Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by shompa View Post



    I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.

    In Sweden we have legal right to know what a company store about it's users. Only Google refuses to release the data. Why? What are they hiding?

    They refuse to delete the data. I want to be able to pay Google for its great services, but that they stop to index everything. I personally hate that people who use Gmail: If I email them, Google indexes my email. I have not given Google permission to do that!. I don't use Gmail..

    This is what Google knows about you and store forever:

    What you think: Your interests, desires, needs, and intentions: Google.com searches, etc.

    What you read: News, commentary, and books: Google News, Book Search, DoubleClick, etc.

    What you watch: YouTube, Google TV

    What you write/receive: Gmail and Google Docs

    Who you%u2019ve communicated with, what you talked about: Groups, Buzz, Gmail, Voice, etc.

    What you believe: Politics and religion: search, News, YouTube, Groups, Gmail, Buzz, etc.

    Everywhere you go on the Internet: DoubleClick ad-tracking, Chrome, search, etc.

    What you plan to do or where you%u2019re going: Calendar, Maps, Streetview, Android, etc.

    Where your home, work, commutes and hangouts are: Android, Maps, Street View, etc.

    You and your family%u2019s voiceprints and faceprints: Voice, Picasa, translation, etc.

    You and your family%u2019s medical history and health status: Search, Google Health, Gmail, etc.

    Your financial worth, status, and purchases: Search, Google Checkout, etc.


     


    Yep. Google are the new Big Brother. Be afraid.

  • Reply 122 of 136
    anonymouse wrote: »
    Sorry, but the argument that we'd have squat if Google hadn't given it to us is apologist nonsense. There's no reason to think someone else might not have come along and offered us everything Google did. In fact, it's likely more accurate to see Google as a roadblock to innovation and better systems than what they provide. Their monopoly in search and dominance in other areas acts as a barrier to prevent others from even attempting to enter the market. So, it's just as easy, and perhaps more plausible, to argue we'd be better off if Google had never been.

    Late in replying to this... but wow!

    I agree with almost every single post you've ever made here.. but this one is just out there from left field!

    Do you remember internet search before Google at all? The trend at the time was a bloody mess of portals, like AOL, Yahoo, MSN and friends. You couldn't "find" a damn thing most of the time! Google actually was godsend, since they took a page out of Apple's playbook and kept it simple: search box. That's it. I'm not going to go into the history of Google and how great they WERE, and for I'd venture 99% of the world that still sees the Google search box whenever they start their browser.

    So once again, considering almost 2 billion people banging Google's servers (100's of times only for search...excluding other free services like Maps, Earth, Mail, and YouTube!) every single day... I'll ask again:

    ***How would YOU financially support it and monetize it for your shareholders?!***
  • Reply 123 of 136
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Any way that didn't involve regularly ignoring the privacy of their own customers, and if that way could not be found, then no way at all.

    It is not acceptable to make your unofficial mantra, "Don't be evil unless it looks like it could affect your ability to survive, then it's alright.".

    We have enough of those companies already.

    It's a shame Google lost its way.
  • Reply 124 of 136
    Addition to the above post:

    Read my original post again: I am NOT a Google-apologizer at all, far from it... I'm VERY skeptical of everything they offer. I have Google Mail as a 3rd tier website registration for example and to be able to test their devices with my login. Pretty much the same way I have a Hotmail Live account (2nd tier). My 1st tier services are all closed to me and my servers and providers, and are only cross synced with Apple devices through Safari or Firefox with the Ghostery addon set at basically "proxy".

    Some would ask what I have to hide. Answer: absolutely nothing. However, I don't (you neither) really KNOW how deep Google or any of the other services go into snooping around my data. No personal need in my life to sync and create a "profile" of me. I know who I am and what I do, who my "real friends" are, and am still cognizant and intelligent enough to remember where it all is and belongs to, and how to get at it again.

    STILL again... Google offers some services (like search) that I would love to be matched or made better. Some have tried... some have failed... and some succeeded at other peripheral services. For example:
    Failed: MS with everything currently;
    Success: Craig's list, Ebay, Amazon, Apple, and Wikipedia.

    But still: how do most people GET to those sites and relative search? Yup. Through Google. To ignore that simple fact and harder yet, too turn it around... is going to take something big... and an even bigger company to make it happen.

    Apple's the biggest and most profitable company in tech on the planet, and I would have my doubts if they ever anounced they were going to try and tackle the problem. As a sad example: even though Apple Maps works great for me... I can just see the headlines now if Apple went for search the same they're going after Google's Maps. One bad unrelated result and the blogosphere and media headlines would be active for MONTHS headlining Apple's failures. EVEN though as we all know and experience daily, the search results from Google are becoming more and more like spam. I even have a mini course for friends and clients, how to use Google effectively*. (They shoud've learnt it themselves long ago, since the tricks like "-" "___", "+", "url:" etc. have always been there.)

    Regardless: I wholeheartedly agree that Google needs some [I]restraint imposed*[/I] upon them, however still be able to develop their services and financially support them. I'm thoroughly flummoxed though how to go about that. *AND NO NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY! Dawg forbid!!!!!

    PS. John Connor carries an iOS device vs. we know what the Terminator carries! :smokey:
  • Reply 125 of 136
    gtr wrote: »
    Any way that didn't involve regularly ignoring the privacy of their own customers, and if that way could not be found, then no way at all.
    It is not acceptable to make your unofficial mantra, "Don't be evil unless it looks like it could affect your ability to survive, then it's alright.".
    We have enough of those companies already.
    It's a shame Google lost its way.

    That's a rather open-ended reply to "how". How: as to offer free services and pay for them.

    Privacy: what privacy? You have over 1 BILLION people freely pouring their hearts and lives out on Facebook. Asinine, idiotic and shortsighted behavior AFAIC(concerned)! But they do it out of peer-pressure, just as humans have done for milleniums... ask the church!

    I think the bigger question and, wherein a solution might present itself: how to turn people off in droves to using Google's services.

    Reality says: look at our tiny little Apple universe, and how many people clamor for the return of Google's Maps so that they can be better tracked. How are you going to beat that persistance, desire for, and the massive worldwide use of Google's services... to essentially "force" Google to change their ways and possibly implement better individual privacy controls.

    We really are talking about how to change the world here. NOT Google directly... but indirectly causing them to be concerned enough to change their ways.

    Bolded: the mantra of every single market-oriented company on the planet! The polar opposite is: central-planned economy, because as for the customer: F*** 'em! They'll eat or use what we blood well give them... or there's a Gulag near you looking for long-term guests.
  • Reply 126 of 136
    Sorry to say, I'm not through yet... and sorry if I'm going into a slight tangent within this thread, however it does pertain to my above posts in regards to "free".

    [B]Free.[/B] Everything on the Internet, and increasing off of it as well (Apps for example)... are expected to be free and close to it. How about this site? It's for all of us here to banter, b***** and moan, and discuss these topics. No need to go into how they monetize and finance it: we know. Ads.... just like millions of sites the world over.

    The discussion has been raised countless times over the years, how to do it differently. There has been NO other viable plan to date. No ads = no income. Because we all know (if you're a content creator that is), that to ask anyone to pay-to-play... your asking for a chapter 11 form in short time.

    So if ads are off of the table as a way to financially offer a service or app for free, what else is left? Would you pay 1 cent for every Google service/screen view you use? Just so that you wouldn't be tracked? It has been thrown around. The "tax" would be extracted from your ISP, and paid to Google. Would it make you feel better that your ISP is tracking you now instead of Google? My answer: no.

    I'm interested in hearing solutions and ideas... not whole encompassing replies as to what's wrong with Google and their mantra. We all know it's serious BS... but currently a necessary BS not only for those in the search of "free", but I believe also a necessity for Google. There is no other plan at the moment. None.

    And may I again stress, that I do not EVER want to see a government or UN agency even get their hands on the doorknobs to Google's servers or become decision makers...EVER! At that point in time if it ever comes to that, we as "free" humans are doomed! This would not be anything like the FTC, the USPO, the airline, food, and/or drug agencies. This is the absolute control of our identities. Safe to say "almost as" effective as if we were implanted with chips the day we were born. Funnier still, is that the majority of the population is effectively "chipping" themselves in the desire to be "Liked". How ironic and far easier than even Orwell could have imagined is that?!!!!

    Note to self: remove tin hat before going to watch footie this afternoon! Track that! :smokey:
  • Reply 127 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post





    Late in replying to this... but wow!

    I agree with almost every single post you've ever made here.. but this one is just out there from left field!

    Do you remember internet search before Google at all? The trend at the time was a bloody mess of portals, like AOL, Yahoo, MSN and friends. You couldn't "find" a damn thing most of the time! Google actually was godsend, since they took a page out of Apple's playbook and kept it simple: search box. That's it. I'm not going to go into the history of Google and how great they WERE, and for I'd venture 99% of the world that still sees the Google search box whenever they start their browser.

    So once again, considering almost 2 billion people banging Google's servers (100's of times only for search...excluding other free services like Maps, Earth, Mail, and YouTube!) every single day... I'll ask again:

    ***How would YOU financially support it and monetize it for your shareholders?!***


     


    As indicated by others, there's no need for Google to be Big Brother to monetize search. However, the post you are replying to had nothing to do with that. I was talking about the fact that Google's dominance acts as a barrier to others entering the field (even Microsoft with their deep pockets is having trouble establishing a toe hold), thus, we are excluded from the possibility of better services and solutions being developed by others. This as a counterpoint to your argument that we should be grateful to Google. Should we, or are they stifling innovation with their de facto monopoly?

  • Reply 128 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post



    ... Privacy: what privacy? You have over 1 BILLION people freely pouring their hearts and lives out on Facebook. ...


     


    The difference is that those people chose to, "freely [pour] their hearts and lives out on Facebook." No one chose to have Google tracking them all over the web, anywhere they go. No one was even offered a choice. In fact, most people still don't even realize that it's happening.


     


    The other difference is that, to my knowledge, at least, Facebook is not a criminal enterprise, whereas, Google is.

  • Reply 129 of 136


    I am certainly not oblivious that Google and others take liberties with our privacy.


     


    Facebook needs to be called on the carpet as well in my opinion. I can willingly share selected pieces of my personal life with people of my choosing, but why on earth does Facebook keep installing a tracking cookie in my browser to cache my data. I can delete virtually all cookies on my system, restart Safari and immediately the fbsdn.net cookie is back. How and why does this even happen? I am not on the Facebook site, I am doing nothing related to Facebook whatsoever. There is no need for a Facebook cookie whatsoever EVER.


     


    I rarely go on Facebook as a rule anyway and I share very little. The same goes for Linkedin. I won't touch Google+ and avoid anything Google whenever I can. I think Google and Facebook are two of the greasiest "services" companies around. It's not that I don't think that Google does some pretty cool things, because they do. The fact remains that I'd gladly pay for some of their services, provided they not harvest anything from me. Ever. I am not comfortable selling my soul for anything that they have to offer. Google intentionally circumventing Safari privacy settings speaks volumes.

  • Reply 130 of 136
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Particularly this,"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. ..."


     


    which outlines the types of purposes fair-use applies to. Google's copying and use don't fall under any of these purposes, nor any similar purpose.




     


    Hmm.  I use Google Books all the time for research.  It's no different than going into a library and searching by hand, but much easier.


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Google's entire revenue stream is this. Apple makes no revenue whatsoever from it.



     


    Apple's iAds department would argue with that claim.  Just like Google, Apple sells ad placements based on our personal information.  Heck, Apple probably knows more than Google, because of iTunes:  media and app search and sales preferences, credit card info, etc.


     


    The good news is that both companies keep that info as anonymous and secure as possible, since it's a source of revenue and statistics.   And at least with Google, you can go to your ad dashboard and remove anything you don't like in your profile.  (What they store about us is surprisingly innocuous and boring.)


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mac123 View Post


    If there were no Android phones there would be no portable Google search boxes. Search would be limited to the desktop.



     


    Smartphones have had search inside Google Maps, at least, since before the iPhone came along.

  • Reply 131 of 136


    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    The good news is that both companies keep that info as anonymous and secure as possible, since it's a source of revenue and statistics.



     


    Google sells you to the lowest bidder. Apple doesn't sell you to anyone…

  • Reply 132 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    Hmm.  I use Google Books all the time for research.  It's no different than going into a library and searching by hand, but much easier.



     


    Your thought process is confused. Your use of an illegal copy in no way legitimizes the illegal copy, it's still illegal. The point is that Google made the copy and they aren't using it for research, they are using it to generate revenue. It's no different than if the library (illegally) made copies of books, instead of purchasing them, on the pretense that people were going to be using them for research.


     


    Actually, there is a difference, the library (most of them at least) is a non-profit or governmental entity. They would have an even stronger claim to make copies than Google in your scenario, yet, it's still deemed illegal for them to just make their own copies of copyrighted material so you can use them for research. Plenty of university libraries would be thrilled if copyright law worked the way you apparently think it does, what with all the money they could save on institutional journal subscriptions. Unfortunately for them, Google and you, that's not what the law says. On the other hand, it's fortunate for the publishers and authors of journals and books that it doesn't work the way you think it does.

  • Reply 133 of 136
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Google sells you to the lowest bidder. Apple doesn't sell you to anyone…



     


    Neither company sells any personal information.  Not Google.  Not Apple.


     


    Both companies only sell ad placements based on the info they have.


     


    For example, a company comes to Apple and says they want to target 20-30 year olds, middle class, who like gaming apps and heavy metal music.  They also supply Apple with the ads they wish to be shown.


     


    Whenever an app requests an iAd, Apple's server looks at your profile to see what target audience you match.  The server then sends back an ad for that profile, such as with the example above.  Which ads you see, are also stored at Apple for a month, to prevent you from having to see the same ones over and over again unnecessarily.  The requesting company pays about 10 cents for each ad view, and the app developer gets a 70% cut of that.


     


    The company that paid for the ad is never given any of your personal information.  Only you can do that by clicking on the ad and then giving your name and other info once you get to their website.

  • Reply 134 of 136
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Your thought process is confused. Your use of an illegal copy in no way legitimizes the illegal copy, it's still illegal. The point is that Google made the copy and they aren't using it for research, they are using it to generate revenue.


     



     


    Interesting point.


     


    Of course, websites and magazines that print book reviews also use excerpts to generate revenue... albeit with less dependence on the copyrighted matter.


     


    And Google is not providing the entire book, but only some pages here and there.


     


    Still, you've convinced me to agree that it should be up to the copyright holder as to what material should be visible during a search.


     


    Thanks for the thoughtful debate!

  • Reply 135 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    Interesting point.


     


    Of course, websites and magazines that print book reviews also use excerpts to generate revenue... albeit with less dependence on the copyrighted matter.


     


    And Google is not providing the entire book, but only some pages here and there.



     


    Reviews specifically fall under the definition of fair use. Google's intent isn't to use it themselves for any of those purposes. Their intent, which they have themselves indicated, is to act as a publisher of this material.

  • Reply 136 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    ... Still, you've convinced me to agree that it should be up to the copyright holder as to what material should be visible during a search. ,,,



     


    It should be up to the copyright holder, whether Google should even be able to have a copy of the work on their servers.

Sign In or Register to comment.