Yes I read that Arstechnica article. It raises the specter of Google controlling internet search. Google does not do that now and there is no substantial evidence that it ever will.
I've used Gmail since 2004. Gmail does not literally save all of your email forever. Currently my email prior to 2006 is gone. I don't believe Google is saving my old email for some secret potentially malicious action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
Here's a good article for you to read to see how I feel about that:
Indefinite may mean they do delete it at some point, but it also might mean they don't. I'm of the opinion they don't. I'm pessimistic like that.
Also...if you have a gmail account, or any google account probably, go ahead and log in. Go to the link "My Account" at the top. Find "Web History" and click on it. See the searches you've entered. Mine go back to 2008.
The banking problem wasn't just the size of the companies. Ultimately the problem was that laws that had been put in place to limit and prevent these companies from doing what they did were weakened or repealed by Ronald Reagan in the 80's and more recently George Bush.
There is nothing the government can do to stop a company from growing large. That really would be interfering with the free market. The only thing the government can do is place limits and controls in the name of free trade and competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
As for there being, "no reason to limit or stop their growth," I think events of the past year+ on Wall Street are contradiction enough of that premise. If these companies hadn't been as big as they were, with fingers in as many pies as they had, it might have been practical to have allowed many of them to simply fail, rather than have to prop them up with taxpayer bailouts that allow them to now, again, reap record profits while engaged in risky behavior while the rest of the economy and, more importantly, the taxpayers struggle as a direct result of they havoc they have wreaked. Mega-companies have the potential of creating mega-problems, and we have every reason and right to not allow that to happen by limiting their size and reach.
That's a red herring argument that ultimately means nothing.
Can I prove the CIA did not plant a tracking device in your rectum? No, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And I'm not taking any chances.
So basically I can ask you to give me a thousand USA dollars with a guarantee that I will keep them safe and nothing will happen? Right? Because that's what Google does. It asks you to give your important information and tells you that everything will be safe kept. Can you trust me with your money? I guess not, so how can you trust Google if you can't trust one man?
Yes I read that Arstechnica article. It raises the specter of Google controlling internet search. Google does not do that now and there is no substantial evidence that it ever will.
I've used Gmail since 2004. Gmail does not literally save all of your email forever. Currently my email prior to 2006 is gone. I don't believe Google is saving my old email for some secret potentially malicious action.
I think you somewhat missed the point of the article. It's not so much Google itself having control over searches, but any major search engine getting the control of who gets shown what based on what they know about you. For instance, your income.
They might just save it long enough to form a good idea of your broadest interests, over a long enough time, to understand you completely. They could then tailor "your Google", to show you things you can afford, where you can afford them, etc. This could also pertain to your political interests, book reading, etc. You might not ever get shown a Wall Street Journal article, for instance, if you make less than $40k a year.
Thing is, you'd never notice you were being "guided". I'm just saying, you don't know what could happen, it may be important not to just blindly move along, oblivious to legislation and such that are shaping up in the present, which may avert disaster in the future.
The banking problem wasn't just the size of the companies. Ultimately the problem was that laws that had been put in place to limit and prevent these companies from doing what they did were weakened or repealed by Ronald Reagan in the 80's and more recently George Bush.
There is nothing the government can do to stop a company from growing large. That really would be interfering with the free market. The only thing the government can do is place limits and controls in the name of free trade and competition.
Well, you're right, the problem wasn't just the size of the companies, but the size and reach of the companies is what made the problem so potentially disastrous. And, the banking regulations designed to prevent these sorts of problems, that were gutted, are a perfect example of the kinds of things a government can and should do to interfere with a "free market". There is no "invisible hand", and there is no guarantee that a company won't, left to itself, and allowed to do as it pleases, cause harm, and it is exactly that sort of potential harm that laws ought to defend a country's citizens from.
So basically I can ask you to give me a thousand USA dollars with a guarantee that I will keep them safe and nothing will happen? Right? Because that's what Google does. It asks you to give your important information and tells you that everything will be safe kept. Can you trust me with your money? I guess not, so how can you trust Google if you can't trust one man?
The first sentence in the pdf linked in the Ars article I mentioned above:
"As Yogi Berra and others are supposed to have said, 'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.'?
Also:
"As just one example, a decade ago Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Brin and Page (1998)) claimed that
The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. ... we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. ... we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.
However, Messrs. Brin and Page realized their mistake, and went on to achieve fame and wealth building Google, which (at least so far) has managed to be just what they had predicted was impossible..."
They were aware then of the limitations, and have built "free" stuff for us to use, all the while collecting every byte of data to tailor things like ads directly to you based on your habits. The next logical step is for companies to be charged for higher placement in the targets, or to avert a competitor's ad from being shown to you.
Then it is an Anti-Trust case. Why avoid it now, let's wait until it happens
I think you somewhat missed the point of the article. It's not so much Google itself having control over searches, but any major search engine getting the control of who gets shown what based on what they know about you. For instance, your income.
They might just save it long enough to form a good idea of your broadest interests, over a long enough time, to understand you completely. They could then tailor "your Google", to show you things you can afford, where you can afford them, etc. This could also pertain to your political interests, book reading, etc. You might not ever get shown a Wall Street Journal article, for instance, if you make less than $40k a year.
Thing is, you'd never notice you were being "guided". I'm just saying, you don't know what could happen, it may be important not to just blindly move along, oblivious to legislation and such that are shaping up in the present, which may avert disaster in the future.
It seems to me, that they already skew search results to direct people to sites that generate revenue for them. How else does one explain sites with no content but Google ads showing up at the top of the search results for many searches. So, they are already manipulating search results. The danger is equally the amount of information they have on people, and their control of access to information, as search results, or otherwise.
A monopoly isn't illegal. Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition is illegal.
To be considered a monopoly you have to have exclusive control over a market, Google has its hands in a lot of places but doesn't have exclusive control over anything.
Besides, there is no need to act like a monopoly when you're good (not evil).
The first sentence in the pdf linked in the Ars article I mentioned above:
"As Yogi Berra and others are supposed to have said, 'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.'?
Also:
"As just one example, a decade ago Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Brin and Page (1998)) claimed that
The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. ... we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. ... we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.
However, Messrs. Brin and Page realized their mistake, and went on to achieve fame and wealth building Google, which (at least so far) has managed to be just what they had predicted was impossible..."
They were aware then of the limitations, and have built "free" stuff for us to use, all the while collecting every byte of data to tailor things like ads directly to you based on your habits. The next logical step is for companies to be charged for higher placement in the targets, or to avert a competitor's ad from being shown to you.
Then it is an Anti-Trust case. Why avoid it now, let's wait until it happens
I'm not taking any chances. It's not for Google to decide. The person which knows best what's best for me is ME.
Watch Minority Report if you haven't already. I think you will get the idea of what's on Gooles mind. And it's bad.
I'm not taking any chances. It's not for Google to decide. The person which knows best what's best for me is ME.
Watch Minority Report if you haven't already. I think you will get the idea of what's on Gooles mind. And it's bad.
The thing is, they are all already deciding. It would be better to have the infrastructure separate from the content. Simply allowing people to decide which provider they chose based on throughput/$ isn't a great solution either. That's why I'm enamored with the debates on net neutrality. Tough issue.
The thing is, they are all already deciding. It would be better to have the infrastructure separate from the content. Simply allowing people to decide which provider they chose based on throughput/$ isn't a great solution either. That's why I'm enamored with the debates on net neutrality. Tough issue.
At least I'm using a big 0 of Google services. I guess I need to read "1984" again.
I think this is an interesting development. I do really like the iPhone... but I keep realizing that my whole cloud belongs to Google and all my important apps are written by them. If Apple keeps up these anticompetitive practices up against Google (whether or not FCC smacks them down) people may treat Apple as damage and route around them.
If Google keeps up these anticompetitive practices up against Apple, people may treat Google as damage and route around them by typing in a new URL.
Maybe when Google is done copying the iPhone they can actually think for themselves and release something intereesting that hasn't already been done by Apple, and done better.
A free navigation app does not an iPhone-killer make. Maybe if Google and its partners began giving away these Droid things for free then we's really see product move. It worked for RIM for a while, after all.
Apple bundles iTunes, too. That's free.
All we have are promises so far. Droid is an interesting device by perveption only, since it's unreleased.
Right now it's lookkng like a Palm Pre rehash.
your comments are amazingly narrow-minded. Here we have a company trying to make your average iphone user's experience BETTER at no cost, and you sit here criticizing them.
You know, when people try to describe the jerk stereotype "apple fanboys" carry, I think to myself it's over-exaggerated and no way people act so dumb. Then I see comments like yours.
Sorry dude, but that was really annoying to listen to on an article like this. Windows mobile fanboys would kill for other companies to give a shit about them like this. These new wm devices coming out are capable of doing just as much as an iphone and more.
I gotta say, it really must be nice to go with such a popular phone that you actually get ANNOYED at all the companies trying to make you happy. Really must be nice...
the difference between tomtom and the google apps will be that the Google one is essentially spyware
There are other ways they can work advertising revenue in without running banner ads or. One good way would be for companies to pay to have more information or links added to their info when it is searched.
For example, search for burgers & one or two companies might pay to have a picture of their choice come up with perhaps a rating from some food site & a link to their menu.
Personally I'm not all that concerned about the background gathering of statistics that Google does & I definitely wouldn't equate that with what we typically call spyware. I also think Apple won't approve anything that is too intrusive. TomTom is ridiculously overpriced.
your comments are amazingly narrow-minded. Here we have a company trying to make your average iphone user's experience better at no cost, and you sit here criticizing them.
great. Yet they're also releasing a direct competitor to the iphone. Google isn't in it to make us happy, they're in it to snag people over to the droid or droid or android or whatever the hell it's called. Free gps app for the iphone? Great. What else they got for us?
you know, when people try to describe the jerk stereotype "apple fanboys" carry, i think to myself it's over-exaggerated and no way people act so dumb. Then i see comments like yours.
apple creates enthusiasm easily. I don't have to like every other pos non-apple product that comes along (and there are plenty) just to be "fair" or play at mock objectivity.
sorry dude, but that was really annoying to listen to on an article like this.
well dude, then don't listen to the article. Or don't read it. Whichever.
windows mobile fanboys would kill for other companies to give a shit about them like this. These new wm devices coming out are capable of doing just as much as an iphone and more.
one sentence contradicts the other. Windows mobile is in a complete freefall with winmo 7 slated for 2010. Knowing ms and their ususal negligence, i wouldn't be surprised if they'll push back the release even further. Should be fun for them to start from virtually zero and convince everyone that their heads are out of their collective arses (for real, this time they swear!) when it comes to the mobile sector. As for your second statement . . . . sometimes a simple emoticon says it all.
i gotta say, it really must be nice to go with such a popular phone that you actually get annoyed at all the companies trying to make you happy. Really must be nice...
yup. Not so much "annoyed", as "don't really care." it's a nice app by google, but in light of what the iphone has *already* brought to the table and what iphone goodness apple undoubtedly is already working on, it's just another app among many already good ones. And it remains to be seen just how good google's free solution stacks up to the rest.
You are certainly free to not use any of Googles services.
You can be comforted to know you will be proven the smarter person when the rest of us have Google branded microchips implanted in our brains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
I think you somewhat missed the point of the article. It's not so much Google itself having control over searches, but any major search engine getting the control of who gets shown what based on what they know about you. For instance, your income.
They might just save it long enough to form a good idea of your broadest interests, over a long enough time, to understand you completely. They could then tailor "your Google", to show you things you can afford, where you can afford them, etc. This could also pertain to your political interests, book reading, etc. You might not ever get shown a Wall Street Journal article, for instance, if you make less than $40k a year.
Thing is, you'd never notice you were being "guided". I'm just saying, you don't know what could happen, it may be important not to just blindly move along, oblivious to legislation and such that are shaping up in the present, which may avert disaster in the future.
Indeed Google is secretly led by a seven foot tall man in a black cape and breathing apparatus. He wields a shiny red sword and can choke you with his very mind. Their ultimate goal is to control the galaxy. We must resist using Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Docs to thwart their evil plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas
I'm not taking any chances. It's not for Google to decide. The person which knows best what's best for me is ME.
Watch Minority Report if you haven't already. I think you will get the idea of what's on Gooles mind. And it's bad.
So basically I can ask you to give me a thousand USA dollars with a guarantee that I will keep them safe and nothing will happen? Right? Because that's what Google does. It asks you to give your important information and tells you that everything will be safe kept. Can you trust me with your money? I guess not, so how can you trust Google if you can't trust one man?
Nop, you said that Google was spyware, don't change the argument when it has been refuted
You are certainly free to not use any of Googles services.
You can be comforted to know you will be proven the smarter person when the rest of us have Google branded microchips implanted in our brains.
The funny thing is, they don't even need an implant to follow what you're up to. Between search, all the "free" services, and their analytics program, their databases know pretty much exactly what you're up to. It actually requires quite a bit of constant effort to stop yourself being tracked around the web, by Google and others.
The argument about them spoon feeding search results to manipulate behavior is pretty obvious, doesn't seem to require great understanding, and it's something they already do in at least a crude way. But, I guess the promise of "free" really pumps up the dopamine levels in a lot of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
Nop, you said that Google was spyware, don't change the argument when it has been refuted
It's not technically spyware. Technically, in malware terms, Google's software falls under the category of "social-engineering trojan".
Name me one Google product that people are forced to use, that has no alternative, and that people have to use in order to use the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
The funny thing is, they don't even need an implant to follow what you're up to. Between search, all the "free" services, and their analytics program, their databases know pretty much exactly what you're up to. It actually requires quite a bit of constant effort to stop yourself being tracked around the web, by Google and others.
The argument about them spoon feeding search results to manipulate behavior is pretty obvious, doesn't seem to require great understanding, and it's something they already do in at least a crude way. But, I guess the promise of "free" really pumps up the dopamine levels in a lot of people.
Comments
I've used Gmail since 2004. Gmail does not literally save all of your email forever. Currently my email prior to 2006 is gone. I don't believe Google is saving my old email for some secret potentially malicious action.
Here's a good article for you to read to see how I feel about that:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...m_campaign=rss
The issue of Google not deleting your data is something different, and you can read about that here:
http://www.google-watch.org/gmail.html
Indefinite may mean they do delete it at some point, but it also might mean they don't. I'm of the opinion they don't. I'm pessimistic like that.
Also...if you have a gmail account, or any google account probably, go ahead and log in. Go to the link "My Account" at the top. Find "Web History" and click on it. See the searches you've entered. Mine go back to 2008.
There is nothing the government can do to stop a company from growing large. That really would be interfering with the free market. The only thing the government can do is place limits and controls in the name of free trade and competition.
As for there being, "no reason to limit or stop their growth," I think events of the past year+ on Wall Street are contradiction enough of that premise. If these companies hadn't been as big as they were, with fingers in as many pies as they had, it might have been practical to have allowed many of them to simply fail, rather than have to prop them up with taxpayer bailouts that allow them to now, again, reap record profits while engaged in risky behavior while the rest of the economy and, more importantly, the taxpayers struggle as a direct result of they havoc they have wreaked. Mega-companies have the potential of creating mega-problems, and we have every reason and right to not allow that to happen by limiting their size and reach.
That's a red herring argument that ultimately means nothing.
Can I prove the CIA did not plant a tracking device in your rectum? No, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And I'm not taking any chances.
So basically I can ask you to give me a thousand USA dollars with a guarantee that I will keep them safe and nothing will happen? Right? Because that's what Google does. It asks you to give your important information and tells you that everything will be safe kept. Can you trust me with your money? I guess not, so how can you trust Google if you can't trust one man?
Yes I read that Arstechnica article. It raises the specter of Google controlling internet search. Google does not do that now and there is no substantial evidence that it ever will.
I've used Gmail since 2004. Gmail does not literally save all of your email forever. Currently my email prior to 2006 is gone. I don't believe Google is saving my old email for some secret potentially malicious action.
I think you somewhat missed the point of the article. It's not so much Google itself having control over searches, but any major search engine getting the control of who gets shown what based on what they know about you. For instance, your income.
They might just save it long enough to form a good idea of your broadest interests, over a long enough time, to understand you completely. They could then tailor "your Google", to show you things you can afford, where you can afford them, etc. This could also pertain to your political interests, book reading, etc. You might not ever get shown a Wall Street Journal article, for instance, if you make less than $40k a year.
Thing is, you'd never notice you were being "guided". I'm just saying, you don't know what could happen, it may be important not to just blindly move along, oblivious to legislation and such that are shaping up in the present, which may avert disaster in the future.
The banking problem wasn't just the size of the companies. Ultimately the problem was that laws that had been put in place to limit and prevent these companies from doing what they did were weakened or repealed by Ronald Reagan in the 80's and more recently George Bush.
There is nothing the government can do to stop a company from growing large. That really would be interfering with the free market. The only thing the government can do is place limits and controls in the name of free trade and competition.
Well, you're right, the problem wasn't just the size of the companies, but the size and reach of the companies is what made the problem so potentially disastrous. And, the banking regulations designed to prevent these sorts of problems, that were gutted, are a perfect example of the kinds of things a government can and should do to interfere with a "free market". There is no "invisible hand", and there is no guarantee that a company won't, left to itself, and allowed to do as it pleases, cause harm, and it is exactly that sort of potential harm that laws ought to defend a country's citizens from.
So basically I can ask you to give me a thousand USA dollars with a guarantee that I will keep them safe and nothing will happen? Right? Because that's what Google does. It asks you to give your important information and tells you that everything will be safe kept. Can you trust me with your money? I guess not, so how can you trust Google if you can't trust one man?
The first sentence in the pdf linked in the Ars article I mentioned above:
"As Yogi Berra and others are supposed to have said, 'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.'?
Also:
"As just one example, a decade ago Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Brin and Page (1998)) claimed that
The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. ... we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. ... we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.
However, Messrs. Brin and Page realized their mistake, and went on to achieve fame and wealth building Google, which (at least so far) has managed to be just what they had predicted was impossible..."
Read that here: http://www.rnejournal.com/artman2/up..._RNE_mar09.pdf
They were aware then of the limitations, and have built "free" stuff for us to use, all the while collecting every byte of data to tailor things like ads directly to you based on your habits. The next logical step is for companies to be charged for higher placement in the targets, or to avert a competitor's ad from being shown to you.
Then it is an Anti-Trust case. Why avoid it now, let's wait until it happens
I think you somewhat missed the point of the article. It's not so much Google itself having control over searches, but any major search engine getting the control of who gets shown what based on what they know about you. For instance, your income.
They might just save it long enough to form a good idea of your broadest interests, over a long enough time, to understand you completely. They could then tailor "your Google", to show you things you can afford, where you can afford them, etc. This could also pertain to your political interests, book reading, etc. You might not ever get shown a Wall Street Journal article, for instance, if you make less than $40k a year.
Thing is, you'd never notice you were being "guided". I'm just saying, you don't know what could happen, it may be important not to just blindly move along, oblivious to legislation and such that are shaping up in the present, which may avert disaster in the future.
It seems to me, that they already skew search results to direct people to sites that generate revenue for them. How else does one explain sites with no content but Google ads showing up at the top of the search results for many searches. So, they are already manipulating search results. The danger is equally the amount of information they have on people, and their control of access to information, as search results, or otherwise.
A monopoly isn't illegal. Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition is illegal.
To be considered a monopoly you have to have exclusive control over a market, Google has its hands in a lot of places but doesn't have exclusive control over anything.
Besides, there is no need to act like a monopoly when you're good (not evil).
The first sentence in the pdf linked in the Ars article I mentioned above:
"As Yogi Berra and others are supposed to have said, 'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.'?
Also:
"As just one example, a decade ago Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Brin and Page (1998)) claimed that
The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. ... we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. ... we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.
However, Messrs. Brin and Page realized their mistake, and went on to achieve fame and wealth building Google, which (at least so far) has managed to be just what they had predicted was impossible..."
Read that here: http://www.rnejournal.com/artman2/up..._RNE_mar09.pdf
They were aware then of the limitations, and have built "free" stuff for us to use, all the while collecting every byte of data to tailor things like ads directly to you based on your habits. The next logical step is for companies to be charged for higher placement in the targets, or to avert a competitor's ad from being shown to you.
Then it is an Anti-Trust case. Why avoid it now, let's wait until it happens
I'm not taking any chances. It's not for Google to decide. The person which knows best what's best for me is ME.
Watch Minority Report if you haven't already. I think you will get the idea of what's on Gooles mind. And it's bad.
I'm not taking any chances. It's not for Google to decide. The person which knows best what's best for me is ME.
Watch Minority Report if you haven't already. I think you will get the idea of what's on Gooles mind. And it's bad.
The thing is, they are all already deciding. It would be better to have the infrastructure separate from the content. Simply allowing people to decide which provider they chose based on throughput/$ isn't a great solution either. That's why I'm enamored with the debates on net neutrality. Tough issue.
The thing is, they are all already deciding. It would be better to have the infrastructure separate from the content. Simply allowing people to decide which provider they chose based on throughput/$ isn't a great solution either. That's why I'm enamored with the debates on net neutrality. Tough issue.
At least I'm using a big 0 of Google services. I guess I need to read "1984" again.
I think this is an interesting development. I do really like the iPhone... but I keep realizing that my whole cloud belongs to Google and all my important apps are written by them. If Apple keeps up these anticompetitive practices up against Google (whether or not FCC smacks them down) people may treat Apple as damage and route around them.
If Google keeps up these anticompetitive practices up against Apple, people may treat Google as damage and route around them by typing in a new URL.
Maybe when Google is done copying the iPhone they can actually think for themselves and release something intereesting that hasn't already been done by Apple, and done better.
A free navigation app does not an iPhone-killer make. Maybe if Google and its partners began giving away these Droid things for free then we's really see product move. It worked for RIM for a while, after all.
Apple bundles iTunes, too. That's free.
All we have are promises so far. Droid is an interesting device by perveption only, since it's unreleased.
Right now it's lookkng like a Palm Pre rehash.
your comments are amazingly narrow-minded. Here we have a company trying to make your average iphone user's experience BETTER at no cost, and you sit here criticizing them.
You know, when people try to describe the jerk stereotype "apple fanboys" carry, I think to myself it's over-exaggerated and no way people act so dumb. Then I see comments like yours.
Sorry dude, but that was really annoying to listen to on an article like this. Windows mobile fanboys would kill for other companies to give a shit about them like this. These new wm devices coming out are capable of doing just as much as an iphone and more.
I gotta say, it really must be nice to go with such a popular phone that you actually get ANNOYED at all the companies trying to make you happy. Really must be nice...
the iphone map app is Google Maps
the difference between tomtom and the google apps will be that the Google one is essentially spyware
There are other ways they can work advertising revenue in without running banner ads or. One good way would be for companies to pay to have more information or links added to their info when it is searched.
For example, search for burgers & one or two companies might pay to have a picture of their choice come up with perhaps a rating from some food site & a link to their menu.
Personally I'm not all that concerned about the background gathering of statistics that Google does & I definitely wouldn't equate that with what we typically call spyware. I also think Apple won't approve anything that is too intrusive. TomTom is ridiculously overpriced.
your comments are amazingly narrow-minded. Here we have a company trying to make your average iphone user's experience better at no cost, and you sit here criticizing them.
great. Yet they're also releasing a direct competitor to the iphone. Google isn't in it to make us happy, they're in it to snag people over to the droid or droid or android or whatever the hell it's called. Free gps app for the iphone? Great. What else they got for us?
you know, when people try to describe the jerk stereotype "apple fanboys" carry, i think to myself it's over-exaggerated and no way people act so dumb. Then i see comments like yours.
apple creates enthusiasm easily. I don't have to like every other pos non-apple product that comes along (and there are plenty) just to be "fair" or play at mock objectivity.
sorry dude, but that was really annoying to listen to on an article like this.
well dude, then don't listen to the article. Or don't read it. Whichever.
windows mobile fanboys would kill for other companies to give a shit about them like this. These new wm devices coming out are capable of doing just as much as an iphone and more.
one sentence contradicts the other. Windows mobile is in a complete freefall with winmo 7 slated for 2010. Knowing ms and their ususal negligence, i wouldn't be surprised if they'll push back the release even further. Should be fun for them to start from virtually zero and convince everyone that their heads are out of their collective arses (for real, this time they swear!) when it comes to the mobile sector. As for your second statement . . . .
i gotta say, it really must be nice to go with such a popular phone that you actually get annoyed at all the companies trying to make you happy. Really must be nice...
yup. Not so much "annoyed", as "don't really care." it's a nice app by google, but in light of what the iphone has *already* brought to the table and what iphone goodness apple undoubtedly is already working on, it's just another app among many already good ones. And it remains to be seen just how good google's free solution stacks up to the rest.
You can be comforted to know you will be proven the smarter person when the rest of us have Google branded microchips implanted in our brains.
I think you somewhat missed the point of the article. It's not so much Google itself having control over searches, but any major search engine getting the control of who gets shown what based on what they know about you. For instance, your income.
They might just save it long enough to form a good idea of your broadest interests, over a long enough time, to understand you completely. They could then tailor "your Google", to show you things you can afford, where you can afford them, etc. This could also pertain to your political interests, book reading, etc. You might not ever get shown a Wall Street Journal article, for instance, if you make less than $40k a year.
Thing is, you'd never notice you were being "guided". I'm just saying, you don't know what could happen, it may be important not to just blindly move along, oblivious to legislation and such that are shaping up in the present, which may avert disaster in the future.
I'm not taking any chances. It's not for Google to decide. The person which knows best what's best for me is ME.
Watch Minority Report if you haven't already. I think you will get the idea of what's on Gooles mind. And it's bad.
So basically I can ask you to give me a thousand USA dollars with a guarantee that I will keep them safe and nothing will happen? Right? Because that's what Google does. It asks you to give your important information and tells you that everything will be safe kept. Can you trust me with your money? I guess not, so how can you trust Google if you can't trust one man?
Nop, you said that Google was spyware, don't change the argument when it has been refuted
You are certainly free to not use any of Googles services.
You can be comforted to know you will be proven the smarter person when the rest of us have Google branded microchips implanted in our brains.
The funny thing is, they don't even need an implant to follow what you're up to. Between search, all the "free" services, and their analytics program, their databases know pretty much exactly what you're up to. It actually requires quite a bit of constant effort to stop yourself being tracked around the web, by Google and others.
The argument about them spoon feeding search results to manipulate behavior is pretty obvious, doesn't seem to require great understanding, and it's something they already do in at least a crude way. But, I guess the promise of "free" really pumps up the dopamine levels in a lot of people.
Nop, you said that Google was spyware, don't change the argument when it has been refuted
It's not technically spyware. Technically, in malware terms, Google's software falls under the category of "social-engineering trojan".
The funny thing is, they don't even need an implant to follow what you're up to. Between search, all the "free" services, and their analytics program, their databases know pretty much exactly what you're up to. It actually requires quite a bit of constant effort to stop yourself being tracked around the web, by Google and others.
The argument about them spoon feeding search results to manipulate behavior is pretty obvious, doesn't seem to require great understanding, and it's something they already do in at least a crude way. But, I guess the promise of "free" really pumps up the dopamine levels in a lot of people.