U.S. Government Still Considering Antitrust Investigation of Apple's iAd

[NebulaClash]

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.

OK, I look forward to the time when you point out in detail why these three points are wrong, since that is all I said and that you claim is unequivocally wrong:

1. Competitors are not required to help the competition in ad analytics.

2. AdMob was to be part of Apple, but instead is now part of Google.

3. A frequent thing nowadays is for competitors to complain to the government when they lose in the market.

 

[kenypowa]

All i am waiting for is an iad/admob blocker, i realy fear the things coming with all these ads, don't like it at all.

Don't count on it. The app will be rejected by the App Store.

 

[spazzcat]

All i am waiting for is an iad/admob blocker, i realy fear the things coming with all these ads, don't like it at all.

You will have a real hard time blocking ads inside apps. And seeing how developers put them there to make money, they are not going to give you a way to block them, other then buying a paid version.

 

[robotmonkey]

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.

That's a pretty weak argument... all game systems should use the same standards and be hardware, service, and/or software competitors if one is to use the logic that it is the government's job to regulate a "free" market.

 

[ShiftyPig]

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.

Halo isn't on Playstation not because it is banned by Sony, but because the developers choose not to make it for the PS3. If MS was so inclined, it could make a PS3 version, but it chooses not to for the exclusivity.

You butchered the analogy. If Coke owns the truck, they don't have to run Pepsi ads on it. Where you should have gone was since you own the Xbox, they can't make you play Halo.

 

[Atkins]

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.

There's also a reason why the architecture is different.

 

[robotmonkey]

OK, I look forward to the time when you point out in detail why these three points are wrong, since that is all I said and that you claim is unequivocally wrong:

1. Competitors are not required to help the competition in ad analytics.

2. AdMob was to be part of Apple, but instead is now part of Google.

3. A frequent thing nowadays is for competitors to complain to the government when they lose in the market.

+1, corporatism

 

[NebulaClash]

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.

Show me my post where I said you are not allowed to voice an opinion.

 

[emulator]

Just another way for the gov't to waste more money... maybe that money can be better spent someplace else.... anyone have any ideas?

Any taxpayers' money not sent to Israel is already better spent!

 

[elppa]

Does Google allow iAds on Android?

Does RIM allow iAds on their few apps?

Especially as RIM is a Monopoly. They don't allow Flash on their phones either. They are the new Microsoft.

 

[robotmonkey]

Any taxpayers' money not sent to Israel is already better spent!

Israel, a terrorist country we support

 

[yg17]

That's a pretty weak argument... all game systems should use the same standards and be hardware, service, and/or software competitors if one is to use the logic that it is the government's job to regulate a "free" market.

If somebody found a way to run PS3 games on a 360, and then Microsoft blocked it to force people to buy the 360 version of games, yeah, I'd have a problem with it. And that's essentially what Apple is doing here. They allowed AdMob for the past 2 years, and now that they have their own competitor, they're suddenly putting restrictions on it to try to force people to use Apple's service. If AdMob never ran on the iPhone and it was technically impossible for AdMob to run on the iPhone, then there would be no problem. But it runs on the iPhone and now Apple is pulling the rug out from under it so they can lock out a competitor.

Show me my post where I said you are not allowed to voice an opinion.

You certainly seemed to imply it with your condescending tone.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

And as a consumer, I despise Apple for wasting time on something as stupid as iAds and a high res screen when the iPhone is lacking in so many other areas that customers would use.

As a consumer, do you like apps?

You don't know the frustration of spending hundreds of hours creating an app, pricing it at 99 cents and getting no sales. The downward price pressure means that most apps won't pay you back even a fraction of minimum wage. You'd have been many times better off pouring that time into a second job.

So then you release it as free and slap AdMob in there. You get a huge surge in downloads from the "I want my 99 cents back" crowd, and now you've got a pretty decent installed base. Then you see how much you're making on AdMob. It's even less than you got when your app was 99 cents.

At least now, with iAd, there's real money any time someone taps an ad. $1.20 right in my pocket. Finally we have real advertisers spending real money, not just a bunch of desperate app developers paying to advertise their apps on AdMob.

This is exciting and might do a lot to allow more developers to escape the race to the bottom the App Store has become, and you'll only be seeing better stuff because of it.

 

[mentholiptus]

Good. Apple should not be able to tell developers which ad service to use.

Bad. I trust Apple's policy, and I want as little about me passed along to douchebags who want to use me as revenue. The more controlled and restricted these ad services can be, the less reluctant I'll be to use them.

As a matter of fact, f___ analytics all together, in all fields.

 

[robotmonkey]

If somebody found a way to run PS3 games on a 360, and then Microsoft blocked it to force people to buy the 360 version of games, yeah, I'd have a problem with it. And that's essentially what Apple is doing here. They allowed AdMob for the past 2 years, and now that they have their own competitor, they're suddenly putting restrictions on it to try to force people to use Apple's service. If AdMob never ran on the iPhone and it was technically impossible for AdMob to run on the iPhone, then there would be no problem. But it runs on the iPhone and now Apple is pulling the rug out from under it so they can lock out a competitor.



You certainly seemed to imply it with your condescending tone.

So you're ok with them restricting it unless someone essentially makes a pirated copy of the game, then it's not ok to restrict it? I'm sorry if I am coming off as rude I am not trying to.

 

[ShiftyPig]

OK, I look forward to the time when you point out in detail why these three points are wrong, since that is all I said and that you claim is unequivocally wrong:

I'll move quickly. First of all, Apple doesn't own the apps, so your Coke truck analogy is poor. They make the rules, but they do not own the apps. If someone wanted to make an app that opened up and advertised Android, he/she could.

The Admob purchase has nothing to do with anything, besides Apple throwing a tantrum. People (you) say.... well Google doesn't send its info to Apple. Again, your analogy is crap. Apple isn't making an iAd for Android, and developers aren't being denied the fair opportunity and choice to place iAds into their (edit to add: Android) apps.

Every antitrust case could be classified under your title of competitors "whining" and many come to a positive conclusion for the "whiners." See, Microsoft.

Only the most blinkered FB would fail to see that what Apple did: in an effort to push iAd, it changed the rules mid-game to cripple its competitors.

 

[yg17]

So you're ok with them restricting it unless someone essentially makes a pirated copy of the game, then it's not ok to restrict it? I'm sorry if I am coming off as rude I am not trying to.

Nobody is restricting it though. It's simply not possible to run PS3 games on a 360. Microsoft isn't actively doing anything to lock out the competition. That's the difference.

 

[djsound]

I'll be done with iphone if it forces me to look at stupid ads...

 

[pdjudd]

I'll be done with iphone if it forces me to look at stupid ads...

Nobody is forcing anybody to look at anything. Weather or not an app has ads is up to the developer - there are allready a ton of them out there.

Advertising - including iAds is completely voluntary on behalf of a developer.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

I'll be done with iphone if it forces me to look at stupid ads...

Are people out there really still under the impression that the ads will be appearing in their iPod and Mail and during phone calls?

They're for apps. You're already seeing ads in the free apps you download. They are deployed at the discretion of the developer.

You're already seeing tons of crappy irrelevant ads. Now you're going to be seeing some interesting ones that you might actually open.

 

[robotmonkey]

I'll move quickly. First of all, Apple doesn't own the apps, so your Coke truck analogy is poor. They make the rules, but they do not own the apps. If someone wanted to make an app that opened up and advertised Android, he/she could.

The Admob purchase has nothing to do with anything, besides Apple throwing a tantrum. People (you) say.... well Google doesn't send its info to Apple. Again, your analogy is crap. Apple isn't making an iAd for Android, and developers aren't being denied the fair opportunity and choice to place iAds into their apps.

Every antitrust case could be classified under your title of competitors "whining" and many come to a positive conclusion for the "whiners." See, Microsoft.

Only the most blinkered FB would fail to see that what Apple did: in an effort to push iAd, it changed the rules mid-game to cripple its competitors.

It's still apple's product, not the U.S. consumer's or the U.S. government's. Why don't we take this a step further... It is anti-competitive to make aluminum computers because it is going to cause consumers and developers to only use that product because it looks better than plastic. I see very little difference between what the FTC is doing now and that scenario. If the iads make the iPhone experience much worse, I along with many consumers will switch to android. In fact, I can only see apple's decision creating competition, not getting rid of it.

 

[djsound]

Actually I already wont use an app if it has ads. I use an alternative...

 

[HLdan]

Personally, I'm starting to feel a little uncomfortable with the way Apple is handling the iPhone/iPad. First they blocked out Adobe. Now they are blocking out Google and Microsoft. They can be arbitrary (and heavy handed) when doing app approvals. And they seem to be becoming more and more controlling.

Don't get me wrong, I /love/ my Apple products. But their way of shutting out the rest of the world for their own products (no f'n Blu Ray, are you serious?) is starting to really worry me.

In all seriousness, with this (and AT&T) I'm starting to stare longingly at those spanky new Android phones.

--t

Maybe you didn't know or forgot that Apple just recently added BING as a search engine for all of their iProducts and the Mac in Safari. Google has always been the default search engine.

 

[John.B]

The FTC should investigate Google to open up that "proprietary" search algorithm. For example, how does a Google search for "oil spill" consistently turn up a bunch of pro-BP websites? And not just sponsored results, but the rest of the first page as well? If the FTC was concerned about restraint of trade, there is your target.

 

[robotmonkey]

Nobody is restricting it though. It's simply not possible to run PS3 games on a 360. Microsoft isn't actively doing anything to lock out the competition. That's the difference.

No, they made it so that you can only run their games on their system. It's simply not possible because they made it this way. If they wanted to, they could make it so that each of their systems could run the same games and still compete, like how different PC's do. How has this "anti-competitive" behavior stifled competition in the gaming market?