4 ms·
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 f
by 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 agoAnti-competitive tactics are entirely legal unless they have a good chance of resulting into, or furthering a monopoly.
- 124816 17y agoI 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 agoRead the Sherman's Act instead of Wikipedia, it's quite unambiguous about this subject.
- 124816 17y agoThanks 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]