backtop

Print 24 comment(s) - last by seamonkey79.. on May 7 at 12:26 AM

The FTC is reportedly considering an inquiry into Apple's upcoming iAds. Apple will become the only major player not to share its analytics data, which some critics say is an anticompetitive tactic.  (Source: How Stuff Works)

Slides of Apple's upcoming iAd ViP program for developers recently leaked.  (Source: TechCrunch)
Apple may be in more antitrust trouble over iAds

According to a Reuters report, a source close to the Federal Trade Commission says the U.S. regulatory agency is concerned with Apple's plan to deploy "iAds" to the iPhone alongside the launch of the fourth generation iPhone hardware and operating system.  

According to the report, the FTC isn't worried about the iAds themselves, but rather the fact that Apple is refusing to share its analytic information with Google and Microsoft.  States a developer, "[The FTC] asked about the sharing of information with third parties."  

Traditionally advertisers on personal computers have shared this data with each other, as it helps them all get a better understanding of how well their targeting strategy is working.  Not sharing this data may help Apple in some ways, and hurt it in others.

The FTC, which is already involved in an upcoming inquiry over Apple's Flash rejection, declined comment.

Under its new contract, app makers can put ads in their games as an alternative source of revenue to direct purchases.  App makers earn a 60 percent share of ad revenue, while Apple pockets the rests.  iAds will be sold and managed directly by Apple's recent acquisition Quattro Wireless.  

The iAd business is expect to bring in some big money for Apple.  Broadpoint AmTech analyst Brian Marshall believes that the iAds could rake in $2B USD in annual revenue for Apple.  Many, in particular, are looking forward to advertising on the iPad, thanks to its large screen real estate.  Apple has sold over 1 million iPads thus far, so that market is already sizable.

Apple is reportedly also pushing a program called "ViP", that targets app developers looking to buy ads.  Many app developers have purchased ads to help promote their applications.  Apple looks to give its own iAds the inside track in this arena, according to leaked slides, by directly tracking the number of app purchases that arrived via ad-clicks.  This could be a game changer as it will allow developers to determine exactly how many extra sales their ads are generating and whether they are worthwhile.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
As an Apple user
By elmikethemike on 5/6/2010 8:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
The less my information is shared with third parties, the better.




RE: As an Apple user
By Anoxanmore on 5/6/2010 9:13:14 AM , Rating: 1
Your tin foil hat is on too tight, loosen it up ;)


RE: As an Apple user
By AssBall on 5/6/2010 9:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
I guess I don't understand how what they [Apple] are planning to do with this advertising scheme is against the law. Do you HAVE to share your analytical data with everyone?


RE: As an Apple user
By tastyratz on 5/6/2010 10:38:11 AM , Rating: 4
The problem with the non disclosure is antitrust / competitive practice. Apple is the worst of all the monopoly nazi's even though its marketshare is only monopoly money in comparison to the pc market. Ironic, but they get away with it because they are just a small player in the market.


RE: As an Apple user
By ksherman on 5/6/2010 10:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
Except for they aren't.

Sure, in the computer market they have a small percentage of the number of units sold. But with their higher prices, they probably have a much larger chunk of the revenue. One MacBook Pro 13" costs more than 3 or 4 netbooks...

Also, Apple has cornered the mobile device market, add in their iTunes store and you have a company with a very very large market cap.

They are no small player in the market.


RE: As an Apple user
By PrezWeezy on 5/6/2010 2:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
But NONE of that has been true for very long. Apple had less than 5% of the PC market just a few short years ago. Today I believe it's 8%. Still a small number, but they are growing. And that growth is garnering the attention of the FTC, just like any other company. If you are small and stay small, you pretty much fly under the radar. But now that Apple is becoming a much larger player they are subject to the scrutiny that Microsoft and Intel and IBM have been under for years. Some of their business practices may well have to change quite a bit to appease the government.


RE: As an Apple user
By invidious on 5/6/2010 9:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
Totally missed the point. This isn't about user information it is about ad statistics, click rates and such.


RE: As an Apple user
By elmikethemike on 5/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: As an Apple user
By ksherman on 5/6/2010 9:51:06 AM , Rating: 5
And you're missing the larger, anti-trust related point.

Apple is giving this special access to advertisers that use their iAds, but are effectively and completely blocking out other advertising companies.

The way the system used to work through AdMob or similar was that developers simply places a small block of code in their apps. When a user opens their application for the first time, it phones home to let you know that your advertising campaign paid off as well as no longer showing you that ad again. This is not unlike Google Analytics for website, in terms of tracking goal conversions etc.

Apple is now preventing this form of reporting from any ad service that isn't iAds.

If you can't measure it, you can't bill for it. Advertisers loose out on being able to provide a meaningful tracking system. Then you as the person paying for the advertising have no way to know if the money being spent is worth it because you have no meaningful way of measuring the effectiveness.

Apple is effectively forcing out all the advertisers on the iPhone platform (iPod Touch included!) and forcing them into their (also likely higher priced) iAds platform.


RE: As an Apple user
By funkyd99 on 5/6/2010 11:04:52 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly. DailyTech should be providing these important details instead of only providing the limited fodder that fuels arguments.

Also, the issue with flash isn't that the iPhone can't use flash, it's that a small company can't develop multi-platform apps in flash and port them to the iPhone. A company with limited resources will basically have to choose between developing for the iPhone or developing for all other smartphones. It's like Microsoft saying you can only develop Windows programs in Visual Studio.


RE: As an Apple user
By sprockkets on 5/6/2010 8:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly. Jason Mick should be providing these important details instead of only providing the limited fodder that fuels arguments.


T,FTFY


By funkyd99 on 5/6/2010 10:55:01 AM , Rating: 1
1. Maybe you should do some research before sprouting off a bunch of nonsense.

2. Are your tax dollars still wasted if Apple is indeed in violation of antitrust laws and has to pay millions in fines to the government?


By Shadowself on 5/6/2010 1:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Even in the unlikely event that Apple is convicted of antitrust violations (in the iAds situation it is very debateable if Apple even has any kind of power or control beyond it's own ecosystem and whether not publishing data actively harms everyone else in the arena) it is extremely unlikey there will be millions in fines.

Microsoft was convicted of such practces in what is arguably the highest profile case involving a major software company. The conviction was never overturned (the penalties were). The final penalties were 1. Microsoft had to agree to never do it again and 2. Microsoft had to agree to have additional government oversight (i.e., more cost to the U.S. Taxpayer since the U.S. Government had to monitor that oversight).

How is that going to make good use of our tax dollars.


By Donkeyshins on 5/6/2010 3:43:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The final penalties were 1. Microsoft had to agree to never do it again and 2. Microsoft had to agree to have additional government oversight (i.e., more cost to the U.S. Taxpayer since the U.S. Government had to monitor that oversight).


Easy. You don't hear much about Microsoft acting in a monopolistic manner these days, do you? In fact, in the lst standoff with the EU, Microsoft agreed to allow end users to choose their browser rather than be defaulted to IE8. Conversely, you hear a lot of discussion on sites like DT about Google and to a greater extent Apple (to the point that I've seen a lot of comparisons of Apple to 'old Microsoft') abusing their monopolies.

Sure sounds to me like it has worked and was a good use of our tax dollars. Too bad we didn't have the same amount of oversight on the financial sector, huh?


No analytic data freebies for competitors
By Constable odo on 5/6/2010 9:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
As a long-term investor, I say to Apple, "Show me the money, show third parties the door." Don't share any analytical data with competitors. It's counterproductive to do so. All they'll do is take the data and stab Apple in the back, just like Google did to Apple. You give a competitor an inch and they'll take a mile. Apple probably would have given Google all ad rights on the iPhone platform but Google got greedy and spewed forth that Android OS vomit all over the place. Apple would have been building iPhones where Android handsets are just taking up space in market share. Now Apple is going to have to take all the mobile ad data and revenue for itself.

I hope Google chokes on Android when it fails to make any ad revenue for Google. Those lazy bums of competitors are always looking for a free handout because they don't want to do anything for themselves. They should take the time to build their own solid platforms and get their own data if they want it that badly. What business would be stupid enough to hand over its own research to a competitor?




By seamonkey79 on 5/7/2010 12:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, what?

Sip something besides Apple-Aid.


By xxsk8er101xx on 5/6/2010 8:46:37 PM , Rating: 3
Haha you have ads on your stupid adPhone :P




By Constable odo on 5/6/2010 9:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
As a long-term investor, I say to Apple, "Show me the money, show third parties the door." Don't share any analytical data with competitors. It's counterproductive to do so. All they'll do is take the data and stab Apple in the back, just like Google did to Apple. You give a competitor an inch and they'll take a mile. Apple probably would have given Google all ad rights on the iPhone platform but Google got greedy and spewed forth that Android OS vomit all over the place. Apple would have been building iPhones where Android handsets are just taking up space in market share. Now Apple is going to have to take all the mobile ad data and revenue for itself.

I hope Google chokes on Android when it fails to make any ad revenue for Google. Those lazy bums of competitors are always looking for a free handout because they don't want to do anything for themselves. They should take the time to build their own solid platforms and get their own data if they want it that badly. What business would be stupid enough to hand over its own research to a competitor?




Pure Speculation and No Facts
By Shadowself on 5/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Pure Speculation and No Facts
By superPC on 5/6/2010 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 1
clearly the art of referencing is totally lost on you good sir. good luck in collage!


RE: Pure Speculation and No Facts
By Makius777 on 5/6/2010 12:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
A good news story doesn't always need to have 100% proven facts to be note worthy.

But the fact that the author uses phrases such as: "according to" and "reportedly" so profusely should tell you that that the information being given has yet to be completely, unequivocally verified. Which is logical when an issue has first come to light.

There is rarely enough hard evidence to say something is 100% accurate immediately after its discovery. So does that mean it's not a valid news story? Absolutely not.

The FACT is there ARE "reports" coming in about Apple possibly having antitrust issues over iAds. So yes there are indeed some "true facts" in the article. Sure Jason Mick could wait until there is (or isn't) an official inquiry and then write an article. But then it wouldn't exactly be a breaking news story now would it? And I can hardly fault a reporter for wanting to report on breaking news.

Read the article, take it for what it is, nothing more nothing less. Just don't sit there, pick apart every word that could be construed as false and crucify a man for doing exactly what he should be doing.

-End Rant-

(sorry that post just really tweaked me)


By Shadowself on 5/6/2010 1:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
My point is that NOTHING in the article is verified. It is 100% speculation. It is not that nothing has been "unequivocally verified". It is that nothing has been verified at all!

The guy who lives next to me is an absolute, extreme fanatic against the current administration. He has repeatedly claimed there are ongoing, official investigations into actions by the current administration. I could post there there are "reports" of such things. Those postings would be no more and no less valid than the "reports" listed there.

Relaying rumors by saying "There's a rumor that..." is not relaying any fact. It may be a true statement, but it gives no factual information. Rumor mongering is just rumor mongering no matter how you try to label it.

Sure rate this down to a -1.


RE: Pure Speculation and No Facts
By Uncle on 5/6/2010 1:08:20 PM , Rating: 1
Sure and have a multi billion dollar company shut you down, with you having to hire a lawyer, just to take care of a take down notice, and more threats to come. Now a days its the only way to protect yourself against these multi's who want the play ground to themselves. Apples a prime example.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki