And people wonder why Apple wants a Walled Garden. Maybe Apple doesn't have the best security in the world, but they shouldn't have to worry about their partners.
AT&T's iPad security fumble is just the tip of the iceberg
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
This is a matter of fact. There is really no need to guess, to jump to any conclusions based upon guesses, or to characterize the actions based upon guesses.
This is a matter of fact. There is really no need to guess, to jump to any conclusions based upon guesses, or to characterize the actions based upon guesses.
Not directly. This is only the free data though available to non-Google players though. You can be sure Google is planning on harvesting a far more comprehensive suite of data they can use to monetize their own stuff even more effectively. Ad Mob alone wasn't worth $700 mil by any analysts measures, so Google saw something else they thought was more important to them as a company.
That's the scary part: they saw something that Google must have though was worth at least double that over the next several years, and it all revolves around harvesting other peoples patterns of usage and data.
Not directly. This is only the free data though available to non-Google players though. You can be sure Google is planning on harvesting a far more comprehensive suite of data they can use to monetize their own stuff even more effectively. Ad Mob alone wasn't worth $700 mil by any analysts measures, so Google saw something else they thought was more important to them as a company.
That's the scary part: they saw something that Google must have though was worth at least double that over the next several years, and it all revolves around harvesting other peoples patterns of usage and data.
I would not assume that. Google appeared willing to overpay for AdMob in order to keep them away from Apple. In bidding wars it's not about value.
I would not assume that. Google appeared willing to overpay for AdMob in order to keep them away from Apple. In bidding wars it's not about value.
Google saw AdMob as the mother lode of mobile personal data collection, and as a side bonus a great way to have a window into what was going on on the iPhone. I don't think we need have any doubt about that, given what is known about Google, and that they aren't stupid. It was a transparently obvious play.
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.
None of which has any bearing on the fact that the other ad companies will have access to the data the Google is now forbidden from collecting. If the data is such that Google could use it for their own nefarious purposes, then making it available to the others is just as big a risk. In fact, since Apple has never singled google out for inappropriately using this data, yet was willing to very publicly flog Flurry for it, it would seem they do not feel it would be any more a danger to us than the others. It is has nothing to do with privacy and is strictly a move against a competitor. It takes a lot of bending to make it about privacy.
I never claimed the other companies would mistreat the data (though Apple has accused at least one of doing so before the rule changes). But they are much lower profile than Google, so if they do find a way to misuse it they will be much less visible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
As yet we don't know what analytics Apple via iAds will be collecting. We do know their Developers agreement states:
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.
Yes, that is a good assumption. If they have limited the info to that which is unlikely to be a privacy concern, then they have done so. Which is why arguing the banning of Google or other competitors was done for user privacy. It wasn't. They handled that in the lilmitations of the data and in the required user consent.
As to the data that Apple itself takes, I would again agree that it is a good assumption that they will be held to the same limitations they impose on others. But, it will still be data that is valuable to them and to others...hence the collection of it and hence the purchase of Quattro. They didn't buy Quattro and use it to built iAds for purely altruistic reasons. They are capable of actually being concerned at their own bottom line and their own interests, even if they also want to assist devs.
Not directly. This is only the free data though available to non-Google players though. You can be sure Google is planning on harvesting a far more comprehensive suite of data they can use to monetize their own stuff even more effectively. Ad Mob alone wasn't worth $700 mil by any analysts measures, so Google saw something else they thought was more important to them as a company.
That's the scary part: they saw something that Google must have though was worth at least double that over the next several years, and it all revolves around harvesting other peoples patterns of usage and data.
I guess Apple saw some value there as well, when they began proceedings to buy AdMob too. Similar case with when they bought Quattro.
you misrepresent what i said - they indeed are two markets - i never said otherwise. Apple has 28% of the smart phone market, and according to Gartner "less than one third" of the mobile applications market. Apple only have control over their own platform, google has the more than two-thirds of the mobile apps market to plunder. So where's the monopoly?
Google saw AdMob as the mother lode of mobile personal data collection, and as a side bonus a great way to have a window into what was going on on the iPhone. I don't think we need have any doubt about that, given what is known about Google, and that they aren't stupid. It was a transparently obvious play.
I did not say or imply that Google is stupid. As we know, Apple tried to buy AdMob first. Google offered more. In this sort of situation, the value proposition is often not so straight-forward as what you've gotten for the money, when one if the things you got for the money was keeping something from someone else.
I did not say or imply that Google is stupid. As we know, Apple tried to buy AdMob first. Google offered more. In this sort of situation, the value proposition is often not so straight-forward as what you've gotten for the money, when one if the things you got for the money was keeping something from someone else.
I didn't mean to imply that you did say they were stupid, that was more of a rhetorical phrase. But, I do think they thought it had much more value than just keeping it out of Apple's hands. The way it went down does in some ways make it appear as if that might have been a motivation, but it's just as likely they were operating on the impulse of, "Crap! We have to act fast or we're going to miss out on this opportunity." In other words, they wanted it bad and keeping it out of Apple's hands was at most a secondary motivation.
None of which has any bearing on the fact that the other ad companies will have access to the data the Google is now forbidden from collecting. If the data is such that Google could use it for their own nefarious purposes, then making it available to the others is just as big a risk. ...
No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.
How about snooping on unsecured wifi networks using their streetview vans a practice which only came to light due to the diligence of the German government.
Then there was the sharing of user contacts via Buzz, which Google helpfully provided to their users without their knowledge and which was changed to an opt in scheme after the outcry which ensued.
How are those for starters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
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?
No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.
Exactly, and none of those other independent ad suppliers have any of the really scary data that Google is sitting on. We would have had a new violent revolution by now if the Government had been collecting data like Google is. iPhone analytic data itself, in isolation, is relatively valuable. Cross reference it with all the other things Google has on each individual user and it is amazingly scary. For a prescient look at where we are today, read Database Nation some time.
No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.
Right. As you agree, it is a competitive issue and not a privacy issue, as was my point. Bingo, you hit it on the head. Two very differnt issues entirely.
I didn't mean to imply that you did say they were stupid, that was more of a rhetorical phrase. But, I do think they thought it had much more value than just keeping it out of Apple's hands. The way it went down does in some ways make it appear as if that might have been a motivation, but it's just as likely they were operating on the impulse of, "Crap! We have to act fast or we're going to miss out on this opportunity." In other words, they wanted it bad and keeping it out of Apple's hands was at most a secondary motivation.
I don't think we can intelligently discuss whether it was secondary or primary, but in fact it doesn't matter which it was. The point I'm making is that the acquisition had more than a straight business value. They were willing to pay over and above whatever it was worth to them as a business proposition, in order to keep Apple from having it.
Right. As you agree, it is a competitive issue and not a privacy issue, as was my point. Bingo, you hit it on the head. Two very different issues entirely.
Short term memory loss? Or are you just cycling back around to your earlier arguments and hoping everyone else forgot that we already covered the fact that it's both issues? Individual privacy and industrial espionage.
1. Consumers win on the privacy front on 2 counts: a) advertisers may not collect personal data without opt-in permission and b) Google, public enemy number one here, may not collect data at all. The latter point is a huge win for individual privacy.
2. Apple does what's necessary to stop a competitor from spying on it by inserting a trojan horse into Apple's ecosystem. Apple is entirely justified in doing so and there won't be any legal fallout from this.
So, it's both and we've been over the fact that it's both several times. We've also explored each of these issues in depth. If you really don't recall this, I suggest you go back and reread both threads on this topic -- this one and the one attached to the similar article from the previous day -- and if you then have anything new to say, go ahead and say it. But can you stop trying to drag the discussion around in circles?
I don't think we can intelligently discuss whether it was secondary or primary, but in fact it doesn't matter which it was. The point I'm making is that the acquisition had more than a straight business value. They were willing to pay over and above whatever it was worth to them as a business proposition, in order to keep Apple from having it.
Well, I disagree with your emphasis on keeping Apple from having it, even though that was one effect of their actions. However, if, for example Microsoft, had been negotiating to buy AdMob, I think Google would have behaved exactly as they did and rushed in a scooped it up with a ridiculous offer. They didn't want anyone to have it because they wanted it themselves. Stopping Apple from getting it probably, or so they thought, had the bonus of them not getting locked out of the iPhone ecosystem, and there was probably a lot of back slapping at the Googleplex as they congratulated themselves on that point. Now there's probably a lot of finger pointing and recrimination going on.
Well, I disagree with your emphasis on keeping Apple from having it, even though that was one effect of their actions. However, if, for example Microsoft, had been negotiating to buy AdMob, I think Google would have behaved exactly as they did and rushed in a scooped it up with a ridiculous offer. They didn't want anyone to have it because they wanted it themselves. Stopping Apple from getting it probably, or so they thought, had the bonus of them not getting locked out of the iPhone ecosystem, and there was probably a lot of back slapping at the Googleplex as they congratulated themselves on that point. Now there's probably a lot of finger pointing and recrimination going on.
But Apple was the company in negotiations to buy AdMob, so Apple's interest was very much in evidence. I don't want to invent scenarios which makes Apple look any smarter than they are, but it occurs to me that this might have worked out just as Apple intended -- Google is alarmed at the prospect of Apple owning AdMob, which induces them to pay a premium price for the company, only to find that Apple has moved the goalposts. It's entirely possible that Apple has been playing a good chess game here, always a move ahead of their opponent.
But Apple was the company in negotiations to buy AdMob, so Apple's interest was very much in evidence. I don't want to invent scenarios which makes Apple look any smarter than they are, but it occurs to me that this might have worked out just as Apple intended -- Google is alarmed at the prospect of Apple owning AdMob, which induces them to pay a premium price for the company, only to find that Apple has moved the goalposts. It's entirely possible that Apple has been playing a good chess game here, always a move ahead of their opponent.
That's about as likely as the Minnesota Vikings saying they didn't botch a first round draft pick by missing the deadline and that they did so purposely. It would work except for the fact there is video of the GM dancing like a four year old that needs to piss while he got scooped by two other teams. (that's from a few years back)
Much more likely hypothetical scenario: Apple screwed up the deal, they wanted AdMob and were trying to slow roll them into a better price by waiting and letting the exclusive period expire. AdMob counters by dropping to Google that they were in negotiations until such-and-such a date. Date passes. Squirrel Boy, never seeing an idea of Steve's he didn't like figured he could out-Steve Steve by buying fast. AdMob knows Google doesn't have time to do full due diligence so asks for a jacked-up price. Google knowing things about data mining AdMob hasn't even considered, sees the jacked-up piece as an actual bargain. So much so that Squirrel Boy is willing to pay double the rest of the worlds valuation on AdMob without ever involving the Board and even putting in a 90% guarantee on the transaction. Meaning if Google didn't buy AdMob Google still pays through the nose.
You don't sign up for a deal like that unless you know you are in reality committing highway robbery in the long run.
No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.
Exactly my point. So a competitive issue then. No need to try to wrap it in a pretense of protecting privacy.
Comments
AT&T's iPad security fumble is just the tip of the iceberg
http://www.infoworld.com/t/hacking/a...he-iceberg-844
And people want that bug ridden, worm hole of a plugin architecture Flash allowed on a phone.
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
This is a matter of fact. There is really no need to guess, to jump to any conclusions based upon guesses, or to characterize the actions based upon guesses.
http://analytics.admob.com/home/
Does any of this look like industrial espionage?
This is a matter of fact. There is really no need to guess, to jump to any conclusions based upon guesses, or to characterize the actions based upon guesses.
http://analytics.admob.com/home/
Does any of this look like industrial espionage?
Not directly. This is only the free data though available to non-Google players though. You can be sure Google is planning on harvesting a far more comprehensive suite of data they can use to monetize their own stuff even more effectively. Ad Mob alone wasn't worth $700 mil by any analysts measures, so Google saw something else they thought was more important to them as a company.
That's the scary part: they saw something that Google must have though was worth at least double that over the next several years, and it all revolves around harvesting other peoples patterns of usage and data.
Not directly. This is only the free data though available to non-Google players though. You can be sure Google is planning on harvesting a far more comprehensive suite of data they can use to monetize their own stuff even more effectively. Ad Mob alone wasn't worth $700 mil by any analysts measures, so Google saw something else they thought was more important to them as a company.
That's the scary part: they saw something that Google must have though was worth at least double that over the next several years, and it all revolves around harvesting other peoples patterns of usage and data.
I would not assume that. Google appeared willing to overpay for AdMob in order to keep them away from Apple. In bidding wars it's not about value.
I would not assume that. Google appeared willing to overpay for AdMob in order to keep them away from Apple. In bidding wars it's not about value.
Google saw AdMob as the mother lode of mobile personal data collection, and as a side bonus a great way to have a window into what was going on on the iPhone. I don't think we need have any doubt about that, given what is known about Google, and that they aren't stupid. It was a transparently obvious play.
Google Retracts After Caught Stealing Ideas
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-h...,news-977.html
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
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.
None of which has any bearing on the fact that the other ad companies will have access to the data the Google is now forbidden from collecting. If the data is such that Google could use it for their own nefarious purposes, then making it available to the others is just as big a risk. In fact, since Apple has never singled google out for inappropriately using this data, yet was willing to very publicly flog Flurry for it, it would seem they do not feel it would be any more a danger to us than the others. It is has nothing to do with privacy and is strictly a move against a competitor. It takes a lot of bending to make it about privacy.
I never claimed the other companies would mistreat the data (though Apple has accused at least one of doing so before the rule changes). But they are much lower profile than Google, so if they do find a way to misuse it they will be much less visible.
As yet we don't know what analytics Apple via iAds will be collecting. We do know their Developers agreement states:
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.
Yes, that is a good assumption. If they have limited the info to that which is unlikely to be a privacy concern, then they have done so. Which is why arguing the banning of Google or other competitors was done for user privacy. It wasn't. They handled that in the lilmitations of the data and in the required user consent.
As to the data that Apple itself takes, I would again agree that it is a good assumption that they will be held to the same limitations they impose on others. But, it will still be data that is valuable to them and to others...hence the collection of it and hence the purchase of Quattro. They didn't buy Quattro and use it to built iAds for purely altruistic reasons. They are capable of actually being concerned at their own bottom line and their own interests, even if they also want to assist devs.
Not directly. This is only the free data though available to non-Google players though. You can be sure Google is planning on harvesting a far more comprehensive suite of data they can use to monetize their own stuff even more effectively. Ad Mob alone wasn't worth $700 mil by any analysts measures, so Google saw something else they thought was more important to them as a company.
That's the scary part: they saw something that Google must have though was worth at least double that over the next several years, and it all revolves around harvesting other peoples patterns of usage and data.
I guess Apple saw some value there as well, when they began proceedings to buy AdMob too. Similar case with when they bought Quattro.
They seem to me to be two different markets.
you misrepresent what i said - they indeed are two markets - i never said otherwise. Apple has 28% of the smart phone market, and according to Gartner "less than one third" of the mobile applications market. Apple only have control over their own platform, google has the more than two-thirds of the mobile apps market to plunder. So where's the monopoly?
Google saw AdMob as the mother lode of mobile personal data collection, and as a side bonus a great way to have a window into what was going on on the iPhone. I don't think we need have any doubt about that, given what is known about Google, and that they aren't stupid. It was a transparently obvious play.
I did not say or imply that Google is stupid. As we know, Apple tried to buy AdMob first. Google offered more. In this sort of situation, the value proposition is often not so straight-forward as what you've gotten for the money, when one if the things you got for the money was keeping something from someone else.
I did not say or imply that Google is stupid. As we know, Apple tried to buy AdMob first. Google offered more. In this sort of situation, the value proposition is often not so straight-forward as what you've gotten for the money, when one if the things you got for the money was keeping something from someone else.
I didn't mean to imply that you did say they were stupid, that was more of a rhetorical phrase. But, I do think they thought it had much more value than just keeping it out of Apple's hands. The way it went down does in some ways make it appear as if that might have been a motivation, but it's just as likely they were operating on the impulse of, "Crap! We have to act fast or we're going to miss out on this opportunity." In other words, they wanted it bad and keeping it out of Apple's hands was at most a secondary motivation.
None of which has any bearing on the fact that the other ad companies will have access to the data the Google is now forbidden from collecting. If the data is such that Google could use it for their own nefarious purposes, then making it available to the others is just as big a risk. ...
No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.
Then there was the sharing of user contacts via Buzz, which Google helpfully provided to their users without their knowledge and which was changed to an opt in scheme after the outcry which ensued.
How are those for starters?
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?
No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.
Exactly, and none of those other independent ad suppliers have any of the really scary data that Google is sitting on. We would have had a new violent revolution by now if the Government had been collecting data like Google is. iPhone analytic data itself, in isolation, is relatively valuable. Cross reference it with all the other things Google has on each individual user and it is amazingly scary. For a prescient look at where we are today, read Database Nation some time.
No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.
Right. As you agree, it is a competitive issue and not a privacy issue, as was my point. Bingo, you hit it on the head. Two very differnt issues entirely.
I didn't mean to imply that you did say they were stupid, that was more of a rhetorical phrase. But, I do think they thought it had much more value than just keeping it out of Apple's hands. The way it went down does in some ways make it appear as if that might have been a motivation, but it's just as likely they were operating on the impulse of, "Crap! We have to act fast or we're going to miss out on this opportunity." In other words, they wanted it bad and keeping it out of Apple's hands was at most a secondary motivation.
I don't think we can intelligently discuss whether it was secondary or primary, but in fact it doesn't matter which it was. The point I'm making is that the acquisition had more than a straight business value. They were willing to pay over and above whatever it was worth to them as a business proposition, in order to keep Apple from having it.
Right. As you agree, it is a competitive issue and not a privacy issue, as was my point. Bingo, you hit it on the head. Two very different issues entirely.
Short term memory loss? Or are you just cycling back around to your earlier arguments and hoping everyone else forgot that we already covered the fact that it's both issues? Individual privacy and industrial espionage.
1. Consumers win on the privacy front on 2 counts: a) advertisers may not collect personal data without opt-in permission and b) Google, public enemy number one here, may not collect data at all. The latter point is a huge win for individual privacy.
2. Apple does what's necessary to stop a competitor from spying on it by inserting a trojan horse into Apple's ecosystem. Apple is entirely justified in doing so and there won't be any legal fallout from this.
So, it's both and we've been over the fact that it's both several times. We've also explored each of these issues in depth. If you really don't recall this, I suggest you go back and reread both threads on this topic -- this one and the one attached to the similar article from the previous day -- and if you then have anything new to say, go ahead and say it. But can you stop trying to drag the discussion around in circles?
I don't think we can intelligently discuss whether it was secondary or primary, but in fact it doesn't matter which it was. The point I'm making is that the acquisition had more than a straight business value. They were willing to pay over and above whatever it was worth to them as a business proposition, in order to keep Apple from having it.
Well, I disagree with your emphasis on keeping Apple from having it, even though that was one effect of their actions. However, if, for example Microsoft, had been negotiating to buy AdMob, I think Google would have behaved exactly as they did and rushed in a scooped it up with a ridiculous offer. They didn't want anyone to have it because they wanted it themselves. Stopping Apple from getting it probably, or so they thought, had the bonus of them not getting locked out of the iPhone ecosystem, and there was probably a lot of back slapping at the Googleplex as they congratulated themselves on that point. Now there's probably a lot of finger pointing and recrimination going on.
Well, I disagree with your emphasis on keeping Apple from having it, even though that was one effect of their actions. However, if, for example Microsoft, had been negotiating to buy AdMob, I think Google would have behaved exactly as they did and rushed in a scooped it up with a ridiculous offer. They didn't want anyone to have it because they wanted it themselves. Stopping Apple from getting it probably, or so they thought, had the bonus of them not getting locked out of the iPhone ecosystem, and there was probably a lot of back slapping at the Googleplex as they congratulated themselves on that point. Now there's probably a lot of finger pointing and recrimination going on.
But Apple was the company in negotiations to buy AdMob, so Apple's interest was very much in evidence. I don't want to invent scenarios which makes Apple look any smarter than they are, but it occurs to me that this might have worked out just as Apple intended -- Google is alarmed at the prospect of Apple owning AdMob, which induces them to pay a premium price for the company, only to find that Apple has moved the goalposts. It's entirely possible that Apple has been playing a good chess game here, always a move ahead of their opponent.
But Apple was the company in negotiations to buy AdMob, so Apple's interest was very much in evidence. I don't want to invent scenarios which makes Apple look any smarter than they are, but it occurs to me that this might have worked out just as Apple intended -- Google is alarmed at the prospect of Apple owning AdMob, which induces them to pay a premium price for the company, only to find that Apple has moved the goalposts. It's entirely possible that Apple has been playing a good chess game here, always a move ahead of their opponent.
That's about as likely as the Minnesota Vikings saying they didn't botch a first round draft pick by missing the deadline and that they did so purposely. It would work except for the fact there is video of the GM dancing like a four year old that needs to piss while he got scooped by two other teams. (that's from a few years back)
Much more likely hypothetical scenario: Apple screwed up the deal, they wanted AdMob and were trying to slow roll them into a better price by waiting and letting the exclusive period expire. AdMob counters by dropping to Google that they were in negotiations until such-and-such a date. Date passes. Squirrel Boy, never seeing an idea of Steve's he didn't like figured he could out-Steve Steve by buying fast. AdMob knows Google doesn't have time to do full due diligence so asks for a jacked-up price. Google knowing things about data mining AdMob hasn't even considered, sees the jacked-up piece as an actual bargain. So much so that Squirrel Boy is willing to pay double the rest of the worlds valuation on AdMob without ever involving the Board and even putting in a 90% guarantee on the transaction. Meaning if Google didn't buy AdMob Google still pays through the nose.
You don't sign up for a deal like that unless you know you are in reality committing highway robbery in the long run.
No, it's not the same risk at all. The others don't compete with Apple in the smartphone market, so allowing them access to it is in no way similar to allowing a competitor in smartphones access to it. And, allowing others access to it doesn't actually give them inside information on Apple's advertising business either, because they won't be collecting iAds metrics. It's a completely different situation, in all ways.
Exactly my point. So a competitive issue then. No need to try to wrap it in a pretense of protecting privacy.