or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google planning Spotify-style subscription music service - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google planning Spotify-style subscription music service - report

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
As rumors swirl of a Pandora-style Internet radio service from Apple, Google is said to be working on a paid subscription music service akin to Spotify.

Google's plans were revealed this week by both The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, which revealed that Google is currently in negotiations with music companies. The search giant reportedly plans to offer a paid subscription music streaming service to complement its own Google Music storefront.

Google Play


Google's music service competes with Apple's iTunes, and even undercuts it by offering the ability to match and upload a personal music collection for free. Apple's iTunes Match charges $24.99 per year for the same functionality, as does Amazon.

Google's apparent interest in expanding its music services comes as Apple is also reportedly working on an Internet radio offering similar to Pandora. Apple's plans are said to have been held up by negotiations with record labels that own the rights to the music.

"Radio Buy" buttons were also discovered hidden in Apple's iOS 6.1 software update released earlier this year. The images were taken as evidence that Apple is preparing its iOS mobile operating system for the eventual launch of its Internet radio service.
post #2 of 38

Well of course they are. Anything anyone is doing in media Google is going to do also.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #3 of 38
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
Well of course they are. Anything Apple is rumored doing in media Google is going to do also.

 

Well, at least this. lol.gif

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #4 of 38
I've switched the default search on my Safari to Bing. Not quite as good, but that's how much I hate these Google twerps. Never thought I'd see the day when the old Micro$oft bugaboo would become an ally.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #5 of 38

Google's music service competes with Apple's iTunes, and even undercuts it by offering the ability to match and upload a personal music collection for free. Apple's iTunes Match charges $24.99 per year for the same functionality, as does Amazon.

 

Anything you can do, I can do better.  I can do anything better than you.

No you can't.

Yes I can.

No you can't.

Mine is free.

(Crickets)

 

 

post #6 of 38

^ Oh look, another troll popped up. Nothing like lying to try and make a point, is there?

 

Off the top of my head I know Google won't update your music to higher bit rates (like iTunes does) and songs I purchase in iTunes (or Amazon) don't count towards my limit where Google has a fixed limit.

 

Of course, Google will always have a harder time offering any type of music service given their relationship with record labels. Just the other day the RIAA was criticizing Google for not doing enough to downgrade searches for illegal music. I'm sure that will help their negotiations immensely.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #7 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by 512ke View Post

Google's music service competes with Apple's iTunes, and even undercuts it by offering the ability to match and upload a personal music collection for free. Apple's iTunes Match charges $24.99 per year for the same functionality, as does Amazon.

Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you.
No you can't.
Yes I can.
No you can't.
Mine is free.
(Crickets)

In addition to Eric's specific comments, there's the matter of Google's massive invasions of privacy. Someone might offer you a free ice cream cone if you let them peek in your bedroom windows, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #8 of 38
Do people actually use this service? Seems like a waste of money. Download or purchase the songs yourself and then put them on your phone. Uses too much data to stream it. Rip CDs if you have to lol. Definitely not worth paying for (or using google's free service)
post #9 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


In addition to Eric's specific comments, there's the matter of Google's massive invasions of privacy. Someone might offer you a free ice cream cone if you let them peek in your bedroom windows, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

You make a good point but I've come to the conclusion, at least based on what I've seen anecdotally, that the vast majority of people don't care about lack of privacy. And then there are those like Robert Scoble who think that privacy is pretty much dead anyways.

post #10 of 38

So Google is going to "innovate" in streaming music?

 

im still waiting for them to innovated email and calendars bc they are basically using the same open standards invented decades before but they haven't innovated the way we use, or protocols, of email and calanders. 

post #11 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I've switched the default search on my Safari to Bing. Not quite as good, but that's how much I hate these Google twerps. Never thought I'd see the day when the old Micro$oft bugaboo would become an ally.

 

 

Personally, I have selected Yahoo, for the same reasons. It's fine.

post #12 of 38
I have ditched Google as my search engine as well. They have gone beyond creepy.

Still using Google maps occasionally, but only out of necessity. I will happily drop them as soon as Apple brings Maps to the Mac.
post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji View Post

You make a good point but I've come to the conclusion, at least based on what I've seen anecdotally, that the vast majority of people don't care about lack of privacy. And then there are those like Robert Scoble who think that privacy is pretty much dead anyways.

More likely, most people don't know that by accepting the ice cream cone that Google has the right to peer in their bedroom windows any time they want.

Regardless, I don't care about 'most people'. I care about my own right to privacy - and have as little to do with Google as possible. Mapquest covers most of my mapping needs. Bing covers most of my search needs. And not a chance I'll ever voluntarily use Google Docs.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji View Post

You make a good point but I've come to the conclusion, at least based on what I've seen anecdotally, that the vast majority of people don't care about lack of privacy. And then there are those like Robert Scoble who think that privacy is pretty much dead anyways.


Was that before or after his expletive-filled rant about Google?

post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


More likely, most people don't know that by accepting the ice cream cone that Google has the right to peer in their bedroom windows any time they want.

Regardless, I don't care about 'most people'. I care about my own right to privacy - and have as little to do with Google as possible. Mapquest covers most of my mapping needs. Bing covers most of my search needs. And not a chance I'll ever voluntarily use Google Docs.

Here's a story from last evening that might put things in context. I need to order a workstation on really short notice and went on-line rather than a custom build. On checkout I used a credit card. The vendor sent a "'security question" to verify my identity: What year was I born. No biggie, CC fraud is rampant. Then they asked two more questions, both of which caught me completely off-guard. 

 

1. Who lived at 256 **** ****** Dr, (Answer is my deceased mother )

2. What color is the Ford ****** I have.

 

That's apparently the kind of "private info" that's in the hands of CC providers and credit reporting agencies, and what looks to be available to any company willing to pay for the reports.  Yet your focus is on Google's anonymized data used to present you with an ad. Your concerns are misplaced and overly-dramatic IMHO.

 

Even closer to home, if anyone wants to know all about who YOU are, regardless how much you care about your privacy, a Bing search will tell them. Try it for yourself. You don't even need your real name to start.

 

Just using Bing someone can find your age, where you went to college, who your professors were, everything you've done for a living, the names of some of your co-workers, the places you've made home, the other business you tried your hand at, whether it was successful or failed, your hobbies, your marital status and nearly anything else anyone would like to know. Where did your "privacy" suddenly go at Bing?  Personalized ad delivery is hardly a big issue comparatively.

 

What do you think?


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/24/13 at 7:58am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I've switched the default search on my Safari to Bing. Not quite as good, but that's how much I hate these Google twerps.
I did the same thing after android, I hate them as well!
post #17 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's a story from last evening that might put things in context. I need to order a workstation on really short notice and went on-line rather than a custom build. On checkout I used a credit card. The vendor sent a "'security question" to verify my identity: What year was I born. No biggie, CC fraud is rampant. Then they asked two more questions, both of which caught me completely off-guard. 

1. Who lived at 256 **** ****** Dr, (Answer is my deceased mother )
2. What color is the Ford ****** I have.

That's apparently the kind of "private info" that's in the hands of CC providers and credit reporting agencies, and what looks to be available to any company willing to pay for the reports.  Yet your focus is on Google's anonymized data used to present you with an ad. Your concerns are misplaced and overly-dramatic IMHO.

Even closer to home, if anyone wants to know all about who you are, regardless how much you care about your privacy, a Bing search will tell them. Try it for yourself. You don't even need your real name to start.

Just using Bing someone can find your age, where you went to college, who your professors were, everything you've done for a living, the names of some of your co-workers, the places you've made home, the other business you tried your hand at, whether it was successful or failed, your hobbies, your marital status and nearly anything else anyone would like to know. Where did your "privacy" suddenly go at Bing?  Personalized ad delivery is hardly a big issue comparatively.

What do you think?

OT: Every single time I've had to answer those type of questions none of the answers have been valid ones so I've chosen None on each question. Have never failed one either. Perhaps that means they don't have enough info on me but I don't see how that would be possible.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #18 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


OT: Every single time I've had to answer those type of questions none of the answers have been valid ones so I've chosen None on each question. Have never failed one either. Perhaps that means they don't have enough info on me but I don't see how that would be possible.

It was a little disconcerting to realize they would even know to ask those questions. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It was a little disconcerting to realize they would even know to ask those questions. 

I can imagine, especially about a deceased mother. Even though none of mine had any correct answers they had questions about where I've lived and what kind of car I've owned which made me had to think address and vehicle back, step by step, as nothing popped out as obvious. That as a bit disconcerting in itself as I'm not one to look at the past like that.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbit View Post

Do people actually use this service? Seems like a waste of money. Download or purchase the songs yourself and then put them on your phone. Uses too much data to stream it. Rip CDs if you have to lol. Definitely not worth paying for (or using google's free service)

Yes, I do. As does pretty much everyone I know. 

 

"Download or purchase the songs yourself and then put them on your phone"

 

Well thats problem, the steps you mention are laborious. With spotify, it's just search,click, play. 

post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's a story from last evening that might put things in context. I need to order a workstation on really short notice and went on-line rather than a custom build. On checkout I used a credit card. The vendor sent a "'security question" to verify my identity: What year was I born. No biggie, CC fraud is rampant. Then they asked two more questions, both of which caught me completely off-guard. 

1. Who lived at 256 **** ****** Dr, (Answer is my deceased mother )
2. What color is the Ford ****** I have.

That's apparently the kind of "private info" that's in the hands of CC providers and credit reporting agencies, and what looks to be available to any company willing to pay for the reports.  Yet your focus is on Google's anonymized data used to present you with an ad. Your concerns are misplaced and overly-dramatic IMHO.

Even closer to home, if anyone wants to know all about who YOU are, regardless how much you care about your privacy, a Bing search will tell them. Try it for yourself. You don't even need your real name to start.

Just using Bing someone can find your age, where you went to college, who your professors were, everything you've done for a living, the names of some of your co-workers, the places you've made home, the other business you tried your hand at, whether it was successful or failed, your hobbies, your marital status and nearly anything else anyone would like to know. Where did your "privacy" suddenly go at Bing?  Personalized ad delivery is hardly a big issue comparatively.

What do you think?

So the fact that other people violate your privacy makes it OK for Google to do so?

Sorry, I don't approve of any of that. I'm certainly not going to say Google is OK just because they're not the only ones doing it. Leave it to the Chief Google Shill to justify blatant privacy violations.
Edited by jragosta - 2/24/13 at 9:22am
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

.
That's apparently the kind of "private info" that's in the hands of CC providers and credit reporting agencies, and what looks to be available to any company willing to pay for the reports.  Yet your focus is on Google's anonymized data used to present you with an ad. Your concerns are misplaced and overly-dramatic IMHO.

What do you think?

Credit card companies can't sell your security questions or any other identifying information to "a vendor." All financial institutions are bound by the law with regards to how they handle and safeguard your private information, who they can share that information with and what those firms can do with it. Financial institutions are also required by law to disclose (to you - usually in a mailed letter) with whom and under what circumstances they can share your private information, and what you can opt out of sharing.

If your credit card company really did share your security question answers with "a vendor," then you can sue them in federal court for violating the privacy rules of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. A serious offense that carries punitive damages for any financial institution. In all likelihood, that isn't what happened.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #23 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


Was that before or after his expletive-filled rant about Google?

I haven't heard any of his rants about Google but if you listen to the last few episodes of Gillmor Gang, he's definitely a die-hard Google fan, more specifically regarding Google Glasses in addition to saying how Apple is not exciting and innovating anymore.

post #24 of 38
Google team: Oh Apple's rumored to be planning something? We better get on that. Maybe sue them and get some access to inside documents.
Larry Page: lol lets do it

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #25 of 38

Fingers in ears and tra la la.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #26 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges View Post

Google team: Oh Apple's rumored to be planning something? We better get on that. Maybe sue them and get some access to inside documents.
Larry Page: lol lets do it

Larry Page: ...but let's use Motorola or some other company we've purchased so we can say "Google isn't suing Apple.

Guy in red shirt: But, Sir, even halfway intelligent people will know it's still us and it comes across as disengenuous.

Larry Page: You're fired!
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/24/13 at 10:19am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Credit card companies can't sell your security questions or any other identifying information to "a vendor." All financial institutions are bound by the law with regards to how they handle and safeguard your private information, who they can share that information with and what those firms can do with it. Financial institutions are also required by law to disclose (to you - usually in a mailed letter) with whom and under what circumstances they can share your private information, and what you can opt out of sharing.

If your credit card company really did share your security question answers with "a vendor," then you can sue them in federal court for violating the privacy rules of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. A serious offense that carries punitive damages for any financial institution. In all likelihood, that isn't what happened.

Shhhhh..... don't tell the Chief Google Shill. HIs head will probably explode.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 38

lmao Soli

post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's a story from last evening that might put things in context. I need to order a workstation on really short notice and went on-line rather than a custom build. On checkout I used a credit card. The vendor sent a "'security question" to verify my identity: What year was I born. No biggie, CC fraud is rampant. Then they asked two more questions, both of which caught me completely off-guard. 

1. Who lived at 256 **** ****** Dr, (Answer is my deceased mother )
2. What color is the Ford ****** I have.

That's apparently the kind of "private info" that's in the hands of CC providers and credit reporting agencies, and what looks to be available to any company willing to pay for the reports.  Yet your focus is on Google's anonymized data used to present you with an ad. Your concerns are misplaced and overly-dramatic IMHO.

Even closer to home, if anyone wants to know all about who YOU are, regardless how much you care about your privacy, a Bing search will tell them. Try it for yourself. You don't even need your real name to start.

Just using Bing someone can find your age, where you went to college, who your professors were, everything you've done for a living, the names of some of your co-workers, the places you've made home, the other business you tried your hand at, whether it was successful or failed, your hobbies, your marital status and nearly anything else anyone would like to know. Where did your "privacy" suddenly go at Bing?  Personalized ad delivery is hardly a big issue comparatively.

What do you think?

Public data that is aggregated by various credit bureau and LexisNexis databases that is widely used for out of wallet authentication or loan approvals is not the same thing as selling your day to day information about your life to advertisers. If the advertisers had access to your credit reports without your authorization then you could say they invade your privacy. But since they get this info from Google and the like, it shows they don't already have it.
post #30 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


Credit card companies can't sell your security questions or any other identifying information to "a vendor." All financial institutions are bound by the law with regards to how they handle and safeguard your private information, who they can share that information with and what those firms can do with it. Financial institutions are also required by law to disclose (to you - usually in a mailed letter) with whom and under what circumstances they can share your private information, and what you can opt out of sharing.

If your credit card company really did share your security question answers with "a vendor," then you can sue them in federal court for violating the privacy rules of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. A serious offense that carries punitive damages for any financial institution. In all likelihood, that isn't what happened.

It still happens whether "the law' says it can't.

 

Equifax violates privacy laws:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/equifaxdirect.shtm

 

Transunion violates privacy laws

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/predawn/F93/transunion.htm

 

Teletrax violates privacy laws.

http://www.infolawgroup.com/2011/06/articles/enforcement/fcra-violations-result-in-18-million-ftc-penalty/

 

Each of those first three were selling your personally identifiable credit files to advertisers/marketers, the law be damned.

 

There's also this sloppiness:

 

Cbr Blood Bank violates privacy laws

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blood-bank-settles-ftc-complaint-about-c-85712/

 

PLS Financial violates privacy laws

https://www.privacyassociation.org/publications/2012_11_12_ftc_settles_charges_over_alleged_improper_record_disposal

 

CVS Pharmacy violates privacy laws

http://ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/cvs.shtm

 

Worse is that all the violations I've linked above involved real names connected to real private information. It included names,  addresses, SS#'s and more all ending up with 3rd parties without your consent. The data was not "anonymized" in any way, nor was there any attempt to do so. Google was never accused of privacy violations on that scale, tho they're just as bound to FTC consent decrees as the others.

 

Why fear Google who's under the FTC's thumb but not fear the credit reporting agencies, banks, insurance companies or other financial and health reporting companies? Delivering targeted ads is hardly as worrysome as what Equifax, TransUnion or Cbr did. But yet you trust the credit and health agencies to handle your very personal financial and health information in accordance with your expectations "because it's the law"?

 

Google sells ad delivery, not you or your personal information. The credit agencies literally sold personal credit files, real names, real Social Security numbers, real addresses and all, just to make a few bucks. Which should you really fear, a pertinent ad on a web page or a folder handed over with your name and address on it?


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/24/13 at 3:30pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post


Public data that is aggregated by various credit bureau and LexisNexis databases that is widely used for out of wallet authentication or loan approvals is not the same thing as selling your day to day information about your life to advertisers. If the advertisers had access to your credit reports without your authorization then you could say they invade your privacy. But since they get this info from Google and the like, it shows they don't already have it.

I don't think you understand the process. Google handles the ad placement. They don't turn your private information over to an advertiser to do the advertising themselves. There's zero evidence that even a single advertiser placing ads thru Google has ever been given your real name, address or any other personal information. Ever. Google does not sell your "day to day information" to advertisers or anyone else to best of my knowledge. Feel free to search for evidence that they do, and let us know if you find it.

 

Just as I said before, worries about Google and their aggregated data gathering are over-dramatized IMHO. Google isn't sharing anything they know about you personally without a legal order to do so, just like Apple or Microsoft or RIM or any of the other techs. Claims to the contrary are never supported here by facts, only FUD. That should tell you how true they are.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 38
It was time they did this. It's amazing how the biggest companies haven't started this kind of service yet (maybe the Zune unlimited did this?). I just hope that Spotify continues to exist once Google and Apple finally do this. Spotify is extremely fast, slick and easy to use. It's great for discovering new artists and explore a particular genre. I've been using it for three years now (from its first month in Europe) and I just love it. It's the future, period.
post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It still happens whether "the law' says it can't.

Equifax violates privacy laws:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/equifaxdirect.shtm

Transunion violates privacy laws
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/predawn/F93/transunion.htm

Teletrax violates privacy laws.
http://www.infolawgroup.com/2011/06/articles/enforcement/fcra-violations-result-in-18-million-ftc-penalty/

Each of those first three were selling your personally identifiable credit files to advertisers/marketers. 

Cbr Blood Bank violates privacy laws
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blood-bank-settles-ftc-complaint-about-c-85712/

PLS Financial violates privacy laws
https://www.privacyassociation.org/publications/2012_11_12_ftc_settles_charges_over_alleged_improper_record_disposal

CVS Pharmacy violates privacy laws
http://ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/cvs.shtm

Worse is that the violations I've linked above involved real names connected to real private information. It included names and  addresses, SS#'s and more all ending up with 3rd parties without your consent. The data was not "anonymized" in any way, nor was there any attempt to do so. Google was never accused of privacy violations on that scale, tho they're just as bound to FTC consent decrees as the others.

Why fear Google but not fear the credit reporting agencies, banks, insurance companies or other financial and health reporting companies? Delivering targeted ads is hardly as worrysome as what Equifax, TransUnion or Cbr did. But yet you trust the credit and health agencies to handle your very personal financial and health information in accordance with your expectations "because it's the law"?

Google sells ad delivery, not you or your personal information. The credit agencies literally sold personal credit files, real names, real Social Security numbers, real addresses and all, just to make a few bucks. Which should you really fear, a pertinent ad on a web page or a folder handed over with your name and address on it?

Yep. The Chief Googl Shill jumps in.

Look, I don't appreciate privacy violations no matter who does them. If I were on a drugstore forum, the CVS privacy violations might be relevant. But I'm not. I'm here to discuss personal electronic devices - and Google is clearly misusing private information. They lie to users about privacy and bypass privacy settings. That's wrong -whether other companies are also guilty.

By your logic, it's OK if I rob everything in your house and all your bank accounts because Al Capone robbed an entire bank.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yep. The Chief Googl Shill jumps in.

Look, I don't appreciate privacy violations no matter who does them. If I were on a drugstore forum, the CVS privacy violations might be relevant. But I'm not. I'm here to discuss personal electronic devices - and Google is clearly misusing private information. They lie to users about privacy and bypass privacy settings. That's wrong -whether other companies are also guilty.

By your logic, it's OK if I rob everything in your house and all your bank accounts because Al Capone robbed an entire bank.

Nope. I'm saying that I don't see where Google is robbing you of anything. Your privacy? You still have it (or what's left of it). There's nothing to show that Google has compromised your personal details in any way. What thing you intended to keep private, and is personally identifiable with your name has Google revealed to anyone?  On the contrary, as far as I can tell from reading they only use anonymized and aggregated data for delivering pertinent ads, unlike the credit agencies noted in my post who sold real personal credit files and histories to marketing companies.

 

So Google's been a pretty good steward in protecting what they know personally about you. You're no more identifiable than Subject B is in a medical study. They may even go to court to protect you if they believe government demands for anything Google may know about you isn't within what the law requires. Do you have evidence to show otherwise?


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/24/13 at 4:33pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Nope. I'm saying that I don't see where Google is robbing you of anything. Your privacy? You still have it (or what's left of it). There's nothing to show that Google has compromised your personal details in any way. What thing you intended to keep private, and is personally identifiable with your name has Google revealed to anyone?  On the contrary, as far as I can tell from reading they only use anonymized and aggregated data for delivering pertinent ads, unlike the credit agencies noted in my post who sold real personal credit files and histories to marketing companies.


So Google's been a pretty good steward in protecting what they know personally about you.
You're no more identifiable than Subject B is in a medical study.
They may even go to court to protect you if they believe government demands for anything Google may know about you isn't within what the law requires. Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

Are you serious?

http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/01/google-releases-confidential-user-information.html
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/01/politics/google-releases-fcc-report-on-engineer-who-collected-personal-information/
http://www.slaw.ca/2010/04/21/google-releases-data-on-government-requests-for-private-user-data/
http://www.donkeyontheedge.com/le_enraged_mutton/us_court_forces_google_to_release_your_private_history_data.html
http://precursorblog.com/content/what-private-information-google-collects-a-one-page-fact-sheet
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/28/google-released-users-personal-information-to-courts/

And that's from just the first 20 hits on a search.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #36 of 38

Completely serious.

 

Of course Google has to obey a court order to release user information. So does Apple. Other than the first link you offered, an accidental one-off error if it happened at all, nothing else there shows Google revealing anything they know about you outside of a legal order to do so. Lousy links if you think they're showing anything contrary to what I wrote. When I do a search for "Apple sued for privacy violations" is the dozen pages of hits proof that Apple violates users privacy too?

 

Again, what have they disclosed about you personally (that Apple would not have in the same circumstance) to compromise your privacy?

 

JR, I completely understand you're a diehard fan of Apple. I get it. I also realize you apparently believe that a true fan of Apple must also be anti-Google. I get that too. Your dramatic claims of clear and serious violations of your privacy by Google sound sincere. Yet when I ask in what way they've compromised and exposed your personal information you don't have an answer.

 

Whether you're an Apple fan, a Google-ite or neither shouldn't be the determining factor in where the truth lies. If you have evidence of Google using personally identifiable info rather than anonymized in their advertising efforts I'd be happy to see it. If not then what facts are you depending on for your claims of your privacy being purposefully exposed by Google, other than in legally-binding government demands?


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/24/13 at 6:43pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Completely serious.

Of course Google has to obey a court order to release user information. So does Apple. Other than the first link you offered, an accidental one-off error if it happened at all, nothing else there shows Google revealing anything they know about you outside of a legal order to do so. Lousy links if you think they're showing anything contrary to what I wrote. When I do a search for "Apple sued for privacy violations" is the dozen pages of hits proof that Apple violates users privacy too?

Again, what have they disclosed about you personally (that Apple would not have in the same circumstance) to compromise your privacy?

And that's exactly why I don't want Google to have my personal information. Under some circumstances, it is released. There's no reason for them to have it.

Not to mention, of course, that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Have you already forgotten about their bypassing of Safari security settings? And all the other times they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #38 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


And that's exactly why I don't want Google to have my personal information. Under some circumstances, it is released. There's no reason for them to have it.

Not to mention, of course, that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Have you already forgotten about their bypassing of Safari security settings? And all the other times they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar?

Under some circumstances Apple releases it too. Do you mind them knowing all about you and if so what are you doing to keep it from happening? In all honesty there's no real need for either one of them to be privy to your personal information except in the most basic way for something like warranty coverage or product delivery. Sure there's money to be made by knowing about you and what you want, but it even bothers me that so much information (and money!) can be in the hands of a handful of companies.  There's always the potential for misdeeds, but that's not unique to Google.

 

I'll grant you that that Google gathers trillions of pieces of information from all over the net. They make $Billions from turning what they know into dollars from advertisers. But I haven't seen any evidence that they're revealing your personal details to do so. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google planning Spotify-style subscription music service - report