Anyone who is for Admob in this case is stating they think an outside company has the rights to see personal information of a device for which they do not make. That's ridiculous.
I hope that you realize that Apple is leaving the door wide open for "an outside company [to have] the right to see personal information of a device for which they do not make".
Indeed, any sleazy ad agency can see your personal information on your iPhone. Apple does NOT prohibit that, unless the agency is owned by a hardware or OS company.
It is more analogous to the carpenter telling you which house guests you are allowed to have.
But when you bought the iPhone you knew that it wasn't going to be open. If you wanted an open platform phone, why did you buy the iPhone? Then why are you complaining now?
Oh please, give me a break here. The thought of a company snooping on my behavior in using its app is abhorrent to me and I support Apple in this regard.
Every single iAd will snoop on your behaviour in using the app. That is the whole point. If you see an iPhone app supported by Admob ads, they will not snoop. But every iAd is allowed to snoop.
iAds is advertising on iOS devices ONLY and not on any other devices and platform. If the Feds are looking at possible antitrust it should look at Google and Admob instead. They're already advertising on all platforms and devices including Apple's and are already dominating yet they're pissed off because Apple is preventing them from dominating even more and advertising properly by collecting user data?
The only thing these investigations mean is that Apple's competitors are scared to death and have nothing to compete with in the marketplace. So, they complain to the government that Apple's business model is killing them. Frankly, I'm glad to hear it. The investigation of a complain is a healthy thing and should happen. The investigation has no bearing on whether or not Apple has done anything wrong, besides win big in the marketplace.
On a different note. I am giddy that Apple is so successful, they are considered by their enemies as a monopoly that defies competition. Think about that. What are the areas competitors are accusing Apple hoof monopolizing? Smartphones? Great computers? Amazing OS? Coolness? They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. I say an FTC complaint may be even higher.
I know. You'd think from the shrillness of the complaints that Apple has a 90% share on smart phones and computers. The only market where Apple does have an overwhelming market share is MP3 players and yet nobody is filing any complaints there.
I'm with you, I'll take these investigations as a sign that competitors are running scared. And if you examine the allegations more closely, there's nothing there. It's pretty obvious that apple has very, very smart antitrust lawyers and more importantly, Steve Jobs listens to them.
When businesses compete they tend to not help their competition. It would be a strange competitve landscape if all competitors were legally required to help their competitors. Antitrust law is the check on conspiracies between competitors to reduce or eliminate competition, or to regulate a business that has become so successful that it has a monopoly, which is inherently anticompetitive.
You are correct in part and incorrect in part.
For example, no company is subject to regulation merely because they have a monopoly. Every company that owns a patent has a monopoly - but they face no extra regulation.
No business is required to help their competitors. Some are prohibited from creating conditions in which competitors are not able to compete effectively. For example, if a company has monopoly power in the desktop OS market, they cannot prohibit their customers from doing deals in other markets, like the search engine market, whereby a competitor would be helped by a customer. But any non-dominant OS company is free to do exactly that.
The reason? Because without monopoly power, the customer has the ability to go elsewhere for a better deal, and competition flourishes. With monopoly power in the OS market, the customer has no choice but to refrain from doing deals in tangential markets.
Speaking of Google maps, when is Google going to be "open" and bring the same voice navigation to the iPhone that they are releasing for Android phones?
Google's "closed" and "uncompetitive" stance regarding this should also be investigated.
Just so you know, "closed" is not a word that is typically used to describe Google, because as the word is commonly used, it is inapplicable to Google.
But the word can be twisted in meaning to apply to Google, as you demonstrate.
And I think the other word you want is "anti-competitive". I suppose that this word was less capable of twist and spin, so it was changed.
Nobody aware of the usual meaning of the word alleges that Google is anti-competitive. Or closed. Both for good reasons.
My analogy is based on Target owning its parking lot and store. Target agrees to let manufactures place their products inside the store for sale. That's is the whole point of the store. Probably a closer analogy would be Target rejecting a product for sale in its store that was packaged with Best Buy's logo, or includes a tearoff map to the nearest Best Buy store.
Actually, a closer analogy would be MS using legalese or technical barriers to hobble Apple software on Windows. If MS were to allow any media software on Windows from any vendor except Apple, who would be required to disable iPhone/iPod/iPad syncing and online media purchases.
If MS were able to do that (they really couldn't), it would be illegal only because they are a monopoly.
To make your analogy fit, it would be closer to Target allowing anyone to place ads on their parking lot billboards (since it has nothing to do with content of the ads), unless those ads were created using a service owned by BestBuy. They could buy the identical ads from ClearChannel or directly from Target, but not from BestAds, if they are owned or affiliated with BestBuy.
Ha! Those arrogant pricks at Google are getting their comeuppance. They thought their success in one thing (and only one thing), search ads, was proof that they would be successful at everything. And so they chose to compete with Apple in the one area where Apple is far, far better than everyone else: complex devices for which hardware-software integration is critical. Now Apple is fighting back and tightening the screws on them and it's "Mama, mama, Apple is being mean to me! Waaaah." Bunch of babies.
The reason? Because without monopoly power, the customer has the ability to go elsewhere for a better deal, and competition flourishes. With monopoly power in the OS market, the customer has no choice but to refrain from doing deals in tangential markets.
Actually, you're describing horizontal integration and a monopoly in those areas. Having a monopoly in one industry is bad enough, obviously having multiple monopolies in different areas of the market is very bad. But really, your arguments apply to the ISP and telecom industries too, even though they don't have a monopoly nationwide, they have a local monopoly. For wireless, that would be one or two carriers in some areas providing good service, while the rest don't really cover that area. For ISPs, the monopoly was granted to them, because cable operators had a monopoly to begin with granted from the government. So now it's a bit ironic for the ISP industry to say that it loves competition and points at competing ISPs, but in reality they don't, because there is no nationwide ISP. Something similar happens to the telecom industry, except that it's wireless and different providers have the expense of upkeep with their own physical network. It would just be better if they consolidated into one network and shared that network, therefore lowering costs and passing it on to consumers. But we're not regulating that... no... instead we're following the tribulations of a paper that may or may not have relevance that says the FTC or DoJ is interested in investigating Apple over some advertising that doesn't even block Admob from giving ads from its platform, only the data from that platform to supposedly "improve" the relevance of its ads. As if Admob had any relevance to begin with. Plus I have a sneaking suspicion that that data will all too easily leak into Google where they can use that to design their Android phones.
Plus I can't imagine it will be too long now until google maps is scrapped on the iPhone in favour of an Apple home grown map service. I'm surprised it wasn't revealed this week.
Judging by how bad geo-location got with the iPhone OS 4 betas, my guess is that Apple tried it and rejected it as not yet ready for prime-time. Sometimes addresses a few blocks away popped up in Scranton, and it suddenly needed almost a full address to even make a guess.
Regardless of what you all think this is blatantly anti competitive, I'll give apple a pass on a lot of things but as soon as i heard about this one I can't side with them on this. The fact is this is handicapping the competition on the iPhone ad market in order to advance their own ads through iAds....gee I'm having flash backs to Microsoft strong arming IE on to all windows PCs and doing whatever they could to stifle Netscape. For those who are saying its no big deal because they are no stopping them out right just preventing them from collecting data...what the hell do you think advertising is all about? They have to collect data to verify what ads are successful and which ones aren't, this kind of statistical data is whats key for ad sales people to say hey look people prefer ads about computers than ones about fart machines! By preventing them from collecting this data apple is knee capping them and preventing developers from having a choice in the matter. They can find other ways to regulate this stuff to protect end user privacy without taking this kind of direct attack on ad providers. And to those who think that apple iAds won't be collecting user data...your being delusional! Like I outlined before this method is what companies use to sell ads to companies and make money.
Lets recap shall we: Google buys the largest mobile ad provider in admob who has been providing ads on iphones for over a year now with no issues...it just happens that they bought it right out from underneath apple
Next apple quickly acquires admob's competitor in quattro in order to maintain a foot hold in the emerging market. Apple builds its own ad platform into the core of its new OS and then effectively rewrites the rules when it comes to providing ads on the platform so that they benefit its new platform and effectively handicaps the competition from providing useful ads. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty anti competitive to me.
On a different note. I am giddy that Apple is so successful, they are considered by their enemies as a monopoly that defies competition. Think about that. What are the areas competitors are accusing Apple hoof monopolizing? Smartphones? Great computers? Amazing OS? Coolness? They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. I say an FTC complaint may be even higher.
Nobody accuses Apple of having a monopoly on smart phones, desktop or mobile OSs, or coolness.
Had they alleged that, they would have been laughed out of the FTC offices.
It is more analogous to the carpenter telling you which house guests you are allowed to have.
Pffffft. This is not them telling you what friends you can have -- maybe making it difficult for your ten-foot tall friends to enter because they used standard door sizes.
This is more like buying a printer (another electronic device that relies on certain technologies inside it).
I have a Canon printer. The ink cartridges are made to certain specifications.
The ink and the paper themselves are "open" -- I can basically refill the proprietary cartridges with any ink on the market, as long as it flows. I can use any paper on the market -- as long as it fits in the printer. These are open standards.
However, there are only so many generic third-party ink cartridges that will work in my printer... they have to adhere to Canon's specs for the printer. I can get a Staples brand cartridge if I want -- as long as it is made for that printer.
So, you think HP and Epson should be able to complain that I, as the "owner" of the printer, cannot stick any old printer cartridge in my Canon printer that they see fit to sell me, just because that would be "open" and would facilitate their ability to sell me Epson and HP cartridges over against Canon cartridges for that printer? Bearing in mind that cartridges are where the money is to be made in this industry.
Yeah, HP and Epson, go ahead and complain to the govt that Canon doesn't make printers that take your most popular cartridges!
This is getting so ridiculous... "Hey, I bought it, I can do with it what I want! Why won't NesCafe let me redeem my DouweEgbert points for free prizes? After all, the coffee is a commodity that I bought and paid for and consumed. Waaaah."
By the way, it might be your phone -- but in this case, the content (the ad) is not coming from your CD or your computer; it is coming through a platform that Apple is delivering to your phone through its cloud services. Presumably the ads are not a static part of an app that never change. If they are being served based on relevance, then they are coming through Apple. Apple is stipulating to the developers (who are using Apple's store) what those advertisers may do and not do.
Apple wants the developer to make money, and the seller of the advertised item to enjoy a possible sale -- Apple doesn't want to help some unscrupulous middleman who makes the bulk of the money simply through clicks, whether there are sales or not: the developer loses, and the item's seller loses and has to make the item more expensive, making the consumer lose.
But hey, it's your phone. I guess you complain to TV broadcasters that they don't help their competition by advertising other networks in the programs (like apps) they host : after all, it's your TV. Tragedy, NBC can't advertise their programming in a show airing on ABC; what is the world coming to, I ask you? Geeez, it's my TV, and I say I don't feel like switching channels any more, I just want everything that I could possibly ever want served right up to me on one big happy silver platter.
Actually, a closer analogy would be MS using legalese or technical barriers to hobble Apple software on Windows. If MS were to allow any media software on Windows from any vendor except Apple, who would be required to disable iPhone/iPod/iPad syncing and online media purchases.
If MS were able to do that (they really couldn't), it would be illegal only because they are a monopoly.
To make your analogy fit, it would be closer to Target allowing anyone to place ads on their parking lot billboards (since it has nothing to do with content of the ads), unless those ads were created using a service owned by BestBuy. They could buy the identical ads from ClearChannel or directly from Target, but not from BestAds, if they are owned or affiliated with BestBuy.
Nope you're missing the point. Apple's beef is not about placing the ads, it's about collecting information on usage habits of iOS device owners that can then be used to compete against iOS. AdMob can place as many ads as they want on iOS (okay subject to saturation and content guidelines that everyone including iAd must follow), and Apple is smart enough to avoid doing that MS thing of raising artificial technical barriers. What Apple is asserting is their right to decide with whom they wish to share proprietary information about their customers. Why do you folks insist that Apple's direct competitor has the right to this information?
Here's the correct analogy. It's as if Honda is not only letting Toyota place any ad in Honda showrooms, it's Honda, in addition, letting Toyota send a representative to sit in on every Honda sale negotiation and take down notes on all the information that can be gleaned from that negotiation. i.e. the buyer's preferences, how much he is willing to pay, where he lives, his job, his credit rating, etc. That's what Google, through AdMob, wants to be able to do and that's what Apple wants to prevent.
Any reasonable person would agree that the feds would be nuts to allow such a thing to happen.
As I said many times, Apple's antitrust lawyers are very smart. They know where the line is drawn and how to stay safely away from it. AdMob is free to place ads in iOS, they are not free to gather information about iOS customers.
Comments
Anyone who is for Admob in this case is stating they think an outside company has the rights to see personal information of a device for which they do not make. That's ridiculous.
I hope that you realize that Apple is leaving the door wide open for "an outside company [to have] the right to see personal information of a device for which they do not make".
Indeed, any sleazy ad agency can see your personal information on your iPhone. Apple does NOT prohibit that, unless the agency is owned by a hardware or OS company.
But this is NOT Apple's house.
It is YOUR cellphone.
It is more analogous to the carpenter telling you which house guests you are allowed to have.
But when you bought the iPhone you knew that it wasn't going to be open. If you wanted an open platform phone, why did you buy the iPhone? Then why are you complaining now?
Coming to think of it; How does Google feel about iAds on Android? Anybody know?
iAd is part of iOS. It is designed to work only on iOS. Apple is not interested in playing in Google's yard.
Apple's not even close to a monopoly position in the phone market,
Correct. That is why:
1. Nobody claims that Apple is in a monopoly position in the phone market.
2. Having a monopoly position in the phone market is totally irrelevant to the situation.
They need to keep it open an let the market sort it out.
Oh please, give me a break here. The thought of a company snooping on my behavior in using its app is abhorrent to me and I support Apple in this regard.
Every single iAd will snoop on your behaviour in using the app. That is the whole point. If you see an iPhone app supported by Admob ads, they will not snoop. But every iAd is allowed to snoop.
Will you refuse to install iAd supported apps?
The only thing these investigations mean is that Apple's competitors are scared to death and have nothing to compete with in the marketplace. So, they complain to the government that Apple's business model is killing them. Frankly, I'm glad to hear it. The investigation of a complain is a healthy thing and should happen. The investigation has no bearing on whether or not Apple has done anything wrong, besides win big in the marketplace.
On a different note. I am giddy that Apple is so successful, they are considered by their enemies as a monopoly that defies competition. Think about that. What are the areas competitors are accusing Apple hoof monopolizing? Smartphones? Great computers? Amazing OS? Coolness? They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. I say an FTC complaint may be even higher.
I know. You'd think from the shrillness of the complaints that Apple has a 90% share on smart phones and computers. The only market where Apple does have an overwhelming market share is MP3 players and yet nobody is filing any complaints there.
I'm with you, I'll take these investigations as a sign that competitors are running scared. And if you examine the allegations more closely, there's nothing there. It's pretty obvious that apple has very, very smart antitrust lawyers and more importantly, Steve Jobs listens to them.
When businesses compete they tend to not help their competition. It would be a strange competitve landscape if all competitors were legally required to help their competitors. Antitrust law is the check on conspiracies between competitors to reduce or eliminate competition, or to regulate a business that has become so successful that it has a monopoly, which is inherently anticompetitive.
You are correct in part and incorrect in part.
For example, no company is subject to regulation merely because they have a monopoly. Every company that owns a patent has a monopoly - but they face no extra regulation.
No business is required to help their competitors. Some are prohibited from creating conditions in which competitors are not able to compete effectively. For example, if a company has monopoly power in the desktop OS market, they cannot prohibit their customers from doing deals in other markets, like the search engine market, whereby a competitor would be helped by a customer. But any non-dominant OS company is free to do exactly that.
The reason? Because without monopoly power, the customer has the ability to go elsewhere for a better deal, and competition flourishes. With monopoly power in the OS market, the customer has no choice but to refrain from doing deals in tangential markets.
Speaking of Google maps, when is Google going to be "open" and bring the same voice navigation to the iPhone that they are releasing for Android phones?
Google's "closed" and "uncompetitive" stance regarding this should also be investigated.
Just so you know, "closed" is not a word that is typically used to describe Google, because as the word is commonly used, it is inapplicable to Google.
But the word can be twisted in meaning to apply to Google, as you demonstrate.
And I think the other word you want is "anti-competitive". I suppose that this word was less capable of twist and spin, so it was changed.
Nobody aware of the usual meaning of the word alleges that Google is anti-competitive. Or closed. Both for good reasons.
My analogy is based on Target owning its parking lot and store. Target agrees to let manufactures place their products inside the store for sale. That's is the whole point of the store. Probably a closer analogy would be Target rejecting a product for sale in its store that was packaged with Best Buy's logo, or includes a tearoff map to the nearest Best Buy store.
Actually, a closer analogy would be MS using legalese or technical barriers to hobble Apple software on Windows. If MS were to allow any media software on Windows from any vendor except Apple, who would be required to disable iPhone/iPod/iPad syncing and online media purchases.
If MS were able to do that (they really couldn't), it would be illegal only because they are a monopoly.
To make your analogy fit, it would be closer to Target allowing anyone to place ads on their parking lot billboards (since it has nothing to do with content of the ads), unless those ads were created using a service owned by BestBuy. They could buy the identical ads from ClearChannel or directly from Target, but not from BestAds, if they are owned or affiliated with BestBuy.
The reason? Because without monopoly power, the customer has the ability to go elsewhere for a better deal, and competition flourishes. With monopoly power in the OS market, the customer has no choice but to refrain from doing deals in tangential markets.
Actually, you're describing horizontal integration and a monopoly in those areas. Having a monopoly in one industry is bad enough, obviously having multiple monopolies in different areas of the market is very bad. But really, your arguments apply to the ISP and telecom industries too, even though they don't have a monopoly nationwide, they have a local monopoly. For wireless, that would be one or two carriers in some areas providing good service, while the rest don't really cover that area. For ISPs, the monopoly was granted to them, because cable operators had a monopoly to begin with granted from the government. So now it's a bit ironic for the ISP industry to say that it loves competition and points at competing ISPs, but in reality they don't, because there is no nationwide ISP. Something similar happens to the telecom industry, except that it's wireless and different providers have the expense of upkeep with their own physical network. It would just be better if they consolidated into one network and shared that network, therefore lowering costs and passing it on to consumers. But we're not regulating that... no... instead we're following the tribulations of a paper that may or may not have relevance that says the FTC or DoJ is interested in investigating Apple over some advertising that doesn't even block Admob from giving ads from its platform, only the data from that platform to supposedly "improve" the relevance of its ads. As if Admob had any relevance to begin with. Plus I have a sneaking suspicion that that data will all too easily leak into Google where they can use that to design their Android phones.
Coming to think of it; How does Google feel about iAds on Android? Anybody know?
I have heard nothing to indicate that Google will refuse to sell Android apps that include iAds.
However, I suspect that iAds will work only on iOS.
Plus I can't imagine it will be too long now until google maps is scrapped on the iPhone in favour of an Apple home grown map service. I'm surprised it wasn't revealed this week.
Judging by how bad geo-location got with the iPhone OS 4 betas, my guess is that Apple tried it and rejected it as not yet ready for prime-time. Sometimes addresses a few blocks away popped up in Scranton, and it suddenly needed almost a full address to even make a guess.
Lets recap shall we: Google buys the largest mobile ad provider in admob who has been providing ads on iphones for over a year now with no issues...it just happens that they bought it right out from underneath apple
Next apple quickly acquires admob's competitor in quattro in order to maintain a foot hold in the emerging market. Apple builds its own ad platform into the core of its new OS and then effectively rewrites the rules when it comes to providing ads on the platform so that they benefit its new platform and effectively handicaps the competition from providing useful ads. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty anti competitive to me.
On a different note. I am giddy that Apple is so successful, they are considered by their enemies as a monopoly that defies competition. Think about that. What are the areas competitors are accusing Apple hoof monopolizing? Smartphones? Great computers? Amazing OS? Coolness? They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. I say an FTC complaint may be even higher.
Nobody accuses Apple of having a monopoly on smart phones, desktop or mobile OSs, or coolness.
Had they alleged that, they would have been laughed out of the FTC offices.
But this is NOT Apple's house.
It is YOUR cellphone.
It is more analogous to the carpenter telling you which house guests you are allowed to have.
Pffffft. This is not them telling you what friends you can have -- maybe making it difficult for your ten-foot tall friends to enter because they used standard door sizes.
This is more like buying a printer (another electronic device that relies on certain technologies inside it).
I have a Canon printer. The ink cartridges are made to certain specifications.
The ink and the paper themselves are "open" -- I can basically refill the proprietary cartridges with any ink on the market, as long as it flows. I can use any paper on the market -- as long as it fits in the printer. These are open standards.
However, there are only so many generic third-party ink cartridges that will work in my printer... they have to adhere to Canon's specs for the printer. I can get a Staples brand cartridge if I want -- as long as it is made for that printer.
So, you think HP and Epson should be able to complain that I, as the "owner" of the printer, cannot stick any old printer cartridge in my Canon printer that they see fit to sell me, just because that would be "open" and would facilitate their ability to sell me Epson and HP cartridges over against Canon cartridges for that printer? Bearing in mind that cartridges are where the money is to be made in this industry.
Yeah, HP and Epson, go ahead and complain to the govt that Canon doesn't make printers that take your most popular cartridges!
This is getting so ridiculous... "Hey, I bought it, I can do with it what I want! Why won't NesCafe let me redeem my DouweEgbert points for free prizes? After all, the coffee is a commodity that I bought and paid for and consumed. Waaaah."
By the way, it might be your phone -- but in this case, the content (the ad) is not coming from your CD or your computer; it is coming through a platform that Apple is delivering to your phone through its cloud services. Presumably the ads are not a static part of an app that never change. If they are being served based on relevance, then they are coming through Apple. Apple is stipulating to the developers (who are using Apple's store) what those advertisers may do and not do.
Apple wants the developer to make money, and the seller of the advertised item to enjoy a possible sale -- Apple doesn't want to help some unscrupulous middleman who makes the bulk of the money simply through clicks, whether there are sales or not: the developer loses, and the item's seller loses and has to make the item more expensive, making the consumer lose.
But hey, it's your phone. I guess you complain to TV broadcasters that they don't help their competition by advertising other networks in the programs (like apps) they host : after all, it's your TV. Tragedy, NBC can't advertise their programming in a show airing on ABC; what is the world coming to, I ask you? Geeez, it's my TV, and I say I don't feel like switching channels any more, I just want everything that I could possibly ever want served right up to me on one big happy silver platter.
Actually, a closer analogy would be MS using legalese or technical barriers to hobble Apple software on Windows. If MS were to allow any media software on Windows from any vendor except Apple, who would be required to disable iPhone/iPod/iPad syncing and online media purchases.
If MS were able to do that (they really couldn't), it would be illegal only because they are a monopoly.
To make your analogy fit, it would be closer to Target allowing anyone to place ads on their parking lot billboards (since it has nothing to do with content of the ads), unless those ads were created using a service owned by BestBuy. They could buy the identical ads from ClearChannel or directly from Target, but not from BestAds, if they are owned or affiliated with BestBuy.
Nope you're missing the point. Apple's beef is not about placing the ads, it's about collecting information on usage habits of iOS device owners that can then be used to compete against iOS. AdMob can place as many ads as they want on iOS (okay subject to saturation and content guidelines that everyone including iAd must follow), and Apple is smart enough to avoid doing that MS thing of raising artificial technical barriers. What Apple is asserting is their right to decide with whom they wish to share proprietary information about their customers. Why do you folks insist that Apple's direct competitor has the right to this information?
Here's the correct analogy. It's as if Honda is not only letting Toyota place any ad in Honda showrooms, it's Honda, in addition, letting Toyota send a representative to sit in on every Honda sale negotiation and take down notes on all the information that can be gleaned from that negotiation. i.e. the buyer's preferences, how much he is willing to pay, where he lives, his job, his credit rating, etc. That's what Google, through AdMob, wants to be able to do and that's what Apple wants to prevent.
Any reasonable person would agree that the feds would be nuts to allow such a thing to happen.
As I said many times, Apple's antitrust lawyers are very smart. They know where the line is drawn and how to stay safely away from it. AdMob is free to place ads in iOS, they are not free to gather information about iOS customers.