Apple's Greedy Ad Grab

7.09K

Ryan Tate

04/15/10 05:11PM

Filed to: Apple

Apple's "iAd" program looks more sinister every day. It's not enough that Steve Jobs' company gets an exclusive cut of spending on iPhone mobile charges, apps, songs, movies and TV shows; now it wants the cream of mobile advertising, too.

Apple released new rules that would appear to kneecap Google's AdMob and other rivals to Apple's iAd system, used to broker ads inside iPhone and iPad apps. The company now insists iPhone and iPad apps may only share user-interaction data with Apple, meaning only Apple's iAds platform can know when users view and interact with embedded ads. Since Google's AdMob and other ad-broker systems apparently won't be able to tap into this data, their ads will be much less valuable.

Apple's new policy was initially noticed by Peter Kafka of All Things D; since then, it's become only too clear that the move will badly damage Apple's rivals. Apple has already rejected one app for using a widely-deployed analytics tool, Paul Boutin at VentureBeat reports, and Google's AdMob told Boutin it was indeed worried about Apple's new rules. Wired.com's Eliot Van Buskirk concluded that iAd rivals " will lose just about every advantage they currently possess over a paper flyer pasted to the side of a building."

Meanwhile Apple is maneuvering to grab the best ads within iPhone and iPad apps. After a visit from Apple reps, ad agency Hill Holiday said iAd will contain "premium... expensive" ads built on "high-quality creative." It also said Apple's ad-targeting system was "very impressive in its granularity" and that iAds could access the "compass... accelerometer [and] multitouch" information — the sort of "Device Data" that apps cannot share with ad platforms other than Apple's.

So fresh off an e-beating delivered to Adobe, Steve Jobs is socking his new nemesis Eric Schmidt over at Google where it hurts, in the hottest new ad market going. Let there be no question, then: Apple will punish its enemies as surely as it will tax its users and developers.

The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.

DoctorNine Ryan Tate 04/15/10 07:26PM

I wonder if Google is rethinking its decision to market a cell phone right about now.

Go Like Hell Machine DoctorNine 04/15/10 08:44PM

@DoctorNine: Eh, I doubt it: [www.engadget.com]

AraRichards DoctorNine 04/15/10 10:47PM

@DoctorNine: I hope not. I love to be able to multi task on my Android based phone.

richardallen DoctorNine 04/16/10 10:08AM

@DoctorNine: Doubt it, android is growing while iPhone sales have flattened. Yes the iStore has like a billion apps but people are realizing that you can have the same experience on one of the many android phones for, idk $20 for a droid or the new incredible coming out @$200 (this may be rumor, I am not sure confirmed). Yes those sales will pick up with the iPhone 4 refresh but android will still continue to pick off percentage points. Android will also continue to make gains in the entry level smartphone market for thos ready to get something like an Eris but can't shell out $400 for a new one. Just my 2 cents

manchops Ryan Tate 04/15/10 07:52PM

This has to be the most dumbass post I've ever read. Oh, really? A company invents something everybody wants and then wants to have a cut on other people profiting on it? I know, let's make a law, anything you use connected to the internet gives all the profits to world hunger! Seriously, Ryan, grab your balls.

talkingstove manchops 04/15/10 08:46PM

@manchops: So anticompetitive practices are manly now? Duly noted.

Go Like Hell Machine manchops 04/15/10 09:00PM

@manchops: I replied to you on a different take below, but I'll point out here that nowhere in the post does Ryan suggest, hint or intimate that this should be regulated in a legal sense. He does call it sinister, which isn't an unreasonable position, but doesn't call it illegal or even questionable.

manchops talkingstove 04/15/10 09:07PM

@talkingstove: i'm not sure i understand your response. anti-competitive practices? every shop owner is guilty.

ostartero manchops 04/15/10 10:13PM

Don't you know any antitrust laws?

Does business in 1920's America ring a bell? US Steel?

rgspb Ryan Tate 04/15/10 07:11PM

It's called free enterprise!

manchops rgspb 04/15/10 07:46PM

@rgspb: thank you—i mean hello? I get some of the basic apple bashing, but this post is just the lamest thing I've ever read. Oh, Apple wants to make money on the things it provides that everybody wants? Wow, what a newsflash!

Go Like Hell Machine manchops 04/15/10 08:56PM

@manchops: I will say that bundling Apple-branded, Apple-designed ads within applications that can only be designed with Apple's native SDK and have to be approved by Apple seems like a move the company may regret in the long-term. It seems to me that it could end up making the iAd experience largely about Apple swinging their dick around, rather than advertising products businesses are paying them to advertise.

This being said, I don't think it should be regulated or entered into the courts at all. In my own humble (but not entirely uninformed - I've worked in the wireless industry for ten years) opinion, I think that, over time, the iAd experience and the developer experience may end up pushing more people into the Android space. Or, maybe WM7 (though, really unlikely). I think Apple's major misstep is going to be their walled garden approach to nearly everything; it hasn't worked for carriers or other OEMs, and I see no reason to believe Apple's going to have different results than any other manufacturer.

badasscat rgspb 04/15/10 09:01PM

@rgspb: what's free about it?

manchops Go Like Hell Machine 04/15/10 09:16PM

@Go Like Hell Machine: I'm actually in complete agreement with you. What I found idiotic about this post was the fact that Apple is gonna try to control and earn as much as they can about what they're providing. I.E. every company/corporation in the history of capitalism. What I mainly agree with you about is that the market, time, trends, eventually move on and does Apple have a thought toward the fact that someday they won't be the "cool" place to go, and if they have put up too many restrictions, they will be crazy back-pedaling, or sticking to their guns and going down south (re: microsoft). Anyway, just thought the "sinister" part of the post was rather naive

Mike_Hartley Ryan Tate 04/15/10 08:39PM

I just find it hard to reconcile the 'everything just works' bit of Apple with this new avaricious Apple.

Go Like Hell Machine Mike_Hartley 04/15/10 10:10PM

@Mike_Hartley: Things tend to work better if you demand that everyone play by only your own special rules at all times and in all circumstances.

leviathan Mike_Hartley 04/15/10 11:03PM

@Mike_Hartley: You must not be familiar with the Newspeak meaning of "works".

Mike_Hartley leviathan 04/16/10 08:15AM

@leviathan: I've got this ad in my head. The PC guy is the guy who plays Mac, and the Mac guy is the guy who plays PC, and their using their tablets ... Mac is getting really frustrated, and PC is just cool and his tablet works.