Apple faces antitrust investigation over iOS advertising restrictions - Page 8

This is a matter of fact. There is really no need to guess, to jump to any conclusions based upon guesses, or to characterize the actions based upon guesses.

http://analytics.admob.com/home/

Does any of this look like industrial espionage?

Not directly. This is only the free data though available to non-Google players though. You can be sure Google is planning on harvesting a far more comprehensive suite of data they can use to monetize their own stuff even more effectively. Ad Mob alone wasn't worth $700 mil by any analysts measures, so Google saw something else they thought was more important to them as a company.

That's the scary part: they saw something that Google must have though was worth at least double that over the next several years, and it all revolves around harvesting other peoples patterns of usage and data.

I would not assume that. Google appeared willing to overpay for AdMob in order to keep them away from Apple. In bidding wars it's not about value.

Google saw AdMob as the mother lode of mobile personal data collection, and as a side bonus a great way to have a window into what was going on on the iPhone. I don't think we need have any doubt about that, given what is known about Google, and that they aren't stupid. It was a transparently obvious play.

None of which has any bearing on the fact that the other ad companies will have access to the data the Google is now forbidden from collecting. If the data is such that Google could use it for their own nefarious purposes, then making it available to the others is just as big a risk. In fact, since Apple has never singled google out for inappropriately using this data, yet was willing to very publicly flog Flurry for it, it would seem they do not feel it would be any more a danger to us than the others. It is has nothing to do with privacy and is strictly a move against a competitor. It takes a lot of bending to make it about privacy.

I never claimed the other companies would mistreat the data (though Apple has accused at least one of doing so before the rule changes). But they are much lower profile than Google, so if they do find a way to misuse it they will be much less visible.


Yes, that is a good assumption. If they have limited the info to that which is unlikely to be a privacy concern, then they have done so. Which is why arguing the banning of Google or other competitors was done for user privacy. It wasn't. They handled that in the lilmitations of the data and in the required user consent.

As to the data that Apple itself takes, I would again agree that it is a good assumption that they will be held to the same limitations they impose on others. But, it will still be data that is valuable to them and to others...hence the collection of it and hence the purchase of Quattro. They didn't buy Quattro and use it to built iAds for purely altruistic reasons. They are capable of actually being concerned at their own bottom line and their own interests, even if they also want to assist devs.

I guess Apple saw some value there as well, when they began proceedings to buy AdMob too. Similar case with when they bought Quattro.

you misrepresent what i said - they indeed are two markets - i never said otherwise. Apple has 28% of the smart phone market, and according to Gartner "less than one third" of the mobile applications market. Apple only have control over their own platform, google has the more than two-thirds of the mobile apps market to plunder. So where's the monopoly?

I did not say or imply that Google is stupid. As we know, Apple tried to buy AdMob first. Google offered more. In this sort of situation, the value proposition is often not so straight-forward as what you've gotten for the money, when one if the things you got for the money was keeping something from someone else.

I didn't mean to imply that you did say they were stupid, that was more of a rhetorical phrase. But, I do think they thought it had much more value than just keeping it out of Apple's hands. The way it went down does in some ways make it appear as if that might have been a motivation, but it's just as likely they were operating on the impulse of, "Crap! We have to act fast or we're going to miss out on this opportunity." In other words, they wanted it bad and keeping it out of Apple's hands was at most a secondary motivation.

No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.

How about snooping on unsecured wifi networks using their streetview vans a practice which only came to light due to the diligence of the German government.

Then there was the sharing of user contacts via Buzz, which Google helpfully provided to their users without their knowledge and which was changed to an opt in scheme after the outcry which ensued.

How are those for starters?

Exactly, and none of those other independent ad suppliers have any of the really scary data that Google is sitting on. We would have had a new violent revolution by now if the Government had been collecting data like Google is. iPhone analytic data itself, in isolation, is relatively valuable. Cross reference it with all the other things Google has on each individual user and it is amazingly scary. For a prescient look at where we are today, read Database Nation some time.

Right. As you agree, it is a competitive issue and not a privacy issue, as was my point. Bingo, you hit it on the head. Two very differnt issues entirely.

I don't think we can intelligently discuss whether it was secondary or primary, but in fact it doesn't matter which it was. The point I'm making is that the acquisition had more than a straight business value. They were willing to pay over and above whatever it was worth to them as a business proposition, in order to keep Apple from having it.

Short term memory loss? Or are you just cycling back around to your earlier arguments and hoping everyone else forgot that we already covered the fact that it's both issues? Individual privacy and industrial espionage.

1. Consumers win on the privacy front on 2 counts: a) advertisers may not collect personal data without opt-in permission and b) Google, public enemy number one here, may not collect data at all. The latter point is a huge win for individual privacy.

2. Apple does what's necessary to stop a competitor from spying on it by inserting a trojan horse into Apple's ecosystem. Apple is entirely justified in doing so and there won't be any legal fallout from this.

So, it's both and we've been over the fact that it's both several times. We've also explored each of these issues in depth. If you really don't recall this, I suggest you go back and reread both threads on this topic -- this one and the one attached to the similar article from the previous day -- and if you then have anything new to say, go ahead and say it. But can you stop trying to drag the discussion around in circles?

Well, I disagree with your emphasis on keeping Apple from having it, even though that was one effect of their actions. However, if, for example Microsoft, had been negotiating to buy AdMob, I think Google would have behaved exactly as they did and rushed in a scooped it up with a ridiculous offer. They didn't want anyone to have it because they wanted it themselves. Stopping Apple from getting it probably, or so they thought, had the bonus of them not getting locked out of the iPhone ecosystem, and there was probably a lot of back slapping at the Googleplex as they congratulated themselves on that point. Now there's probably a lot of finger pointing and recrimination going on.

But Apple was the company in negotiations to buy AdMob, so Apple's interest was very much in evidence. I don't want to invent scenarios which makes Apple look any smarter than they are, but it occurs to me that this might have worked out just as Apple intended -- Google is alarmed at the prospect of Apple owning AdMob, which induces them to pay a premium price for the company, only to find that Apple has moved the goalposts. It's entirely possible that Apple has been playing a good chess game here, always a move ahead of their opponent.

That's about as likely as the Minnesota Vikings saying they didn't botch a first round draft pick by missing the deadline and that they did so purposely. It would work except for the fact there is video of the GM dancing like a four year old that needs to piss while he got scooped by two other teams. (that's from a few years back)

Much more likely hypothetical scenario: Apple screwed up the deal, they wanted AdMob and were trying to slow roll them into a better price by waiting and letting the exclusive period expire. AdMob counters by dropping to Google that they were in negotiations until such-and-such a date. Date passes. Squirrel Boy, never seeing an idea of Steve's he didn't like figured he could out-Steve Steve by buying fast. AdMob knows Google doesn't have time to do full due diligence so asks for a jacked-up price. Google knowing things about data mining AdMob hasn't even considered, sees the jacked-up piece as an actual bargain. So much so that Squirrel Boy is willing to pay double the rest of the worlds valuation on AdMob without ever involving the Board and even putting in a 90% guarantee on the transaction. Meaning if Google didn't buy AdMob Google still pays through the nose.

You don't sign up for a deal like that unless you know you are in reality committing highway robbery in the long run.

Exactly my point. So a competitive issue then. No need to try to wrap it in a pretense of protecting privacy.

a)Which has nothing to do with the google ban, but is a nice distraction. Try to stay focused on the issue at hand. The google ban.
b) In your personal opinion, yes. Apple may feel the same way. They have given no indication that the google ban had anything to do with this, however.. Any assertion that it was seems to be fantasy of a small group of google haters. Take off the blinders, the world looks better without hate colouring your view.


Yes, a competitive issue.


Yes, and the rational conclusion hasn't changed. The google ban is strictly a competitive issue. The entire red herring that only the google-haters keep trying to make stick is that Apple banned google to protect privacy. This is so clearing untrue, it is funny to see the repeated mentions if it. If Apple thought the information was so sensitive from a privacy standpoint, they would not risk letting it fall into the hands of the other third parties. Third parties that because they are so less visible than google only get caught being bad when they out themselves. Jobs was clearly enraged that it had happened recently and in his rage made no mention of google at all when initially explaining the data collection changes. I guess he doesn't see it the same way the haters see it. He isn't foolish enough to try to claim banning google was a privacy issue and it was likely his call. He is a very smart guy. Why do you think you know better than Jobs?

The problem with letting your own, very passionate feelings cloud your reasoning, is that your analysis will almost always be wrong.

I don't recall having said that. I've stated repeatedly that Google/AdMob was justifiably banned because collecting data allows them to conduct an industrial espionage program, which no one should expect Apple to tolerate. So, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

However, none of that changes the fact that the overall policy also includes both intentional, and perhaps unintentional but welcome, privacy protections for users. And, whether intentional or not, the Google/AdMob ban on data collection (they are still allowed to place ads) is a big privacy win for users.

Seems to me you're just trying to confound the issues for the purpose of making it sound like there's nothing going on but a malicious attack on Google, which isn't the case at all. What's going on is Apple is protecting itself and users.

Many here have claimed, which was where our conversations overlapped, I suppose. At the least they have tried to imply it was somehow one of Apple's reasons for the google ban. Unfortunately, for them, even it this is true, no public statements from Apple don't support this idea. The very fact that they are still allowing the data to be collected and transmitted (with consent) to third parties speaks against the google ban being privacy issue.

As for the the real reason, to act against a competitor, whether it is justified is a matter of opinion, for now. That would be why the DoJ/FTC are looking to it. Whether all of us arm-chair analysts feel it is justified or not or if Apple is in a position of enough influence to the point where their actions against competitors begin to lean toward anti-trust, in the end it doesn't matter. The opinions of many lawyers and perhaps a judge or two will decide those matters.


Well, that is just semantics. You accept and assert that banning google/admob was done to prevent their 'industrial espionage' (otherwise known as asking for user consent/data), but call it confounding to admit it was done to competitively disadvantage google (or in your words, attack google).

It is a odd position to admit that Apple has taken competitive steps against google, in this case, but refuse to admit Apple has taken competitive steps against google.

I'm not sure why you are having such trouble wrapping your head around the concept that one section of Apple's SDK license simultaneously deals with two separate issues, user privacy and ecosystem spying by competitors.


Actually, they are probably looking into it solely because Google/AdMob ran whining to them and complained, so they are bound to do so whether there is any merit in the complaint or not.


(I just want to note that "my words" of "attacking google" were explicitly my characterization of how I view you as attempting to spin this issue. Either you aren't reading clearly or you are grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage an utterly flawed argument.)

You again attempt to confound the issue by equating the industrial espionage it would have engaged in by mysteriously equating it to, "asking for user consent/data." Let's be clear again, there are two separate issues wrapped up in this change to the agreement. First, advertisers may not collect user data without permission. Secondly, mobile device/OS competitors may not collect user data with or without permission.

While users may give permission to ad companies who are not competitors in to the iOS to collect their personal data, competitors who will use that information in aggregate form to gain a look inside the platform as a whole, clearly fall into a different category. (It would be disingenuous to deny that they do, Google is not just another advertiser in this situation.) The data obviously have a different value to them than to non-competitors and it's simply ridiculous that any company should have to allow a competitor an inside view of its business just because the competitor has found a backdoor way of obtaining it.

You can try to spin it as putting, in your own words, Google at a competitive disadvantage, but, in reality, it's Apple protecting confidential business information and simply not allowing a competitor to gain an unfair advantage by allowing it to spy on Apple's iOS platform as a whole. I would note that even you equate Google and AdMob as a single entity.

There is a true statement if I ever read one. I vote for number two.

We have to remember the little ditty Einstein riffed off, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Where we have to be careful is not letting some other posters lead us down that road that they so dearly own.

Actually, that is exactly the point. They are two distinct issues with two distinct sets of reasons. One for privacy (user consent, limited data) and one to take action against google from a competitive stand point.

You are trying to muddle the two. Stay on focus. We agree on why they introduced the user consent and limited data (privacy), and on why they banned google (competition). Two distinct issues and reasons.


They might have been the catalyst. The don't tend to investigate just the catalyst though. They usually like to move forward to investigate actual activities.



Of course you see it that way. Only your 'argument' is so far flawed. Unfortunately, your own words argue against your position.


No, I am trying to keep you from trying to tie the two. As you say, two issues, two reasons. Only one was user privacy. Hell, there could have been a thousand other changes. Try to stick to the relevant one, that being the google ban. Nothing to do with privacy, unless you try to 'confound' the issue by bringing in the other item.


You opinion and well founded I am sure. We will have to wait and see if the law agrees with you.


Of course I do, they will be buying them. It is a competitive disadvantage, that is clear and it would be foolish to even try to claim otherwise. But, the legal question will be is it an illegal disadvantage. Right now, I don't think it is (an illegal disadvantage) but that doesn't change that fact that it is a competitive disadvantage, or in your words 'an attack on google'.

This is a war between google and Apple. This is an attack against google, and that should only be a surprise to the challenged, as attacks happen in a war. It puts google at a disadvantage, as would would expect Apple or any other company to strive for against a competitor. You may feel it was totally legal and that is a good opinion to have. The authorities will have to decide what their opinions are. It is disingenuous to try to say there was no attack and no disadvantage in order to wash it away. It is what it is. It is just a matter of if it was legal.

For someone on your ignore list, I am in your thoughts an awful lot, Hiro.
Do you understand the point of your ignore list?

I think it's dishonest of you to continue to state that, "in [my] words 'an attack on google'" when a) I was clearly paraphrasing your argument when I used those words, and b) later unambiguously reiterated that I was paraphrasing your argument. It's one thing to disagree, even vehemently, but it's quite another to knowingly misquote someone.


You wish to spin it as an attack, but it seems pretty clear that it is in fact a defensive move, a defense against spying by Google on the iPhone platform as a whole. Preventing Google from collecting metrics on iOS has nothing to do with advertising.

Actually, until my last post, I had never phrased or even implied it was an attack on google. I stated that the ban on google was not based on protecting user data but was competitively driven. I stated that the changes to require user consent and to limit the collected data were for user privacy.

When I say 'your words' I meant the ones you were trying so hard to put in my mouth. Since I hadn't written them, they were only 'your words'. Nothing disingenuous about it. If you don't like me quoting your words, stop trying to stick them in my mouth because that is disingenuous.



Perhaps that is a better description than 'attack'. I wasn't trying to spin it either way. I certainly never implied it was an attack on google (until my last post). In either case, it is a move against google, defensive or offensive, whatever. It was done for competitive reasons. Period.

Here's what I said:

And you then quoted the "attack on Google" part twice, emphasizing that they were "[my words]". What I said cannot in any way be construed as my trying to "stick them in [your] mouth." I was quite obviously expressing my opinion of the gist of your argument, which you actually seem to have accepted as correct


Companies defend themselves from spying by competitors all the time, there's nothing illegal, and certainly nothing illegally anticompetitive, about that. Just because Google bought their way into mobile advertising doesn't give them license to use it as an intelligence gathering operation to further their Android development, and no one can honestly deny that that is exactly what Google would do with the AdMob data, in fact, they'd be stupid not to, and Apple would be even stupider to let them.

Since up to that point, I had used no language that even implied it was an 'attack' against google, let alone a malicious attack, your paraphrasing was at best dishonest then. I used the phrase after your comments, as it seemed to be the terminology your seemed most comfortable with. hell, I even agreed with your later description of it being a defensive move. The only real point was that it was a competitively driven move. Trying to bog it down in semantic interpretations is just stupid. It was a move against google. Defensive or offensive, it was a move against google.



Again, your opinion. Perhaps the DoJ and FTC lawyers will share your opinion. Perhaps they won't.

Yes, and I think that is the crux of the matter for you. You don't really care about the circumstances, whether it's justified, legal, or anything else, simply that it's a move against Google.

Actually, I care about all of the above. The problem is those that are trying to cloak it the high moral veil of privacy, when it is factually about competition. They seem to feel dirty even acknowledging that Apple could have made a move against a competitor and want to mask it as purely a privacy issue. It isn't.

As you have shown, you can face and admit to the fact that it is a competitive move and still belief it is justified. Perfectly valid. To pretend it isn't a competitive move against google is like saying it is dark because it is night and not because one's head is firmly planted in one's ass.

I don't think Apple will be found guilty of anything. I don't think they have enough influence to be guilty of antitrust, though that will be the determining factor. I think this was a dick move (I am not a tinfoil hatter yet) but that google did everything they could to set it in motion. Personally, I think the animosity between the two companies is getting a little overly blown (and some fans are taking it waaayyyyy too personally). They did well when they worked together but the competition between them should help improve the field in general. Healthy competition is, well, healthy. Slash and burn competition just leaves a mess for everyone.

As an added bonus, though, it is a substantial boon to privacy for iOS users.

And it's not just directed at Google, even though they happen to be the only ones I know of who are affected at present. It would also affect Microsoft, or Dell, or HTC, or anyone in the mobile device/OS business. Just because none of them aren't involved in mobile advertising now, doesn't mean they won't be in the future. And conversely, any of them would, if Apple were to expand iAds beyond iOS, as unlikely as that is, be entirely justified in keeping Apple from collecting device and user data from their platforms.