regurgitatedcoprolite

Vampire squid, aka Goldman Sachs, is one of *the* worst AAPL analcysts around. 

mac_128 said:

macxpress said:

Never a fan of what Steve would have though articles or comments....oh well. Nobody truly knows what Steve would have though. I guess it was kind of a Steve Job jobs type Keynote, especially the movies portion at the end. I will say that was very well done. Hopefully it turns out as good as the Keynote did in the end. 

Frankly I can’t believe any legitimate article, opinion or not, would trade on the concept of “Steve Jobs would have ....”. And I’m absolutely stunned AI would do it. Such articles completely undermine the credibility of not just the person presenting the article, but the website itself.

Check out Daniel’s title for the article on his own roughlydraftedbeta.com: https://roughlydraftedbeta.com/home/2019/3/30/why-did-apple-throw-a-tim-cook-event-at-its-steve-jobs-theater, which, by the way, was published before it showed up here at AI.

In more than 20 years of scouring the web and reading articles about the tech world, I've never seen anything like the following from Patrick Berlinquette. He is the only person I've read who fleshes out the euphemism Go-ogle hides behind, "monetizing users' data".

The rest of the media goes out of its way to keep the public from knowing Go-ogle makes 90% of its revenue from advertising through surveillance capitalism, otherwise, Mr. Berlinquette wouldn't have to go out of his way to explain it. Think about it, when have you ever heard anyone on TV tell you anything even remotely like what Patrick does in his 3-part (supposed to have a 4th part added later) series (see links below)? The answer's NEVER!

_______

When lazy journalists are pessimistic about Amazon’s Alexa or Google Home, they say stuff like: “Even Orwell couldn’t have predicted that we’d willingly bring Big Brother into our own homes."

What they fail to mention is our willingness to exchange privacy for convenience didn’t start with the advent of virtual assistants. It started in the early 2000s, when people—in return for having access to Google products and seeing more relevant ads—allowed Google to have all their data.

Today, Google provides marketers like me with so much of your personal data that we can infer more about you from it than from any camera or microphone.

     ~ Patrick Berlinquette from How Google Tracks Your Personal Information

Part 1: How Google Tracks Your Personal Information: 

     https://medium.com/s/story/the-complete-unauthorized-checklist-of-how-google-tracks-you-3c3abc10781d

Part 2: How Google Marketers Exploit Your Discomfort:

     https://medium.com/s/story/make-orwell-fiction-again-part-2-micro-moments-9ba6e042a0c4

Part 3: How Marketers Use Redirect Ads to Deceive You:

     https://medium.com/s/story/make-orwell-fiction-again-part-3-masters-of-our-fates-620a84792482

I wish Apple would go after Goophabet in a similar, if not more assertive, manner. 

What follows is the best description of how Goophabet works I’ve ever read. Patrick Berlinquette fleshes out what “monetizing users’ data” in simple and clear language. Why is this not all over the Internet?!

https://medium.com/s/story/the-complete-unauthorized-checklist-of-how-google-tracks-you-3c3abc10781d

nunzy said:

When those Google people chant "do no evil" over and over like a mantra, it has an effect. It plants it in them that they really should be doing evil.

Google tried to kill iPhone.  Does it get more evil than that?

Wow, Nunzy, you nailed it.

Using the word “evil" in their mission statement, Goophabet points the company in exactly that direction, because our minds can only move toward things, not away. So, if Goophabet wanted to avoid being evil, they would have chosen a slogan or mission statement along the lines of “Be honorable”, “Be virtuous”, etc. But they didn’t!

Goophabet knows exactly what it’s doing. How else do they base 90% of their business upon using its users’ private information to make money, i.e., by generating revenue through surveilling its users?