.

Apple's success is therefore dependent on the app developer community. Since it also controls the operating system and developer access, it determines how attractive the development environment is for developers. This has always been Apple's strategy, right back to the first Mac. Unfortunately, Apple's history in this area is appalling. Apple's desire to control its marketplace has made it a poor choice for developers, even when it offers a large market. Having a large base of customers makes Apple initially attractive, but its poor support for the developer community eventually forces smaller niche players out.

The long term result is easy to see -- Macintosh now runs Microsoft Office because no one else was interested in providing a compatible office suite. Apple's restrictive policies over the Mac almost caused the death of the Apple Corporation, and it was only by opening the environment to its arch-enemy Microsoft that Apple was able to survive.

When Steve Jobs announced MS Office for the Mac to a stunned audience in 1997, he looked very uncomfortable about it (decide for yourself). He justified it by saying Apple existed in an eco-system and could not sustain the Mac as a closed platform. His iPhone strategy seems to have forgotten this painful lesson.

Ancient history
I first became involved with computers in the late 1970s. This was before the days of the IBM PC and MS-DOS or Windows. Computing in those days resembled the smartphone market of today -- there was no common operating system. I remember buying my first computer -- it took a week. Because each hardware vendor had their own operating system, you could only buy applications that had been specifically designed for that hardware. In order to buy a computer, you had to first identify all the applications you wanted, then cross-reference all the hardware that these apps had versions for. If you were lucky, you would find a computer that ran everything. However, it was more likely that you would find that nothing ran all your applications. You were then forced to find alternative apps until you found the best compromise.

Eventually Microsoft solved this by creating an operating system which would run on any Intel chip, inventing the concept of "PC compatibility." Now app developers have the entire PC community as a market, irrespective of who makes the hardware. At the same time hardware manufacturers can produce their equipment knowing there is an massive range of apps customers can run.

Apple never joined in the universal move to PC compatibility. Based on the Motorola chip, Apple chose to cater to niche market players with hobby computers such as the Apple II. Apple's day came later when it copied the GUI operating system being developed by Xerox and created the first Mac. The GUI posed a threat to Microsoft's survival and the dominance of the PC, until Microsoft got its own GUI right with Windows 3.0.

Microsoft's strategy was always to open its platform to the widest possible developer community, while Apple's was always to restrict and control. In many ways, Steve Jobs continued to think in terms of the world he grew up in, a pre-PC world -- each computer manufacturer producing its own operating system and strongly controlling developer access.

Apple still continues to think this way, but the success of MS-DOS and Windows have shown that it is not sustainable. At peak, the Mac had 30 percent of the small computer market. Now that share is less than 3 percent. 

Mobile, cable, and web access: 1990s
When the web was developing during the 1990s, I was often involved with attempts to extend web services to mobile phone users. We never succeeded, and neither did anyone else. The reason was the mobile phone companies regarded the customers as their property, and they weren't about to let others near them. They accepted that people would want web access from their phones, but thought they could provide all the websites themselves, or license those that would be allowed in. 

If you had a mobile at the time, you may recall that for the first few years web access was restricted to websites provided by the phone company.

The mobile phone companies figured they could be more than just information carriers. They thought they could be information providers as well. They didn't grasp the scale or range of demand, and thought they could restrict subscribers to the limited amount of information they could offer. Eventually, of course, they realized this was impossible, that people wanted access to everything -- all 200 million websites, not some restricted subset of a few thousand. It was inevitable that, sensing the scale of the market demand for unlimited access, a mobile company would eventually open up, so they all did. Many cable companies tried the same thing at the time, and eventually learned the same lesson.

Lessons for Apple
Both these examples show that no company can succeed in the long term by restricting customers. Such a strategy may succeed for a few years, maybe even a decade, but in the long term, the market demands open systems. Companies that understand this always win out against those that try to stay closed. 

The iPhone may be popular now, but history has shown us that the days of competing operating systems eventually give way to more open platforms. The world will not tolerate three or four competing smartphone systems with roughly equal market share. Eventually, one system will dominate. Apple's iPhone OS and BlackBerry's RIM are not candidates for that role because they're not available for other phones, which only leaves Google's Android and Microsoft's WinOS as candidates for global domination. 

I think the determining factor will be developer support. The more apps available, the more popular the operating system, both for hardware manufacturers and customers. Microsoft has a tremendous advantage here -- it has 30 years of experience in developer support, whereas Google has already developed a reputation for poor communications. 

According to Google there are 10 times as many web pages providing developer information for WinOS than there are for Android. Microsoft also has a huge body of experienced Windows developers. Google may still win the race, but we must recognize they're starting behind Microsoft.

Right now the iPhone has a dominating position in the U.S. smartphone marketplace. However, we must recognize this is a global village. Apple cannot sustain the iPhone as a purely U.S. phenomena. However, its share of the global smartphone marketplace is small. In Q1 2010, iPhone made up 15 percent of global smartphone sales, slightly less than BlackBerry's 16 percent and much less than Nokia's 48 percent.

If the smartphone goes the way of previous computers, and the way of the internet, Apple's strategy will eventually lead to the iPhone occupying a similar niche to the Mac -- a miniscule market share sustained only by the fanatical loyalty of dedicated followers.

Apple repeats itself
Steve Jobs says he hates Adobe Flash and will not support it on iPhone. The reason is clear -- Flash provides a cross-platform development system. Build an app in Flash and it runs on every operating system that supports Flash. In this sense Flash becomes an operating system to sit above the different operating systems deployed, providing developers with the widest possible market.

If all phone apps are written in Flash, then I can switch phones without inconvenience -- I'll keep my apps. People -- both consumers and developers -- are no longer locked into Apple. Apple has shown it likes to own the entire space around its devices, but history has shown that consumers like open systems, and that they inevitably get what they want. Locking Flash out is unsustainable if you want to retain market share.

Irrespective of the merits or problems with Flash, the only potential alternative on the horizon is HTML 5. Those of you who have seen iAd demos will recall they are produced in HTML 5. HTML 5 offers solutions for deploying complex media previously only possible with Flash. HTML 5 is the route Steve Jobs recommends, and he's already sending Apple down that road. However, HTML 5 is not finished. It is not even partially complete. Currently HTML 5 is in draft. This means new features can (and will) be added, while existing features may be changed or even dropped.

It is likely to be another year or two before HTML 5 is even finalized. Once it has been finalized, it then enters "draft recommendation" stage. At this stage anyone can evaluate it and propose changes. They will do so. No version of HTML has ever gone through the draft recommendation stage without being changed. HTML 3.0 was so radically altered at the draft recommendation stage, the final version agreed upon was numbered HTML 3.1.

Once again, Apple has shown it can't learn the lessons of history. Those of you who, like me, were developing websites in the early to mid-1990s will remember the days of "browser compatibility" problems. As companies like Netscape and Microsoft battled for domination of the web browser, they would fight to support the next version of HTML before anyone else. This inevitably led to support for unfinished (and competing) versions of HTML, so that when the latest HTML standard was finished, no browser would support it properly, and each would break the standard in different ways.

Building browser support for HTML 5 at this time means the browser will need upgrading when HTML 5 is released, and most HTML 5 apps built now will be obsolete. Irrespective of how attractive it may be one day, HTML 5 is not a viable development platform yet.

Just as it did with the Mac, Apple's treatment of iPhone/iPad developers is already turning some away. The web abounds with complaints from developers who have had their apps dropped from the iPhone App Store without reason, or who have been disadvantaged by sudden changes in Apple's T&Cs. Apple's attitude to developers looks to me as if Apple feels it is doing developers a favor by allowing them the privilege of access to their customers. I can't help contrasting this with Microsoft's attitude that developers are customers, very important ones who determine Microsoft's success.

When I look at the lessons of history, Apple's own past, and how things work out, it seems to me inevitable that within 5-10 years the iPhone will hold around 5 percent of the smartphone market at best.

iAd is just a second-rate widget
Calling iAd creations "advertisements" is misleading. iAd advertisements are, in reality, widgets. I presume Apple doesn't want to call them widgets because the term feels a little sour -- we've learned that effective marketing widgets are hard to find. Would anyone be so excited if Apple had said it supported a new widget technology? You can do wonderful things with iAd, just as you can with any widget, but consumer responses have shown good widget penetration is extremely hard to achieve. Widgets that succeed provide services, so the iAd isn't really an advertising system so much as a system for sponsored service delivery.

Widgets have their place, but we already know they can't replace all other forms of online marketing. How many times have you asked yourself : "Should I deploy a banner ad or a widget here?" -- that's how often iAd will provide a viable alternative to banner advertising.

iAds can be created in Objective-C and/or HTML 5. Objective-C is a difficult and cumbersome language. It runs at one-third the speed of C++, and has a poor reputation with C developers. A number of development agencies have announced they will not produce iPhone apps because Objective-C is not a cost-effective development platform. Unfortunately, HTML 5 is merely an idea, not a reality. Keeping HTML 5 iAd widgets alive over the next few years is almost certainly going to require frequent re-coding. As HTML 5 is developed Apple will need to change browsers to support each step. Consumers will not upgrade at a consistent rate, so this will lead to the development of different versions of the same iAd widget for each permutation of HTML 5 deployed by Apple. This will significantly increase the cost of development and reduce the potential ROI. Thus, from a developer perspective, iAd is not an attractive platform.

Apple dictates -- you obey
When he announced the iAd, Steve Jobs said he didn't want advertisers to segment the iPhone audience. He didn't want behavioral targeting, demographic analysis, or other forms of segmentation. He said he wanted advertisers to treat the community of iPhone users as a single demographic. All the advertising people I have spoken to don't see this as realistic.

As Ian Wolfman, CMO of IMC2, pointed out, simply selecting the apps you'll put iAd widgets into is already segmenting to some degree. However, in the longer term, he doesn't see how agencies can make convincing arguments to clients for iAd campaigns if they can't segment their deliveries.

In order to help control this space, and prevent segmentation, Apple will not allow any third party measurement of iAds. Apple has announced it will provide 15 standardized metrics, which it will gather and report for you. If those metrics don't suit your needs -- too bad. This also means you have to trust Apple when it takes its 40 percent cut of iAd revenue. Apple measures, it charges, you trust.

As Wolfman says, "Apple will have to change. It's not sustainable, people will need to make their own assessments. I think Apple wanted to start with something simple and controlled, but I expect them to change the program very quickly."

Roy de Souza is CEO of Zedo, one of the world's leading ad technology companies. Ad metrics are core to his business. According to him, "It is important for advertisers to track with their own technology because they need their own data if they are to trust that the ads were shown to users as promised. This accountability creates a strong incentive for Apple to make sure that the ads are served correctly. Google initially did not allow advertisers to use their own tracking but now they do. I would urge Apple to follow suit."

The iAd is a symptom of Apple's inability to come to terms with the way computing has been for the last 30 years. While designing innovative products, as a business Apple still strategizes like it's the 1970s -- trying to create isolated ecosystems when everyone else knows the world wants one big open inter-connected system. 

Apple seems wedded to the idea that it can own all aspects of its customer experience, even though its own corporate history shows this is unsustainable. The smartphone environment is a mirror of the early days of personal computing, yet Apple shows no sign of having learned from this experience.

The iAd system depends on unfinished technology, and therefore cannot be sustained in its current form, increasing the cost of ownership for those who develop iAd widgets. At the same time, Apple wants advertisers to forget about demographics and segmentation, rolling back the clock to the days of TV and radio-style mass delivery. In addition to asking advertisers to work with flaky technology in an old-fashioned manner, Apple proposes to deny them the ability to assess their own work, or to check that it is doing what it's being paid for. Under these circumstances, iAd only has a future while there is no alternative. History has shown us an alternative will inevitably develop.

I'll leave the final word to Ian Wolfman:

"I'm not convinced iPhone/iPad has a long-term future. It's a closed system. It's attractive now because the U.S. lacks an open alternative, but it's inevitable that one will develop."

Brandt Dainow is an independent web analytics and marketing consultant.

On Twitter? Follow iMedia at

Brandt is an independent web analyst, researcher and academic.  As a web analyst, he specialises in building bespoke (or customised) web analytic reporting systems.  This can range from building a customised report format to creating an...

View full biography


to leave comments.

Commenter: Henry D

2010, June 03

Now that AT&T just changed it's data plans to ban unlimited data does that mean that users are now paying for the file size load of these ads from their allowed data cap? It seems that every time you use your apps the phone/ipad will need to load a small text ad in addition to content if you click on it. That's like sending millions of text messages to phones all day long via the AT&T network (obviously coming from the mobile company that Apple bought). Why isn't Apple sharing a portion of the revenue with AT&T if it's their network that is going to get bogged down?

Commenter: Miguel Buckenmeyer

2010, May 23

Some of these comments are way too harsh.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion but I agree that "closedness" as opposed to openness could marginalize Apple's platform over the long run if developers slowly gravitate to other platforms.

For those of you that don't agree you should read both Wikinomics by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams and the book The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability by Marco Iansiti and Roy Levien.

The reason that I will side with Apple on this one is that I think consumers will "satisfice". We ultimately realize that we don't need access to infinite information or apps. As long as we have just enough to do what we want to do then we are happy.

The world was a lot different back then and there were very few "apps" or programs and Windows seemed to offer the most possibilities. The world is a lot different now. I can't see myself leaving iPhone because I don't have access to latest pointless app that makes my screen appear to cloud up.

Too many possibilities is also a turn off from a usability perspective and this is what the success of Apple lately is demonstrating. Keeping a consumer tech product simple is a good business strategy.

Commenter: Josh Gordon

2010, May 23

I read this article through. I still don't understand why Brandt Dainow thinks advertising on the IPad will fail. There is a lot of tech talk that has noting to do with the advertising function. Technology is only an advertising enabler. It almost never determines the success or failure of an ad medium.

Commenter: John Dennis

2010, May 22

Did not even read this crap. Here's what I will say just based on the headline. Put your money where you mouth is. Bet your life savings against Apple. You will be standing in line with a bunch of other myopic quasi tech journalist who said the Apple's purchase of NeXt was dumb, the original iMac would fail, the iPod was just another expensive MP3 player that would fail, that Apple did not know anything about phone and the iPhone would fail, that the iPad would be a flop ......

Apple under Steve Jobs has been 2 -3 steps ahead of everyone else.

Commenter: Johnny HasABrain

2010, May 21

Brandt Dainow, you need to rethink your life. Consider what has brought you to this point: writing an article that is no more than a troll post, with better aim than to sell some advertising. You've just wasted my time and many others' time. Do something worthwhile, if you can, you troll.

Commenter: matt del vecchio

2010, May 21

hard to take a website seriously when it doesnt know when to use a JPEG and when to use a GIF! 6 colors, dude.

Commenter: Gretchen Hyman

2010, May 21

As a trade publication, iMedia Connection represents as many diverse voices and opinions as possible. I encourage all of you to get in touch with me to talk about blogging or writing for iMedia on this same subject. We are always looking for new perspectives, and infact ran a piece a few weeks ago titled: How iAds will revolutionize the industry. I encourage you to check it out as well: http://tinyurl.com/28ougd3 .

If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me at: [email protected]

Commenter: A Pope

2010, May 21

If you have such little respect for your readers as to split articles into pages to artificially boost your page views, I guess it's no surprise you'd be prepared to stoop to the level of linkbait.

Commenter: elder norm

2010, May 21

Sorry,, but this article just smells of..... "What ever I like and use must be the wave of the future... even if its based on the past..."

Time and again he makes comments that are wrong then procceeds to base his comments on wrong "facts".

Its almost like he hates Apple and is sure the iPod will die, the iPhone will die, the iPad will die, Macs will die.. only companies that do things the old ways will survive.

Er.... wrong... just wrong. Way to many wrong comments to deal with. Just wrong. In fact I have to wonder why imedia allowed the article to be posted.

Just a thought,

Commenter: Dru Richman

2010, May 21

So many words, so little understanding.

The good news is that Mr. Dainow joins the company of such notable crackpots as John C. Dvorak, Rob Enderle, Matthew Lynn, Paul Thurrott, and others of their ilk who have been predicting the imminent demise of Apple and it's products since 1984. They weren't right then and Mr. Dainow isn't right now.

To quote Mr. Gershwin:
"They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly
They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony
It's the same old cry

They all laughed at Rockefeller Center
Now they're fighting to get in
They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin
They all laughed Fulton and his steamboat
Hershey and his chocolate bar
Ford and his Lizzie
Kept the laughers busy
That's how people are

Ha, ha, ha!
Who's got the last laugh now?"

In answer to Mr. Gershwin's question - that would be Apple.

Commenter: Dwight Homer

2010, May 21

Long long article short on substance. Hard not to believe this is disinterested analysis. For an genuine (and neutral) alt view see today's note on the controversy by Tony Bradley of PC World http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/196870/adobe_faces_tough_fight_for_flash_survival.html TB is in no sense a Mac fancier, but he understands how technology develops. If you think html5 is vaporware check with Google on its role in their development plans.

Commenter: Martin Anderson-Clutz

2010, May 21

I wish I had a dollars for every "analyst" that had predicted the demise of Apple over the years.

Then again, I wish I had put $1000 into Apple stock just before the return of Steve Jobs. Enough said.

Has Apple succeeded in everything it has tried? Definitely not?

But let's review the markets Apple entered where everyone said their approach was doomed to failure: Music, Retail, Mobile Phones.

If I had money to bet, I know which side I'd be betting on.

Commenter: Adam R

2010, May 21

Disabling comments is a sure sign that you probably are wrong.

Commenter: John Musci

2010, May 21

Mr. Dainow is right that iAd won't be waltzing to the bank -- few advertisers will pony up the $10M entry fee. Moreover, after some deep-tissue massaging of the iAd knot, we worked out how Apple's ad platform will kink the economics and innovation of advertising -- ultimately more concerning than failure to live up to hyperbole: http://bit.ly/acQBYA


Commenter: Gary Makin

2010, May 21

Wow! Just Wow! That article is the worst I have read in a LONG time. This site should just delete it now to save themselves any further embarrassment.

There are so many mistakes, big mistakes. To show how big, I'll pick just one.

"When Steve Jobs announced MS Office for the Mac to a stunned audience in 1997..." Word was on the Mac in 1984. Excel started on the Mac. Office was on the Mac before Windows. What Steve announced in 1997 was that MS was going to continue to develop Office for the Mac, and this was seen as a very good thing.

Rubbish article. Pure rubbish.

Commenter: Player 16

2010, May 21

Linkbait. Yep. I got as far as the 1st page then I started reading the Comments. This bloke is just spewing crap that isn't in anyones business. I may read the rest later but some cartoons are about to come on the telly that makes MUCH more sense than this guy.

Commenter: Bill CSAP Psy

2010, May 21