Apple targets AdWord use in Europe

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Oct 6, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #2
    So you can't tell anyone that your product works with Mac OS X? That's pathetic.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    mainstreetmark

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Saint Augustine, FL
    #3
    well, it's beginning.

    Apple legal is starting to protect their name, and thereby preventing the independents from even attempting to support them. What's next? Apple Certified Systems Engineer before they can say they can work on Apples or Macs?

    Power corrupts, folks. Remember all you guys who want mac to have more than 10% of the marketshare.

    (Seriously, Macs and iPods are products by Apple, and everyone knows that. Why is this even a problem? )
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    #4
    I have a few Google Adwords ads, and the only ones that were disapproved were ads with Mac or Macintosh in the title. Those same words are allowed in the main ad text without any trouble. Also, other phrases such as "OS X" are allowed in the title and body, so I haven't found it to be too much of a hassle.
     
  5. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #5
    This is specific to Google Ads, only in the EU, and as the article states, there is no apparent benefit to Apple from doing this.

    What's the motivation? What makes the EU different? Is Apple doing anything similar to advertising other than Google Ads?

    A mystery--but one (as the article also states) that Apple could have explained and saved people aggravation. But they haven't. Hopefully they will soon, if enough people are affected by it.
     
  6. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #6
    If you remember, not long after the Macintosh was being sold, Apple's legal department was busy suing Digital Research and Atari over GEM. Apple was also attacked by 3rd party developers and ended up creating Claris to calm fears that it had/was abusing a monopoly.
     
  7. 24C
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    #7
    This all seems a little petty and IMO only paints Apple in a bad light. I, like the writer of the article, think that somebody from up high is trying to knock a specific issue on the head, after possibly get a slap? , and this catch all is the result. Hopefully with time sense will be made of this, but it's becoming rather typical of Apple to seemingly not pass comment and clarify issues...Nano cracking screens excepted.

    Obviously the EU is home to dubious Apple sellers? :rolleyes:
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Purcellville, VA
    #8
    The problem is that you want these to be the ad-words.

    Suppose you're selling a Mac backup program. You don't want your ad to pop up if someone searches for "Linux backup".
     
  9. macrumors 603

    whooleytoo

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland.
    #9
    Bizarre. You'd be forgiven for thinking Apple doesn't want independent Mac hardware/software vendors, and wants to corner every sector of the Mac market. Surely news of moves like this just makes the Mac market seem even less attractive.
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Purcellville, VA
    #10
    Here's my guess over what's happening.

    Apple has been suing over people that use Apple trademarks in domain names. Which is sort of understandable - a domain name is conceptually similar to a corporation name, and they want to make certain nobody is misled into believing that sites like iPodGarage are actually Apple sites.

    But someone in the legal department, being clueless about the internet, decides that "domain name" really means "any keyword you type into a browser". So he typed "Mac" into the Search box on Safari, and got a bunch of ads, and immediately fired off a bunch of threatening letters.

    Unfortunately, this is clearly a case that nobody is going to fight (it's not worth Google's time to fight this, and I doubt any advertisers will find it worthwhile either.). It exposes an interesting gray area in the trademark laws. If you have permission to use a trademark in an ad (e.g. to advertise a Mac-compatible program), does that imply permission to use the trademark as a search key for directing customers to your product?

    I would say yes, since the two serve the same purpose, but I'm sure that there are plenty of lawyers that would disagree.
     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    #11
    Platform targeting

    I'm using the words Mac, Macintosh, iTunes, etc as my Google ad keywords without any trouble, and that's what controls when the ads are displayed. I just re-skimmed the article quickly, so I might have read it wrong, but the author also says "there was no complaint about the fact that I was using 'Mac' as one of the keywords that triggered my ads". Has Google prevented you from using "Mac" as your keyword? Additionally, Google allows you to enter "Linux" or any other word as a "negative keyword", which would prevent your ad from being shown to users that search for "Linux backup".

    Why can't Google give us the option of targeting ads according to the user's platform as indicated by their user agent? It seems like it would be an easy option for them to implement. That way I wouldn't have to worry about Windows users clicking through and costing me money for a product that they can't use, regardless of what keywords I use for my ad. I suggested this to Google in an AdWords focus group, it would be great if they could add this option.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Purcellville, VA
    #12
    My mistake. When I read the article, I got the impression that it was the keywords that were being blocked, not the ad text.

    Which makes even less sense, since Apple explicitly permits the trademarks to be used in ads for products compatible with the trademarked products.

    Sounds like some over-zealous lawyer forgot his own company's contracts.
     

Share This Page