This bit in Daniel Eran Dilger's opinion piece on the alleged WWDC iOS' response to anti-Apple snubs during Google’s earlier Android I/O conference caught my attention.

"[Google's] AdMob won’t be able to release monthly stats explaining how they are seeing more activity from Android compared to the iOS, because they won’t be able to see anything from iOS. And AdMob will lose the ability to sell ads on iPhones and iPod touches and iPads that benefit from any sort of spyware analytics. [...]" http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/06/08/apples-ios-wwdc-strikes-back-after-googles-android-io/

I don't think you can take seriously an article that says:

"Google has just been evicted from installing its spyware on iPhone OS devices."

Installing its spyware? Does the author know the definitions of the words "install" and "spyware"? Ads are part of the application or the web page, so you don't have to install anything to display an ad. "Spyware" means "computer software that secretly records information about which websites you visit", "program that surreptitiously monitor and report the actions of a computer user". I don't think an ad can monitor actions that are unrelated to the ad itself. Developers are responsible for including a privacy policy that clearly explains what information is shared with advertisers and ad networks

Other stupid things from the same blogger:

"The casualties to this siege on Google’s adware web would be the content publishers who are monetized by Google’s ads. These are also the bloggers who are ripping Apple apart, so why not starve them out of business?"

"This would rid the web of ads and turn content into a paid model much like what existed before the web destroyed print, periodicals and newspapers with low quality content framed by copious amounts of irritating, flashing ads that pay just enough to perpetuate themselves and starve out good content, but not enough to actually fund high quality writing, reporting and other content."

"Web ads are a noxious weed choking the intelligence and sophistication out of our society’s media, and Google is making its massive fortunes delivering this scourge. Do no evil? How ridiculous, that’s Google’s core competency!"

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/05/26/how-apple-could-slay-google-at-wwdc-2010/

(Ironically, the author uses Google ads to fund his blog.)

Actually, Ionut, he's talking explicitly of "[AdMob] ads that [would] benefit from any sort of spyware analysis," not that the ads themselves would be spyware. Because, short of outright cooperation with the platform owner, how else would AdMob and other networks know how to target their ads?

Any third-party iPhone app that communicates with a server has the potential of acting as surreptitious sender of cleverly-encoded user data. So Apple made sure that by creating a native, monopolistic, and well-integrated in-app iAd solution, there will be no incentives for third party spying efforts.

As for his other "stupid things," are you disputing that "Google ISN'T making its massive fortunes delivering [web ads]" and/or that, all things considered, first and foremost Google ISN'T an adware vendor?

1. If the ads are from third-parties they're spyware, but if they're from Apple, they're no longer spyware. That's a mistake.

2. iPhone still has a browser and web pages can still use any ad service.

3. Apple can't prevent app developers from including ads from third-party services. That would be a major problem if iPhone OS becomes the dominant mobile platform.

4. Apple's terms only say that applications can't request permission to get information about user location if they only you use it for advertising. The solution for AdMob is to stop requesting the location or to request the location only if the application uses it for other purposes.

5. Example of flawed logic: a blogger who loves Apple and uses Google ads to make money says:

"The casualties to this siege on Google’s adware web would be the content publishers who are monetized by Google’s ads. These are also the bloggers who are ripping Apple apart, so why not starve them out of business?"

Inaccurate statements: "[ads] are Google’s core competency". Google is primarily a search engine, ad services were developed after Google became a popular search engine.

"This would rid the web of ads and turn content into a paid model much like what existed before the web destroyed print, periodicals and newspapers with low quality content framed by copious amounts of irritating, flashing ads that pay just enough to perpetuate themselves and starve out good content, but not enough to actually fund high quality writing, reporting and other content."

Who decides what's "low quality content"? Is the paid model more democratic? I don't think we can go back in time and pretend that blogs, social networks, user-generated content no longer exist, especially now when old media tries to remain relevant.