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.
i'm pretty sure the anti-monopoly laws were for industries consumers wanted to protect
When it's Apple and their closed platform apparently...
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
So when you buy an iPhone, you accept that it's still Steve's? Wow.
Note that we're talking about ads in third-party applications. Meaning as a third-party application developer, Apple has now said "Oh, and by the way if you want to advertise, your only real choice is us." How is that defensible?
And do you accept that the Safari browser on the iOS devices has the right to purge all web ads and replace them with Apple ads? Why not, right?
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 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.
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?
The FTC just approved of the Google/AdMod deal on the strength of Apple competition so it's unlikely they will say anything other 'see, we were right!'
Welcome to Apple Stadium* No Pepsi! Coke. (*biometrics recorded upon entry)
If you buy a device from vendor you are buying into whatever the vendor is selling. In this case your buying into the 'word of Steve' and the word of Steve today is 'the only ads you will see will be served by Apple'.
If you don't like it, don't buy it, that's the free market way.
(Honestly, despite Google crying foul this has 0 impact on consumers. Does anyone care who serves the advertising?)
]{
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.
Id rather have an iNeken; it's free as in beer!
And do you accept that the Safari browser on the iOS devices has the right to purge all web ads and replace them with Apple ads? Why not, right?
Your actually very astute by pointing this out. The application advertising is only the first skirmish in the battle. Apple will almost certainly permit these ads to be shown in Safari using some kind of proprietary extension. Because iAD adds earn significantly more than AdSense these will get extensive adoption and significantly improve support for iOS devices.
It's a real smart move by Apple.
No, just a call that completely ignores the facts.
cat
The suggestion that Apple is denying a given right is absurd. I've made an app, and I could fill it full of ads for Joe's Curry House or even Google if I chose. But I don't, because that would be stupid and ruin the app - instead I make a good app.
All Apple has done is limit bookable media space inside of computer software. Imagine if Adobe suddenly stopped McDonalds running ads inside Photoshop - wouldn't that be terrible?
And let's not forget, the company that is most aggressively targeting Apple's business is Google. Why on earth would they a) help them and b) do it in a way that means that their customers get bombarded with mindless ads about 'secret tips to remove tummy fat'.
Why Android fanboys are so desperate to view crap internet ads is beyond me.
Duh.
You don't have to use iAds, you do have to use it if you want to get paid by Apple. They are just preventing people from running out and making a bunch of ugly, confusing, possibly nefarious ads like the rest of the web. The app store is not the web, Steve says. He made a clear distinction between free content on the web and the premium, high-end brands on the app store. It's like a high-end mall. Anyone can advertise on iAds but since it takes a minimum of $500K and programming.
Whereas Google has cornered the small time market, and it would be useless to compete over the small-time, free internet with Google. Jobs is really trying to make a parallel-to-the-web, not-free (as in speech) platform for media content delivery. And not only that, he wants to control the production of the media as well from the camera to the end user. And he's betting that people will do it because it's "cool" and he's kinda already proven they will through iTunes.
If it succeeds, I have a feeling the web part of the phone/pad will kinda fade away. But the problem is that Apple thinks big, the reality distortion is in effect, and it's easy to forget that most people in the world don't have dough to spend on apps. And really, Apple's share is not that big, but it's growing. They've sold a few billion in cheap software, which is impressive.
But where's the long tail that will have this growth continue? Soon they'll have to give away iPhones because that's what Blackberry and Windows Mobile will do. Then they'll have to slash prices to keep up with the discount brands. Apple does not have competition when it comes to designing a high-end product, but from an economic perspective, they are going to have to get in bed with big media and HARD to stay alive.
Only the web can provide everything as soon as it's developed, for free, and in a way that is free to the producer of the content as well. And google is really the web, since it provides the gateway to that content. Now, I don't see how that's going to be as profitable as a media machine like Apple is making. But, they have the long tail. So Apple will have the high-end customers and Google/VZW and Microsoft will fight over the rest.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
There are, however, ads for Direct TV on Cable TV. What's your point?
Yeah, exactly. The whole PC market was built on choice and freedom. Apple has always been about living in the Apple box, and getting some benefits like easier setup at the expense of being in a monoculture..
Although Apple has made some innovations, mainly on the design side, a lot of their innovations fail as well (Firewire?).. The PC has done far more to improve productivity, and the business of computers. If you're in the computer business, you owe it to the PC. Whereas if Apple had won, we would all be working for Apple.
Microsoft, for it's evil, was always just a publishing company. Apple is the tool of the publishing companies. They want to do away with the web, and replace it with a big "App Store". They don't want you to get stuff for free on the web any more. Anyway, the bottom line is that Apple is still swimming upstream. I'm surprised they made as much money with the iPod as they did, but I think that had as much to do with the economic bubble as it did the product. People with a extra money buy nice things, and Apple makes nice things. But not everyone can drive a Porsche, and that will be their eventual undoing, again.
I said a few months ago that APPL was a classic bubble, and the stock will never get over $275 and it still hasn't. People are getting tired of it, the novelty is wearing off, and they just want a cheap phone that does what they want it to do. I think the phone manufacturers have gotten the message and now it's up to the carriers to provide as much bandwidth as possible. Android and Windows Mobile are the long tail and RIM will continue to be the choice of the enterprise professional.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Has anyone here ever clicked on a Google ad?
"Do not confuse the unusual with the impossible" - Psmith
Anyone can advertise on iAds but since it takes a minimum of $500K and programming.
And people said I was stupid, but I proved them!
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
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?
Vote with your code and let people know you're doing it.
It is a problem for developers as well.
Funny thing is that there is no outcry by the developer community. Many depend on ads to provide free versions of their programs, having only one choice (this does not only hit admob but all others as well, like Microsoft, yahoo etc... which are in the same business) means that Apple can dictate what they get. Which means they simply can reduce the ad revenue of everyone by 90% just if Steve Jobs thinks it is a good idea.
There is no way I am going to enter iPhone development, this reminds me more and more on the gold rush, where the only ones except for a few who really earned anything were the vendors who sold the shovels and bought the gold. The main difference is there is only one vendor who can dictate the prices on any front.
Android development looks better every day, the toolchain is top notch, google does not dictate anything and does not want to, the system is open enough so that no one can pull an Apple stunt and the market is picking up as well revenuewise for the authors.
I just wonder if this was the last straw to drive the developers away from the iphone in the long run, lots of them already have planned to at least go to other platforms as well, when Apple pulled the last stunt with their developers toolchain eula a few months ago.
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..
Jobs is really trying to make a parallel-to-the-web, not-free (as in speech) platform for media content delivery.
Sounds like the return of AOL.
It's a trap!
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
Shit, I'd better run out and get one!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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
Could it be that it's at the discretion of owner of the platform? That fits both scenarios.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
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
"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.
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.
"So when you buy an iPhone, you accept that it's still Steve's? Wow."
I am no lawyer, but Microsoft got away with this BS by saying you do not actually *own* Windows when you buy it. You really purchase a copy of it.
You do not actually own the phone, just a copy of the phone owned by Steve. Its not that I agree with this anti-consumer bs but it comes to show you how much power the lawyers have interpreting things.
Many years ago when I hated Windows 3.1 with a passion someone asked me if the world would be any better if Apple won. I said yes! At least their products do not suck. Funny thing is they are more evil than MS ever was. I guess it comes to show monopolies suck no matter who owns it. Apple has way too much bargaining power and I cringe to think about the cell phone market 5 years from now.
http://saveie6.com/
I think he is saying that having a monopoly isn't illegal, but using that monopoly to gain another one is illegal.
Once a court rules you a monopoly the rules change, and there are restrictions placed on you--things you can't do that an ordinary company can
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Especially if you open it on a netbook. Combined with their new fading in... Gruesome.
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?
I tried the Google online Monopoly. It was kind of fun for about a day or two.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
GET IT? FUCK-O?!
"And do you accept that the Safari browser on the iOS devices has the right to purge all web ads and replace them with Apple ads"
No, and I don't buy Apple products.
It's called "voting with my wallet".
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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.
Note that we're talking about ads in third-party applications. Meaning as a third-party application developer, Apple has now said "Oh, and by the way if you want to advertise, your only real choice is us." How is that defensible?
No, they didn't say that. They said "if you want to advertise, it's us or other *independant* providers". They dont' consider AdMob independant, since they are owned by Google, and Google makes products that are direct competitors to Apple's.
They simply don't want to run the risk of seeing AdMob pushing Googlephone ads, based on the knowledge through analytics that you are running on an iPhone.
If i open some Toyota magazine, i don't see ads by Renault either. If i watch tv on one of our networks here, i don't see commercials for programmes on competing networks. I don't run a publishing/advertising company or anything, but if i was, i would protect my own business in the same manner.
Oh silly me, we're talking about Apple, this is Slashdot... Apple baaaaad!
I thought C++ was allowed? And what is wrong with plain C? And there is always inline assembler, that is what true developers use.
- Raynet --> .
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?
So, a corollary: 1) Apple has a majority of the market share in smart phone app sales. Good for them. 2) Apple uses its majority market share in smart phone app sales to force everyone into their mobile ad platform. Monopolistic behavior, bad for the economy.
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.
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
When Apple does not just offer an alternative for app makers to use, but shuts down the competition, you are looking at an even worse case than when Microsoft released Internet Explorer and worked to force Netscape out of the market. At least Netscape still worked under Windows, but Apple is outright stopping any competing products from working on their operating system(in the portable space at least).
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.
This is about whether [Company B] is leveraging their huge advantage in the Apps space to try and drive out [Company A]'s product, though. If they are, we call that "anti-competitive behaviour" and it's generally frowned upon because it goes against the principles of a free market. That's a whole world of difference to [Company B] made a better product than [Company A] who now feel threatened they will be outsold.
You clearly have nothing to do with business.
Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Google is going to double down on Android. It's interesting that every time Steve Jobs has one of his petulant tantrums the rate of Android development accelerates. While a year ago it seemed like a generally unloved step-child, and we know that Google low-balled it to avoid offending Apple, today it feels like a rocket ship. Every restriction Apple imposes will be their own undoing.
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
Not having a monopoly is illegal, using it to gain a 2nd is.
Shit, I'd better run out and get one!
But only one! You better not try to get a 2nd one using the first!
"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
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.
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?
It's just a nod to the attribute it blatantly discloses by being merely territorial, which is common characteristic of large corporations turning lackadaisical on creativity. This has been somewhat of a common, historical trend since mid 1800s, so I don't know where you're spotting ignorance. If you're nitpicking about G's contribution to mobile OS platform and whatnot, then I have nothing to argue with you.
So you think Google should let Microsoft insert Bing search results and ads into Google search results pages? Google search is Google's platform, and they should be open to 3rd parties, even direct competitors, profiting from it. Right? If they don't, they are a monopoly seeing how they dominate the search business, and by a wide margin. The bastards!
Besides that, with these new rules, independent 3rd parties *can* collect metrics and advertise in iOS apps, though they need to request permission from the user in a standard fashion before collecting such information. That's *great* for the user. Google isn't so kind.
--- What?
You can't have a monopoly on your own store. That as ridiculous as whining that [insert random store of any kind] won't stock your product and whining that it's using it's "monopoly" to strangle you out of their stores. Such an argument has no merit and would be thrown out as ridiculous. No store is obligated to stock your product.
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.
Google's web search platform dominates the search market in a big way. Google does not let its direct competitors, such as Bing, insert search results and ads in Google's search platform. Google is a monopoly! Google is illegally taking advantage of their monopoly status! Down with those miserable-monopoly-advantage-taking-Google-bastards!
Seriously, though, even setting aside the fact that Apple does not even remotely have a monopoly in this market, Google started all this and what Apple's doing is an obvious, and completely understandable move - they aren't going to let their direct competitor profit from their platform. Why should they? Especially when Apple knows that Google's input into the iPhone platform is largely over - Google Maps navigation on the iPhone? Yeah right. That is never going to happen, and why would it? Google gains nothing by giving their direct competitor that feature.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple changes the default search engine to Bing and the Maps app to a Bing Maps & Navigation app, no doubt making a deal with Microsoft that will benefit both, at Google's expense.
--- What?
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.
Why put a comment for all your users that you will be porting your program to Android and thus stopping all development on the iPhone version as a result of Apple's Policies. If more developers do this, it might cause some change. If only a few developers do this, then Apple won't care.
Note that we're talking about ads in third-party applications. Meaning as a third-party application developer, Apple has now said "Oh, and by the way if you want to advertise, your only real choice is us." How is that defensible?
You have to opt-in to iAd and other ad networks are still running today in third party iPhone apps, Apple has not banned third party networks, and the limitation on the third party networks equally apply also for Apple's own iAd.
But yeah, other than that have a point. Just kidding.
To expand on the cable TV analogy.... For argument's sake, lets say there is a 5 minute commercial break, and that the content provider can sell advertising time for the first 3.5 minutes and the distributor, the cable company, can sell add time for the last 3.5 minutes. The cable company certainly won't sell add time to Direct TV, but the content providers may. The cable company can't simply strip the Direct TV adds out without repercussions. To do that, they would have to renegotiate their contracts with the content providers to limit what adds the content providers would run. In the Apple vs app developer context, this is analogous to the distributor, Apple, renegotiating the contract with the content providers, the app developers. The glaring difference is that in TV circles, the content providers are on a much more equal footing to to the cable companies. If a cable company tried to restrict what adds the content providers could run, they could charge the cable company more for distribution rights. With the app store, Apple has all the power. Thus, Apple is free to screw the developers.
He didn't say the Apple App store. He said smartphone app sales. Apple essentially showed the public they could install apps on their phones (something that could be done before but wasn't easy or understandable to the public), now they're willing to do it more often and so apps, even those developed for multi platforms are being forced by Apple's rules to make decisions that are giving Apple an advantage.
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.
Whether this is enough for the monopoly accusation is up to someone with a lot more legal experience than I, but Google (and others) have every right to be annoyed that Apple's rules are likely to affect them even outside of Apple's closed environment
"Apple has a majority of the market share in smart phone app sales." Uh, no they don't. They provide the store for the aforementioned sales. They provide the market. That's different from being the dominant player in it. It's amusing, how all of you are failing to define Apple's monopoly.
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...
After a quick Google Search... Here is an article on Ars Technica that reports data from Gartner saying that Apple has 99.x% of the market share for mobile app sales. I believe 99% constitutes a majority. Of course this article is 6 months old, so who knows where Android and BB app sales are now.
Apple effectively made iAd the only option for in-application advertisements, because ad networks can't run without analytics. And no, the restrictions don't apply to Apple, and it's ludicrous to claim they do. The restriction was completely made to target Google/Admob, just as 3.3.1 targeted Flash.
This is bordering on comical.
The closest analogy -- even though analogies are a horrendous way to understand a point -- would be Dell declaring that all webpages showing ads on Dell computers have to run the ads through Dell's ad network. Your analogy is terrible.
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.
So when you buy an iPhone, you accept that it's still Steve's? Wow.
Actually, I don't -- which is why I don't buy an iPhone ;)
Firewire is still used for amateur and field audio recording.
yes but they won't kick me out of a wear a six flags t-shirt. why? disney world owns their property but they don't own me. for the same reason apple doesn't have to use google's services in the operating system or apps it provides, but stopping third party app developers from using google services is just wrong.
apple owns the iphone and the OS and some of the apps but they don't own the apps that developers write.
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.
You can't have a monopoly on your own store.
Actually you can. I've been waiting for the a grocery store chain to pick up on Apple's business model by preventing their customers from being able to shop anywhere else. The trick is in the implementation. Maybe put a toxin with a 2 week lifetime and an antidote with a 1 week lifetime in all of the food? "Shop Safeway or you're gonna die." Even if they didn't have a majority of the market, they would have a monopoly for people who need the antidote. Does that make it any less a monopoly? If it's not a monopoly, then is the market somehow controlling the prices Safeway can charge?
Support SETI@home
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
That analogy doesn't make sense. When you go into Disneyworld you don't buy the piece of their property. But you do buy a phone and you physically possess it and own it. Displaying an ad on the phone you own is not the same as displaying an ad on someone else's property you are visiting.
Apple wants to give you warm fuzzies of making you feel at home as a consumer; but on the backend they are making sure they keep the leash on everything you can and cannot do on the device that you thought you owned. The leash doesn't extend past the "walled garden." In fact, with the iAds new terms, the leash got even shorter.
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.
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