Federal antitrust probe of Apple extended to include iAd

By on May 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM
mobile May 4, 2010

iad

According to The Wall Street Journal, the federal antitrust probe looking into alleged anti-competitive practices by Apple has been extended to include an investigation of Apple’s recently announced iAd service. Citing “people familiar with the matter” (natch), the WSJ reports that both the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are taking a close look at Apple’s decision to prohibit developers from extrapolating analytical data from users devices. The main concern is that Apple will effectively be able to lock out competing advertising services from the iPhone OS by making it difficult for advertisers to properly target their ads. The most recent version of the iPhone developers agreement makes it clear in section 3.3.9 that “The use of third-party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited.” Several anonymous iPhone developers as well as at least one AdMob employee were said to have discussed the matter with the FTC, as was a wireless advertising executive who was approached by the FTC in its quest to learn about what implications, if any, section 3.3.9 will have on the wireless advertising industry. At this point in time there is no guarantee Apple will actually be rung up in an antitrust suit, but the fact alone that the government is keeping such close tabs is surely not a good sign for the Cupertino company.

Read

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
41 Comments

Related Articles

  • T

    If Google isn’t going to be approved to acquire AdMob… then I have a feeling this may not end well for Apple. Well… not well in the sense that you may be seeing Quattro Wireless in existence again, as well as AdMob… competing against an in-house iAd and an in-house Mobile Google system…

    • MikeD

      The chances are very low that Apple get dragged into it.

      Google primary business is Ads. Everything else they do is to support you seeing ads. Google buying Ad mob makes it quite obvious that it must be investigated. because now there is less competition.

      Apple on the other hand never was in the Ad business. Google attempted to keep out Apple out of their business space by buying Ad Mob (They knew Apple was making overtures to Ad Mob). So Apple bought Quattro.

      Google started Apple down this path due to their backstabbing of Apple. And Apple buying Quattro doesn’t shrink competition.

      Google didn’t need to buy Ad mob. Apple did need to buy Ad mob or Quattro to enter the Ad market space effectively.

      • knowitall

        @MikeD

        Please explain how “Apple buying Quattro doesn’t shrink competition”. Where there were two companies, there is now one. Therefore the competition in the market has decreased.

        In addition, it doesn’t matter what their primary business purpose is (i.e. your comment regarding Google how it makes its money). There was plenty of competition for Windows and Internet Explorer when Microsoft was taken down for including ONLY Internet Explorer in it’s Windows CD’s. (Competition for Windows included Linux, Unix, Whatever Mac’s OS was at the time, and competition for IE included Netscape, AOL, Compuserve, etc). People could have easily downloaded Netscape or other browsers, but it’s the fact that it made it more difficult for those browsing companies to enter the market that made the case legit. Now Apple’s use of ONLY iAd will make it more difficult for competitors to advertise on the iPhone…therefore it’s a legitmate case using given legal precedence.

      • xclntgig

        One of the differences here is that Windows had a platform that actually and completely dominated the desktop pc market. These moble ad companies are just technologies in was *could be* a huge business. So, the lawsuit is based on potential vs. actual dominance.

    • STFU

      FUCK APPLE, FUCK APPLE, FUCK APPLE!…

  • TypicalAppleHatingDBAG

    God, Apple sucks. They need to be shut down. I hope feds can stop them.

  • detroitmak

    Whimsical!

  • Norm

    Oh no!!
    Isn’t iAd one of the new tentpoles for OS 4.0
    Will the new iphone still work without iAds?

  • Elrabin

    iAd. Ugh.

    Yes, sure, lets suck up 1/6th of an already small screen for ads.

    On top of that, those iAds are going to be ungodly expensive.

    Did anyone else see that the price for an iAd is between 1 and 10 million dollars for the first group of advertisers?

    Thats utterly insane. The “normal” cost of a mobile ad, as I understand it, is between 100k and 250k.

    For gods sake, Apple is asking for more money than a SUPERBOWL AD!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16874732/ns/business-us_business/

    &

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_advertising

  • alen

    if microsoft’s legal team can keep the government busy for almost a decade, Apple shouldn’t have any trouble with this. you can’t even classify any of Apple’s businesses a monopoly

    • vvicked

      isn’t their mp3 player and ecosystem a monopoly?

      • EnoughStupidity

        For all involved, a Monopoly isn’t illegal. Abusing your position as a Monopoly is. Understanding legalities would be important if you are going to discuss them.

      • Ethan

        “a Monopoly isn’t illegal. Abusing your position as a Monopoly is.”

        Where did you learn business law? A monopoly is illegal under the United States anti-trust laws, if they weren’t then why would we have Anti-trust laws? The only reason they exist still is because government looks at whether they are killing potential competition if they are then they are punished for it and if they aren’t the government keeps a very close eye on them. (Some are exempt because it’s difficult for competition to enter because of the area of business not the company in it like Electric Companies) Sometimes the US Government has gone in and split monopolies up. Examples are Standard Oil and the recent big one is AT&T (funny thing is AT&T is/has bought all the companies that were spun off of them) so yeah Monopolies are illegal.

      • EnoughStupidity

        @ Ethan,

        Each day I don’t believe that I will find the next “dumbest comment ever”, then each day someone like yourself post the “dumbest comment ever”. This world of mine is definately amazing.

        Standard Oil and At&t were legal monopolies (like all monopolies) until they abused their power. I repeat, being a monopoly is not illegal, abusing your power as a monopoly is. Learn before you try to teach.

        So no, monopolies are not illegal. They have always been legal and will always be legal. Thanks for playing though.

  • EnoughStupidity

    Not only is this a none issue just like the other none issue (DOJ/FTC investigating what tools Apple allows and does not allow but as alen above states, Apple can keep this in court for a very long time. All they need to do is change some wording and give a little (not much) and this whole thing will be over with.

    Get with it people, choose your device, use your device and get along in life already. They are just gadgets, none of these companies will pay your mortgage. Of course, one of these tech companies can help you accomplish things faster. So if your time is money I suppose in a round about way a certain tech company could help pay your house-note.

    • ThatDudeThere

      “Of course, one of these tech companies can help you accomplish things faster.”
      Dont keep us waiting, which company is it?
      I’m a month behind on my mortgage, I’d like to know!

      • EnoughStupidity

        Sounds like they got you by the ARM. On a more serious and potentially catostrophic note someone sent me this link in an email:

        http://labs.chitika.com/ipad/

        If these numbers keep up we might have to use one of Iran’s nuclear missles (that don’t exist) to handle things.

      • ThatDudeThere

        Weren’t these the people that reported 800,000 when it was just 300,000 though

      • EnoughStupidity

        Hell if I know. I know an analyst suggested Apple sold 700,000 when they had only reported selling 300,000. If Apple said that they sold their 1,000,000th on friday and they have had 3 days of full on 3G sales it could be somewhere in between. All I am saying is that Apple has a first mover advantage and if someone doesn’t come out with something pretty quick that Mindshare is going to turn into gigantic marketshare numbers.
        If you believe competition is healthy you are definately hoping for something to come along.

    • ThatDudeThere

      dude, totally dont mean to be a dick, but you keep saying none issue, I think you wanna say non-issue
      just for your future posts

  • MikeD

    Ditto

  • 3 Phones Jugglin

    In the Midst of Apples Prison bullying of HTC..it appears the wardon has gotten tired of Their bullshit.

    Remember Shawshank Redemption? The Guy that always tried to get andy? Now he gets his.

    • EnoughStupidity

      Andy also got abused, sexually. Sure the movie made it appear that ole Andy made out in the end. HTC’s problem is just that, this isn’t a movie.

  • xclntgig

    Sorry, can someone please explain the issue here in english? As I see it:

    -Apple developes a hardwaresoftware platform
    -Apple creates an advertising platform and tools to allow advertisers to create better integrated ads for apps on that hardwaresoftware platform that benefits advertisers and consumers.
    -Feds don’t like that just any tool can be used to create ads regardless of how it impacts the stabilityperformance of the device.

    Is he really “locking out” other advertisers or creating a new model that the aren’t equiped to deal with yet?

    I’m looking at you Adobe.

  • Mrwirez

    Apple -a hardware company that went into the advertising business..

    • Derek

      I hate ads, but why shouldnt they? Google was a nothing company and turned themselves into one of the biggest companies in the world by just selling crappy little ads annoying ads.

      • ben

        google ads are the least obtrusive ive seen

  • xclntgig

    I see some of those Lazy Adobe Developers disliked my comment. Remember, the truth will set you free.

    Seems you’re in the Angerdenial phase right now..

  • xclntgig

    Oh, wait. Isn’t school out right now? Better go ask mom if you can use the family’s shared computer in the family room again so you can “seriously dislike” this comment too. LOL

    • ACuvue

      Let it go, kid. Let it go.

  • Gina D

    Funny stuff. Back in the 80′s this is the exact same stuff Apple accused Microsoft of doing. Remember that MS was the bad guy back then “big brother?”

    Now that Apple is tasting a little success it’s doing the very same thing. Hope they get b-slapped by the Feds!

    • xclntgig

      I think Microsoft was actually doing bad stuff. I like Microsoft, but facts are facts. Not sure what is so “bad”, or anticompetitive about this so far…

    • EnoughStupidity

      @ Gina D,

      Big brother in the 80′s was in reference to IBM, Microsoft was a very small programming company and nothing else. In 1986 they offered the company to H Ross Perot for $300 million dollars. He didn’t buy it, his big mistake. You may be refering to the 1990′s with regard to Microsoft. If that is the case you would be correct. Except that it was Sun Microsystems, Novell, Netscape and several PC manufacturing companies that were are asking the Federal Government to look into their business practices. Ten years later Microsoft paid some fines and everythng was settled. If Apple did anything wrong and had to pay say $5 Billion in ten years, I think that would be a good investment to keep their company and products under their complete control.
      Although I agree, because Toyota should have a say in how BMW puts their cars together, right?

  • Dara

    This anti-trust BS is just as stupid as the patent trolling that the big players have all been dabbling in.

    Apple has a walled garden with 100 ft high walls. The main consequence is that you can see them from 100 miles away.

    Developers should have known that Apple reserved the right to screw them at any time and for any reason, it says so right in the agreements they were forced into.

    Apple is far from a monopoly, and they should be free to extract every last cent from their developers and users. It’s their decision to be exploited, whether it’s preference or ignorance.

    Same thing with Microsoft. If you are were too stupid to install Netscape then it’s really a miracle that you got to see geocities in its full glory and you should have been happy.

    P.S. LMAO @ EnoughStupidity (to fill a hundred usernames). You certainly have more than enough, Jarrett.

    • Suckers

      You obviously have no fucking clue what anti-trust laws are or why they exist. The stupid calling others stupid… how ironic.

    • Chris

      @ Dara,

      How exactly were the developers “forced” into the agreement? I was under the impression that one signs on the dotted line voluntarily.

      @ Suckers,

      You are certainly passionate, sadly you are incorrect though.

  • Derek

    Here’s an idea… I dont want ANY ads on my mobile device!!! Not from Apple, and not from Google. NO ADS!!!

    I already pay a big sum to acquire the device and then I get raked over the coals each month by my service provider. Least I should be able to do is run my device and browse the web without being annoyed and aggravated to death by ads!

  • Suckers

    Apple is finally getting what they deserve.

    Owned.

    • Chris

      Success? I am not sure anyone ” deserves ” success, all success is earned.

  • eric

    Wow, check the way people rate comments, this comment section is full of irrational hate for Apple, a major lack of understanding of law related to monopolies and just a general trollish nature of the people who read articles about apple. (Not everyone, mind you, but one has to wonder when a comment that is reasonable and not even overly positive toward’s Apple gets -15 when rants of fomaing mouthed idiots don’t get such negative ratings.

  • heisman

    STEVE JOBS is a TAINT LICKER.

blog comments powered by Disqus