Slashdot Mirror
Apple iAd Drawing Antitrust Scrutiny
snydeq writes "US regulators are planning to investigate whether Apple is shutting out third parties such as Google and Microsoft in advertising on the iPhone and iPad under revised terms to its iAd mobile ad platform. Apple's revised developer terms prohibit ad analytics collection unless it is provided to an independent ad service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads. If enforced, the proposed terms would prohibit developers from using Google's AdMob service on the iPhone, according to AdMob founder Omar Hamoui. Developers using AdMob to deliver ads on cross-platform mobile apps would have to go through an alternative service for the version of the app running on an Apple platform, according to the terms. It's an impractical solution that some are calling restrictive."
Maybe they'll get scared and let go the market a little.
Worked on MS.
Maury
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck them and their ads. Do not want.
Sent from your iPad.
I can't wait to be able to put Ford stickers on the back of Toyota trucks, and use your Droid to advertise At&T!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People fighting over advertising. Given yesterday's conversation on here, I'm sure some of you are aware of how this amuses me.
Living With a Nerd
Seems like Apple is getting all the bad publicity now. Aww I miss the good old MS bashing days.
looking at the app store lock in as well! OSX hardware lock in also should be looked at as well!
apple may end being under some of same rules that M$ in under.
And everyone always hated MSFT for this sort of thing when Apples 10x worse.
If Microsoft did this people would be all over their asses.
Apple telling these developers you can only use our ad service is just blatant abuse at this point.
I think Apple knows that the writing is on the wall and they are going to lose something so why not cash in as much as possible?
This is the now third 'potential' investigation into their business practices of various issues and markets.
How is this different than say, Apple wanting to us it's own analytic engine on Google?
Riding on the Metro (the subway system around the DC/Metro area) a few weekends ago, we noticed something strange outside the windows of the train while going through an underground tunnel: evenly-spaced signs made out of LEDs that, when travel past at speed, created a "flipbook" type of advertisement....for fucking Starbucks.
Yes. It really has come to this.
Living With a Nerd
Then don't download the software. I write apps for a living; either I charge you money up front or I put ads in the application, and I give you the option of which you want. If you find having both of those options unfair, then just pretend I don't offer a free version.
Actually that's only the case for the general audience. For you, I'd prefer it if you didn't use my apps at all -- you're probably a customer service nightmare, too, and not worth the bother. Of course, you also probably don't actually own an iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch, and are just being a righteously indignant douche; in which case, this is all academic.
Google will not allow me to put my own ad engine to work on their site. Since when does an anti-trust investigation start when a service or product is not even on the market? This is at best premature. iphones do not rule the internet, and if Apple wants to experiment with different service offerings, then let 'em.
Apple's terms do not exclude 3rd party ad networks, including AdMob:
This specifically covers advertising analytics, and prevents disclosure of advertising analytics to 3rd parties by independent ad providers; and if you're an ad provider owned by a mobile phone manufacturer or mobile OS provider, you are not considered independent.
Google's perfectly free to provide ads on iOS. They just can't collect extensive information about how the users interact with the advertisements.
Now that does dramatically reduce the value of the advertisements, since advertisers want that kind of information, but it's not a ban.
And then there's the competitive aspect. Why should Apple allow Google to use their platform to collect information that will allow them to improve the integration of advertising into a competing platform, Android? Sure, this move may be in part aimed at getting back at Google for the AdMob purchase, but there's a good case to me made that the primary motivation is to provide as little research and development assistance as possible to a competing platform (note that the limitation on analytics is for any phone or mobile OS manufacturer).
Finally, I'm personally fine with limiting the ability of ad providers to provide user analytics to 3rd parties. I'm not electing to do business with those 3rd parties, so I'd prefer that they not profit off me.
I had that idea a while ago [with never any intention or the means to do it] so i'd love to see it in action.
although i'm sure i imagined using metro lines as giant zoetropes for animations rather than for advertising. unfortunately inevitably advertising gets its dirty claws stuck into everything and actually pays for lots of what we enjoy. its insidious.
It definitely would not hurt them, Apple is always the best when they are the underdog, they have a tendency to be major assholes once they have success. It was like that in the 80s when they sued everyone for the graphical userinterface, which they obviously did not invent (thanks to that we got stuck with windows and a Microsoft monopoly instead of the back then superior gem)
It is about time Apple gets a severe smack on its hands again so that Steve starts to behave decently again.
At what point do Apple's actions run afoul of antitrust laws? They are certainly allowed to lock down their platform to some degree, but they aren't allowed to do just anything they want.
Would it be legal for Sony TVs to automatically go dark whenever they detect a Samsung commercial playing?
Check out my world simulator thingy.
While Apple's motive may not be entirely pure with respect to protecting user's privacy, though that is a side-effect of this decision. It appears that Apple is trying to prevent its direct competitors in the "mobile phone space" from using their presence in mobile ads to gather detailed strategic analytics on iphone user habits.
Apple isn't blocking other ad providers, they are just saying that those add providers can't invade your privacy. But this is Slashdot, where we don't let reason and common sense get in the way a chance to bash Apple.
Quite. I was walking past Pizza Hut the other day and they were trying to send their bluetooth shite to my phone. Not being happy with their crap spamming my phone and noticing the little bluetooth ad box plugged in by the window, I popped in and turned it off.
NO I DONT WANT A BLOODY PIZZA HUT SPECIAL OFFER.
First, reading comprehension. He didn't say that Apple doesn't invest in R&D. He just stated some assumption about what Microsoft does, and said "Apple does nothing like that." I think that statement is probably false, and probably a troll, but what you said is demonstrably false. And a troll :)
Second, don't be a jackass.
ORLY?! read that example and tell me he is not a troll.
Misinformed isn't the same thing as being a troll.
Apple doesn't invest in R&D?! Just look at his posting history, every single occasion he flames Apple and often without any facts to back up his claims. He is a troll. Period.
Again, being misinformed isn't the same thing as being a troll.
As a side note, the fact that you had that post so readily on hand is kinda creepy.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of you sucking sopssa's cock.
I don't know him, aside from what he posts. I rarely agree with him, but that doesn't mean he's a troll.
Living With a Nerd
inevitably advertising gets its dirty claws stuck into everything and actually pays for lots of what we enjoy. its insidious.
Yes, how dare they pay for us to enjoy ourselves? Damn them!
Personally, I just use ad block. Thankyou advertisers for enabling me to get better content without paying extra!
In situations where ads are unavoidable in a service I enjoy, I would gladly pay for the service so that ad support is unnecessary.
What I really don't like is stuff like when I've paid a lot of money to watch a movie and they still expect me to sit through a bunch of ads.
which is totally what she said
I'll admit, the execution of the idea was flawless; it really looked like a little animation being displayed on the subway wall. It was also kinda trippy -_-;;
That being said, it was still insanely frustrating to see advertising taken that far.
Living With a Nerd
There are lots of apps in Android that come in both paid and ad-ware versions. It offers choice to users and to developers. Of course, on Android, as a developer, you can use any advertising network you want; Apple could certainly port iAd to Android, if they wished. Choice is a Good Thing(TM).
Compare that to the iPhone. If it's just content you're interested in, you could always just do a website. Except with the latest version of Safari, Apple are trying to kill off web advertising too. So if you want reliable income from iPhone users, you've got to do a content-delivery app. Users then have to buy your app through the AppStore (and Apple get their cut). If it's free and ad-supported, all of the major competitors are locked out so you're stuck with iAds... and Apple gets their cut. And if you get pissed off and want to abandon the iPhone and switch to Android? Well, have fun rewriting your app from scratch: Apple banned you from using any compatibility platforms which would make it portable.
Yes, in this particular incident we're talking about ads, and I hate annoying ads as much as the next person, but leaving it at that is short-sighted and naive. This isn't about eliminating ads and improving user-experience, no matter what Steve Jobs tells his adoring masses. This is competition Mafia-style. You can say 'this is all fine, it's Apple's platform and they can do what they like with it.' But it's also what's called 'rent-seeking' behavior and I don't know of any economist who doesn't consider it abusive and anti-competitive. Hence all the recent DOJ investigations.
Apple's actions in this, and many other cases, are textbook examples of anticompetitive behavior. Third-party developers are being hurt significantly from this.
Actually, Mr "Anonymous Coward", if indeed that is your real name...I have a mix of devices at home and work. iPhone for my phone, macbook pro for my laptop, Dell for desktop, etc. No, I don't have an iPad, and if you'll re-read my signature, you'll note it's a joke.
And, as far as you "developing" apps for the iPhone, I'm sure you're amazingly successful.
I've been in this industry a long fucking time, and I've seen shit come and go. But this time, the consumer isn't even a thought. This is two companies arguing over who gets to put ads on our devices whether we want them there or not. And that's horseshit, IMO.
Oh, and thanks for the course on how software works. I'm sure you're quite successful.
Sent from your iPad.
I am no Apple fanboy by any means. Hell, I never even purchased an Apple product, ever. A friend did gift me an Itouch. However, I must say though, the absolute monopolies these companies are creating / controlling are beginning to freak me out. Everyday, I read about something. If I had to choose between Google or Apple, I side with Apple. Google gives me far more the impression that they are working against my privacy toward exploitation than Apple does. I'd deal any day with proprietary devices rather than intrusive exploitative relationships. I'll do my own research thank you. If these freaks would spend less time on adverts and more time on content, maybe they could hold the attention of people long enough to make a buck. Would you let your neighbor find out your search habits are? Should they know every little thing about you, what you like? I doubt it. Tell me then, why would you ever TRUST ANYONE beyond those closest to you to know what brings you happiness and pleasure. Why should you even PUT that upon a stranger? People these days have a really screwed up view over what relationships and trust mean and how they are built. What these companies propose toward their users and PROOF that this is true. This abuse toward the consumer against the very nature of what a respectable relationship is, must stop.
What I still can't figure out is why developers are putting up with this in the first place. I remember reading something a few weeks ago about some development houses complaining about Apple's tactics, then saying they have no other choices. When your target device's manufacturer keeps pulling all of these stupid moves, isn't it time to investigate Android/WebOS/Symbian/anything else out there?
Me no liek ads. Me wantsh Adblock for teh mobiles. But noooo! >o<
Yes! Yes! This!
Because abusive monopoly is the same as NO MONOPOLY.
You freaking moronic tool.
Scare quotes and repeating your sarcasm... Just a hint: when you sound simultaneously like a crotchety old timer and an eleven year old boy, you've lost the argument.
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
I think thats where you are making the mistake. The iPad is not your personal device. Its Apple's, and they have shown that with their previous practices.
Don't know about your subways, but the one in Copenhagen is boring - would think it was awesome to have that kind of gimmick - still wont buy it, but as long as I can choose not to look at it it's fine by me.
(They did a trial at the train stations where commercials where blasted out through speakers, that bothered a lot of people since you can't just look away.)
how is it even possible for Apple to be anticompetitive in this case?
I thought under US law, being anticompetitive means either forming a collusion with most of the other major players in the same market or leveraging a [near] monopoly to lock in another market.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
You need to look up the term "rent seeking". In fact, you probably need to start with rents and fee simple and such before you progress to more advanced topics like gaming the system of ownership. It may or may not be a good thing (and it's probably, on balance, neutral), but it's not rent seeking.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
More entertaining than the advertisement was the reaction of other people in the car: some looked interested, some looked confused, and one woman looked like she was ready to jump out of her skin.
It did catch us all off guard. I mean, think about it...you're just speeding through a subway tube, when suddenly some pixelated, smiling woman is drinking coffee on the fucking wall.
If that doesn't give you nightmares, go watch Return to Oz. If that doesn't give you nightmares, you aren't human.
Living With a Nerd
What I really don't like is stuff like when I've paid a lot of money to watch a movie and they still expect me to sit through a bunch of ads.
Like when you pop in a Bluray movie and you can't skip the previews?
Yes you do, you just don't understand why.
The actual cost to you would be site subscriptions and all apps costing you money.
Society is not prepared to bare this cost.
Ad serving networks have been plagued by serving up malware to unsuspecting users for some time. When such a thing happens on a well respected site, for instance the a major news site, many here, rightfully, get angry at the site for not policing the advertising being served to their users. If Apple is willing to ensure that no such malware will be served to my device and that the ads will comply with certain standards then I am all for it. If, however, Apple does no oversight and lets any crap onto my device then you have a point. Choice is a Good Thing, but I strongly suspect most owners of Apple products would CHOOSE not to have intrusive or abusive ads.
If you make whatever you make for Android, I'll tolerate your ads. I won't, however, buy iCrap to see them on.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
not really.
apple nor google put ads on iphone or android devices. the ads go in the apps that developers write. i don't like ads any more than the next guy, but developers should have the freedom to use them to try and obtain compensation for their time, if they so wish. if *you* don't like it, don't use the app.
This is two companies arguing over who gets to put ads on our devices whether we want them there or not.
Well, not really. The Apple agreement basically says that you can't use an ad provider that collectes a lot of demographic info and also plays in the mobile business. The reasons for this are clear. Apple doesn't want Google ads collecting user demographic and usage information as a tool for improving android. Other than that the agreement says you can use whatever ad service you like.
Personally I don't mind ad supported web sites or applications as long as the ad isn't sucking my CPU dry (ie no flash) which is why I run flash block, not ad block. I have no problem with a company that goes to the time and expense to create something I like making a living.
Sometimes the attitude of the people here surprises me. I have no idea why a significant portion of the slashdot community thinks they should be able to have whatever they want, how they want it, if they're not paying for it. Don't like Ads? Buy the app. Oh, you don't like commercial software you say? Then write it yourself. There is a ton of ignorance in this community about what antitrust and monopolies are. Here's a hint. Apple is no where near a monopoly. Here's another hint; You cannot have a monopoly in your own products.
Posting as AC because I spent 15 mod points modding down idiots in this post
Hah, I'd actually like to see that, where on the Metro was it?
(Currently ride the Blue Line in to DC)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
If the problem is that AdMob is owned/operated by Google, why not just make it its own company? Unaffiliated with Google except for being built originally by them. AdMob, Inc. could do - well, just that: serve ads. Then it would meet Apple's criteria for allowed advertising and it would be a pretty simple move by Google, and a big "Up Yours" to apple. If Apple doesn't allow it after that, I think it's a pretty clear-cut anti-competitive move.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Holy shit, really?
That's a bit too far in my opinion. What did it do? Send a pairing request from a device named "BuyPizza"? Or did it go further than that?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Seems like Slashdot is nothin but a bunch of good-fer-nuthin whiny snotty-nosed geeky-wannabees.
Complain when Apple don't want to carry a particular product in their App Store; Get a clue people! - it's their friggen store! Does a Ford dealership have to sell GM cars? Get over it.
Complain when Apple sell a locked down appliance ; (check: iPod, iPhone, iPad) - if you don't like it, don't buy it! (Duh!)
Compare Apple to Microsoft in a bad way: Now you are really showing what a whiny clueless bunch of snots you really are;
what was worse than the Browser 'war' was MS using their power to Stop ALL major OEMs from even offering an Alternative OS (even a boot time alternative), effectively killing any OS competitor before they started:
Anyone here old enough to remember BeOS (Multi-user, Multi-tasking, Multi-threaded OS that booted in 20 seconds on mid-90's hardware?) - They could not even GIVE it away because of MS's threat to the OEMs.
Anyone remember more recently on MS's ballot stuffing shenanigans with the ISO (resulting in an ISO standard, breaking all of the committees own rules, and producing a standard to which there exists even now - not a single implementation!)... and the nasty still continues (head on over to Groklaw for more nasty MS behaviour)...
Now get the fsck off my lawn!
It was on the Red Line, between Farragut North and Metro Center (were going into DC when we saw it)
Living With a Nerd
Except through my history of owning an iphone a number of apps have gone from the purchase model to ad supported model via updates that listed no such thing in the documentation of what the update does. I've deleted or not updated every one that has done so, but still...
It's a problem with the iphone and probably other platforms that is not talked about much. Being very weary about updating. I have way too many apps that I will not update for various reasons. Generally a bad habit to get people used to...
As long as developers stick with the "I only put ads in the free version" mentality, that's fine. But, let's be honest, if a developer can get away with it, they'll put it in paid apps as well -- "well, it'd be MORE expensive if I didn't have the ad in there". There is precedent, you know. Several games over the years have put ads into the games (ie "billboards" on car racing games). It's subtle, but there. Then there's cable TV. They used to have fewer commercials then regular TV. Not anymore. Movie theaters now show ads before the movies start, despite the fact tickets continually go up in price. Hell, Dishnetwork started putting up ads at the bottom of my guide screen. I screamed bloody murder, and THEN they told me how to turn them off (you have to go about 3 screens deep in the setup menu). iAd makes ads easy, prettier, "less" intrusive. All justifications for a developer to stick them in, even if it's a paid app.
The problem here is that you are 100% wrong. There is not a single application included in the stock software that serves an ad. Every single ad-laden app on an Apple-produced product got there because the owner/user downloaded it.
AdMob wasn't built by Google, Google -just- purchased AdMob, and beat Apple to it who were also persuing AdMob. When Google bought AdMob, Apple bought the company that has become their iAd's service. Now Apple is directly targeting AdMob by effectively barring them from the AppStore by barring them from collecting analytic information on the Ads they serve.
This is text book anti-competitive behavior. The only question is whether Apple has sufficient marketshare or market impact for it to become illegal behavior. That's what the DOJ and FTC are investigating.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It was on the Red Line, between Farragut North and Metro Center (were going into DC when we saw it)
I don't think that's correct, there's one between Metro Center and Gallery Place, and then between Gallery Place and Judiciary Square. This is only on the Glenmont side of the tracks (you won't see anything heading towards Shady Grove). Between Gallery Place and Judiciary Square has been turned off recently though, not sure why.
Between Gallery Place and Judiciary Square has been turned off recently though, not sure why.
Too many people freaking out that there is a LADY ON THE SIDE OF THE CAR!
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
They aren't blocking ALL analytics; only other companies analyitics.
The problem here is that you are 100% wrong. There is not a single application included in the stock software that serves an ad. Every single ad-laden app on an Apple-produced product got there because the owner/user downloaded it.
Bingo!
This (or something operating on the same principle) has been around for more than 6 years on the Ginza line in Tokyo. The Japanese term for it roughly translates to large tunnel interior advertising. According to this article, the first installation was in Atlanta in 2001. There's also a picture of the advertisement itself.
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
there's one between Metro Center and Gallery Place
you're right, THAT's where it was. Thanks for the clarification!
Living With a Nerd
As soon as I read the part about Apple being restrictive I knew the whole article was BS.
They aren't arguing over that. They are arguing over restraint of trade. It may seem that because ads are front and center, but it is the idea of restraining your competition that has brought the heat.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I really hate my cable company, do you want to try another analogy?
It's part of the 'theatre experience'.
Speaking of theatres, even in just the past 12-18 months, the amount of ads (not previews, but ads) has tripled or more. Five years ago, you'd sit through some (maybe) corny slides if you were early, and then 3-5 movie trailers. A year ago, you'd sit through those corny slides, an ad (maybe two), and then 3-5 movie trailers.
The most recent movie I saw in theatre (with about a 14-month gap between theatre visits) had the corny slideshows, about 7 ads, and around 3 previews. Talk about overkill on the ads.
Then don't download the software. I write apps for a living; either I charge you money up front or I put ads in the application, and I give you the option of which you want.
I'll download the software, then I'll give it a one star rating, then I'll delete it. And I won't be alone.
Enjoy your ad revenue. Maybe you can buy a coffee with it.
And how will iAd stop malware hosting? Will it only be possible to use Apple controlled Ad Servers and load your ads on these machines? If so, how will apple stop their ad servers serving up malware? After all, other sites have failed to do so (including banks et al).
What's happening is that this malware scare is Apple's way of making you want their lock in. It's Bullshit, but you'll chow down because it's *Apple* bullshit.
This really is the only answer. I have a Touch and I wont go near any apps that have advertisements on them. I've pretty much regulated my Touch to being a media player at this point because I find the app store a littered mess of nothing but an ugly ad field. It's not worth it.
Every single ad-laden app on an Apple-produced product got there because the owner/user downloaded it.
And every downloaded app on an Apple-produced product can be given a one star rating.
Eat it. You cooked it.
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck them and their ads. Do not want.
Um no. They are arguing over the rights to let other developers use only their service to serve ads to you and get a fair share of the ad revenue for themselves.
Wow, that confused even me. The point is, Apple doesn't put ads on your device (I think, ... correct me if I'm wrong). They just want to capitalize on what app developers are already doing, which is putting ads (currently most likely Google Ads) in their own applications. Understandable, but still annoying, I agree.
I've seen those in the PATH tunnels in NYC about 7 years ago - they were advertising Shark Week on Discovery Channel. It's been a while since I've taken that line and do not know if they still have these "flipbook" ads.
Fast forward or next chapter works for me.
which is totally what she said
lol.. that's nothing compared to here in the UK. Usually I just turn up a little late, the movies don't start until at least 15 minutes after the claimed time.
which is totally what she said
That's been in use overseas for maybe a decade. Man, in some ways the US is really behind the times.
There is no obligation for any developer to use iAd. There is no obligation for advertisers to use iAd. Moble ads are an emerging market.
There is nothing stopping Advertisers from advertising on the platform. The only condition is that you have to be exclusively an ad company.
This will make the major ad agencies so happy. The only company it makes sad is google.
So how is this anti-trust again?
I don't like ads myself and I use adblock on my browsers. That said, piss and moan all you want, but companies need to pay for the products, services and content they provide. Either you deal with ads or things get more expensive and you'll be looking at more subscriptions. I realize in fantasy land everything is free and people are willing to work for nothing. But that's not how the real world works.
I realize there are situations where companies may be trying to squeeze a few extra bucks out of us and this may or may not be one of those situations. But the fact remains that everything costs money and things aren't getting cheaper.
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck them and their ads. Do not want.
Remember that this is actually about developers being able to embed adverts in applications or websites. This helps the developers of said applications get paid for the hard work they put in without charging the user directly.
These companies do not force their adverts into unsuspecting websites, applications or devices. They are able to do it because it provides another revenue stream for the people producing whatever it is that enables them to keep there costs down. Why the hell should people be forced into developing useful products for free and doing it purely as a hobby or charging the end user to use them. This seems to me to be the only choice until the world stops revolving around money.
I would love to go back to developing free, open source applications but unfortunately I have rent to pay. I could try solely asking for donations and hoping enough people paid me that I could survive, but I got fed up with seeing all my friends earning enough money to buy stuff while I was permanently skint.
Like it or not there are far too many people who will only pay for something they find useful if you force them into it by charging up front. Even then there are plenty of people who will try and bypass the payment and use what you spend your time producing without giving you a thing back.
By moving to an advert supported model you can at least be sure the company that supply the adverts will pay you a nominal fee that increases the more people find your application useful and download it. If you really want to avoid looking at any adverts on your phone, then you can avoid using any advert supported applications or buying a phone where the cost of the handset is subsidised by the money they make back by showing you adverts.
Most newspapers or magazines contain adverts to keep the cost of them down, in future things like the iphone and ipad will be no different.
I dont read
!. The terms of service DO NOT block AdMob. It blocks AdMob from having apps on the client gather analytics for it.
2. The type of AdMob gathers aren't required for advertising. If they were, AdMob's parent google would be out of business, or trying to get us to install spyware all the time.
3. AdMob could even still use a 3rd party analytics form to gather Analytics for it. Apple doesn't want it's phone competitors to be able to use their advertising businesses to harvest information about Apple's devices (especially those under development), without at least Apple having a chance at that same information.
4. AdMob could even change their client/server model so that without having the device send the information, the server could collect all the extra information that it's reasonable for them to get anyway.
5. With out App Eula's that give them permission some of the Analytics gathering that is sacred may even be illegal in jurisdiction that have anti-monitoring laws.
Apple's move was not a move to give iAd an advantage. It was a move to try to keep analytics from being spyware.
Can anyone link a video of this thing? I'm curious to see what we're talking about.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Did it look something like this? Truly pernicious idea.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
As long as developers stick with the "I only put ads in the free version" mentality, that's fine. But, let's be honest, if a developer can get away with it, they'll put it in paid apps as well -- "well, it'd be MORE expensive if I didn't have the ad in there".
Then request that the developer release an ad free version that is priced accordingly. Losing a few "ad customers" will not hurt ad revenue all that much. It takes A LOT to even make a dollar from showing the ads.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
No, they're only blocking the analytics of companies directly affiliated with other mobile device manufacturers or Mobile OS developers. Anyone else is allowed to get all that analytic information, unless they produce Mobile Phones or Tablets, Mobile Operating Systems, or Mobile focused Development Environments. It's targetted at their direct competition, and nothing else. They're leveraging their control of the iOS and the iOS AppStore to expand into Mobile Ads, and to keep competitors out.
The very essence of anti-competitive behavior.
been there done that - dont give starf_cks credit for being that original - it was done ~30 years ago on the NY Q train
see it here: http://www.woostercollective.com/2009/06/update_video_of_bill_brands_subway_anima.html
here is more on that project --
http://www.bboptics.com/masstransiscope.html
iAd makes ads easy, prettier, "less" intrusive. All justifications for a developer to stick them in, even if it's a paid app.
Hmm, I was under the impression that you would "enjoy" full screen adds with this software, and the ability to be taken directly to the product web page inside the application. Definitively not "less intrusive" in my book.
I ran out of mod points yesterday, so I hope someone else mods you up.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
We have a couple in this country, but the train drivers hate them, because it forces them to go at a certain fixed speed (so the ads look 'right'), screwing up the whole accelleration / decceleration process.
There's a problem with that rationale: When I go to the App Store, free apps typically say "Ad Supported" or something like that. At that point I make the decision to download it and use it. Fine, your point is well taken.
However, what the description didn't tell me was, "We'll-scrape-all-the-info-we-can-get-to-off-your-device-while-displaying-Ads Supported".
Why is that? Is it because there is a tacit understanding among developers that the user may decline such wholesale disregard to his privacy? Then they are admitting that their business model is dependent on being sneaky with regards to their customers.
Is this what you are defending?
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
I've only been saying this for years now. Keep buying Apple products and you're freedom will be removed. They won't stop until they can control everything. Keep giving them your money, go ahead....
As I replied above to another comment, I am perfectly fine with downloading and using an Ad-Supported App that announces itself as such, and indeed there are plenty of these in the App Store.
What they don't announce is all the data they are sneakily extracting from the device while displaying the ads. Why wasn't that part announced in the product description?
"Supported by selling your personal and location information to advertisers while displaying Ads!" and "New Feature: We'll let X Analytics company track you while you play so that all major advertisers may target you with even more ads outside this app!" just doesn't have the same innocuous ring as "Ad Supported", right?
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
And analytics gathered from iAd could give advantages to Apple. Google showing links to iPhones could ALSO give advantages to Apple. What would you say if Google unilaterally decided to ban any Apple related link? Would you then be screaming "No company is suppsoed to HELP their competitors!"? Or would you be crying that Google are using their advantages to discommode a competitor unfairly?
No, the iPad is your device. If you really want to make it so, jailbreak it. But then don't get upset when you install an update and your jailbreak goes away or worse bricks your iPad. Apple doesn't have to continue supporting your device if you don't want to use their service as they choose to offer it. As soon as you installed that update that hosed your jailbreak, you were wanting Apple to keep supporting you by taking advantage of the new features, etc. of the update. You can't have it both ways.
You can't seem to come up with the right analogy? This is slashdot, my friend. Let me put this in terms we all understand.
So you're driving in your car (of course). You're noticing all these annoying billboards, the bane of Appland. But these aren't just passive billboards: these ones are modern, intelligent ads that automatically spy on you! They know where you're going, where you've been, what your license plate is, that sort of thing. They can guess based on your ride if they should be offering you insta-loans or grey poupon! These are just some of the neat features of electronic billboards.
Now it just so happens that Apple built your car... yes, you're driving an iCar 4, the kind that Gawker twerps are always trying to jack. Looking good, dog! But Apple has laid down the law: "When it comes to these annoying billboards, only independent advertising companies can spy on you. Oh, and us. But that's a given, I mean, come on." When you do the math, you see that they've excluded the other major car manufacturer from spying on your sovereign self!
Obviously this very annoying, because THAT manufacturer (named Googledroid) is known the world over for the high quality of thier spying techniques. They are so cool, they know how to capture thousands of wireless networks WITHOUT EVEN TRYING! They can create buzz for a product before the participants even know they're participating! And Apple is trying to rain on their parade, trying to evilly block them from doing what they do best.
Not from putting up billboards... anyone can do that. It's a free highway. No, Apple is telling the world's best spysters that they can't spy on your iCar. They can spy on all the other cars... and everyone else can spy on you... but by God, in this particular instance there will be no spying.
And I ask you, in all honesty, is that fair? Can you stand for it? Considering all the issues that the world faces today, can you think of something more vital?
I certainly cannot. And until Apple guarantees the right of every billboard to spy on me 100%, I don't know how I can ever sit behind the wheel of an iCar again.
They why does Apple claim that jailbreaking is illegal?
I don't like adds, but if it means I can download a few neat puzzle games for free, then that's fine by me. And if I know the add isn't going to take me out of the application or do anything weird, then I might even click on one occasionally.
They're only full-screen if you click on them. You can close them at any time and be right back where you were. Sounds less intrusive than any of the adds I've encountered in apps before.
But, let's be honest, if a developer can get away with it, they'll put it in paid apps as well -- "well, it'd be MORE expensive if I didn't have the ad in there".
Utter BS. I'm sure some will, but what makes you think most will?
Then don't buy(*) the apps that have ads in them. Problem solved.
(*) I'm calling it 'buying' even if it's a free app.
The red line is for the immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There's no stops on the white line.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Oh really, StikyPad? Why pretend? We both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.
Then don't download the software. I write apps for a living; either I charge you money up front or I put ads in the application, and I give you the option of which you want. If you find having both of those options unfair, then just pretend I don't offer a free version.
Actually that's only the case for the general audience. For you, I'd prefer it if you didn't use my apps at all -- you're probably a customer service nightmare, too, and not worth the bother. Of course, you also probably don't actually own an iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch, and are just being a righteously indignant douche; in which case, this is all academic.
Yes, an ad hominem retort is always the most effective reply.
Then don't download the software. I write apps for a living; either I charge you money up front or I put ads in the application, and I give you the option of which you want. If you find having both of those options unfair, then just pretend I don't offer a free version.
Actually that's only the case for the general audience. For you, I'd prefer it if you didn't use my apps at all -- you're probably a customer service nightmare, too, and not worth the bother. Of course, you also probably don't actually own an iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch, and are just being a righteously indignant douche; in which case, this is all academic.
then don't bitch when I pirate your app because i don't want the adds, nor do I want to pay you for your app.
Be seeing you...
You know, I have a G1, and there isn't enough screen space for apps, & ads.
I don't mind them on my computer, since they don't usually take up too much space.
but on my phone? fuck that.
If your a developer, screw the ads, make a free version thats missing somethings from the paid version, but don't go putting ads into it. Ask for donations.
I will not pay for something to get rid of ads, ever. I will hack my way around the ads, or pirate the paid version.
I see ads like a homeless person panhandling. Really fucking annoying, and usually smell bad. And they want my attention.
Guess what? I don't give those homeless people any money, nor am I going to give you money.
Be seeing you...
Your reply makes no logical sense to anyone but yourself. If you don't want to pay for an app and you don't want to see ads, then you don't use the app -- simple as that. If you pirate it, you're infringing my copyright; I can not only complain, but bring suit against you and own your cheap ass.
Where are my mod points when i need them.. i agree 100%
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Because they're not targeting a device, they're targeting users who own the device. And those users are stuck in 2 year contracts that make it hard to switch platforms.
Hint: he never said 'most' would.
It tells you something about the advertisers when people actually seek out their advertisements.
I don't think the Great Grandparent meant us to be amused and desirous of seeing the ad when he mentioned it.
100,000,000 iOS devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad) with easy to market strategy (App Store)
Which version? 1964, or 1985?
I really wanna pass the human test.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
As long as developers stick with the "I only put ads in the free version" mentality, that's fine. But, let's be honest, if a developer can get away with it, they'll put it in paid apps as well
I can't say how things are in iPhone App Store as I don't have iPhone. But when it comes to Android, they cannot get away with it. Here's why.
If the developer offers a paid app, and it serves ads, he will get a lot of angry 1-star reviews. So his overall app score goes way down, and he'll likely get a bunch of rants on the store page of his app (it shows 3 comments, not sure if they're random or most recent). This is a consistent pattern that I've seen a few times. Furthermore, ratings change very quickly, and even an extremely popular app, if it starts going downhill, starts to lose rating pretty fast.
Now, because there are just so many apps in the store, ratings are important. Even half a star above another app can mean a lot more downloads, and being the leader of the pack is simply indispensable.
Consequently, the "free with ads or paid with no ads" model has become normal for a significant part of apps. What's interesting is that the paid version is often rated higher than ad-supported one (by half a star or so), and if developer only offers the "free with ads" version, there are quite a few user comments requesting paid no-ads version on the app page.
So, Apple invents in-app-based mobile platform advertising to go along with an entire ecosystem enabling them to share the profits with their developers as traditional media dinosaurs are dying a slow technical death, but the FTC is going to try to restrain Apple in the beloved "free market"?
When is the FTC going to investigate Google for having a near monopoly on internet search advertising?
I bet Apple wins this case - they will only have a monopoly on app-based advertising within their own product platform.
You will still see Google's and others' ads when you are browsing the web on your iThing, unless you turn it off in Safari 5 - and what user is going to complain about that? Bully for Apple for sticking their finger in Google's eye.
Combined RIM + Android smartphone sales exceed Apple's market share, so sorry, no monopoly. iThing is available for one carrier in the US, RIM + Android are available on all carriers.
I will admit that Apple has a monopoly on innovative smartphone ecosystems, because none of the others have successfully emulated Apple's low cost hardware, high manufacturing quality, imaginative OS and proprietary lock-in. The App Store is just the icing on the cake, or rather, the sizzle on the steak.
Apple's relentless cost reduction keeps their competitors off balance. The first $199 smartphone was the iPhone 3G, after the iPhone 3GS was released. The latest $99 smartphone is the iPhone 3GS, repriced as the iPhone 4 was released.
Personally, I am not paying $120 a month to use an iThing, even if it walks on water. Obviously, a lot of other people will, even if call quality is inconsistent at best. The allure of the shiny.
HP is moving to duplicate this success with the purchase of Palm's WebOS, so there is hope for more competition. I suspect that HP will eventually give Apple a run for their money if their WebOS devices aren't just crappy mobile versions of their flimsy consumer gimcracks. (Thanks, Carly Fiorina, for ruining a once-great American engineering powerhouse! Hope you do better for the state of California...)
If IOS were available as a product for other manufacturers' hardware and began significantly encroaching on RIM or Android's OS turf, the FTC might have an anti-trust case à la Microsoft 1998. Otherwise, any impartial observer can see that this case is completely without merit.
Does Google let other advertisers inject ads into their search results? No.
Does NBC let CBS run CBS-placed ads during NBC's TV or radio programming? No.
This is what the FTC (and the Adobe / Google whiners) are saying to Apple: you have to let anyone's cat shit in your sandbox. Well, guess what? That's just not going to fly in court.
The real loser in all this is Microsoft - a tragic waste of a formerly omnipotent money machine, now reduced to chasing a mobile marketplace which is leaving behind the desktop (truck?) paradigm at the speed of light, sucking Dell along in its wake.
Ask Me About... The 80's!
No, they're arguing over the right to make it possible for app developers to offer you the choice of paying cash up front for the app, or to pay by living with ads in the app.
I usually opt for the ad supported app. In cases where the ads are done in an intrusive and annoying fashion, I usually drop the app because its garbage. In the majority of cases I don't consciously see the ads after a day or so, but in the few apps I use regularly I opt to go for the pay option so that I won't be influenced subconsciously.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Sorry, miss-read that. In that case, does it really matter if some developers do?
If you're so opposed to ads, why don't you pay for the software? If you won't pay for the software and won't put up with ads, then why should I care about you at all? You're completely useless, and may as well not exist.
For fuck sake, they're ARGUING OVER THE RIGHTS TO PUT FUCKING ADS ON OUR PERSONAL DEVICES.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck them and their ads. Do not want.
You want free apps? Deal with it. Not all devs put out good shit for free. Support the devs that make that choice because it's a legitimate one.
Point 2 is that it's not about feeling sorry. It's about antitrust actions. Apple is so scared of a little competition they throw themselves in the middle of the guilty ring when it comes to this.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
When is the FTC going to investigate Google for having a near monopoly on internet search advertising?
Why? What has Google done to deserve an investigation?
Are they abusing their position? If so in what way.
I bet Apple wins this case - they will only have a monopoly on app-based advertising within their own product platform.
I don't mind really, but the iphone is reaching Windows level in ubiquity, and guess what, that spell "monopoly abuse".
This news is nothing more then a warning shot to Apple.
These have been around for at least four years. Though I'd only noticed them while riding the red line - the "richy rich" line.
To be honest, I was being sarcastic. The point I was making in a roundabout way was that a suit against Google has as much merit as a suit against Apple.
Apple does not have anywhere near a market monopoly in smartphones. iThing is available on exactly ONE carrier in the US, and Apple's total deployed smartphone marketshare is still dwarfed by RIM.
I am unclear as to what position Apple is abusing? Access to an innovative form of advertising within their iThing ecosystem - using mobile apps instead of annoying links or pop-ups?
There is nothing stopping RIM, Google, Nokia, et al, from doing in-app-based mobile platform advertising - on their respective platforms.
RIM has an app store, Nokia does, Android does too. There's nothing stopping any of them, or HP with their upcoming WebOS, from trying to emulate Apple's approach.
I seriously doubt that any of these mobile space players would let Apple's cat shit in their sandbox, and the opposite is also true. Litigation will only make Apple's lawyers richer.
Personally, I HATE advertising and what it has done to human culture. It's every-freaking-where. Before 1890 advertising was informational. Now it's confrontational, in-your-face-tional. "Rolling Stones Live - brought to you by Depends and Viagra!"
That being said, in the current legal and cultural environment, Apple has every right to control advertising within their iThing ecosystem. If this is a bad idea, it will fail, Apple will lose money, and they will move on to something else.
The FTC is out of line here...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
It's really the only sensible thing to do, if it's done safely. Therapeutically, there is no danger involved.
I think I don't care what the advertiser, the great grandparent, or you meant for me to do. :-> I want to see the ad.
There is something very wrong with a mindset that against advertising to the extent that you would prohibit people that want to view an ad from viewing it. The advertiser wants me to see it. I want to see it. What does your opinion have to do with the proceedings?
I'm all for making ads readily available. I wish I could set my TiVo to record ads for things I'm interested in...like when I'm buying a car, could I have my TiVo tape all the car advertisements please? That would be most excellent, particularly if it means I am not compelled to fast forward through them when I have no interest in buying a car.
I do not have a problem with ads in general. I only have a problem with being forced to watch ads for products I do not want. More to the point, why would a company want to pay even one penny for me to see a tampon ad when I do not have a vagina? Surely, we can use technology to figure out a better solution to this than the firehose method of distributing ads.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.