Read Section 2 of the Sherman Act I quoted earlier. Monopolies are crimes. Proving a monopoly exists is hard to do in court. A court rarely declares a monopoly exists because defining the relevant market is so complex. Rarely does the DOJ prosecute these things because of the difficulty involved and the politics of the people in charge. But it drives me crazy when all these people posting to these chats or blogs that monopolies are not illegal. They are. Period.
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.
it doesn't matter what it is, there may be covenants on any purchase. the t&c on your iPhone bill of purchase spell these covenants out. as charlituna also explains. this has been done before you are incorrect.
All a competitor has to do is complain that Apple - who are proving to be extremely successful with their device/management ecosystem - are being anti-competitive, to the FTC and the DoJ to get a review initiated. This is just one tool among many that allows less successful competitors to try and put the brakes on the more successful ones. And the Feds are more than happy to oblige on consumers' behalf. The complaint doesn't have to have real merit, and many of these complaints are shelved on review when (as has happened several times before for most large corporations) the target is shown to not be having the impact claimed. Usually the complaints are used when a competitor has no other option - in short they have run out of their own ideas or can't drive the business as successfully another.
Those who claim that Apple needs to be more open are essentially either competitors who want access to Apple's market, or IP, or are simply ideologues who believe that "Open" is a successful business plan - that giving away the farm is the way to be most profitable. Which is of course a significant logic fail.
The only reason you even know about this now is that Apple has a huge amount of media cachet right now and thus when the media comb the sources for Apple this stuff comes up. 10-15 years ago no one really cared, and the media thought this was boring. But since Apple has been resurrected, and is apparently driving an extremely successful business model (thus making it intrinsically interesting) based on its string of successes, you get all the news - whether it's fit to print or not. I wouldn't be surprised if Valleywag or some other Gawker media tool started a best of Steve Jobs farts review, an "I had Steve Jobs love child" counter, or something just to gain some additional hits and presence validity. That's the level of media interest that is driving all this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
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.
QFT. Best two posts in this thread.
Cool your jets, people. The government looks into these complaints all the time. Mostly they are shelved, and even when they are not, the government works out some sort of consent decree with the company in question and life goes on. In fact, this is what happened to Microsoft during the early '90s. They really only got hauled in again because they violated the agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
Right. The primary concern of the law is with competition, perfecting the marketplace by preventing restraint of trade, not with protecting consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryAI
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 believe you are misreading the law. First, patents and copyrights do indeed create a type of monopoly since they prevent anyone else from making the covered product for a given period of time (which thanks to Congress keeps getting longer and longer). This is hardly illegal; in fact, it is government sanctioned. Second, monopolies are not illegal. Abuse of monopolies to restrain trade is. Company A can legally dominate a product market unless it uses that dominance to create artificial barriers of entry into a market by Company B. If that is found to have occurred, then trade may have been illegally restrained by Company A.
The Clayton Act is actually of more importance to modern antitrust law than the Sherman Act, which was designed mainly to prohibit the formation of cartels.
1. Is Google, Apple's direct competitor in smart phones, entitled to proprietary information about Apple's smart phone customers?
The information is not Apple's property. It belongs to the user. Nobody is entitled to it unless it is given by the user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
2. Do companies have the right to choose with whom they want to share proprietary information?
Of course they do. But in the current situation, the information is not Apple's. So it is not Apple's choice, and Apple would be doing no sharing. Nobody can or would compel Apple to share anything.
Both questions are irrelevant to the current facts.
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.
I honestly don't care. If you don't want that, pay for your apps. If you don't care, have fun with free apps. It's really that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Eh, it's just a software feature phone.
You should probably explain this statement because I honestly think it's the dumbest thing I have read on the internet ever. Android is for every intent and purpose a smartphone just like the iPhone.
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 feature above form.
There - a bit better. Now, you mentioned something about Android being technologically better than iOS. Do you have any concrete example that don't involve the use of the badly abused term "open", Froyo - which hasn't been implemented yet on any existing hardware platform except a limited staggered release to whatever remains of the installed Nexus One base. And to be even more generous: I'll let you ignore carrier fragmentation of the platform, the fact that most of Android's installed base is still pre 2.0, and the fact that HTC had to license from Microsoft to avoid getting hit for Android on their handsets, and have to use Sense to give the user a decent interface. In fact let me be even more generous - you don't even have to address the memory battery shortcomings of Android's multitasking implementation, or the poor reports on developer returns on dev efforts in the Android Marketplace. There you can't say I haven't been more than fair about this discussion.
Please. Take your time, build your case with real facts. I have all the time in the world.
some people actually like the idea of advertising targeted to their needs, so it may indeed be a good thing for some consumers, perhaps like this:
Quote:
Soon, Google's systems would know your appointments and be able to tell you what time to leave, based on traffic and other information.
Furthermore, if Google knows you like Thai restaurants and that you drive past the best one in your city every day on the way to work, Google will soon be intelligent enough to suggest that you go and eat there.
The information is not Apple's property. It belongs to the user. Nobody is entitled to it unless it is given by the user. ...
Actually, I think information embedded in the device, such as the device id, does belong to Apple. And, again, even iAds will have to get permission from the user. Not that any of this will likely put an end to your misinformation spree.
Patents are grants of exclusivity for an invention. Patent do not grant a monopoly of a market.
Sometimes, the invention is a market unto itself. Such as the market for cotton gins. The invention transformed the economics of an entire region of a continent, and one company had a monopoly on selling the device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryAI
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 am surprised by the quote. I will look into it. Thanks.
I suspect that the word monopolize has been interpreted in a specific manner by the courts, to mean "abuse monopoly power", but I am interested to learn more.
Read Section 2 of the Sherman Act I quoted earlier. Monopolies are crimes. Proving a monopoly exists is hard to do in court. A court rarely declares a monopoly exists because defining the relevant market is so complex. Rarely does the DOJ prosecute these things because of the difficulty involved and the politics of the people in charge. But it drives me crazy when all these people posting to these chats or blogs that monopolies are not illegal. They are. Period.
Um no, they aren't. Not only are they not illegal, there are many example of government sanctioned monopolies.
Abuse of monopoly position is illegal. Using a monopoly or dominant control of a market to hinder fair trade is illegal. But being a monopoly is not, itsel,f illegal. A government trade regulatory body may act to prevent a monopoly situation from arising, for example through a merger, but only if it is demonstrated that that circumstance would be a hinderance to trade or would otherwise hurt consumers ability to choose. But, in some cases, they will allow the merger if the benefits of allowing the merger might outweigh the downsides (i.e. better able to provide necessary services).
Your cable company? A legal monopoly. AT&T? Used to be a legal monopoly until they started abusing it.
You are right, that they can be difficult to define in a courtroom, as a legally defined monopoly does not have to mean 100% market share. Monopolies are rarely encouraged by governments, but they are not illegal.
You should probably explain this statement because I honestly think it's the dumbest thing I have read on the internet ever. Android is for every intent and purpose a smartphone just like the iPhone.
It seems pretty obvious what is meant. Compared to the iPhone, as the OP admitted, it's just a bunch of features cobbled together in a smartphone wrapper. It's also quite obvious that it's not, "just like the iPhone."
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.
Not only are they not illegal, there are many example of government sanctioned monopolies. ...
The existence of "government sanctioned monopolies" does not imply that they are legal. In fact, it would seem to imply the exact opposite, that they are illegal unless sanctioned by the government. Otherwise, why would government sanction be required?
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.
The apps in question are not made by Apple. Instead, Apple retails the apps.
The market power in the device market is not a part of the current considerations of Apple's situation, IIRC.
Sometimes, the invention is a market unto itself. Such as the market for cotton gins. The invention transformed the economics of an entire region of a continent, and one company had a monopoly on selling the device.
I am surprised by the quote. I will look into it. Thanks.
I suspect that the word monopolize has been interpreted in a specific manner by the courts, to mean "abuse monopoly power", but I am interested to learn more.
Actually, (and truthfully this is the last response from me to your postings because you are completely OCD'd on your misconceptions and cannot be reasoned with)...
...Eli Whitney is credited with patenting it, but many companies built cotton gins either closely or loosely based on Whitney's patent. The market is so specialized that there is no reason to try and fight to gain marketshare, as there is only a certain way that cotton can be handled, and therefore does not lend itself to significant innovation. So no there was not a monopoly, there was a niche market, with manufacturing competitors, and poor Eli who didn't get very much money out of his patent until it was enforced post-humously. A truly bad example by you once again.
I suspect that the word monopolize has been interpreted in a specific manner by the courts, to mean "abuse monopoly power", but I am interested to learn more.
I think I already explained some of this, but the word monopoly is used in the Sherman Act in a fairly archaic way to describe efforts to control markets. This is not the dictionary definition nor the economic definition of monopoly, which if they were the operative ones, would mean the laws would be fundamentally meaningless, since this state frequently exists even with the protection of government.
Scan the Findings of Fact in U.S. v. Microsoft. You'll see that the word "monopoly" is nearly always followed by "power," this being the basis for the findings of violations. The judge found that they didn't just have a monopoly, they had monopoly power. He found that they didn't just have monopoly power, they abused it to restrain trade.
Comments
And by implication, anybody else can?
How does that help the consumer?
There you go again. Don't you ever get tired of misrepresentations?
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.
it doesn't matter what it is, there may be covenants on any purchase. the t&c on your iPhone bill of purchase spell these covenants out. as charlituna also explains. this has been done before you are incorrect.
All a competitor has to do is complain that Apple - who are proving to be extremely successful with their device/management ecosystem - are being anti-competitive, to the FTC and the DoJ to get a review initiated. This is just one tool among many that allows less successful competitors to try and put the brakes on the more successful ones. And the Feds are more than happy to oblige on consumers' behalf. The complaint doesn't have to have real merit, and many of these complaints are shelved on review when (as has happened several times before for most large corporations) the target is shown to not be having the impact claimed. Usually the complaints are used when a competitor has no other option - in short they have run out of their own ideas or can't drive the business as successfully another.
Those who claim that Apple needs to be more open are essentially either competitors who want access to Apple's market, or IP, or are simply ideologues who believe that "Open" is a successful business plan - that giving away the farm is the way to be most profitable. Which is of course a significant logic fail.
The only reason you even know about this now is that Apple has a huge amount of media cachet right now and thus when the media comb the sources for Apple this stuff comes up. 10-15 years ago no one really cared, and the media thought this was boring. But since Apple has been resurrected, and is apparently driving an extremely successful business model (thus making it intrinsically interesting) based on its string of successes, you get all the news - whether it's fit to print or not. I wouldn't be surprised if Valleywag or some other Gawker media tool started a best of Steve Jobs farts review, an "I had Steve Jobs love child" counter, or something just to gain some additional hits and presence validity. That's the level of media interest that is driving all this.
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.
QFT. Best two posts in this thread.
Cool your jets, people. The government looks into these complaints all the time. Mostly they are shelved, and even when they are not, the government works out some sort of consent decree with the company in question and life goes on. In fact, this is what happened to Microsoft during the early '90s. They really only got hauled in again because they violated the agreement.
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.
Right. The primary concern of the law is with competition, perfecting the marketplace by preventing restraint of trade, not with protecting consumers.
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 believe you are misreading the law. First, patents and copyrights do indeed create a type of monopoly since they prevent anyone else from making the covered product for a given period of time (which thanks to Congress keeps getting longer and longer). This is hardly illegal; in fact, it is government sanctioned. Second, monopolies are not illegal. Abuse of monopolies to restrain trade is. Company A can legally dominate a product market unless it uses that dominance to create artificial barriers of entry into a market by Company B. If that is found to have occurred, then trade may have been illegally restrained by Company A.
The Clayton Act is actually of more importance to modern antitrust law than the Sherman Act, which was designed mainly to prohibit the formation of cartels.
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?
The information is not Apple's property. It belongs to the user. Nobody is entitled to it unless it is given by the user.
2. Do companies have the right to choose with whom they want to share proprietary information?
Of course they do. But in the current situation, the information is not Apple's. So it is not Apple's choice, and Apple would be doing no sharing. Nobody can or would compel Apple to share anything.
Both questions are irrelevant to the current facts.
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.
I honestly don't care. If you don't want that, pay for your apps. If you don't care, have fun with free apps. It's really that simple.
Eh, it's just a software feature phone.
You should probably explain this statement because I honestly think it's the dumbest thing I have read on the internet ever. Android is for every intent and purpose a smartphone just like the iPhone.
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 feature above form.
There - a bit better. Now, you mentioned something about Android being technologically better than iOS. Do you have any concrete example that don't involve the use of the badly abused term "open", Froyo - which hasn't been implemented yet on any existing hardware platform except a limited staggered release to whatever remains of the installed Nexus One base. And to be even more generous: I'll let you ignore carrier fragmentation of the platform, the fact that most of Android's installed base is still pre 2.0, and the fact that HTC had to license from Microsoft to avoid getting hit for Android on their handsets, and have to use Sense to give the user a decent interface. In fact let me be even more generous - you don't even have to address the memory battery shortcomings of Android's multitasking implementation, or the poor reports on developer returns on dev efforts in the Android Marketplace. There you can't say I haven't been more than fair about this discussion.
Please. Take your time, build your case with real facts. I have all the time in the world.
And by implication, anybody else can?
How does that help the consumer?
only if they allow it, which of course you know.
some people actually like the idea of advertising targeted to their needs, so it may indeed be a good thing for some consumers, perhaps like this:
Soon, Google's systems would know your appointments and be able to tell you what time to leave, based on traffic and other information.
Furthermore, if Google knows you like Thai restaurants and that you drive past the best one in your city every day on the way to work, Google will soon be intelligent enough to suggest that you go and eat there.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...0609-xvj1.html
how nice of google to be so helpful! now what was that about wi-fi data?
The information is not Apple's property. It belongs to the user. Nobody is entitled to it unless it is given by the user. ...
Actually, I think information embedded in the device, such as the device id, does belong to Apple. And, again, even iAds will have to get permission from the user. Not that any of this will likely put an end to your misinformation spree.
Patents are grants of exclusivity for an invention. Patent do not grant a monopoly of a market.
Sometimes, the invention is a market unto itself. Such as the market for cotton gins. The invention transformed the economics of an entire region of a continent, and one company had a monopoly on selling the device.
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 am surprised by the quote. I will look into it. Thanks.
I suspect that the word monopolize has been interpreted in a specific manner by the courts, to mean "abuse monopoly power", but I am interested to learn more.
Read Section 2 of the Sherman Act I quoted earlier. Monopolies are crimes. Proving a monopoly exists is hard to do in court. A court rarely declares a monopoly exists because defining the relevant market is so complex. Rarely does the DOJ prosecute these things because of the difficulty involved and the politics of the people in charge. But it drives me crazy when all these people posting to these chats or blogs that monopolies are not illegal. They are. Period.
Um no, they aren't. Not only are they not illegal, there are many example of government sanctioned monopolies.
Abuse of monopoly position is illegal. Using a monopoly or dominant control of a market to hinder fair trade is illegal. But being a monopoly is not, itsel,f illegal. A government trade regulatory body may act to prevent a monopoly situation from arising, for example through a merger, but only if it is demonstrated that that circumstance would be a hinderance to trade or would otherwise hurt consumers ability to choose. But, in some cases, they will allow the merger if the benefits of allowing the merger might outweigh the downsides (i.e. better able to provide necessary services).
Your cable company? A legal monopoly. AT&T? Used to be a legal monopoly until they started abusing it.
You are right, that they can be difficult to define in a courtroom, as a legally defined monopoly does not have to mean 100% market share. Monopolies are rarely encouraged by governments, but they are not illegal.
You should probably explain this statement because I honestly think it's the dumbest thing I have read on the internet ever. Android is for every intent and purpose a smartphone just like the iPhone.
It seems pretty obvious what is meant. Compared to the iPhone, as the OP admitted, it's just a bunch of features cobbled together in a smartphone wrapper. It's also quite obvious that it's not, "just like the iPhone."
Perhaps the Feds should focus on the behavior of companies that retrieve information on the users? devices with the consent of the users.
or who drive around in trucks 'accidentally' recording private wifi traffic under the guise of (wink wink) mapping images.
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.
How a monopoly comes into being is irrelevant.
Not only are they not illegal, there are many example of government sanctioned monopolies. ...
The existence of "government sanctioned monopolies" does not imply that they are legal. In fact, it would seem to imply the exact opposite, that they are illegal unless sanctioned by the government. Otherwise, why would government sanction be required?
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.
The apps in question are not made by Apple. Instead, Apple retails the apps.
The market power in the device market is not a part of the current considerations of Apple's situation, IIRC.
Sometimes, the invention is a market unto itself. Such as the market for cotton gins. The invention transformed the economics of an entire region of a continent, and one company had a monopoly on selling the device.
I am surprised by the quote. I will look into it. Thanks.
I suspect that the word monopolize has been interpreted in a specific manner by the courts, to mean "abuse monopoly power", but I am interested to learn more.
Actually, (and truthfully this is the last response from me to your postings because you are completely OCD'd on your misconceptions and cannot be reasoned with)...
...Eli Whitney is credited with patenting it, but many companies built cotton gins either closely or loosely based on Whitney's patent. The market is so specialized that there is no reason to try and fight to gain marketshare, as there is only a certain way that cotton can be handled, and therefore does not lend itself to significant innovation. So no there was not a monopoly, there was a niche market, with manufacturing competitors, and poor Eli who didn't get very much money out of his patent until it was enforced post-humously. A truly bad example by you once again.
I suspect that the word monopolize has been interpreted in a specific manner by the courts, to mean "abuse monopoly power", but I am interested to learn more.
I think I already explained some of this, but the word monopoly is used in the Sherman Act in a fairly archaic way to describe efforts to control markets. This is not the dictionary definition nor the economic definition of monopoly, which if they were the operative ones, would mean the laws would be fundamentally meaningless, since this state frequently exists even with the protection of government.
Scan the Findings of Fact in U.S. v. Microsoft. You'll see that the word "monopoly" is nearly always followed by "power," this being the basis for the findings of violations. The judge found that they didn't just have a monopoly, they had monopoly power. He found that they didn't just have monopoly power, they abused it to restrain trade.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
But what we most definitely do not need is Government intervention to determine what we need.
Let's duke it out in the free marketplace...while, at least a little part of the marketplace is still free.
AdMob is all about what's good for consumers, aren't they?
In precisely the way that Apple is not all about what's good for consumers, neither is AdMob.
ADMob is all about what is good for AdMob. In that respect, they are identical to Apple, who is all about what is good for Apple.
That is a normal situation.