blah64

gatorguy said:

blah64 said:

gatorguy said:

maestro64 said:

MacPro said:

maestro64 said:

Soli said:

1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.

2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.

3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.

• https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/04/10/mark-zuckerberg-was-ready-to-pounce-on-apples-data-practices-at-senate-hearing

There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.

The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.

As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too.  I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.  

Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.

Google doesn't scan your emails for anything that Apple doesn't AFAIK. Keyword scanning of free GMail accounts was completely stopped last year, in part because Google has gained so much more enterprise traction (paid business accounts have never been subject to ad scanning and are completely ad-free) and the free GMail ads added confusion and needless concern for business users.

So no Google is not "reading your emails". You can go back to emailing your GMail friends, even the ones with free accounts.  

Curious thing; you can say they're not "reading your emails" now, at least since last June (though there always seems to be some potential ambiguity in the wording of these policies), but does this not imply very strongly that they were indeed clearly doing this for the previous 13 or so years?? This is more or less a rhetorical question, because it's obvious that they were.

Reading as in someone looking thru your emails and logging the content, or are you using "reading" as substitute wording for machine scanning for spam, malware and keyword ad matching? Pretty much every email provider does machine scanning, Apple included, and many do so for ads as well (my old email provider Earthlink for example and my wife's previous provider Yahoo) tho Google is no longer one of those.

Anyway IMO "reading your email" is a bit of a misnomer as it implies a physical human activity. Machine scanning would be the more proper description so no Google never was reading your emails. 

Pedantic to the point of ignoring the meat of the post.  Sigh.  No, "reading" is NOT a misnomer.

Remember those machines programmers used to use back in the day, what were they called again...?  Oh yeah, card readers.  What do grocery store clerks use again...?  Oh yeah, barcode readers.  In fact the wikipedia page for Barcode Readers interchangeably switches between "readers" and "scanners" throughout the entire page.  The point is, google did in fact READ every word of every email for many years, to build up advertising profiles.  That is not in question.  You can call it scanning if you like, it's irrelevant to the conversations here.

Your comments attempting to contrast reading vs. scanning are merely subterfuge.

gatorguy said:

maestro64 said:

MacPro said:

maestro64 said:

Soli said:

1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.

2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.

3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.

• https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/04/10/mark-zuckerberg-was-ready-to-pounce-on-apples-data-practices-at-senate-hearing

There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.

The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.

As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too.  I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.  

Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.

Google doesn't scan your emails for anything that Apple doesn't AFAIK. Keyword scanning of free GMail accounts was completely stopped last year, in part because Google has gained so much more enterprise traction (paid business accounts have never been subject to ad scanning and are completely ad-free) and the free GMail ads added confusion and needless concern for business users.

So no Google is not "reading your emails". You can go back to emailing your GMail friends, even the ones with free accounts.  

Curious thing; you can say they're not "reading your emails" now, at least since last June (though there always seems to be some potential ambiguity in the wording of these policies), but does this not imply very strongly that they were indeed clearly doing this for the previous 13 or so years?? This is more or less a rhetorical question, because it's obvious that they were.

The point being that there's no reason for people who care about such things to be lax now.  This is merely proof that companies can and do change their policies at the drop of a hat, and while google changed their email scanning policy to (hopefully) a less invasive form in 2017, they could just as easily change it back in 2018 or 2019 or 2020, leaving all their users and non-users without any easy way to unwind all their past communications back out of those databases.

There really is no free lunch when using online services for personal communications.

I realize we're getting a bit off-track from facebook, but you're always coming to the rescue of goog, whether or not it's the main topic of an article.

cropr said:

Owning an app developing company I do understand the argument of France. 
...

Since 2016 all my new apps are free to download.  They use data that is stored on a paying cloud service where I have full control.  Very similar to the web based client I developed for PC and Mac.  In this way I even get rid of 30% cut Apple and Google are asking.   I do have to provide my own paying service, which I did anyhow for the web based clients and which costs about 2.5% iso. 30% Apple and Google are charging.   But this scheme is only possible for cloud based services where the real value is in the cloud data.

This may work fine and dandy for you and some portion of your buyers, but for me personally, I don't care what you're selling, the model that you're using raises a huge "Do Not Buy" flag.  I will not buy or subscribe to anything outside the app store, period.  That would mean giving customer information, name, credit/debit card, etc., to a third party, and it means trusting that they know how to protect it safely, not sell/share/trade/rent to other companies, etc., and that's just not the reality of the world in 2018.  I'm not going to spend a bunch of time researching each and every app maker, and their entire payment and customer data chain every time I want to buy an app or a game or whatever.  You have no further to look than the magazine industry, which fought tooth and nail with Apple because they wanted all the detailed customer information and Apple said "Nope".  Given the choice, most customers do not want this, and Apple took a lot of heat for protecting their users.

This is in addition to all the valid points that others have made above about other costs that you're conveniently "forgetting" about, such as hosting, bandwidth, product visibility/marketing, etc.  Sure, they may very well add up to less than 30%, but for sure you're losing potential customers that don't want to deal with 3rd party payment/subscription systems.  That's a harder one to work into your cost/benefit equation, because you almost certainly don't know what those numbers are.

Spike_Lightfoot said:

"Hey Siri, play songs from my iTunes library"
becomes
"Hey Siri, upload all of my vast iTunes music to Apple, charge me to store it there, and them stream it back to me."

Exactly, ^this^.  Great comment for a newbie, welcome to AI!

I purchase all my music.  Either via iTunes (anonymously, of course!), or on physical media.  I will never, ever subscribe to a service that requires my bits to be on someone else's servers, let alone require me to pay to use my own previously-purchased music. 

Separately, as others have mentioned, the time it would require to rip and upload my entire music library would be ridiculous.  Especially when most of it is rarely listened to.  For infrequently listened to music, it's far easier and more efficient to take the 20 seconds to put the media in a physical player once/year or less.

mitchelljd said:

I'll believe cook when it happens.  I want apple's speaker to be better but instead believe Apple will lock it down and have no Spotify, pandora or similar third party application control.   Also it really is up in the air to verbally control an Apple TV and those applications, which can be video, even vudu or Amazon etc.   I want a full living room system, with privacy which google and Amazon doesn't have 

Your comment puzzles me.  You say you want your system to have privacy, which google and amazon don't have, and I totally understand that (and agree).  But you seem to be advocating for tying in spotify and/or pandora, neither of which have privacy, and they have certainly had their share of problems.  For example:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/23/the-spotify-privacy-backlash-what-is-my-personal-data-really-worth

Even after acknowledging their huge fuck up, spotify essentially wants to be a mini-social network.  See:
    https://www.wired.com/2015/08/spotify-clears-up-its-privacy-policy/
That puts them in a similar category as facebook, as far as privacy policies and practices.  Now, they're clearly not as bad or dangerous as facebook, but I thought I'd point out the discontinuity in your desires.