How do you feel about using Google services?

[gotluck]

Please do not omit the relevant parts of my post and then try to claim I am confused. It really puts you in a bad light, one way or another.

A.

Allrighty then you aren't confused, you just refuse to see that apple wants to sell ads, and as llloyd posted , is looking to make significant growth in that area

Apple would be doing a disservice to their shareholders if they did not try to sell ads like Google does.

 

[Alrescha]

you just refuse to see that apple wants to sell ads, and as llloyd posted , is looking to make significant growth in that area

Except I never said any such thing - though nobody knows what Apple is looking to do except Apple.

The topic at hand is 'how do you feel about using Google services', which brings us to discussing the possible motivations of Google and how they treat us as individuals. I point out that 95% of Google's revenue is advertising. I believe that defines them and drives their actions, and that those actions are not in our best interests.

The responses are 'oh, but Apple sells ads too' with the implication that even though less than 3% of Apple's revenue is ads, their motivations and treatment of people are the same as Google. That is like saying that a two-year old who steps on some ants is the same as Saddam Hussein - since they both kill. It is ridiculous.

A.

As a timely data point, please see this link titled "Google figures out if you are a parent, shares that info with advertisers": http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/...re-a-parent-shares-that-info-with-advertisers

 

[0dev]

I dont want to get all conspiracy theory here, but I bet there are backdoors in all cellphone radio firmware / baseband
Apple, android, you name it

If the entity has access to the particular cell company you are using, they can own your phone too I'd wager. That's not to say you aren't protecting yourself from backdoors in the ROM itself though

Yeah I am aware of this. The baseband firmware is the weak link which I can't really do anything about for now sadly.

 

[gotluck]

That is like saying that a two-year old who steps on some ants is the same as Saddam Hussein - since they both kill. It is ridiculous.

Lol I won't even bother continuing the discussion if that's how you view apple versus google with respect to advertising. Im not even on that wavelength

Cheers

 

[kdarling]

The responses are 'oh, but Apple sells ads too' with the implication that even though less than 3% of Apple's revenue is ads, their motivations and treatment of people are the same as Google.

The point that you continue to ignore, is that when it comes to iAd, Apple's motivation is the same: to use the private information that they have gathered about us (especially from our devices and iTunes) to sell targeted ad spots to advertisers.

That is like saying that a two-year old who steps on some ants is the same as Saddam Hussein - since they both kill. It is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is claiming that somehow Apple has nobler interests at heart when they make money selling their own ad spots.

If anything, it's sleazier than Google. At least Google gives users a service in return. Apple makes billions off hardware, music and app sales, and STILL wants to make more money using that very sales information to sell targeted ads, without giving anything in return.

As a timely data point, please see this link titled "Google figures out if you are a parent, shares that info with advertisers": http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/...re-a-parent-shares-that-info-with-advertisers

I don't think you really read that article. For one thing, it was pointed out that it was just a guess from previous sales. Even Apple does that at times for their own ad targeting.

More importantly, Google doesn't "share" that "info" (aka guess) with advertisers, since it's only used to sell anonymous ad slots.

Perhaps you're not aware of some of the info that Apple uses to sell their own ads.





It doesn't matter whether Apple does this a lot or a little. Their motivation is to sell ads. (Obviously they want to do it a lot, but are rather poor at it.) Heck, when iAd started, Apple was requiring a million dollar minimum buy-in. Not even Google is that greedy.

 

[Savor]

Eventually people do migrate to different services. There was a time AOL chat was huge and "you've got mail" was made into a movie. There was a time MySpace was bigger than Facebook. I used Yahoo! Mail for the longest time until I eventually moved to Gmail. BBM has a 160M registered users with only half of it active.

I never got into iCloud and before iOS5 was ever released, I moved alot of my songs onto Amazon and Google Music's cloud. People worried about missing iMessages or whatever, eventually people will get used to it and migrate onto something else. But I feel Google has got it down cold when it comes to servers and online services. I don't see myself stopping to use one of their services while I can see myself easily leaving Apple's ecosystem. I think Google has better long-term appeal as seen with Apple Maps vs Google Maps. Google has better intangibles. Apple is better with tangibles.

 

[Dolorian]

Google has better intangibles. Apple is better with tangibles.

And therein lies the fundamental difference between both companies. Apple is all about selling hardware and their software and services are meant to add value to said hardware (which is why their locked down approach makes sense for them). Google on the other hand, is all about services and their software such as Android and Chrome OS along with the hardware in which it resides, are but a means to give people access to said services (which is why their platform agnostic approach makes sense for them).

I think each company is first of class at their core business, Apple in hardware and Google in services. Ideally, I would have loved it if we ended up with Apple made smartphone/tablet/watch/tv etc that is fully integrated with Google's services, with both companies collaborating at all levels. But then again, I understand why things had to develop the way they did.

 

[Lloydbm41]

I dont want to get all conspiracy theory here, but I bet there are backdoors in all cellphone radio firmware / baseband
Apple, android, you name it

If the entity has access to the particular cell company you are using, they can own your phone too I'd wager. That's not to say you aren't protecting yourself from backdoors in the ROM itself though

Yep, if it travels through the air or in space, it is intercepted and recorded. Billions of tweets, texts, emails and phonecons are intercepted daily. 99.9% are trashed almost immediately.

And I get a good chuckle when people believe their data is encrypted because they use a service like duckduckgo. Sorry, but unless you have a point to point hard line going from computer to computer with nothing in between, it isn't secure. It may have an extra layer of security added, but it still isn't secure.

 

[Alrescha]

The point that you continue to ignore, is that when it comes to iAd, Apple's motivation is the same: to use the private information that they have gathered about us (especially from our devices and iTunes) to sell targeted ad spots to advertisers.

I have provided facts and opinion in an attempt to provide some insight as to what defines and motivates these companies, and what that means to human beings who deal with them. For some reason, you want to compare Google to Apple's iAds, as if iAds represented Apple as a whole. I do not think that is a valid comparison.

In addition, you want to equate Apple's gathering of statistics about app purchases with Google's leviathan of information gathering and storage. I do not think they are even close.

Last but not least you write:

"At least Google gives users a service in return."

Google gives users those services for one reason, and one reason only; to enable them to track and record information about you. Whether it is gmail, search, voice, or DNS, it exists as a tool to gather and store more data about you and your behavior - all to better sell you to advertisers. Maybe you are ok with that - I am not.

A.

 

[gotluck]

why on earth should iads deserve a blind eye?

because apple sells a lot of hardware seems to be your reason

I love this quote

If anything, it's sleazier than Google. At least Google gives users a service in return. Apple makes billions off hardware, music and app sales, and STILL wants to make more money using that very sales information to sell targeted ads, without giving anything in return.

Although Google has done the same to me, becuase I bought a GPE phone from them and they are mining my data (though they are also responsible for sending me many customers), but at least I can acknowledge it. Apple mines data too bro

Any service you use on the internet collects data on you, this is crazy talk

The biggest danger is if the service itself gets hacked, because no legitimate company is dumb enough to sell the actual information that they have collected.

 

[iosuser]

I avoided using Google services for a while, including Maps, Chrome browser on Android (though NEVER on my computers), disallow the syncing of my contacts, etc. My Gmail account does nothing more than collecting restaurant coupons and activating Android devices. My router has some of the Google servers blocked off. And you know what, Google can track you just as well. For instance, I search for a camera on B&H, next thing I see are camera ads on all my devices. So I might as well use some of their services and cause myself less inconvenience. It is almost impossible to completely cutoff Google. Some things I still will not share with Google though, no photos syncing (I use Microsoft OneDrive since switching to an LG phone) and no Chrome browser on my computers. One thing I find very curious when setting up an Android device is Google's offer to store your wifi password, for the purpose of restoring your device. What's the point? You have to connect to your router before you can logon to your Google account and access your backup.

Yes they all track you - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc etc, but I am most apprehensive in opening up to Google, because their primary source of revenue is pushing ads from the data they collected from you. Apple is mostly interested in collecting a few hundred from you upfront from selling you a new gadget, iAds I'm not even sure qualifies as a hobby by Apple's standards as a source of revenue.

Yes I wear a tinfoil hat around here

 

[Alrescha]

why on earth should iads deserve a blind eye?

Once again, I never said that. I did say that what Google does and whatever Apple might do with iAds are not even close. I have no evidence that Apple is tracking me while I browse or shop online, but Google certainly is. Nor is Apple scanning my email and showing me ads based on the contents. This ongoing attempt of yours to equate what Apple might do with what Google actually does is getting old, and I do not think I will respond to it any more.

Any service you use on the internet collects data on you, this is crazy talk

So by this logic, since some company on the web might use your IP address to find out your approximate location, then it is the same (and perfectly OK) for Google to track everything you do on the Internet and use that to sell your eyeballs. Really?

A.

 

[gotluck]

Once again, I never said that. I did say that what Google does and whatever Apple might do with iAds are not even close. I have no evidence that Apple is tracking me while I browse or shop online, but Google certainly is. Nor is Apple scanning my email and showing me ads based on the contents. This ongoing attempt of yours to equate what Apple might do with what Google actually does is getting old, and I do not think I will respond to it any more.



So by this logic, since some company on the web might use your IP address to find out your approximate location, then it is the same (and perfectly OK) for Google to track everything you do on the Internet and use that to sell your eyeballs. Really?

A.

If you are using their services, they are tracking you. Regardless of the evidence. That's just how computers work. Unless they are purging all of their logs all the time, if they did that they could not even have meaningful iads.

The only services I've seen that claim to continually purge logs are private torrent trackers / paid vpn's for piracy essentially, but even there - they could track you if they wanted to

It's fine that you are uncomfortable with google, but at any time Apple could choose to do the same exact thing. The first action is iAds, next is ibeacon, next is who knows what

Apple and google have essentially the same legal language wrt privacy rights.. MS too for that matter

 

[Alrescha]

If you are using their services, they are tracking you. Regardless of the evidence. That's just how computers work.

So, that sounds like a 'yes' to my question. Good to know where you stand.

It's fine that you are uncomfortable with google, but at any time Apple could choose to do the same exact thing.

Once again, you try to compare what Apple *might* do with what Google *is* doing. What is the point?

The first action is iAds, next is ibeacon, next is who knows what

They call them iBeacon for a reason. They are transmitters - they do not even know you are there, much less track you. And receiving iBeacon messages is opt-in to boot. Thank you for providing a timely example of the difference between Apple and Google.

A.

 

[gotluck]

Lol! It's not about where I stand, it's about how the internet works

Have fun with your 'privacy'

ignorance is bliss!

----------

They call them iBeacon for a reason. They are transmitters - they do not even know you are there, much less track you. And receiving iBeacon messages is opt-in to boot. Thank you for providing a timely example of the difference between Apple and Google.

A.

Oh the transmitter may not know, but Apple knows when your phone receives the message
If the transmitter knew, the vendor would know too much. Apple would prefer to have sole access to that data to sell it back to the vendor.

My point is that all companies with internet services are the same. Distrust them all equally

its a funny thing that paying for something creates the illusion of privacy

 

[jamezr]

Lol! It's not about where I stand, it's about how the internet works

Have fun with your 'privacy'

ignorance is bliss!

----------



Oh the transmitter may not know, but Apple knows when your phone receives the message
If the transmitter knew, the vendor would know too much. Apple would prefer to have sole access to that data to sell it back to the vendor.

My point is that all companies with internet services are the same. Distrust them all equally

its a funny thing that paying for something creates the illusion of privacy

Absolutely agree and on target.......then lets not get started on the browser.........you are tracked EVERYWHERE you go. If you do not think so turn off all tracking and cookies in your browser (doesn't matter which browser) Then see how webpages work for you.....
Fact is they all track where you have been and where you go when you leave their site.

 

[Alrescha]

Oh the transmitter may not know, but Apple knows when your phone receives the message

I imagine that if you choose to participate (opt-in), then all kinds of things could happen. Choice is important.

Apple would prefer to have sole access to that data to sell it back to the vendor.

That would be the smart thing, no? Or is it something else? Wait, let me guess:

It is ok for Google to make money hand over fist by relentlessly tracking people (without their knowledge and likely against their will), but it is not ok for Apple to make a profit by providing a service that people willingly participate in? Have I got it right? Google makes money = good, Apple makes money = bad?

its a funny thing that paying for something creates the illusion of privacy

I do not think that is how it works. I think that by being a paying customer, Apple has an incentive to treat me right. My money is important to them (and please do not bring up iAds again, that is a drop in the proverbial bucket). It is simply good business sense for them to act accordingly. In the case of Google, I am never the customer - just a bit of data to sell.

A.

 

[jamezr]

I imagine that if you choose to participate (opt-in), then all kinds of things could happen. Choice is important.



That would be the smart thing, no? Or is it something else? Wait, let me guess:

It is ok for Google to make money hand over fist by relentlessly tracking people (without their knowledge and likely against their will), but it is not ok for Apple to make a profit by providing a service that people willingly participate in? Have I got it right? Google makes money = good, Apple makes money = bad?



I do not think that is how it works. I think that by being a paying customer, Apple has an incentive to treat me right. My money is important to them (and please do not bring up iAds again, that is a drop in the proverbial bucket). It is simply good business sense for them to act accordingly. In the case of Google, I am never the customer - just a bit of data to sell.

A.

Show me a Google service you are using that does not have you agree to their terms of use. The same thing Apple does. Except for most Google services they do not change. So buy agreeing to their terms of use/service you are opting in.......if you do not agree....do not use Google services. Its that simple.
The fact the Apple charges you....well that is another issue. But everyone tracks and uses your information while on the internet. There is not anonymity on the internet.

 

[Alrescha]

Show me a Google service you are using that does not have you agree to their terms of use.

Your question is worded conveniently. It's true that Google "services" that "I am <not> using" have terms of service that I could agree to. What about all the other tracking that Google does? Google Search?, YouTube, DoubleClick? Google Analytics? What about the fact that all that information is tied together and linked to you?

Google knows when you shop on Amazon.com (unlike Amazon, who does not know what you search for on Google.com).

How can anyone compare that to what any other company does and consider it the same thing?

A.

 

[gotluck]

I do not think that is how it works. I think that by being a paying customer, Apple has an incentive to treat me right. My money is important to them (and please do not bring up iAds again, that is a drop in the proverbial bucket). It is simply good business sense for them to act accordingly. In the case of Google, I am never the customer - just a bit of data to sell.

A.

What about me then? I use a GPE phone purchased directly from google. Google sells devices and has paying customers too.

I must be irrelevant like iAds

 

[jamezr]

Your question is worded conveniently. It's true that Google "services" that "I am <not> using" have terms of service that I could agree to. What about all the other tracking that Google does? Google Search?, YouTube, DoubleClick? Google Analytics? What about the fact that all that information is tied together and linked to you?

Google knows when you shop on Amazon.com (unlike Amazon, who does not know what you search for on Google.com).

How can anyone compare that to what any other company does and consider it the same thing?

A.

They have disclaimers......by using their services you agree to their terms of use. If you go not agree....you do not have to use those free services.

You are fooling yourself if you think Amazon does not know the site you went to prior to landing on Amazon....then they know where you go when you leave Amazon.
If you doubt this then please disable all tracking and cookies in your browser of choice. You will see how pages are displayed to you differently.

Then if you really want to see....check the cookies stored on your machine. They are written to daily. what information do you think is stored on cookies on your machine?


Your browsing history is tracked by just every site you are frequent on the internet.

A cookie, also known as an HTTP cookie, web cookie, or browser cookie, is a small piece of data sent from a website and stored in a user's web browser while the user is browsing that website. Every time the user loads the website, the browser sends the cookie back to the server to notify the website of the user's previous activity.[1] Cookies were designed to be a reliable mechanism for websites to remember stateful information (such as items in a shopping cart) or to record the user's browsing activity (including clicking particular buttons, logging in, or recording which pages were visited by the user as far back as months or years ago).

Although cookies cannot carry viruses, and cannot install malware on the host computer,[2] tracking cookies and especially third-party tracking cookies are commonly used as ways to compile long-term records of individuals' browsing histories—a potential privacy concern that prompted European[3] and U.S. law makers to take action in 2011.[4][5] Cookies can also store passwords and form content a user has previously entered, such as a credit card number or an address. When a user accesses a website with a cookie function for the first time, a cookie is sent from server to the browser and stored with the browser in the local computer. Later when that user goes back to the same website, the website will recognize the user because of the stored cookie with the user's information.[6]

Other kinds of cookies perform essential functions in the modern web. Perhaps most importantly, authentication cookies are the most common method used by web servers to know whether the user is logged in or not, and which account they are logged in with. Without such a mechanism, the site would not know whether to send a page containing sensitive information, or require the user to authenticate themselves by logging in. The security of an authentication cookie generally depends on the security of the issuing website and the user's web browser, and on whether the cookie data is encrypted. Security vulnerabilities may allow a cookie's data to be read by a hacker, used to gain access to user data, or used to gain access (with the user's credentials) to the website to which the cookie belongs (see cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery for examples).[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie

 

[Alrescha]

You are fooling yourself if you think Amazon does not know the site you went to prior to landing on Amazon....then they know where you go when you leave Amazon.

Please explain how this is the same as Google knowing every Amazon page you visit, regardless of whether you came from or then went to a Google site.

A.

 

[gotluck]

Please explain how this is the same as Google knowing every Amazon page you visit, regardless of whether you came from or then went to a Google site.

A.

Google only knows this because amazon must use Google analytics or the user is continually using Google search. Or you are signed into chrome or something. They dont just automatically know everything.

 

[Alrescha]

They dont just automatically know everything.

And once again, you try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. As we used to say in the old days, *plonk*.

 

[gotluck]

And once again, you try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. As we used to say in the old days, *plonk*.

Well which service is telling Google what you are browsing amazon for then? Good lord man

You are speaking as if Google knows this without you using their services...

You are excellent at cherry picking my comments without context