Apple iAd Drawing Antitrust Scrutiny 260
snydeq writes "US regulators are planning to investigate whether Apple is shutting out third parties such as Google and Microsoft in advertising on the iPhone and iPad under revised terms to its iAd mobile ad platform. Apple's revised developer terms prohibit ad analytics collection unless it is provided to an independent ad service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads. If enforced, the proposed terms would prohibit developers from using Google's AdMob service on the iPhone, according to AdMob founder Omar Hamoui. Developers using AdMob to deliver ads on cross-platform mobile apps would have to go through an alternative service for the version of the app running on an Apple platform, according to the terms. It's an impractical solution that some are calling restrictive."
Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they'll get scared and let go the market a little.
Worked on MS.
Maury
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "Worked on MS" you mean file a lawsuit, go to trial, present mounds of evidence, win a judgement, have the Judge threaten to break the company into two, yeah, ok, THEN they'll get scared.
By that time Apple will have destroyed the smartphone market and probably Google as well. It took ten years from inquiry to settlement in US v Microsoft, an eternity in computer time, and ten years later IE still owns the majority of the browser market.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "Worked on MS" you mean file a lawsuit, go to trial, present mounds of evidence, win a judgement, have the Judge threaten to break the company into two, yeah, ok, THEN they'll get scared.
No, by "worked on MS" I mean get sued, get scared, stop acting like a monopolist.
Say what you will about MS (it's Dooooomed!), most of their recent work has been much more open than in the past. It's no longer about embrace and extend. The actual outcome of this change on the wider world may be limited, but that's a statement about MS's ability to generate working products, not the way they go about planning them.
Maury
Re: (Score:2)
Embrace, extend, extinguish as a business model runs rampant at Microsoft. It's just that the broader world community is aware of it and puts a halt to it whenever discovered. Microsoft's main thrust of embrace, extend, extinguish is targeted to the web, document formats, and open source.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Apple is capable of hurting Google in any significant way.
Christ! Really? It's come to this? (Score:5, Insightful)
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck them and their ads. Do not want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Riding on the Metro (the subway system around the DC/Metro area) a few weekends ago, we noticed something strange outside the windows of the train while going through an underground tunnel: evenly-spaced signs made out of LEDs that, when travel past at speed, created a "flipbook" type of advertisement....for fucking Starbucks.
Yes. It really has come to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, I'd actually like to see that, where on the Metro was it?
(Currently ride the Blue Line in to DC)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was on the Red Line, between Farragut North and Metro Center (were going into DC when we saw it)
Re: (Score:2)
Between Gallery Place and Judiciary Square has been turned off recently though, not sure why.
Too many people freaking out that there is a LADY ON THE SIDE OF THE CAR!
Re: (Score:2)
there's one between Metro Center and Gallery Place
you're right, THAT's where it was. Thanks for the clarification!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We have a couple in this country, but the train drivers hate them, because it forces them to go at a certain fixed speed (so the ads look 'right'), screwing up the whole accelleration / decceleration process.
Re: (Score:2)
That's been in use overseas for maybe a decade. Man, in some ways the US is really behind the times.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
inevitably advertising gets its dirty claws stuck into everything and actually pays for lots of what we enjoy. its insidious.
Yes, how dare they pay for us to enjoy ourselves? Damn them!
Personally, I just use ad block. Thankyou advertisers for enabling me to get better content without paying extra!
In situations where ads are unavoidable in a service I enjoy, I would gladly pay for the service so that ad support is unnecessary.
What I really don't like is stuff like when I've paid a lot of money to watch a movie and they still expect me to sit through a bunch of ads.
Re: (Score:2)
It's part of the 'theatre experience'.
Speaking of theatres, even in just the past 12-18 months, the amount of ads (not previews, but ads) has tripled or more. Five years ago, you'd sit through some (maybe) corny slides if you were early, and then 3-5 movie trailers. A year ago, you'd sit through those corny slides, an ad (maybe two), and then 3-5 movie trailers.
The most recent movie I saw in theatre (with about a 14-month gap between theatre visits) had the corny slideshows, about 7 ads, and around 3 previe
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. that's nothing compared to here in the UK. Usually I just turn up a little late, the movies don't start until at least 15 minutes after the claimed time.
Re: (Score:2)
Fast forward or next chapter works for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit, the execution of the idea was flawless; it really looked like a little animation being displayed on the subway wall. It was also kinda trippy -_-;;
That being said, it was still insanely frustrating to see advertising taken that far.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about your subways, but the one in Copenhagen is boring - would think it was awesome to have that kind of gimmick - still wont buy it, but as long as I can choose not to look at it it's fine by me.
(They did a trial at the train stations where commercials where blasted out through speakers, that bothered a lot of people since you can't just look away.)
Re: (Score:2)
More entertaining than the advertisement was the reaction of other people in the car: some looked interested, some looked confused, and one woman looked like she was ready to jump out of her skin.
It did catch us all off guard. I mean, think about it...you're just speeding through a subway tube, when suddenly some pixelated, smiling woman is drinking coffee on the fucking wall.
If that doesn't give you nightmares, go watch Return to Oz. If that doesn't give you nightmares, you aren't human.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then don't download the software. I write apps for a living; either I charge you money up front or I put ads in the application, and I give you the option of which you want. If you find having both of those options unfair, then just pretend I don't offer a free version.
Actually that's only the case for the general audience. For you, I'd prefer it if you didn't use my apps at all -- you're probably a customer service nightmare, too, and not worth the bother. Of course, you also probably don't actually own an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
iAd makes ads easy, prettier, "less" intrusive. All justifications for a developer to stick them in, even if it's a paid app.
Hmm, I was under the impression that you would "enjoy" full screen adds with this software, and the ability to be taken directly to the product web page inside the application. Definitively not "less intrusive" in my book.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then don't download the software. I write apps for a living; either I charge you money up front or I put ads in the application, and I give you the option of which you want.
I'll download the software, then I'll give it a one star rating, then I'll delete it. And I won't be alone.
Enjoy your ad revenue. Maybe you can buy a coffee with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a problem with that rationale: When I go to the App Store, free apps typically say "Ad Supported" or something like that. At that point I make the decision to download it and use it. Fine, your point is well taken.
However, what the description didn't tell me was, "We'll-scrape-all-the-info-we-can-get-to-off-your-device-while-displaying-Ads Supported".
Why is that? Is it because there is a tacit understanding among developers that the user may decline such wholesale disregard to his privacy? Then
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem here is that you are 100% wrong. There is not a single application included in the stock software that serves an ad. Every single ad-laden app on an Apple-produced product got there because the owner/user downloaded it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that you are 100% wrong. There is not a single application included in the stock software that serves an ad. Every single ad-laden app on an Apple-produced product got there because the owner/user downloaded it.
Bingo!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quite. I was walking past Pizza Hut the other day and they were trying to send their bluetooth shite to my phone. Not being happy with their crap spamming my phone and noticing the little bluetooth ad box plugged in by the window, I popped in and turned it off.
NO I DONT WANT A BLOODY PIZZA HUT SPECIAL OFFER.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, really?
That's a bit too far in my opinion. What did it do? Send a pairing request from a device named "BuyPizza"? Or did it go further than that?
Re:Christ! Really? It's come to this? (Score:5, Informative)
There are lots of apps in Android that come in both paid and ad-ware versions. It offers choice to users and to developers. Of course, on Android, as a developer, you can use any advertising network you want; Apple could certainly port iAd to Android, if they wished. Choice is a Good Thing(TM).
Compare that to the iPhone. If it's just content you're interested in, you could always just do a website. Except with the latest version of Safari, Apple are trying to kill off web advertising too. So if you want reliable income from iPhone users, you've got to do a content-delivery app. Users then have to buy your app through the AppStore (and Apple get their cut). If it's free and ad-supported, all of the major competitors are locked out so you're stuck with iAds... and Apple gets their cut. And if you get pissed off and want to abandon the iPhone and switch to Android? Well, have fun rewriting your app from scratch: Apple banned you from using any compatibility platforms which would make it portable.
Yes, in this particular incident we're talking about ads, and I hate annoying ads as much as the next person, but leaving it at that is short-sighted and naive. This isn't about eliminating ads and improving user-experience, no matter what Steve Jobs tells his adoring masses. This is competition Mafia-style. You can say 'this is all fine, it's Apple's platform and they can do what they like with it.' But it's also what's called 'rent-seeking' behavior and I don't know of any economist who doesn't consider it abusive and anti-competitive. Hence all the recent DOJ investigations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Christ! Really? It's come to this? (Score:5, Insightful)
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
I think thats where you are making the mistake. The iPad is not your personal device. Its Apple's, and they have shown that with their previous practices.
Re:Christ! Really? It's come to this? (Score:5, Informative)
not really.
apple nor google put ads on iphone or android devices. the ads go in the apps that developers write. i don't like ads any more than the next guy, but developers should have the freedom to use them to try and obtain compensation for their time, if they so wish. if *you* don't like it, don't use the app.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't arguing over that. They are arguing over restraint of trade. It may seem that because ads are front and center, but it is the idea of restraining your competition that has brought the heat.
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck them and their ads. Do not want.
Um no. They are arguing over the rights to let other developers use only their service to serve ads to you and get a fair share of the ad revenue for themselves.
Wow, that confused even me. The point is, Apple doesn't put ads on your device (I think, ... correct me if I'm wrong). They just want to capitalize on what app developers are already doing, which is putting ads (currently most likely Google Ads) in their own applications. Understandable, but still annoying, I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like ads myself and I use adblock on my browsers. That said, piss and moan all you want, but companies need to pay for the products, services and content they provide. Either you deal with ads or things get more expensive and you'll be looking at more subscriptions. I realize in fantasy land everything is free and people are willing to work for nothing. But that's not how the real world works.
I realize there are situations where companies may be trying to squeeze a few extra bucks out of us and this
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck them and their ads. Do not want.
Remember that this is actually about developers being able to embed adverts in applications or websites. This helps the developers of said applications get paid for the hard work they put in without charging the user directly.
These companies do not force their adverts into unsuspecting websites, applications or devices. They are able to do it because it provides another revenue stream for the people producing whatever it is that enables them to keep there costs down. Why the hell should people be forced int
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like adds, but if it means I can download a few neat puzzle games for free, then that's fine by me. And if I know the add isn't going to take me out of the application or do anything weird, then I might even click on one occasionally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then don't buy(*) the apps that have ads in them. Problem solved.
(*) I'm calling it 'buying' even if it's a free app.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are my mod points when i need them.. i agree 100%
Someone else's playground (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait to be able to put Ford stickers on the back of Toyota trucks, and use your Droid to advertise At&T!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does Toyota ban putting Ford stickers on back of the trucks it sells?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes (Score:2)
People fighting over advertising. Given yesterday's conversation on here, I'm sure some of you are aware of how this amuses me.
I don't like ads BUT (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft did this people would be all over their asses.
Apple telling these developers you can only use our ad service is just blatant abuse at this point.
I think Apple knows that the writing is on the wall and they are going to lose something so why not cash in as much as possible?
This is the now third 'potential' investigation into their business practices of various issues and markets.
Re:I don't like ads BUT (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't like ads BUT (Score:5, Interesting)
Great questions. I'm having a hard time deciding how to form an opinion on this issue because I can't seem to come up with the right analogy to map this over to other real-world scenarios with similar questions.
I mean, if you consider Apple a "publisher", in this case a publisher of applications, why can they not control how ads get delivered? If they published books, for example, could they not make publication of an author's book contingent on the author NOT selling advertising space inside it? The author, after all, can self-publish his work and include any content he wants, whether advertisements or something else, so he still has choices. He can also seek out other publishers who might have publication rules that allow him to sell ads within his book.
The creator of an application has many other platforms and devices on which he can publish his application, if he feels that Apple's advertising rules are too restrictive. So he, too, has choices.
If we look at Apple as a merchant rather than a publisher (in this case, a merchant running an App Store,) can we not make comparisons to merchants in brick and mortar stores? Wouldn't a clothing store owner be within her rights to decree that any shirt sold in her store must not advertise competitor's stores? The creator of the shirt can still go to other outlets to sell his shirt, and doesn't the proprietor of a store have a right to control the merchandise sold through that store?
In every analogous situation I can think of, I come down on the side of Apple -- having the right to decree what can and cannot be published/sold through their storefront.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the Apple storefront is the only store for the iPhone and iPad. Thus your analogies break down. If there was any legal way of installing 3rd party apps, then iDevice users would have a choice like in your examples.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I don't thi
Here is your analogy. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't seem to come up with the right analogy? This is slashdot, my friend. Let me put this in terms we all understand.
So you're driving in your car (of course). You're noticing all these annoying billboards, the bane of Appland. But these aren't just passive billboards: these ones are modern, intelligent ads that automatically spy on you! They know where you're going, where you've been, what your license plate is, that sort of thing. They can guess based on your ride if they should be offering you insta-loans or grey poupon! These are just some of the neat features of electronic billboards.
Now it just so happens that Apple built your car... yes, you're driving an iCar 4, the kind that Gawker twerps are always trying to jack. Looking good, dog! But Apple has laid down the law: "When it comes to these annoying billboards, only independent advertising companies can spy on you. Oh, and us. But that's a given, I mean, come on." When you do the math, you see that they've excluded the other major car manufacturer from spying on your sovereign self!
Obviously this very annoying, because THAT manufacturer (named Googledroid) is known the world over for the high quality of thier spying techniques. They are so cool, they know how to capture thousands of wireless networks WITHOUT EVEN TRYING! They can create buzz for a product before the participants even know they're participating! And Apple is trying to rain on their parade, trying to evilly block them from doing what they do best.
Not from putting up billboards... anyone can do that. It's a free highway. No, Apple is telling the world's best spysters that they can't spy on your iCar. They can spy on all the other cars... and everyone else can spy on you... but by God, in this particular instance there will be no spying.
And I ask you, in all honesty, is that fair? Can you stand for it? Considering all the issues that the world faces today, can you think of something more vital?
I certainly cannot. And until Apple guarantees the right of every billboard to spy on me 100%, I don't know how I can ever sit behind the wheel of an iCar again.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you compare phones - there's nothing stopping you from using any ad provider you want on Symbian/Blackberry or Android. Yes Apple could port their framework to any of those platforms and compete there.
I really have no idea about gaming consoles. I agree that they are pretty anti-competitive as well... I doubt Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo has rules about in game ads though - I see them all the time - I don't think they are served up via any framework though.
Re:I don't like ads BUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple isn't saying you can only use their ad service. You can use ANY ad service. They're just saying that ad services belonging to direct competitors in the OS/Hardware game can't collect some device demographics information. AdMob would have been able to, under this rule, if Google hadn't bought them.
This is actually an improvement over what they announced earlier this year. When they unveiled iOS4, they said no one could collect that data. They've loosened that.
AdMob says not getting that data will hurt their ability to place relevant ads. I'm not sure of that, but it could be true. It doesn't really matter to me, I don't care.
Most of the stuff I get off the app store is either free and adless (because the developer was just making something fun), or paid for (like most games I play) and thus has no ads. I don't like ads.
There is only one app I use with these kinds of ads in it, and I hate the app. I haven't found a replacement for it yet.
Should Apple get in trouble for this? I can see it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this is called anti-competitive.
Do I care? Not really. I avoid apps with ads, so this doesn't really effect me.
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually an improvement over what they announced earlier this year. When they unveiled iOS4, they said no one could collect that data. They've loosened that.
An improvement in shit over bullshit is still shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple isn't saying you can only use their ad service. You can use ANY ad service. They're just saying that ad services belonging to direct competitors in the OS/Hardware game can't collect some device demographics information.
analytics are *everything* to an ad service. the service is essentially useless without it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. Ford would be collecting 30% of the revenue and will have to approve the Toyota GPS before you can buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't fully get exactly whats going on.
So I went and looked up Anti-competitive practices on Wikipedia. I guess the two things that may apply are
"Barriers to entry" (to an industry) designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
and
"Coercive monopoly" - all potential competition is barred from entering the market
Now those are always a little fuzzy to define, but if this iAd thing falls into those categories, wouldn't also their App Store? I don't understand that if the current allegations
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. US Anti-Trust laws don't require a monopoly to be enforced. All they require is anti-competitive behavior (And enough market share to raise their attention/cause potential damage)... That's why it's called anti-competitive behavior, not monopolistic behavior...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way the iAd thing could fall in to any of those categories is if there were no alternatives on the market. There are dozens of manufacturers, thousands of phone models to choose from - competition is fierce and healthy in this domain.
If it were anyone but Google complaining, I'd actually have a little more sympathy, as the iPhone is the one that's giving ads the greatest amount of face time. But they just spent their entire dev conference talking about how much better android is than the iPhone, trashing it in every dick way they could. So now Apple's being a dick back to them, basically saying, put your money where your mouth is. If your system is so great, then clearly you don't need to put your ads in front of our customers outsid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple telling these developers you can only use our ad service is just blatant abuse at this point.
It is somewhat more subtle. One interpretation is that Apple is protecting user privacy. Reading the text of the TOS : http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100412/is-apple-closing-off-the-iphone-to-rival-ad-networks/ [allthingsd.com] it seems pretty reasonable from an app user POV.
I also think this is an informative take: http://davidbarnard.com/post/684540619/anti-competitive-and-potentially-creepy [davidbarnard.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft did this people would be all over their asses..
People on Slashdot say that a lot - but the truth is, Amazon already does this, and nobody really noticed.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/what-danger-do-blippy-and-swipely-pose-to-amazon/ [nytimes.com]
Re:I don't like ads BUT (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you a shill? Seriously, Apple IS NOT telling developers use our service or else.
Apple IS trying to control the flow of their customers personal data. They are preventing analytics... as a user I appreciate this. Apparently you don't give a rats ass about your browsing, data using, phone call history, geo location and whatever the f*ck else these guys (Google) are collecting.
Here's the rules
Sounds to me like Apple is taking back control of how developers and third parties access and use sensitive user data on their iOS platform, that's it. Looks like you can still use an INDEPENDENT advertising company.
Re:I don't like ads BUT (Score:4, Informative)
Except everyone but Google (and Bing presumably) are allowed access to all the precious user data they are supposedly protecting. They've aimed these new clauses at Ad services affiliated with their direct competitors.
It's not about user privacy protection, it's about shutting Google and Microsoft out of their market. They're defending their iAd service from competition from AdMob because it's owned by Google by shutting AdMob out of their devices. The very essence of Anti-Competitive behaviour. Whether that anti-competitive behaviour is sufficiently egregious for sanctions depends on the outcome of the DOJ and FTC investigations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> Except everyone but Google (and Bing presumably) are allowed access to all the precious user data they are supposedly protecting.
Only after getting the user's consent. How is this not an improvement from what we have right now, where they snatch the data willy-nilly without the user's knowledge?
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent
That's the money quote right there. They are trying to hurt their competitors. Why single out developers or distributors of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments? How does that help the user at all?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is Apple giving them free reign, when the policy states that the developer is required to get the user's consent and Apple's written permission to access identifying information?
-dZ.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the now third 'potential' investigation into their business practices of various issues and markets.
It's the third potential investigation because some of Apple's competitors (well, one key one in particular but others have jumped on the band wagon) have decided that a good business model is to run to the government and complain every time Apple twitches (yes, the image of a child running to mommy and daddy was intentional) rather than just shutting the hell up and focusing on making great products. And it's ironic because that company has made some really good products over the years but, now that they'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps Apple sees the inquiry coming and knows they'll have to give up something to appease the DOJ and FTC. So they are purposely coming out with over the top rules.
It's a win-win for them. If they govt doesn't like it, they can take away the fluff, and Apple still will have what they wanted all along. If the govt decides it's ok, they have their cake and can eat it as we
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's Apple and people are "all over their asses".
And just to clarify a point - after having read the terms, Apple doesn't appear to be telling people they cannot use any other ad service, just not ad services that send demographic and usage data back *to companies who also own a product that competes with the iPhone*.
I would suspect Apple's response to an unfavorable ruling will simply be to ban ads and/or analytics in iOS apps. But it seems unlikely that Apple will get an unfavorable ruling on this -
Re: (Score:2)
How is this different... (Score:2)
How is this different than say, Apple wanting to us it's own analytic engine on Google?
Re:How is this different... (Score:5, Informative)
They can on Android...
Re: (Score:2)
So, according to you, forcing Apple has to modify their website to promote Microsoft products is not OK, but forcing Apple to modify their smartphone to promote Google products is OK? This makes no sense to me.
WTH is this nonsense? First of all it's the user's smartphone, not Apple's. And Google's products are not being promoted here, just a third party ad is being shown in a developer's app. No mention of Google anywhere to the end user.
Anti-trust on a product not in the market???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad analogy.
Lets say you are using a Microsoft operating system, why should Microsoft allow Google to put their own ad engine on your computer even if you want it and are willing to install it yourself?
It's because it is your computer not Microsoft's computer.
It's your Iphone not Apples.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It may be your iPhone, but it is still Apple's AppStore and services you use It's a bit like a local radio station or listener demanding their station to be available on satellite radio because it is the radio owner's stereo, not the satellite radio company's.
Eh, not in this case. You forgot the all important developer of the App,thus your analogy fails. The developer is left with less freedom to choose ad services and that would affect their bottomline. Hence they would make Apps paid(hurting the iDevice customer) or not develop the App(customer gets less choice again). This is directly hurting the customer who would rather see Ads than pay for the App. Apple is specifically targeting Google by banning companies that have a mobile operating system from showing
Re: (Score:2)
The sole purpose of Google's search site is to serve as a portal to their ad engine. For the obligatory car analogy: That's like complaining about not being able to order a Chevy pickup from the factory with a Honda engine. Whereas what Apple is trying to do would be like Chevy saying only their approved manufacturers get to make after market parts, which just happens exclude their biggest competitor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google does [google.com] accept quite a lot [google.com] of third-party ad providers on their network, and any website owner can choose if to opt in those alternative providers or not. Google search engine's webmaster, apparently, chose not to opt it. Would you deny him that right? Once again: you can serve third-party ads via AdSense on your site, if you want to. I do not, so I don't opt in - the possibility is nevertheless there. That is not the case with Apple.
AdMob ads are still allowed by Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's terms do not exclude 3rd party ad networks, including AdMob:
This specifically covers advertising analytics, and prevents disclosure of advertising analytics to 3rd parties by independent ad providers; and if you're an ad provider owned by a mobile phone manufacturer or mobile OS provider, you are not considered independent.
Google's perfectly free to provide ads on iOS. They just can't collect extensive information about how the users interact with the advertisements.
Now that does dramatically reduce the value of the advertisements, since advertisers want that kind of information, but it's not a ban.
And then there's the competitive aspect. Why should Apple allow Google to use their platform to collect information that will allow them to improve the integration of advertising into a competing platform, Android? Sure, this move may be in part aimed at getting back at Google for the AdMob purchase, but there's a good case to me made that the primary motivation is to provide as little research and development assistance as possible to a competing platform (note that the limitation on analytics is for any phone or mobile OS manufacturer).
Finally, I'm personally fine with limiting the ability of ad providers to provide user analytics to 3rd parties. I'm not electing to do business with those 3rd parties, so I'd prefer that they not profit off me.
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't download the ad-supported app and you won't have any problems.
Not so easy... (Score:2)
Except through my history of owning an iphone a number of apps have gone from the purchase model to ad supported model via updates that listed no such thing in the documentation of what the update does. I've deleted or not updated every one that has done so, but still...
It's a problem with the iphone and probably other platforms that is not talked about much. Being very weary about updating. I have way too many apps that I will not update for various reasons. Generally a bad habit to get people used to...
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's the competitive aspect. Why should Apple allow Google to use their platform to collect information that will allow them to improve the integration of advertising into a competing platform, Android? Sure, this move may be in part aimed at getting back at Google for the AdMob purchase, but there's a good case to me made that the primary motivation is to provide as little research and development assistance as possible to a competing platform (note that the limitation on analytics is for any phone or mobile OS manufacturer).
Wow. That sure sounds like an example of 'An eye for an eye and soon the world will turn blind'. 'Helping' is different from actively blocking.
Why should Google help Apple by developing Youtube for iPhone? Why should Google help Apple by making a very nice Google Maps for iPhone at launch(can't imagine they make a lot of money off that)?
How will Google retaliate? Ban HD video streaming from Youtube to iDevices? Apple is acting like the bad kid on the block and soon the other kids may take their toys and go
Re: (Score:2)
Now that does dramatically reduce the value of the advertisements, since advertisers want that kind of information, but it's not a ban.
yes it is. analytics are everything. it's like an advertiser wanting to place a cable TV ad, and asking how many viewers they can expect, and the cable TV company saying "we have no ideas". the advertiser walks out because one they have no idea how to negotiate a price and two they have no idea how effective the ad can be.
Antitrust (Score:3, Interesting)
At what point do Apple's actions run afoul of antitrust laws? They are certainly allowed to lock down their platform to some degree, but they aren't allowed to do just anything they want.
Would it be legal for Sony TVs to automatically go dark whenever they detect a Samsung commercial playing?
Ok but... (Score:3, Insightful)
how is it even possible for Apple to be anticompetitive in this case?
I thought under US law, being anticompetitive means either forming a collusion with most of the other major players in the same market or leveraging a [near] monopoly to lock in another market.
Let's get this right. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. The type of AdMob gathers aren't required for advertising. If they were, AdMob's parent google would be out of business, or trying to get us to install spyware all the time.
3. AdMob could even still use a 3rd party analytics form to gather Analytics for it. Apple doesn't want it's phone competitors to be able to use their advertising businesses to harvest information about Apple's devices (especially those under development), without at least Apple having a chance at that same information.
4. AdMob could even change their client/server model so that without having the device send the information, the server could collect all the extra information that it's reasonable for them to get anyway.
5. With out App Eula's that give them permission some of the Analytics gathering that is sacred may even be illegal in jurisdiction that have anti-monitoring laws.
Apple's move was not a move to give iAd an advantage. It was a move to try to keep analytics from being spyware.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It definitely would not hurt them, Apple is always the best when they are the underdog, they have a tendency to be major assholes once they have success. It was like that in the 80s when they sued everyone for the graphical userinterface, which they obviously did not invent (thanks to that we got stuck with windows and a Microsoft monopoly instead of the back then superior gem)
It is about time Apple gets a severe smack on its hands again so that Steve starts to behave decently again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When Apple courts that "most profitable 5-10% of the market" is when historically they've fell flat on their face. They didn't see great success until they started making products for the unwashed, price-conscious masses, like the iPod and the iPhone. Even the iPhone was a huge bucket of fail when they tried to sell them for full price with a contract the first go round? You remember that entire year of iPhone suckage, don't you, or has that been purged from the Apple history by Steve yet?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And everyone always hated MSFT for this sort of thing when Apples 10x worse.
And everyone would hate Apple too, if Apple did what MSFT would do. Two points --
1. Apple isn't stopping AdMob from serving ads on iOS, they are preventing AdMob and Google from collecting device and user analytics.
2. People have short memories. This is not the sort of thing MSFT would do. If MSFT were able to control ad placements, they would say only their ads can show up on Android devices AND iOS AND winmobile AND PalmOS. In other words, Apple seeks to control what goes on their own devices, MSFT so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)