I wouldn't think thy would invoke trade secrets as a defense. But some did. The counter is that, if they are indeed trade secrets, they are being provided to multiple competitors. Within their rights, certainly. Sort of makes the secret part of the trade secrets not so secret, however.
You need to learn to think in less simplistic terms. There are two classes of competitors here. Advertising competitors and mobile device competitors. There is nothing wrong with choosing to allow access to one class but not the other. In fact, with the first class, they are avoiding doing anything that might be called "unfair competition". With the second class, they are taking necessary steps to protect their business. Apple is being completely fair here while protecting their business interests against industrial espionage.
You need to learn to think in less simplistic terms. There are two classes of competitors here. Advertising competitors and mobile device competitors. There is nothing wrong with choosing to allow access to one class but not the other. In fact, with the first class, they are avoiding doing anything that might be called "unfair competition". With the second class, they are taking necessary steps to protect their business. Apple is being completely fair here while protecting their business interests against industrial espionage.
Industrial espionage? How about, not deliberately sharing their proprietary data with a competitor? That covers the situation quite nicely I believe.
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!
I was all set to post a snarky response to this post until I saw who the author was.
Doc - if anyone should know better, it is you. Many people around here will not get your joke. Instead, they will take your comment at face value, and use it in their posts.
1. Because its business model is based on creating great user experiences and not on harvesting personal data, Apple, even if such were their intent (an accusation you have offered absolutely no evidence in support of) it would not represent the same danger to consumers that Google doing so does.
Evidence? Beyond them buying an advertising analytics company and using it to create the iAds platform? The data is valuable. Whether they are collecting the data only for the value to them or also for the benefit of the devs, there is no question the collect it because of it's value. Otherwise Apple could have simply created an ad service with no analytics. But that would have no value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
2. I think Apple's attempt to acquire AdMob, and eventual acquisition of Quattro, and roll-out of iAd has as its purpose allowing developers to support themselves financially via ads without having AdMob/Google sifting through every bit of personal and device data they can lay their hands on. All their actions and words speak to this truth, and unless you have evidence to the contrary, you're just, once again, trying to muddy the waters for the sake of your argument.
Talking about muddled. They bought it to make money for themselves and to help devs make money. Apple may be altruistic, but they aren't spending money only for the sake of helping others. Else they would just hand out cash to devs. The data is valuable to Apple as well.
You are right, that another reason certainly was to prevent Google from getting the data. But not for the good of the devs or users. This was done simply for Apple's interests (and they should and are expected do things in their own interest)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Let's stop pretending that the issues are as black and white or nefarious as you'd like to paint them. Clearly there are two separate, but complimentary goals here:
Seriously? From you? I am looking at the good and the bad of both sides. You are very honest, and a credit to you, of your disdain for google and your beliefs of their overarching capacity and intentions for evil.
let's stop pretending you are capable or willing to look at other shades, other than the black and white concepts of google = evil and Apple = purity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
1. To give users control of what data advertisers collect about them and their phone. Obviously, the solution is a compromise in that it allows advertisers to collect information with user permission while giving users some control over it.
Which has nothing to do with the google ban. Talk about muddying the waters, again. This would apply to google (if they were allowed) as much as to any other provider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
2. To prevent industrial espionage by Google directed at Apple. This is an entirely legitimate move on Apple's part. You know it is whether you will admit it in writing or not.
Their concerns about industrial espionage were one EVER directed at Flurry. With Jobs current war with Google, you think he wouldn't have mentioned google when talking about the damaging information that actually leaked or that had the potential to be gathered, if that was an actual concern of Apple wrt to google? You might think this, but it is arrogant of you to project that onto Apple's reasoning.
It is to block authorized user data (with consent) from google that would benefit google. Absolutely and no denying this. No one reasonable thinks of this as industrial espionage.
Industrial espionage? How about, not deliberately sharing their proprietary data with a competitor? That covers the situation quite nicely I believe.
Well, "industrial espionage" is correctly applied in relation to the certain intent of Google/AdMob. Sure, it carries a more negative and dramatic connotation, but there's no point in mincing words.
Then I suppose we agree that it might be a weak defense, which fortunately for Apple, won't be needed. Not that Apple could not choose to disclose trade secrets to anyone they wished. It's done all the time, under NDAs.
yes, we agree and yes they could share it and cover it with and NDA...and have restrictions to each party in how the data might be used.
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.
Dunno about that, but monopolies have market power. They can raise prices without reducing demand. They can bundle other products without reducing demand.
Since you've gotten to the inevitable point in your argument where you're no longer rational, nor responding to anyone's points, but just repeating what you've said over and over again, there's no longer any point in responding to your points directly.
Suffice it to say, you will spin this as you like, but you are entirely mistaken in your analysis, your arguments and your reasoning.
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.
That is really the heart of the matter.
If Apple is found to have market power in the mobile app retail market, then it cannot do anything it wants to.
One thing it may not be able to do is to try to influence what software may be available in other stores. It has been alleged that the new cross-platform development tool rule is intended to influence what software may become available on competing platforms.
The analysis depends on at least two factors:
Does Apple have market power to influence the mobile app market?
If so, is Apple using that power in an anti-competitive manner?
Since you've gotten to the inevitable point in your argument where you're no longer rational, nor responding to anyone's points, but just repeating what you've said over and over again, there's no longer any point in responding to your points directly.
When faced with hate driven, illogical hyperbole, the conversations do tend to suffer.
If Apple is found to have market power in the mobile app retail market, then it cannot do anything it wants to.
One thing it may not be able to do is to try to influence what software may be available in other stores. It has been alleged that the new cross-platform development tool rule is intended to influence what software may become available on competing platforms.
The analysis depends on at least two factors:
Does Apple have market power to influence the mobile app market?
If so, is Apple using that power in an anti-competitive manner?
Complete FUD and not even worthy of a response other than to say: How much time do you spend cooking up these little fake scenarios based on nothing but falsities?
When faced with hate driven, illogical hyperbole, the conversations do tend to suffer.
No, the conversation suffers because, even when all of your points have been completely exploded, you just repeat them all over again as if they were a new argument.
Would you please provide a link proving the veracity of this statement.
How about the first sentence of the story we are commenting on?
"...Apple... had modified section 3.3.9 of the iOS developer agreement to state that user data can only be obtained ... and only provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."
Accordingly, AdMob supported apps cannot (can no longer?) supply user data.
That is the main point of this entire thread. You are welcome.
How about the first sentence of the story we are commenting on?
"...Apple... had modified section 3.3.9 of the iOS developer agreement to state that user data can only be obtained ... and only provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."
Accordingly, AdMob supported apps cannot (can no longer?) supply user data.
That is the main point of this entire thread. You are welcome.
This (your original assertion)is only partially true. First, Google/AdMob already have personal data associated with other data that would allow them to identify a particular user. It would be naive to think they won't find a way to identify and target users based on what they do have and the apps that use them, despite the restrictions placed on their information harvesting activities. So, users would still be well advised to avoid clicking on any Google/AdMob ads.
Androids explosive growth PROVES that Apple has NO INFLUENCE over competition in the smartphone sector.
I think you are mistaking the area of inquiry. Nobody alleges that Apple now has market power in the smartphone market. They are in a distant third place in the smartphone market.
Reread what I said:
"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."
Which closed and hidden practices are you referring to?
How do you know about them if they are hidden? Do you have insider information? Are you a mole? Are you just making shit up?
Making shit up? You are quite familiar with that.
You are either entirely clueless or being utterly disingenuous to suggest that it's not the case that most people have no idea the amount and extent of personal data Google collects and keeps.
I think you are mistaking the area of inquiry. Nobody alleges that Apple now has market power in the smartphone market. They are in a distant third place in the smartphone market.
Reread what I said:
"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."
Yet more inventive FUD.
Although it is amusing how you criticize someone in one post for pretending to know what Google is doing and then in another claim to know what Apple is about.
No, the conversation suffers because, even when all of your points have been completely exploded, you just repeat them all over again as if they were a new argument.
Perhaps caused by waiting for you to 'explode' even a single point. You should have learned by now that simple exaggeration in your language when countering a point isn't really a counter argument. It is just exaggeration and hyberbole.
Really, the only repetition is your own statement of 'Google is evil'. Probably the single most used phrase in this entire thread and most have been by you. The problem is, this is neither a fact nor a good starting point for debate. Yet, it seems to be all you have to offer in the thread. Repeatedly.
Unfortunate, because I have come to appreciate some of your viewpoints and posts, though not always to the point of agreeing. You are very capable of presenting compelling, rational, well thought out arguments and counter arguments. But as soon as google comes into the story you seem to lose your sensibilities completely. I do think highly of your passion for Apple. We need more people that will step up and defend and promote them...rationally.
Comments
I wouldn't think thy would invoke trade secrets as a defense. But some did. The counter is that, if they are indeed trade secrets, they are being provided to multiple competitors. Within their rights, certainly. Sort of makes the secret part of the trade secrets not so secret, however.
You need to learn to think in less simplistic terms. There are two classes of competitors here. Advertising competitors and mobile device competitors. There is nothing wrong with choosing to allow access to one class but not the other. In fact, with the first class, they are avoiding doing anything that might be called "unfair competition". With the second class, they are taking necessary steps to protect their business. Apple is being completely fair here while protecting their business interests against industrial espionage.
You need to learn to think in less simplistic terms. There are two classes of competitors here. Advertising competitors and mobile device competitors. There is nothing wrong with choosing to allow access to one class but not the other. In fact, with the first class, they are avoiding doing anything that might be called "unfair competition". With the second class, they are taking necessary steps to protect their business. Apple is being completely fair here while protecting their business interests against industrial espionage.
Industrial espionage? How about, not deliberately sharing their proprietary data with a competitor? That covers the situation quite nicely I believe.
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!
I was all set to post a snarky response to this post until I saw who the author was.
Doc - if anyone should know better, it is you. Many people around here will not get your joke. Instead, they will take your comment at face value, and use it in their posts.
And then you will need to correct them.
1. Because its business model is based on creating great user experiences and not on harvesting personal data, Apple, even if such were their intent (an accusation you have offered absolutely no evidence in support of) it would not represent the same danger to consumers that Google doing so does.
Evidence? Beyond them buying an advertising analytics company and using it to create the iAds platform?
2. I think Apple's attempt to acquire AdMob, and eventual acquisition of Quattro, and roll-out of iAd has as its purpose allowing developers to support themselves financially via ads without having AdMob/Google sifting through every bit of personal and device data they can lay their hands on. All their actions and words speak to this truth, and unless you have evidence to the contrary, you're just, once again, trying to muddy the waters for the sake of your argument.
Talking about muddled. They bought it to make money for themselves and to help devs make money. Apple may be altruistic, but they aren't spending money only for the sake of helping others. Else they would just hand out cash to devs. The data is valuable to Apple as well.
You are right, that another reason certainly was to prevent Google from getting the data. But not for the good of the devs or users. This was done simply for Apple's interests (and they should and are expected do things in their own interest)
Let's stop pretending that the issues are as black and white or nefarious as you'd like to paint them. Clearly there are two separate, but complimentary goals here:
Seriously? From you? I am looking at the good and the bad of both sides. You are very honest, and a credit to you, of your disdain for google and your beliefs of their overarching capacity and intentions for evil.
let's stop pretending you are capable or willing to look at other shades, other than the black and white concepts of google = evil and Apple = purity.
1. To give users control of what data advertisers collect about them and their phone. Obviously, the solution is a compromise in that it allows advertisers to collect information with user permission while giving users some control over it.
Which has nothing to do with the google ban. Talk about muddying the waters, again. This would apply to google (if they were allowed) as much as to any other provider.
2. To prevent industrial espionage by Google directed at Apple. This is an entirely legitimate move on Apple's part. You know it is whether you will admit it in writing or not.
Their concerns about industrial espionage were one EVER directed at Flurry. With Jobs current war with Google, you think he wouldn't have mentioned google when talking about the damaging information that actually leaked or that had the potential to be gathered, if that was an actual concern of Apple wrt to google? You might think this, but it is arrogant of you to project that onto Apple's reasoning.
It is to block authorized user data (with consent) from google that would benefit google. Absolutely and no denying this. No one reasonable thinks of this as industrial espionage.
Industrial espionage? How about, not deliberately sharing their proprietary data with a competitor? That covers the situation quite nicely I believe.
Well, "industrial espionage" is correctly applied in relation to the certain intent of Google/AdMob. Sure, it carries a more negative and dramatic connotation, but there's no point in mincing words.
Then I suppose we agree that it might be a weak defense, which fortunately for Apple, won't be needed. Not that Apple could not choose to disclose trade secrets to anyone they wished. It's done all the time, under NDAs.
yes, we agree and yes they could share it and cover it with and NDA...and have restrictions to each party in how the data might be used.
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.
Dunno about that, but monopolies have market power. They can raise prices without reducing demand. They can bundle other products without reducing demand.
Since you've gotten to the inevitable point in your argument where you're no longer rational, nor responding to anyone's points, but just repeating what you've said over and over again, there's no longer any point in responding to your points directly.
Suffice it to say, you will spin this as you like, but you are entirely mistaken in your analysis, your arguments and your reasoning.
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.
That is really the heart of the matter.
If Apple is found to have market power in the mobile app retail market, then it cannot do anything it wants to.
One thing it may not be able to do is to try to influence what software may be available in other stores. It has been alleged that the new cross-platform development tool rule is intended to influence what software may become available on competing platforms.
The analysis depends on at least two factors:
Does Apple have market power to influence the mobile app market?
If so, is Apple using that power in an anti-competitive manner?
@Tulkas
Since you've gotten to the inevitable point in your argument where you're no longer rational, nor responding to anyone's points, but just repeating what you've said over and over again, there's no longer any point in responding to your points directly.
When faced with hate driven, illogical hyperbole, the conversations do tend to suffer.
Where's the update for the EXISTING Google Maps App on iPhones.
Given Apple's recent behavior, I wouldn't hold my breath.
That is really the heart of the matter.
If Apple is found to have market power in the mobile app retail market, then it cannot do anything it wants to.
One thing it may not be able to do is to try to influence what software may be available in other stores. It has been alleged that the new cross-platform development tool rule is intended to influence what software may become available on competing platforms.
The analysis depends on at least two factors:
Does Apple have market power to influence the mobile app market?
If so, is Apple using that power in an anti-competitive manner?
Complete FUD and not even worthy of a response other than to say: How much time do you spend cooking up these little fake scenarios based on nothing but falsities?
When faced with hate driven, illogical hyperbole, the conversations do tend to suffer.
No, the conversation suffers because, even when all of your points have been completely exploded, you just repeat them all over again as if they were a new argument.
Would you please provide a link proving the veracity of this statement.
How about the first sentence of the story we are commenting on?
"...Apple... had modified section 3.3.9 of the iOS developer agreement to state that user data can only be obtained ... and only provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."
Accordingly, AdMob supported apps cannot (can no longer?) supply user data.
That is the main point of this entire thread. You are welcome.
I really hope Googles CLOSED and HIDDEN practices are brought out in the open by any enquiry.
.
Which closed and hidden practices are you referring to?
How do you know about them if they are hidden? Do you have insider information? Are you a mole? Are you just making shit up?
How about the first sentence of the story we are commenting on?
"...Apple... had modified section 3.3.9 of the iOS developer agreement to state that user data can only be obtained ... and only provided to "an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads."
Accordingly, AdMob supported apps cannot (can no longer?) supply user data.
That is the main point of this entire thread. You are welcome.
This (your original assertion)is only partially true. First, Google/AdMob already have personal data associated with other data that would allow them to identify a particular user. It would be naive to think they won't find a way to identify and target users based on what they do have and the apps that use them, despite the restrictions placed on their information harvesting activities. So, users would still be well advised to avoid clicking on any Google/AdMob ads.
Androids explosive growth PROVES that Apple has NO INFLUENCE over competition in the smartphone sector.
I think you are mistaking the area of inquiry. Nobody alleges that Apple now has market power in the smartphone market. They are in a distant third place in the smartphone market.
Reread what I said:
"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."
Which closed and hidden practices are you referring to?
How do you know about them if they are hidden? Do you have insider information? Are you a mole? Are you just making shit up?
Making shit up? You are quite familiar with that.
You are either entirely clueless or being utterly disingenuous to suggest that it's not the case that most people have no idea the amount and extent of personal data Google collects and keeps.
I think you are mistaking the area of inquiry. Nobody alleges that Apple now has market power in the smartphone market. They are in a distant third place in the smartphone market.
Reread what I said:
"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."
Yet more inventive FUD.
Although it is amusing how you criticize someone in one post for pretending to know what Google is doing and then in another claim to know what Apple is about.
No, the conversation suffers because, even when all of your points have been completely exploded, you just repeat them all over again as if they were a new argument.
Perhaps caused by waiting for you to 'explode' even a single point. You should have learned by now that simple exaggeration in your language when countering a point isn't really a counter argument. It is just exaggeration and hyberbole.
Really, the only repetition is your own statement of 'Google is evil'. Probably the single most used phrase in this entire thread and most have been by you. The problem is, this is neither a fact nor a good starting point for debate. Yet, it seems to be all you have to offer in the thread. Repeatedly.
Unfortunate, because I have come to appreciate some of your viewpoints and posts, though not always to the point of agreeing. You are very capable of presenting compelling, rational, well thought out arguments and counter arguments. But as soon as google comes into the story you seem to lose your sensibilities completely. I do think highly of your passion for Apple. We need more people that will step up and defend and promote them...rationally.