Not directly but when you use an Android device, you can have a single login to GMail, Youtube, the Android Store, Google Voice, personalised search, adwords etc. Some services are paid. While people who already use those services might use them on Windows Phone or Blackberry, those companies want to push their own services like Bing, BBM, Windows Live/Hotmail, MSN, Skype and so on. When you are talking about 300 million users, the impact of that becomes significant and for every Android user that wants an app, they sign up to Google and they have an access point to everything else.
In the case of voice search, it might show adword links, which people pay Google for so they gain by doing this.
That doesn't explain why they use Apple products in their marketing videos instead of the products of the companies they partner with to deliver Android. If they wanted to destroy Apple, surely they use a Samsung Galaxy S3 or Nexus S. What possible reason do they have to promote the product of a supposed competitor other than that Google doesn't see them as a competitor?
I often hear people criticising Google for what they did with Android but tell me what you'd prefer as an alternative. Apple cannot take 100% of the smartphone market because they aren't on the cheapest tariffs. That leaves a gap in the market. If Google doesn't fill it then who? Microsoft or RIM, neither of which have the slightest interest in supporting Apple or pushing communications and web standards forward nor in making them open for everyone.
I'd like to see Apple getting more credit for what they did and not have legions of Android fans deluded into thinking what they are currently using came entirely from Google and would have existed regardless of Apple but I think the alternative situation is far worse. At this stage, I don't think there's a single thing Google can do to take down the most proftable company in the world. As long as Apple keeps making high quality products, they have nothing to worry about.
Eventually Apple's marketshare will become the minority but that's only starting to happen - Android and iOS will be around 350 million units each and the next iPhone will be the biggest seller ever. There's only 7 billion people in the world and over half can't afford a smartphone: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
The entire potential phone market is realistically 2 billion units and Android and iOS already account for 1/3 of this. If they both ship over 30 million units per quarter, the market will be entirely saturated in under 10 years. People will still upgrade but iOS and Android will be the standard that Nokia once was.
Apple won't lose by Google's success and vice versa.
Google commoditizes the means. The end user commoditizes the end. That makes the whole process a commodity market, interpreted, weighed in, weighed out by sophisticated proprietary algorithms and measuring tools. The information flows unimpeded from raw data to actionable metrics in a subterranean build-up of contextual human interactions.
What appears to be free, ...and a gift from heaven of sort, happens to be a multi-pronged channel (Apple, Android and all...) to the ultimate back-room sorting out of human behavior into its fit-for-trade, 'monytizable' components. The very opposite of identity empowerment. Identity swap done under general anesthesia, ...digital DNA going one way(Android to OEMs, platform-agnostic free sophisticated apps to end users), organic DNA(empirical human data) going the other way.
What's wrong with that?
Well..., never has so much omnipotence been stealthily and unsuspectingly delegated to so few already proven untrustworthy megalomaniacs.
Up until two or three years ago, I was service-provider agnostic. Google has made a mortal enemy out of a...then...basically neutral end-user of its digital entrapment. I'm sad to learn that you're into the rationale of an identity swap, ...and attuning you rhetorics to Google's closet, sinister mantra.
I can't wait because then all the critics of Siri are going to realise it's not Apple's fault Siri isn't that good.
Dictation on computers is crap. It always has been crap and it always will be crap until there is a radical shift in the way computers understand humans. Hell, Google can't even do natural search let along getting voice to work with its search engine.
Siri will always be a gimick limited to a certain set of people that the devices can actually understand until computers can understand how the human voice works. But that's only half the problem. Apple has done massive work with the second half, that of understanding what is being asked of it. It still has a long way to go and it will always be limited to the interfaces Siri has to interact with namely Google, Yelp, Wolfram Alpha, etc.
The information flows unimpeded from raw data to actionable metrics in a subterranean build-up of contextual human interactions.
What's wrong with that?
Well..., never has so much omnipotence been stealthily and unsuspectingly delegated to so few already proven untrustworthy megalomaniacs.
Up until two or three years ago, I was service-provider agnostic. Google has made a mortal enemy out of a...then...basically neutral end-user of its digital entrapment. I'm sad to learn that you're into the rationale of an identity swap, ...and attuning you rhetorics to Google's closet, sinister mantra.
Ultimately I look at the potential damage that can be caused to me personally and I don't see any. If Google tracks that I search for an SSD and I visit a site with ad space and adwords pop up a deal on an SSD rather than commemorative plates of the Royal Wedding then it's all good IMO.
When you weigh it up from your own perspective as an individual being watched by a corporation, it seems invasive but when you look at it the other way round, you realise that it's a single company directing the traffic of 4 billion people per day. There's only a very coarse level of granularity you can afford on a regular basis with that amount of data. When law enforcement demands that they hand over browsing history for IP addresses then they can certainly prove misdeeds but for the average law-abiding person, it's harmless data and certainly no individual will be trawling through it.
Google's biggest concern is discerning the meaning in that data to improve the quality of their search results and conversion rates for advertisers, which for the vast majority of users will result in a positive impact.
The social side of things (especially Facebook) is evil. They want to grab your life and put it up for the world to see in order to sell advertising - that's a direct exchange of identity for profit under the guise of social connectivity. But even at that, nearly 1 billion people keep using the services and don't appear to be any worse off. If these things had a significant danger, the effects would have been felt by now.
Google just got a fine for 'privacy invasion' but they said no personal info was stored:
People are increasingly sensitive to this kind of thing like Apple tracking where you go with your phone. At first glance, it appears dangerous but when you think about what it could really be used for, it's really hard to find scenarios where you would suffer from its misuse.
I'd rather see Apple and Google work closer together than further apart to the benefit of both Android and iOS users and to the detriment of the people who hold technology back for their own profit at the expense of the users - they know who they are.
Well put, in this and your other posts Marvin. I agree, I'd rather see Google and Apple kiss and make up and work together to improve their respective platforms and services both in Android and iOS. I don't mind them competing be it at the smartphone/mobile OS level, or at the app/services level, but I much rather that things change and move away from all the negativity that people who use Google/Android have towards Apple and those who use Apple/iOS have towards Google. Some healthy competition from each other would be good for both companies and benefit us users in the long run. For my part, I have no complains about Google or Apple, I am very much a fan of both companies and have trusted both with my data and have relied on their products and services for years without ever having an issue.
I think there is room for these two amazing companies in the market, despite the overlapping areas, iOS and Android have their own target market, and just because you like one it does not means you must hate the other simply because it competes with your platform of choice. I have been a Mac user for nearly 20 years, never owned a PC or Linux box and been with the iPhone since the 3GS (previously owning iPods all the way from the iPod Touch to the original 5GB iPod). Yet I am planning to switch to an Android smartphone soon, not because I hate Apple or to boycott them as the growing trend tries to dictate, but because at this point I find the Android platform better suits my needs as a smartphone user and I also want a bigger screen, it also goes quite well with my reliance in Google's services. Yet I am keeping my current iPhone around, which I love, that I will use like an iPod Touch of sorts. It will also allow me to have both an Android and iOS device to test the sites I build in, which is great!
In any case, personally I am a tad turned off by the growing trend to hate Google among Apple fans, and the growing trend to hate Apple among Android fans. I really hope both sides can shake hands, because really...I'd love to be in a situation where the market is dominated by Google and Apple, with both companies keeping each other in their toes with healthy competition, than by a market polluted by the likes of Microsoft and RIM, who are clearly not interested in the advancement of communications and web standars (cannot wait for IE to sink, literally) as Marvin mentioned.
Not directly but when you use an Android device, you can have a single login to GMail, Youtube, the Android Store, Google Voice, personalised search, adwords etc. Some services are paid. While people who already use those services might use them on Windows Phone or Blackberry, those companies want to push their own services like Bing, BBM, Windows Live/Hotmail, MSN, Skype and so on. When you are talking about 300 million users, the impact of that becomes significant and for every Android user that wants an app, they sign up to Google and they have an access point to everything else.
Which is exactly what Google hopes to achieve: cut everyone else out of the loop and control access to everything.
Quote:
That doesn't explain why they use Apple products in their marketing videos instead of the products of the companies they partner with to deliver Android. If they wanted to destroy Apple, surely they use a Samsung Galaxy S3 or Nexus S. What possible reason do they have to promote the product of a supposed competitor other than that Google doesn't see them as a competitor?
I often hear people criticising Google for what they did with Android but tell me what you'd prefer as an alternative. Apple cannot take 100% of the smartphone market because they aren't on the cheapest tariffs. That leaves a gap in the market. If Google doesn't fill it then who? Microsoft or RIM, neither of which have the slightest interest in supporting Apple or pushing communications and web standards forward nor in making them open for everyone.
Well, they probably use Apple products because none of those other products have any recognition with audiences. That doesn't mean they are supporting Apple and wishing them the best. In fact, they are working to undermine Apple any way they can. (What else was the whole Flash on Android thing about, or what do you think WebM is about? To give just 2 examples.) It's not about whether those other companies are supporting Apple or not. It's about whether Google is, like Microsoft, fundamentally a destructive company or a creative company, and I don't think, given their business practices that we've all seen over the years, there can be any answer to that other than that they are fundamentally destructive, and even more so than Microsoft ever was. That they are fundamentally a company that thrives on cutting off competitors oxygen, not by producing great products.
Google just got a fine for 'privacy invasion' but they said no personal info was stored:
They said the data was anonymous and in the next breath that it wasn't:
Quote:
To enable these features, we created a temporary communication link between Safari browsers and Google?s servers, so that we could ascertain whether Safari users were also signed into Google, and had opted for this type of personalization. But we designed this so that the information passing between the user?s Safari browser and Google?s servers was anonymous--effectively creating a barrier between their personal information and the web content they browse.
If that's not the most blatant double speak any of us have ever read, I don't know what is. Ascertain whether they were signed in, personalization, but anonymous? Completely contradictory.
uhhh, that icon was used since BEFORE siri. Ever heard of voice actions? Yep, same mic. Been using that mic FOR YEARS.
But of course, all you are aware of is Apple products, therefore would not be aware of that and would assume everything apple does, Apple does first.
Hope you don't go saying Samsung is following Apple by increasing the size of their phone screens next year.
That microphone is based on the famous that David Lettermann used for years. I forget the actual model. Did you ever notice that Jay Leno, Conan, etc.... Everyone else uses a different brand and shape of microphone?
More than anything else, this looks like a panicked reaction to Siri routing search away from Google and their ads.
This seems useful but more of a anothe way for Google to collect personal info and target ads.
Most of the searches seam to dump the user into the standard search results page.
Maybe I'm thinking too far into the future but how is Google going to get people to look at ads in 10-20 years if we have real "Star Trek" - like computers where we don't have to look at the screen, thereby bypassing all Google ads.
When computers are smart enough and can give a definitive answer for many more questions than something simple like the population of Cape Cod. When computers are smart enough to find our answer rather than listing 253,487 websites when the top 50 contain the same simple relevant answer.
I guess I'm just wondering what the brilliant people ( no sarcasm ) at Google are planning for the future? They are going to have to disrupt their current business model of our eyes looking at their search results on a screen. Of course a decent percentage of searches will still require visualization, and end user filtration, but I don't need 10,000 sites listed to tell me a sports score.
Will they bring this tech to the chrome browser? Killing their cash cow in the process?
Well, they probably use Apple products because none of those other products have any recognition with audiences.
Isn't that the whole point of advertising though - to raise your profile? Blackberry wouldn't put iPhones in their ads for example just because people outside of business wouldn't recognise who they are.
That was about having an open video format. H.264 is proprietary. Ironically, it's the same argument as Flash vs HTML 5 with Google taking the opposite side from Apple.
I don't think, given their business practices that we've all seen over the years, there can be any answer to that other than that they are fundamentally destructive, and even more so than Microsoft ever was.
In terms of vendor lock-in, Microsoft has Office, Windows games, accounting software, until recently CAD software, bundled IE (not all of this necessarily malicious but just the way the market worked out). Google has no such lock-in. Nothing you do has to rely on Google and they don't force you to use any of their services. By contrast, you have little option in many scenarios but to use products from Microsoft. This is gradually changing but slowly.
Ascertain whether they were signed in, personalization, but anonymous? Completely contradictory.
Not entirely, they can stored a unique ID in the browser that says to show certain information based on the options they chose. So in Google settings, they could opt for personalised results and Google could store something in the browser that effectively says 'show this user gardening tools' but there's no link between a search session and their actual Google info. It would probably be a unique user ID store in the browser that linked to a table of interests but with no link to a user's unique profile. 3rd party advertisers could use this data too but apparently they didn't mean to turn that on. Like I say though, not damaging info in either case.
Isn't that the whole point of advertising though - to raise your profile? Blackberry wouldn't put iPhones in their ads for example just because people outside of business wouldn't recognise who they are.
That was about having an open video format. H.264 is proprietary. Ironically, it's the same argument as Flash vs HTML 5 with Google taking the opposite side from Apple.
In terms of vendor lock-in, Microsoft has Office, Windows games, accounting software, until recently CAD software, bundled IE (not all of this necessarily malicious but just the way the market worked out). Google has no such lock-in. Nothing you do has to rely on Google and they don't force you to use any of their services. By contrast, you have little option in many scenarios but to use products from Microsoft. This is gradually changing but slowly.
Not entirely, they can stored a unique ID in the browser that says to show certain information based on the options they chose. So in Google settings, they could opt for personalised results and Google could store something in the browser that effectively says 'show this user gardening tools' but there's no link between a search session and their actual Google info. It would probably be a unique user ID store in the browser that linked to a table of interests but with no link to a user's unique profile. 3rd party advertisers could use this data too but apparently they didn't mean to turn that on. Like I say though, not damaging info in either case.
Flash on Android had nothing to do with DRM, it had everything to do with Google trying to make Flash not on iOS an issue. WebM has nothing to do with open formats, H.264 is an open standard, it had everything to do with Google trying to fragment web video and undermine standards. All of these things are destructive actions.
Your "explanation" of Google's privacy violations is nonsense. Google's "explanation" is an outright lie.
In terms of how the marketing is presented, it's easier to say Apple is being difficult than explain the technical issues because that's what people respond to.
WebM has nothing to do with open formats, H.264 is an open standard it had everything to do with Google trying to fragment web video and undermine standards. All of these things are destructive actions.
H.264 is an open standard but proprietary and needs royalty payments. That is destructive to some companies.
Your "explanation" of Google's privacy violations is nonsense. Google's "explanation" is an outright lie.
Which parts are nonsense/lies? Browsers have cookies that store data and they store IDs. Google can't rely on data being stored in the browser as it can get flushed so it gets stored in their databases (Big Table). When you visit a Google service it looks up the unique signature for identification. To violate your privacy that unique signature would have to be linked to your Google profile.
Google says that wasn't the case (I'm aware you don't believe them but that's not their problem) so the alternative I described is that they created an independent minimal profile to allow some personalisation (only if the user has enabled this in their Google profile) but didn't link the data with your account.
Even if they had linked it to the Google profile, tell me how you (or anyone else) have suffered as a result. Give me an example of the consequences of the privacy violation.
" Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be royalty-bearing.
MPEG LA's AVC Patent Portfolio License provides access to essential patent rights for the AVC/H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) digital video coding standard. In addition to Internet Broadcast AVC Video, MPEG LA’s AVC Patent Portfolio License provides coverage for devices that decode and encode AVC video, AVC video sold to end users for a fee on a title or subscription basis and free television video services. AVC video is used in set-top boxes, media player and other personal computer software, mobile devices including telephones and mobile television receivers, Blu-ray Disc™ players and recorders, Blu-ray video optical discs, game machines, personal media player devices and still and video cameras."
It's mainly the decoders, whose licenses can change in a few years. There's uncertainty basing a web standard on a product controlled by a private group providing it for financial gain. I personally side with H.264 but people can't just say the motivation of its critics has nothing to do with this:
There's no royalty for the first 100,000 units of a licensed product; sublicensees pay 20 cents per unit up to 5 million and 10 cents per unit above 5 million. The current agreement includes an annual limit: “The maximum annual royalty (‘cap’) for an Enterprise [is] $6.5 million per year in 2011-2015.”
Although the license agreement uses the word sold, the royalties have to be paid even on software that is given away. The current cap of $6.5 million a year applies until the end of 2015.
There's also no royalty for any title 12 minutes or less in length, even if it's paid for. For anything over 12 minutes, the rates depend on whether the end user pays on a title-by-title basis or as part of a subscription service. directly for video services.
For individual videos, the royalty is the lower of 2% of the price paid to the licensee or $0.02 per title. Under that scale, a video clip that costs $1 and a Blu-ray disk that wholesales for $20 are subject to the same royalty of $0.02.
For subscription video services, the royalty is an annual fee based on the number of subscribers. A sliding scale goes from 0 (for up to 250,000 subscribers) to $100,000 (for more than 1 million subscribers) per year.
As with software companies, there's a maximum annual royalty ("cap") of $6.5 million per year for the current term.
What happens in 2016? Under the MPEG LA license, the terms are "renewable for successive five-year periods … on reasonable terms and conditions.” The per-copy royalty rates "will not increase by more than 10% at each renewal.” If rates go up by the maximum 10% for that five-year period, the cost of 10 million licenses will increase by $150,000 from a current rate of $1.48 million to $1.63 million.
There's a small gotcha in the new MPEG LA license agreement. Footnote 17, which appears in tiny print at the very end of the summary of license terms, notes that “Annual royalty caps are not subject to the 10% limitation.” Although that sounds like a loophole, it really only affects the largest players in the market.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
There's not a single microphone on the face of the planet that looks different. Nope. Google had to use that icon.
Also, it's just Samsung that copies. Regular Android and the stuff Google does aren't copies at all.
Wow. You're fucked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
Google, now known as Microsoft. I'll be referring to it as Goocrosoft from now on.
I should warn you though. You do sound like a complete twat when you do. Proceed.
Originally Posted by yu119995
Wow. You're fucked.
Who?
Originally Posted by yu119995
I should warn you though. You do sound like a complete twat when you do. Proceed.
Who?
You really ought to quote.
What appears to be free, ...and a gift from heaven of sort, happens to be a multi-pronged channel (Apple, Android and all...) to the ultimate back-room sorting out of human behavior into its fit-for-trade, 'monytizable' components. The very opposite of identity empowerment. Identity swap done under general anesthesia, ...digital DNA going one way(Android to OEMs, platform-agnostic free sophisticated apps to end users), organic DNA(empirical human data) going the other way.
What's wrong with that?
Well..., never has so much omnipotence been stealthily and unsuspectingly delegated to so few already proven untrustworthy megalomaniacs.
Up until two or three years ago, I was service-provider agnostic. Google has made a mortal enemy out of a...then...basically neutral end-user of its digital entrapment. I'm sad to learn that you're into the rationale of an identity swap, ...and attuning you rhetorics to Google's closet, sinister mantra.
I can't wait because then all the critics of Siri are going to realise it's not Apple's fault Siri isn't that good.
Dictation on computers is crap. It always has been crap and it always will be crap until there is a radical shift in the way computers understand humans. Hell, Google can't even do natural search let along getting voice to work with its search engine.
Siri will always be a gimick limited to a certain set of people that the devices can actually understand until computers can understand how the human voice works. But that's only half the problem. Apple has done massive work with the second half, that of understanding what is being asked of it. It still has a long way to go and it will always be limited to the interfaces Siri has to interact with namely Google, Yelp, Wolfram Alpha, etc.
Ultimately I look at the potential damage that can be caused to me personally and I don't see any. If Google tracks that I search for an SSD and I visit a site with ad space and adwords pop up a deal on an SSD rather than commemorative plates of the Royal Wedding then it's all good IMO.
When you weigh it up from your own perspective as an individual being watched by a corporation, it seems invasive but when you look at it the other way round, you realise that it's a single company directing the traffic of 4 billion people per day. There's only a very coarse level of granularity you can afford on a regular basis with that amount of data. When law enforcement demands that they hand over browsing history for IP addresses then they can certainly prove misdeeds but for the average law-abiding person, it's harmless data and certainly no individual will be trawling through it.
Google's biggest concern is discerning the meaning in that data to improve the quality of their search results and conversion rates for advertisers, which for the vast majority of users will result in a positive impact.
The social side of things (especially Facebook) is evil. They want to grab your life and put it up for the world to see in order to sell advertising - that's a direct exchange of identity for profit under the guise of social connectivity. But even at that, nearly 1 billion people keep using the services and don't appear to be any worse off. If these things had a significant danger, the effects would have been felt by now.
Google just got a fine for 'privacy invasion' but they said no personal info was stored:
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/08/09/google-fined-us22-5-million-in-apple-safari-privacy-invasion-case/
People are increasingly sensitive to this kind of thing like Apple tracking where you go with your phone. At first glance, it appears dangerous but when you think about what it could really be used for, it's really hard to find scenarios where you would suffer from its misuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
The Apple ripped off Android's notification centre?
How do you "rip off" open source, unless it isn't "open source" which makes advertising claims that Android is "open" misleading to consumers?
Originally Posted by hill60
How do you "rip off" open source, unless it isn't "open source" which makes advertising claims that Android is "open" misleading to consumers?
You know, it's almost as if the Android fans on here are lying. Huh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I'd rather see Apple and Google work closer together than further apart to the benefit of both Android and iOS users and to the detriment of the people who hold technology back for their own profit at the expense of the users - they know who they are.
Well put, in this and your other posts Marvin. I agree, I'd rather see Google and Apple kiss and make up and work together to improve their respective platforms and services both in Android and iOS. I don't mind them competing be it at the smartphone/mobile OS level, or at the app/services level, but I much rather that things change and move away from all the negativity that people who use Google/Android have towards Apple and those who use Apple/iOS have towards Google. Some healthy competition from each other would be good for both companies and benefit us users in the long run. For my part, I have no complains about Google or Apple, I am very much a fan of both companies and have trusted both with my data and have relied on their products and services for years without ever having an issue.
I think there is room for these two amazing companies in the market, despite the overlapping areas, iOS and Android have their own target market, and just because you like one it does not means you must hate the other simply because it competes with your platform of choice. I have been a Mac user for nearly 20 years, never owned a PC or Linux box and been with the iPhone since the 3GS (previously owning iPods all the way from the iPod Touch to the original 5GB iPod). Yet I am planning to switch to an Android smartphone soon, not because I hate Apple or to boycott them as the growing trend tries to dictate, but because at this point I find the Android platform better suits my needs as a smartphone user and I also want a bigger screen, it also goes quite well with my reliance in Google's services. Yet I am keeping my current iPhone around, which I love, that I will use like an iPod Touch of sorts. It will also allow me to have both an Android and iOS device to test the sites I build in, which is great!
In any case, personally I am a tad turned off by the growing trend to hate Google among Apple fans, and the growing trend to hate Apple among Android fans. I really hope both sides can shake hands, because really...I'd love to be in a situation where the market is dominated by Google and Apple, with both companies keeping each other in their toes with healthy competition, than by a market polluted by the likes of Microsoft and RIM, who are clearly not interested in the advancement of communications and web standars (cannot wait for IE to sink, literally) as Marvin mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Not directly but when you use an Android device, you can have a single login to GMail, Youtube, the Android Store, Google Voice, personalised search, adwords etc. Some services are paid. While people who already use those services might use them on Windows Phone or Blackberry, those companies want to push their own services like Bing, BBM, Windows Live/Hotmail, MSN, Skype and so on. When you are talking about 300 million users, the impact of that becomes significant and for every Android user that wants an app, they sign up to Google and they have an access point to everything else.
Which is exactly what Google hopes to achieve: cut everyone else out of the loop and control access to everything.
Quote:
That doesn't explain why they use Apple products in their marketing videos instead of the products of the companies they partner with to deliver Android. If they wanted to destroy Apple, surely they use a Samsung Galaxy S3 or Nexus S. What possible reason do they have to promote the product of a supposed competitor other than that Google doesn't see them as a competitor?
I often hear people criticising Google for what they did with Android but tell me what you'd prefer as an alternative. Apple cannot take 100% of the smartphone market because they aren't on the cheapest tariffs. That leaves a gap in the market. If Google doesn't fill it then who? Microsoft or RIM, neither of which have the slightest interest in supporting Apple or pushing communications and web standards forward nor in making them open for everyone.
Well, they probably use Apple products because none of those other products have any recognition with audiences. That doesn't mean they are supporting Apple and wishing them the best. In fact, they are working to undermine Apple any way they can. (What else was the whole Flash on Android thing about, or what do you think WebM is about? To give just 2 examples.) It's not about whether those other companies are supporting Apple or not. It's about whether Google is, like Microsoft, fundamentally a destructive company or a creative company, and I don't think, given their business practices that we've all seen over the years, there can be any answer to that other than that they are fundamentally destructive, and even more so than Microsoft ever was. That they are fundamentally a company that thrives on cutting off competitors oxygen, not by producing great products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Google just got a fine for 'privacy invasion' but they said no personal info was stored:
They said the data was anonymous and in the next breath that it wasn't:
Quote:
To enable these features, we created a temporary communication link between Safari browsers and Google?s servers, so that we could ascertain whether Safari users were also signed into Google, and had opted for this type of personalization. But we designed this so that the information passing between the user?s Safari browser and Google?s servers was anonymous--effectively creating a barrier between their personal information and the web content they browse.
If that's not the most blatant double speak any of us have ever read, I don't know what is. Ascertain whether they were signed in, personalization, but anonymous? Completely contradictory.
That microphone is based on the famous that David Lettermann used for years. I forget the actual model. Did you ever notice that Jay Leno, Conan, etc.... Everyone else uses a different brand and shape of microphone?
Just saying....
This seems useful but more of a anothe way for Google to collect personal info and target ads.
Most of the searches seam to dump the user into the standard search results page.
Maybe I'm thinking too far into the future but how is Google going to get people to look at ads in 10-20 years if we have real "Star Trek" - like computers where we don't have to look at the screen, thereby bypassing all Google ads.
When computers are smart enough and can give a definitive answer for many more questions than something simple like the population of Cape Cod. When computers are smart enough to find our answer rather than listing 253,487 websites when the top 50 contain the same simple relevant answer.
I guess I'm just wondering what the brilliant people ( no sarcasm ) at Google are planning for the future? They are going to have to disrupt their current business model of our eyes looking at their search results on a screen. Of course a decent percentage of searches will still require visualization, and end user filtration, but I don't need 10,000 sites listed to tell me a sports score.
Will they bring this tech to the chrome browser? Killing their cash cow in the process?
Food for thought....
A small price to pay for speaking the truth. Long live Goocrosoft!
Isn't that the whole point of advertising though - to raise your profile? Blackberry wouldn't put iPhones in their ads for example just because people outside of business wouldn't recognise who they are.
HTML 5 still lacked in areas like DRM:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/23/google-microsoft-and-netflix-want-drm-like-encryption-in-html5/
Like Adobe, they just want workable solutions.
That was about having an open video format. H.264 is proprietary. Ironically, it's the same argument as Flash vs HTML 5 with Google taking the opposite side from Apple.
In terms of vendor lock-in, Microsoft has Office, Windows games, accounting software, until recently CAD software, bundled IE (not all of this necessarily malicious but just the way the market worked out). Google has no such lock-in. Nothing you do has to rely on Google and they don't force you to use any of their services. By contrast, you have little option in many scenarios but to use products from Microsoft. This is gradually changing but slowly.
Not entirely, they can stored a unique ID in the browser that says to show certain information based on the options they chose. So in Google settings, they could opt for personalised results and Google could store something in the browser that effectively says 'show this user gardening tools' but there's no link between a search session and their actual Google info. It would probably be a unique user ID store in the browser that linked to a table of interests but with no link to a user's unique profile. 3rd party advertisers could use this data too but apparently they didn't mean to turn that on. Like I say though, not damaging info in either case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Isn't that the whole point of advertising though - to raise your profile? Blackberry wouldn't put iPhones in their ads for example just because people outside of business wouldn't recognise who they are.
HTML 5 still lacked in areas like DRM:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/23/google-microsoft-and-netflix-want-drm-like-encryption-in-html5/
Like Adobe, they just want workable solutions.
That was about having an open video format. H.264 is proprietary. Ironically, it's the same argument as Flash vs HTML 5 with Google taking the opposite side from Apple.
In terms of vendor lock-in, Microsoft has Office, Windows games, accounting software, until recently CAD software, bundled IE (not all of this necessarily malicious but just the way the market worked out). Google has no such lock-in. Nothing you do has to rely on Google and they don't force you to use any of their services. By contrast, you have little option in many scenarios but to use products from Microsoft. This is gradually changing but slowly.
Not entirely, they can stored a unique ID in the browser that says to show certain information based on the options they chose. So in Google settings, they could opt for personalised results and Google could store something in the browser that effectively says 'show this user gardening tools' but there's no link between a search session and their actual Google info. It would probably be a unique user ID store in the browser that linked to a table of interests but with no link to a user's unique profile. 3rd party advertisers could use this data too but apparently they didn't mean to turn that on. Like I say though, not damaging info in either case.
Flash on Android had nothing to do with DRM, it had everything to do with Google trying to make Flash not on iOS an issue. WebM has nothing to do with open formats, H.264 is an open standard, it had everything to do with Google trying to fragment web video and undermine standards. All of these things are destructive actions.
Your "explanation" of Google's privacy violations is nonsense. Google's "explanation" is an outright lie.
So why did they ask for DRM support in HTML 5? The people at Youtube explained some of the limitations:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/youtube-html5-does-not-yet-meet-all-of-our-needs/8809
In terms of how the marketing is presented, it's easier to say Apple is being difficult than explain the technical issues because that's what people respond to.
H.264 is an open standard but proprietary and needs royalty payments. That is destructive to some companies.
Which parts are nonsense/lies? Browsers have cookies that store data and they store IDs. Google can't rely on data being stored in the browser as it can get flushed so it gets stored in their databases (Big Table). When you visit a Google service it looks up the unique signature for identification. To violate your privacy that unique signature would have to be linked to your Google profile.
Google says that wasn't the case (I'm aware you don't believe them but that's not their problem) so the alternative I described is that they created an independent minimal profile to allow some personalisation (only if the user has enabled this in their Google profile) but didn't link the data with your account.
Even if they had linked it to the Google profile, tell me how you (or anyone else) have suffered as a result. Give me an example of the consequences of the privacy violation.
Originally Posted by Marvin
H.264 is an open standard but proprietary and needs royalty payments.
Wait, didn't they drop those?
'Free to the end-user' sure, but still!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Wait, didn't they drop those?
'Free to the end-user' sure, but still!
" Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be royalty-bearing.
MPEG LA's AVC Patent Portfolio License provides access to essential patent rights for the AVC/H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) digital video coding standard. In addition to Internet Broadcast AVC Video, MPEG LA’s AVC Patent Portfolio License provides coverage for devices that decode and encode AVC video, AVC video sold to end users for a fee on a title or subscription basis and free television video services. AVC video is used in set-top boxes, media player and other personal computer software, mobile devices including telephones and mobile television receivers, Blu-ray Disc™ players and recorders, Blu-ray video optical discs, game machines, personal media player devices and still and video cameras."
It's mainly the decoders, whose licenses can change in a few years. There's uncertainty basing a web standard on a product controlled by a private group providing it for financial gain. I personally side with H.264 but people can't just say the motivation of its critics has nothing to do with this:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/2884
There's no royalty for the first 100,000 units of a licensed product; sublicensees pay 20 cents per unit up to 5 million and 10 cents per unit above 5 million. The current agreement includes an annual limit: “The maximum annual royalty (‘cap’) for an Enterprise [is] $6.5 million per year in 2011-2015.”
Although the license agreement uses the word sold, the royalties have to be paid even on software that is given away. The current cap of $6.5 million a year applies until the end of 2015.
There's also no royalty for any title 12 minutes or less in length, even if it's paid for. For anything over 12 minutes, the rates depend on whether the end user pays on a title-by-title basis or as part of a subscription service. directly for video services.
For individual videos, the royalty is the lower of 2% of the price paid to the licensee or $0.02 per title. Under that scale, a video clip that costs $1 and a Blu-ray disk that wholesales for $20 are subject to the same royalty of $0.02.
For subscription video services, the royalty is an annual fee based on the number of subscribers. A sliding scale goes from 0 (for up to 250,000 subscribers) to $100,000 (for more than 1 million subscribers) per year.
As with software companies, there's a maximum annual royalty ("cap") of $6.5 million per year for the current term.
What happens in 2016? Under the MPEG LA license, the terms are "renewable for successive five-year periods … on reasonable terms and conditions.” The per-copy royalty rates "will not increase by more than 10% at each renewal.” If rates go up by the maximum 10% for that five-year period, the cost of 10 million licenses will increase by $150,000 from a current rate of $1.48 million to $1.63 million.
There's a small gotcha in the new MPEG LA license agreement. Footnote 17, which appears in tiny print at the very end of the summary of license terms, notes that “Annual royalty caps are not subject to the 10% limitation.” Although that sounds like a loophole, it really only affects the largest players in the market.