AdMob CEO comments on being thrown out of the App Store

@all those "They are allowed to do what they want on their product" sayers:

The similarities between Microsoft and Apple are raising steadily.

The only question is:

Will they let Apple advance as much as Microsoft did, or will they stop apple beforehand.

Laws and cultural standards prohibiting the powerful from using tricks to exploit the less powerful range as far back to the Magna Carta and as recent as the Sherman Antitrust Act. This is not some left-wing hippy idea -- this is a bedrock of Anglo-American, and of at least various other European nations, culture. People are not cattle, to herd and milk.

Freedom and property-rights are not absolute. They are limited by public policy and the public interest. It has been decided over and over again that competition is in the public interest and the anti-competitive practices are not. Saying something like "Apple can do whatever they want with their ecosystem" or things like "if you don't want to bow to Apple's (or another oligarch's) power, you can make your own phone" shows not only ignorance of basic culture, but a moral bankruptcy as well. You are essentially acting as an apologist for predatory practices -- that is, for a business preying upon customers rather than engaging in ethical business. That's not only immoral, that contrary to centuries old Common law and contemporary statutes.

Your worship/defense of the powerful exploiter, rather than respect for just behavior is a sad statement to your moral and cultural upbringing.

Apple is a very competent company that could compete ethically; these sort of low tactics should be beneath them.

The notion that Apple is right to do this because it will prevent some sort of "spying" by Google is just more short-sighted, us-versus-them bullshit from the fanboi set. They seem to eat it up every time Apple alienates people, because it enhances the "exclusive club" vibe fanbois crave. Somehow I doubt the shareholders feel the same way.

Even if you buy the argument that this is about hiding sensitive information from Google, the end result is the same as the Flash debate and so many others. Apple is perfectly happy and willing to toss average customers and developers under the bus and degrade the experience, as long as it furthers their own petty battles with companies who should be natural allies, were it not for Job's enormous ego. Apple only gets away with it because the brand loyalty of the fanbois is so strong that they don't even care that their choices are being limited - in fact, they defend Apple to the point of arguing IN FAVOR of limiting of their own choice on sites like this. Average customers don't feel that way, and Apple will go back to being an also-ran with a small cult following if this keeps up.

Apple's MO is clear if you look for the pattern. When they have a potential competitor in their sights, they build up a wall of seemingly legit sounding reasons for excluding and/or attacking them but those reasons fall apart under real scrutiny. With ads, they first attacked some ad company for looking at devices within the Apple campus (as if they can't spoof the devices or something) then they pretend Google will be able to "drink their milkshake" if allowed to see advertising analytics from Apple devices. Are we really supposed to believe it's just coincidence that this happens right when they are launching their own ad network? Adobe announces that Flash CS5 will export iDevice apps. Shortly thereafter, Jobs is out there trying to destroy Flash entirely, hammering on Flash for the web and touting a platform (html5) that is many years away from primetime and ALSO doesn't work on iDevices, but it provides the false legitimacy behind his attacks on Adobe. People, wake up and read between the lines.

For the last time people, your iPhone isn't Apple's; it's *YOURS*. They sold it; you bought it. Repeating slogans asserting that Apple can dictate how *YOU* use *YOUR* device, as if the device is Apple's property, not yours, is ridiculous. In summary, YouTube = vendor's private property; Safeway store = vendor's private property; iPhone = NOT vendor's private property.

It'd be one thing if the restrictions were naturally occurring limits. It'd be another if the restriction had some technical merit. However, this restriction is clearly for the purpose of shutting out competition. By avoiding competition, rather than competing and winning, Apple looks like they think they can't successfully compete -- so they'll cheat insead.

If Apple want to 'play hardball' with Google they need to do it ethically -- by producing a a better product/service at a better price.

Umm gee lets try living in reality

Fact-- AdMob is not blocked-just not allowed to collect device data

Fact-- Almost every SDK in existence bars the user from using it to compete directly with its maker. That is in Adobe's SDK's. That is in MS SDK's. And it is in Google's too.

I don't see any point in debating these types of issues anymore. The fanbois will always blindly defend Apple no matter how stupid or egregious their decisions, so why bother trying to convince them otherwise. Look at some of the logical leaps they are taking in an attempt make this decision look rational! It's hilarious.

Apple has been very busy alienating thousands of potential (and current) developers and customers per day, and the share holders are going to regret it. Let's just reflect for moment on whether exclusivity or inclusivity leads to more customers and long term health for a company...

Is the Safeway supermarket required to accept and display ads from its Lucky's competitor across the street?

Further, is Safeway required to make detail information (cash register receipts, promotions, product placement, store design, etc.) accessable to Lucky's so they can do analytics to determine what is selling, to whom, and why?

The Feds may decide that the answer both the above questions is "YES",


But, then, wouldn't Lucky's need to provide the same information to Safeway, A&P... or any other company considering entry into the :supermarket" or "advertising" busineses?


Clearly, this is a two-way street!

Google wanted to play hardball just last month, at the I/O conference. Two days of an anti-Apple all-you-can-eat buffet. So grow some nads and play hardball already. Don't say "Bring it!" one day and then act like a spurned lover the next...

Do you people even read what you write? Again, if iAd is so great and AdMob is so bad, people will gravitate to iAd products and avoid AdMob's. If AdMob is simply 'prevented' from competing with iAd, then iAd doesn't need to be good, fair, reasonable priced, etc. That is bad.

Second, Apple HAS closed the door to independent mobile ad agencies. By locking those people out of analytics, Apple has ARTIFICIALLY prevented those agency from competing with their analytics-enriched product.

Third, this is BAD for developers and users because without competition, Apple can engage in monopolistic pricing practices with iAd -- that is, charge whatever they want, make whatever demands they want, etc.

Fourth, Apple allowing other company's ad in free apps isn't subsidizing competitors like Google. App developers pay Apple $99 to submit and host apps on the iStore. Moreover, once downloaded, the apps is running on the user's hardware, using the user's data plan, powered by the user's battery charge.

Fifth, just because you chose to buy one product, don't make it right to be forced to buy only other products. If I buy a HP printer, it's not right to be locked into to printing only on HP brand paper -- especially not if HP brand paper is more expensive and/or restrictive. That's abusing your power in one market segment to force users to patronize your product in another segment, which is inherently anti-competitive.

Finally, it's not Apple's platform. They SELL the iPhone; the people who buy them own them. If Apple were giving away iPhones and free data bandwidth, then sure they can only show their own ads, like YouTube.

Also, I don't know about you but my Mac installs and runs OSX, Windows, and Linux. I run in primarily in OSX because OSX outcompetes the others. Why doesn't this same freedom exist on the iPhone, aside from the fact that Apple wants to create a captive, non-competitive market and squeeze money out of mobile device users?

Just a thought here. AdMob ads are NOT BANNED from an iPad, iPhone etc. You get to see them everytime you surf the web.... They just will not be used --- within -- the Apple app natively...

If you are in an app and you select a banner and are taken to the web, google and admob will have you. Stay in the app and you will see Apples version of admob.

Just a thought,
en