WSJ: Federal antitrust probe about Apple's iAd service, too - Page 2

>Do you think Apple will allow ad blocking software on the iPhone and iPad, when Apple itself makes money off the ads?

Of course they won't, but that's not the point, it just wouldn't be possible in the first place as there is no inter-app capability, much less one that can modify the signed code of an app that has been keyed by Apple.

>Will we be able to opt out of being tracked by advertisers?

I doubt it, but can you do that with any Ad on the iphone at present? I'm not sure how location-aware an ad in a location-aware app is...

>Will we be warned before we download an app that it includes iAd tracking?

No, if it's allowed, then you implicitly agree to it via the terms and conditions of using the App store.

>Will paid apps be allowed to shovel ads at us, and track us?

I imagine that ads will be allowed everywhere, just as they are now. Some apps might be free and ad supported. Some might be reduced price due to ads. Some might even be full price and still have ads.

Really, it's no different from the existing ad capabilities for any platform anywhere. The only difference is that the Ads need to be pre-approved (Hooray, no more stupid diet pill ads I guess). Other than that it wraps advertisers who want to use iAd into using rules to minimise user annoyance. No bad thing.

The only potential issue is analytics, gathering data on the users in order to provide targeted ads. Now this is a 2 sided argument, on the one hand you can say it's bad of Apple to deny access to this data to others and that this is anti-competetive, or you can say that it's good for consumers as it keeps the analytic information within the Apple sphere of influence, and as they already know all about you in the first place it's not really doing you any harm, and it's only keeping your privacy from being compromised by a third party advertiser who you haven't already permitted to know your usage habits.

This already happens on the internet in a very pervasive way. Yes, you can decide to block cookies etc but the reality is that a high majority of websites require cookies just to function properly, so it's a catch-22. iApps like Foursquare etc. are even more sinister as it relates to truly being able to target consumers. Most people that use it don't really understand that they are giving everyone access to their whereabouts, etc. (thus my choice of the word sinister) and companies are using that information to target offers to them when they are in the vicinity. One could argue that it's an explicit opt-in and thus the consumer "knows" what they are giving up.

Being "in the business" my goal is to create value to the consumer in such a way that the privacy trade off is worth it. However, I personally significantly limit my own exposure to these situations.

Apple is nowhere near "#1 in mobile devices".

That would be like googling "Why is the sky colored green?"

Wading through ignorant posts by laypersons seems to me to be a waste of time, compared to other methods.

Only if "the mobile space" (whatever that is) is found to be the relevant market.

The alert would have been 1) that Adobe has raised the issue direct with the FTC and 2) Apple and Adobe comments have hit the mainstream business press which FTC certainly reads.

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the impression that all of the biggest and most successful companies are getting the shakedown by the government? I think many, if not all of these recent cases will end in fines. Regulators gone wild.

You are very cavalier in defining the relevant market. It is not an easy question at all.

Um, it's even MORE anti-competitive for Apple to have access to both the analytical data and all of the personal data from your iTunes/Apple ID account. That's a huge advantage for iAds to potentially know that much about a user from the outset. How exactly can something like AdMob truly compete with that?

Yeah, it's vague, but that's they key thing to identify. Anti-competitive? Against WHO?

To to take the Flash developers as an example:

*Anti-competitive against Flash Developers? Nope, they have a huge and vast target to develop for

*Anti-competitive against Flash Developers for Mobile Devices? Nope, they have the whole other gamut of thousands of devices and dozens of platforms to develop for, not that any of them actually have, you know, full Flash capability...

*Anti-competitive against Flash Developers for iPhone OS? Maybe is as good as you can hope for really.

Is the iPhone the relevant market? Of course not, it encompasses all the other devices for which Flash is allowed (even if it's not possible). All the other guys must be laughing seeing Apple take the hit for banning Flash, when they have effectively banned it silently by not shipping a single product that supports it...

Whatever the competition is, it's wider than what you can do on an iPhone OS device alone.

Because the market in which Apple and Admob compete is not the iPhone. It's Mobile computing devices. And iPhone is not even half of that segment. Admob's ability to compete in across the whole market is not significantly is not detrimentally affected by their inability to use tools and methods which are not allowed on a single portion of that market, and Apple are not abusing any dominant position.

I'm not saying it's not a huge and potentially almost totally dominant position on their own kit, but that that is not proven to be significantly market defining as to affect the consumer materially if they go ahead and operate in this way. Admob can still happily spy on Android users in the same way that Apple might spy on iPhone users.

Let me understand: Apple is the victim of a conspiracy between the President of the United States and Google?

Is that what you are saying?

They are following it like the fabled end of the rainbow.

I don't understand how Apple is in competition with flash developers. I don't think that allegation has been made.

This is a horribly one-sided statement and shows a remarkable ignorance of the workings of paid search, banner ads, re-targeting, et al. The level of information that Google has on you FAR exceeds the data Apple does. Apple has information about your music, video and book habits. Google has information on all of your searching done on google, purchases of anything that involves paid search, banner ad retargeting through DART, any purchases done through google checkout, and the list goes on. Furthermore, google OWNS all of that data and can use it to sell targeted advertising ad infinitum.

Even more interesting is that on PC's there's a semblance of privacy by blocking cookies, multiple users, etc. On mobile devices, the unique identifier of the device is completely accessible to the applications and since typically a single individual uses a phone, the targeting is absolute to an individual (google, yahoo, etc can utilize this).

Word is already around that the FTC is going to recommend blocking the AdMob deal.

I consider iAds more dangerous than the issue of using Apple's tools only to create apps. While iAds is innovative and would be the first ads I would ever click on instead of ignoring it, this just stinks of anti-competitiveness.

I am one who believes tha eventually Apple will become as dominant Windows was and I can't blame the FTC in, at the very least, making a few calls about this issue. it may still to be too early in the game to do anything about Apple.

Simply all of the argument about the clause 3.3.1 (or whatever it is) boils down to people crying "Anticompetitive!" and "Antitrust!" because Apple won't allow cross compilation. That's the allegation. Just because it;'s flat out wrong (in my opinion) doesn't mean it hasn't been made.

For asking that question! Just what we need - yet another conspiracy theory.

And for further titillation, did you know that Bill Gates secretly runs the NSA. The reason why there is no governmental budget for it is because it is wholly funded through the Gates Foundation.

That is soooo much more interesting than Obama siccing the FTC and DOJ on Apple because Schmidt made a phone call and called in a bought political favor.

Ok, what is the market then if not mobile phones and their apps? Apple iPhones and it's apps? A brand can not be a market.
Microsoft was a monopoly not in Windows, but in operating systems- which wouldn't have been a problem if they didn't abuse that position to scrub out competition.
Apple is not forcing devs to not program for Android, Windows mobile or RIM. There is still a lot of choice when it comes to platforms for mobile apps.

Truthfully you have more at risk from your local Licensing Bureau selling your data to commercial interests and general poor data protection by the government than you do from adMob or iAd. If it were Apple's aim to be truly ubiquitous in the space then I could conceivably agree with you. Apple has not given any indication that is the purpose of their platform however, if past behavior is any indication. In fact Apple has only gone after the high-end computing space, and the smartphone segment, not the entire market. I don't think that Apple has a vested interest in owning the smartphone space, just a significant portion of it - enough to ensure it can develop its platforms in relative surety of success against its user base.

You have more to fear from Google. It's rise to control in the search space is unprecedented. The fact that it owns datapoints derived not only from search, but gmail and all it's other tools and wishes to expand its data collection to the Android platform gives one pause. Google is not a search or mobile platform company - it is an ad revenue company and every give-away, every free app they develop is done for the express purpose of expanding the amount of data it can collect and use from it's users. They are skillful at leveraging pushbutton issues like open development for Android, free WiFi at airports and so on. The subtext to the "Do no evil" mantra they tout is "and anything that pushes our ends isn't evil". They are highly monetized, and generate hugh amounts of revenue from your use of their "products". But they are also very, very good at controlling exposure to their actual intentions.

OK. That's very different.

And that is but one of the allegations.

I don't have that answer. But the relevant market is a crucial question.

Unless/until that is defined, then other questions too must remain unanswered.

Ya' know...

If you look at a poster's join date, number of posts, and notice a consistent anti-Apple tone to them......

Ya' kinda' wonder why he/she is here...

Is it possible that he/she was banned under another name?

.

Last time I checked anyone can advertise using any method in their app

Sometimes we get so wrapped with our own views, we forget the basics. Not that I agree with all that is stated here, but the author gets it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36940238

CGC

Pretty much everything you said only applies to desktops. I was talking about mobile advertising only, considering how AdMob and iAd are for that purpose only.


AdMob knows nothing about the data Google may or may not have on you. There is nothing connecting your iDevice to your Google account. Likewise for Yahoo! or anyother company except Apple. On the contrary, iAd could very easily connect your device to your iTunes account. You HAVE to connect your iDevice to iTunes, thus definitively making a connection between your device and the data Apple has on you.

Not everything, but I'll go with it for conversations sake.


It seems naive to believe that Google isn't going to integrate the data both ways upon completion of the purchase. They are a data company to the core and that data is key to revenue.


Which in my mind is fine as it's limited solely to app sold, music bought, books purchased. Is that any different than creating an Amazon account and purchasing through that account?

If Apple takes the next step - funneling all search, all browsing activity, all application activity, etc - through a data center and creating the SAME data that Google is (via search, gmail, google apps, etc - all tied to a specific user account), then it ends up being scary, but NO MORE scary than what Google is already doing.

If Apple does all of this, the only thing that they become is an equal competitor to Google. Apple is ramping up data, Google is ramping up hardware and OS. And both are leaving big, slow, MS in the dust.

i think you nailed it there. so far it seems like a bunch of BS.

...y'mean... "TeckSpud"?

Let me get this straight.

Apple owns the iPhone OS right?

But they are looking into an investigation for how they use their own property???

Does Toyota get investigated because they only use Toyota engines in their cars? Is that anti-competitive?

BTW. I just noticed my Sig wasn't centered. FINALLY!!!!

Your sig isn't centered because certain other people were littering the threads with centered posts. Result: no more centering.

Don't forget that Schmidt was one of Obama's chief economic advisors during the campaign.

..... and the OTF, OCC, Fed, FDIC, and the NCUA.

In what area does Apple have a monopoly?

As a ~$250B company (and the third most valuable in the US) it seems to be par for the course. Google will be next.

Incidentally, it is also possible that the FTC may have been put up to this by Adobe, for all we know. If Adobe requested they do this, the FTC would be compelled to follow up.

Perhaps you can start with this insight and stop asking stupid questions yourself.

Sir, you are my hero.
Why are you not writing for AI?

That would be impossible on the iPhone without direct action on your part. How would Google go about connecting your phone to your Google account? It's unavoidable that your phone will be connected to your iTunes account.


Amazon is one company. iAds is giving access to your data to multiple companies. Not to mention, don't you think the apps, music, movies, books, etc you buy tell an awful lot about you?