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."
Google doesn't get to peak into Apple's sandbox anymore. Deal with it Google. You can still run standard Advertisements.
I wasn't saying that I support the decision, simply that it's not exactly surprising that Apple doesn't want Google to get advertising revenue generated through their handset. The relationship between the two has become increasingly hostile over the last couple of years, so while it's an unpleasant move, it's NOT a surprise.
You invalidated your entire comment in the parentheses. Google isn't crying "Foul!" over Apple's foray into online advertising, they're crying "Foul!" over Apple's hardware restrictions.
The version of Chrome you link to is a BETA release.
If you don't like crashing, why not use the release version?
This will date me, but I remember when cable TV came out, two advantages detailed:
1: No antennas to worry about.
2: You pay for the service, and not advertising, thus no ads.
Then the ads came between shows. Not much longer, people sat through the same time of ads on cable as they do on OTA TV.
Anti-trust law, yes they need to be a 'monopoly', but anti-competitive law, no they do not. And Apple has been very anti-competitive on several fronts.
I missed the part where 28% is a monopoly. Explain that to me again.
You also apparently missed the part where GP specifically said it's not a monopoly, he was just indicating that the figure is actually much higher than the "less than 10%" quoted above.
And what you're missing is that the dictionary definition of monopoly has little to do with the legal definition. Now I'm not saying either party is right or wrong, but to just read out a dictionary definition and say Apple are in the right because of this strict interpretation ignores the fact that that's not how monopoly law works. There are many complexities to consider in both establishing, first, if there is an effective monopoly (and this doesn't mean you have to control the entire market, just enough of it to give you the ability to shut down competition, ala MS insisting in the past that hardware vendors had to buy a license for each machine they sold, even if it wasn't going to run windows, effectively negating the zero price point of open source alternatives - sure there were alternative OS vendors the hardware manufacturers could use, but they'd be shutting themselves out of the biggest market, ergo effective monopoly), and second, if there is an actual abuse of that monopoly. It's by no means not as clear cut as either side is claiming it to be.
First, this is Jobs (reality distortion fields envelop those emanating them), so no, they don't have 28%. Not even close. What do the other manufacturers claim they have? RIM is still number one. Android is growing much faster than Apple is, or did.
Second, they don't have a monopoly. Not even close.
Third, this is restraint of trade and illegal.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
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.
It's not a monopoly when, not only do they not have a controlling share of the market, they also don't have the largest share of the market. In legal terms, antitrust starts to apply when you have enough of a market share to act as if you had a monopoly (e.g. you can raise prices arbitrarily).
When you have a minority of the market, you can do whatever you want with your closed platform, because it won't (seriously) distort the market. Apple could, for example, require you to buy a beret and turtleneck with your iPhone, and that would be completely legal.
Of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean that you're not an asshat for doing it. I can walk up to you in the street and call you an idiot, but I suspect that neither of us would endorse or condone that kind of behaviour just because it happens not to be illegal.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
"Then they decided they wanted a piece of the pie instead of depending on Apple"
Google bought Android in July, 2005. Apple announced the iPhone in January, 2007.
You're saying they launched their own platform as a reaction to the iPhone?
Information wants to be beer.
I missed the part where 28% is a monopoly. Explain that to me again.
You also missed the part where you actually read the GPs post before posting your own snarky reply. from GP post
Sure, that's still not really a monopoly
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?