Apple cannot and does not come up with each and every single idea. The opposite actually. Apple buys most of the ideas that came from other people outside of Apple.
Anybody can come up with an "idea" but it's the implementation that matters.
Sometimes another company has what you want... and you simply buy them. That happens all the time across the industry.
Google has purchased plenty of companies over the years.
Here's a list of 181 companies that Google purchased... and the Google product that the technology ended up in:
Nice read Dan, as usual. But it don't changed something, for me anyways: My Android phone (Galaxy Note 4) is still more open than iOS. And I don't regret switching. I don't think it's for everyone but I do love being able to tweak my phone to my taste. Android is naturally funner for me.
The iPhone 6 Plus is a hell of a device. Beautiful. I just prefer my Galaxy Note 4 right now.
This is a natural evolution of Google's Android business model; yet another advertising play, with the help of willing, but gullible, OEM's to battle in a race to the bottom to create a massive market share of devices for Google's advertising business.
After all that, it looks to be diminishing returns for Google. When will they kill Android, and what will take its place; Chrome?
So anyway no reason for us to continue talking about it. Lets wait for your predicted instances of Google using those pictures for their own nefarious purposes without the owners permission. If for some reason we don't see them be sure to bring'em to our attention as I'm sure you will. Should start any time now if you're correct in your translation. Forgive me if I don't wait for your news about it tho OK?
For a smart guy, you seem to be really taking a naive position on all this.
Most who happen to read the TOS would quite simply understand it to mean what StevenN., Penchanted, TMay and others have already said...that while the user retains IP, Google can use it.
And there are a few substantial differences between Google and Apple language...Apple's includes phrases such as:
- by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content
- solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted
Quite simply, you and I SHOULD ask the question: why is there a difference in wording between the two agreements?
Your "let's-wait"-if-there's-a-problem approach is not wise in this instance, especially when considering Google's business model and the importance of privacy and data security.
Dude bro! I agree with almost everything in the article, even though it is biased. There's a lot of facts. But one thing got under my skin so bad:
Android's unintuitive copy and paste will also eventually be replaced with a new system that takes its design cues from iOS 3.0 (from 2009), as noted by John Gruber.
Like, seriously? I just want to punch you in the face, I can't help myself. After 5+ years of undying loyalty to iPhone and iPad (and typing this on a MacBook, my first non-Windows/Linux machine) ... I left for Android because I couldn't deal with shit ass Apple copy paste any more. Okay, truth is it was only 30% of the reason, another big one (30%) is that I just can't take the POS they call iTunes anymore nor the way it is tied to iPhone/iPad. 60% - 2 things Apple has PROVEN they have no intention of ever fixing or improving even though they've been fundamentally broken since the day I got my first iPhone the 3G.
OK boys and girls, whatya say we put on our Tin Hats for some fun?
[LIST] [*] Patriot Act is allowed to expire [*] NSA has admitted that they couldn't make heads or tails of the massive mountain of data that they collected [*] Google has a huge lobby in DC [*] Google I/O releases a new version of free photo service, complete with auto-tagging and sorting features, in addition that many people will organize and tag further themselves [*] Google TOS states perpetual use license [*] FBI and DA ticked off at Apple because Apple's services aid and abett crime and terrorists [*] Google CocoaPods to the rescue to embed Google (and third party frameworks and libraries) into iOS projects and apps [*] Google not doing so well with monetizing Android, but iOS is ~75% of mobile revenues [/LIST]
...take your Tin Hats off... this is getting to scary too contemplate!
Edited: because this forum doesn't play nice with Safari on an OS8 iPad Air II, and mangled my attempt to add a list... :rolleyes:
^^^ One more salient point to my Tin Hat list above came into my feed from [URL=http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/06/01/topolsky-now-on-tap]DaringFireball[/URL] AKA John Gruber: [I] "...Google rose to prominence/dominance through their superior ability to (a) index the web and (b) make sense of what they’ve indexed. Everyone gets this — it’s obvious. But it’s also obvious that Google’s ability to index the web matters less in a world where people spend more and more of their time in native apps. [B]Now on Tap is a step toward Google indexing the content we see in native apps.[/B]"[/I]
And there are a few substantial differences between Google and Apple language...Apple's includes phrases such as: - by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content - solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted
Quite simply, you and I SHOULD ask the question: why is there a difference in wording between the two agreements?
Your "let's-wait"-if-there's-a-problem approach is not wise in this instance, especially when considering Google's business model and the importance of privacy and data security.
You've made a valid point. The differences in wording should be considered.
While I don't think it means Google is going to monetize your photo content there probably are reasons for the difference in wording. Some I can think of right off:
I think we all know Google is offering additional features with Photos that Apple doesn't. They've sent me enhanced versions of my pics that I didn't request, some pretty well done as a matter of fact, others not so much. The originals are left as is BTW. Apple of course doesn't have anything similar.
They've put together psuedo-videos from a series of shots I've done. The most recent one was a series at the bird feeder. Interesting but not something I generally keep tho others might, and again something Apple doesn't offer.
They also put together several "storybooks" from photo sessions, one particularly nice from a few dozen historical pics I did Saturday morning. Again not something Apple does for you. .
Since that was not the purpose I originally uploaded my pictures for then Google could not use the same "for the purpose for which content was submitted" wording that Apple does. Further your photo albums are not accessible by the public, but pictures you post to a public blog page are, ie Google+. That would be the, or at at least one of the public accessible content examples they refer to.
If you consider Google press statements (and support pages), which should be legally binding I would think, they don't mince words about the privacy of your uploaded photo collections. There's really n o wiggle room. Unless you've made the specific choice to share your images with another person they won't be. If Google were to take one of those for themselves for a publicly posted ad then it would no longer be a private image correct? Looking at it from a different perspective if by simply uploading your photographs you gave Google the rights to publicly display your images with no further authorization needed from you to do so then they were never private in the first place. That would automatically break the terms.
"Your photos and videos will be backed up to your Google Photos library and are private unless you choose to share them."
Do you think Google would chance yet another run-in with the FTC over what they say not matching what they do? I don't personally think so, and you almost certainly don't think so either. Worse, the legal ramifications would be far outweighed by the public outcry. There's much more to lose than gain from it. Ain't gonna happen.
So no, just as they stated Google is not monetizing your photos, doing an IP grab as someone said, nor can they without a few legal issues to face IMO. It wouldn't be worth the cost.
Do you think Google would chance yet another run-in with the FTC over what they say not matching what they do? I don't personally think so. Worse, the legal ramifications would be far outweighed by the public outcry. There's more to lose than gain.
So no, just as they stated Google is not monetizing your photos IMO, doing an IP grab as someone said, nor can they without a few legal issues to face. It wouldn't be worth it.
Google has far more to lose in sanctions and fines in Europe than with the FTC.
Tin Hat back on: I don't think it's necessarily Google as the facade, rather than Google as a mega-meta-stash, and facilitating through software "hooks"... the desire and temptation of just about every 3-letter "security and spy agency" in the world to get into that treasure palace.
*IF* Google was ever compromised.... would we ever hear or find out about it, is the Million $ Question.
Google has far more to lose in sanctions and fines in Europe than with the FTC.
Tin Hat back on: I don't think it's necessarily Google as the facade, rather than Google as a mega-meta-stash, and facilitating through software "hooks"... the desire and temptation of just about every 3-letter "security and spy agency" in the world to get into that treasure palace.
*IF* Google was ever compromised.... would we ever hear or find out about it, is the Million $ Question.
...(slowly and carefully removing the Tin Hat...)
Yup that's a tin-foil hat for sure.
You'll never hear a peep out of Apple or Microsoft either if they knowingly or unknowingly opened their data to the NSA, Chinese, British Intelligence, etc. Imagine the outcry if they were to validate rumors.
Yeah it could happen, but with that said I don't think Google even has the biggest repository of personally-identifiable data anyway, nor is thoroughly plugged in to world-wide communications as some assume they are.
BTW did you ever happen to read Google's Privacy pages? They go a long ways towards answering some of the more bogus claims we sometimes read on unfriendly fan sites. http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
You'll never hear a peep out of Apple or Microsoft either if they knowingly or unknowingly opened their data to the NSA, Chinese, British Intelligence, etc. Imagine the outcry if they were to validate rumors.
Yeah it could happen, but with that said I don't think Google even has the biggest repository of personally-identifiable data anyway, nor is thoroughly plugged in to world-wide communications as some assume they are.
BTW did you ever happen to read Google's Privacy pages? They go a long ways towards answering some of the more bogus claims we sometimes read on unfriendly fan sites.
So, I've never been contacted by Apple by phone, and I am advised whenever a device is used to log in to my account. I've always had good experiences with Apple and Apple Retail.
From Google, on the other hand, I get calls nearly everyday from Google Listings, telling me I need to update.
I have never had any listings, Gmail or any other Google product that I have signed up for. Surely Google would have ubiquitous data that would note that I have no Google Listing to update. I only use Google Search and YouTube. This is the difference between an advertising company and a consumer product company.
Then there is the trust issue. I don't know that Tim Cook has always spoken the truth, nor will in the future, but so far, he's the boy scout against Schmidt, Page, and Brin. I don't now, nor will I ever, trust Google.
You, on the other hand, live comfortably within Google's realm. Good for you.
So, I've never been contacted by Apple by phone, and I am advised whenever a device is used to log in to my account. I've always had good experiences with Apple and Apple Retail.
From Google, on the other hand, I get calls nearly everyday from Google Listings, telling me I need to update.
I have never had any listings, Gmail or any other Google product that I have signed up for. Surely Google would have ubiquitous data that would note that I have no Google Listing to update. I only use Google Search and YouTube. This is the difference between an advertising company and a consumer product company.
That's not Google calling you. It's SEO companies trying to get your business. They use the ruse of mentioning Google in hopes you'll be more likely to talk to them. If you doubt me the next time one calls ask if they're really Google.
EDIT: Quick searched an article about it for you. Google would not be calling. It's dishonest telemarketers.
That's not Google calling you. It's SEO companies trying to get your business. They use the ruse of mentioning Google in hopes you'll be more likely to talk to them. If you doubt me the next time one calls ask if they're really Google.
EDIT: Quick searched an article about it for you. Google would not be calling. It's dishonest telemarketers.
You would think that Google would do something about it; it affects the brand.
Your link doesn't make me think any better of Google.
So what would you propose they "do about it"?
When someone sends spam e-mail in Apple's name there's not a lot they can do about it either AFAIK. At least with an email you can somewhat deal with it using machine learning, and even Apple doesn't appear to do anything more if even that. What do you do about a phone scam? I think you're being a bit petty looking for something negative even remotely related to Google as an excuse to accuse them of doing/not doing something.
There's real issues about them you can bring up. This one is bogus.
You'll never hear a peep out of Apple or Microsoft either if they knowingly or unknowingly opened their data to the NSA, Chinese, British Intelligence, etc. Imagine the outcry if they were to validate rumors.
Yeah it could happen, but with that said I don't think Google even has the biggest repository of personally-identifiable data anyway, nor is thoroughly plugged in to world-wide communications as some assume they are.
BTW did you ever happen to read Google's Privacy pages? They go a long ways towards answering some of the more bogus claims we sometimes read on unfriendly fan sites. http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
Re: Bolded -- that very well could be true at the moment. However, I don't hink anyone need a professional-grade tin hat like mine (even you), to see the potential if "needed" to flip a few switches in code to be able to put 2 + 2 together to equal profiling to the power of 100.
Apple really could care less financially, and they probably enjoy P***ing off the government whenever they can currently, for getting jerked around by the DA and assorted legislators and courts. Google on the other hand.... is experiencing certain troubles.
Do you also get calls from Microsoft Engineering to fix your PC?
Just curious.... and a warning because it's also a common telemarketing scam.
Worse than that was my wife getting a call "from the IRS" threatening an arrest warrant if she didn't pay back taxes that very moment. It scared the crap out of her until she talked to me and found it was a common scam currently making the rounds.
Comments
Anybody can come up with an "idea" but it's the implementation that matters.
Sometimes another company has what you want... and you simply buy them. That happens all the time across the industry.
Google has purchased plenty of companies over the years.
Here's a list of 181 companies that Google purchased... and the Google product that the technology ended up in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Google
And the same is true for Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon. Pretty much all major companies buy other companies to implement some new idea.
Don't make it sound like Apple can't come up with anything on their own...
And today there is this in the SFGate (San Francisco's online journal):
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Two-ex-Google-execs-just-gave-negative-6299544.php
The iPhone 6 Plus is a hell of a device. Beautiful. I just prefer my Galaxy Note 4 right now.
Bit.
And today there is this in the SFGate (San Francisco's online journal):
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Two-ex-Google-execs-just-gave-negative-6299544.php
This is a natural evolution of Google's Android business model; yet another advertising play, with the help of willing, but gullible, OEM's to battle in a race to the bottom to create a massive market share of devices for Google's advertising business.
After all that, it looks to be diminishing returns for Google. When will they kill Android, and what will take its place; Chrome?
So anyway no reason for us to continue talking about it. Lets wait for your predicted instances of Google using those pictures for their own nefarious purposes without the owners permission. If for some reason we don't see them be sure to bring'em to our attention as I'm sure you will. Should start any time now if you're correct in your translation. Forgive me if I don't wait for your news about it tho OK?
For a smart guy, you seem to be really taking a naive position on all this.
Most who happen to read the TOS would quite simply understand it to mean what StevenN., Penchanted, TMay and others have already said...that while the user retains IP, Google can use it.
And there are a few substantial differences between Google and Apple language...Apple's includes phrases such as:
- by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content
- solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted
Quite simply, you and I SHOULD ask the question: why is there a difference in wording between the two agreements?
Your "let's-wait"-if-there's-a-problem approach is not wise in this instance, especially when considering Google's business model and the importance of privacy and data security.
Dude bro! I agree with almost everything in the article, even though it is biased. There's a lot of facts. But one thing got under my skin so bad:
Android's unintuitive copy and paste will also eventually be replaced with a new system that takes its design cues from iOS 3.0 (from 2009), as noted by John Gruber.
Like, seriously? I just want to punch you in the face, I can't help myself. After 5+ years of undying loyalty to iPhone and iPad (and typing this on a MacBook, my first non-Windows/Linux machine) ... I left for Android because I couldn't deal with shit ass Apple copy paste any more. Okay, truth is it was only 30% of the reason, another big one (30%) is that I just can't take the POS they call iTunes anymore nor the way it is tied to iPhone/iPad. 60% - 2 things Apple has PROVEN they have no intention of ever fixing or improving even though they've been fundamentally broken since the day I got my first iPhone the 3G.
[LIST]
[*] Patriot Act is allowed to expire
[*] NSA has admitted that they couldn't make heads or tails of the massive mountain of data that they collected
[*] Google has a huge lobby in DC
[*] Google I/O releases a new version of free photo service, complete with auto-tagging and sorting features, in addition that many people will organize and tag further themselves
[*] Google TOS states perpetual use license
[*] FBI and DA ticked off at Apple because Apple's services aid and abett crime and terrorists
[*] Google CocoaPods to the rescue to embed Google (and third party frameworks and libraries) into iOS projects and apps
[*] Google not doing so well with monetizing Android, but iOS is ~75% of mobile revenues
[/LIST]
...take your Tin Hats off... this is getting to scary too contemplate!
Edited: because this forum doesn't play nice with Safari on an OS8 iPad Air II, and mangled my attempt to add a list... :rolleyes:
[I]
"...Google rose to prominence/dominance through their superior ability to (a) index the web and (b) make sense of what they’ve indexed. Everyone gets this — it’s obvious. But it’s also obvious that Google’s ability to index the web matters less in a world where people spend more and more of their time in native apps. [B]Now on Tap is a step toward Google indexing the content we see in native apps.[/B]"[/I]
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/59577/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
While I don't think it means Google is going to monetize your photo content there probably are reasons for the difference in wording. Some I can think of right off:
I think we all know Google is offering additional features with Photos that Apple doesn't. They've sent me enhanced versions of my pics that I didn't request, some pretty well done as a matter of fact, others not so much. The originals are left as is BTW. Apple of course doesn't have anything similar.
They've put together psuedo-videos from a series of shots I've done. The most recent one was a series at the bird feeder. Interesting but not something I generally keep tho others might, and again something Apple doesn't offer.
They also put together several "storybooks" from photo sessions, one particularly nice from a few dozen historical pics I did Saturday morning. Again not something Apple does for you. .
Since that was not the purpose I originally uploaded my pictures for then Google could not use the same "for the purpose for which content was submitted" wording that Apple does. Further your photo albums are not accessible by the public, but pictures you post to a public blog page are, ie Google+. That would be the, or at at least one of the public accessible content examples they refer to.
If you consider Google press statements (and support pages), which should be legally binding I would think, they don't mince words about the privacy of your uploaded photo collections. There's really n o wiggle room. Unless you've made the specific choice to share your images with another person they won't be. If Google were to take one of those for themselves for a publicly posted ad then it would no longer be a private image correct? Looking at it from a different perspective if by simply uploading your photographs you gave Google the rights to publicly display your images with no further authorization needed from you to do so then they were never private in the first place. That would automatically break the terms.
"Your photos and videos will be backed up to your Google Photos library and are private unless you choose to share them."
Do you think Google would chance yet another run-in with the FTC over what they say not matching what they do? I don't personally think so, and you almost certainly don't think so either. Worse, the legal ramifications would be far outweighed by the public outcry. There's much more to lose than gain from it. Ain't gonna happen.
So no, just as they stated Google is not monetizing your photos, doing an IP grab as someone said, nor can they without a few legal issues to face IMO. It wouldn't be worth the cost.
For more about Google Photos, what it is, what it does and the public promises Google made regarding it visit http://www.wired.com/2015/05/google-photos-new-essential-picture-app/
Google has far more to lose in sanctions and fines in Europe than with the FTC.
Tin Hat back on: I don't think it's necessarily Google as the facade, rather than Google as a mega-meta-stash, and facilitating through software "hooks"... the desire and temptation of just about every 3-letter "security and spy agency" in the world to get into that treasure palace.
*IF* Google was ever compromised.... would we ever hear or find out about it, is the Million $ Question.
...(slowly and carefully removing the Tin Hat...)
You'll never hear a peep out of Apple or Microsoft either if they knowingly or unknowingly opened their data to the NSA, Chinese, British Intelligence, etc. Imagine the outcry if they were to validate rumors.
Yeah it could happen, but with that said I don't think Google even has the biggest repository of personally-identifiable data anyway, nor is thoroughly plugged in to world-wide communications as some assume they are.
BTW did you ever happen to read Google's Privacy pages? They go a long ways towards answering some of the more bogus claims we sometimes read on unfriendly fan sites.
http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
Yup that's a tin-foil hat for sure.
You'll never hear a peep out of Apple or Microsoft either if they knowingly or unknowingly opened their data to the NSA, Chinese, British Intelligence, etc. Imagine the outcry if they were to validate rumors.
Yeah it could happen, but with that said I don't think Google even has the biggest repository of personally-identifiable data anyway, nor is thoroughly plugged in to world-wide communications as some assume they are.
BTW did you ever happen to read Google's Privacy pages? They go a long ways towards answering some of the more bogus claims we sometimes read on unfriendly fan sites.
http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
So, I've never been contacted by Apple by phone, and I am advised whenever a device is used to log in to my account. I've always had good experiences with Apple and Apple Retail.
From Google, on the other hand, I get calls nearly everyday from Google Listings, telling me I need to update.
I have never had any listings, Gmail or any other Google product that I have signed up for. Surely Google would have ubiquitous data that would note that I have no Google Listing to update. I only use Google Search and YouTube. This is the difference between an advertising company and a consumer product company.
Then there is the trust issue. I don't know that Tim Cook has always spoken the truth, nor will in the future, but so far, he's the boy scout against Schmidt, Page, and Brin. I don't now, nor will I ever, trust Google.
You, on the other hand, live comfortably within Google's realm. Good for you.
EDIT: Quick searched an article about it for you. Google would not be calling. It's dishonest telemarketers.
You're welcome.
http://insideout.com/blog/2014/01/26/google-telemarketing-calls/
That's not Google calling you. It's SEO companies trying to get your business. They use the ruse of mentioning Google in hopes you'll be more likely to talk to them. If you doubt me the next time one calls ask if they're really Google.
EDIT: Quick searched an article about it for you. Google would not be calling. It's dishonest telemarketers.
You're welcome.
http://insideout.com/blog/2014/01/26/google-telemarketing-calls/
You would think that Google would do something about it; it affects the brand.
Your link doesn't make me think any better of Google.
When someone sends spam e-mail in Apple's name there's not a lot they can do about it either AFAIK. At least with an email you can somewhat deal with it using machine learning, and even Apple doesn't appear to do anything more if even that. What do you do about a phone scam? I think you're being a bit petty looking for something negative even remotely related to Google as an excuse to accuse them of doing/not doing something.
There's real issues about them you can bring up. This one is bogus.
Do you also get calls from Microsoft Engineering to fix your PC?
Just curious.... and a warning because it's also a common telemarketing scam.
"Hello... I am from Windows... we have noticed that your computer has infections..."
Re: Bolded -- that very well could be true at the moment. However, I don't hink anyone need a professional-grade tin hat like mine (even you), to see the potential if "needed" to flip a few switches in code to be able to put 2 + 2 together to equal profiling to the power of 100.
Apple really could care less financially, and they probably enjoy P***ing off the government whenever they can currently, for getting jerked around by the DA and assorted legislators and courts. Google on the other hand.... is experiencing certain troubles.
Yes I believe you're correct: they do say Windows and not MS engineering.
Whatever. Microsoft needs to clean that s**t up because it's making them look bad..
Worse than that was my wife getting a call "from the IRS" threatening an arrest warrant if she didn't pay back taxes that very moment. It scared the crap out of her until she talked to me and found it was a common scam currently making the rounds.