@ Stevie. You're wrong. The iAd only gets your information with your permission. Steve Jobs was very clear about this.
Yes. That is correct. That is the case for every app on the iPhone that snoops on you, including iAds. I applaud that.
But the OP seemed to think that Apple was prohibiting snooping, and that was the reason the OP was glad that Apple is hobbling its competitors.
That is not the case. The level of snooping will remain unchanged. Apple's new rule says that certain companies are welcome to snoop (within the rules) but that other companies are prohibited.
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.
You forget the mobile app market. The App Store dominates. Billions and billions served. Nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple? Not yet, but it can be alleged (in fact it IS being alleged) that is what Apple is aiming for, in order to hobble hardware and OS competition.
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. Hopefully the Feds will see Apple?s action as justified and needs no further action other than ?taking an interest?. Perhaps the Feds should focus on the behavior of companies that retrieve information on the users? devices with the consent of the users.
But they can't collect personal information. It's not like they get the information and say, "Oh BeckleMic has an iPhone 3GS (I don't know what you have) better get more personal information." It's more like "Oh some random person has an iPhone 3GS."
If not for Google's help, it is much less likely that the iPhone would have taken off in the market.
Google Maps
YouTube
Google Search in Safari
Etc.
Nothing like an assertion on historical facts that, by it's nature, cannot be proven or disproven. But, frankly, I think the iPhone would have done just as well as it has without these services from Google.
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.
Yes. And if Apple had no market power in the mobile app market, nobody would care that it was shutting out competitors in a different market.
Coming to think of it; How does Google feel about iAds on Android? Anybody know?
Well, that would definitely be the way to go -- cut off Google's air supply, although, I'm sure an Android device phones home on a regular basis -- if Apple were forced to allow Google to collect device and user information from iPhones. Of course, the other way it could go is that Apple is forced to allow no one to collect user or device information. That would be my favored outcome.
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.
Pretty sure Apple writes the map app using Google's libraries.
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.
You know, you either have trouble understanding, or you delight in being deliberately misleading. It was pointed out to you several times in a thread yesterday that the TOS only allow this if the user gives approval. So, what part of that don't you understand? Or are you just here to spread misinformation? I think it's pretty certain that it's the latter.
Proving that the changes will harm consumers will be key to the government's case, according to experts who spoke to the Financial Times.
Last I checked, Antitrust had nada to do with or concern about the consumers in this kind of sense. The only 'consumer' concern was lacking options because one company was strong arming.
So the real concerns are whether Apple has any kind of applicable monopoly to abuse and exactly what the terms are.
The market in this case would be something like 'mobile computing devices' and no they probably don't have a monopoly. Also this is something that relates only to their own ecosystem not to the market in general and the laws are pretty lax about things play in that kind of sandbox.
Google wants to claim that this hurts consumers. Well controlling who gets your private info isn't not a harm to consumers.
Google wants to claim that this hurts developers. How? Do they not pay for hits on ads unless they can have that private info. That sounds more like their rules are the harmful ones. So the developers would be better off switching to iAds.
And I'm snorting a bit with this repeating of alleged filings that was posted in practically a tabloid NYP without a second source as if they are confirmed fact. I thought AI was better than that. At the least show a little journalism and source the info so folks can see where it came from.
Follow the money (being spent by consumers) and you'll see the exact opposite is true.
Apple's version of "closed" = record sales. Consumers WANT Apple's "closed" gear.
I don't know, Google seems to be doing pretty well for themselves. In the business world, it's not about how much money the consumer spends. It's about how much money you make. Also, if you're referencing Android, it really isn't doing bad.
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. ...
You're right, a better phrase describing Google would be "faux open".
They pretend to be open. They play lip service to open. They throw mindless open source zealots (this being a particular subset of open source advocates that does not include them all) a few source code bones to "prove" they are open. But, in fact, there is absolutely nothing open about the way Google does business. It's all just pretense and misdirection.
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.
They're working on it, if you actually read the news---
Where's Apple's Safari for Android?
Or Apple's XCode for Windows? I had to do iPhone coding on my Mac--- but I can do my Android coding on my Mac, my Win7 gaming machine, or my Ubuntu desktop.
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. ...
Sorry, bad analogy that doesn't fit the circumstances.
incorrect. like purchasing a house or property in an area that has covenants upon it, the owner is bound by the terms of the contract they enter into upon purchase.
You know, you either have trouble understanding, or you delight in being deliberately misleading. It was pointed out to you several times in a thread yesterday that the TOS only allow this if the user gives approval.
if he keeps repeating it enough perhaps he can change reality? rather, he just hopes to scare people into believing it is true.
Regardless of what you all think this is blatantly anti competitive ...
Except that your argument is based on the mistaken premise that Apple has banned AdMob ads on the iPhone. They haven't, so your entire argument is invalidated. All they've done is say that mobile OS and device makers may not spy on iPhone users. I'd be happier if no one were allowed to, but at least the spies are required to get permission first, and, hopefully, Apple will be aggressive about punishing those who violate these TOS.
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.
You still haven't addressed two basic questions:
1. Is Google, Apple's direct competitor in smart phones, entitled to proprietary information about Apple's smart phone customers?
2. Do companies have the right to choose with whom they want to share proprietary information?
You seem to answer yes to the first question and no to the second.
You cannot ignore those questions. Antitrust cases are typically very complex. That's why litigation sometimes takes years. But this is no cut and dried case of restraint of trade. Apple's stance is finely nuanced and very smart. Ads in iOS apps? All comers welcome. Want proprietary customer information on top of that? Not if you're going to use it to compete against us. What could be fairer and least anti-competitive than that given that some of your would-be partners are also your competitors?
What Apple is forcing Google to do is to decide whether they want to be horizontally integrated or vertically integrated. It seems that they can't do both without turning partners into competitors. And it is not the feds' job to sweep away all competitive barriers to Google and make it possible for Google to do both.
But they can't collect personal information. It's not like they get the information and say, "Oh BeckleMic has an iPhone 3GS (I don't know what you have) better get more personal information." It's more like "Oh some random person has an iPhone 3GS."
No, it's not as you describe at all. It's more like iPhone device with ID=xxxxx spends a lot of time at location y,z and engages in these activities, and also at these other locations we know to be stores and other places of business. Computer with IP address nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn also spend a lot of time at location y,z and engages in these activities, ordering from these online companies. Based on information obtained through ____ we know that John Doe resides at location y,z. We now have a fairly complete picture of the life of John Doe to use for our benefit.
Comments
@ Stevie. You're wrong. The iAd only gets your information with your permission. Steve Jobs was very clear about this.
Yes. That is correct. That is the case for every app on the iPhone that snoops on you, including iAds. I applaud that.
But the OP seemed to think that Apple was prohibiting snooping, and that was the reason the OP was glad that Apple is hobbling its competitors.
That is not the case. The level of snooping will remain unchanged. Apple's new rule says that certain companies are welcome to snoop (within the rules) but that other companies are prohibited.
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.
You forget the mobile app market. The App Store dominates. Billions and billions served. Nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple? Not yet, but it can be alleged (in fact it IS being alleged) that is what Apple is aiming for, in order to hobble hardware and OS competition.
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. Hopefully the Feds will see Apple?s action as justified and needs no further action other than ?taking an interest?. Perhaps the Feds should focus on the behavior of companies that retrieve information on the users? devices with the consent of the users.
But they can't collect personal information. It's not like they get the information and say, "Oh BeckleMic has an iPhone 3GS (I don't know what you have) better get more personal information." It's more like "Oh some random person has an iPhone 3GS."
Hey Apple, open = good, closed = bad.
Follow the money (being spent by consumers) and you'll see the exact opposite is true.
Apple's version of "closed" = record sales. Consumers WANT Apple's "closed" gear.
If not for Google's help, it is much less likely that the iPhone would have taken off in the market.
Google Maps
YouTube
Google Search in Safari
Etc.
Nothing like an assertion on historical facts that, by it's nature, cannot be proven or disproven. But, frankly, I think the iPhone would have done just as well as it has without these services from Google.
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.
Yes. And if Apple had no market power in the mobile app market, nobody would care that it was shutting out competitors in a different market.
But they do. So the regulators care.
Coming to think of it; How does Google feel about iAds on Android? Anybody know?
Well, that would definitely be the way to go -- cut off Google's air supply, although, I'm sure an Android device phones home on a regular basis -- if Apple were forced to allow Google to collect device and user information from iPhones. Of course, the other way it could go is that Apple is forced to allow no one to collect user or device information. That would be my favored outcome.
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.
Pretty sure Apple writes the map app using Google's libraries.
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.
You know, you either have trouble understanding, or you delight in being deliberately misleading. It was pointed out to you several times in a thread yesterday that the TOS only allow this if the user gives approval. So, what part of that don't you understand? Or are you just here to spread misinformation? I think it's pretty certain that it's the latter.
Proving that the changes will harm consumers will be key to the government's case, according to experts who spoke to the Financial Times.
Last I checked, Antitrust had nada to do with or concern about the consumers in this kind of sense. The only 'consumer' concern was lacking options because one company was strong arming.
So the real concerns are whether Apple has any kind of applicable monopoly to abuse and exactly what the terms are.
The market in this case would be something like 'mobile computing devices' and no they probably don't have a monopoly. Also this is something that relates only to their own ecosystem not to the market in general and the laws are pretty lax about things play in that kind of sandbox.
Google wants to claim that this hurts consumers. Well controlling who gets your private info isn't not a harm to consumers.
Google wants to claim that this hurts developers. How? Do they not pay for hits on ads unless they can have that private info. That sounds more like their rules are the harmful ones. So the developers would be better off switching to iAds.
And I'm snorting a bit with this repeating of alleged filings that was posted in practically a tabloid NYP without a second source as if they are confirmed fact. I thought AI was better than that. At the least show a little journalism and source the info so folks can see where it came from.
Follow the money (being spent by consumers) and you'll see the exact opposite is true.
Apple's version of "closed" = record sales. Consumers WANT Apple's "closed" gear.
I don't know, Google seems to be doing pretty well for themselves. In the business world, it's not about how much money the consumer spends. It's about how much money you make. Also, if you're referencing Android, it really isn't doing bad.
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. ...
You're right, a better phrase describing Google would be "faux open".
They pretend to be open. They play lip service to open. They throw mindless open source zealots (this being a particular subset of open source advocates that does not include them all) a few source code bones to "prove" they are open. But, in fact, there is absolutely nothing open about the way Google does business. It's all just pretense and misdirection.
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.
They're working on it, if you actually read the news---
Where's Apple's Safari for Android?
Or Apple's XCode for Windows? I had to do iPhone coding on my Mac--- but I can do my Android coding on my Mac, my Win7 gaming machine, or my Ubuntu desktop.
Snotty remark is snotty.
~Suzy
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. ...
Sorry, bad analogy that doesn't fit the circumstances.
But this is NOT Apple's house.
It is YOUR cellphone.
incorrect. like purchasing a house or property in an area that has covenants upon it, the owner is bound by the terms of the contract they enter into upon purchase.
However, I suspect that iAds will work only on iOS.
You could be right, Android being a technologically inferior platform, Apple might not be able to create a compelling user experience with ads there.
You know, you either have trouble understanding, or you delight in being deliberately misleading. It was pointed out to you several times in a thread yesterday that the TOS only allow this if the user gives approval.
if he keeps repeating it enough perhaps he can change reality? rather, he just hopes to scare people into believing it is true.
Regardless of what you all think this is blatantly anti competitive ...
Except that your argument is based on the mistaken premise that Apple has banned AdMob ads on the iPhone. They haven't, so your entire argument is invalidated. All they've done is say that mobile OS and device makers may not spy on iPhone users. I'd be happier if no one were allowed to, but at least the spies are required to get permission first, and, hopefully, Apple will be aggressive about punishing those who violate these TOS.
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.
You still haven't addressed two basic questions:
1. Is Google, Apple's direct competitor in smart phones, entitled to proprietary information about Apple's smart phone customers?
2. Do companies have the right to choose with whom they want to share proprietary information?
You seem to answer yes to the first question and no to the second.
You cannot ignore those questions. Antitrust cases are typically very complex. That's why litigation sometimes takes years. But this is no cut and dried case of restraint of trade. Apple's stance is finely nuanced and very smart. Ads in iOS apps? All comers welcome. Want proprietary customer information on top of that? Not if you're going to use it to compete against us. What could be fairer and least anti-competitive than that given that some of your would-be partners are also your competitors?
What Apple is forcing Google to do is to decide whether they want to be horizontally integrated or vertically integrated. It seems that they can't do both without turning partners into competitors. And it is not the feds' job to sweep away all competitive barriers to Google and make it possible for Google to do both.
But they can't collect personal information. It's not like they get the information and say, "Oh BeckleMic has an iPhone 3GS (I don't know what you have) better get more personal information." It's more like "Oh some random person has an iPhone 3GS."
No, it's not as you describe at all. It's more like iPhone device with ID=xxxxx spends a lot of time at location y,z and engages in these activities, and also at these other locations we know to be stores and other places of business. Computer with IP address nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn also spend a lot of time at location y,z and engages in these activities, ordering from these online companies. Based on information obtained through ____ we know that John Doe resides at location y,z. We now have a fairly complete picture of the life of John Doe to use for our benefit.