Please, stop and first learn what the heck is targeted advertising. Advertisers don't have any access to the information.
My God, it is hard taken you seriously when you don't know those basic things
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Announces Android 'M' Developer Preview, Android Pay and Free Unlimited Photo Storage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please, stop and first learn what the heck is targeted advertising. Advertisers don't have any access to the information.
My God, it is hard taken you seriously when you don't know those basic things
And if this is limited to the search engine then fine. If you collect information from social networks, emails, chats, GPS, data provided to 3rd party sites, etc. the there is an issue. Problem is, Google also advertises directly on sites. I can never use their search engine and they can still collect information and target ads.
That's where you're wrong. They don't provide the data to 3rd parties. They sell advertising space, and Google themselves use the demographic information they've collected to put their client's products in front of people who'll most likely find interest in it.
Besides the fact that you didn't actually define the term as requested - oh so politely - please try and grasp the concept that advertisers do have access to the information via Google. I'm sorry it doesn't fit into your retail sales definition of sale. I don't have a problem with advertising. I have a problem with manipulative tactics to acquire information in order to profit from my interests.
Yeah, it is actually. Android itself is open source. Google Services, on the other hand, aren't.
I don't think Android uses Java/Dalvik anymore. They replaced it with something more native around Kit Kit, I think.
Sure they do! Ok so they don't hand over a list of names. They say give me your ad and money and I'll put it where people who are talking about your product will see it. They are providing the data via a service of showing the ad. Same thing.
No. Wrong again. Any info they collect is presented to the ad purchaser exactly the same. If you use gmail and your email is talking about soccer boots then this is a trigger for Google to up the bid price for people like me trying to sell soccer boots.
We don't get to see if it came from a search, a gmail, an instant message or whatever. We just look at the popular keywords for the GEO and their cost.
That's it.
We don't get to see if it came from a search, a gmail, an instant message or whatever. We just look at the popular keywords for the GEO and their cost.
That's it.
Android still uses Java as programming language but they have replaced Dalvik with ART, it is compiled and not interpreted
If you search for Soccer boots you're going to see two things - one is the paid ads - these are the companies that have bid the most money to get their ads at the top of the page. They pay for the term "Soccer boots" and that's just what you typed in.
The other piece you see is the organic search results, ie free and found using the search engine and keywords.
You need to understand that the paid ads are just the same as you would get if you were reading a soccer magazine. The advertisers pay to place their ads on the back cover, second page in etc. These are all high value areas and therefore the bid price is higher. Google (and Apple ) are no different.
The other piece you see is the organic search results, ie free and found using the search engine and keywords.
You need to understand that the paid ads are just the same as you would get if you were reading a soccer magazine. The advertisers pay to place their ads on the back cover, second page in etc. These are all high value areas and therefore the bid price is higher. Google (and Apple ) are no different.
Because he says so.
And he tries to redefine selling data to using data internally. If Apple uses data to target ads through iAds, Apple is selling the data to advertisers
They profit through handling information they collected about you that wasn't provided to them for the explicit purpose of you being found?
----------
If Apple uses data to target ads through iAds, Apple is selling the data to advertisers
Correct.
Apple Pay is just an Apple-branded implementation of a newer version of the NFC payment standard. Nothing but the name is Apple specific.
Android Pay appears to be an Android-branded implementation of the same standard, so they did exactly what you hoped for, except that they branded it.
Well yeah, that's uh...advertising.
----------
Because he says so.
And he tries to redefine selling data to using data internally. If Apple uses data to target ads through iAds, Apple is selling the data to advertisers
Yeah, pretty much. He's trying to redefine his argument while still attempting to come to the same conclusion, which isn't doing anything but making him look confused.
No one who provides targeted ad space sells their demographic info to 3rd parties. That'd be giving away the goose that lays their golden eggs. What Apple, Google, and everyone else does is sell a service. You pay them, likely a monthly fee, to put your product in front of people's faces. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more.
How have I redefined my my argument? Google wants to make consumer products and sell advertising space. The problem is that they combine those businesses, and in doing so is deceitful. They are acquiring their data under the pretense that they are providing a service for free. If consumers choose to not use those products they then use other means to access and target them. They don't give people the option of opting out.
Your original argument was that they sold your data. Now you're saying they're not, but it's just as bad FOR REASONS! They're immoral because they're doing that thing other people have been doing for decades on TV now, but ON THE INTERNET!
Google isn't Big Brother. They're more akin to a slightly more overbearing Nielsen Ratings setup. Even if you had direct access to all of Google's data, I don't think you could track down someone by name.
I still say they sell it. (Actually I now say they pimp it so as to convey the idea that they don't lose control of it. The argument that they rent it suggests the user was consulted in the process.)
I never implied their reasons. Though I assume it's greed.
What they are doing is unprecedented. How TV ads work is far different than internet ads. TV ads work by surveys. It's opt in. There is no option with Google. Not using their search engine is insufficient since they track visits at the site level.
Could Google track you down? Unless you asked them to do so, I don't approve of that either.
Wrong again. A lot of the new set top boxes return data to the operator on what stations are being watched, when , how long etc etc. This is then used to target ads. Exactly the same on the net.
Also think back to years ago when your parents walked into a supermarket. There were data collectors (people) walking the isles and watching how your parents purchased - what isles they walked down, what shelf and what product. We've now moved to the internet but the process is just the same.
You also seem to pick Google out as the only one. Apple does exactly the same as Google, only it doesn't make as much money off it. I bet if they could make more $'s off it, they would gladly take every penny.
An opt out? Easy. switch off cookies and don't use ANY search engine and no online services (including Apples).
Also think back to years ago when your parents walked into a supermarket. There were data collectors (people) walking the isles and watching how your parents purchased - what isles they walked down, what shelf and what product. We've now moved to the internet but the process is just the same.
You also seem to pick Google out as the only one. Apple does exactly the same as Google, only it doesn't make as much money off it. I bet if they could make more $'s off it, they would gladly take every penny.
An opt out? Easy. switch off cookies and don't use ANY search engine and no online services (including Apples).
Cut all the fluff aside, and this is the basic problem some people have with Google. It's mostly unfounded, even if Google has been known to be a little *ahem* pushy about getting at your data before.
No, Google likely couldn't track you down specifically using what they collect. They don't deal in specifics. They deal in demographics. They can't see that you, 4jasontv, frequent My Little Pony fansites after leaving here, and that you send emails to your mom every day at 3:45 PM to see how she's doing. But they can see that people who visit Apple sites also tend to shop for electric toothbrushes, buy Audis, and listen to dubstep.
It's nothing worth freaking out about. It's pretty widely known by this point how Google makes their money. If you find it rubs you the wrong way, then don't use it.
Your historic example are still compiling data of groups. I'm not a big fan of the saver cards either, but at least they are opt in. If I go to a resteraunt my grocery store doesn't know what I ordered. If I skip the search engine Google still knows where I went, unless I disable features of my web browser.
Yes I pick on Google, but I don't act like they are the only one doing it. I'm not a fan of IAd either, but Apple has been reluctant to integrate this into most of their products.
You sound like a thug telling people if they don't like the way you do things maybe they shouldn't be in your city.
Well, you're flat out wrong there. Unless something is explicitly illegal even in the face of consent freely given by the parties involved, an agreement can make it legal. (e.g.: A contract can make it legal for you to smash my car with a sledgehammer. A contract cannot make it legal for you to murder me.)
And what you'll find in most of the license agreements, and site/service Terms of Use is that they can use the images (or whatever else you upload to the site/service) for any purpose which is not explicitly barred by law (with maybe a few other explicit exceptions). That includes commercial use, advertising, etc.
You are worried about being tracked down when half the population have public profiles on LinkedIn,Twitter and Instagram.
Why is your repulse directed to Google when ALL (including Apple) use targeted advertising? It seems more of an unfair bias on your part just because Google does it better than anyone else and even then it's not really that great a job they do at it.
ALL companies read your email ( to prevent spam ) , track your map searches ( to give contextual information on Siri/Now ) and analyze photos ( for facial recognition ). They pick attributes that aid in building an ad profile which is anonymized such as Alpha7165351 is in UK , likes cars,computers etc. Even that is not shared with anyone. AdWords buyers don't see individual profiles , they just bid for a custom definition.
I guess your solution is that we pay $5/month to every website because obviously you dislike advertising ?
It's unclear though why you single out Google when all companies do the very same thing. Some are just more successful.
free unlimited
Is it just me, or does this remind anyone of Kingsman: Secret Service, where Sam Jackson announces unlimited data cellular service. for free. for forever.
Is it just me, or does this remind anyone of Kingsman: Secret Service, where Sam Jackson announces unlimited data cellular service. for free. for forever.
Android is most definitely NOT entirely open source, overall, unless you mean AOSP, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard. If you compiled Android from AOSP, you'd have a totally useless version of Android with all the useful parts removed... and what earthly use is that? Unless you have ALL the drivers and firmware for a device, it doesn't matter a monkey's armpit how "open" it is, as it's of no good AT ALL.
Also, they DO still use Java - Dalvik is a runtime, and a runtime means it's translating bytecode, which means it's Java (which is why Android apps are still written in Java).
Google will tell people whatever they think they want to hear, to get them to use their products.
Read: http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-should-ditch-android-open-source-2015-4?r=US
There are plenty of open Android ports that are built entirely from the open source code. that are nearly identical to stoc android, just minus the google services.
You're still confusing two seperate entities
1. Android
2. Google Services
While Google Services exist and run on Android, Android itself is NOT google services. you can have full android platforms based on the android source code that do not contain google's services. There are a couple mods that exist already.
if you compiled Android, you would still have a working Operating System that can operate a phone, run apps, and all the same things a google services phone can, just however, it does not come with the play store and some of the 'tracking' things.
For Example: Amazon's android fire tablets are Android, but they do not contain google services.
in fact, MOST 3rd party ROM's do not come with google services and those require a separate installation
also: while code is still java (it can be other things now)
Dalvik is no longer the runtime as of 5.x.
4.4 saw the inclusion of "ART" runtime as an option, and in 5.0, ART became standard.
Last edited: