Is it possible that Google doesn't want us to put images next to ads so that they can offer "ads with images" and "ads with video" to their Adwords customers? They could justifiably charge more for those ads. I couldn't blame them, it's a great idea - but shouldn't whoever first put images next to their Adsense ads get some credit, and about a gazillion dollars?
I don't think they would do this. I agree. This is the primary reason why they've implemented it. No other reasons.
Yes, I was thinking it could be a minimum bid, just like they have now, but higher for ads with pictures. Even if the initial reason for banning it was to protect advertisers, you all must admit that if Google would offer it as a new type of ad for Adwords, and control and approve what picture could go with each ad, everybody would make some cash and advertisers would be getting what they pay for!
Images next to ads is only considered click fraud due to the image misleading what the ad is about. If the advertiser could choose the image to go next to their ad, then that wouldn't be click fraud. The new ad format could be like a banner width, but it really is a small thumbnail image with a half-banner text ad to the right of it. As an Adwords customer, I wouldn't mind my ads being served this way. Just so long as I can choose the thumbnail image.