or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple - Page 5

post #161 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Google threatened legal action against licensees who said they would include Chinese forks of Android
I don't think so. Never saw the first mention of a possible Google lawsuit. Sounds like FUD. If I'm wrong a reliable citation might be nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


Google has so far attempted to retaliate against Microsoft and Apple, using mostly FRAND licensed, standards essential patents in failed bids to block Android infringement of previously patented features.
I don't think so. I'm not aware of a single lawsuit ever filed by Google against either of them, nor even a new active lawsuit filed against either one by Motorola Mobility for that matter since Google bought them. Sounds like more FUD. Again if I'm wrong a reliable citation would be nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 
If Google spun its Android group & IP rights off or sold it to another firm, say BlackBerry or even a full-on patent troll, all bets would be off. And everyone would be suing Samsung. 
If Google spins off it's Android group?? Heck, throw in "if Apple merges with Google" or "if Google IP goes into a bankruptcy auction" or "if Samsung buys out Google" or "if Google gives the Moto IP to a troll to monetize" all just as likely scenarios IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Google viciously protects this IP.... 
By the way, how have they "viciously" protected their IP so far? Perhaps you meant to say Apple. Or Microsoft. Or Samsung. Or VirnetX. Or Nokia. Or Rockstar. Or anyone but Google. 1rolleyes.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/17/13 at 1:19pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #162 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't think so. Never saw the first mention of a possible Google lawsuit. Sounds like FUD
I don't think so. I'm not aware of a single lawsuit ever filed by Google against either of them, nor even a new active lawsuit filed against either one by Motorola Mobility for that matter since Google bought them. Sounds like more FUD.

Stop talking and start reading.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary

Also, it's remarkably obtuse for you to suggest that Motorola Mobility didn't just lose its attempt to sue Microsoft for billions over H264 SEPs, or that Google didn't just finish losing its efforts to use patents to stop iOS users in Germany from getting iCloud push messaging features.

Google also maintained Motorola's first strike FRAND patent abuse against Apple.

The main reason why Google isn't yet suing over its own core patents is that nobody is willfully infringing them the way Google has stormed into every market it enters with flagrant violations of everyone else's rights, starting with search (look up Overture).

Also, look up the definition of FUD.
post #163 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Stop talking and start reading.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary

Also, it's remarkably obtuse for you to suggest that Motorola Mobility didn't just lose its attempt to sue Microsoft for billions over H264 SEPs, or that Google didn't just finish losing its efforts to use patents to stop iOS users in Germany from getting iCloud push messaging features.

Google also maintained Motorola's first strike FRAND patent abuse against Apple.

The main reason why Google isn't yet suing over its own core patents is that nobody is willfully infringing them the way Google has stormed into every market it enters with flagrant violations of everyone else's rights, starting with search (look up Overture).

Also, look up the definition of FUD.

Fear, uncertainly and doubt. Yup, pretty much sounds like what you're attempting to do: Sow "doubt" and "uncertainty" on what the facts are and "fear" that Google is going to attack Apple with "vicious" IP infringement claims, acting no differently than Apple. They aren't and they haven't. You're a smart well-read guy and already knew that I'm sure.

No where in your Ars article does it mention Google threatening lawsuits as far as I see. Perhaps you could just clip the quote proving you're correct afterall to save everyone wasting time on a search.

Google also didn't file a lawsuit using H264 patents in Germany either, which you can find by looking at the name and date on the filing. Further both the US and German lawsuits predate even Motorola Mobility itself, going back to an old Motorola subsidiary named General Instruments. MM was just the lucky recipient 1rolleyes.gif when Moto spun them off.

Your third claim, that Google hasn't sued because nobody is infringing on their IP almost sounded reasonable until you realize they've been around for over 15 years and IMO it's ridiculous to believe no one has used any of the 20,000+ Google-controlled patents without permission.

At your suggestion I did look up Overture. Looks like Google ended up licensing their patent, by then owned by Yahoo, in return for 2.7M shares of Google stock in much the same way Apple sold some pre-IPO stock to Zerox PARC in return for a peek at what was in the works (except that Google actually got a license to use the IP). That was a proper way to handle it right?

I will give you credit for one thing tho. Since Google bought MM last year they haven't dropped the lawsuits Motorola originally filed that have wound their way thru the courts for several years now. Personally i think it would have been nice of Google to drop them.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/17/13 at 3:29pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #164 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Fear, uncertainly and doubt. Yup, pretty much sounds like what you're attempting to do: Sow "doubt" and "uncertainty" on what the facts are and "fear" that Google is going to attack Apple with "vicious" IP infringement claims, same as Apple does to it's competition. They aren't and they haven't. Worse is that you're a smart well-read guy and already knew that yet wanted to spread half-truths anyway.

No where in your Ars article does it mention Google threatening lawsuits as far as I see. Perhaps you could just clip the quote proving you're correct afterall to save everyone wasting time on a search.

Google also didn't file a lawsuit using H264 patents in Germany either, which you'd know if you looked at the name on the paperwork. Further both the US and German lawsuits predate even Motorola Mobility itself, going back to an old Motorola subsidiary named General Instruments. MM was just the lucky recipient 1rolleyes.gif when Moto spun them off.

Your third claim, that Google hasn't sued because nobody is infringing on their IP almost sounded reasonable until you realize they've been around for over 15 years and it's ridiculous to believe no one has used any of the 20,000+ Google-controlled patents without permission.

But you did get one thing right. Since Google bought MM last year they haven't dropped the lawsuits Motorola originally filed. Evil and vicious...

Everything you ever say is such a confused mess that I can't even tell if you're a straight up troll just trying to waste my time or if you are really that bad at basic reading comprehension and really believe what you say.

Either way, does not matter. Keep up the false accusations and your account will get banned however.
post #165 of 206
EDIT: Recognized further discussion won't be helpful. My sincere apologies.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/17/13 at 2:27pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #166 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Shouldn't you be over on YouTube posting the benefits of Google +?

 

Seems a lot of people don't like it at all.

1- Why Youtube, isn't that "the cesspool of the Internet"?At least for the comments part...

2- Google+ is pretty nice, much better than FaceBook (I'm amazed why anyone uses that, but to each their own, right), and in my opinion more practical than Twitter for audience management (who do I want to tell what) and conversations.

Anyway, there are a lot of people who don't like Macs. Doesn't make Macs bad computers, and doesn't change my choice to use them, or Google+... This is not North Korea, where the "Will of the People" (ahemf) determines your life or death.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #167 of 206

Is anyone of this making it easier or harder to buy the Apple products we love? Nope. So what's the problem? 

post #168 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


Everything you ever say is such a confused mess that I can't even tell if you're a straight up troll just trying to waste my time or if you are really that bad at basic reading comprehension and really believe what you say.
 

This sentence doesn't make sense. Try editing it and your repartee might sink some teeth into the Gator. :)

post #169 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

1- Why Youtube, isn't that "the cesspool of the Internet"?At least for the comments part...
2- Google+ is pretty nice, much better than FaceBook (I'm amazed why anyone uses that, but to each their own, right), and in my opinion more practical than Twitter for audience management (who do I want to tell what) and conversations.
Anyway, there are a lot of people who don't like Macs. Doesn't make Macs bad computers, and doesn't change my choice to use them, or Google+... This is not North Korea, where the "Will of the People" (ahemf) determines your life or death.

As far as Google is concerned, the Internet is their "North Korea" and Internet users are their peasants, going on their latest attempts to railroad people into Google +.

The thing is it's starting to backfire with people beginning to question Google's dominance.

Which is why I wonder why Google apologists are wasting their time here when all hands on deck are required for damage control elsewhere.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #170 of 206
You need to back up your claims with links. Do no evil was just marketing. Google uses the open marketing for those in the development community who can't think for themselves and realize that its just a marketing gimmick. As soon as open doesnt benefit them they flip the script at the drop of the hat.
Edited by AdonisSMU - 11/18/13 at 6:12am
post #171 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

You need to back up your claims with links. Do no evil was just marketing. Google uses the open marketing for those in the development community who can think for themselves and realize that its just a marketing gimmick. As soon as open doesnt benefit them they flip the script at the drop of the hat.

"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.

post #172 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.

To be more accurate the slogan was "Don't be evil".
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #173 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
 

"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.

 

The problem is that Google started out as a research project and most genuine researchers are idealists.  Unfortunately when it came to having to monetize the company, it had to become more invasive and in that process I think they lost a bit of their soul.  Eric Schmidt was part of the soul sucking that happened at Google.  Google saw crazy growth but at a cost.  I think that is why Apple initially saw a good partner in Google.  They were idealists like them (well as much as any multi-national, publicly traded company can be).  I also can see why Apple would feel a bit betrayed. In the end, Google has ended up being just like Microsoft was back in the day, which bums me out.  I was an avid proponent of theirs but as time passed, they lost the trust and goodwill.

 

Ultimately, I love technology and try to avoid thinking about the shady side of the industry, whether it is these market research papers or the stock market.

post #174 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad View Post
 

 

The problem is that Google started out as a research project and most genuine researchers are idealists.  Unfortunately when it came to having to monetize the company, it had to become more invasive and in that process I think they lost a bit of their soul.  Eric Schmidt was part of the soul sucking that happened at Google.  Google saw crazy growth but at a cost.  I think that is why Apple initially saw a good partner in Google.  They were idealists like them (well as much as any multi-national, publicly traded company can be).  I also can see why Apple would feel a bit betrayed. In the end, Google has ended up being just like Microsoft was back in the day, which bums me out.  I was an avid proponent of theirs but as time passed, they lost the trust and goodwill.

 

Ultimately, I love technology and try to avoid thinking about the shady side of the industry, whether it is these market research papers or the stock market.

That's fine, and possibly true to a large extent (except the bit about Schmidt). But I wanted to make clear that it wasn't a marketing gimmick when it was coined.

post #175 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


To be more accurate the slogan was "Don't be evil".

True. I was responding to another post and simply repeated the incorrectly cited slogan.

post #176 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
 

That's fine, and possibly true to a large extent (except the bit about Schmidt). But I wanted to make clear that it wasn't a marketing gimmick when it was coined.

 

Sorry if I wasn't being clear...I completely agree with you that it wasn't a marketing gimmick, and actually that is what bums me out.  In the process of their monetization strategy they lost sight of it in big part due to becoming primarily an advertising company.

post #177 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

To be more accurate the slogan was "Don't be evil".

Don't be evil.

Do not be evil.

Thou shalt not be evil.

Any way you cut it, they failed.
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
post #178 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


As far as Google is concerned, the Internet is their "North Korea" and Internet users are their peasants, going on their latest attempts to railroad people into Google +.

The thing is it's starting to backfire with people beginning to question Google's dominance.

Which is why I wonder why Google apologists are wasting their time here when all hands on deck are required for damage control elsewhere.

In my (possibly unlightened) opinion:

- people might just be stating their preferences and opinions, rather than being "hands on deck" for a company

- Google is not 'railroading', it's unifying its products like Apple did with iCloud, and that's a good thing, even though most people hate change

 

Just my two cents.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #179 of 206

Can anyone here comment on Google without thinking with their Apple shares?


Edited by stelligent - 11/18/13 at 4:16am
post #180 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
 

In my (possibly unlightened) opinion:

- people might just be stating their preferences and opinions, rather than being "hands on deck" for a company

- Google is not 'railroading', it's unifying its products like Apple did with iCloud, and that's a good thing, even though most people hate change

 

Just my two cents.

I agree. But the way they're going about this is turning off a growing user segment, and not just the Apple fanboys.

post #181 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
 

In my (possibly unlightened) opinion:

- people might just be stating their preferences and opinions, rather than being "hands on deck" for a company

- Google is not 'railroading', it's unifying its products like Apple did with iCloud, and that's a good thing, even though most people hate change

 

Just my two cents.

 

Why not join the 180,000 people who have signed this petition asking Google to stop forcing Google + on YouTube users.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #182 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Why not join the 180,000 people who have signed this petition asking Google to stop forcing Google + on YouTube users.

I don't think they "force" a Google+ account to view Youtube videos. AFAIK it's only if you want to comment on them. That doesn't sound unreasonable, does it to you? You have to set up a user account at nearly every site if you want to post comments.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #183 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Why not join the 180,000 people who have signed this petition asking Google to stop forcing Google + on YouTube users.

1- Because I don't think it's a bad idea (as I stated before)

2- 180k people out of the billions of users? Looks pretty "extremist/fringe" to me, if you'll allow me to think differently from you

 

 

Off topic: I run a French keyboard with Russian enabled. For the last few days, the keyboard randomly switches to an unidentified French version (at least, I type in an @ when I want to type a 2, but the é still is in the proper place), and I have to switch to Russian, type in a 2, and switch back to French. It only happens when typing on AppleInsider... Anyone has an idea what could be at play here? (Mac Book Air mid-2011, French keyboard)

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #184 of 206
Overall in agreement, but you are a little hard on the general public here. First the article makes zero mention of the Kindle Fire tables which hold a solid position in the discount market as well as zero mention of the retail channels and their influence on the public.

For those "unaffiliated" in the tablet wars, most will do just fine with a tier 1/1.5 tablet such as a nexus, galaxy tab, lenovo, or fire. They have strong specs for their price and often ( but not always ) decent support. Not all inexpensive tables are ewaste, some are respectable devices. I agree that these have little impact on long term iPad sales because Apple was hardly going to win over the cost conscious segment of the market with their offerings. Apple is always about sustainability and experience, not gross sales numbers.

Walk into any BestBuy and listen to the reps at the tablet area ( which is always a mess, half of them not charged, ... ). They are pushing the tier 1 tables and actively beating up on the Apple offerings "Why pay twice as much for the same hardware". I'm sure the reps are pushing the tables with the highest gross margins and/or lowest return rate rather than what is the best for the consumer. Once again this does have an effect in "market share" but I would doubt there is an effect on the mid-term iPad market.

One point that nobody made so far was the timing of the report. October.. you know the month where anybody that knows anything wasn't buying iPads last year and this year. That rather important disclaimer was nowhere in their reports.
post #185 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.
No they don't. I know people who work at Google and they laugh at me when I bring up do no evil to them. They say Google is a business and business comes first. Do no evil was always a marketing gimmick. Even by your own admission it was a marketing gimmick to recruit engineers to their cause. Farming your personal information to advertising companies against your will and stealing IP has been their game since they came into existence.
Edited by AdonisSMU - 11/18/13 at 7:48am
post #186 of 206
Add to the mix all the click-baiting bloggers, many only a few years out of business school who throw out links with titles like " Apples last hope to turnaround abysmal market share". Their advice is the equivalent of telling BMW that they'll never make it in the cutthroat automotive market unless they come up with an answer to the Nissan Sentra.
The stock pages are strewn with these profound analyses setting up a drumbeat averring that Apple's downfall is a near certainty.
post #187 of 206
The 'analytics' reporting from the '90's always made me feel uneasy. Their logic was self-consistent, but just didn't "feel right." Now we see that these firms are basically protection rackets acting on behalf of their paying constituents. Great%u2026
post #188 of 206

First as a person who has used reports like this from these companies, you have to be an idiot to use their information blindly. I never used their summary information since as it was pointed out they are using stats to tell a story and drive their customers in a particular direction. You have to use the raw data which they have and analysis it yourself and make your own decisions. I have talked to these analysis a few times and questioned their numbers, specifically about how they came up with number which I knew for a fact a company never published and they give you some story about triangulating in on it (i.e they made it up).

 

I personally do not think the coke analogy was a good one. Coke in fact considers its market share in terms of stomach share. They want be the largest % of what you drink on a day even water thus why they sell bottle water and why the continue to try and convince people drink tap water in the US is bad for your health. If you going to compete against coke you can not say I will sell more cola than them, it have to say you sell more liquid going into some's stomach then Coke. 

post #189 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Can anyone here comment on Google without thinking with their Apple shares?
i just did and I dont own any APPL
post #190 of 206
Great article. Someone needed to write it. Give me a favor: move it to the top of your news list every day!
post #191 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I don't think they "force" a Google+ account to view Youtube videos. AFAIK it's only if you want to comment on them. That doesn't sound unreasonable, does it to you? You have to set up a user account at nearly every site if you want to post comments.

oh come on, stop apologizing for Google. there is a hell of a lot of difference between Google+ and, for example, Disqus. Disqus is merely a user name and PW system. Google+ is a massive invasion of your digital life.

 

get real.

post #192 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Everything you ever say is such a confused mess that I can't even tell if you're a straight up troll just trying to waste my time or if you are really that bad at basic reading comprehension and really believe what you say.

Either way, does not matter. Keep up the false accusations and your account will get banned however.

Are you a mod now? Gator guy had reasonable arguments against your replies but as a totalitarian mind you can't really broker dissent.

Also can you post below the line as DED. No problem with top line posters coming into the fray but thet should announce themselves.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #193 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

oh come on, stop apologizing for Google. there is a hell of a lot of difference between Google+ and, for example, Disqus. Disqus is merely a user name and PW system. Google+ is a massive invasion of your digital life.

You don't look at Privacy Policies then. Reading is your friend.
http://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466259-privacy-policy

Advertising
Advertising is the primary way Disqus makes money. We are paid by advertisers when people using Disqus click on links to recommended content. We share that resulting revenue with the publishers using this feature of our Service.

Personally Identifiable Information: We collect information that can be used to identify you as an individual (“Personally Identifiable Information”) only when you provide such information directly to us in connection with the Service. We ask for Personally Identifiable Information such as your name and e-mail address when you register for a Disqus account with the Service, or if you correspond with us (in which case we will also retain our responses). We may also retain any messages you send through the Service, and may collect information you provide in User Content you post to the Service. We may receive Personally Identifiable Information about you from third parties, including, for example, information about your transactions, purchase history, or relationships with various product and service providers, and your use of certain applications. For example, if you access our website or Service through a third-party connection or log-in, for example, through Facebook Connect, by “following,” “liking,” linking your account to the Disqus service, etc., that third party may pass certain information about your use of its service to Disqus. This information could include, but is not limited to, the user ID associated with your account, any information you have permitted the third party to share with us, and any information you have made public in connection with that service. You should always review, and if necessary, adjust your privacy settings on third-party websites and services before linking or connecting them to Disqus’ website or Service.

Non-Personally Identifiable Information: We also collect and use information about your interactions with the Service in a manner and format that does not identify you as an individual (“Non-Personally Identifiable Information”). We may collect, use, and disclose Non-Personally Identifiable Information as set forth below."

and etc., etc..

No, not at all like Google+.1rolleyes.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #194 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


You don't look at Privacy Policies then. Reading is your friend.
http://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466259-privacy-policy

Advertising
Advertising is the primary way Disqus makes money. We are paid by advertisers when people using Disqus click on links to recommended content. We share that resulting revenue with the publishers using this feature of our Service.

Personally Identifiable Information: We collect information that can be used to identify you as an individual (“Personally Identifiable Information”) only when you provide such information directly to us in connection with the Service. We ask for Personally Identifiable Information such as your name and e-mail address when you register for a Disqus account with the Service, or if you correspond with us (in which case we will also retain our responses). We may also retain any messages you send through the Service, and may collect information you provide in User Content you post to the Service. We may receive Personally Identifiable Information about you from third parties, including, for example, information about your transactions, purchase history, or relationships with various product and service providers, and your use of certain applications. For example, if you access our website or Service through a third-party connection or log-in, for example, through Facebook Connect, by “following,” “liking,” linking your account to the Disqus service, etc., that third party may pass certain information about your use of its service to Disqus. This information could include, but is not limited to, the user ID associated with your account, any information you have permitted the third party to share with us, and any information you have made public in connection with that service. You should always review, and if necessary, adjust your privacy settings on third-party websites and services before linking or connecting them to Disqus’ website or Service.

Non-Personally Identifiable Information: We also collect and use information about your interactions with the Service in a manner and format that does not identify you as an individual (“Non-Personally Identifiable Information”). We may collect, use, and disclose Non-Personally Identifiable Information as set forth below."

and etc., etc..

No, not at all like Google+.1rolleyes.gif

 

all Disqus has from me is a name, email, user name, and PW - necessary for any such service - and a history of my comments via that service - which are essentially public domain anyway.

 

Google+ data mines your entire life in the Google ecosystem, and everything else it can invade somehow even outside it.

 

stop being a Google apologist and get real.

post #195 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

all Disqus has from me is a name, email, user name, and PW - necessary for any such service - and a history of my comments via that service - which are essentially public domain anyway.

How on earth would you know that? Do they have a user dashboard where you can review and delete/correct the generalities of "what Disqus knows" like Google does?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #196 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


How on earth would you know that? Do they have a user dashboard where you can review and delete/correct the generalities of "what Disqus knows" like Google does?

 

you're being tendentious as usual. all i use Disqus for is to post comments. not purchases/reviews, not social anything, not search, not check ins, not maps. there is nothing else for them to mine from me except my comment history. they are welcome to that for whatever it is worth. i guess they could profile me, like those guys on TV crime shows do. heck, we can profile you from your 8000 comments on AI - a compulsive contrarian.

post #197 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't think they "force" a Google+ account to view Youtube videos. AFAIK it's only if you want to comment on them. That doesn't sound unreasonable, does it to you? You have to set up a user account at nearly every site if you want to post comments.

Yes but I don't link any site to Facebook. They should not need to know my friends, posting history, etc.
post #198 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

you're being tendentious as usual. all i use Disqus for is to post comments. not purchases/reviews, not social anything, not search, not check ins, not maps. there is nothing else for them to mine from me except my comment history. they are welcome to that for whatever it is worth. i guess they could profile me, like those guys on TV crime shows do. heck, we can profile you from your 8000 comments on AI - a compulsive contrarian.

Then I suppose getting a thank you is out of the question for making you aware that other "only name and password" services like Disqus really do much more than what you realized. You had no idea at all but you should have.

Don't fall into the trap that the anti-Google crowd tries to set to keep anyone from looking in their direction too. I've said before there's no white hats, yet you and others like you are still lulled into thinking "Google is the only one" and so don't bother looking at other companies policies and terms of use. If Google disappeared tomorrow they'd be quickly replaced by others and some of those might be a whole lot more nefarious, greedy and untrustworthy when they see the dollar signs. "Melior diabolus quem scies" as my sig says.

IMO Google is among the most transparent of all the techs when it comes to disclosure. Perfect? Hardly. That old "don't be evil" meme outlived it's usefulness a long time ago. Everyone knows Google makes most of it's money from advertising and a lot of folks consider that wrong for whatever reason. But at least in their quest to be the best in their industry they seem to keep whatever they mine in their own custody and control, and put the user privacy disclosures and controls all in one place instead of trying to hide it. and hope no one goes looking.

Try figuring out Microsoft Privacy Policies. They got a dozen of 'em in a dozen different places applying to a dozen various scenarios. Apparently they're of the mindset that obfuscation is the best policy so what you don't know won't hurt you. Apple doesn't disclose what they know about you either to the best of my knowledge and monetizing users is getting a lot more attention from them lately. Their privacy policy doesn't really tell you anymore than Google's does. That's why the Google Dashboard is helpful for delving into the details. There's a few techs who should follow suit IMO.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/18/13 at 10:26am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #199 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Then I suppose getting a thank you is out of the question for making you aware that other "only name and password" services like Disqus really do much more than what you realized. Don't fall into the trap that the anti-Google crowd tries to set to avoid anyone looking at them too. I've said before there's no white hats, yet you and others like you are lulled into thinking "Google is the only one" and don't bother looking at other companies policies and terms of use. If Google disappeared tomorrow they'd be quickly replaced by others and some of those might be a whole lot more nefarious and greedy. "Melior diabolus quem scies".

IMO Google is among the most transparent of all the techs when it comes to disclosure. Perfect? Hardly, but at least they seem to keep whatever they mine in their custody and control, and put the user privacy disclosures all in one place instead of trying to hide it. Try figuring out Microsoft Privacy Policies. They got a dozen of 'em in a dozen different places applying to a dozen various scenarios. Apparently they're of the mindset that obfuscation is the best policy so what you don't know won't hurt you. Apple doesn't disclose what they know about you either to the best of my knowledge and monetizing users is getting a lot more attention from them lately. Their privacy policy doesn't really tell you anymore than Google's does. That's why the Google Dashboard is helpful for delving into the details.

 

I don't think most multi-nationals are completely honest, especially ones that their business models are based on personally identifiable data.  The reality is that the largest online presence companies (Facebook & Google) have shown a lack of respect for privacy.  Based on conversations that I've had with friends at Google, the Google Dashboard is a smokescreen.  It's not showing the relational data that they use internally.  Facebook is even worse with their convoluted privacy settings.

 

The reality is that when you're logged into Facebook and Google, they are doing a fair amount of data collection, and I try my very best to not help them.

post #200 of 206
thx for this article, for sure. it should be promoted too. i lack words to describe my feeling towards these manipulating companies.. at the country level too, financially, they recked so many countries already.. these rating and analysis agencies manipulate public opinion on a countrys financial ratings, and literally put countries on sale - everything in the economy plummets allowing for bargain priced purchases. still

i think it is just like phishing sites on the internet.. they look super legit and will never quit, so it is up to us to start thinking outside the box - literally when it comes to television and mass media.

ps: these agencies should be regulated and put out of business.. it should be a criminal offence. of course it isnt couse the same people who pay lobbyists and lawmakers are the same who benefit from these mass spread lies.

apple user since 1983..

IIe, IIc, 128k, Plus, Se/30, IIci, LC, SI, LCIII, PPC7100, G3, iMac Bondi

Newton MP2000, iPod 10Gb / Touch 4g, iPhone / 3G

PowerBook 170 / G3 Lombard / G4 17" 1GHz

Reply

apple user since 1983..

IIe, IIc, 128k, Plus, Se/30, IIci, LC, SI, LCIII, PPC7100, G3, iMac Bondi

Newton MP2000, iPod 10Gb / Touch 4g, iPhone / 3G

PowerBook 170 / G3 Lombard / G4 17" 1GHz

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple