If that was their only way of making money off of your/my data, they'd be bankrupt. They are engaged in clandestine, illegal activity, selling our data to the highest bidder on a regular basis. Including the federal government. That's what actually keeps them afloat, and doesn't show up on the books.
Wow. Google really DOES double down on secrecy huh since no one ran their mouth about it. So you must be one of their "insiders", privy to this kind of stuff? If so be careful. People lose their jobs over leaks. . :rolleyes:
If that was their only way of making money off of your/my data, they'd be bankrupt. They are engaged in clandestine, illegal activity, selling our data to the highest bidder on a regular basis. Including the federal government. That's what actually keeps them afloat, and doesn't show up on the books.
Wow, I feel like I'm channeling Gatorguy now ... I am guessing there is a little humor in that post ... surely? I want to see Google taken out back and punished for the theft of Apple's IP as much as most here on AI but that's a wee bit tin foil hat. Well I hope it is at any rate ...
waterrockets said that there were more Android phones encrypted than iPhones until two weeks ago. To know that there are more Android phones encrypted than iPhones would you not have to count them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I don't think Apple offered on-device encryption on iPhones until iOS8 did they? Google Android had the feature for several years. Maybe I'm wrong, but if not that's why there's no need to count.
^^^kent909: this
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthewmaurice
What's the lie? Google, literally, charges other people for access to you based on the proclivities you've exhibited to them. That's pretty much definitively classic pimp behavior.
I think there's a writing comprehension issue with the words "literally ALL" <see below>
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
To be honest, I don't know if that statement was a lie or not ... can you list the non advertising related revenue streams Google has? There may well be some I don't know of. If you do have a list the percentage of Googles revenue they comprise would be useful too. I am genuinely curious I'm not attacking your point. I am guessing Android licensing might be one beyond that I am stuck and I don't even know if the licensing runs a net profit or not.
Most of Google's Enterprise offerings are sold, not given.
Of course Google collects data, they collect data about everything we do and monetise on it. That's their business model. And yes, Google does access more than anonymous behavioural data, because they scan email content. If they can scan it, they could technically access it at will as well.
But that's besides the point. What Schmidt doesn't seem to get is that none accused Google not to encrypt data or not to provide a secure service where your data is safe. Of course they do, just that your data is not safe from them, because you share everything you do with Google itself.
If Schmidt does not feel that for some people this does not conform to privacy, good luck to him. ;-)
Google is by no means the only Tick out there. Data harvesting has been going on for decades to help fuel targeted marketing. Some of the largest and most prestigious consumer products companies and retailers have been investing in huge data mining systems since these systems came into existence. In the retail industry they give you a frequent shopper discount and a free turkey at thanksgiving in exchange for a few slivers of personal or demographic data and then somebody tracks your buying habits in infinite detail. The consumer of the data may be several layers removed from the data collection site and the data may get repackaged and resold several times over. Google is doing the same thing for the core part of their business, except they give you free email and Google doodles instead of a turkey. But they are still just a Tick and we are all livestock.
At the end of the day it's always the exact same game playing out: somebody wants to separate you from your money. Everyone else like Google and retailers who sell their transaction logs with rich metadata attached are just a middle man taking a cut of the action. The NSA is basically using the same exact business practices in terms of data acquisition and telemetry as Google and all of the other Ticks in the system. The only difference is the mission and purpose of the NSA and the unit of currency involved.
Of course Google collects data, they collect data about everything we do and monetise on it. That's their business model. And yes, Google does access more than anonymous behavioural data, because they scan email content. If they can scan it, they could technically access it at will as well.
But that's besides the point. What Schmidt doesn't seem to get is that none accused Google not to encrypt data or not to provide a secure service where your data is safe. Of course they do, just that your data is not safe from them, because you share everything you do with Google itself.
If Schmidt does not feel that for some people this does not conform to privacy, good luck to him. ;-)
Did anyone bring up his proverbial "if you've got something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it" of a few years ago, in answer to the privacy question?
Google is by no means the only Tick out there. Data harvesting has been going on for decades to help fuel targeted marketing. Some of the largest and most prestigious consumer products companies and retailers have been investing in huge data mining systems since these systems came into existence. In the retail industry they give you a frequent shopper discount and a free turkey at thanksgiving in exchange for a few slivers of personal or demographic data and then somebody tracks your buying habits in infinite detail. The consumer of the data may be several layers removed from the data collection site and the data may get repackaged and resold several times over. Google is doing the same thing for the core part of their business, except they give you free email and Google doodles instead of a turkey. But they are still just a Tick and we are all livestock.
At the end of the day it's always the exact same game playing out: somebody wants to separate you from your money. Everyone else like Google and retailers who sell their transaction logs with rich metadata attached are just a middle man taking a cut of the action. The NSA is basically using the same exact business practices in terms of data acquisition and telemetry as Google and all of the other Ticks in the system. The only difference is the mission and purpose of the NSA and the unit of currency involved.
What is this Tick-with-a-capital-T business? Serious question, new to me.
... until two (?) weeks ago, more Android phones were encrypted than Apple phones. On Android it's optional (until L 5), while the decision is made for you by Apple. That's the basis for his "catching up" statement. Of course you already knew that.
Please explain.
Apple iPhone has offered hardware encryption since iPhone 3GS; protecting the hardware encryption keys with your passcode. According to Tim Cook less than 50% of iPhone users were using a passcode prior to iPhone 5S. Following iPhone 5S 80% of users were using a passcode and TouchID to secure their iPhone.
People talk of Web 2.0, etc. but as far as I'm concerned, we're still in Web Beta. Why is there no central repository for all retailers, like a High Street? The way in which, in order to browse online shops, you have to do a search or go to Amazon then look up an item, I find so clunky and unattractive.
Someone needs to design an online shopfront which acts as a gateway to retail. It doesn't exist. I know there are shopping apps which act as department stores, but there's still no cohesion. When Tim Cook talks about tv still being stuck in twenty years ago, I feel the same can be applied to internet shopping. Maybe it will never become attractive for as long as we want to go to physical shops.
Google Inc. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (In millions, except share amounts which are reflected in thousands and per share amounts) Six Months Ended June 30, 2014
$31,375 Total Revenues
$28,225 Total advertising revenues
$3,150 Other revenues
Ninety percent (90%) of total revenues for Google Inc. are derived from advertising. Thus, Google is an advertising company masquerading as a technology company.
A very important distinction is who is charged for the use of Google Apps for Business, Google My Maps Pro and Google Cloud Storage. These are not consumer services, these are enterprise services.
It is a catchy meme isn't it? Short, punchy and true. I can imagine all sorts of great TV ads that could push that home for Apple. I hope they have the balls to go on the attack.
Google Inc. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (In millions, except share amounts which are reflected in thousands and per share amounts) Six Months Ended June 30, 2014
$31,375 Total Revenues
$28,225 Total advertising revenues
$3,150 Other revenues
Ninety percent (90%) of total revenues for Google Inc. are derived from advertising. Thus, Google is an advertising company masquerading as a technology company.
Couldn't they be a technology company supported by advertising?
"Google...denies allegations of harvesting data" (from the article headline)
What a strange thing for Schmidt to say (assuming AI interpreted his comments correctly when writing the headline, which it looks like they did).
I thought it was common knowledge that collecting data is the core of Google, and that their ad business rests squarely on their ability to do so. I don't think Cook implied anything that it doesn't seem obvious that Google does, but maybe I need to re-read Cook's message and read the Schmidt interview and see.
On a side note, I do know that if Square is acquired by Google the first thing I ask when walking into anything smaller than a national chain store or restaurant will be 'do you use Square' and walk out if they do.
Comments
Wow. Google really DOES double down on secrecy huh since no one ran their mouth about it. So you must be one of their "insiders", privy to this kind of stuff? If so be careful. People lose their jobs over leaks. . :rolleyes:
Wow, I feel like I'm channeling Gatorguy now ... I am guessing there is a little humor in that post ... surely? I want to see Google taken out back and punished for the theft of Apple's IP as much as most here on AI but that's a wee bit tin foil hat. Well I hope it is at any rate ...
On that basis he could lead the NRA and Tea Party too but I am not sure political satire is adding to the quality of the thread.
waterrockets said that there were more Android phones encrypted than iPhones until two weeks ago. To know that there are more Android phones encrypted than iPhones would you not have to count them?
I don't think Apple offered on-device encryption on iPhones until iOS8 did they? Google Android had the feature for several years. Maybe I'm wrong, but if not that's why there's no need to count.
What's the lie? Google, literally, charges other people for access to you based on the proclivities you've exhibited to them. That's pretty much definitively classic pimp behavior.
I think there's a writing comprehension issue with the words "literally ALL" <see below>
Quote:
To be honest, I don't know if that statement was a lie or not ... can you list the non advertising related revenue streams Google has? There may well be some I don't know of. If you do have a list the percentage of Googles revenue they comprise would be useful too. I am genuinely curious I'm not attacking your point. I am guessing Android licensing might be one beyond that I am stuck and I don't even know if the licensing runs a net profit or not.
Most of Google's Enterprise offerings are sold, not given.
Google Apps: http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/pricing.html
Google Maps: https://support.google.com/mymaps/answer/3119008
Cloud Storage: https://cloud.google.com/storage/#pricing
etc.
etc.
A couple of years s ago you were forced to admit on the Colbert Show that Google DOES harvest data.
Beyond that, there is no thought of releasing that data. As in Google has no expiry timeframe.
Now Google, notorious for a weak mobile OS and "dirty" ecosystem is more secure than Apple? Lol
Wonder what he'd say in court paperswhen up against a DA who wouldn't let him use vague statements.
Riiiiigght Eric.
A couple of years s ago you were forced to admit on the Colbert Show that Google DOES harvest data.
Beyond that, there is no thought of releasing that data. As in Google has no expiry timeframe.
Now Google, notorious for a weak mobile OS and "dirty" ecosystem is more secure than Apple? Lol
Wonder what he'd say in court paperswhen up against a DA who wouldn't let him use vague statements.
I think the media is screwed up for letting him use vague statements. I remember when the most visible journalists had a spine.
Of course Google collects data, they collect data about everything we do and monetise on it. That's their business model. And yes, Google does access more than anonymous behavioural data, because they scan email content. If they can scan it, they could technically access it at will as well.
But that's besides the point. What Schmidt doesn't seem to get is that none accused Google not to encrypt data or not to provide a secure service where your data is safe. Of course they do, just that your data is not safe from them, because you share everything you do with Google itself.
If Schmidt does not feel that for some people this does not conform to privacy, good luck to him. ;-)
At the end of the day it's always the exact same game playing out: somebody wants to separate you from your money. Everyone else like Google and retailers who sell their transaction logs with rich metadata attached are just a middle man taking a cut of the action. The NSA is basically using the same exact business practices in terms of data acquisition and telemetry as Google and all of the other Ticks in the system. The only difference is the mission and purpose of the NSA and the unit of currency involved.
Did anyone bring up his proverbial "if you've got something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it" of a few years ago, in answer to the privacy question?
What is this Tick-with-a-capital-T business? Serious question, new to me.
Please explain.
Apple iPhone has offered hardware encryption since iPhone 3GS; protecting the hardware encryption keys with your passcode. According to Tim Cook less than 50% of iPhone users were using a passcode prior to iPhone 5S. Following iPhone 5S 80% of users were using a passcode and TouchID to secure their iPhone.
Please identify the lie.
Going off-topic, but related to advertisers:
The web is a mess.
People talk of Web 2.0, etc. but as far as I'm concerned, we're still in Web Beta. Why is there no central repository for all retailers, like a High Street? The way in which, in order to browse online shops, you have to do a search or go to Amazon then look up an item, I find so clunky and unattractive.
Someone needs to design an online shopfront which acts as a gateway to retail. It doesn't exist. I know there are shopping apps which act as department stores, but there's still no cohesion. When Tim Cook talks about tv still being stuck in twenty years ago, I feel the same can be applied to internet shopping. Maybe it will never become attractive for as long as we want to go to physical shops.
Google Inc. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (In millions, except share amounts which are reflected in thousands and per share amounts) Six Months Ended June 30, 2014
$31,375 Total Revenues
$28,225 Total advertising revenues
$3,150 Other revenues
Ninety percent (90%) of total revenues for Google Inc. are derived from advertising. Thus, Google is an advertising company masquerading as a technology company.
A very important distinction is who is charged for the use of Google Apps for Business, Google My Maps Pro and Google Cloud Storage. These are not consumer services, these are enterprise services.
Pass him the shovel and let him dig.
It is a catchy meme isn't it? Short, punchy and true. I can imagine all sorts of great TV ads that could push that home for Apple. I hope they have the balls to go on the attack.
Couldn't they be a technology company supported by advertising?
Couldn't they be a technology company supported by advertising?
Nah, the technology part is facilitating the collection of data for use by the advertising side.
"Google...denies allegations of harvesting data" (from the article headline)
What a strange thing for Schmidt to say (assuming AI interpreted his comments correctly when writing the headline, which it looks like they did).
I thought it was common knowledge that collecting data is the core of Google, and that their ad business rests squarely on their ability to do so. I don't think Cook implied anything that it doesn't seem obvious that Google does, but maybe I need to re-read Cook's message and read the Schmidt interview and see.
On a side note, I do know that if Square is acquired by Google the first thing I ask when walking into anything smaller than a national chain store or restaurant will be 'do you use Square' and walk out if they do.