What was behind Steve Jobs' AdMob cheap shot at Google?

Apple's CEO implies unfair dealings by Google. Sup with that?

Apple today rolled out it's new iPhone OS 4.0 platform, and also a new program for mobile advertising called iAds. But during a Q&A session, Jobs said: "We tried to buy AdMob, but Google snatched them up because they didn’t want us to have them, so we bought another smaller company, Quattro."

The implication is that Google bought the company out of spite, or as a blocking maneuver, or over paid for the company, and that there was nothing poor little Apple, an advertising "babe in the woods," could do. "Snatched" implies theft or sneaky dealings.

It sounds to me like Apple lost a bidding war with Google over the acquisition of AdMob, and now Jobs is trying to mask sour grapes with his reality distortion field. (Google paid $750 million.) I mean, it's not as if Apple hasn't got the money. They just didn't want it as badly, or they would have outbid Google, presumably. The value of a company -- like the value of a MacBook or an iPad -- is whatever the market will bear. If Google was willing to pay $750 million, then that's what AdMob is worth.

Also: If Google actually uses AdMob as part of or as the basis of their own mobile advertising program, which appears to be the case, then Jobs' characterization is provably off the mark.

It also feels like a faux pas internally. I mean, they just bought Quattro, and now the boss is telling the world they were second choice.

Anyway, it seemed to me like an unnecessary cheap shot.

ITWorld DealPost: The best in tech deals and discounts.
Shop Tech Products at Amazon