A few weeks ago I received a subpoena from the FTC to come and testify in Washington DC and share my experience with advertising in mobile applications. I have spent a good bit of time explaining to the FTC why this acquisition isn’t a problem and will actually benefit app publishers.

Many of Sax.net’s iPhone apps are ad-supported, and we’ve been using a variety of ad-networks, including AdMob, Google Adsense, and Quattro Wireless. Using Adwhirl and some in-house technology it’s very easy to monitor the results of different networks and switch in real-time to the one that yields the highest return. Other solutions, like Mobclix, provide similar technology, putting different ad networks in the most direct competition against each other.

How could there be a competitive problem in a market where customers can constantly compare results and completely switch to a different vendor in a matter of minutes? Google’s acquisition of Admob and Apple’s acquisition of Quattro Wireless are signs that the market is heating up. This is the type of competition the FTC should encourage.

To compete beyond price, ad networks are developing innovative new ways to yield higher returns and make their ads more appealing to consumers: Apple iAd focuses on making ads more emotional, Quattro and Admob have built highly interactive ads, and Google Adsense uses keyword targeting to make ads more relevant.

Meanwhile new players, many of them venture-funded, appear in this market on an almost monthly basis. Does this seem like a market that needs help from the Federal Trade Commission right now?

This reminds me of the movie Minority Report, where Washington DC-based law enforcement officers arrest people to stop possible murders before they happen. Is the FTC concerned that some day one of the players involved in mobile advertising might become the leader in serving engaging ads that consumers love? Is the role of the FTC really to prevent future success?

” Microsoft has had discussions with News Corp over a plan that would involve the media company’s being paid to “de-index” its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry. “

Nobody is paying anyone to de-index anything.

What really happened was that Murdoch said “Hey, Google is making money off our WSJ news content. They better start paying or we’ll block them.” Google doesn’t want to pay because if they start paying the WSJ they have to start paying everyone.

If Microsoft offers the WSJ payment for letting customers search their content, they’re just trying to make Bing a better product. It’s pro-competitive, not anti-competitive. Yet for some reason the Financial Times, a WSJ competitor, is spinning this as if Microsoft is paying the WSJ to exclude Google.

Murdoch is blazing the path to give newspapers a revenue model that may allow them to survive. If Bing and the WSJ make a search deal, Google’s stock will fall because the free party will be over. Newspaper company stocks will start rising because their papers may have a future again.

Interesting Times! (only a little bit of pun intended)

You know, because Woz and I started the company based on doing the whole banana, we weren’t so good at partnering with people. And, you know, actually, the funny thing is, Microsoft’s one of the few companies we were able to partner with that actually worked for both companies. And we weren’t so good at that, where Bill and Microsoft were really good at it because they didn’t make the whole thing in the early days and they learned how to partner with people really well.

And I think if Apple could have had a little more of that in its DNA, it would have served it extremely well. And I don’t think Apple learned that until, you know, a few decades later.

Apple’s recent struggles with Google and AT&T, along with the poor treatment of some of its most valuable smaller partners have made it clear that Steve’s insight is still painfully relevant.

Well, let’s think about this for a second. How could less be more? The five main opportunities for user value that come to mind are battery life, security, robustness, user experience, and cost.

What if you could triple battery life?

The iPhone has excellent battery life because Apple doesn’t allow third party background process, and because the device has built-in hardware decoding components for the most popular audio and video codecs.

If you control the entire OS there’s an opportunity to optimize power consumption to a level that isn’t possible with a more generic OS. In a regular OS, apps simply have too much freedom to hog the system’s resources.

What if security was simply not an issue?

Because apps have very limited powers, there’s very little damage an app can do to your system. When you think about it, the kind of power you give perfect strangers when you install an application on a traditional OS is insane. Unless you use Google Chrome OS, you are always one click away from identity total theft or the complete demolition of all your data.

What if nothing could freeze or slow down your computer?

Do you remember the snappy feeling you had when you did a fresh install on your computer? Everyone accepts that systems tend to slow down over time, as you install more software. In a traditional OS, because applications have so much power, they are able to slow down your computer (or drain your battery) at will. While the web still has the possibility of run-away scripts, the ability of a single app to cause damage or bloat is severely limited.

What if everything was as easy to use as Amazon?

People care about their stuff. They don’t care about file systems, shortcuts, installers, upgrades, turning your computer on/off, and other old-fashioned concepts. These concepts don’t add any real value to the user experience, so why not remove a layer of complexity and bring people directly to their data?

What if you could have everything you want for free?

Removing layers of software reduces the cost of the hardware. Being able to use specialized hardware decoding chips lets you use cheaper components that provide a much better user experience. Carriers will love Google Chrome devices because they’ll be very easy to support and they’re a perfect match for always-on network services. With over one billion phones being sold every year, a device that does a better job of running web apps and playing web media than any low-cost laptop may prove irresistible if it’s free.

I believe there’s a real opportunity here for Google to build a new platform. If you cut out all the legacy support and you focus solely on what people care about, people will, with absolute certainty, fall in love with what you’ve built. I hope they get it right.