NiKKoM said:
ultima said:
If consumers are willing to pay more for your services, then there's really no reason not to take more from them. Sometimes this will to part with cash is due to higher quality of service, as is the case with Google. If the consumers have no other choice, then (and only then) we have a problem. That's simply not the case here.
About Google+: you're right, it was probably to make more money in the long run. You can't from this say that they are "not nice and don't want to innovate". What kind of thinking is this? Do you think any for-profit organization ever does any kind of research just because they're nice? You think MS developed W7 because they're nice and want to innovate? Obviously not. The underlying motive is always more money. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as the innovation happens. After all, the quest for higher profits did give us W7, the awesome BMW M series, and all the latest Google products.
Also, I'd like a source for Google forbidding app makers from using different geolocators. I have an understanding of Android development (albeit a very vague one) and I don't have a clue how they'd be able to even enforce that.
|
Its not about consumers.. its about advertising by other companies.. google mail was at the first place when you use "email" as search under pressure they already changed this to reflect the real markted with Yahoo and Microsoft being the larger email services.. they are misusing their power to ask for more money and skew the results in their advertising..
I just dislike the naivity in people who think that MS is evil and Google is good.. they are both companies who want to make money.. people have to be realistic about that .. I know how much money goes around with data gathering and selling your information to advertisers.. your email is worth 13 eurocents and every interest, like, etc is worth like 4 eurocent.. I dislike they are making money if if googled something like vgchartz, click on the link and google adds that information to my ip adress and show me advertising about videogames.. And that advertising space was sold at a higher price then any other competitor.. there is something different about a new product that improves and makes usage easier and a new product that wants to extract more information from you.
There is a lawsuit going forth in 2014 (google is stalling) about the geolocation stuff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-newman/a-window-into-googles-mon_b_859582.html
Basicly Samsung and Motorla (then not google owned) had already deals with Skyhook for using geo location.. untill google appeared and bullied them out of it by saying they could only use Googles geo location or no Android for them.. here are some relevant parts of the article:
When Motorola and Samsung announced they were going to use Google-rival Skyhook for their location-based services on their Android smartphones, Google on one hand responded in these internal emails by noting the superiority of Google location information precisely because they were maintaining constant surveillance on customers and local wi-fi spots to update their location maps. "We are constantlyre-mapping through our users, which keeps the data re-refreshed," said one email (see p. 44) or, from another manager, the advantage of "the large volume of device distribution that helps the data collection. (see p. 32)
Conversely, the managers bemoan the doom if Skyhook gets the business from manufacturers like Motorola and Samsung and Google loses the ability to spy on customer locations through the smartphones. "It will cut off our ability to continue collecting data to maintain and improve our location database. If that happens, we can easily wind up in a situation we were in before creating our own location database and that is (a) having no access at all or (b) paying exorbitant costs for access."
"As you will see from the language in a note received from Google (relevant text is coped below), Skyhook's implementation of the XPS service on Motola's device renders the device no longer Android compatible."(p. 27)
With Google preventing Motorola from shipping Android phones until they make required changes, you see Christy Wyatt from Motorola complaining to Google, "We are now less competitive as a result of our being prevented from shipping." They asked why Samsung was not being prevented from shipping their Skyhook-enabled device and Andy Rubin of Google wrote back that "Samsung confirmed they stopped shipping the devices with Skyhook."(p. 51)
They even hacked Safari to gain more information from its users, they still placed cookies when the default setting on Safari is "don't place cookies" they never asked but they just did.. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/08/google.shtm
but it's not that google doesn't know this.. luckly the EU is much stricter then the US and google is feelin the heat, their first offer to change stuff was actually that bad that the EU are conisidering to bring in the competitors for consulting
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-08/google-made-new-offer-to-settle-eu-antitrust-probe-almunia-says.html
|
By consumers I meant the advertisement companies. They are consumers of Google.
Why do you dislike personalized ads? I'd much rather be displayed ads that I might care about then weird viagra commercials. Don't you feel the same?
As for geolocation: so they did not forbid app makers. They forbade device manufacturers. Google did provide them the best mobile operating system free of charge. They spent shitloads of money on developing Android. I'd say they get to push manufacturers into using Google services. It's only fair that Google gets something from them back.
In the end, I find it weird when people tell me Google is immoral for collecting user data and displaying personalized ads. What is wrong with that? I don't see anything whatsoever. Plus, look at everything they have given us.
