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.
U.S. Government Still Considering Antitrust Investigation of Apple's iAd
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good for you, problem solved. So what's your issue since the market gave you exactly what you need?
I've made my agenda here clear: fight disinformation.
Developers can choose AdMob-type ads in their apps, or they can choose iAds. Nothing has changed for the developer who wants the paltry payments that AdMob is paying. But the AdMob UX swapping out to the browser to get the ad is decidedly sucky (which is normal for a Google app anyway).
FWIW, ESPN, etc. have implemented their own proprietary ads inside their apps since before iAds was even announced. So the third option already exists, which is to roll your own ads.
I really don't see how AdMob is negatively impacted, they still offer the same sucktastic platform they always have, with the same pitiful payment scheme they've always offered. They should be used to be Teh Suck mobile ad platform by now...
Sounds like the search / on-line ad monopoly (Google) paid someone off (lobbying) to look into a competitor.
Not sure where to even begin with this one. I have things to get done so I'll just stick to the short version that you're unequivocally and repeatedly wrong.
Adolf, Coke and iAds
It is universally accepted that a forum thread is dead when people mention Hitler and Jesus (as I remember).
The poster that you replied raised genuine concern over a corporation's attempt to control as much of its market by locking out competition as possible. He might wish to see Apple being penalised, but that might be led from a strong belief that competition is vital, rather than his dislike of Apple Inc.
As somebody said, 'Never hate a man, only hate his bad deeds'. With Apple Inc, the number of bad deeds is piling up and I think an investigation is in order. To reflect on some poster's worry; I don't think that the justice system and the regulatory tasks over corporations are a waste of public money. They are essential not just in a democracy, but in any society.
Also, alarmingly, we are only talking about a market that is not just dominated but virtually made up by a handful of large companies with small enterprise entirely unable to compete. The Pepsi/Coke parallel is invalid. There are several small producers of beverages that can compete at regional level or have the entry-level only limited due to lack of resources. I think when it comes to online media, it should be recognised by the authorities that geographical and cultural barriers are largely smudged. In a way, online you can become a monopoly and can sustain your position easier.
What we have here with iAds is that regardless of how much cash you have, you might be restricted from entering the submarket. Apple might be indeed breaching some competition rules there, but let's wait and see.
It is universally accepted that a forum thread is dead when people mention Hitler and Jesus (as I remember).
The poster that you replied raised genuine concern over a corporation's attempt to control as much of its market by locking out competition as possible. He might wish to see Apple being penalised, but that might be led from a strong belief that competition is vital, rather than his dislike of Apple Inc.
As somebody said, 'Never hate a man, only hate his bad deeds'. With Apple Inc, the number of bad deeds is piling up and I think an investigation is in order. To reflect on some poster's worry; I don't think that the justice system and the regulatory tasks over corporations are a waste of public money. They are essential not just in a democracy, but in any society.
Also, alarmingly, we are only talking about a market that is not just dominated but virtually made up by a handful of large companies with small enterprise entirely unable to compete. The Pepsi/Coke parallel is invalid. There are several small producers of beverages that can compete at regional level or have the entry-level only limited due to lack of resources. I think when it comes to online media, it should be recognised by the authorities that geographical and cultural barriers are largely smudged. In a way, online you can become a monopoly and can sustain your position easier.
What we have here with iAds is that regardless of how much cash you have, you might be restricted from entering the submarket. Apple might be indeed breaching some competition rules there, but let's wait and see.
This is one of the most tired arguments out there. I own an XBox 360, PS3, Mac Mini, and plenty of other proprietary devices.
Guess what, I can't run a PS3 game on my 360, I can't play Crysis on my Mac, I can't play my Dreamcast games on the PS3. I can't run whatever I want on the devices. When I buy a device I know its limitations, I don't whine about it. People need to come up with something better than, I want to run what I want on what I own.
They just cripple what competitors can do on their platform until the advertising data is worth so little to the advertiser that it isn't worth it to do anything with any ad network except iAd.
This is a steaming pile of crap. It is these "anti-trust laws" that stifle competition in the end; a truly free-market will always yield better results. This is not in any way shape or form permitted in the U.S. constitution... but then again the FTC isn't either. Apple should be able to control their product however they choose, and if people or developers don't like it, the free market will force apple to either change or die. And I'm sorry if I missed something, but I was under the impression developers didn't even have to use iads for advertisements.
The U.S.S.A., killing competition ever since 1929.
The U.S.S.A., killing competition ever since 1929.
Apple absolutely has the right to choose with whom it does business. If it screws itself over because of that (and this is the same logic for it not being open-sourced) than it also has a right to run itself into the ground.
As mentioned above, you have to right to purchase their product or not, but just because something because wildly popular and successful does not mean that the company no longer can choose its to whom it sells its services.
As mentioned above, you have to right to purchase their product or not, but just because something because wildly popular and successful does not mean that the company no longer can choose its to whom it sells its services.
Which is why I'm going ahead and suing GM for not allowing me to use wood chips to fuel my car.
I'm not allowed to voice my opinion because I don't use an iPhone? Show me the rule in the Mac Rumors forum rules that says that.
That's because of technical reasons. It's technically impossible to run a PS3 game on your 360 because the architecture is different. Microsoft isn't intentionally blocking out PS3 games. That's just how it is. This is different. There's no technical reason you can't have AdMob ads on the iPhone. If Apple blocks it it's purely for anti-competitive purposes.
Does Google allow iAds on Android?
Does RIM allow iAds on their few apps?
Does Microsoft allow iAds on windows mobile?
Investigation!
Does RIM allow iAds on their few apps?
Does Microsoft allow iAds on windows mobile?
Investigation!
They are not blocking or planning on blocking AdMob. They are only saying that AdMob can not use and gather information of a personal nature from apps. Then use that information to direct advertise.
Isn't that disallowed but the amended terms of service. They only want independent ad services. Having developers roll their own, means the ads are not independent.
It seems a lot of my liberal friends are also some of the biggest Apple fanboys out there. I find it ironic some of them complain about Exxon's profits as "greed" but never complain about Apple's much, much higher profit margin. The same holds true for CEO pay, everyone complains about the CEO of an insurance company but nobody cares about Steve's pay. Before you flame me, I don't care about Steve's pay or Apple's profits either. As a believer in the free market I believe companies should be allowed to make what they can and I also believe companies should be allowed to fail and I don't believe in bailouts (ahem, GM).
Anyway, back to my point here, we have a Democrat in charge now. Since Democratic philosophy is back at the FTC they will be a lot harsher on companies including Apple. Nobody in here is an antitrust lawyer regardless of how much you want to pretend. I personally believe the free market will iron it all out. If Apple made a decision that'll hurt developers they'll simply take their programs elsewhere like the booming Android platform.
Anyway, back to my point here, we have a Democrat in charge now. Since Democratic philosophy is back at the FTC they will be a lot harsher on companies including Apple. Nobody in here is an antitrust lawyer regardless of how much you want to pretend. I personally believe the free market will iron it all out. If Apple made a decision that'll hurt developers they'll simply take their programs elsewhere like the booming Android platform.
Yes. There is no approval process for Google to reject an iAd platform on Android.
I see you are sharing his views' (OP) direction. So are you sure you are being objective when saying this:
First off, you are defining Apple's actions the same way he did - something, as I said, even the government isn't sure of.
Second, here's OP's post:
"
It's one thing to be concerned and another to hope some company gets nailed over something you are completely unsure about.