8 ms·

This is just not fair to developers. Apple is changing the rules half way through the game, to the benefit of nobody. I can't think of a developer OR end user

This is just not fair to developers. Apple is changing the rules half way through the game, to the benefit of nobody. I can't think of a developer OR end user who will be better off as a result of this decision. It's an innovation stifler and I can't understand why they are doing it. This kills location aware 3rd party advertising. As the article also says, looks like this will wipe out SimpleGeo. A sad day.

ryanhuff 17y ago
They are changing the rules, yes, but they are changing it along with a new set of circumstances. With multitasking support coming, the consequences for user tracking is growing. Considering Apple's zealous focus on user experience, I can see how they would want to manage the exposure of third party marketers to their users.
- 124816 17y ago
  Nope, sorry. This has very little if anything to do with the user. Apple wanted to buy Admob, but Google got them instead. This change will prevent Admob ads from being well targeted on iPhone, and will prop up their (assumed to be upcoming) rebranded Quattro mobile ads. This smacks of anti-competitive practices. (That is, assuming Quattro ads are allowed to use location aware targeting.)
  - DenisM 17y ago
    Anti-competitive tactics are entirely legal unless they have a good chance of resulting into, or furthering a monopoly.
    - 124816 17y ago
      I have never seen "anti-competitive" being used in a positive light. A quick search shows it has mainly been used by prosecutors and plaintiffs to describe their adversary. You don't need to believe me though, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices (We can /all/ trust wikipedia, right?) "Barriers to entry" is relevant.
      - DenisM 17y ago
        Read the Sherman's Act instead of Wikipedia, it's quite unambiguous about this subject.
        124816 17y ago
        Thanks for the tip. European law is relevant in this case as well, and I'm not sure it requires a strict monopoly over the market. That said, clearly if iPhones were a small part of the mobile ad platforms, nobody would care if Apple limited the ads that could be shown on them. I don't think that's the case though. The point I was trying to make was: If we switched this around, and Microsoft had the number one smartphone, and they did something like this, regulators (though you're right, probably not American ones) would have them bent over a table.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
Zev 17y ago
Yet this is completely fair to consumers who buy the application. Some welcome protection for them against unscrupulous developers or ad agencies. This change of the rules makes a ton of sense; with location-aware backgrounding (applications waking up and getting a notice when you change locations), it would be very easy for an agency to track where you're going and in turn sell it to someone else to make a quick buck.
- luchak 17y ago
  But, somehow, as a consumer, I don't get any protection against Apple. Hmm.
  - Zev 17y ago
    With something like $30 billion in cash in the bank, Apple's one of the companies that I'm not worried about selling information in order to make a quick buck. After all, aren't people always saying that Microsoft should use the privacy angle against Google? Why not Apple as well?
    - smallblacksun 17y ago
      Generally companies don't get $30 billion in cash by turning down opportunities to make money.
      - Counter 17y ago
        Umm, did you bother reading Apple's financials before tossing out that piece of FUD? The vast bulk of Apple's financials, and that $30 billion in cash, comes from hardware sales. Call me crazy, but i think it makes sense to protect a profit source from unsavory types building who-knows-what from data collected in the background.
        jasonlotito 17y ago
        Hardware with their software on top of it, and their experience all around. Remove the software on top of it, and you have hardware that is priced much higher than it should be.
maxharris 17y ago
"to the benefit of nobody" Apple is benefitting. Apple is right to look out for their own interests - they should behave in ways that are good for them, long-term. If you think Apple's actions aren't good for it, fine, but remember that you don't have all the information they do. If customers don't like Apple's policies, they are free to competitor's product. If developers don't like Apple's policies, they are free to develop for another platform. I love Apple's products, and I'm going to continue using and buying them.

ryanhuff 17y ago

They are changing the rules, yes, but they are changing it along with a new set of circumstances. With multitasking support coming, the consequences for user tracking is growing. Considering Apple's zealous focus on user experience, I can see how they would want to manage the exposure of third party marketers to their users.

124816 17y ago
Nope, sorry. This has very little if anything to do with the user. Apple wanted to buy Admob, but Google got them instead. This change will prevent Admob ads from being well targeted on iPhone, and will prop up their (assumed to be upcoming) rebranded Quattro mobile ads. This smacks of anti-competitive practices. (That is, assuming Quattro ads are allowed to use location aware targeting.)
- DenisM 17y ago
  Anti-competitive tactics are entirely legal unless they have a good chance of resulting into, or furthering a monopoly.
  - 124816 17y ago
    I have never seen "anti-competitive" being used in a positive light. A quick search shows it has mainly been used by prosecutors and plaintiffs to describe their adversary. You don't need to believe me though, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices (We can /all/ trust wikipedia, right?) "Barriers to entry" is relevant.
    - DenisM 17y ago
      Read the Sherman's Act instead of Wikipedia, it's quite unambiguous about this subject.
      - 124816 17y ago
        Thanks for the tip. European law is relevant in this case as well, and I'm not sure it requires a strict monopoly over the market. That said, clearly if iPhones were a small part of the mobile ad platforms, nobody would care if Apple limited the ads that could be shown on them. I don't think that's the case though. The point I was trying to make was: If we switched this around, and Microsoft had the number one smartphone, and they did something like this, regulators (though you're right, probably not American ones) would have them bent over a table.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

Zev 17y ago

Yet this is completely fair to consumers who buy the application. Some welcome protection for them against unscrupulous developers or ad agencies. This change of the rules makes a ton of sense; with location-aware backgrounding (applications waking up and getting a notice when you change locations), it would be very easy for an agency to track where you're going and in turn sell it to someone else to make a quick buck.

luchak 17y ago
But, somehow, as a consumer, I don't get any protection against Apple. Hmm.
- Zev 17y ago
  With something like $30 billion in cash in the bank, Apple's one of the companies that I'm not worried about selling information in order to make a quick buck. After all, aren't people always saying that Microsoft should use the privacy angle against Google? Why not Apple as well?
  - smallblacksun 17y ago
    Generally companies don't get $30 billion in cash by turning down opportunities to make money.
    - Counter 17y ago
      Umm, did you bother reading Apple's financials before tossing out that piece of FUD? The vast bulk of Apple's financials, and that $30 billion in cash, comes from hardware sales. Call me crazy, but i think it makes sense to protect a profit source from unsavory types building who-knows-what from data collected in the background.
      - jasonlotito 17y ago
        Hardware with their software on top of it, and their experience all around. Remove the software on top of it, and you have hardware that is priced much higher than it should be.

maxharris 17y ago

"to the benefit of nobody" Apple is benefitting. Apple is right to look out for their own interests - they should behave in ways that are good for them, long-term. If you think Apple's actions aren't good for it, fine, but remember that you don't have all the information they do. If customers don't like Apple's policies, they are free to competitor's product. If developers don't like Apple's policies, they are free to develop for another platform. I love Apple's products, and I'm going to continue using and buying them.