Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamcalledrob | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

But, somehow, as a consumer, I don't get any protection against Apple.

Hmm.

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?

Generally companies don't get $30 billion in cash by turning down opportunities to make money.

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.

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.

Naturally. If you remove half of a product while keeping the same price, it's bound to be overpriced. Software isn't free (unless it is free...).

Keep in mind what I'm replying to. The argument is that 'bulk' of the money Apple makes is from hardware sales. Remove the hardware sales, and Apple doesn't make much money. My argument is that if you removed the software, they wouldn't be making the hardware sales. People aren't buying Apple for the hardware. They are buying it for the complete package.

Even you admit as much by suggesting they are removing half the product.

If you have $30 billion in cash, chances are that you have somewhat of a reputation. Apple definitely does. That repuation is worth far more to the company than a couple hundred thousand or a few million that an agency could offer.

However, if you're a small firm that might be struggling to survive and is somewhat lacking in the morals department ("Is it illegal? No? Then why not? We need the money."), that same money looks far more attractive.

Ummm... who exactly are these "unsavory developers"? This is starting to feel like a bad political ad.

I never mentioned developers. I mentioned agencies. As in, advertising agencies. They already (or used to) sell email addresses to spammers. It isn't far fetched to imagine selling location-based data as well. That sort of information is far more valuable than an email.

someone has never heard of crush offers...

It would also be very easy for you to uninstall the app. This is possible on my droid but I haven't really run in to it. If I were worried, I probably wouldn't install the app.

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.

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.)

Anti-competitive tactics are entirely legal unless they have a good chance of resulting into, or furthering a monopoly.

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 (We can /all/ trust wikipedia, right?) "Barriers to entry" is relevant.

Read the Sherman's Act instead of Wikipedia, it's quite unambiguous about this subject.

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.

"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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com