!. The terms of service DO NOT block AdMob. It blocks AdMob from having apps on the client gather analytics for it.

2. The type of AdMob gathers aren't required for advertising. If they were, AdMob's parent google would be out of business, or trying to get us to install spyware all the time.

3. AdMob could even still use a 3rd party analytics form to gather Analytics for it. Apple doesn't want it's phone competitors to be able to use their advertising businesses to harvest information about Apple's devices (especially those under development), without at least Apple having a chance at that same information.

4. AdMob could even change their client/server model so that without having the device send the information, the server could collect all the extra information that it's reasonable for them to get anyway.

5. With out App Eula's that give them permission some of the Analytics gathering that is sacred may even be illegal in jurisdiction that have anti-monitoring laws.

Apple's move was not a move to give iAd an advantage. It was a move to try to keep analytics from being spyware.

First of all, I think google will be ok without analytics. I mean they don't get analytics for their web ads, and they still manage to sell those.

And they didn't retroactively do anything with deals made with google. the deals weren't made with google. They are just not letting google retroactively let themselves in.

Apple is not locking out advertising competition. They are locking out industrial espionage under the guise of advertising. So they are not locking out google. Apple is just limiting the scope of information about it's devices that an App can get, and then more specifically that ti can get and then directly send to a direct iOS competitor. Web Ads, are still a go. Embedded Ads from a direct competitor, still a go. Embedded ads from a direct competitor that uses 3rd party analytics, still fine. The only thing their direct iOS developers can't do is harvest advanced information about iOS users are doing?

I Don't think there is a DOJ case here, but if there is, it should be about how google is internally using the analytics admob gets. Not what Apple has done to protect itself from it's direct competitors.

Apple isn't in mobile advertising, they are in iOS advertising. There isn't an iAD API for android forthcoming. And they allow independent analytics. This move isn't about the advertising business.

Apple found out the hard way, that analytics leak trade secrets. If apple's competitors got exclusive/early access to those trade secrets, Apple won't know what their competitors know and when they know it. So they decided that no Apple iOS competitor should have special access to information about what iOS devices are being developed or even what people are doing on their iOS devices. No doubt that data will still eventually be sold, but when it is Everyone will have the potential for the same access to it.

Uhhh....

"foaming at the mouth hatred"? where did you pull that one from?

Google is a competitor in a few areas, and in other areas apple has no desire to compete. If allowing google to be the default, but allow for other choices is "foaming at the mouth hatred", then he must really loathe Yahoo for not letting them even be the default.

Apple discovered that analytics data was being used against them, and they were pissed and banned analytics. Then when they re-allowed them, they said that it can be with a direct competitor. Which makes sense. A competitor's phone division if they have analytics, probably has first crack, and might have more access to that data then the rest of the world ever gets a chance too. So they want the analytics forms to be independent so that if data is made available everyone can get the same data, and they can get it at the same time. That makes sense.

And while Apple may not be as generous with the data they collect, they are not collecting data from their competitors handsets. Unless of course I missed the announcement about the iAd API for android?

Well, not actually. An AppleTv can play to Airport Express speakers and and is controllable from the ipod touch/iphone, you just need to make sure it has a copy of your music. It's also great if you are running iTunes to add an additional point of control to such a system and keep synchronized libraries.

Business isn't about successfully running a business. It's about creating an environment where the major inner circle investors can make boat loads of money, if my nothing else, destroying the company.

I find it interesting that you see, a longer school year as being less time. You are working under the premise that learning stops outside of the instructional hours so fewer instructional hours spread over a longer school year is less time. I don't think that is a fair assessment. There are only so many hours in a day so if you shortened the school year and lengthen the school day, there is less time for homework. And the teachers also have less time per material covered to recognize problems and start to address them, and less time to be thorough in evaluating the process of their students.

TechCrunch claimed that apple's claims were untrue. They did this by ignoring the little bit were the purpose of google voice is to replace your existing phone service. So while they are correct that the google voice app does not rip out and replace these features, using google voice logically supplants them. If your phone identity is not your google identity and not your provider identity then the apple apps might as well be removed.

It's a completely bogus self serving argument. It's like arguing that it's not vehicular manslaughter because you struck a pedestrian, after all they could have not been in the way, so really they just used you as an agent of suicide.

Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.

whether or not, Apple's position has any validity is not is something that can and should be legitimately argued. But it should be argued at face value, not skirted around with logical fallacies.

I wasn't explicitly talking about colonies, I was talking about things, such as single celled organisms many of which don't for colonies, that divide through division, such that neither of the resulting genetically identical resulting organisms can be distinguished as the parent. (as opposed to things that reproduce with genetically identical off spring, but a clear parent and child relationship) I guess what I am saying is that when an amoeba divides, you don't say that the amoeba died and had two off spring, you say that the amoeba divided, and as such both are still that original amoeba unless maybe one of them also underwent some genetic change. Single celled organisms are the easy example, but there are some more complicated ones.

All living things don't age. There are lots of organisms that don't have distinct progeny, and that have in effect been alive for a long long time.

He wasn't blaming slashdot for mp3/aac he was blaming them for the fact he adopted ogg. The analogous quote would be, "Any chance we can blame slashdot for adopting Betamax too?

Good thing too, cause with Germany never having been defeated, we would never have been able to get them back, and it's especially good because as we all know, the cultural history of France is THE most important cultural history in the world. You've won me over, now when asked about the best governments of all time, The Vichy government will be at the top of my list.

I wasn't so much thinking about the car industry, I believe the way that most of the safety standards for cars are setup, all new cars have to adhere to them regardless of where they are made. Additionally that Toyota may have largely been built in the US anyway.


I was thinking more things like toy manufacturing and the production of things like baby formula.

By that reasoning most certification programs should be a thing of the past.

To the best of my knowledge the rest of the world's ethnicities are represented in the USA. So "Buy American" is not racist. It's nationalist.

Personally I see nothing wrong with the ethics of "Buy American". I do see something wrong with enforcing quality standards on an industry and then forsaking that industry for foreign competitors that have not adhered to those standards. I see something ethically wrong with passing laws the effect how companies interact with their employees but then forsaking those companies to buy from others that don't provide those protections.