I am all about privacy but isn't brother Stevie going to take this exact data and push it to his new ad company? So no one else can have the data unless it is him. Seems a bit anti-competitive to me.
and you simply imply what you want here. You don't know but are willing to spread as much FUD as possible. You could have also read this as Apple discovered that their own data was vulnerable, and as a result they were depply concerned about the average user's data - BUT that didn't fit into your scheme of casting doubt and implying your FUD now did it.
Apple is staffed with some pretty smart people. Surely it didn't take their product info being leaked for them to realize that analytics might be a user privacy concern.
Your reading is exactly my own reading. That their data being released was the catalyst for their concern. Great for users that this will result in better protection of our privacy.
Exactly what FUD am I spreading? That Jobs own words clearly show they were infuriated not by your data being analyzed for years but by his product info being leaked. You don't have to imply anything, just use common sense. In fact your own interpretation says just this, so are you spreading FUD?
Apple has every right to be pissed off that their product data was leaked because of and by these analytics companies. And if their response to them benefits me by better protecting my data, then great. But it is insulting to claim the impetus was to protect my privacy. It was a side effect of their anger of their privacy being violated, just as you yourself stated.
Now given that they are now concerned about their own privacy and our privacy, why is it OK for them to have exactly the access to your info that they claim is a concern? The question Jetz put forward, that the competitive side of this hinges on what data Apple keeps but denies others. This is obviously a competitive advantage.
Our friend anonymouse probably put it best, when discussing google in another thread. (paraphrasing) Just because they might have good intentions wrt to our privacy and data, doesn't mean it is a good thing for them to have access to it. Their intentions might change or individual employees within the company might behave badly.
Perhaps Apple and their employees are above human frailty.
This argument is utter nonsense. People have a right to keep private not only the bad things they do, if any, but also the good and innocuous. Privacy has a value for its own sake, not just to keep from being caught or embarrassed.
It's also nonsense because even innocuous acts, combined with perhaps a few mistaken 'facts' can lead to negative consequences. One person's "nothing to hide" may become another's "circumstantial evidence". And organizations like Google, who collect every bit of information they can on everyone they can, can easily become sites for "one stop shopping" for those, such as governments, looking for "circumstantial evidence". It's not exactly a state secret that the number of wrongful convictions is much higher than we as a society ought to be comfortable with.
So it's utter nonsense to stop and think a bit about what you put forward about yourself? It seems like you believe that we should put whatever we want about ourselves online and rely 100% on that site to keep it safe. No place is 100% secure. Especially online. For the record, I'm not excusing the actions of Google.
My only point was that we should share a bit of the responsibility of keeping our things private. If it's something that really should be kept private (lets say a compromising picture), do you think keeping it archived in an online photo album is really a bright idea?
I am all about privacy but isn't brother Stevie going to take this exact data and push it to his new ad company? So no one else can have the data unless it is him. Seems a bit anti-competitive to me.
Did they say they were going to collect AND use that data? We don't know yet.
No, it's utter nonsense that if you don't do anything 'wrong', privacy ought not be a concern.
If that's what you read from my post, then I apologize. I can see where you can read that from my post, but I never said that privacy ought not to be a concern.
Like I said, there should always be measures in place to guard our security. However, we have to be partially responsible for it as well. If that compromising picture doesn't exist in an online album, then it makes it exponentially harder to spread online.
Like I said, there should always be measures in place to guard our security. However, we have to be partially responsible for it as well. If that compromising picture doesn't exist in an online album, then it makes it exponentially harder to spread online.
This is true, in a limited way, but my point is that even an "innocent" picture is a) potentially "compromising" in the wrong circumstances, and b) that privacy for that innocent picture is just as important as for the compromising picture. It's a very important point, that privacy is a very basic right, and its purpose is not just to keep people from finding out about the 'bad' things we've done.
Steve was surprised that Flurry knew the location of his prototypes.
All iPhoneOS apps are required to ask you if it's OK to use your location information.
Flurry's ad code took this info without asking.
That's what pissed Steve off. Flurry by-passed the established iPhoneOS privacy protocols for all users.
iAds, following the iPhoneOS privacy policies, won't report your location without your approval. Steve will let other ad services report your location after he cools off, and insures they can't cheat.
Like I said, there should always be measures in place to guard our security. However, we have to be partially responsible for it as well. If that compromising picture doesn't exist in an online album, then it makes it exponentially harder to spread online.
You keep coming back to the "compromising picture" that doesn't exist in an online album but what about tax info for all those who do their taxes online, or about a child's photo sent to Grandma in an email, which could conceivably be used by a pedophile? Is that ok?
A point to consider is this: Apple cannot eliminate 100% the gathering of info ... but they can control where and how that info is to be used and in fact, might even be found responsible if that info was used in an illegal fashion and sent by way of an Apple device and/or an approved app from a 3rd party developer. I think Steve Jobs has a right to be taking the steps that he is to prevent that.
Did they say they were going to collect AND use that data? We don't know yet.
Yeah I am not 100% sure and I hate to assume but what good is an ad company without data? Stevie loves to do things in backwards order. First stop third parties from pushing out data, wait a few months then start collecting it yourself.
Apart from the fact that Jobs has stated that the kind of collection going on was a complete violation of Apple's privacy policy, I would say that the way you have worded this is deliberately dishonest, with the obvious intent to imply that the have reserved some advantage for themselves, and will be collecting data that violates their own privacy policy.
Yes, I know you'll deny any such intent, will state that I can't know what your intent was, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, but it's pretty clear what your purpose is here.
I don't deny it one bit. I am not hung up on privacy issues so I really don't care what Apple or Google is collecting on me. I consider it the price I pay to use their goods and services.
However, I do care about competition. Apple has never come out and stated what data they will collect on users with iAds. They've merely stated what data they will prohibit others from collecting. If you really care about privacy, shouldn't be as concerned about Apple collecting on you, as much as Flurry?
As for violating Apple policy. Is that kinda like Google Voice duplicating violating Apple's policies? Fair's fair. If Apple cares about privacy, let them come clean on what they'll be collecting on iDevice users.
Yeah I am not 100% sure and I hate to assume but what good is an ad company without data? Stevie loves to do things in backwards order. First stop third parties from pushing out data, wait a few months then start collecting it yourself.
It was a fair question. If Apple truly believes that the analytics are themselves a problem for user privacy, then they shouldn't be using them either. If they are, then it is an advantage the hold for themselves. Apple may have a great record for protecting our privacy and we may well put our trust in them. But as you have said, that doesn't mean that they always will or that there is no chance some employee within Apple wouldn't maliciously use the data that they have access to. Privacy is privacy.
It sounds like their main concern with the analytics data is that Apple's data is made public. This is pretty clear by his statement that once they calm down about their info that led to leaks about the iPad being published, they will talk to the analytics firms about granting access. Not once they are sure about user privacy safeguards.
And in order to make this statement you have to edit out of the record that at least three times Jobs said the privacy infringing analytics were collected and transmitted without the users consent, and that that was wrong and violated Apples privacy policy. So Apple does have an explicit privacy policy that mentions you have to ask first, with an implied "follow the users response if it is no". They have already dealt with the question of safeguards, and applied a social solution rather than a technical one.
The problem was developers naively and probably inadvertently violating that by linking against the analytics libraries. Libraries which were (probably) constructed and promulgated without any of the social contract to ask before transmission.
As for violating Apple policy. Is that kinda like Google Voice duplicating violating Apple's policies? Fair's fair. If Apple cares about privacy, let them come clean on what they'll be collecting on iDevice users.
Well, if they are using the same model as OS X desktop, the policy is to ask explicitly if certain information can be transmitted. Often with the payload in full scrollable view.
Is it possible there is dishonesty and more is sent, technically yes. But if they really were that dishonest it would be awfully stupid to have asked in the first place. I can accept that there are honest people/organizations that are consistently successful, dishonest people/organizations that are consistently successful, but not that there are stupid & dishonest people/organizations that are consistently successful. Which leads me to believe Apple has been forthright when they do collect data, that they ask permission (and not virally) and what data exactly they are collecting.
Am I naive, no, I run Little Snitch and I haven't seen evidence that Apple has violated the social contract. I do see evidence of that in other apps. Not everything gets an OK.
Now tinfoil crown please don't try to tell us Apple has subverted Little Snitch and the rest of my apps are just pay-loading data in unused TCP/IP header fields. We have to trust someplace if we don't write all our own stuff. And if you are really in that crowd you had better be able to write your own compiler and OS from scratch too. On a machine you bootstrapped from had coded assembler. And never let out of your sight. Ever. Even when you are in the shower. Sleep might be a problem there though as the Black Helicopters have silent mode now...
Well, now that you've admitted that you were being deliberately dishonest, is there really anything more that needs to be said to you? Or, are you just trying to fool us with a variation on the liar's paradox?
And in order to make this statement you have to edit out of the record that at least three times Jobs said the privacy infringing analytics were collected and transmitted without the users consent, and that that was wrong and violated Apples privacy policy. So Apple does have an explicit privacy policy that mentions you have to ask first, with an implied "follow the users response if it is no". They have already dealt with the question of safeguards, and applied a social solution rather than a technical one.
The problem was developers naively and probably inadvertently violating that by linking against the analytics libraries. Libraries which were (probably) constructed and promulgated without any of the social contract to ask before transmission.
Sure he mentions user privacy concerns/violations and at the same times he also mentions his concern that the analytics data resulted in leaks because they include device data and that was a primary concern. Further, he mentions that he is willing to discuss providing them with the data, as long as it doesn't contain device data, once he cools down. He is very open that it was the leak of their own info that was the trigger for their fury.
Apple is completely right to clamp down on these abuses, whether the catalyst for their concern was their data or our data. That is not in question. The question, which was valid, was now that the data has been shut off to the third parties, is it a competitive advantage that Apple maintains exclusive access to this data? It is obvious that they have access to it and that it is valuable, as they are willing to discuss providing access to it in the future.
Sure he mentions user privacy concerns/violations and at the same times he also mentions his concern that the analytics data resulted in leaks because they include device data and that was a primary concern. Further, he mentions that he is willing to discuss providing them with the data, as long as it doesn't contain device data, once he cools down. He is very open that it was the leak of their own info that was the trigger for their fury.
Apple is completely right to clamp down on these abuses, whether the catalyst for their concern was their data or our data. That is not in question. The question, which was valid, was now that the data has been shut off to the third parties, is it a competitive advantage that Apple maintains exclusive access to this data? It is obvious that they have access to it and that it is valuable, as they are willing to discuss providing access to it in the future.
I am disputing the fact that Apple even takes the ad analytic data you are implying that they are taking. They already know the device sales statistics, and have a very strong registration demographic buy-in rate. Meaning Apple already knows who buys which device, plenty of information about those customers and doesn't need to capture that part separately in an advertisement analytics. Apple already knows who buys what apps from the app store sales, and that is already sharable with the developer, no analytics necessary.
Having ad-independent access to that legally and openly collected sales data and not making it easy for other companies to re-create through privacy scraping methods within app-ads is quite all right. As long as Apple doesn't collect it in the iAd Framework they are only being enforcers of user privacy and allowing equal access within the Ad Domain.
I am disputing the fact that Apple even takes the ad analytic data you are implying that they are taking. They already know the device sales statistics, and have a very strong registration demographic buy-in rate. Meaning Apple already knows who buys which device, plenty of information about those customers and doesn't need to capture that part separately in an advertisement analytics. Apple already knows who buys what apps from the app store sales, and that is already sharable with the developer, no analytics necessary.
Having ad-independent access to that legally and openly collected sales data and not making it easy for other companies to re-create through privacy scraping methods within app-ads is quite all right. As long as Apple doesn't collect it in the iAd Framework they are only being enforcers of user privacy and allowing equal access within the Ad Domain.
Well, they bought Quattro, a mobile advertising platform that specialized in analytics and used to create iAd. Think they started from scratch or just pitched one of the valuable parts of the Quattro platform? Additionally, Jobs own statements show that they are now withholding but will be willing to discuss allowing the third parties to collect and pass some data for analytics, as long as device identifying data is prevented from being shared.
You can dispute it all you like, but it is pretty clear.
Quote:
"So we said we are only going to allow these analytics that don't give device information and therefore are solely for the purpose of advertising," Jobs said. "We're not going to be the only advertiser. There's others, and we're not banning other advertisers from our platforms.
"They can do that. But they can't send data out to an analytics firm who is going to sell it to make money and publish it to tell everybody that we have devices on our campus that we don't want people to know about. That," Jobs said, "we don't need to do."
Jobs acknowledged that there are legitimate uses of data analysis by app developers, if users are appropriately appraised of the fact that their data is being shared. "After we calm down, we're willing to talk to some of these analytics firms," Jobs said. "But it's not today."
I wish the author of the headline would clarify what she means by "anti-competitive." It sounds like Jobs and Co. are acting competitively and that's a good thing.
Comments
Care to explain what that's based on - other than your paranoid fantasies?
Look at Apple's privacy policy compared to Google or Facebook. Apple is one of the best in the industry when it comes to privacy.
Privacy policy is one thing, device privacy is another.
I am all about privacy but isn't brother Stevie going to take this exact data and push it to his new ad company? So no one else can have the data unless it is him. Seems a bit anti-competitive to me.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...3&postcount=12
and you simply imply what you want here. You don't know but are willing to spread as much FUD as possible. You could have also read this as Apple discovered that their own data was vulnerable, and as a result they were depply concerned about the average user's data - BUT that didn't fit into your scheme of casting doubt and implying your FUD now did it.
Apple is staffed with some pretty smart people. Surely it didn't take their product info being leaked for them to realize that analytics might be a user privacy concern.
Your reading is exactly my own reading. That their data being released was the catalyst for their concern. Great for users that this will result in better protection of our privacy.
Exactly what FUD am I spreading? That Jobs own words clearly show they were infuriated not by your data being analyzed for years but by his product info being leaked. You don't have to imply anything, just use common sense. In fact your own interpretation says just this, so are you spreading FUD?
Apple has every right to be pissed off that their product data was leaked because of and by these analytics companies. And if their response to them benefits me by better protecting my data, then great. But it is insulting to claim the impetus was to protect my privacy. It was a side effect of their anger of their privacy being violated, just as you yourself stated.
Now given that they are now concerned about their own privacy and our privacy, why is it OK for them to have exactly the access to your info that they claim is a concern? The question Jetz put forward, that the competitive side of this hinges on what data Apple keeps but denies others. This is obviously a competitive advantage.
Our friend anonymouse probably put it best, when discussing google in another thread. (paraphrasing) Just because they might have good intentions wrt to our privacy and data, doesn't mean it is a good thing for them to have access to it. Their intentions might change or individual employees within the company might behave badly.
Perhaps Apple and their employees are above human frailty.
This argument is utter nonsense. People have a right to keep private not only the bad things they do, if any, but also the good and innocuous. Privacy has a value for its own sake, not just to keep from being caught or embarrassed.
It's also nonsense because even innocuous acts, combined with perhaps a few mistaken 'facts' can lead to negative consequences. One person's "nothing to hide" may become another's "circumstantial evidence". And organizations like Google, who collect every bit of information they can on everyone they can, can easily become sites for "one stop shopping" for those, such as governments, looking for "circumstantial evidence". It's not exactly a state secret that the number of wrongful convictions is much higher than we as a society ought to be comfortable with.
So it's utter nonsense to stop and think a bit about what you put forward about yourself? It seems like you believe that we should put whatever we want about ourselves online and rely 100% on that site to keep it safe. No place is 100% secure. Especially online. For the record, I'm not excusing the actions of Google.
My only point was that we should share a bit of the responsibility of keeping our things private. If it's something that really should be kept private (lets say a compromising picture), do you think keeping it archived in an online photo album is really a bright idea?
So it's utter nonsense to stop and think a bit about what you put forward about yourself? ...
No, it's utter nonsense that if you don't do anything 'wrong', privacy ought not be a concern.
I am all about privacy but isn't brother Stevie going to take this exact data and push it to his new ad company? So no one else can have the data unless it is him. Seems a bit anti-competitive to me.
Did they say they were going to collect AND use that data? We don't know yet.
No, it's utter nonsense that if you don't do anything 'wrong', privacy ought not be a concern.
If that's what you read from my post, then I apologize. I can see where you can read that from my post, but I never said that privacy ought not to be a concern.
Like I said, there should always be measures in place to guard our security. However, we have to be partially responsible for it as well. If that compromising picture doesn't exist in an online album, then it makes it exponentially harder to spread online.
Like I said, there should always be measures in place to guard our security. However, we have to be partially responsible for it as well. If that compromising picture doesn't exist in an online album, then it makes it exponentially harder to spread online.
This is true, in a limited way, but my point is that even an "innocent" picture is a) potentially "compromising" in the wrong circumstances, and b) that privacy for that innocent picture is just as important as for the compromising picture. It's a very important point, that privacy is a very basic right, and its purpose is not just to keep people from finding out about the 'bad' things we've done.
All iPhoneOS apps are required to ask you if it's OK to use your location information.
Flurry's ad code took this info without asking.
That's what pissed Steve off. Flurry by-passed the established iPhoneOS privacy protocols for all users.
iAds, following the iPhoneOS privacy policies, won't report your location without your approval. Steve will let other ad services report your location after he cools off, and insures they can't cheat.
Like I said, there should always be measures in place to guard our security. However, we have to be partially responsible for it as well. If that compromising picture doesn't exist in an online album, then it makes it exponentially harder to spread online.
You keep coming back to the "compromising picture" that doesn't exist in an online album but what about tax info for all those who do their taxes online, or about a child's photo sent to Grandma in an email, which could conceivably be used by a pedophile? Is that ok?
A point to consider is this: Apple cannot eliminate 100% the gathering of info ... but they can control where and how that info is to be used and in fact, might even be found responsible if that info was used in an illegal fashion and sent by way of an Apple device and/or an approved app from a 3rd party developer. I think Steve Jobs has a right to be taking the steps that he is to prevent that.
Did they say they were going to collect AND use that data? We don't know yet.
Yeah I am not 100% sure and I hate to assume but what good is an ad company without data? Stevie loves to do things in backwards order. First stop third parties from pushing out data, wait a few months then start collecting it yourself.
Apart from the fact that Jobs has stated that the kind of collection going on was a complete violation of Apple's privacy policy, I would say that the way you have worded this is deliberately dishonest, with the obvious intent to imply that the have reserved some advantage for themselves, and will be collecting data that violates their own privacy policy.
Yes, I know you'll deny any such intent, will state that I can't know what your intent was, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, but it's pretty clear what your purpose is here.
I don't deny it one bit. I am not hung up on privacy issues so I really don't care what Apple or Google is collecting on me. I consider it the price I pay to use their goods and services.
However, I do care about competition. Apple has never come out and stated what data they will collect on users with iAds. They've merely stated what data they will prohibit others from collecting. If you really care about privacy, shouldn't be as concerned about Apple collecting on you, as much as Flurry?
As for violating Apple policy. Is that kinda like Google Voice duplicating violating Apple's policies? Fair's fair. If Apple cares about privacy, let them come clean on what they'll be collecting on iDevice users.
Yeah I am not 100% sure and I hate to assume but what good is an ad company without data? Stevie loves to do things in backwards order. First stop third parties from pushing out data, wait a few months then start collecting it yourself.
And an example of this would be ???
It was a fair question. If Apple truly believes that the analytics are themselves a problem for user privacy, then they shouldn't be using them either. If they are, then it is an advantage the hold for themselves. Apple may have a great record for protecting our privacy and we may well put our trust in them. But as you have said, that doesn't mean that they always will or that there is no chance some employee within Apple wouldn't maliciously use the data that they have access to. Privacy is privacy.
It sounds like their main concern with the analytics data is that Apple's data is made public. This is pretty clear by his statement that once they calm down about their info that led to leaks about the iPad being published, they will talk to the analytics firms about granting access. Not once they are sure about user privacy safeguards.
And in order to make this statement you have to edit out of the record that at least three times Jobs said the privacy infringing analytics were collected and transmitted without the users consent, and that that was wrong and violated Apples privacy policy. So Apple does have an explicit privacy policy that mentions you have to ask first, with an implied "follow the users response if it is no". They have already dealt with the question of safeguards, and applied a social solution rather than a technical one.
The problem was developers naively and probably inadvertently violating that by linking against the analytics libraries. Libraries which were (probably) constructed and promulgated without any of the social contract to ask before transmission.
As for violating Apple policy. Is that kinda like Google Voice duplicating violating Apple's policies? Fair's fair. If Apple cares about privacy, let them come clean on what they'll be collecting on iDevice users.
Well, if they are using the same model as OS X desktop, the policy is to ask explicitly if certain information can be transmitted. Often with the payload in full scrollable view.
Is it possible there is dishonesty and more is sent, technically yes. But if they really were that dishonest it would be awfully stupid to have asked in the first place. I can accept that there are honest people/organizations that are consistently successful, dishonest people/organizations that are consistently successful, but not that there are stupid & dishonest people/organizations that are consistently successful. Which leads me to believe Apple has been forthright when they do collect data, that they ask permission (and not virally) and what data exactly they are collecting.
Am I naive, no, I run Little Snitch and I haven't seen evidence that Apple has violated the social contract. I do see evidence of that in other apps. Not everything gets an OK.
Now tinfoil crown please don't try to tell us Apple has subverted Little Snitch and the rest of my apps are just pay-loading data in unused TCP/IP header fields. We have to trust someplace if we don't write all our own stuff. And if you are really in that crowd you had better be able to write your own compiler and OS from scratch too. On a machine you bootstrapped from had coded assembler. And never let out of your sight. Ever. Even when you are in the shower. Sleep might be a problem there though as the Black Helicopters have silent mode now...
I don't deny it one bit. ...
Well, now that you've admitted that you were being deliberately dishonest, is there really anything more that needs to be said to you? Or, are you just trying to fool us with a variation on the liar's paradox?
And in order to make this statement you have to edit out of the record that at least three times Jobs said the privacy infringing analytics were collected and transmitted without the users consent, and that that was wrong and violated Apples privacy policy. So Apple does have an explicit privacy policy that mentions you have to ask first, with an implied "follow the users response if it is no". They have already dealt with the question of safeguards, and applied a social solution rather than a technical one.
The problem was developers naively and probably inadvertently violating that by linking against the analytics libraries. Libraries which were (probably) constructed and promulgated without any of the social contract to ask before transmission.
Sure he mentions user privacy concerns/violations and at the same times he also mentions his concern that the analytics data resulted in leaks because they include device data and that was a primary concern. Further, he mentions that he is willing to discuss providing them with the data, as long as it doesn't contain device data, once he cools down. He is very open that it was the leak of their own info that was the trigger for their fury.
Apple is completely right to clamp down on these abuses, whether the catalyst for their concern was their data or our data. That is not in question. The question, which was valid, was now that the data has been shut off to the third parties, is it a competitive advantage that Apple maintains exclusive access to this data? It is obvious that they have access to it and that it is valuable, as they are willing to discuss providing access to it in the future.
Sure he mentions user privacy concerns/violations and at the same times he also mentions his concern that the analytics data resulted in leaks because they include device data and that was a primary concern. Further, he mentions that he is willing to discuss providing them with the data, as long as it doesn't contain device data, once he cools down. He is very open that it was the leak of their own info that was the trigger for their fury.
Apple is completely right to clamp down on these abuses, whether the catalyst for their concern was their data or our data. That is not in question. The question, which was valid, was now that the data has been shut off to the third parties, is it a competitive advantage that Apple maintains exclusive access to this data? It is obvious that they have access to it and that it is valuable, as they are willing to discuss providing access to it in the future.
I am disputing the fact that Apple even takes the ad analytic data you are implying that they are taking. They already know the device sales statistics, and have a very strong registration demographic buy-in rate. Meaning Apple already knows who buys which device, plenty of information about those customers and doesn't need to capture that part separately in an advertisement analytics. Apple already knows who buys what apps from the app store sales, and that is already sharable with the developer, no analytics necessary.
Having ad-independent access to that legally and openly collected sales data and not making it easy for other companies to re-create through privacy scraping methods within app-ads is quite all right. As long as Apple doesn't collect it in the iAd Framework they are only being enforcers of user privacy and allowing equal access within the Ad Domain.
I am disputing the fact that Apple even takes the ad analytic data you are implying that they are taking. They already know the device sales statistics, and have a very strong registration demographic buy-in rate. Meaning Apple already knows who buys which device, plenty of information about those customers and doesn't need to capture that part separately in an advertisement analytics. Apple already knows who buys what apps from the app store sales, and that is already sharable with the developer, no analytics necessary.
Having ad-independent access to that legally and openly collected sales data and not making it easy for other companies to re-create through privacy scraping methods within app-ads is quite all right. As long as Apple doesn't collect it in the iAd Framework they are only being enforcers of user privacy and allowing equal access within the Ad Domain.
Well, they bought Quattro, a mobile advertising platform that specialized in analytics and used to create iAd. Think they started from scratch or just pitched one of the valuable parts of the Quattro platform? Additionally, Jobs own statements show that they are now withholding but will be willing to discuss allowing the third parties to collect and pass some data for analytics, as long as device identifying data is prevented from being shared.
You can dispute it all you like, but it is pretty clear.
"So we said we are only going to allow these analytics that don't give device information and therefore are solely for the purpose of advertising," Jobs said. "We're not going to be the only advertiser. There's others, and we're not banning other advertisers from our platforms.
"They can do that. But they can't send data out to an analytics firm who is going to sell it to make money and publish it to tell everybody that we have devices on our campus that we don't want people to know about. That," Jobs said, "we don't need to do."
Jobs acknowledged that there are legitimate uses of data analysis by app developers, if users are appropriately appraised of the fact that their data is being shared. "After we calm down, we're willing to talk to some of these analytics firms," Jobs said. "But it's not today."