You're confusing the advertisers (who want to sell their products) with the developers (who wants to stick ads in their apps to gain revenue.)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AdMob Chief Responds to Apple's New Developer Terms for Analytics Data Collection
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh that's alright then. I like your logic. We can blame those pesky developers for ad diarrhoea, and not Apple for providing the conduit.
A bit like the gun nuts who say "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
And then there are the deniers who think taking away all the guns will stop people from killing each other
Following your analogy of advertising being akin to murder, Apple is like the high street shop that sells ropes, knives, rat poison, fertilizer and shotgun ammunition. They don't actually kill anyone, but they provide all the tools to do so.
Google said at I/O that anyone can advertise on android actually.
Charade ehh ... idk ... multiplatform development code. Google actually working with everyone who wants to put something like flash in the android browser. Google is an advertising company. Google dominates advertising mostly because of the high marketing share Google search has ... plan and simple.
Android is about freedom. You can install whatever you want on it. A developer can make (short wifi tether programs) whatever they wish.
Steve makes these constant changes to both protect and benefit the consumer. I have no problem with this and I'm glad he's doing it.
Not necessarily. Microsoft has far less control over what hardware can be coupled to Windows, but even then, they could work around it, but attempting to enforce only a select range of compatible hardware. It wouldn't be in their best interest to do so, however.
They could also have control via implementing software-based restrictions, but once again, it's not in their best interest.
If you're going to use Microsoft as an example, at least be knowledgeable about the history behind their anti-competitive behavior.
The primary issues (in the US, at least) was that a) Microsoft had not only bundled IE with Windows, but had also altered the APIs to perform better with IE than they would with other browsers (the issue of bundling, while present, was mostly just an issue give the time and era - downloading another browser, while realistically not that much of a hassle, was viewed as unlikely given that IE was already installed and present), and b) the licensing agreements MS forced upon OEMs, whereby it was pretty much "don't install other browsers" if I recall right.
In the EU, the issues were more along the lines of MS charging OEMs for Windows licenses on every system sold, even those that didn't ship with Windows, thus essentially resulting in the OEMs predominantly shipping Windows-based systems (if you're going to be charged anyway, might as well just use the license you're being charged for).
The EU has also saber-rattled at times over Windows Media Player and IE's inclusion (which resulted in the browser selection screen that Windows now ships with in Europe, although at this point in time, with high-speed internet connections so prevalent and so much IE dislike, it's kinda ridiculous to be introducing it now).
While some have made comments about Office, the fact that it's a stand-alone application that customers have to pay for, has generally kept it out of the crosshairs for anti-competitive practices.
The irony is that, for the most part, the average consumer didn't care at all about Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, as prices on systems had continued to fall for years, and thus it wasn't like what usually occurred for past, true monopolies (Standard Oil anyone?).
The whole "monopoly" concept seems to be somewhat of a grey area (to me at least).
That depends. Also, Apple hasn't designed and built everything - a lot of the software most people view as "Apple" in origin, actually began as applications created by smaller companies, that Apple then purchased and re-branded/made some changes to, and re-released (iTunes, Final Cut Pro, OS X, etc.).
Ultimately, it comes down to if Apple ever dominates a market and can fully control every aspect of it, while also squeezing out competition. That's the outcry over issues such as their developer licensing agreement changes and now this change with mobile analytics. Remember, the government is already beginning to take an anti-competitive interest in Apple, so they really need to walk a tight line.
Apple will probably never be a monopoly in the personal computing market (thank god), but in the mobile market or MP3 markets? You never know.
Google (AdMob), Adobe (Flash), and others would say otherwise...
Microsoft and others made that very same argument in the 90s. People were free to buy Macs. People were free to buy a system and install Linux, Unix or any other freely-available or low-cost OS.
Noone *made* users use IE. Even on a 28.8, 33.6 or 56k connection, downloading another browser and installing it was a fairly trivial endeavor. The licensing practices regarding Windows licenses in the EU, and the "don't include another browser or else" practices MS imposed where fairly anti-competitive practices, but bundling IE? Windows Media Player? I remember sitting through quite a few colloquiums when these issues were prevalent, and for the most part, most of the guest speakers and lecturers didn't view it as anti-competitive, given that consumers still had considerable choice available to them.
Hmm, this argument sounds familiar as well...
Uh, profit, more than anything, drives Apple. Their first loyalty is to their shareholders, plain and simple. Don't fool yourself into believing that Apple gives one **** about you (just as basically no other company does as well).
And he only takes 30 to 40%
Given that's what middlemen usually take, I'm not sure what's the point. It's not an extraordinary figure.
I don't think the "constant changes" are carried out for the consumer. On the surface it may appear that way, but come on - the company is trying just like any other business to extract as much cash from the consumer as they can. Nothing wrong with that in a capitalist world, but seriously - protect the consumer? Looks like there is one less person to assimilate if that's your view of Apple's business practices. No wonder some critics associate Apple with "cults"
.
Advertising is not the same thing as analytics data collection. How many companies are using Android to do analytics data collection for advertising in a way that competes with Google/AdMob?
Wow, sounds like you've bought what Google is sellin'.
There's got to be an antitrust issue here...
This seems a bit ridiculous to me...
Google has its advertising on just about every platform, so yes they have a monopoly and people can say "boo-hoo one less platform", but that's not the real issue here in my opinion.
The issue is that Apple is being unfair, which I think may spur an antitrust investigation. I'm not 100% sure about the antitrust thing, it just seems like whenever a company unfairly throws its weight around in a move like this, it usually incites investigation. And whereas Google is the biggest in online advertising and the biggest potential contender, it seems to me that this may be a problem.
I'm sure if Apple ever decided to expand, Google would allow its advertising platform and analytics collection onto android. Though, unless the iAd thing becomes huge, it won't. And even if it does become huge, I'm not sure Apple would care to leave their own devices.
Anyways its just disappointing that Apple has been... well... Kind of evil lately.
This seems a bit ridiculous to me...
Google has its advertising on just about every platform, so yes they have a monopoly and people can say "boo-hoo one less platform", but that's not the real issue here in my opinion.
The issue is that Apple is being unfair, which I think may spur an antitrust investigation. I'm not 100% sure about the antitrust thing, it just seems like whenever a company unfairly throws its weight around in a move like this, it usually incites investigation. And whereas Google is the biggest in online advertising and the biggest potential contender, it seems to me that this may be a problem.
I'm sure if Apple ever decided to expand, Google would allow its advertising platform and analytics collection onto android. Though, unless the iAd thing becomes huge, it won't. And even if it does become huge, I'm not sure Apple would care to leave their own devices.
Anyways its just disappointing that Apple has been... well... Kind of evil lately.
There are a lot of posters who really do not seem to understand what this rule is and the effects it has.
This does NOT prevent AdMob or Google from selling apps or ads on Apple devices.
Ill repeat that, just in case you missed it: It does NOT prevent AdMob or Google from selling apps or ads on Apple devices.
.But that Google dude said it does
MmmmHmmmm. Hes being very disingenuous in making that claim. It only prevents Google or AdMob from putting ads or apps on the iDevices insofar as Google and AdMob may be unwilling to put any apps or ads out that dont data-mine via analytics.
As long as any ads or apps from Google/AdMob dont collect information about the user/device, then they are free to put them out there. And if Google hadnt acquired AdMob, then this would have no effect on AdMob.
Just so were clear now: This rule change does not prevent AdMob or Google from selling apps and ads on the iDevices. Google can create iPhone apps that dont data mine, and AdMob can sell ads that dont data mine.
I hope we all can understand at least that much.
Now, other developers are free to sell ads that do data-mine as long as they arent affiliated with or owned by entities who are in direct competition in the mobile hardware/OS platforms. The same goes for Ad agencies. They can sell ads that collect analytical data as long as they are not affiliated with or owned by an entity who sells mobile devices or mobile operating systems.
But thats not fair
Boo Hoo. Its called business.
So why is Apple doing this?
Simple: To protect their products and development.
These other developers and other ad agencies are not in direct competition with Apples core business: which is selling devices with a proprietary OS. If youre not competing with Apple in either the mobile device, or mobile OS arena, then Apple is assuming that any analytical data that you are collecting is not going to be used to gain advantage in those areas. Therefore, such data isnt a threat to their business.
So, here are some examples of the effects that this rule change will have:
Under the new rule, Google cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to Google : Information that Google would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop Android.
Under the new rule, AdMob cant sell Ads on the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to AdMob/Google : Information that Google would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop Android.
Under the new rule, HTC cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to HTC : Information that HTC would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop mobile phones/devices.
Under the new rule, Microsoft cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to Microsoft : Information that Microsoft would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop Windows Phone 7. (or whatever they are calling it these days)
Under the new rule, Nokia cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to Nokia: Information that Nokia would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop mobile phones.
Under the new rule, HP cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to HP: Information that HP would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop WebOS and WebOS devices.
Do you see the pattern here?
..."But can any of the above entities write other apps for iDevices?"... Absolutely. Microsoft could write an Office Suite, for instance. And Google can write a Map app, as another example. I don't see any reason for the other's to create apps for iDevices, but who knows.
This does NOT prevent AdMob or Google from selling apps or ads on Apple devices.
Ill repeat that, just in case you missed it: It does NOT prevent AdMob or Google from selling apps or ads on Apple devices.
.But that Google dude said it does
MmmmHmmmm. Hes being very disingenuous in making that claim. It only prevents Google or AdMob from putting ads or apps on the iDevices insofar as Google and AdMob may be unwilling to put any apps or ads out that dont data-mine via analytics.
As long as any ads or apps from Google/AdMob dont collect information about the user/device, then they are free to put them out there. And if Google hadnt acquired AdMob, then this would have no effect on AdMob.
Just so were clear now: This rule change does not prevent AdMob or Google from selling apps and ads on the iDevices. Google can create iPhone apps that dont data mine, and AdMob can sell ads that dont data mine.
I hope we all can understand at least that much.
Now, other developers are free to sell ads that do data-mine as long as they arent affiliated with or owned by entities who are in direct competition in the mobile hardware/OS platforms. The same goes for Ad agencies. They can sell ads that collect analytical data as long as they are not affiliated with or owned by an entity who sells mobile devices or mobile operating systems.
But thats not fair
Boo Hoo. Its called business.
So why is Apple doing this?
Simple: To protect their products and development.
These other developers and other ad agencies are not in direct competition with Apples core business: which is selling devices with a proprietary OS. If youre not competing with Apple in either the mobile device, or mobile OS arena, then Apple is assuming that any analytical data that you are collecting is not going to be used to gain advantage in those areas. Therefore, such data isnt a threat to their business.
So, here are some examples of the effects that this rule change will have:
Under the new rule, Google cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to Google : Information that Google would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop Android.
Under the new rule, AdMob cant sell Ads on the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to AdMob/Google : Information that Google would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop Android.
Under the new rule, HTC cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to HTC : Information that HTC would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop mobile phones/devices.
Under the new rule, Microsoft cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to Microsoft : Information that Microsoft would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop Windows Phone 7. (or whatever they are calling it these days)
Under the new rule, Nokia cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to Nokia: Information that Nokia would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop mobile phones.
Under the new rule, HP cant write an app for the iPhone that when installed, collects information and sends it back to HP: Information that HP would use to gain competitive advantage to further develop WebOS and WebOS devices.
Do you see the pattern here?
..."But can any of the above entities write other apps for iDevices?"... Absolutely. Microsoft could write an Office Suite, for instance. And Google can write a Map app, as another example. I don't see any reason for the other's to create apps for iDevices, but who knows.
Uh, Microsoft doesn't need "licensed rights" to prevent hardware or an application from working with Windows. Microsoft owns Windows, and Windows is what the user runs. Hardware or not, if Microsoft didn't want to allow someone to use an iPod or install iTunes on Windows, they very much could do it, and possibly even legally (though it'd probably be a stretch).
There are plenty of situations where companies post-release use software patches or updates to lock out the use of competitive devices, etc. nVidia comes easily to mind with this - the last few major revisions of the GeForce drivers prevent an nVidia card from being used as a PPU if the primary GPU is a non-nVidia GPU. It's purely a software "limitation", and every time nVidia releases a new driver, people go to work to create a patch to get around the limitation. But Microsoft could very easily do the same thing, and simply push it with every monthly software update.
Or it's simply the fact that, given how abysmal Zune sales are already amongst PC users, there's very little financial incentive to create a Mac-specific Zune. Do you even do any research? Apple so thoroughly dominates the MP3 market amongst Mac users, there'd be nothing at all anti-competitive about Microsoft releasing a Zune for use specifically with Macs.
Now you're just trolling. Google doesn't need AdMob to report on what type of "features" or "hardware" users might want to see with the next Android revision.
Web ad analytics serve the primary purpose of showing the browsing/shopping habits of users, so that ads can be more specifically targeted towards specific groups of users. That's pretty much it. There's no "OH MY GODS GOOGLE IS STEALING OUR TRADE SECRETZ!" going on. This isn't a conspiracy theory...
Name the last time Google has done anything to attempt to harm a competitor.
Is Google attempting to get as many people as possible into its ecosystem? Of course. But so is Apple. So is Microsoft. So is Sony, and HP, and Dell, and practically every other major IT company you can think of.
Notice how when it's Apple making changes to try and lock people in, you're always amongst those praising it, but when it's another company, it's "you're buying into what they're selling?"
Oh the irony.
The only way this isn't good for consumers, is if Apple makes it impossible to block advertisements and data harvesting on iOS.
Both need to be opt-in, with clear disclosures of what's going on. For apps, that means that the app description (not the 50-page long click-through license) needs to state "You will see advertisements if you use this application. We will gather information about the color shoes you are wearing and sell that to everyone we can." or some such.
I have no sympathy for Google after their evil monopolistic content grab when they started illegally scanning books. Wah wah. Crocodile tears.
My initial read is that the Apple TOS require clear disclosure of data gathering and advertising in apps. That's good. I'll simply skip apps that do either.
Both need to be opt-in, with clear disclosures of what's going on. For apps, that means that the app description (not the 50-page long click-through license) needs to state "You will see advertisements if you use this application. We will gather information about the color shoes you are wearing and sell that to everyone we can." or some such.
I have no sympathy for Google after their evil monopolistic content grab when they started illegally scanning books. Wah wah. Crocodile tears.
My initial read is that the Apple TOS require clear disclosure of data gathering and advertising in apps. That's good. I'll simply skip apps that do either.
Then what's the problem with abiding by the new restrictions? If they don't need the data, they don't need to collect it, which means they wouldn't be affected.
If you search around for it, there seems to be a few different advertising platforms available for Android that do what AdMob/iAd does.
But I don't know the specifics.
so is iAd. you're all confused about DEVELOPERS adding ads and AGENCIES selling / making ads.
it doesn't cost a developer anything to add iAd to their app.
what changes are being made to lock who into what?
i don't feel i've been locked into anything (more) than i knew about originally.
this announcement doesn't lock anybody into anything.
what the heck are you even talking about?
what exactly is google selling? LOL think about that for a second. Android is an open source "free" operating system. Anyone can use it and even create their own shells for it like HTC and Sony do. Its great for consumers because the API structure stays the same so their apps go from device to device lol. And google doesn't take any money form android market sales (only processing fees), Its shared between carriers and developers. This is hwy carriers like android and are willing to make changes to their normally closed off systems. It's great.
If for one, iAds, which apple says is more beneficial to developers and consumers than admob, why not let them compete on the merits of such? Of course not. Apple is trying to lock everyone into their closed ecosystem... the issue is this wasn't the case in the first place. This could be seen in a court as abuse of power in a monopolist sense.
I mean as a training accountant, I think FASB should modify GAAP rules so that apple can list "customers/fanboys" on their balance sheet (disclaimer - I am clearly trollin btw lol). They are clearly assets lol.
He says exactly what they need the data for in the very next line. They need it to target their ads to people more effectively.
I keep seeing this story popping up everywhere today and wonder why it's being given any time. Seriously, AdMob... ****. Your parent company, Google, wanted to compete with Apple and Apple has struck back full force. Generally speaking, in business, you don't turn over your most valuable marketing data to competitors, and you are officially a competitor to Apple, so get over it and quit whining.
These rules might be good for competition and the developer!
This must be good for advertising competition and the developers. AdMob can now not kill competition by offering superior quality and price on both Android and iWhatever. And it is not likely that iAd will spend much resources on developing the Android market. Meaning that there is a larger opportunity for smaller competitors snapping up the other half of the deal.
If a large company uses iAd's for their Apple advertising it is not necessary natural for them to cooperate with AdMob for the Android side. Leaving this market open for smaller companies, improving competition. This might work the same way if a company works with AdMob on Android it might not be natural for them to use iAd when targeting Apple users. Leaving a larger share for small independent companies than having AdMob as the large Google backed advertising provider on all mobile devices. With a strong company like Google pouring money into their account they could easily choke most of the competition with lower prices. It said somewhere that Apple intends iAd's to be a premium service. Leaving the lower end of the market completely to smaller companies. Apple also stated that in the beginning they will be building all the iAd's to ensure quality, but later will let ad agencies to build their own ads. Ad agencies could then get a smaller company to build the ad for them and implement it in the iAd's.
I cant see the huge problem for developers or independent ad providers, only one suffering is Google, which is a direct competitor to Apple..
This must be good for advertising competition and the developers. AdMob can now not kill competition by offering superior quality and price on both Android and iWhatever. And it is not likely that iAd will spend much resources on developing the Android market. Meaning that there is a larger opportunity for smaller competitors snapping up the other half of the deal.
If a large company uses iAd's for their Apple advertising it is not necessary natural for them to cooperate with AdMob for the Android side. Leaving this market open for smaller companies, improving competition. This might work the same way if a company works with AdMob on Android it might not be natural for them to use iAd when targeting Apple users. Leaving a larger share for small independent companies than having AdMob as the large Google backed advertising provider on all mobile devices. With a strong company like Google pouring money into their account they could easily choke most of the competition with lower prices. It said somewhere that Apple intends iAd's to be a premium service. Leaving the lower end of the market completely to smaller companies. Apple also stated that in the beginning they will be building all the iAd's to ensure quality, but later will let ad agencies to build their own ads. Ad agencies could then get a smaller company to build the ad for them and implement it in the iAd's.
I cant see the huge problem for developers or independent ad providers, only one suffering is Google, which is a direct competitor to Apple..
Yes he did. My mistake.
However, whether or not the company actually "needs" the data for platform/device improvement would not prevent them from using it thusly. Not only that, the knowledge is gained through a method for which they actually receive money, if I understand mobile advertising properly. I have no problem if they buy the analytics data from a third party.
Then comes the question of what the definition of "analytics data" should be. By should I mean in the context of balancing consumer privacy with legitimate marketing research.
Wouldn't these new rules would still allow Flurry to do what it did to start this whole thing?