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.
a)Which has nothing to do with the google ban, but is a nice distraction. Try to stay focused on the issue at hand. The google ban.
b) In your personal opinion, yes. Apple may feel the same way. They have given no indication that the google ban had anything to do with this, however.. Any assertion that it was seems to be fantasy of a small group of google haters. Take off the blinders, the world looks better without hate colouring your view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
Yes, a competitive issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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?
Yes, and the rational conclusion hasn't changed. The google ban is strictly a competitive issue. The entire red herring that only the google-haters keep trying to make stick is that Apple banned google to protect privacy. This is so clearing untrue, it is funny to see the repeated mentions if it. If Apple thought the information was so sensitive from a privacy standpoint, they would not risk letting it fall into the hands of the other third parties. Third parties that because they are so less visible than google only get caught being bad when they out themselves. Jobs was clearly enraged that it had happened recently and in his rage made no mention of google at all when initially explaining the data collection changes. I guess he doesn't see it the same way the haters see it. He isn't foolish enough to try to claim banning google was a privacy issue and it was likely his call. He is a very smart guy. Why do you think you know better than Jobs?
The problem with letting your own, very passionate feelings cloud your reasoning, is that your analysis will almost always be wrong.
... Yes, and the rational conclusion hasn't changed. The google ban is strictly a competitive issue. The entire red herring that only the google-haters keep trying to make stick is that Apple banned google to protect privacy. ...
I don't recall having said that. I've stated repeatedly that Google/AdMob was justifiably banned because collecting data allows them to conduct an industrial espionage program, which no one should expect Apple to tolerate. So, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
However, none of that changes the fact that the overall policy also includes both intentional, and perhaps unintentional but welcome, privacy protections for users. And, whether intentional or not, the Google/AdMob ban on data collection (they are still allowed to place ads) is a big privacy win for users.
Seems to me you're just trying to confound the issues for the purpose of making it sound like there's nothing going on but a malicious attack on Google, which isn't the case at all. What's going on is Apple is protecting itself and users.
I don't recall having said that. I've stated repeatedly that Google/AdMob was justifiably banned because collecting data allows them to conduct an industrial espionage program, which no one should expect Apple to tolerate. So, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
However, none of that changes the fact that the overall policy also includes both intentional, and perhaps unintentional but welcome, privacy protections for users. And, whether intentional or not, the Google/AdMob ban on data collection (they are still allowed to place ads) is a big privacy win for users.
Many here have claimed, which was where our conversations overlapped, I suppose. At the least they have tried to imply it was somehow one of Apple's reasons for the google ban. Unfortunately, for them, even it this is true, no public statements from Apple don't support this idea. The very fact that they are still allowing the data to be collected and transmitted (with consent) to third parties speaks against the google ban being privacy issue.
As for the the real reason, to act against a competitor, whether it is justified is a matter of opinion, for now. That would be why the DoJ/FTC are looking to it. Whether all of us arm-chair analysts feel it is justified or not or if Apple is in a position of enough influence to the point where their actions against competitors begin to lean toward anti-trust, in the end it doesn't matter. The opinions of many lawyers and perhaps a judge or two will decide those matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Seems to me you're just trying to confound the issues for the purpose of making it sound like there's nothing going on but a malicious attack on Google, which isn't the case at all. What's going on is Apple is protecting itself and users.
Well, that is just semantics. You accept and assert that banning google/admob was done to prevent their 'industrial espionage' (otherwise known as asking for user consent/data), but call it confounding to admit it was done to competitively disadvantage google (or in your words, attack google).
It is a odd position to admit that Apple has taken competitive steps against google, in this case, but refuse to admit Apple has taken competitive steps against google.
Many here have claimed, which was where our conversations overlapped, I suppose. At the least they have tried to imply it was somehow one of Apple's reasons for the google ban. Unfortunately, for them, even it this is true, no public statements from Apple don't support this idea. The very fact that they are still allowing the data to be collected and transmitted (with consent) to third parties speaks against the google ban being privacy issue.
I'm not sure why you are having such trouble wrapping your head around the concept that one section of Apple's SDK license simultaneously deals with two separate issues, user privacy and ecosystem spying by competitors.
Quote:
As for the the real reason, to act against a competitor, whether it is justified is a matter of opinion, for now. That would be why the DoJ/FTC are looking to it. ...
Actually, they are probably looking into it solely because Google/AdMob ran whining to them and complained, so they are bound to do so whether there is any merit in the complaint or not.
Quote:
Well, that is just semantics. You accept and assert that banning google/admob was done to prevent their 'industrial espionage' (otherwise known as asking for user consent/data), but call it confounding to admit it was done to competitively disadvantage google (or in your words, attack google). ...
(I just want to note that "my words" of "attacking google" were explicitly my characterization of how I view you as attempting to spin this issue. Either you aren't reading clearly or you are grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage an utterly flawed argument.)
You again attempt to confound the issue by equating the industrial espionage it would have engaged in by mysteriously equating it to, "asking for user consent/data." Let's be clear again, there are two separate issues wrapped up in this change to the agreement. First, advertisers may not collect user data without permission. Secondly, mobile device/OS competitors may not collect user data with or without permission.
While users may give permission to ad companies who are not competitors in to the iOS to collect their personal data, competitors who will use that information in aggregate form to gain a look inside the platform as a whole, clearly fall into a different category. (It would be disingenuous to deny that they do, Google is not just another advertiser in this situation.) The data obviously have a different value to them than to non-competitors and it's simply ridiculous that any company should have to allow a competitor an inside view of its business just because the competitor has found a backdoor way of obtaining it.
You can try to spin it as putting, in your own words, Google at a competitive disadvantage, but, in reality, it's Apple protecting confidential business information and simply not allowing a competitor to gain an unfair advantage by allowing it to spy on Apple's iOS platform as a whole. I would note that even you equate Google and AdMob as a single entity.
Either you(Tulkas) aren't reading clearly or you are grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage an utterly flawed argument.
There is a true statement if I ever read one. I vote for number two.
We have to remember the little ditty Einstein riffed off, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Where we have to be careful is not letting some other posters lead us down that road that they so dearly own.
I'm not sure why you are having such trouble wrapping your head around the concept that one section of Apple's SDK license simultaneously deals with two separate issues, user privacy and ecosystem spying by competitors.
Actually, that is exactly the point. They are two distinct issues with two distinct sets of reasons. One for privacy (user consent, limited data) and one to take action against google from a competitive stand point.
You are trying to muddle the two. Stay on focus. We agree on why they introduced the user consent and limited data (privacy), and on why they banned google (competition). Two distinct issues and reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Actually, they are probably looking into it solely because Google/AdMob ran whining to them and complained, so they are bound to do so whether there is any merit in the complaint or not.
They might have been the catalyst. The don't tend to investigate just the catalyst though. They usually like to move forward to investigate actual activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
(I just want to note that "my words" of "attacking google" were explicitly my characterization of how I view you as attempting to spin this issue. Either you aren't reading clearly or you are grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage an utterly flawed argument.)
Of course you see it that way. Only your 'argument' is so far flawed. Unfortunately, your own words argue against your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
You again attempt to confound the issue by equating the industrial espionage it would have engaged in by mysteriously equating it to, "asking for user consent/data." Let's be clear again, there are two separate issues wrapped up in this change to the agreement. First, advertisers may not collect user data without permission. Secondly, mobile device/OS competitors may not collect user data with or without permission.
No, I am trying to keep you from trying to tie the two. As you say, two issues, two reasons. Only one was user privacy. Hell, there could have been a thousand other changes. Try to stick to the relevant one, that being the google ban. Nothing to do with privacy, unless you try to 'confound' the issue by bringing in the other item.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
While users may give permission to ad companies who are not competitors in to the iOS to collect their personal data, competitors who will use that information in aggregate form to gain a look inside the platform as a whole, clearly fall into a different category. (It would be disingenuous to deny that they do, Google is not just another advertiser in this situation.) The data obviously have a different value to them than to non-competitors and it's simply ridiculous that any company should have to allow a competitor an inside view of its business just because the competitor has found a backdoor way of obtaining it.
You opinion and well founded I am sure. We will have to wait and see if the law agrees with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
You can try to spin it as putting, in your own words, Google at a competitive disadvantage, but, in reality, it's Apple protecting confidential business information and simply not allowing a competitor to gain an unfair advantage by allowing it to spy on Apple's iOS platform as a whole. I would note that even you equate Google and AdMob as a single entity.
Of course I do, they will be buying them. It is a competitive disadvantage, that is clear and it would be foolish to even try to claim otherwise. But, the legal question will be is it an illegal disadvantage. Right now, I don't think it is (an illegal disadvantage) but that doesn't change that fact that it is a competitive disadvantage, or in your words 'an attack on google'.
This is a war between google and Apple. This is an attack against google, and that should only be a surprise to the challenged, as attacks happen in a war. It puts google at a disadvantage, as would would expect Apple or any other company to strive for against a competitor. You may feel it was totally legal and that is a good opinion to have. The authorities will have to decide what their opinions are. It is disingenuous to try to say there was no attack and no disadvantage in order to wash it away. It is what it is. It is just a matter of if it was legal.
There is a true statement if I ever read one. I vote for number two.
We have to remember the little ditty Einstein riffed off, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Where we have to be careful is not letting some other posters lead us down that road that they so dearly own.
For someone on your ignore list, I am in your thoughts an awful lot, Hiro.
I think it's dishonest of you to continue to state that, "in [my] words 'an attack on google'" when a) I was clearly paraphrasing your argument when I used those words, and b) later unambiguously reiterated that I was paraphrasing your argument. It's one thing to disagree, even vehemently, but it's quite another to knowingly misquote someone.
Quote:
This is a war between google and Apple. This is an attack against google, and that should only be a surprise to the challenged, as attacks happen in a war. ...
You wish to spin it as an attack, but it seems pretty clear that it is in fact a defensive move, a defense against spying by Google on the iPhone platform as a whole. Preventing Google from collecting metrics on iOS has nothing to do with advertising.
I think it's dishonest of you to continue to state that, "in [my] words 'an attack on google'" when a) I was clearly paraphrasing your argument when I used those words, and b) later unambiguously reiterated that I was paraphrasing your argument. It's one thing to disagree, even vehemently, but it's quite another to knowingly misquote someone.
Actually, until my last post, I had never phrased or even implied it was an attack on google. I stated that the ban on google was not based on protecting user data but was competitively driven. I stated that the changes to require user consent and to limit the collected data were for user privacy.
When I say 'your words' I meant the ones you were trying so hard to put in my mouth. Since I hadn't written them, they were only 'your words'. Nothing disingenuous about it. If you don't like me quoting your words, stop trying to stick them in my mouth because that is disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
You wish to spin it as an attack, but it seems pretty clear that it is in fact a defensive move, a defense against spying by Google on the iPhone platform as a whole. Preventing Google from collecting metrics on iOS has nothing to do with advertising.
Perhaps that is a better description than 'attack'. I wasn't trying to spin it either way. I certainly never implied it was an attack on google (until my last post). In either case, it is a move against google, defensive or offensive, whatever. It was done for competitive reasons. Period.
... When I say 'your words' I meant the ones you were trying so hard to put in my mouth. Since I hadn't written them, they were only 'your words'. Nothing disingenuous about it. If you don't like me quoting your words, stop trying to stick them in my mouth because that is disingenuous.
Here's what I said:
Quote:
Seems to me [emphasis added] you're just trying to confound the issues for the purpose of making it sound like there's nothing going on but a malicious attack on Google, which isn't the case at all. What's going on is Apple is protecting itself and users.
And you then quoted the "attack on Google" part twice, emphasizing that they were "[my words]". What I said cannot in any way be construed as my trying to "stick them in [your] mouth." I was quite obviously expressing my opinion of the gist of your argument, which you actually seem to have accepted as correct
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Perhaps that is a better description than 'attack'. I wasn't trying to spin it either way. I certainly never implied it was an attack on google (until my last post). In either case, it is a move against google, defensive or offensive, whatever. It was done for competitive reasons. Period.
Companies defend themselves from spying by competitors all the time, there's nothing illegal, and certainly nothing illegally anticompetitive, about that. Just because Google bought their way into mobile advertising doesn't give them license to use it as an intelligence gathering operation to further their Android development, and no one can honestly deny that that is exactly what Google would do with the AdMob data, in fact, they'd be stupid not to, and Apple would be even stupider to let them.
And you then quoted the "attack on Google" part twice, emphasizing that they were "[my words]". What I said cannot in any way be construed as my trying to "stick them in [your] mouth." I was quite obviously expressing my opinion of the gist of your argument, which you actually seem to have accepted as correct
Since up to that point, I had used no language that even implied it was an 'attack' against google, let alone a malicious attack, your paraphrasing was at best dishonest then. I used the phrase after your comments, as it seemed to be the terminology your seemed most comfortable with. hell, I even agreed with your later description of it being a defensive move. The only real point was that it was a competitively driven move. Trying to bog it down in semantic interpretations is just stupid. It was a move against google. Defensive or offensive, it was a move against google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Companies defend themselves from spying by competitors all the time, there's nothing illegal, and certainly nothing illegally anticompetitive, about that. Just because Google bought their way into mobile advertising doesn't give them license to use it as an intelligence gathering operation to further their Android development, and no one can honestly deny that that is exactly what Google would do with the AdMob data, in fact, they'd be stupid not to, and Apple would be even stupider to let them.
Again, your opinion. Perhaps the DoJ and FTC lawyers will share your opinion. Perhaps they won't.
... Defensive or offensive, it was a move against google. ...
Yes, and I think that is the crux of the matter for you. You don't really care about the circumstances, whether it's justified, legal, or anything else, simply that it's a move against Google.
Yes, and I think that is the crux of the matter for you. You don't really care about the circumstances, whether it's justified, legal, or anything else, simply that it's a move against Google.
Actually, I care about all of the above. The problem is those that are trying to cloak it the high moral veil of privacy, when it is factually about competition. They seem to feel dirty even acknowledging that Apple could have made a move against a competitor and want to mask it as purely a privacy issue. It isn't.
As you have shown, you can face and admit to the fact that it is a competitive move and still belief it is justified. Perfectly valid. To pretend it isn't a competitive move against google is like saying it is dark because it is night and not because one's head is firmly planted in one's ass.
I don't think Apple will be found guilty of anything. I don't think they have enough influence to be guilty of antitrust, though that will be the determining factor. I think this was a dick move (I am not a tinfoil hatter yet) but that google did everything they could to set it in motion. Personally, I think the animosity between the two companies is getting a little overly blown (and some fans are taking it waaayyyyy too personally). They did well when they worked together but the competition between them should help improve the field in general. Healthy competition is, well, healthy. Slash and burn competition just leaves a mess for everyone.
Actually, I care about all of the above. The problem is those that are trying to cloak it the high moral veil of privacy, when it is factually about competition. They seem to feel dirty even acknowledging that Apple could have made a move against a competitor and want to mask it as purely a privacy issue. It isn't.
As an added bonus, though, it is a substantial boon to privacy for iOS users.
And it's not just directed at Google, even though they happen to be the only ones I know of who are affected at present. It would also affect Microsoft, or Dell, or HTC, or anyone in the mobile device/OS business. Just because none of them aren't involved in mobile advertising now, doesn't mean they won't be in the future. And conversely, any of them would, if Apple were to expand iAds beyond iOS, as unlikely as that is, be entirely justified in keeping Apple from collecting device and user data from their platforms.
Comments
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.
a)Which has nothing to do with the google ban, but is a nice distraction. Try to stay focused on the issue at hand. The google ban.
b) In your personal opinion, yes. Apple may feel the same way. They have given no indication that the google ban had anything to do with this, however.. Any assertion that it was seems to be fantasy of a small group of google haters. Take off the blinders, the world looks better without hate colouring your view.
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.
Yes, a competitive issue.
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?
Yes, and the rational conclusion hasn't changed. The google ban is strictly a competitive issue. The entire red herring that only the google-haters keep trying to make stick is that Apple banned google to protect privacy. This is so clearing untrue, it is funny to see the repeated mentions if it. If Apple thought the information was so sensitive from a privacy standpoint, they would not risk letting it fall into the hands of the other third parties. Third parties that because they are so less visible than google only get caught being bad when they out themselves. Jobs was clearly enraged that it had happened recently and in his rage made no mention of google at all when initially explaining the data collection changes. I guess he doesn't see it the same way the haters see it. He isn't foolish enough to try to claim banning google was a privacy issue and it was likely his call. He is a very smart guy. Why do you think you know better than Jobs?
The problem with letting your own, very passionate feelings cloud your reasoning, is that your analysis will almost always be wrong.
... Yes, and the rational conclusion hasn't changed. The google ban is strictly a competitive issue. The entire red herring that only the google-haters keep trying to make stick is that Apple banned google to protect privacy. ...
I don't recall having said that. I've stated repeatedly that Google/AdMob was justifiably banned because collecting data allows them to conduct an industrial espionage program, which no one should expect Apple to tolerate. So, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
However, none of that changes the fact that the overall policy also includes both intentional, and perhaps unintentional but welcome, privacy protections for users. And, whether intentional or not, the Google/AdMob ban on data collection (they are still allowed to place ads) is a big privacy win for users.
Seems to me you're just trying to confound the issues for the purpose of making it sound like there's nothing going on but a malicious attack on Google, which isn't the case at all. What's going on is Apple is protecting itself and users.
I don't recall having said that. I've stated repeatedly that Google/AdMob was justifiably banned because collecting data allows them to conduct an industrial espionage program, which no one should expect Apple to tolerate. So, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
However, none of that changes the fact that the overall policy also includes both intentional, and perhaps unintentional but welcome, privacy protections for users. And, whether intentional or not, the Google/AdMob ban on data collection (they are still allowed to place ads) is a big privacy win for users.
Many here have claimed, which was where our conversations overlapped, I suppose. At the least they have tried to imply it was somehow one of Apple's reasons for the google ban. Unfortunately, for them, even it this is true, no public statements from Apple don't support this idea. The very fact that they are still allowing the data to be collected and transmitted (with consent) to third parties speaks against the google ban being privacy issue.
As for the the real reason, to act against a competitor, whether it is justified is a matter of opinion, for now. That would be why the DoJ/FTC are looking to it. Whether all of us arm-chair analysts feel it is justified or not or if Apple is in a position of enough influence to the point where their actions against competitors begin to lean toward anti-trust, in the end it doesn't matter. The opinions of many lawyers and perhaps a judge or two will decide those matters.
Seems to me you're just trying to confound the issues for the purpose of making it sound like there's nothing going on but a malicious attack on Google, which isn't the case at all. What's going on is Apple is protecting itself and users.
Well, that is just semantics. You accept and assert that banning google/admob was done to prevent their 'industrial espionage' (otherwise known as asking for user consent/data), but call it confounding to admit it was done to competitively disadvantage google (or in your words, attack google).
It is a odd position to admit that Apple has taken competitive steps against google, in this case, but refuse to admit Apple has taken competitive steps against google.
Many here have claimed, which was where our conversations overlapped, I suppose. At the least they have tried to imply it was somehow one of Apple's reasons for the google ban. Unfortunately, for them, even it this is true, no public statements from Apple don't support this idea. The very fact that they are still allowing the data to be collected and transmitted (with consent) to third parties speaks against the google ban being privacy issue.
I'm not sure why you are having such trouble wrapping your head around the concept that one section of Apple's SDK license simultaneously deals with two separate issues, user privacy and ecosystem spying by competitors.
As for the the real reason, to act against a competitor, whether it is justified is a matter of opinion, for now. That would be why the DoJ/FTC are looking to it. ...
Actually, they are probably looking into it solely because Google/AdMob ran whining to them and complained, so they are bound to do so whether there is any merit in the complaint or not.
Well, that is just semantics. You accept and assert that banning google/admob was done to prevent their 'industrial espionage' (otherwise known as asking for user consent/data), but call it confounding to admit it was done to competitively disadvantage google (or in your words, attack google). ...
(I just want to note that "my words" of "attacking google" were explicitly my characterization of how I view you as attempting to spin this issue. Either you aren't reading clearly or you are grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage an utterly flawed argument.)
You again attempt to confound the issue by equating the industrial espionage it would have engaged in by mysteriously equating it to, "asking for user consent/data." Let's be clear again, there are two separate issues wrapped up in this change to the agreement. First, advertisers may not collect user data without permission. Secondly, mobile device/OS competitors may not collect user data with or without permission.
While users may give permission to ad companies who are not competitors in to the iOS to collect their personal data, competitors who will use that information in aggregate form to gain a look inside the platform as a whole, clearly fall into a different category. (It would be disingenuous to deny that they do, Google is not just another advertiser in this situation.) The data obviously have a different value to them than to non-competitors and it's simply ridiculous that any company should have to allow a competitor an inside view of its business just because the competitor has found a backdoor way of obtaining it.
You can try to spin it as putting, in your own words, Google at a competitive disadvantage, but, in reality, it's Apple protecting confidential business information and simply not allowing a competitor to gain an unfair advantage by allowing it to spy on Apple's iOS platform as a whole. I would note that even you equate Google and AdMob as a single entity.
Either you(Tulkas) aren't reading clearly or you are grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage an utterly flawed argument.
There is a true statement if I ever read one. I vote for number two.
We have to remember the little ditty Einstein riffed off, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Where we have to be careful is not letting some other posters lead us down that road that they so dearly own.
I'm not sure why you are having such trouble wrapping your head around the concept that one section of Apple's SDK license simultaneously deals with two separate issues, user privacy and ecosystem spying by competitors.
Actually, that is exactly the point. They are two distinct issues with two distinct sets of reasons. One for privacy (user consent, limited data) and one to take action against google from a competitive stand point.
You are trying to muddle the two. Stay on focus. We agree on why they introduced the user consent and limited data (privacy), and on why they banned google (competition). Two distinct issues and reasons.
Actually, they are probably looking into it solely because Google/AdMob ran whining to them and complained, so they are bound to do so whether there is any merit in the complaint or not.
They might have been the catalyst. The don't tend to investigate just the catalyst though. They usually like to move forward to investigate actual activities.
(I just want to note that "my words" of "attacking google" were explicitly my characterization of how I view you as attempting to spin this issue. Either you aren't reading clearly or you are grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage an utterly flawed argument.)
Of course you see it that way. Only your 'argument' is so far flawed. Unfortunately, your own words argue against your position.
You again attempt to confound the issue by equating the industrial espionage it would have engaged in by mysteriously equating it to, "asking for user consent/data." Let's be clear again, there are two separate issues wrapped up in this change to the agreement. First, advertisers may not collect user data without permission. Secondly, mobile device/OS competitors may not collect user data with or without permission.
No, I am trying to keep you from trying to tie the two. As you say, two issues, two reasons. Only one was user privacy. Hell, there could have been a thousand other changes. Try to stick to the relevant one, that being the google ban. Nothing to do with privacy, unless you try to 'confound' the issue by bringing in the other item.
While users may give permission to ad companies who are not competitors in to the iOS to collect their personal data, competitors who will use that information in aggregate form to gain a look inside the platform as a whole, clearly fall into a different category. (It would be disingenuous to deny that they do, Google is not just another advertiser in this situation.) The data obviously have a different value to them than to non-competitors and it's simply ridiculous that any company should have to allow a competitor an inside view of its business just because the competitor has found a backdoor way of obtaining it.
You opinion and well founded I am sure. We will have to wait and see if the law agrees with you.
You can try to spin it as putting, in your own words, Google at a competitive disadvantage, but, in reality, it's Apple protecting confidential business information and simply not allowing a competitor to gain an unfair advantage by allowing it to spy on Apple's iOS platform as a whole. I would note that even you equate Google and AdMob as a single entity.
Of course I do, they will be buying them. It is a competitive disadvantage, that is clear and it would be foolish to even try to claim otherwise. But, the legal question will be is it an illegal disadvantage. Right now, I don't think it is (an illegal disadvantage) but that doesn't change that fact that it is a competitive disadvantage, or in your words 'an attack on google'.
This is a war between google and Apple. This is an attack against google, and that should only be a surprise to the challenged, as attacks happen in a war. It puts google at a disadvantage, as would would expect Apple or any other company to strive for against a competitor. You may feel it was totally legal and that is a good opinion to have. The authorities will have to decide what their opinions are. It is disingenuous to try to say there was no attack and no disadvantage in order to wash it away. It is what it is. It is just a matter of if it was legal.
There is a true statement if I ever read one. I vote for number two.
We have to remember the little ditty Einstein riffed off, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Where we have to be careful is not letting some other posters lead us down that road that they so dearly own.
For someone on your ignore list, I am in your thoughts an awful lot, Hiro.
Do you understand the point of your ignore list?
... or in your words 'an attack on google' ...
I think it's dishonest of you to continue to state that, "in [my] words 'an attack on google'" when a) I was clearly paraphrasing your argument when I used those words, and b) later unambiguously reiterated that I was paraphrasing your argument. It's one thing to disagree, even vehemently, but it's quite another to knowingly misquote someone.
This is a war between google and Apple. This is an attack against google, and that should only be a surprise to the challenged, as attacks happen in a war. ...
You wish to spin it as an attack, but it seems pretty clear that it is in fact a defensive move, a defense against spying by Google on the iPhone platform as a whole. Preventing Google from collecting metrics on iOS has nothing to do with advertising.
I think it's dishonest of you to continue to state that, "in [my] words 'an attack on google'" when a) I was clearly paraphrasing your argument when I used those words, and b) later unambiguously reiterated that I was paraphrasing your argument. It's one thing to disagree, even vehemently, but it's quite another to knowingly misquote someone.
Actually, until my last post, I had never phrased or even implied it was an attack on google. I stated that the ban on google was not based on protecting user data but was competitively driven. I stated that the changes to require user consent and to limit the collected data were for user privacy.
When I say 'your words' I meant the ones you were trying so hard to put in my mouth. Since I hadn't written them, they were only 'your words'. Nothing disingenuous about it. If you don't like me quoting your words, stop trying to stick them in my mouth because that is disingenuous.
You wish to spin it as an attack, but it seems pretty clear that it is in fact a defensive move, a defense against spying by Google on the iPhone platform as a whole. Preventing Google from collecting metrics on iOS has nothing to do with advertising.
Perhaps that is a better description than 'attack'. I wasn't trying to spin it either way. I certainly never implied it was an attack on google (until my last post). In either case, it is a move against google, defensive or offensive, whatever. It was done for competitive reasons. Period.
... When I say 'your words' I meant the ones you were trying so hard to put in my mouth. Since I hadn't written them, they were only 'your words'. Nothing disingenuous about it. If you don't like me quoting your words, stop trying to stick them in my mouth because that is disingenuous.
Here's what I said:
Seems to me [emphasis added] you're just trying to confound the issues for the purpose of making it sound like there's nothing going on but a malicious attack on Google, which isn't the case at all. What's going on is Apple is protecting itself and users.
And you then quoted the "attack on Google" part twice, emphasizing that they were "[my words]". What I said cannot in any way be construed as my trying to "stick them in [your] mouth." I was quite obviously expressing my opinion of the gist of your argument, which you actually seem to have accepted as correct
Perhaps that is a better description than 'attack'. I wasn't trying to spin it either way. I certainly never implied it was an attack on google (until my last post). In either case, it is a move against google, defensive or offensive, whatever. It was done for competitive reasons. Period.
Companies defend themselves from spying by competitors all the time, there's nothing illegal, and certainly nothing illegally anticompetitive, about that. Just because Google bought their way into mobile advertising doesn't give them license to use it as an intelligence gathering operation to further their Android development, and no one can honestly deny that that is exactly what Google would do with the AdMob data, in fact, they'd be stupid not to, and Apple would be even stupider to let them.
Here's what I said:
And you then quoted the "attack on Google" part twice, emphasizing that they were "[my words]". What I said cannot in any way be construed as my trying to "stick them in [your] mouth." I was quite obviously expressing my opinion of the gist of your argument, which you actually seem to have accepted as correct
Since up to that point, I had used no language that even implied it was an 'attack' against google, let alone a malicious attack, your paraphrasing was at best dishonest then. I used the phrase after your comments, as it seemed to be the terminology your seemed most comfortable with. hell, I even agreed with your later description of it being a defensive move. The only real point was that it was a competitively driven move. Trying to bog it down in semantic interpretations is just stupid. It was a move against google. Defensive or offensive, it was a move against google.
Companies defend themselves from spying by competitors all the time, there's nothing illegal, and certainly nothing illegally anticompetitive, about that. Just because Google bought their way into mobile advertising doesn't give them license to use it as an intelligence gathering operation to further their Android development, and no one can honestly deny that that is exactly what Google would do with the AdMob data, in fact, they'd be stupid not to, and Apple would be even stupider to let them.
Again, your opinion. Perhaps the DoJ and FTC lawyers will share your opinion. Perhaps they won't.
... Defensive or offensive, it was a move against google. ...
Yes, and I think that is the crux of the matter for you. You don't really care about the circumstances, whether it's justified, legal, or anything else, simply that it's a move against Google.
Yes, and I think that is the crux of the matter for you. You don't really care about the circumstances, whether it's justified, legal, or anything else, simply that it's a move against Google.
Actually, I care about all of the above. The problem is those that are trying to cloak it the high moral veil of privacy, when it is factually about competition. They seem to feel dirty even acknowledging that Apple could have made a move against a competitor and want to mask it as purely a privacy issue. It isn't.
As you have shown, you can face and admit to the fact that it is a competitive move and still belief it is justified. Perfectly valid. To pretend it isn't a competitive move against google is like saying it is dark because it is night and not because one's head is firmly planted in one's ass.
I don't think Apple will be found guilty of anything. I don't think they have enough influence to be guilty of antitrust, though that will be the determining factor. I think this was a dick move (I am not a tinfoil hatter yet) but that google did everything they could to set it in motion. Personally, I think the animosity between the two companies is getting a little overly blown (and some fans are taking it waaayyyyy too personally). They did well when they worked together but the competition between them should help improve the field in general. Healthy competition is, well, healthy. Slash and burn competition just leaves a mess for everyone.
Actually, I care about all of the above. The problem is those that are trying to cloak it the high moral veil of privacy, when it is factually about competition. They seem to feel dirty even acknowledging that Apple could have made a move against a competitor and want to mask it as purely a privacy issue. It isn't.
As an added bonus, though, it is a substantial boon to privacy for iOS users.
And it's not just directed at Google, even though they happen to be the only ones I know of who are affected at present. It would also affect Microsoft, or Dell, or HTC, or anyone in the mobile device/OS business. Just because none of them aren't involved in mobile advertising now, doesn't mean they won't be in the future. And conversely, any of them would, if Apple were to expand iAds beyond iOS, as unlikely as that is, be entirely justified in keeping Apple from collecting device and user data from their platforms.