5 ms·

I will never put an always on Internet connected microphone run by an advertising company in my house. I don't care if it literally spits out cash and cures can

by api 10y ago

I will never put an always on Internet connected microphone run by an advertising company in my house. I don't care if it literally spits out cash and cures cancer.

zevyoura 10y ago
What about an Android phone?
- wyager 10y ago
  This is the predominant reason I use an iPhone. I don't like a lot of Apple's policies (mostly closed source, although that's where stock android has been gradually headed too) or their silly politics (Getting rid of the gun emoji? Really?), and I would rather go with Google on those grounds, but Apple's incentives with regard to privacy actually align with mine. In particular, they are a product company, not an advertising company. I appreciate their use of high-quality security technology in their phones.
  - arkem 10y ago
    What makes Google an advertising company and Apple a product company? Since both make products and sell advertising. Obviously advertising is more important to Google than it is to Apple but at what point does Apple become an advertising company and Google a product company? Is there a revenue threshold? A branding threshold? Edit: I'm not saying Google isn't an advertising company. I'm asking what makes Google (but not Apple) an advertising company.
    - woah 10y ago
      Probably if 99% of their revenue comes from advertising you can call them an advertising company, and if 99% of their revenue comes from hardware you can call them a hardware company.
      - arkem 10y ago
        Google is an advertising company. Is Apple an advertising company? Why or why not? Is Rooster Teeth (one of my favorite creator groups) an advertising company? They make a large percentage of their revenue from selling advertising but they also make video content.
    - quickben 10y ago
      More money coming from advertising than products? 90.4% revenue from advertising for Google https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven... https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=0CD1V_HpCsO3jwT-nL_ABA https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8... vs Apple: http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-store-lifetime-revenue-hits-71-billion-183953 http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-stor...
      - arkem 10y ago
        Of course, I'm not saying that Google isn't an advertising company. If Apple made 50% of its revenue from adverting would it still be a product company? Is this distinction about the size of the business unit?
        tedunangst 10y ago
        Is Apple really in the ad business, or do they have an ad division because that's just something that every ecosystem operator is expected to provide these days?
        quickben 10y ago
        It's probably more on the lines of could a company survive without the advertising revenue? For some companies ads are supplemental, for some lifeblood.
      - tjl 10y ago
        Apple shut down iAd. That article isn't about Apple's ad business, although certainly some developers have in-app ads, but now they're moving away from iAd. They're looking at search ads for apps in the app store, but that's pretty limited to just the store.
    - shaftway 10y ago
      > Probably if 99% of their revenue comes from advertising you can call them an advertising company So what is Google then? As of 2015 Q4, ~90% of revenue comes from ads and it's trending down vs. other sources. http://qz.com/607378/were-live-charting-googles-first-alphabet-earnings/ http://qz.com/607378/were-live-charting-googles-first-alphab...
      - arkem 10y ago
        Google is an advertising company, but is it also a product company? Is Apple also an advertising company? How about the local minor league hockey team? Are they an advertising company?
- internaut 10y ago
  Lots of us don't use mobile phones at all for this reason. The Internet and the occasional use of a stationary landline is all many of us need.
  - jordigh 10y ago
    No landline for me either. For the ultra-rare cases when I need to make a phone call, I borrow the landline at work.
internaut 10y ago
Same here. The constraint is going to kill Google and Apple because a future competitor is going to manage to offer service without requiring the data in raw form, an example of which would be Agent Based Computation in say 15 years time. Because of that it shall become the standard. Google and Apple will be stuck because their stakeholders include parties which require the raw form even if Google/Apple did not. That opens up a good line of attack on a previously impenetrable business model. The legal implications of visiting somebody's house should be considered. Did I sign anything saying Google or Apple could use my data? No. This opens up the door for class action law suits in some US states at least. Unless they are smart enough to be able to dodge this somehow, perhaps with a contextual local filter for new voices and a permission request made of same, but I doubt it, they probably don't have the incentive to look at the ugly.
- daenney 10y ago
  You appear to assume that companies don't change in 15 years. Considering the past 15 years where Apple was almost dead and Microsoft couldn't ever be a company contributing to and open sourcing many things I'm not sure that premise holds. Apple's approach to this is already different than Google's and has (arguably) hampered them a bit, but that might pay off long term and give them an opportunity to evolve, change and adapt in other ways to. I see no particular reason either company couldn't change their tactics, regardless of shareholders. Granted evolving with technology is not necessarily easy/without its challenges but if staying with your current model is going to lose you customers, and as such data and therefor your income, why would you stick with it? If no one cares enough to stop sending them their data in the face of better/more privacy sensible alternatives, then it seems their model would still work.
  - internaut 10y ago
    > I see no particular reason either company couldn't change their tactics, regardless of shareholders. I was talking about the government putting restrictions on the kinds of technology Google and Apple can invest in because some innovations do not suit their interests.
- 10y ago

by api 10y ago

I will never put an always on Internet connected microphone run by an advertising company in my house. I don't care if it literally spits out cash and cures cancer.

zevyoura 10y ago

What about an Android phone?

wyager 10y ago
This is the predominant reason I use an iPhone. I don't like a lot of Apple's policies (mostly closed source, although that's where stock android has been gradually headed too) or their silly politics (Getting rid of the gun emoji? Really?), and I would rather go with Google on those grounds, but Apple's incentives with regard to privacy actually align with mine. In particular, they are a product company, not an advertising company. I appreciate their use of high-quality security technology in their phones.
- arkem 10y ago
  What makes Google an advertising company and Apple a product company? Since both make products and sell advertising. Obviously advertising is more important to Google than it is to Apple but at what point does Apple become an advertising company and Google a product company? Is there a revenue threshold? A branding threshold? Edit: I'm not saying Google isn't an advertising company. I'm asking what makes Google (but not Apple) an advertising company.
  - woah 10y ago
    Probably if 99% of their revenue comes from advertising you can call them an advertising company, and if 99% of their revenue comes from hardware you can call them a hardware company.
    - arkem 10y ago
      Google is an advertising company. Is Apple an advertising company? Why or why not? Is Rooster Teeth (one of my favorite creator groups) an advertising company? They make a large percentage of their revenue from selling advertising but they also make video content.
  - quickben 10y ago
    More money coming from advertising than products? 90.4% revenue from advertising for Google https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven... https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=0CD1V_HpCsO3jwT-nL_ABA https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8... vs Apple: http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-store-lifetime-revenue-hits-71-billion-183953 http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-stor...
    - arkem 10y ago
      Of course, I'm not saying that Google isn't an advertising company. If Apple made 50% of its revenue from adverting would it still be a product company? Is this distinction about the size of the business unit?
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        Is Apple really in the ad business, or do they have an ad division because that's just something that every ecosystem operator is expected to provide these days?
      - quickben 10y ago
        It's probably more on the lines of could a company survive without the advertising revenue? For some companies ads are supplemental, for some lifeblood.
    - tjl 10y ago
      Apple shut down iAd. That article isn't about Apple's ad business, although certainly some developers have in-app ads, but now they're moving away from iAd. They're looking at search ads for apps in the app store, but that's pretty limited to just the store.
  - shaftway 10y ago
    > Probably if 99% of their revenue comes from advertising you can call them an advertising company So what is Google then? As of 2015 Q4, ~90% of revenue comes from ads and it's trending down vs. other sources. http://qz.com/607378/were-live-charting-googles-first-alphabet-earnings/ http://qz.com/607378/were-live-charting-googles-first-alphab...
    - arkem 10y ago
      Google is an advertising company, but is it also a product company? Is Apple also an advertising company? How about the local minor league hockey team? Are they an advertising company?
internaut 10y ago
Lots of us don't use mobile phones at all for this reason. The Internet and the occasional use of a stationary landline is all many of us need.
- jordigh 10y ago
  No landline for me either. For the ultra-rare cases when I need to make a phone call, I borrow the landline at work.

internaut 10y ago

Same here. The constraint is going to kill Google and Apple because a future competitor is going to manage to offer service without requiring the data in raw form, an example of which would be Agent Based Computation in say 15 years time. Because of that it shall become the standard. Google and Apple will be stuck because their stakeholders include parties which require the raw form even if Google/Apple did not. That opens up a good line of attack on a previously impenetrable business model. The legal implications of visiting somebody's house should be considered. Did I sign anything saying Google or Apple could use my data? No. This opens up the door for class action law suits in some US states at least. Unless they are smart enough to be able to dodge this somehow, perhaps with a contextual local filter for new voices and a permission request made of same, but I doubt it, they probably don't have the incentive to look at the ugly.

daenney 10y ago
You appear to assume that companies don't change in 15 years. Considering the past 15 years where Apple was almost dead and Microsoft couldn't ever be a company contributing to and open sourcing many things I'm not sure that premise holds. Apple's approach to this is already different than Google's and has (arguably) hampered them a bit, but that might pay off long term and give them an opportunity to evolve, change and adapt in other ways to. I see no particular reason either company couldn't change their tactics, regardless of shareholders. Granted evolving with technology is not necessarily easy/without its challenges but if staying with your current model is going to lose you customers, and as such data and therefor your income, why would you stick with it? If no one cares enough to stop sending them their data in the face of better/more privacy sensible alternatives, then it seems their model would still work.
- internaut 10y ago
  > I see no particular reason either company couldn't change their tactics, regardless of shareholders. I was talking about the government putting restrictions on the kinds of technology Google and Apple can invest in because some innovations do not suit their interests.
10y ago