Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jun 2010 23:06 UTC
Legal "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."
Order by: Score:
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

I didn't even realize that Google's acquisition of AdMob was approved *because* of Apple's announcement of iAd...that's kinda ironic ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Fri 11th Jun 2010 03:30 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

It is important for people to know that you dont have to be a monopoly to attract regulator's attention. You just have to be big enough to move the market place in a way the market place can not naturally counter act if the move is bad for the market as a whole.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by ndrw on Fri 11th Jun 2010 04:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
ndrw 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.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Paradroid on Fri 11th Jun 2010 08:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by ndrw on Fri 11th Jun 2010 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
ndrw 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.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by tyrione on Fri 11th Jun 2010 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by righard on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Read..., it's not about the monopoly itself, it's about using the monopoly to gain an advantage in other markets.
The OP said so clearly, he even emphasised it by using italic fonts for the words gain and other.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by ndrw on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
ndrw 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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by tyrione on Fri 11th Jun 2010 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

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.



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?

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by ndrw on Sat 12th Jun 2010 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

What does Mobclix not do that AdMob does that has Apple mad?


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:
You're clearly not a Anti-Trust/Monopoly lawyer.


I'm not, and honestly, I don't expect any of them to pop in here and write a comment for us.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Neolander on Sat 12th Jun 2010 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

What does Mobclix not do that AdMob does that has Apple mad?

Being affiliated to a competitor ?
Not licking Steve Jobs' muddy boots ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Boomshiki on Sat 12th Jun 2010 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Boomshiki Member since:
2008-06-11

"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.


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.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Paradroid
by Paradroid on Fri 11th Jun 2010 14:01 UTC
Paradroid
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!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Paradroid
by TechGeek on Fri 11th Jun 2010 15:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by Paradroid"
TechGeek 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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Paradroid
by ndrw on Fri 11th Jun 2010 15:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Paradroid"
ndrw 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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Paradroid
by tyrione on Fri 11th Jun 2010 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Paradroid"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

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.


You're clearly not a Anti-Trust/Monopoly lawyer.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Paradroid
by macUser on Sat 12th Jun 2010 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Paradroid"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

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.


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.

Reply Score: 0

google is better than apple in html5
by Radovich on Sun 13th Jun 2010 03:27 UTC
Radovich
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

Reply Score: 1