or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

If they did, do you think it would be approved? Although Google Earth and Google Mobile were approved early on, no recent Google apps have been approved. Latitude and Google Voice were denied. You honestly think their free nav app would be approved? Keep dreaming.
Anonymouse has and shows a tainted/skewed/bitter/paranoid view. You have to learn to take his posts with a gigantic grain of salt. He is, however, a very intelligent person. But he has a huge chip on his shoulder and it seems to distort his perception. If you use the following assumptions with his posts, you will better understand: Apple is always in the right, Google is the earthly embodiment of evil and is actively out to get him.
I guess you are right. They have different names so there must be no similarities. That is the gist of your argument, right? Or is it back to 'nuh uh'. You say there are no parallels. But that really simply shows a willingness to avoid reality.
Actually, there are huge parallels. Putting up barriers to competition instead of competing on merit was something MS was famous for. "____ attempts to bar _____ from their platform to avoid competing with them" and "____ using their clout to pressure partners not to deal with ____" could be headlines from 1995. Instead we see them today. I didn't like it was MS was the one in the headlines, but that sort of behavior was expected of them. Apple was and is better than...
Correct. By definition, it is anti-competitive. Does that mean it is illegal? Probably not. It seems strange that so many people are so disingenuously trying to make this a privacy issue, when Apple's own statements show that it is not. Yes, things like user acknowledgement is for user privacy. Barring AdMob is obviously not. Remember before all the iPod kids came into the Apple world? Apple fans then were all about demanding companies not erect artificial barriers to...
Sorry, I thought your implication was that AdMod was doing it (collecting info without consent) on the iPhone. There hasn't been any claim of this, that I know of..Jobs mentioned only Flurry. If that is the standard on Android, then all ad services are guilty, not just AdMob. But only AdMob is barred from the iPhone (from using device/user info).
I don't think Apple could say they weren't indy anymore, just because they were selling data. They could ban them for inappropriately using the data, since it was specified to only be used for serving/targeting ads and selling it would violate this. Of course, they could do the same to AdMob/google if they used it outside of the stated scope.Right, and then those ads served by competitors would not have access to this info and would be much less valuable. What this means...
I don't think they do. They do have mobile advertising sales, but I think it is mainly web ads targeted at mobile browsers. But, if Apple and Google are in the space, it is a safe bet that MS will want to get in too. This would prohibit them as well, if and when the make a play.
Actually, it doesn't sound like AdMob was doing this ad all. It sounds like, as you say, they will be able to capture and transmit this data, once you confirm that they can. The 'bitching and moaning' is about the change that allows any ad firm to collect and transmit this data, as longs as they are not google. As written by Apple, anyone is able to do it, as longs as they do not compete with Apple in the mobile OS space, a la google (or MS).
Strictly speaking, they wouldn't be allowed to collect it for anything other than "serving ads". If they are doing post-analysis on the data, then they are on the honour system for using it strictly for ad targeting. If they are using it for anything else, they are in violation, regardless of if it is Google or flurry or anyone else. If for instance, they use the analyzed data for their sales pitches to potential advertising clients, that is not using it to serve an ad.
New Posts  All Forums: