Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Slams Apple Over iPhone Ad Ban

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along? dept.

Advertising 562

crimeandpunishment writes "This real-life clash of the titans could be much more interesting than the movie. Today Google fired the latest volley in its war of words with Apple over mobile advertising. In a blog posting, the head of Google's mobile ad service, Admob, had harsh words for Apple's new restrictions concerning the iPhone and iPad ... calling them a threat to competition. There's a lot of money at stake ... the US mobile ad market, which is about $600 million, is expected to more than double by 2013."

cancel ×

562 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow, I'm shocked. (1)

epp_b (944299) | more than 4 years ago | (#32519998)

Not.

When is a monopoly not a monopoly? (5, Insightful)

sortadan (786274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520030)

When it's Apple and their closed platform apparently...

Re:When is a monopoly not a monopoly? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520138)

I don't quite see how less than 10% of the smartphone market, let alone the complete cellphone market, constitutes a monopoly. Sure, they have a monopoly on iPhones and Apple's iOS, but the same can be said of almost all cellular companies and their hardware/OS combinations.

Re:When is a monopoly not a monopoly? (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520526)

Jobs just finished declaring that he had 28% marketshare. Sure, that's still not really a monopoly, but that's a lot more than 10%. And even if that number were suspect, it's Apple's number so they can't complain about it.

Re:When is a monopoly not a monopoly? (3, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520162)

The mac fanatics will just say the usual:
"but Apple isn't in a monopoly on the phone market!"

And hence they can't do anything wrong and you will be moderated troll.

Re:When is a monopoly not a monopoly? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520468)

The mac fanatics will just say the usual:
"but Apple isn't in a monopoly on the phone market!"

And hence they can't do anything wrong and you will be moderated troll.

monopoly |mnäpl|
noun ( pl. -lies)
1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service : his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.
  [usu. with negative ] the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something : men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love.
  a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service : areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.
  a commodity or service controlled in this way : electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies.
2 ( Monopoly) trademark a board game in which players engage in simulated property and financial dealings using imitation money. It was invented in the U.S. and the name was coined by Charles Darrow c. 1935.

Having a monopoly on GOOD phones does not actually count as a real monopoly. Not having a monopoly doesn't mean your actions aren't bad, or even not anticompetitive, but it means they don't have a monopoly.

wow, you're gay (1)

iwannasexwithyourmom (1804754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520298)

REALLY!

And thus there was Android (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520004)

One of the reasons Android is an important project for Google -- it makes them little, if any, money, despite a half-baked plan to sell their own handset -- is exactly this scenario. Google's fear was that a single vendor would have too much control to cut them out. So Android was birthed, and there are many vendors. And for those who might not know, any Android handset vendor has the full ability to replace Google with Bing, or to cut out Google ads in other forms, yet the "fragmentation" of the market ensures that there isn't an overly one-sided power distribution.

So is Apple being testy because of Android....or is this the gameplan all along, and Android was a good pre-emptive strike?

Re:And thus there was Android (0)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520082)

Didn't microsoft run into trouble with forcing users to have IE with antitrust lust?
I smell a lawyers wet dream orgy brewing.

Re:And thus there was Android (2, Interesting)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520146)

web browsing is an industry consumers want and benefit from. advertising is something i would pay to rid myself of.

Re:And thus there was Android (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520234)

You're missing the point, for many apps you will have the option of either purchasing a full price version or running an ad supported version so you can have exactly that choice. There will of course be paid apps with ads included but those most likely will either be unpopular or will be imitated by apps with the either/or model.

Re:And thus there was Android (1)

inKubus (199753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520334)

And the "iAds" themselves are mini apps that are in a layer over the current app and can be closed at any time. Definitely not a text link to a web page. Obviously Steve would rather keep people in the apps.

Re:And thus there was Android (1)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520342)

In order to run afoul of anti-trust Apple would need to be deemed a monopoly. Apple is not even the market leader in smart phones so there is no way it could be considered a monopoly in that or any other space.

Re:And thus there was Android (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520090)

is this the gameplan all along, and Android was a good pre-emptive strike?

or maybe Schmidt just stole Apple's ideas while sitting on the board

Re:And thus there was Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520176)

This is good for consumers, the handheld wars are really under way now .

Google now has a huge incentive to pump money into Android development and assist phone hardware manufacturers to compete against Apple. Plus secretly work on ensuring iPhone always has a working jailbreak to allow non Apple approved apps (which will utilise Google advertising) to run. Even allow Android to be installed on iPhone hardware.

Re:And thus there was Android (3, Insightful)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520200)

In fairness, Google elected to compete with Apple in the mobile space with Android, the desktop space with the Google OS, and with a web browser (based on a technology currently largely driven by Apple no less). Then, when Apple tried to buy AdMob Google pulled the stool from under the deal.

If you were Apple (which is to say Steve Jobs) would you not be rather pissed? I certainly would be. If I had a legal recourse to retaliate in a business context I almost certainly would.

You've got to hand it to Apple they played this one really well. The FTC just approved of the Google/AdMod deal on the strength of Apple competition and so Apple feels pretty confident they can compete aggressively with little chance of the government crying foul.

Re:And thus there was Android (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520294)

Well...Google bought Android team quite a bit before iPhone announcement, plus they don't actually have any consumer "Google OS" (and of you refer to ChromeOS, that's a different thing, aimed mostly at tablets and netbooks; in the first case, also made public before Apple move, in the second - Apple claims they are not interested). As for browser...c'mon, Apple would be pissed after building large part of it on someone's else work, too?

Re:And thus there was Android (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520352)

Are you suggesting that Eric Schmidt wasn't sniffing around outside the board room when they recused him from the discussion?

Re:WebKit is based of of the KHTML (1)

zaphod777 (1755922) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520516)

Well...Google bought Android team quite a bit before iPhone announcement, plus they don't actually have any consumer "Google OS" (and of you refer to ChromeOS, that's a different thing, aimed mostly at tablets and netbooks; in the first case, also made public before Apple move, in the second - Apple claims they are not interested). As for browser...c'mon, Apple would be pissed after building large part of it on someone's else work, too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML [wikipedia.org] Apple didn't invent the tech behind WebKit the forked KHTML and it is still largely an open source project. Apple likes everyone to believe they built it from the bottom up.

Re:And thus there was Android (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520354)

You've got to hand it to Apple they played this one really well. The FTC just approved of the Google/AdMod deal on the strength of Apple competition and so Apple feels pretty confident they can compete aggressively with little chance of the government crying foul.

Did Apple play it well? Looks to me like Apple went and made an anti-competitive move as soon as something that resembled competition reared its ugly head. If the FTC sees it that way as well then they will cry foul and call Apple out.

Re:And thus there was Android (4, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520232)

So is Apple being testy because of Android....or is this the gameplan all along, and Android was a good pre-emptive strike?

I don't think so. Google was one of the most important partners when the iPhone got its start: Google search, Maps, Youtube it was all on there. Then they decided they wanted a piece of the pie instead of depending on Apple and started directly competing with them making inane jabs in the process comparing Apple to North Korea [nytimes.com] and targeting them in their presentations [huffingtonpost.com] . Don't start a fight if you can't take a punch.

Only the Analytics are banned (1, Informative)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520018)

Google doesn't get to peak into Apple's sandbox anymore. Deal with it Google. You can still run standard Advertisements.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520028)

You can't reasonably run ads without analytics. The entire ad industry depends upon analytics.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (0)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520076)

No, they don't depend on it. They like it. That's all.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520160)

For an advertiser, the real value of mobile advertising resides on "location", less sense of privacy, convenience like "click here to call", a common standard hardware with very identical OS and predictable behavior.

I am not saying these are good things, it bugs the hell out of me and I never, ever use advertising supported software on any handheld. I am just saying that, if Apple can do it, every credible (note: credible) company should do it, informing the user first of course.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (3, Informative)

Spazed (1013981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520096)

The main block Apple has put up is that user location can't be given out to advertisers outside of the iAd system, it is probably going to be pushed as a privacy issue.
Not having used iOS 4, I can't really say if this is a good thing or a bad thing overall, but I do like knowing that there are restrictions in place on who gets to handle what info about me.
Personally, I have location awareness turned off so this doesn't really apply much to me, but the idea is the same.


This isn't a monopoly move either, Apple isn't forcing anything on anyone outside their own platform to do anything. Apple is doing the same thing cable and satellite providers have been doing all along. . . picking and choosing who gets to advertise where and how.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520132)

SAtelite and cable companies generally run on there own infrastructure which the users lease use of, hence they have the right to dictate whatever they want. The iphone is a purchased piece of hardware that runs on 3rd party networks and as such what they can dictate is more limited as they have to ensure they are not anti competitive.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (1)

Spazed (1013981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520404)

I own my satellite boxes and dish, but I still only get the programming that my provider approves.

I own my iPhone, but I still only get the applications/ads Apple approves.

The third party network line is thin at best. Apple has a partnership with ATT to provide the iPhone, yet they do not prevent other phones from working on ATT's towers. So while two giants are working together, they aren't stopping others from entering the market or competing.

This partnership is also irrelevant to the iAd. Apple is the one telling developers who can do what in code running inside iOS, it wouldn't matter if the iPhone were unlocked and worked on every network.

If what you are saying mattered, Apple would already be in trouble for being an ATT exclusive.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (3, Insightful)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520178)

Cable and satellite providers are the content distribution services. Of course they have a right to decide who advertises on their networks. If Sony told cable and satellite providers that they weren't aloud to analyse what stations users were watching on their Sony TV, while Sony was at the same time polling all this information for themselves and feeding ad's to the sets, you'd be singing a different song.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (2, Interesting)

Spazed (1013981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520358)

You mean how they control who gets to license the blu-ray spec? Or how they controlled Betamax and kept it away from porn?

The notion that company y has a right to company x's capabilities and information is absurd. Google doesn't have to hand over all their ad data on me to Hulu and Apple, even though they collect the same general info for the same purpose. Apple isn't saying you can't advertise, they are saying you don't get things without joining the club.

As for your TV example, you are basing that off the status quo, one that does not fit here. When you buy an iPhone you go into knowing it is a semi-closed platform and that certain actions will be limited. If TVs were the same you'd go into it knowing that Sony only plays Sony branded/approved media and not Disney's or Warner's content. A better example would have been not being able to update the firmware on your TV without permission from Sony.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520624)

Not aloud?
Analyse?
What does the ad possess in the last sentence?

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (2, Interesting)

Grail (18233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520330)

Why does the advertiser need to know what other applications I have installed, what my name is, what my credit card number is, how much money I spent in my last bricks-and-mortar store credit card transactions, or how long I spent playing "FarmVille" instead of "Bejewelled Blitz"?

The advertising industry has plenty of avenues to target their ads at people who will be interested in the product being advertised, if (a) the product is worth having in the first place and (b) they study demographics a little more.

Y'know, things like not advertising EVE Online to people browsing the Battleclinic kill boards. No-brainer there.

Ads on my gardening blog are nicely targeted due to the content of my blog - they don't need to know who is reading my blog to know that ads for Organic supplies, produce or how-to books will get clicked on.

The ad industry needs analytics like kids need added sugar.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520580)

The ad industry needs analytics like kids need added sugar.

4 out of 5 kids surveyed agreed that added sugar is the shiznit.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520360)

You also can't reasonably spy on Apple without analytics. This is Apple's primary motivation, IMO. $60M or $600M (in 2013), they can leave on the table.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (3, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520092)

How are they supposed to know how much to charge or how much to pay out if they aren't legally permitted to know how many users are being exposed to ads, how long the exposure is, what click-through/tap-through rates are, etc?

What Apple has done is not explicitly ban third party advertisers, but instead achieve that goal through crafty wording in their developer agreement.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520188)

Oh well, Apple can look out any features, vendors and developers they want ... ... I still haven't or will ever get an iPhone so it will never affect me.

Now if only Android where open as a platform, phones and firmware and not only as an operating-system base for the phone manufacturers to claim theirs/restrict/fuck up :/

One can always hope Google will fix that once they got enough momentum and size.

Re:Only the Analytics are banned (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520280)

I think it's yet to be settled if it's legal for Apple to essentially nullify all the agreements Google and other advertising companies had by locking them out retroactively. I imagine that'll be settled in court, but I think the DOJ has a pretty plain case.

I see nothing wrong with Apple providing their own service, the fact that it's from the same company that makes the device and all the other APIs and writes your check already is a strong sell. But creating their own service and then making certain there's zero competition in a hundred-million user marketplace, that smells of anti-trust to me.

An early sign of creative deterioration... ? (0)

xclay (924789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520022)

It may be a hasty call, but it almost sounds like a complaint of someone starting to go down on a slope at the late maturation stage of one of our titans.

Re:An early sign of creative deterioration... ? (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520364)

No, just a call that completely ignores the facts.

anyone willing to defend consumers want ads? (2, Interesting)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520024)

i'm pretty sure the anti-monopoly laws were for industries consumers wanted to protect

walled garden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520026)

There is a reason why one doesn't see ads for Six Flags inside Disney world. Jobs is smart, though I wonder what the FTC will eventually say.

Re:walled garden (0, Redundant)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520158)

Apples phone with you renting it, your telco, your internet, your surfing.
At what point does web surfing cookies stop and the need for Phorm like DP start?

Re:walled garden (1)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520220)

The FTC just approved of the Google/AdMod deal on the strength of Apple competition so it's unlikely they will say anything other 'see, we were right!'

Oh, Google (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520032)

I just downloaded Google Chrome [google.com] 3.0.192.0 for Mac [apple.com] and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro [apple.com] is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores [intel.com] , 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X [apple.com] Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple [apple.com] and Mozilla [mozilla.com] can do this but Google [google.com] can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 [microsoft.com] for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 [trollaxor.com] since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview [apple.com] more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit [webkit.org] is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability [computerworld.com] I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity [bullsballs.com] to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses [wikisource.org] to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother [google-watch.org] crap is more repulsive than the fat [trollaxor.com] programmers [shelleytherepublican.com] that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars [nytimes.com] , thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft [microsoft.com] . While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search [google.com] , Gmail [google.com] , Chrome [apple.com] or whatever else the faceless robot [tfwiki.net] of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind [google.com] . No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes [wikipedia.org] its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating [scobleizer.com] systems [pcworld.com] ?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining [goatse.info] my personal data!

Re:Oh, Google (3, Informative)

sdiz (224607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520208)

The version of Chrome you link to is a BETA release.
If you don't like crashing, why not use the release version [google.com] ?

Are they...surprised? (0)

TouchAndGo (1799300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520034)

I mean it's not exactly startling that your direct competition doesn't want you advertising on their device.

Re:Are they...surprised? (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520056)

I mean it's not exactly startling that your direct competition doesn't want you advertising on their device.

So when you buy an iPhone, you accept that it's still Steve's? Wow.

Note that we're talking about ads in third-party applications. Meaning as a third-party application developer, Apple has now said "Oh, and by the way if you want to advertise, your only real choice is us." How is that defensible?

And do you accept that the Safari browser on the iOS devices has the right to purge all web ads and replace them with Apple ads? Why not, right?

Re:Are they...surprised? (1, Informative)

TouchAndGo (1799300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520074)

I wasn't saying that I support the decision, simply that it's not exactly surprising that Apple doesn't want Google to get advertising revenue generated through their handset. The relationship between the two has become increasingly hostile over the last couple of years, so while it's an unpleasant move, it's NOT a surprise.

Re:Are they...surprised? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520174)

we're talking about ads in third-party applications. Meaning as a third-party application developer, Apple has now said "Oh, and by the way if you want to advertise, your only real choice is us." How is that defensible?

because they still have the choice to sell their ads directly, and implement them in a way that gets approved into the app store. if they can't do that, apple will provide them with a solution, and pay them a cut of proceeds. whose trust do you think is being violated?

Re:Are they...surprised? (1)

starsprout (1830268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520244)

Welcome to Apple Stadium* No Pepsi! Coke. (*biometrics recorded upon entry)

Re:Are they...surprised? (1)

rarel (697734) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520276)

Id rather have an iNeken; it's free as in beer!

Re:Are they...surprised? (2, Interesting)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520258)

If you buy a device from vendor you are buying into whatever the vendor is selling. In this case your buying into the 'word of Steve' and the word of Steve today is 'the only ads you will see will be served by Apple'.

If you don't like it, don't buy it, that's the free market way.

(Honestly, despite Google crying foul this has 0 impact on consumers. Does anyone care who serves the advertising?)

]{

Re:Are they...surprised? (3, Insightful)

inKubus (199753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520476)

Yeah, exactly. The whole PC market was built on choice and freedom. Apple has always been about living in the Apple box, and getting some benefits like easier setup at the expense of being in a monoculture..

Although Apple has made some innovations, mainly on the design side, a lot of their innovations fail as well (Firewire?).. The PC has done far more to improve productivity, and the business of computers. If you're in the computer business, you owe it to the PC. Whereas if Apple had won, we would all be working for Apple.

Microsoft, for it's evil, was always just a publishing company. Apple is the tool of the publishing companies. They want to do away with the web, and replace it with a big "App Store". They don't want you to get stuff for free on the web any more. Anyway, the bottom line is that Apple is still swimming upstream. I'm surprised they made as much money with the iPod as they did, but I think that had as much to do with the economic bubble as it did the product. People with a extra money buy nice things, and Apple makes nice things. But not everyone can drive a Porsche, and that will be their eventual undoing, again.

I said a few months ago that APPL was a classic bubble, and the stock will never get over $275 and it still hasn't. People are getting tired of it, the novelty is wearing off, and they just want a cheap phone that does what they want it to do. I think the phone manufacturers have gotten the message and now it's up to the carriers to provide as much bandwidth as possible. Android and Windows Mobile are the long tail and RIM will continue to be the choice of the enterprise professional.

Re:Are they...surprised? (4, Insightful)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520300)

And do you accept that the Safari browser on the iOS devices has the right to purge all web ads and replace them with Apple ads? Why not, right?

Your actually very astute by pointing this out. The application advertising is only the first skirmish in the battle. Apple will almost certainly permit these ads to be shown in Safari using some kind of proprietary extension. Because iAD adds earn significantly more than AdSense these will get extensive adoption and significantly improve support for iOS devices.

It's a real smart move by Apple.

Re:Are they...surprised? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520378)

The suggestion that Apple is denying a given right is absurd. I've made an app, and I could fill it full of ads for Joe's Curry House or even Google if I chose. But I don't, because that would be stupid and ruin the app - instead I make a good app.

All Apple has done is limit bookable media space inside of computer software. Imagine if Adobe suddenly stopped McDonalds running ads inside Photoshop - wouldn't that be terrible?

And let's not forget, the company that is most aggressively targeting Apple's business is Google. Why on earth would they a) help them and b) do it in a way that means that their customers get bombarded with mindless ads about 'secret tips to remove tummy fat'.

Why Android fanboys are so desperate to view crap internet ads is beyond me.

Duh.

Re:Are they...surprised? (1)

inKubus (199753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520398)

You don't have to use iAds, you do have to use it if you want to get paid by Apple. They are just preventing people from running out and making a bunch of ugly, confusing, possibly nefarious ads like the rest of the web. The app store is not the web, Steve says. He made a clear distinction between free content on the web and the premium, high-end brands on the app store. It's like a high-end mall. Anyone can advertise on iAds but since it takes a minimum of $500K and programming.

Whereas Google has cornered the small time market, and it would be useless to compete over the small-time, free internet with Google. Jobs is really trying to make a parallel-to-the-web, not-free (as in speech) platform for media content delivery. And not only that, he wants to control the production of the media as well from the camera to the end user. And he's betting that people will do it because it's "cool" and he's kinda already proven they will through iTunes.

If it succeeds, I have a feeling the web part of the phone/pad will kinda fade away. But the problem is that Apple thinks big, the reality distortion is in effect, and it's easy to forget that most people in the world don't have dough to spend on apps. And really, Apple's share is not that big, but it's growing. They've sold a few billion in cheap software, which is impressive.

But where's the long tail that will have this growth continue? Soon they'll have to give away iPhones because that's what Blackberry and Windows Mobile will do. Then they'll have to slash prices to keep up with the discount brands. Apple does not have competition when it comes to designing a high-end product, but from an economic perspective, they are going to have to get in bed with big media and HARD to stay alive.

Only the web can provide everything as soon as it's developed, for free, and in a way that is free to the producer of the content as well. And google is really the web, since it provides the gateway to that content. Now, I don't see how that's going to be as profitable as a media machine like Apple is making. But, they have the long tail. So Apple will have the high-end customers and Google/VZW and Microsoft will fight over the rest.

Re:Are they...surprised? (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520502)

Anyone can advertise on iAds but since it takes a minimum of $500K and programming.

And people said I was stupid, but I proved them!

Re:Are they...surprised? (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520604)

It is a problem for developers as well.

Funny thing is that there is no outcry by the developer community. Many depend on ads to provide free versions of their programs, having only one choice (this does not only hit admob but all others as well, like Microsoft, yahoo etc... which are in the same business) means that Apple can dictate what they get. Which means they simply can reduce the ad revenue of everyone by 90% just if Steve Jobs thinks it is a good idea.
There is no way I am going to enter iPhone development, this reminds me more and more on the gold rush, where the only ones except for a few who really earned anything were the vendors who sold the shovels and bought the gold. The main difference is there is only one vendor who can dictate the prices on any front.
Android development looks better every day, the toolchain is top notch, google does not dictate anything and does not want to, the system is open enough so that no one can pull an Apple stunt and the market is picking up as well revenuewise for the authors.

I just wonder if this was the last straw to drive the developers away from the iphone in the long run, lots of them already have planned to at least go to other platforms as well, when Apple pulled the last stunt with their developers toolchain eula a few months ago.

Cry me a river (2, Insightful)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520042)

So Google gets into smartphones, browsers and operating systems, and then cries "Foul!" when Apple gets into online advertising? (OK, I know Apple's hardware restrictions are a valid issue, but still....)

Re:Cry me a river (5, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520100)

So Google gets into smartphones, browsers and operating systems, and then cries "Foul!" when Apple gets into online advertising? (OK, I know Apple's hardware restrictions are a valid issue, but still....)

Google is crying foul not because Apple got into advertising, but because Apple banned companies owned by makers of other mobile operating systems from using analytics(critical for ads) on the iDevices. i.e Apple is specifically targeting Google just like it targeted Adobe last time around

Re:Cry me a river (1, Troll)

Zorkon (121860) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520134)

Google started this whole dust-up when they went after Apple. See Gruber's thoughts on the matter:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/06/09/battelle

"There’s no question it’s a dick move on Apple’s part. But what’s the argument against it? That Google gets a pass for being dicks to Apple, and Apple ought to just sit there and take it?"

Re:Cry me a river (1, Troll)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520304)

Do you think Google will permit iAD advertising in their any of their web based products? Why should Apple not institute a reciprocal restriction?

Re:Cry me a river (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520422)

As far as I know, Google does not ban me from using any ad engine I like on my web pages, even when rendering them inside Chrome.

Re:Cry me a river (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520446)

Your analogy is incorrect.

Nobody is asking for Apple to use Google/AdMob ads in their own apps. The question is whether third party iOS app developers should be allowed to use Google/AdMob ads. The analogous question for Google would be "does Google index pages that have ads from competing ad networks"? The answer is "yes".

Re:Cry me a river (2, Insightful)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520376)

"Critical for Ads" my ass. Advertisers have worked almost exclusively without analytics until about a decade ago.

Re:Cry me a river (1, Insightful)

mTor (18585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520482)

Why should a company help its competition? Why should Apple allow Google to spy on its customers and their platform when Google closely guards their advertising platform and doesn't allow 3rd party ad networks anywhere on their search properties?

If a Ford makes a truck, do they have to allow GM to have a compatible engine for it?

PS: I'm just asking and I'm not being confrontational.

Re:Cry me a river (2, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520614)

This is not only against google, google is the biggest target, but they hit Microsoft Yahoo and others as well, and also the developers who now have one and only one ad vendor which can provide them the revenue for their free versions, which means they are at the merits of Big Brother to give them a decent share.
Which in the long run will not happen, Apple will take more and more of that share since there is no competition.

Re:Cry me a river (3, Informative)

JakeD409 (740143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520120)

You invalidated your entire comment in the parentheses. Google isn't crying "Foul!" over Apple's foray into online advertising, they're crying "Foul!" over Apple's hardware restrictions.

Re:Cry me a river (5, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520148)

Uh, no. Google is crying "Foul!" because Apple is banning developers from using Google's ad platform in their apps. Conveniently, right at the same time as they introduce their own: iAd. Yes, ads suck and it's weird defending an advertising platform, but this is Google: the company that made ads useful and unoffensive (and just that slight bit creepy).

Apple are truly becoming the kings of rent-seeking and platform lock-in. It's far worse than anything Microsoft ever did.

Re:Cry me a river (1)

inKubus (199753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520424)

Apple are truly becoming the kings of rent-seeking and platform lock-in. It's far worse than anything Microsoft ever did.

Dude, that's how Apple has always been. Except when Steve left for a while. I think this is kindof his legacy, and I don't think he has a lot of time so he's going full-bore for the brass ring.

Microsoft was always about putting as many copies out there as possible. Apple wants to be the exclusive cult.

Re:Cry me a river (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520242)

This isn't Google throwing a hissy fit over Apple being a new competitor, this is Google complaining that Apple decided to retroactively change the developer agreement and prohibit developers from using third party analytics and advertising, making iAd the only advertising service a developer can use in iOS apps.

This goes much further than say, any Microsoft example ever has been. It'd be like if Microsoft not only included IE by default (just as Apple adds new APIs or apps with each release) but made it so that the hypothetical/fictional "Win32 developer agreement" did not allow you to use any HTML rendering engine other than mshtml.dll (Internet Explorer's HTML layout engine.) Or if they disallowed some other trivial thing that would be necessary for creating a third party browser, like disallowing developers from writing programs that would become the default program for web browsing, or email, or whatever. Or disallowing some weird strange little thing that would be all but necessary to sell a program that does word processing, then of course allowing an exception for their own Microsoft Word.

What they've done is clearly, plainly anticompetitive. I think Google should sue, they have existing contracts with a lot of developers for the iPhone, I imagine that Apple's change in developer agreement here breaks some contract law, but IANAL.

Re:Cry me a river (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520320)

... ok, and then the next step is Google blocking Apple users from YouTube.

Too bad they don't own Facebook to, then it would had the possibility of getting really fun :D

Cant they just (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520068)

Can't google just make a sister company clone of admob. Call it IPoo and have admob sell its info to Ipoo and Admob buy IPoo's info. Clearly IPoo only work operates on the Iphone without bias. Everyone is happy and hell just have IPoo based out of the Bahamas and google can write off its taxes as a loss for that division.

I don't know what it is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520072)

I don't know what it is, and maybe it is just me, but the word/name apple just bothers me. it's like an annoyance. No other tech company has had this effect on me in 20+ years.

Walled Garden (2, Insightful)

ixyfang (1830256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520086)

This is why there aren't any ads for Six Flags inside Disney world.

Re:Walled Garden (4, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520458)

There are, however, ads for Direct TV on Cable TV. What's your point?

Google should have stayed silent (4, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520124)

Apple's excuse is, they want to protect their customers privacy. In fact they treat them like 6 year olds but it isn't the issue, it is their excuse.

Google, still thinking entire planet thinks they are "good guys" has major problems with their corporate culture and actions based on that. From "updater" to "Google Chrome" with default settings, Google is always blamed (rightfully) for not respecting users privacy. Some already calls them private data leeching vampires.

Steve Jobs saw this coming and used "privacy" as excuse to lock down the "real" advertising (location/analytics) to their own network. Now Google pops up and complains, people will say to them "look to mirror".

Some panel of advertisers or some people from analytics community should be speaking, not them. Anyway, too late now.

Re:Google should have stayed silent (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520324)

> Some already calls them private data leeching vampires.
Generally just people who have an entirely different grudge with google, usually something along the lines of sour grapes that google doesn't let them unfairly twist the search/ad results in their favor.

> Steve Jobs saw this coming and used "privacy" as excuse to lock down the "real" advertising (location/analytics) to their own network. Now Google pops up and complains, people will say to them "look to mirror".

Steve wants to own his cake and eat it too. First apple makes the hardware, which it owns. Oh, but you can install third party apps! But only through the store which apple owns and controls. Oh, but it's also a communication device, it has web access! But apple controls what aspects of the web you're allowed to use. Apple and Google are on the extreme opposite ends of the lock-in control freak scale. Google may want a finger in every pie, but they don't prevent any other company from entering any layer of the market at any time.

Hardball (2, Insightful)

Dr Max (1696200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520192)

Google should play hardball by creating more non-ad material (of high value to apple users), and displaying it in the same way the adds are displayed. Thus if the appleans want to consume it they will need to turn off the ad blocker, or switch to andriod. Be imaginative you only have one chance at suicide.

Google is hypocritical (2, Insightful)

mTor (18585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520270)

Why doesn't Google allow 3rd party ad networks? Why doesn't Google allow 3rd party ad networks in their SERPs (search engine result pages)?

Google's great at crying and bitching but they're the absolute worst monopolist in ad space today.

Re:Google is hypocritical (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520390)

Ask a sensible question, get modded as troll.

Re:Google is hypocritical (1)

mTor (18585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520464)

You're obviously not allowed to criticize Google on Slashdot. The company that has virtual monopoly in search and advertising and doesn't allow advertising from other networks on their properties.

Re:Google is hypocritical (3, Insightful)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520534)

Come on though, there's a difference between Google's own SERPs and 3rd party iPhone apps.

Re:Google is hypocritical (2, Interesting)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520598)

The reason this is trollish is that there are significant differences between these two situations. Google.com is Google's website! The iOS devices on the other hand are devices that people have purchased and now ostensibly own.

Users and developers expect a different level of freedom with devices than with websites owned by others. Users would like to run the software they want on their devices. Developers would simply like the same abilities they have on computers.

Every restriction Apple puts on their devices becomes another benefit that non-Apple devices have. Sure, it's hard to switch away from the polish of Apple but the benefits of doing so seem to be growing daily.

Re:Google is hypocritical (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520432)

Bing and other ad engines work great in Chrome.

Re:Google is hypocritical (1)

mTor (18585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520448)

You obviously haven't read my question: why doesn't google allow 3rd party ad networks on any of their properties?

Re:Google is hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520500)

So... What you're implying is that my iPhone is Apple property?

fsck that.

Re:Google is hypocritical (1)

Gwala (309968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520540)

They do.

The closest you get from a developer analogy is say Google AppEngine - which is a webapp hosting / development framework. Which you are free to use whichever ad network you choose on the resulting webapps.

Re:Google is hypocritical (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520572)

I'm 100% sure you can create a 3rd party ad network for Chrome, or Android OS. The bigger question is why one would want to reinvent the wheel.

Re:Google is hypocritical (1)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520594)

Apps written by third parties are apple property? I didn't think we were quite to that stage of the game yet.

Apple is being the niggers they've always been (0, Troll)

Clockwurk (577966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520356)

It always has been the intention of Apple for everything you use to be apple and apple only. The iphone has given them a good environment to do this and they are taking advantage of it. If you buy into it, its your own choice, but know that this is what you are buying in to.

Re:Apple is being the niggers they've always been (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520430)

Oh my GOD! The N word! Someone detain this man AT ONCE!

F*ck the both of them (1)

zdepthcharge (1792770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520382)

I am so sick and tired of the "war" between these companies. Any tech companies. I guess there is so little money to be made in the COMPUTER and WEB industry that they have to fight to the death for every little scrap.

Big Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520450)

So the company that acquired AdMob, a product that will compete with Apple's new iAds, is mad about iAds.

How is this news? Mod me troll if you'd like, but I just don't get how [Company A] mad that [Company B] made a competing product potentially pushing [Company A's Product] out of market! This is like a card mod company getting mad when that feature is made part of the car...except this isn't even that bad, they aren't forcing Google out, they're providing an alternative.

Also, as someone who has had to be involved with AdMob stuff before, I can tell you, there's plenty of room for improvement, and if Apple's product trounces AdMob, that's a reflection on AdMob, not a monopoly position. Just because you COULD have a monopolistic advantage does not imply you do have one.

Sheesh, I guess I had a lot of repressed rage over that.

Just my $0.02.

Stalin Calling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32520460)

From a developer's standpoint, this is getting absurd.

1. Apple already makes me use their hardware and software development tools.
        Fine.
2. Now i have to use crappy Objective C from the 1980's to write my code. No C#, no C++, no third party libraries.
        Getting harder to swallow... It's like Amazon telling publishers they will only sell books printed with Amazon printing presses. Yeah, it DOESN'T make sense.
3. Apple arbitrarily dictates I can no longer use Google's analytic software, which i have been using for over five years in various capacities???

What's next? Seriously.

Re:Stalin Calling (1)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520560)

Vote with your code and let people know you're doing it.

Who clicks on ads?! (1)

kuthkameen (1197361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520492)

Has anyone here ever clicked on a Google ad?

Re:Who clicks on ads?! (1)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520554)

Ads are not just about clicking. Yes, a lot of interesting tracking happens post-click but a big purpose of advertising is simply getting yourself in the mind of the customer. I, like many people, tend to skip those ads at the top of search results but if I see them again and again, I may just go to the site anyway to see what it's all about.

the moral of the story is... (1, Funny)

Exter-C (310390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520548)

It all comes down to Greed and apple is supreme at being greedy. The next product they release will be call the iBrainWash which will be a ipad for the brain rather than Fanboi irrationality. The brainwash will come with a supreme leader who will be called Mao ZeJobs who will force everyone to wear their loyal iSuits while using their iBrainwash and thinking everything is good as the money evaporates from their pockets and their liberties are taken away if they don't suit the overlords 'bigger picture'...

Apple knows that they can't compete or provide a good enough advertising platform in the mobile space so they make sure nobody else can compete.. if here is no competition they MUST be best right?

I hate ads (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32520616)

No need to elaborate on that. The fact is, every time I see new, obtrusive advertising, I see yet another way to be disrespected and violated by someone's idea of marketing. (I know, it wouldn't exist if it didn't work.) There are times when I actively look for ads... more specifically, information before I buy something. But any other time, it becomes a nuisance. If ads were only pictures and words, I'd be okay with it. But no. They have to be animated, flashing and even covering what I want to see.

I can appreciate the drive Apple has to reduce and restrict advertising across its platform. I think it is a terrific option that every user should have available to them... as a option. As I write this I find myself shifting from Pro-Apple to anti-Apple on this matter. Blocking ads should be an option to turn on. Blocking applications that host or provide ads? That's another matter, but if they are serious about that, they should consider removing the web browser application from the iPhone. Fact is, if I wanted to run a Google app, I would run a google app. If it had ads, I would block them and failing that, remove the application. Fun thing, end-user choice... I like having mine. It's why I run Linux.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?