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.
Sorry. Show me where I propose that Apple be forced to divulge trade secrets to Google?
I can't imagine I said that, given that trade secrets are not germane to the situation.
Sorry. Show me where I propose that Apple be forced to divulge trade secrets to Google?
I can't imagine I said that, given that trade secrets are not germane to the situation.
Yes, exactly, as I said, you are attempting to obscure that fact, by cloaking your arguments in other terms. I'm certain that you understand the issue. I'm equally as certain that your purpose is to try to make the issue about something else.
Can Apple really enforce an NDA which says "You cannot disclose information which is given to you by a third party"?
Every NDA I've seen specifically excludes such information, presumably because such a requirement is unenforceable.
But I've never looked into it.
They could put the language in there. The information is provided and consented to by a third party (users) but the devs still have to agree to what Apple asks of them in order to get their apps installed and so allow to ask the users. Enforceable? Other than the honour system, I guess it is enforceable as much as any other clause in an NDA...once you get caught they will take what steps they choose. In this case, at a minimum, your app gets burned.
Since the language requires Apple to give devs permission before they can use alternative ad services, Apple could also have the ad service sign off in order for the dev to be given permission to use them. Again, they get caught, all apps using their ad service get burned and your iPhone business is toast.
But this would be the case, as far any language and ability to enforce it, whether it is Google or Flurry or whomever.
I read it and reread it. It gives no examples of trade secrets.
So, you would not consider how people react to and interact with the Disney World to not be something that a) Six Flags would like to have detailed information on, and b) that Disney would legitimately take steps to prevent them from obtaining by, for example, preventing surveying of visitors on Disney World property by 3rd parties and not allowing film crews to operate within Disney World without explicit permission?
So, you would not consider how people react to and interact with the Disney World to not be something that a) Six Flags would like to have detailed information on, and b) that Disney would legitimately take steps to prevent them from obtaining by, for example, preventing surveying of visitors on Disney World property by 3rd parties and not allowing film crews to operate within Disney World without explicit permission?
Dunno about any of that. I was discussing the situation that the article is covering.
And in that situation, I see nothing involving trade secrets.
Dunno about any of that. I was discussing the situation that the article is covering.
And in that situation, I see nothing involving trade secrets.
It's an analogy. You've heard of them? And, call it what you will, "trade secrets", "confidential business information", whatever you like, it's an applicable analogy that makes clear exactly what Apple's concerns are and why they are justifiably blocking Google from spying on the iOS platform as a way to gain a competitive advantage over Apple. It is exactly what the article is covering and that you wish to distract from, and is the only point that is of importance here. Apple is entirely justified in not allowing Google to do it, just as Disney is entirely justified in not allowing Six Flags from doing market research inside Disney World.
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.
That's a chance I will have to take.
Anyway, I think the discussion has moved on, so it's probably a moot point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
Not to make an overly big deal about this, but I really don't think the term applies, since Apple can elect to share this data or not, at their own discretion. The clear implication of the term espionage is that Google intends to steal something from Apple that Apple is not willing to give them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
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?
Even more to the heart of the matter -- is the "mobile app market" an actual, distinct market? I don't know that it is or isn't, but it's surely not a given.
... Not to make an overly big deal about this, but I really don't think the term applies, since Apple can elect to share this data or not, at their own discretion. The clear implication of the term espionage is that Google intends to steal something from Apple that Apple is not willing to give them. ...
Well, I would say that, "Google intends to steal something from Apple that Apple is not willing to give them," describes the case quite well. I think, after all, that's what this is all about.
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.
Correct me if I missed something, but Apple decides who gets access to the data, which is collected by Apple, not the user. If there is no data involved, then this is a non-discussion.
Correct me if I missed something, but Apple decides who gets access to the data, which is collected by Apple, not the user. If there is no data involved, then this is a non-discussion.
Apple gets to decide who is allowed to ask for the user's data. The user gets to decide (thanks to Apple enforcing required consent) if the user's data is sent. The collection is done by whichever ad service is being utilized in each particular case. It is the user's data, collected by the ad service. Apple is simply the conduit through which the exchange occurs (or is allowed to be requested to occur).
Apple gets to decide who is allowed to ask for the user's data. The user gets to decide (thanks to Apple enforcing required consent) if the user's data is sent. The collection is done by whichever ad service is being utilized in each particular case. It is the user's data, collected by the ad service. Apple is simply the conduit through which the exchange occurs (or is allowed to be requested to occur).
It is also (ignoring for a moment issues such as who actually "owns" things such as the device id), in the collective, the data of the entire iOS ecosystem, which is the entire issue.
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.
Another satisfied Tulkas customer!
p.s. Tulkas' not worth the effort at all, hence my sig. It's just too bad the filter won't filter out the quotes of his drivel too. Mine eyes and brain cells are still assaulted.
p.s. Tulkas' not worth the effort at all, hence my sig. It's just too bad the filter won't filter out the quotes of his drivel too. Mine eyes and brain cells are still assaulted.
Oh Hiro, you are the last one to be posting in this thread, given your delusional positions in the original thread regarding iAd and what data you knew Apple wouldn't allow to be collected (now shown to be so naive and misleading).
Clearly you still have nothing of value to add to this thread other than your usual hit and run posts that contribute nothing to any thread.
Hiro once wrote that his 8th grade teacher said to him "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted". With every post he shows why this teacher felt he had to have this conversation with him. I would have as well, had I been his teacher.
Personally, I think Apple could face scrutiny from the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and possibly European Commission antitrust authorities for the following reasons:
1) The banning of Adobe Flash from iOS. They want to know if it was done for technical reasons or if it was done for political reasons.
2) The restrictions on the type of programming tools used to create applications for iOS, as stated in the iOS SDK documents.
3) The restrictions on creating display ads for iOS.
4) Whether the iTunes Store exerts too much influence on the pricing of music.
5) Whether the iBookstore could do the same for electronic books.
Points #1 to #3 could be in possible violation of aspects of the 1890 Sherman and 1914 Clayton Antitrust Acts. And the European Commission may ask the same questions given that Apple products are very popular in Europe.
G*d help Apple if the EC starts any legal action against the company, given how persistent the EC were in going after Microsoft over Windows Media Player in Windows XP/Vista and the brower choice in Windows Vista/7. Apple could be tied up in European legal courts for a half-decade or more.
Just my 2¢
1) The banning of Adobe Flash from iOS. They want to know if it was done for technical reasons or if it was done for political reasons.
---Technical reason. Is there any version other than an demo running on any phone yet? And apparently the Demo wasn't that whiz bang of a demonstration.
2) The restrictions on the type of programming tools used to create applications for iOS, as stated in the iOS SDK documents.
---Yes, there are again technical reasons to prevent this.
3) The restrictions on creating display ads for iOS.
---As it stands now, Apple will not be preventing 3rd party companies from developing and collecting analytics unless they are direct competitors in manufacturing. Actually, this may be a boon to more competition as smaller companies may now get a foothold into mobile advertising.
4) Whether the iTunes Store exerts too much influence on the pricing of music.
Apparently iTunes doesn't exert much influence since it was forced to maintain DRM longer than almost everyone else and was forced into variable pricing against its will. The power here resides with the Music Labels, Apple is actually on the consumer's side here.
5) Whether the iBookstore could do the same for electronic books.
Doubtful, Apple just wants to provide the best user experience, in doing so creates products people enjoy and want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Let's stop pretending that Google collecting and analyzing this data is any worse than dozens of other companies doing the same thing. Locking one door and opening dozens of other doors and windows doesn't make your house more secure.
Dozens of companies that are smaller and quieter and do what they do without notice will be given access, by Apple, to this information. Companies that get caught doing things they ought not to be doing, only when they try to be smart-asses and publicly release data that embarrasses Apple.
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.
Tuesday as Google was caught with its pants down by the online community. To demonstrate App Engine, Google created an app it called "HuddleChat." Quick-eyed users quickly noted however, that HuddleChat was a definite copy of 37signals? Campfire app.
I don't keep up with all the news, but are the dozens of other companies you refer to stealing?
The authority revealed that as well as collecting SSID information (the network's name) and MAC addresses (the number given to Wi-Fi devices such as a router), Google had also been collecting payload data such as emails or web page content being viewed.
Again, I don't keep up with all the news, but are the dozens of other companies you refer to driving around the world doing this same thing?
This either means Google was intentionally collecting this data and is indeed nefarious(which they deny, ha), or they are very cavalier in collecting data without adequate controls in place to prevent this. Either way I don't trust them. Your choice, Google = nefarious or stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Let's also stop pretending that at least part of Apple's reason for grabbing Quattro was exactly so they could harvest personal information from iPhone users. Which is also invaluable in their efforts to take control of the mobile computing industry. (Since they gain at least the same level of data that AdMob/Google would, it would be foolish to even try to pretend otherwise).
Let's further stop pretending blocking AdMob/Google is in anyway privacy driven. Let's stop pretending it isn't simply about cock blocking the competition.
As yet we don't know what analytics Apple via iAds will be collecting. We do know their Developers agreement states:
Quote:
- The collection, use or disclosure is necessary in order to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application.
Seems to me that Apple may limit analytics for all advertisers, possible they will limit themselves, shrug stranger things have happened, we just don't know yet. Apple is user / consumer oriented and the analytics aren't their core business. Me, I'll wait and see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
How would my giving personal info to AdMob constitute industrial espionage directed at Apple?
Depending how and what analytics are collected, maybe not industrial espionage, but certainly information that can be used to monitor iPhone usage to the benefit of iPhone competitors.
Maybe someone that knows what information is revealed in the analytics could shed more light on this.
Comments
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.
Rubbish!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=209
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.
I have a conceptual problem here.
Can Apple really enforce an NDA which says "You cannot disclose information which is given to you by a third party"?
Every NDA I've seen specifically excludes such information, presumably because such a requirement is unenforceable.
But I've never looked into it.
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.
Sorry. Show me where I propose that Apple be forced to divulge trade secrets to Google?
I can't imagine I said that, given that trade secrets are not germane to the situation.
I have a conceptual problem here.
Can Apple really enforce an NDA which says "You cannot disclose information which is given to you by a third party"?
Every NDA I've seen specifically excludes such information, presumably because such a requirement is unenforceable.
But I've never looked into it.
I would say that it's not so much that you have a perceptual problem, but that you are trying to create one.
Well, you obviously already read this post,
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=209
since you quoted part of it earlier.
I read it and reread it. It gives no examples of trade secrets.
Sorry. Show me where I propose that Apple be forced to divulge trade secrets to Google?
I can't imagine I said that, given that trade secrets are not germane to the situation.
Yes, exactly, as I said, you are attempting to obscure that fact, by cloaking your arguments in other terms. I'm certain that you understand the issue. I'm equally as certain that your purpose is to try to make the issue about something else.
I have a conceptual problem here.
Can Apple really enforce an NDA which says "You cannot disclose information which is given to you by a third party"?
Every NDA I've seen specifically excludes such information, presumably because such a requirement is unenforceable.
But I've never looked into it.
They could put the language in there. The information is provided and consented to by a third party (users) but the devs still have to agree to what Apple asks of them in order to get their apps installed and so allow to ask the users. Enforceable? Other than the honour system, I guess it is enforceable as much as any other clause in an NDA...once you get caught they will take what steps they choose. In this case, at a minimum, your app gets burned.
Since the language requires Apple to give devs permission before they can use alternative ad services, Apple could also have the ad service sign off in order for the dev to be given permission to use them. Again, they get caught, all apps using their ad service get burned and your iPhone business is toast.
But this would be the case, as far any language and ability to enforce it, whether it is Google or Flurry or whomever.
I would say that it's not so much that you have a perceptual problem, but that you are trying to create one.
Perceptual problems form no part of anything which was said.
Please read everything slowly prior to responding, and then read the original comment again before hitting the button. Just a simple request.
I read it and reread it. It gives no examples of trade secrets.
So, you would not consider how people react to and interact with the Disney World to not be something that a) Six Flags would like to have detailed information on, and b) that Disney would legitimately take steps to prevent them from obtaining by, for example, preventing surveying of visitors on Disney World property by 3rd parties and not allowing film crews to operate within Disney World without explicit permission?
Perceptual problems form no part of anything which was said.
Please read everything slowly prior to responding, and then read the original comment again before hitting the button. Just a simple request.
Well, just correct my typo to 'conceptual' and there you are, doing your utmost to spin this as something other than it is.
So, you would not consider how people react to and interact with the Disney World to not be something that a) Six Flags would like to have detailed information on, and b) that Disney would legitimately take steps to prevent them from obtaining by, for example, preventing surveying of visitors on Disney World property by 3rd parties and not allowing film crews to operate within Disney World without explicit permission?
Dunno about any of that. I was discussing the situation that the article is covering.
And in that situation, I see nothing involving trade secrets.
Dunno about any of that. I was discussing the situation that the article is covering.
And in that situation, I see nothing involving trade secrets.
It's an analogy. You've heard of them? And, call it what you will, "trade secrets", "confidential business information", whatever you like, it's an applicable analogy that makes clear exactly what Apple's concerns are and why they are justifiably blocking Google from spying on the iOS platform as a way to gain a competitive advantage over Apple. It is exactly what the article is covering and that you wish to distract from, and is the only point that is of importance here. Apple is entirely justified in not allowing Google to do it, just as Disney is entirely justified in not allowing Six Flags from doing market research inside Disney World.
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.
That's a chance I will have to take.
Anyway, I think the discussion has moved on, so it's probably a moot point.
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.
Not to make an overly big deal about this, but I really don't think the term applies, since Apple can elect to share this data or not, at their own discretion. The clear implication of the term espionage is that Google intends to steal something from Apple that Apple is not willing to give them.
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?
Even more to the heart of the matter -- is the "mobile app market" an actual, distinct market? I don't know that it is or isn't, but it's surely not a given.
... Not to make an overly big deal about this, but I really don't think the term applies, since Apple can elect to share this data or not, at their own discretion. The clear implication of the term espionage is that Google intends to steal something from Apple that Apple is not willing to give them. ...
Well, I would say that, "Google intends to steal something from Apple that Apple is not willing to give them," describes the case quite well. I think, after all, that's what this is all about.
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.
Correct me if I missed something, but Apple decides who gets access to the data, which is collected by Apple, not the user. If there is no data involved, then this is a non-discussion.
Correct me if I missed something, but Apple decides who gets access to the data, which is collected by Apple, not the user. If there is no data involved, then this is a non-discussion.
Apple gets to decide who is allowed to ask for the user's data. The user gets to decide (thanks to Apple enforcing required consent) if the user's data is sent. The collection is done by whichever ad service is being utilized in each particular case. It is the user's data, collected by the ad service. Apple is simply the conduit through which the exchange occurs (or is allowed to be requested to occur).
Apple gets to decide who is allowed to ask for the user's data. The user gets to decide (thanks to Apple enforcing required consent) if the user's data is sent. The collection is done by whichever ad service is being utilized in each particular case. It is the user's data, collected by the ad service. Apple is simply the conduit through which the exchange occurs (or is allowed to be requested to occur).
It is also (ignoring for a moment issues such as who actually "owns" things such as the device id), in the collective, the data of the entire iOS ecosystem, which is the entire issue.
@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.
Suffice it to say, you will spin this as you like, but you are entirely mistaken in your analysis, your arguments and your reasoning.
Another satisfied Tulkas customer!
p.s. Tulkas' not worth the effort at all, hence my sig. It's just too bad the filter won't filter out the quotes of his drivel too. Mine eyes and brain cells are still assaulted.
Another satisfied Tulkas customer!
p.s. Tulkas' not worth the effort at all, hence my sig. It's just too bad the filter won't filter out the quotes of his drivel too. Mine eyes and brain cells are still assaulted.
Oh Hiro, you are the last one to be posting in this thread, given your delusional positions in the original thread regarding iAd and what data you knew Apple wouldn't allow to be collected (now shown to be so naive and misleading).
Clearly you still have nothing of value to add to this thread other than your usual hit and run posts that contribute nothing to any thread.
Hiro once wrote that his 8th grade teacher said to him "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted". With every post he shows why this teacher felt he had to have this conversation with him. I would have as well, had I been his teacher.
(Someone quote me so he can read this
Personally, I think Apple could face scrutiny from the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and possibly European Commission antitrust authorities for the following reasons:
1) The banning of Adobe Flash from iOS. They want to know if it was done for technical reasons or if it was done for political reasons.
2) The restrictions on the type of programming tools used to create applications for iOS, as stated in the iOS SDK documents.
3) The restrictions on creating display ads for iOS.
4) Whether the iTunes Store exerts too much influence on the pricing of music.
5) Whether the iBookstore could do the same for electronic books.
Points #1 to #3 could be in possible violation of aspects of the 1890 Sherman and 1914 Clayton Antitrust Acts. And the European Commission may ask the same questions given that Apple products are very popular in Europe.
G*d help Apple if the EC starts any legal action against the company, given how persistent the EC were in going after Microsoft over Windows Media Player in Windows XP/Vista and the brower choice in Windows Vista/7. Apple could be tied up in European legal courts for a half-decade or more.
Just my 2¢
1) The banning of Adobe Flash from iOS. They want to know if it was done for technical reasons or if it was done for political reasons.
---Technical reason. Is there any version other than an demo running on any phone yet? And apparently the Demo wasn't that whiz bang of a demonstration.
2) The restrictions on the type of programming tools used to create applications for iOS, as stated in the iOS SDK documents.
---Yes, there are again technical reasons to prevent this.
3) The restrictions on creating display ads for iOS.
---As it stands now, Apple will not be preventing 3rd party companies from developing and collecting analytics unless they are direct competitors in manufacturing. Actually, this may be a boon to more competition as smaller companies may now get a foothold into mobile advertising.
4) Whether the iTunes Store exerts too much influence on the pricing of music.
Apparently iTunes doesn't exert much influence since it was forced to maintain DRM longer than almost everyone else and was forced into variable pricing against its will. The power here resides with the Music Labels, Apple is actually on the consumer's side here.
5) Whether the iBookstore could do the same for electronic books.
Doubtful, Apple just wants to provide the best user experience, in doing so creates products people enjoy and want.
Let's stop pretending that Google collecting and analyzing this data is any worse than dozens of other companies doing the same thing. Locking one door and opening dozens of other doors and windows doesn't make your house more secure.
Dozens of companies that are smaller and quieter and do what they do without notice will be given access, by Apple, to this information. Companies that get caught doing things they ought not to be doing, only when they try to be smart-asses and publicly release data that embarrasses Apple.
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.
Google Retracts After Caught Stealing Ideas
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-h...,news-977.html
From the article
Tuesday as Google was caught with its pants down by the online community. To demonstrate App Engine, Google created an app it called "HuddleChat." Quick-eyed users quickly noted however, that HuddleChat was a definite copy of 37signals? Campfire app.
I don't keep up with all the news, but are the dozens of other companies you refer to stealing?
Google Wi-Fi Data Collection Hit by Privacy Group
http://www.pcworld.com/article/19866...html?tk=hp_new
From the article
The authority revealed that as well as collecting SSID information (the network's name) and MAC addresses (the number given to Wi-Fi devices such as a router), Google had also been collecting payload data such as emails or web page content being viewed.
Again, I don't keep up with all the news, but are the dozens of other companies you refer to driving around the world doing this same thing?
This either means Google was intentionally collecting this data and is indeed nefarious(which they deny, ha), or they are very cavalier in collecting data without adequate controls in place to prevent this. Either way I don't trust them. Your choice, Google = nefarious or stupid.
Let's also stop pretending that at least part of Apple's reason for grabbing Quattro was exactly so they could harvest personal information from iPhone users. Which is also invaluable in their efforts to take control of the mobile computing industry. (Since they gain at least the same level of data that AdMob/Google would, it would be foolish to even try to pretend otherwise).
Let's further stop pretending blocking AdMob/Google is in anyway privacy driven. Let's stop pretending it isn't simply about cock blocking the competition.
As yet we don't know what analytics Apple via iAds will be collecting. We do know their Developers agreement states:
- The collection, use or disclosure is necessary in order to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application.
Seems to me that Apple may limit analytics for all advertisers, possible they will limit themselves, shrug stranger things have happened, we just don't know yet. Apple is user / consumer oriented and the analytics aren't their core business. Me, I'll wait and see.
How would my giving personal info to AdMob constitute industrial espionage directed at Apple?
Depending how and what analytics are collected, maybe not industrial espionage, but certainly information that can be used to monitor iPhone usage to the benefit of iPhone competitors.
Maybe someone that knows what information is revealed in the analytics could shed more light on this.
Here's some I've found:
location on some phones
application's unique installs
daily usage
OS versions
device types
connectivity stats
packet sniffing( this seems very intrusive)
HTTP Header analysis
IP address analysis