How many of these self driving cars are they actually going to sell each year for the next 10 years? A couple of thousand? The car mfg have to charge a of money for the capabilities and people have to have at least $5 Million in liability insurance which is a lot higher than people have currently, so people's insurance premiums is going to go up because of self driving cars.
How long do you think it's going to take until they sell more than 1% of the new cars with this expensive feature? at least 50 years before it's affordable enough to grab even a small amount of market share of new car sales.
Remember, Google customers that buy Android phones don't spend much money because they don't have that much money.
And therein lies the genius, they can offset these increased costs with ... ads! Just agree to ads being streamed to your self-driving car's vid screen whenever you're in it, and it'll cost the same as a regular old manually operated vehicle. Think how much more productive you'll be by not having to drive (while being bombarded with ads), you'll have so much more time (to be flooded with distracting ads)!
And therein lies the genius, they can offset these increased costs with ... ads! Just agree to ads being streamed to your self-driving car's vid screen whenever you're in it, and it'll cost the same as a regular old manually operated vehicle. Think how much more productive you'll be by not having to drive (while being bombarded with ads), you'll have so much more time (to be flooded with distracting ads)!
Google doesn't make cars. Auto mfg do. Most of the cost of driverless cars are in that expensive spinning camera on top, the mechanical crap they have to add and that stuff is HARDWARE and the auto makers have to spend a LOT of money in that crap and charge the customer for it.
Google is just providing the software component and that they might have to give to the auto mfg and make up by selling ads? Hahahahhahahaahaha. They can't sell enough of these things to make it worthwhile.
They haven't announced how much of a premium it's going to cost for having driverless cars, but in full production, they are STILL going to have to charge at least another $35 to $75K just to have driverless. That spinning camera on top is RIPPING expensive and they can't make that many per year of those things. Then you have the pedals and steering wheel that has a bunch of mechanical crap, additional electrical and pneumatic crap on top. It's a waste of money. I highly doubt you'll see the average Joe Blow buying a driverless car. Plus the increase in liabilities to have insurance. So, the average insurance premium will probably double. Yeah, this is just for a small group of rich people that want to show off their money..
I agree that ads are everywhere, and sometimes people have little choice in avoiding them, but that doesn't mean that people should accept ads on hardware like refrigerators, thermostats, glasses and on car dashboards.
I think it is probably going to be up to the user just like it is with in app ads. If you want an app for your fridge that offers free recipes, be prepared for ads. But don't shoot the messenger. Those ads will be from other companies even though they may be delivered by iAd or Google.
Thanks for the links. Looks like Google was not intentionally delivering malware as you claimed. According to your links the source of the problem was hackers. Google has been pretty good when it comes to warning about hacked web pages. On some occasions Google has interrupted the page load with a warning that the site had be compromised. They certainly don't want to get a reputation for being complicate in spreading malware. That would be suicide.
They will definitely need to get the costs down. I don't imagine even a wealthy person would much care to pay that much additional to add self-driving capability (it should at least be cheaper than a chauffeur, right?). Thanks for the article link, as you said, it was interesting.
Google's search utility scans sites and blacklists them as malware, every day. The ads that are presented when a user searches for software, however, is not flagged as malware, even though there are numerous bad download sites that are promoted through google search. Why?
Could it be that paid advertisements are not getting properly flagged since they are prioritized? A website with bad code gets blocked immediately in Google Chrome, then sent back to the blacklist department, and Websense is immediately updated to lock all traffic out of that said website.
This does not happen for advertisements on Google's search engine. Go google a piece of software for yourself, and see the ads of alternate download links that are malicious. It's there every time you search for a piece of software. This is not the work of "hackers".. it's the work of Google allowing ad companies to run malware into their ads.
If consumers reject ads on refrigerators and such then I wouldn't expect them to be promoted. Kinda against the point of advertising if it's a turn-off isn't it?
You know it's not that simple. It's all going to come down to levels of tolerance vs. aversion.
My new TV was selected on a number of features unrelated to its Internet connectivity. But after connecting it thusly, I get an ad popup every time I adjust the volume. That, apparently, is the "price" for being connected. (And not "promoted" - your word - by the brand, nor mentioned by any salesperson prior to purchase...)
As a consumer, do I have options? Yes: I could choose another make and/or model that doesn't do this. But another model may not use the same display tech, may not have other characteristics (e.g., reliability) I consider desirable.
Just because I choose to keep this TV and use it, doesn't mean I strongly feel that ads suck. Purchasing this product should not necessarily extrapolate the idea that I have "accepted" ads.
They will definitely need to get the costs down. I don't imagine even a wealthy person would much care to pay that much additional to add self-driving capability (it should at least be cheaper than a chauffeur, right?). Thanks for the article link, as you said, it was interesting.
Those spinning cameras are RIPPING expensive, they would have to embed a ton of cameras around the entire car so you don't this stupid thing on top. What happens when some punk kid screws up your camera by either trying to steal it or throw rocks at it? Oops, you'll have to DRIVE your driverless car and pay money to get it fixed or replaced.
The costs of all of the things to get the pedals/steering wheel are expensive and they can't drive the mfg costs down that much, and then they have to still mark it up. Then you'll probably have to have the car brought in for higher maintenance costs, etc.
There was a university that was using an iPad and it had a bunch of embedded cameras throughout the body and that's still expensive.
I think if you look at the average new car costing $30K, they can't bring the cost (to the customer) for less than $5K for everything and still make a profit on the add-on. Look at what companies charge just for these small safety feature add-ons already that aren't anywhere this level of functionality. For all of the weird safety stuff that MB charges on their entry level cars costs about $3K for Distronic, Active Blind Spot, Active lane keeping, Pre Safe and Parktronic system. and that's basic stuff in comparison. The full active system requires a LOT of mechanical things and it costs $$, plus it will most likely require mandated safety checks far above what people have to go through now since there is no driver involved.
What I read is that whatever comes of this is that the car mfg will just slowly bring the technology as it makes sense and it's STILL not going to be a major seller since people just won't pay the money to have the feature since it will just simply cost way too much additional money.
I'm sure the "google fridge" is an entirely Samsung thing just powered by Android. WhyTF would I ever want Google on my fridge? Maybe it'll be part of their competitor to AmazonFresh?
...going as far as to say that even refrigerators could one day serve Google AdSense to their users.
In addition to refrigerators, Google said it could also serve up ads on car dashboards, thermostats, glasses and watches, "just to name a few possibilities."
I think people are misunderstanding what they are saying here. AdSense works like this: You have a website, you let Google have some space on your page where they place relevant ads, you get paid. I know this because I've been doing it for years. The only way you are going to see AdSense ads on your refrigerator is if it has a browser and you surf the web to some page that has Google AdSense running on it. The ads do not live on the refrigerator unless your refrigerator is also a web server in which case you wouldn't see them, you would just get paid.
Nope. You're wrong. Since one of the concepts of a "smart fridge" is for it to know what you're running low on, expect to see "hey, you're almost out of Diet Coke - Kroger Home Delivery suggests you try Diet Pepsi - on sale today Just For You (R)"
And this morning CNBC is hyping Google amassing an overseas war chest to go on a global spending spree. No mention though of how Google wants to throw advertising on anything and everything. Thankfully I don't have to buy any Google products and have ads shoved in my face 24/7.
He says as his post is automatically tagged with linked ads...
Go google a piece of software for yourself, and see the ads of alternate download links that are malicious. It's there every time you search for a piece of software. This is not the work of "hackers".. it's the work of Google allowing ad companies to run malware into their ads.
I did as you instructed last time by searching for Adobe Flash and I didn't get any ads of any kind whatsoever. The entire first page of results was links to Adobe. Of course if you were suggesting that Flash itself is malware, you would probably get a lot of thumbs up around here.
Please tell me what search words produce a repeatable demonstration of your claim.
Comments
How many of these self driving cars are they actually going to sell each year for the next 10 years? A couple of thousand? The car mfg have to charge a of money for the capabilities and people have to have at least $5 Million in liability insurance which is a lot higher than people have currently, so people's insurance premiums is going to go up because of self driving cars.
How long do you think it's going to take until they sell more than 1% of the new cars with this expensive feature? at least 50 years before it's affordable enough to grab even a small amount of market share of new car sales.
Remember, Google customers that buy Android phones don't spend much money because they don't have that much money.
And therein lies the genius, they can offset these increased costs with ... ads! Just agree to ads being streamed to your self-driving car's vid screen whenever you're in it, and it'll cost the same as a regular old manually operated vehicle. Think how much more productive you'll be by not having to drive (while being bombarded with ads), you'll have so much more time (to be flooded with distracting ads)!
And therein lies the genius, they can offset these increased costs with ... ads! Just agree to ads being streamed to your self-driving car's vid screen whenever you're in it, and it'll cost the same as a regular old manually operated vehicle. Think how much more productive you'll be by not having to drive (while being bombarded with ads), you'll have so much more time (to be flooded with distracting ads)!
Google doesn't make cars. Auto mfg do. Most of the cost of driverless cars are in that expensive spinning camera on top, the mechanical crap they have to add and that stuff is HARDWARE and the auto makers have to spend a LOT of money in that crap and charge the customer for it.
Google is just providing the software component and that they might have to give to the auto mfg and make up by selling ads? Hahahahhahahaahaha. They can't sell enough of these things to make it worthwhile.
They haven't announced how much of a premium it's going to cost for having driverless cars, but in full production, they are STILL going to have to charge at least another $35 to $75K just to have driverless. That spinning camera on top is RIPPING expensive and they can't make that many per year of those things. Then you have the pedals and steering wheel that has a bunch of mechanical crap, additional electrical and pneumatic crap on top. It's a waste of money. I highly doubt you'll see the average Joe Blow buying a driverless car. Plus the increase in liabilities to have insurance. So, the average insurance premium will probably double. Yeah, this is just for a small group of rich people that want to show off their money..
Read this article that was written last year. It talks about the costs of buying a driverless car.
Interesting article.
http://www.theneweconomy.com/insight/google-driverless-cars
Because what you are claiming is complete nonsense.
My bad.. the US senate is investigating.. after over 5 years of this.
May 2014
http://adage.com/article/privacy-and-regulation/mccain-attacks-google-yahoo-malicious-online-ad-hearing/293232/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/internet/op-ed-are-online-ads-safe-senate-committee-grills-yahoo-google/article/384107
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/yahoo-youtube-ads-spreading-viruses-20140518-zrgoz.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2155820/online-advertising-poses-significant-security-privacy-risks-to-users-us-senate-report-says.html
2010
http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-google-ads/
I think it is probably going to be up to the user just like it is with in app ads. If you want an app for your fridge that offers free recipes, be prepared for ads. But don't shoot the messenger. Those ads will be from other companies even though they may be delivered by iAd or Google.
My bad.. the US senate is investigating.. after over 5 years of this.
May 2014
http://adage.com/article/privacy-and-regulation/mccain-attacks-google-yahoo-malicious-online-ad-hearing/293232/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/internet/op-ed-are-online-ads-safe-senate-committee-grills-yahoo-google/article/384107
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/yahoo-youtube-ads-spreading-viruses-20140518-zrgoz.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2155820/online-advertising-poses-significant-security-privacy-risks-to-users-us-senate-report-says.html
2010
http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-google-ads/
Thanks for the links. Looks like Google was not intentionally delivering malware as you claimed. According to your links the source of the problem was hackers. Google has been pretty good when it comes to warning about hacked web pages. On some occasions Google has interrupted the page load with a warning that the site had be compromised. They certainly don't want to get a reputation for being complicate in spreading malware. That would be suicide.
If the Google brand name is so powerful why is Apple able to sell 150,00,000 iPhones at $600 a piece?
Yet Google struggles to sell 100,000 MotoG phones for $199?
This is total BS. To 99% of the population Google is just a search engine.
But, but, but they have Google Glass. Google Glass is going to take over the WORLD!!!! /s :-)
This is why Millward has crowned Google the most valuable brand.
Read this article that was written last year. It talks about the costs of buying a driverless car.
Interesting article.
http://www.theneweconomy.com/insight/google-driverless-cars
They will definitely need to get the costs down. I don't imagine even a wealthy person would much care to pay that much additional to add self-driving capability (it should at least be cheaper than a chauffeur, right?). Thanks for the article link, as you said, it was interesting.
Google's search utility scans sites and blacklists them as malware, every day. The ads that are presented when a user searches for software, however, is not flagged as malware, even though there are numerous bad download sites that are promoted through google search. Why?
Could it be that paid advertisements are not getting properly flagged since they are prioritized? A website with bad code gets blocked immediately in Google Chrome, then sent back to the blacklist department, and Websense is immediately updated to lock all traffic out of that said website.
This does not happen for advertisements on Google's search engine. Go google a piece of software for yourself, and see the ads of alternate download links that are malicious. It's there every time you search for a piece of software. This is not the work of "hackers".. it's the work of Google allowing ad companies to run malware into their ads.
Of course Google will install ads on every screen they operate. That's what Google is FOR!
Just like Facebook, people think Google is for users. It's not. Users are Google's PRODUCT.
What a "surprise", of course...
If consumers reject ads on refrigerators and such then I wouldn't expect them to be promoted. Kinda against the point of advertising if it's a turn-off isn't it?
You know it's not that simple. It's all going to come down to levels of tolerance vs. aversion.
My new TV was selected on a number of features unrelated to its Internet connectivity. But after connecting it thusly, I get an ad popup every time I adjust the volume. That, apparently, is the "price" for being connected. (And not "promoted" - your word - by the brand, nor mentioned by any salesperson prior to purchase...)
As a consumer, do I have options? Yes: I could choose another make and/or model that doesn't do this. But another model may not use the same display tech, may not have other characteristics (e.g., reliability) I consider desirable.
Just because I choose to keep this TV and use it, doesn't mean I strongly feel that ads suck. Purchasing this product should not necessarily extrapolate the idea that I have "accepted" ads.
And the geek filth legion will bend over backward defending their deity.
Meanwhile, Google's core product, Internet search, has become useless. Seriously, it's substituting words nowhere near what I entered.
Wait, so you can no longer operate Google search?
They will definitely need to get the costs down. I don't imagine even a wealthy person would much care to pay that much additional to add self-driving capability (it should at least be cheaper than a chauffeur, right?). Thanks for the article link, as you said, it was interesting.
Those spinning cameras are RIPPING expensive, they would have to embed a ton of cameras around the entire car so you don't this stupid thing on top. What happens when some punk kid screws up your camera by either trying to steal it or throw rocks at it? Oops, you'll have to DRIVE your driverless car and pay money to get it fixed or replaced.
The costs of all of the things to get the pedals/steering wheel are expensive and they can't drive the mfg costs down that much, and then they have to still mark it up. Then you'll probably have to have the car brought in for higher maintenance costs, etc.
There was a university that was using an iPad and it had a bunch of embedded cameras throughout the body and that's still expensive.
I think if you look at the average new car costing $30K, they can't bring the cost (to the customer) for less than $5K for everything and still make a profit on the add-on. Look at what companies charge just for these small safety feature add-ons already that aren't anywhere this level of functionality. For all of the weird safety stuff that MB charges on their entry level cars costs about $3K for Distronic, Active Blind Spot, Active lane keeping, Pre Safe and Parktronic system. and that's basic stuff in comparison. The full active system requires a LOT of mechanical things and it costs $$, plus it will most likely require mandated safety checks far above what people have to go through now since there is no driver involved.
What I read is that whatever comes of this is that the car mfg will just slowly bring the technology as it makes sense and it's STILL not going to be a major seller since people just won't pay the money to have the feature since it will just simply cost way too much additional money.
Nope. You're wrong. Since one of the concepts of a "smart fridge" is for it to know what you're running low on, expect to see "hey, you're almost out of Diet Coke - Kroger Home Delivery suggests you try Diet Pepsi - on sale today Just For You (R)"
No thanks.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And this morning CNBC is hyping Google amassing an overseas war chest to go on a global spending spree. No mention though of how Google wants to throw advertising on anything and everything. Thankfully I don't have to buy any Google products and have ads shoved in my face 24/7.
He says as his post is automatically tagged with linked ads...
Go google a piece of software for yourself, and see the ads of alternate download links that are malicious. It's there every time you search for a piece of software. This is not the work of "hackers".. it's the work of Google allowing ad companies to run malware into their ads.
I did as you instructed last time by searching for Adobe Flash and I didn't get any ads of any kind whatsoever. The entire first page of results was links to Adobe. Of course if you were suggesting that Flash itself is malware, you would probably get a lot of thumbs up around here.
Please tell me what search words produce a repeatable demonstration of your claim.