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.
Apple Blocks Bloom.fm iAd Advertising Ahead of U.K. iTunes Radio Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are simply wrong.
I guess if a Trojan Condoms wants to advertise on the Disney Channel, they can? No. Disney can choose not to allow them to advertise. It's Disney's prerogative, not the courts.
As long as an ad is not being rejected for protected reasons like race and religion, it's okay to reject an ad. Happens every day. Show me the law that says as a private business you must do business with everyone, and are not allowed to say no.
Race to the bottom? It's a radio service like Pandora, most radio services like that are free. It doesn't compare to music downloading services like iTunes or unlimited streaming services like Spotify & Rdio.
Well they've not offered any proof. It seems more an attempt to get some free advertising.
If they block spottily, last.fm or whatever, then there may be some truth to the matter.
What a ludicrous example. There would be guidelines in place to prevent an adult orientated product from being allowed to advertised on a childrens channel.
Try again.
In response to the second part of your post - you will find all your answers in the link below.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft911.pdf
It's not something wrong, for example you cannot see a MS Bing ad on Google ads. And for the lawsuits that Apple made; Most companies tend to copy Apple. I mean look at the new PCs most of them look like MacBooks (Black on aluminum-or aluminum like plastic and black / grey bezels). But Samsung is the king of Apple copiers, only reason why they doing something is because of Apple doing it. For example: Xperia phones do not look like iPhone and Sony does not copy them yet they are a competitor of Apple. Apple did NOT sued them but Samsung, copied all Apple features, then bashed them and Apple WON the lawsuit. So Apple is wrong because they sued someone that copied them? And it's why Apple is suing everybody. Even the rumors of new Apple devices are enough to get competitors in panic (iWatch and new Apple TV). This is the rule: You do not advertise your competitor and you sue somebody if they use your PATENTED features without paying any money.
I know this is according to Apples terms, but surely they can complain to the anti competition commision of Europe for anti competitive behaviour?
But then again this is how Apple behaves, it feels so threatened by the competition it attempts to sue them off the planet with bogus claims or ban them from advertising.
If Apple make a car they'll no doubt ban all car adverts on their services.
Like when they sued a tiny German coffee shop over it's logo:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-takes-on-German-cafe-over-logo.html
Yeah Apples MO these day's is to not compete, but to get rid of the competition.
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple sues Nestle for it's Polo mints after it's built it's new headquarters, they are that obsessed with sueing.
But then again this is how Apple behaves, it feels so threatened by the competition it attempts to sue them off the planet with bogus claims or ban them from advertising.
If Apple make a car they'll no doubt ban all car adverts on their services.
Like when they sued a tiny German coffee shop over it's logo:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-takes-on-German-cafe-over-logo.html
Yeah Apples MO these day's is to not compete, but to get rid of the competition.
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple sues Nestle for it's Polo mints after it's built it's new headquarters, they are that obsessed with sueing.
Last edited:
Yeap, it tried to sue HTC on it's bogus swipe to unlock patent and lost in the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18709232
Apple sues loads of different people, but no one thinks so because only the big name ones get in the news.
----------
So what that means absolutely nothing, Virgin doesn't and advertises on ITV does it not? Virgin heavily advertises on Sky channels, you cannot be anticompetitive like Apple is being here in the UK, the EU has VERY strict laws on it.
I also see Netflix and Lovefilm heavily advertised.
Last night here in the UKcame up but would not let me onto iTunes Radio - just said iTunes Radio unavailable - dosent show now though
I had the same thing a few weeks ago in NZ, but no launch yet. Unfortunately I suspect that it's just a glitch, rather than an indication that it's almost ready.
I totally agree, seems like the name HTC is just not big enough to make the headlines, same in this case
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...lleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html
(Although it is a funny thing of us to say, since we both link to "news" with the lawsuits being the topic, right?
)
Thing is... they aren't.
Pandora and Spotify is still killing iTunes Radio.
This shows a desperate move from Apple who are threatened by a nobody service.
Look up innovation and review your statement again - you will be shocked
Umm... Nope...
Yet many don't believe that Apple uses more aggressive anti-competitive practices than Microsoft ever did.I totally agree, seems like the name HTC is just not big enough to make the headlines, same in this case
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...lleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html
(Although it is a funny thing of us to say, since we both link to "news" with the lawsuits being the topic, right?
I totally agree, seems like the name HTC is just not big enough to make the headlines, same in this case
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...lleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html
(Although it is a funny thing of us to say, since we both link to "news" with the lawsuits being the topic, right?
Its sad isn't it, in that news link it reports how HTC has had to get more patents to use in its 'battle' with Apple, Apple were trying to sue them so much they had to buy more patents to defend themselves.
Its not how business should be, the consumer loses out every time a competitor folds.
I think if Google did ever fully enter this battle Apple would get a good beating, but so far they seem very reluctant to do so.
Personally I would like the American courts or government to force ALL of them to stop this behaviour but I can't see it happening.
Last edited:
You are comparing it to mediums that has numerous channels. When it comes to application marketplaces, there is only one with ios (not counting jb and voiding warranty). What this ultimately means is that if Apple sees a lucrative business, they can deny competition, and push their own app. This is not right.
Or it could simply be that those of us who have to experience their ads have reported them for poor formatting and malicious links.
I don't know how many times i've had one of their ads pop up in a certain tv app only to find that the x graphic or skip button does nothing but load their app in the app store or auto redirects me to their website!
I don't know how many times i've had one of their ads pop up in a certain tv app only to find that the x graphic or skip button does nothing but load their app in the app store or auto redirects me to their website!
Exactly. Everyone is jumping to conclusions, including the company itself. Where does it say they'd been told they'd been blocked due to competing? If that was the reason, spotify, pandora, etc would be saying the same. This is some unknown company fishing for free advertising. For all we know, they pulled their own adverts, or they where stopped for what you say. Until they offer proof or apple issue a statement, I'm dubious of their claims.
Totally irrelevant for the reasons I previously mentioned. If ITV1 refused advertising from Sky, or other broadcasters, they would be unable to advertise ITV2, ITV3, or ITV4.
In fact if they accepted Sky advertising because they are a shareholder and refused it to other services they would more likely be in breach of competition law let alone broadcasting regulations, as that would be a significant abuse of market position.
Back in the days of ONdigital its co-owners Carlton and Granada refused to accept an advertisement on their ITV franchises from Sky for Monday Night Football which contained full programme details. Sky successfully filed a complaint with the ITC on the basis that because they had aired a similar advertisement for, I think a boxing bout, on ONdigital this would be unfair discrimination.
Were UK broadcasting rules relevant in this case Apple would be within their right to not accept advertising within iTunes Radio as a legitimate protection of their business. But would be guilty of undue discrimination if they did not accept it for iAds run against other apps and services unless the ban applied to all streaming services including their own.
Probably. After all it's legal for ABC not to advertise shows on CBS etc
----------
Legally has nothing to do with google search hits in this case. There is no mandate to include or not include the competition in an ad network or a search engine.
They may not be telling the whole story. We didn't see the ad they might have submitted or what information they gave. For all we know they were bashing other services or they might have lied in their paperwork. Both of which could be grounds for getting the boot