AdMob Chief Responds to Apple's New Developer Terms for Analytics Data Collection

[madmaxmedia]

They are not 'my' do no evil company. I was explicitly trying to keep my post related to specifics, and not pass any judgements on the over-arching goals of either company. I'm not saying its better or worse that Android has far less software development restrictions- actually I prefer iPhone over Android myself.

Each company has chosen its approach for its mobile platform, as consumers we should simply stay educated about the implications of each. At the end of the day, the overall quality of the platform will hopefully determine where customers go, not religious arguments about whether Google really 'does not evil' or whether Apple really 'thinks different'. The proof will be in the pudding for both companies (as well as others.)

Currently there probably are minimal restrictions on software development and advertising on Android. Its not because they love you its because it that is the whole PR angle/strategy so they can do their covert user data collection and advertising scheme. That is why Adsob is whining like it is - this is calculated PR folks.

Now if the shoe were on the other foot and Apple was in a position to seriously compete with or erode Googles turf. I'd bet you a million dollars that your do no evil "open" Google would take a similar action and limit Apple. It's not in Googles current strategy because their the upstarts and they cleverly have adopted the open/not evil strategy.

 

[mcmlxix]

Question: Does anyone else think that watching Apple and Google fight over who can show you adverts and how much info they can get from your device, is a bit like watching two guys fighting over who gets to kick you in the nuts?

I'll roshombo you for it.

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Currently there probably are minimal restrictions on software development and advertising on Android. Its not because they love you its because it that is the whole PR angle/strategy so they can do their covert user data collection and advertising scheme. That is why Adsob is whining like it is - this is calculated PR folks.

Google said at IO this year that ANY company can advertise on Android apps

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Bingo. Can you imagine what would have happened to apple if microsoft prevent ipods from being compatible with windows? Apple as we know it today wouldn't exist. The ipod got apple a new name for itself and brought in tons of money. If ipods couldn't be used on windows, nobody would have bought them since nobody is going to buy a whole new computer just so they can use an mp3 player. But now that apple's got the other end of the stick they don't wanna play nice.

+100

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

I think it does have something to do with enhancing customer experience. Apple doesn't want Google collecting all kinds of information on its customers and then doing ??? with it.

Oh let's not fool ourselves. This isnt some policy by Apple to protect its users from Google being evil with all their data. It's 100% about Apple NOT wanting a major/larger competitor to advertise on their platform and take money way from their precious iAds.

 

[notabadname]

Another person trying to compare two totally different industries.

It's called an analogy (drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect)

To make it clearer for you; I was showing an example of two commonly known and fierce business competitors. Anymore than we would expect either of those two to be required to give access to one another in the sprit of "openness and fair competitive practices", I don't think it is fair to expect that Apple (like McDonalds - stick with it here) be expected to provide access to the metrics that are generated by their users to the competition, Google (like Burger King). Obviously they are very different businesses, yet they serve as examples of what society considers to be reasonable or unreasonable anti-competitive practices. To be an analogy they need only be similar in some respect, my apologies to you if you have trouble seeing any similarities.

 

[iBug2]

Bingo. Can you imagine what would have happened to apple if microsoft prevent ipods from being compatible with windows? Apple as we know it today wouldn't exist. The ipod got apple a new name for itself and brought in tons of money. If ipods couldn't be used on windows, nobody would have bought them since nobody is going to buy a whole new computer just so they can use an mp3 player. But now that apple's got the other end of the stick they don't wanna play nice.

I can imagine something simpler, like Microsoft not licensing DirectX to other platforms, including OS X, hence all the games run worse on macs, hence nobody buys macs for games and no developer wants to develop games for macs either since it's extra effort for less of a revenue. So Microsoft does exactly what you wrote, in another area. Companies do anticompetitive moves all over the place. It's not just Apple. Get it over with.

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

It's called an analogy (drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect)

To make it clearer for you; I was showing an example of two commonly known and fierce business competitors. Anymore than we would expect either of those two to be required to give access to one another in the sprit of "openness and fair competitive practices", I don't think it is fair to expect that Apple (like McDonalds - stick with it here) be expected to provide access to the metrics that are generated by their users to the competition, Google (like Burger King). Obviously they are very different businesses, yet they serve as examples of what society considers to be reasonable or unreasonable anti-competitive practices. To be an analogy they need only be similar in some respect, my apologies to you if you have trouble seeing any similarities.

here is where the analogy breaks down: McDonals wont provide metrics to Burger King, but they are more than happy to share with a mom and pop burger joint down the street?

 

[voidptr]

Oh let's not fool ourselves. This isnt some policy by Apple to protect its users from Google being evil with all their data. It's 100% about Apple NOT wanting a major/larger competitor to advertise on their platform and take money way from their precious iAds.

No, it's 100% about Apple not wanting a major/larger competitor to have a backdoor to get trade secrets out of Apple's R&D lab before stuff gets generally released.

 

[AlmostThere]

I can imagine something simpler, like Microsoft not licensing DirectX to other platforms, including OS X, hence all the games run worse on macs, hence nobody buys macs for games and no developer wants to develop games for macs either since it's extra effort for less of a revenue. So Microsoft does exactly what you wrote, in another area. Companies do anticompetitive moves all over the place. It's not just Apple. Get it over with.

Microsoft did not hinder competing technologies, for example, they could have *prevented* OpenGL APIs being installed by 3rd parties. Developers chose to use DirectX because it was a more complete API and OpenGL lagged for many years and did not offer other features, such as sound or controller inputs and was, by design, harder for graphics card developers to implement.

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

No, it's 100% about Apple not wanting a major/larger competitor to have a backdoor to get trade secrets out of Apple's R&D lab before stuff gets generally released.

huh? How is advertising in an ad linked to R&D?

 

[iBug2]

Microsoft did not hinder competing technologies, for example, they could have *prevented* OpenGL APIs being installed by 3rd parties. Developers chose to use DirectX because it was a more complete API and OpenGL lagged for many years and did not offer other features, such as sound or controller inputs and was, by design, harder for graphics card developers to implement.

That has nothing to do with what I said. DirectX is Windows only. You can't license the API outside of Windows.

 

[jb1280]

You think Apple aren't going to also try and rape their users with iAds and whatever else they can get their hands on? At least with Google it's fairly transparent, and they do provide tools to disable tracking of web activity. Android is also nice and open and benefits from this enormously. iOS is big brother incarnate compared to Google.

Better a Bolshevik than a Stalinist.

You may have the personal opinion that Android's openness is a benefit and that iOS is truly the big brother incarnate, but I think it is fundamentally important to consider where both companies obtain the bulk of their earnings.

Google is fundamentally in the business of leveraging information. Apple is fundamentally in the business of selling devices. Google getting into the mobile OS world does not change their fundamental raison d'etre and Apple entering into mobile advertising does not change their fundamentals either. In fact, they are attempting to double down and consolidate what they each do well.

Given this demonstrable truth about the two companies and given that the notion that "Big Brother" referring to an entity watching everyone and being everywhere, which company would most benefit? The company that lives and dies by leveraging information or the company that lives or dies by selling consumer-grade devices?

I personally think that this big brother accusation is overblown concerning both companies. I don't see Google completely turning into Facebook and I just don't see Apple being particularly interested exploiting the trust of their customers.

That said, we can't just say like cavemen: "Android Open - Google Cares; iOS Closed - Apple Big Brother." We must objectively look at the companies' core businesses and determine which one has more to gain by acting in a "Big Brother" manner.

 

[AlmostThere]

That has nothing to do with what I said. DirectX is Windows only. You can't license the API outside of Windows.

You said it was anti-competitive, which it isn't. MS refusal to licence Direct X is not comparable to what BigJimmy is complaining about

Sorry, I have mis-interpreted based on this statement - but just to be clear Microsoft were not anti-competitive with DirectX, nor did they do what BigJimmy was complaining about.

 

[skyehill]

Ohhhh I get it, this shady behavior is cool when Apple does it, but not anyone else. I see. I see.

 

[donny77]

huh? How is advertising in an ad linked to R&D?

http://video.allthingsd.com/video/d...rictions/C8B21003-0B0E-4809-8D6A-DAE9EEC50A41

 

[voidptr]

huh? How is advertising in an ad linked to R&D?

The restriction is on third-party ad networks gathering various bits of hardware, OS information and location data from the device the ad is running on and returning that data to the ad network in the name of "analytics".

Apple got burned when they installed released apps on pre-release hardware to test. Flurry ended up with information that revealed the existence of never-released OS versions and hardware identifiers (iPad prototypes) running around on Apple's campus; then they ran and told the internet about it.

Apple doesn't want Google to use AdMob as a vector to gather similar data on new products inside their lab that would give them a heads-up on coming revisions.

 

[notabadname]

here is where the analogy breaks down: McDonals wont provide metrics to Burger King, but they are more than happy to share with a mom and pop burger joint down the street?

Apple doesn't consider that mom and pop burger joint down the street a competitor. Mom and pop are selling sushi as far as Apple is concerned.

Google is the company that would like to see Apple quietly disappear. Or perhaps not quietly, but disappear all the same. It's Apple's nearly 100 million devices that frequently bypass Google's add revenue that made Google get into the phone game in the first place (at least many analysts believe it to be the push). So back to the analogy, why would anyone think that it is justifiable that Apple should provide any avenue of competitive edge to their new "archenemy".

 

[Unspeaked]

I don't see how anyone can defend this move by Apple. It reeks of playground politics.

Google should just spin-off AdMob, keeping a 49% stake in the company and raking in untold millions from the IPO, and then let it run wild as an "independent" company...

 

[iBug2]

You said it was anti-competitive, which it isn't. MS refusal to licence Direct X is not comparable to what BigJimmy is complaining about

Sorry, I have mis-interpreted based on this statement - but just to be clear Microsoft were not anti-competitive with DirectX, nor did they do what BigJimmy was complaining about.

It is kind of anticompetitive because XBox uses DirectX, so to be able to develop for XBox one needs a Windows license, which is basically Microsoft using a gaming console, to sell OS licenses. It's the same move as Apple not allowing iPhone development outside of Mac OS X for example. They are the same anti competitiveness.

 

[LagunaSol]

Better a Bolshevik than a Stalinist.

Newsflash: Stalinism was the product of Bolshevism.

Here's the thing about Apple products: you can always walk away. Don't like the iPod? Buy a Zune. Find the iPhone oppressive? Buy an Android. You could do this in a day with very little pain.

How does one walk away from a Google-controlled world, however? They are getting a pretty good stranglehold on the way people find information. This is far more pervasive than selling iDevices through iStores, and has far more potential for calamity.

But keep believing Google is the good guy here if it helps you sleep at night. Android is the ultimate trojan horse. Wow, free gift! Yes please, roll it right in!

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

The restriction is on third-party ad networks gathering various bits of hardware, OS information and location data from the device the ad is running on and returning that data to the ad network in the name of "analytics".

Apple got burned when they installed released apps on pre-release hardware to test. Flurry ended up with information that revealed the existence of never-released OS versions and hardware identifiers (iPad prototypes) running around on Apple's campus; then they ran and told the internet about it.

Apple doesn't want Google to use AdMob as a vector to gather similar data on new products inside their lab that would give them a heads-up on coming revisions.

Ok, so if Apple doesnt want a competitor like Google to get information on potential prototypes, then limit the TYPE of data sent out.

 

[muskratboy]

You think Apple aren't going to also try and rape their users with iAds and whatever else they can get their hands on?

APPLE isn't going to do ANYTHING to you with iAds. That's up to the individual developers.

Apple now has a mobile ad business.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL BE MAKING YOU LOOK AT ADS.

iAd is for DEVELOPERS to easily put ads into their apps.

so calm down already.

 

[voidptr]

I don't see how anyone can defend this move by Apple. It reeks of playground politics.

Google should just spin-off AdMob, keeping a 49% stake in the company and raking in untold millions from the IPO, and then let it run wild as an "independent" company...

Why the hell should Google get to run code on a competitor's platform, that has the potential to reveal unpublished trade secrets in a highly competitive environment.

What Apple's blocking is essentially the equivalent of letting Google and any other competitor that has an ad network as a side business park an employee inside Apple's R&D lab every day and report back to their engineers what Apple is working on before they make it public. It's barely disguised industrial espionage.

If Google actually did spin off AdMob back into an independent concern and could put sufficient guarantees in place to protect the confidentiality of Apple's trade secrets inadvertently collected, I think they'd probably be ok under the exceptions in the new terms and conditions. But so long as they're a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, they're not going to be given the ability to figure out what's going on inside Apple's R&D lab and give the Android team a competitive edge.

 

[LagunaSol]

Given this demonstrable truth about the two companies and given that the notion that "Big Brother" referring to an entity watching everyone and being everywhere, which company would most benefit? The company that lives and dies by leveraging information or the company that lives or dies by selling consumer-grade devices?

Amen. Not that any of the posters here drunk on the Google-aid are going to understand what you're saying or believe it...