Apple faces antitrust investigation over iOS advertising restrictions - Page 6

That would be incorrect, sir. Having a monopoly position is completely relevant to the situation. It is one of the three major tenants of anti-competition law. From the 'pedia:

Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:

* prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business.
* banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position.
* supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures.

The FTC and DOJ will certainly look at (1) and (2) when assessing whether Apple's moves are legally afoul of anti-competition law. I seriously doubt Apple comes anywhere near said legal thresholds.

"David Barnard on the Apple/Google Mobile Ad Feud ★
Really smart take from David Barnard:

When you use Google search and other Google products, they collect a tremendous amount of information and use that information to customize and better serve the ads that are the core of their business. Many users don’t even realize this is happening, others are comfortable with it and have some level of trust for Google’s intent in using that data.

Well, Apple doesn’t trust the benevolence of Google, developers, and other third parties involved in the iOS platform. Apple wants to control the flow of user information.

And:

The thing is, Apple is a hardware company, that’s where they have and will continue to make their money. Google, Facebook, and others trade in information. The more detailed and specific, the more valuable that information. For Apple, the better the overall experience of the device, the more valuable that device becomes. They can throttle ad targeting and the specificity of 3rd party analytics according to the taste of users. Trusting 3rd parties to do so would be incredibly foolish, and Apple seems to have just recently figured that out."


The full article in the link provides some insight into mobile advertising by Admob and Google and others, creepy.

The problem with the premise of the first quote is that if "Apple doesnt trust the benevolence of Google, developers, and other third parties involved in the iOS platform" then they wouldn't allow anyone to collect and analyze this information. The fact is, they only bar Google from doing so and will be doing it themselves. It has nothing to do with wanting to protect that info from others and from being analyzed. At best, it is to protect it from Google. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but don't try to frame it as protecting us from having our data analyzed. That is just dishonest or naive (not you, but David Barnard who the quote is from).

Another quote from Gruber on the same issue:
"Theres no question its a dick move on Apples part."

He maintains that he feels it is google's fault for starting the war with Apple by creating Android, but he at least recognizes a dick move when he see one. He is a major champion for Apple but doesn't let that completely blind him. Others could learn from that.

Of course they would. One of the problems with their app market is the lack of oversight. They would have no reason at all to bar Safari from Android. Just as the allow Opera or Dolphin.


OMG! Kettle, meet Pot.


Given the opt-in is required, how does keeping one player out equate to a "dramatic improvement". That's like saying getting rid of a few coal burning plants, but allowing the others to increase the emissions to compensate, would be a dramatic improvement in air quality. It wouldn't.


Since it was Apple that put the YouTube and Maps apps in iOS and not google, this isn't really a good example for you to use to prove Google's plans.


Absolutely and obviously true. The other part was the maintenance of that position. Again, they are using their superior product to maintain that position. They are also using other tactics to maintain and improve their position. If and when the truly become dominant, which I believe the could, then those tactics will be examined. Perhaps that is what the FTC and DoJ are invetigating-how much power do they have in the industry.

I think it goes a little deeper, and I think Apple has woken up to what data can be collected and passed on. In the same article is a paragraph about how Apple would naturally feel they need to protect their device user's data, if Apple is presenting a "walled garden" app store as a good thing.

I certainly understand that whoever is serving the ads would want to know what ads I find interesting enough to click on, and what I go on to buy. They certainly should know some of my product preferences in order to serve ads to me more effectively.

However, I don't really want them to know what Apps I use and how long I use them, etc. If I am in the Times app, I don't want Google to know what stories I read, etc. It sounds like Google can get an awful lot of info from app developers, and if that is all correlated, then they know exactly how I spend the whole of each day. I don't like the sound of that.

This type of stat is about the usage of apps, not my sales product preferences. It sounds like this will now be off by default. I have to opt into sharing this kind of info, just like I have to opt into sharing my location.

Admob can certainly continue to collect the normal basic ad stats of what I click on and buy. But they can't take any and all info from the app. Why should admob have it? It's not for giving me better ads -- it's for Google's trade in personal information, pure and simple -- thinking otherwise is naive.

If you opt into certain social networks, then I can see that you might want to share more info. Developers are not prohibited from collecting the additional data, if it is clear to the user what is happening. However, Admob/Google is excluded, as you note. Why? not just because Apple are making a dick move, but because the info will be used to directly compete with Apple.

As the article says, Apple are in the business of providing the best user experience; why give the keys to that away to Google? Why not just give Google access to Apple's customer care database and be done with it?

On what planet is it "your" cellphone?

Apple makes it, updates it, and keeps it turned on. If Apple wants to, they can shut you down and remotely wipe your phone. Sure, you could then sue them, if that goes anywhere and if you can afford it, but that doesn't take the control away from Apple...

You "buy" it at a discount, and then spend a minimum of 2 years fulfilling an expensive contract. If at any point you decide not to pay, what happens? No more iPhone service.

It's not even remotely close to being "yours".

Personally, I think Apple could face scrutiny from the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and possibly European Commission antitrust authorities for the following reasons:

1) The banning of Adobe Flash from iOS. They want to know if it was done for technical reasons or if it was done for political reasons.

2) The restrictions on the type of programming tools used to create applications for iOS, as stated in the iOS SDK documents.

3) The restrictions on creating display ads for iOS.

4) Whether the iTunes Store exerts too much influence on the pricing of music.

5) Whether the iBookstore could do the same for electronic books.

Points #1 to #3 could be in possible violation of aspects of the 1890 Sherman and 1914 Clayton Antitrust Acts. And the European Commission may ask the same questions given that Apple products are very popular in Europe.

G*d help Apple if the EC starts any legal action against the company, given how persistent the EC were in going after Microsoft over Windows Media Player in Windows XP/Vista and the brower choice in Windows Vista/7. Apple could be tied up in European legal courts for a half-decade or more.

1 & 2 are the same issue, and, as has been pointed out countless times on these forums, has been standard practice in the game console business, where there is much less competition, for ages. So Apple isn't doing anything new here at all, just following the example of another industry which has been allowed to exist as is for a considerable time. There's nothing special about Apple's position or the smartphone market that ought to require stricter scrutiny.


Red Herring. The restrictions are on collecting analytics data, and disallowing said collection by a competitor isn't irregular in any way.


Clearly they don't or Amazon wouldn't be colluding with record labels to fix prices and increase their own market control.


Since iBooks allows publishers to set their prices, this accusation has no foundation at all.

Let's stop pretending that it's not the case, when it comes to privacy, that Google is public enemy number one. So anything that interferes with Google's desire to harvest personal data is a good thing, regardless of the reasons behind it, and doing so is absolutely good for consumers.

Let's also stop pretending that at least part of Google's reason for grabbing AdMob was exactly so they could harvest personal information from iPhone users. And not only is this information valuable to them in their efforts to know everything about everyone, but it's also invaluable in their efforts to take control of the mobile computing industry.

Forcing Apple to allow Google to collect Apple's trade secrets on the iOS platform is like telling Disney that they have to allow Six Flags Great Adventure to conduct detailed market research and customer surveillance inside Disney World.

Let's furthermore stop pretending that Google/AdMob give a damn about what's good for consumers. Google is one of the most unethical companies on the planet, with no respect for privacy, intellectual property, or the law in general. Their only interest in consumers is to utterly exploit them for their own gain. The hypocrisy of Google/AdMob knows no bounds. The potential negative effects of allowing them to do whatever they want are unbounded as well.

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 and publicly release data that embarrasses Apple.

Let's also stop pretending that at least part of Apple's reason for grabbing Quattro was exactly so they could harvest personal information from iPhone users. Which is also invaluable in their efforts to take control of the mobile computing industry. (Since they gain at least the same level of data that AdMob/Google would, it would be foolish to even try to pretend otherwise).

Let's further stop pretending blocking AdMob/Google is in anyway privacy driven. Let's stop pretending it isn't simply about cock blocking the competition.

As I posted earlier, it's all about trade secrets/market intelligence. Google wants access to iOS's market intelligence, Apple refuses to give it. Privacy is just Apple's chosen fig leaf. Google picked antitrust. Apple will win this because the feds will be very, very reluctant to force a company to divulge trade secrets (to its direct competitor!). And on top of that, Apple's antitrust lawyers had advised Apple to adopt a proactive set up that would maintain a healthy amount of competition in mobile ads. i.e. indies can get analytics so they are on a level playing field against iAds. Antitrust policy doesn't really care if Google does well in this market, they only care that there is enough competition. I keep saying it over and over, Apple's antitrust lawyers are very, very good. And it appears that Jobs, to his credit, listens to them.

Gruber, occasionally misses the main issue behind a controversy. A dick move by Apple? Exactly what should Apple do then? Turn over info on iOS user habits to Google who will then use it to enhance Android's competitive position against iOS? Or should Apple be 'fair' to Google and ban all iOS ad servers from gathering analytics and thus give iAds a tremendous advantage over everyone else? Oh, the antitrust watchdogs would love that even more (sarcasm).

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 antitrust watchdogs would have a difficult case. By, instead, exposing this information to any and all (except one), it wouldn't seem to be much of a trade secret defense.

Who is complaining here? It's Google who is afraid. If Google has 90% of the ads market and is invincible, it shouldn't complain because Apple is only a teeny player in this market. Then why is it whining and wants the government to go after a tiny competitor?

Oh, now I know. Google's business model is just selling ads. It wants to hijack every piece of the web real estate with its freebies so that it can mine data about people's privacy and sells them to the highest bidder. It can do this because 90% of its profits is from ads. It pisses off Apple with its treachery and now Apple is coming after it with a vengeance with its iAd. If Apple can steal 3040% of the ads bonanza and Microsoft with another 3040%, Google will be in deep trouble. Now Google is crying like a little girl hoping daddy Obama will come to its rescue.

I think the point must be that they don't have to invoke any trade secrets defense, since it's perfectly within Apple's rights to decide with whom they will share (or sell) this information. To partners, yes. To competitors, no. I think it's time to stop pretending that this is in any way weird, dangerous or illegal. The argument that Apple controls some relevant market and must behave in any way other than in their best business interests, is a pure flight of fancy.

Well, except that, in fact, it is "worse" to have Google doing it, both from the perspectives of consumers and Apple. Google is public enemy number one when it come to consumer privacy, and completely unethical when it comes to business. Anything that gets in their way is good for consumers, and Apple is entirely justified to stop intelligence gathering by a direct competitor.


1. Because its business model is based on creating great user experiences and not on harvesting personal data, Apple, even if such were their intent (an accusation you have offered absolutely no evidence in support of) it would not represent the same danger to consumers that Google doing so does.

2. I think Apple's attempt to acquire AdMob, and eventual acquisition of Quattro, and roll-out of iAd has as its purpose allowing developers to support themselves financially via ads without having AdMob/Google sifting through every bit of personal and device data they can lay their hands on. All their actions and words speak to this truth, and unless you have evidence to the contrary, you're just, once again, trying to muddy the waters for the sake of your argument.


Let's stop pretending that the issues are as black and white or nefarious as you'd like to paint them. Clearly there are two separate, but complimentary goals here:

1. To give users control of what data advertisers collect about them and their phone. Obviously, the solution is a compromise in that it allows advertisers to collect information with user permission while giving users some control over it.

2. To prevent industrial espionage by Google directed at Apple. This is an entirely legitimate move on Apple's part. You know it is whether you will admit it in writing or not.

I'm not going to argue about the fine points of whether it is Apple or the iOS users who are turning over the data. The actual mechanism of gathering and transmitting the data isn't important, what is important is that this can happen only if Apple allows iOS to execute the code that makes it happen.

I don't see the problem you see with the trade secrets defense. Companies are allowed to share trade secrets. If they choose to share trade secrets with some, that doesn't mean it has to share the secrets with all. Especially with their direct competitors. The antitrust watchdogs are not simple-minded black-and-white kind of people, they'll get it. In antitrust you're dealing with nuances all the time, that's why antitrust is a bitch. Just ask Dr. Millmoss.

There you go again, try to obfuscate the real issue. What they've done is bar analytics by competitors, which is entirely justifiable, and which the "antitrust watchdogs" will, in the end, have no problem with. If they blocked all advertisers, while they themselves cannot help but be exposed to data that can give them an advantage with iAds (whether they use it or not), then the regulators might have had something to look into. In fact, they gave users some degree of control over their own privacy, while doing the absolute minimum necessary to protect themselves. It's quite a measured and fair response by Apple.

EDIT: And Google/AdMob really is showing its true face as a bunch of sniveling dogs.

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.

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.

Well, that might be why they worded it as "competitors" instead of "Google". Your entire argument and the reasoning behind it is simply mistaken

Then I suppose we agree that it might be a weak defense, which fortunately for Apple, won't be needed. Not that Apple could not choose to disclose trade secrets to anyone they wished. It's done all the time, under NDAs.

You need to learn to think in less simplistic terms. There are two classes of competitors here. Advertising competitors and mobile device competitors. There is nothing wrong with choosing to allow access to one class but not the other. In fact, with the first class, they are avoiding doing anything that might be called "unfair competition". With the second class, they are taking necessary steps to protect their business. Apple is being completely fair here while protecting their business interests against industrial espionage.

Industrial espionage? How about, not deliberately sharing their proprietary data with a competitor? That covers the situation quite nicely I believe.

I was all set to post a snarky response to this post until I saw who the author was.

Doc - if anyone should know better, it is you. Many people around here will not get your joke. Instead, they will take your comment at face value, and use it in their posts.

And then you will need to correct them.

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 make money. Apple may be altruistic, but they aren't spending money only for the sake of helping others. Else they would just hand out cash to devs. The data is valuable to Apple as well.

You are right, that another reason certainly was to prevent Google from getting the data. But not for the good of the devs or users. This was done simply for Apple's interests (and they should and are expected do things in their own interest)



Seriously? From you? I am looking at the good and the bad of both sides. You are very honest, and a credit to you, of your disdain for google and your beliefs of their overarching capacity and intentions for evil.

let's stop pretending you are capable or willing to look at other shades, other than the black and white concepts of google = evil and Apple = purity.



Which has nothing to do with the google ban. Talk about muddying the waters, again. This would apply to google (if they were allowed) as much as to any other provider.


Their concerns about industrial espionage were one EVER directed at Flurry. With Jobs current war with Google, you think he wouldn't have mentioned google when talking about the damaging information that actually leaked or that had the potential to be gathered, if that was an actual concern of Apple wrt to google? You might think this, but it is arrogant of you to project that onto Apple's reasoning.

It is to block authorized user data (with consent) from google that would benefit google. Absolutely and no denying this. No one reasonable thinks of this as industrial espionage.

Well, "industrial espionage" is correctly applied in relation to the certain intent of Google/AdMob. Sure, it carries a more negative and dramatic connotation, but there's no point in mincing words.

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.

Dunno about that, but monopolies have market power. They can raise prices without reducing demand. They can bundle other products without reducing demand.

@Tulkas

Since you've gotten to the inevitable point in your argument where you're no longer rational, nor responding to anyone's points, but just repeating what you've said over and over again, there's no longer any point in responding to your points directly.

Suffice it to say, you will spin this as you like, but you are entirely mistaken in your analysis, your arguments and your reasoning.

That is really the heart of the matter.

If Apple is found to have market power in the mobile app retail market, then it cannot do anything it wants to.

One thing it may not be able to do is to try to influence what software may be available in other stores. It has been alleged that the new cross-platform development tool rule is intended to influence what software may become available on competing platforms.

The analysis depends on at least two factors:

Does Apple have market power to influence the mobile app market?
If so, is Apple using that power in an anti-competitive manner?

When faced with hate driven, illogical hyperbole, the conversations do tend to suffer.

Given Apple's recent behavior, I wouldn't hold my breath.

How about the first sentence of the story we are commenting on?

"...Apple... had modified section 3.3.9 of the iOS developer agreement to state that user data can only be obtained ... and only provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."

Accordingly, AdMob supported apps cannot (can no longer?) supply user data.

That is the main point of this entire thread. You are welcome.

Which closed and hidden practices are you referring to?

How do you know about them if they are hidden? Do you have insider information? Are you a mole? Are you just making shit up?

This (your original assertion)is only partially true. First, Google/AdMob already have personal data associated with other data that would allow them to identify a particular user. It would be naive to think they won't find a way to identify and target users based on what they do have and the apps that use them, despite the restrictions placed on their information harvesting activities. So, users would still be well advised to avoid clicking on any Google/AdMob ads.

I think you are mistaking the area of inquiry. Nobody alleges that Apple now has market power in the smartphone market. They are in a distant third place in the smartphone market.

Reread what I said:

"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."

Making shit up? You are quite familiar with that.

You are either entirely clueless or being utterly disingenuous to suggest that it's not the case that most people have no idea the amount and extent of personal data Google collects and keeps.

Yet more inventive FUD.

Although it is amusing how you criticize someone in one post for pretending to know what Google is doing and then in another claim to know what Apple is about.

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 seems to be all you have to offer in the thread. Repeatedly.

Unfortunate, because I have come to appreciate some of your viewpoints and posts, though not always to the point of agreeing. You are very capable of presenting compelling, rational, well thought out arguments and counter arguments. But as soon as google comes into the story you seem to lose your sensibilities completely. I do think highly of your passion for Apple. We need more people that will step up and defend and promote them...rationally.

I stand by both statements.

Devs will likely not choose AdMob for their iPhone apps. That is likely because AdMob ads cannot obtain normal user info. That will likely reduce competition for the devs' business.

However, if indeed some devs continue on with AdMob, users can rest assured that their data cannot be collected or disseminated by the app. Some users may prefer this. Most users are oblivious.


The two rare not mutually exclusive.