Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!
Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!
Yes, and is it down to the proprietor/franchisee/ "owner" of each individual Taco Bell establishment to make a decision on what soft drinks he sells, or is it part of the franchise license, even though he owns the property? Should the proprietor be able to make his own rules on his own property, or is this decision made for the whole chain as a condition of being able to use the Taco Bell identity?
One could argue that the proprietor that bought the paper cups and napkins and tables and chairs owns these items; therefore he can do whatever he wants to with them. But, does he own the Taco Bell name and everything associated with it? He might want to do something different with them, especially when his customers seem to prefer Coke; but he is using the Taco Bell platform to make his living. Can he jailbreak his restaurant and sideload a few hamburger products that he developed on his barbecue out back, in order to satisfy all his possible clients? He could just leave the platform altogether and open a Chick Fil-a instead (that's Coke isn't it? -- it better be, but I live in Netherlands and I am not sure; but it's from Atlanta, right, so how could it not use Coke? I like Coke, did I say that? I like Apple too).
Unfortunately it isn't that clear-cut as someone else owns this "Target" and its almost as if Target didn't ask the owner of the property if they wanted Best Buy blocked. Does Target have the right to restrict such things if they don't own the property? What if the owner may want those ads displayed?
In this case, I'd say you're right. We don't own iOS. We licence it and Apple owns it. Therefore your analogy holds as the software platform IS Apple's and they do have the rights to restrict competitors from advertising on their OS. Does this create anti-competitive results? Maybe, but that doesn't circumvent Apple's rights does it?
No, not even close to creating anti-trust (which is what I think you mean) situation. It's totally legal to have a monopoly, as long as competition is allowed to try. AdMob can't argue Apple is locking them out of advertising... they can always go back to what they were doing before the iPhone... sending bulk mail, smoke signals, engraved pencils, sucking, etc.
Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!
Taco Bell does not have a taco monopoly, only chalupas I think.
I think you were making a joke, but there are a lot of people with quasi-religious views about economics and I guess their priests are telling them that monopolies are some kind of evil spirit out to steal their livestock and children in the middle of the night. It's merely hyperventilation caused by acute cases of poor education. It's disease that affects all groups, in fact I'm guessing that the DOJ is home to the outbreak monkey.
Taco Bell does not have a taco monopoly, only chalupas I think.
I think you were making a joke, but there are a lot of people with quasi-religious views about economics and I guess their priests are telling them that monopolies are some kind of evil spirit out to steal their livestock and children in the middle of the night. It's merely hyperventilation caused by acute cases of poor education. It's disease that affects all groups, in fact I'm guessing that the DOJ is home to the outbreak monkey.
They sure don't have a monopoly on bad Mexican food.
Partly a joke, but the main point wasn't. Coca-Cola doesn't have a prayer of selling their products in any Taco Bell restaurant, because Taco Bell's parent company has an exclusive contract with Pepsico -- for all eternity, I believe. Antitrust violation or no? No, not so long as the soft drink market remains competitive and the other companies have an equal shot at making similar deals with other restaurants.
Dude, I know; obviously you don't get all the subtle layers to some of these analogies. Whatever way you want to use any or all of these analogies, it's not that difficult...
It doesn't matter WHO the manufacturers are, Apple can basically stock its OWN vending machines, its OWN brick and mortar stores, its OWN virtual stores, its OWN hardware and its OWN platforms with ANYTHING it wants to. Apple owns the store AND the vending machine. They are not, however, trying to dictate someone else's store.
You are right that Coke might have a problem if they refused to supply other peoples' stores that stocked a competing beverage -- this is what MS did with Windows. (Although, restaurants seem to have exclusive deals, so anyhow.)
But you are still quite backward on this. It's APPLE'S OWN STORE / PLATFORM. If Coke had stores, they could refuse to stock Pepsi in them. So, must MS put Apple stuff in its stores (both of them [edit: it looks like 3 now])? Oh no, Radio Shack has a "monopoly" over its own stores -- better tell all the electrical goods producers to get in line to make sure their products are represented equally in all Radio Shack stores; the multinational tech companies better revolt against the oppressive overlord Radio Shack. Oh, wait a minute, the manufacturers can sell their products through Amazon, Walt Mart, Best Buy, or a million other places. It's irrelevant if no-one wants to patronize those other places due to the lax customer care and lack of vision. If consumers all flock to Radio Shack instead, there might be a good reason for it. Does it make a difference if Radio Shack makes good decisions and suddenly becomes a retail sensation overnight, with world's most profitable stores per square foot?
Devs also have somewhere else to go. If, for example, they insist on using Flash to "develop" apps, then there are countless places they can go -- why, didn't you know, Flash is welcomed everywhere as the most essential ingredient of the real internet. Flash developers haven't become dependent on Apple only to have Apple pull the rug out from under them. In fact, by a dev's insistence upon developing in Flash or using Admob, it signals they are using a one size-fits-all approach that was primarily developed for NON-Apple products. It signals that they are in it for the money and not to make a great app for the consumer; it signals that they obviously have somewhere else to sell their apps or to make money (such as through Google ads on their own websites -- surely they will get more eyes on their own websites than on that awful Apple app store that everyone despises). Devs can even sell their products from their own personal websites and still reach the same global market that Apple reaches -- Safari doesn't block the sites! But I guess they figure that Apple does them a service with the app store.
Sure, Apple cannot (probably) dictate to Best Buy to drop Dell products if Best Buy wants to carry Macs. That's an abusive MS tactic -- upon the "partners" that were dependent on MS. On the other hand, Apple doesn't have to sell Macs in Best Buy at all. Best Buy is not dependent on selling Macs in the same way that Dell and Acer are dependent on having Windows on most of their machines. Apple has not got that kind of hold over the computer industry
So, I take it that you think every Mom & Pop store should carry anything and everything the local protection racket (Google) comes around and tells them to carry? What happened to all this freedom Apple critics are supposedly in favor of? Last time I checked, store owners could carry whatever the heck they wanted to carry. If they didn't like the way a supplier did business, they switched suppliers. Google claims the whole internet as its private market and it wants to bully Apple for staking out its own little corner [paraphrased from an article I just read but can't find right now].
Hey, I just read another article in which Adobe announces they think Flash will be on some 200+ million mobile devices by 2012. Obviously, the Apple game isn't the only game in town. Even if it were, Apple is not holding a gun to anyone's head -- devs come because it is profitable and has great terms and Apple knows what it is doing.
Thanks for providing the complete spank and debunk on this. However you missed an opportunity for some key anti-Google remarks ... uppity-websites posing as hardware entrepreneurs are harmful for consumers. Worse... they are the biggest cowardly scumbag losers on the planet for their blatant cheesy knock-off of the iPhone. They should be ashamed of their pathetic shallow existence, worse is their non-stop instigating of the DOJ because they are mad at Apple for not giving them everything.
Apple never pulled this kinda junk with Microsoft (their lawsuit was long going but very specific) and I think that speaks huge volumes about the differences in corporate cultures and quality of product offerings. I feel a combination of pity and disdain for those fooled by a few cheesy 'web peanuts', into trusting a sleazy telemarketer.
Do you understand the concept of an update to an existing App?
Such as Google recently updating the maps application for Android users across more countries.
Where's the update for the EXISTING Google Maps App on iPhones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
If they did, do you think it would be approved? Although Google Earth and Google Mobile were approved early on, no recent Google apps have been approved. Latitude and Google Voice were denied. You honestly think their free nav app would be approved? Keep dreaming.
They sure don't have a monopoly on bad Mexican food.
Partly a joke, but the main point wasn't. Coca-Cola doesn't have a prayer of selling their products in any Taco Bell restaurant, because Taco Bell's parent company has an exclusive contract with Pepsico -- for all eternity, I believe. Antitrust violation or no? No, not so long as the soft drink market remains competitive and the other companies have an equal shot at making similar deals with other restaurants.
Remember Taco Bell can still refuse to business with Coke even if they have a 100% share of the bad Mexican food. Antitrust doesn't happen just beacuse of marketshare, a company can have a legal monopoly if their competition is merely pathetic... this is the AdMob situation. Google's losing money on a bad purchase, so they are whining.
Apple was either very fortunate in Google souring the deal (actually AdMob broke their contract in negotiations with Apple to prematurely start talks with Google), or very wise in keeping their interest up and forcing Google to pay top-dollar for a company dead-ended without a sweetheart iPhone deal. It's clear from past public behavior that AdMob is run by disgusting pigs with little business integrity, I think they are in good company with Poodle.
I also wonder if Schmidt's desire for a dinner request was satiated by coffee with Jobs at Starbucks Palo Alto? "No date, pizza-face, only coffee".
And for the record sir, I would like to point out that even the dirtiest Taco Bell is a 5 star restaurant compared to the filth & horror of the prison grade food and conditions at Del Taco.
So there's a big corporation that actually wants to protect my personal data rather than selling it off. I am all for it even if it will become a monopoly.
Isn't Android "taking over" from iOS with phenomenal growth, the Android Market is also growing with tens thousands of applications including those, such as Pull my Finger which was originally banned from Apple's App store?
If Apple pulls iAd will the FTC have to revisit Google's acquisition of AdMob given that iAd was used as an example of "open" competition.
I really hope Googles CLOSED and HIDDEN practices are brought out in the open by any enquiry.
Androids explosive growth PROVES that Apple has NO INFLUENCE over competition in the smartphone sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
You forget the mobile app market. The App Store dominates. Billions and billions served. Nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple? Not yet, but it can be alleged (in fact it IS being alleged) that is what Apple is aiming for, in order to hobble hardware and OS competition.
And for the record sir, I would like to point out that even the dirtiest Taco Bell is a 5 star restaurant compared to the filth & horror of the prison grade food and conditions at Del Taco.
Distinction noted. You have also proven that the Bad Mexican Food market is competitive.
So Apple are now Microsoft from ten years ago, and their pathetic war with Google goes up another gear. I wish they'd just grow up and stop acting like spoilt little children.
Hey Apple, open = good, closed = bad.
lack of choice = bad
If you don't want a closed, managed ecosystem don't buy an iPhone! It's not like Apple is removing choice from you by offering the iPhone.
The only "spoiled little children" are the ones like yourself that are totally intolerant of someone like Apple offering something that doesn't fit your narrow definition of good.
Do you understand the concept of an update to an existing App?
Such as Google recently updating the maps application for Android users across more countries.
Where's the update for the EXISTING Google Maps App on iPhones.
Do you ever even read your own posts to see how little sense they make?
Do you understand that the Apple Maps is a first party app on the iPhone and that google could no more access and update it than you could? Do you understand that the Apple iPhone Maps app is not meant to do real time, turn by turn navigation? Do you understand how stupid it is to then suggest it is google's fault for not updating the Apple iPhone Maps app to support turn by turn navigation? It is Apple's app using Googles service for the maps tiles. Even if it was a third party, google app (which it isn't) they would have to have those enhancements approved-fat chance.
Think before you write.
This is almost a dumb as your assertion that it was Skype's fault for Apple banning VOIP over 3G (no sorry, that even though Apple barred this, it was Skype's fault for not dong it anyway). Almost, but not quite. BTW, have you used the newest Skype? Like butter!
I hope that you realize that Apple is leaving the door wide open for "an outside company [to have] the right to see personal information of a device for which they do not make".
Indeed, any sleazy ad agency can see your personal information on your iPhone. Apple does NOT prohibit that, unless the agency is owned by a hardware or OS company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Every single iAd will snoop on your behaviour in using the app. That is the whole point. If you see an iPhone app supported by Admob ads, they will not snoop. But every iAd is allowed to snoop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
But the OP seemed to think that Apple was prohibiting snooping, and that was the reason the OP was glad that Apple is hobbling its competitors.
That is not the case. The level of snooping will remain unchanged. Apple's new rule says that certain companies are welcome to snoop (within the rules) but that other companies are prohibited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
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.
Weasel words. "Given the caveat that the facts renders my argument void, I stand by my original alarmist statements".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
I have heard nothing to indicate that Google will refuse to sell Android apps that include iAds.
nice deflection. I have heard nothing to indicate that Google will support the sale iAds on Android apps.
If the question were whether or not advertising is "a good thing for some consumers", you would have a point.
But given that the question was different from that, I don't think the point answers it.
perhaps you ought to decide what your position is. you are arguing both sides of the coin when it suits you.
You argue that the changes to iOS's t&c's are bad for AdMob and consumers because it restricts competition, however you also say that people will prefer apps with AdMob because their privacy is protected.
In either case, you indicate that Apple is in the wrong. Yet you both conveniently ignore (when it suits you) that it is Apple's decision to protect the privacy of customers by requiring they opt-in to information gathering or paint it as "privacy invasion by choice".
You forget the mobile app market. The App Store dominates. Billions and billions served. Nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple? Not yet, but it can be alleged (in fact it IS being alleged) that is what Apple is aiming for, in order to hobble hardware and OS competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Yes. And if Apple had no market power in the mobile app market, nobody would care that it was shutting out competitors in a different market.
But they do. So the regulators care.
You forget that Apple only has power over the Apple mobile app market. They are not forcing people in the wider mobile app market to do anything whatsoever.
Apple grabbed nearly one third of the $4.2 billion spent on mobile applications in 2009, according to figures from Gartner, a US technology research firm.
if apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones (28%), then they don't have a monopoly of mobile applications (less than one-third).
Just so you know, "closed" is not a word that is typically used to describe Google, because as the word is commonly used, it is inapplicable to Google.
Yes, all the Google shills are running around telling everyone how open Google is. But please tell me how I can gain access to their search algorithms. Tell me how I can duplicate their AdMob functionality with the information that you're claiming is public.
Google is largely closed, but does a good job of PRETENDING to be open. The only exception is Android, but even that is far more closed than they let on. Do you think they'd let Apple install Safari on Android? Not a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Yes. That is correct. That is the case for every app on the iPhone that snoops on you, including iAds. I applaud that.
But the OP seemed to think that Apple was prohibiting snooping, and that was the reason the OP was glad that Apple is hobbling its competitors.
That is not the case. The level of snooping will remain unchanged. Apple's new rule says that certain companies are welcome to snoop (within the rules) but that other companies are prohibited.
That is like almost everything you post - either 100% false or incredibly misleading.
Apple's policy is that snooping requires explicit opt-in -- which differs from everyone else out there. They're also saying that if Google advertises on iOS, they can't snoop even with opt-in. That's also a dramatic improvement in privacy compared to the rest of the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Nothing like an assertion on historical facts that, by it's nature, cannot be proven or disproven. But, frankly, I think the iPhone would have done just as well as it has without these services from Google.
It's a moot point. Google's business plan requires them to be everywhere. It would be useless to have Google search only on some platforms. It is Google's nature which drove them to put YouTube, etc onto iOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Yes. And if Apple had no market power in the mobile app market, nobody would care that it was shutting out competitors in a different market.
But they do. So the regulators care.
First, when have the courts ever ruled that the 'mobile app market' is a relevant market? More importantly, Apple has no monopoly CONTROL of that market. Something like 80% of smart phones (and 97% of all phones) do NOT use iOS - so 80% of smart phone customers are not controlled in any way by Apple. The fact that their platform is so bad that most of them don't download apps has nothing to do with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
See, that is the thing.
I now have the impression that certain monopolies are indeed illegal, no matter what they actually do or don't do, if they were formed in a certain manner.
From the Wiki article:
"A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:[17]
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. That surprised me, and if my reading is correct, it seems to also be a surprise to you.
That's not what it says at all. It says that WILLFUL acquisition and maintenance of power which can not be explained by superior product, business acumen, or historic accident is suspect. That is, if you acquire and maintain a monopoly by a method that is understandable (business acumen, historic accident, superior product, etc), it's OK. It only becomes suspect if you're doing something to build and maintain a monopoly which falls outside of normal good business practices.
Apple has clearly attained its position by offering a better product - so is not covered by that clause.
You could be right, Android being a technologically inferior platform, Apple might not be able to create a compelling user experience with ads there.
iAds will not run on Android, because it is intended to support iPhone developer to develop iPhone apps, not for Android developer to develop Android apps.
1. Nobody claims that Apple is in a monopoly position in the phone market.
2. Having a monopoly position in the phone market is totally irrelevant to the situation.
That would be incorrect, sir. Having a monopoly position is completely relevant to the situation. It is one of the three major tenants of anti-competition law. From the 'pedia:
Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:
* prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business.
* banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position.
* supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures.
The FTC and DOJ will certainly look at (1) and (2) when assessing whether Apple's moves are legally afoul of anti-competition law. I seriously doubt Apple comes anywhere near said legal thresholds.
Comments
Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!
Interesting these comparisons to Coke and Pepsi.
Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!
Yes, and is it down to the proprietor/franchisee/ "owner" of each individual Taco Bell establishment to make a decision on what soft drinks he sells, or is it part of the franchise license, even though he owns the property? Should the proprietor be able to make his own rules on his own property, or is this decision made for the whole chain as a condition of being able to use the Taco Bell identity?
One could argue that the proprietor that bought the paper cups and napkins and tables and chairs owns these items; therefore he can do whatever he wants to with them. But, does he own the Taco Bell name and everything associated with it? He might want to do something different with them, especially when his customers seem to prefer Coke; but he is using the Taco Bell platform to make his living. Can he jailbreak his restaurant and sideload a few hamburger products that he developed on his barbecue out back, in order to satisfy all his possible clients? He could just leave the platform altogether and open a Chick Fil-a instead (that's Coke isn't it? -- it better be, but I live in Netherlands and I am not sure; but it's from Atlanta, right, so how could it not use Coke? I like Coke, did I say that? I like Apple too).
Unfortunately it isn't that clear-cut as someone else owns this "Target" and its almost as if Target didn't ask the owner of the property if they wanted Best Buy blocked. Does Target have the right to restrict such things if they don't own the property? What if the owner may want those ads displayed?
In this case, I'd say you're right. We don't own iOS. We licence it and Apple owns it. Therefore your analogy holds as the software platform IS Apple's and they do have the rights to restrict competitors from advertising on their OS. Does this create anti-competitive results? Maybe, but that doesn't circumvent Apple's rights does it?
No, not even close to creating anti-trust (which is what I think you mean) situation. It's totally legal to have a monopoly, as long as competition is allowed to try. AdMob can't argue Apple is locking them out of advertising... they can always go back to what they were doing before the iPhone... sending bulk mail, smoke signals, engraved pencils, sucking, etc.
Interesting these comparisons to Coke and Pepsi.
Just try to get a Coke at a Taco Bell. This is just one of several restaurant chains that were once owned by Pepsico. Even though they have since been spun into an independent company, they still serve Pepsi products exclusively. Holy antitrust, Batman!
Taco Bell does not have a taco monopoly, only chalupas I think.
I think you were making a joke, but there are a lot of people with quasi-religious views about economics and I guess their priests are telling them that monopolies are some kind of evil spirit out to steal their livestock and children in the middle of the night. It's merely hyperventilation caused by acute cases of poor education. It's disease that affects all groups, in fact I'm guessing that the DOJ is home to the outbreak monkey.
Taco Bell does not have a taco monopoly, only chalupas I think.
I think you were making a joke, but there are a lot of people with quasi-religious views about economics and I guess their priests are telling them that monopolies are some kind of evil spirit out to steal their livestock and children in the middle of the night. It's merely hyperventilation caused by acute cases of poor education. It's disease that affects all groups, in fact I'm guessing that the DOJ is home to the outbreak monkey.
They sure don't have a monopoly on bad Mexican food.
Partly a joke, but the main point wasn't. Coca-Cola doesn't have a prayer of selling their products in any Taco Bell restaurant, because Taco Bell's parent company has an exclusive contract with Pepsico -- for all eternity, I believe. Antitrust violation or no? No, not so long as the soft drink market remains competitive and the other companies have an equal shot at making similar deals with other restaurants.
Dude, I know; obviously you don't get all the subtle layers to some of these analogies. Whatever way you want to use any or all of these analogies, it's not that difficult...
It doesn't matter WHO the manufacturers are, Apple can basically stock its OWN vending machines, its OWN brick and mortar stores, its OWN virtual stores, its OWN hardware and its OWN platforms with ANYTHING it wants to. Apple owns the store AND the vending machine. They are not, however, trying to dictate someone else's store.
You are right that Coke might have a problem if they refused to supply other peoples' stores that stocked a competing beverage -- this is what MS did with Windows. (Although, restaurants seem to have exclusive deals, so anyhow.)
But you are still quite backward on this. It's APPLE'S OWN STORE / PLATFORM. If Coke had stores, they could refuse to stock Pepsi in them. So, must MS put Apple stuff in its stores (both of them [edit: it looks like 3 now])? Oh no, Radio Shack has a "monopoly" over its own stores -- better tell all the electrical goods producers to get in line to make sure their products are represented equally in all Radio Shack stores; the multinational tech companies better revolt against the oppressive overlord Radio Shack. Oh, wait a minute, the manufacturers can sell their products through Amazon, Walt Mart, Best Buy, or a million other places. It's irrelevant if no-one wants to patronize those other places due to the lax customer care and lack of vision. If consumers all flock to Radio Shack instead, there might be a good reason for it. Does it make a difference if Radio Shack makes good decisions and suddenly becomes a retail sensation overnight, with world's most profitable stores per square foot?
Devs also have somewhere else to go. If, for example, they insist on using Flash to "develop" apps, then there are countless places they can go -- why, didn't you know, Flash is welcomed everywhere as the most essential ingredient of the real internet. Flash developers haven't become dependent on Apple only to have Apple pull the rug out from under them. In fact, by a dev's insistence upon developing in Flash or using Admob, it signals they are using a one size-fits-all approach that was primarily developed for NON-Apple products. It signals that they are in it for the money and not to make a great app for the consumer; it signals that they obviously have somewhere else to sell their apps or to make money (such as through Google ads on their own websites -- surely they will get more eyes on their own websites than on that awful Apple app store that everyone despises). Devs can even sell their products from their own personal websites and still reach the same global market that Apple reaches -- Safari doesn't block the sites! But I guess they figure that Apple does them a service with the app store.
Sure, Apple cannot (probably) dictate to Best Buy to drop Dell products if Best Buy wants to carry Macs. That's an abusive MS tactic -- upon the "partners" that were dependent on MS. On the other hand, Apple doesn't have to sell Macs in Best Buy at all. Best Buy is not dependent on selling Macs in the same way that Dell and Acer are dependent on having Windows on most of their machines. Apple has not got that kind of hold over the computer industry
So, I take it that you think every Mom & Pop store should carry anything and everything the local protection racket (Google) comes around and tells them to carry? What happened to all this freedom Apple critics are supposedly in favor of? Last time I checked, store owners could carry whatever the heck they wanted to carry. If they didn't like the way a supplier did business, they switched suppliers. Google claims the whole internet as its private market and it wants to bully Apple for staking out its own little corner [paraphrased from an article I just read but can't find right now].
Hey, I just read another article in which Adobe announces they think Flash will be on some 200+ million mobile devices by 2012. Obviously, the Apple game isn't the only game in town. Even if it were, Apple is not holding a gun to anyone's head -- devs come because it is profitable and has great terms and Apple knows what it is doing.
Thanks for providing the complete spank and debunk on this. However you missed an opportunity for some key anti-Google remarks
Apple never pulled this kinda junk with Microsoft (their lawsuit was long going but very specific) and I think that speaks huge volumes about the differences in corporate cultures and quality of product offerings. I feel a combination of pity and disdain for those fooled by a few cheesy 'web peanuts', into trusting a sleazy telemarketer.
Such as Google recently updating the maps application for Android users across more countries.
Where's the update for the EXISTING Google Maps App on iPhones.
If they did, do you think it would be approved? Although Google Earth and Google Mobile were approved early on, no recent Google apps have been approved. Latitude and Google Voice were denied. You honestly think their free nav app would be approved? Keep dreaming.
If you see an iPhone app supported by Admob ads, they will not snoop.
They sure don't have a monopoly on bad Mexican food.
Partly a joke, but the main point wasn't. Coca-Cola doesn't have a prayer of selling their products in any Taco Bell restaurant, because Taco Bell's parent company has an exclusive contract with Pepsico -- for all eternity, I believe. Antitrust violation or no? No, not so long as the soft drink market remains competitive and the other companies have an equal shot at making similar deals with other restaurants.
Remember Taco Bell can still refuse to business with Coke even if they have a 100% share of the bad Mexican food. Antitrust doesn't happen just beacuse of marketshare, a company can have a legal monopoly if their competition is merely pathetic... this is the AdMob situation. Google's losing money on a bad purchase, so they are whining.
Apple was either very fortunate in Google souring the deal (actually AdMob broke their contract in negotiations with Apple to prematurely start talks with Google), or very wise in keeping their interest up and forcing Google to pay top-dollar for a company dead-ended without a sweetheart iPhone deal. It's clear from past public behavior that AdMob is run by disgusting pigs with little business integrity, I think they are in good company with Poodle.
I also wonder if Schmidt's desire for a dinner request was satiated by coffee with Jobs at Starbucks Palo Alto? "No date, pizza-face, only coffee".
And for the record sir, I would like to point out that even the dirtiest Taco Bell is a 5 star restaurant compared to the filth & horror of the prison grade food and conditions at Del Taco.
If Apple pulls iAd will the FTC have to revisit Google's acquisition of AdMob given that iAd was used as an example of "open" competition.
I really hope Googles CLOSED and HIDDEN practices are brought out in the open by any enquiry.
Androids explosive growth PROVES that Apple has NO INFLUENCE over competition in the smartphone sector.
You forget the mobile app market. The App Store dominates. Billions and billions served. Nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple? Not yet, but it can be alleged (in fact it IS being alleged) that is what Apple is aiming for, in order to hobble hardware and OS competition.
And for the record sir, I would like to point out that even the dirtiest Taco Bell is a 5 star restaurant compared to the filth & horror of the prison grade food and conditions at Del Taco.
Distinction noted. You have also proven that the Bad Mexican Food market is competitive.
So Apple are now Microsoft from ten years ago, and their pathetic war with Google goes up another gear. I wish they'd just grow up and stop acting like spoilt little children.
Hey Apple, open = good, closed = bad.
lack of choice = bad
If you don't want a closed, managed ecosystem don't buy an iPhone! It's not like Apple is removing choice from you by offering the iPhone.
The only "spoiled little children" are the ones like yourself that are totally intolerant of someone like Apple offering something that doesn't fit your narrow definition of good.
Talk about irony
Do you understand the concept of an update to an existing App?
Such as Google recently updating the maps application for Android users across more countries.
Where's the update for the EXISTING Google Maps App on iPhones.
Do you ever even read your own posts to see how little sense they make?
Do you understand that the Apple Maps is a first party app on the iPhone and that google could no more access and update it than you could? Do you understand that the Apple iPhone Maps app is not meant to do real time, turn by turn navigation? Do you understand how stupid it is to then suggest it is google's fault for not updating the Apple iPhone Maps app to support turn by turn navigation? It is Apple's app using Googles service for the maps tiles. Even if it was a third party, google app (which it isn't) they would have to have those enhancements approved-fat chance.
Think before you write.
This is almost a dumb as your assertion that it was Skype's fault for Apple banning VOIP over 3G (no sorry, that even though Apple barred this, it was Skype's fault for not dong it anyway). Almost, but not quite. BTW, have you used the newest Skype? Like butter!
I hope that you realize that Apple is leaving the door wide open for "an outside company [to have] the right to see personal information of a device for which they do not make".
Indeed, any sleazy ad agency can see your personal information on your iPhone. Apple does NOT prohibit that, unless the agency is owned by a hardware or OS company.
Every single iAd will snoop on your behaviour in using the app. That is the whole point. If you see an iPhone app supported by Admob ads, they will not snoop. But every iAd is allowed to snoop.
But the OP seemed to think that Apple was prohibiting snooping, and that was the reason the OP was glad that Apple is hobbling its competitors.
That is not the case. The level of snooping will remain unchanged. Apple's new rule says that certain companies are welcome to snoop (within the rules) but that other companies are prohibited.
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.
Weasel words. "Given the caveat that the facts renders my argument void, I stand by my original alarmist statements".
I have heard nothing to indicate that Google will refuse to sell Android apps that include iAds.
nice deflection. I have heard nothing to indicate that Google will support the sale iAds on Android apps.
If the question were whether or not advertising is "a good thing for some consumers", you would have a point.
But given that the question was different from that, I don't think the point answers it.
perhaps you ought to decide what your position is. you are arguing both sides of the coin when it suits you.
You argue that the changes to iOS's t&c's are bad for AdMob and consumers because it restricts competition, however you also say that people will prefer apps with AdMob because their privacy is protected.
In either case, you indicate that Apple is in the wrong. Yet you both conveniently ignore (when it suits you) that it is Apple's decision to protect the privacy of customers by requiring they opt-in to information gathering or paint it as "privacy invasion by choice".
You forget the mobile app market. The App Store dominates. Billions and billions served. Nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple? Not yet, but it can be alleged (in fact it IS being alleged) that is what Apple is aiming for, in order to hobble hardware and OS competition.
Yes. And if Apple had no market power in the mobile app market, nobody would care that it was shutting out competitors in a different market.
But they do. So the regulators care.
You forget that Apple only has power over the Apple mobile app market. They are not forcing people in the wider mobile app market to do anything whatsoever.
http://www.china.org.cn/business/201...t_19731538.htm
Apple grabbed nearly one third of the $4.2 billion spent on mobile applications in 2009, according to figures from Gartner, a US technology research firm.
if apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones (28%), then they don't have a monopoly of mobile applications (less than one-third).
better find a new angle.
Just so you know, "closed" is not a word that is typically used to describe Google, because as the word is commonly used, it is inapplicable to Google.
Yes, all the Google shills are running around telling everyone how open Google is. But please tell me how I can gain access to their search algorithms. Tell me how I can duplicate their AdMob functionality with the information that you're claiming is public.
Google is largely closed, but does a good job of PRETENDING to be open. The only exception is Android, but even that is far more closed than they let on. Do you think they'd let Apple install Safari on Android? Not a chance.
Yes. That is correct. That is the case for every app on the iPhone that snoops on you, including iAds. I applaud that.
But the OP seemed to think that Apple was prohibiting snooping, and that was the reason the OP was glad that Apple is hobbling its competitors.
That is not the case. The level of snooping will remain unchanged. Apple's new rule says that certain companies are welcome to snoop (within the rules) but that other companies are prohibited.
That is like almost everything you post - either 100% false or incredibly misleading.
Apple's policy is that snooping requires explicit opt-in -- which differs from everyone else out there. They're also saying that if Google advertises on iOS, they can't snoop even with opt-in. That's also a dramatic improvement in privacy compared to the rest of the industry.
Nothing like an assertion on historical facts that, by it's nature, cannot be proven or disproven. But, frankly, I think the iPhone would have done just as well as it has without these services from Google.
It's a moot point. Google's business plan requires them to be everywhere. It would be useless to have Google search only on some platforms. It is Google's nature which drove them to put YouTube, etc onto iOS.
Yes. And if Apple had no market power in the mobile app market, nobody would care that it was shutting out competitors in a different market.
But they do. So the regulators care.
First, when have the courts ever ruled that the 'mobile app market' is a relevant market? More importantly, Apple has no monopoly CONTROL of that market. Something like 80% of smart phones (and 97% of all phones) do NOT use iOS - so 80% of smart phone customers are not controlled in any way by Apple. The fact that their platform is so bad that most of them don't download apps has nothing to do with Apple.
See, that is the thing.
I now have the impression that certain monopolies are indeed illegal, no matter what they actually do or don't do, if they were formed in a certain manner.
From the Wiki article:
"A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:[17]
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. That surprised me, and if my reading is correct, it seems to also be a surprise to you.
That's not what it says at all. It says that WILLFUL acquisition and maintenance of power which can not be explained by superior product, business acumen, or historic accident is suspect. That is, if you acquire and maintain a monopoly by a method that is understandable (business acumen, historic accident, superior product, etc), it's OK. It only becomes suspect if you're doing something to build and maintain a monopoly which falls outside of normal good business practices.
Apple has clearly attained its position by offering a better product - so is not covered by that clause.
You could be right, Android being a technologically inferior platform, Apple might not be able to create a compelling user experience with ads there.
iAds will not run on Android, because it is intended to support iPhone developer to develop iPhone apps, not for Android developer to develop Android apps.
Correct. That is why:
1. Nobody claims that Apple is in a monopoly position in the phone market.
2. Having a monopoly position in the phone market is totally irrelevant to the situation.
That would be incorrect, sir. Having a monopoly position is completely relevant to the situation. It is one of the three major tenants of anti-competition law. From the 'pedia:
Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:
* prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business.
* banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position.
* supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures.
The FTC and DOJ will certainly look at (1) and (2) when assessing whether Apple's moves are legally afoul of anti-competition law. I seriously doubt Apple comes anywhere near said legal thresholds.