Apple Modifies iOS Developer Terms to Allow Limited Analytics Data Collection

[andiwm2003]

this will be intersting to watch. on one hand apple argues they can have any rule they want to allow apps on their phone. on the other hand they argue that they are clear market leadr. this will eventually lead to complaints that apple is abusing a monoploy to inhibit competition.

right now it's not a problem but if the ipad/iphones really gain market dominance there will be an investigation and it will be hard for apple to uphold those rules.

 

[Porco]

I'm interested to know exactly what "prior user consent" will entail, anyone know?

For instance, I don't want giving an app consent to phone home to ever be allowed to be a pre-requisite condition of using an app.

 

[drewc1138]

But ads fund the development and give you your content for free (or cheaper) - ads give you free TV channels and such already. That's all they're asking is for a small banner on the bottom of their app which even if you tap doesn't rip you out of your app. Ads are already in apps and are poorly implemented - it's not as if Apple's making anything worse.

And @Rojo, if they don't supply an ad-free version then contact them and say you're interested because it wouldn't be much effort to simply delete the iAd element and charge money for the app.

Yeah, it would be easy for the developer to charge for the app, but the BIG selling point for ads is the continuing income stream.

Think about an app like Facebook (which I highly doubt would ever be a paid app or include ads, but roll with me here). Let's say they charged $2.99 for the app. If one million people downloaded the app in a year, then that's a pretty sum of $2,090,000 in income (after the 30% cut to Apple). And that's it.

OR...they release the app for free (which people are more apt to buy). Let's say that those million users open the app 3 times a day. At $0.006 per impression (60% of $0.01), that comes out to $18,000 per day. At that rate, you make up that $2.09 million in just under 4 months. And in that year where you would have made $2.09 million, you've made $6.57 million. That's 314% more.

Going even further (I love playing with numbers), let's say 3% of those users tap on one ad a day. That amounts to an additional $36,000 in revenue ($2 per click -> $1.20 in developer revenue * 30,000). So that's a total daily revenue of $54,000. Meaning that you make up that $2.09 million in 39 days. And the $2,090,000 annual revenue that looked so pretty earlier is now $19,710,000...or a 943% increase in revenue.

Dang, I need to get back into app development.

 

[alhedges]

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/24/revealed-google-keeps-less-than-half-of-adsense-revenue/

actually the more likely explanation is that nobody cared about viewing a boring site about the periodic table until it was put into a glitzy ipad app.

...which costs $15.

 

[the-oz-man]

Yeah, it would be easy for the developer to charge for the app, but the BIG selling point for ads is the continuing income stream.

Think about an app like Facebook (which I highly doubt would ever be a paid app or include ads, but roll with me here). Let's say they charged $2.99 for the app. If one million people downloaded the app in a year, then that's a pretty sum of $2,090,000 in income (after the 30% cut to Apple). And that's it.

OR...they release the app for free (which people are more apt to buy). Let's say that those million users open the app 3 times a day. At $0.006 per impression (60% of $0.01), that comes out to $18,000 per day. At that rate, you make up that $2.09 million in just under 4 months. And in that year where you would have made $2.09 million, you've made $6.57 million. That's 314% more.

Going even further (I love playing with numbers), let's say 3% of those users tap on one ad a day. That amounts to an additional $36,000 in revenue ($2 per click -> $1.20 in developer revenue * 30,000). So that's a total daily revenue of $54,000. Meaning that you make up that $2.09 million in 39 days. And the $2,090,000 annual revenue that looked so pretty earlier is now $19,710,000...or a 943% increase in revenue.

Dang, I need to get back into app development.

Wow, just wow! I'm in the wrong business too.

 

[Wolfie Scooter]

How can iAd be a "dominant market force" when it hasn't even launched? Google and AdMob is the dominant market force they were worried about, with Apple and iAd reducing their concern enough to allow the take over to go ahead.

I can't see anyone getting too worked up about this. Other ad companies can still place their ads on iOS devices and the overall market share of the iOS devices is small enough for there to be no concerns.

First, I think your initial question speaks volumes about how Apple and their offerings are viewed now. It is assumed, even before launch, that anything associated with iOS will be hugely successful.

The problem I see with the wording is that it seems intended to specifically exclude a single company, AdMob, from obtaining analytics, thus handicapping their ability to serve relevant ads. I'm not saying Apple can't get away with it, but I'd venture a guess there would at least be an FTC inquiry into it.

 

[Mac21ND]

I'm interested to know exactly what "prior user consent" will entail, anyone know?

For instance, I don't want giving an app consent to phone home to ever be allowed to be a pre-requisite condition of using an app.

I would imagine this would be similar to the geo-location feature of apps wanting to know where you live. Regardless, it appears there will be a very deliberate "tap" the user has to agree to. It doesn't mean all users will will say no, especially if the ad said something like, "See all discounts in your area" or if there was a ad for a movie and it said "See theaters and showtimes in your area. No information will be collected... yada yada."

 

[acslater017]

That's what I'm afraid of - more free apps with ads, without a paid version without ads. I really don't want ads on ANY app I use, and will pay for an ad-less version any chance I get. Developers might not feel the need to to offer a paid/ad-less version after a while.

Great for developers, I guess. Sucks for people like me who just don't want ads....EVER.

Hopefully companies/devs will offer different versions of their apps, with and without ads.

 

[Arcus]

I guess I am one who isn't totally stoked on the iAds idea and I'm not totally stoked on the idea of collecting data but what can you do?

Dont buy and iPhone or iPad maybe?

 

[dmarcoot]

How can iAd be a "dominant market force" when it hasn't even launched? Google and AdMob is the dominant market force they were worried about, with Apple and iAd reducing their concern enough to allow the take over to go ahead.

I can't see anyone getting too worked up about this. Other ad companies can still place their ads on iOS devices and the overall market share of the iOS devices is small enough for there to be no concerns.

you are correct sir.

Google bought Admob first. Apple has no requirement to allow competitors to gather data on their customers any more than Toyota has a right to Honda's customer information.

Clearly some people on this thread still dont understand what a monopoly is legally. Hint, Apple isn’t and has never been a monopoly in anything. Not computers, music players, online retail, or smart phones. Certainly not a dominate force in industry they havent even launched yet.

 

[darkplanets]

The only thing is, it is not going to be "less of your data". In fact they are going to use more data it is just going to be centered all at Apple HQ and not in different places as before.

T.

I fully realize that; I was referring to the brief moment of change between the terms and conditions where there was little to no data-harvesting allowed, as quoted in section 3.3.9 prior/just before the iAd announcement:

“Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Device Data may not be provided or disclosed to a third party without Apple’s prior written consent. Accordingly, the use of third party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited.”

Shorty after this change, Apple then started to roll out its iAd system, which gave it propriety dominance in data harvesting, with the exclusion of all third parties. The period I was referring to was this period, more specifically before the iAd release, where it was no third party data and Apple hadn't jumped the gun on the iAd platform. With that said, I also am referring to post iAd, where Apple would be the sole data proprietor, with the exlusion of all third parties. I would much rather have this, which would be "less data," at least in terms of duplication and volume, compared to the current terms, as listed:

You and Your Applications may not collect, use, or disclose to any third party, user or device data without prior user consent, and then only under the following conditions:

- The collection, use or disclosure is necessary in order to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application. For example, without Apple’s prior written consent, You may not use third party analytics software in Your Application to collect and send device data to a third party for aggregation, processing, or analysis.

- The collection, use or disclosure is for the purpose of serving advertising to Your Application; is provided to an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads (for example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent); and the disclosure is limited to UDID, user location data, and other data specifically designated by Apple as available for advertising purposes.

Now certain third parties can gain access to the data, besides Apple. Granted, it will be a much more limited set of data, but still that means that there will be multiple sets of my data (in varying detail) out there, whereas I would prefer there to be one (or none). Hence my statement.

Your obviously missing the point completely.

No, you're obviously missing the point. Read the differences in the terms, and what I posted above.

Google was allowed to purchase AdMob (by the FTC) because of Apple/iAd. That means the FTC considers iAd to be a dominant market force, at least on par with AdMob. The FTC could easily consider excluding AdMob as anti-competitive.

Yes and no. The reason they allowed the AdMob acquisition was because they cited "up and coming" competition, not developed, market dominant competition. They never once stated in their release that iAd was a dominant market force (how could it be, it hasn't actually started!), just a promising up-and-coming competition. While they could try to call anti-competitive, there's still the fact that its a closed system on a non-dominant device, meaning that the ball is in Apple's court; they can deny or not based on whatever they want as outlined in their policies or otherwise. Should the iOS/Apple products become dominant, then doubt could be raised, but until then even if they were a "dominant" market player, it doesn't matter. Enforcing data harvesting for AdMob through the FTC would be like forcing Google to include Bing into Chrome because otherwise its "anti-competitive."

 

[genovelle]

I actually think it is a great idea to forbid these companies to collect all sort of data, especially without me knowing it. I mean one innocently installs a game and all sorts of data is send to those companies .. that is stupid.

What I take umbrage with is that Apple forbids it or at least makes it difficult for some companies but will use all data available themselfs including my purchase history in the appstore. That is BS and in my book anti-competitive.

T.

Thats the trick. They arent in the business of selling your info to outsiders. Anyone you do business with will have your information about how you have done business with them and should use it to improve the support of you their customer. They built their business. Google is a troll company that makes their profit, and lots of it, from using your personal data that they gain from sources you are not even aware of. The Admob thing i thought was a ploy to keep Apple out of the Ad world, but it was really more about gaining access to the data the largest supplier of ads on the Iphone was pulling. Apple should not allow Google or any competitor piggy back off of their efforts. Microsoft screwed them in the past because they were too close and Google did it again by having a member on their board. Don't you find it strange that google is all of a sudden entering every software market that Apple is in with similar products. Including Apple TV and Computer Operating Systems.

 

[macrumors12345]

hmmm. blocking Admob from the platform seems pretty gutsy for Apple. This is technically unfair competition and i'm sure the Justice Dept is going to make a big stink of this. I hope Apple thought this through.

From a legal perspective, Apple would need to first have a monopoly in the relevant market (presumably smartphones) before this type of action would be considered illegal. Perhaps they will one day have a monopoly in that market, but they are still far from it today.

Personally, I think the less data collection allowed, the better. Particularly data collection by Google, who we know is going to try to link it to all the other personal data that they collect about you (search history, Gmail, maps, etc).

 

[Rodimus Prime]

From a legal perspective, Apple would need to first have a monopoly in the relevant market (presumably smartphones) before this type of action would be considered illegal. Perhaps they will one day have a monopoly in that market, but they are still far from it today.

Personally, I think the less data collection allowed, the better. Particularly data collection by Google, who we know is going to try to link it to all the other personal data that they collect about you (search history, Gmail, maps, etc).

You do not have to have a monopoly before they will hit back on a company hard. They only need enough power to heavily effect the market which apple has. Apple method hurts competition but does not help it and as such they can easily get in trouble.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Is there adblock already ? I just do not like ads. I haven't seen the iPad in action but I wonder if Safari blocks ads... if not, I do not think I'll get one.

You like free apps but no ads? Buy an app.

 

[tatonka]

Thats the trick. They arent in the business of selling your info to outsiders. Anyone you do business with will have your information about how you have done business with them and should use it to improve the support of you their customer. They built their business. Google is a troll company that makes their profit, and lots of it, from using your personal data that they gain from sources you are not even aware of. The Admob thing i thought was a ploy to keep Apple out of the Ad world, but it was really more about gaining access to the data the largest supplier of ads on the Iphone was pulling. Apple should not allow Google or any competitor piggy back off of their efforts. Microsoft screwed them in the past because they were too close and Google did it again by having a member on their board. Don't you find it strange that google is all of a sudden entering every software market that Apple is in with similar products. Including Apple TV and Computer Operating Systems.

I am not quite sure I completely got what you tried to say .. but let me answer to what I understood that you said.

Apple is very well in the business of selling my data, that is the whole idea behind these ads data accumulation. Of course they will not sell my email address to a spamer (hopefully), but so doesn't admob. It is all about profiling everybody to present specific ads, that will be interesting to that group. I would consider that selling my data, but I get where you are coming from.
I wholeheartedly have to disagree with the next statement though. I don't think, that Apple should be allowed to use information such as my purchase history to profile me to further fill up there bags with more money. I mean it would be one thing if they used that stuff internally to improve their business .. but they are selling that information to third parties, to improve their business with them. That is wrong.

I don't believe in that hole Apple Google war legend. They were/are both after the mobile devices / netbook market. Of course that leads to some friction. And that Apple TV has been rotting there forever without anybody being interested at all .. well that is what happens if you don't play the field.

T.

 

[plazmatyk]

Your obviously missing the point completely.

Both of you are obviously missing the grammar completely.

 

[darkplanets]

Both of you are obviously missing the grammar completely.

Whoops. Entirely missed that blatant their/they're misuse, how stupid of me. Fixed.

Just a pointer though; many people on this site do not use English as their primary language.

 

[calsci]

Another google versus apple.