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.
I stand by both statements.
Devs will likely not choose AdMob for their iPhone apps. That is likely because AdMob ads cannot obtain normal user info. That will likely reduce competition for the devs' business.
However, if indeed some devs continue on with AdMob, users can rest assured that their data cannot be collected or disseminated by the app. Some users may prefer this. Most users are oblivious.
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.
That is almost correct. The question is not, however, if anybody is forced to do something.
It is an open question as to whether Apple has market power in the mobile app market (and, as you imply, it is an open question whether this is a legitimately defined market, given many factors of which I am only passingly familiar).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
if apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones (28%), then they don't have a monopoly of mobile applications (less than one-third).
I don't think that follows. They seem to me to be two different markets.
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. ...
Yes, I do choose to use intentionally inflammatory and negative language to describe Google. However, I believe the actual points I've made about them, my analysis of their intents and goals (and their ethics and behavior) and the problematic nature of their existence match up very well with the facts and stand up to counter arguments. You just need to learn to separate the language from the logic.
Google does represent a sort of evil. They are a threat to privacy, which threat being ultimately a threat to liberty. (And, for the people who would claim the same of Apple's ecosystem, you simply have no idea what you are talking about when you equate these types of liberty.) They have also demonstrated a sort of outlaw approach that indicates they believe themselves to be above the law. The combination of these factors makes them an organization that needs to be checked, if not dismantled entirely.
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.
Again, you use words that have many meanings, and you use different meanings in similar contexts, resulting in confusion. You also seek a black/white-open/closed conclusion, which is plain silly when dealing with a complex situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
I said "In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. "
You identified a proper case. You think you disagree with me, but you seemingly did not read carefully enough to understand what was said.
They can throttle ad targeting and the specificity of 3rd party analytics according to the taste of users. Trusting 3rd parties to do so would be incredibly foolish, and Apple seems to have just recently figured that out
Seemingly, this author thinks Apple is "incredibly foolish" for allowing 3d party ads on the Mac.
Seemingly, this author thinks Apple is "incredibly foolish" for allowing 3d party ads on the Mac.
Seemingly, you have a desire to distort and misrepresent what he said, which was most obviously not how you reworded it. This is just plain and simple dishonesty on your part.
If Apple wants to, they can shut you down and remotely wipe your phone. Sure, you could then sue them,
You prove my point. If Apple shuts down and remotely wipes MY phone, they are in trouble. The reason? It is not their phone. It is mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
You "buy" it at a discount, and then spend a minimum of 2 years fulfilling an expensive contract. If at any point you decide not to pay, what happens? No more iPhone service.
.
Right. And the provision of service service has nothing to do with ownership of the phone. Paying for electricity, for example, does not give the power company ownership of your refrigerator.
Forcing Apple to allow Google to collect Apple's trade secrets on the iOS platform
If you are concerned about that, you can calm down. Nobody has proposed that Apple should allow Google to collect Apple's trade secrets. That ain't got nothing to do with nothing.
No trade secrets are involved, whether owned by Apple or anybody else.
The information is owned by the user, not Apple. And given that any sleazy company (except AdMob, currently) can access that information (WITH OPT-IN), I fail to see how the new rule adds any protection whatsoever to the information.
If you are concerned about that, you can calm down. Nobody has proposed that Apple should allow Google to collect Apple's trade secrets. That ain't got nothing to do with nothing. ...
It has everything to do with everything, and it's exactly what you have been proposing, despite your efforts to cloak your arguments in other terms and confuse the issue.
The argument that Apple controls some relevant market and must behave in any way other than in their best business interests, is a pure flight of fancy.
Time will tell. I don't think us guys have all the facts yet. You may be correct, but I think it is too early to come to any firm conclusions.
Time will tell. I don't think us guys have all the facts yet. You may be correct, but I think it is too early to come to any firm conclusions.
Anyone who isn't completely ignorant of the facts we have will have no trouble coming to a firm and correct conclusion, even if you'd rather we didn't.
How would my giving personal info to AdMob constitute industrial espionage directed at Apple?
Already answered numerous times by several posters in this thread. Either you aren't really reading the posts, or you somehow think acting as though that isn't the case will further your agenda.
[QUOTE=tundraboy;1650683]I'm not going to argue about the fine points of whether it is Apple or the iOS users who are turning over the data.
It is not a fine point. It is a central point. You need to deal with it to make a cogent argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
I don't see the problem you see with the trade secrets defense.
The basic problem is that no trade secrets are involved. Had you dealt adequately with the identity of the information provider, you might conclude that the party who gives the information is in obsession of none of Apple's trade secrets. If the app user had such information, it would not even BE a trade secret.
I'm not going to argue about the fine points of whether it is Apple or the iOS users who are turning over the data.
It is not a fine point. It is a central point. You need to deal with it to make a cogent argument.
The basic problem is that no trade secrets are involved. Had you dealt adequately with the identity of the information provider, you might conclude that the party who gives the information is in possession of none of Apple's trade secrets. If the app user had such information, it would not even BE a trade secret.
I'm not going to argue about the fine points of whether it is Apple or the iOS users who are turning over the data.
It is not a fine point. It is a central point. You need to deal with it to make a cogent argument.
The basic problem is that no trade secrets are involved. Had you dealt adequately with the identity of the information provider, you might conclude that the party who gives the information is in obsession of none of Apple's trade secrets. If the app user had such information, it would not even BE a trade secret.
I have to hand it to you, though, your persistence in pushing a failed argument is unmatched. I particularly like the way you pick and choose quotes and reply to them out of context, with no indication that the poster said anything else, ignoring anything that's inconvenient for you.
Comments
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.
I stand by both statements.
Devs will likely not choose AdMob for their iPhone apps. That is likely because AdMob ads cannot obtain normal user info. That will likely reduce competition for the devs' business.
However, if indeed some devs continue on with AdMob, users can rest assured that their data cannot be collected or disseminated by the app. Some users may prefer this. Most users are oblivious.
The two rare not mutually exclusive.
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.
That is almost correct. The question is not, however, if anybody is forced to do something.
It is an open question as to whether Apple has market power in the mobile app market (and, as you imply, it is an open question whether this is a legitimately defined market, given many factors of which I am only passingly familiar).
if apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones (28%), then they don't have a monopoly of mobile applications (less than one-third).
I don't think that follows. They seem to me to be two different markets.
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. ...
Yes, I do choose to use intentionally inflammatory and negative language to describe Google. However, I believe the actual points I've made about them, my analysis of their intents and goals (and their ethics and behavior) and the problematic nature of their existence match up very well with the facts and stand up to counter arguments. You just need to learn to separate the language from the logic.
Google does represent a sort of evil. They are a threat to privacy, which threat being ultimately a threat to liberty. (And, for the people who would claim the same of Apple's ecosystem, you simply have no idea what you are talking about when you equate these types of liberty.) They have also demonstrated a sort of outlaw approach that indicates they believe themselves to be above the law. The combination of these factors makes them an organization that needs to be checked, if not dismantled entirely.
That would be incorrect, sir. Having a monopoly position is completely relevant to the situation.
Please reread what I said:
"Having a monopoly position in the phone market is totally irrelevant to the situation."
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.
Again, you use words that have many meanings, and you use different meanings in similar contexts, resulting in confusion. You also seek a black/white-open/closed conclusion, which is plain silly when dealing with a complex situation.
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.
I said "In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. "
You identified a proper case. You think you disagree with me, but you seemingly did not read carefully enough to understand what was said.
They can throttle ad targeting and the specificity of 3rd party analytics according to the taste of users. Trusting 3rd parties to do so would be incredibly foolish, and Apple seems to have just recently figured that out
Seemingly, this author thinks Apple is "incredibly foolish" for allowing 3d party ads on the Mac.
Seemingly, this author thinks Apple is "incredibly foolish" for allowing 3d party ads on the Mac.
Seemingly, you have a desire to distort and misrepresent what he said, which was most obviously not how you reworded it. This is just plain and simple dishonesty on your part.
On what planet is it "your" cellphone?
If Apple wants to, they can shut you down and remotely wipe your phone. Sure, you could then sue them,
You prove my point. If Apple shuts down and remotely wipes MY phone, they are in trouble. The reason? It is not their phone. It is mine.
You "buy" it at a discount, and then spend a minimum of 2 years fulfilling an expensive contract. If at any point you decide not to pay, what happens? No more iPhone service.
.
Right. And the provision of service service has nothing to do with ownership of the phone. Paying for electricity, for example, does not give the power company ownership of your refrigerator.
Forcing Apple to allow Google to collect Apple's trade secrets on the iOS platform
If you are concerned about that, you can calm down. Nobody has proposed that Apple should allow Google to collect Apple's trade secrets. That ain't got nothing to do with nothing.
No trade secrets are involved, whether owned by Apple or anybody else.
The information is owned by the user, not Apple. And given that any sleazy company (except AdMob, currently) can access that information (WITH OPT-IN), I fail to see how the new rule adds any protection whatsoever to the information.
As I posted earlier, it's all about trade secrets....
I disputed this earlier. What trade secrets are involved?
If you are concerned about that, you can calm down. Nobody has proposed that Apple should allow Google to collect Apple's trade secrets. That ain't got nothing to do with nothing. ...
It has everything to do with everything, and it's exactly what you have been proposing, despite your efforts to cloak your arguments in other terms and confuse the issue.
I disputed this earlier. What trade secrets are involved?
No need to pretend ignorance.
I mean, it's not like this hasn't been gone over repeatedly throughout this thread.
The argument that Apple controls some relevant market and must behave in any way other than in their best business interests, is a pure flight of fancy.
Time will tell. I don't think us guys have all the facts yet. You may be correct, but I think it is too early to come to any firm conclusions.
2. To prevent industrial espionage by Google directed at Apple. .
How would my giving personal info to AdMob constitute industrial espionage directed at Apple?
Time will tell. I don't think us guys have all the facts yet. You may be correct, but I think it is too early to come to any firm conclusions.
Anyone who isn't completely ignorant of the facts we have will have no trouble coming to a firm and correct conclusion, even if you'd rather we didn't.
How would my giving personal info to AdMob constitute industrial espionage directed at Apple?
Already answered numerous times by several posters in this thread. Either you aren't really reading the posts, or you somehow think acting as though that isn't the case will further your agenda.
It is not a fine point. It is a central point. You need to deal with it to make a cogent argument.
I don't see the problem you see with the trade secrets defense.
The basic problem is that no trade secrets are involved. Had you dealt adequately with the identity of the information provider, you might conclude that the party who gives the information is in obsession of none of Apple's trade secrets. If the app user had such information, it would not even BE a trade secret.
I'm not going to argue about the fine points of whether it is Apple or the iOS users who are turning over the data.
It is not a fine point. It is a central point. You need to deal with it to make a cogent argument.
The basic problem is that no trade secrets are involved. Had you dealt adequately with the identity of the information provider, you might conclude that the party who gives the information is in possession of none of Apple's trade secrets. If the app user had such information, it would not even BE a trade secret.
Typos corrected. Sorry.
I'm not going to argue about the fine points of whether it is Apple or the iOS users who are turning over the data.
It is not a fine point. It is a central point. You need to deal with it to make a cogent argument.
The basic problem is that no trade secrets are involved. Had you dealt adequately with the identity of the information provider, you might conclude that the party who gives the information is in obsession of none of Apple's trade secrets. If the app user had such information, it would not even BE a trade secret.
Well, you obviously already read this post,
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=209
since you quoted part of it earlier.
I have to hand it to you, though, your persistence in pushing a failed argument is unmatched. I particularly like the way you pick and choose quotes and reply to them out of context, with no indication that the poster said anything else, ignoring anything that's inconvenient for you.
Industrial espionage? How about, not deliberately sharing their proprietary data with a competitor? That covers the situation quite nicely I believe.
There is no Apple proprietary data that Google is asking Apple to share.
There is not proprietary data involved. Apple would not be doing any sharing.
The data is owned by the user. Apple would not transmit the data, the user would.
This whole line of inquiry needs to take these two facts into account.