Google will fight to keep AdMob, calls Apple's iAd discriminatory
If the Federal Trade Commission steps in to block its purchase of AdMob, Google's chief executive Eric Schmidt said in an interview, "we're likely to fight very hard. It's a very strategic acquisition for Google."
In his interview with Reuters, Schmidt said AdMob has been left with a "significant disadvantage" as the FTC reviews the deal.
Google announced it would purchase AdMob last fall after it noting Apple's interest in the leading mobile ad network. Jobs characterized Google's acquisition by saying the search giant "snatched" AdMob away from Apple.
A report by The New York Times said that Google willingly overpaid in its $750 million purchase of AdMob just to keep the company away from Apple, which subsequently bought the second place Quattro Wireless ad network this January.
iAd vs AdMob
At the unveiling of iPhone OS 4, Apple announced a program to turn its new Quattro subsidiary into iAd, a specialized advertising platform native to the iPhone OS. The company outlined upscale, interactive advertising designed exclusively for placement in App Store software titles at prices only big brands could afford.
The iAd platform is therefore significantly different than Google's AdMob efforts, which are very similar to the company's AdSense program on the web: fairly subtle ads that just launch an external web page when clicked. User clicks and ad display volumes are so high for AdSense that Google pays very little to content providers who display its ads. That also makes the ads affordable to anyone, including many dubious or even obviously shady advertisers.
Google makes the vast majority of its revenues from paid search placement, not from display ads. However, the company also sees mobile devices as a critical market as consumers flock to smartphones and other mobile devices like iPad and the iPod touch. However, Google has not yet revealed a mobile ad strategy that strays very far from its AdSense program.
Like AdSense, Google's AdMob ads are just simple links to external websites or other App Store titles in iTunes, although the company also places them on all smartphone platforms beyond the iPhone OS. Unsurprisingly, AdMob now reports the most ad requests from apps on Google's own Android platform, which sells fewer paid apps and relies more upon free titles supported by ads.
Jobs: iAd doesn't suck
In presenting iAd, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs described existing mobile ads, typified by AdMob, as undesirable both for users and for developers. Clicking on an AdMob ad leads users away from the developer's app, and users have to find their own way back.
Apple's iAd platform is designed to open up richly interactive experiences within the app, which then returns the users back to their app when they exit. The interactive iAd experiences are created in HTML5, enabling ads to support animated features that respond to touch, play back movies and even support embedded games.
Quattro has also outlined a program called ViP to link its ads to Apple's iTunes Store to enable advertisers to access proprietary data on the effectiveness of their ads as users download apps featured within the ad. Other advertising networks can't offer this feature.
Schmidt: App Store ad rules "discriminatory"
Apple has also acted to forbid iPhone apps from sharing personal information with third parties, a step that protects user privacy but also eviscerates efforts by advertising networks to track users' behaviors and target them with relevant ads. Jobs has reportedly characterized this as granting users "freedom from programs that steal your private data."
Critics claim Apple is trying to kill rival ad networks on the iPhone platform by preventing them from harvesting users' private data, such as their GPS location, as they display ads within apps. Schmidt said Apple's ad restrictions were "discriminatory against other partners."
Android does not appear to have any restrictions on the private user data apps can forward to third parties. Google also does not have an app approval process like Apple's, which has led to malware attacks from apps listed in the Android Market which destroyed users' data, installed adware, and sent spam to their email accounts.
In his interview with Reuters, Schmidt said AdMob has been left with a "significant disadvantage" as the FTC reviews the deal.
Google announced it would purchase AdMob last fall after it noting Apple's interest in the leading mobile ad network. Jobs characterized Google's acquisition by saying the search giant "snatched" AdMob away from Apple.
A report by The New York Times said that Google willingly overpaid in its $750 million purchase of AdMob just to keep the company away from Apple, which subsequently bought the second place Quattro Wireless ad network this January.
iAd vs AdMob
At the unveiling of iPhone OS 4, Apple announced a program to turn its new Quattro subsidiary into iAd, a specialized advertising platform native to the iPhone OS. The company outlined upscale, interactive advertising designed exclusively for placement in App Store software titles at prices only big brands could afford.
The iAd platform is therefore significantly different than Google's AdMob efforts, which are very similar to the company's AdSense program on the web: fairly subtle ads that just launch an external web page when clicked. User clicks and ad display volumes are so high for AdSense that Google pays very little to content providers who display its ads. That also makes the ads affordable to anyone, including many dubious or even obviously shady advertisers.
Google makes the vast majority of its revenues from paid search placement, not from display ads. However, the company also sees mobile devices as a critical market as consumers flock to smartphones and other mobile devices like iPad and the iPod touch. However, Google has not yet revealed a mobile ad strategy that strays very far from its AdSense program.
Like AdSense, Google's AdMob ads are just simple links to external websites or other App Store titles in iTunes, although the company also places them on all smartphone platforms beyond the iPhone OS. Unsurprisingly, AdMob now reports the most ad requests from apps on Google's own Android platform, which sells fewer paid apps and relies more upon free titles supported by ads.
Jobs: iAd doesn't suck
In presenting iAd, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs described existing mobile ads, typified by AdMob, as undesirable both for users and for developers. Clicking on an AdMob ad leads users away from the developer's app, and users have to find their own way back.
Apple's iAd platform is designed to open up richly interactive experiences within the app, which then returns the users back to their app when they exit. The interactive iAd experiences are created in HTML5, enabling ads to support animated features that respond to touch, play back movies and even support embedded games.
Quattro has also outlined a program called ViP to link its ads to Apple's iTunes Store to enable advertisers to access proprietary data on the effectiveness of their ads as users download apps featured within the ad. Other advertising networks can't offer this feature.
Schmidt: App Store ad rules "discriminatory"
Apple has also acted to forbid iPhone apps from sharing personal information with third parties, a step that protects user privacy but also eviscerates efforts by advertising networks to track users' behaviors and target them with relevant ads. Jobs has reportedly characterized this as granting users "freedom from programs that steal your private data."
Critics claim Apple is trying to kill rival ad networks on the iPhone platform by preventing them from harvesting users' private data, such as their GPS location, as they display ads within apps. Schmidt said Apple's ad restrictions were "discriminatory against other partners."
Android does not appear to have any restrictions on the private user data apps can forward to third parties. Google also does not have an app approval process like Apple's, which has led to malware attacks from apps listed in the Android Market which destroyed users' data, installed adware, and sent spam to their email accounts.
Comments
Big bad Apple with 4-5% of the worldwide desktop space and 15% of the mobile devices is somehow preventing you from making an 'honest' living with your near monopoly of online advertising.
Google also does not have an app approval process like Apple's, which has led to malware attacks from apps listed in the Android Market which destroyed users' data, installed adware, and sent spam to their email accounts.
Has this actually happened? I remember people predicting it, but does anyone have a link to a news story where this occurred?
Android does not appear to have any restrictions on the private user data apps can forward to third parties.
No, I'm sure it doesn't. Google is all about getting as much data out of you as possible.
Has this actually happened? I remember people predicting it, but does anyone have a link to a news story where this occurred?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10466230-245.html
I remember the old spyware from the last decade. Alexa and others. Google is the same thing except with a smile to distract you from what they are really doing
That's probably the best description of Google.
smile... Yes but you forgot they do it with "free and open" products that caused people to go blind from what they're truly doing. Well people love free stuff.
My only concern with the announced plan of Apple is that the Quattro Ads may be priced too high beyond the reach of most advertizers. At the same time, it would not be a good strategy either so that it is within reach of spammers and shady companies.
I remember the old spyware from the last decade. Alexa and others. Google is the same thing except with a smile to distract you from what they are really doing
If I am not mistaken, Alexa is owned by Amazon. I read so much about Google's deliberate attempts to invade privacy. That is why, except for the Search, I seldom use their products. Rather disappointing because I like their Chrome.
CGC
No, I'm sure it doesn't. Google is all about getting as much data out of you as possible.
Has this actually happened? I remember people predicting it, but does anyone have a link to a news story where this occurred?
You're joking right? I mean, really? They have a link in big bold letters, malware, that links to an Gizmodo story about such an Android attack. And there's a website called Google where you can search such things and find similar accounts.
Good grief!
Has this actually happened? I remember people predicting it, but does anyone have a link to a news story where this occurred?
http://www.phonenews.com/fake-mobile...ketplace-9949/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10466230-245.html
That looks like the malware was preloaded on a new phone, rather than from an app store download.
You're joking right? I mean, really? They have a link in big bold letters, malware, that links to an Gizmodo story about such an Android attack. And there's a website called Google where you can search such things and find similar accounts.
Good grief!
I read the version of the article that is at the top of the comments pages. The link to which you refer does not show up in that version, so I did not realize it was there. Sorry to have caused your blood pressure to spike.
http://www.phonenews.com/fake-mobile...ketplace-9949/
Thanks for the example.
Google is all about YOUR VERY DATA full stop. Your behaviour and preference are all that feeds their much existence. The latest privacy/data issues that came out of Google is about them recording information about open networks and SSD while filming Google StreetView in Europe (Germany to be precise) even though they did not use it. The fact still, they take everything.
It was a mistake by Google but it's telling that these things even happen by accident with them. Google, along with Facebook, believe that privacy should no longer exist and are trying heavily to push that vision of their future as hard as possible. Even bloggers like Scoble actually fall for that garbage.
no, i'm sure it doesn't. Google is all about getting as much data out of you as possible.
feed your google bots
First iPhone Malware Found
http://www.internetnews.com/security...ware-Found.htm
Truly malicious iPhone malware now out in the wild
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...n-the-wild.ars
As the latter report states though, the problem is associated with jailbroken iPhones.
In fairness to the iPhone and Android, it is not surprising that malwares were also found in Windows mobile:
Windows Mobile Terdial Trojan makes expensive phone calls
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/gc/g/201...e-phone-calls/
There is however another development pointed out, by a developer, Marco Arment, that is now happening in the iPhone, the presence of "junk Apps" that use "use icons, application names, and in some cases, other artwork that could constitute copyright or trademark violations" and trademark App titles of legitimate Apps. Thus, these junk Apps may show up when you search for a specific Apps.
http://www.marco.org/576865127
image:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l20jspkSIK1qz4rgr.png
It is obvious that these junk Apps passed through the "rigorous" Apple screening and were approved. Otherwise, they would not be among the 200,000 Apps and counting.
The author, Marco Arment, noted:
"Apple’s reviewers are in a difficult position: any large-scale developer bans in the App Store are likely to attract negative press, so they’re probably reluctant to do any.
But when so many obviously spammy and trademark-infringing apps are getting through, it makes every trivial rejection by real developers even more frustrating."
The developer, and a related followup article, about the finding, in ARS Technica:
What you can do when junk apps invade the App Store
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-app-store.ars
should report these junk Apps to Apple ([email protected]) and take other measures.
However, since these Apps were reviewed, Apple should be more vigilant in its screening process, and the guilty developers should be issued a warning for the first offense. The author of the original report also noted several developers that actually created several dozens of these junk Apps. These offenders/violators must be banned.
Some members of the anti-Apple group, may lampoon the statement associated with the Apple Apps Store to:
"There's are junk Apps for that!"
CGC
What we have heard of iAd so far, is just the beginning - the potential for this is immense. People hated tablets till Apple touched the tablet - or should I say multitouched the tablet! Similarly, people hate ads today - will Apple's touch be enough to change things enough that ads actually will not be so hated?
Google also has a very interesting strategy - wherever they make money, their algorithms, and software are proprietary - in other areas, Google keeps harping about Open Source, and Free software. This makes it difficult for the likes of Microsoft to compete with Google - because Google is happy to give away its software for free.
In a similar way, Apple has taken a page from the Google playbook when it comes to iAd. iAd is not a significant source of revenue for Apple - so when Apple came up with the restrictions on using User Information, and the Privacy initiatives, it did not have anything to lose. Google on the other hand mints all its billions by exploiting personal information of users. Privacy is one area where Google is on very shaky ground. The beauty of all this, is that Google does not begin to have as much information about the user as Apple has! Apple has your credit card billing address - so it knows exactly where you live. Apple knows what apps you buy, and what music you prefer. The OS knows your location - so the OS can actually display ads specific to your location - while AdMob is prevented from using this information.
Apple's implementation allows it to take the moral high ground on Privacy issues - because no private information is ever sent outside your device. If a restaurant wants to send promotions to everyone in the neighbourhood, all they need is to create an ad, and register with the AppStore, specifying the location for which the ad is valid. The OS gets a list of all ads, together with the locations for which the ads are valid, finds the valid ads for the user's current location, and displays just those ads. No personal information needs to go anywhere. The AppStore can also fine tune ads based on your purchase history, and your music preferences, without getting any information from the device.
To explain in simpler terms, this mechanism is no different from the way in which the AppStore application on the iPhone tells you how many Updates are available for the apps you have installed.
This implementation is a lot similar to Amazon's "People who bought the items in your shopping cart also bought" feature. Google on the other hand, phishes for information in your emails, and in your searches to deliver the same information. Amazon's and Apple's implementation does not threaten the user as much as Google's implementation does, because Google has to retain this information to be able to serve ads that are relevant. Amazon and Apple retain purchase history - which they are anyway supposed to retain.
I have written a lot more about this issue on my blog -
http://prastalk.blogspot.com/2010/04...er-google.html
It was a mistake by Google but it's telling that these things even happen by accident with them. Google, along with Facebook, believe that privacy should no longer exist and are trying heavily to push that vision of their future as hard as possible. Even bloggers like Scoble actually fall for that garbage.
I, for one, am not buying the "mistake" explanation. Even Google's own "explanation" casts doubt on that assertion. According to them, it was "experimental code" that was "never removed". So, it's not like it was a programming error. Code was intentionally added to do just this. They were collecting this data for, I believe, over 3 years.
They also claim that it's "fragmentary" and that it was never used, but we only have their word for that, which doesn't really count for much. It is interesting to note that, as of the last I heard on this subject, they are resisting allowing regulators to see the actual data they have collected, or audit its usage, if any.
I think it's about time Google came under some serious and tight regulation, and time for governments of "free societies" around the world to live up to the name and start protecting their citizens from the intrusive practices of Big Brother companies like Google.
Apple has the mobile ad business and has yet to do something with their mapping software purchase. It seems Apple will need to buy a search firm too. Maybe that's what their new data center is really for. I'm sure Yahoo has a whole department of search developers for sale.
Google is all about YOUR VERY DATA full stop. Your behaviour and preference are all that feeds their much existence. The latest privacy/data issues that came out of Google is about them recording information about open networks and SSD while filming Google StreetView in Europe (Germany to be precise) even though they did not use it. The fact still, they take everything.
Careful, data is a means to an end, not the end itself. I don't know if Google sells the data or exposes personally identifiable user data to business partner. So far that I've seen, they've only used the data to help them improve ad placement. That doesn't mean they won't do something more with it, but so far, I haven't seen proof of sinister personal data use on their part.
The street view issue appears to be about faulty kismet settings, though it seems they should know better.
If you're worried about your data, there are a lot of businesses you shouldn't deal with. Amazon is aggressive about recording what you look at. It might not be a good idea to be on the internet at all. It is probably best to pay cash for everything you buy too, and don't give them any information when you're buying your items, and certainly don't use the frequent customer cards.