"The row between Google and Apple over the strict iPhone analytics information sharing policies, which Google and its AdMob subsidiary claim unfairly shuts them out of iPhone and iPad advertising in favor of Apple's iAd, may face antitrust scrutiny. According to the Financial Times, US regulators are looking into the situation, though it's not yet clear if a formal investigation will happen."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-26
Member since:
2006-11-14
Member since:2009-06-30
Except that Apple are monopolists. Yes, they only control a small market (distribution of iPhone software), and it is the market they created but it is still a perfectly valid monopoly.
Being a monopolist is not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly it is not illegal. However, using this position to monopolize another market is.
RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
Member since:2009-06-30
I'm not claiming that Apple are monopolists in the mobile phone market. Clearly they are not, not even in the smart-phone part of it.
They do have a monopoly in the iphone/ipad software distribution market, though. That's alright (these are Apple's products and they can lock them down in whatever way they like) but Apple can't use this position in order to gain an advantage in other markets (like advertising, content containers or development tools). That's what antitrust laws are about.
You could ask "what if they put advertising restrictions in their licenses right from the start". That's an interesting case. You could argue that the advertising market on iPhone didn't exist and Apple have simply made one (so there is no violation of antitrust law). This however is not true when the license is being changed on the fly to shape the existing market.
RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
Member since:2007-12-26
Member since:2009-06-30
Do they also try to use their distribution channels to block competitor's advertising? Or, do they forbid use of development tools made by a competitor? If not, the whole argument is fairly irrelevant.
Let me repeat my earlier point: to face antitrust investigation the company must fall under two categories: being a monopolist (tick), using this status to fight competitors, either remaining ones or these operating on other markets (tick).
Besides, Microsoft or Sony at least allow third-party retailers in their distribution network. Not a big difference (because they still control encryption keys) but comparing them to Apple is a bit unfair.
Member since:2005-11-21
Let me repeat my earlier point: to face antitrust investigation the company must fall under two categories: being a monopolist (tick), using this status to fight competitors, either remaining ones or these operating on other markets (tick).
Besides, Microsoft or Sony at least allow third-party retailers in their distribution network. Not a big difference (because they still control encryption keys) but comparing them to Apple is a bit unfair.
http://www.mobclix.com/
These guys can't get enough of Apple and what they're doing at WWDC 2010.
http://blog.mobclix.com/
I don't see Apple telling Mobclix to pea up a rope.
What does Mobclix not do that AdMob does that has Apple mad?
Member since:2009-06-30
Are they "advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple"?
From your other post:
I'm not, and honestly, I don't expect any of them to pop in here and write a comment for us.
Member since:2010-03-08
Member since:2008-06-11
They do have a monopoly in the iphone/ipad software distribution market, though. That's alright (these are Apple's products and they can lock them down in whatever way they like) but Apple can't use this position in order to gain an advantage in other markets (like advertising, content containers or development tools). That's what antitrust laws are about.
You could ask "what if they put advertising restrictions in their licenses right from the start". That's an interesting case. You could argue that the advertising market on iPhone didn't exist and Apple have simply made one (so there is no violation of antitrust law). This however is not true when the license is being changed on the fly to shape the existing market.
And Sony has a homogeneous distribution channel for the Playstation, PSP; and Microsoft for the XBox, or Nintendo for the Wii/Cube.
Your point? "
Comparing Apple's policy with advertising with Xbox, would be more like if Microsoft sid "No more product placement on games for our console that is not Microsoft related.
It works out well for MS if in Need for Speed you drive past a Microsoft Store rather than a Burger King, or if in NHL, everyone has a Bing logo on their jersey. But would that be taking an unfair advantage of their position? Sure, devs could develop for other consoles just fine, but wouldn't they still loose billions of dollars and possibly face going out of business?
Apple already claimed to be the largest maker of mobile devices, you can't even say that they don't hold that much influence.
Member since:
2010-01-05
This argument is pointless. Do Apple have a "monopoly" on iPhone processors as well because they use their own and don't let you buy a processor-less iPhone and fit your own CPU?
There are some things that are part of the overall product and should not even be considered for whether they are monopolistic in their own right or not.
If you don't like Apple's "monopoly" on app distribution of NATIVE (not web) apps) on their own platform, then you are free to use web apps instead, or go and buy Android or any othe other competing phones instead. So there's no monopoly!
Member since:2006-01-14
Except they aren't trying to control those markets. They are trying to control advertising which is a very different market. Its also a market which the FTC has regulated when it comes to Google. You think Apple should be able to do whatever they want when Google wasn't allowed? Fair is fair.
Member since:2009-06-30
The key word here is a market. There is no market for CPU's that can be used in iPhones. However, there is an application market, deliberately created by Apple.
Apple (unlike Google) have chosen to be the only distributor of software applications for their mobile phones. That's fine. But from this time on, any discriminatory regulation that negatively impacts Apple's competitors in the application market automatically fall under antitrust laws.
This article has nothing to do with web application or mobile phone markets. Apple have no monopoly there so antitrust laws simply don't apply.
Member since:2005-11-21
Apple (unlike Google) have chosen to be the only distributor of software applications for their mobile phones. That's fine. But from this time on, any discriminatory regulation that negatively impacts Apple's competitors in the application market automatically fall under antitrust laws.
This article has nothing to do with web application or mobile phone markets. Apple have no monopoly there so antitrust laws simply don't apply.
You're clearly not a Anti-Trust/Monopoly lawyer.
Member since:2006-12-15
You are completely wrong. There are two channels to get apps on your iPhone. One is the AppStore, the other not controlled by Apple in any way. It's called HTML5 and anybody on this entire planet with a text editor can develop for it.
Member since:
2010-06-13
Some body told me that how can apple compete aganist adobe with html5 in a blocked paltform. What apple done is alonging for the ride.
http://www.ifunia.com/ipad-column/top-10-best-free-ipad-apps.html
Edited 2010-06-13 03:29 UTC