@AC

Like you, I hate ads. With iAds on the iPhone I am assuming (hoping? expecting?) that they will only feature in free versions of the apps, and will not be in paid-for versions. If they are, I for one will not be buying those apps, and I'm sure many others will do the same. I also will happily pay for an app rather than suffer an advert just to get it free.

i agree.....as long as...

I have to agree with this. If you want the free version of the app, then it's fair you suffer some ads. In my book that's a bloody good trade actually. Imagine if MS Office or Photoshop came free, including genuine registration & updates but had embedded banner ads or something. I'd snap that up in a second. All fine, as long as:

1. Ads do not appear in pay apps, or a no-ad version is supplied at a reasonable cost, so people that despise them can escape them for a fee

2. Ads ONLY appear in these free apps, and NOWHERE else - especially not within the OS interface itself

Not so fast there tex

This isn't about whether you like ads or not, this is about Apple controling who can put ads on their phone. It's pretty non-compete, so I would imagine this one will land them in a court room before too long.

It's quite simple, really

If an app is paid-for, there's absolutely no justification for ads imo (unless prior agreement/consent with user).

If it's free, then heck, somebody gotta pay dem bills -- so fair and square.

As for his refusal to download free apps with ads, how the hell does that make him a freetard? He's not downloading/using anything at all -- if all apps were free but with ads, he'd have an empty device and that's entirely his choice methinks.

Yes you can

That rule wouldn't stop spamming at all. The app might not distribute your analytics to a 3rd party but the server on the end most certainly could. Indeed, the likes of Facebook seem intent on selling your data to all and sundry. Does this rule mean we'll see a ban on Facebook apps?

Nope. This rule is to stop apps embedding advertising widgets. More evidence (if any more was needed) that Apple intends to monopolize every aspect of their device.

Re: I feel an anti trust coming on

I've had the popcorn ready for the last two years in anticipation of watching this entertainment unfold. Unfortunately I'm starting to believe that Apple have already won over any legal authority who might be in a position to take action against the monopolising behaviour Apple has been practicing in recent years.

Strange how Apple are actually going even further than Microsoft did in the late 90s in terms of bad behaviour, yet the people who can stop it are refraining from doing so.

People are too stupid

I hate to blame the people here, since that's usually a diversion tactic away from the real issue, but in this case I think it's legitimate.

People are too stupid to see how anti-competitive apple have become. In the future, when they realize how much harm apple's preemptive strikes against all competition have done, they will finally turn on apple only to realize that it's too late. Apple will have profited handsomely and pocketed all the politicians they'll ever need to control the market. Like someone else said, this is very much the microsoft model to success. Big win for apple, big loss for the rest of us.

Re: I feel an anti trust coming on

Unlike microsoft, I think apple is smart enough to pre-emptively defend itself against anti-trust hearings. In the future, when today's records are being investigated, there will be no internal evidence with which to convict apple. They might even plant counter-evidence today, for a trial which hasn't even begun.

Remember, it's not unlawful to be a monopoly, it's only unlawful to use that power to knowingly impede competitor's abilities to participate in the market.

You buy their crap

you deserve all you get.

@AC

"I've seen this comment thrown around by so many non-lawyer types it's not funny. There is no anti-trust violation."

I may be a non-lawyer type, but then again I never said there was an anti-trust violation, at least not yet. It simply looks like they're headed that way in the future.

"Apple aren't anti-competitive, they are just competitive."

Now that's obviously untrue: "Apple bans competing ads from the iPhone".

If apple were a monopoly, it's hardly debatable that apple would be committing anti-competitive practices. Just because the legal definition of monopoly is 50% market share, does not mean a company cannot apply anti-competitive tactics well before then.

#Android Solution

Run adblock for Android to block web ads, in its MarketPlace and is compatible with the same lists as Mozilla Ad Block. Buy the Apps you use to block in application ads, they're likely a couple of quid or something.

......or if you are a total amoral freetard get root (Google make it easy as developers need it) and run Ad Free which also blocks in application ads.

Android Solution - AdFree

Runs on any rooted Android phone and is easily updated.

Not sure courts will be necessary

The 'freeness' of Android is going to trash Apple within a couple of years if the Fruitbased one continues along it current path of lock in lock in lock in. And I'm not talking pub style lockin's, which are a good idea.

...it's not really that hard to understand

Microsoft have a (de facto) monopoly, Apple don't. No monopoly, no lawsuit. Quite simple really.

Apple are a long way from having a de facto monopoly in the phone / handheld device market, so they can do whatever they like, because if you don't like it you have many other competing products to choose from.

That's easy

Apple have ~5% of the desktop space and around 30% of the smartphone market (about 8% of the total mobile phone market, IIRC). Oh, and roughly sod-all of the server space.

There's no big ass monopoly lawsuit because they aren't even vaguely a monopoly yet.

Yes, these stories generate huge amounts of hype and yes Apple look to be heading towards monopoly status, but they're still some way off.

It's a bit like the motoring press going bananas over every new Ferrari that's launched, it doesn't make Ferrari into a monopoly.

Re: @Subban

This is primarily America we're talking about here. I wasn't aware you needed grounds to file a lawsuit, just a money-grabbing lawyer.

Because...

... they don't have a monopoly. Microsoft, HP, Sony, and Google ensure that's the case. One of many reasons why competition is good for Apple.

@Subban - on what grounds?

You are right - no-one gives a toss about Apple.

Monopoly

@twunt: "Since when is 28% a monopoly?"...

It depends on which jurisdiction you're talking about. In the UK a company can be considered to have a monopoly if they control 25% of a particular market...

http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3328.html

http://www.economicshelp.org/microessays/markets/monopoly.html

Not a monopoly

Well, Apple has zero percent of the Android market, so how can they be a monopoly. Because they have 100% of iPhone? Oh, I see...

Compare to IE

But MS didn't have a monopoly in the browser market either but it didn't stop the EU forcing them to bundle other browsers within their OS.Surely removing the ability for people to use (other) ad software is a restrictive practice?

Desktop

MS had (and still have) a 90% OS monopoly on PCs which they were using to gain a monopoly in the browser market by practically embedding the browser into the OS.