or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

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...
Oh Hiro, you are the last one to be posting in this thread, given your delusional positions in the original thread regarding iAd and what data you knew Apple wouldn't allow to be collected (now shown to be so naive and misleading).Clearly you still have nothing of value to add to this thread other than your usual hit and run posts that contribute nothing to any thread.Hiro once wrote that his 8th grade teacher said to him "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born...
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.
New Posts  All Forums: