Well good for you: you're someone who doesn't mind ads. You're in the majority. The world is heading your direction.
Clearly, though, a number of us still value the uncluttered purity that Apple usually gives us.
I've pulled up the new Google Maps ads on my phone, and they are annoying. Not as bad as a big Flash ad bouncing all over my computer screen, but still annoying. It breaks my concentration; makes a small part of my brain say, "OK, so the white ones on the list are relevant, and I have to ignore that yellow one," or, "I should look at the red push-pins, not the yellow icons." And the italicized text, "HEY, THERE'S A SALE!!!" just makes me unhappy, like finding a bug in my soup.
Some of us are willing to pay for austere clarity.
Google presents sponsored links when they are relevant to your search, so far as they can tell. Google does not interject sponsored links 'just because', as many people (including you) seem to be implying here. That said, since Google is not run by a super-intelligent AI jacked into your neo-cortex, it only knows what you asked for, not what you actually wanted. If you are seeing a sponsored link, it is because that link is relevant to your search. If your search is very general, then you may see sponsored links that are not relevant to what you actually wanted, but you will also see non-sponsored links that are not relevant.
In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google. If enough consumers become willing to pay Google to use their app (enough to generate profit for Google) then you can have a reasonable expectation to have no "flies" in your "soup". However, as long as you are trying to get your soup for free from a company that derives almost all of its revenue from dispensing free but fly-enhanced soup, it isn't reasonable for you to expect the soup sans fly. Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots.
In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google.
Hey, I think we agree.
Just based on the number of people here that seem bothered by the new ads, I'm not the only person who doesn't like flies in my soup. And you're right: Google's "flies" are far less annoying than the way most companies do it. That said, I'd personally prefer to have no annoyances whatsoever. Apple has always bet that a segment of us will feel this way.
Instead of suggesting this to Google though, I'll just keep supporting Apple for their consistency in this realm. My guess is that we'll see Apple's new PlaceBase maps replacing Google Maps on the phone in a year or so, and also being a crucial ad-free resource throughout their future cloud-based plans.
My question, I will ask is, why have Apple approved Vonage and not Google Voice? Yes I know Vonage is for international calls, but Google Voice could go the same way? I for one will post this question, just to see the reaction and different views on the matter.
This issue as I understand it has never been about they service itself. The problem comes from Googles app extracting data from the phone and moving it to their servers once the app is installed and the confusing disabling of the Visual Voice Mail.
I tried it on my phone and before you declare you indignation I would suggest you try it as well. I think to be clear, images supplied with the article are a bit misleading. The red map pin next to the store front icon is some other store. The ad icons are not in addition to the map pin but instead of. No logo and the name label does not pop up by default either. The user clicked on it.
Don't like Google, don't use Google. When you grow up, you'll discover that as in everything else in life, you have to take the good with the bad. It's the balance that matters.
Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots.
This should be their new motto instead of "do no evil"
Don't like Google, don't use Google. When you grow up, you'll discover that as in everything else in life, you have to take the good with the bad. It's the balance that matters.
Ah, I see you are quite the philosopher, there, mstone.
Well, I reject your particular philosophy. Better that we take the good and struggle against the bad. I guess I'm just not a fatalist like you.
I don't think that ad in map view ruins the UI as such, it's just a core iPhone app - there shouldn't be ads in core iPhone services apps like that? You pay quite a lot of money for the iPhone already, I didn't think Apple would allow Google to implement like this. It is going too far.
Soon they'll be in the bottom of Mail because you're using Gmail.
Then you'll go on Youtube and have to watch related ads before your movie starts.
Or if you send a sms with the word 'pizza' in it Google will throw you links to pizza hut all over your screen.
In apps from the app store sure, no problems. But in core apps I think its too far.
All the more reason to wait for a way to downgrade to 3.0, 3.1 is the most bullshit upgrade ever.
Ah, I see you are quite the philosopher, there, mstone.
Well, I reject your particular philosophy. Better that we take the good and struggle against the bad. I guess I'm just not a fatalist like you.
If you were being pro-active, writing letters to google or starting a boycott google campaign I would say that you have a have a good philosophy. If you are just going to bitch about a company finding ways to offer free products in a forum that will probably never reach google staff, well that seems to be a different philosophy.
I suspect that you will continue to use maps on your iphone and in a few weeks after you do a map search if I were to ask you if you felt you just had a horrible experience you would not even know why I asked.
I am sure google could offer people a subscription to there services but the loss of revenue vs the amount of adopters would not balance out.
Google presents sponsored links when they are relevant to your search, so far as they can tell. Google does not interject sponsored links 'just because', as many people (including you) seem to be implying here. That said, since Google is not run by a super-intelligent AI jacked into your neo-cortex, it only knows what you asked for, not what you actually wanted. If you are seeing a sponsored link, it is because that link is relevant to your search. If your search is very general, then you may see sponsored links that are not relevant to what you actually wanted, but you will also see non-sponsored links that are not relevant.
In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google. If enough consumers become willing to pay Google to use their app (enough to generate profit for Google) then you can have a reasonable expectation to have no "flies" in your "soup". However, as long as you are trying to get your soup for free from a company that derives almost all of its revenue from dispensing free but fly-enhanced soup, it isn't reasonable for you to expect the soup sans fly. Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots.
Almost everything you post here is either irrelevant or just plain wrong.
You spend a lot of time defending the ads based on their relevance, but whether the ad was relevant to what you were doing at the time is, well ... irrelevant.
Spam is spam. Even if the ad matched up with something going on in my life by sheer coincidence instead of by keying in on my search, it's still an unwanted intrusion. An advertisement for a product or service that I don't want and didn't actually ask for. To imply that it's somehow "okay" for an advertisement about hotels to come up because person was searching for hotels is just a ridiculous argument. You are mixing up arguments about context with arguments about intent.
Secondly, you are wrong about the world "(not being at) ... a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead." The technology for that approach has been with us for longer than the technology to target micro ads at people on their mobiles. Google and others just choose not to do it or offer it is all. Similarly, every "ad supported" app on the app store could easily offer a paid version. They don't because the ad supported versions are far more lucrative, not because the world isn't ready for it or some such nonsense.
I don't think that ad in map view ruins the UI as such, it's just a core iPhone app - there shouldn't be ads in core iPhone services apps like that? You pay quite a lot of money for the iPhone already, I didn't think Apple would allow Google to implement like this. It is going too far.
I have to agree. This is the really relevant point here. Google Maps is part of the pre-installed applications that can't be removed and it provides some core functionality on the iPhone - thousands of apps use embedded Google Maps to provide location-based functionality. This means people have bought the iPhone believing that core apps are ad-free and third-party developers have created applications without a chance to see any fine-print saying "your app might serve as a vehicle to present Google ads". Both is unacceptable and it does not make the slightest difference if the ads are obtrusive or not, targeted or not, nicely designed or ugly. If the use of Maps is not fully paid for by the purchase of an iPhone, then Apple should make that perfectly clear in the description of the product, or, better, pay Google a suitable fee to keep the ads out. Margins on the iPhone should cover that multiple times.
Ah, I see you are quite the philosopher, there, mstone.
Well, I reject your particular philosophy. Better that we take the good and struggle against the bad. I guess I'm just not a fatalist like you.
If you were being pro-active, writing letters to google or starting a boycott google campaign I would say that you have a have a good philosophy. If you are just going to bitch about a company finding ways to offer free products in a forum that will probably never reach google staff, well that seems to be a different philosophy.
I suspect that you will continue to use maps on your iphone and in a few weeks after you do a map search if I were to ask you if you felt you just had a horrible experience you would not even know why I asked.
I am sure google could offer people a subscription to there services but the loss of revenue vs the amount of adopters would not balance out.
I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.
Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.
When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.
There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.
I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.
Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.
When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.
There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.
Hmmm, well, I don't really have anything to add to that.
If you were being pro-active, writing letters to google or starting a boycott google campaign I would say that you have a have a good philosophy. If you are just going to bitch about a company finding ways to offer free products in a forum that will probably never reach google staff, well that seems to be a different philosophy.
I suspect that you will continue to use maps on your iphone and in a few weeks after you do a map search if I were to ask you if you felt you just had a horrible experience you would not even know why I asked.
I am sure google could offer people a subscription to there services but the loss of revenue vs the amount of adopters would not balance out.
Sorry perhaps I should have referenced it in the context of give and take rather than good and bad. When Apple launched the iPhone they needed a map program. They made a deal with Google. Google maps is what it is. If you want to use it, you have to look at a few ads. It is no different than the original Google Maps on the desktop, it works exactly the same way. It is the ad supported revenue model. IMO there is still no better map program - so I see a few ads which aren't annoying to me and in return I get a fantastic map program. I think I'm coming out way ahead in this deal. I'm just being realistic. That is the way the world of free internet services works. Better than the cable TV model where you have to pay for the service and still have to watch ads or pledge drives.
There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.
Isn't Tom Tom ad free? I don't know what it is capable of compared to Google Maps
Almost everything you post here is either irrelevant or just plain wrong.
You spend a lot of time defending the ads based on their relevance, but whether the ad was relevant to what you were doing at the time is, well ... irrelevant.
Spam is spam. Even if the ad matched up with something going on in my life by sheer coincidence instead of by keying in on my search, it's still an unwanted intrusion. An advertisement for a product or service that I don't want and didn't actually ask for. To imply that it's somehow "okay" for an advertisement about hotels to come up because person was searching for hotels is just a ridiculous argument. You are mixing up arguments about context with arguments about intent.
Secondly, you are wrong about the world "(not being at) ... a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead." The technology for that approach has been with us for longer than the technology to target micro ads at people on their mobiles. Google and others just choose not to do it or offer it is all. Similarly, every "ad supported" app on the app store could easily offer a paid version. They don't because the ad supported versions are far more lucrative, not because the world isn't ready for it or some such nonsense.
I'm sorry I just disagree with you. If you want to be able to pay Google to use their application free of ads, fine - submit that request and perhaps they will consider it. You can then feel free to pay them whatever amount they consider reasonable for their services. On the other hand, if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider. Google gives away a lot of software and services, but it isn't something you have a legitimate expectation of. So far as I can tell, most of the complaining you and others are doing amounts to a demand to get free stuff on your terms. That's neither reasonable nor realistic, and as someone else pointed out here, you and the others complaining about this probably don't expect your magazines to be free of ads, or your cable TV for that mater, and you PAY for those.
I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".
I'm sorry I just disagree with you. If you want to be able to pay Google to use their application free of ads, fine - submit that request and perhaps they will consider it. You can then feel free to pay them whatever amount they consider reasonable for their services. On the other hand, if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider. Google gives away a lot of software and services, but it isn't something you have a legitimate expectation of. So far as I can tell, most of the complaining you and others are doing amounts to a demand to get free stuff on your terms. That's neither reasonable nor realistic, and as someone else pointed out here, you and the others complaining about this probably don't expect your magazines to be free of ads, or your cable TV for that mater, and you PAY for those.
I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".
I've got to agree with this. You wouldn't work without a salary and neither will Google.
I don't really mind this, a lot of the time when I use maps I am searching for businesses anyway, I see it as no different to a business putting a larger entry in a phonebook or newspaper classifieds for example.
I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.
Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.
When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.
Not that it matters really, but from my browsing around these forums, that same "take it or leave it" attitude is what the majority of people here use when it comes to defending a decision that Apple has made.
Mac prices too high? Take it or leave it, buddy. It just seems a bit double standard to me, that's all. \
Comments
Well good for you: you're someone who doesn't mind ads. You're in the majority. The world is heading your direction.
Clearly, though, a number of us still value the uncluttered purity that Apple usually gives us.
I've pulled up the new Google Maps ads on my phone, and they are annoying. Not as bad as a big Flash ad bouncing all over my computer screen, but still annoying. It breaks my concentration; makes a small part of my brain say, "OK, so the white ones on the list are relevant, and I have to ignore that yellow one," or, "I should look at the red push-pins, not the yellow icons." And the italicized text, "HEY, THERE'S A SALE!!!" just makes me unhappy, like finding a bug in my soup.
Some of us are willing to pay for austere clarity.
Google presents sponsored links when they are relevant to your search, so far as they can tell. Google does not interject sponsored links 'just because', as many people (including you) seem to be implying here. That said, since Google is not run by a super-intelligent AI jacked into your neo-cortex, it only knows what you asked for, not what you actually wanted. If you are seeing a sponsored link, it is because that link is relevant to your search. If your search is very general, then you may see sponsored links that are not relevant to what you actually wanted, but you will also see non-sponsored links that are not relevant.
In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google. If enough consumers become willing to pay Google to use their app (enough to generate profit for Google) then you can have a reasonable expectation to have no "flies" in your "soup". However, as long as you are trying to get your soup for free from a company that derives almost all of its revenue from dispensing free but fly-enhanced soup, it isn't reasonable for you to expect the soup sans fly. Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots.
In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google.
Hey, I think we agree.
Just based on the number of people here that seem bothered by the new ads, I'm not the only person who doesn't like flies in my soup. And you're right: Google's "flies" are far less annoying than the way most companies do it. That said, I'd personally prefer to have no annoyances whatsoever. Apple has always bet that a segment of us will feel this way.
Instead of suggesting this to Google though, I'll just keep supporting Apple for their consistency in this realm. My guess is that we'll see Apple's new PlaceBase maps replacing Google Maps on the phone in a year or so, and also being a crucial ad-free resource throughout their future cloud-based plans.
My question, I will ask is, why have Apple approved Vonage and not Google Voice? Yes I know Vonage is for international calls, but Google Voice could go the same way? I for one will post this question, just to see the reaction and different views on the matter.
This issue as I understand it has never been about they service itself. The problem comes from Googles app extracting data from the phone and moving it to their servers once the app is installed and the confusing disabling of the Visual Voice Mail.
I tried it on my phone and before you declare you indignation I would suggest you try it as well. I think to be clear, images supplied with the article are a bit misleading. The red map pin next to the store front icon is some other store. The ad icons are not in addition to the map pin but instead of. No logo and the name label does not pop up by default either. The user clicked on it.
Oh, well that is different then.
Why do we have to like ads, or Google?
Don't like Google, don't use Google. When you grow up, you'll discover that as in everything else in life, you have to take the good with the bad. It's the balance that matters.
Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots.
This should be their new motto instead of "do no evil"
Don't like Google, don't use Google. When you grow up, you'll discover that as in everything else in life, you have to take the good with the bad. It's the balance that matters.
Ah, I see you are quite the philosopher, there, mstone.
Well, I reject your particular philosophy. Better that we take the good and struggle against the bad. I guess I'm just not a fatalist like you.
Soon they'll be in the bottom of Mail because you're using Gmail.
Then you'll go on Youtube and have to watch related ads before your movie starts.
Or if you send a sms with the word 'pizza' in it Google will throw you links to pizza hut all over your screen.
In apps from the app store sure, no problems. But in core apps I think its too far.
All the more reason to wait for a way to downgrade to 3.0, 3.1 is the most bullshit upgrade ever.
Ah, I see you are quite the philosopher, there, mstone.
Well, I reject your particular philosophy. Better that we take the good and struggle against the bad. I guess I'm just not a fatalist like you.
If you were being pro-active, writing letters to google or starting a boycott google campaign I would say that you have a have a good philosophy. If you are just going to bitch about a company finding ways to offer free products in a forum that will probably never reach google staff, well that seems to be a different philosophy.
I suspect that you will continue to use maps on your iphone and in a few weeks after you do a map search if I were to ask you if you felt you just had a horrible experience you would not even know why I asked.
I am sure google could offer people a subscription to there services but the loss of revenue vs the amount of adopters would not balance out.
Google presents sponsored links when they are relevant to your search, so far as they can tell. Google does not interject sponsored links 'just because', as many people (including you) seem to be implying here. That said, since Google is not run by a super-intelligent AI jacked into your neo-cortex, it only knows what you asked for, not what you actually wanted. If you are seeing a sponsored link, it is because that link is relevant to your search. If your search is very general, then you may see sponsored links that are not relevant to what you actually wanted, but you will also see non-sponsored links that are not relevant.
In the end, this is all about what consumers want as a segment, not about what you want individually. Sorry, but we aren't to a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead - if you'd like that, suggest it to Google. If enough consumers become willing to pay Google to use their app (enough to generate profit for Google) then you can have a reasonable expectation to have no "flies" in your "soup". However, as long as you are trying to get your soup for free from a company that derives almost all of its revenue from dispensing free but fly-enhanced soup, it isn't reasonable for you to expect the soup sans fly. Under the circumstances, give credit where credit is due: the fly is mostly relevant to the soup ingredients you wanted, and is unobtrusively tucked in amongst the potatoes and carrots.
Almost everything you post here is either irrelevant or just plain wrong.
You spend a lot of time defending the ads based on their relevance, but whether the ad was relevant to what you were doing at the time is, well ... irrelevant.
Spam is spam. Even if the ad matched up with something going on in my life by sheer coincidence instead of by keying in on my search, it's still an unwanted intrusion. An advertisement for a product or service that I don't want and didn't actually ask for. To imply that it's somehow "okay" for an advertisement about hotels to come up because person was searching for hotels is just a ridiculous argument. You are mixing up arguments about context with arguments about intent.
Secondly, you are wrong about the world "(not being at) ... a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead." The technology for that approach has been with us for longer than the technology to target micro ads at people on their mobiles. Google and others just choose not to do it or offer it is all. Similarly, every "ad supported" app on the app store could easily offer a paid version. They don't because the ad supported versions are far more lucrative, not because the world isn't ready for it or some such nonsense.
I don't think that ad in map view ruins the UI as such, it's just a core iPhone app - there shouldn't be ads in core iPhone services apps like that? You pay quite a lot of money for the iPhone already, I didn't think Apple would allow Google to implement like this. It is going too far.
I have to agree. This is the really relevant point here. Google Maps is part of the pre-installed applications that can't be removed and it provides some core functionality on the iPhone - thousands of apps use embedded Google Maps to provide location-based functionality. This means people have bought the iPhone believing that core apps are ad-free and third-party developers have created applications without a chance to see any fine-print saying "your app might serve as a vehicle to present Google ads". Both is unacceptable and it does not make the slightest difference if the ads are obtrusive or not, targeted or not, nicely designed or ugly. If the use of Maps is not fully paid for by the purchase of an iPhone, then Apple should make that perfectly clear in the description of the product, or, better, pay Google a suitable fee to keep the ads out. Margins on the iPhone should cover that multiple times.
Ah, I see you are quite the philosopher, there, mstone.
Well, I reject your particular philosophy. Better that we take the good and struggle against the bad. I guess I'm just not a fatalist like you.
If you were being pro-active, writing letters to google or starting a boycott google campaign I would say that you have a have a good philosophy. If you are just going to bitch about a company finding ways to offer free products in a forum that will probably never reach google staff, well that seems to be a different philosophy.
I suspect that you will continue to use maps on your iphone and in a few weeks after you do a map search if I were to ask you if you felt you just had a horrible experience you would not even know why I asked.
I am sure google could offer people a subscription to there services but the loss of revenue vs the amount of adopters would not balance out.
I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.
Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.
When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.
There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.
I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.
Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.
When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.
There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.
Hmmm, well, I don't really have anything to add to that.
If you were being pro-active, writing letters to google or starting a boycott google campaign I would say that you have a have a good philosophy. If you are just going to bitch about a company finding ways to offer free products in a forum that will probably never reach google staff, well that seems to be a different philosophy.
I suspect that you will continue to use maps on your iphone and in a few weeks after you do a map search if I were to ask you if you felt you just had a horrible experience you would not even know why I asked.
I am sure google could offer people a subscription to there services but the loss of revenue vs the amount of adopters would not balance out.
Sorry perhaps I should have referenced it in the context of give and take rather than good and bad. When Apple launched the iPhone they needed a map program. They made a deal with Google. Google maps is what it is. If you want to use it, you have to look at a few ads. It is no different than the original Google Maps on the desktop, it works exactly the same way. It is the ad supported revenue model. IMO there is still no better map program - so I see a few ads which aren't annoying to me and in return I get a fantastic map program. I think I'm coming out way ahead in this deal. I'm just being realistic. That is the way the world of free internet services works. Better than the cable TV model where you have to pay for the service and still have to watch ads or pledge drives.
There really isn't an alternative to Google maps right now on the iPhone. That doesn't mean that one should either "use it and shut up" (the implication being given), or stop using it altogether. These are ridiculous, shallow arguments based on a faulty philosophy at best.
Isn't Tom Tom ad free? I don't know what it is capable of compared to Google Maps
Almost everything you post here is either irrelevant or just plain wrong.
You spend a lot of time defending the ads based on their relevance, but whether the ad was relevant to what you were doing at the time is, well ... irrelevant.
Spam is spam. Even if the ad matched up with something going on in my life by sheer coincidence instead of by keying in on my search, it's still an unwanted intrusion. An advertisement for a product or service that I don't want and didn't actually ask for. To imply that it's somehow "okay" for an advertisement about hotels to come up because person was searching for hotels is just a ridiculous argument. You are mixing up arguments about context with arguments about intent.
Secondly, you are wrong about the world "(not being at) ... a place where tools like this can let you opt out of ads and pay a monthly fee instead." The technology for that approach has been with us for longer than the technology to target micro ads at people on their mobiles. Google and others just choose not to do it or offer it is all. Similarly, every "ad supported" app on the app store could easily offer a paid version. They don't because the ad supported versions are far more lucrative, not because the world isn't ready for it or some such nonsense.
I'm sorry I just disagree with you. If you want to be able to pay Google to use their application free of ads, fine - submit that request and perhaps they will consider it. You can then feel free to pay them whatever amount they consider reasonable for their services. On the other hand, if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider. Google gives away a lot of software and services, but it isn't something you have a legitimate expectation of. So far as I can tell, most of the complaining you and others are doing amounts to a demand to get free stuff on your terms. That's neither reasonable nor realistic, and as someone else pointed out here, you and the others complaining about this probably don't expect your magazines to be free of ads, or your cable TV for that mater, and you PAY for those.
I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".
I'm sorry I just disagree with you. If you want to be able to pay Google to use their application free of ads, fine - submit that request and perhaps they will consider it. You can then feel free to pay them whatever amount they consider reasonable for their services. On the other hand, if you expect to use Google software for free, then I think you need to reconsider. Google gives away a lot of software and services, but it isn't something you have a legitimate expectation of. So far as I can tell, most of the complaining you and others are doing amounts to a demand to get free stuff on your terms. That's neither reasonable nor realistic, and as someone else pointed out here, you and the others complaining about this probably don't expect your magazines to be free of ads, or your cable TV for that mater, and you PAY for those.
I understand a reasonable argument that you simply don't like the ads; I don't like most ads either. What I don't understand is the complete demonization of Google, the comparisons of this act to "evil", and all the other turgid drama flying around about it. I just cannot fathom the histrionics involved. Ok, you don't like the ads - we all get that. I happen to disagree that Google was in the wrong for doing it, and I disagree that it is something I have a right to expect them NOT to do. There is a very distinct difference between "I don't like it" and "I have a right to expect it not be done".
I've got to agree with this. You wouldn't work without a salary and neither will Google.
I still do a ring around to find the best deal.
I think anonymouse has a better philosophy than you or the original person he/she was replying to.
Fatalistic, reductionist and absolutist views are philosophical garbage.
When he/she says they don't like the ads, the response of "take it or leave it" is the immature erroneous philosophy, not the original position. You are just compounding the error by essentially arguing that he/she has no basis for complaint unless he/she is willing to make ridiculous extreme decisions based on their views.
Not that it matters really, but from my browsing around these forums, that same "take it or leave it" attitude is what the majority of people here use when it comes to defending a decision that Apple has made.
Mac prices too high? Take it or leave it, buddy. It just seems a bit double standard to me, that's all.