Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Google Iphone Apple

Google Slams Apple Over iPhone Ad Ban 562

Posted by samzenpus
from the can't-we-all-just-get-along? dept.
crimeandpunishment writes "This real-life clash of the titans could be much more interesting than the movie. Today Google fired the latest volley in its war of words with Apple over mobile advertising. In a blog posting, the head of Google's mobile ad service, Admob, had harsh words for Apple's new restrictions concerning the iPhone and iPad ... calling them a threat to competition. There's a lot of money at stake ... the US mobile ad market, which is about $600 million, is expected to more than double by 2013."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Slams Apple Over iPhone Ad Ban

Comments Filter:
  • by Michael Kristopeit (1751814) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @12:42AM (#32520024)
    i'm pretty sure the anti-monopoly laws were for industries consumers wanted to protect
  • by Michael Kristopeit (1751814) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @01:00AM (#32520146)
    web browsing is an industry consumers want and benefit from. advertising is something i would pay to rid myself of.
  • by Kristoph (242780) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @01:20AM (#32520258)

    If you buy a device from vendor you are buying into whatever the vendor is selling. In this case your buying into the 'word of Steve' and the word of Steve today is 'the only ads you will see will be served by Apple'.

    If you don't like it, don't buy it, that's the free market way.

    (Honestly, despite Google crying foul this has 0 impact on consumers. Does anyone care who serves the advertising?)

    ]{

  • by Grail (18233) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @01:34AM (#32520330) Journal

    Why does the advertiser need to know what other applications I have installed, what my name is, what my credit card number is, how much money I spent in my last bricks-and-mortar store credit card transactions, or how long I spent playing "FarmVille" instead of "Bejewelled Blitz"?

    The advertising industry has plenty of avenues to target their ads at people who will be interested in the product being advertised, if (a) the product is worth having in the first place and (b) they study demographics a little more.

    Y'know, things like not advertising EVE Online to people browsing the Battleclinic kill boards. No-brainer there.

    Ads on my gardening blog are nicely targeted due to the content of my blog - they don't need to know who is reading my blog to know that ads for Organic supplies, produce or how-to books will get clicked on.

    The ad industry needs analytics like kids need added sugar.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10, 2010 @01:39AM (#32520354)

    You've got to hand it to Apple they played this one really well. The FTC just approved of the Google/AdMod deal on the strength of Apple competition and so Apple feels pretty confident they can compete aggressively with little chance of the government crying foul.

    Did Apple play it well? Looks to me like Apple went and made an anti-competitive move as soon as something that resembled competition reared its ugly head. If the FTC sees it that way as well then they will cry foul and call Apple out.

  • by Spazed (1013981) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @01:40AM (#32520358)
    You mean how they control who gets to license the blu-ray spec? Or how they controlled Betamax and kept it away from porn?

    The notion that company y has a right to company x's capabilities and information is absurd. Google doesn't have to hand over all their ad data on me to Hulu and Apple, even though they collect the same general info for the same purpose. Apple isn't saying you can't advertise, they are saying you don't get things without joining the club.

    As for your TV example, you are basing that off the status quo, one that does not fit here. When you buy an iPhone you go into knowing it is a semi-closed platform and that certain actions will be limited. If TVs were the same you'd go into it knowing that Sony only plays Sony branded/approved media and not Disney's or Warner's content. A better example would have been not being able to update the firmware on your TV without permission from Sony.
  • by Statecraftsman (718862) * on Thursday June 10, 2010 @02:30AM (#32520598) Homepage
    The reason this is trollish is that there are significant differences between these two situations. Google.com is Google's website! The iOS devices on the other hand are devices that people have purchased and now ostensibly own.

    Users and developers expect a different level of freedom with devices than with websites owned by others. Users would like to run the software they want on their devices. Developers would simply like the same abilities they have on computers.

    Every restriction Apple puts on their devices becomes another benefit that non-Apple devices have. Sure, it's hard to switch away from the polish of Apple but the benefits of doing so seem to be growing daily.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10, 2010 @03:36AM (#32520920)

    Determining the scope of the market is one of key points in anti-trust cases. Here, the smartphone market is less relevant than the share of mobile apps, which Apple does have significant dominance in. That is what they are leveraging to stifle competition in mobile advertising by forcing developers away from their main competitor. It is textbook anti-competitive behavior.

  • by tlambert (566799) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @03:40AM (#32520952)

    You're missing the point, for many apps you will have the option of either purchasing a full price version or running an ad supported version so you can have exactly that choice. There will of course be paid apps with ads included but those most likely will either be unpopular or will be imitated by apps with the either/or model.

    Back when cable TV was first conceived, broadcast TV had ads, and cable came out with no ads, as a paid service.

    And now, today, there are of course cable TV stations with ads, but... wait, what were we talking about before the commercial?

    -- Terry

  • by oztiks (921504) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @04:08AM (#32521110)

    I'm with you on this for two main reasons ...

    First, The perception of the Google "do no evil" is simply a fantasy. If you hit parts of the market which affect Google, I could imagine them being as nasty as Microsoft. Second, when we had the browser wars it was Netscape vs Microsoft, it was one smaller company vs a giant brand. They weren't afraid to pull out the big guns (lawyers) and let it all fly. Why would Google or Apple have a problem doing it?

    The issue I see is say hypothetically _if_ Google did win in this stage, Apple would have to kiss the App store goodbye. Everyone from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal and every other company from here to the EU would want to take Apple down. Being a market leader usually means you make some fairly nasty enemies in the business space, I'd expect everyone to try and chop the Apple tree down (fondly enough the only business that wouldn't be is Microsoft, those two seem to be getting along atm)

    P.S Mictosoft sits in the background now, everyone is starting to not care about them as much cause the focus is on the Apple blitz now. My prediction is in a few years when SaaS and Cloud make a strong impact in the world (more than what it's doing today) they'll be back on the war path suing the bejesus out of everyone and holding back the industry yet again, but for today, today is not a good day to fight.

  • by theolein (316044) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @07:00AM (#32521778) Journal

    I think the market for mobile advertising is vastly overrated. If there's anything that will rapidly kill off user enthusiasm for Apple's apps, it is ads irritating the fuck out of you when you start up an app. Not only that, but developers who use the iAds API will most likely find their apps falling to the bottom of the popularity stakes and from there on stop using it.

    Apple is trying to be king bitch by now allowing users to search using yahoo or bing, but please, who on earth would bother? Steve Jobs in his pathetic foaming at the mouth hatred of Google ("They betrayed me!!!!1111") might be dumb enough to use bing, but no one else is going to if they have a choice. Google will still rake in the cash with mobile advertising and I'm pretty sure that iAds will end up on Apple's small but growing pile of has-beens.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10, 2010 @07:34AM (#32521928)

    2: You pay for the service, and not advertising, thus no ads.

    Where exactly did this urban legend start? The value proposition of cable has always been no antenna and access to expanded entertainment options.

    Cable started as a rebroadcast of terrestrial stations, which had ads. In fact, even from the beginning, the vast majority of cable-only stations have always had ads. The notable exceptions are the premium movie channels (HBO, Skin-emax, etc). The only "ads" on them are filler for their own properties between programs.

    Where in this history is the supposed widespread "no ads" offering?

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @07:37AM (#32521962) Journal
    Those numbers are... interesting. Apparently, some time in the last six months, Symbian went from having 76% of the Smartphone market to having 2%. This sounds very much like someone just redefined the markets, much like the previous segmentation of 'smartphone' and 'featurephone' (where a featurephone has a decent CPU, large screen, can run arbitrary third-party apps, but doesn't count as a smartphone because doing so would make Apple and RIM's market share look too laughably small for anyone to care).
  • by tgd (2822) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @07:39AM (#32521974)

    As someone who has used Apple devices for a lot longer than they've currently been popular, I can tell you Apple has *always* been the worst in the industry for things like this.

    The difference is, ten years ago Apple didn't matter.

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...