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

[WilliamLondon]

ads are pretty worthless if there is no data to back them up. Ads need to be targeted and they need to know about clicks, what they got and so on.

How do you think advertising works?

I call shenanigans.

I have a television that isn't connected to satellite or cable, but is just "free to air" or Freeview as it's called here in the UK - I have an aerial on the roof that delivers the signal to my television.

There are ads on all channels (except the BBC). The advertisers know nothing of my viewing habits, and nothing about me personally, yet they still appear. They only know that if I'm home during the day watching a television show, an advertisement for lawyers might hit the mark as I might be someone who was harmed by someone that can be sued (hence their offering).

When I buy a magazine, there are ads all through it - however, I don't have to give any information about myself at the news agent.

The point is that although advertising is made better with detailed information about me (the target for the advert), it isn't nullified (as you've both stated) when that data isn't there.

 

[macsmurf]

I really want to know what data you think they need that they can't get. This is a genuine question, because they haven't really said how this affects them. Until we know that, I don't see how we can say this hinders them in any way.

What you don't know is anything about the user. If I know that a user has an interest in let's say boating, I can serve him boating ads in a number of applications. If I don't know anything about how the user behaves, I can only target based on the static information you mentioned. That is, boating ads in boating apps.

 

[WilliamLondon]

Android Market has a limited approval process. 3rd party unsigned apps do not and can be installed on an Android device by checking a box on a preference/settings menu. No jailbreaking or other manipulation required.

Thank you for supporting the point I made. I was responding to someone who said, there is no approval process for Android, when there clearly is, and you've just confirmed it. Thank you.

All nice but you aren't restricted to distribute apps through Android Market.

Please try to think outside of Apple's way of doing things.

Please dial the offensive attitude back a bit first. As to your point, you are commenting on a point I haven't made. See above.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I call shenanigans.

I have a television that isn't connected to satellite or cable, but is just "free to air" or Freeview as it's called here in the UK - I have an aerial on the roof that delivers the signal to my television.

There are ads on all channels (except the BBC). The advertisers know nothing of my viewing habits, and nothing about me personally, yet they still appear. They only know that if I'm home during the day watching a television show, an advertisement for lawyers might hit the mark as I might be someone who was harmed by someone that can be sued (hence their offering).

When I buy a magazine, there are ads all through it - however, I don't have to give any information about myself at the news agent.

The point is that although advertising is made better with detailed information about me (the target for the advert), it isn't nullified (as you've both stated) when that data isn't there.

Ah but you do give infomation to them.
For TV they have the ratings they bring in and statically model who watches each show. In those models they have figured in your income level, age, sex, location and so on. They may of not called you directly but they have surveys out there that have done it.
Same goes for things pick up at the news stand. They see how many were bought there.

The larger your data set the more accurate your statical model is. For things that the news stand if you look at the ads they are targeted at that group same for TV shows. Just watch very different TV shows and you will see the ads on them are radically different. If the shows have different target audience the ads are different.

It comes down to data sets. The larger and more information they have the more patterns start coming out of it.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

ads are pretty worthless if there is no data to back them up. Ads need to be targeted and they need to know about clicks, what they got and so on.

How do you think advertising works?

I call shenanigans.

I have a television that isn't connected to satellite or cable, but is just "free to air" or Freeview as it's called here in the UK - I have an aerial on the roof that delivers the signal to my television.

There are ads on all channels (except the BBC). The advertisers know nothing of my viewing habits, and nothing about me personally, yet they still appear. They only know that if I'm home during the day watching a television show, an advertisement for lawyers might hit the mark as I might be someone who was harmed by someone that can be sued (hence their offering).

When I buy a magazine, there are ads all through it - however, I don't have to give any information about myself at the news agent.

The point is that although advertising is made better with detailed information about me (the target for the advert), it isn't nullified (as you've both stated) when that data isn't there.

The difference between targeted app ads and tv ads is the advertsers have foresight of what tv prgramme is going to be on and which kind of Audi cenwill be watching. During a football game, you get male targeted ads, during daytime tv you get ads for injury lawyers (like you mentioned earlier) and ads targeted at housewives.

App ad providers aren't as lucky as they font know where or what app you are going to run without analytics of some kind meaning they may serve far less effective.

Do you think tv advertisers would advertise a stairlift during an extreme sports event on tvhoping it would be relevant or effective?

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

Android Market has a limited approval process. 3rd party unsigned apps do not and can be installed on an Android device by checking a box on a preference/settings menu. No jailbreaking or other manipulation required.

Thank you for supporting the point I made. I was responding to someone who said, there is no approval process for Android, when there clearly is, and you've just confirmed it. Thank you.

All nice but you aren't restricted to distribute apps through Android Market.

Please try to think outside of Apple's way of doing things.

Please dial the offensive attitude back a bit first. As to your point, you are commenting on a point I haven't made. See above.

Ok, do you are arguing semantics here?





The question was how do I know Google wouldn't ban app submissions based on a dev using a different ad provider. Google aren't screening for that kind of thing.





If an app is obviously malicious I would want Google to ban it and they would. They would never ban an app based on what app vendor a dev chose.





Take my post in context please.



Edit: sorry if my attitude stinks WilliamLondon. I'm posting like a right arsehole here. Bad goings on in the house of chaz and it isn't your fault!

 

[calderone]

What you don't know is anything about the user. If I know that a user has an interest in let's say boating, I can serve him boating ads in a number of applications. If I don't know anything about how the user behaves, I can only target based on the static information you mentioned. That is, boating ads in boating apps.

Well again, the question is how does Apple stop them from knowing and could they have known it at all? Did the previous terms allow you to collect information about the apps they have?

Even if it did, that means they would need to have their own database of applications and know which ones are boating apps and which are not. Does AdMob currently do this?

If they couldn't get this information before, they can't really complain. Honestly, the type of data collection you are proposing is something you would see on a Google platform.

I am well aware of the usefulness of this kind of data, but I also know that this type of data is hard to come by and for good reason.

Until AdMob or someone else specifically says "Here is the data I could get before and I can't get it now and this is affecting the way I do business," we can't determine what the effects of this situation are.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)



The difference between targeted app ads and tv ads is the advertsers have foresight of what tv prgramme is going to be on and which kind of Audi cenwill be watching. During a football game, you get male targeted ads, during daytime tv you get ads for injury lawyers (like you mentioned earlier) and ads targeted at housewives.

App ad providers aren't as lucky as they font know where or what app you are going to run without analytics of some kind meaning they may serve far less effective.

Do you think tv advertisers would advertise a stairlift during an extreme sports event on tvhoping it would be relevant or effective?

I don't buy it. They have to know what apps are running. All of the ads I have seen in apps have been related to the app I am running. The don't need to know what I am going to run. They need to know what I am running and what device I am using. And they seem to know that.

So they surely aren't blind.

But again, we don't know what data they can get and until we know, we can't say they will be more or less effective than they were.

 

[WilliamLondon]

If an app is obviously malicious I would want Google to ban it and they would. They would never ban an app based on what app vendor a dev chose.

Take my post in context please.

Edit: sorry if my attitude stinks WilliamLondon. I'm posting like a right arsehole here. Bad goings on in the house of chaz and it isn't your fault!

Chaz - very cool of you, your edit comment, appreciate it very much!

Yes, semantics. The point I wanted to make is Apple isn't the only company that places restrictions in its marketplace. People get all hot and bothered about Apple's restrictions, but restrictions are restrictions, Android's are just different. They both are about protecting maximising the user experience, but they go about it in different ways. However, I *never* see anyone complain about the Android marketplace's restrictions, or even a mention of them in the context of attacking Apple's.

I like Apple's restrictions. They put *me* (the consumer) first, and I appreciate that. That's my point.

It comes down to data sets. The larger and more information they have the more patterns start coming out of it.

App ad providers aren't as lucky as they font know where or what app you are going to run without analytics of some kind meaning they may serve far less effective.

You both have now backed away from your original positions, and that was that you both said ads are ineffective without data. That's simply not true. Try driving down a road without seeing a big billboard - what would they know of you? That you are a driver? Passenger? Pedestrian? Bicyclist? Bus traveller? Just plain lost?<grin>

I agree data is more appealing to advertisers, but your original comment that ads don't work without it is just plain wrong.

Either that or the advertisers haven't figured out you *must* have data for an ad to be effective.

 

[macsmurf]

Well again, the question is how does Apple stop them from knowing and could they have known it at all? Did the previous terms allow you to collect information about the apps they have?

You are not allowed to share info on your users' habits with a third party affiliated with Google or Microsoft. Check out http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/201...steve-jobs-promise-invites-other-advertisers/

Even if it did, that means they would need to have their own database of applications and know which ones are boating apps and which are not. Does AdMob currently do this?

I don't know. I would guess so. Of course, now it doesn't matter.

If they couldn't get this information before, they can't really complain. Honestly, the type of data collection you are proposing is something you would see on a Google platform.

Of course they could. Hey, if Apple will promise not to mine this data themselves then I don't see a problem.

I am well aware of the usefulness of this kind of data, but I also know that this type of data is hard to come by and for good reason.

How so?

Until AdMob or someone else specifically says "Here is the data I could get before and I can't get it now and this is affecting the way I do business," we can't determine what the effects of this situation are.

True but we can guess. These analytics companies exist for a reason and I think it a reasonable assumption that they turn a profit.

 

[Serelus]

Do Coke trucks carry ads for Pepsi, and vice-versa? Of course not, and why should they?

So AdMob accepts an offer from Apple, but then renegs and takes a higher offer from Google instead. That now makes them part of Google, and thus the competiton. Why anyone would expect Apple to allow Google data analytics on Apple's customers is beyond me. Google won't allow Apple to have Google's data.

This is a story because every time a tech company loses in the market they go running to the government to force their competitor to give them what they wanted. The government has to investigate, but these cases of whining competitors go nowhere, and that's where this case will go despite the cries of "about time!" from the Apple haters in this thread who do not understand the law.

I couldn't have said it any better.

 

[davidgrimm]

Maybe someone can explain to me while I, an iPhone user (and ATT victim) will want advertisements popping up on my phone. I'm pretty much sure I don't, but maybe I'm missing something here...

 

[GamecockMac]

I hope the Justice dept. nails Apple to the wall for this one.

Thanks for the unbiased opinion, hater.

Too bad it's never going to happen.

 

[pdjudd]

Maybe someone can explain to me while I, an iPhone user (and ATT victim) will want advertisements popping up on my phone. I'm pretty much sure I don't, but maybe I'm missing something here...

The only way that you can avoid advertising is not to purchase applications with them integrated to them - this has nothing to do with iAd as advertising has been part of theapp store since day one.

 

[capn7]

Maybe someone can explain to me while I, an iPhone user (and ATT victim) will want advertisements popping up on my phone. I'm pretty much sure I don't, but maybe I'm missing something here...

So you don't have to pay for apps all of the time.

 

[SeattleMoose]

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black?

Our government calling out Apple for anti-trust practices is ironic given that the government is completely in bed with Wallstreet/Big Finance.

All credibility in their ability to regulate anything after the r@pe of US taxpayers to save "too big to fail" entities is.....laughable.

 

[rish]

Codswallup!

Are you joking? Or are you just a child?

Competition is absolutely vital to our economy. Wherever antitrust exceptions are permitted, corruption follows. For example, the health insurance industry in the US.

I hope the Justice dept. nails Apple to the wall for this one.

That's bollocks mate. There's no such thing as true competetion that any of today's companies are actively involved in. So why should Apple. Google isn't going to share it's data that it mines with Apple or anyone else so why should Apple. If developers want to advertise with another ad company then they can develop for Windows Mobile or Android. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Abide by the agreement or develop for someone else. It's that simple.

 

[Bafflefish]

For example, the free market successfully ended the depression of 1920 in a year, government turned the depression of 1929 into the great depression.

You do realize that "regulation", as we know it now, essentially didn't exist in 1929 (and in fact, didn't even begin to take hold until around 1932-1933), and that the crash of 1929 that resulted in the Great Depression, was actually caused by Free Market forces (over-speculation on Wall Street).

If you don't like organizations like the SEC and government regulation, that's fine, but it's ignorant to attribute the Great Depression to the government. The Great Depression had actually been going on for almost 5 years before the SEC (1934) even began its existence. That's roughly half-way through the Great Depression, lol...

 

[rish]

I prefer Pepsi

Does Coke allow their bottling partners to also carry Pepsi? On the same trucks?

However Coca Cola in the UK has never allowed any other products on the same vehicle unless it was part of subsidiary owned by them.

Pepsi is better though. Feeling thirsty now.

 

[Mirice]

Microsoft is intentionally designing their console so only 360 compatible games can be played on it. So yes, they're actively pursuing a path to lock out the competition.

That is one of the most idiotic statements i have ever seen in my entire life.

 

[FX120]

How would people here feel about Microsoft suddenly changing their EULA so that any non-Internet Explorer web browsers couldn't be installed or run on Windows?

 

[satcomer]

However Coca Cola in the UK has never allowed any other products on the same vehicle unless it was part of subsidiary owned by them.

Pepsi is better though. Feeling thirsty now.

Pepsi is WAY to sweet IMHO!

 

[pdjudd]

How would people here feel about Microsoft suddenly changing their EULA so that any non-Internet Explorer web browsers couldn't be installed or run on Windows?

I don't know - Good thing nothing even remotely similar to that is going on. You might as well ask how you feel if Steve Jobs started killing babies because nothing similar to that is happening either.

 

[Mirice]

How would people here feel about Microsoft suddenly changing their EULA so that any non-Internet Explorer web browsers couldn't be installed or run on Windows?

They would be frothing at the mouth in rage, however if apple did the same and said only Safari could be installed on an mac they would be overjoyed.

 

[GamecockMac]

That is one of the most idiotic statements i have ever seen in my entire life.

They would be frothing at the mouth in rage, however if apple did the same and said only Safari could be installed on an mac they would be overjoyed.

Troll much?

 

[donny77]

But the analytics are by far more important to those companies than ads themselves. With out analytics to back up the ads it is really hard to sell them and show that they are working. It is useful for targeted data and to know how often the ads are click on and so on.

How do newspapers get analytics? Magazines? iAds? Did you watch the keynote? The iAd had a built in form for more information. It had a contest registration. It collected information provided by the user, not stealthily stolen from the device without any user knowledge. Clicks? Really? That is the easiest thing to track and there is no way Apple could block that. Count them on the server side. There are plenty of ways to get analytics, it just forcing them to change their business.

I am sorry lazy developers don't want to write native code optimized for a mobile device and mean old Apple won't let them be lazy.
I am sorry lazy ad services don't want to write user prompts and mean old Apple won't let them be lazy.