Google I/O 2015 sets a low bar for Apple's WWDC to leap

17810121315

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 295
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Google's spending on advertising is on par with Apple and Microsoft. Over 200 million a year
  • Reply 182 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,673member
    steven n. wrote: »
    Nope. That wording is not a rights grap. Comprehension is very low with you.
    So get more specific then. What in the TOS has you in such a tizzy? So convincingly evil that you even dismiss probably legally-binding statements from Google execs related to it that deny they use your photos for advertising, have plans to do so, or treat them as anything but private and yours?
  • Reply 183 of 295
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    relic wrote: »
    Google's spending on advertising is on par with Apple and Microsoft. Over 200 million a year. I just watched a rally race where Google was the sponsor.
  • Reply 184 of 295
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Since you have read the TOS and have it available what exactly does it say? Read that first paragraph again:
    "Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

    I think it you check a bit further you'll find (if you want to) that i]the only picture Google might use in advertising is the one you might have attached to your public profile. They'll use it when you comment on Google blogs or rate apps. After all if's a public one you provided.

    Google has been very specific that your uploaded photographs are your own and treated as private just as the TOS you quoted says and not belonging to or used by Google for advertising purposes. In fact to deal with stories like yours they've got out in front of it to tell folks not only do they NOT use your private images for advertising they have no plans to do so either. In the event they want to use your photography for advertising they state they will get your explicit permission to use that particular image just as they would be expected to do.

    Google doesn't have carte blanche permission to use them. They're yours, period. YOU control their use.

    I believe your comment is a simple misunderstanding or at worst intentionally misleading FUD. I'll stick with the former.

    Maybe. Maybe not. Flickr/Yahoo seems to use uploaded content in its weather app. I don't know if it asks permission.

    In general with regards the mobile OS wars I think we are seeing one of Steve Jobs' mantras come true. "We control the whole widget". He said that even in the days of desktop computers where it was less important. In mobiles it's essential. Not only do Google not have the ability to force manufacturers to update to the latest OS in a timely manner ( something that didn't matter in the glacial era of desktop updates in the 90's for MS but is essential now) they can't force the OEMs to put the chips or sensors on the devices they have coded for. It must be heart breaking.

    What's Google pay without fingerprint recognition tech? Nothing. And Samsung have their own technology and won't want to share with Google but appparantly if you want M you have to use, not just include, Google pay. What's Samsung's incentive? And is Google going to subsidise the Touch ID equivalent technology outside their own phone. I know they showed some pie in the sky handless purchase but that depends on both getting the square technology in retail stores and the handset manufacturers to install the hardware on devices.

    It's not looking good for the brand really, unless Google get seriously into manufacturing and controlling the whole widget.
  • Reply 185 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,673member
    steven n. wrote: »
    Was that sarcasm? They have a massive sales staff to support various ad campaigns.
    In my limited experience with advertising and promotion they haven't offered to do a campaign for me or any of my clients that I've talked to. They'll assist you with advice on setting up your own Ad Words campaign but it's for you to actually do. I'm not aware of Google themselves doing full-fledged ad campaigns for other companies. Maybe you have something that shows otherwise. No biggie in any case.
  • Reply 186 of 295
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    So get more specific then. What in the TOS has you in such a tizzy? So convincingly evil that you even dismiss probably legally-binding statements from Google execs related to it that deny they use your photos for advertising, have plans to do so, or treat them as anything but private and yours?

    That wasn't Google's TOS. If you want to live in blissful ignorance, I won't stop you. I don't know whose TOS you posted, but it was not Google's.
  • Reply 187 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,673member
    steven n. wrote: »
    That wasn't Google's TOS. If you want to live in blissful ignorance, I won't stop you. I don't know whose TOS you posted, but it was not Google's.
    Like I said, post the section of the Google TOS you find so damning. If there isn't one just say so.
  • Reply 188 of 295
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    In my limited experience with advertising and promotion they haven't offered to do a campaign for me or any of my clients that I've talked to. They'll assist you with advice on setting up your own Ad Words campaign but it's for you to actually do. I'm not aware of Google themselves doing full-fledged ad campaigns for other companies. Maybe you have something that shows otherwise. No biggie in any case.

    I have friends that work with very large multi-nationals doing millions of USD of advertising. Google absolutely does advertising campaigns.
  • Reply 189 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,673member
    steven n. wrote: »
    I have friends that work with very large multi-nationals doing millions of USD of advertising. Google absolutely does advertising campaigns.
    Ah you know somebody who knows somebody. Good enough proof for me.
  • Reply 190 of 295
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Ah you know somebody who knows somebody. Good enough proof for me.

    No, I know somebody that deals with for a living. You very low comprehension when it challenges your religious convictions.
  • Reply 191 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,673member
    steven n. wrote: »
    No, I know somebody that deals with for a living. You very low comprehension when it challenges your religious convictions.
    Well it was certainly fortunate for you that he/she was home tonight so you could question them about it. Like I said, proof enough for me.

    Now back to the Google TOS, what part of it is so egregious, that "rights grab" you spoke of.
  • Reply 192 of 295
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    steven n. wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Google doesn't do 'advertising campaigns'. They're not that type of business.

    Was that sarcasm? They have a massive sales staff to support various ad campaigns.

    Yeah, their own advertising. At the most Google will assist with a campaign but they're never in charge of it.
  • Reply 193 of 295
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Like I said, post the section of the Google TOS you find so damning. If there isn't one just say so.

    "When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

    It only takes a novice to comprehend this. "And those we work with". That's broad. "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of [...] promoting [...] our services." Google defiantly offers advertising services.

    A blind novice would think this is for storing, re sampling and hosting your images. But it goes way way beyond that.

    I don't use Fliker for the same reason. Apple's cloud is too stingy with it 5 GB.
  • Reply 194 of 295
    hausjamhausjam Posts: 3member
    Is this site owned by Apple? Because a lot of relevant facts were conveniently left out of this article. Like the fact that iOS 8 was the biggest mess in the history of mobile OS rollouts. Like the fact that Apple Maps is still trying to dig itself out of a hole. Like the fact that iOS apps still crash more than their Android counterparts. Like some iOS devices now require more frequent reboots than windows desktops. I could go on.

    One thing that the Android and iOS creators thankfully finally have in common; they are coming to their senses, and reversing the trend of forcing new features down users throats (features we didn't ask for and mostly don't use) and putting more effort into killing bugs and working on stability.

    We don't need (and I promise you nearly all of us don't want) new features every year. This is coming, not from an apple hater, buy from a gadget enthusiast who loves (and hates) iOS, Android, and windows phone equally.
  • Reply 195 of 295
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Well it was certainly fortunate for you that he/she was home tonight so you could question them about it. Like I said, proof enough for me.

    Now back to the Google TOS, what part of it is so egregious, that "rights grab" you spoke of.

    Who said I talked to them today? You never talk shop with people? You are desperate to hold on to your religion aren't you?
  • Reply 196 of 295
    alandailalandail Posts: 776member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    That applies to individual images over 16GB. In practical terms almost no one will have an image that large so you'll never bump up against it. For the very few pros/DSLR users with new high-end cameras and resolutions possibly exceeding that file size then use Google Drive or iCloud for them as neither will compress that image. Otherwise that limit is of no concern for regular users.



    Your >500GB catalogs of photos are safe from compression as long as individual photos are under 16GB which they almost certainly will be.

     

    The limit is 16 megapixels, not 16GB.

  • Reply 197 of 295
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Yeah, their own advertising. At the most Google will assist with a campaign but they're never in charge of it.

    I never said they were in charge of it.
  • Reply 198 of 295
    rotateleftbyterotateleftbyte Posts: 1,630member

    I took 36Gb worth of images last Friday. Each press of the shutter uses around 64Mb of card space.

    14Gb is worthless to any pro or semi-pro snapper.

    So far on this trip I have shot 231Gb worth of images (RAW + JPbG)

     

    anyway, this is all moot because I'd never let any of my images get anywhere near Google.

  • Reply 199 of 295
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Incidentally, and apropos of nothing, thanks to Rand Paul the terrible "Patriot Act" is going to expire tonight. Three cheers!

  • Reply 200 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,673member
    steven n. wrote: »
    "When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

    It only takes a novice to comprehend this. "And those we work with". That's broad. "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of [...] promoting [...] our services." Google defiantly offers advertising services.

    A blind novice would think this is for storing, re sampling and hosting your images. But it goes way way beyond that.

    I don't use Fliker for the same reason. Apple's cloud is too stingy with it 5 GB.
    So obviously the simple English statement that begins the section saying what belongs to you remains yours alone means nothing even tho it's part of the TOS. Nor do public statements from Google execs quoted and printed by the press saying Google isn't using your photographs for advertising, has no plans to use them for advertising, and treats your photo collections as private and un-shared for any purpose you haven't specifically requested yourself. It's what they DON'T say that really counts, the "way way beyond that" stuff. We were lucky to have you to cut thru the legalese and decipher it for us. English isn't the easiest language for some.

    So anyway no reason for us to continue talking about it. Lets wait for your predicted instances of Google using those pictures for their own nefarious purposes without the owners permission. If for some reason we don't see them be sure to bring'em to our attention as I'm sure you will. Should start any time now if you're correct in your translation. Forgive me if I don't wait for your news about it tho OK?
Sign In or Register to comment.