Maybe a Google takeover will make future Droid phones have cuter names, like Droid Popsicle or Droid Shortcake, instead of Motorola's thick-with-hyperbole names like "Droid Invincible" or "Droid 4G Hard-on" or whatever.
I thought the design behind Android let IT be tailored to fit any hardware. Isn't tailoring the hardware to suit the software the opposite of that? Or are they just copying Apple once again and making hardware and software together that are designed from the get go to work together? ANd what impact will that have on any other mfgs desire to use the OS?
They actually don't seem to believe that vision anymore. These days, they've talked seriously about addressing fragmentation, and the only way they seem to know how to do it is to become less open, less permissive, at least to what they'll let manufacturers put on their phones and still call "Android". I personally don't develop for Android, so I don't see why fragmentation is such a big problem. Android proliferated in marketshare very quickly and fragmentation is a natural side effect. Comes with the territory.
I think it's interesting that there were rumors Motorola wanted to build their own OS to compete against Android. If true, this probably puts any such project into a shallow grave.
As for the partners they didn't buy, well I don't think they have a choice. HP and RIM won't license their OS, Symbian is near death, so I have to think their only other choice is Windows Phone 7. The problem with that option is that buyers don't seem to really care about it right now. So they're left with Android. I'm sure that is not lost on Google; they know what cards they hold in this poker game.
Never in the existence of Google has it used my personal information in a negative shape, form, fashion.
how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?
I don't disagree that Google may well have aspirations they can compete with Apple on design. In fact, I don't think I have argued that at all. My point is - they can't do it unless they change their culture. Google is an engineering company first and foremost. At one point, Marissa Mayer was given much leeway in the look and feel of their website. But with Eric Schmidt passing on the reins to Larry Page, Mayer has been given (shunted?) a different role, apparently outside the circle of influence. All to say, the design ethos is very different there in comparison to Apple.
Engineers generally are not good industrial designers (speaking as an engineer myself). Intelligence alone does not confer design talent. Arguably, conventional intelligence works on the wrong side of the brain. Jonathan Ive is NOT an engineer by training, but has a dominant role at Apple that few non-engineers have in almost all other computer companies. Will Google give similar power and freedom to an industrial designer on par with Ive? Even if they do, will that person have the equivalent of Steve Jobs to be the final discerning eye? Incidentally, Jobs is not an engineer either. At Google, he would not be qualified to lead. At Apple, he is the difference maker in Think Different.
Right, I don't disagree with any of that, I'm just responding to the idea that Google will leave Moto alone to carry on as an independent hardware company. They don't have to be good industrial designers to be tempted to tinker.
My impression is that Google's culture will tend towards intervention, whether or not intervention is actually in their best interests.
how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?
That should be your decision... not his!
It's a test of faith in Google's not being evil claim. And he passed with flying colors
It may be about patents, but it will definitely undermine 3rd party trust in Google.
It will be very tempting to bring all new developments to Motorola devices first, because Google now can develop hardware and software together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Also important was Motorolas plan to sue all of the other Android makers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01
I agree with most of the posters on here that Google did this primarily for the patents. However, I'm sure Google will still keep releasing a new Nexus phone (and maybe even tablet, eventually) every year. Now they just don't have to partner with a phone maker, since they now own one.
Before most of y'all convinced me it's mostly all about the patent numbers, I had a parody response in mind. Oh well, I'll use it anyway.....
MS (with Nokia's) maybe doin' it,
HP and Web OS are doin' it,
And even Rim always thot they were' doin it,
So now GOOG and MOTOrola are gonna do it,
Let 'em all do it,
Let's ... well, let's all try to copy Apple's model of controlling the HW plus the Software package. Except maybe MS and Google aren't really. And nobody's anywhere close to even where Apple already was, let alone what a year of iOS 5, Lion, iCloud, airDrop, improvements to the stores etc.
Oops, that last don't fit the song....... ...oh well.
Anyway, whatever the relative weights of factors, this deal is hardly all synergy and does guarantee some entropy......
I think that mindset is a bit different here. iPhone owners buy iPhone because it is Apple - I'm pretty sure many of them don't know or don't care what OS and what version of OS they run; Motivating factor here is Apple, not iOS.
But with Android, motivating factor seems to be software (Android) rather than hardware brand. Pretty much every Android user I know was considering number of devices from different manufacturers - at least I haven't met yet die-hard Samsung or HTC or... fan. Preferences are based on hardware specs rather than on name.
So... even if other manufacturers move to MS, I don't think that will hurt Android too much - presuming that Motorola will cover market with variety of different handsets. Which shouldn't be a problem for them if all Android market belongs to them only.
People buy iPhones because they are iPhones, not because they are Apple products. And what makes the iPhone different in the average consumer's mind is iOS, not the hardware. How much hardware difference can a user imagine between one candybar phone and the next? Yes, the hardware make it possible for iOS to do certain things, but that is a very secondary/indirect thing to a an average consumer's reasoning in which phone to buy.
I'll agree that a certain subset of the Android buyers think about hardware specs, but most of them will either go Android because of advertised features (OS related), network platform availability or pure pricing related decisions. And even with the OS related decisions it doesn't mean the consumer even knows the market space and all the related pros/cons of all the platforms, it just means a marketing message resonated at the right moment based on some feature desire.
how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?
That should be your decision... not his!
how can you trust any person, company, or group for that matter?
you have to use your own judgement.
Personally, I haven't had any negative effects from using Google products, its only improved my productivity.
At the same time, this should be a given: Don't trust any publicly traded company whose sole purpose is to increase profits on a quarterly basis.
how can you trust any person, company, or group for that matter?
you have to use your own judgement.
Personally, I haven't had any negative effects from using Google products, its only improved my productivity.
At the same time, this should be a given: Don't trust any publicly traded company whose sole purpose is to increase profits on a quarterly basis.
Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.
The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do. Banks, retail operations, the DMV, insurance companies, the library, your doctor, local governments, licensing agencies, the Social Security Administration, internet sites, etc-- they all collect and share info, to a degree. But Google conceivably has a hand in all of those and more, and definitely wants to have a hand in as many other forms of commerce or information as is possible-- because by being privy to ever more of you life they make more money.
Now, it's easy to say "no problems here, as far as I know Google hasn't provided my info to anyone that means me harm and I don't think there are any scenarios where access to that information would be particularly damaging to me" but in fact you don't know that. You have no idea. And you have no idea what Google might evolve into while still having all your data.
I don't have to imagine that Google is "evil" to be leery of the sheer concentration of power. If my credit card gets stolen I may be on the hook for some monetary damages. If Google gets hacked, or decides the new normal is to sell all of my information to whomever is willing to pay, I'm utterly fucked.
Some people might not mind having their, for instance, power, water, garbage service, internet, cable TV, phone, banking and medical records all handled by the same company. They might find it convenient, and feel the services are first rate. Myself, I see that as a recipe for disaster, since it require only a single point of failure to destroy my life.
Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.
The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do.
Except that they don't Addabox. Your personal data never leaves Google's hands, nor is shared with others without your specific authorization to do so (opt-in). In fact it's a more restrictive policy than even Apple has (opt-out), and you seem to have no issue with Apple's privacy policy, or at least no mention of one. What Google does is market their ability to deliver targeted results. But they don't hand over any of your personal information. That's Google's raw materials, an intrinsic part of their value as a provider of advertising services. They're not letting that out of their control.
If you wish to view Google's policies, reveiw the types of data they store about you and your interests, and even put controls in place to limit the gathering of information, simply visit their privacy site:
IMO, they're more transparent in how and what is gathered and give you more control over the process than either Apple or Microsoft. The FUD that's spread around about Google's selling of your private data to the highest bidder seems to be a real success story.
Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.
The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do. Banks, retail operations, the DMV, insurance companies, the library, your doctor, local governments, licensing agencies, the Social Security Administration, internet sites, etc-- they all collect and share info, to a degree. But Google conceivably has a hand in all of those and more, and definitely wants to have a hand in as many other forms of commerce or information as is possible-- because by being privy to ever more of you life they make more money.
Now, it's easy to say "no problems here, as far as I know Google hasn't provided my info to anyone that means me harm and I don't think there are any scenarios where access to that information would be particularly damaging to me" but in fact you don't know that. You have no idea. And you have no idea what Google might evolve into while still having all your data.
I don't have to imagine that Google is "evil" to be leery of the sheer concentration of power. If my credit card gets stolen I may be on the hook for some monetary damages. If Google gets hacked, or decides the new normal is to sell all of my information to whomever is willing to pay, I'm utterly fucked.
Some people might not mind having their, for instance, power, water, garbage service, internet, cable TV, phone, banking and medical records all handled by the same company. They might find it convenient, and feel the services are first rate. Myself, I see that as a recipe for disaster, since it require only a single point of failure to destroy my life.
A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.
One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.
Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.
I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?
I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.
A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.
One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.
Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.
I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?
I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.
According to Apple they share personal information they've gathered about you "with companies who provide services such as information processing, extending credit, fulfilling customer orders, delivering products to you, managing and enhancing customer data, providing customer service, assessing your interest in our products and services, and conducting customer research or satisfaction surveys. These companies are obligated to protect your information and may be located wherever Apple operates.
Others
It may be necessary − by law, legal process, litigation, and/or requests from public and governmental authorities within or outside your country of residence − for Apple to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for purposes of national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary or appropriate.
We may also disclose information about you if we determine that disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforce our terms and conditions or protect our operations or users. Additionally, in the event of a reorganization, merger, or sale we may transfer any and all personal information we collect to the relevant third party."
Yet some members here seem more comfortable with Apple sharing your private data, even your Social Security number (the epitome of personally identifiable information in the US) without your specific approval to Google's written policy requiring your very specific permission to share details about you.
A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.
One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.
Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.
I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?
I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.
Again, my point is that Apple doesn't have anything like the scope of Google's data mining available to them, and that Apple's business model isn't predicated on selling that information. It's not about trusting Apple and fearing Google; it's about taking note of the vast array of Google's interests. Their near monopoly on search alone puts them in a unique position among modern corporations. Even the 19th century didn't see cartels spanning as many diverse areas as Google now deals with, and of course the 19th century didn't afford the digital networks that allow those interests to merge in such a fundamental way.
But, also don't forget that Google created and has invested enormous amounts into Android for a reason. They see mobile as the future and killing that would have a huge impact on their business. Maybe not as large an immediate hit as Apple would take by losing iOS, but large nonetheless.
As everybody states this im just baffeled. How does providing free os's help in search advertising???? Can Somebody explain please why they would throw billions in the os. They would still would BE the prefered search engine in every OS because of the searchengine Some people think its obvious but Google has sworn that is will not use android to collect data of users. The _ONLY_ thing that i could come up with is user profiling. They need a name to go with the search results and other services! Google doesnt have a good trackrecord of being honest (no result tampering of paid advertisements remember anyone). I think this os thing will sink Google in the end and it will loose big time in the search field to the next good searchengine contender that comes along.
Except that they don't Addabox. Your personal data never leaves Google's hands, nor is shared with others without your specific authorization to do so (opt-in). In fact it's a more restrictive policy than even Apple has (opt-out), and you seem to have no issue with Apple's privacy policy, or at least no mention of one. What Google does is market their ability to deliver targeted results. But they don't hand over any of your personal information. That's Google's raw materials, an intrinsic part of their value as a provider of advertising services. They're not letting that out of their control.
If you wish to view Google's policies, reveiw the types of data they store about you and your interests, and even put controls in place to limit the gathering of information, simply visit their privacy site:
IMO, they're more transparent in how and what is gathered and give you more control over the process than either Apple or Microsoft. The FUD that's spread around about Google's selling of your private data to the highest bidder seems to be a real success story.
And why is it they invest so much in android and crome os again. If they dont disclose or use any other information they dont need android at all they already have all this information!!! Come on, dont be so naive and stupid!!! They throw billions into it for what reason???? Goodness of the hart doesnt count (your free to guess why)
As an executive in a big company YOU would have to convince the other executives why it is such a good business to throw much more than 13 billion to the scrapbin on a os that you give for free and that doesnt add anything to the searchresults As YOU and Google say it doesnt.
I Just cant understand the trust that all these fandroids have in Google the used car salesman. Atleast they know how to clowd some peoples thinking on privacy by waving the open/free methodology flag. And to even make people believe that stealing and giving it for free is not a bad thing even if they steal for themself at the same time. They purport themselves as the corporate "Robin hood". Its just not that we know their motives. And what they say and what they do don't go hand in hand anymore ( just answer the question I asked)
Comments
Listen To Me!
Maybe a Google takeover will make future Droid phones have cuter names, like Droid Popsicle or Droid Shortcake, instead of Motorola's thick-with-hyperbole names like "Droid Invincible" or "Droid 4G Hard-on" or whatever.
I thought the design behind Android let IT be tailored to fit any hardware. Isn't tailoring the hardware to suit the software the opposite of that? Or are they just copying Apple once again and making hardware and software together that are designed from the get go to work together? ANd what impact will that have on any other mfgs desire to use the OS?
They actually don't seem to believe that vision anymore. These days, they've talked seriously about addressing fragmentation, and the only way they seem to know how to do it is to become less open, less permissive, at least to what they'll let manufacturers put on their phones and still call "Android". I personally don't develop for Android, so I don't see why fragmentation is such a big problem. Android proliferated in marketshare very quickly and fragmentation is a natural side effect. Comes with the territory.
I think it's interesting that there were rumors Motorola wanted to build their own OS to compete against Android. If true, this probably puts any such project into a shallow grave.
As for the partners they didn't buy, well I don't think they have a choice. HP and RIM won't license their OS, Symbian is near death, so I have to think their only other choice is Windows Phone 7. The problem with that option is that buyers don't seem to really care about it right now. So they're left with Android. I'm sure that is not lost on Google; they know what cards they hold in this poker game.
Never in the existence of Google has it used my personal information in a negative shape, form, fashion.
how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?
That should be your decision... not his!
I don't disagree that Google may well have aspirations they can compete with Apple on design. In fact, I don't think I have argued that at all. My point is - they can't do it unless they change their culture. Google is an engineering company first and foremost. At one point, Marissa Mayer was given much leeway in the look and feel of their website. But with Eric Schmidt passing on the reins to Larry Page, Mayer has been given (shunted?) a different role, apparently outside the circle of influence. All to say, the design ethos is very different there in comparison to Apple.
Engineers generally are not good industrial designers (speaking as an engineer myself). Intelligence alone does not confer design talent. Arguably, conventional intelligence works on the wrong side of the brain. Jonathan Ive is NOT an engineer by training, but has a dominant role at Apple that few non-engineers have in almost all other computer companies. Will Google give similar power and freedom to an industrial designer on par with Ive? Even if they do, will that person have the equivalent of Steve Jobs to be the final discerning eye? Incidentally, Jobs is not an engineer either. At Google, he would not be qualified to lead. At Apple, he is the difference maker in Think Different.
Right, I don't disagree with any of that, I'm just responding to the idea that Google will leave Moto alone to carry on as an independent hardware company. They don't have to be good industrial designers to be tempted to tinker.
My impression is that Google's culture will tend towards intervention, whether or not intervention is actually in their best interests.
how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?
That should be your decision... not his!
It's a test of faith in Google's not being evil claim. And he passed with flying colors
It's a test of faith in Google's not being evil claim. And he passed with flying colors
This obsession with Google being evil or not is kind of silly but also worrisome. Get help.
It may be about patents, but it will definitely undermine 3rd party trust in Google.
It will be very tempting to bring all new developments to Motorola devices first, because Google now can develop hardware and software together.
Also important was Motorolas plan to sue all of the other Android makers.
I agree with most of the posters on here that Google did this primarily for the patents. However, I'm sure Google will still keep releasing a new Nexus phone (and maybe even tablet, eventually) every year. Now they just don't have to partner with a phone maker, since they now own one.
Before most of y'all convinced me it's mostly all about the patent numbers, I had a parody response in mind. Oh well, I'll use it anyway.....
MS (with Nokia's) maybe doin' it,
HP and Web OS are doin' it,
And even Rim always thot they were' doin it,
So now GOOG and MOTOrola are gonna do it,
Let 'em all do it,
Let's ... well, let's all try to copy Apple's model of controlling the HW plus the Software package. Except maybe MS and Google aren't really. And nobody's anywhere close to even where Apple already was, let alone what a year of iOS 5, Lion, iCloud, airDrop, improvements to the stores etc.
Oops, that last don't fit the song....... ...oh well.
Anyway, whatever the relative weights of factors, this deal is hardly all synergy and does guarantee some entropy......
Not necessarily.
I think that mindset is a bit different here. iPhone owners buy iPhone because it is Apple - I'm pretty sure many of them don't know or don't care what OS and what version of OS they run; Motivating factor here is Apple, not iOS.
But with Android, motivating factor seems to be software (Android) rather than hardware brand. Pretty much every Android user I know was considering number of devices from different manufacturers - at least I haven't met yet die-hard Samsung or HTC or... fan. Preferences are based on hardware specs rather than on name.
So... even if other manufacturers move to MS, I don't think that will hurt Android too much - presuming that Motorola will cover market with variety of different handsets. Which shouldn't be a problem for them if all Android market belongs to them only.
People buy iPhones because they are iPhones, not because they are Apple products. And what makes the iPhone different in the average consumer's mind is iOS, not the hardware. How much hardware difference can a user imagine between one candybar phone and the next? Yes, the hardware make it possible for iOS to do certain things, but that is a very secondary/indirect thing to a an average consumer's reasoning in which phone to buy.
I'll agree that a certain subset of the Android buyers think about hardware specs, but most of them will either go Android because of advertised features (OS related), network platform availability or pure pricing related decisions. And even with the OS related decisions it doesn't mean the consumer even knows the market space and all the related pros/cons of all the platforms, it just means a marketing message resonated at the right moment based on some feature desire.
how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?
That should be your decision... not his!
how can you trust any person, company, or group for that matter?
you have to use your own judgement.
Personally, I haven't had any negative effects from using Google products, its only improved my productivity.
At the same time, this should be a given: Don't trust any publicly traded company whose sole purpose is to increase profits on a quarterly basis.
how can you trust any person, company, or group for that matter?
you have to use your own judgement.
Personally, I haven't had any negative effects from using Google products, its only improved my productivity.
At the same time, this should be a given: Don't trust any publicly traded company whose sole purpose is to increase profits on a quarterly basis.
Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.
The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do. Banks, retail operations, the DMV, insurance companies, the library, your doctor, local governments, licensing agencies, the Social Security Administration, internet sites, etc-- they all collect and share info, to a degree. But Google conceivably has a hand in all of those and more, and definitely wants to have a hand in as many other forms of commerce or information as is possible-- because by being privy to ever more of you life they make more money.
Now, it's easy to say "no problems here, as far as I know Google hasn't provided my info to anyone that means me harm and I don't think there are any scenarios where access to that information would be particularly damaging to me" but in fact you don't know that. You have no idea. And you have no idea what Google might evolve into while still having all your data.
I don't have to imagine that Google is "evil" to be leery of the sheer concentration of power. If my credit card gets stolen I may be on the hook for some monetary damages. If Google gets hacked, or decides the new normal is to sell all of my information to whomever is willing to pay, I'm utterly fucked.
Some people might not mind having their, for instance, power, water, garbage service, internet, cable TV, phone, banking and medical records all handled by the same company. They might find it convenient, and feel the services are first rate. Myself, I see that as a recipe for disaster, since it require only a single point of failure to destroy my life.
Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.
The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do.
Except that they don't Addabox. Your personal data never leaves Google's hands, nor is shared with others without your specific authorization to do so (opt-in). In fact it's a more restrictive policy than even Apple has (opt-out), and you seem to have no issue with Apple's privacy policy, or at least no mention of one. What Google does is market their ability to deliver targeted results. But they don't hand over any of your personal information. That's Google's raw materials, an intrinsic part of their value as a provider of advertising services. They're not letting that out of their control.
If you wish to view Google's policies, reveiw the types of data they store about you and your interests, and even put controls in place to limit the gathering of information, simply visit their privacy site:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/
IMO, they're more transparent in how and what is gathered and give you more control over the process than either Apple or Microsoft. The FUD that's spread around about Google's selling of your private data to the highest bidder seems to be a real success story.
Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.
The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do. Banks, retail operations, the DMV, insurance companies, the library, your doctor, local governments, licensing agencies, the Social Security Administration, internet sites, etc-- they all collect and share info, to a degree. But Google conceivably has a hand in all of those and more, and definitely wants to have a hand in as many other forms of commerce or information as is possible-- because by being privy to ever more of you life they make more money.
Now, it's easy to say "no problems here, as far as I know Google hasn't provided my info to anyone that means me harm and I don't think there are any scenarios where access to that information would be particularly damaging to me" but in fact you don't know that. You have no idea. And you have no idea what Google might evolve into while still having all your data.
I don't have to imagine that Google is "evil" to be leery of the sheer concentration of power. If my credit card gets stolen I may be on the hook for some monetary damages. If Google gets hacked, or decides the new normal is to sell all of my information to whomever is willing to pay, I'm utterly fucked.
Some people might not mind having their, for instance, power, water, garbage service, internet, cable TV, phone, banking and medical records all handled by the same company. They might find it convenient, and feel the services are first rate. Myself, I see that as a recipe for disaster, since it require only a single point of failure to destroy my life.
A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.
One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.
Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.
I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?
I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.
A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.
One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.
Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.
I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?
I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.
According to Apple they share personal information they've gathered about you "with companies who provide services such as information processing, extending credit, fulfilling customer orders, delivering products to you, managing and enhancing customer data, providing customer service, assessing your interest in our products and services, and conducting customer research or satisfaction surveys. These companies are obligated to protect your information and may be located wherever Apple operates.
Others
It may be necessary − by law, legal process, litigation, and/or requests from public and governmental authorities within or outside your country of residence − for Apple to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for purposes of national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary or appropriate.
We may also disclose information about you if we determine that disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforce our terms and conditions or protect our operations or users. Additionally, in the event of a reorganization, merger, or sale we may transfer any and all personal information we collect to the relevant third party."
Yet some members here seem more comfortable with Apple sharing your private data, even your Social Security number (the epitome of personally identifiable information in the US) without your specific approval to Google's written policy requiring your very specific permission to share details about you.
A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.
One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.
Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.
I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?
I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.
Again, my point is that Apple doesn't have anything like the scope of Google's data mining available to them, and that Apple's business model isn't predicated on selling that information. It's not about trusting Apple and fearing Google; it's about taking note of the vast array of Google's interests. Their near monopoly on search alone puts them in a unique position among modern corporations. Even the 19th century didn't see cartels spanning as many diverse areas as Google now deals with, and of course the 19th century didn't afford the digital networks that allow those interests to merge in such a fundamental way.
But, also don't forget that Google created and has invested enormous amounts into Android for a reason. They see mobile as the future and killing that would have a huge impact on their business. Maybe not as large an immediate hit as Apple would take by losing iOS, but large nonetheless.
As everybody states this im just baffeled. How does providing free os's help in search advertising???? Can Somebody explain please why they would throw billions in the os. They would still would BE the prefered search engine in every OS because of the searchengine Some people think its obvious but Google has sworn that is will not use android to collect data of users. The _ONLY_ thing that i could come up with is user profiling. They need a name to go with the search results and other services! Google doesnt have a good trackrecord of being honest (no result tampering of paid advertisements remember anyone). I think this os thing will sink Google in the end and it will loose big time in the search field to the next good searchengine contender that comes along.
Except that they don't Addabox. Your personal data never leaves Google's hands, nor is shared with others without your specific authorization to do so (opt-in). In fact it's a more restrictive policy than even Apple has (opt-out), and you seem to have no issue with Apple's privacy policy, or at least no mention of one. What Google does is market their ability to deliver targeted results. But they don't hand over any of your personal information. That's Google's raw materials, an intrinsic part of their value as a provider of advertising services. They're not letting that out of their control.
If you wish to view Google's policies, reveiw the types of data they store about you and your interests, and even put controls in place to limit the gathering of information, simply visit their privacy site:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/
IMO, they're more transparent in how and what is gathered and give you more control over the process than either Apple or Microsoft. The FUD that's spread around about Google's selling of your private data to the highest bidder seems to be a real success story.
And why is it they invest so much in android and crome os again. If they dont disclose or use any other information they dont need android at all they already have all this information!!! Come on, dont be so naive and stupid!!! They throw billions into it for what reason???? Goodness of the hart doesnt count (your free to guess why)
As an executive in a big company YOU would have to convince the other executives why it is such a good business to throw much more than 13 billion to the scrapbin on a os that you give for free and that doesnt add anything to the searchresults As YOU and Google say it doesnt.
I Just cant understand the trust that all these fandroids have in Google the used car salesman. Atleast they know how to clowd some peoples thinking on privacy by waving the open/free methodology flag. And to even make people believe that stealing and giving it for free is not a bad thing even if they steal for themself at the same time. They purport themselves as the corporate "Robin hood". Its just not that we know their motives. And what they say and what they do don't go hand in hand anymore ( just answer the question I asked)