Apple faces antitrust investigation over iOS advertising restrictions - Page 7

That is almost correct. The question is not, however, if anybody is forced to do something.

It is an open question as to whether Apple has market power in the mobile app market (and, as you imply, it is an open question whether this is a legitimately defined market, given many factors of which I am only passingly familiar).


I don't think that follows. They seem to me to be two different markets.

Yes, I do choose to use intentionally inflammatory and negative language to describe Google. However, I believe the actual points I've made about them, my analysis of their intents and goals (and their ethics and behavior) and the problematic nature of their existence match up very well with the facts and stand up to counter arguments. You just need to learn to separate the language from the logic.

Google does represent a sort of evil. They are a threat to privacy, which threat being ultimately a threat to liberty. (And, for the people who would claim the same of Apple's ecosystem, you simply have no idea what you are talking about when you equate these types of liberty.) They have also demonstrated a sort of outlaw approach that indicates they believe themselves to be above the law. The combination of these factors makes them an organization that needs to be checked, if not dismantled entirely.

Please reread what I said:

"Having a monopoly position in the phone market is totally irrelevant to the situation."

Again, you use words that have many meanings, and you use different meanings in similar contexts, resulting in confusion. You also seek a black/white-open/closed conclusion, which is plain silly when dealing with a complex situation.


I said "In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. "

You identified a proper case. You think you disagree with me, but you seemingly did not read carefully enough to understand what was said.

Seemingly, this author thinks Apple is "incredibly foolish" for allowing 3d party ads on the Mac.

Seemingly, you have a desire to distort and misrepresent what he said, which was most obviously not how you reworded it. This is just plain and simple dishonesty on your part.

You prove my point. If Apple shuts down and remotely wipes MY phone, they are in trouble. The reason? It is not their phone. It is mine.





Right. And the provision of service service has nothing to do with ownership of the phone. Paying for electricity, for example, does not give the power company ownership of your refrigerator.

If you are concerned about that, you can calm down. Nobody has proposed that Apple should allow Google to collect Apple's trade secrets. That ain't got nothing to do with nothing.

No trade secrets are involved, whether owned by Apple or anybody else.

The information is owned by the user, not Apple. And given that any sleazy company (except AdMob, currently) can access that information (WITH OPT-IN), I fail to see how the new rule adds any protection whatsoever to the information.

I disputed this earlier. What trade secrets are involved?

It has everything to do with everything, and it's exactly what you have been proposing, despite your efforts to cloak your arguments in other terms and confuse the issue.

No need to pretend ignorance.



I mean, it's not like this hasn't been gone over repeatedly throughout this thread.

Time will tell. I don't think us guys have all the facts yet. You may be correct, but I think it is too early to come to any firm conclusions.

How would my giving personal info to AdMob constitute industrial espionage directed at Apple?

Anyone who isn't completely ignorant of the facts we have will have no trouble coming to a firm and correct conclusion, even if you'd rather we didn't.

Already answered numerous times by several posters in this thread. Either you aren't really reading the posts, or you somehow think acting as though that isn't the case will further your agenda.

[QUOTE=tundraboy;1650683]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.


It is not a fine point. It is a central point. You need to deal with it to make a cogent argument.



The basic problem is that no trade secrets are involved. Had you dealt adequately with the identity of the information provider, you might conclude that the party who gives the information is in obsession of none of Apple's trade secrets. If the app user had such information, it would not even BE a trade secret.

Typos corrected. Sorry.

Well, you obviously already read this post,

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=209

since you quoted part of it earlier.

I have to hand it to you, though, your persistence in pushing a failed argument is unmatched. I particularly like the way you pick and choose quotes and reply to them out of context, with no indication that the poster said anything else, ignoring anything that's inconvenient for you.

There is no Apple proprietary data that Google is asking Apple to share.

There is not proprietary data involved. Apple would not be doing any sharing.

The data is owned by the user. Apple would not transmit the data, the user would.

This whole line of inquiry needs to take these two facts into account.

Rubbish!

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=209

I have a conceptual problem here.

Can Apple really enforce an NDA which says "You cannot disclose information which is given to you by a third party"?

Every NDA I've seen specifically excludes such information, presumably because such a requirement is unenforceable.

But I've never looked into it.

Sorry. Show me where I propose that Apple be forced to divulge trade secrets to Google?

I can't imagine I said that, given that trade secrets are not germane to the situation.

I would say that it's not so much that you have a perceptual problem, but that you are trying to create one.

I read it and reread it. It gives no examples of trade secrets.

Yes, exactly, as I said, you are attempting to obscure that fact, by cloaking your arguments in other terms. I'm certain that you understand the issue. I'm equally as certain that your purpose is to try to make the issue about something else.

They could put the language in there. The information is provided and consented to by a third party (users) but the devs still have to agree to what Apple asks of them in order to get their apps installed and so allow to ask the users. Enforceable? Other than the honour system, I guess it is enforceable as much as any other clause in an NDA...once you get caught they will take what steps they choose. In this case, at a minimum, your app gets burned.

Since the language requires Apple to give devs permission before they can use alternative ad services, Apple could also have the ad service sign off in order for the dev to be given permission to use them. Again, they get caught, all apps using their ad service get burned and your iPhone business is toast.

But this would be the case, as far any language and ability to enforce it, whether it is Google or Flurry or whomever.

Perceptual problems form no part of anything which was said.

Please read everything slowly prior to responding, and then read the original comment again before hitting the button. Just a simple request.

So, you would not consider how people react to and interact with the Disney World to not be something that a) Six Flags would like to have detailed information on, and b) that Disney would legitimately take steps to prevent them from obtaining by, for example, preventing surveying of visitors on Disney World property by 3rd parties and not allowing film crews to operate within Disney World without explicit permission?

Well, just correct my typo to 'conceptual' and there you are, doing your utmost to spin this as something other than it is.

Dunno about any of that. I was discussing the situation that the article is covering.

And in that situation, I see nothing involving trade secrets.

It's an analogy. You've heard of them? And, call it what you will, "trade secrets", "confidential business information", whatever you like, it's an applicable analogy that makes clear exactly what Apple's concerns are and why they are justifiably blocking Google from spying on the iOS platform as a way to gain a competitive advantage over Apple. It is exactly what the article is covering and that you wish to distract from, and is the only point that is of importance here. Apple is entirely justified in not allowing Google to do it, just as Disney is entirely justified in not allowing Six Flags from doing market research inside Disney World.

That's a chance I will have to take.

Anyway, I think the discussion has moved on, so it's probably a moot point.


Not to make an overly big deal about this, but I really don't think the term applies, since Apple can elect to share this data or not, at their own discretion. The clear implication of the term espionage is that Google intends to steal something from Apple that Apple is not willing to give them.


Even more to the heart of the matter -- is the "mobile app market" an actual, distinct market? I don't know that it is or isn't, but it's surely not a given.

Well, I would say that, "Google intends to steal something from Apple that Apple is not willing to give them," describes the case quite well. I think, after all, that's what this is all about.

Correct me if I missed something, but Apple decides who gets access to the data, which is collected by Apple, not the user. If there is no data involved, then this is a non-discussion.

Apple gets to decide who is allowed to ask for the user's data. The user gets to decide (thanks to Apple enforcing required consent) if the user's data is sent. The collection is done by whichever ad service is being utilized in each particular case. It is the user's data, collected by the ad service. Apple is simply the conduit through which the exchange occurs (or is allowed to be requested to occur).

It is also (ignoring for a moment issues such as who actually "owns" things such as the device id), in the collective, the data of the entire iOS ecosystem, which is the entire issue.

Another satisfied Tulkas customer!

p.s. Tulkas' not worth the effort at all, hence my sig. It's just too bad the filter won't filter out the quotes of his drivel too. Mine eyes and brain cells are still assaulted.

Oh Hiro, you are the last one to be posting in this thread, given your delusional positions in the original thread regarding iAd and what data you knew Apple wouldn't allow to be collected (now shown to be so naive and misleading).

Clearly you still have nothing of value to add to this thread other than your usual hit and run posts that contribute nothing to any thread.

Hiro once wrote that his 8th grade teacher said to him "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted". With every post he shows why this teacher felt he had to have this conversation with him. I would have as well, had I been his teacher.

(Someone quote me so he can read this )

Just my 2¢
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.
---Technical reason. Is there any version other than an demo running on any phone yet? And apparently the Demo wasn't that whiz bang of a demonstration.

2) The restrictions on the type of programming tools used to create applications for iOS, as stated in the iOS SDK documents.
---Yes, there are again technical reasons to prevent this.

3) The restrictions on creating display ads for iOS.
---As it stands now, Apple will not be preventing 3rd party companies from developing and collecting analytics unless they are direct competitors in manufacturing. Actually, this may be a boon to more competition as smaller companies may now get a foothold into mobile advertising.

4) Whether the iTunes Store exerts too much influence on the pricing of music.
Apparently iTunes doesn't exert much influence since it was forced to maintain DRM longer than almost everyone else and was forced into variable pricing against its will. The power here resides with the Music Labels, Apple is actually on the consumer's side here.

5) Whether the iBookstore could do the same for electronic books.
Doubtful, Apple just wants to provide the best user experience, in doing so creates products people enjoy and want.



Google Retracts After Caught Stealing Ideas
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-h...,news-977.html

I don't keep up with all the news, but are the dozens of other companies you refer to stealing?

Google Wi-Fi Data Collection Hit by Privacy Group
http://www.pcworld.com/article/19866...html?tk=hp_new

Again, I don't keep up with all the news, but are the dozens of other companies you refer to driving around the world doing this same thing?
This either means Google was intentionally collecting this data and is indeed nefarious(which they deny, ha), or they are very cavalier in collecting data without adequate controls in place to prevent this. Either way I don't trust them. Your choice, Google = nefarious or stupid.


As yet we don't know what analytics Apple via iAds will be collecting. We do know their Developers agreement states:

Seems to me that Apple may limit analytics for all advertisers, possible they will limit themselves, shrug stranger things have happened, we just don't know yet. Apple is user / consumer oriented and the analytics aren't their core business. Me, I'll wait and see.


Depending how and what analytics are collected, maybe not industrial espionage, but certainly information that can be used to monitor iPhone usage to the benefit of iPhone competitors.

Maybe someone that knows what information is revealed in the analytics could shed more light on this.

Here's some I've found:
location on some phones
application's unique installs
daily usage
OS versions
device types
connectivity stats
packet sniffing( this seems very intrusive)
HTTP Header analysis
IP address analysis

And people wonder why Apple wants a Walled Garden. Maybe Apple doesn't have the best security in the world, but they shouldn't have to worry about their partners.

AT&T's iPad security fumble is just the tip of the iceberg
http://www.infoworld.com/t/hacking/a...he-iceberg-844

And people want that bug ridden, worm hole of a plugin architecture Flash allowed on a phone.