What rock have you been living under? You are obviously not someone that understands technology.
Android is technologically superior to iOS. iOS UX is superior to Android. Android is capable of way way more than iOS--- but UI isn't as smooth.
To put it in other words: iOS is form above function. Android is function above form.
lol at this massive over-simplification. as if it can be reduced to such a trite, cliched observation. you say someone doesn't understand technology and provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.
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.
Patents are grants of exclusivity for an invention. Patent do not grant a monopoly of a market. Monopolies are illegal. Section 2 of the Sherman Act states: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part or the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...." You are referring to abuse of monopoly power, which gives the right to one injured by the monopolist to sue in court for damages.
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.
Again, it's not a question of who will or won't sell ads to whom.
Again, Google can put their ads on iOS, they just need to respect the rules for that platform. Likewise, I would expect Apple to have to conform to some rules on the Android platform that Google has put in place.
Google can't have T&C in effect that say that personal data won't be sold on, and then go ahead and let Apple's ad service mine all kinds of personal data from Android users, and then use that to help market Apple products to them.
Of course, Google isn't too concerned about private data anyway. That's their stock in trade, and about all they have going for them.
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.
I understand that it is a permission based system. Given that caveat, I stand by every one of my original statements. AdMob and others who are affiliated with certain hardware or OS companies cannot collect such information. Everybody else can, including Apple.
@ Tulkas. Well taken. Analogies are only good to illistrate a point. Once Apple has a monopoly in the cell phone market, these issues will be of concern to the FTC and the DOJ. I hope that happens, as my stock in Apple will be at a level that I can only dream.
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.
Okay tell us about the mobile apps market. Now remember this, a dominant market share by itself is a necessary but not sufficient proof of monopoly. You can't just point to a 98% share and say aha, monopoly! You have to tell us how that dominant share was attained and maintained.
You are claiming that Apple is trying to achieve a situation where "nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple". How this comes about is key. If it happens because of sheer product and marketing excellence so that customers choose Apple products above all the rest and naturally devs will choose to develop for iOS, then there are no antitrust issues. If it happens because Apple says, "if you develop for us then you can't develop for anyone else" or "you can't port an iOS app to some other platform" then there are serious antitrust issues. So tell us what's going on in the mobile apps market.
Antitrust legislation is not meant to punish success, it is meant to punish abuse.
I understand that it is a permission based system. Given that caveat, I stand by every one of my original statements. AdMob and others who are affiliated with certain hardware or OS companies cannot collect such information. Everybody else can, including Apple.
a) What's your point?
b) None of your original statements even allude to it being a "permission based system", so I stand by my accusation that you are here for no reason but to spread misinformation and confusion.
I understand that it is a permission based system. Given that caveat, I stand by every one of my original statements. AdMob and others who are affiliated with certain hardware or OS companies cannot collect such information. Everybody else can, including Apple.
so that's a positive, right? AdMob should be pleased, right?
I just hope Google don't fire back and block google maps from the iPhone
They won't. No matter what else, Google is about money. And they are getting a nice pile of it for the licensing of Google Maps
Quote:
Originally Posted by leodavinci0
Just because the gov't is looking into it,
Let's ask this question. How reliable is the Financial Times. Cause that "sources close to the matter" is a tabloid phrase. So is the FT a 100% authentic source or, like the NY Post, a tabloid trumped up to look 'real'
That might tell us the truth about this alleged probe. And why hasn't someone like the Wall Street Journal broken with the story of all these probes. According to the Post, there's like 10 going on at the same time. And NO one else is talking about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garion
Every AdMob ad sold is money straight down Google's coffers. This is, needless to say, NOT in the interest of Apple, and they'd have to be crazy to let Google steal their ad revenue on their own platform.
Which is why iAds was made at all. Make it easier to implement, give the developers the bigger share of the money.
But this move isn't about the money in that sense. It's about what information can get out there. It's more than your type of device that can be pulled by these ads. They can, if programmed right, do a ton of snoping in your personal info and in the OS. So there's a level of protecting your privacy AND their trade secrets. A totally independent company isn't going to snope in the OS cause they have no reason to. But Google (which makes Android) might.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garion
Coming to think of it; How does Google feel about iAds on Android? Anybody know?
Nothing. Because there is and will likely never be, any such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
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.
A cellphone is not a house. It's a Condo. Yes you own it, but when you bought it you had to sign the HOA agreement which contractually restricts you from, for example
Tearing down any interior walls without permission from the HOA
Making any loud noises after 9pm from Sunday to Thursday and 11pm on Friday or Saturday
Allowing guests to park in the secured residents only parking rather than guest parking or on the street
As well as having to pay X amount monthly for the trash pickup, the maintenance guy's salary, the property taxes
If you don't the rules, don't buy. Same with your phone, same with who you develop your apps for (I'm assuming you are a developer since you are so indignant about this ads issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
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.
Actually they do, in a way. By requiring you to agree to letting them see it. Even with their own iAds
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
Almost.
See a monopoly is not illegal. It's not anti-trust. It's how you gained the monopoly and what you do with it that is illegal.
To use your media idea. Anti-trust would be, for example, if Windows barred all software that supports anything not Zune or WinMobile from Windows OS based machines. No providing APIs etc, suing for reverse engineering and such.
That would be likely be deemed illegal because they are abusing their power as an OS to gain in the mobile device market, which is a separate entity for the OS.
Apple requiring a Mac to use a iOS device would be the same. On that note, someone could perhaps cry foul over the whole 'You must have a Mac to develop apps' rule, which is due to Apple only having the means to make a Mac SDK. Apple would be legally forced to make one for Windows and even Linux so everyone can play. Which is why I suspect they are, but it's talking longer because of the added layers needed to get it to work outside of the Xcode based environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinrah
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.
The courts would probably say that these are not the same thing.
With Apple you are talking about a company saying what happens on their equipment in their OS. In a market for which they might not actually have a strong power to abuse.
With the Microsoft, they were mixing markets. Using a clear and high dominance in the OS to play games in the Web Software market.
Quote:
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.
Is the rule that you can't have Admob in an app or that it can't send personal and device data beyond perhaps "it's an iphone" or "Its an ipad" if it was actually clicked on, and the ad id. What other information does Google really need.
Also, what is stopping the advertisers from working with both companies. Or even the developer from using something other than iAds. Nada. Other than this issue of no personal data. If Admob refuses to provide non snooping ads, that's on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Nobody accuses Apple of having a monopoly on smart phones, desktop or mobile OSs
Psystar. Google/Bing/whatever it
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkeath
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."
Actually it could be more than that. Who knows what levels of snooping an ad could do. Imagine if it could send your IP or your ICCID and Google could basically track you. How would you feel then
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
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.
There's a fallacy in your statement. Apple is not making apps for the whole market. So Apple based apps don't have any power.
Nor do they make an OS for the whole market.
A cry of market power would have to consider the complete package of Apple made mobile devices running Apple's iOS and capable of running apps. Against all other mobile devices of a similar nature. With phones, Apple has only 28% of the US market. The ipad and touch might bump that to like 40% but that's still not a dominant position.
so that's a positive, right? AdMob should be pleased, right?
It should certainly help promote competition in the mobile ad market, which, by AdMob's reasoning, should be good for consumers, so it's had to see why they aren't pleased. AdMob is all about what's good for consumers, aren't they?
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.
I said it is your cellphone. And in the example you gave, it is your house.
The side contracts one may enter into do not affect ownership. The analogy I disputed posited that Apple owned the device, and just wanted to lock the door that they also owned.
I said that was like the carpenter determining who you can have as a house guest. That is like saying that the builder of the phone can determine which apps you install.
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 yeah, forget the utility vehicle market comprised of golf carts, atv's, forklifts, street sweepers, lawnmowers, etc. We're talking about ice-rink smoothers here -- why, Zamboni has a real monopoly there. I think someone should look into it.
It's just not fair that Caterpillar's steamroller isn't used very much on professional hockey rinks. Caterpillar would sure get more exposure there. I think Zamboni is doing something dubious there by keeping them out of that emerging market. It's not fair that people are choosing Zamboni almost exclusively for that purpose. It's not fair that Zamboni isn't touting the alternative of rolling the ice flat: it's like they think they are the only ones good at smoothing ice or something. Did you know, Zamboni has like a 100% market share on this market, so that the word zamboni has come to be used for ice smoothers. What's with that? They better start licensing out whatever they have got under the hood inside that big boxy thing.
It's just not enough that we have to see big yellow vehicles everywhere we turn with fat black letters all over them spelling out Caterpillar. Sports shoes and kids backpacks now? Don't get me started. But you know, Caterpillar thought they could just waltz right onto the ice rink too; and now that they are finding it difficult, why, I think they have a right to complain. Doesn't matter that their product is all wrong for this context: we want to see big yellow vehicles everywhere. In fact, I am just not going to go to any more hockey games until big bad Zamboni gets the freeze put on it, so there!
Comments
...[A] similar investigation into whether Google was unjustly muscling its way into an overly-dominate position....
Seen this more than once here lately. It's the wrong word: "overly-DOMINANT position." Such mistakes undermine one's credibility.
You could be right, Android being a technologically inferior platform, Apple might not be able to create a compelling user experience with ads there.
What rock have you been living under? You are obviously not someone that understands technology.
Android is technologically superior to iOS. iOS UX is superior to Android. Android is capable of way way more than iOS--- but UI isn't as smooth.
To put it in other words: iOS is form above function. Android is function above form.
What rock have you been living under? You are obviously not someone that understands technology.
Android is technologically superior to iOS. iOS UX is superior to Android. Android is capable of way way more than iOS--- but UI isn't as smooth.
To put it in other words: iOS is form above function. Android is function above form.
Eh, it's just a software feature phone.
What rock have you been living under? You are obviously not someone that understands technology.
Android is technologically superior to iOS. iOS UX is superior to Android. Android is capable of way way more than iOS--- but UI isn't as smooth.
To put it in other words: iOS is form above function. Android is function above form.
lol at this massive over-simplification. as if it can be reduced to such a trite, cliched observation. you say someone doesn't understand technology and provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.
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.
Patents are grants of exclusivity for an invention. Patent do not grant a monopoly of a market. Monopolies are illegal. Section 2 of the Sherman Act states: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part or the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...." You are referring to abuse of monopoly power, which gives the right to one injured by the monopolist to sue in court for damages.
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.
Again, it's not a question of who will or won't sell ads to whom.
Again, Google can put their ads on iOS, they just need to respect the rules for that platform. Likewise, I would expect Apple to have to conform to some rules on the Android platform that Google has put in place.
Google can't have T&C in effect that say that personal data won't be sold on, and then go ahead and let Apple's ad service mine all kinds of personal data from Android users, and then use that to help market Apple products to them.
Of course, Google isn't too concerned about private data anyway. That's their stock in trade, and about all they have going for them.
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.
I understand that it is a permission based system. Given that caveat, I stand by every one of my original statements. AdMob and others who are affiliated with certain hardware or OS companies cannot collect such information. Everybody else can, including Apple.
The market in this case would be something like 'mobile computing devices'
Nope. Nobody is alleging that.
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.
Okay tell us about the mobile apps market. Now remember this, a dominant market share by itself is a necessary but not sufficient proof of monopoly. You can't just point to a 98% share and say aha, monopoly! You have to tell us how that dominant share was attained and maintained.
You are claiming that Apple is trying to achieve a situation where "nobody can sell their app unless they deal with Apple". How this comes about is key. If it happens because of sheer product and marketing excellence so that customers choose Apple products above all the rest and naturally devs will choose to develop for iOS, then there are no antitrust issues. If it happens because Apple says, "if you develop for us then you can't develop for anyone else" or "you can't port an iOS app to some other platform" then there are serious antitrust issues. So tell us what's going on in the mobile apps market.
Antitrust legislation is not meant to punish success, it is meant to punish abuse.
But, in fact, there is absolutely nothing open about the way Google does business.
The word "open" can and is accurately used to describe many aspects of Google.
These concerns about whether and how words can be twisted baffle me. I see it so often around here.
I understand that it is a permission based system. Given that caveat, I stand by every one of my original statements. AdMob and others who are affiliated with certain hardware or OS companies cannot collect such information. Everybody else can, including Apple.
a) What's your point?
b) None of your original statements even allude to it being a "permission based system", so I stand by my accusation that you are here for no reason but to spread misinformation and confusion.
I understand that it is a permission based system. Given that caveat, I stand by every one of my original statements. AdMob and others who are affiliated with certain hardware or OS companies cannot collect such information. Everybody else can, including Apple.
so that's a positive, right? AdMob should be pleased, right?
The word "open" can and is accurately used to describe many aspects of Google. ...
But no important aspects of Google. As such, calling it open is either naive or disingenuous.
So Apple are now Microsoft from ten years ago,
Not at all.
I just hope Google don't fire back and block google maps from the iPhone
They won't. No matter what else, Google is about money. And they are getting a nice pile of it for the licensing of Google Maps
Just because the gov't is looking into it,
Let's ask this question. How reliable is the Financial Times. Cause that "sources close to the matter" is a tabloid phrase. So is the FT a 100% authentic source or, like the NY Post, a tabloid trumped up to look 'real'
That might tell us the truth about this alleged probe. And why hasn't someone like the Wall Street Journal broken with the story of all these probes. According to the Post, there's like 10 going on at the same time. And NO one else is talking about them.
Every AdMob ad sold is money straight down Google's coffers. This is, needless to say, NOT in the interest of Apple, and they'd have to be crazy to let Google steal their ad revenue on their own platform.
Which is why iAds was made at all. Make it easier to implement, give the developers the bigger share of the money.
But this move isn't about the money in that sense. It's about what information can get out there. It's more than your type of device that can be pulled by these ads. They can, if programmed right, do a ton of snoping in your personal info and in the OS. So there's a level of protecting your privacy AND their trade secrets. A totally independent company isn't going to snope in the OS cause they have no reason to. But Google (which makes Android) might.
Coming to think of it; How does Google feel about iAds on Android? Anybody know?
Nothing. Because there is and will likely never be, any such thing.
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.
A cellphone is not a house. It's a Condo. Yes you own it, but when you bought it you had to sign the HOA agreement which contractually restricts you from, for example
- Tearing down any interior walls without permission from the HOA
- Making any loud noises after 9pm from Sunday to Thursday and 11pm on Friday or Saturday
- Allowing guests to park in the secured residents only parking rather than guest parking or on the street
As well as having to pay X amount monthly for the trash pickup, the maintenance guy's salary, the property taxesIf you don't the rules, don't buy. Same with your phone, same with who you develop your apps for (I'm assuming you are a developer since you are so indignant about this ads issue
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.
Actually they do, in a way. By requiring you to agree to letting them see it. Even with their own iAds
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.
Almost.
See a monopoly is not illegal. It's not anti-trust. It's how you gained the monopoly and what you do with it that is illegal.
To use your media idea. Anti-trust would be, for example, if Windows barred all software that supports anything not Zune or WinMobile from Windows OS based machines. No providing APIs etc, suing for reverse engineering and such.
That would be likely be deemed illegal because they are abusing their power as an OS to gain in the mobile device market, which is a separate entity for the OS.
Apple requiring a Mac to use a iOS device would be the same. On that note, someone could perhaps cry foul over the whole 'You must have a Mac to develop apps' rule, which is due to Apple only having the means to make a Mac SDK. Apple would be legally forced to make one for Windows and even Linux so everyone can play. Which is why I suspect they are, but it's talking longer because of the added layers needed to get it to work outside of the Xcode based environment.
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.
The courts would probably say that these are not the same thing.
With Apple you are talking about a company saying what happens on their equipment in their OS. In a market for which they might not actually have a strong power to abuse.
With the Microsoft, they were mixing markets. Using a clear and high dominance in the OS to play games in the Web Software 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.
Is the rule that you can't have Admob in an app or that it can't send personal and device data beyond perhaps "it's an iphone" or "Its an ipad" if it was actually clicked on, and the ad id. What other information does Google really need.
Also, what is stopping the advertisers from working with both companies. Or even the developer from using something other than iAds. Nada. Other than this issue of no personal data. If Admob refuses to provide non snooping ads, that's on them.
Nobody accuses Apple of having a monopoly on smart phones, desktop or mobile OSs
Psystar. Google/Bing/whatever it
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."
Actually it could be more than that. Who knows what levels of snooping an ad could do. Imagine if it could send your IP or your ICCID and Google could basically track you. How would you feel then
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.
There's a fallacy in your statement. Apple is not making apps for the whole market. So Apple based apps don't have any power.
Nor do they make an OS for the whole market.
A cry of market power would have to consider the complete package of Apple made mobile devices running Apple's iOS and capable of running apps. Against all other mobile devices of a similar nature. With phones, Apple has only 28% of the US market. The ipad and touch might bump that to like 40% but that's still not a dominant position.
so that's a positive, right? AdMob should be pleased, right?
It should certainly help promote competition in the mobile ad market, which, by AdMob's reasoning, should be good for consumers, so it's had to see why they aren't pleased. AdMob is all about what's good for consumers, aren't they?
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.
I said it is your cellphone. And in the example you gave, it is your house.
The side contracts one may enter into do not affect ownership. The analogy I disputed posited that Apple owned the device, and just wanted to lock the door that they also owned.
I said that was like the carpenter determining who you can have as a house guest. That is like saying that the builder of the phone can determine which apps you install.
But now I'm done. This is off-topic.
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 yeah, forget the utility vehicle market comprised of golf carts, atv's, forklifts, street sweepers, lawnmowers, etc. We're talking about ice-rink smoothers here -- why, Zamboni has a real monopoly there. I think someone should look into it.
It's just not fair that Caterpillar's steamroller isn't used very much on professional hockey rinks. Caterpillar would sure get more exposure there. I think Zamboni is doing something dubious there by keeping them out of that emerging market. It's not fair that people are choosing Zamboni almost exclusively for that purpose. It's not fair that Zamboni isn't touting the alternative of rolling the ice flat: it's like they think they are the only ones good at smoothing ice or something. Did you know, Zamboni has like a 100% market share on this market, so that the word zamboni has come to be used for ice smoothers. What's with that? They better start licensing out whatever they have got under the hood inside that big boxy thing.
It's just not enough that we have to see big yellow vehicles everywhere we turn with fat black letters all over them spelling out Caterpillar. Sports shoes and kids backpacks now? Don't get me started. But you know, Caterpillar thought they could just waltz right onto the ice rink too; and now that they are finding it difficult, why, I think they have a right to complain. Doesn't matter that their product is all wrong for this context: we want to see big yellow vehicles everywhere. In fact, I am just not going to go to any more hockey games until big bad Zamboni gets the freeze put on it, so there!
All they've done is say that mobile OS and device makers may not spy on iPhone users.
And by implication, anybody else can?
How does that help the consumer?