FTC to investigate Apple's 'unfair' iPhone ad system

[Ed Barrow]

Source: The First Post

Apple's apparent attempts to block its competitors from placing mobile ads on iPhones, iPads and the iPod Touch have landed them in trouble with regulators in the US.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the US Justice Department are preparing to launch an investigation into Apple's iAd mobile advertising programme and changes to its iPhone developer agreement. The new rules have drawn criticism from Google-owned companies that claim they have been effecitvely locked out of the devices.

Last week Omar Hamoui, the founder of AdMob, a mobile advertising company recently purchased by Google, hit out at Apple accusing it of anti-competitive behaviour. He said that the new terms "hurt both large and small developers by severely limiting their choice of how best to make money".

Those terms, announced last Monday, state that only 'independent' companies will be allowed to run ads within applications on Apple devices. Companies such as Google, or rival handset producers who also have an advertising arm, will be locked out of the system as they will not be allowed to collect the data they need to target consumers.


Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/64513,news-comment,technology,ftc-to-investigate-apples-unfair-iphone-and-ipad-ad-system-iad

[Atman]

1. Gosh, how unfair. Oh, btw...Why isn't Microsoft forced to run advertising for Apple?

Seriously, I don't get it. Apple makes a very popular product. For a couple of DECADES now, all of these same people have been shitting all over Apple, saying they're a joke and about to go out of business any moment now, in their own attempts to thwart Apple's rise. Now Apple is King of the Hill and is saying "Fuck You, we're protecting the turf we built," and suddenly you've all turned into whiny-ass coat-tail riders. You want part of the pie Apple built even while you were trying to bring them down. Why on earth should Apple be required to run ads for competitor's products? Why? Just because they're big now? Fuck that. Apple has a proprietary device that has a huge following, now the nay-sayers want a slice of the pie. Figures.

.

[dencol]

5. Our Capitalistic system is built on competition.

There are many horrible things about capitalism, but one of the good things is competition. I am not sure why you would support anti-competitive behavior as it ultimately hurts consumers, but as far as I am concerned, the more competition, the better.

[ShockediSay]

8. This not about competition but rather about

blocking competition

[Xithras]

6. Because Windows doesn't support ads.

If they did, they'd have to run Apple ads.

This is really no different than Microsoft being forced to build in alternative searches to Windows Vista, or bundle Real with XP. Or the recent EC antitrust settlement which will force them to allow European users to decide which browser they want installed at their first runtime. Microsoft has a long history of having regulators forcing them to install competitors products.

Corporations have only the rights that the people give them. The people decided, long ago via antitrust laws, that technology companies aren't allowed to protect their "turf" at the expense of their competitors.

Apple gets to play by the same rules as all the other technology companies. That means sucking it up and dealing with the antitrust regulators.

[tomm2thumbs]

11. +1 well put

[TheMadMonk]

9. Not even Microsoft was stoopid enough to design IE to strip out competitors...

...advertising content.

[no limit]

12. Microsoft would have to deny people the ability to embed advertising in their products to match this

because that's what apple did. It's not that they are forcing competitors to run ads on their devices. It's that they are telling people that make apps for these devices what those apps can and can't contain. If I want to develop a game and give it out for free as long as some ads appear apple would not allow me to do that. Absolutely insane.

[Heywood J]

14. Microsoft didn't file the patent for an ad-supported OS.

When Microsoft makes their offerings ad-supported or requires ads to be viewed as a matter of course, then we can talk about it.

- a heavy Linux user

[emulatorloo]

2. "severely limiting their choice of how best to make money" - Are you f*cking kidding me?

this is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

My gas station has TV's in the gas pumps that run "Proprietary Ads" - Guess Mr. Hamoui thinks the FTC should go after them too?

[onehandle]

3. Google was investigated after they bought AdMob out from under Apple.

Nothing came of the Google investigation, nothing will come of this.

[emulatorloo]

4. Publicity stunt, more or less n/t

[no limit]

13. Google doesn't prevent people from placing ads in their apps. So your analogy here is wrong

[AmericaIsGreat]

7. Hey Omar, suck my balls

AdMob? That just sounds like one of those companies who profits by annoying the shit out of me every god damned day wherever I go with their ads.

[Sherman A1]

10. I would be much happier without any ads

which are a very large reason why I watch very, very little broadcast TV anymore. I understand their are needed to pay the bills, but it's beyond the point of good taste (which would include most broadcast programing).

I still recall the promise of cable TV in the 1980's when it first arrived on the scene.... "No advertising".