Sidebar Sidebar
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

ShiftyPig said:
I'm going to laugh about this all day.

If only we had a word that was a synonym for example in which the underlying elements share a common theme. We could call that word something like..... analogy... or something.
Click to expand...

I know I shouldn't interfere with your little spat with Nebula, but here goes.

He wasn't saying that his Coke truck example was completely analogous to the iAd/AdMob situation. He was simply citing an example where competitors elect to not benefit their competitors.

Believe it or not, not every example has to be perfectly analogous to every aspect of an original concept. For instance, I can compare traveling by boat and by airplane even though a boat doesn't fly. (For reference - you were upset that his coke example didn't exactly match the iAd/AdMob situation).
 
ShiftyPig said:
I'm going to laugh about this all day.

If only we had a word that was a synonym for example in which the underlying elements share a common theme. We could call that word something like..... analogy... or something.
Click to expand...

OK I'll spell it out for you slowly since you have such an obtuse attitude. An example is where you talk about something that illustrates your point ("as an example of an animal that likes to play with string, look at the cat"). An analogy is where you give an example that has common elements that can be mapped to the element you are talking about ("he went after that cake like a cat goes after a mouse").

The Coke-Pepsi was an example of competitors we all know. But as an analogy it would break down. For example, Coke doesn't actually own the trucks, their bottling partners do.

So now that you know the difference between an example an an analogy, I hope it doesn't dampen your laughter too much.
 
jzuena said:
I thought the magic combo was guns and cheese?
Click to expand...

Well, that is new to me but I think I can manage.

So, have you heard the one where Hitler with a bunch of nazis went to a bar and met Jesus? Hitler and the nazis took their guns out, while Jesus tried to order some cheese. The bartender told them to get the hell out, so they all went to the park and had a splendid afternoon.

I heard it from Stewie.
 
djsound said:
Now I'm considered an 'idiot' by a 'cool' nerd...because I wont bend over and take it and just worship any move that Apple makes?
I think iAds are retarded.
Click to expand...
They are just ads.
Sure its a good idea of the guy making millions that thought of it....but we shouldn't be forced to look at them =) I don't think I am an idiot for having an opinion =)
Click to expand...
Nobody forces you to look at them. And iAds is just the method of delivery.
As I see it you dislike ads in general, but blame it on Apple. So how do you expect people to react to this?
 
djsound said:
A forum is for discussion is it not? Now I'm considered an 'idiot' by a 'cool' nerd...because I wont bend over and take it and just worship any move that Apple makes? I think iAds are retarded. Sure its a good idea of the guy making millions that thought of it....but we shouldn't be forced to look at them =) I don't think I am an idiot for having an opinion =)
Click to expand...

You're being called an idiot because you are either misinformed, or just chose to spread misinformation.

iAds will not force you to look at ads any more than you have had to in the past. More specifically, iAds is Apple's way of hopefully replacing AdMob on the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad. Developers chose to include iAds. I'm going to say that one more time, in bold: Developers, NOT Apple, chose to include ads.

This is how it has been since the App Store's introduction. Nothing has changed, except now ads are less intrusive and no longer rip you from apps upon selecting them.
 
kernkraft said:
Well, that is new to me but I think I can manage.

So, have you heard the one where Hitler with a bunch of nazis went to a bar and met Jesus? Hitler and the nazis took their guns out, while Jesus tried to order some cheese. The bartender told them to get out, so they all went to the park and had a splendid afternoon.

I heard it from Stewie.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a scene from inglorious bastards? :rolleyes:
 
I'm not sure what part of limiting information distributed to phone manufacturers and operating system developers falls in the realm of Trusts. They can't make an iphone, nor can they develop an OS for it, so why do they need that information anyway?
 
And don't you think almost every developer will sell iADs if it makes them a bit of cash? I would.....the option has now been given to them......so they will use it. I am guessing....
 
Someone said...."Well its not like the ads are invading your call its only in apps....' ..It might as well come on on during my call to!!!!! I mean there is free space to advertise why not use it?! haha That will be the next step..Anywhere someone can make money they will....
 
djsound said:
And don't you think almost every developer will sell iADs if it makes them a bit of cash? I would.....the option has now been given to them......so they will use it. I am guessing....
Click to expand...

Is there a problem with a developer having an add on THEIR app to make money?
 
With the premium price apple is commanding for their hardware
I would expect to not have to deal with ads or comprimised security

djsound said:
Someone said...."Well its not like the ads are invading your call its only in apps....' ..It might as well come on on during my call to!!!!! I mean there is free space to advertise why not use it?! haha That will be the next step..Anywhere someone can make money they will....
Click to expand...

Yeah and be forced to watch commercial before we place a call, that would be awesome. Don't we get enough commercials on TV?
I love Being a TOOL dont you?
 
robotmonkey said:
Just because he disagrees doesn't mean he doesn't like macrumors
Click to expand...

I applied the very same logic that he/she did. Just because people have iPhones, they don't have to put up with iAd. It seems that he has more problem with people who disagree.

robotmonkey said:
*******
Click to expand...

You either tell me what you think in proper letters and try to comply with Macrumors' rules; or you keep it to yourself, robotmonkey.
 
djsound said:
And don't you think almost every developer will sell iADs if it makes them a bit of cash? I would.....the option has now been given to them......so they will use it. I am guessing....
Click to expand...

Have you never used a free app, most of which contain ads? Developers have always had ads available to them.
 
djsound said:
Someone said...."Well its not like the ads are invading your call its only in apps....' ..It might as well come on on during my call to!!!!! I mean there is free space to advertise why not use it?! haha That will be the next step..Anywhere someone can make money they will....
Click to expand...

Once again what's wrong with that? I certainly wouldn't put up with it and would switch to a different product, as would many others. That's the free market at work. But what is fundamentally wrong or illegal with someone putting an add on their product or a company that distributes others products (the app store) to decide what they will distribute?

kernkraft said:
I applied the very same logic that he/she did. Just because people have iPhones, they don't have to put up with iAd.



You either tell me what you think in proper letters and try to comply with Macrumors' rules; or you keep it to yourself, robotmonkey.
Click to expand...

Yes, you were using the same logic. Good job. What I am saying is that just because he disagrees with a government department or certain members on a forum doesn't warrant telling him he shouldn't be on the forum. So what if people disagree? And sorry, I meant arsehole. Please correct me if I am wrong, because it sounded like you were calling him one for no reason.
 
When things start getting forced upon us hackers and other people will start working out ways around them..then Apple will become like Microsoft
 
NebulaClash said:
OK I'll spell it out for you slowly since you have such an obtuse attitude. An example is where you talk about something that illustrates your point ("as an example of an animal that likes to play with string, look at the cat"). An analogy is where you give an example that has common elements that can be mapped to the element you are talking about ("he went after that cake like a cat goes after a mouse").

The Coke-Pepsi was an example of competitors we all know. But as an analogy it would break down. For example, Coke doesn't actually own the trucks, their bottling partners do.

So now that you know the difference between an example an an analogy, I hope it doesn't dampen your laughter too much.
Click to expand...

You're clearly getting precious about it and just feel the need to be right, despite the fact that you were clearly going for the "owner of an item can control the content on/in it" correlation. But as you have it, thank you for that completely unrelated example. In other news, I like to play golf.

As I mentioned, I have things to get done and am about to close the lid on my MBP so I can meet someone for lunch. There is life outside the internetz, omgz, believe it or not.
 
robotmonkey said:
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.
The U.S.S.A., killing competition ever since 1929.
Click to expand...

So the EU and FTC hammering down on Microsoft's anti-competitive browser behaviour 'stifled' competition in that market? Firefox, Chrome, and Safari probably disagree. 'Free' (aka under regulated) markets ultimately gravitate towards monopolies without some sort of state interference. The only truly 'free markets' in the world are pirate havens where he with the biggest gun wins, until he's killed off by his competition. For the rest of us , they simply don't exist. Robotmonkey, can you even provide an example of a "truly free market" in the real world?

As for AdMob vs iAds, it seems clear that Apple is intent on allowing some token number of 3rd party advertising (say from boutique ad-networks like The Deck) as a foil to the FTC. I'd hazard to guess that non-iAd supported apps will have a tougher time getting approved though .... Apple is playing a dangerous but fascinating game here. I except Google to go the exact opposite and actively encourage developers interested in using 3rd party ad-platforms to submit apps to their MarketPlace. Perhaps they'll even extend a hand to iAd-supported-apps purely to incite the FTC.
 
robotmonkey said:
Just because he disagrees doesn't mean he doesn't like macrumors
And almost everybody has kept their head cool until your post. *******
Click to expand...

I really like Macrumors. I just wish people could relax a bit more about this stuff and hold on to a sense of humour. We can agree or disagree but that doesn't make us enemies nore does it imply we have low opinions of each other.

This story - just to be a little on topic - is another example of Apple doing well and getting attacked because of it. Google make their money out of advertising. As more and more ad spend moves from the web to the mobile web and, more specifically, applications on mobile devices, Google will fight hard to grab as much of that pie as it can. Apple is using its position as device manufacturer to keep more of the pie for itself.

Google uses its position as gatekeeper online to make money from search. They have a lot of data that no one else is allowed to use. The ownership of that data allows them to make money. Again, this is Google using its position to its advantage.

Apple controls hardware, Google controls data. They both use what they control to make money. So where's the difference? Niether have a monopoly in either smartphones or search. Google is far closer to hegemony than Apple is mind you.
 
pdjudd said:
Devs have had that option before today - iAds changes nothing.
Click to expand...

Actually, the iAd service is part of iOS4. If Apple wanted to push it, they could make ads come up everytime you booted your phone, for example.
 
thetexan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apple makes optional high end direct to consumer products. I can easily switch to a cheaper computer. Or buy a used one. A computer is also something I only invest in once every few years.

Oil companies provide a service essential to normal global operation. I cannot switch to a cheaper oil company (heck, I dont even know what company supplies my energy). I can't really switch even if I did know. I can only use less energy. But I must use some. And I must use it pretty constantly.

So the reason "liberals" don't have a problem with Apple is the same reason they don't have a problem with expensive clothes; you don't have to buy them. But having a problem with oil companies is like having a problem with doctors and insurance companies who charge as much as they please (rather than a fair amount)...because you have to pay it. Energy and health care are necessary to live. Computers are not, and can be found easily.

And, just going off of the news, many energy companies take profit at the expense of having clean up systems for large disasters, improving safety, researching renewable energy, or environmental damage mitigation.

Apple on the other hand is rarely in the news for not spending money on something necessary. And when they are, they try to fix it, like Foxconn.

The majority of Steve Jobs wealth comes from Disney stock.

/corrections
 
ShiftyPig said:
You're clearly getting precious about it and just feel the need to be right, despite the fact that you were clearly going for the "owner of an item can control the content on/in it" correlation. But as you have it, thank you for that completely unrelated example. In other news, I like to play golf.

As I mentioned, I have things to get done and am about to close the lid on my MBP so I can meet someone for lunch. There is life outside the internetz, omgz, believe it or not.
Click to expand...

Ok have a good lunch and we will drop this here. My example was not completely unrelated as I explicitly explained. But I think I have explained enough. If people want to join you in laughing at me or thinking I was unequivocally wrong, they are welcome to it. I agree there is life outside these forums and it's best to move on now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back