Hallelujah! Praise the lawld. He says ith and so does it happenith!
Thundercats! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Excuse me. Is there a translation for this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia
A few points:
1) one of the issues here is recurring subscriptions. When you subscribe to a print magazine and your subscription is about to end they can send you renewal notices because they have your name and address. The only mechanism within the current system is notifications, and even that doesn't really work since it is not tied to the store.
2) what if you already subscribe to the print publication, shouldn't you get your iPad subscription for free? Of course, and publishers want to do that for you but, again, there is no mechanism for that right now. (I think the answer here is promo codes -- developers hand these out to sample an app, maybe Apple could allow promo codes to be given by publishers to print subscribers --this way Apple doesn't have to deal with it and the publishers will have to handle the transaction.)
#1. They want your information because information is gold?not for subscription renewal. As for #2, no, you'd be wrong. Example. The New Yorker wants $5 PER iPad edition EVEN IF YOU SUBSCRIBE to the print edition. You get no discount off the print version vs. the newsstand or for being a subscriber. Fail x 2 and about par for the course for these clowns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherperson
I am strongly considering boycotting Google.
I put up with all their shenanigans but the verigoogle news was the last straw. I've dropped google from anything essential. I've kept my gmail account but it was always a secondary email and now has been relegated to a throw-away email (for posting on random blogs and such). I'm checking out other search engines and in most cases I see little to bring me back to google. Contacts? I would never give them my contact list. I even stopped using voice for all but 99% of my calls. Etc, etc. Point is, there is life after google.
Google seems to know how to take care of its people. Don't see news like this coming from Apple even though they have record earning. Then again it would be hard to get a bonus to the slave labor in china.
Surprising no one here seems to like Zinio. While it's largely a directly translation from print to digital for most magazines and doesn't offer the interactivity that it could, there are interactive editions of some issues (National Geographic, in albeit a limited fashion). The digital 'magazine' experience will evolve over time as it already has with standalone applications, but I would really embrace the idea of having ONE extensible application that held these kinds of publications, much like what has been talked about with Apple's solution. (However there are reasons why I don't like Apple as a content controller, but that's a longer discussion.) I don't want a folder or screen littered with icons of one-off magazine editions, especially the kind that might weigh in at 500 MB or whatever that Wired one was.
I've had a good experience with Zinio so far. It's not perfect, but they keep improving their application, and it offers ad-subsidized subscriptions of a bunch of good magazines. Hopefully their selection will improve over time.
Apple's control freak nature is going to hurt them in the end. There is beginning to be too much competition for this kind of crap. Android is just going to keep getting better and better, and Apple needs to watch out.
I agree that Google is becoming Big Brother. I'm quite sure the wi-fi snooping wasn't just unintentional. Why would they pick up on people's wi-fi connections as they take pics driving down the street? I don't get how that could be unintentional at all.
Google seems to know how to take care of its people. Don't see news like this coming from Apple even though they have record earning. Then again it would be hard to get a bonus to the slave labor in china.
Apple needs to sit down and ask itself, "If this person subscribed to a physical magazine what information would naturally have to be given to the seller?"
Tracking every click, may be a problem but basic demographics should not be an issue. Apple is the middle man, the company whose product is being used has the right to all information. If anyone should have limited access it should be Apple. Apple is just the medium through which the product is sold. Nothing more.
Apple needs to sit down and ask itself, "If this person subscribed to a physical magazine what information would naturally have to be given to the seller?"
Tracking every click, may be a problem but basic demographics should not be an issue. Apple is the middle man, the company whose product is being used has the right to all information. If anyone should have limited access it should be Apple. Apple is just the medium through which the product is sold. Nothing more.
While I agree with some of what you are saying, Apple is not just the medium. They are the brand that we are buying into and trusting. They are providing the quality and in this case the privacy control that we are trusting in.
Google seems to know how to take care of its people. Don't see news like this coming from Apple even though they have record earning. Then again it would be hard to get a bonus to the slave labor in china.
Steve Jobs protects our privacy and Google violates our privacy at every opportunity to make a buck. I am very proud to own Apple products. I am strongly considering boycotting Google.
I've done that too. I now use Exalead for search and Lavabit for Email, works great.
Those Journals can get the ZIP code you are in without problems, (see here) if they want more they are greedy. By the way your Google Phone reserves itselves the right to do with your location info whatever it deems good for Googles consumers, whoever that might be..
Apple needs to sit down and ask itself, "If this person subscribed to a physical magazine what information would naturally have to be given to the seller?"
Tracking every click, may be a problem but basic demographics should not be an issue. Apple is the middle man, the company whose product is being used has the right to all information. If anyone should have limited access it should be Apple. Apple is just the medium through which the product is sold. Nothing more.
The problem is that most of what the magazine folks tell you about the demographics information they "need" is complete BS. People are assuming that the magazine publishers are being straight with us, that they are just like any other business, and that they have "readerships" that care about the magazine articles and stuff like that when almost none of that is true.
The "demographic information" they want is really just your name, address, phone number and credit card information. Sure they like to know if the readership of this or that magazine is made up mostly of kids, teens, or adults, but they can easily get that from surveys as well. What they really want is just "who's reading it, and what's their credit info." This information is sold to their advertisers and others. It's pretty much the whole purpose of the magazine. The reason there are different types of magazines and that the categories break along "lifestyle" lines, is that the advertisers want to know the credit information of this or that "type" of consumer (are you a housewife? are you gay? are you a doctor? etc. etc.). The magazine types conform to the demographic categories that the advertisers want to sell to.
With magazines, mostly you are buying a few usually quite thin "articles" that are mostly written by hacks and mostly repeat information that is freely available almost anywhere. Roughly 50% or more of the magazine is the advertisements. Even though usually the presence of advertisements makes something cheap or free, in the case of magazines, people (for some stupid reason), actually *PAY* their own money for the privilege of being advertised to. Not only that, magazines are almost the most expensive form of media there is in terms of what you get back for your dollar.
Magazines exist for those advertisements, the other stuff changes year to year and month to month depending on what it is that will get people to look at the advertisements. They want to know just enough information to be able to target you with products. That's pretty much the entire point of the whole industry. The primary "customer" of the average magazine, isn't the consumers that buy them, but the advertisers that place the ads in them. That's who magazines exist for and who determines the shape, content and general outlook of the magazine.
Selling your information and your basic demographics to advertisers is pretty much the entire point of magazines. It always has been and always will be that way. That's why even before the digital age, magazines are mostly sold by subscription and why every single magazine you ever picked up has a cardboard insert that tells you how much cheaper it would be if you *subscribed* to the magazine instead of buying it at the store.
And as the Android tablets mature onto the market those ads will be as intrusive as what goes on on our pc. Dimming of an article we're reading as advertisements for some antidepressant pops open. I effing hate that. And of course it will take a million clicks on the x to close the damn thing.
Comments
Hallelujah! Praise the lawld. He says ith and so does it happenith!
Thundercats! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Excuse me. Is there a translation for this?
A few points:
1) one of the issues here is recurring subscriptions. When you subscribe to a print magazine and your subscription is about to end they can send you renewal notices because they have your name and address. The only mechanism within the current system is notifications, and even that doesn't really work since it is not tied to the store.
2) what if you already subscribe to the print publication, shouldn't you get your iPad subscription for free? Of course, and publishers want to do that for you but, again, there is no mechanism for that right now. (I think the answer here is promo codes -- developers hand these out to sample an app, maybe Apple could allow promo codes to be given by publishers to print subscribers --this way Apple doesn't have to deal with it and the publishers will have to handle the transaction.)
#1. They want your information because information is gold?not for subscription renewal. As for #2, no, you'd be wrong. Example. The New Yorker wants $5 PER iPad edition EVEN IF YOU SUBSCRIBE to the print edition. You get no discount off the print version vs. the newsstand or for being a subscriber. Fail x 2 and about par for the course for these clowns.
I am strongly considering boycotting Google.
I put up with all their shenanigans but the verigoogle news was the last straw. I've dropped google from anything essential. I've kept my gmail account but it was always a secondary email and now has been relegated to a throw-away email (for posting on random blogs and such). I'm checking out other search engines and in most cases I see little to bring me back to google. Contacts? I would never give them my contact list. I even stopped using voice for all but 99% of my calls. Etc, etc. Point is, there is life after google.
Google seems to know how to take care of its people. Don't see news like this coming from Apple even though they have record earning. Then again it would be hard to get a bonus to the slave labor in china.
http://www.businessinsider.com/googl...-raise-2010-11
That's from all the money the NSA paid them to spy on us. Google = cyber-halliburton.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...y-on-everyone/
I've had a good experience with Zinio so far. It's not perfect, but they keep improving their application, and it offers ad-subsidized subscriptions of a bunch of good magazines. Hopefully their selection will improve over time.
I agree that Google is becoming Big Brother. I'm quite sure the wi-fi snooping wasn't just unintentional. Why would they pick up on people's wi-fi connections as they take pics driving down the street? I don't get how that could be unintentional at all.
That's from all the money the NSA paid them to spy on us. Google = cyber-halliburton.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...y-on-everyone/
If you are worried about people spying on you then you need to stay off the internet.
Google seems to know how to take care of its people. Don't see news like this coming from Apple even though they have record earning. Then again it would be hard to get a bonus to the slave labor in china.
http://www.businessinsider.com/googl...-raise-2010-11
And, this is relevant exactly how?
Besides, no one ever said Big Brother was a cheap bastard. He pays his henchmen well, to buy their loyalty.
Tracking every click, may be a problem but basic demographics should not be an issue. Apple is the middle man, the company whose product is being used has the right to all information. If anyone should have limited access it should be Apple. Apple is just the medium through which the product is sold. Nothing more.
If you are worried about people spying on you then you need to stay off the internet.
Have you been taking that "How to Think and Act like Eric Schmidt" online course?
If you are worried about people spying on you then you need to stay off the internet.
Defeatist!!!
And has his own job, makes his own money, and has his own house.
Apple needs to sit down and ask itself, "If this person subscribed to a physical magazine what information would naturally have to be given to the seller?"
Tracking every click, may be a problem but basic demographics should not be an issue. Apple is the middle man, the company whose product is being used has the right to all information. If anyone should have limited access it should be Apple. Apple is just the medium through which the product is sold. Nothing more.
While I agree with some of what you are saying, Apple is not just the medium. They are the brand that we are buying into and trusting. They are providing the quality and in this case the privacy control that we are trusting in.
Google seems to know how to take care of its people. Don't see news like this coming from Apple even though they have record earning. Then again it would be hard to get a bonus to the slave labor in china.
http://www.businessinsider.com/googl...-raise-2010-11
And Google just fired the guy who brought you that news.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/10/tech...rain/index.htm
SleeperTroll!
And Google just fired the guy who brought you that news.
I believe they use the term, terminated.
Steve Jobs protects our privacy and Google violates our privacy at every opportunity to make a buck. I am very proud to own Apple products. I am strongly considering boycotting Google.
I've done that too. I now use Exalead for search and Lavabit for Email, works great.
Those Journals can get the ZIP code you are in without problems, (see here) if they want more they are greedy. By the way your Google Phone reserves itselves the right to do with your location info whatever it deems good for Googles consumers, whoever that might be..
Apple needs to sit down and ask itself, "If this person subscribed to a physical magazine what information would naturally have to be given to the seller?"
Tracking every click, may be a problem but basic demographics should not be an issue. Apple is the middle man, the company whose product is being used has the right to all information. If anyone should have limited access it should be Apple. Apple is just the medium through which the product is sold. Nothing more.
The problem is that most of what the magazine folks tell you about the demographics information they "need" is complete BS. People are assuming that the magazine publishers are being straight with us, that they are just like any other business, and that they have "readerships" that care about the magazine articles and stuff like that when almost none of that is true.
The "demographic information" they want is really just your name, address, phone number and credit card information. Sure they like to know if the readership of this or that magazine is made up mostly of kids, teens, or adults, but they can easily get that from surveys as well. What they really want is just "who's reading it, and what's their credit info." This information is sold to their advertisers and others. It's pretty much the whole purpose of the magazine. The reason there are different types of magazines and that the categories break along "lifestyle" lines, is that the advertisers want to know the credit information of this or that "type" of consumer (are you a housewife? are you gay? are you a doctor? etc. etc.). The magazine types conform to the demographic categories that the advertisers want to sell to.
With magazines, mostly you are buying a few usually quite thin "articles" that are mostly written by hacks and mostly repeat information that is freely available almost anywhere. Roughly 50% or more of the magazine is the advertisements. Even though usually the presence of advertisements makes something cheap or free, in the case of magazines, people (for some stupid reason), actually *PAY* their own money for the privilege of being advertised to. Not only that, magazines are almost the most expensive form of media there is in terms of what you get back for your dollar.
Magazines exist for those advertisements, the other stuff changes year to year and month to month depending on what it is that will get people to look at the advertisements. They want to know just enough information to be able to target you with products. That's pretty much the entire point of the whole industry. The primary "customer" of the average magazine, isn't the consumers that buy them, but the advertisers that place the ads in them. That's who magazines exist for and who determines the shape, content and general outlook of the magazine.
Selling your information and your basic demographics to advertisers is pretty much the entire point of magazines. It always has been and always will be that way. That's why even before the digital age, magazines are mostly sold by subscription and why every single magazine you ever picked up has a cardboard insert that tells you how much cheaper it would be if you *subscribed* to the magazine instead of buying it at the store.
And as the Android tablets mature onto the market those ads will be as intrusive as what goes on on our pc. Dimming of an article we're reading as advertisements for some antidepressant pops open. I effing hate that. And of course it will take a million clicks on the x to close the damn thing.
Meh!
Same goes for trying to watch TV shows online.
And Google just fired the guy who brought you that news.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/10/tech...rain/index.htm
SleeperTroll!
I know Apple and Steve Jobs would never come down hard on someone that leaked company news. You guys crack me up.
Have you been taking that "How to Think and Act like Eric Schmidt" online course?
No I am just not paranoid like many of you. Like I am sure you have anything worth spying on.