Apple Hires Adobe Executive Todd Teresi to Run iAd Program

They should run all the ads through Flash.

why adobe? i thought the entire company was full of idiots who don't know what they are doing?

Yeah, a company that generates 3.8 Billion dollars of revenue in a single year is a clear sign of having employees with an IQ well below 80.

A number of developers made good amount of money from iAd

And many, many, many more, do not.

why adobe? i thought the entire company was full of idiots who don't know what they are doing?

Not exactly. Adobe's problem is that they were once run by great engineers and are now run by marketing people.

So since Adobe's problem is 'too many ad guys,' poaching an ad guy out of there kind of makes sense.

When it comes to Flash on Mac

Fixed that for you. ;)

Has anyone seen an iAd? I only saw one and that was only because I downloaded an app that had them to see what it was all about

Approximately 20 billion apps have been downloaded from the App Store.

It's pretty likely that someone else has seen an iAd.

why adobe? i thought the entire company was full of idiots who don't know what they are doing?

Adobe has a number of excellent engineers. They've fallen into a trap that happens to a lot of large companies, in that they've become boring, and many of their software updates seem uninspired, but they aren't even close to being the worst there.

Flash is a pile of dung on Linux, FreeBSD and every other version of UNIX based Operating Systems.

Gee, I wonder why :

7.2.3 Firefox and Adobe® Flash™ Plugin
The Adobe® Flash™ plugin is not available for FreeBSD. However, a software layer (wrapper) for running the Linux version of the plugin exists. This wrapper also supports Adobe Acrobat® plugin, RealPlayer® plugin and more.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/desktop-browsers.html

:rolleyes:

Adobe doesn't make any Flash versions for the BSDs or "other version of UNIX based operating systems". They only make a Linux version and while not perfect, it's mostly been fine since the early days (I use to be a big newgrounds junky back in my early KDE 1.0 days, running the Netscape plug-in in Konqueror).

Guess iAd will become slow and bloated.

Adobe has a number of excellent engineers. They've fallen into a trap that happens to a lot of large companies, in that they've become boring, and many of their software updates seem uninspired, but they aren't even close to being the worst there.

They could really wow people by streamlining their software to run on a 486. Imagine how much their programs would then smoke through files on a Core i7.

Heck other companies should do this. How much of Mac OS X's and Windows 7's system requirements are due to bloat not features?

Ten years ago I could have 16 320x240 videos playing simultaneously on my 466mhz G4 through Quicktime in Mac OS 9. Now it would choke on one of those videos embedded in Flash. Heck I could even play 1080 video on an 800mhz G4 iMac through quicktime in Mac OS X Tiger.

I think the question that needs to be answered is "what is the ideal iAd?" On the internet, ads seem to be extremely targeted but almost completely ignorable or else people block them. I think this goes against Apple's DNA. It's not a bad way to make an ad, but it's not exactly an area of Apple's expertise. Apple, at least under Steve Jobs, wanted to make ads these beautiful interactive things. I come from the advertising world so I understand that –*those are the kinds of ads I like to make, but I don't know if consumers really want that online where they're moving from page to page and link to link.

Google has an almost universal reach online so they can make ads that you barely see, but the relatively minuscule number of click throughs on billions of ads does really well for them.

If most companies were as fetishistic as Apple, then the "beautiful ads" model COULD maybe work. Their users obsess over every little brand message. Maybe Mercedes and Nike ads would work well also here, but few others.

If Apple wants to hang on to this and not emulate Google (which would be a death sentence for iAd, because they can't be more Google than Google) then their next chance is television.

I don't know what the silver bullet is, but Apple shouldn't just assume what the ideal ad is and work towards that because I don't think anyone knows and I think it's different for advertisers than it is for the viewer on each and every medium.