US regulators are preparing to probe Apple to see whether it is unfairly restricting competition for adverts on its mobile devices, the FT reported today. The putative investigation apparently centres on whether Apple's spawning of its own network to post flog ads on apps for the much-stroked devices is a threat to media …
Admob/Google are funny. Why does apple have an obligation to let google into their ecosystem? Does google let bing or other vendors into their ecosystem? is adsense an 'option' for the consumer?
*I'm* not a billionaire
I'm a small-time developer, who might need to rely on one of these ad networks to generate income from an app I write. As such, I would personally prefer to have the widest possible pool of ad partners to choose from.
I hope to be a billionaire one day, but until then I'm a lowly consumer. And as such I prefer Apple to keep building products the way it's building. If that means you as a developer don't preferential treatment from time to time, so be it. I'm the consumer, it's all about me!
That means that developers who don't like iAd will go elsewhere meaning less apps for you - And that's better how?
Or to put it another way, how does limiting ad providers improve your customer experience in any way?
You're re-enforcing the "fanboi" image and saying you'll love whatever Jobs deigns to throw your way - Surely as a consumer you have an opinion on what you actually want other than "whatever I'm told to want"?
I hope you're not deluding yourself into thinking that Apple has your best interests as a consumer in mind -- Apple (like any other company) is in it for Apple, which is simply the nature of business.
As for "preferential treatment", they seem to treat most players (except perhaps the really big ones) with relative disregard -- or at the very least offhandedly by their cavalier attitude towards house rules.
That being said, it's their ballpark so to a certain degree one has to play by their rules if one wants to play at all (and i'm not saying that this is good or bad.. just saying...).
Firstly, developers won't go elsewhere, in fact this is a good thing for them as they'll get more revenue from iAds, given it's the preferred one on the platform and not really competing much with others.
And your comment about "fanboi" is just plain ignorant. You know nothing of me but assume I have no mind of my own. Makes your world so bright and good, and everything outside your little circle, bad and stupid.
Glad I'm not in that little circle.
The business Apple is in is making profit, and the way they do that is to put user experience at the core of all their products. I'm not delusional, but thanks for the gratuitous slam. I do happen to know how the world works and how corporations are greedy institutions (and just plain awful to work for). I also know when one stands out differently than the others by creating products that I enjoy using because they're different.
Apple continues to put the user first in products, and I for one applaud them. Look what putting the developers first did for Windoze.
Theres probably some crap for that...
"Or to put it another way, how does limiting ad providers improve your customer experience in any way?"
What makes you think that I want to buy a phone that is capable of running apps so that marketing plebs can serve me their advertising crap every time I want to use the apps on the phone.
With network providers considering capping or metering mobile data usage why would I want to pay money to recieve adds so that someone can try and sell me stuff I have no interest in?
If Sir Steve of Jobs can limit the number of ad providers down to ZERO I will be very pleased indeed.
If the original poster's apps are so usless and pointless that nobody will give him money for them and he has to give them away for next to nothing or for free and generate income from ads then I suggest that he should change careers or think up more useful apps.
I agree that personally, I'd prefer zero ad providers too - eg the flash ads on reg hardware are really starting to get annoying especially when they cover the whole bloody background.
At the same time, advertising is a fact of life - unfortunately. - Your assertion that developers should be more happy - Why? because they have no chance of finding a provider offering a better revenue share? Because they have limited choices in how they can display the ads? because it's "Jobs' way or the highway"?
The same surely holds true elsewhere - The more browsers there are for the phone, the more developers will try to differentiate their product with innovative ideas (think Opera) - But Apple will only allow others into the field as long as they're no threat - Hence no further competition (And before you point at the Opera browser, remember what they had to go through to get on the phone?)
As to the Fanboi comment - well, If you'd given some reasoned arguments or discussed pros/cons, I wouldn't have made the comment - You didn't, you just said you were happy for developers to be put out and will accept whatever Steve thinks best - If you don't like the response you got, try forming your own opinion before posting. Until then, I'll continue to take posts like yours as Apple worship and give them little weight.
Lastly, I find it hard to take you seriously when you're posting AC. If you believe that strongly, why hide?
The way I can tell, it's like ITV saying "we'll only show adverts that have been sold through our ad agency". Obviously ITV aren't the only commercial channel but that would be restrictive.
No it's not, it's like ITV saying that programmes can sell ad space within their programme but not provide any details about viewing habits.
- iPad? More like iFAD: We reveal why Apple ran off to IBM
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
- Yorkshire cops fail to grasp principle behind BT Fon Wi-Fi network