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

robotmonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

You must be reading something between the lines that might not be there...

But even if I did - for which there is no evidence - he/she wouldn't mind and doesn't care and I entirely support that sentiment. Also, please stop using that word as it is against the rules.

He told people that if they don't like iAd on the iPhone, get another product. Then he/she turned to ranting about people ranting. So I turned his/her own logic against these points. My conscience is clean.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
Apple has a long history of anti competitive tactics
Click to expand...

True...the practices would be anti-competeitve..if Apple had a monopoly. They currently do not.
They do not control the mobile handset market.
They do not control the app market (the ENTIRE app market)
They do not control the mobile OS market.
They do not control the computer market.

The only market they DO control is the AppStore. Is there a monoply there? Perhaps, if you consider that a market. But there are 2-3 other large and viable App store markets out there for companies to play in.

Also, Apple is just trying not to release user data. Not companies. If I understand this correctly, if they want to find another way to target ads, they can..ie run medical ads on medical apps and movie ads on movie apps. They just can't collect data.
 
panamajack said:
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.
Click to expand...


The first EU case deals with something completely different. MS was demanding some of the profit off of computers that didn't even have their operating system on it. The second was in 2009. They said it was anti-competitive for MS to tie IE with windows. IDK about other windows users out there, but how many times have you used IE, even before 2009? It's very easy to get another web browser, even in the stone ages of 2009 when no other web browsers were easy to get for free (sarcasm). Now in the EU, users are given a box when they first start up to choose one of the popular web browsers. Let's look at the implications of this: Free advertising from the government and almost no other web browsers will be used, thus stifling competition. And users will no long go to websites to download, meaning no more profit from those evil advertisements meaning less incentive for improvement meaning less competition. A 100% free-market by definition is the best defense against monopolies. If there is a "monopoly" (this doesn't really happen by the way), a market is created for a cheaper and/or better alternative. When a market become riddled with regulations, taxes, and various laws, it is much harder for more alternatives to form. For example, the free market successfully ended the depression of 1920 in a year, government turned the depression of 1929 into the great depression.
 
musiciscool said:
That's good. That is why I will order several new iphones in a week. If Apple ever gives in to Google, I go Nokia or off the grid.... CB's if I have to, whatever is necessary to keep Google out of my business. Phouck Google!
Click to expand...

I hope you are aware that MacRumors is using a little service called "Google Analytics". :D
 
kernkraft said:
You must be reading something between the lines that might not be there...

But even if I did - for which there is no evidence - he/she wouldn't mind and doesn't care and I entirely support that sentiment. Also, please stop using that word as it is against the rules.

He told people that if they don't like iAd on the iPhone, get another product. Then he/she turned to ranting about people ranting. So I turned his/her own logic against these points. My conscience is clean.
Click to expand...


Sorry then. When he said "I am sure many of you think I am an arsehole" and you said "I agree" (not direct quotes, I know), I thought you were. But I have been wrong before.
 
robotmonkey said:
The first EU case deals with something completely different. MS was demanding some of the profit off of computers that didn't even have their operating system on it. The second was in 2009. They said it was anti-competitive for MS to tie IE with windows. IDK about other windows users out there, but how many times have you used IE, even before 2009? It's very easy to get another web browser, even in the stone ages of 2009 when no other web browsers were easy to get for free (sarcasm). Now in the EU, users are given a box when they first start up to choose one of the popular web browsers. Let's look at the implications of this: Free advertising from the government and almost no other web browsers will be used, thus stifling competition. And users will no long go to websites to download, meaning no more profit from those evil advertisements meaning less incentive for improvement meaning less competition. A 100% free-market by definition is the best defense against monopolies. If there is a "monopoly" (this doesn't really happen by the way), a market is created for a cheaper and/or better alternative. When a market become riddled with regulations, taxes, and various laws, it is much harder for more alternatives to form. For example, the free market successfully ended the depression of 1920 in a year, government turned the depression of 1929 into the great depression.
Click to expand...
I admire your perseverance. Great post btw.
 
This discussion is getting into Straw Man territory.

The problem isn't Monopoly. It is precisely limiting a user's ability to use their device.

Let me draw an analogy:

A phone company advertises the fact that you can use their service to call any number. But in fact they only allow you to call phone numbers that they approve of. Their reasoning is that they want to guarantee you good phone quality, so certain numbers you won't be able to call. But not just that, they won't let you call controversial people.

Of course you could get service with another phone company, but that's not the point.

One can say that they agree with "Dear Leader"'s vision for his platform, but not that it is a Democratic or Open platform.
 
mrbash said:
This discussion is getting into Straw Man territory.

The problem isn't Monopoly. It is precisely limiting a user's ability to use their device.

Let me draw an analogy:

A phone company advertises the fact that you can use their service to call any number. But in fact they only allow you to call phone numbers that they approve of. Their reasoning is that they want to guarantee you good phone quality, so certain numbers you won't be able to call. But not just that, they won't let you call controversial people.

Of course you could get service with another phone company, but that's not the point.

One can say that they agree with "Dear Leader"'s vision for his platform, but not that it is a Democratic or Open platform.
Click to expand...


I certainly don't like the idea of ads everywhere and it may be enough for me to switch to an evo 4g (*dies a little bit inside*:(), I am just saying the FTC shouldn't and constitutionally can't do what they are doing.
 
Apple is trying to gain a foothole in the mobile ad market by leveraging whatever control of the smartphone market they have. I doubt anyone sane disagrees with this.

That is anticompetitive, pure and simple. Whether it is illegal is another matter. Probably not.

Please stop with the analogies. It not that difficult to discuss the actual case instead of cars, trucks, airplanes, etc.
 
robotmonkey said:
I certainly don't like the idea of ads everywhere and it may be enough for me to switch to an evo 4g (*dies a little bit inside*:(), I am just saying the FTC shouldn't and constitutionally can't do what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Once again - there is not going to be an "ads everywhere" scenario unless the developers go crazy on it - a scenario that could have already happened before iAds existed (with other Ad services) and a possible scenario on Android or any other platform.

If an App contains ads, it is because the developer put them in there on their own volition just like any other platform.
 
Don't blame it on the developer. Something like %60 is going to Apple. If Apple wasn't allowing them then there would be no ads. dont be so blind..
 
musiciscool said:
"to exclude analytics companies from collecting data on users"....
So Apple isn't being friendly enough to Big Brother?
Yet our 'Dear Leader' lets Google get a free pass, to include their wifi spying, window peeping, email cataloguing, and cell phone snooping.....
It's funny, that 80s ad with Apple sticking it to Big Brother may be appropriate after all....
Click to expand...

+1. It's google that has incredible leverage and should be viewed as "Big Brother." Their simplistic facade they showcase doesn't reveal their true ambitions or the infinite amount of information they collect on a daily basis and are more than willing to sell it to whomever they want.

Apple is doing nothing wrong here. Google can still collect information from users based on their web use. But I'm sorry, the apps you download from the App Store are in fact no different than the PS3 games you purchase at the store. Microsoft doesn't get info on PS3 platform, and Sony doesn't receive info from the Xbox.
 
djsound said:
Don't blame it on the developer. Something like %60 is going to Apple. If Apple wasn't allowing them then there would be no ads. dont be so blind..
Click to expand...

At least get the facts right. 60% goes to the devs, 40% to Apple.

The developer chooses to put in ads or not put in ads. There are ads in many apps today, even without iAds. iAds simply makes it easier for devs to include them and makes the user experience a somewhat pleasant one when interacting with ads.
 
I would like the FTC to look into why Google Maps Navigation has been released for Android but not for the iPhone.
 
0tim0 said:
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
Click to expand...

Google and Microsoft both have a presence on Apple Products.




ChazUK said:
Yes. There is no approval process for Google to reject an iAd platform on Android.
Click to expand...

And you know this how ? Link please.


macsmurf said:
Apple is trying to gain a foothole in the mobile ad market by leveraging whatever control of the smartphone market they have. I doubt anyone sane disagrees with this.

That is anticompetitive, pure and simple. Whether it is illegal is another matter. Probably not.

Please stop with the analogies. It not that difficult to discuss the actual case instead of cars, trucks, airplanes, etc.
Click to expand...

You mean just like Google did by purchasing AdMob ?
 
Rodimus Prime said:
Apple has a long history of anti competitive tactics
Click to expand...

You are brain washed by the anti-Apple PR offensive.

When is the last time Apple is found guilty of " anti competitive tactics"

BTW Google blocks competitors from using its map data for navigation services.
 
calderone said:
At least get the facts right. 60% goes to the devs, 40% to Apple.

The developer chooses to put in ads or not put in ads. There are ads in many apps today, even without iAds. iAds simply makes it easier for devs to include them and makes the user experience a somewhat pleasant one when interacting with ads.
Click to expand...

bah close enough....you know what im saying. Its not like they are making nothing. :cool:
 
pdjudd said:
Once again - there is not going to be an "ads everywhere" scenario unless the developers go crazy on it - a scenario that could have already happened before iAds existed (with other Ad services) and a possible scenario on Android or any other platform.

If an App contains ads, it is because the developer put them in there on their own volition just like any other platform.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there's going to be ads everywhere... but if there is I may switch to android (*dies a little again*:()
 
djsound said:
bah close enough....you know what im saying. Its not like they are making nothing. :cool:
Click to expand...

No, I don't know what you are saying when you misrepresent the facts.

It's not like Google is making nothing...

Why shouldn't Apple make something? They developed the platform and are getting the companies on board.

While they are doing it for profit (as any business should), the fact that they are taking a less than equal portion says something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top