Re the search part ... People are assuming if Apple did enter the field it would be search as we know it. Remember they bought Siri and that is far from conventional search. Perhaps a paradigm shift in search is coming?
I agree Apple need to get into the video business a la YouTube. I hadn't thought of Vimeo having never used it. Does it already support HTML5 and H264?
Re Paypal ... given iTunes now second only to Amazon from what i read recently in the on line purchases arena this seems to be a massive business for them which they could expand on in many ways for sure. Apple need to get the inter-country thing sorted . I cannot use iTunes easily to gift relatives in UK from USA. And the argument it is too complicated due to currency that some have said is ridiculous .
Apple, unfortunately won't enter the search engine field, any time soon, it's not close to their core businesses, and certainly not the way S.J. operates with incremental calculated and well prepared steps.
The problem with a website such as vimeo is that it depends on user content or participation to gain some critical mass to even operate. That's why everyone goes to youtube because it has 95% chance than pretty much anyone else of coming up with the content one might be looking for. That of course, like facebook, causes an odious centralisation of power (private data, and of course assets to a few companies that can be counted on one hand). This can be broken up by governments, and there are plenty of ways to do this, but of course it's not something the economic and political elite want. That's not how they envision the world... Apple of course can bring a vision to video sharing that will differentiate youtube from what they might offer. It's an interesting discussion on what they could do. For me youtube is too far an unruly beast to be useful other than occasionally.
Paypal is an atrocity of the internet age, taking advantage of our collective payments, bunch of crooks, with lots of money they put in the right pockets to stay were they are, they have given me grief with the most simple transactions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
Me, I like the pictures each day. Probably just me though.
When you combine Google's desire to track every bit of information about you and Apple desire to control everything you see, I seem to have gone full circle back to liking Microsoft.
Whatever way you view it though, this is good, choice is always good. As far as Safari goes this is only news as Safari full's under the world according to Apple where you can't choose any search engine only the ones approved by Apple, which is to some extent is a bit shocking.
You can, downoad glims add on, and get any search engine you want.
I have a hard time understanding your concept of choice, being a hardware and software vendor and controlling the eco system of your applications is one thing, being the world's almost exclusive advertiser on the web, the world's almost exclusive search engine and arbitrator of what and how gets ranked, a colossal mail provider, making inroads to be into most mobile devices...when you can track and profile almost anyone on the globe, well, it's quite another and it's quite scary.
The 1984 reversal of reality here, is that Google is calling Apple big brother, when the extent to which they are the big brother on a global scale is almost unfathomable. And then you get 1,000 morons in the audience for a keynote of google clapping and cheering for the big brother joke on appple, when they've been stripped to their underpants in terms of privacy, and they 've surrendered their full profiles to them.
If there was any sense of decency in governments, they'd be banging on google's doors and if they found a single hard drive storing profiles for users with ip addresses, they would shut them down on the spot. Of course though when you get as large as google you pocket pretty much anyone in power and you can go your merry way undisturbed...
Exactly, and that's the very reason why Apple should start producing its very own cloud-centric services.. Because of Google dominance in that area, because everyone is using Google's services, even iDevices users.
Google was bashing at Apple during their I/O event not long ago, making fun of Apple's 1984-themed ad by creating its own banner: "Not The Future We Want." But that same joke can be put on to Google itself, seeing it from Apple point of view. In the future Apple definitely doesn't want too many core apps in iPhone are powered and rely too much on Google's services, hence the saying in AI's article above: "Google wrote the iPhone?"
That is of course a scary thought for Steve Jobs..
Perhaps it seem futile to fend off Google powerful services, but I sincerely do hope that Apple (driven by its uncanny CEO, Steve Jobs) will try to take head on at least one or two Google's cloud-centric services. It's not just Apple who should be worried in the future if Google become the one and only dominant force in the cloud-centric market, we should too. The thought of only one company to dictate the market, is frightening..
Besides, Apple wouldn't be Apple if the company doesn't dare enough to challenge what seems impossible..
However, a panel is still a panel, regardless of how its members act. A school of fish is a school, regardless of how many fish are in it or what an individual fish does. A fish does, a school of fish do. Apple is an entity. It does (or doesn't do) stuff. The employees of Apple do (or don't do) stuff.
Manchester United, then, is (or is not) playing well, as a team.
That is understandable. In this day and age, Apple fans need some kind of hierarchy as to who is most hated by Apple. Lately, Google might top that list:
Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.
So while M$ is a hated company, it is not nearly as hated (these days) as some others.
"Apple is working with Microsoft to broaden the iPhone's search and related web services from their current primary dependance upon Google to include additional support for Bing."
...broaden the iPhone's ... services from their current ... dependence...
That matches, doesn't it?
It is wordy, convoluted and badly written, but I think that the grammar is correct.
I'd edit it to:
Apple and Microsoft together are adding additional support for Bing. This will broaden the iPhone's search and related services, which are now primarily dependent on Google.
I mean, fer chrissakes, "additional support for Bing" is the main subject. It is the point. It is the payoff for reading the sentence.
And the AI author forces you to wade through multiple nested clauses to finally get to it. They have a "style" here at AI where they use that type of sentence. They try to pack lots of info into a sentence by stringing adverbs and adjectives into a convoluted mess, which takes too much effort to read.
I prefer short declarative sentences in news stories.
You are right!
This particular AI author goes out of his way to bash MS, and usually cites himself as a reference.
I can understand the worry that some have about Google. While I don't share it, I understand it.
What I don't get is why people think anybody else would be different. Does Bing not track search history? And if they aren't what's stopping them? Does anybody think Apple would act substantially differently if they had a search engine? They are already tracking users through iAds. We know that because of their FTC troubles with other advertisers. So what reason would they have not to extend this to any sort of web based service they operate?
Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea. It would let Apple offer free services. Maybe a free but ad supported MobileMe and a subscription based ad free version? Same for search? People who value privacy can pay for it.
I found your suggestions for improving search interesting. But one issue I foresee is privacy concerns again. Some of those suggestions could involve further info gathering to implement.
I found your suggestions for improving search interesting. But one issue I foresee is privacy concerns again. Some of those suggestions could involve further info gathering to implement.
Yes but they could be implemented anonymously to begin with, for the templates to be built, and then after stringent privacy measures should be in place. Of course the best privacy measure is to not have one entity in the world aggregate all private data, such as google, is doing, but that's a dream so far...
However, a panel is still a panel, regardless of how its members act. A school of fish is a school, regardless of how many fish are in it or what an individual fish does. A fish does, a school of fish do. Apple is an entity. It does (or doesn't do) stuff. The employees of Apple do (or don't do) stuff.
Manchester United, then, is (or is not) playing well, as a team.
Well, as an American myself, I tend to agree. I'm just sayin' that's why they do it the other way.
Nothing specifically. I am personally not bothered by the current situation. But if people want to see more powerful search engines, I do wonder how that can be pulled off without being more invasive. Ultimately, the best way to gauge intent may be by developing a user history which you can measure historical accuracy against.
I can understand the worry that some have about Google. While I don't share it, I understand it.
What I don't get is why people think anybody else would be different. Does Bing not track search history? And if they aren't what's stopping them? Does anybody think Apple would act substantially differently if they had a search engine? They are already tracking users through iAds. We know that because of their FTC troubles with other advertisers. So what reason would they have not to extend this to any sort of web based service they operate?
Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea. It would let Apple offer free services. Maybe a free but ad supported MobileMe and a subscription based ad free version? Same for search? People who value privacy can pay for it.
Mmmm... iAds have been announced, but aren't available, yet. So, technically, "They are already tracking users through iAds." is untrue.
I think the issue is not so much the tracking and gathering of information on web habits or purchases. Rather, it is what is done with the information, once gathered.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has stated:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
From that statement it is easy to infer that Schmidt believes that any information "harvested" by Google is fair game and can be sold to the highest bidder, or used for any other purpose Google chooses.
Can personal, economic or political blackmail be far behind?
A more legitimate approach would be:
-- gather detail information on an individual's surfing and buying preferences
-- use that information to tailor advertising to his activity- only relevant ads from a pool of ads are presented to the user (opt in, or opt out)
-- share user detail information with no one! *
* unlike State and Federal governments who sell the data to anyone
To potential advertisers, provide macro demographic information, e.g.:
-- We have a million hits per hour
-- Average age is 31 years
-- Gender 62% male
-- Average 2.3 individuals per household
-- 55% are registered as Republicans
-- Average Household Income is $84,000
?
?
?
The advertisers could design ads that target their desired demographic ranges and place them in an ad pool.
The deliverer of the ads (iAd in our example) could use the private detail information on an individual to select ads from the pool if the user has opted in. Then when the individual visits a site or store, he is presented with ads that will, likely, be of interest to him and result in "sell-throughs" for the ads.
Using the demo above, iAd would probably not bother 70-year old granny with an ad for an Obama T-Shirt.
Sure, Apple could misuse the information as easily as Google... but they have shown just the opposite tendency.
Where would you put your faith:
A. Apple with a proven privacy track record (millions of credit cards in iTunes and Apple web sites). A demonstrated, almost fanatical, dedication to secrecy. A demonstrated dedication to protecting their customers from aps or services unpleasant or dangerous (to the UX).
B. Google, who seems to believe, and has demonstrated, that Google can make whatever rules that serve their needs.
Enjoyed reading your post, the quote from the Google CEO is utterly repulsive, but it's the ethos of this new age of nitwits that govern such big corporations. In his demented interpretation of reality privacy is a concept to be banished from the face of the earth. You will either do something behind a glass window or not do it at all. But of course he is tracking the others not vice versa, so he is in a position of power to say that. Boy would I love some paparazzo coming up with a few compromising photos of him, so we can collectively reply to him in his smug hypocritical tone, that if he didn't want people finding out then he shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.
It is a matter of fact that federal and state information on individuals is sold at will?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Nothing specifically. I am personally not bothered by the current situation. But if people want to see more powerful search engines, I do wonder how that can be pulled off without being more invasive. Ultimately, the best way to gauge intent may be by developing a user history which you can measure historical accuracy against.
They have a few options that won't be invasive, lexicographical analysis is one, and there are a number of others. User history is a very good suggestion too, since they are already tracking us at google they might as well use the user history to better the results of the engine. (Of course they are too busy tracking us to target the ads to be bothered to actually use any of their expertise to actually take their search engine a step ahead...) I am sure as part of an opt in program, where strict privacy rules will be implemented, a lot of people would not object.
My problem is that they haven't been doing any of that yet, and their actual core service is stuck pretty much to where it was ten years ago (or course their real core service which is advertising isn't...), whilst at the same time they are professing and marketing how creative and innovative they are. That to me is the biggest sham of all. Google is microsoft in disguise ( I would even say that in terms of actual products and services delivered over these past ten years they are worse than ms).
What's their huge innovation, a mail client? Scanning the world's books in basements so they can then blackmail governments and publishers to become some big brother uber content holder? Aggregating all the scientific database searches, to become some uber world journal content provider with google scholar? These are rhetorical questions of course, because I expect most here agree, but it's mind boggling how outside these forums google's pr has been so effective to turn the facts upside down... because hey we are offering you a few gb of mail space, and look are servers are growing by the second, now bend over and see us taking an immense cut out of everyone's ad profits.
I think its high time Apple opened up services to Bing. IMO, Bing is superior to Google on the iPhone platform. Ever since Google got involved with Android they have left iPhone users in the dust. Their Google app is buggy and crashes constantly, and trying to access many of their vital web services like Talk or Wave through Safari is a disaster. Microsoft, on the other hand, has put a lot of effort into creating great apps for the iPhone. I think the days of hating Microsoft need to come to an end, as Apple's chief rival now is Google. One thing I'd like to see is an MSN messenger app that comes out of Redmond. A bigger dream would be a full-fledged Office suite on the iPad and maybe the iPhone!
Apple's been keen to break away from Google for a while now and the Goog knows it. That's why back in Feb a link to Google Maps through Safari on the iPhone or from the Google App on the iPhone used to default to the Maps.app but now there's this whole web-based mobile version of google maps right there in the browser (just like for Google Voice & Latitude) & you can do the whole web app homescreen link thingy too. Same deal with YouTube...
Comments
..thank you, i've been wanting to clear up the difference between "it's" and "its" for quite some time..
If you can be kind enough to check my post, and correct me if I made that kinda mistakes, I would be grateful..
PS. what's up with the 1964 movie title as your nickname there?
Be careful with the use of the ' character.
-- remember this classic MR post from a while back:
"I want to be a pirate again. I hated to leave my shipmate's behind."
.
Re the search part ... People are assuming if Apple did enter the field it would be search as we know it. Remember they bought Siri and that is far from conventional search. Perhaps a paradigm shift in search is coming?
I agree Apple need to get into the video business a la YouTube. I hadn't thought of Vimeo having never used it. Does it already support HTML5 and H264?
Re Paypal ... given iTunes now second only to Amazon from what i read recently in the on line purchases arena this seems to be a massive business for them which they could expand on in many ways for sure. Apple need to get the inter-country thing sorted . I cannot use iTunes easily to gift relatives in UK from USA. And the argument it is too complicated due to currency that some have said is ridiculous .
Apple, unfortunately won't enter the search engine field, any time soon, it's not close to their core businesses, and certainly not the way S.J. operates with incremental calculated and well prepared steps.
The problem with a website such as vimeo is that it depends on user content or participation to gain some critical mass to even operate. That's why everyone goes to youtube because it has 95% chance than pretty much anyone else of coming up with the content one might be looking for. That of course, like facebook, causes an odious centralisation of power (private data, and of course assets to a few companies that can be counted on one hand). This can be broken up by governments, and there are plenty of ways to do this, but of course it's not something the economic and political elite want. That's not how they envision the world... Apple of course can bring a vision to video sharing that will differentiate youtube from what they might offer. It's an interesting discussion on what they could do. For me youtube is too far an unruly beast to be useful other than occasionally.
Paypal is an atrocity of the internet age, taking advantage of our collective payments, bunch of crooks, with lots of money they put in the right pockets to stay were they are, they have given me grief with the most simple transactions.
Me, I like the pictures each day. Probably just me though.
When you combine Google's desire to track every bit of information about you and Apple desire to control everything you see, I seem to have gone full circle back to liking Microsoft.
Whatever way you view it though, this is good, choice is always good. As far as Safari goes this is only news as Safari full's under the world according to Apple where you can't choose any search engine only the ones approved by Apple, which is to some extent is a bit shocking.
You can, downoad glims add on, and get any search engine you want.
I have a hard time understanding your concept of choice, being a hardware and software vendor and controlling the eco system of your applications is one thing, being the world's almost exclusive advertiser on the web, the world's almost exclusive search engine and arbitrator of what and how gets ranked, a colossal mail provider, making inroads to be into most mobile devices...when you can track and profile almost anyone on the globe, well, it's quite another and it's quite scary.
The 1984 reversal of reality here, is that Google is calling Apple big brother, when the extent to which they are the big brother on a global scale is almost unfathomable. And then you get 1,000 morons in the audience for a keynote of google clapping and cheering for the big brother joke on appple, when they've been stripped to their underpants in terms of privacy, and they 've surrendered their full profiles to them.
If there was any sense of decency in governments, they'd be banging on google's doors and if they found a single hard drive storing profiles for users with ip addresses, they would shut them down on the spot. Of course though when you get as large as google you pocket pretty much anyone in power and you can go your merry way undisturbed...
Exactly, and that's the very reason why Apple should start producing its very own cloud-centric services.. Because of Google dominance in that area, because everyone is using Google's services, even iDevices users.
Google was bashing at Apple during their I/O event not long ago, making fun of Apple's 1984-themed ad by creating its own banner: "Not The Future We Want." But that same joke can be put on to Google itself, seeing it from Apple point of view. In the future Apple definitely doesn't want too many core apps in iPhone are powered and rely too much on Google's services, hence the saying in AI's article above: "Google wrote the iPhone?"
That is of course a scary thought for Steve Jobs..
Perhaps it seem futile to fend off Google powerful services, but I sincerely do hope that Apple (driven by its uncanny CEO, Steve Jobs) will try to take head on at least one or two Google's cloud-centric services. It's not just Apple who should be worried in the future if Google become the one and only dominant force in the cloud-centric market, we should too. The thought of only one company to dictate the market, is frightening..
Besides, Apple wouldn't be Apple if the company doesn't dare enough to challenge what seems impossible..
That was perfect!
.
It is an explanation
However, a panel is still a panel, regardless of how its members act. A school of fish is a school, regardless of how many fish are in it or what an individual fish does. A fish does, a school of fish do. Apple is an entity. It does (or doesn't do) stuff. The employees of Apple do (or don't do) stuff.
Manchester United, then, is (or is not) playing well, as a team.
In your world... but there are others!
.
That is understandable. In this day and age, Apple fans need some kind of hierarchy as to who is most hated by Apple. Lately, Google might top that list:
Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.
So while M$ is a hated company, it is not nearly as hated (these days) as some others.
Stevie
Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.
Really? Was that incorrect?
"Apple is working with Microsoft to broaden the iPhone's search and related web services from their current primary dependance upon Google to include additional support for Bing."
...broaden the iPhone's ... services from their current ... dependence...
That matches, doesn't it?
It is wordy, convoluted and badly written, but I think that the grammar is correct.
I'd edit it to:
Apple and Microsoft together are adding additional support for Bing. This will broaden the iPhone's search and related services, which are now primarily dependent on Google.
I mean, fer chrissakes, "additional support for Bing" is the main subject. It is the point. It is the payoff for reading the sentence.
And the AI author forces you to wade through multiple nested clauses to finally get to it. They have a "style" here at AI where they use that type of sentence. They try to pack lots of info into a sentence by stringing adverbs and adjectives into a convoluted mess, which takes too much effort to read.
I prefer short declarative sentences in news stories.
You are right!
This particular AI author goes out of his way to bash MS, and usually cites himself as a reference.
it is tedious, really!
.
What I don't get is why people think anybody else would be different. Does Bing not track search history? And if they aren't what's stopping them? Does anybody think Apple would act substantially differently if they had a search engine? They are already tracking users through iAds. We know that because of their FTC troubles with other advertisers. So what reason would they have not to extend this to any sort of web based service they operate?
Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea. It would let Apple offer free services. Maybe a free but ad supported MobileMe and a subscription based ad free version? Same for search? People who value privacy can pay for it.
I found your suggestions for improving search interesting. But one issue I foresee is privacy concerns again. Some of those suggestions could involve further info gathering to implement.
Myapplelove,
I found your suggestions for improving search interesting. But one issue I foresee is privacy concerns again. Some of those suggestions could involve further info gathering to implement.
Yes but they could be implemented anonymously to begin with, for the templates to be built, and then after stringent privacy measures should be in place. Of course the best privacy measure is to not have one entity in the world aggregate all private data, such as google, is doing, but that's a dream so far...
What are your concerns?
It is an explanation
However, a panel is still a panel, regardless of how its members act. A school of fish is a school, regardless of how many fish are in it or what an individual fish does. A fish does, a school of fish do. Apple is an entity. It does (or doesn't do) stuff. The employees of Apple do (or don't do) stuff.
Manchester United, then, is (or is not) playing well, as a team.
Well, as an American myself, I tend to agree. I'm just sayin' that's why they do it the other way.
What are your concerns?
Nothing specifically. I am personally not bothered by the current situation. But if people want to see more powerful search engines, I do wonder how that can be pulled off without being more invasive. Ultimately, the best way to gauge intent may be by developing a user history which you can measure historical accuracy against.
I can understand the worry that some have about Google. While I don't share it, I understand it.
What I don't get is why people think anybody else would be different. Does Bing not track search history? And if they aren't what's stopping them? Does anybody think Apple would act substantially differently if they had a search engine? They are already tracking users through iAds. We know that because of their FTC troubles with other advertisers. So what reason would they have not to extend this to any sort of web based service they operate?
Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea. It would let Apple offer free services. Maybe a free but ad supported MobileMe and a subscription based ad free version? Same for search? People who value privacy can pay for it.
Mmmm... iAds have been announced, but aren't available, yet. So, technically, "They are already tracking users through iAds." is untrue.
I think the issue is not so much the tracking and gathering of information on web habits or purchases. Rather, it is what is done with the information, once gathered.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has stated:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48975
From that statement it is easy to infer that Schmidt believes that any information "harvested" by Google is fair game and can be sold to the highest bidder, or used for any other purpose Google chooses.
Can personal, economic or political blackmail be far behind?
A more legitimate approach would be:
-- gather detail information on an individual's surfing and buying preferences
-- use that information to tailor advertising to his activity- only relevant ads from a pool of ads are presented to the user (opt in, or opt out)
-- share user detail information with no one! *
* unlike State and Federal governments who sell the data to anyone
To potential advertisers, provide macro demographic information, e.g.:
-- We have a million hits per hour
-- Average age is 31 years
-- Gender 62% male
-- Average 2.3 individuals per household
-- 55% are registered as Republicans
-- Average Household Income is $84,000
?
?
?
The advertisers could design ads that target their desired demographic ranges and place them in an ad pool.
The deliverer of the ads (iAd in our example) could use the private detail information on an individual to select ads from the pool if the user has opted in. Then when the individual visits a site or store, he is presented with ads that will, likely, be of interest to him and result in "sell-throughs" for the ads.
Using the demo above, iAd would probably not bother 70-year old granny with an ad for an Obama T-Shirt.
Sure, Apple could misuse the information as easily as Google... but they have shown just the opposite tendency.
Where would you put your faith:
A. Apple with a proven privacy track record (millions of credit cards in iTunes and Apple web sites). A demonstrated, almost fanatical, dedication to secrecy. A demonstrated dedication to protecting their customers from aps or services unpleasant or dangerous (to the UX).
B. Google, who seems to believe, and has demonstrated, that Google can make whatever rules that serve their needs.
I know where my trust (and money) goes!
.
Enjoyed reading your post, the quote from the Google CEO is utterly repulsive, but it's the ethos of this new age of nitwits that govern such big corporations. In his demented interpretation of reality privacy is a concept to be banished from the face of the earth. You will either do something behind a glass window or not do it at all. But of course he is tracking the others not vice versa, so he is in a position of power to say that. Boy would I love some paparazzo coming up with a few compromising photos of him, so we can collectively reply to him in his smug hypocritical tone, that if he didn't want people finding out then he shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.
It is a matter of fact that federal and state information on individuals is sold at will?
Nothing specifically. I am personally not bothered by the current situation. But if people want to see more powerful search engines, I do wonder how that can be pulled off without being more invasive. Ultimately, the best way to gauge intent may be by developing a user history which you can measure historical accuracy against.
They have a few options that won't be invasive, lexicographical analysis is one, and there are a number of others. User history is a very good suggestion too, since they are already tracking us at google they might as well use the user history to better the results of the engine. (Of course they are too busy tracking us to target the ads to be bothered to actually use any of their expertise to actually take their search engine a step ahead...) I am sure as part of an opt in program, where strict privacy rules will be implemented, a lot of people would not object.
My problem is that they haven't been doing any of that yet, and their actual core service is stuck pretty much to where it was ten years ago (or course their real core service which is advertising isn't...), whilst at the same time they are professing and marketing how creative and innovative they are. That to me is the biggest sham of all. Google is microsoft in disguise ( I would even say that in terms of actual products and services delivered over these past ten years they are worse than ms).
What's their huge innovation, a mail client? Scanning the world's books in basements so they can then blackmail governments and publishers to become some big brother uber content holder? Aggregating all the scientific database searches, to become some uber world journal content provider with google scholar? These are rhetorical questions of course, because I expect most here agree, but it's mind boggling how outside these forums google's pr has been so effective to turn the facts upside down... because hey we are offering you a few gb of mail space, and look are servers are growing by the second, now bend over and see us taking an immense cut out of everyone's ad profits.
It is a matter of fact that federal and state information on individuals is sold at will?
I am too lazy, at the moment, to run down specific examples-- but I have read of many over the years.
.