People aren't understanding the purpose of this "ban."

They aren't banning location-based ads, they are banning the use of the Core Location framework when it is being used only for advertising.

They are protecting a good user experience. For privacy reasons, applications that use Core Location need to ask for permission to do so. They don't want a bunch of ad-based apps asking the user for permission when they don't really need to know any location info. It's that simple.

If you know the user's location anyway, you can show location-based ads.

I'm not saying that Apple isn't going to try to take over the ad market for their devices, but all the recent speculation based on the news of the ban is just short-sighted.

Thanks zefhous for pointing this out. But the "no more location-based ads" makes a better headline :(

im not necessarily saying they're "connected". Moreso, reading all those speculative posts sparked this post in my mind.

speculation piled on top of speculation- where that gets us is not a place i want to go.

Checking the current location requires extra battery use. Apple doesn't want your app draining their user's battery if you're only using it for showing them ads. This may be all that it's about.

It would also be really confusing to the user. I download a game or some other app where location isn't useful and all of the sudden I get a popup asking me if I trust this application with my location information. Then if I do, I just get targeted ads, not app functionality. Probably there isn't a local ad for a lot of places (or I just don't notice that it's local), so this just seems weird to the user.

why is something this short, this speculative, this completely lacking in any real foundation already at 16 points?

hacker news, i cry for you.

I would say because it is an interesting thought. And btw, the title of the submission is much 'better' than the post's.

Yeah, I realized that when submitting the post. a) prediction isn't allowed (was removing regardless for here) b) it's phrased better.

They don't need to ban third party ad networks to undercut their prices, but I agree at least one is likely to happen.

this is very true. that also gets around some of the possible antitrust issues.

I don't think this is going to happen, but for sure I can see them offering some very optimized tool that developers can use, like private API that 3rd party ad networks won't be able to access.

I think you need to be more explicit in step 2. It's obvious that Apple will be making a mobile advertising play, and it may well resemble what you describe, but the idea that that they would ban every other ad network is a stretch.

That they "love to control everything" is not convincing. It seems to me that they are usually motivated by an unwillingness to depend on third-parties for things central to their business, not that they intend to actively disrupt anybody else's business just for the sake of control. What beef does Apple have with Fusion Ads or The Deck, and application developers that currently use them?

In truth, I'm not even convinced that they intend to open up that ad network for third-party developers, and not simply use it for themselves. Consider U.S. patent application #20090265214:

Among other disclosures, an operating system presents one or more advertisements to a user and disables one or more functions while the advertisement is being presented. At the end of the advertisement, the operating system again enables the function(s). The advertisement can be visual or audible. The presentation of the advertisement(s) can be made as part of an approach where the user obtains a good or service, such as the operating system, for free or at reduced cost.

Ordinarily I'd dismiss this as merely speculative and not likely to see the light of day, but this lists Steve Jobs listed among the inventors.

The logic here is astoundingly bad.

"Developers will love it too, as it will serve as a semi loss leader, the same way the iTunes store does"

Wait, the iTunes store that rakes 30% of app transactions? That's a loss leader? It's a break-even leader in music, but is probably enormously profitable in apps.

"Payouts and rates that put AdMob to shame." Having one ad network compete for developers, rather than dozens (all of which compete on one point: how much developers make off of them) will lead to higher CPMs? Please repeat high school economics.

It's actually quite a bit more if you only consider payment processing (more like 10-20% for fully automated like the AppStore). But if you throw in everything else, it's about fair -- I wouldn't consider it cheap.

Advertisements requiring the granularity provided by Core Location are a tiny sliver of an already small mobile advertising market. The vast majority of mobile advertising campaigns are targeted at the country level, and the user's IP address is all that's needed. A small number are targeted to the state or designated marketing area (essentially a metropolitan region). Mobile IP isn't perfect for those, but it's better than nothing. In other words, this barely impacts the mobile advertising industry at all.

I suspect Apple will release an Advertising SDK that relies on Quattro, take 30% of the profits - less than most advertising networks take - and cut developers a single check, which will be mighty convenient. However, Apple's not likely to enforce that developers use only their advertising SDK. Many iPhone application developers that use advertising know that using multiple ad sources and doing some simple yield optimization performs better than a single ad source - even the most privileged ad network doesn't perform as well as multiple ad networks used in conjunction. Banning an AdMob or a Millenial or a Google AdSense would result in significant backlash.

I believe zefhous is completely right - this is about protecting the user experience, nothing more.

I doubt this "scares Google shitless". There are plenty of advertising companies Google doesn't own. (Ever see a billboard or watch TV? Those are not Google's ads.)

I have to wonder what the value of ads on a mobile phone is anyway, especially on a phone without multitasking. I imagine the click-through rates are very low, and that conversion rates are zero. The only value that could possibly arise is increased brand-recognition of the advertiser.

(My experience with ads on Android is that they are usually annoying enough for me to insta-uninsall the app. They provide no value, but they do ensure that I stop using your app and consider someone else's paid version.)

I'd be very surprised if Apple constituted a monopoly in the phone (or even smart phone) market.

That's because they're nowhere close to a monopoly in the smart phone market.

And if they tried to sell ads on the cheap, they would probably be nailed with a suit as well. Another version of "dumping."

im not implying selling them on the cheap. they can offer better deals to devs, since it's not their core business. it's like google offering the nexus one at a bargain basement rate if they could. I'm not implying a loss leader either, but somewhere close to break even. Essentially it would replicate what they did with iTunes in terms of economics.