Android is hardly a good example though, given the platforms reputation for heavy piracy and other forms of cheapskatery.
It's a good example because realistically, it's the only other thriving platform out there, and as people there prefer free to paid, and advertising is such a big part of free, particularly there, we can see what happens when a paid app goes free. It happens here as well. We can see app pricing changing all the time, with many apps going from paid to free, and back again, as well as changing prices up and down.
I'm not sure we're looking at this in same way. When Xerox invented this unique identifier it was first for ethernet but then it was quickly adopted by other wired networking technologies. WiFi and bluetooth had if from the start but "back in the Sun OS days" they hadn't been invented yet.
I guess my understanding of working with a MAC address is a little antiquated. From the perspective of using it locally by an app as a device id rather than the traditional remote connection network identifier is a new approach in some respects. The way you are describing it is the app gains access to the MAC address from the OS for any one of the hardwares available then sends that value to a remote server and logs that value as your personal id. This method would allow you to connect to the app's service through any network protocol whether it is wifi, gsm, bt, whatever and the MAC address is always the same.
There's valid questions in there. Google selling your personal data to 3rd parties isn't one of them and youknow that. You can't convince me otherwise. Adding all the other comments still doesn't make what you originally claimed true.
Well, they been accused of doing that. It's also part of their business. I really don't understand how you don't know this! Just like the small companies who have been accused of doing this on Apple's platform, because that's how they make their money, though I didn't know that The Weather Channel was one of them, Google does it as well. This is how directed Ads work. They need to know enough about you to think that Ad will be of interest to you. Seems harmless on the surface, and I suppose it is. But a lot of people don't like it. And no one should be doing it without explicit agreement on the part of each individual. And they should not only ask, but they should ask for each bit of separate info they want, not ask for everything in the aggregate the way they usually do now. Because the way it's done, people really don't understand just how much is being gathered.
I don't care if I don't convince you, because it's true no matter what you choose to think.
Now I think you're trying to start an argument, because you're far from obtuse. So I'll probably stop responding to you (in this thread) after this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Well, not all of those are free. In fact well under half are.
You did not say how much. You did say you liked "free with ads" and I said I do not. So I think it's a reasonable assumption that you have proportionally more "free" than I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't know how you support the developer community more than I do. That's just a statement from you here. I don't know how you reference "support".
What about the words "proportionally more" and "perhaps" (indeed, strung together) in my post don't you understand? Do I have to spell out for you that I: (i) could be wrong; (ii) am not referring to absolute numbers, but just 'proportions'? (I have about 300 apps, which is lower than your 400.)
By "support" I mean the amount of dollars I pay for them. What do you mean? Also, what did you think I meant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But you haven't answered the implied question of how you can say that an Ad supported app would have nothing, or little of value to you, when you say that you don't even look at them to see.
First of all, if you have a question, ask it; don't "imply" it. This medium does not always lend itself well to nuance as a face-to-face conversation with say, voice inflection and gestures might.
I did not say ad-supported apps have little value to me. What I said was, I do not like the intrusiveness of many ad-supported apps -- the trade-off between what they offer and having to put up with silly pop-ups and notifications is just not worth it, for me (and I am not you). There is almost nothing out there that's free that I like that I couldn't get a paid analog for (either from the same developer or someone else). I am quite happy to pay, given the very nominal sums involved.
Also, where did I say I "...don't look at them to see"? I often download free, but tend to delete them if they have ads and pop-ups (latest example: Calculator Pro for iPad Free -- great product, but totally intrusive so I deleted it; you can download it yourself to see what I mean). Also, I have downloaded hundreds of free apps as of this point, so I think I have a reasonably good empirical sense of what's out there and what the trade-offs are.
Well, they been accused of doing that. It's also part of their business. I really don't understand how you don't know this! Just like the small companies who have been accused of doing this on Apple's platform, because that's how they make their money, though I didn't know that The Weather Channel was one of them, Google does it as well. This is how directed Ads work. They need to know enough about you to think that Ad will be of interest to you. Seems harmless on the surface, and I suppose it is. But a lot of people don't like it. And no one should be doing it without explicit agreement on the part of each individual. And they should not only ask, but they should ask for each bit of separate info they want, not ask for everything in the aggregate the way they usually do now. Because the way it's done, people really don't understand just how much is being gathered.
I don't care if I don't convince you, because it's true no matter what you choose to think.
Who accused them of selling personally identifiable information? A poster in a forum or some legitimate and reliable source? Of course they're an ad-delivery company. That doesn't mean they sell your privacy details to others. Why would you even continue to argue that point? Wouldn't that be working against themselves to give what they've managed to put together to other companies so that Google wouldn't even be needed for ad placements? That doesn't even make sense from a business standpoint.
Some of your other points could have questions. Google selling your data to others? Nope.
No FUD there. It's exactly what Google does. They have our info, and they sell that to other Ad agencies, and companies that find that data useful.
That is completely untrue. I've used Google ads and all they offer is the ability to have my ad placed in front of a particular type of user. I get to say I want my ad placed in front of people interested in X and accessing the internet in region Y and I'm willing to pay Z per click on my ad. I never find out who clicked on my ad. I never see any personal details about them.
Google clearly has this data so they can show the right ads to the right people, but this data is never sold to ad agencies nor to other companies.
No, but I would expect a NY Times reporter to be savvier than to basically say "research" is the reason. The reporter does allude to customer surveys and such. Target might well have to have more than mere (anonymous) credit card transactions.
Store loyalty cards are probably the main way big retailers get names and addresses. Online shopping is another source. Customer surveys are yet another. Once they connect your name and address to a credit card number, every purchase you have previously made with that card as well as every future purchases are all linked to that address.
Even if they just have a credit card with no address, that can still be used to link every single purchase you have made in any of their stores with that credit card and then print vouchers along with the receipt next time you go shopping.
Now I think you're trying to start an argument, because you're far from obtuse. So I'll probably stop responding to you (in this thread) after this post.
No, I wasn't trying to start an argument. You seem to have thought I said that all, or most of my apps were free. I was just correcting that impression. That's not argumentative.
Quote:
You did not say how much. You did say you liked "free with ads" and I said I do not. So I think it's a reasonable assumption that you have proportionally more "free" than I do.
I don't know how you get from my liking some apps that have Ads, to the assumption that I would have a greater proportion of them.
Quote:
What about the words "proportionally more" and "perhaps" (indeed, strung together) in my post don't you understand? Do I have to spell out for you that I: (i) could be wrong; (ii) am not referring to absolute numbers, but just 'proportions'? (I have about 300 apps, which is lower than your 400.)
By "support" I mean the amount of dollars I pay for them. What do you mean? Also, what did you think I meant?
I really didn't know what you meant. You might have thought it was clear, but it wasn't. Supporting developers could mean almost anything. Since it appears I have more apps in total, then I suppose that would mean that I support them more, if I understand your point there. Perhaps I support them more as I have a lot of paid apps, perhaps more than you do. Perhaps I support them more if I have more unpaid apps. What do you think?
Quote:
First of all, if you have a question, ask it; don't "imply" it. This medium does not always lend itself well to nuance as a face-to-face conversation with say, voice inflection and gestures might.
Now you're being unnecessarily rude. If someone gives an argument, they can reasonably expect a detailed reply. Not everything must be asked as a question.
I did not say ad-supported apps have little value to me. What I said was, I do not like the intrusiveness of many ad-supported apps -- the trade-off between what they offer and having to put up with silly pop-ups and notifications is just not worth it, for me (and I am not you). There is almost nothing out there that's free that I like that I couldn't get a paid analog for (either from the same developer or someone else). I am quite happy to pay, given the very nominal sums involved.
Also, where did I say I "...don't look at them to see"? I often download free, but tend to delete them if they have ads and pop-ups (latest example: Calculator Pro for iPad Free -- great product, but totally intrusive so I deleted it; you can download it yourself to see what I mean). Also, I have downloaded hundreds of free apps as of this point, so I think I have a reasonably good empirical sense of what's out there and what the trade-offs are.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. When I read this, I assumed it to mean that you were so against them that you never looked at them to see if they contained anything useful to you
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
90% of devs can piss off? Excluding Apple which obviously has access to the UDID?
I do not use a single app that has ads. It's intrusive and irritating on a mobile phone, and when on wireless, the user pays to see them. A lot of them are crap anyway.
If someone can't give us an honest-to-goodness free app, yes, they can piss off.
Who accused them of selling personally identifiable information? A poster in a forum or some legitimate and reliable source? Of course they're an ad-delivery company. That doesn't mean they sell your privacy details to others. Why would you even continue to argue that point? Wouldn't that be working against themselves to give what they've managed to put together to other companies so that Google wouldn't even be needed for ad placements? That doesn't even make sense from a business standpoint.
Some of your other points could have questions. Google selling your data to others? Nope.
This is just one article about it. As I say, it's part of their business. They admit it, why shouldn't you? And yes, Google is one of those advertising agencies selling data there.
That is completely untrue. I've used Google ads and all they offer is the ability to have my ad placed in front of a particular type of user. I get to say I want my ad placed in front of people interested in X and accessing the internet in region Y and I'm willing to pay Z per click on my ad. I never find out who clicked on my ad. I never see any personal details about them.
Google clearly has this data so they can show the right ads to the right people, but this data is never sold to ad agencies nor to other companies.
Nope! See my reply to Gatorguy.
By the way, this is something that's been tp reported on many times. Not this one initiative, but the fact that Google has been doing this for years. What in the article is just a way for them to formalize it, and to make some money from others sales and purchases in addition to their own.
This is just one article about it. As I say, it's part of their business. They admit it, why shouldn't you? And yes, Google is one of those advertising agencies selling data there.
What did they admit to Mel? Not selling your data to any third party. The article concerns the possibility of 3rd party advertisers joining an exchange organized by Google where they buy and/or sell data between them, not Google selling yours. Google's privacy policy strictly prohibits the sharing of your personal data without express permission just as Apple's does. Some of those advertisers (just like some iOS and or/Android developers) may have no privacy policies that prohibit sharing of data.
No place is the claim made that Google is selling any data on you to any outside parties, or that it's even a consideration.
90% Really? Where are you getting these numbers? Also Apple mentioned this months before August 2011 (around WWDC). Any and all developers have had more than enough time to transition. Replacing the UDID with a server-generated UUID which gets backed up on sync works just as well and requires little development on the server side.
No I don"t think that is correct. A website cannot see your MAC address.
The server can't see your website as the only MAC address being retained in the HTTP headers are from the last node along the route. However, client-side JS used to be able to retrieve the MAC address from the machine and then pass it back to the web server. I'm not sure if this is still possible in any web browser.
edit: Looks like this was only possible in ActiveX and never possible in JS.... which i'm very glad to read.
The server can't see your website as the only MAC address being retained in the HTTP headers are from the last node along the route. However, client-side JS used to be able to retrieve the MAC address from the machine and then pass it back to the web server. I'm not sure if this is still possible in any web browser.
edit: Looks like this was only possible in ActiveX and never possible in JS.... which i'm very glad to read.
If it were possible then php would have a function for it which it does not
Comments
Android is hardly a good example though, given the platforms reputation for heavy piracy and other forms of cheapskatery.
It's a good example because realistically, it's the only other thriving platform out there, and as people there prefer free to paid, and advertising is such a big part of free, particularly there, we can see what happens when a paid app goes free. It happens here as well. We can see app pricing changing all the time, with many apps going from paid to free, and back again, as well as changing prices up and down.
I'm not sure we're looking at this in same way. When Xerox invented this unique identifier it was first for ethernet but then it was quickly adopted by other wired networking technologies. WiFi and bluetooth had if from the start but "back in the Sun OS days" they hadn't been invented yet.
I guess my understanding of working with a MAC address is a little antiquated. From the perspective of using it locally by an app as a device id rather than the traditional remote connection network identifier is a new approach in some respects. The way you are describing it is the app gains access to the MAC address from the OS for any one of the hardwares available then sends that value to a remote server and logs that value as your personal id. This method would allow you to connect to the app's service through any network protocol whether it is wifi, gsm, bt, whatever and the MAC address is always the same.
There's valid questions in there. Google selling your personal data to 3rd parties isn't one of them and you know that. You can't convince me otherwise. Adding all the other comments still doesn't make what you originally claimed true.
Well, they been accused of doing that. It's also part of their business. I really don't understand how you don't know this! Just like the small companies who have been accused of doing this on Apple's platform, because that's how they make their money, though I didn't know that The Weather Channel was one of them, Google does it as well. This is how directed Ads work. They need to know enough about you to think that Ad will be of interest to you. Seems harmless on the surface, and I suppose it is. But a lot of people don't like it. And no one should be doing it without explicit agreement on the part of each individual. And they should not only ask, but they should ask for each bit of separate info they want, not ask for everything in the aggregate the way they usually do now. Because the way it's done, people really don't understand just how much is being gathered.
I don't care if I don't convince you, because it's true no matter what you choose to think.
I do not respond to advertising at all.
Oh, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar.
Well, not all of those are free. In fact well under half are.
You did not say how much. You did say you liked "free with ads" and I said I do not. So I think it's a reasonable assumption that you have proportionally more "free" than I do.
I don't know how you support the developer community more than I do. That's just a statement from you here. I don't know how you reference "support".
What about the words "proportionally more" and "perhaps" (indeed, strung together) in my post don't you understand? Do I have to spell out for you that I: (i) could be wrong; (ii) am not referring to absolute numbers, but just 'proportions'? (I have about 300 apps, which is lower than your 400.)
By "support" I mean the amount of dollars I pay for them. What do you mean? Also, what did you think I meant?
But you haven't answered the implied question of how you can say that an Ad supported app would have nothing, or little of value to you, when you say that you don't even look at them to see.
First of all, if you have a question, ask it; don't "imply" it. This medium does not always lend itself well to nuance as a face-to-face conversation with say, voice inflection and gestures might.
I did not say ad-supported apps have little value to me. What I said was, I do not like the intrusiveness of many ad-supported apps -- the trade-off between what they offer and having to put up with silly pop-ups and notifications is just not worth it, for me (and I am not you). There is almost nothing out there that's free that I like that I couldn't get a paid analog for (either from the same developer or someone else). I am quite happy to pay, given the very nominal sums involved.
Also, where did I say I "...don't look at them to see"? I often download free, but tend to delete them if they have ads and pop-ups (latest example: Calculator Pro for iPad Free -- great product, but totally intrusive so I deleted it; you can download it yourself to see what I mean). Also, I have downloaded hundreds of free apps as of this point, so I think I have a reasonably good empirical sense of what's out there and what the trade-offs are.
Well, they been accused of doing that. It's also part of their business. I really don't understand how you don't know this! Just like the small companies who have been accused of doing this on Apple's platform, because that's how they make their money, though I didn't know that The Weather Channel was one of them, Google does it as well. This is how directed Ads work. They need to know enough about you to think that Ad will be of interest to you. Seems harmless on the surface, and I suppose it is. But a lot of people don't like it. And no one should be doing it without explicit agreement on the part of each individual. And they should not only ask, but they should ask for each bit of separate info they want, not ask for everything in the aggregate the way they usually do now. Because the way it's done, people really don't understand just how much is being gathered.
I don't care if I don't convince you, because it's true no matter what you choose to think.
Who accused them of selling personally identifiable information? A poster in a forum
Some of your other points could have questions. Google selling your data to others? Nope.
Apple - who are probably using the UDID all the time in iOS for their own purposes. They certainly do it in the profiles.
They also allow access to your contacts list without a confirmation, a far greater security risk.
A: It's their ecosystem
B: Old news, and you know it
Just because you think they are out to get you does not make it so.
... Does Apple allow that? I thought they didn't, at least at one time, they required the app to be paid if you offer app add-ons within the software.
That was their original position on the matter. They caved on this somewhere around 2009 I think.
No FUD there. It's exactly what Google does. They have our info, and they sell that to other Ad agencies, and companies that find that data useful.
That is completely untrue. I've used Google ads and all they offer is the ability to have my ad placed in front of a particular type of user. I get to say I want my ad placed in front of people interested in X and accessing the internet in region Y and I'm willing to pay Z per click on my ad. I never find out who clicked on my ad. I never see any personal details about them.
Google clearly has this data so they can show the right ads to the right people, but this data is never sold to ad agencies nor to other companies.
I've found that if asdasd thinks it's a bad idea, it's most likely a very good one.
Great
Oh, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar.
Awesome. Thanks for the Bill Hicks reference.
No, but I would expect a NY Times reporter to be savvier than to basically say "research" is the reason. The reporter does allude to customer surveys and such. Target might well have to have more than mere (anonymous) credit card transactions.
Store loyalty cards are probably the main way big retailers get names and addresses. Online shopping is another source. Customer surveys are yet another. Once they connect your name and address to a credit card number, every purchase you have previously made with that card as well as every future purchases are all linked to that address.
Even if they just have a credit card with no address, that can still be used to link every single purchase you have made in any of their stores with that credit card and then print vouchers along with the receipt next time you go shopping.
Now I think you're trying to start an argument, because you're far from obtuse. So I'll probably stop responding to you (in this thread) after this post.
No, I wasn't trying to start an argument. You seem to have thought I said that all, or most of my apps were free. I was just correcting that impression. That's not argumentative.
You did not say how much. You did say you liked "free with ads" and I said I do not. So I think it's a reasonable assumption that you have proportionally more "free" than I do.
I don't know how you get from my liking some apps that have Ads, to the assumption that I would have a greater proportion of them.
What about the words "proportionally more" and "perhaps" (indeed, strung together) in my post don't you understand? Do I have to spell out for you that I: (i) could be wrong; (ii) am not referring to absolute numbers, but just 'proportions'? (I have about 300 apps, which is lower than your 400.)
By "support" I mean the amount of dollars I pay for them. What do you mean? Also, what did you think I meant?
I really didn't know what you meant. You might have thought it was clear, but it wasn't. Supporting developers could mean almost anything. Since it appears I have more apps in total, then I suppose that would mean that I support them more, if I understand your point there. Perhaps I support them more as I have a lot of paid apps, perhaps more than you do. Perhaps I support them more if I have more unpaid apps. What do you think?
First of all, if you have a question, ask it; don't "imply" it. This medium does not always lend itself well to nuance as a face-to-face conversation with say, voice inflection and gestures might.
Now you're being unnecessarily rude. If someone gives an argument, they can reasonably expect a detailed reply. Not everything must be asked as a question.
I did not say ad-supported apps have little value to me. What I said was, I do not like the intrusiveness of many ad-supported apps -- the trade-off between what they offer and having to put up with silly pop-ups and notifications is just not worth it, for me (and I am not you). There is almost nothing out there that's free that I like that I couldn't get a paid analog for (either from the same developer or someone else). I am quite happy to pay, given the very nominal sums involved.
Also, where did I say I "...don't look at them to see"? I often download free, but tend to delete them if they have ads and pop-ups (latest example: Calculator Pro for iPad Free -- great product, but totally intrusive so I deleted it; you can download it yourself to see what I mean). Also, I have downloaded hundreds of free apps as of this point, so I think I have a reasonably good empirical sense of what's out there and what the trade-offs are.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. When I read this, I assumed it to mean that you were so against them that you never looked at them to see if they contained anything useful to you
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
90% of devs can piss off? Excluding Apple which obviously has access to the UDID?
I do not use a single app that has ads. It's intrusive and irritating on a mobile phone, and when on wireless, the user pays to see them. A lot of them are crap anyway.
If someone can't give us an honest-to-goodness free app, yes, they can piss off.
Who accused them of selling personally identifiable information? A poster in a forum
Some of your other points could have questions. Google selling your data to others? Nope.
This is just one article about it. As I say, it's part of their business. They admit it, why shouldn't you? And yes, Google is one of those advertising agencies selling data there.
http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/11/go...ell-your-data/
That is completely untrue. I've used Google ads and all they offer is the ability to have my ad placed in front of a particular type of user. I get to say I want my ad placed in front of people interested in X and accessing the internet in region Y and I'm willing to pay Z per click on my ad. I never find out who clicked on my ad. I never see any personal details about them.
Google clearly has this data so they can show the right ads to the right people, but this data is never sold to ad agencies nor to other companies.
Nope! See my reply to Gatorguy.
By the way, this is something that's been tp reported on many times. Not this one initiative, but the fact that Google has been doing this for years. What in the article is just a way for them to formalize it, and to make some money from others sales and purchases in addition to their own.
This is just one article about it. As I say, it's part of their business. They admit it, why shouldn't you? And yes, Google is one of those advertising agencies selling data there.
http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/11/go...ell-your-data/
What did they admit to Mel? Not selling your data to any third party. The article concerns the possibility of 3rd party advertisers joining an exchange organized by Google where they buy and/or sell data between them, not Google selling yours. Google's privacy policy strictly prohibits the sharing of your personal data without express permission just as Apple's does. Some of those advertisers (just like some iOS and or/Android developers) may have no privacy policies that prohibit sharing of data.
No place is the claim made that Google is selling any data on you to any outside parties, or that it's even a consideration.
Bad move. Pissing about 90% of devs off.
90% Really? Where are you getting these numbers? Also Apple mentioned this months before August 2011 (around WWDC). Any and all developers have had more than enough time to transition. Replacing the UDID with a server-generated UUID which gets backed up on sync works just as well and requires little development on the server side.
When you browse any website, it can get your MAC address. That's from any device that can browse..
No I don"t think that is correct. A website cannot see your MAC address.
No I don"t think that is correct. A website cannot see your MAC address.
The server can't see your website as the only MAC address being retained in the HTTP headers are from the last node along the route. However, client-side JS used to be able to retrieve the MAC address from the machine and then pass it back to the web server. I'm not sure if this is still possible in any web browser.
edit: Looks like this was only possible in ActiveX and never possible in JS.... which i'm very glad to read.
The server can't see your website as the only MAC address being retained in the HTTP headers are from the last node along the route. However, client-side JS used to be able to retrieve the MAC address from the machine and then pass it back to the web server. I'm not sure if this is still possible in any web browser.
edit: Looks like this was only possible in ActiveX and never possible in JS.... which i'm very glad to read.
If it were possible then php would have a function for it which it does not