Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 4, 2012, 12:03 AM   #26
Phokus
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
The 'race to the bottom' in the PC industry is why i can build a great gaming rig for like $500. I welcome this 'race to the bottom'.
Phokus is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 12:06 AM   #27
tjl3
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by KentuckyHouse View Post
What this feels like to me is fear. Fear that people might be losing the allusion that you need to spend $500+ on a tablet or $700+ on a phone to get the very best. And yes, I'm talking about Apple.

The worst case scenario for Apple is the public-at-large realizing they can get just as much phone or tablet for HALF the price.

IMO, Google has done a very smart thing here. Pull back the curtain and show consumers that you don't have to take out a second mortgage to afford a top of the line phone or tablet.

I'd love to see Apple take note and drop their prices some, but I doubt we'll ever see that happen.
There is this misconception that you cannot buy an iPhone for less than $699, and iPad's are marked much higher than the unreleased Nexus 10...

The general public subsidizes their iPhone with their choice of carrier starting at $199. The Nexus 10 is a mere $100 more expensive than the newest iPad. And when you consider where iOS is content wise for iPad versus Android for tablets, it is a fair $100 investment.

Sure, the Nexus 4 is a great off contract/unlocked value. But it comes with compromises. Specifically with carriers, it is only on GSM networks. There is no LTE. It is $399 (I quote this price b/c iPhone and GS3 start at 16 gb) if you want it on AT&T at the moment and $199 on T-Mo.

The point of the article is missed. Google and Amazon are in the software business. For Google it doesn't matter how many Nexus devices are sold as long as people are buying Android. For Amazon, as it was stated before they make their money off of their online content.

Apple is in the hardware business, and they have a monopoly on devices that run iOS. Money is everything, and Apple being the most profitable company is not going to give free handouts.
tjl3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 12:11 AM   #28
SlCKB0Y
macrumors 68020
 
SlCKB0Y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Good thing i'm not a manufacturer then!
SlCKB0Y is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 05:32 AM   #29
ChazUK
macrumors 603
 
ChazUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Essex (UK)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjl3 View Post
There is this misconception that you cannot buy an iPhone for less than $699, and iPad's are marked much higher than the unreleased Nexus 10...

The general public subsidizes their iPhone with their choice of carrier starting at $199.
But what about those of us that end up paying for things we don't use? I get far more talk time than I'd ever need (but it's offset with the unlimited data plan that I do use extensively - we're talking around 60 to 100Gb a month tethering).

Look at the value of these setups for my circumstances:

iPhone 5 16GB with unlimited data on Three (subsidiesed and SIM locked to the carrier).
£79 upfront cost for the handset.
£36 per month for 24 months.
Total cost of ownership: £943

This includes 2000 cross network minutes and 5000 three to three minutes - far more than I need.

iPhone 5 purchased from Apple with a sim only plan and unlimited data.
£529 upfront cost for the handset.
£15.90 per month on a 1 month rolling contract (cancel any time within a 1 month period.
Total cost of ownership over a 24 month period: £910.60

Nexus 4 16GB purchased from Google with a sim only plan and unlimited data.
£279 upfront cost for the handset.
£15.90 per month on a 1 month rolling contract (cancel any time within a 1 month period.
Total cost of ownership over a 24 month period: £660.60 (Reduced to £620.60 with the 8GB model).

The greatest things about the last two options is the fact you aren't locked in to a set timeframe, nor is your handset locked to a single carrier so if a better price plan comes along, you are only a phonecall away from cancelling your current plan and moving to a cheaper one.

As a consumer, I know which way I'll prefer to do things.
__________________
Windows 8 Desktop | iPhone 4s | iPad 2 | Nexus 5 | Nexus 7 | Lumia 530
ChazUK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 05:40 AM   #30
thewitt
macrumors 68000
 
thewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
There are profit models in every business, and the Amazon model has yet to be proven. If the additional content is really worth Amazon selling their hardware for no profit, we should see a steady rise in Amazon profits and stock price.

The fact they had to start selling advertising on the Fire leads me to believe it was not as profitable a model as they had hoped.

Google knows how to make money selling ads, and they have extended that model to their Android store pretty successfully so far.

Apple makes money of the hardware with good margins, makes money in the App Store, iTunes selling books and music, textbook sales, and advertising.

Seems like a pretty good, working strategy to me. Their hardware sales don't seem to be suffering.
thewitt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 05:50 AM   #31
MacRumorUser
Thread Starter
macrumors Demi-God
 
MacRumorUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarzanman View Post
BS argument is BS.

There isn't anything keeping these cash-rich, profit-margin-leading manufacturers from competing (except for inertia perhaps). Are you trying to tell me that Apple's vaunted hardware pipeline and legendary negotiation tactics with suppliers are just not up to the task?.
Did i mention ANYTHING about Apple ?

You seemed to have missed the entire point of the article, and seemed to have turned it into something to do with Apple which it clearly wasn't, and why are you arguing with me for I didn't write the article...

And drop the potty mouth "BS argument is BS' nonsense.

__________________
A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.
MacRumor:User
Microsoft MVP : Macintosh
MacRumorUser is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 07:46 AM   #32
Tarzanman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumorUser View Post
Did i mention ANYTHING about Apple ?

You seemed to have missed the entire point of the article, and seemed to have turned it into something to do with Apple which it clearly wasn't, and why are you arguing with me for I didn't write the article...

And drop the potty mouth "BS argument is BS' nonsense.

Neither you (nor the article) have to mention them by name. Samsung has a $250 tablet, as do Amazon and Barnes&Noble..... so their degree of hurt is limited. That basically leaves Apple, Motorola and Lenovo. The latter two have barely sold tablets.
__________________
Mongol General: "What is best in life?"
Conan the Barbarian: To crush fanboyism. To see the iPhone 6s bent before you, and to hear the lamentation of their owners.
Tarzanman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 10:43 AM   #33
tjl3
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazUK View Post
But what about those of us that end up paying for things we don't use? I get far more talk time than I'd ever need (but it's offset with the unlimited data plan that I do use extensively - we're talking around 60 to 100Gb a month tethering).

Look at the value of these setups for my circumstances:

iPhone 5 16GB with unlimited data on Three (subsidiesed and SIM locked to the carrier).
£79 upfront cost for the handset.
£36 per month for 24 months.
Total cost of ownership: £943

This includes 2000 cross network minutes and 5000 three to three minutes - far more than I need.

iPhone 5 purchased from Apple with a sim only plan and unlimited data.
£529 upfront cost for the handset.
£15.90 per month on a 1 month rolling contract (cancel any time within a 1 month period.
Total cost of ownership over a 24 month period: £910.60

Nexus 4 16GB purchased from Google with a sim only plan and unlimited data.
£279 upfront cost for the handset.
£15.90 per month on a 1 month rolling contract (cancel any time within a 1 month period.
Total cost of ownership over a 24 month period: £660.60 (Reduced to £620.60 with the 8GB model).

The greatest things about the last two options is the fact you aren't locked in to a set timeframe, nor is your handset locked to a single carrier so if a better price plan comes along, you are only a phonecall away from cancelling your current plan and moving to a cheaper one.

As a consumer, I know which way I'll prefer to do things.
I agree with you on those points. When you have a situation that fits your needs that is definitely a competitive advantage. And I guess I don't know too much about the mobile carriers outside the US, so I apologize for generalizing our situation in the US.

But in the US the situation is quite different. With pay as you go plans (T-Mobile) the situation comes at a great compromise in the form of talk, text, and coverage. Sure their plans may fit some people, but the general public still wants those advantages covered by other carriers.

And while price is definitely one consideration, it's not the only. In many cases it is worth the 2 year investment for better coverage, 4G, more minutes and text, etc. With some of the drawbacks being the price, lack of early termination, etc. But definitely if you have found something that works for you, that is great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarzanman View Post
Neither you (nor the article) have to mention them by name. Samsung has a $250 tablet, as do Amazon and Barnes&Noble..... so their degree of hurt is limited. That basically leaves Apple, Motorola and Lenovo. The latter two have barely sold tablets.
I agree w/ the OP. Sure the Nexus device and Kindle sales might eat in to Apple's profits. But it is the other Android device makers that really feel the brunt of this move.

Like I said before, Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices. The 'degree of hurt' is felt when two hardware companies release their device that do identical things, running identical software. Google has a different agenda, and that does affect its hardware partners. Apple profitw off of running iOS and marketing iOS as an attractive alternative.
tjl3 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:32 AM   #34
ChazUK
macrumors 603
 
ChazUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Essex (UK)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjl3 View Post
I agree with you on those points. When you have a situation that fits your needs that is definitely a competitive advantage. And I guess I don't know too much about the mobile carriers outside the US, so I apologize for generalizing our situation in the US.
I'm just as guilty of generalizing the situation in Europe to be honest. Thanks for the reply.

I really doubt even at the low entry cost that the Nexus 4 will impact on contract prices here in the UK at least as lots of people will see the free phone (initially) and just pay into a contract month after month.

HTC seems to be offering competitive smartphones over here too with the likes of the HTC 8x only going for around £225. Yes it's midrange but it does look great for the money! http://www.mobilefun.co.uk/sim-free-...ite-p36368.htm

There does seem to be a price war brewing which may do more harm than good, we'll have to wait and see how it all pans out.
__________________
Windows 8 Desktop | iPhone 4s | iPad 2 | Nexus 5 | Nexus 7 | Lumia 530
ChazUK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 12:22 PM   #35
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlCKB0Y View Post
What information about users do you think Google discloses to third parties?
It doesn't disclose information explicitly. However, but directing users to personalized ads, advertisers can use information about which ads a given user was directed to as a basis for making inferences about the characteristics of the user. It is a little naive to think otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoken View Post
This is a common misconception which is sadly repeated too often, but in truth Google does not sells your personal data to anyone.
In a very narrow sense you are correct. Google gets paid for allowing advertisers to exploit Google's knowledge about you to personalize ads. IMO this is functionally the same thing as selling the information outright, and until somebody can convince me that Google's true customers cannot make inferences about the user based on which personalized ad was shown, I have very little confidence in Google's reassurances about privacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Perhaps the one trolling is you because your link doesn't say nothing about selling you or your information.
As noted above you are correct in a very strict sense. Thus, the second option I listed in my post applies to you: your definition of selling is so narrow as to constitute splitting of hairs. I used to work in telemarketing. Sad, but true. I would sell leads to the proper sales people based on how close they matched their criterion for a good prospect. So, I didn't 'sell' personal information about potential customers per se, by the sales people could pretty much infer who they were targeting. The same applies to Google - they sell leads. However, as I said above, don't be naive. It is in the interest of Google's advertiser customers to extract as much information about you as they can. Google's online policy about privacy (which I have read) is not very reassuring about this: Nothing in their policy states that personalized ads cannot be used by advertisers to infer various characteristics about you.

Having said that, I recognize that the type of information that Google allows their advertiser customers to exploit or infer is limited (gender, age, interests, previous search queries etc.). Many people have no problem about that, for they're going to get bombarded with advertising no matter what information is collected about them. In my view however, Google's business model seems very strange. I prefer working with companies that view me as a customer rather than a product or lead to be auctioned to the highest bidder, even if I have to pay a little bit more.
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.

Last edited by VulchR; Nov 4, 2012 at 12:39 PM.
VulchR is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 12:29 PM   #36
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premią de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post

In a very narrow sense you are correct. Google gets paid for allowing advertisers to exploit Google's knowledge about you to personalize ads.
You're still confused, advertisers doesn't exploit nothing, it is Google who targets ads with advertisers requests
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 12:40 PM   #37
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
You're still confused, advertisers doesn't exploit nothing, it is Google who targets ads with advertisers requests
Sigh. So what do you think Google's true customers - advertisers - are paying billions for?
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 12:47 PM   #38
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premią de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Sigh. So what do you think Google's true customers - advertisers - are paying billions for?
Sigh, they pay for target advertisement, they don't know who Google shows the ads nor they know nothing about the target people.
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 12:52 PM   #39
ChazUK
macrumors 603
 
ChazUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Essex (UK)
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Sigh. So what do you think Google's true customers - advertisers - are paying billions for?
The same thing that advertisers in magazines, on the radio and the TV pay for. My eyes and attention?

Football game on TV? Beer, cars or cologne.
Gaming magazine? Latest hardware and games with some tech on the side.
Pop hour on the radio? Justin Bieber and Lady GaGa's latest albums.
Browsing a holiday review site? Here are some ads for flights, weekend breaks and places to go.
Playing a racing game on your iPhone? Here are some iAds associated with the car brand.

Targeted advertising happens across all media spectrums.
__________________
Windows 8 Desktop | iPhone 4s | iPad 2 | Nexus 5 | Nexus 7 | Lumia 530
ChazUK is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 01:39 PM   #40
ChrisTX
macrumors 68030
 
ChrisTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas
I believe it was the hugely popular fire sale HP TouchPad that sold at $99 that got everyone to realize that the only way to get a non iPad tablet to sell was to undercut Apple on price. Even if none of these tablets are as good as the iPad they will come close, and ultimately beat Apple in price. Because think about it, every other tablet that wasn't iPad crashed, and burned outside of the Touch Pad. No one bought the Touch Pad because it was good, people bought it because it was cheap, and it offered similar functionality as the iPad. Remember, no one wanted a Touch Pad at the regular $699 price.
__________________
Thanks Steve for all of the awesome technology!
Proud owner of an early 2011 15" MacBook Pro, First gen 15" MacBook Pro, iPad 3, Apple TV, Prototype iPhone 6+, and numerous iPods.
ChrisTX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 01:51 PM   #41
tjl3
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisTX View Post
I believe it was the hugely popular fire sale HP TouchPad that sold at $99 that got everyone to realize that the only way to get a non iPad tablet to sell was to undercut Apple on price. Even if none of these tablets are as good as the iPad they will come close, and ultimately beat Apple in price. Because think about it, every other tablet that wasn't iPad crashed, and burned outside of the Touch Pad. No one bought the Touch Pad because it was good, people bought it because it was cheap, and it offered similar functionality as the iPad. Remember, no one wanted a Touch Pad at the regular $699 price.
Uh, you're comparing a product that has sold less than 1 million (mostly due to the drastic drop in price) to another product that has sold over 84 million...

Look, there is always a market for free or nearly free. The TouchPad failed b/c HP lost money selling it... that's surely a nice business model to beat Apple... And HP only dropped the price on the TouchPad b/c retailers refused to buy anymore and HP needed to sell off their stock pile of TouchPads.
tjl3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 09:24 PM   #42
ChrisTX
macrumors 68030
 
ChrisTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjl3 View Post
Uh, you're comparing a product that has sold less than 1 million (mostly due to the drastic drop in price) to another product that has sold over 84 million...

Look, there is always a market for free or nearly free. The TouchPad failed b/c HP lost money selling it... that's surely a nice business model to beat Apple... And HP only dropped the price on the TouchPad b/c retailers refused to buy anymore and HP needed to sell off their stock pile of TouchPads.
Granted no one was buying the TouchPad at full retail, HP only gave it 6 weeks on the market before they decided to shelve it, and sell it at a loss. How much of it is the lack of consumer demand vs. the change in CEO with a focus on the cloud, and services vs. hardware is a different one. The point I am trying to make is that no one was buying all of the other Android tablets out there at full retail. I believe it took the TouchPad firesale and the frenzy HP drummed up for Amazon, and Google to realize that if they were going to move any tablets, they were going to have to price them REALLY cheap! Heck look at all of the other full sized Android tablets that are out on the market today. I think it's quite fair to say that no one is really buying those either.

So the question I'll ask is this: Do you believe people are buying the Nexus 7, and Kindle Fire because of their low price point, or because of their feature set? No one should be faulting Apple because they don't want to give their iPads away at cost. If it weren't for the iPad in the first place, these other tablets wouldn't even exist.
__________________
Thanks Steve for all of the awesome technology!
Proud owner of an early 2011 15" MacBook Pro, First gen 15" MacBook Pro, iPad 3, Apple TV, Prototype iPhone 6+, and numerous iPods.
ChrisTX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 09:31 PM   #43
Rodster
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisTX View Post
I believe it took the TouchPad firesale and the frenzy HP drummed up for Amazon, and Google to realize that if they were going to move any tablets, they were going to have to price them REALLY cheap!
I totally agree with this and it was discuss amongst the press that in order for any tablet other than an iPad to succeed it would have to be priced much lower than the iPad. In fact the HP TouchPad was used as an example.

The difference for Amazon and Google is they can make up for it buy selling content. That's the luxury both companies have.
Rodster is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 10:04 PM   #44
tjl3
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisTX View Post
So the question I'll ask is this: Do you believe people are buying the Nexus 7, and Kindle Fire because of their low price point, or because of their feature set? No one should be faulting Apple because they don't want to give their iPads away at cost. If it weren't for the iPad in the first place, these other tablets wouldn't even exist.
I agree w/ you about what you say about the Touchpad. And yes, it is the price point which consumers like most in the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire, no doubt about it.

I forget what I was trying to argue earlier, but despite the price tag on iPad, it will always have a strong market until something better (in both hardware and software) comes along. Where Google and Amazon's pricing hurts is in Google's hardware partners. There is no way any of those companies can be profitable at a break even price.

I wonder what Android tablet makers plan on doing to compete with the Nexus 10 to be honest. One can argue no LTE, no CDMA as disadvantages to a Nexus 4. But in the tablet market, the other Android counterparts to Nexus 10 are going to have to be better spec and priced between a Nexus 7 and Nexus 10 to be competitive.
tjl3 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:04 PM   #45
SlCKB0Y
macrumors 68020
 
SlCKB0Y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
It doesn't disclose information explicitly. However, but directing users to personalized ads, advertisers can use information about which ads a given user was directed to as a basis for making inferences about the characteristics of the user. It is a little naive to think otherwise.
Of course they do this, but i felt you were implying that Google hands over our personal data, and this is not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
However, it would be interesting to see how much Google makes of each Android device by selling information about the user to businesses that use it for targeting advertisements.
They aren't selling information, they are selling advertising and any data the advertiser receives about respondents to those ads is anonymous, aggregated and not of a personal or identifying nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
So, I didn't 'sell' personal information about potential customers per se, by the sales people could pretty much infer who they were targeting. The same applies to Google - they sell leads.
Umm, no, they sell advertising. In particular they sell advertising that is targeted....that is all. At no point does Google imply I might purchase something based on the advertising so it's not a lead.

It's like saying TV stations are selling leads to advertisers because I have a TV, The only difference is that Googles Ads are more targeted and as mentioned before, Google can provide feedback regarding click throughs.

The advertisers don't need to "infer" who they were targeting, they know who they were targeting because they told Google who they wanted to target,

Quote:
don't be naive.
Don't be so paranoid.

Quote:
Nothing in their policy states that personalized ads cannot be used by advertisers to infer various characteristics about you.
Explain to me how you think the advertisers do this?

It seems to me your trying to merge two completely different issues:

1. What data does Google disclose to advertisers about me, and;
2. How does Google target advertising at me.

They are mutually exclusive because the advertisers aren't aware of why I was targeted or who I am.

Think of it like this, the advertiser tells Google which demographic they want to target and then Google provides them information on the demographic that actually responded. It's a feedback loop to more finely target the advertising and it's nowhere near as sinister or invasive as you were previously trying to imply.

Last edited by SlCKB0Y; Nov 4, 2012 at 11:23 PM.
SlCKB0Y is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:21 PM   #46
SlCKB0Y
macrumors 68020
 
SlCKB0Y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phokus View Post
The 'race to the bottom' in the PC industry is why i can build a great gaming rig for like $500. I welcome this 'race to the bottom'.
It's fantastic for consumers and given that I am in fact a consumer and not an investor, I couldn't agree more.
SlCKB0Y is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:24 PM   #47
Dolorian
macrumors 65816
 
Dolorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlCKB0Y View Post
They aren't selling information, they are selling advertising and any data the advertiser receives about respondents to those ads is anonymous, aggregated and not of a personal or identifying nature.



Umm, no, they sell advertising. In particular they sell advertising that is targeted....that is all. At no point does Google imply I might purchase something based on the advertising so it's not a lead.

It's like saying TV stations are selling leads to advertisers because I have a TV, The only difference is that Googles Ads are more targeted and as mentioned before, Google can provide feedback regarding click throughs.

The advertisers don't need to "infer" who they were targeting, they know who they were targeting because they told Google who they wanted to target,


[...]

Think of it like this, the advertiser tells Google which demographic they want to target and then Google provides them information on the demographic that actually responded. It's a feedback loop to more finely target the advertising and it's nowhere near as sinister or invasive as you were previously trying to imply before your recent backtrack.
That's exactly it, well put. Google never hands over your personal data to anyone.
__________________
MacBook Pro 13" i5 2.5GHz
Google Nexus 7 32GB
Samsung Galaxy S3
Dolorian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:27 PM   #48
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
False, they don't sell you, anonymous or not.
They sell exposure to your screen, via intelligent targetting using your personal data.

Which for all intents and purposes, is close enough.


Make no mistake, google is a business, and your attention is the product.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:55 PM   #49
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by throAU View Post
They sell exposure to your screen, via intelligent targetting using your personal data.
The data is not that personal. Ever go look at your Google advertising profile? (Which you can change, btw.)

It's made up of your probable age, sex, interests based on latest searches, etc. Pretty vague really, and as reporters have noted, sometimes it even guesses wrong about your age or sex. (It had me pegged as being 15 years younger, for example. I appreciated that! However, I deleted its mistaken idea that I was still looking for new car. I had gotten one and didn't want any more ads like that.)

Apple does the exact same thing with iAds, btw, except they probably have far more personal data at their disposal due to the requirement to have an iTunes account. Credit data, address, music / media / app sales history, even device purchases because of the need to activate through Apple.

It's amazing how many people worry about Google's ads, yet not give a single thought to Apple's iAds.

Neither company sells that personal info, though. They keep it quite secret and anonymous. Instead, they sell anonymous targeted ad views.

For example, a company might contract with Apple for ads targeted at 20-30 year olds with good income and who like football apps. Whenever someone like that uses an iOS app with an iAd in it, Apple sends down one of the ads that they've been given for that target audience. The advertiser only knows this has happened because of either a) Apple charging them for the view or b) you actually clicking on the ad.

Last edited by kdarling; Nov 5, 2012 at 12:01 AM.
kdarling is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 02:14 AM   #50
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
I'm not so worried about the targeted advertising.

What concerns me more is the search bubble. If i search for something I want all viewpoints, not just stuff relevant to what google thinks I am.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why are the Mac Pro base models available at Amazon and B&H but not at Apple? macrumorsuser10 Mac Pro 13 Apr 22, 2014 02:26 PM
27inch 3.2ghz models cheaper on Amazon UK !! anisatam iMac 1 Mar 22, 2013 12:38 PM
Best Buy and Amazon Offer Special Pricing on MacBook Pro Models MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 41 Feb 10, 2013 04:13 PM
Build-to-Order Pricing for New iMac Models Revealed MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 373 Nov 30, 2012 04:08 PM
New Macbook Pros (All models) and Amazon.com WakeUpDrunk MacBook Pro 0 Jun 11, 2012 05:05 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC