FTC approves Google's AdMob buy, cites Apple's iAd competition
By Nilay Patel 
posted May 21st 2010 12:32PM
posted May 21st 2010 12:32PM
Google's attempt to swoop in and buy AdMob out from under Apple was looking like a Pyrrhic victory for a second there, as Federal Trade Commission approval of the deal hung in the balance based on concerns that El Goog would control far too much of the online advertising market. It's ironic, then, that Apple's acquisition of Quattro Wireless and the introduction of the iAd platform in iPhone OS 4 is what convinced the feds to let Google's acquisition go through -- the FTC says that Apple's entry into the market will provide significant competition to AdMob, regardless of whether or not it's owned by Google. That means Google's free to pursue all the ad-based initiatives in Froyo it announced yesterday at I/O, and it means we should see the already-heated rhetoric between Mountain View and Cupertino get another notch hotter. It's going to be a wild summer, folks -- get ready.Update: Here's a statement from AdMob founder and CEO Omar Hamoui on the deal -- he's got a fuller piece on his blog, linked below.
"We are extremely pleased with today's decision from the Federal Trade Commission to clear Google's acquisition of AdMob. Over the past six months we've received a great deal of support from across the mobile industry – and we deeply appreciate it. Our focus is now on working with the team at Google team to quickly close the deal."
Ads are needed to pay for everything we use, and google at least understands that we don't want to look at annoying flashing banners.. I love the ads in gmail and in google search results... I don't need an adblocker for their methods of advertising
somehow engadget was still able to make this article apple centric and plug 3 apple articles.
The funny thing is that Google doesn't see itself as big brother in 1984. If this isn't part of their quest for full world domination of everything you think, say or do what is it? They will be a touch point now in every single conceivable touch point of your life and if they're not then you will be standing next to someone that is. This really is very bad news.
@arrgh
I have always been a bit leery of Google as "Big Brother" because it's difficult to know what aspects of the internet or media they will infiltrate next. I know it's only makes economic sense from a corporate profit-driven perspective. However, it's difficult to understand the cumulative effects of there information management. Advertisement is not to be underestimated for it's ability to persuade, manipulate, and possibly corrupt information. The seemingly endless popularity of Google online is alarming but probably trends no differently than other technology corporations were back in the 80's and 90's. But the "Big Brother" concept is probably just theory in practice for if the old adage stays true about how history repeats itself, what is now popular is not likely to stay popular indefinitely. Technology, both companies and trends, has been and will continue to be quite dynamic. Never bet on a sure thing for too long here.
@Phucpholuc
I agree with most of your points but you've overlooked one major factor. Google is not a tech company it is masquerading as one. Google is an information company and information is power. It will never go out of fashion. One of the oldest companies in the world is Reuters who have traded in business information for 160 years. Their reach has been nowhere near as pervasive as Google. I agree with you that the tech business is fashionable or a flavour of the month business to be in. It's what makes the business so competitive and interesting to follow. When a company like Google talks about Free Open Source Software and cheap hardware they are doing this to get critical mass and volume in the market without it they don't exist. Google can then know what your thinking every second of the day and market that or manipulate you in a way that is a positive net effect to their company. Don't believe the tech facade, it is just there to appease us.
"Regardless of whether or not it's owned by Google" is a double negative. Regardless already means it doesn't matter if it's owned by Google. A professional blog like Engadget should have better grammar.
The past few weeks (and especially this week) have just been Google chipping away at Apple's armor, bit by bit, feature by feature, and now this final blow.
Steve Jobs' armor must be looking full of holes by this point. (Pun intended.)