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

191011121315»

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 295
    michael scripmichael scrip Posts: 1,915member
    Yes I believe you're correct: they do say Windows and not MS engineering.

    Whatever. Microsoft needs to clean that s**t up because it's making them look bad.. :p

    I wasn't correcting you... I was just piling on

    :D
  • Reply 282 of 295
    dstarsboydstarsboy Posts: 62member

    I'm also guessing there will be some big improvements to the Apple gaming frameworks (SpriteKit,SceneKit,Metal). Unlike on Mac, I think Apple knows gaming is the cat's meow on iOS.

  • Reply 283 of 295
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post





    Do you also get calls from Microsoft Engineering to fix your PC?



    Just curious.... and a warning because it's also a common telemarketing scam.

    No.

     

    I only get the Google listing scam. It's not like I don't hang up, or begin to recognize some numbers and block them.

     

    I'm not keen on getting my computer fixed by anyone other than myself, but I can see that some people would fall prey to this.

     

    As for my issue with the Google Listings scam, I feel fine with assessing a certain amount of blame to Google, which has seen fit ignore these kind of issues. Maybe it is in fact impossible to solve, but doing nothing to mitigate these scams isn't the answer that I am happy with.

  • Reply 284 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    tmay wrote: »
    No.

    I only get the Google listing scam. It's not like I don't hang up, or begin to recognize some numbers and block them.

    I'm not keen on getting my computer fixed by anyone other than myself, but I can see that some people would fall prey to this.

    As for my issue with the Google Listings scam, I feel fine with assessing a certain amount of blame to Google, which has seen fit ignore these kind of issues. Maybe it is in fact impossible to solve, but doing nothing to mitigate these scams isn't the answer that I am happy with.
    Nothing? If you read the article I linked you should have seen they published a warning about it, and detailed how to know if was really Google calling you. What else would you suggest? Honest question.
  • Reply 285 of 295
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    So what would you propose they "do about it"?



    When someone sends spam e-mail in Apple's name there's not a lot they can do about it either AFAIK. At least with an email you can somewhat deal with it using machine learning, and even Apple doesn't appear to do anything more if even that. What do you do about a phone scam? I think you're being a bit petty looking for something negative even remotely related to Google as an excuse to accuse them of doing/not doing something.



    There's real issues about them you can bring up. This one is bogus.

    Scam email isn't the same issue. I don't have a phone ringing in my pocket (or an Apple Watch vibrating) with email scams. If I'm "petty" about this, its because business likes these legal gray areas to operate in, and if Google isn't going to attempt to fix this, then I'm still stuck with the phone calls, and with the belief that Google has the money and connections to do attempt to mitigate this.

     

    You are so defensive of your momma Google...

  • Reply 286 of 295
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Nothing? If you read the article I linked you should have seen they published a warning about it, and detailed how to know if was really Google calling you. What else would you suggest? Honest question.

    Not enough for me, that's for sure. How about some legislative action by Google to attempt to mitigate these scams; it is their brand under attack. I hear that Google is a big spender in Washington.

  • Reply 287 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    tmay wrote: »
    Scam email isn't the same issue. I don't have a phone ringing in my pocket (or an Apple Watch vibrating) with email scams. If I'm "petty" about this, its because business likes these legal gray areas to operate in, and if Google isn't going to attempt to fix this, then I'm still stuck with the phone calls, and with the belief that Google has the money and connections to do attempt to mitigate this.
    Such as do what? Third time I've asked you and seeing as you're so convinced they can do something about your phone ringing with a scammer on the other end what is that thing they can do?

    I've considered you to be a more balanced and honest poster than you're now appearing to be. I'd like to think my original opinion was right.
  • Reply 288 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    tmay wrote: »
    Not enough for me, that's for sure. How about some legislative action by Google to attempt to mitigate these scams; it is their brand under attack. I hear that Google is a big spender in Washington.
    Aren't there already laws against misrepresentation? It doesn't stop scammers who care more about money than legality. You can't legislate honesty.
  • Reply 289 of 295
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Such as do what? Third time I've asked you and seeing as you're so convinced they can do something about your phone ringing with a scammer on the other end what is that thing they can do?



    I've considered you to be a more balanced and honest poster than you're now appearing to be. I'd like to think my original opinion was right.

    I suggested that Google use its lobbying efforts to make legislative changes

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Such as do what? Third time I've asked you and seeing as you're so convinced they can do something about your phone ringing with a scammer on the other end what is that thing they can do?



    I've considered you to be a more balanced and honest poster than you're now appearing to be. I'd like to think my original opinion was right.

    Gee, if you are wrong about me, maybe you are wrong about other stuff. Stop being so pretentious.

     

    Legislative action that Google could spearhead, but won't. Scammers should be in jail, but of course, no one will do anything about it because the telemarketers have lobbyists too. Is that a sufficient answer?:

  • Reply 290 of 295
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Aren't there already laws against misrepresentation? It doesn't stop scammers who care more about money than legality. You can't legislate honesty.

    Sure. All kinds of laws. All (almost all) bought and paid for by lobbyists, including the telemarketing lobby. Google should crush them to defend its name. Otherwise, I consider them complicit by passivity.

  • Reply 291 of 295
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    tmay wrote: »
    I suggested that Google use its lobbying efforts to make legislative changes
    Gee, if you are wrong about me, maybe you are wrong about other stuff. Stop being so pretentious.

    Legislative action that Google could spearhead, but won't. Scammers should be in jail, but of course, no one will do anything about it because the telemarketers have lobbyists too. Is that a sufficient answer?:
    Hardly, but no reason to continue on the subject. It was a misplaced complaint targeted at Google in the first place as I made you aware of. Not wanting to give up a talking point is the only reason you've continued IMHO. Let's just let it go shall we?
  • Reply 292 of 295
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Hardly, but no reason to continue on the subject. It was a misplaced complaint targeted at Google in the first place as I made you aware of. Not wanting to give up a talking point is the only reason you've continued IMHO. Let's just let it go shall we?

    See. That's the point.

     

    You don't want confrontation and I want a revolt against the status quo.

     

    You're happy with status quo.

     

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/apples-tim-cook-delivers-blistering-speech-on-encryption-privacy/#.l49vfb:TSVQ

     

    Can't imagine Google making that speech.

     

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/01/google-photos-reminder-smile-its-free-youre-the-product/

  • Reply 293 of 295
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,225member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You've made a valid point. The differences in wording should be considered.

    While I don't think it means Google is going to monetize your photo content there probably are reasons for the difference in wording. Some I can think of right off:

    I think we all know Google is offering additional features with Photos that Apple doesn't. They've sent me enhanced versions of my pics that I didn't request, some pretty well done as a matter of fact, others not so much. The originals are left as is BTW. Apple of course doesn't have anything similar.

    They've put together psuedo-videos from a series of shots I've done. The most recent one was a series at the bird feeder. Interesting but not something I generally keep tho others might, and again something Apple doesn't offer.

    They also put together several "storybooks" from photo sessions, one particularly nice from a few dozen historical pics I did Saturday morning. Again not something Apple does for you. .

    Since that was not the purpose I originally uploaded my pictures for then Google could not use the same "for the purpose for which content was submitted" wording that Apple does. Further your photo albums are not accessible by the public, but pictures you post to a public blog page are, ie Google+. That would be the, or at at least one of the public accessible content examples they refer to.

    If you consider Google press statements (and support pages), which should be legally binding I would think, they don't mince words about the privacy of your uploaded photo collections. There's really n o wiggle room. Unless you've made the specific choice to share your images with another person they won't be. If Google were to take one of those for themselves for a publicly posted ad then it would no longer be a private image correct? Looking at it from a different perspective if by simply uploading your photographs you gave Google the rights to publicly display your images with no further authorization needed from you to do so then they were never private in the first place. That would automatically break the terms.
    "Your photos and videos will be backed up to your Google Photos library and are private unless you choose to share them."

    Do you think Google would chance yet another run-in with the FTC over what they say not matching what they do? I don't personally think so, and you almost certainly don't think so either. Worse, the legal ramifications would be far outweighed by the public outcry. There's much more to lose than gain from it. Ain't gonna happen.

    So no, just as they stated Google is not monetizing your photos, doing an IP grab as someone said, nor can they without a few legal issues to face IMO. It wouldn't be worth the cost.

    For more about Google Photos, what it is, what it does and the public promises Google made regarding it visit http://www.wired.com/2015/05/google-photos-new-essential-picture-app/

    And not a single one of your reasons justify why they need your work to promote their service. Likewise, why do they get to keep your work even if you close your account and delete everything.

    You are confusing privacy with IP management.
  • Reply 294 of 295
    drewys808drewys808 Posts: 546member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    You've made a valid point. The differences in wording should be considered.



    While I don't think it means Google is going to monetize your photo content there probably are reasons for the difference in wording. Some I can think of right off:

     

    I sincerely appreciate some of the reasons you mentioned and I can't argue that some of those reasons may become reality.

     

    But the fact remains that the TOS wording gives WAY too much authority to Google - to use personal photo/video data amongst other data that Google already uses (like search/clicks/maps/youtube behavior).

     

    Consumers are typically ignorant and selfish, as are most humans. It's a sad time when consumers give up their personal data in exchange for "free" services. We are in those times right now - what we CAN DO is to ensure that consumers are given CHOICE (like opt-out defaults) and TRANSPARENCY.

  • Reply 295 of 295
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    drewys808 wrote: »
    I sincerely appreciate some of the reasons you mentioned and I can't argue that some of those reasons may become reality.

    But the fact remains that the TOS wording gives WAY too much authority to Google - to use personal photo/video data amongst other data that Google already uses (like search/clicks/maps/youtube behavior).

    Consumers are typically ignorant and selfish, as are most humans. It's a sad time when consumers give up their personal data in exchange for "free" services. We are in those times right now - what we CAN DO is to ensure that consumers are given CHOICE (like opt-out defaults) and TRANSPARENCY.

    Every company, including Apple uses the data they accumulate from their users for their own personal gain. There isn't a single one that does it out of the goodness of their heart, it's all about making money. That being said, as long as they don't share my personal data with any public sources I honestly don't care what they do with it. I don't ever post anything to the web that isn't already easily obtainable. All of my private data is still stored using encrypted local media, I even still use Iomega products (they last forever) like, Jazz, Zip and Click, in which I use for my most sensitive data, well that and I still think the Click Drive is still one of the coolest removable medium that I've ever owned. It can only store about 80mb using drive compression software but that's more than enough space to hold, bank account details, tax info, etc. The bigger stuff like scans we make of all of our receipts using Genius Scan, well actually I just changed over to Microsoft's Office Lens as I really like their Office for Android and web apps.

    Anyway, enough about that, I get carried away sometimes talking about tech, what a lot of you don't realize is that this new Google Photos can also be used to store your entire movie collection for free. So if you have a problem with what Google is doing than why not just take advantage of their, fingers making quote signs, generosity, I mean who says you have to use this service just for photos. I've already uploaded nearly 3 terabytes of films in which were ripped and encoded from physical media using a custom media converter gadget I built using Nvidia's Jetson K1 development boards and an external BluRay drive. Just in case you think that I'm pirating, I own every DVD or BluRay that I convert and upload, their than stored in the bomb shelter for safe keepimg. So basically I'm just transferring my media over to a new medium, which is legal in Switzerland to do so, also sharing media between family. In which most of my family all have ChromeBox's connected to their TV's, have 1TB of space and also upload their media, so we have an absolutely huge film library in which to view at our leisure. So far Google Photo's has proved to be just as affective in storing my films as my Google Drive account, I can stream a film using pretty much any media player on any system or even directly from the website. Try it, it's actually pretty cool. Though I wouldn't do it with an iPad as it's not really the best device for watching movies from a Cloud source, use the website to stream instead. Have fun!
Sign In or Register to comment.