Geez 'mouse... we know the answer to that one already too: they're selling it, and using it to serve more ads. That's what they do as a business. It's not like they're developers or a software house or something... all their stuff is free to: Sell. More. Ads.
Well, yes, but we don't have details, the press and bloggers aren't raising a stink about it, Google has never publicly explained exactly what they collect, from where and how they use it. Why the double standard? Is it that people just assume Google is evil and there's no expectation of good behavior?
Well, yes, but we don't have details, the press and bloggers aren't raising a stink about it, Google has never publicly explained exactly what they collect, from where and how they use it. Why the double standard? Is it that people just assume Google is evil and there's no expectation of good behavior?
YES!...to all of the above.... and please, don't P*** on their "free" lunch!
Geez 'mouse... we know the answer to that one already too: they're selling it, and using it to serve more ads. That's what they do as a business. It's not like they're developers or a software house or something... all their stuff is free to: Sell. More. Ads.
More that they're selling their ability to offer user specific, targeted advertising rather than selling user data itself. Generally Google is placing the ads at the behest of the advertisers. Even Apple gives Google permission to use targeted advertising on their mobile devices, with at least a wink-wink to harvest location data from iDevices.
Apple's iAds has much the same goal, which is probably why iAds requires opt-out rather than opt-in. Few users are going to take the time to go visit an obscure webpage to block location harvesting, assuming they even know about it in the first place. Knowing who the audience is is vitally important to Apple too if they want to compete.
If your Application was using that database to lock a location, it should still work fine, even with the shortened amount of data.
Google Maps with Navigation (Android) allows you to set destinations on the fly and locks within seconds (providing you're outdoors) so I think that's more a feature of Cellphone technology more than anything else. The Cache can help, but your iPhone app should be fine with a limited one, as long as it is accurate.
I would be so lost if I didn't have GPS on my phone. I don't care what OS you have, the ability to get navigation on your phone is awesome.
If information is being fed to your phone by Apple, and that's what this is really all about, then the cache is being used by your device. While seven days of data may be useful as well, if you're going somewhere you haven't been for longer than that, then the info won't be there.
Google collects this info as well, and I suspect that they collect much more than they're willing to admit so far.
The more the better but you can do it with three. The fourth would be used for elevation but you only need three for latitude and longitude.
Sorry, still incorrect. While that might seem to make sense, your gps-enabled device cannot give you an initial location estimate without four satellites locked.
So perhaps there is an element of economics in the decision to have a hotspot database.
I would think so. The smallest number of satellites that can be used is three, and the most is above eight, from what I remember, though those numbers could have changed. The more that can be communicated with, the faster and more accurate the fix.
Why do so many Americans think they are doing something useful by rushing to court with a class action at the slightest little human error? Like the recent claim that members of the class of iPhone owners would not have bought if they had "known that Apple is tracking them". And asking for damages.
[?]
When will Americans grow up and start to take personal responsibitility and stop trying to get rich at the expense of the people who provide the most useful services in the world? This litigation society is sick.
Why do people classify an entire group of people as the same based on a few individuals. I don?t refer to New Zealanders as hobbits even though most of them are from Middle Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
One last point to my above post:
If the iTunes back-up would have been, or is encrypted, am I to assume that this "iPhoneTrackerGate" software would have never made the news?
Or if consolidated.db wasn?t included in the backup. Or if consoldiated.db was purged of tables older than one week.
More that they're selling their ability to offer user specific, targeted advertising rather than selling user data itself. Generally Google is placing the ads at the behest of the advertisers. Even Apple gives Google permission to use targeted advertising on their mobile devices, with at least a wink-wink to harvest location data from iDevices.
Apple's iAds has much the same goal, which is probably why iAds requires opt-out rather than opt-in. Few users are going to take the time to go visit an obscure webpage to block location harvesting, assuming they even know about it in the first place. Knowing who the audience is is vitally important to Apple too if they want to compete.
To tell ya the truth... I actually like location services, and what it provides to a marketer of targeted services. Being in the ad & marketing biz myself, makes me appreciate this more than you know, and be able to sell to clients the genius of devices and ads that use these services. Carpet-bombing campaigns are so 90's... and a serious waste of money IMHO. Push-advertising for opt-in parties is where the fun... and money is.
Why do so many Americans think they are doing something useful by rushing to court with a class action at the slightest little human error? Like the recent claim that members of the class of iPhone owners would not have bought if they had "known that Apple is tracking them". And asking for damages.
This was before there was even a response from Apple but after many people were already saying it was a bug that would get fixed. If they don't like their iPhone, stop using it! Maybe go and ask for a refund but how can they know how many other iPhone users "would not have bought their iPhone"? Have they done a survey?
How would these plaintiffs like it if they got sued for multiple damages for every tiny error they made in their best work/products? They deserve to be.
When will Americans grow up and start to take personal responsibitility and stop trying to get rich at the expense of the people who provide the most useful services in the world? This litigation society is sick.
It's called greed. According to the constitution, anyone can sue anyone. It was a response to the old European system of most people not having any recourse in the courts.
There's no conspiracy theory, it's just obvious that Google is lying because their "inadvertent" excuse isn't credible when you consider they had to be seeing all the private data they collected go into their database for years.
Thank goodness you're here to prove the original poster correct about the conspiracy theory stuff.
Did you even read Google's response about the Street View incident? Here's the link to a nice blog entry about it. Maybe it will help you pull your head out of the dark hole it's apparently stuck in.
Also the military version is much more accurate than the public is allowed to receive. To limit the accuracy of the public GPS, the satellites respond much less frequently to public devices than to military devices. There is a code in the GPS unit that limits the frequency of the updates.
That's an interesting fact. But if they're broadcasting it, how can they stop anyone who wants looking at it? Or are you saying receivers are required to be built a certain way? Never mind, I can probably look this up myself, they key point is that commercial units are different to military units.
That's not correct Mel. It takes four sat's locked to get an initial estimate of your position. What you might be thinking about is the old handheld 12 or 16 channel gps's back in the day. They've been obsolete for awhile now. Nearly all the newer standalone pnd's will have you located and on your way in seconds due to onboard computation of ephemeris data, or in other words where to look in the sky to find those satellites. TomTom devices would be the lone exception, requiring you to connect to their servers to download that data file. But that's only so they can harvest your travel stats at the same time and no other reason.
I don't know if Apple's Infineon gps chip offers "quickfix" or "Instantfix" autonomous sat location software, but I would think it would. What A-GPS does very well is give you a faster estimate of your location, filling in until the GPS has you pegged, or augmenting when signal may not be the best.
We still have differing models of gps units using different numbers of satellites. That hasn't gone away. It isn't as necessary as before, but it's still being done.
I just came upon NassarAE post and info, where the article says that the receiver needs "at least three" satellites, as I said.
Why do people classify an entire group of people as the same based on a few individuals. I don’t refer to New Zealanders as hobbits even though most of them are from Middle Earth.
Funny... but take a look around you.... or go to Engadget. Very possible it's an isolated Internet thing with us geeks though, so your tolerance regarding "them" is respected in my book
Quote:
Or if consolidated.db wasn’t included in the backup. Or if consoldiated.db was purged of tables older than one week.
Yes. I agree going forward. But why wouldn't you want ALL of your back-up encrypted... and why for an admittedly "consumer device", is this not the default? Ya snark
Still not correct Mel. All modern PND's are capable of "seeing" every one of the (up to) 32 active GPS satellites in the constellation. Now some of the very newest chipsets can also make use of GLOSNOS or Galileo satellites. Japan has a set of sats specific to them that requires a different chipset altogether. And now the Chinese and Indians are launching their own "GPS" satellites too.
But the US system is what the world currently relies on.
Sorry, still incorrect. While that might seem to make sense, your gps-enabled device cannot give you an initial location estimate without four satellites locked.
Trust me if I make a statement about GPS
Apparently, you're wrong though. Can you post something showing that it requires 4 and only ever uses 4?
Sorry, still incorrect. While that might seem to make sense, your gps-enabled device cannot give you an initial location estimate without four satellites locked.
Trust me if I make a statement about GPS
Someone needs to tell Garmin then.
From my Garmin Quick Start Guide. Part No. 190-00161-01 Rev. A January 1999
Page 3:
"If some of the satellites in view are blocked, or "shaded", the receiver can use the remaining satellites (at least three are needed) to maintain its location."
It doesn't say how many are required to initially fix your location but it apparently only needs three to maintain it.
The more the better but you can do it with three. The fourth would be used for elevation but you only need three for latitude and longitude.
Sorry, still incorrect. While that might seem to make sense, your gps-enabled device cannot give you an initial location estimate without four satellites locked.
Trust me if I make a statement about GPS
You?re right, and being knowledgable in a subject is great, but you have to establish that so detailing why and posting links that back up your points are helpful to others and to your point.
This explains it better than I can:
How does GPS "triangulation" work?
For this exercise, you'll need to dust off some simple skills you learned in geometry. Start by imagining a "distance sphere" (in three dimensions) surrounding a GPS satellite. Points on the surface of the sphere are all the same distance from the satellite that's located exactly at the center.
Knowing distance from one satellite places you somewhere on a spherical surface that's centered around the satellite.
Knowing distances from two satellites places you somewhere along a circle that's between the two satellites (defined by the intersection of their "distance spheres?).
Distances from three satellites usually intersect at two points, and if you're not flying around, one of these points will be on Earth's surface.
Distances from four or more GPS satellites will intersect at just one point.
This process works by finding the intersection of your distances from three or more satellites. Thus, describing it as "trilateration" is actually better than "triangulation", but neither term seems precisely correct from a technical standpoint.
Comments
Geez 'mouse... we know the answer to that one already too: they're selling it, and using it to serve more ads. That's what they do as a business. It's not like they're developers or a software house or something... all their stuff is free to: Sell. More. Ads.
Well, yes, but we don't have details, the press and bloggers aren't raising a stink about it, Google has never publicly explained exactly what they collect, from where and how they use it. Why the double standard? Is it that people just assume Google is evil and there's no expectation of good behavior?
If the iTunes back-up would have been, or is encrypted, am I to assume that this "iPhoneTrackerGate" software would have never made the news?
It takes four sat's locked to get an initial estimate of your position.
The more the better but you can do it with three. The fourth would be used for elevation but you only need three for latitude and longitude.
Well, yes, but we don't have details, the press and bloggers aren't raising a stink about it, Google has never publicly explained exactly what they collect, from where and how they use it. Why the double standard? Is it that people just assume Google is evil and there's no expectation of good behavior?
Geez 'mouse... we know the answer to that one already too: they're selling it, and using it to serve more ads. That's what they do as a business. It's not like they're developers or a software house or something... all their stuff is free to: Sell. More. Ads.
More that they're selling their ability to offer user specific, targeted advertising rather than selling user data itself. Generally Google is placing the ads at the behest of the advertisers. Even Apple gives Google permission to use targeted advertising on their mobile devices, with at least a wink-wink to harvest location data from iDevices.
Apple's iAds has much the same goal, which is probably why iAds requires opt-out rather than opt-in. Few users are going to take the time to go visit an obscure webpage to block location harvesting, assuming they even know about it in the first place. Knowing who the audience is is vitally important to Apple too if they want to compete.
If your Application was using that database to lock a location, it should still work fine, even with the shortened amount of data.
Google Maps with Navigation (Android) allows you to set destinations on the fly and locks within seconds (providing you're outdoors) so I think that's more a feature of Cellphone technology more than anything else. The Cache can help, but your iPhone app should be fine with a limited one, as long as it is accurate.
I would be so lost if I didn't have GPS on my phone. I don't care what OS you have, the ability to get navigation on your phone is awesome.
If information is being fed to your phone by Apple, and that's what this is really all about, then the cache is being used by your device. While seven days of data may be useful as well, if you're going somewhere you haven't been for longer than that, then the info won't be there.
Google collects this info as well, and I suspect that they collect much more than they're willing to admit so far.
The more the better but you can do it with three. The fourth would be used for elevation but you only need three for latitude and longitude.
Sorry, still incorrect. While that might seem to make sense, your gps-enabled device cannot give you an initial location estimate without four satellites locked.
Trust me if I make a statement about GPS
So perhaps there is an element of economics in the decision to have a hotspot database.
I would think so. The smallest number of satellites that can be used is three, and the most is above eight, from what I remember, though those numbers could have changed. The more that can be communicated with, the faster and more accurate the fix.
Why do so many Americans think they are doing something useful by rushing to court with a class action at the slightest little human error? Like the recent claim that members of the class of iPhone owners would not have bought if they had "known that Apple is tracking them". And asking for damages.
[?]
When will Americans grow up and start to take personal responsibitility and stop trying to get rich at the expense of the people who provide the most useful services in the world? This litigation society is sick.
Why do people classify an entire group of people as the same based on a few individuals. I don?t refer to New Zealanders as hobbits even though most of them are from Middle Earth.
One last point to my above post:
If the iTunes back-up would have been, or is encrypted, am I to assume that this "iPhoneTrackerGate" software would have never made the news?
Or if consolidated.db wasn?t included in the backup. Or if consoldiated.db was purged of tables older than one week.
More that they're selling their ability to offer user specific, targeted advertising rather than selling user data itself. Generally Google is placing the ads at the behest of the advertisers. Even Apple gives Google permission to use targeted advertising on their mobile devices, with at least a wink-wink to harvest location data from iDevices.
Apple's iAds has much the same goal, which is probably why iAds requires opt-out rather than opt-in. Few users are going to take the time to go visit an obscure webpage to block location harvesting, assuming they even know about it in the first place. Knowing who the audience is is vitally important to Apple too if they want to compete.
To tell ya the truth... I actually like location services, and what it provides to a marketer of targeted services. Being in the ad & marketing biz myself, makes me appreciate this more than you know, and be able to sell to clients the genius of devices and ads that use these services. Carpet-bombing campaigns are so 90's... and a serious waste of money IMHO. Push-advertising for opt-in parties is where the fun... and money is.
Why do so many Americans think they are doing something useful by rushing to court with a class action at the slightest little human error? Like the recent claim that members of the class of iPhone owners would not have bought if they had "known that Apple is tracking them". And asking for damages.
This was before there was even a response from Apple but after many people were already saying it was a bug that would get fixed. If they don't like their iPhone, stop using it! Maybe go and ask for a refund but how can they know how many other iPhone users "would not have bought their iPhone"? Have they done a survey?
How would these plaintiffs like it if they got sued for multiple damages for every tiny error they made in their best work/products? They deserve to be.
When will Americans grow up and start to take personal responsibitility and stop trying to get rich at the expense of the people who provide the most useful services in the world? This litigation society is sick.
It's called greed. According to the constitution, anyone can sue anyone. It was a response to the old European system of most people not having any recourse in the courts.
There's no conspiracy theory, it's just obvious that Google is lying because their "inadvertent" excuse isn't credible when you consider they had to be seeing all the private data they collected go into their database for years.
Thank goodness you're here to prove the original poster correct about the conspiracy theory stuff.
Did you even read Google's response about the Street View incident? Here's the link to a nice blog entry about it. Maybe it will help you pull your head out of the dark hole it's apparently stuck in.
Also the military version is much more accurate than the public is allowed to receive. To limit the accuracy of the public GPS, the satellites respond much less frequently to public devices than to military devices. There is a code in the GPS unit that limits the frequency of the updates.
That's an interesting fact. But if they're broadcasting it, how can they stop anyone who wants looking at it? Or are you saying receivers are required to be built a certain way? Never mind, I can probably look this up myself, they key point is that commercial units are different to military units.
That's not correct Mel. It takes four sat's locked to get an initial estimate of your position. What you might be thinking about is the old handheld 12 or 16 channel gps's back in the day. They've been obsolete for awhile now. Nearly all the newer standalone pnd's will have you located and on your way in seconds due to onboard computation of ephemeris data, or in other words where to look in the sky to find those satellites. TomTom devices would be the lone exception, requiring you to connect to their servers to download that data file. But that's only so they can harvest your travel stats at the same time and no other reason.
I don't know if Apple's Infineon gps chip offers "quickfix" or "Instantfix" autonomous sat location software, but I would think it would. What A-GPS does very well is give you a faster estimate of your location, filling in until the GPS has you pegged, or augmenting when signal may not be the best.
We still have differing models of gps units using different numbers of satellites. That hasn't gone away. It isn't as necessary as before, but it's still being done.
I just came upon NassarAE post and info, where the article says that the receiver needs "at least three" satellites, as I said.
Why do people classify an entire group of people as the same based on a few individuals. I don’t refer to New Zealanders as hobbits even though most of them are from Middle Earth.
Funny... but take a look around you.... or go to Engadget. Very possible it's an isolated Internet thing with us geeks though, so your tolerance regarding "them" is respected in my book
Or if consolidated.db wasn’t included in the backup. Or if consoldiated.db was purged of tables older than one week.
Yes. I agree going forward. But why wouldn't you want ALL of your back-up encrypted... and why for an admittedly "consumer device", is this not the default? Ya snark
But the US system is what the world currently relies on.
Sorry, still incorrect. While that might seem to make sense, your gps-enabled device cannot give you an initial location estimate without four satellites locked.
Trust me if I make a statement about GPS
Apparently, you're wrong though. Can you post something showing that it requires 4 and only ever uses 4?
Sorry, still incorrect. While that might seem to make sense, your gps-enabled device cannot give you an initial location estimate without four satellites locked.
Trust me if I make a statement about GPS
Someone needs to tell Garmin then.
From my Garmin Quick Start Guide. Part No. 190-00161-01 Rev. A January 1999
Page 3:
"If some of the satellites in view are blocked, or "shaded", the receiver can use the remaining satellites (at least three are needed) to maintain its location."
It doesn't say how many are required to initially fix your location but it apparently only needs three to maintain it.
The more the better but you can do it with three. The fourth would be used for elevation but you only need three for latitude and longitude.
Sorry, still incorrect. While that might seem to make sense, your gps-enabled device cannot give you an initial location estimate without four satellites locked.
Trust me if I make a statement about GPS
You?re right, and being knowledgable in a subject is great, but you have to establish that so detailing why and posting links that back up your points are helpful to others and to your point.
This explains it better than I can: