Apple’s ad terms

Consider the flipside perspective, too. What if it were Apple honing in on Google’s lucrative search advertising business, building up profiles on Web searchers via Safari and displaying targeted ads within the browser during Google searches? Or selling the search behavior of Safari users to Microsoft so that it could improve Bing at Google’s expense? I can hardly imagine Google would be happy about Apple using Google search data to threaten its bread-and-butter business. In fact, whatever deal Google and Apple have struck for Safari’s search bar probably already prohibits that kind of behavior. Does that sound anticompetitive to you? Or is it just the sign of a company protecting its crown jewels from a fierce competitor?

The big difference is that, if Apple did attempt to “hone in” on Google search, and Google took steps to prevent it, Apple, not Google, would be derided as the aggressor. Such is the tech tide flowing against Apple.

Apple’s secrecy pisses tech pundits off. Push comes to shove, the majority of them will support the company with free-flowing PR every time. Any communication, whether vapor, marketing speak or statistical manipulation is better to them than a “no comment”, and typically reported with little question. It’s why they proclaimed Microsoft King the better part of 20 years.

Advertisements

Apple Antitrust

It’s bad enough there’s no monopoly in phones for Apple to be accused of abusing, and nearly every article complaining about Apple admits this. Yet the subject keeps cropping because Apple’s competitors are asking the feds to slow Apple down, and it’s good PR for politicians. Whatever.

But now it’s gone so far as this:

But, Apple is walking a fine line, and will be increasingly scrutinized by the government. Each time provides additional risk for regulation.

This is nonsense. 

Let’s put it in sports terms: “Well, Bob, New York’s had three hits down the baseline that were close to being foul. The umpires will increasingly scrutinize further such hits. Each one provides additional risk for being foul.” 

That’s absurd. The thing is either fair or foul. No matter which, it’s over, done with, and has no bearing on future hits. Like flipping a coin 10 times in a row with tails, the next flip is still just 50-50 tails (spare me the mathematical precision that says I’m off by a few hundredths, the point stands).

This isn’t some freakin’ game where not only can you not break a rule, but apparently you’re only allowed a few times where you allegedly come close to breaking a rule—never mind Apple’s not close. This is lobbyists in Washington playing with politicians in Washington. It’s companies trying to to get their money’s worth. We should be appaled, not happy, if they succeed.

Don’t weep for Google and AdMob

Given that my highly evolved brain can’t tell one PC-based text ad from another (be it Google or, say, Bidvertiser), doesn’t this mean for all intents and purposes that us little ol publishers better not use anything but Google?

What? You mean tech media darling Google might have favorable ad terms of their own? Shocking.

In other news, Ford furious they can’t advertise in Chevy showrooms.