or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

Since up to that point, I had used no language that even implied it was an 'attack' against google, let alone a malicious attack, your paraphrasing was at best dishonest then. I used the phrase after your comments, as it seemed to be the terminology your seemed most comfortable with. hell, I even agreed with your later description of it being a defensive move. The only real point was that it was a competitively driven move. Trying to bog it down in semantic interpretations...
Actually, until my last post, I had never phrased or even implied it was an attack on google. I stated that the ban on google was not based on protecting user data but was competitively driven. I stated that the changes to require user consent and to limit the collected data were for user privacy.When I say 'your words' I meant the ones you were trying so hard to put in my mouth. Since I hadn't written them, they were only 'your words'. Nothing disingenuous about it. If...
For someone on your ignore list, I am in your thoughts an awful lot, Hiro. Do you understand the point of your ignore list?
Actually, that is exactly the point. They are two distinct issues with two distinct sets of reasons. One for privacy (user consent, limited data) and one to take action against google from a competitive stand point. You are trying to muddle the two. Stay on focus. We agree on why they introduced the user consent and limited data (privacy), and on why they banned google (competition). Two distinct issues and reasons. They might have been the catalyst. The don't tend to...
Many here have claimed, which was where our conversations overlapped, I suppose. At the least they have tried to imply it was somehow one of Apple's reasons for the google ban. Unfortunately, for them, even it this is true, no public statements from Apple don't support this idea. The very fact that they are still allowing the data to be collected and transmitted (with consent) to third parties speaks against the google ban being privacy issue.As for the the real reason, to...
a)Which has nothing to do with the google ban, but is a nice distraction. Try to stay focused on the issue at hand. The google ban.b) In your personal opinion, yes. Apple may feel the same way. They have given no indication that the google ban had anything to do with this, however.. Any assertion that it was seems to be fantasy of a small group of google haters. Take off the blinders, the world looks better without hate colouring your view.Yes, a competitive issue.Yes,...
Exactly my point. So a competitive issue then. No need to try to wrap it in a pretense of protecting privacy.
Right. As you agree, it is a competitive issue and not a privacy issue, as was my point. Bingo, you hit it on the head. Two very differnt issues entirely.
I guess Apple saw some value there as well, when they began proceedings to buy AdMob too. Similar case with when they bought Quattro.
None of which has any bearing on the fact that the other ad companies will have access to the data the Google is now forbidden from collecting. If the data is such that Google could use it for their own nefarious purposes, then making it available to the others is just as big a risk. In fact, since Apple has never singled google out for inappropriately using this data, yet was willing to very publicly flog Flurry for it, it would seem they do not feel it would be any more...
New Posts  All Forums: