or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

Apple gets to decide who is allowed to ask for the user's data. The user gets to decide (thanks to Apple enforcing required consent) if the user's data is sent. The collection is done by whichever ad service is being utilized in each particular case. It is the user's data, collected by the ad service. Apple is simply the conduit through which the exchange occurs (or is allowed to be requested to occur).
They could put the language in there. The information is provided and consented to by a third party (users) but the devs still have to agree to what Apple asks of them in order to get their apps installed and so allow to ask the users. Enforceable? Other than the honour system, I guess it is enforceable as much as any other clause in an NDA...once you get caught they will take what steps they choose. In this case, at a minimum, your app gets burned.Since the language...
Perhaps caused by waiting for you to 'explode' even a single point. You should have learned by now that simple exaggeration in your language when countering a point isn't really a counter argument. It is just exaggeration and hyberbole.Really, the only repetition is your own statement of 'Google is evil'. Probably the single most used phrase in this entire thread and most have been by you. The problem is, this is neither a fact nor a good starting point for debate. Yet, it...
When faced with hate driven, illogical hyperbole, the conversations do tend to suffer.
yes, we agree and yes they could share it and cover it with and NDA...and have restrictions to each party in how the data might be used.
Evidence? Beyond them buying an advertising analytics company and using it to create the iAds platform? The data is valuable. Whether they are collecting the data only for the value to them or also for the benefit of the devs, there is no question the collect it because of it's value. Otherwise Apple could have simply created an ad service with no analytics. But that would have no value.Talking about muddled. They bought it to make money for themselves and to help devs...
I wouldn't think thy would invoke trade secrets as a defense. But some did. The counter is that, if they are indeed trade secrets, they are being provided to multiple competitors. Within their rights, certainly. Sort of makes the secret part of the trade secrets not so secret, however.
No obfuscation. Just going with his idea of protecting trade secrets. Trade secrets are secret when they are kept secret. If one is to use that as a defense, then one would be best to keep it a secret from all competitors and not some. The other ad services are now, by definition, competitors to Apple.
Apple wouldn't be turning over anything to google. They would be allowing google to ask iPhone users to provide their own information and only information that Apple could restrict the service to collecting (specific, limited info,as they do in the new SDK). They could add further restrictions on the information gathered and/or restrict how it is allowed to be used. Sarcasm, maybe, but if they were to bar all analytics and defend this by claiming trade secrets, the...
Let's stop pretending that Google collecting and analyzing this data is any worse than dozens of other companies doing the same thing. Locking one door and opening dozens of other doors and windows doesn't make your house more secure. Dozens of companies that are smaller and quieter and do what they do without notice will be given access, by Apple, to this information. Companies that get caught doing things they ought not to be doing, only when they try to be smart-asses...
New Posts  All Forums: