if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider...
I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".
First, I'd like to thank everyone for the lectures on how Google makes money. Who knew that they make money selling ads? Oh, but, we already knew that. What exactly was your point? Sorry, but a pompous, naive, economics lecture does not an argument make.
Next, this is why we, "have a right to expect it not be done:"
Quote:
Originally Posted by caskey09
.. it's just a core iPhone app - there shouldn't be ads in core iPhone services apps like that? You pay quite a lot of money for the iPhone already, I didn't think Apple would allow Google to implement like this. It is going too far.
In other words, there is a justifiable expectation that when you pay for something that it not be or become ad-ware. And no, Maps is not just a free app that happens to come with the iPhone. It's one of the core apps that's cooked into the system image and that you can't delete. It's also an app that a lot of other apps make use of in one way or another and is, as such, a basic iPhone service, no less so than the telephony components.
So, yes, we have a right to expect that we will not be subjected to ads in something we've already paid for and that is a core part of the iPhone user experience.
Lastly, why the "Google is Evil" response? Frankly, it's somewhat baffling that anyone could not understand this. As mentioned earlier in the thread, they bring this exact criticism on themselves whenever they abuse people's trust. With their "promise" not to be "evil" (a promise and image they have gone to great lengths to promote) it is an inevitable response for people to say that they have become "evil" when they do something like this. That's just the way it's going to be for them, and rightly so, I think.
Are they evil? It doesn't really matter, and I think it actually distracts from the real problem with Google. (Particularly because it's pretty easy to make an argument that almost anyone or anything is not actually "evil".) The real problem with Google is that contrary to the image they have promoted for themselves, and regardless of their intent, Google is not a company whose overall effect is benign.
Too much control of too much information, public and personal. A lack of respect for the law and a disturbingly arrogant belief that it doesn't apply to them. A seemingly rapacious greed and lack of commitment to any real principles. Their obvious intent to undermine Mac OS, Windows, iPhone OS and any other platform out there in order to turn it into simply something people use to access Google services. Power, greed, arrogance, ambition to control everything, and control of and access to way too much information about way too many people: not a good combination. Certainly not one that ought to promote trust. Certainly not one that should give them a free pass.
You know, this is nothing to get upset about I don't think. Have a business pay for a special listing on the iphone actually makes tons of sense because it lets me see those locations that actually have a real business that I can visit.
I don't know how often I've been looking for a coffee shop on Google maps only to find little abandoned buildings or some store-within-a-store deal. Having a sponsored result would help me to eliminate the fluff listings that show up.
Is the phone book evil for listing some businesses with a bigger section of the page than others? hardly. If these weren't targeted ads for physical locations, *then* I'd have a problem.
I don't know how often I've been looking for a coffee shop on Google maps only to find little abandoned buildings or some store-within-a-store deal. Having a sponsored result would help me to eliminate the fluff listings that show up.
It will also make it less likely that you will discover small coffee shops that focus on serving high quality coffee. What you'll get instead are *$ locations, were the brewed coffee tastes like instant. (That's the screwiest marketing campaign I've ever seen and just reinforces how bad their coffee really is.)
The other thing about these Google ads is that they often direct you away from the nearest location. So, for example, when searching for a drug store, it may send you halfway across town when there's another store around the block. (I've tested this and know it to be the case.) The information available through Google Maps isn't as good as most people seem to think it is, and "fluffing" it up with ads just further reduces its value.
You do have to love the "sponsored result" euphemism, though: "It's not an ad, it's a sponsored result."
This issue as I understand it has never been about they service itself. The problem comes from Googles app extracting data from the phone and moving it to their servers once the app is installed and the confusing disabling of the Visual Voice Mail.
Except that
1) The only data Apple mentioned that gets sent to Google from your iPhone is the Contacts list. Likely, but unknown, is that this would happen only with user consent. This is obviously not really much of a concern for Apple, given that Snow Leopard builds in syncing your entire Mac contacts list with Google (or Yahoo). Assuming you sync your Mac with your iPhone, the net effect is identical.
2) Visual Voice Mail is in no way disable by using Google Voice.
As anonymouse has stated (though coloured with his usual google-hater rhetoric) the most likely reason is that Apple did not like that the Google Voice app would assume much/most of of the iPhone telephone experience...though it would only do so by offering an optional, alternative that would still allow you to use the built in features.
Perhaps Apple was too afraid of the GV doing so much, so well, that users would end up opting to use the GV interface exclusively, thereby watering down the Apple experience and making the telephone interface essentially the same as any other device running GV. Perhaps they, as others have assumed, believed that their users would become confused if they downloaded and installed an alternative telephony interface.
Neither really makes sense, given the number of other apps that provide similar featuresets, unless one assumes the GV would be wildly more successful than the other apps.
First, I'd like to thank everyone for the lectures on how Google makes money. Who knew that they make money selling ads? Oh, but, we already knew that. What exactly was your point? Sorry, but a pompous, naive, economics lecture does not an argument make.
Next, this is why we, "have a right to expect it not be done:"
In other words, there is a justifiable expectation that when you pay for something that it not be or become ad-ware. And no, Maps is not just a free app that happens to come with the iPhone. It's one of the core apps that's cooked into the system image and that you can't delete. It's also an app that a lot of other apps make use of in one way or another and is, as such, a basic iPhone service, no less so than the telephony components.
So, yes, we have a right to expect that we will not be subjected to ads in something we've already paid for and that is a core part of the iPhone user experience.
Lastly, why the "Google is Evil" response? Frankly, it's somewhat baffling that anyone could not understand this. As mentioned earlier in the thread, they bring this exact criticism on themselves whenever they abuse people's trust. With their "promise" not to be "evil" (a promise and image they have gone to great lengths to promote) it is an inevitable response for people to say that they have become "evil" when they do something like this. That's just the way it's going to be for them, and rightly so, I think.
Are they evil? It doesn't really matter, and I think it actually distracts from the real problem with Google. (Particularly because it's pretty easy to make an argument that almost anyone or anything is not actually "evil".) The real problem with Google is that contrary to the image they have promoted for themselves, and regardless of their intent, Google is not a company whose overall effect is benign.
Too much control of too much information, public and personal. A lack of respect for the law and a disturbingly arrogant belief that it doesn't apply to them. A seemingly rapacious greed and lack of commitment to any real principles. Their obvious intent to undermine Mac OS, Windows, iPhone OS and any other platform out there in order to turn it into simply something people use to access Google services. Power, greed, arrogance, ambition to control everything, and control of and access to way too much information about way too many people: not a good combination. Certainly not one that ought to promote trust. Certainly not one that should give them a free pass.
Again, I disagree. If you read Google's principles, they have implemented sponsored links in the maps app exactly in line with how they say they will; there is nothing about their implementation that violates their "do no evil" clause. Your whole argument - all of your rhetoric and ranting about how they have violated our trust and because of this are worthy of the label "evil" - all of it rests on the assertion that they have violated their own principles, and they have not.
This boils down to likes and dislikes. You don't like it, and it is that simple. You seem to be intent on proving that you are right, however, and that evil really has been done, etc etc blah blah blah. Listen, I'm sorry you have such a razor thin ego that it is really this important for you to prove that your emotional position is actually logically correct. That said, I don't actually care what you think - I hope you know that. I think you are wrong, and I don't think your arguments have much logical consistency; they are the rhetorical equivalent of temper tantrums. Until that changes, you will get very little mindshare from me.
You are of course free to harbor whatever opinion you want, and I have no intention of trying to deprive you of it. My advice to you is this: contact Google and register your disdain, and do the same with Apple.
As anonymouse has stated (though coloured with his usual google-hater rhetoric) the most likely reason is that Apple did not like that the Google Voice app would assume much/most of of the iPhone telephone experience...
Perhaps Apple was too afraid of the GV doing so much, so well, that users would end up opting to use the GV interface exclusively, thereby watering down the Apple experience and making the telephone interface essentially the same as any other device running GV.
Thinking that a company has too much control over information, and too much access to personal information, with too little appreciation by most people of the possible downsides of that does not necessitate being a "hater". Thinking that Google is a potentially dangerous company with an alarming lack of commitment to any moral principle or concern for personal privacy doesn't require me to "hate" them. Not liking their business practices doesn't require me to "hate" them. Thinking they are becoming too large and too powerful doesn't require that I "hate" them.
However, I understand that labeling people with "hater" or "fanboy" or other pejorative terms is an often effective rhetorical technique when rational argument fails.
But, yes, quite clearly, Apple's purpose in keeping Google Voice off the iPhone is to prevent it becoming just another Android-clone, Google-service, access device. All the more reason for Apple to replace the Maps app.
Again, I disagree. If you read Google's principles, they have implemented sponsored links in the maps app exactly in line with how they say they will; there is nothing about their implementation that violates their "do no evil" clause. Your whole argument - all of your rhetoric and ranting about how they have violated our trust and because of this are worthy of the label "evil" - all of it rests on the assertion that they have violated their own principles, and they have not.
Well, Google's "principles" went out the window when they went into China, if not long before that. Is anyone seriously so naive that they think that just because a company posts some nice little image marketing piece expressing lofty sentiments that they really feel in any way bound to follow them?
However, perhaps blinded by your fury at reading criticism of Google, you seemed to have entirely missed my point about why they are being declared "evil" by many people. Very simply, it's because they used the term "evil" in saying what they would not do, so it's quite natural that people will latch on to and use that specific term when they feel Google is behaving badly. In effect, they themselves put the word in people's mouths.
Thinking that a company has too much control over information, and too much access to personal information, with too little appreciation by most people of the possible downsides of that does not necessitate being a "hater". Thinking that Google is a potentially dangerous company with an alarming lack of commitment to any moral principle or concern for personal privacy doesn't require me to "hate" them. Not liking their business practices doesn't require me to "hate" them. Thinking they are becoming too large and too powerful doesn't require that I "hate" them.
It is what it is. The multitude of Apple haters will usually also say "I don't hate Apple", and then continue with the constant attacks, 'criticisms', and rants. When their posts almost uniformly include digs and attacks at Apple and Apple fans, it is usually a pretty empty statement to say after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
However, I understand that labeling people with "hater" or "fanboy" or other pejorative terms is an often effective rhetorical technique when rational argument fails.
hmmm..from one that calls others sheep or pawns for not hating on google that is pretty funny. Or maybe it was a matter of some self reflection. Good on ya if it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
But, yes, quite clearly, Apple's purpose in keeping Google Voice off the iPhone is to prevent it becoming just another Android-clone, Google-service, access device. All the more reason for Apple to replace the Maps app.
Agreed, though it is a very weak reason. It doesn't accomplish the goal. It makes them seem afraid of google (their ability not their goals of world domination or general 'evilness'). Makes Apple come off as the big-brother, control what you do entity instead of google. Is generally disappointing that instead of trying to out-innovate google and google voice, they take the easy, somewhat cowardly way out.
hmmm..from one that calls others sheep or pawns for not hating on google that is pretty funny. Or maybe it was a matter of some self reflection. Good on ya if it was.
HAHAHA, you still haven't figured that one out, have you.
I agree, if this continues, Apple needs to find a replacement for Google Maps. There's already precious little space on an iPhone screen, cluttering it with a banner isn't acceptable. And how do you get rid of the blasted thing? Tapping on it brings up a larger ad and probably makes money for Google. And that while I'm hurrying to get someplace whose location I've forgotten.
I may adopt the same "five seconds of hate" policy I have for those links that pop up when your cursor merely passes over a word on a webpage. When these sorts of irritating ads pop us, I spend a few seconds telling myself how much I hate the company that paid for them, assuming that attitude will stick in my subconscious. It turns an ad into an anti-ad.
Well, Google's "principles" went out the window when they went into China, if not long before that. Is anyone seriously so naive that they think that just because a company posts some nice little image marketing piece expressing lofty sentiments that they really feel in any way bound to follow them?
However, perhaps blinded by your fury at reading criticism of Google, you seemed to have entirely missed my point about why they are being declared "evil" by many people. Very simply, it's because they used the term "evil" in saying what they would not do, so it's quite natural that people will latch on to and use that specific term when they feel Google is behaving badly. In effect, they themselves put the word in people's mouths.
More correctly, it is quite natural for people who are prone to unthinking demagoguery.
HAHAHA, you still haven't figured that one out, have you.
Another nice dodge.
What's to figure out? You think anyone that uses Google service is simple, as you put it. They are simple, because they don't know what you know. They don't know the danger that is google. They don't know the evil that is google. They just don't know.
But, never fear, anonymouse is here to inform us all. Stay clear of google. Be afraid of google. Google wants to control all. They shall be our masters. They will be the gatekeepers of all info. We shall all become trapped. It will all begin when they take over our iPhones and Macs and PCs.
Actually no.
I recall you once blamed google for 'collecting' your info, simply because some other 'simple' person might have uploaded their contacts including your info. That was a perfect example of your reasoning. Your FUD is tiring. You paranoia of google, while amusing, becomes boring. This is AppleInsider, not GoogleHaters.
I recall you once blamed google for 'collecting' your info, simply because some other 'simple' person might have uploaded their contacts including your info. Blah blah blah...
I believe the term I applied to you was "weak minded" in regard to your personal inability to resist Google's "tech candy".
However, yes, I think it raises a legitimate privacy concern that Google is able to obtain my address, phone number and other personal information because a 3rd party agrees to hand over their Contacts database without my consent. I also think they consider this type of information in general quite valuable and that is one of the reasons they offer some of the specific services that they do.
I believe the term I applied to you was "weak minded" in regard to your personal inability to resist Google's "tech candy".
However, yes, I think it raises a legitimate privacy concern that Google is able to obtain my address, phone number and other personal information because a 3rd party agrees to hand over their Contacts database without my consent. I also think they consider this type of information in general quite valuable and that is one of the reasons they offer some of the specific services that they do.
Out of curiosity, are you in any way involved in actually creating computational technologies? Do you write software? Are you an engineer? I ask because I would think that virtually anyone who knows anything at all about how these technologies work would already know that Google doesn't need to have your friend hand over your contact information in order to get your address; you are already in a dozen databases scattered all over the planet and Google can ferret out lots more information about you than even you might expect, all without needing to enlist your contacts into their dark and evil conspiracy. What's more, anyone can do it. What I find interesting about you is that you believe anyone would want to. What makes you think Google is so interested in you in a deeply personal way, eh? Do you imagine that Eric Schmidt comes into his office each morning and opens up his email expecting to receive his daily "Anonymouse activity report - last 24 hours". Do you fancy that Google is compiling a vast library of information about you?
Take off the tinfoil hat, please.
What you are complaining about is the equivalent of one person handing an address book over to another. So, lets suppose I have your address. Lets suppose I hand that over to someone else, such as the FBI or NSA. "Hey NSA guys - watch this Anonymouse - he is a dangerous lunatic" I might say. First, it is fanciful of you to think they could not have obtained this information (nor come to the conclusion) all by themselves if they wanted to. But more importantly, who are you rightly to blame under such circumstances? Is it them for receiving your information, or is it more properly me for having handed it over?
Prior to today, by the way, I was agnostic about Google. I still am. I think they have some interesting technologies and I am growing to like their browser more and more. I am, however, far from the Google love child, blinded by my fury over your criticism of my beloved tech daddy that you make me out to be. I have never thought Google has the tech superpowers some have credited it with, and I have no illusions about Google being some sort of benevolent force of good and light in the universe. It is a company, pure and simple. It exists so a bunch of geeks and a bunch of investors can make a bunch of money, and hopefully do something fun, useful, and maybe even empowering at the same time. No, what has drawn me into this debate is my own macabre fascination with your mangled thought process and histrionic argumentation. At various points, I swear I have imagined you sitting at your keyboard and foaming at the mouth while spewing forth your quasi-vitriolic rants. Can you not see the way you come across? Are you not at some level even the tiniest bit aware that you lack any objectivity on this front?
I believe the term I applied to you was "weak minded" in regard to your personal inability to resist Google's "tech candy".
However, yes, I think it raises a legitimate privacy concern that Google is able to obtain my address, phone number and other personal information because a 3rd party agrees to hand over their Contacts database without my consent. I also think they consider this type of information in general quite valuable and that is one of the reasons they offer some of the specific services that they do.
Seriously?
Hi, welcome to earth. As a part of your learning experience while here, you should know a few basic things about people. You may not be familiar with any of these concepts.
1) We like sex.
2) We communicate fairly freely. This might mean in part, that when you share information with another, it could be freely and easily passed to another.
3) We like sex.
Any company is able to gain any information you freely give to them. If this information includes information about another person, another company or another planet, there really is nothing you can do to prevent this. Your so called privacy concern is a joke. (Please say it is a joke) That you would 1)consider this a concern and 2) somehow put the blame for it on google is insane. Tinfoil hat, black helicopters, New World Order, back woods militia, forgot to take my meds, the sky is falling, bat shit insane.
... Google doesn't need to have your friend hand over your contact information in order to get your address; you are already in a dozen databases scattered all over the planet and Google can ferret out lots more information about you than even you might expect, all without needing to enlist your contacts into their dark and evil conspiracy. What's more, anyone can do it. What I find interesting about you is that you believe anyone would want to. What makes you think Google is so interested in you in a deeply personal way, eh? Do you imagine that Eric Schmidt comes into his office each morning and opens up his email expecting to receive his daily "Anonymouse activity report - last 24 hours". Do you fancy that Google is compiling a vast library of information about you?
I like how you label it a "dark and evil conspiracy." Nothing like trying to cast someone as a paranoid nut job to deflect attention from the points being made.
But, just to humor you, no, I don't think Google is interested in me personally. I don't think they as a company are interested in anyone personally. Which doesn't preclude the possibility that some Google employee may invade your privacy on his own personal initiative, as, for example, happened when State Department employees made unauthorized use of the passport records of several presidential candidates. (Yes, I realize that Google is not connected to the State Department, it's an example of how information can be misused by employees behaving badly.)
However, anyone who isn't a complete idiot ought to be able to recognize that Google is compiling a vast library of information about everyone. Your web searches, locations you have done searches from, your email exchanges, your documents, your contact lists, every bit of information related to you that passes through Google's servers is grist for their mill. Why are they doing this? They are doing it to target ads at people, on the theory that the more they know about you the more effectively they can sell you stuff, or sell ads to people who want to sell you stuff. The more confirmational data points they have (i.e., the more independent sources they can verify information about you from) the more accurate the profile. This is their entire business model, and they give away all sorts of software and services to gain access to this information. This really should not be news to anyone. And, it really shouldn't be a concern to anyone that they are using this information to sell ads to anyone. OK, yes, the ads are annoying, and it's at least somewhat offensive to me personally, but usually easy to just ignore. (Although, I still think it's inappropriate in a paid service such as the Maps app on the iPhone.)
So, why is this a problem? I think it's a problem for several reasons.
First, there's the obvious problem of employees behaving badly. So far, there haven't been any publicized cases, that I'm aware of, of this happening at Google, but, it's probably just a matter of time before it does happen.
Secondly, there's the issue of the government getting at this information to "investigate" people. We've already seen the DoJ (under the previous administration) go after search records to support, I think it was, anti-pornography legislation. Yes, this information does exist in scattered databases all over the place, but it's much more convenient if a government decides to invade an individual's privacy to have "one stop shopping". (I think it would be interesting to know if the U.S. government has used National Security Letters to obtain information from Google.) Governments in free societies aren't allowed to compile this sort of information on their citizens, but Google's database of information represents a fortuitous, non-governmental proxy for the TIA program, which was shut down over protests of its inherent violation of privacy.
Third, there's the issue that while Google's use of this information may be relatively innocuous now, there is no guarantee that it will always be so. How would you feel if Google launched the Google Background Check service? What would stop them from doing so? (Not that I have any information or belief that they have plans to do so. But the point is, nothing would stop them, certainly not their "privacy policy", they could simply change its terms to allow it.)
Fourth, Google has not always shown a respect for the law and has, in fact, shown a disturbing trend toward arguing that they are above the law. (The Google Books program and Google's refusal to connect Google Voice calls to all phone numbers being 2 examples.) It's not really comforting to see a company with this much personal identifiable information acting in this manner.
Lastly, Google is an extremely ambitious company and has an innate thirst, to support their business model, to control as much as possible how people access information. (Again, so they can profit from people accessing information.) To this end, they release various "free" products and services: Gmail, Google Docs, Search, Google Voice, Google Wave, etc., etc. All of these products and services have the effect of undermining various platforms, such as iPhone OS, Mac OS and Windows as services that people use to access information directly, trivializing those platforms to the extent that Google is successful. Thus Google becomes more and more the gatekeeper to information, including your own documents, ultimately able to control access if they should so decide, but just as disturbingly, effectively throttling access through their filters.
None of these things are, in my opinion, good developments. And, it doesn't even require Google to be "evil" for any of them to have an overall negative effect. So, regardless of Google's intent, or even their (lack of) interest in any given individual, put together, these are not good things to have in the hands of a single entity. People would be in an uproar if their government collected and controlled information and information access in the way Google does. Why does the fact that this is being done by a corporation answerable only to its shareholders somehow make it seem innocuous?
I like how you label it a "dark and evil conspiracy." Nothing like trying to cast someone as a paranoid nut job to deflect attention from the points being made.
But, just to humor you, no, I don't think Google is interested in me personally. I don't think they as a company are interested in anyone personally. Which doesn't preclude the possibility that some Google employee may invade your privacy on his own personal initiative, as, for example, happened when State Department employees made unauthorized use of the passport records of several presidential candidates. (Yes, I realize that Google is not connected to the State Department, it's an example of how information can be misused by employees behaving badly.)
However, anyone who isn't a complete idiot ought to be able to recognize that Google is compiling a vast library of information about everyone. Your web searches, locations you have done searches from, your email exchanges, your documents, your contact lists, every bit of information related to you that passes through Google's servers is grist for their mill. Why are they doing this? They are doing it to target ads at people, on the theory that the more they know about you the more effectively they can sell you stuff, or sell ads to people who want to sell you stuff. The more confirmational data points they have (i.e., the more independent sources they can verify information about you from) the more accurate the profile. This is their entire business model, and they give away all sorts of software and services to gain access to this information. This really should not be news to anyone. And, it really shouldn't be a concern to anyone that they are using this information to sell ads to anyone. OK, yes, the ads are annoying, and it's at least somewhat offensive to me personally, but usually easy to just ignore. (Although, I still think it's inappropriate in a paid service such as the Maps app on the iPhone.)
So, why is this a problem? I think it's a problem for several reasons.
First, there's the obvious problem of employees behaving badly. So far, there haven't been any publicized cases, that I'm aware of, of this happening at Google, but, it's probably just a matter of time before it does happen.
Secondly, there's the issue of the government getting at this information to "investigate" people. We've already seen the DoJ (under the previous administration) go after search records to support, I think it was, anti-pornography legislation. Yes, this information does exist in scattered databases all over the place, but it's much more convenient if a government decides to invade an individual's privacy to have "one stop shopping". (I think it would be interesting to know if the U.S. government has used National Security Letters to obtain information from Google.) Governments in free societies aren't allowed to compile this sort of information on their citizens, but Google's database of information represents a fortuitous, non-governmental proxy for the TIA program, which was shut down over protests of its inherent violation of privacy.
Third, there's the issue that while Google's use of this information may be relatively innocuous now, there is no guarantee that it will always be so. How would you feel if Google launched the Google Background Check service? What would stop them from doing so? (Not that I have any information or belief that they have plans to do so. But the point is, nothing would stop them, certainly not their "privacy policy", they could simply change its terms to allow it.)
Fourth, Google has not always shown a respect for the law and has, in fact, shown a disturbing trend toward arguing that they are above the law. (The Google Books program and Google's refusal to connect Google Voice calls to all phone numbers being 2 examples.) It's not really comforting to see a company with this much personal identifiable information acting in this manner.
Lastly, Google is an extremely ambitious company and has an innate thirst, to support their business model, to control as much as possible how people access information. (Again, so they can profit from people accessing information.) To this end, they release various "free" products and services: Gmail, Google Docs, Search, Google Voice, Google Wave, etc., etc. All of these products and services have the effect of undermining various platforms, such as iPhone OS, Mac OS and Windows as services that people use to access information directly, trivializing those platforms to the extent that Google is successful. Thus Google becomes more and more the gatekeeper to information, including your own documents, ultimately able to control access if they should so decide, but just as disturbingly, effectively throttling access through their filters.
None of these things are, in my opinion, good developments. And, it doesn't even require Google to be "evil" for any of them to have an overall negative effect. So, regardless of Google's intent, or even their (lack of) interest in any given individual, put together, these are not good things to have in the hands of a single entity. People would be in an uproar if their government collected and controlled information and information access in the way Google does. Why does the fact that this is being done by a corporation answerable only to its shareholders somehow make it seem innocuous?
Actually, thank you - that was very well written and made very persuasive arguments that were clear and direct.
I actually agree with you regarding the collection of personal information. I also understand why you specifically target Google, but I think it is misguided. It seems to me that it is only Google's size that has attracted your attention; I think you perceive Google to have more power than anyone else in this arena, and that makes them the biggest threat in your eyes. I don't disagree- they could be. But directing your ire at them is misguided because it really doesn't address your concerns. The power to stop the exploitation of personal information that you (rightly) envision is vested in our government, and until movement happens there, companies will attempt to collect and use this information just like Google and many others do. If Google went bankrupt tomorrow, someone else would fill the space.
I may adopt the same "five seconds of hate" policy I have for those links that pop up when your cursor merely passes over a word on a webpage. When these sorts of irritating ads pop us, I spend a few seconds telling myself how much I hate the company that paid for them, assuming that attitude will stick in my subconscious. It turns an ad into an anti-ad.
Thank you! I have now adopted your "five seconds of hate" policy. I used to just flit my eyes away from such ads, try not to see them, but I like your thinking much better. I also applaud the 1984 allusion in your method's title.
Regarding the Google Maps ads, a little perspective: While I'm strongly against letting adware into the core of the iPhone, at the same time I'm so thankful that we're arguing about a relatively small flaw here. The iPhone's overall perfection makes these small annoyances stand out. For perspective, I just pulled my old T-Mobile "SDA" out of my Drawer Of Shame where it's buried. That was the catastrophe of a WinMo phone I had until I got my first iPhone. For all the questionable things Google does, aren't we all glad we're drifting away form a Microsoft-centric world? Does anyone truly remember what a disaster these WinMo phones were before Apple pulled a paradigm-change on us? Thank you, Apple. Thank you, Google. We may not have achieved perfection, but at least we've abandoned the cluster-F that was WinMo.
Actually, thank you - that was very well written and made very persuasive arguments that were clear and direct.
I actually agree with you regarding the collection of personal information. I also understand why you specifically target Google, but I think it is misguided. It seems to me that it is only Google's size that has attracted your attention; I think you perceive Google to have more power than anyone else in this arena, and that makes them the biggest threat in your eyes. I don't disagree- they could be. But directing your ire at them is misguided because it really doesn't address your concerns. The power to stop the exploitation of personal information that you (rightly) envision is vested in our government, and until movement happens there, companies will attempt to collect and use this information just like Google and many others do. If Google went bankrupt tomorrow, someone else would fill the space.
I agree that there ought to be legislation specifically prohibiting the collection and maintenance of much of this sort of data and strict limitations on what can be done with other data (such as documents, email, contact lists, etc.). There is some movement in the U.S. Congress on privacy legislation, and recent polls show significant support for it, but how far that will go, or how soon such legislation might be enacted, is unclear. Google is particularly problematic both because of their size and because of their goal of being an information gateway, and leveraging that into more and more areas of business.
However, I think it is useful to keep Google specifically under a microscope in this regard simply because a) most people have never even considered the dangers inherent in any one company having this much control over information (and Google's star power in the tech industry tends to blind people to their faults), b) directing attention to them is a useful way of directing attention to the issue, and c) raising awareness of the problems they present is a good way to keep them from overstepping what bounds do currently exist.
Comments
if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider...
I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".
First, I'd like to thank everyone for the lectures on how Google makes money. Who knew that they make money selling ads? Oh, but, we already knew that. What exactly was your point? Sorry, but a pompous, naive, economics lecture does not an argument make.
Next, this is why we, "have a right to expect it not be done:"
.. it's just a core iPhone app - there shouldn't be ads in core iPhone services apps like that? You pay quite a lot of money for the iPhone already, I didn't think Apple would allow Google to implement like this. It is going too far.
In other words, there is a justifiable expectation that when you pay for something that it not be or become ad-ware. And no, Maps is not just a free app that happens to come with the iPhone. It's one of the core apps that's cooked into the system image and that you can't delete. It's also an app that a lot of other apps make use of in one way or another and is, as such, a basic iPhone service, no less so than the telephony components.
So, yes, we have a right to expect that we will not be subjected to ads in something we've already paid for and that is a core part of the iPhone user experience.
Lastly, why the "Google is Evil" response? Frankly, it's somewhat baffling that anyone could not understand this. As mentioned earlier in the thread, they bring this exact criticism on themselves whenever they abuse people's trust. With their "promise" not to be "evil" (a promise and image they have gone to great lengths to promote) it is an inevitable response for people to say that they have become "evil" when they do something like this. That's just the way it's going to be for them, and rightly so, I think.
Are they evil? It doesn't really matter, and I think it actually distracts from the real problem with Google. (Particularly because it's pretty easy to make an argument that almost anyone or anything is not actually "evil".) The real problem with Google is that contrary to the image they have promoted for themselves, and regardless of their intent, Google is not a company whose overall effect is benign.
Too much control of too much information, public and personal. A lack of respect for the law and a disturbingly arrogant belief that it doesn't apply to them. A seemingly rapacious greed and lack of commitment to any real principles. Their obvious intent to undermine Mac OS, Windows, iPhone OS and any other platform out there in order to turn it into simply something people use to access Google services. Power, greed, arrogance, ambition to control everything, and control of and access to way too much information about way too many people: not a good combination. Certainly not one that ought to promote trust. Certainly not one that should give them a free pass.
I don't know how often I've been looking for a coffee shop on Google maps only to find little abandoned buildings or some store-within-a-store deal. Having a sponsored result would help me to eliminate the fluff listings that show up.
I don't know how often I've been looking for a coffee shop on Google maps only to find little abandoned buildings or some store-within-a-store deal. Having a sponsored result would help me to eliminate the fluff listings that show up.
It will also make it less likely that you will discover small coffee shops that focus on serving high quality coffee. What you'll get instead are *$ locations, were the brewed coffee tastes like instant. (That's the screwiest marketing campaign I've ever seen and just reinforces how bad their coffee really is.)
The other thing about these Google ads is that they often direct you away from the nearest location. So, for example, when searching for a drug store, it may send you halfway across town when there's another store around the block. (I've tested this and know it to be the case.) The information available through Google Maps isn't as good as most people seem to think it is, and "fluffing" it up with ads just further reduces its value.
You do have to love the "sponsored result" euphemism, though: "It's not an ad, it's a sponsored result."
This issue as I understand it has never been about they service itself. The problem comes from Googles app extracting data from the phone and moving it to their servers once the app is installed and the confusing disabling of the Visual Voice Mail.
Except that
1) The only data Apple mentioned that gets sent to Google from your iPhone is the Contacts list. Likely, but unknown, is that this would happen only with user consent. This is obviously not really much of a concern for Apple, given that Snow Leopard builds in syncing your entire Mac contacts list with Google (or Yahoo). Assuming you sync your Mac with your iPhone, the net effect is identical.
2) Visual Voice Mail is in no way disable by using Google Voice.
As anonymouse has stated (though coloured with his usual google-hater rhetoric) the most likely reason is that Apple did not like that the Google Voice app would assume much/most of of the iPhone telephone experience...though it would only do so by offering an optional, alternative that would still allow you to use the built in features.
Perhaps Apple was too afraid of the GV doing so much, so well, that users would end up opting to use the GV interface exclusively, thereby watering down the Apple experience and making the telephone interface essentially the same as any other device running GV. Perhaps they, as others have assumed, believed that their users would become confused if they downloaded and installed an alternative telephony interface.
Neither really makes sense, given the number of other apps that provide similar featuresets, unless one assumes the GV would be wildly more successful than the other apps.
First, I'd like to thank everyone for the lectures on how Google makes money. Who knew that they make money selling ads? Oh, but, we already knew that. What exactly was your point? Sorry, but a pompous, naive, economics lecture does not an argument make.
Next, this is why we, "have a right to expect it not be done:"
In other words, there is a justifiable expectation that when you pay for something that it not be or become ad-ware. And no, Maps is not just a free app that happens to come with the iPhone. It's one of the core apps that's cooked into the system image and that you can't delete. It's also an app that a lot of other apps make use of in one way or another and is, as such, a basic iPhone service, no less so than the telephony components.
So, yes, we have a right to expect that we will not be subjected to ads in something we've already paid for and that is a core part of the iPhone user experience.
Lastly, why the "Google is Evil" response? Frankly, it's somewhat baffling that anyone could not understand this. As mentioned earlier in the thread, they bring this exact criticism on themselves whenever they abuse people's trust. With their "promise" not to be "evil" (a promise and image they have gone to great lengths to promote) it is an inevitable response for people to say that they have become "evil" when they do something like this. That's just the way it's going to be for them, and rightly so, I think.
Are they evil? It doesn't really matter, and I think it actually distracts from the real problem with Google. (Particularly because it's pretty easy to make an argument that almost anyone or anything is not actually "evil".) The real problem with Google is that contrary to the image they have promoted for themselves, and regardless of their intent, Google is not a company whose overall effect is benign.
Too much control of too much information, public and personal. A lack of respect for the law and a disturbingly arrogant belief that it doesn't apply to them. A seemingly rapacious greed and lack of commitment to any real principles. Their obvious intent to undermine Mac OS, Windows, iPhone OS and any other platform out there in order to turn it into simply something people use to access Google services. Power, greed, arrogance, ambition to control everything, and control of and access to way too much information about way too many people: not a good combination. Certainly not one that ought to promote trust. Certainly not one that should give them a free pass.
Again, I disagree. If you read Google's principles, they have implemented sponsored links in the maps app exactly in line with how they say they will; there is nothing about their implementation that violates their "do no evil" clause. Your whole argument - all of your rhetoric and ranting about how they have violated our trust and because of this are worthy of the label "evil" - all of it rests on the assertion that they have violated their own principles, and they have not.
This boils down to likes and dislikes. You don't like it, and it is that simple. You seem to be intent on proving that you are right, however, and that evil really has been done, etc etc blah blah blah. Listen, I'm sorry you have such a razor thin ego that it is really this important for you to prove that your emotional position is actually logically correct. That said, I don't actually care what you think - I hope you know that. I think you are wrong, and I don't think your arguments have much logical consistency; they are the rhetorical equivalent of temper tantrums. Until that changes, you will get very little mindshare from me.
You are of course free to harbor whatever opinion you want, and I have no intention of trying to deprive you of it. My advice to you is this: contact Google and register your disdain, and do the same with Apple.
As anonymouse has stated (though coloured with his usual google-hater rhetoric) the most likely reason is that Apple did not like that the Google Voice app would assume much/most of of the iPhone telephone experience...
Perhaps Apple was too afraid of the GV doing so much, so well, that users would end up opting to use the GV interface exclusively, thereby watering down the Apple experience and making the telephone interface essentially the same as any other device running GV.
Thinking that a company has too much control over information, and too much access to personal information, with too little appreciation by most people of the possible downsides of that does not necessitate being a "hater". Thinking that Google is a potentially dangerous company with an alarming lack of commitment to any moral principle or concern for personal privacy doesn't require me to "hate" them. Not liking their business practices doesn't require me to "hate" them. Thinking they are becoming too large and too powerful doesn't require that I "hate" them.
However, I understand that labeling people with "hater" or "fanboy" or other pejorative terms is an often effective rhetorical technique when rational argument fails.
But, yes, quite clearly, Apple's purpose in keeping Google Voice off the iPhone is to prevent it becoming just another Android-clone, Google-service, access device. All the more reason for Apple to replace the Maps app.
Again, I disagree. If you read Google's principles, they have implemented sponsored links in the maps app exactly in line with how they say they will; there is nothing about their implementation that violates their "do no evil" clause. Your whole argument - all of your rhetoric and ranting about how they have violated our trust and because of this are worthy of the label "evil" - all of it rests on the assertion that they have violated their own principles, and they have not.
Well, Google's "principles" went out the window when they went into China, if not long before that. Is anyone seriously so naive that they think that just because a company posts some nice little image marketing piece expressing lofty sentiments that they really feel in any way bound to follow them?
However, perhaps blinded by your fury at reading criticism of Google, you seemed to have entirely missed my point about why they are being declared "evil" by many people. Very simply, it's because they used the term "evil" in saying what they would not do, so it's quite natural that people will latch on to and use that specific term when they feel Google is behaving badly. In effect, they themselves put the word in people's mouths.
Thinking that a company has too much control over information, and too much access to personal information, with too little appreciation by most people of the possible downsides of that does not necessitate being a "hater". Thinking that Google is a potentially dangerous company with an alarming lack of commitment to any moral principle or concern for personal privacy doesn't require me to "hate" them. Not liking their business practices doesn't require me to "hate" them. Thinking they are becoming too large and too powerful doesn't require that I "hate" them.
It is what it is. The multitude of Apple haters will usually also say "I don't hate Apple", and then continue with the constant attacks, 'criticisms', and rants. When their posts almost uniformly include digs and attacks at Apple and Apple fans, it is usually a pretty empty statement to say after the fact.
However, I understand that labeling people with "hater" or "fanboy" or other pejorative terms is an often effective rhetorical technique when rational argument fails.
hmmm..from one that calls others sheep or pawns for not hating on google that is pretty funny. Or maybe it was a matter of some self reflection. Good on ya if it was.
But, yes, quite clearly, Apple's purpose in keeping Google Voice off the iPhone is to prevent it becoming just another Android-clone, Google-service, access device. All the more reason for Apple to replace the Maps app.
Agreed, though it is a very weak reason. It doesn't accomplish the goal. It makes them seem afraid of google (their ability not their goals of world domination or general 'evilness'). Makes Apple come off as the big-brother, control what you do entity instead of google. Is generally disappointing that instead of trying to out-innovate google and google voice, they take the easy, somewhat cowardly way out.
hmmm..from one that calls others sheep or pawns for not hating on google that is pretty funny. Or maybe it was a matter of some self reflection. Good on ya if it was.
HAHAHA, you still haven't figured that one out, have you.
I may adopt the same "five seconds of hate" policy I have for those links that pop up when your cursor merely passes over a word on a webpage. When these sorts of irritating ads pop us, I spend a few seconds telling myself how much I hate the company that paid for them, assuming that attitude will stick in my subconscious. It turns an ad into an anti-ad.
Well, Google's "principles" went out the window when they went into China, if not long before that. Is anyone seriously so naive that they think that just because a company posts some nice little image marketing piece expressing lofty sentiments that they really feel in any way bound to follow them?
However, perhaps blinded by your fury at reading criticism of Google, you seemed to have entirely missed my point about why they are being declared "evil" by many people. Very simply, it's because they used the term "evil" in saying what they would not do, so it's quite natural that people will latch on to and use that specific term when they feel Google is behaving badly. In effect, they themselves put the word in people's mouths.
More correctly, it is quite natural for people who are prone to unthinking demagoguery.
HAHAHA, you still haven't figured that one out, have you.
Another nice dodge.
What's to figure out? You think anyone that uses Google service is simple, as you put it. They are simple, because they don't know what you know. They don't know the danger that is google. They don't know the evil that is google. They just don't know.
But, never fear, anonymouse is here to inform us all. Stay clear of google. Be afraid of google. Google wants to control all. They shall be our masters. They will be the gatekeepers of all info. We shall all become trapped. It will all begin when they take over our iPhones and Macs and PCs.
Actually no.
I recall you once blamed google for 'collecting' your info, simply because some other 'simple' person might have uploaded their contacts including your info. That was a perfect example of your reasoning. Your FUD is tiring. You paranoia of google, while amusing, becomes boring. This is AppleInsider, not GoogleHaters.
Blah blah blah...
I recall you once blamed google for 'collecting' your info, simply because some other 'simple' person might have uploaded their contacts including your info. Blah blah blah...
I believe the term I applied to you was "weak minded" in regard to your personal inability to resist Google's "tech candy".
However, yes, I think it raises a legitimate privacy concern that Google is able to obtain my address, phone number and other personal information because a 3rd party agrees to hand over their Contacts database without my consent. I also think they consider this type of information in general quite valuable and that is one of the reasons they offer some of the specific services that they do.
I believe the term I applied to you was "weak minded" in regard to your personal inability to resist Google's "tech candy".
However, yes, I think it raises a legitimate privacy concern that Google is able to obtain my address, phone number and other personal information because a 3rd party agrees to hand over their Contacts database without my consent. I also think they consider this type of information in general quite valuable and that is one of the reasons they offer some of the specific services that they do.
Out of curiosity, are you in any way involved in actually creating computational technologies? Do you write software? Are you an engineer? I ask because I would think that virtually anyone who knows anything at all about how these technologies work would already know that Google doesn't need to have your friend hand over your contact information in order to get your address; you are already in a dozen databases scattered all over the planet and Google can ferret out lots more information about you than even you might expect, all without needing to enlist your contacts into their dark and evil conspiracy. What's more, anyone can do it. What I find interesting about you is that you believe anyone would want to. What makes you think Google is so interested in you in a deeply personal way, eh? Do you imagine that Eric Schmidt comes into his office each morning and opens up his email expecting to receive his daily "Anonymouse activity report - last 24 hours". Do you fancy that Google is compiling a vast library of information about you?
Take off the tinfoil hat, please.
What you are complaining about is the equivalent of one person handing an address book over to another. So, lets suppose I have your address. Lets suppose I hand that over to someone else, such as the FBI or NSA. "Hey NSA guys - watch this Anonymouse - he is a dangerous lunatic" I might say. First, it is fanciful of you to think they could not have obtained this information (nor come to the conclusion) all by themselves if they wanted to. But more importantly, who are you rightly to blame under such circumstances? Is it them for receiving your information, or is it more properly me for having handed it over?
Prior to today, by the way, I was agnostic about Google. I still am. I think they have some interesting technologies and I am growing to like their browser more and more. I am, however, far from the Google love child, blinded by my fury over your criticism of my beloved tech daddy that you make me out to be. I have never thought Google has the tech superpowers some have credited it with, and I have no illusions about Google being some sort of benevolent force of good and light in the universe. It is a company, pure and simple. It exists so a bunch of geeks and a bunch of investors can make a bunch of money, and hopefully do something fun, useful, and maybe even empowering at the same time. No, what has drawn me into this debate is my own macabre fascination with your mangled thought process and histrionic argumentation. At various points, I swear I have imagined you sitting at your keyboard and foaming at the mouth while spewing forth your quasi-vitriolic rants. Can you not see the way you come across? Are you not at some level even the tiniest bit aware that you lack any objectivity on this front?
I believe the term I applied to you was "weak minded" in regard to your personal inability to resist Google's "tech candy".
However, yes, I think it raises a legitimate privacy concern that Google is able to obtain my address, phone number and other personal information because a 3rd party agrees to hand over their Contacts database without my consent. I also think they consider this type of information in general quite valuable and that is one of the reasons they offer some of the specific services that they do.
Seriously?
Hi, welcome to earth. As a part of your learning experience while here, you should know a few basic things about people. You may not be familiar with any of these concepts.
1) We like sex.
2) We communicate fairly freely. This might mean in part, that when you share information with another, it could be freely and easily passed to another.
3) We like sex.
Any company is able to gain any information you freely give to them. If this information includes information about another person, another company or another planet, there really is nothing you can do to prevent this. Your so called privacy concern is a joke. (Please say it is a joke) That you would 1)consider this a concern and 2) somehow put the blame for it on google is insane. Tinfoil hat, black helicopters, New World Order, back woods militia, forgot to take my meds, the sky is falling, bat shit insane.
... Google doesn't need to have your friend hand over your contact information in order to get your address; you are already in a dozen databases scattered all over the planet and Google can ferret out lots more information about you than even you might expect, all without needing to enlist your contacts into their dark and evil conspiracy. What's more, anyone can do it. What I find interesting about you is that you believe anyone would want to. What makes you think Google is so interested in you in a deeply personal way, eh? Do you imagine that Eric Schmidt comes into his office each morning and opens up his email expecting to receive his daily "Anonymouse activity report - last 24 hours". Do you fancy that Google is compiling a vast library of information about you?
I like how you label it a "dark and evil conspiracy." Nothing like trying to cast someone as a paranoid nut job to deflect attention from the points being made.
But, just to humor you, no, I don't think Google is interested in me personally. I don't think they as a company are interested in anyone personally. Which doesn't preclude the possibility that some Google employee may invade your privacy on his own personal initiative, as, for example, happened when State Department employees made unauthorized use of the passport records of several presidential candidates. (Yes, I realize that Google is not connected to the State Department, it's an example of how information can be misused by employees behaving badly.)
However, anyone who isn't a complete idiot ought to be able to recognize that Google is compiling a vast library of information about everyone. Your web searches, locations you have done searches from, your email exchanges, your documents, your contact lists, every bit of information related to you that passes through Google's servers is grist for their mill. Why are they doing this? They are doing it to target ads at people, on the theory that the more they know about you the more effectively they can sell you stuff, or sell ads to people who want to sell you stuff. The more confirmational data points they have (i.e., the more independent sources they can verify information about you from) the more accurate the profile. This is their entire business model, and they give away all sorts of software and services to gain access to this information. This really should not be news to anyone. And, it really shouldn't be a concern to anyone that they are using this information to sell ads to anyone. OK, yes, the ads are annoying, and it's at least somewhat offensive to me personally, but usually easy to just ignore. (Although, I still think it's inappropriate in a paid service such as the Maps app on the iPhone.)
So, why is this a problem? I think it's a problem for several reasons.
First, there's the obvious problem of employees behaving badly. So far, there haven't been any publicized cases, that I'm aware of, of this happening at Google, but, it's probably just a matter of time before it does happen.
Secondly, there's the issue of the government getting at this information to "investigate" people. We've already seen the DoJ (under the previous administration) go after search records to support, I think it was, anti-pornography legislation. Yes, this information does exist in scattered databases all over the place, but it's much more convenient if a government decides to invade an individual's privacy to have "one stop shopping". (I think it would be interesting to know if the U.S. government has used National Security Letters to obtain information from Google.) Governments in free societies aren't allowed to compile this sort of information on their citizens, but Google's database of information represents a fortuitous, non-governmental proxy for the TIA program, which was shut down over protests of its inherent violation of privacy.
Third, there's the issue that while Google's use of this information may be relatively innocuous now, there is no guarantee that it will always be so. How would you feel if Google launched the Google Background Check service? What would stop them from doing so? (Not that I have any information or belief that they have plans to do so. But the point is, nothing would stop them, certainly not their "privacy policy", they could simply change its terms to allow it.)
Fourth, Google has not always shown a respect for the law and has, in fact, shown a disturbing trend toward arguing that they are above the law. (The Google Books program and Google's refusal to connect Google Voice calls to all phone numbers being 2 examples.) It's not really comforting to see a company with this much personal identifiable information acting in this manner.
Lastly, Google is an extremely ambitious company and has an innate thirst, to support their business model, to control as much as possible how people access information. (Again, so they can profit from people accessing information.) To this end, they release various "free" products and services: Gmail, Google Docs, Search, Google Voice, Google Wave, etc., etc. All of these products and services have the effect of undermining various platforms, such as iPhone OS, Mac OS and Windows as services that people use to access information directly, trivializing those platforms to the extent that Google is successful. Thus Google becomes more and more the gatekeeper to information, including your own documents, ultimately able to control access if they should so decide, but just as disturbingly, effectively throttling access through their filters.
None of these things are, in my opinion, good developments. And, it doesn't even require Google to be "evil" for any of them to have an overall negative effect. So, regardless of Google's intent, or even their (lack of) interest in any given individual, put together, these are not good things to have in the hands of a single entity. People would be in an uproar if their government collected and controlled information and information access in the way Google does. Why does the fact that this is being done by a corporation answerable only to its shareholders somehow make it seem innocuous?
I like how you label it a "dark and evil conspiracy." Nothing like trying to cast someone as a paranoid nut job to deflect attention from the points being made.
But, just to humor you, no, I don't think Google is interested in me personally. I don't think they as a company are interested in anyone personally. Which doesn't preclude the possibility that some Google employee may invade your privacy on his own personal initiative, as, for example, happened when State Department employees made unauthorized use of the passport records of several presidential candidates. (Yes, I realize that Google is not connected to the State Department, it's an example of how information can be misused by employees behaving badly.)
However, anyone who isn't a complete idiot ought to be able to recognize that Google is compiling a vast library of information about everyone. Your web searches, locations you have done searches from, your email exchanges, your documents, your contact lists, every bit of information related to you that passes through Google's servers is grist for their mill. Why are they doing this? They are doing it to target ads at people, on the theory that the more they know about you the more effectively they can sell you stuff, or sell ads to people who want to sell you stuff. The more confirmational data points they have (i.e., the more independent sources they can verify information about you from) the more accurate the profile. This is their entire business model, and they give away all sorts of software and services to gain access to this information. This really should not be news to anyone. And, it really shouldn't be a concern to anyone that they are using this information to sell ads to anyone. OK, yes, the ads are annoying, and it's at least somewhat offensive to me personally, but usually easy to just ignore. (Although, I still think it's inappropriate in a paid service such as the Maps app on the iPhone.)
So, why is this a problem? I think it's a problem for several reasons.
First, there's the obvious problem of employees behaving badly. So far, there haven't been any publicized cases, that I'm aware of, of this happening at Google, but, it's probably just a matter of time before it does happen.
Secondly, there's the issue of the government getting at this information to "investigate" people. We've already seen the DoJ (under the previous administration) go after search records to support, I think it was, anti-pornography legislation. Yes, this information does exist in scattered databases all over the place, but it's much more convenient if a government decides to invade an individual's privacy to have "one stop shopping". (I think it would be interesting to know if the U.S. government has used National Security Letters to obtain information from Google.) Governments in free societies aren't allowed to compile this sort of information on their citizens, but Google's database of information represents a fortuitous, non-governmental proxy for the TIA program, which was shut down over protests of its inherent violation of privacy.
Third, there's the issue that while Google's use of this information may be relatively innocuous now, there is no guarantee that it will always be so. How would you feel if Google launched the Google Background Check service? What would stop them from doing so? (Not that I have any information or belief that they have plans to do so. But the point is, nothing would stop them, certainly not their "privacy policy", they could simply change its terms to allow it.)
Fourth, Google has not always shown a respect for the law and has, in fact, shown a disturbing trend toward arguing that they are above the law. (The Google Books program and Google's refusal to connect Google Voice calls to all phone numbers being 2 examples.) It's not really comforting to see a company with this much personal identifiable information acting in this manner.
Lastly, Google is an extremely ambitious company and has an innate thirst, to support their business model, to control as much as possible how people access information. (Again, so they can profit from people accessing information.) To this end, they release various "free" products and services: Gmail, Google Docs, Search, Google Voice, Google Wave, etc., etc. All of these products and services have the effect of undermining various platforms, such as iPhone OS, Mac OS and Windows as services that people use to access information directly, trivializing those platforms to the extent that Google is successful. Thus Google becomes more and more the gatekeeper to information, including your own documents, ultimately able to control access if they should so decide, but just as disturbingly, effectively throttling access through their filters.
None of these things are, in my opinion, good developments. And, it doesn't even require Google to be "evil" for any of them to have an overall negative effect. So, regardless of Google's intent, or even their (lack of) interest in any given individual, put together, these are not good things to have in the hands of a single entity. People would be in an uproar if their government collected and controlled information and information access in the way Google does. Why does the fact that this is being done by a corporation answerable only to its shareholders somehow make it seem innocuous?
Actually, thank you - that was very well written and made very persuasive arguments that were clear and direct.
I actually agree with you regarding the collection of personal information. I also understand why you specifically target Google, but I think it is misguided. It seems to me that it is only Google's size that has attracted your attention; I think you perceive Google to have more power than anyone else in this arena, and that makes them the biggest threat in your eyes. I don't disagree- they could be. But directing your ire at them is misguided because it really doesn't address your concerns. The power to stop the exploitation of personal information that you (rightly) envision is vested in our government, and until movement happens there, companies will attempt to collect and use this information just like Google and many others do. If Google went bankrupt tomorrow, someone else would fill the space.
I may adopt the same "five seconds of hate" policy I have for those links that pop up when your cursor merely passes over a word on a webpage. When these sorts of irritating ads pop us, I spend a few seconds telling myself how much I hate the company that paid for them, assuming that attitude will stick in my subconscious. It turns an ad into an anti-ad.
Thank you! I have now adopted your "five seconds of hate" policy. I used to just flit my eyes away from such ads, try not to see them, but I like your thinking much better. I also applaud the 1984 allusion in your method's title.
Regarding the Google Maps ads, a little perspective: While I'm strongly against letting adware into the core of the iPhone, at the same time I'm so thankful that we're arguing about a relatively small flaw here. The iPhone's overall perfection makes these small annoyances stand out. For perspective, I just pulled my old T-Mobile "SDA" out of my Drawer Of Shame where it's buried. That was the catastrophe of a WinMo phone I had until I got my first iPhone. For all the questionable things Google does, aren't we all glad we're drifting away form a Microsoft-centric world? Does anyone truly remember what a disaster these WinMo phones were before Apple pulled a paradigm-change on us? Thank you, Apple. Thank you, Google. We may not have achieved perfection, but at least we've abandoned the cluster-F that was WinMo.
Actually, thank you - that was very well written and made very persuasive arguments that were clear and direct.
I actually agree with you regarding the collection of personal information. I also understand why you specifically target Google, but I think it is misguided. It seems to me that it is only Google's size that has attracted your attention; I think you perceive Google to have more power than anyone else in this arena, and that makes them the biggest threat in your eyes. I don't disagree- they could be. But directing your ire at them is misguided because it really doesn't address your concerns. The power to stop the exploitation of personal information that you (rightly) envision is vested in our government, and until movement happens there, companies will attempt to collect and use this information just like Google and many others do. If Google went bankrupt tomorrow, someone else would fill the space.
I agree that there ought to be legislation specifically prohibiting the collection and maintenance of much of this sort of data and strict limitations on what can be done with other data (such as documents, email, contact lists, etc.). There is some movement in the U.S. Congress on privacy legislation, and recent polls show significant support for it, but how far that will go, or how soon such legislation might be enacted, is unclear. Google is particularly problematic both because of their size and because of their goal of being an information gateway, and leveraging that into more and more areas of business.
However, I think it is useful to keep Google specifically under a microscope in this regard simply because a) most people have never even considered the dangers inherent in any one company having this much control over information (and Google's star power in the tech industry tends to blind people to their faults), b) directing attention to them is a useful way of directing attention to the issue, and c) raising awareness of the problems they present is a good way to keep them from overstepping what bounds do currently exist.