or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple faces antitrust investigation over iOS advertising restrictions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple faces antitrust investigation over iOS advertising restrictions - Page 5

post #161 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryAI View Post

Legal monopolies can be granted by law, such as cable companies, or power companies, but those laws also directly regulate that kind of monopoly. My point is monopolies are illegal, but I should have qualified it that the government can grant one in the public interest. Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not

Sanctioned monopolies are just an example of legal monopolies. Other monopolies are not in and of themselves illegal.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #162 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

So whatever words are used in the Sherman Act, I learned that monopolies themselves are not the thing which was made illegal. Abuse of monopoly power (or better yet, market power) is. That's the key. A company can have all the power in the world, so long as they don't abuse it.

See, that is the thing.

I now have the impression that certain monopolies are indeed illegal, no matter what they actually do or don't do, if they were formed in a certain manner.

From the Wiki article:

"A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:[17]

(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "

In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. That surprised me, and if my reading is correct, it seems to also be a surprise to you.
post #163 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, we don't agree. In fact, I'd have to say that your reply is utterly misrepresentative, once again.

Wait a minute. In your last post, you said Apple owns certain of the information under discussion. Do you again maintain that instead, they own all of it?

I think we agree that Apple seeks to prevent dissemination of information that they do not own. Are you saying otherwise?

do we not agree about the owner of that information? That is what I was talking about.
post #164 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I think that if the widget manufacturer were to buy up all producers of raw materials, and refuse to sell raw materials to widget competitors, then their widget monopoly would violate the Clayton act. But if they made the best widget, and thereby gained their monopoly, no violation would exist.

The Clayton Act seems to be directed towards monopoly formation, making certain monopolies illegal, depending upon how they were formed.

But I'll gladly accept corrections and deeper insights.

This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.
post #165 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Agree completely. Antitrust law is a bitch. Arguing from the Sherman and Clayton acts is not going to enlighten things much. The case law is probably more important then the original legislation. Especially after the courts shifted during the Reagan era and the focus moved from 'how much real competition is there?' to 'did it harm the consumer?'.

Anyway, I begin to digress.

Digress more. Please.
post #166 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Nope. We are not talking about a manufacturer in this context. Apple is not the manufacturer here - the devs are the manufacturers.

But lets go with your example. If Coke had the dominant beverage distribution company, and refused to supply stores that also sell a competitor's beverage in store-owned coolers, the analogy would be vastly better, albeit still very imperfect.

The situation you describe is not in any way analogous to iPhone/mobile advertising.
post #167 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryAI View Post

Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not

Not true. Only certain monopolies are illegal, and an express grant of authority is unnecessary.
post #168 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryAI View Post

This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.


I don't think that there is any current allegation that Apple has a smartphone monopoly. I think the question is irrelevant. That is not the market in question.
post #169 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryAI View Post

Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not

I believe you are wrong but I am too tired now to tell you why. Read Dr Millmoss, most of what I would say is in there in bits and pieces.
post #170 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Huh? Isn't that what I said? Monopolies are not illegal. Abusive Monopolies are illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. I wasn't sure, since you also seemed to imply that monopolies could be seen to be illegal just for their existence. The clarification I was adding is that abuse is the critical ingredient.

I interpreted the two of you to be saying the same thing. Stop fighting.
post #171 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Wait a minute. In your last post, you said Apple owns certain of the information under discussion. Do you again maintain that instead, they own all of it?

I think we agree that Apple seeks to prevent dissemination of information that they do not own. Are you saying otherwise?

do we not agree about the owner of that information? That is what I was talking about.

No, we don't agree about anything since I don't accept your characterization of the situation.

The only important point in this discussion is that Google, a mobile OS and device company, wishes to use AdMob ads as a trojan horse to gain intelligence concerning a competitor's platform. The competitor, Apple, has said no, you can wheel the horse through the gates, toss pamphlets out of it, put a sign on the side of it, but we aren't going to let you out to run around the city looking for state secrets that you can send home.
post #172 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I interpreted the two of you to be saying the same thing. Stop fighting.



We aren't. Actually, we aren't even really disagreeing. Just some miscommunication.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #173 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, we don't agree about anything since I don't accept your characterization of the situation.

The only important point in this discussion is that Google, a mobile OS and device company, wishes to use AdMob ads as a trojan horse to gain intelligence concerning a competitor's platform. The competitor, Apple, has said no, you can wheel the horse through the gates, toss pamphlets out of it, put a sign on the side of it, but we aren't going to let you out to run around the city looking for state secrets that you can send home.

Thing is, at lot of people think the problem with the new iOS developer terms in question is either a privacy issue or restraint-of-trade issue when it's really a trade secrets issue. Privacy is the fig leaf that Apple hides behind, while Google has chosen antitrust.
post #174 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Correct. That is why:

1. Nobody claims that Apple is in a monopoly position in the phone market.
2. Having a monopoly position in the phone market is totally irrelevant to the situation.

You are totally wrong. What is the antitrust investigation? That Apple has a monopoly on its own hardware? You make no sense.

Apple has a device which occupies a tiny sliver of the global phone market. It is their device so they can decide what software runs on it. Apple has little influence over the entire mobile phone market. Apple's restrictions on its phone, has zero effect on other phone makers. Again, apple has a tiny sliver of the global phone market. If you do not like Apple's devices, there are many others to choose from which have a larger marketshare.

So, yes, this has everything to do with monopoly position in the market. Google fan boys just do not like to hear they pissed away 750 million.
post #175 of 313
Blah blah blah Cry More AdMob blah blah blah.

Wait a minute AdMob is google.
post #176 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Thing is, at lot of people think the problem with the new iOS developer terms in question is either a privacy issue or restraint-of-trade issue when it's really a trade secrets issue. Privacy is the fig leaf that Apple hides behind, while Google has chosen antitrust.

Well, it does include some privacy protection, in addition to protecting trade secrets. However, I'd like to see them go further and require a specific protocol for advertisers to request permission, and users to grant it, as well as a system wide setting that, if set to "No, don't allow this." overrides any specific grants of permission.

A grant of permission should not happen through a simple modal dialog thrown up at app launch. This too easily results in accidental grants of permission as users trying to get something done just tap anywhere to get rid of the dialog. The request should have to be made with an explanation of exactly what information will be sent if permission is granted, and a confirmation required.

I would say that it's a first step in the right direction, but that Apple can and should do more to protect and give users better control over privacy. (On both iOS and Mac OS, although the latter is much more complicated.) However, just stopping Google from raiding iPhones for data is a good thing since they are the most egregious abusers of digital privacy on the planet.

This will become a much bigger issue in the coming years, and with Google squarely positioned on the wrong side, taking what really is the moral high ground here would be both an instance of doing the right thing, as well as a significant marketing advantage. Apple should definitely get out front of and push privacy protection, just as they are pushing HTML5 adoption. It's the right thing to do, and it will also be good business.
post #177 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I think that if the widget manufacturer were to buy up all producers of raw materials, and refuse to sell raw materials to widget competitors, then their widget monopoly would violate the Clayton act. But if they made the best widget, and thereby gained their monopoly, no violation would exist.

The Clayton Act seems to be directed towards monopoly formation, making certain monopolies illegal, depending upon how they were formed.

But I'll gladly accept corrections and deeper insights.

From what I know, I think that's about right. You could continue to make perfect widgets and dominate the market that way, but if for example you began telling your suppliers that they had to deal with you only and not with your competitors, then you'd run afoul of the law. I think some of the proof of this is essentially self-evident. If you could get away with forcing exclusive dealing arrangements, then market/monopoly power and the abuse of it is made apparent. In a free and fair market, the suppliers would be able to tell you to go f- yourself if you tried to pull this kind of stunt.

Incidentally, this is essentially what Microsoft was doing with the CPU-tax. They made it automatically unprofitable for anyone to compete with them on the PC hardware platform. Because of their power in the market, this was an offer the OEMs could not refuse. So what penalty did Microsoft suffer? They had to sign a consent decree that said that they wouldn't do it again. So they moved on to equally nasty and illegal means to penalize uncooperative OEMs. The stuff of legend.

Anyhow, this is why I advise folks who are so up in arms about the FTC or DoJ looking into potential antitrust violations at Apple to take a long, cold shower. This is so far from being meaningful to Apple's business, it's not even funny.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #178 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryAI View Post

This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.

I think we're going to have to disagree here. The law really doesn't care about monopolies per se, it cares about abuse of the power they have. The definitions of the terms are the real problem here. The dictionary is going to tell you that a monopoly is defined as the exclusive control of a market. That's a state that rarely occurs. Abuse of monopoly power can occur at a much lower threshold of influence. Which is a good thing, because otherwise the laws would be rendered essentially meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I interpreted the two of you to be saying the same thing. Stop fighting.

Maybe so, but I didn't see it as fighting. I'd say this has been an unusually civil discussion.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #179 of 313
I love how Steve presented iAds as a benefit to consumers. Something that they wanted to click on. Since the web is cluttered with ads the new Safari now has the Reader which can essentially block ads in certain cases, this appears to be two pronged offensive against Google. On one hand they serve quality experience ads, that people want, within apps and on the other hand offer a way to remove Google's ads from web pages and also exclude them from the iOS.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #180 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Nope. We are not talking about a manufacturer in this context. Apple is not the manufacturer here - the devs are the manufacturers.

But lets go with your example. If Coke had the dominant beverage distribution company, and refused to supply stores that also sell a competitor's beverage in store-owned coolers, the analogy would be vastly better, albeit still very imperfect.

Dude, I know; obviously you don't get all the subtle layers to some of these analogies. Whatever way you want to use any or all of these analogies, it's not that difficult...

It doesn't matter WHO the manufacturers are, Apple can basically stock its OWN vending machines, its OWN brick and mortar stores, its OWN virtual stores, its OWN hardware and its OWN platforms with ANYTHING it wants to. Apple owns the store AND the vending machine. They are not, however, trying to dictate someone else's store.

You are right that Coke might have a problem if they refused to supply other peoples' stores that stocked a competing beverage -- this is what MS did with Windows. (Although, restaurants seem to have exclusive deals, so anyhow.)

But you are still quite backward on this. It's APPLE'S OWN STORE / PLATFORM. If Coke had stores, they could refuse to stock Pepsi in them. So, must MS put Apple stuff in its stores (both of them [edit: it looks like 3 now])? Oh no, Radio Shack has a "monopoly" over its own stores -- better tell all the electrical goods producers to get in line to make sure their products are represented equally in all Radio Shack stores; the multinational tech companies better revolt against the oppressive overlord Radio Shack. Oh, wait a minute, the manufacturers can sell their products through Amazon, Walt Mart, Best Buy, or a million other places. It's irrelevant if no-one wants to patronize those other places due to the lax customer care and lack of vision. If consumers all flock to Radio Shack instead, there might be a good reason for it. Does it make a difference if Radio Shack makes good decisions and suddenly becomes a retail sensation overnight, with world's most profitable stores per square foot?

Devs also have somewhere else to go. If, for example, they insist on using Flash to "develop" apps, then there are countless places they can go -- why, didn't you know, Flash is welcomed everywhere as the most essential ingredient of the real internet. Flash developers haven't become dependent on Apple only to have Apple pull the rug out from under them. In fact, by a dev's insistence upon developing in Flash or using Admob, it signals they are using a one size-fits-all approach that was primarily developed for NON-Apple products. It signals that they are in it for the money and not to make a great app for the consumer; it signals that they obviously have somewhere else to sell their apps or to make money (such as through Google ads on their own websites -- surely they will get more eyes on their own websites than on that awful Apple app store that everyone despises). Devs can even sell their products from their own personal websites and still reach the same global market that Apple reaches -- Safari doesn't block the sites! But I guess they figure that Apple does them a service with the app store.

Sure, Apple cannot (probably) dictate to Best Buy to drop Dell products if Best Buy wants to carry Macs. That's an abusive MS tactic -- upon the "partners" that were dependent on MS. On the other hand, Apple doesn't have to sell Macs in Best Buy at all. Best Buy is not dependent on selling Macs in the same way that Dell and Acer are dependent on having Windows on most of their machines. Apple has not got that kind of hold over the computer industry

So, I take it that you think every Mom & Pop store should carry anything and everything the local protection racket (Google) comes around and tells them to carry? What happened to all this freedom Apple critics are supposedly in favor of? Last time I checked, store owners could carry whatever the heck they wanted to carry. If they didn't like the way a supplier did business, they switched suppliers. Google claims the whole internet as its private market and it wants to bully Apple for staking out its own little corner [paraphrased from an article I just read but can't find right now].

Hey, I just read another article in which Adobe announces they think Flash will be on some 200+ million mobile devices by 2012. Obviously, the Apple game isn't the only game in town. Even if it were, Apple is not holding a gun to anyone's head -- devs come because it is profitable and has great terms and Apple knows what it is doing.
post #181 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

... Hey, I just read another article in which Adobe announces they think Flash will be on some 200+ million mobile devices by 2012. ...

I think someone at Adobe got confused regarding the difference between flash, the LED kind, and Flash, the internet millstone and hackers friend.
post #182 of 313
Interesting these comparisons to Coke and Pepsi.

Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #183 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Interesting these comparisons to Coke and Pepsi.

Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!

Yes, and is it down to the proprietor/franchisee/ "owner" of each individual Taco Bell establishment to make a decision on what soft drinks he sells, or is it part of the franchise license, even though he owns the property? Should the proprietor be able to make his own rules on his own property, or is this decision made for the whole chain as a condition of being able to use the Taco Bell identity?

One could argue that the proprietor that bought the paper cups and napkins and tables and chairs owns these items; therefore he can do whatever he wants to with them. But, does he own the Taco Bell name and everything associated with it? He might want to do something different with them, especially when his customers seem to prefer Coke; but he is using the Taco Bell platform to make his living. Can he jailbreak his restaurant and sideload a few hamburger products that he developed on his barbecue out back, in order to satisfy all his possible clients? He could just leave the platform altogether and open a Chick Fil-a instead (that's Coke isn't it? -- it better be, but I live in Netherlands and I am not sure; but it's from Atlanta, right, so how could it not use Coke? I like Coke, did I say that? I like Apple too).
post #184 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

Unfortunately it isn't that clear-cut as someone else owns this "Target" and its almost as if Target didn't ask the owner of the property if they wanted Best Buy blocked. Does Target have the right to restrict such things if they don't own the property? What if the owner may want those ads displayed?

In this case, I'd say you're right. We don't own iOS. We licence it and Apple owns it. Therefore your analogy holds as the software platform IS Apple's and they do have the rights to restrict competitors from advertising on their OS. Does this create anti-competitive results? Maybe, but that doesn't circumvent Apple's rights does it?

No, not even close to creating anti-trust (which is what I think you mean) situation. It's totally legal to have a monopoly, as long as competition is allowed to try. AdMob can't argue Apple is locking them out of advertising... they can always go back to what they were doing before the iPhone... sending bulk mail, smoke signals, engraved pencils, sucking, etc.
post #185 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Interesting these comparisons to Coke and Pepsi.

Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!

Taco Bell does not have a taco monopoly, only chalupas I think.

I think you were making a joke, but there are a lot of people with quasi-religious views about economics and I guess their priests are telling them that monopolies are some kind of evil spirit out to steal their livestock and children in the middle of the night. It's merely hyperventilation caused by acute cases of poor education. It's disease that affects all groups, in fact I'm guessing that the DOJ is home to the outbreak monkey.
post #186 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

Taco Bell does not have a taco monopoly, only chalupas I think.

I think you were making a joke, but there are a lot of people with quasi-religious views about economics and I guess their priests are telling them that monopolies are some kind of evil spirit out to steal their livestock and children in the middle of the night. It's merely hyperventilation caused by acute cases of poor education. It's disease that affects all groups, in fact I'm guessing that the DOJ is home to the outbreak monkey.

They sure don't have a monopoly on bad Mexican food.

Partly a joke, but the main point wasn't. Coca-Cola doesn't have a prayer of selling their products in any Taco Bell restaurant, because Taco Bell's parent company has an exclusive contract with Pepsico -- for all eternity, I believe. Antitrust violation or no? No, not so long as the soft drink market remains competitive and the other companies have an equal shot at making similar deals with other restaurants.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #187 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

Dude, I know; obviously you don't get all the subtle layers to some of these analogies. Whatever way you want to use any or all of these analogies, it's not that difficult...

It doesn't matter WHO the manufacturers are, Apple can basically stock its OWN vending machines, its OWN brick and mortar stores, its OWN virtual stores, its OWN hardware and its OWN platforms with ANYTHING it wants to. Apple owns the store AND the vending machine. They are not, however, trying to dictate someone else's store.

You are right that Coke might have a problem if they refused to supply other peoples' stores that stocked a competing beverage -- this is what MS did with Windows. (Although, restaurants seem to have exclusive deals, so anyhow.)

But you are still quite backward on this. It's APPLE'S OWN STORE / PLATFORM. If Coke had stores, they could refuse to stock Pepsi in them. So, must MS put Apple stuff in its stores (both of them [edit: it looks like 3 now])? Oh no, Radio Shack has a "monopoly" over its own stores -- better tell all the electrical goods producers to get in line to make sure their products are represented equally in all Radio Shack stores; the multinational tech companies better revolt against the oppressive overlord Radio Shack. Oh, wait a minute, the manufacturers can sell their products through Amazon, Walt Mart, Best Buy, or a million other places. It's irrelevant if no-one wants to patronize those other places due to the lax customer care and lack of vision. If consumers all flock to Radio Shack instead, there might be a good reason for it. Does it make a difference if Radio Shack makes good decisions and suddenly becomes a retail sensation overnight, with world's most profitable stores per square foot?

Devs also have somewhere else to go. If, for example, they insist on using Flash to "develop" apps, then there are countless places they can go -- why, didn't you know, Flash is welcomed everywhere as the most essential ingredient of the real internet. Flash developers haven't become dependent on Apple only to have Apple pull the rug out from under them. In fact, by a dev's insistence upon developing in Flash or using Admob, it signals they are using a one size-fits-all approach that was primarily developed for NON-Apple products. It signals that they are in it for the money and not to make a great app for the consumer; it signals that they obviously have somewhere else to sell their apps or to make money (such as through Google ads on their own websites -- surely they will get more eyes on their own websites than on that awful Apple app store that everyone despises). Devs can even sell their products from their own personal websites and still reach the same global market that Apple reaches -- Safari doesn't block the sites! But I guess they figure that Apple does them a service with the app store.

Sure, Apple cannot (probably) dictate to Best Buy to drop Dell products if Best Buy wants to carry Macs. That's an abusive MS tactic -- upon the "partners" that were dependent on MS. On the other hand, Apple doesn't have to sell Macs in Best Buy at all. Best Buy is not dependent on selling Macs in the same way that Dell and Acer are dependent on having Windows on most of their machines. Apple has not got that kind of hold over the computer industry

So, I take it that you think every Mom & Pop store should carry anything and everything the local protection racket (Google) comes around and tells them to carry? What happened to all this freedom Apple critics are supposedly in favor of? Last time I checked, store owners could carry whatever the heck they wanted to carry. If they didn't like the way a supplier did business, they switched suppliers. Google claims the whole internet as its private market and it wants to bully Apple for staking out its own little corner [paraphrased from an article I just read but can't find right now].

Hey, I just read another article in which Adobe announces they think Flash will be on some 200+ million mobile devices by 2012. Obviously, the Apple game isn't the only game in town. Even if it were, Apple is not holding a gun to anyone's head -- devs come because it is profitable and has great terms and Apple knows what it is doing.

Thanks for providing the complete spank and debunk on this. However you missed an opportunity for some key anti-Google remarks ... uppity-websites posing as hardware entrepreneurs are harmful for consumers. Worse... they are the biggest cowardly scumbag losers on the planet for their blatant cheesy knock-off of the iPhone. They should be ashamed of their pathetic shallow existence, worse is their non-stop instigating of the DOJ because they are mad at Apple for not giving them everything.

Apple never pulled this kinda junk with Microsoft (their lawsuit was long going but very specific) and I think that speaks huge volumes about the differences in corporate cultures and quality of product offerings. I feel a combination of pity and disdain for those fooled by a few cheesy 'web peanuts', into trusting a sleazy telemarketer.
post #188 of 313
Do you understand the concept of an update to an existing App?

Such as Google recently updating the maps application for Android users across more countries.

Where's the update for the EXISTING Google Maps App on iPhones.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #189 of 313
Would you please provide a link proving the veracity of this statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

If you see an iPhone app supported by Admob ads, they will not snoop.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #190 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

They sure don't have a monopoly on bad Mexican food.

Partly a joke, but the main point wasn't. Coca-Cola doesn't have a prayer of selling their products in any Taco Bell restaurant, because Taco Bell's parent company has an exclusive contract with Pepsico -- for all eternity, I believe. Antitrust violation or no? No, not so long as the soft drink market remains competitive and the other companies have an equal shot at making similar deals with other restaurants.

Remember Taco Bell can still refuse to business with Coke even if they have a 100% share of the bad Mexican food. Antitrust doesn't happen just beacuse of marketshare, a company can have a legal monopoly if their competition is merely pathetic... this is the AdMob situation. Google's losing money on a bad purchase, so they are whining.

Apple was either very fortunate in Google souring the deal (actually AdMob broke their contract in negotiations with Apple to prematurely start talks with Google), or very wise in keeping their interest up and forcing Google to pay top-dollar for a company dead-ended without a sweetheart iPhone deal. It's clear from past public behavior that AdMob is run by disgusting pigs with little business integrity, I think they are in good company with Poodle.

I also wonder if Schmidt's desire for a dinner request was satiated by coffee with Jobs at Starbucks Palo Alto? "No date, pizza-face, only coffee".

And for the record sir, I would like to point out that even the dirtiest Taco Bell is a 5 star restaurant compared to the filth & horror of the prison grade food and conditions at Del Taco.
post #191 of 313
So there's a big corporation that actually wants to protect my personal data rather than selling it off. I am all for it even if it will become a monopoly.
post #192 of 313
Isn't Android "taking over" from iOS with phenomenal growth, the Android Market is also growing with tens thousands of applications including those, such as Pull my Finger which was originally banned from Apple's App store?

If Apple pulls iAd will the FTC have to revisit Google's acquisition of AdMob given that iAd was used as an example of "open" competition.

I really hope Googles CLOSED and HIDDEN practices are brought out in the open by any enquiry.

Androids explosive growth PROVES that Apple has NO INFLUENCE over competition in the smartphone sector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

You forget the mobile app market. The App Store dominates. Billions and billions served. Nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple? Not yet, but it can be alleged (in fact it IS being alleged) that is what Apple is aiming for, in order to hobble hardware and OS competition.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #193 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

And for the record sir, I would like to point out that even the dirtiest Taco Bell is a 5 star restaurant compared to the filth & horror of the prison grade food and conditions at Del Taco.

Distinction noted. You have also proven that the Bad Mexican Food market is competitive.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #194 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

So Apple are now Microsoft from ten years ago, and their pathetic war with Google goes up another gear. I wish they'd just grow up and stop acting like spoilt little children.

Hey Apple, open = good, closed = bad.

lack of choice = bad

If you don't want a closed, managed ecosystem don't buy an iPhone! It's not like Apple is removing choice from you by offering the iPhone.

The only "spoiled little children" are the ones like yourself that are totally intolerant of someone like Apple offering something that doesn't fit your narrow definition of good.

Talk about irony
post #195 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Do you understand the concept of an update to an existing App?

Such as Google recently updating the maps application for Android users across more countries.

Where's the update for the EXISTING Google Maps App on iPhones.

Do you ever even read your own posts to see how little sense they make?

Do you understand that the Apple Maps is a first party app on the iPhone and that google could no more access and update it than you could? Do you understand that the Apple iPhone Maps app is not meant to do real time, turn by turn navigation? Do you understand how stupid it is to then suggest it is google's fault for not updating the Apple iPhone Maps app to support turn by turn navigation? It is Apple's app using Googles service for the maps tiles. Even if it was a third party, google app (which it isn't) they would have to have those enhancements approved-fat chance.

Think before you write.

This is almost a dumb as your assertion that it was Skype's fault for Apple banning VOIP over 3G (no sorry, that even though Apple barred this, it was Skype's fault for not dong it anyway). Almost, but not quite. BTW, have you used the newest Skype? Like butter!

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #196 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I hope that you realize that Apple is leaving the door wide open for "an outside company [to have] the right to see personal information of a device for which they do not make".

Indeed, any sleazy ad agency can see your personal information on your iPhone. Apple does NOT prohibit that, unless the agency is owned by a hardware or OS company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Every single iAd will snoop on your behaviour in using the app. That is the whole point. If you see an iPhone app supported by Admob ads, they will not snoop. But every iAd is allowed to snoop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

But the OP seemed to think that Apple was prohibiting snooping, and that was the reason the OP was glad that Apple is hobbling its competitors.

That is not the case. The level of snooping will remain unchanged. Apple's new rule says that certain companies are welcome to snoop (within the rules) but that other companies are prohibited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I understand that it is a permission based system. Given that caveat, I stand by every one of my original statements. AdMob and others who are affiliated with certain hardware or OS companies cannot collect such information. Everybody else can, including Apple.

Weasel words. "Given the caveat that the facts renders my argument void, I stand by my original alarmist statements".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I have heard nothing to indicate that Google will refuse to sell Android apps that include iAds.

nice deflection. I have heard nothing to indicate that Google will support the sale iAds on Android apps.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #197 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

If the question were whether or not advertising is "a good thing for some consumers", you would have a point.

But given that the question was different from that, I don't think the point answers it.

perhaps you ought to decide what your position is. you are arguing both sides of the coin when it suits you.

You argue that the changes to iOS's t&c's are bad for AdMob and consumers because it restricts competition, however you also say that people will prefer apps with AdMob because their privacy is protected.

In either case, you indicate that Apple is in the wrong. Yet you both conveniently ignore (when it suits you) that it is Apple's decision to protect the privacy of customers by requiring they opt-in to information gathering or paint it as "privacy invasion by choice".
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #198 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

You forget the mobile app market. The App Store dominates. Billions and billions served. Nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple? Not yet, but it can be alleged (in fact it IS being alleged) that is what Apple is aiming for, in order to hobble hardware and OS competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Yes. And if Apple had no market power in the mobile app market, nobody would care that it was shutting out competitors in a different market.

But they do. So the regulators care.

You forget that Apple only has power over the Apple mobile app market. They are not forcing people in the wider mobile app market to do anything whatsoever.

http://www.china.org.cn/business/201...t_19731538.htm

Quote:
Apple grabbed nearly one third of the $4.2 billion spent on mobile applications in 2009, according to figures from Gartner, a US technology research firm.

if apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones (28%), then they don't have a monopoly of mobile applications (less than one-third).

better find a new angle.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #199 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Just so you know, "closed" is not a word that is typically used to describe Google, because as the word is commonly used, it is inapplicable to Google.

Yes, all the Google shills are running around telling everyone how open Google is. But please tell me how I can gain access to their search algorithms. Tell me how I can duplicate their AdMob functionality with the information that you're claiming is public.

Google is largely closed, but does a good job of PRETENDING to be open. The only exception is Android, but even that is far more closed than they let on. Do you think they'd let Apple install Safari on Android? Not a chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Yes. That is correct. That is the case for every app on the iPhone that snoops on you, including iAds. I applaud that.

But the OP seemed to think that Apple was prohibiting snooping, and that was the reason the OP was glad that Apple is hobbling its competitors.

That is not the case. The level of snooping will remain unchanged. Apple's new rule says that certain companies are welcome to snoop (within the rules) but that other companies are prohibited.

That is like almost everything you post - either 100% false or incredibly misleading.

Apple's policy is that snooping requires explicit opt-in -- which differs from everyone else out there. They're also saying that if Google advertises on iOS, they can't snoop even with opt-in. That's also a dramatic improvement in privacy compared to the rest of the industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Nothing like an assertion on historical facts that, by it's nature, cannot be proven or disproven. But, frankly, I think the iPhone would have done just as well as it has without these services from Google.

It's a moot point. Google's business plan requires them to be everywhere. It would be useless to have Google search only on some platforms. It is Google's nature which drove them to put YouTube, etc onto iOS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Yes. And if Apple had no market power in the mobile app market, nobody would care that it was shutting out competitors in a different market.

But they do. So the regulators care.

First, when have the courts ever ruled that the 'mobile app market' is a relevant market? More importantly, Apple has no monopoly CONTROL of that market. Something like 80% of smart phones (and 97% of all phones) do NOT use iOS - so 80% of smart phone customers are not controlled in any way by Apple. The fact that their platform is so bad that most of them don't download apps has nothing to do with Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

See, that is the thing.

I now have the impression that certain monopolies are indeed illegal, no matter what they actually do or don't do, if they were formed in a certain manner.

From the Wiki article:

"A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:[17]

(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "

In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. That surprised me, and if my reading is correct, it seems to also be a surprise to you.

That's not what it says at all. It says that WILLFUL acquisition and maintenance of power which can not be explained by superior product, business acumen, or historic accident is suspect. That is, if you acquire and maintain a monopoly by a method that is understandable (business acumen, historic accident, superior product, etc), it's OK. It only becomes suspect if you're doing something to build and maintain a monopoly which falls outside of normal good business practices.

Apple has clearly attained its position by offering a better product - so is not covered by that clause.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #200 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You could be right, Android being a technologically inferior platform, Apple might not be able to create a compelling user experience with ads there.

iAds will not run on Android, because it is intended to support iPhone developer to develop iPhone apps, not for Android developer to develop Android apps.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple faces antitrust investigation over iOS advertising restrictions