Apple's modified iOS terms allow outside advertisers, limit AdMob
Apple on Monday changed the terms of its iOS developer agreement to allow outside, independent advertising agencies to collect data with user consent, but the change also has a provision that appears to exclude Google's AdMob.
In April, Apple updated the terms of its mobile operating system developer agreement, restricting outside advertising agencies from collecting information about users. Last week at the D8 conference, Chief Executive Steve Jobs said the changes were made to protect user privacy, and were not anticompetitive.
Jobs singled out Flurry Analytics, which, unbeknownst to Apple, was collecting information about devices through App Store software. That allowed the firm to boast in January that it had tracked a number of devices on Apple's campus running an unreleased version of iOS. Those devices turned out to be Apple's then-unannounced iPad.
On Monday, Apple officially changed its stance and modified the terms of its developer agreement. The new section 3.3.9 reads that applications "may not collect, use, or disclose to any third party, user or device data without prior user consent," and gives a list of conditions under which the sharing of data is allowed. Agencies will now be allowed to collect user data, but only after receiving their consent.
As noted by Peter Kafka at MediaMemo, the modified section 3.3.9 says that information can only be provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."
"For example," it continues, "an advertising service or provider owned or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems of development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent."
The largest mobile advertising firm, AdMob, was recently acquired by Google. Google is also the maker of the Android mobile operating system, which would seem to suggest that AdMob is qualified as a "developer or distributor" of mobile operating systems.
"The language also appears to disqualify potential rivals -- if, for instance, Microsoft tried entering the mobile display market," Kafka wrote. "I've asked Apple for comment, but I’m not expecting any."
Before Google bought AdMob, Apple tried first, Jobs admitted in April when iAd was introduced. But AdMob was "snatched" by Google before Apple could close the deal, he said.
Google ultimately paid $750 million for AdMob -- a premium price that the search giant was reportedly willing to pay to keep the company away from Apple. Apple then settled for Quattro Wireless for $275 million, a purchase that paved the way for iAd.
Apple has big plans for its own mobile advertising venture, set to debut July 1. The service already has $60 million in commitments over the next six months, and is estimated to take nearly a 50 percent market share of the mobile advertising space in the second half of 2010.
In April, Apple updated the terms of its mobile operating system developer agreement, restricting outside advertising agencies from collecting information about users. Last week at the D8 conference, Chief Executive Steve Jobs said the changes were made to protect user privacy, and were not anticompetitive.
Jobs singled out Flurry Analytics, which, unbeknownst to Apple, was collecting information about devices through App Store software. That allowed the firm to boast in January that it had tracked a number of devices on Apple's campus running an unreleased version of iOS. Those devices turned out to be Apple's then-unannounced iPad.
On Monday, Apple officially changed its stance and modified the terms of its developer agreement. The new section 3.3.9 reads that applications "may not collect, use, or disclose to any third party, user or device data without prior user consent," and gives a list of conditions under which the sharing of data is allowed. Agencies will now be allowed to collect user data, but only after receiving their consent.
As noted by Peter Kafka at MediaMemo, the modified section 3.3.9 says that information can only be provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."
"For example," it continues, "an advertising service or provider owned or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems of development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent."
The largest mobile advertising firm, AdMob, was recently acquired by Google. Google is also the maker of the Android mobile operating system, which would seem to suggest that AdMob is qualified as a "developer or distributor" of mobile operating systems.
"The language also appears to disqualify potential rivals -- if, for instance, Microsoft tried entering the mobile display market," Kafka wrote. "I've asked Apple for comment, but I’m not expecting any."
Before Google bought AdMob, Apple tried first, Jobs admitted in April when iAd was introduced. But AdMob was "snatched" by Google before Apple could close the deal, he said.
Google ultimately paid $750 million for AdMob -- a premium price that the search giant was reportedly willing to pay to keep the company away from Apple. Apple then settled for Quattro Wireless for $275 million, a purchase that paved the way for iAd.
Apple has big plans for its own mobile advertising venture, set to debut July 1. The service already has $60 million in commitments over the next six months, and is estimated to take nearly a 50 percent market share of the mobile advertising space in the second half of 2010.
Comments
this is gonna get interesting
Ballsy move. Is it hubris?
ps, I'm loving S5's Reader option, it made reading the article quite comfortable.
I don't know, but its a safe bet the FTC is going to take a good look at this as part of their anti-trust investigation.
They may, but I have a hard time seeing how it's going to get them into trouble. The clause prevents other companies who compete directly with Apple from benefitting from their ecosystem. Google and Android for example. If apple had a majority of the phone market I can see this as a problem, but with 2.7% share, or roughly 21% share in the US market is it hard for Google to claim their business is significantly hurt by it. Especially when they have their own competing phone to put their own ads on.
I don't know, but its a safe bet the FTC is going to take a good look at this as part of their anti-trust investigation.
At this point the New York Post and its rumors make it sound like they are examining what candy in the Cupe vending machines as anti-trust. So yeah they should have an article saying this has been added to the list of DOJ concerns in the next 12 hours, 24 tops
It's just I have a hard time seeing apple as an ad company. Something just does not feel right about that.
Ballsy move. Is it hubris?
10% hubris, 90% not giving their biggest competitor inside access to their ecosystem.
10% hubris, 90% not giving their biggest competitor inside access to their ecosystem.
I understand your point.
I wonder if the meaning of "competitor" will be examined by the feds. ISTM that a case could be made that Apple is trying to use its market power in the mobile app market to stifle competition in the mobile ad market.
Time will tell. The hubris part would only come into play if they get slapped for it.
Even if Apple doesn't take over the whole market in smart mobile devices, they will always get the higher-income demographic, you know the ones whom advertisers lust after because they have more money to spend. And now, Google can't easily run crying to the FTC about AdMob getting locked out of info sharing with iPhone apps because they are direct competitors in smart phones and similar devices. And since the point of Android is to ensure Google maximal mobile ad audience, Google's entry into smart phones just might have backfired because it actually limits their mobile ad scope.
So I think it's Google more than Apple who has been infected with hubris. Witness how they thought they could just march into smart phone retailing without first building a customer support and service infrastructure. One thing about Apple, as arrogant as some people say they are, Apple does not go into anything without first doing their homework. And nobody does as much homework as Apple. Google does one thing, and only one thing, well --search ads. That's it. And because they do that well, they started thinking they can do everything well. That can be attributed to nothing else but hubris.
I understand your point.
I wonder if the meaning of "competitor" will be examined by the feds. ISTM that a case could be made that Apple is trying to use its market power in the mobile app market to stifle competition in the mobile ad market.
Time will tell. The hubris part would only come into play if they get slapped for it.
I also wonder whether Apple has crossed the restraint-of-trade line on this. But they have the best lawyers and they are probably hinging their arguments on the nuance of allowing information sharing with independent advertisers and ad servers but not those affiliated with Apple's mobile device and platform competitors. Notice also, the ban is on information sharing not on actual posting of mobile ads. So iPhone apps can still contain AdMob ads, they just can't give AdMob any information that would benefit Google's Android business. Pretty smart lawyering I think, at least from a non-lawyer's POV.
Yes, time (and the courts) will tell.
insisting on a truly independent third party seems like a natural requirement for apple to disclose their user datas data to a third party. third meaning not first party (the user) or second party (apple).
or maybe the other way around from The Steves point of view.
but it seems more like something not anticipated. abused in some scenarios. and happens to support competitive goals. but overall is reasonable to build trust into the platform..
I think this is something facebook could learn from and adopt.
But AdMob was "snatched" by Google before Apple could close the deal
Lie. Google made offer after expiration of "buy-out window". Apple had 40 days to buyout AdMob. And only after the windows Google made the offer.
We'll see how well apple does in the ad business. It seems to me that apple trying to block google ads from their apps. I don't know if iAds can provide as much revenue right away for developers as google ads can already, but perhaps over time they could be more competitive.
It's just I have a hard time seeing apple as an ad company. Something just does not feel right about that.
just a company providing what they feel is the best implementation of ad service for their platform. I seriously doubt they are going to add "ad company" to any of their marketing, nor make a big deal out of it. With control of such a nice chunk of the smartphone demographic, this is an attractive demographic to advertisers.
I will have to see for myself, but if these ads are the least bit intrusive I will simply not get an iPhone. Leave the ads on search results and TV where they belong.
The add demonstration was pretty conclusive - they DON'T want ads to be intrusive - which is why they decided to step in and manage it for the users. YOU decide if you click on the ad, YOU decide if you want to continue to watch the ad or "x" out of it. And since it floats above your running application - once it ends or you "x" out of it, you are returned to your application, non the worse for the experience. Unlike current ads which spill you out to a website link and disrupt your gameplay or app use.
Lie. Google made offer after expiration of "buy-out window". Apple had 40 days to buyout AdMob. And only after the windows Google made the offer.
So, an "Ass" right back at you in hopes you learn to communicate in a more friendly and reasonable manner. Anyhow - how in fact do you know what actually transpired - we only have claims from those allegedly involved in the deal - right?