Google expands ads for smartphones, adds to iPhone Maps app [Archive]

AppleInsider

10-05-2009, 01:56 PM

In addition to debuting new AdSense capabilities for smartphones, Google has quietly inserted advertisements next to search results in the iPhone OS 3.1 Maps application.

Ads show up in iPhone Maps searches

Sponsored listings now appear in both map view and list view after a user performs a local search in the Maps app. The addition, first discovered by PM Digital, represents the first time advertisements have appeared in a pre-installed iPhone application, other than the App Store.

In map view, the ads are distinguished from the normal results -- marked with a red pushpin -- with special flags characterized by small logos. In list view, the ads appear at the bottom. For example, a search for department stores in Chicago returns a number of red pushpins along with a generic yellow storefront logo representing the ad.

If the user taps the sponsored link, the familiar screen containing a phone number, address, and directions appears along with some brief, italicized ad copy printed under the name of the business.

AppleInsider also found ads in San Francisco and New York in a brief test, but not every search returned ads.

AdSense for smartphones announced

On Monday, Google announced that its AdSense for Mobile advertising service has been optimized for smartphones like the iPhone. In a post to its official blog, the company noted that 177 million smartphones are predicted to sell in 2009, meaning mobile access to the Internet is a significantly growing market.

"This feature offers publishers the ability to run larger AdSense ads visible on high-end phones," Google said of its newly optimized offering. "Before this launch, AdSense mobile publishers were only eligible to serve smaller text and image ads on their website content."

The system works based on a JavaScript code that sites can implement for their mobile sites. The modified AdSense listing is optimized for mobile phones to reduce latency and will allow various sizes.

Larger AdSense ads are also enabled by default, as Google detects whether the user is browsing with a high-end smartphone.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=11987)

anonymouse

10-05-2009, 02:01 PM

In addition to debuting new AdSense capabilities for smartphones, Google has quietly inserted advertisements next to search results in the iPhone OS 3.1 Maps application.

Apple can't replace Google Maps on the iPhone soon enough.

souliisoul

10-05-2009, 02:05 PM

Apple can't replace Google Maps on the iPhone soon enough.

I agree, that is bloody annoying, wonder what percentage of people actually look at the ads and say "Yeah i want to look at that further"?

Ireland

10-05-2009, 02:10 PM

The ad in list view is fine, but the one in Map view is disgraceful.

Ireland

10-05-2009, 02:11 PM

I agree, that is bloody annoying, wonder what percentage of people actually look at the ads and say "Yeah i want to look at that further"?

You'd be surprised I'd say. Though that gives Google no excuse for ruining the Map view experience.

tumme-totte

10-05-2009, 02:12 PM

My first reaction was "Who the f### does Google think they are?". And it has not changed yet.

Is it within thought that Apple actually would agree to let this happen? Or does Google feel invincible and just thinks they can do as they please?

Sorry Google, but you are loosing your underdog position and are becoming the Big Brother. And it's only a bad thing. For Google and for the internet society.

techno

10-05-2009, 02:15 PM

What happened to Google's "Moral Authority" of Doing no Evil?

souliisoul

10-05-2009, 02:16 PM

Where's the Vonage thread?
I was wondering the same thing, since I just read about its release.

jglavin

10-05-2009, 02:18 PM

I have yet to see these ads in Maps on 3.1...:???:

Crowley

10-05-2009, 02:24 PM

What happened to Google's "Moral Authority" of Doing no Evil?
A handful of inline ads are evil?
Google still needs to make money, Maps on the iPhone (as it was) takes their bandwidth and earns them zip.

souliisoul

10-05-2009, 02:24 PM

I read it 2 hours ago at lunch - thought I missed it here. We shall see it soon, I predict! (the biggest news of the day, so far)

My question, I will ask is, why have Apple approved Vonage and not Google Voice? Yes I know Vonage is for international calls, but Google Voice could go the same way? I for one will post this question, just to see the reaction and different views on the matter.

Ireland

10-05-2009, 02:29 PM

What happened to Google's "Moral Authority" of Doing no Evil?

Show me the "do-no-evil contract" and then I'll pay the slightest bit of attention to that statement.

Xian Zhu Xuande

10-05-2009, 02:29 PM

A handful of inline ads are evil?
Google still needs to make money, Maps on the iPhone (as it was) takes their bandwidth and earns them zip.
Do you have a source on this? I doubt the use of Google Maps on the iPhone, with a customized presentation, is something Google went along with just for kicks and giggles, that discussion of money did not take place, or even that no money exchanged hands.

Show me the "do-no-evil contract" and then I'll pay the slightest bit of attention to that statement.
See #6. (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html) No contract, but probably what inspired the comment.

Tulkas

10-05-2009, 02:30 PM

What happened to Google's "Moral Authority" of Doing no Evil?

????
Delivering ads is evil now? That is sort of their business model..selling ads. Sort of like saying Apple is evil for selling iPhones or caring about user experience.

No, embedding ads in Maps is not evil. It is not he next step in world conquest. It is not Big Brother taking it to the next level.

It is simply an annoyance and will degrade the user experience. Apple should replace it with their own maps app if this doesn't stop.

Ireland

10-05-2009, 02:41 PM

See #6. (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html) No contract, but probably what inspired the comment.
No contract with a company of that size is just words. Thanks for the link though - not that I'll read it.

Ok... I'll read it.

First line: "Google is a business." Says it all really.

Read (red) it. Has nothing to do with being "evil". It's more a contract-less promise saying "we won't sell out". Which as we all know is always a lie.

Xian Zhu Xuande

10-05-2009, 02:41 PM

Delivering ads is evil now?
Given that GUI elements (such as special coloring in list view) are tied to this in the Maps app, I imagine this was already discussed between Apple and Google and it is happening with Apple's knowledge. I'm not an app developer so my assumptions about programming on the platform could be incorrect, but the alternatives—Google intentionally undermining Apple, or Google slipping up and allowing a feature onto the platform that wasn't meant to be—seem much less likely (especially the former of the two).

Not evil. Just annoying.

mstone

10-05-2009, 02:42 PM

...wonder what percentage of people actually look at the ads and say "Yeah i want to look at that further"?

The user did search on Department Store so presumably the link to Kohls would have been on the map anyway, they just enhanced the icon. So yes, the percentage of people interested would be pretty high since it is a targeted ad.

tt92618

10-05-2009, 02:44 PM

You'd be surprised I'd say. Though that gives Google no excuse for ruining the Map view experience.

I am surprised that you think a simple icon differentiation in the map 'ruins' the map view 'experience'. How costly is that little icon, really? How does it substantively alter your 'experience' of the UI? Seems like much ado about nothing to me, and I am a UI designer.

In the end it is about revenue and sustainability. How much do you think Apple paid Google for the inclusion of Google Maps on the phone? Anything? Do they pay monthly for the cost incurred by Google for maintaining and operating the servers that drive the experience you refer to? I'm not asking it to be harsh, I just wonder if you have given it much thought. Somebody has to pay for this application; costs have to be recovered somewhere.

Personally I thought Google's approach to ad insertion was particularly conservative and careful. It is very unobtrusive, and it looks to me like they actually took care NOT to spoil the user experience - I do not consider a differentiation of pin icon to be something that utterly destroys the user experience, and I really doubt that it would pan out that way if you just presented the UI to people and asked them to rank it. I suspect you'd find no significant difference between the two.

I don't think it is realistic of us to expect companies like Google (or Apple) to be in the free software business; there has to be a revenue stream somewhere, otherwise all those geeks running around Mountain View, Irvine, and who knows where else will find themselves out of work pretty soon. Right now, advertising is the biggest revenue stream Google has. Cost recovery via subtle ad insertion isn't so criminal if you ask me. I don't like it any more than the next guy, but I would like having to pay a monthly fee to use Google Maps even less.

Xian Zhu Xuande

10-05-2009, 02:47 PM

No contract with a company of that size is just words. Thanks for the link though - not that I'll read it.

Ok... I'll read it.

First line: "Google is a business." Says it all really.
You seem overly dismissive. I'm not about to defend techno's knee-jerk reaction or even suggest that he's correct—I don't think he/she is. I was just offering some insight to the discussion at hand, and I'll also point out, now, that techno didn't use the word 'contract'.

The document you've just fussed over is just a general set of guidelines describing how Google strives to do business. It certainly is not a contract. It is more of a philosophy, thus the title, "Our Philosophy." Still, it would lend validity to a complaint against Google for 'doing evil'. The disagreement I have with techno in this case is simply that they're not doing evil.

I was just offering some light-hearted background story. ;)

anonymouse

10-05-2009, 02:48 PM

????
Delivering ads is evil now? That is sort of their business model..selling ads. Sort of like saying Apple is evil for selling iPhones or caring about user experience.

No, embedding ads in Maps is not evil. It is not he next step in world conquest. It is not Big Brother taking it to the next level.

It is simply an annoyance and will degrade the user experience. Apple should replace it with their own maps app if this doesn't stop.

No, ads in Maps isn't evil in and of itself, but it certainly is a huge annoyance that will definitely degrade the user experience. And the less presence Google has on the iPhone, the better.

Ireland

10-05-2009, 02:52 PM

I was just offering some light-hearted background story. ;)

And I thank you for that.

Ireland

10-05-2009, 02:53 PM

mstone

10-05-2009, 02:59 PM

So am I. I think it's too much, and the one in Map View is not where you'd expect to see an ad.

I tried it on my phone and before you declare you indignation I would suggest you try it as well. I think to be clear, images supplied with the article are a bit misleading. The red map pin next to the store front icon is some other store. The ad icons are not in addition to the map pin but instead of. No logo and the name label does not pop up by default either. The user clicked on it.

tt92618

10-05-2009, 03:02 PM

So am I. I think it's too much, and the one in Map View is not where you'd expect to see an ad.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think you are responding to the fact that there is an ad insertion, not the UI itself. If you presented this design to someone and did not tell them the different icon is an ad, or even if you simply told them it means "someone paid to have this link inserted in our mapping database and presented to you", I doubt it would make much difference at all in their evaluation of the UI. It is so minimal and trivial that it falls into the level of absurdity to suggest that it 'ruins' the experience.

I think what ruins the experience for you is the fact that you think you should not have to be exposed to advertisements using maps (even though they aren't really ads, they are just sponsored links), and that bias causes you to be angry about what you perceive to be an unwarranted intrusion into your use of the application. That's fine, but that is not a user experience issue, it is just your own personal bias.

yuusharo

10-05-2009, 03:03 PM

There's really no reason to get all up in arms about this. Google has been putting ads in their other services for years, so why should this one be any different? We've known this sort of things was going to happen for years as cell phones became more advanced. Businesses want to be known, especially if they know you're within a few miles.

They're not intrusive in the least. They're like Digg's ads - they're slipstreamed into the data in a way so that they're not annoying to the eye, and are clearly marked.

If you don't want ads in your Maps application, launch your own satilite into space and start taking pictures of the globe, or license those images yourself.

anonymouse

10-05-2009, 03:10 PM

My question, I will ask is, why have Apple approved Vonage and not Google Voice? Yes I know Vonage is for international calls, but Google Voice could go the same way? I for one will post this question, just to see the reaction and different views on the matter.

Probably because Vonage just makes phone calls, but doesn't try to take over the entire telephony user experience on the iPhone.

DarkRail

10-05-2009, 03:17 PM

Apple is unique in that it generally makes money without annoying us to death. Most companies (and especially most websites) have business strategies based around annoying ads. I've heard the ZuneHD gives you a little ad every single time you open an application.

It's like Hulu vs. iTunes. I would personally much rather pay a couple bucks to watch an HD TV show without commercials. That's the same reason I own a TiVo: so I can avoid polluting my life with time-wasting insults.

Sadly, I think I'm in the minority on this. Most people seem to say, "I don't mind the ads as long as I get free stuff." Hopefully Apple sticks to their philosophical base and replaces the newly-annoying Google maps with PlaceBase [that's the map company they recently bought]. I'd happily pay more for my iPhone so I don't have to hear about Kohls' new sale.

mstone

10-05-2009, 03:22 PM

I'd happily pay more for my iPhone so I don't have to hear about Kohls' new sale.

What is it about this that people don't understand. It is a simple nondescript icon. Takes up no more space and a regular map pin, very insignificant. You have to click on it to see the ad and it is targeted so you probably are interested in it since you searched on the keyword. Jees!

noexpectations

10-05-2009, 03:26 PM

We've known this for a long time, so this should be not be surprising to anyone. Google's very existence and business model is centered around throwing as many ads as they can into our faces. The more they succeed, the more money they make. These ads are in the form of banners, pop-up windows, filtered searches, and now points of interest on Maps.

I can't wait for Google VoIP to begin interjecting audio ads into my phone calls. "Hi Mom.......Hello, this is Google reminding you that you can save money by shopping at.......".

:)

Gazoobee

10-05-2009, 03:31 PM

I am surprised that you think a simple icon differentiation in the map 'ruins' the map view 'experience'. How costly is that little icon, really? How does it substantively alter your 'experience' of the UI? Seems like much ado about nothing to me, and I am a UI designer....I'm not the OP you are responding to but to me this does "ruin" the map experience also.

The point is that one is searching for something on a map, and the results should be what you searched for, not what you searched for plus some ads. In the web browsing experience, you would get what you searched for, with some ads over to one side. The iPhone is too small for that so you get ads right in the middle of the screen.

Aside from the fact that the user is not getting what they searched for, the extra material interferes with the experience of the search.

On top of that, this is just one ad we are talking about. If this becomes popular, then searching on any Google map will bring up dozens and dozens of results only marginally (if at all), connected to your search. How easy will the search be when there are dozens of ads filling up that tiny map?

Even if the ads are only thrown up when you are looking for a commercial entity like a restaurant or a store, if a dozen stores are paying Google money to be mentioned in those searches and there is only room for a dozen links on the screen, who's to say those who haven't paid Google will even show up on the search?

It's the tiny end of a giant wedge or slippery slope or whatever.

It's totally reasonable and understandable, but it's not "good." What we need is another company to provide maps for the iPhone that doesn't need to monetize the map.
Apple Maps anyone?

mstone

10-05-2009, 03:36 PM

We've known this for a long time, so this should be not be surprising to anyone. Google's very existence and business model is centered around throwing as many ads as they can into our faces. The more they succeed, the more money they make. These ads are in the form of banners, pop-up windows, filtered searches, and now points of interest on Maps.

Google = Search. Search uses servers, programming and bandwidth. Servers, programming and bandwidth costs money. Google places a few very unobtrusive targeted ads to make money and you people go off on a tirade yet you sit through hundreds of really obnoxious TV commercials every day without getting your panties in a bunch. What's up?

anonymouse

10-05-2009, 03:40 PM

Google = Search. Search uses servers, programming and bandwidth. Servers, programming and bandwidth costs money. Google places a few very unobtrusive targeted ads to make money and you people go off on a tirade yet you sit through hundreds of really obnoxious TV commercials every day without getting your panties in a bunch. What's up?

Google == Controlling information and access to it

DarkRail

10-05-2009, 03:41 PM

What is it about this that people don't understand. It is a simple nondescript icon. Takes up no more space and a regular map pin, very insignificant. You have to click on it to see the ad and it is targeted so you probably are interested in it since you searched on the keyword. Jees!

Well good for you: you're someone who doesn't mind ads. You're in the majority. The world is heading your direction.

Clearly, though, a number of us still value the uncluttered purity that Apple usually gives us.

I've pulled up the new Google Maps ads on my phone, and they are annoying. Not as bad as a big Flash ad bouncing all over my computer screen, but still annoying. It breaks my concentration; makes a small part of my brain say, "OK, so the white ones on the list are relevant, and I have to ignore that yellow one," or, "I should look at the red push-pins, not the yellow icons." And the italicized text, "HEY, THERE'S A SALE!!!" just makes me unhappy, like finding a bug in my soup.

Some of us are willing to pay for austere clarity.

mstone

10-05-2009, 03:42 PM

I'm not the OP you are responding to but to me this does "ruin" the map experience also.

The point is that one is searching for something on a map, and the results should be what you searched for, not what you searched for plus some ads. In the web browsing experience, you would get what you searched for, with some ads over to one side. The iPhone is too small for that so you get ads right in the middle of the screen.

Aside from the fact that the user is not getting what they searched for, the extra material interferes with the experience of the search.

On top of that, this is just one ad we are talking about. If this becomes popular, then searching on any Google map will bring up dozens and dozens of results only marginally (if at all), connected to your search. How easy will the search be when there are dozens of ads filling up that tiny map?

Even if the ads are only thrown up when you are looking for a commercial entity like a restaurant or a store, if a dozen stores are paying Google money to be mentioned in those searches and there is only room for a dozen links on the screen, who's to say those who haven't paid Google will even show up on the search?

It's the tiny end of a giant wedge or slippery slope or whatever.

It's totally reasonable and understandable, but it's not "good." What we need is another company to provide maps for the iPhone that doesn't need to monetize the map.
Apple Maps anyone?

This is all completely wrong. It is TARGETED!!!! You are getting what you searched for. Google never put dozens of ads on a page and it they did people would quit using them for search. You people are just freaking out for no reason. Think about it for a second then go see what it looks like in action on a an iPhone. The sky is not falling.

mstone

10-05-2009, 03:45 PM

Some of us are willing to pay for austere clarity.

You must be joking. Let me ask you one question? What search engine do you use for that austere clarity?

anonymouse

10-05-2009, 03:56 PM

This is all completely wrong. It is TARGETED!!!! You are getting what you searched for. Google never put dozens of ads on a page and it they did people would quit using them for search. You people are just freaking out for no reason. Think about it for a second then go see what it looks like in action on a an iPhone. The sky is not falling.

Why do we have to like ads, or Google?

DarkRail

10-05-2009, 03:58 PM

You must be joking. Let me ask you one question? What search engine do you use for that austere clarity?

Until today, I used Google Maps on my iPhone.

I'm not telling you you're wrong, just that you like different things than I do. My only point is that some people really value the way Apple generally operates without relying on ad revenue. Believe me, if Google had an ad-free version of their website that cost a couple bucks a month, I'd subscribe!

mcmlxix

10-05-2009, 03:58 PM

...when are you going to make the "My Maps" functionality work in your iPhone application?

tt92618

10-05-2009, 04:01 PM

Well good for you: you're someone who doesn't mind ads. You're in the majority. The world is heading your direction.

Clearly, though, a number of us still value the uncluttered purity that Apple usually gives us.

I've pulled up the new Google Maps ads on my phone, and they are annoying. Not as bad as a big Flash ad bouncing all over my computer screen, but still annoying. It breaks my concentration; makes a small part of my brain say, "OK, so the white ones on the list are relevant, and I have to ignore that yellow one," or, "I should look at the red push-pins, not the yellow icons." And the italicized text, "HEY, THERE'S A SALE!!!" just makes me unhappy, like finding a bug in my soup.

Some of us are willing to pay for austere clarity.

Google presents sponsored links when they are relevant to your search, so far as they can tell. Google does not interject sponsored links 'just because', as many people (including you) seem to be implying here. That said, since Google is not run by a super-intelligent AI jacked into your neo-cortex, it only knows what you asked for, not what you actually wanted. If you are seeing a sponsored link, it is because that link is relevant to your search. If your search is very general, then you may see sponsored links that are not relevant to what you actually wanted, but you will also see non-sponsored links that are not relevant.

In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google. If enough consumers become willing to pay Google to use their app (enough to generate profit for Google) then you can have a reasonable expectation to have no "flies" in your "soup". However, as long as you are trying to get your soup for free from a company that derives almost all of its revenue from dispensing free but fly-enhanced soup, it isn't reasonable for you to expect the soup sans fly. Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots. ;)

rtdunham

10-05-2009, 04:05 PM

the headline should say "Apple adds ads..."

DarkRail

10-05-2009, 04:16 PM

In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google.

Hey, I think we agree.

Just based on the number of people here that seem bothered by the new ads, I'm not the only person who doesn't like flies in my soup. And you're right: Google's "flies" are far less annoying than the way most companies do it. That said, I'd personally prefer to have no annoyances whatsoever. Apple has always bet that a segment of us will feel this way.

Instead of suggesting this to Google though, I'll just keep supporting Apple for their consistency in this realm. My guess is that we'll see Apple's new PlaceBase maps replacing Google Maps on the phone in a year or so, and also being a crucial ad-free resource throughout their future cloud-based plans.

genovelle

10-05-2009, 04:32 PM

My question, I will ask is, why have Apple approved Vonage and not Google Voice? Yes I know Vonage is for international calls, but Google Voice could go the same way? I for one will post this question, just to see the reaction and different views on the matter.

This issue as I understand it has never been about they service itself. The problem comes from Googles app extracting data from the phone and moving it to their servers once the app is installed and the confusing disabling of the Visual Voice Mail.

Ireland

10-05-2009, 04:34 PM

I tried it on my phone and before you declare you indignation I would suggest you try it as well. I think to be clear, images supplied with the article are a bit misleading. The red map pin next to the store front icon is some other store. The ad icons are not in addition to the map pin but instead of. No logo and the name label does not pop up by default either. The user clicked on it.

Oh, well that is different then.

mstone

10-05-2009, 04:37 PM

Why do we have to like ads, or Google?

Don't like Google, don't use Google. When you grow up, you'll discover that as in everything else in life, you have to take the good with the bad. It's the balance that matters.

mstone

10-05-2009, 05:03 PM

Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots. ;)

This should be their new motto instead of "do no evil"

anonymouse

10-05-2009, 05:40 PM

Don't like Google, don't use Google. When you grow up, you'll discover that as in everything else in life, you have to take the good with the bad. It's the balance that matters.

Ah, I see you are quite the philosopher, there, mstone.

Well, I reject your particular philosophy. Better that we take the good and struggle against the bad. I guess I'm just not a fatalist like you.

caskey09

10-05-2009, 05:44 PM

circus

10-05-2009, 06:41 PM

Gazoobee

10-05-2009, 06:59 PM

Google presents sponsored links when they are relevant to your search, so far as they can tell. Google does not interject sponsored links 'just because', as many people (including you) seem to be implying here. That said, since Google is not run by a super-intelligent AI jacked into your neo-cortex, it only knows what you asked for, not what you actually wanted. If you are seeing a sponsored link, it is because that link is relevant to your search. If your search is very general, then you may see sponsored links that are not relevant to what you actually wanted, but you will also see non-sponsored links that are not relevant.

In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google. If enough consumers become willing to pay Google to use their app (enough to generate profit for Google) then you can have a reasonable expectation to have no "flies" in your "soup". However, as long as you are trying to get your soup for free from a company that derives almost all of its revenue from dispensing free but fly-enhanced soup, it isn't reasonable for you to expect the soup sans fly. Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots. ;)Almost everything you post here is either irrelevant or just plain wrong.

You spend a lot of time defending the ads based on their relevance, but whether the ad was relevant to what you were doing at the time is, well ... irrelevant.

Spam is spam. Even if the ad matched up with something going on in my life by sheer coincidence instead of by keying in on my search, it's still an unwanted intrusion. An advertisement for a product or service that I don't want and didn't actually ask for. To imply that it's somehow "okay" for an advertisement about hotels to come up because person was searching for hotels is just a ridiculous argument. You are mixing up arguments about context with arguments about intent.

Secondly, you are wrong about the world "(not being at) ... a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead." The technology for that approach has been with us for longer than the technology to target micro ads at people on their mobiles. Google and others just choose not to do it or offer it is all. Similarly, every "ad supported" app on the app store could easily offer a paid version. They don't because the ad supported versions are far more lucrative, not because the world isn't ready for it or some such nonsense.

dreyfus2

10-05-2009, 06:59 PM

I don't think that ad in map view ruins the UI as such, it's just a core iPhone app - there shouldn't be ads in core iPhone services apps like that? You pay quite a lot of money for the iPhone already, I didn't think Apple would allow Google to implement like this. It is going too far.

I have to agree. This is the really relevant point here. Google Maps is part of the pre-installed applications that can't be removed and it provides some core functionality on the iPhone - thousands of apps use embedded Google Maps to provide location-based functionality. This means people have bought the iPhone believing that core apps are ad-free and third-party developers have created applications without a chance to see any fine-print saying "your app might serve as a vehicle to present Google ads". Both is unacceptable and it does not make the slightest difference if the ads are obtrusive or not, targeted or not, nicely designed or ugly. If the use of Maps is not fully paid for by the purchase of an iPhone, then Apple should make that perfectly clear in the description of the product, or, better, pay Google a suitable fee to keep the ads out. Margins on the iPhone should cover that multiple times.

Gazoobee

10-05-2009, 07:06 PM

Ah, I see you are quite the philosopher, there, mstone.

Well, I reject your particular philosophy. Better that we take the good and struggle against the bad. I guess I'm just not a fatalist like you.
If you were being pro-active, writing letters to google or starting a boycott google campaign I would say that you have a have a good philosophy. If you are just going to bitch about a company finding ways to offer free products in a forum that will probably never reach google staff, well that seems to be a different philosophy.

I suspect that you will continue to use maps on your iphone and in a few weeks after you do a map search if I were to ask you if you felt you just had a horrible experience you would not even know why I asked.

I am sure google could offer people a subscription to there services but the loss of revenue vs the amount of adopters would not balance out.I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.

Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.

When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.

There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.

anonymouse

10-05-2009, 08:16 PM

I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.

Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.

When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.

There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.

Hmmm, well, I don't really have anything to add to that.

mstone

10-05-2009, 08:47 PM

If you were being pro-active, writing letters to google or starting a boycott google campaign I would say that you have a have a good philosophy. If you are just going to bitch about a company finding ways to offer free products in a forum that will probably never reach google staff, well that seems to be a different philosophy.

I suspect that you will continue to use maps on your iphone and in a few weeks after you do a map search if I were to ask you if you felt you just had a horrible experience you would not even know why I asked.

I am sure google could offer people a subscription to there services but the loss of revenue vs the amount of adopters would not balance out.

Sorry perhaps I should have referenced it in the context of give and take rather than good and bad. When Apple launched the iPhone they needed a map program. They made a deal with Google. Google maps is what it is. If you want to use it, you have to look at a few ads. It is no different than the original Google Maps on the desktop, it works exactly the same way. It is the ad supported revenue model. IMO there is still no better map program - so I see a few ads which aren't annoying to me and in return I get a fantastic map program. I think I'm coming out way ahead in this deal. I'm just being realistic. That is the way the world of free internet services works. Better than the cable TV model where you have to pay for the service and still have to watch ads or pledge drives.

mstone

10-05-2009, 08:50 PM

There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.

Isn't Tom Tom ad free? I don't know what it is capable of compared to Google Maps

tt92618

10-05-2009, 09:28 PM

Almost everything you post here is either irrelevant or just plain wrong.

You spend a lot of time defending the ads based on their relevance, but whether the ad was relevant to what you were doing at the time is, well ... irrelevant.

Spam is spam. Even if the ad matched up with something going on in my life by sheer coincidence instead of by keying in on my search, it's still an unwanted intrusion. An advertisement for a product or service that I don't want and didn't actually ask for. To imply that it's somehow "okay" for an advertisement about hotels to come up because person was searching for hotels is just a ridiculous argument. You are mixing up arguments about context with arguments about intent.

Secondly, you are wrong about the world "(not being at) ... a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead." The technology for that approach has been with us for longer than the technology to target micro ads at people on their mobiles. Google and others just choose not to do it or offer it is all. Similarly, every "ad supported" app on the app store could easily offer a paid version. They don't because the ad supported versions are far more lucrative, not because the world isn't ready for it or some such nonsense.

I'm sorry I just disagree with you. If you want to be able to pay Google to use their application free of ads, fine - submit that request and perhaps they will consider it. You can then feel free to pay them whatever amount they consider reasonable for their services. On the other hand, if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider. Google gives away a lot of software and services, but it isn't something you have a legitimate expectation of. So far as I can tell, most of the complaining you and others are doing amounts to a demand to get free stuff on your terms. That's neither reasonable nor realistic, and as someone else pointed out here, you and the others complaining about this probably don't expect your magazines to be free of ads, or your cable TV for that mater, and you PAY for those.

I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".

Mazda 3s

10-05-2009, 10:55 PM

I'm sorry I just disagree with you. If you want to be able to pay Google to use their application free of ads, fine - submit that request and perhaps they will consider it. You can then feel free to pay them whatever amount they consider reasonable for their services. On the other hand, if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider. Google gives away a lot of software and services, but it isn't something you have a legitimate expectation of. So far as I can tell, most of the complaining you and others are doing amounts to a demand to get free stuff on your terms. That's neither reasonable nor realistic, and as someone else pointed out here, you and the others complaining about this probably don't expect your magazines to be free of ads, or your cable TV for that mater, and you PAY for those.

I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".

I've got to agree with this. You wouldn't work without a salary and neither will Google.

hill60

10-05-2009, 11:14 PM

I don't really mind this, a lot of the time when I use maps I am searching for businesses anyway, I see it as no different to a business putting a larger entry in a phonebook or newspaper classifieds for example.

I still do a ring around to find the best deal.

marik

10-06-2009, 02:14 AM

I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.

Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.

When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.

Not that it matters really, but from my browsing around these forums, that same "take it or leave it" attitude is what the majority of people here use when it comes to defending a decision that Apple has made.

Mac prices too high? Take it or leave it, buddy. It just seems a bit double standard to me, that's all. :\

anonymouse

10-06-2009, 07:28 AM

if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider...

I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".

First, I'd like to thank everyone for the lectures on how Google makes money. Who knew that they make money selling ads? Oh, but, we already knew that. What exactly was your point? Sorry, but a pompous, naive, economics lecture does not an argument make.

Next, this is why we, "have a right to expect it not be done:"

.. it's just a core iPhone app - there shouldn't be ads in core iPhone services apps like that? You pay quite a lot of money for the iPhone already, I didn't think Apple would allow Google to implement like this. It is going too far.

In other words, there is a justifiable expectation that when you pay for something that it not be or become ad-ware. And no, Maps is not just a free app that happens to come with the iPhone. It's one of the core apps that's cooked into the system image and that you can't delete. It's also an app that a lot of other apps make use of in one way or another and is, as such, a basic iPhone service, no less so than the telephony components.

So, yes, we have a right to expect that we will not be subjected to ads in something we've already paid for and that is a core part of the iPhone user experience.

Lastly, why the "Google is Evil" response? Frankly, it's somewhat baffling that anyone could not understand this. As mentioned earlier in the thread, they bring this exact criticism on themselves whenever they abuse people's trust. With their "promise" not to be "evil" (a promise and image they have gone to great lengths to promote) it is an inevitable response for people to say that they have become "evil" when they do something like this. That's just the way it's going to be for them, and rightly so, I think.

Are they evil? It doesn't really matter, and I think it actually distracts from the real problem with Google. (Particularly because it's pretty easy to make an argument that almost anyone or anything is not actually "evil".) The real problem with Google is that contrary to the image they have promoted for themselves, and regardless of their intent, Google is not a company whose overall effect is benign.

Too much control of too much information, public and personal. A lack of respect for the law and a disturbingly arrogant belief that it doesn't apply to them. A seemingly rapacious greed and lack of commitment to any real principles. Their obvious intent to undermine Mac OS, Windows, iPhone OS and any other platform out there in order to turn it into simply something people use to access Google services. Power, greed, arrogance, ambition to control everything, and control of and access to way too much information about way too many people: not a good combination. Certainly not one that ought to promote trust. Certainly not one that should give them a free pass.

DeaPeaJay

10-06-2009, 08:23 AM

You know, this is nothing to get upset about I don't think. Have a business pay for a special listing on the iphone actually makes tons of sense because it lets me see those locations that actually have a real business that I can visit.

I don't know how often I've been looking for a coffee shop on Google maps only to find little abandoned buildings or some store-within-a-store deal. Having a sponsored result would help me to eliminate the fluff listings that show up.

DeaPeaJay

10-06-2009, 08:29 AM

Is the phone book evil for listing some businesses with a bigger section of the page than others? hardly. If these weren't targeted ads for physical locations, *then* I'd have a problem.

anonymouse

10-06-2009, 09:37 AM

I don't know how often I've been looking for a coffee shop on Google maps only to find little abandoned buildings or some store-within-a-store deal. Having a sponsored result would help me to eliminate the fluff listings that show up.

It will also make it less likely that you will discover small coffee shops that focus on serving high quality coffee. What you'll get instead are *$ locations, were the brewed coffee tastes like instant. (That's the screwiest marketing campaign I've ever seen and just reinforces how bad their coffee really is.)

The other thing about these Google ads is that they often direct you away from the nearest location. So, for example, when searching for a drug store, it may send you halfway across town when there's another store around the block. (I've tested this and know it to be the case.) The information available through Google Maps isn't as good as most people seem to think it is, and "fluffing" it up with ads just further reduces its value.

You do have to love the "sponsored result" euphemism, though: "It's not an ad, it's a sponsored result."

Tulkas

10-06-2009, 10:30 AM

This issue as I understand it has never been about they service itself. The problem comes from Googles app extracting data from the phone and moving it to their servers once the app is installed and the confusing disabling of the Visual Voice Mail.
Except that
1) The only data Apple mentioned that gets sent to Google from your iPhone is the Contacts list. Likely, but unknown, is that this would happen only with user consent. This is obviously not really much of a concern for Apple, given that Snow Leopard builds in syncing your entire Mac contacts list with Google (or Yahoo). Assuming you sync your Mac with your iPhone, the net effect is identical.
2) Visual Voice Mail is in no way disable by using Google Voice.

As anonymouse has stated (though coloured with his usual google-hater rhetoric) the most likely reason is that Apple did not like that the Google Voice app would assume much/most of of the iPhone telephone experience...though it would only do so by offering an optional, alternative that would still allow you to use the built in features.

Perhaps Apple was too afraid of the GV doing so much, so well, that users would end up opting to use the GV interface exclusively, thereby watering down the Apple experience and making the telephone interface essentially the same as any other device running GV. Perhaps they, as others have assumed, believed that their users would become confused if they downloaded and installed an alternative telephony interface.

Neither really makes sense, given the number of other apps that provide similar featuresets, unless one assumes the GV would be wildly more successful than the other apps.

tt92618

10-06-2009, 10:51 AM

First, I'd like to thank everyone for the lectures on how Google makes money. Who knew that they make money selling ads? Oh, but, we already knew that. What exactly was your point? Sorry, but a pompous, naive, economics lecture does not an argument make.

Next, this is why we, "have a right to expect it not be done:"

In other words, there is a justifiable expectation that when you pay for something that it not be or become ad-ware. And no, Maps is not just a free app that happens to come with the iPhone. It's one of the core apps that's cooked into the system image and that you can't delete. It's also an app that a lot of other apps make use of in one way or another and is, as such, a basic iPhone service, no less so than the telephony components.

So, yes, we have a right to expect that we will not be subjected to ads in something we've already paid for and that is a core part of the iPhone user experience.

Lastly, why the "Google is Evil" response? Frankly, it's somewhat baffling that anyone could not understand this. As mentioned earlier in the thread, they bring this exact criticism on themselves whenever they abuse people's trust. With their "promise" not to be "evil" (a promise and image they have gone to great lengths to promote) it is an inevitable response for people to say that they have become "evil" when they do something like this. That's just the way it's going to be for them, and rightly so, I think.

Are they evil? It doesn't really matter, and I think it actually distracts from the real problem with Google. (Particularly because it's pretty easy to make an argument that almost anyone or anything is not actually "evil".) The real problem with Google is that contrary to the image they have promoted for themselves, and regardless of their intent, Google is not a company whose overall effect is benign.

Too much control of too much information, public and personal. A lack of respect for the law and a disturbingly arrogant belief that it doesn't apply to them. A seemingly rapacious greed and lack of commitment to any real principles. Their obvious intent to undermine Mac OS, Windows, iPhone OS and any other platform out there in order to turn it into simply something people use to access Google services. Power, greed, arrogance, ambition to control everything, and control of and access to way too much information about way too many people: not a good combination. Certainly not one that ought to promote trust. Certainly not one that should give them a free pass.

Again, I disagree. If you read Google's principles, they have implemented sponsored links in the maps app exactly in line with how they say they will; there is nothing about their implementation that violates their "do no evil" clause. Your whole argument - all of your rhetoric and ranting about how they have violated our trust and because of this are worthy of the label "evil" - all of it rests on the assertion that they have violated their own principles, and they have not.

This boils down to likes and dislikes. You don't like it, and it is that simple. You seem to be intent on proving that you are right, however, and that evil really has been done, etc etc blah blah blah. Listen, I'm sorry you have such a razor thin ego that it is really this important for you to prove that your emotional position is actually logically correct. That said, I don't actually care what you think - I hope you know that. I think you are wrong, and I don't think your arguments have much logical consistency; they are the rhetorical equivalent of temper tantrums. Until that changes, you will get very little mindshare from me.

You are of course free to harbor whatever opinion you want, and I have no intention of trying to deprive you of it. My advice to you is this: contact Google and register your disdain, and do the same with Apple.

anonymouse

10-06-2009, 11:15 AM

As anonymouse has stated (though coloured with his usual google-hater rhetoric) the most likely reason is that Apple did not like that the Google Voice app would assume much/most of of the iPhone telephone experience...

Perhaps Apple was too afraid of the GV doing so much, so well, that users would end up opting to use the GV interface exclusively, thereby watering down the Apple experience and making the telephone interface essentially the same as any other device running GV.

Thinking that a company has too much control over information, and too much access to personal information, with too little appreciation by most people of the possible downsides of that does not necessitate being a "hater". Thinking that Google is a potentially dangerous company with an alarming lack of commitment to any moral principle or concern for personal privacy doesn't require me to "hate" them. Not liking their business practices doesn't require me to "hate" them. Thinking they are becoming too large and too powerful doesn't require that I "hate" them.

However, I understand that labeling people with "hater" or "fanboy" or other pejorative terms is an often effective rhetorical technique when rational argument fails.

But, yes, quite clearly, Apple's purpose in keeping Google Voice off the iPhone is to prevent it becoming just another Android-clone, Google-service, access device. All the more reason for Apple to replace the Maps app.

anonymouse

10-06-2009, 11:23 AM

Again, I disagree. If you read Google's principles, they have implemented sponsored links in the maps app exactly in line with how they say they will; there is nothing about their implementation that violates their "do no evil" clause. Your whole argument - all of your rhetoric and ranting about how they have violated our trust and because of this are worthy of the label "evil" - all of it rests on the assertion that they have violated their own principles, and they have not.

Well, Google's "principles" went out the window when they went into China, if not long before that. Is anyone seriously so naive that they think that just because a company posts some nice little image marketing piece expressing lofty sentiments that they really feel in any way bound to follow them?

However, perhaps blinded by your fury at reading criticism of Google, you seemed to have entirely missed my point about why they are being declared "evil" by many people. Very simply, it's because they used the term "evil" in saying what they would not do, so it's quite natural that people will latch on to and use that specific term when they feel Google is behaving badly. In effect, they themselves put the word in people's mouths.

Tulkas

10-06-2009, 11:49 AM

Thinking that a company has too much control over information, and too much access to personal information, with too little appreciation by most people of the possible downsides of that does not necessitate being a "hater". Thinking that Google is a potentially dangerous company with an alarming lack of commitment to any moral principle or concern for personal privacy doesn't require me to "hate" them. Not liking their business practices doesn't require me to "hate" them. Thinking they are becoming too large and too powerful doesn't require that I "hate" them.

It is what it is. The multitude of Apple haters will usually also say "I don't hate Apple", and then continue with the constant attacks, 'criticisms', and rants. When their posts almost uniformly include digs and attacks at Apple and Apple fans, it is usually a pretty empty statement to say after the fact.

However, I understand that labeling people with "hater" or "fanboy" or other pejorative terms is an often effective rhetorical technique when rational argument fails.

hmmm..from one that calls others sheep or pawns for not hating on google that is pretty funny. Or maybe it was a matter of some self reflection. Good on ya if it was.

But, yes, quite clearly, Apple's purpose in keeping Google Voice off the iPhone is to prevent it becoming just another Android-clone, Google-service, access device. All the more reason for Apple to replace the Maps app.
Agreed, though it is a very weak reason. It doesn't accomplish the goal. It makes them seem afraid of google (their ability not their goals of world domination or general 'evilness'). Makes Apple come off as the big-brother, control what you do entity instead of google. Is generally disappointing that instead of trying to out-innovate google and google voice, they take the easy, somewhat cowardly way out.

anonymouse

10-06-2009, 12:12 PM

hmmm..from one that calls others sheep or pawns for not hating on google that is pretty funny. Or maybe it was a matter of some self reflection. Good on ya if it was.

HAHAHA, you still haven't figured that one out, have you.

Inkling

10-06-2009, 12:16 PM

I agree, if this continues, Apple needs to find a replacement for Google Maps. There's already precious little space on an iPhone screen, cluttering it with a banner isn't acceptable. And how do you get rid of the blasted thing? Tapping on it brings up a larger ad and probably makes money for Google. And that while I'm hurrying to get someplace whose location I've forgotten.

I may adopt the same "five seconds of hate" policy I have for those links that pop up when your cursor merely passes over a word on a webpage. When these sorts of irritating ads pop us, I spend a few seconds telling myself how much I hate the company that paid for them, assuming that attitude will stick in my subconscious. It turns an ad into an anti-ad.

tt92618

10-06-2009, 12:37 PM

Well, Google's "principles" went out the window when they went into China, if not long before that. Is anyone seriously so naive that they think that just because a company posts some nice little image marketing piece expressing lofty sentiments that they really feel in any way bound to follow them?

However, perhaps blinded by your fury at reading criticism of Google, you seemed to have entirely missed my point about why they are being declared "evil" by many people. Very simply, it's because they used the term "evil" in saying what they would not do, so it's quite natural that people will latch on to and use that specific term when they feel Google is behaving badly. In effect, they themselves put the word in people's mouths.

More correctly, it is quite natural for people who are prone to unthinking demagoguery.

Tulkas

10-06-2009, 01:03 PM

HAHAHA, you still haven't figured that one out, have you.

Another nice dodge.

What's to figure out? You think anyone that uses Google service is simple, as you put it. They are simple, because they don't know what you know. They don't know the danger that is google. They don't know the evil that is google. They just don't know.

But, never fear, anonymouse is here to inform us all. Stay clear of google. Be afraid of google. Google wants to control all. They shall be our masters. They will be the gatekeepers of all info. We shall all become trapped. It will all begin when they take over our iPhones and Macs and PCs.

Actually no.

I recall you once blamed google for 'collecting' your info, simply because some other 'simple' person might have uploaded their contacts including your info. That was a perfect example of your reasoning. Your FUD is tiring. You paranoia of google, while amusing, becomes boring. This is AppleInsider, not GoogleHaters.

anonymouse

10-06-2009, 01:19 PM

Blah blah blah...
I recall you once blamed google for 'collecting' your info, simply because some other 'simple' person might have uploaded their contacts including your info. Blah blah blah...

I believe the term I applied to you was "weak minded" in regard to your personal inability to resist Google's "tech candy".

However, yes, I think it raises a legitimate privacy concern that Google is able to obtain my address, phone number and other personal information because a 3rd party agrees to hand over their Contacts database without my consent. I also think they consider this type of information in general quite valuable and that is one of the reasons they offer some of the specific services that they do.

tt92618

10-06-2009, 01:47 PM

I believe the term I applied to you was "weak minded" in regard to your personal inability to resist Google's "tech candy".

However, yes, I think it raises a legitimate privacy concern that Google is able to obtain my address, phone number and other personal information because a 3rd party agrees to hand over their Contacts database without my consent. I also think they consider this type of information in general quite valuable and that is one of the reasons they offer some of the specific services that they do.

Out of curiosity, are you in any way involved in actually creating computational technologies? Do you write software? Are you an engineer? I ask because I would think that virtually anyone who knows anything at all about how these technologies work would already know that Google doesn't need to have your friend hand over your contact information in order to get your address; you are already in a dozen databases scattered all over the planet and Google can ferret out lots more information about you than even you might expect, all without needing to enlist your contacts into their dark and evil conspiracy. What's more, anyone can do it. What I find interesting about you is that you believe anyone would want to. What makes you think Google is so interested in you in a deeply personal way, eh? Do you imagine that Eric Schmidt comes into his office each morning and opens up his email expecting to receive his daily "Anonymouse activity report - last 24 hours". Do you fancy that Google is compiling a vast library of information about you?

Take off the tinfoil hat, please.

What you are complaining about is the equivalent of one person handing an address book over to another. So, lets suppose I have your address. Lets suppose I hand that over to someone else, such as the FBI or NSA. "Hey NSA guys - watch this Anonymouse - he is a dangerous lunatic" I might say. First, it is fanciful of you to think they could not have obtained this information (nor come to the conclusion) all by themselves if they wanted to. But more importantly, who are you rightly to blame under such circumstances? Is it them for receiving your information, or is it more properly me for having handed it over?

Prior to today, by the way, I was agnostic about Google. I still am. I think they have some interesting technologies and I am growing to like their browser more and more. I am, however, far from the Google love child, blinded by my fury over your criticism of my beloved tech daddy that you make me out to be. I have never thought Google has the tech superpowers some have credited it with, and I have no illusions about Google being some sort of benevolent force of good and light in the universe. It is a company, pure and simple. It exists so a bunch of geeks and a bunch of investors can make a bunch of money, and hopefully do something fun, useful, and maybe even empowering at the same time. No, what has drawn me into this debate is my own macabre fascination with your mangled thought process and histrionic argumentation. At various points, I swear I have imagined you sitting at your keyboard and foaming at the mouth while spewing forth your quasi-vitriolic rants. Can you not see the way you come across? Are you not at some level even the tiniest bit aware that you lack any objectivity on this front?

Tulkas

10-06-2009, 02:10 PM

anonymouse

10-06-2009, 03:00 PM

... Google doesn't need to have your friend hand over your contact information in order to get your address; you are already in a dozen databases scattered all over the planet and Google can ferret out lots more information about you than even you might expect, all without needing to enlist your contacts into their dark and evil conspiracy. What's more, anyone can do it. What I find interesting about you is that you believe anyone would want to. What makes you think Google is so interested in you in a deeply personal way, eh? Do you imagine that Eric Schmidt comes into his office each morning and opens up his email expecting to receive his daily "Anonymouse activity report - last 24 hours". Do you fancy that Google is compiling a vast library of information about you?

I like how you label it a "dark and evil conspiracy." Nothing like trying to cast someone as a paranoid nut job to deflect attention from the points being made.

But, just to humor you, no, I don't think Google is interested in me personally. I don't think they as a company are interested in anyone personally. Which doesn't preclude the possibility that some Google employee may invade your privacy on his own personal initiative, as, for example, happened when State Department employees made unauthorized use of the passport records of several presidential candidates. (Yes, I realize that Google is not connected to the State Department, it's an example of how information can be misused by employees behaving badly.)

However, anyone who isn't a complete idiot ought to be able to recognize that Google is compiling a vast library of information about everyone. Your web searches, locations you have done searches from, your email exchanges, your documents, your contact lists, every bit of information related to you that passes through Google's servers is grist for their mill. Why are they doing this? They are doing it to target ads at people, on the theory that the more they know about you the more effectively they can sell you stuff, or sell ads to people who want to sell you stuff. The more confirmational data points they have (i.e., the more independent sources they can verify information about you from) the more accurate the profile. This is their entire business model, and they give away all sorts of software and services to gain access to this information. This really should not be news to anyone. And, it really shouldn't be a concern to anyone that they are using this information to sell ads to anyone. OK, yes, the ads are annoying, and it's at least somewhat offensive to me personally, but usually easy to just ignore. (Although, I still think it's inappropriate in a paid service such as the Maps app on the iPhone.)

So, why is this a problem? I think it's a problem for several reasons.

First, there's the obvious problem of employees behaving badly. So far, there haven't been any publicized cases, that I'm aware of, of this happening at Google, but, it's probably just a matter of time before it does happen.

Secondly, there's the issue of the government getting at this information to "investigate" people. We've already seen the DoJ (under the previous administration) go after search records to support, I think it was, anti-pornography legislation. Yes, this information does exist in scattered databases all over the place, but it's much more convenient if a government decides to invade an individual's privacy to have "one stop shopping". (I think it would be interesting to know if the U.S. government has used National Security Letters to obtain information from Google.) Governments in free societies aren't allowed to compile this sort of information on their citizens, but Google's database of information represents a fortuitous, non-governmental proxy for the TIA program, which was shut down over protests of its inherent violation of privacy.

Third, there's the issue that while Google's use of this information may be relatively innocuous now, there is no guarantee that it will always be so. How would you feel if Google launched the Google Background Check service? What would stop them from doing so? (Not that I have any information or belief that they have plans to do so. But the point is, nothing would stop them, certainly not their "privacy policy", they could simply change its terms to allow it.)

Fourth, Google has not always shown a respect for the law and has, in fact, shown a disturbing trend toward arguing that they are above the law. (The Google Books program and Google's refusal to connect Google Voice calls to all phone numbers being 2 examples.) It's not really comforting to see a company with this much personal identifiable information acting in this manner.

Lastly, Google is an extremely ambitious company and has an innate thirst, to support their business model, to control as much as possible how people access information. (Again, so they can profit from people accessing information.) To this end, they release various "free" products and services: Gmail, Google Docs, Search, Google Voice, Google Wave, etc., etc. All of these products and services have the effect of undermining various platforms, such as iPhone OS, Mac OS and Windows as services that people use to access information directly, trivializing those platforms to the extent that Google is successful. Thus Google becomes more and more the gatekeeper to information, including your own documents, ultimately able to control access if they should so decide, but just as disturbingly, effectively throttling access through their filters.

None of these things are, in my opinion, good developments. And, it doesn't even require Google to be "evil" for any of them to have an overall negative effect. So, regardless of Google's intent, or even their (lack of) interest in any given individual, put together, these are not good things to have in the hands of a single entity. People would be in an uproar if their government collected and controlled information and information access in the way Google does. Why does the fact that this is being done by a corporation answerable only to its shareholders somehow make it seem innocuous?

tt92618

10-06-2009, 04:08 PM

I like how you label it a "dark and evil conspiracy." Nothing like trying to cast someone as a paranoid nut job to deflect attention from the points being made.

But, just to humor you, no, I don't think Google is interested in me personally. I don't think they as a company are interested in anyone personally. Which doesn't preclude the possibility that some Google employee may invade your privacy on his own personal initiative, as, for example, happened when State Department employees made unauthorized use of the passport records of several presidential candidates. (Yes, I realize that Google is not connected to the State Department, it's an example of how information can be misused by employees behaving badly.)

However, anyone who isn't a complete idiot ought to be able to recognize that Google is compiling a vast library of information about everyone. Your web searches, locations you have done searches from, your email exchanges, your documents, your contact lists, every bit of information related to you that passes through Google's servers is grist for their mill. Why are they doing this? They are doing it to target ads at people, on the theory that the more they know about you the more effectively they can sell you stuff, or sell ads to people who want to sell you stuff. The more confirmational data points they have (i.e., the more independent sources they can verify information about you from) the more accurate the profile. This is their entire business model, and they give away all sorts of software and services to gain access to this information. This really should not be news to anyone. And, it really shouldn't be a concern to anyone that they are using this information to sell ads to anyone. OK, yes, the ads are annoying, and it's at least somewhat offensive to me personally, but usually easy to just ignore. (Although, I still think it's inappropriate in a paid service such as the Maps app on the iPhone.)

So, why is this a problem? I think it's a problem for several reasons.

First, there's the obvious problem of employees behaving badly. So far, there haven't been any publicized cases, that I'm aware of, of this happening at Google, but, it's probably just a matter of time before it does happen.

Secondly, there's the issue of the government getting at this information to "investigate" people. We've already seen the DoJ (under the previous administration) go after search records to support, I think it was, anti-pornography legislation. Yes, this information does exist in scattered databases all over the place, but it's much more convenient if a government decides to invade an individual's privacy to have "one stop shopping". (I think it would be interesting to know if the U.S. government has used National Security Letters to obtain information from Google.) Governments in free societies aren't allowed to compile this sort of information on their citizens, but Google's database of information represents a fortuitous, non-governmental proxy for the TIA program, which was shut down over protests of its inherent violation of privacy.

Third, there's the issue that while Google's use of this information may be relatively innocuous now, there is no guarantee that it will always be so. How would you feel if Google launched the Google Background Check service? What would stop them from doing so? (Not that I have any information or belief that they have plans to do so. But the point is, nothing would stop them, certainly not their "privacy policy", they could simply change its terms to allow it.)

Fourth, Google has not always shown a respect for the law and has, in fact, shown a disturbing trend toward arguing that they are above the law. (The Google Books program and Google's refusal to connect Google Voice calls to all phone numbers being 2 examples.) It's not really comforting to see a company with this much personal identifiable information acting in this manner.

Lastly, Google is an extremely ambitious company and has an innate thirst, to support their business model, to control as much as possible how people access information. (Again, so they can profit from people accessing information.) To this end, they release various "free" products and services: Gmail, Google Docs, Search, Google Voice, Google Wave, etc., etc. All of these products and services have the effect of undermining various platforms, such as iPhone OS, Mac OS and Windows as services that people use to access information directly, trivializing those platforms to the extent that Google is successful. Thus Google becomes more and more the gatekeeper to information, including your own documents, ultimately able to control access if they should so decide, but just as disturbingly, effectively throttling access through their filters.

None of these things are, in my opinion, good developments. And, it doesn't even require Google to be "evil" for any of them to have an overall negative effect. So, regardless of Google's intent, or even their (lack of) interest in any given individual, put together, these are not good things to have in the hands of a single entity. People would be in an uproar if their government collected and controlled information and information access in the way Google does. Why does the fact that this is being done by a corporation answerable only to its shareholders somehow make it seem innocuous?

Actually, thank you - that was very well written and made very persuasive arguments that were clear and direct.

I actually agree with you regarding the collection of personal information. I also understand why you specifically target Google, but I think it is misguided. It seems to me that it is only Google's size that has attracted your attention; I think you perceive Google to have more power than anyone else in this arena, and that makes them the biggest threat in your eyes. I don't disagree- they could be. But directing your ire at them is misguided because it really doesn't address your concerns. The power to stop the exploitation of personal information that you (rightly) envision is vested in our government, and until movement happens there, companies will attempt to collect and use this information just like Google and many others do. If Google went bankrupt tomorrow, someone else would fill the space.

DarkRail

10-06-2009, 04:52 PM

I may adopt the same "five seconds of hate" policy I have for those links that pop up when your cursor merely passes over a word on a webpage. When these sorts of irritating ads pop us, I spend a few seconds telling myself how much I hate the company that paid for them, assuming that attitude will stick in my subconscious. It turns an ad into an anti-ad.

Thank you! I have now adopted your "five seconds of hate" policy. I used to just flit my eyes away from such ads, try not to see them, but I like your thinking much better. I also applaud the 1984 allusion in your method's title.

Regarding the Google Maps ads, a little perspective: While I'm strongly against letting adware into the core of the iPhone, at the same time I'm so thankful that we're arguing about a relatively small flaw here. The iPhone's overall perfection makes these small annoyances stand out. For perspective, I just pulled my old T-Mobile "SDA" out of my Drawer Of Shame where it's buried. That was the catastrophe of a WinMo phone I had until I got my first iPhone. For all the questionable things Google does, aren't we all glad we're drifting away form a Microsoft-centric world? Does anyone truly remember what a disaster these WinMo phones were before Apple pulled a paradigm-change on us? Thank you, Apple. Thank you, Google. We may not have achieved perfection, but at least we've abandoned the cluster-F that was WinMo.

anonymouse

10-06-2009, 04:54 PM

Actually, thank you - that was very well written and made very persuasive arguments that were clear and direct.

I actually agree with you regarding the collection of personal information. I also understand why you specifically target Google, but I think it is misguided. It seems to me that it is only Google's size that has attracted your attention; I think you perceive Google to have more power than anyone else in this arena, and that makes them the biggest threat in your eyes. I don't disagree- they could be. But directing your ire at them is misguided because it really doesn't address your concerns. The power to stop the exploitation of personal information that you (rightly) envision is vested in our government, and until movement happens there, companies will attempt to collect and use this information just like Google and many others do. If Google went bankrupt tomorrow, someone else would fill the space.

I agree that there ought to be legislation specifically prohibiting the collection and maintenance of much of this sort of data and strict limitations on what can be done with other data (such as documents, email, contact lists, etc.). There is some movement in the U.S. Congress on privacy legislation, and recent polls show significant support for it, but how far that will go, or how soon such legislation might be enacted, is unclear. Google is particularly problematic both because of their size and because of their goal of being an information gateway, and leveraging that into more and more areas of business.

However, I think it is useful to keep Google specifically under a microscope in this regard simply because a) most people have never even considered the dangers inherent in any one company having this much control over information (and Google's star power in the tech industry tends to blind people to their faults), b) directing attention to them is a useful way of directing attention to the issue, and c) raising awareness of the problems they present is a good way to keep them from overstepping what bounds do currently exist.