Slashdot Mirror
Google Slams Apple Over iPhone Ad Ban
crimeandpunishment writes "This real-life clash of the titans could be much more interesting than the movie. Today Google fired the latest volley in its war of words with Apple over mobile advertising. In a blog posting, the head of Google's mobile ad service, Admob, had harsh words for Apple's new restrictions concerning the iPhone and iPad ... calling them a threat to competition. There's a lot of money at stake ... the US mobile ad market, which is about $600 million, is expected to more than double by 2013."
Not.
One of the reasons Android is an important project for Google -- it makes them little, if any, money, despite a half-baked plan to sell their own handset -- is exactly this scenario. Google's fear was that a single vendor would have too much control to cut them out. So Android was birthed, and there are many vendors. And for those who might not know, any Android handset vendor has the full ability to replace Google with Bing, or to cut out Google ads in other forms, yet the "fragmentation" of the market ensures that there isn't an overly one-sided power distribution.
So is Apple being testy because of Android....or is this the gameplan all along, and Android was a good pre-emptive strike?
Google doesn't get to peak into Apple's sandbox anymore. Deal with it Google. You can still run standard Advertisements.
It may be a hasty call, but it almost sounds like a complaint of someone starting to go down on a slope at the late maturation stage of one of our titans.
i'm pretty sure the anti-monopoly laws were for industries consumers wanted to protect
There is a reason why one doesn't see ads for Six Flags inside Disney world. Jobs is smart, though I wonder what the FTC will eventually say.
When it's Apple and their closed platform apparently...
I mean it's not exactly startling that your direct competition doesn't want you advertising on their device.
So Google gets into smartphones, browsers and operating systems, and then cries "Foul!" when Apple gets into online advertising? (OK, I know Apple's hardware restrictions are a valid issue, but still....)
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Can't google just make a sister company clone of admob. Call it IPoo and have admob sell its info to Ipoo and Admob buy IPoo's info. Clearly IPoo only work operates on the Iphone without bias. Everyone is happy and hell just have IPoo based out of the Bahamas and google can write off its taxes as a loss for that division.
I don't know what it is, and maybe it is just me, but the word/name apple just bothers me. it's like an annoyance. No other tech company has had this effect on me in 20+ years.
This is why there aren't any ads for Six Flags inside Disney world.
Apple's excuse is, they want to protect their customers privacy. In fact they treat them like 6 year olds but it isn't the issue, it is their excuse.
Google, still thinking entire planet thinks they are "good guys" has major problems with their corporate culture and actions based on that. From "updater" to "Google Chrome" with default settings, Google is always blamed (rightfully) for not respecting users privacy. Some already calls them private data leeching vampires.
Steve Jobs saw this coming and used "privacy" as excuse to lock down the "real" advertising (location/analytics) to their own network. Now Google pops up and complains, people will say to them "look to mirror".
Some panel of advertisers or some people from analytics community should be speaking, not them. Anyway, too late now.
Google should play hardball by creating more non-ad material (of high value to apple users), and displaying it in the same way the adds are displayed. Thus if the appleans want to consume it they will need to turn off the ad blocker, or switch to andriod. Be imaginative you only have one chance at suicide.
Rocket Surgeon.
The version of Chrome you link to is a BETA release.
If you don't like crashing, why not use the release version?
Why doesn't Google allow 3rd party ad networks? Why doesn't Google allow 3rd party ad networks in their SERPs (search engine result pages)?
Google's great at crying and bitching but they're the absolute worst monopolist in ad space today.
It always has been the intention of Apple for everything you use to be apple and apple only. The iphone has given them a good environment to do this and they are taking advantage of it. If you buy into it, its your own choice, but know that this is what you are buying in to.
I am so sick and tired of the "war" between these companies. Any tech companies. I guess there is so little money to be made in the COMPUTER and WEB industry that they have to fight to the death for every little scrap.
So the company that acquired AdMob, a product that will compete with Apple's new iAds, is mad about iAds.
How is this news? Mod me troll if you'd like, but I just don't get how [Company A] mad that [Company B] made a competing product potentially pushing [Company A's Product] out of market! This is like a card mod company getting mad when that feature is made part of the car...except this isn't even that bad, they aren't forcing Google out, they're providing an alternative.
Also, as someone who has had to be involved with AdMob stuff before, I can tell you, there's plenty of room for improvement, and if Apple's product trounces AdMob, that's a reflection on AdMob, not a monopoly position. Just because you COULD have a monopolistic advantage does not imply you do have one.
Sheesh, I guess I had a lot of repressed rage over that.
Just my $0.02.
From a developer's standpoint, this is getting absurd.
1. Apple already makes me use their hardware and software development tools.
Fine.
2. Now i have to use crappy Objective C from the 1980's to write my code. No C#, no C++, no third party libraries.
Getting harder to swallow... It's like Amazon telling publishers they will only sell books printed with Amazon printing presses. Yeah, it DOESN'T make sense.
3. Apple arbitrarily dictates I can no longer use Google's analytic software, which i have been using for over five years in various capacities???
What's next? Seriously.
Has anyone here ever clicked on a Google ad?
"Do not confuse the unusual with the impossible" - Psmith
Well...Google bought Android team quite a bit before iPhone announcement, plus they don't actually have any consumer "Google OS" (and of you refer to ChromeOS, that's a different thing, aimed mostly at tablets and netbooks; in the first case, also made public before Apple move, in the second - Apple claims they are not interested). As for browser...c'mon, Apple would be pissed after building large part of it on someone's else work, too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML Apple didn't invent the tech behind WebKit the forked KHTML and it is still largely an open source project. Apple likes everyone to believe they built it from the bottom up.
"Don't Panic!"
It all comes down to Greed and apple is supreme at being greedy. The next product they release will be call the iBrainWash which will be a ipad for the brain rather than Fanboi irrationality. The brainwash will come with a supreme leader who will be called Mao ZeJobs who will force everyone to wear their loyal iSuits while using their iBrainwash and thinking everything is good as the money evaporates from their pockets and their liberties are taken away if they don't suit the overlords 'bigger picture'...
Apple knows that they can't compete or provide a good enough advertising platform in the mobile space so they make sure nobody else can compete.. if here is no competition they MUST be best right?
No need to elaborate on that. The fact is, every time I see new, obtrusive advertising, I see yet another way to be disrespected and violated by someone's idea of marketing. (I know, it wouldn't exist if it didn't work.) There are times when I actively look for ads... more specifically, information before I buy something. But any other time, it becomes a nuisance. If ads were only pictures and words, I'd be okay with it. But no. They have to be animated, flashing and even covering what I want to see.
I can appreciate the drive Apple has to reduce and restrict advertising across its platform. I think it is a terrific option that every user should have available to them... as a option. As I write this I find myself shifting from Pro-Apple to anti-Apple on this matter. Blocking ads should be an option to turn on. Blocking applications that host or provide ads? That's another matter, but if they are serious about that, they should consider removing the web browser application from the iPhone. Fact is, if I wanted to run a Google app, I would run a google app. If it had ads, I would block them and failing that, remove the application. Fun thing, end-user choice... I like having mine. It's why I run Linux.
Which would make it confusing when Windows Mobile 7 is released..
Repeat after me: Not having a monopoly is illegal, using it to gain a 2nd is.
as someone has stated above chromium is google's property, and they allow 3rd party ads on other web sites.
You can't reasonably run ads without analytics. The entire ad industry depends upon analytics.
And this is mostly Google now. AdMob was the largest of them all and now that Google bought them...
The main reason I don't like Android is Google: With it Google gets your email, your contacts, your searches, your calendar, your location, the maps you look at, the places you navigate to, the RSS-feeds you read, your voice profile and of course they track you via ads. Probably even more things I forgot right now. This is creepy. This is much too much data to give to *one* company that can easily connect all the dots and knows more about you than yourself then. Evil or not evil, this is too much.
I'm totally surprised that people are being that ignorant of the fact that Google is inserting its tentacles in every orifice of your digital existence while whispering "It won't hurt... no, it will feel good and it's totally free" and people are crying for more. Right, you just have to give them your digital soul and your digital blood, nothing more.
Apple is with no doubt just protecting its assets with this, but it's their right and Apple users should be happy about it anyway. This new war between Apple and Google is a most effective firewall between them: Apple won't share your data with Google and Google won't share theirs with Apple.
The "cloud" means you have to give more and more of your personal data to some company; giving different data dimensions to different companies being at war with each other is the least you can do.
Bullshit. Apple runs the site for the open source project. It's derivation from KHTML is in the very first paragraph of the page.
http://webkit.org/
Also on Apple's corporate description of Webkit. Again, very first paragraph.
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/internet/webkit.html
What is with every story talking about slamming? That's something you see in WWE...saying "We think your advertising is a threat to our business model" is called "moderate criticism".
If everything is "slamming", what word do we have left to criticize dancehall artists who "criticize" homosexuality by promoting tying gay folk to burning tires?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Do I complain about Apple's closed system, or Google's privacy concerns?
Man, if only Microsoft were in this story, I'd have the geek-complaint-hat-trick!
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I never thought i would say this but darn it, we are lucky Apple didnt win against Microsoft. Apple will if given enough market share make Microsoft look pretty tame.
Steve seems intent on using any leverage against competitors no matter how bad the outcome is for the customers. Microsoft does this too but not at this level, probably because of antitrust concerns.
Apple seemed like a nice company but recent moves has changed that perception almost completely. If given the opportunity they will be just as bad for computing in general as Microsoft has been for the last 20 years.
Steve Jobs are a huge douchebag and the best we can hope for is cooperation between Apple and Microsoft. That way they can stab each others back instead of ruining computing for the rest of us.
HTTP/1.1 400
You're missing the point, for many apps you will have the option of either purchasing a full price version or running an ad supported version so you can have exactly that choice. There will of course be paid apps with ads included but those most likely will either be unpopular or will be imitated by apps with the either/or model.
Back when cable TV was first conceived, broadcast TV had ads, and cable came out with no ads, as a paid service.
And now, today, there are of course cable TV stations with ads, but... wait, what were we talking about before the commercial?
-- Terry
Since neither the summary nor the story link to the actual source:
Mobile advertising and the iPhone
Also:
Really? Google acquired AdMob only a little over two weeks ago.
Who cares which ad network serves their ads? I don't. I do however care about privacy. Just saying.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
You know, I was about to launch into a defence of Google until I opened up the homepage... forcing background images on us with no choice but to turn it off? Really? Did you take a lesson in "shooting yourself in the foot" from New Coke?
You shit all over Bing, there's no need to emulate them.
"Apple’s latest rules for developers who create apps for its devices limit the situations in which they can send approved information about their apps’ audiences to advertising services. The information cannot be sent to advertising networks that are affiliated with companies developing or distributing mobile devices or operating systems – a definition that effectively excludes Apple rivals like Google and Microsoft."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e7ae5066-7408-11df-87f5-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss (Put it into google if it gives you the paywall.)
"US antitrust regulators plan to investigate whether Apple is unfairly restricting rivals such as Google and Microsoft in the market for advertisements carried on the iPhone, iPad and iPod, people familiar with the move said on Wednesday."
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/apples-evil-genius-plan-to-punk-the-web-and-gild-the-ipad.ars
Combined with Apple's HTML5 demo site that shut out non-Safari web browsers, it starting to look like Apple is becoming a very anti-Web company... even more so than Microsoft.
I've been a Mac fan since 2004, but Apple has gone too far: They want to see then end of the Web and the personal computer now. They can go to hell.
...and just admit that we use the word when we really mean asshole, which Steve Jobs is.
Most of his comments at D8 and WWDC regarding Google, Flash, app store rejections, the 4.0 leak, and whatever are disingenuous at best, and flat out lies at worst.
That doesn't make them a monopoly though. He's obnoxious, but there are still other opportunities out there to be had.
So, Google's bid beat Apple's bid to buy a startup with the desired capability.
And now Apple is somehow the bad guy?... For losing that auction and being a little "nuts to you" on its outcome?
I can't tell if you're trolling, but not much of this makes sense.
(a) How does the language of the native API on platform X have anything to do with its "openness"? Yes iOS is objective-C and Android is Java. Openness has everything to do with what you exclude. Anyone is free to deploy a C program to Android, using a C-to-Java-bytecode interpreter for example. The converse is not true for the iPhone, where Java in any form is strictly disallowed.
(b) How can you make statements about Chrome OS, when it isn't even released? Do you have spies inside Google?
(c) Where did Google claim that "Adobe Flash is open"? Either come up with a citation, or admit you're just making shit up.
(d) It was the Manhattan Project that destroyed the PhD brand, if anything the tech companies collectively are restoring it.
What are those websites that have nothing to sell but lots of links to other places?
They are adertising networks, using Google searches to earn money for doing precious little.
I wish Google would ban them.
Apple literally does not have a monopoly on smart phones.
Of coarse that doesn't make a ban on Google's advertisements OK. But the article says Google's ads themselves are not being banned, just the collection of personal data under certain circumstances. The article itself doesn't say that Apple is collecting the kind of data it is preventing Google from collecting. If Apple isn't collecting that data then it doesn't gain a competitive advantage by banning Google's data collection, it just levels the playing field while allowing Apple to protect user's privacy.
Which would make it confusing when Windows Mobile 7 is released..
Apparently it already did, as there's no such thing as "Windows Mobile 7" (though I wish there was!). It's "Windows Phone 7" now.
Some already calls them private data leeching vampires.
Generally just people who have an entirely different grudge with google, usually something along the lines of sour grapes that google doesn't let them unfairly twist the search/ad results in their favor.
Come on! With Android, Google has become a giant spider sucking at your digital life. Have you ever thought of the fact that most people using Android give Google their email, their contacts, their RSS-feeds, their calendars, their location, their chat content, the places they navigate to and now even their voice profiles? And of course their search terms and ad tracking data. All of this in the hands of *one* company. This is outright creepy.
This is not funny anymore. If Apple or MS or anyone else would dare to pull all that data of millions and millions of users to themselves, there would be an outcry. Google has somehow managed to slowly expand their grip with popular services and Android has still the bonus of being viewed as "free" (although all Google apps aren't free and without them and the Google "cloud" Android is a joke) and at least not being Apple. But it is a cold, hard fact that Android with Google apps and services is the worst privacy nightmare ever. Google inhales all your personal data day and night.
Hate Apple if you want to, but don't hail Google. Google is a friendly looking vampire making soothing noises while sucking your digital blood.
Apple just wants my money and to sell me things. I can deal with that.
Only Google can make native C Android apps. No 3rd parties have access.
What rock did you crawl from under? Android NDK has been available for ages.
Same with Chrome OS.
There's no device shipping with OSS. Then, of course, since it's fully Open Source, you're free to compile native apps for it and add it to the distro as you see fit. And one of those apps could be a package manager.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I consider the data trasmitted quite critical: My current location and a unique ID for the hardware I am using.
What's not so good is that Apple will get these data. I realy don't get why everyone is bothering about Apple vs Google, when the real issue is that Apple wants to have the current location and a unque ID tied to the hardware from the user. And the user gets the privilege to watch some iAds in exchange.
A few years ago such an idea would have caused a riot. But now it seems to be quite acceptable. How long are we away from the Minority Report style retinal scanning ads?
MS use "you need a license to install copy". Please tell me how you need a license to copy a hardware device.
And that you note that MS's claim was BS, you must also admit that Apple's even less supportable claim is BS Bollocks.
Oh, no, you don't, do you. You accept this and say it's right, even though you call MS's at least vaguely applicable similar claim BS, because Apple is doing it, it's right and propper.
And you idiots wonder why you get Fanboi labels...
By getting all hot under their e-collars about this ad-ban thing on iOS4 devices, Google management has made a tacit admission that they don't expect the Android market to make a significant dent in the iOS-device marketshare.
Think about it: If Google actually had faith in its own platform, they'd simply shrug off the ban.
Yep, Google, you just showed your hand... Very bad strategy on their part, methinks.
GET IT? FUCK-O?!
The iphone is dangerous near monopoly status.
And don't tell me to look at market share, RIM and Nokia are both running on inertia, it's only a matter of time before they fall.
The iphone platform is becoming the "standard" for mobile apps, much like Windows is on the desktop.
I for one do not want a repeat of Windows, especially not with Apple.
Those bastards are worse than Microsoft when it come to choice.
Living under the dictatorship of Steve Jobs, where you can't have something unless the Führer approves, would suck balls.
Fortunately things like the HTC phones and the new Samsung Galaxy S gives me a tad bit of hope.
Still they need to step it up a notch.
I've been a Mac fan since 2004, but Apple has gone too far: They want to see then end of the Web and the personal computer now. They can go to hell.
I work at a very Apple-friendly company and you'd be shocked at how many of these comments I hear from engineers. Some (like me) have already installed Ubuntu on their Macbooks and most won't be getting an iPhone 4 but an Android-based phone.
I think the market for mobile advertising is vastly overrated. If there's anything that will rapidly kill off user enthusiasm for Apple's apps, it is ads irritating the fuck out of you when you start up an app. Not only that, but developers who use the iAds API will most likely find their apps falling to the bottom of the popularity stakes and from there on stop using it.
Apple is trying to be king bitch by now allowing users to search using yahoo or bing, but please, who on earth would bother? Steve Jobs in his pathetic foaming at the mouth hatred of Google ("They betrayed me!!!!1111") might be dumb enough to use bing, but no one else is going to if they have a choice. Google will still rake in the cash with mobile advertising and I'm pretty sure that iAds will end up on Apple's small but growing pile of has-beens.
I would hope this rule is found to apply against apple, is also applied against all console makers also. There is a reason why the iPhone is becoming a popular gaming platform with developers. Otherwise, the law (which is blind) is just being selectively applied.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Is a significant degree of retardation a prerequisite to use Apple's devices? If the user, as most will surely do, just clicks or press the update all button and finds out his app is now adfilled crapware, how exactly is he suppoed to go back to the previous version?
Man, I know you guys really love Steve Jobs 'n all, but really, just think for yourself, just for once, ok?
Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives.
We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth.
We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.
Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.
We shall prevail!
Steve Jobs has some amazing foresight! He knew his plan would take time, so he could easily claim that "1984 won't be like '1984'", he knew it would take at least 25 more years for him to slowly convert the unbelievers.
Don't you hate it when people use a warning (or spin-off) like '1984' as a fucking manual...
Have you seen just how much shit does get approved by Apple? Apple only filters out algorithmically badly coded apps, apps that use private APIs and a whole bunch of other stuff for mainly political reasons. Allowing ads in apps might very lead to all the GP states; "free" apps that are crippled by ads, paid aps gowing up in price etc.
I don't know, but we'll see.
It's only reduction if Apple drop their iAd system. This isn't a reduction or restriction. It's either get paid for the app through iAd rather than AdSense or not get paid. Which do you think they will take up?
Google is the king of content providers .. block my ads .. ok .. I withdraw my Maps, Youtube, search, gmail and so on .. plenty more users of "valid" devices out there .. who does it hurt more.
Oh and while Google is at it why not block any apple ads from being served.
I think you'll find if you look at the underlying codebase that the lion's share of development was still done as KHTML
Spoken like someone who has never looked at the code. If you exclude:
then yes, most of it was done as part of KHTML. If you look at KHTML now, you'll see a lot of changes back-ported from WebKit. If you compare WebKit now to KHTML in 2002 (when WebKit was forked), you won't see very much common code at all. When WebKit was forked, KHTML was about 140KLoC. According to Ohloh.net, WebKit now is 715K lines of C++, 75K lines of ObjC, 34K lines of C, and a lot of various other things. Even if Apple had retained 100% of the KHTML code, it would now account for 10% of the total codebase. In reality, large chunks have been rewritten (KJS, for example), so it's now less than 5%.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh well, if Apple's Corporate description says something, it must be true. Hey, do you want another glass of kool aid, or are you full?
Get over yourself. The accusation was that Apple tried to take credit for creating Webkit from scratch, and the piece of "Apple's Corporate Description" you're so snidely talking about is a clear attribution of the origins of the project to KHTML/KJS, which makes a good case for them not trying to take undue credit.
Apple users today are AOL users from yesterday. With each passing year Apple manages to increased the height of the walls surrounding their garden. They saw how Microsoft took over computing by loosing using standard and adding locks to prevent interoperability with other systems, they've been copying that for over a decade, but they've add added nastiness from their failed 80s computing still lurking around.
It worked, Apple are now massively successful and very rich, despite being ridiculously anti-consumer. Eventually the masses will get pissed of with them and move on. All eyes on Google, as they're next in line for the throne.
Don't know about the HTML5 demo site, but HTML5 itself isn't Apple's. It's an open standard. So go make your own demo site for cryin' out loud.
Besides, how does making a site browser-specific mean the end of the web or the personal computer? Your logic is faulty. If that were true then Microsoft and all the IE-specific sites would have already doomed the web.
It can't be that hard, it's only ones and zeros: http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz
"There's a lot of money at stake ... the US mobile ad market, which is about $600 million, is expected to more than double by 2013."
In other news it is also expected that the USD will deflate in value proportionally by 2013
As a commercial developer for both Windows Mobile and Android platform, this is just another reason to shun Apple and underlines the fact that they're trying to create a walled-in fake garden for their (generally) susceptible logo-loving, overpaying customers. It's like paying £5 for a t-shirt or £50 for the same quality t-shirt with some little designer logo on. The functionality is no better.
I have no love for either Microsoft or (based on recent behaviour) Google, but at least I'm free to develop and install whatever I like using any environment that results in valid, usable objects.
Google should start disallowing analytics web-wide where the accessing device (or software) is from Apple. Start with no analytics logged for Apple hardware or Safari on any platform. If Apple want to play that game, engage!
Apple's mixture of AOL fail and dictatorship is getting boring now.
Why are they anti-web. This advert story is about ads in their native app platform.
Many will suffer ad-supported versions, and learn to hate the companies that are annoying them. Or is it true that all publicity is good publicity?
But as we get wealthier, I do see more being willing to avoid ads by buying things outright. Many will however cling to the certainty, promiscuity, and convenience of free.
http://lifehacker.com/5060621/block-ads-on-your-jailbroken-iphone-or-ipod-touch
Block all the ad's and dont use up your limited data connection with useless Ad's.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
... a plate of hot grits down their pants!
Google chose to compete with Apple in this market. Apple is not obligated to give their direct mobile platform competitor the opportunity to profit from Apple's mobile platform. The analogy that comes to mind is that it would be like if Bing (Microsoft) inserted search results into Google's search results pages. Google search is Google's platform, and they aren't obligated to give their direct competitors the opportunity to profit from it. If Microsoft tried to pull that off anyway, Google would cut them off right quick... and no one would say Google was a monopoly for doing it, nor in the wrong.
Besides that, Google and AdMob still have plenty of opportunity to profit from the iPhone via their ads in web pages viewed with the browser.
--- What?
Google doesn't get to peak into Apple's sandbox anymore.
I had to read that three times before I figured out that you meant "peek"; "peak" can be a verb, too, but it means something completely different, and it confused the hell out of me.
Do you truss your spell checker? And how would you fit a truss to a spell checker anyway?
Free Martian Whores!
Er, wait, what? Apple lets their hated rival use their demo? Oh, I get it now. It's because Safari and Chrome are both based on WebKit so they both work. Apple just wrote their demos for the parts of HTML5 that WebKit supports (which IE and FF might not). No delusional conspiracy theory needed, after all! Whew.
As with all Apple v Google stories, this is a tough one to call.
I'm inclined to think that Apple are being unreasonable in this one. They let other copmanies access Apple's analytics information, but not if that company is a competitor. Well, on one hand no-one is forced to do business with anyone else if they don't want to. GM don't have to sell engines to Ford, or tell Ford how to access their cars' engine management systems. They could tell Delphi Corp how to access GM engine diagnostics, whilst reserving the right not to allow their competitors to do so. But as with all analogies, even car ones, this is flawed. This is more like not allowing Ford adverts on a GM in-car stereo. Or, not allowing Ford to know if anyone listened to their advert, whilst allowing Delphi (and themselves) to know. Hm. What do you do when even a car analogy breaks down?
do the developers get? let's say Android and iOS have equal market penetration.. 100M devices each.
Jobs said devs get 60% of the cut. Do AdMob participants get the same?
why not let the devs make this decision? assuming market penetration is equal, as a dev, I'd go for the option that gives me the most back.
i know market penetration isn't equal, and won't be for a while... and I seriously doubt that AdMob revenue sharing favors the developer. how much of the AdMob business plan is based on an ASSUMED share of Apple's mobile devices?
I think google is afraid their recent purchase isn't going to pan out as well as they'd hoped (in the short term).
if your terms are equivalent, what's the problem - don't give me the philosophical "market competition" bullshit, because iAd an AdMob both want all of the market. At least Apple's not trying to hide it.
regardless of which side your on... we're talking about who gets the rights to spam us with ads...
we hate pop ups
we hate spam
we hate commercials
we never "swat the fly" to win an ipod.
we install AdBlock
we install FlashBlock
we install popup blockers
yet we're arguing over who has the rights to put more shit in our faces?
WHAT THE FUCK. fanboyism has no place here - marketing and ads are a COMMON ENEMY.
Please explain to me how Apple and the iPhone is dangerously near monopoly status while AT&T is not? Right now, Apple is only on one telcom in the US. Long before they get monopoly status, that telcom will have to gain monopoly status. So, why am I only hearing about this in light of the iPhone and not in terms of an AT&T monopoly?
People are complaining about Apple only being on AT&T right now and at the same time at them having a monopoly. Imagine what it would be like if Apple opened up the iPhone for other US telcoms.
Well if AdMob is being banned by this criteria wouldn't that ban the iAd system too?
Of course, I am not underestimating Apple's ability to be hypocritical and selective apply their own rules here...
Google is actually making me weary of nerds. Not only have they damaged their brand with Android, they've damaged the Ph.D brand. When I meet a Ph.D now I think this is a person who doesn't know anything about people or the real world.
Lol what?
Ogre Wedding Planners llc.
This entire thread is so full of misinformation it is ridiculous. Apple did NOT ban other advertisers. They simply said you need user permission before sending analytic info back to the advertiser, and that advertisers with their own mobile hardware/software platform are prohibited.
So this is not an attempt to take away all advertising competition from iAd. It's giving users the choice about sending their info to advertisers (those bastards giving users choice!!) and it prohibits mobile hardware/software vendors from stealing Apple's valuable iPhone ecosystem data.
This thread is so full of blind Apple haters and I don't think I've seen one post that was accurate. I know Google doesn't have Eric on the Apple board as a spy any more, but that doesn't give them the right to compete unfairly by using data from Apple users to push the Android platform.
Google is the one turning into the old Microsoft. Buying or stealing ideas because they can't come up with their own. It's too bad the Android fanbois can't see that reality.
To me, it seems that Apple is doing monopolistic practices. It attempted to buy AdMob and when it failed to buy the company, effectively banned it from its platform. This shows an intent on Apple to use the product, and then when it failed to acquire the product, punishes the one who did buy it.
Its a wonder that Google isn't suing them.
Haven't you heard? There's 47 Android devices to every iPhone anyway, and they all like it better because it has flawless flash support and porn.
Desktop advertising is big business, too. Google could decide that it needs to charge more for ads that feature Apple products or services. Or maybe just direct searches on Apple/iPhone related terms to bad reviews while displaying ads for competing non-Apple products. Drop in a little valid html that breaks Safari, just for fun. Searches from an iPhone could just return "Fatal Error Code 14-5: Contact Apple Support" or "iPhone License Expired: Contact Verizon Wireless for Upgrade Options".
When Apple throws a punch maybe they should be ready for the counter-punch.
Support SETI@home
I don't know about the a,b or d, but (c) is definitely the case.
Take a look at all the open source Flash players creeping up, like Gnash. Flash has been a royalty-free spec since about 2008 (as compared to H264 which may be royalty free only for a few more years). So yes, Jobs was making that shit up during that Adobe / Apple back-and-forth.
Here, let's see how long it would take for anyone to verify this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flash+open+source
Apple isn't open. They choose what software you are and are not allowed to use on their phones. Shouldn't it be my decision what I install on my phone, and shouldn't I be able to get it from more than one location without voiding my warranty?
You talking about this demo? http://www.apple.com/html5/ Because if you are, it sure doesn't work in chrome. "You’ll need to download Safari to view this demo." So what was your point again? Oh, that apple isn't really blocking out all the competition... hmm want to try again?
Say I want to develop an app for iPhone, Android and Symbian. Currently, I can just about write the main part of the app once and then branch it for the different APIs. However, if I want to add adverts to a trial version of this, I'm unlikely to want to set up accounts with multiple advertising programs, so I'm going to implement one across the board that sticks to Apple's rules (because they are the most strict and the platform I'm likely to sell the most apps on). Google loses out a potential customer on it's own platform because of rules in place on a rival's platform because of it's influence on developers.
This makes perfect sense; whether it's legal grounds for something is left as an exercise for the reader, but common sense seems to dictate that Apple is in the wrong in this situation.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
No, I was looking at this: http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/ I haven't tried everything yet but the only problem I've seen is that the video one doesn't actually play (I'm assuming this has something to do with the whole codec war) although the content scaling still works.
So what was your point again? I didn't even have Safari on my machine until just now to see if the video was even supposed to play. So if you're trying to say I'm blatantly making shit up and posting it on Slashdot, you may want to try again.
Ye flipping gods, I wish you had logged in and/or I had mod points.
I don't often see AC posts that are worthy, but this one, in my opinion, is.
I'm no Google fanboi, although I do use many of their products (phone, search engine, mail...), but I must say that this paragraph pretty much says it all:
I'm not going to say Google isn't evil, because I don't know enough about their internal workings. But you've got to admit it's pretty damned refreshing to see a company getting big by competing. If there's an evil at Google, it's an evil that can be killed by its betters, rather than the kind of evil we used to have, where we had to wait for it to kill itself.
I have nothing further to add.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
A classic case of Good vs Evil (albeit evil dressed in a white suit).
The funny thing is that although most everyone will agree with the above statement, you will probably get a 50/50 split as to which is good and which is evil.
Google should prevent users from googling anything about Apple... That'll teach em
But the big thing as far as I'm concerned is that Apple did very little this week to stop Android. The screen is the one good feature, and I'm really not sure how much difference that makes. At best, it puts them a nose ahead of the competition, but as Froyo rolls out with Flash, hotspot features, and dozens more phones this year, Apple will start to feel it.
Steve seems intent on using any leverage against competitors no matter how bad the outcome is for the customers.
I think most customers don't give a shit one way or the other whether the ads in their "app" are from Google or Apple or Microsoft. I think most customers just wish the ads would go away so they could get back to what they were doing.
Fights between ad networks are the ultimate in "doesn't matter" for the user experience. Ads are ads and users will try their best to block, hide, or ignore them regardless of source.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I'm very happy with my HTC Hero instead of an iPhone. You couldn't pay me to sign up with AT&T.
Why are they anti-web. This advert story is about ads in their native app platform.
Because they are moving the online advertising into their proprietary OS so it will be unblockable, while at the same time putting ad blockers into the Safari web browser.
If you want your ads to reach iPhone and iPad users, you will have to pay Apple or one of their iAd partners to get yours ads into the operating system's ad channel; Your web-based ads will mostly be invisible to these users.
If IBM makes a mainframe, do they have to allow Teledyne to make a compatible tape unit? The courts say Yes. Is there any problem with IBM selling theirs at a loss for years to drive Teledyne out of the business of tape systems? Again the courts say yes. These were landmark cases in the early computer industry. As much as IBM hated it, other companies were allowed to sell into their client base. What ever happened to those tape systems? They probably ended up in the control room at the space center at Disneyland. IANABCL, but the parallel seems clear enough to me. I do think it is bait and switch though when they sell you the premium version and later put the ads back in. Vendors that change the deal after they have your money lose market share when the people figure out what is happening. I am mad as hell at Sony about the "other operating system" thing. I will NEVER buy a SONY product again. EVER.
Comment removed based on user account deletion