Apple faces antitrust investigation over iOS advertising restrictions - Page 3

No, it's not as you describe at all. It's more like iPhone device with ID=xxxxx spends a lot of time at location y,z and engages in these activities, and also at these other locations we know to be stores and other places of business. Computer with IP address nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn also spend a lot of time at location y,z and engages in these activities, ordering from these online companies. Based on information obtained through ____ we know that John Doe resides at location y,z. We now have a fairly complete picture of the life of John Doe to use for our benefit.

Seen this more than once here lately. It's the wrong word: "overly-DOMINANT position." Such mistakes undermine one's credibility.

What rock have you been living under? You are obviously not someone that understands technology.

Android is technologically superior to iOS. iOS UX is superior to Android. Android is capable of way way more than iOS--- but UI isn't as smooth.

To put it in other words: iOS is form above function. Android is function above form.

Eh, it's just a software feature phone.

lol at this massive over-simplification. as if it can be reduced to such a trite, cliched observation. you say someone doesn't understand technology and provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.

Patents are grants of exclusivity for an invention. Patent do not grant a monopoly of a market. Monopolies are illegal. Section 2 of the Sherman Act states: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part or the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...." You are referring to abuse of monopoly power, which gives the right to one injured by the monopolist to sue in court for damages.

Again, it's not a question of who will or won't sell ads to whom.

Again, Google can put their ads on iOS, they just need to respect the rules for that platform. Likewise, I would expect Apple to have to conform to some rules on the Android platform that Google has put in place.

Google can't have T&C in effect that say that personal data won't be sold on, and then go ahead and let Apple's ad service mine all kinds of personal data from Android users, and then use that to help market Apple products to them.

Of course, Google isn't too concerned about private data anyway. That's their stock in trade, and about all they have going for them.

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.

@ Tulkas. Well taken. Analogies are only good to illistrate a point. Once Apple has a monopoly in the cell phone market, these issues will be of concern to the FTC and the DOJ. I hope that happens, as my stock in Apple will be at a level that I can only dream.

Nope. Nobody is alleging that.

Okay tell us about the mobile apps market. Now remember this, a dominant market share by itself is a necessary but not sufficient proof of monopoly. You can't just point to a 98% share and say aha, monopoly! You have to tell us how that dominant share was attained and maintained.

You are claiming that Apple is trying to achieve a situation where "nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple". How this comes about is key. If it happens because of sheer product and marketing excellence so that customers choose Apple products above all the rest and naturally devs will choose to develop for iOS, then there are no antitrust issues. If it happens because Apple says, "if you develop for us then you can't develop for anyone else" or "you can't port an iOS app to some other platform" then there are serious antitrust issues. So tell us what's going on in the mobile apps market.

Antitrust legislation is not meant to punish success, it is meant to punish abuse.

The word "open" can and is accurately used to describe many aspects of Google.

These concerns about whether and how words can be twisted baffle me. I see it so often around here.

a) What's your point?

b) None of your original statements even allude to it being a "permission based system", so I stand by my accusation that you are here for no reason but to spread misinformation and confusion.

so that's a positive, right? AdMob should be pleased, right?

But no important aspects of Google. As such, calling it open is either naive or disingenuous.

Not at all.


They won't. No matter what else, Google is about money. And they are getting a nice pile of it for the licensing of Google Maps


Let's ask this question. How reliable is the Financial Times. Cause that "sources close to the matter" is a tabloid phrase. So is the FT a 100% authentic source or, like the NY Post, a tabloid trumped up to look 'real'

That might tell us the truth about this alleged probe. And why hasn't someone like the Wall Street Journal broken with the story of all these probes. According to the Post, there's like 10 going on at the same time. And NO one else is talking about them.



Which is why iAds was made at all. Make it easier to implement, give the developers the bigger share of the money.

But this move isn't about the money in that sense. It's about what information can get out there. It's more than your type of device that can be pulled by these ads. They can, if programmed right, do a ton of snoping in your personal info and in the OS. So there's a level of protecting your privacy AND their trade secrets. A totally independent company isn't going to snope in the OS cause they have no reason to. But Google (which makes Android) might.


Nothing. Because there is and will likely never be, any such thing.



A cellphone is not a house. It's a Condo. Yes you own it, but when you bought it you had to sign the HOA agreement which contractually restricts you from, for example

• Tearing down any interior walls without permission from the HOA
• Making any loud noises after 9pm from Sunday to Thursday and 11pm on Friday or Saturday
• Allowing guests to park in the secured residents only parking rather than guest parking or on the street

As well as having to pay X amount monthly for the trash pickup, the maintenance guy's salary, the property taxes

If you don't the rules, don't buy. Same with your phone, same with who you develop your apps for (I'm assuming you are a developer since you are so indignant about this ads issue




Actually they do, in a way. By requiring you to agree to letting them see it. Even with their own iAds



Almost.

See a monopoly is not illegal. It's not anti-trust. It's how you gained the monopoly and what you do with it that is illegal.

To use your media idea. Anti-trust would be, for example, if Windows barred all software that supports anything not Zune or WinMobile from Windows OS based machines. No providing APIs etc, suing for reverse engineering and such.

That would be likely be deemed illegal because they are abusing their power as an OS to gain in the mobile device market, which is a separate entity for the OS.

Apple requiring a Mac to use a iOS device would be the same. On that note, someone could perhaps cry foul over the whole 'You must have a Mac to develop apps' rule, which is due to Apple only having the means to make a Mac SDK. Apple would be legally forced to make one for Windows and even Linux so everyone can play. Which is why I suspect they are, but it's talking longer because of the added layers needed to get it to work outside of the Xcode based environment.



The courts would probably say that these are not the same thing.

With Apple you are talking about a company saying what happens on their equipment in their OS. In a market for which they might not actually have a strong power to abuse.

With the Microsoft, they were mixing markets. Using a clear and high dominance in the OS to play games in the Web Software market.


Is the rule that you can't have Admob in an app or that it can't send personal and device data beyond perhaps "it's an iphone" or "Its an ipad" if it was actually clicked on, and the ad id. What other information does Google really need.

Also, what is stopping the advertisers from working with both companies. Or even the developer from using something other than iAds. Nada. Other than this issue of no personal data. If Admob refuses to provide non snooping ads, that's on them.


Psystar. Google/Bing/whatever it


Actually it could be more than that. Who knows what levels of snooping an ad could do. Imagine if it could send your IP or your ICCID and Google could basically track you. How would you feel then


There's a fallacy in your statement. Apple is not making apps for the whole market. So Apple based apps don't have any power.

Nor do they make an OS for the whole market.

A cry of market power would have to consider the complete package of Apple made mobile devices running Apple's iOS and capable of running apps. Against all other mobile devices of a similar nature. With phones, Apple has only 28% of the US market. The ipad and touch might bump that to like 40% but that's still not a dominant position.

Sometimes I wonder how many of these "probes" are real.

It should certainly help promote competition in the mobile ad market, which, by AdMob's reasoning, should be good for consumers, so it's had to see why they aren't pleased. AdMob is all about what's good for consumers, aren't they?

I said it is your cellphone. And in the example you gave, it is your house.

The side contracts one may enter into do not affect ownership. The analogy I disputed posited that Apple owned the device, and just wanted to lock the door that they also owned.

I said that was like the carpenter determining who you can have as a house guest. That is like saying that the builder of the phone can determine which apps you install.

But now I'm done. This is off-topic.

Oh yeah, forget the utility vehicle market comprised of golf carts, atv's, forklifts, street sweepers, lawnmowers, etc. We're talking about ice-rink smoothers here -- why, Zamboni has a real monopoly there. I think someone should look into it.

It's just not fair that Caterpillar's steamroller isn't used very much on professional hockey rinks. Caterpillar would sure get more exposure there. I think Zamboni is doing something dubious there by keeping them out of that emerging market. It's not fair that people are choosing Zamboni almost exclusively for that purpose. It's not fair that Zamboni isn't touting the alternative of rolling the ice flat: it's like they think they are the only ones good at smoothing ice or something. Did you know, Zamboni has like a 100% market share on this market, so that the word zamboni has come to be used for ice smoothers. What's with that? They better start licensing out whatever they have got under the hood inside that big boxy thing.

It's just not enough that we have to see big yellow vehicles everywhere we turn with fat black letters all over them spelling out Caterpillar. Sports shoes and kids backpacks now? Don't get me started. But you know, Caterpillar thought they could just waltz right onto the ice rink too; and now that they are finding it difficult, why, I think they have a right to complain. Doesn't matter that their product is all wrong for this context: we want to see big yellow vehicles everywhere. In fact, I am just not going to go to any more hockey games until big bad Zamboni gets the freeze put on it, so there!

And by implication, anybody else can?

How does that help the consumer?

There you go again. Don't you ever get tired of misrepresentations?

Read Section 2 of the Sherman Act I quoted earlier. Monopolies are crimes. Proving a monopoly exists is hard to do in court. A court rarely declares a monopoly exists because defining the relevant market is so complex. Rarely does the DOJ prosecute these things because of the difficulty involved and the politics of the people in charge. But it drives me crazy when all these people posting to these chats or blogs that monopolies are not illegal. They are. Period.

it doesn't matter what it is, there may be covenants on any purchase. the t&c on your iPhone bill of purchase spell these covenants out. as charlituna also explains. this has been done before you are incorrect.

QFT. Best two posts in this thread.

Cool your jets, people. The government looks into these complaints all the time. Mostly they are shelved, and even when they are not, the government works out some sort of consent decree with the company in question and life goes on. In fact, this is what happened to Microsoft during the early '90s. They really only got hauled in again because they violated the agreement.


Right. The primary concern of the law is with competition, perfecting the marketplace by preventing restraint of trade, not with protecting consumers.


I believe you are misreading the law. First, patents and copyrights do indeed create a type of monopoly since they prevent anyone else from making the covered product for a given period of time (which thanks to Congress keeps getting longer and longer). This is hardly illegal; in fact, it is government sanctioned. Second, monopolies are not illegal. Abuse of monopolies to restrain trade is. Company A can legally dominate a product market unless it uses that dominance to create artificial barriers of entry into a market by Company B. If that is found to have occurred, then trade may have been illegally restrained by Company A.

The Clayton Act is actually of more importance to modern antitrust law than the Sherman Act, which was designed mainly to prohibit the formation of cartels.

The information is not Apple's property. It belongs to the user. Nobody is entitled to it unless it is given by the user.



Of course they do. But in the current situation, the information is not Apple's. So it is not Apple's choice, and Apple would be doing no sharing. Nobody can or would compel Apple to share anything.

Both questions are irrelevant to the current facts.

I honestly don't care. If you don't want that, pay for your apps. If you don't care, have fun with free apps. It's really that simple.



You should probably explain this statement because I honestly think it's the dumbest thing I have read on the internet ever. Android is for every intent and purpose a smartphone just like the iPhone.

There - a bit better. Now, you mentioned something about Android being technologically better than iOS. Do you have any concrete example that don't involve the use of the badly abused term "open", Froyo - which hasn't been implemented yet on any existing hardware platform except a limited staggered release to whatever remains of the installed Nexus One base. And to be even more generous: I'll let you ignore carrier fragmentation of the platform, the fact that most of Android's installed base is still pre 2.0, and the fact that HTC had to license from Microsoft to avoid getting hit for Android on their handsets, and have to use Sense to give the user a decent interface. In fact let me be even more generous - you don't even have to address the memory battery shortcomings of Android's multitasking implementation, or the poor reports on developer returns on dev efforts in the Android Marketplace. There you can't say I haven't been more than fair about this discussion.

Please. Take your time, build your case with real facts. I have all the time in the world.

only if they allow it, which of course you know.

some people actually like the idea of advertising targeted to their needs, so it may indeed be a good thing for some consumers, perhaps like this:


http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...0609-xvj1.html

how nice of google to be so helpful! now what was that about wi-fi data?

Actually, I think information embedded in the device, such as the device id, does belong to Apple. And, again, even iAds will have to get permission from the user. Not that any of this will likely put an end to your misinformation spree.

Sometimes, the invention is a market unto itself. Such as the market for cotton gins. The invention transformed the economics of an entire region of a continent, and one company had a monopoly on selling the device.





I am surprised by the quote. I will look into it. Thanks.

I suspect that the word monopolize has been interpreted in a specific manner by the courts, to mean "abuse monopoly power", but I am interested to learn more.

Um no, they aren't. Not only are they not illegal, there are many example of government sanctioned monopolies.

Abuse of monopoly position is illegal. Using a monopoly or dominant control of a market to hinder fair trade is illegal. But being a monopoly is not, itsel,f illegal. A government trade regulatory body may act to prevent a monopoly situation from arising, for example through a merger, but only if it is demonstrated that that circumstance would be a hinderance to trade or would otherwise hurt consumers ability to choose. But, in some cases, they will allow the merger if the benefits of allowing the merger might outweigh the downsides (i.e. better able to provide necessary services).

Your cable company? A legal monopoly. AT&T? Used to be a legal monopoly until they started abusing it.

You are right, that they can be difficult to define in a courtroom, as a legally defined monopoly does not have to mean 100% market share. Monopolies are rarely encouraged by governments, but they are not illegal.

It seems pretty obvious what is meant. Compared to the iPhone, as the OP admitted, it's just a bunch of features cobbled together in a smartphone wrapper. It's also quite obvious that it's not, "just like the iPhone."

or who drive around in trucks 'accidentally' recording private wifi traffic under the guise of (wink wink) mapping images.

How a monopoly comes into being is irrelevant.

The existence of "government sanctioned monopolies" does not imply that they are legal. In fact, it would seem to imply the exact opposite, that they are illegal unless sanctioned by the government. Otherwise, why would government sanction be required?

The apps in question are not made by Apple. Instead, Apple retails the apps.

The market power in the device market is not a part of the current considerations of Apple's situation, IIRC.

Actually, (and truthfully this is the last response from me to your postings because you are completely OCD'd on your misconceptions and cannot be reasoned with)...

...Eli Whitney is credited with patenting it, but many companies built cotton gins either closely or loosely based on Whitney's patent. The market is so specialized that there is no reason to try and fight to gain marketshare, as there is only a certain way that cotton can be handled, and therefore does not lend itself to significant innovation. So no there was not a monopoly, there was a niche market, with manufacturing competitors, and poor Eli who didn't get very much money out of his patent until it was enforced post-humously. A truly bad example by you once again.

I think I already explained some of this, but the word monopoly is used in the Sherman Act in a fairly archaic way to describe efforts to control markets. This is not the dictionary definition nor the economic definition of monopoly, which if they were the operative ones, would mean the laws would be fundamentally meaningless, since this state frequently exists even with the protection of government.

Scan the Findings of Fact in U.S. v. Microsoft. You'll see that the word "monopoly" is nearly always followed by "power," this being the basis for the findings of violations. The judge found that they didn't just have a monopoly, they had monopoly power. He found that they didn't just have monopoly power, they abused it to restrain trade.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

I have no opinion as to whether all of us would be better served by more or less advertising on the iPhone.

But what we most definitely do not need is Government intervention to determine what we need.

Let's duke it out in the free marketplace...while, at least a little part of the marketplace is still free.