AdMob CEO says Apple's iOS terms are not in best interest of consumers

145679

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 188
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post




    That is what Apple has reduced AdMob to.



    Yes. And Apple did not do the same to the other ad agencies. All of them, along with Apple, can target ads. All except those who compete with Apple in non-ad markets.



    If Apple had no power in the app market, they could not do this, because developers would develop for platforms that let the developer make the best deal it can, with any ad agency.
  • Reply 162 of 188
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    Yes. And Apple did not do the same to the other ad agencies. All of them, along with Apple, can target ads. All except those who compete with Apple in non-ad markets.



    If Apple had no power in the app market, they could not do this, because developers would develop for platforms that let the developer make the best deal it can, with any ad agency.



    The other ad platforms don't pay squat. THAT is the difference iAds are going to make with iPhone/iPad developers.
  • Reply 163 of 188
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    No, there really aren't. It just looks that way in your fun house mirror.



    Why not demonstrate that no parallels exist?



    I'm interested in how you would distinguish the two situations.
  • Reply 164 of 188
    sennensennen Posts: 1,470member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    I spoke too broadly. Every iAd has the capability to "invade" your privacy, using the OP's criteria.



    if you choose to allow your information to be passed onto someone, it's hardly an invasion. nice emtive language there (and below).



    Quote:

    I understand that given the permission-based system, the "invasion" is voluntary. But with AdMob supported apps, there is no chance of privacy invasion.



    oh really? this is a company that is owned by a company that is world-renowned for it's invasion of privacy, not to mention on-selling of data...



    edit: or perhaps you refer to the altered conditions now that affect AdMob - yes, they can no longer pass on our information to Google. Props to apple for defending their market and their user's privacy.
  • Reply 165 of 188
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John.B View Post


    The other ad platforms don't pay squat. THAT is the difference iAds are going to make with iPhone/iPad developers.



    You are saying that even without effective competition, apple will nevertheless pay more than they have to.



    If you believe that Apple is irrational when it comes to maximizing total profits, I think you need to reexamine your suppositions.



    Apple will always collect as much as it is able to. Apple will always pay as little as it is able to. And without strong competition, the "able to" part changes radically.
  • Reply 166 of 188
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    if you choose to allow your information to be passed onto someone, it's hardly an invasion. nice emtive language there (and below).



    I would agree. My point was that the OP's criteria for privacy invasion did not take into account the i?Ad method. By the OPs criteria, iAds were somehow bad and wrong. I personally have no problem with a permission-based system.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    oh really? this is a company that is owned by a company that is world-renowned for it's invasion of privacy, not to mention on-selling of data...



    edit: or perhaps you refer to the altered conditions now that affect AdMob - yes, they can no longer pass on our information to Google. Props to apple for defending their market and their user's privacy.



    Yes. I was referring to the post-rule situation on iOS only. If you don't want your info passed on no matter what, it is wise to choose AdMob supported apps for your iPhone.



    But if there is an iAd supported app on your phone, one careless click and...



    I think we both understand each other's points.
  • Reply 167 of 188
    sennensennen Posts: 1,470member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    I would agree. My point was that the OP's criteria for privacy invasion did not take into account the i?Ad method. By the OPs criteria, iAds were somehow bad and wrong. I personally have no problem with a permission-based system.



    yet you paint it as sinister.



    Quote:

    Yes. I was referring to the post-rule situation on iOS only. If you don't want your info passed on no matter what, it is wise to choose AdMob supported apps for your iPhone.



    But if there is an iAd supported app on your phone, one careless click and...



    I think we both understand each other's points.



    So AdMob have no reason to fear they will suffer from this change in iOS T&C? It's great that Apple have done this for AdMob then, those who value privacy and are susceptible to careless clicking will flock to them, no?
  • Reply 168 of 188
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    Why not demonstrate that no parallels exist? ...



    Because it's logically impossible?
  • Reply 169 of 188
    londonlondon Posts: 24member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fattychance View Post


    In all seriousness, I think they are literally giving the bird to the FTC antitrust division.



    There can be no doubt that iOS is a computer operating system of which Apple has 100% market share. That market share is used to limit competition in Apps and Advertising to the detriment of their competitors and at the expense of consumers/advertisers who pay in the form of decreased competition reflecting less innovation and/or higher prices.



    If Apple collects private data that other competitors aren't allowed to collect, it will strengthen any anti-trust complaint. But if Apple isn't collecting that data, then, no, there's nothing anti-competitive. Apple's move looks like a privacy measure. It benefits them only by hurting Google's data-collection revenue engine, something which Apple does not compete with Google over.



    There nothing in Apple policy that prevents other companies from providing ads; they're only limited in not collecting use data.
  • Reply 170 of 188
    Is the Safeway supermarket required to accept and display ads from its Lucky's competitor across the street?



    Further, is Safeway required to make detail information (cash register receipts, promotions, product placement, store design, etc.) accessable to Lucky's so they can do analytics to determine what is selling, to whom, and why?



    The Feds may decide that the answer both the above questions is "YES",





    But, then, wouldn't Lucky's need to provide the same information to Safeway, A&P... or any other company considering entry into the "supermarket" or "advertising" busineses?





    Clearly, this is a two-way street!.



    .
  • Reply 171 of 188
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by London View Post


    If Apple collects private data that other competitors aren't allowed to collect, it will strengthen any anti-trust complaint. But if Apple isn't collecting that data, then, no, there's nothing anti-competitive. Apple's move looks like a privacy measure. It benefits them only by hurting Google's data-collection revenue engine, something which Apple does not compete with Google over.



    There nothing in Apple policy that prevents other companies from providing ads; they're only limited in not collecting use data.



    Actually, other companies are allowed to collect and use user/device information (with consent). Only Google/AdMob is prohibited from doing so.
  • Reply 172 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Let me guess: you want it to be free too.



    I Never said free.. I pay plenty for my products.. its like having Commercials in the beginning of your DVD's and BluRay's and then having hidden ads in my movies to boot!





    Advertising has its place.. just not INTRUSIVELY thrown at me.. and expect me to comply with "I MUST BUY THIS"
  • Reply 173 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    One constant in human nature is self-interest. In many respects the tendency to look after one's own interests is a good thing. Where this becomes absurd is when a company thinks we should be looking after their self-interest, even at the expense of our own.



    +++ QFT



    Love this post!



    .
  • Reply 174 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    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.



    Good points!



    .
  • Reply 175 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Simply put, Apple doesn't want a phone competitor (or phone platform competitor) looking at usage data of the iPhone (or iOS devices).



    If someone said that HTC had to allow Motorola to look at its usage data, or RIM had to allow Nokia to look at its usage data, most people would say that was nuts. So there's no reason Apple should allow Google to look at its iPhone users usage data (outside of the apps that Google provides).



    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.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Although, realistically, at least half the reason Google bought AdMob was to spy on iPhones and iPhone users.



    Interesting...



    What if Google were to:



    Spin off AdMob as a separate corporation with no interlocking shareholders, etc.



    Would AdMob be acceptable to place ads and to harvest analytics data from iApps?



    Could AdMob then sell this data to Google?



    .
  • Reply 176 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    AAD MOB WHO ????



    ads on apple products ???



    no apple factories in the usa or europe ???



    slave labor at foxcom



    red china still kills its dissenting voices and we love apple so much yet apple sleeps with commie red



    china



    hmmmm



    50 bn in the bank ??



    i wish a green peace type voice would slap steve

    now apple is so green .. !!!

    maybe apple could spread the jobs around and

    leave red china sweat shops behind



    maybe



    baby





    i guess the ipad will have video chat soon

    i guess the nano phone will also have it too



    maybe a foxcomm worker could video call me and show us his wonderful work day

    maybe not







    9



    peace



    LOL!



    You should take lighter puffs on that methane bong



    .
  • Reply 177 of 188
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    Why not demonstrate that no parallels exist?



    I'm interested in how you would distinguish the two situations.



    Since, proving a negative is difficult, why don't you prove that they do exist?



    .
  • Reply 178 of 188
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Interesting...



    What if Google were to:



    Spin off AdMob as a separate corporation with no interlocking shareholders, etc.



    Would AdMob be acceptable to place ads and to harvest analytics data from iApps?



    Could AdMob then sell this data to Google?



    .



    I think selling it would violate the terms of service.



    Quote:

    The collection, use or disclosure is for the purpose of serving advertising to Your Application



  • Reply 179 of 188
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by London View Post


    If Apple collects private data that other competitors aren't allowed to collect, it will strengthen any anti-trust complaint. But if Apple isn't collecting that data, then, no, there's nothing anti-competitive. Apple's move looks like a privacy measure. It benefits them only by hurting Google's data-collection revenue engine, something which Apple does not compete with Google over.



    There nothing in Apple policy that prevents other companies from providing ads; they're only limited in not collecting use data.



    Are you under the impression that iAds will not (or can not) collect the same sort of data that all the other ad placement companies collect?



    If so, how could ad buyers get full value from iAds? How could Apple sell them for big bucks?



    I've seen nothing to suggest that iAds cannot or do not collect full available data.
  • Reply 180 of 188
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Actually, other companies including Apple itselfare allowed to collect and use user/device information (with consent). Only Google/AdMob is prohibited from doing so.



    I added the bolded language to focus the point you made.
Sign In or Register to comment.