Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Jun 2010 22:07 UTC
Apple When Apple announced its iAd mobile advertising initiative, many of us wondered how this would effect other mobile advertising agencies on the iPhone, and more specifically, Google's AdMob. Well, now we know: Apple has revised its iOS developer agreement to specifically lock out Google's AdMod. And then people wonder why Apple is no longer the darling of the geek world.
Thread beginning with comment 429003
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
....
by poundsmack on Tue 8th Jun 2010 22:18 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

I understand why Apple is doing all this, they are a business and they know how to make money.

That asside, even MS in its dark days of, well, evil wasn't this controlling and cut throat. Will we remember Jobs as the brilliant visionary? or the evangelical tyrant of "Think Different, but only if it's like Me."

...personally, the lines are starting to blur for me.

Reply Score: 12

RE: ....
by fgrasset on Tue 8th Jun 2010 23:33 in reply to "...."
fgrasset Member since:
2005-12-02

Woa.. this is just ridiculous...

Apple enter in the Ad business and you expect that they give their key differentiator to their concurrent that are actually bigger (adMob)??

But... wait where are you when Google launch Android?? I didn’t read you complaining that every Android user *Have* to create a google account in order to use it!!! Too bad I already have a Yahoo account...
Sure there is technical impossibility (... well no but let say...) so what about a mail client allowing to use every type of mail account??? yes there is one but limited
And what about synchronization? MobileMe? ActiveSync (ah wait in 2.2 seem that you finally can...)?
Why can’t I use googleMap but with Microsoft service? no? It’s about choice no?

Strange that in the core business services google are not so open!!!
But you expect that other company give access to their own software...

Apple is a big player in the open-source world, and not only for Webkit but also for lot of other software... the condition is that these software are not strategic ones. That simple and that true for every company.

And aside I’m not happy that any company can get some of my data without my authorization... (and that why I don’t really use Google Mail, even if I’m forced to have one... vendor locking... again...)

When (and if) iAd is ported to Android we’ll see how google will react... I’m sure that then, privacy will become an important matter...


But what means the restriction made by Apple? It means that collecting data from apps must be done by a third-party company (not in ad business)... so that probably what adMob will do and then... business as usual... but direct competitors will not have direct access to these data (well we have to believe in that...)
I don’t even see how Google and its adMob are getting out... eventually there will have to spend more money... oh how I’m sad... poor Google... poor Microsoft...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ....
by scofmb on Wed 9th Jun 2010 01:11 in reply to "RE: ...."
scofmb Member since:
2010-02-20

Another apple fanboy... sigh...

All their comment have been in apple related post and only praising the "think like big brother" company...

Edited 2010-06-09 01:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: ....
by poundsmack on Wed 9th Jun 2010 03:39 in reply to "RE: ...."
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

actually i rather laoth google, and it's practices (in some areas). if you read my posts you would know that. ;)

you do have some good points though, that aside i am not a hypocrite. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ....
by Manish on Wed 9th Jun 2010 09:15 in reply to "RE: ...."
Manish Member since:
2009-12-18

Apple is a big player in the open-source world, and not only for Webkit but also for lot of other software... the condition is that these software are not strategic ones. That simple and that true for every company.


Another post of misinformation. You know the history of Webkit-KHTML? Apple was forced to open the source to Webkit. They didn't do it on their own. They are not big players in open source world. RedHat is. Novell is. Collabora is. Google is. Intel is.
Secondly, these days Google invests more resources in Webkit development. The commits to webkit is the highest of all.

And aside I’m not happy that any company can get some of my data without my authorization... (and that why I don’t really use Google Mail, even if I’m forced to have one... vendor locking... again...)

Isn't it anonymous data? Or they specifically track you? Anonymous data is not termed *your* data. Next, you will cry that website foo has it's website traffic stats available and also tells what % of users came by which browser. You can also cry on that since it's your data made available to everyone? HYPOCRISY!

When (and if) iAd is ported to Android we’ll see how google will react... I’m sure that then, privacy will become an important matter...

Google won't react. This is the prime difference. I am not a Google supporter, but I know they won't and can't since Android is an open platform. Plus, since you can sideload apps, iAd can be made available for many Apps stores and not just Android Marketplace.


But what means the restriction made by Apple? It means that collecting data from apps must be done by a third-party company (not in ad business)... so that probably what adMob will do and then... business as usual...

It simply means locking out competitors ruthlessly. Specifically Google.

but direct competitors will not have direct access to these data (well we have to believe in that...)
I don’t even see how Google and its adMob are getting out... eventually there will have to spend more money...

You are an Apple apologist. I think one day google will add a clause that independent firms cannot hand over data to competitors to fully lock out competitors.

Apple motto - "Think different, as long as you agree with me"

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: ....
by molnarcs on Wed 9th Jun 2010 16:43 in reply to "RE: ...."
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

You just don't get it... The difference between the two companies and their actions is night and day.

First, the Android platform is Open, and it creates competition between mobile manufacturers (HTC vs Motorola for example).

And now we have an open alliance of hardware manufacturers working on the hardware driver stack of the android platform. In other words, anyone is welcome to modify how Android works, provide a software stack on top of ie: an email client, a sync service, an interface to MobileMe or any other services, etc. It shouldn't be too difficult either, I mean the barrier of entering this market for any major manufacturer is pretty low. HTC writes it's own UI on top of Android, and so can Samsung, Motorola, LG, etc..

This alone is a major difference between the two companies and their offerings, I'm just stunned that you don't see it.

Second, Google also went out of its way to make it easy to switch from their online services if you can find something better. It made it ridiculously easy to export your data into a portable format that can be imported to any other service provider that offers better solutions. Are there any? Well, that's another issue, but the point is, they don't prevent competition, in fact, they welcome it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: ....
by aent on Fri 11th Jun 2010 14:23 in reply to "RE: ...."
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

Android does NOT require a Google account, AT&T has stripped Google off of some Androids they offer. It will work with any email account you have, with Exchange/LDAP servers in place of Google for contact/calendar/email syncing, or anyone can write a plugin with the Android SDK to create their own datasources to sync any and all of the data that Google syncs with the phone. No Google account is required, and, infact, while the phone obviously is designed for users who like syncing with the web, its still not a requirement for it, you can use the phone with no accounts added to it whatsoever.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ....
by dharknes on Wed 9th Jun 2010 02:07 in reply to "...."
dharknes Member since:
2009-03-01

That asside, even MS in its dark days of, well, evil wasn't this controlling and cut throat. Will we remember Jobs as the brilliant visionary? or the evangelical tyrant of "Think Different, but only if it's like Me."

...personally, the lines are starting to blur for me.


No MS just modified the OS to break 3rd party apps and pushed their own apps instead. "DOS isn't done till Lotus won't run"

Or they start joint development of an OS, encourage all their ISV and 3rd party developers to switch to it, only to pull out at the last minute and push a completing platform. Oh and they're the only developer providing apps. Kill a lot of ISV and putting the rest several years behind.

Or best of all enter into an agreement to develop office applications for a brand new GUI based computer, insist they need source level access to the new system and then take not just the concepts but the actual API and develop a completing GUI system. That runs all their applications.

Or, or, or...

Apple is still a long way from being MS. I can't really think of a new product MS has launched that they then released as an open standard.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ....
by DOSguy on Wed 9th Jun 2010 18:08 in reply to "RE: ...."
DOSguy Member since:
2009-07-27

You mention some interesting tidbits I've never heard or read before.

No MS just modified the OS to break 3rd party apps and pushed their own apps instead. "DOS isn't done till Lotus won't run"


I would love to read more about this specific DOS/Lotus sabotage.

Or they start joint development of an OS, encourage all their ISV and 3rd party developers to switch to it, only to pull out at the last minute and push a completing platform. Oh and they're the only developer providing apps. Kill a lot of ISV and putting the rest several years behind.


You're referring to OS/2, right? would love some in-depth material about these tactics too.

Or best of all enter into an agreement to develop office applications for a brand new GUI based computer, insist they need source level access to the new system and then take not just the concepts but the actual API and develop a completing GUI system. That runs all their applications.


Didn't know they demanded Source Code and 'borrowed' the API. Again, any articles on these specifics?

TIA

Edited 2010-06-09 18:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: ....
by vivainio on Wed 9th Jun 2010 05:22 in reply to "...."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I understand why Apple is doing all this, they are a business and they know how to make money.


Exactly. Even cancer isn't evil as such - it just does what it's supposed to do, i.e. grow. The DNA that pushes Apple to do whatever it does is money and shareholders.

What it does to the rest of organism is another matter, and what the rest of the organism should do to limit it (if anything) yet another.

That asside, even MS in its dark days of, well, evil wasn't this controlling and cut throat.


They didn't dare - they were being constantly watched for anti-competitive behavior.

Apple, it seems, can get away with anything they want to do. Both in terms of law and PR - it's only a small subset of their customer base that cares about this stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: ....
by Laurence on Wed 9th Jun 2010 07:41 in reply to "...."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I understand why Apple is doing all this, they are a business and they know how to make money.

That asside, even MS in its dark days of, well, evil wasn't this controlling and cut throat. Will we remember Jobs as the brilliant visionary? or the evangelical tyrant of "Think Different, but only if it's like Me."

...personally, the lines are starting to blur for me.


It's not that blurred to me, but then I've never seen Steve nor Apple as any more visionaries than say:

* Bill Gates and Microsoft + IBM: a computer in every home was a radical idea at the time.

* Or some of the guys at Xerox: the GUI was revolutionary - it's just a pity they weren't the ones that pushed it.

* Or Audio Highway - the first guys to release an MP3/digital audio player - years ahead of Apple and their iPod

* Or Google with the way how they've revolutionised online search and advertising

* Or Borland with the way how they've pioneered development environments

...and that's not to mention the old buys of IT like Turing and co, but you get the general idea I'm driving towards.


People talk about Steve Jobs as if he was a hero among men, but he wasn't. He was just one of countless visionaries in a very busy industry. He just had higher standards than most. However even that isn't always ideal as sometimes standards can get in the way of usability (eg price tag, closed ecosystem, people want functions outside of the original spec, etc).

Edited 2010-06-09 07:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ....
by google_ninja on Wed 9th Jun 2010 12:22 in reply to "RE: ...."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

What apple leads in (and has for years) is industrial design. Geeks never fully appreciate just how important that is, but taking something that nobody wants because it is such a pain to use and making it something everybody feels like they need because of how awesome they find it is an incredible thing. Apple has been able to do that better, and more consistently, then pretty much any other company in the industry.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: ....
by poundsmack on Wed 9th Jun 2010 16:05 in reply to "RE: ...."
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

Agreed. There is a line in Jurassic Park where Malcolm is talking with John that always makes me think of Steve Jobs:

"I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility... for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now your selling it..."

I think of Jobs here because while he marketed his products brilliantly, few of his "inovations" are truely new or revolutionary. They are simply the next evolutionary step for things or ideas that already existed. Don't get me wrong, Apple has done a great job, most people won't argue that. But to treat each product like it was this genius inovation that Jobs came up with is getting a bit old. There are few truly "new" ideas in the tech wold, and the ones that are are coming in the form of lasers, quantum mechanics, holographic storage, etc... All (yes all, and i will back up each product 1 at a time if I am really disputed here), all of apple's products are the evolution of existing ideas or concepts. They are good, but Jobs is not a god, he is a man, a man that can help give life to the next step of great ideas, but he is still just a man...

I don't recall where I was originally going with all this, so I will leave it at that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: ....
by porcel on Wed 9th Jun 2010 08:49 in reply to "...."
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Not to take away from your argument about Apple, but you make it sound like Microsoft´s days of evil are long gone and we now have a softer kindler Microsoft.

You can´t be serious, can you?

See what Microsoft has done to the possibility of a real standard for Office documents (ODT), how half-baked and non-conformant to what it promised to do for its own "XML-standard", how it continues to support patented crap for video distribution and how it continues to spread FUD about competitors day in and day out.

So Microsoft is still the same old wine in new bottles, I am afraid to say.

Reply Parent Score: 1