Apple to include ads in iTunes

April 24, 2006 11:26 AM

AdAge reports that Apple is adding ads to iTunes.The ads will only appear if you're listening to a podcast and not while listening to your own music, according to the article. I suspect this will be greeted with the same enthusiasm as was the mini store that was included with iTunes 6.
posted by vannsant (61 comments total)

you can turn the mini store off
posted by plexi at 11:28 AM on April 24, 2006

That sucks immensely, but I get a lot out of the organizational features of iTunes and wouldn't know what to switch to.
posted by grobstein at 11:37 AM on April 24, 2006

But they must be good ads, because it's Apple. They'd only include ads that look good and will enrich my experience. If it were a microsoft product, the ads would be bad. Making money isn't really what Apple is about, so the ads must really be necessary.

I will love Apple even if Steve Jobs shoves the ads into my ass sideways and I become incontinent as a result.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:38 AM on April 24, 2006

A slippery slope. Way to encourage illegal downloading!
Give it a rest, Mayor Curley.
posted by brundlefly at 11:40 AM on April 24, 2006

Nice pre-emptive snark, Mayor, since no one in this thread has endorsed any view like that.
posted by trey at 11:42 AM on April 24, 2006

And once the ad server iTunes is released I predict a hack to remove them will be out in 5... 4... 3... 2...
posted by tkchrist at 11:44 AM on April 24, 2006

There's nothing wrong with pre-emptive snark. Especially in Apple threads.
posted by davros42 at 11:44 AM on April 24, 2006

If they're going to be playing ads they should at least offer to host my podcast for me.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:45 AM on April 24, 2006

Jesus, Mayor Curley, overreact much?
posted by the sobsister at 11:48 AM on April 24, 2006

Steve Jobs can shove whatever he wants up my ass as long as it is designed by Jonathan Ive.
posted by keswick at 11:51 AM on April 24, 2006

I love how often the sky falls in Metafilter land. Sheesh. Upon actually reading the article, it doesn't seem like this is a heck of a lot to get up in arms about. You won't have adverts playing before you listen to your favorite iTMS downloaded music track, but, if you have a Podcast, you will be subjected to a small advertisement in the lower left hand portion of the screen.

This I can live with. I can even live with sponsored adverts in the iTMS and I wouldn't really care because I would do what I do with other websites that have linkable clickable adverts: ignore them.

Should Apple think it fun to ad commercials to the beginning of every track I download, then I will walk away from the store. Somehow I see that as unlikely.
posted by tgrundke at 11:54 AM on April 24, 2006

I think Mayor Curley presented an insightful and hilarious spoof. I can't help but feel many people's negative reaction is a result of it hitting a little too close to home.
posted by Jezztek at 11:54 AM on April 24, 2006

plexi: "you can turn the mini store off"

The problem was that the mini-store was on by default and transmitted information about what you were currently listening to back to Apple. They quickly released an update that would make the mini-store op-in only.

vannsant: "I suspect this will be greeted with the same enthusiasm as was the mini store that was included with iTunes 6."

It seems to me that — from the rumors — there is no privacy issue here, so the outcry, if any, will be of the form of "waah I hate advertisements!"
posted by Plutor at 11:56 AM on April 24, 2006

I think this would be wonderful if apple was sharing revenue with the podcast creators.
posted by empath at 12:05 PM on April 24, 2006

Jezztek : "I can't help but feel many people's negative reaction is a result of it hitting a little too close to home."

I can't help but feel that it's because it's a tired, though true, trope. It's like making jokes about Duke Nukem Forever: yes, we know it will take forever to come out. Yes, we know that what you're saying is true. But give it a rest, it's a broken record, and repetition makes it less amusing, not more.
posted by Bugbread at 12:07 PM on April 24, 2006

As a matter of fact, "Waah, I hate advertisements." Also, I suspect that the networks will hate ads that are not their own. I'm curious to see what the reaction is to Apple making ad revenue off of those podcasts.
Additionally, what empath said. I'm sure this will start the wheels spinning in all the podcasters' brains, and although "Ask a Ninja" is funny, I don't know if it is "sit through a commercial for teenageslutlesbianlibrarians.com" funny.
posted by BeReasonable at 12:12 PM on April 24, 2006

I can't help but feel many people's negative reaction is a result of it hitting a little too close to home.

Wait... so Apple isn't a socialist co-op? *world view shatters*

On preview: that would be wonderful, empath.
posted by brundlefly at 12:14 PM on April 24, 2006

Focusing the mind to ignore advertisements is the mark of an able modern person.

If ads cause you great angst, you need to retune your mental firewall.

No one can DRM your brain.
posted by CheeseburgerBrown at 12:14 PM on April 24, 2006

Uh, do you guys sit and look at iTunes while you're listening, or something? Give me a break.
posted by xmutex at 12:17 PM on April 24, 2006

Since we've already loaded up the Apple snarks, I'll spare us the Newsfilter FPP: Apple Adds 17-Inch Model to MacBook Pro Line. Specs are 2.16Ghz Core Duo, 8X SuperDrive, (1) FW400, (1) FW800, (3) USB 2.0, 6.8lbs, blah blah blah.
posted by junesix at 12:20 PM on April 24, 2006

Uh, do you guys sit and look at iTunes while you're listening, or something?

heh.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:24 PM on April 24, 2006

If the revenue is to be shared with the supplier of the podcast that would not be such a bad thing. I read last week that NPR was afraid of losing pledges because popular programs were available as podcasts.
posted by Gungho at 12:32 PM on April 24, 2006

I think this would be wonderful if apple was sharing revenue with the podcast creators.

I assume they are, as the news came "according to content partners who have been briefed on the plan." I wouldn't be surprised if all the revenue is going to the content partners. I expect the strategy goes something like this:

Apple offers ads for podcasts provided via the music store, but not to direct subscriptions. This encourages content partners to point listeners to the music store to subscribe rather than just providing a podcast URL which could be used in any podcast application. So Apple gets to further control the podcast market, and further push listeners into their music store, podcast creators get more revenue, and listeners who care can get an ad-free option with direct subscriptions, until the podcast creator decides to go iTunes-only, at which point it's too late to complain about it.

I think that's what I would do if I were plotting to gradually monopolize the entire music distribution industry.
posted by scottreynen at 12:33 PM on April 24, 2006

xmutex : "Uh, do you guys sit and look at iTunes while you're listening, or something?"

It'd be kinda dumb to get a video podcast and not look at the screen...
posted by Bugbread at 12:35 PM on April 24, 2006

pre-emptive snark

is now known as righteous forward defense.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:35 PM on April 24, 2006

Good call, MC.

I might be switching back to Winamp any time now. No idea what I'd use on my Mac.
posted by nthdegx at 12:36 PM on April 24, 2006

winamp lol
posted by keswick at 12:53 PM on April 24, 2006

emacs, am i rite?
posted by Bugbread at 12:58 PM on April 24, 2006

Nice pre-emptive snark, Mayor, since no one in this thread has endorsed any view like that.

Bah, don't feed the little trolls.

I might be switching back to Winamp any time now. No idea what I'd use on my Mac.

Now THATs comedy.
posted by justgary at 1:46 PM on April 24, 2006

>Nice pre-emptive snark, Mayor, since no one in this thread has endorsed any view like that.

Bah, don't feed the little trolls.

Right. Like something akin to what I wrote wasn't coming in 10 comments (except in earnest) if I hadn't done it. In fact, everyone who said something negative about my previous comment was pissed because they saw themselves in it and then couldn't say something in Apple's defense for fear of earnestly resembling my sarcastic remark.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:10 PM on April 24, 2006

Very omniscient of you.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:13 PM on April 24, 2006

emacs, am i rite?
No. I listen to my MP3s on my Mac using Vi.
posted by nlindstrom at 2:18 PM on April 24, 2006

Wait, people were outraged by the MiniStore? Whoa, Apple's recommendation system knows that I might be interested in Black Sabbath if I'm listening to War Pigs. Who cares? You people must start peeking out the shades and pissing yourself whenever you see the "other people purchased..." list at Amazon.
posted by punishinglemur at 2:23 PM on April 24, 2006

Right. Like something akin to what I wrote wasn't coming in 10 comments (except in earnest) if I hadn't done it.

No, I really don't think so.

In fact, everyone who said something negative about my previous comment was pissed because they saw themselves in it and then couldn't say something in Apple's defense for fear of earnestly resembling my sarcastic remark.

LOL! That's priceless. What can I say to that? Damn it! You ruined my chance to kiss Steve Jobs' ass! How dare you?!
posted by brundlefly at 2:28 PM on April 24, 2006

xmutex is right. There are a lot of things wrong with this idea, but No. 1 on my list is how silly it is. Who sits there and stares at iTunes while they're listening? Those people deserve to see ads as a tax on the dim. bugbread, you're right about video podcasts, of course, but the AdAge article makes it sound like they're talking about audio -- ESPN Radio, for example.

And, yes, Mayor Curley your comment saved us! All of the Apple fans have been sent scrambling back into their sleek, aluminum caves. . . or are too scared to move, quaking in the face of your snark.
posted by veggieboy at 2:28 PM on April 24, 2006

First of all, my understanding is that the ads are just a picture in the lower left corner of the iTunes browser window while you're listening to a podcast. Like banner ads. They don't "play" when you're listening to stuff. And they don't appear when you are listening to your own stuff. All the other paranoia seems to be conjecture on the part of "Advertising Age," as shown in these excerpts. (Emphasis mine.)

The introduction of visual ads could be the first step to allowing ads in other content

Apple executives wouldn't comment.

adding a visual component to the existing audio ads isn't much of a stretch.

What's more compelling is what it might mean for other iTunes content, and specifically whether Apple might allow advertising in its premium content

It may be under pressure to do just that as content suppliers begin to offer similar fare to consumers online at no cost and with ads.

So, no need to have a righteous freak out just yet.
posted by chococat at 2:37 PM on April 24, 2006

Mayor Curley : "In fact, everyone who said something negative about my previous comment was pissed because they saw themselves in it and then couldn't say something in Apple's defense for fear of earnestly resembling my sarcastic remark."

Nah. I said something bad about your comment, even though I agree that some people really think dumb shit like that. It's just that it's an extremely tired and therefore grating joke. Like Duke Nukem Forever jokes, or Phantom Gaming System jokes, or using a $ to write Micro$oft, or the like.
posted by Bugbread at 2:47 PM on April 24, 2006

MC: In fact, everyone who said something negative about my previous comment was pissed because they saw themselves in it and then couldn't say something in Apple's defense for fear of earnestly resembling my sarcastic remark.

MF: note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site.
posted by gohlkus at 2:47 PM on April 24, 2006

or using a $ to write Micro$oft

or "Windoze"
posted by chococat at 3:08 PM on April 24, 2006

"Windoze" is old 'n' busted; "windohs" is teh new hotness.
posted by keswick at 3:37 PM on April 24, 2006

keswick : "'Windoze' is old "n" busted; 'windohs' is teh new hotness."

Down South, we spelled it "When Those"
posted by Bugbread at 3:57 PM on April 24, 2006

Right. Like something akin to what I wrote wasn't coming in 10 comments (except in earnest) if I hadn't done it. In fact, everyone who said something negative about my previous comment was pissed because they saw themselves in it and then couldn't say something in Apple's defense for fear of earnestly resembling my sarcastic remark.

So you're pretty high on yourself is what you're saying?
posted by xmutex at 4:41 PM on April 24, 2006

If we can get past MC's smugness for one second, I think that scottreynen is right.

Think about it- Apple isn't stupid. They understand the power of a loyal user base. They're not about to piss off podcasters (I hope) by making money off their work. Corporate-backed podcasts (which make up the bulk of the most popular podcasts) would disappear immediately.

No, my hope is that they're going to share revenue with content creators, and that this is going to open the door for revenue for the Little Guy.
posted by mkultra at 4:49 PM on April 24, 2006

Not as pretty as iTunes, but I've discovered amaroK isn't too shabby for those of us who walk between Mac and Linux and there's no ads there for the foreseeable future.
posted by Fezboy! at 5:06 PM on April 24, 2006

M_C,

Another perspective on the backlash here: You effectively imitated a really annoying person. However, those annoying people hadn't actually posted anything when you imitated them. So, in the end, the only person who posted something really annoying was yourself. Hence everyone is harshing on you.
posted by Bugbread at 5:14 PM on April 24, 2006

amaroK is terrible. To eve suggest that someone run it in X11 on OS X reveals you for a total fool.

All Apple is doing is suggesting that some commercial 'podcasts' that already have audio advertisments in them switch to basically being video podcasts, with a slideshowey, contextual-ad-laden video.
posted by blasdelf at 5:35 PM on April 24, 2006

So basically, if I listen to a podcast in iTunes, and watch it, for some reason, I'll watch ads. If I listen to it on a fancy new video iPod, and look at it for some reason, I'll watch ads. In my 'classic' black and white iPod, nothing changes.

Why should I care?
posted by graventy at 5:57 PM on April 24, 2006

So you're pretty high on yourself is what you're saying?

I'm saying you love a corporation and you think it loves you back. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to tell everyone how awesome Newell Rubbermaid is and get a boner when I think about Mark D. Ketchum making my life better by selling me shit.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:00 PM on April 24, 2006

In fact, everyone who said something negative about my previous comment was pissed because they saw themselves in it and then couldn't say something in Apple's defense for fear of earnestly resembling my sarcastic remark.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:10 PM EST on April 24 [!]

But Rothko has been banned.
posted by juiceCake at 6:22 PM on April 24, 2006

I'm saying you love a corporation and you think it loves you back. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to tell everyone how awesome Newell Rubbermaid is and get a boner when I think about Mark D. Ketchum making my life better by selling me shit.

Wow, you're kind of scary.
posted by chococat at 6:31 PM on April 24, 2006

Whether this sucks or not depends a lot on the implementation, and who gets the cash.

I'd be surprised if Apple sucked it up, but they've done dumb things before, and they'll do dumb things again. As it stands, nobody here knows anything worth knowing.

The article is unPepsiBlue, and the discussion is equally worthless (helped along in its obnoxious worthlessness by Mayor Curley's steaming pile of insight.)
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:46 PM on April 24, 2006

blasdelf writes "amaroK is terrible. To eve suggest that someone run it in X11 on OS X reveals you for a total fool.

and your choice of phrasing reveals you as a total tool. Not to mention, you need not run it in X11 on the Mac as the second link demonstrates.
posted by Fezboy! at 7:58 PM on April 24, 2006

I'm saying you love a corporation and you think it loves you back. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to tell everyone how awesome Newell Rubbermaid is and get a boner when I think about Mark D. Ketchum making my life better by selling me shit.

You obviously care a lot more about the Apple corporation than most Mac-users do.
posted by brundlefly at 9:06 PM on April 24, 2006

I foresee a major cottage industry in third-party podcast downloaders and maangers. iTunes has no way of telling an MP3 you've added to its library from your filesystem is a podcast. Thus, no ads.
posted by kindall at 9:51 PM on April 24, 2006

Good point, kindall.
posted by brundlefly at 10:00 PM on April 24, 2006

grobstein: How about Songbird? (This is not a recommendation, just a suggestion. I haven't used it much myself.)
posted by JHarris at 12:22 AM on April 25, 2006

Meh.
posted by flabdablet at 5:05 AM on April 25, 2006

You obviously care a lot more about the Apple corporation than most Mac-users do.

This is what happens when you root for the Red Sox too long.
posted by mkultra at 8:01 AM on April 25, 2006

You obviously care a lot more about the Apple corporation than most Mac-users do.

Actually, I don't give a rat's ass about the Apple corporation, other than hoping it goes out of business because the cultists' suicides that would follow would make the lines shorter at Peet's. It's Apple fans that bug me.

And the baseball analogy only holds up for a while. Sure, the Red Sox are a corporation that I root for, but when the Sox suck I get irritated instead of making excuses for them.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:42 AM on April 25, 2006

but when the Sox suck I get irritated instead of making excuses for them.

This explains why you're always so angry.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:54 PM on April 25, 2006

Mayor Curley, people are annoyed because they watched you repeat an artless parody for your own exhibitionist-masturbatory pleasure. That is all.

Returning to the matter at hand: I don't think those ads are going to play on my iPod. I don't think I'll be looking at them while listening on my computer. (I don't really think podcasts are such a great idea, anyway: Now instead of skimming someone's poorly-spelled or logically fallacious rant in ten seconds, I can listen to a five-minute recording of ambient noise, ums, and on-mic mouthbreathing in between nasally-read paragraphs of the same logically fallacious rant. Yay. Notwithstanding which, I do get a small kick out of Ask a Ninja.) I do think it's uncharacteristically 'screw-em'-ish for Apple to be making money attaching ads to somebody else's product. But, like the Mini Store, which I managed somehow to turn off before they made it opt-in (despite my drooling, cult-like adoration of all things emanating from the Holy Chomped Fruit of Almighty Steve), I really don't think it's going to affect me much.
posted by eritain at 11:12 PM on April 25, 2006