Is there a Google Insider site I can go to post trollish comments ? Or do people even care enough to start a web site that follows the news and rumors about Google closely and let people make comments?
On the various Android sites I've seen recently, I did some pretty deep searching for pro-Apple threads in a quest for pro-Apple trolls coming and bashing Google products.
Found none. Which I thought was awfully big of the Apple community, not retaliating when we're so mired in that nonsense ourselves.
DID see a fair bit of Apple-bashing, though, from established Android users there. Ah, well.
Quote:
Google is like taking your sister to the prom because you could not get a date. You really lust after Apple, the hottest girl at the dance, but she doesn't even know your name and will never dance with you, so in your petty way you hate her and like to say mean things about her behind her back.
So using Google products is like thinly-veiled semi-incest. That's certainly a unique take on it.
Quote:
It's OK, one day Google will perfect robots who will date you.
I'd say the problem is people like DED acting like crazed fanatics resulting in negative associations.
It is like BMW back in the 90s (*). They were great cars, but the stereotypical BMW driver was a jerk who thought they owned the road.
* These days the jerks seem to have switched to Audi.
It's sad the jerks have switched to Audi, because Audi's lineup as of late is, imo, the most drop-dead sexy of any of the car makers in that class. Absolutely stunning design.
Is there a Google Insider site I can go to post trollish comments ? Or do people even care enough to start a web site that follows the news and rumors about Google closely and let people make comments?
And that is the point - most people just know Google as a search company that pops up annoying ads they tolerate to get search results or a free Gmail account. They tolerate beta products because they are free. Some might notice the Google logo popup on their smartphone that was made by HTC or Samsung, but beyond that they are pretty oblivious to what Google does and how they use the all data they gather.
Apple on the other hand is out there selling products that are very innovative and complete, and they are not free, And some Apple customers are so loyal and like the Apple so much they will camp out inline to be the first to buy one, or start a website, or numerous websites, devoted to the company, its products and news, rumors, and stories about the company. Apple also attracts millions of other customers who like Apple's products and see enough value in them to continue to buy them. By the very nature of human beings, this success and public affection generates a group of outsiders who have a strong dislike Apple for any number of reasons, most not very objective or logical, but just plain human ego hatred.
Google doesn't generate this kind of hate, because its relationship with its customers is fairly shallow and usually free and accessible over the web. Google does not inspire much negative emotion. Google is like taking your sister to the prom because you could not get a date. You really lust after Apple, the hottest girl at the dance, but she doesn't even know your name and will never dance with you, so in your petty way you hate her and like to say mean things about her behind her back. Your sister is at least a female and not too homely, and you love her as a sister, and taking her was no cost to you (free). but you certainly aren't looking to sneak out to under the bleachers with her and you won't be bragging to your friends about your date with her. But they better not say anything mean about her, because after all, she is your sister.
It's OK, one day Google will perfect robots who will date you. They will generate one to match you based on all the search queries they have tracked about you. If you can tolerate all the ads that popup.
The bolded part is the most important - with the emphasis on 'free'.
To many people (including many of the trolls on this forum) as long as something is free, it must be good. Google's violations of privacy and intellectual property theft are OK since they're 'giving their products away for free'.
In the higher income brackets both Apple and Google were viewed very favorably, but Google was still number one even in that group.
I am a bit surprised with the results tho, probably because so many posts here state people don't trust Google. It would appear that's not necessarily true.
Income doesn't equate to ethical and intelligent. Consumers of Google and Apple may have similar weath distribution curves but their world views and ethics would be very far apart.
It does, however, depend on the probability you choose. If you choose a 95% probability, the margin of error is greater than if you choose a 90% margin of error.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the results are valid (or invalid, for that matter). It simply states that IF THE SAMPLE IS TRULY RANDOM, that the margin of error is as stated. There are still two problems:
1. Was the sample randomly selected and representative of the entire population? If not, then the results are meaningless. Getting a random sample is very difficult.
2. Were the questions completely unbiased?
If the questions were unbiased and if the sample was truly random, then the error margin is accurate - and the different is significant.
Of course, that also raises another question. Even if the results are representative of the population as a whole, are they meaningful? For example, does the population as a whole know enough about the two companies to really make an assessment or is the result biased by misinformation or lack of information? Just two examples:
1. There have been a lot of media reports about Apple's subcontractors in China. It was later found that some of the public information was completely false and a total fabrication. Since the retraction didn't get as much visibility as the initial reports, the public is probably partially misinformed.
2. Does the public really know anything about Google's business plan? For example, does the public know that Google tried to copy mountains of copyrighted work without permission in clear violation of copyright laws?
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released last week showed that of the top four U.S. tech companies; Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter, the ubiquitous internet search engine took the crown as "most favourable." ...
This is just more proof that people are dumbasses.
- The most evil company out there (Google) is rated number one.
- The company that purposely f*cks with your privacy (Facebook) is still loved by the roughly two thirds .
- The company that has no ads, and charges nothing for it's wonderful product is rated the worst.
Unfortunately nearly everyone else does too including Facebook, Twitter, LinkdIn and even Apple.
LinkdIn has been *leveraging* their user accounts in mass mailings lately, but they don't sell your info.
Apple doesn't do anything of the sort, doesn't sell your info and doesn't even pass on your email or phone number to third parties (which most stores, banks and financial institutions do also). Apple is cleaner than clean in this regard AFAIK.
Apple's revenue from this probably doesn't even register in their EPS to the fourth decimal point.
Exactly, Apple using demographic information to sell iAd space is completely fine because they SUCK at it.
Google is an expert at display ads and turned it into a highly profitable business; means that when they do the exact same thing it makes Google is the devil? THE DEVIL!
The margin of error can be made smaller by polling more people. A poll involving only a few hundred people may have a large margin of error, and a poll with thousands of people will have a small margin of error.
They polled just over a thousand people to represent the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of users of Google, Apple and Facebook users. That is what's known as a statistical anomaly.
It's sad the jerks have switched to Audi, because Audi's lineup as of late is, imo, the most drop-dead sexy of any of the car makers in that class. Absolutely stunning design.
Jerks have moved to Audi? No, I think they're still driving BMWs.
Slight difference in scale between iAd and Google. Close to 100% of Google's revenue comes from tracking what we do on the Internet. iAd was an "f-you" from Steve Jobs to Google more than a way to generate lots of new revenue.
Rubbish. Jobs did not do it as a two fingered salute. He thought it would make money or he would never have bothered. it just turned out that it was a bit crap and he couldn't.
Comments
Is there a Google Insider site I can go to post trollish comments ? Or do people even care enough to start a web site that follows the news and rumors about Google closely and let people make comments?
On the various Android sites I've seen recently, I did some pretty deep searching for pro-Apple threads in a quest for pro-Apple trolls coming and bashing Google products.
Found none. Which I thought was awfully big of the Apple community, not retaliating when we're so mired in that nonsense ourselves.
DID see a fair bit of Apple-bashing, though, from established Android users there. Ah, well.
Google is like taking your sister to the prom because you could not get a date. You really lust after Apple, the hottest girl at the dance, but she doesn't even know your name and will never dance with you, so in your petty way you hate her and like to say mean things about her behind her back.
So using Google products is like thinly-veiled semi-incest. That's certainly a unique take on it.
It's OK, one day Google will perfect robots who will date you.
Or at least drive to bars for you.
It is like BMW back in the 90s (*). They were great cars, but the stereotypical BMW driver was a jerk who thought they owned the road.
* These days the jerks seem to have switched to Audi.
I'd say the problem is people like DED acting like crazed fanatics resulting in negative associations.
It is like BMW back in the 90s (*). They were great cars, but the stereotypical BMW driver was a jerk who thought they owned the road.
* These days the jerks seem to have switched to Audi.
It's sad the jerks have switched to Audi, because Audi's lineup as of late is, imo, the most drop-dead sexy of any of the car makers in that class. Absolutely stunning design.
Is there a Google Insider site I can go to post trollish comments ? Or do people even care enough to start a web site that follows the news and rumors about Google closely and let people make comments?
And that is the point - most people just know Google as a search company that pops up annoying ads they tolerate to get search results or a free Gmail account. They tolerate beta products because they are free. Some might notice the Google logo popup on their smartphone that was made by HTC or Samsung, but beyond that they are pretty oblivious to what Google does and how they use the all data they gather.
Apple on the other hand is out there selling products that are very innovative and complete, and they are not free, And some Apple customers are so loyal and like the Apple so much they will camp out inline to be the first to buy one, or start a website, or numerous websites, devoted to the company, its products and news, rumors, and stories about the company. Apple also attracts millions of other customers who like Apple's products and see enough value in them to continue to buy them. By the very nature of human beings, this success and public affection generates a group of outsiders who have a strong dislike Apple for any number of reasons, most not very objective or logical, but just plain human ego hatred.
Google doesn't generate this kind of hate, because its relationship with its customers is fairly shallow and usually free and accessible over the web. Google does not inspire much negative emotion. Google is like taking your sister to the prom because you could not get a date. You really lust after Apple, the hottest girl at the dance, but she doesn't even know your name and will never dance with you, so in your petty way you hate her and like to say mean things about her behind her back. Your sister is at least a female and not too homely, and you love her as a sister, and taking her was no cost to you (free). but you certainly aren't looking to sneak out to under the bleachers with her and you won't be bragging to your friends about your date with her. But they better not say anything mean about her, because after all, she is your sister.
It's OK, one day Google will perfect robots who will date you. They will generate one to match you based on all the search queries they have tracked about you. If you can tolerate all the ads that popup.
The bolded part is the most important - with the emphasis on 'free'.
To many people (including many of the trolls on this forum) as long as something is free, it must be good. Google's violations of privacy and intellectual property theft are OK since they're 'giving their products away for free'.
In the higher income brackets both Apple and Google were viewed very favorably, but Google was still number one even in that group.
I am a bit surprised with the results tho, probably because so many posts here state people don't trust Google. It would appear that's not necessarily true.
Income doesn't equate to ethical and intelligent. Consumers of Google and Apple may have similar weath distribution curves but their world views and ethics would be very far apart.
So what was their methodology, and only 1,007 polled? Sounds like a ridiculously small sampling.
The article claims the margin of error was only 3.5%
Out of tens of millions of users? Rubbish!
The mathematics are pretty straightforward:
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
It does, however, depend on the probability you choose. If you choose a 95% probability, the margin of error is greater than if you choose a 90% margin of error.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the results are valid (or invalid, for that matter). It simply states that IF THE SAMPLE IS TRULY RANDOM, that the margin of error is as stated. There are still two problems:
1. Was the sample randomly selected and representative of the entire population? If not, then the results are meaningless. Getting a random sample is very difficult.
2. Were the questions completely unbiased?
If the questions were unbiased and if the sample was truly random, then the error margin is accurate - and the different is significant.
Of course, that also raises another question. Even if the results are representative of the population as a whole, are they meaningful? For example, does the population as a whole know enough about the two companies to really make an assessment or is the result biased by misinformation or lack of information? Just two examples:
1. There have been a lot of media reports about Apple's subcontractors in China. It was later found that some of the public information was completely false and a total fabrication. Since the retraction didn't get as much visibility as the initial reports, the public is probably partially misinformed.
2. Does the public really know anything about Google's business plan? For example, does the public know that Google tried to copy mountains of copyrighted work without permission in clear violation of copyright laws?
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released last week showed that of the top four U.S. tech companies; Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter, the ubiquitous internet search engine took the crown as "most favourable." ...
This is just more proof that people are dumbasses.
- The most evil company out there (Google) is rated number one.
- The company that purposely f*cks with your privacy (Facebook) is still loved by the roughly two thirds .
- The company that has no ads, and charges nothing for it's wonderful product is rated the worst.
idiots.
Unfortunately nearly everyone else does too including Facebook, Twitter, LinkdIn and even Apple.
LinkdIn has been *leveraging* their user accounts in mass mailings lately, but they don't sell your info.
Apple doesn't do anything of the sort, doesn't sell your info and doesn't even pass on your email or phone number to third parties (which most stores, banks and financial institutions do also). Apple is cleaner than clean in this regard AFAIK.
I'm just assuming you meant Apple, but if you need the others too let me know.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=64
Pointing to your own misleading post on an anonymous forum is hardly "evidence."
Just sayin.
Apple's revenue from this probably doesn't even register in their EPS to the fourth decimal point.
Exactly, Apple using demographic information to sell iAd space is completely fine because they SUCK at it.
Google is an expert at display ads and turned it into a highly profitable business; means that when they do the exact same thing it makes Google is the devil? THE DEVIL!
People like Apple but not for what it co$t$ them.
It's the economy stupid!
http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/margin_of_error.htm
The margin of error can be made smaller by polling more people. A poll involving only a few hundred people may have a large margin of error, and a poll with thousands of people will have a small margin of error.
They polled just over a thousand people to represent the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of users of Google, Apple and Facebook users. That is what's known as a statistical anomaly.
It's sad the jerks have switched to Audi, because Audi's lineup as of late is, imo, the most drop-dead sexy of any of the car makers in that class. Absolutely stunning design.
Jerks have moved to Audi? No, I think they're still driving BMWs.
Jerks have moved to Audi? No, I think they're still driving BMWs.
If they drive over the posted speed limit they are all jerks regardless of the model of car.
When people realize that Google sells user's usage information which promotes spam, they would have less favorable opinion about them.
So what was their methodology, and only 1,007 polled? Sounds like a ridiculously small sampling.
General surveys range between 1000-1500 respondents. Anything else is excessive.
Sooo many haters out there.
People like Google cause it helps them find things - for FREE.
People like Apple but not for what it co$t$ them.
It's the economy stupid!
Slight difference in scale between iAd and Google. Close to 100% of Google's revenue comes from tracking what we do on the Internet. iAd was an "f-you" from Steve Jobs to Google more than a way to generate lots of new revenue.
Rubbish. Jobs did not do it as a two fingered salute. He thought it would make money or he would never have bothered. it just turned out that it was a bit crap and he couldn't.