Apple bans competing ads from the iPhone

Apple has tweaked its developer terms and conditions to explicitly lock out in-application advertising services that might compete with its own iAd service. The new terms, picked up by All Things Digital, spell out the rules. Applications may not collect statistical information for advertising, or any other reason, without …

[Anonymous Coward]

SPAM

"You may not use third party analytics software in Your Application to collect and send device data to a third party for aggregation, processing, or analysis."

ie, you may not filter the list, sell it to a third party and have the people on the list deluged by SPAM.

[DrXym]

Yes you can

That rule wouldn't stop spamming at all. The app might not distribute your analytics to a 3rd party but the server on the end most certainly could. Indeed, the likes of Facebook seem intent on selling your data to all and sundry. Does this rule mean we'll see a ban on Facebook apps?

Nope. This rule is to stop apps embedding advertising widgets. More evidence (if any more was needed) that Apple intends to monopolize every aspect of their device.

[Annihilator]

Ads for Android

Am thinking, when will they extend this so that the only companies allowed to sign up for ad space (Nissan were the loved-ones in the keynote for example) aren't allowed to compete either - ie will MS, Google, HTC etc be allowed to buy ad-space??

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel an anti trust coming on

<rant>

Apples behaviour in the mobile space is becoming more and more like the company that almost crippled them in the 80's PC wars. Why do we have to go through another platform war ? Didn't we learn anything from the last one ? Won't somebody think of the children ! Sigh ... Hang on need to put a new battery in my iPhone, oh no I can't, I want to download a Political Satire App, oh no, the leader says I can't ... and while I'm at it, Adam Corrolla was right, why is everything Apple make shaped like a bar of Soap !

</rant>

[MacRat]

Praise the Holy One

The blessed Steve Jobs is only looking out for what's best for us his customers.

Please bow to Cupertino in respect and beg forgiveness for the transgressions of the AC poster.

[Tzael]

Re: I feel an anti trust coming on

I've had the popcorn ready for the last two years in anticipation of watching this entertainment unfold. Unfortunately I'm starting to believe that Apple have already won over any legal authority who might be in a position to take action against the monopolising behaviour Apple has been practicing in recent years.

Strange how Apple are actually going even further than Microsoft did in the late 90s in terms of bad behaviour, yet the people who can stop it are refraining from doing so.

[Lou Gosselin]

People are too stupid

I hate to blame the people here, since that's usually a diversion tactic away from the real issue, but in this case I think it's legitimate.

People are too stupid to see how anti-competitive apple have become. In the future, when they realize how much harm apple's preemptive strikes against all competition have done, they will finally turn on apple only to realize that it's too late. Apple will have profited handsomely and pocketed all the politicians they'll ever need to control the market. Like someone else said, this is very much the microsoft model to success. Big win for apple, big loss for the rest of us.

[Lou Gosselin]

Re: I feel an anti trust coming on

Unlike microsoft, I think apple is smart enough to pre-emptively defend itself against anti-trust hearings. In the future, when today's records are being investigated, there will be no internal evidence with which to convict apple. They might even plant counter-evidence today, for a trial which hasn't even begun.

Remember, it's not unlawful to be a monopoly, it's only unlawful to use that power to knowingly impede competitor's abilities to participate in the market.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Lou

I've seen this comment thrown around by so many non-lawyer types it's not funny. There is no anti-trust violation. Apple aren't anti-competitive, they are just competitive.

[Lou Gosselin]

@AC

"I've seen this comment thrown around by so many non-lawyer types it's not funny. There is no anti-trust violation."

I may be a non-lawyer type, but then again I never said there was an anti-trust violation, at least not yet. It simply looks like they're headed that way in the future.

"Apple aren't anti-competitive, they are just competitive."

Now that's obviously untrue: "Apple bans competing ads from the iPhone".

If apple were a monopoly, it's hardly debatable that apple would be committing anti-competitive practices. Just because the legal definition of monopoly is 50% market share, does not mean a company cannot apply anti-competitive tactics well before then.

[bluest.one]

Apple 'Assle

>"[...] why is everything Apple make shaped like a bar of Soap[?]"

It's so that when you bend over to pick it up, Apple can have their wicked way with your ass.

[Lionel Baden]

Splurg

You Sir owe me a new keyboard !! i was on my laptop as well ......

[Big-nosed Pengie]

You buy their crap

you deserve all you get.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know..

Wasting my scant mobile bandwidth with ads is the main thing that would make me want to go back to a dumb phone. I am sick of people presuming that it's OK to wedge ads into every little nook and cranny in life.

I instantly remove any Android app that I find to have ads, and iAd was the main thing that made me think twice when I was buying the Android device- and put me off the iPhone a bit.

Given that the main use of a browser on my phone is to check the national rail website for train fail, I can easily do that on the little (and excellent) java-based Opera port. Every other whizzo feature on my smartphone was just there because I wanted rather than needed it. If it becomes riddled with adverts, then screw it, it is no longer a device that appeals to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

How very dare they!

Those pesky developers wanting to make some money off their time and investment in an app!

Freetard.

[dogged]

I dunno.

Assume you pay for your bandwidth - one way or another. Ads, in that case, become something that you have no choice but to pay to download and watch, as opposed to something like terrestrial/digital broadcast TV where it's beamed at you free or even satellite/cable TV which is a genuine unlimited service, unlike data.

Speaking as a developer, I have no qualms about asking somebody to pay me for my work. But asking somebody to pay for my work and then _keep on paying_ O2/Voda/T-Orange/Three/Whoever FOREVER for something they don't want seems a bridge too far.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a hypocrite then

I suppose you don't fast-forward or edit-out ads on recorded TV programs then.

That's not being a freetard is it? No, it's being a hypocrite.

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot

Those ads on TV have already been paid for, moron. Just like in a newspaper or magazine, heard of one of those? Nobody's fucking requiring you to pay attention to ads in any of these media, they're just including them to pay the bills. If an ad pops up in your smartphone app because you're too fucking el cheapo to pay for it, then fucking look away or something, I don't know. Go and get yourself a drink until the ads are over, like with television. People aren't freetards for ignoring ads, they're freetards for expecting everything for free, ad free, at no inconvenience or cost to themselves. Why not develop your own damned apps, then? Your stupidity is enough to boil the blood. You can't even get the logic of your own stand straight! Freetard moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree.....as long as...

I have to agree with this. If you want the free version of the app, then it's fair you suffer some ads. In my book that's a bloody good trade actually. Imagine if MS Office or Photoshop came free, including genuine registration & updates but had embedded banner ads or something. I'd snap that up in a second. All fine, as long as:

1. Ads do not appear in pay apps, or a no-ad version is supplied at a reasonable cost, so people that despise them can escape them for a fee

2. Ads ONLY appear in these free apps, and NOWHERE else - especially not within the OS interface itself

[Eponymous Cowherd]

Those pesky developers.....

are quite entitled to make money from their aps by charging for them.

Personally, I would much prefer to buy a "full" version than to suffer an ad-supported version.

The thing that really annoys me, and a practice that seems to be in-vogue amongst Android devs at the moment, is converting a app from "free" to "ad-supported" without warning. In many cases this is pushed as a "Major update" on the Market, but does nothing more than introduce ads.

A current culprit is the producer of (what was) a very good Klondike Solitaire game (Android users will probably know who I mean). A "major update" appeared on the market with many "new features". When you do the update you discover the "new features" are ads. Nowhere in the Market write-up does it mention ads and they don't appear in the Market screen-shots of the same screen where the ads appear. Bloody underhanded.

Then there is the placement of the ads. Right on the card table where you constantly trigger them as you drag cards about.

[John 104]

Not so fast there tex

This isn't about whether you like ads or not, this is about Apple controling who can put ads on their phone. It's pretty non-compete, so I would imagine this one will land them in a court room before too long.

[Doshu]

It's quite simple, really

If an app is paid-for, there's absolutely no justification for ads imo (unless prior agreement/consent with user).

If it's free, then heck, somebody gotta pay dem bills -- so fair and square.

As for his refusal to download free apps with ads, how the hell does that make him a freetard? He's not downloading/using anything at all -- if all apps were free but with ads, he'd have an empty device and that's entirely his choice methinks.

[Anonymous Coward]

@AC

Like you, I hate ads. With iAds on the iPhone I am assuming (hoping? expecting?) that they will only feature in free versions of the apps, and will not be in paid-for versions. If they are, I for one will not be buying those apps, and I'm sure many others will do the same. I also will happily pay for an app rather than suffer an advert just to get it free.

[SynnerCal]

Apple and ads (AC 11:11)

AC wrote "With iAds on the iPhone I am assuming (hoping? expecting?) that they will only feature in free versions of the apps, and will not be in paid-for versions"

That's a question I've seen asked many times elsewhere. The consensus seems to be that developers have free reign to remove ads from paid versions if they want to, but there will be "encouragement" from Apple to use iAds the same way that some paid websites still show ads.

Of course, Apple themselves are excluded from the restrictions, so they'll free to "ad enable" all the core apps in iOS as they see fit. Remember you don't own your iPhone, iPad, iPod, you just "lease" it from Apple. ;)

As regards Apple not being prosecuted for having a monopoly - whilst it's correct that they don't have a monopoly on (smart)phones (thank the maker!) do they not now have an effective monopoly on ads on the iOS platform. In which case, surely Google et al _do_ have a legitimate complaint? (I'm not a lawyer, so I realise I might be well off beam here).

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...

Interesting point.

I think Google should ask, then demand a license to the technology which "enables" Apple to indemnify against an invasion of privacy that Google (Street View) says does not exist.

The "Technology" Apple is using is "Monopoly". It is like Bernie Madoff arguing that he was only using the Ponzi Scheme as a Business Method, if any harm was done it's the method's fault.

[Field Marshal Von Krakenfart]

@"You Know" AC

I agree, my phone, my bandwidth, my money, please FOAD with your ads

FFS, the iAd "Service", well here's another word(s) with an 'i' in front of it, 'lLlneverbuyone

[Subban]

I rally don't understand..

.. why they aren't in a really big ass monopoly lawsuit. If Microsoft tried even a tenth of what Apple do they would be up to their ears in court documents before lunch.

Apple just seem to be going further and further downhill, literally begging to be taken to court. Aren't they ?

[James Hughes 1]

Not sure courts will be necessary

The 'freeness' of Android is going to trash Apple within a couple of years if the Fruitbased one continues along it current path of lock in lock in lock in. And I'm not talking pub style lockin's, which are a good idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Subban

On what grounds?

[Number6]

Re: @Subban

This is primarily America we're talking about here. I wasn't aware you needed grounds to file a lawsuit, just a money-grabbing lawyer.

[Mick F]

@Subban - on what grounds?

You are right - no-one gives a toss about Apple.

[Annihilator]

Apple are monopolizing the industry?

A monopoly implies they control the market. At the moment they control about 10% of the desktop/laptop estate. The iPhone is again about 10% of smartphones - even less when you consider "phones". I'm sure there are more specifics stats but this is broadly speaking.

THAT's why they're not being taken to court - you have a choice and Apple aren't abusing their market share to prevent competitors from getting to you. As it stands, they couldn't if they wanted to.

[Michael Brown]

...it's not really that hard to understand

Microsoft have a (de facto) monopoly, Apple don't. No monopoly, no lawsuit. Quite simple really.

Apple are a long way from having a de facto monopoly in the phone / handheld device market, so they can do whatever they like, because if you don't like it you have many other competing products to choose from.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because...

... they don't have a monopoly. Microsoft, HP, Sony, and Google ensure that's the case. One of many reasons why competition is good for Apple.

[Doug Glass]

Yep, And ....

.... that's exactly why Microsoft kept Apple alive, lo these many years ago, with an infusion of $5,000,000.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sosumi

For those that know the story - those that don't , look it up.

[chr0m4t1c]

That's easy

Apple have ~5% of the desktop space and around 30% of the smartphone market (about 8% of the total mobile phone market, IIRC). Oh, and roughly sod-all of the server space.

There's no big ass monopoly lawsuit because they aren't even vaguely a monopoly yet.

Yes, these stories generate huge amounts of hype and yes Apple look to be heading towards monopoly status, but they're still some way off.

It's a bit like the motoring press going bananas over every new Ferrari that's launched, it doesn't make Ferrari into a monopoly.

[John 104]

Agreed

When Microsoft bundled a browser on their OS, and allowed any other browser to be installed, they got taken to the cleaners. Yet here is Apple dictating who can do what on their platform and no one in the judicial system bats an eye?

[spencer]

Android Solution

Since Android is basically Linux, it has an /etc/hosts file where you can black-hole ad domains.

[Anonymous Coward]

#Android Solution

Run adblock for Android to block web ads, in its MarketPlace and is compatible with the same lists as Mozilla Ad Block. Buy the Apps you use to block in application ads, they're likely a couple of quid or something.

......or if you are a total amoral freetard get root (Google make it easy as developers need it) and run Ad Free which also blocks in application ads.

[Mick F]

Android Solution - AdFree

Runs on any rooted Android phone and is easily updated.

[twunt]

Because it isn't a Monopoly,

Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the phone market, or even the smart phone market.

Do you understand that?

[Oz]

Compare to IE

But MS didn't have a monopoly in the browser market either but it didn't stop the EU forcing them to bundle other browsers within their OS.Surely removing the ability for people to use (other) ad software is a restrictive practice?

[Synthmeister]

Desktop

MS had (and still have) a 90% OS monopoly on PCs which they were using to gain a monopoly in the browser market by practically embedding the browser into the OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true

The EU ruled on Microsoft's abuse of a dominant market position.

They utilized their Windows monopoly to make their IE browser into another monopoly.

That's why monopolies are a bad idea, they can be used not only to perpetuate themselves, but to diversify that situation.

[twunt]

I'll make it even easier for you

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/06/apples_iphone_market_share_three_times_greater_than_android_in_us.html

Since when is 28% a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Monopoly

@twunt: "Since when is 28% a monopoly?"...

It depends on which jurisdiction you're talking about. In the UK a company can be considered to have a monopoly if they control 25% of a particular market...

http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3328.html

http://www.economicshelp.org/microessays/markets/monopoly.html

[Tony Martin]

Not a monopoly

Well, Apple has zero percent of the Android market, so how can they be a monopoly. Because they have 100% of iPhone? Oh, I see...

[Anonymous Coward]

apples_iphone_market_share_three_times_greater_than_reality

That report!! - the one being laughed at by anyone other than Apple.

[Doug Glass]

When?

When the courts say it is and laws support that decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

This might tells us two things

1, Apple don't think that their products are good enough on their own merit to keep customers from straying to other products.

2, Apple think their user base will just up sticks and go and buy whatever product is shoved under their noses like stupid, moronic, dribbling, mouth-breathing, brainless sheep.

Hmmmm.

[DZ-Jay]

Or

3, Apple wants to protect the privacy of their customers (you know, the ones who actually paid for the hardware) by preventing unscrupulous third-party entities from harvesting their personal information and selling it without their consent.

-dZ.

[Lionel Baden]

*smirk

i dont know why but i keep chuckling under my breath wondering if anybody will illuminate this poor fellows surroundings !!

paris yeah well she needs more illumination

[Anonymous Coward]

Discrepancy

Headline: "Apple bans competing ads from the iPhone"

Article: "Developers can still serve advertisements in iPhone applications, of course"

Oh...kay.

[Anonymous Hero]

I said it before...

Apple are slowly creeping towards a walled internet garden like MS tried to do back in the 90's and appear to be getting away with it.

What next? Apple only DNS servers where they can filter out sites they don't want you to see?

Whilst there may not be an Apple monoculture within the mobile space, there is a monoculture within the Apple mobile space and that's not good.

Chip chip chip....thin edge of the wedge.

[Lou Gosselin]

Slowly???

"Apple are slowly creeping towards a walled internet garden like MS tried to do back in the 90's and appear to be getting away with it."

[Anonymous Coward]

this actually sounds okay

make it hard for developers to collect user data they don't need... I'm down with that.

but then you realise that the only reason for doing this is to give Apple a monopoly on collecting such data and it doesn't sound so rosy.

[Tim Almond]

Admob

This stuff is just petty.

One of the things I like about Google is that they don't use their users and developers as pawns. They don't take the attitude of removing or downgrading their services on Apple stuff just to screw Apple, or block Safari on Mac from using Apple's services.

I can understand the analytics stuff from a privacy perspective. I don't like the idea of advertisers storing my location somewhere, for instance. But the 2nd clause is just nasty. Any developer with an iPhone app can't use Admob, even if they were happy with Admob before. They now have to switch to iAd or some other competitor and if that's a disaster for them, well, tough.

[DZ-Jay]

Re: AdMob

Apple is not using its consumers as pawns, it is actually doing what it has been doing all along: protecting the privacy of those from whom they actually make money.

Think about the consumer for a second, the end-user. Now think about what AdMob is doing, and the information that developers share with them, and then consider the value that it adds directly to the consumer. Got anything? The user's information is being shared and monetized without his consent, for questionable gains. The user agreed to use the App and to view adverts, but was never given the chance to consent to share this information.

Notice that the license agreement allows the developer to show adverts, from any third-party organization--as long as no personal information is shared or used, unless such use is required for the App's functionality, or the user's consent was acquired.

I say this is a good thing for consumer privacy.

-dZ.

[Lou Gosselin]

@DZ-Jay

DZ-Jay,

Everyone knows this is a power play by apple, and nothing else. Unscrupulous apps will continue to collect information behind apple's back through web services, so your argument of protecting users' privacy is a bit of a red herring. Especially since apple makes no indication that apple will not use that information.

You've defended every single apple tactic out there, so I'll ask this plainly...

What's your affiliation with apple?

[Tim Almond]

but...

My point is more about this bit:-

"for example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent"

To me, that's like saying "we're banning any ad stuff to do with Google", without actually saying it. I don't quite understand why an "indepdent" ad provider is different to anyone else from a customer's perspective.

[Gangsta]

Tim Almond 23:49

you know what ;

"I don't quite understand why an "indepdent"[sic] ad provider is different to anyone else from a customer's perspective."

This line sums it up.

An Advertising company owned by an OS/Mobile etc. developer is probably better and more trustworthy for the consumer isn't it? You could trust a huge company with correct procedures with your data but could you trust a new start up?

Lets not forget this, Technically Apple is blocking out all third party ads anyway, because if you want tracking , you have to incorporate iAds (I believe this supports tracking?) and if you care about your users then your not going to bombard them with ads, are you?

So chances are the developers not going to put to lots of advertisements on one application, surely that's not good for users.

If iAd does not support analytics then please ignore this post.

[Synthmeister]

You've got to be kidding.

"One of the things I like about Google is that they don't use their users and developers as pawns."

Now that made me laugh. Google's whole business revolves around exploiting your web habits/data whether you like it or not. Just look at the whole streetview/wifi fiasco.

[Jay Jaffa]

When will it stop

Despite loving my iphone I've finally had enough of his control - I don't think it's right that they monopolise this domain as they do. I'm going to get myself one of those new ACER liquids on Vodafone. Mostly an issue of pride.

Strangely enough I made a similar decision in the late 80s when moving from Apple to Microsoft PC.

[Shoddy Bob]

More restrictive practices

Apple are so quick to take advantage of their near monopoly for profiteering - this being another illustration.

Why don't their competitors stoop to their level and put them out of business ? Imagine if Microsoft took their attitude and banned iTunes from Windows on stability grounds (certainly my experience). Or imagine if google preventing Safari from accessing Google Maps or the iPhone YouTube app from downloading video content. You'd be left with a pretty useless device.

Apple relies on fair play from every other player but abuses it themselves.

[Gulfie]

So let me get this straight...

The new phone's headline feature only works with other people who have the same phone and only if you are both on Wifi. No integration with Mac iChat even. And I think they've made a big mistake with the styling. The current iPhone can be instantly identified as such from any angle whereas the new one could be any old phone of a similar form factor unless you can see the Apple logo or the home button at the bottom of the screen.

To compound this Apple are now roofing in their walled garden and fitting triple locks to all the doors... sorry... the one door. This really is 'my way or the highway'. There is money to be made if you're willing to take the risk to develop something. But by Apple's own keynote figures there have been 5 bilion downloads with $1 billion paid out. That's an average of 20c per download (about 13p?). Not something that most developers will be able to retire on.

I don't expect this change to have a significant impact on the number of people developing for the iPhone but I do think that the likelihood of legal action against the company has just risen a smidge. But then, what the hell, video calls never took off when 3 launched and they could be made over 3G and to any phone that supported it.

Have Apple made a better product? Yes. Will people go out in droves and buy it? Yes again. Will it be more successful than Android. No. Not a chance. And all down to just two specific points: the closed ecosystem and the expensive, inflexibly price hardware - these say to me that Apple believes they have no competition.

I expect an Android phone will appear in the next six months that out-performs the iPhone on every front except possibly video calls. It will be cheaper and it won't wed you to a desktop computer for sync, or lock you inside a single manufacturer walled garden. I'm so glad I've moved off the iPhone.

[Matthew 17]

Got to love the Reg comments section, it's almost as amusing as YouTube's

So the Apple haters on here, who presumably don't have one of their portable devices are getting upset that Apple won't allow applications to collect user stats / profiles without their prior consent.

So they would prefer a device where it's a free for all, where they then have to install additional programs to block companies spying on them in order to try and sell them something.

I do find it interesting to see why some folk invest so much energy in hating Apple, would be interesting to know what the problem actually is.

About 7% of the cars on the road are made by BMW, I'm not really a fan of their cars, personally I find them to be a little overrated and feel that I can buy better for less. Because of this, when I'm in the market for a new car I look at the many alternative manufacturers in order to find something suitable rather than invest all my energy in trying to convince BMW drivers that they're stupid and proclaim my superiority on the internet.

[RegisterThis]

yes, but thankfully ...

... BMW drivers don't put much effort and time into trying to tell everybody that they should get a BMW too ... nor do they tell everybody that BMW invented the motor vehicle ... and apparently even the wheel!

[Tzael]

Re: Got to love the Reg comments section

Using your criteriea (surmisations drawn from a broad spectrum of El Reg comments) I'd probably be classed as an Apple hater. Yet I have a significant number of Apple hardware from the pre-OS X era. My absolute fave is the Newton, a device that was well ahead of its time and believe it or not is actually somewhat useful even today. I had a couple of Apple computers running OS X Leopard (not Snow Leopard) because the designers liked them, but we traded them in against several new PCs due to problems accomplishing our business objectives if we continued to use them (simply wasn't capable at the time, don't know if it is now).

I'll spell out the problem for you in plain English. Lock-in. When I buy a programmable or customisable device I expect to be able to utilise the hardware capabilities in any way I see fit as long as what I am doing is within the confines of the law. Apple hardware of recent years basically doesn't let me do what I like with it. Do it Apple's way, or not at all.

To be honest I think I'd be more forgiving if it was actually simple to transfer my personal data from an Apple portable device to any other platform of my choosing. Hell it'd be great if transferring data between individual applications on a single device was easy!

I do share your appreciation of the El Reg comments section. I don't see the comparison to YouTube's comments, however I do agree that here on The Register we commentators can have a good laugh and not be abusive towards each other.

[Matthew 17]

Yes but....

The lock in only applies to their handsets, not to their computers. The lock in policy is because 99.9% of end users are not tech savvy they just want an appliance to work. A colleague of mine the other day was wrestling with his Linux phone (I don't recall which model it was), for some reason its' filesystem had corrupted and was now mounted read only. He was able to unmount the volume, fun fsck, and bring the think back to health. He thought it was fantastic that you could do that, 'imagine being able to do that on your phone a few years ago!' was his proud comment. I thought that was awful, so to be able to use his phone you'd need to know how to use Linux and know about file systems, yes I'm sure that most readers of The Reg would know how to do this but what about the rest of the world? How can this be a good thing?

The lock-in makes it as idiot proof as possible, ensures a quality of service to the software that can be installed (remember that Google-App where you could check your bank balance from your phone that told the author of the software your bank details at the same time? Can't see that happening any time soon on an iPhone).

The bottom line is this, if you want a closed eco-system on your smartphone then I'm sure that one with an Apple logo on would be quite suitable, if you want to do what you like because it's your device then buy one of the many alternatives but do so with the understanding that you will have to understand your device to a greater level and will possibly run into apps that cause your device to crash or that contain malware.

There's no deception or monopoly so I can't see why there are so many posts these days in the Comments section hurling abuse at those that would possibly choose the former.

[Shazback]

El Reg

"remember that Google-App where you could check your bank balance from your phone that told the author of the software your bank details at the same time? Can't see that happening any time soon on an iPhone"

You mean, the Apple app review would catch security flaws? Like... A picture texting program that uses neither encryption nor sign-ins to secure the data it links to? (Quip) Or a program that looks through your contact list and sends the entire database (phone numbers, names, e-mail addresses, personal information, etc.) unencrypted to a non-secure server to match it with databases downloaded from other users? (Aurora Feint) How about a program that harvests personal information, data of use of web services and other applications, phone number and frequence of calls, and uses all this to monetise your advertising potential to direct marketing techniques? (MogoRoad) Or...

The main security the iPhone has is obscurity. Nicolas Seriot already showed how applications can easily access all kinds of information they're not supposed to access, and how the review process is inherently unable to catch these security flaws since the code source isn't accessible to the reviewers. Hackers have already been able to spoof verified OTA access on Apple's behalf, and I'm sure the Black Hat community isn't ignoring the appeal of the iPhone as a source of income. There will be security problems on it, just like on any platform.

[Rolf Howarth]

Obscurity?

"The main security the iPhone has is obscurity"

You're right, almost nobody has heard of the iPhone.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't lock-in

The problem is expectation.

You're not locked in to Apple's hardware any more than you are locked into any other phone manufacturer. Arguably you are locked into their infrastructure when you buy an iPhone, but they make no secret of it.

If you want to write your own software for the iPhone, then you can sign up for a (free) developer account, download a (free) development toolset and a (free) simulator to test your software on. You can then connect your own device to your own development machine and use your own software on it.

In what way is that preventing you doing what you want with the hardware?

[dogged]

Not free

"If you want to write your own software for the iPhone, then you can sign up for a (free) developer account, download a (free) development toolset and a (free) simulator to test your software on"

Uh, no you can't. That shit ain't free. It also comes with a lockin cost because it only runs on Mac OSX.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Matthew 17

You just don't get it.........

[Sim~]

apple haters?

"So they would prefer a device where it's a free for all, where they then have to install additional programs to block companies spying on them in order to try and sell them something."

People like freedom of choice. Freedom for developers to do as they like, freedom for users to decide what is acceptable to them. I don't own any of their portable devices. I do have a mac keyboard though. This is another example of control and lock-in, setting Apple up as the master of their platform like how Microsoft tried-and-succeeded in being the master of Windows in terms of office productivity.

[Magius]

Ads sent using my bandwidth?

Let me state this, as long as ads are not intrusive and let me work without interrupting my flow, I'm fine with them. The moment they make me pause or wait its the moment I throw the phone in the trash bin.

But coming back to what was to be my main point. Are these ads being push to the phone using our (now) limited bandwidth? Do they count towards the monthly limit, be it 200MB or 2GB?

If they do, then there is a problem. No matter how tiny or compressed they are no way they should be allowed to use my (now) limited bandwidth. Just imagine finding out that you run out of the monthly bandwidth allotment because of the continuous bombardment of ads to the phone.

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: Ads sent using my bandwidth

Of course they do! It comes straight out of your bandwidth allowance.

[DZ-Jay]

Re: Ads sent using my bandwidth?

Yes, these iAds will count towards your monthly limit. But so do any other ads from any other ad-supported application you install. Nothing has changed in this regard. The differences are two-fold: Firstly, that instead of serving ads from AdMob and other third-party networks, some of the ads will be served by Apple. Secondly, that no information may be shared for the sake of showing ads and collecting analytics.

-dZ.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Gulfie

"But by Apple's own keynote figures there have been 5 bilion downloads with $1 billion paid out. That's an average of 20c per download (about 13p?). Not something that most developers will be able to retire on."

And on average, that's 25000 downloads per app, so about £3250/app. You've either got to be churning out shovelware, or be a heavily promoted title to make much on that basis.

[Parsifal]

Antitrust Here We Go

Title says it all, I think Apple have just crossed that line in the sand.

[Anonymous Coward]

@mosaic

That line in the sand was just washed away by high tide.

There is no antitrust violation here.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Oz

"Compare to IE # ↑

But MS didn't have a monopoly in the browser market either but it didn't stop the EU forcing them to bundle other browsers within their OS.Surely removing the ability for people to use (other) ad software is a restrictive practice?"

It is about leveraging their Windows monopoly to push IE.

Apple have no monopoly with the iPhone so there are no monopolistic practices.

[Parsifal]

It May Not Be Monopoly

But it is anti competitive, and yet more of the Apple closed environment limiting choice. Imagine DirecTV not showing ad's for Dish TV on their service and you get the picture,.

[Rolf Howarth]

"But it is anti competitive"

It's no more anti-competitive than Tesco refusing to put up Asda posters in its stores.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple have no monopoly with the iPhone"

Of course Apple has a monopoly with the iPhone - the iPhone app market itself.

The market for apps on the iPhone is big enough in it's own right that there are several competing supplies of ad services. Now Apple comes in and says that developers have to stop using these other ad services, and use Apples own mobile ad services.

If it was simply a matter of restricting the way information was gathered by in-app ads, that wouldn't be a problem, but by only imposing those restrictions on competitors, and explicitly exempting it's own service, Apple is abusing it's monopoly powers.

Ironically, this wouldn't be the case if there were competing App stores, but because Apple decided that there would be only one "legal" source for iPhone apps, it created a separate and standalone Market in which it clearly has a monopoly position.

[Joe Ragosta]

Hypocrisy

The one thing that everyone has missed - Apple is simply doing what Google has done for years. You know, the Google with a near-monopoly in online advertising vs Apple's non-existent position?

Can Apple sell advertising on google.com or gmail.com? Of course not. Google controls that 100%.

If Google thinks that Apple is being unfair, they can start by opening up THEIR apps and network to Apple. "Do no evil" my a$$.

What's good for the goose....

[Grubby]

Hmmm

Surely Apple only allowing specific software etc on their device is like Microsoft only allowing IE on Windows, in fact worse, as you can have any browser on Windows they just didn't tell you about it.

I'd think that now they're bigger than MS it would only take a few of the big companies to go to the EU and complain about their unfair treatment by Apple.

Personally I think it's a good thing, keep cutting your ties Apple, then f**k off an die. Over priced and over hyped. Other peoples innovation wrapped in chavy chrome.

[themacbuddha]

Disingenuous Hogwash

Truly the change in the language kicks Google/Ad Mob in the nuts but its intent is to protect users from shady developers. It doesn't prevent other ad networks from working with iPhone apps nor does it prevent App developers or Ad Networks for from starting their own Ad network or creating Apps, respectively. It delineates the function of the App from the serving and function of the Ad being provided. It would seem to level the business playing field, we can only assume iAd would be using the same data that other Ad networks have access to, and it clarifies the legal playing field, who gets sued when an App or Ad Network uses customer data inappropriately. I'm not sure about Opera but that last thing you would want your closest competitors to know about your products is how much and the ways your customers use them. Not to mention this now pits MS against Google. It is bloody unlikely that MS and Google would partner on mobile ads, it would signal that MS is far weaker a technological titan than is thought.

[B 9]

Maybe you should all try reading it again?

It does NOT ban anyone else other than Apple. It bans sending device data (hardware data, location data, etc. that is NOT related to content being viewed) without the consent of the user. . . . .Those BASTARDS at Apple want you to give your consent. How dare they!!

Second, it prohibits advertiser entities who are engaged in the business of creating mobile hardware/software (i.e. Admob which is owned by Google (Android)) because they don't want Google stealing their data to compete with Apple. They did enough of that when Eric was on the board and then release their derivative copy called Android (have you noticed every phone looks like an iPhone rip off?)

Sorry to you folks who want to see evil everywhere, but these two prohibitions are completely reasonable.

[Daniel Harris 1]

Can Apple collect that data?

But by owning and using the device are you giving Apple consent to collect that personal data?

If Apple can collect that data without consent / or force you to give consent in the terms and conditions of using the device...Then that's the problem

[Aaron 10]

Misleading Title

Apple is not banning any company from advertising; they are banning them from collecting analytics if they're a competing company.

[Doug Glass]

It's Not Just About Monopoly

It's likely more about unfair business practices which may or may not be a monoploy. All you generally have to prove is that you've been intentionally harmed in such a way that you have no recourse, i.e. predatory.unfair business practices.

Typewriter makers were essentially put out of business by the advent of word processors. But there was nothing unfair or predatory, just newer technology that made typewriters obsolete. That's a common theme in business. Assembly line robots put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. But we still have robots.

So it's really a misnomer to keep using "monmopoly" in every case where it seems something just isn't right with a business's practives. AC is right, there's no monopolistic practices here on Apple's part. Unfair? Predatory? Maybe so, but no monopoly.

[Jeff 11]

Re: Gulfie

"I expect an Android phone will appear in the next six months that out-performs the iPhone on every front except possibly video calls. It will be cheaper and it won't wed you to a desktop computer for sync, or lock you inside a single manufacturer walled garden. I'm so glad I've moved off the iPhone."

Isn't that pretty much what the Tux brigade have saying about desktop Linux for the last 10 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Jeff 11

at least they nailed stability.

andiods have more impressive innards :D and well, iPhones aren't renowned for impressive specification on anything but the screen, woo a rear facing 5MP camera, how 2006 (N80)

[Anonymous Coward]

*yawns*

Apple unfairly updates ToS screwing more devs/users in process *yawns* El Reg could write these headlines in advance, publish in advance, and have dates coinciding with each update to iOS.

Wonders how long before Apple introduces tiers for developers; apps placed accordingly in app store lists, developers having access to different "features", etc.

[Neil Greatorex]

@bluest.one

"Apple can have their wicked way with your ass."

As long as nobody is looking into the field where my Ass roams, Apple can have their wicked way, I should warn them about the piles of manure though...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Apple's product, you don't have to buy it

To all mooners,

The iPhone / iPad / iFuture gadget is designed and build by Apple.

They don't have to open it up/share it with other companies, but they can if they see fit on their terms and conditions. If they don't want to allow flash etc, then so be it.

.

That is a choice Apple has, it is NOT a monopoly as their are competing smart phones and other internet enabled gadgets.

We, you and I (and all other consumers) have the free choice NOT to buy Apple's product.

I have made a long time ago the decision not to take part of the iPhone hype as I simply feel that the device is not worth the pricetag plus the subscription cost.

//K

[Gordon Pryra]

Anti-trust?

Whats the difference with this and the mechanics of the anti-trust suit that hit Microsoft back in the day?

[Rolf Howarth]

Re: Antitrust

"Whats the difference with this and the mechanics of the anti-trust suit that hit Microsoft back in the day?"

The difference is that Microsoft was using a monopoly in one area (operating systems) to stifle competition in another (browsers), and that's illegal. Monopolies by themselves aren't illegal. Locking people in to a platform isn't illegal. It's the combination of the two that's a problem.

Unless and until Google (or any other mobile adverstiser) can complain that they're being prevented from competing because every possible platform on which to display ads is controlled by Apple, and they're being unfairly excluded from that platform, then Apple aren't breaking any anti-trust rules.

Doesn't your heart just bleed for Google (who own about 98.5% or whatever it is of the global online advertising market) that they're now facing some competition? Quick, let's open up the advertising market before Google go out of business!

[No, I will not fix your computer]

All your base are belong to us

This definitely needs an icon.......

.....oh wait, it's the one I used ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a monopoly if...

You take the share they have of downloadable apps.

Not smartphones or desktops but downloadable apps.

That's a separate market. At the moment developers can't just move to another market because they're isn't one.

All a lawyer has to do is convince a judge that's a monopoly and then Apple could be f**ked.

Personally I think they're making a mistake, they won't feel it under this generation but treating their third parties like this will come back to haunt them. And it's starting to have an effect. I'm over at WWDC at the moment and a lot of people have stories of getting banned and it has an effect on others.

I think Google only care about themselves as has been seen in the Android marketplace by not doing anything to help or protect 3rd parties that can't make money going free. I suspect Microsoft who have always been good to the little 3rd party developers will benefit from all this, that said tying us in to Silverlight and XNA, I hope they don't make the same mistakes.