If I remember correctly, in the same interview Steve Jobs also said something like "when we calm down in the future we might find a solution for it again". Can't remember the exact phrasing.
Anyways. I think there should be a global opt-in law that forbids collection of private data without having the user clearly opting in. Not as a miniature bullet point halfway down a general agreement. The collection of private data agreement should always be a separate opt-in, and just as easy to opt-out. Everyone who breaks it should risk facing legal action.
What do you mean by pointing out that Apple has 100% market share in iOS? Of course they do! It's their product. Just like Microsoft has 100% share in the market for Windows Phone 7, and Google has a 100% share in the market for Android. The relevant market, where iOS is concerned, is the market for smart phones and smart phone platforms. In which case Apple is not a dominant firm.
Just because the FTC is looking into Apple doesn't mean they should automatically be timid. Apple is being investigated because a competing firm complained about them. The FTC has to entertain that complaint or they won't be doing their job. Apple actually seems to have very good antitrust lawyers advising them because they have been very careful to stay away from the sort of actions that got Microsoft convicted.
And notice, AdMob is not being banned from iOS. They're just not allowed to receive analytics data. Data that they would in a heartbeat turn around and shovel off to Google's Android division which will use the information to compete against iOS and Apple. Apple will still give AdMob all the technical information needed to get their Ads to work in iOS. But information on iPhone users' usage habits, geographic distribution, buying patterns, etc? C'mon Steve Jobs wasn't born yesterday.
Antitrust law is a big hairball that nobody really understands entirely, but one thing I'm pretty certain about is that Apple doesn't have to give competitors information that would assist them in competing with their products. However, Apple might be building themselves a future problem. Having unified their mobile OS under one banner it now arguably crosses previously sharper lines between markets to create an overarching "mobile computing" market. This is a market that Apple could come to dominate, with three popular products already occupying (and even defining) it, and presumably more to come. If this happens, they'd have to be very careful about how they treat competitors.
I'm supposed to take a competitor's word for it... why, exactly?
This isn't a judgement on the validity of their opinion, I'm not saying they're right or wrong. I just can't give credibility to the source, all considered.
My understanding is that they can't sell ads through apps at all since two days ago. Read the article:
Google distrbutes mobile devices and operating systems ... so they are out!
I'm not 100% sure, but reading the article and the actual license agreement i'm pretty sure AdMob is toast on the app side of the iphone.
A second reading of the AI article does support that interpretation, but when I originally read about this, it seemed as though it was just related to collecting analytics, not advertising in general.
Reminds me of when the CANSPAM act appeared and "direct marketers" went crazy. I remember one said basically that consumers would suffer by not knowing about great offers.
This is equally as slimy in that this guy is in a twist that he can't secretly gather private info anymore.
If your company is based on the idea of harvesting info that no one knows you're harvesting, and then trying to sell those people crap they probably don't want, then maybe your company just sucks.
Go make something.
I loathe cheap apps with annoying ads. If a couple more bucks dumps the ads, I'm all in. If the ads are also secretly snaring my personal info, I'm even less sympathetic to the advertisers and their facilitators.
If I remember correctly, in the same interview Steve Jobs also said something like "when we calm down in the future we might find a solution for it again". Can't remember the exact phrasing.
Anyways. I think there should be a global opt-in law that forbids collection of private data without having the user clearly opting in. Not as a miniature bullet point halfway down a general agreement. The collection of private data agreement should always be a separate opt-in, and just as easy to opt-out. Everyone who breaks it should risk facing legal action.
yeah.. what's even more troubling are banks sending their customers letters about opting out on sharing your data. And they don't even give you a stamp to mail the opt out form back to them.
If I remember correctly, in the same interview Steve Jobs also said something like "when we calm down in the future we might find a solution for it again". Can't remember the exact phrasing.
Anyways. I think there should be a global opt-in law that forbids collection of private data without having the user clearly opting in. Not as a miniature bullet point halfway down a general agreement. The collection of private data agreement should always be a separate opt-in, and just as easy to opt-out. Everyone who breaks it should risk facing legal action.
I'm in pretty strong agreement with this. I think all "data collection and sharing" must be opt-in, and once opted in, provide a clear and simple path to opt-out.
I'm not speaking of truly "anonymous" metrics... the 'WebTrends' type of analytics, e.g. browser type, time spent, pages viewed, even IP (which provides a measure of regional/location metrics). But anytime that can be connected to other private or personal metrics, or even identity, that needs remain solidly in the hands of the individual to control access to.
And if I "delete" an account anywhere, that has to equal a complete erasure of any and all stored data specific to the account. Again, especially when it's "identifying" data.
A second reading of the AI article does support that interpretation, but when I originally read about this, it seemed as though it was just related to collecting analytics, not advertising in general.
here is the actual copy of the license in question:
Quote:
The collection, use or disclosure is for the purpose of serving advertising to Your Application; is provided to an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads (for example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent); and the disclosure is limited to UDID, user location data, and other data specifically designated by Apple as available for advertising purposes.
Not sure apple will enforce, but it looks like AdMob is done because they are not "independent". My guess is that everyone who puts AdMob in new apps will be rejected by apple. Again this legal stuff and I am no expert.
I'm in pretty strong agreement with this. I think all "data collection and sharing" must be opt-in, and once opted in, provide a clear and simple path to opt-out.
I'm not speaking of truly "anonymous" metrics... the 'WebTrends' type of analytics, e.g. browser type, time spent, pages viewed, even IP (which provides a measure of regional/location metrics). But anytime that can be connected to other private or personal metrics, or even identity, that needs remain solidly in the hands of the individual to control access to.
And if I "delete" an account anywhere, that has to equal a complete erasure of any and all stored data specific to the account. Again, especially when it's "identifying" data.
There's no such thing as anonymous metrics, especially if you include IP or any device specific info. All this sort of privacy invasion, dossier building should be expressly outlawed. It's one thing if, for example, location data is used to decide what ad to send, but there is absolutely no reason they should be allowed to save that data or anything that would point to it.
One thing I've learned in my years of business and marketing... Never, ever, ever trust what ONE marketer or advertiser says about another advertiser or marketer....period.
Christopher Powers
p.s. Ever hear Coke say Pepsi's tastes good? Hell would freeze over first.
here is the actual copy of the license in question:
Not sure apple will enforce, but it looks like AdMob is done because they are not "independent". My guess is that everyone who puts AdMob in new apps will be rejected by apple. Again this legal stuff and I am no expert.
Well, the bit you quoted looks like it's only talking about data collection, not ad serving per se.
here is the actual copy of the license in question:
Not sure apple will enforce, but it looks like AdMob is done because they are not "independent". My guess is that everyone who puts AdMob in new apps will be rejected by apple. Again this legal stuff and I am no expert.
Quote:
The collection, use or disclosure is for the purpose of serving advertising to Your Application
The way it reads, this clause is for the collection, use or disclosure of information, not for putting ads, admob can still put ads, just not collecting user data.
"Let's be clear," he continued. "This change is not in the best interests of users or developers. In the history of technology and innovation, it's clear that competition delivers the best outcome. Artificial barriers to competition hurt users and developers and, in the long run, stall technological progress."
OK. If Google thinks that it's anticompetitive, they can open google.com and gmail.com to allow iAds. After all, if anyone has a monopoly in online advertising, it's Google, so if it's wrong, they need to fix it. After all, they claim to believe that they should "Do no evil". So if it's wrong, they should stop doing it. NOW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fattychance
In all seriousness, I think they are literally giving the bird to the FTC antitrust division.
Please cite specifically what law they've broken. The fact is that it's not illegal - or even immoral.
The way it reads, this clause is for the collection, use or disclosure of information, not for putting ads, admob can still put ads, just not collecting user data.
yea your probably right. I've never been good at reading leagalize.
Naturally, by excluding AdMob, marginally fewer free or low-priced apps will be available, but those apps are likely to be in a very small niche or have poor functionality. Otherwise the developers could well afford and would have the skill to use iAds or some other acceptable advertising technology.
In other words, the exclusion of AdMob should not matter at all to the vast majority of users.
Comments
Anyways. I think there should be a global opt-in law that forbids collection of private data without having the user clearly opting in. Not as a miniature bullet point halfway down a general agreement. The collection of private data agreement should always be a separate opt-in, and just as easy to opt-out. Everyone who breaks it should risk facing legal action.
It's really just too bad for AdMob that it's owned by Google now, as Google has chosen to compete against Apple in phones and phone platforms.
Although, realistically, at least half the reason Google bought AdMob was to spy on iPhones and iPhone users.
They can still sell ads through apps, just not collect private information.
My understanding is that they can't sell ads through apps at all since two days ago. Read the article:
It specifically states that advertising services that also develop or distribute mobile devices and mobile operating systems are not allowed.
Google distrbutes mobile devices and operating systems ... so they are out!
I'm not 100% sure, but reading the article and the actual license agreement i'm pretty sure AdMob is toast on the app side of the iphone.
There can be no doubt that iOS is a computer operating system of which Apple has 100% market share.
Psystar already tried that angle... How long back does your memory go? Last week, perhaps 2 weeks?
If what you said was true, all operating systems are a monopoly, even Palm!
What do you mean by pointing out that Apple has 100% market share in iOS? Of course they do! It's their product. Just like Microsoft has 100% share in the market for Windows Phone 7, and Google has a 100% share in the market for Android. The relevant market, where iOS is concerned, is the market for smart phones and smart phone platforms. In which case Apple is not a dominant firm.
Just because the FTC is looking into Apple doesn't mean they should automatically be timid. Apple is being investigated because a competing firm complained about them. The FTC has to entertain that complaint or they won't be doing their job. Apple actually seems to have very good antitrust lawyers advising them because they have been very careful to stay away from the sort of actions that got Microsoft convicted.
And notice, AdMob is not being banned from iOS. They're just not allowed to receive analytics data. Data that they would in a heartbeat turn around and shovel off to Google's Android division which will use the information to compete against iOS and Apple. Apple will still give AdMob all the technical information needed to get their Ads to work in iOS. But information on iPhone users' usage habits, geographic distribution, buying patterns, etc? C'mon Steve Jobs wasn't born yesterday.
Antitrust law is a big hairball that nobody really understands entirely, but one thing I'm pretty certain about is that Apple doesn't have to give competitors information that would assist them in competing with their products. However, Apple might be building themselves a future problem. Having unified their mobile OS under one banner it now arguably crosses previously sharper lines between markets to create an overarching "mobile computing" market. This is a market that Apple could come to dominate, with three popular products already occupying (and even defining) it, and presumably more to come. If this happens, they'd have to be very careful about how they treat competitors.
This isn't a judgement on the validity of their opinion, I'm not saying they're right or wrong. I just can't give credibility to the source, all considered.
My understanding is that they can't sell ads through apps at all since two days ago. Read the article:
Google distrbutes mobile devices and operating systems ... so they are out!
I'm not 100% sure, but reading the article and the actual license agreement i'm pretty sure AdMob is toast on the app side of the iphone.
A second reading of the AI article does support that interpretation, but when I originally read about this, it seemed as though it was just related to collecting analytics, not advertising in general.
This is equally as slimy in that this guy is in a twist that he can't secretly gather private info anymore.
If your company is based on the idea of harvesting info that no one knows you're harvesting, and then trying to sell those people crap they probably don't want, then maybe your company just sucks.
Go make something.
I loathe cheap apps with annoying ads. If a couple more bucks dumps the ads, I'm all in. If the ads are also secretly snaring my personal info, I'm even less sympathetic to the advertisers and their facilitators.
If I remember correctly, in the same interview Steve Jobs also said something like "when we calm down in the future we might find a solution for it again". Can't remember the exact phrasing.
Anyways. I think there should be a global opt-in law that forbids collection of private data without having the user clearly opting in. Not as a miniature bullet point halfway down a general agreement. The collection of private data agreement should always be a separate opt-in, and just as easy to opt-out. Everyone who breaks it should risk facing legal action.
yeah.. what's even more troubling are banks sending their customers letters about opting out on sharing your data. And they don't even give you a stamp to mail the opt out form back to them.
If I remember correctly, in the same interview Steve Jobs also said something like "when we calm down in the future we might find a solution for it again". Can't remember the exact phrasing.
Anyways. I think there should be a global opt-in law that forbids collection of private data without having the user clearly opting in. Not as a miniature bullet point halfway down a general agreement. The collection of private data agreement should always be a separate opt-in, and just as easy to opt-out. Everyone who breaks it should risk facing legal action.
I'm in pretty strong agreement with this. I think all "data collection and sharing" must be opt-in, and once opted in, provide a clear and simple path to opt-out.
I'm not speaking of truly "anonymous" metrics... the 'WebTrends' type of analytics, e.g. browser type, time spent, pages viewed, even IP (which provides a measure of regional/location metrics). But anytime that can be connected to other private or personal metrics, or even identity, that needs remain solidly in the hands of the individual to control access to.
And if I "delete" an account anywhere, that has to equal a complete erasure of any and all stored data specific to the account. Again, especially when it's "identifying" data.
A second reading of the AI article does support that interpretation, but when I originally read about this, it seemed as though it was just related to collecting analytics, not advertising in general.
here is the actual copy of the license in question:
The collection, use or disclosure is for the purpose of serving advertising to Your Application; is provided to an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads (for example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent); and the disclosure is limited to UDID, user location data, and other data specifically designated by Apple as available for advertising purposes.
Not sure apple will enforce, but it looks like AdMob is done because they are not "independent". My guess is that everyone who puts AdMob in new apps will be rejected by apple. Again this legal stuff and I am no expert.
I'm in pretty strong agreement with this. I think all "data collection and sharing" must be opt-in, and once opted in, provide a clear and simple path to opt-out.
I'm not speaking of truly "anonymous" metrics... the 'WebTrends' type of analytics, e.g. browser type, time spent, pages viewed, even IP (which provides a measure of regional/location metrics). But anytime that can be connected to other private or personal metrics, or even identity, that needs remain solidly in the hands of the individual to control access to.
And if I "delete" an account anywhere, that has to equal a complete erasure of any and all stored data specific to the account. Again, especially when it's "identifying" data.
There's no such thing as anonymous metrics, especially if you include IP or any device specific info. All this sort of privacy invasion, dossier building should be expressly outlawed. It's one thing if, for example, location data is used to decide what ad to send, but there is absolutely no reason they should be allowed to save that data or anything that would point to it.
Christopher Powers
p.s. Ever hear Coke say Pepsi's tastes good? Hell would freeze over first.
AdMob CEO says Apple's iOS terms are not in best interest of AdMob
Fixed-
here is the actual copy of the license in question:
Not sure apple will enforce, but it looks like AdMob is done because they are not "independent". My guess is that everyone who puts AdMob in new apps will be rejected by apple. Again this legal stuff and I am no expert.
Well, the bit you quoted looks like it's only talking about data collection, not ad serving per se.
here is the actual copy of the license in question:
Not sure apple will enforce, but it looks like AdMob is done because they are not "independent". My guess is that everyone who puts AdMob in new apps will be rejected by apple. Again this legal stuff and I am no expert.
The collection, use or disclosure is for the purpose of serving advertising to Your Application
The way it reads, this clause is for the collection, use or disclosure of information, not for putting ads, admob can still put ads, just not collecting user data.
"Let's be clear," he continued. "This change is not in the best interests of users or developers. In the history of technology and innovation, it's clear that competition delivers the best outcome. Artificial barriers to competition hurt users and developers and, in the long run, stall technological progress."
OK. If Google thinks that it's anticompetitive, they can open google.com and gmail.com to allow iAds. After all, if anyone has a monopoly in online advertising, it's Google, so if it's wrong, they need to fix it. After all, they claim to believe that they should "Do no evil". So if it's wrong, they should stop doing it. NOW.
In all seriousness, I think they are literally giving the bird to the FTC antitrust division.
Please cite specifically what law they've broken. The fact is that it's not illegal - or even immoral.
The way it reads, this clause is for the collection, use or disclosure of information, not for putting ads, admob can still put ads, just not collecting user data.
yea your probably right. I've never been good at reading leagalize.
Naturally, by excluding AdMob, marginally fewer free or low-priced apps will be available, but those apps are likely to be in a very small niche or have poor functionality. Otherwise the developers could well afford and would have the skill to use iAds or some other acceptable advertising technology.
In other words, the exclusion of AdMob should not matter at all to the vast majority of users.
Poor Google!
Isn't it like, really easy to implement iAds?