3 ms·

To phrase it another way then, that I can control exactly who is sold my data. Whether directly, or indirectly (via Google proxying ad buys or other aggregate m

by ethbro 9y ago

To phrase it another way then, that I can control exactly who is sold my data. Whether directly, or indirectly (via Google proxying ad buys or other aggregate monetization methods). Point being: my data is worth $X to Google. Based on this, they develop and offer me services, using $X to fund development. The monetization creeps me out. Mostly through opposing my privacy goals and Google's profit goals. As with another poster, I'm worried about my Google file being in the hands of 20-years-from-now-Google, notsomuch Google of today. So I'd rather just pay Google directly, call it even, and be certain that my data wasn't in the "pot of gold" pool that everyone's eyeing for whatever new monetization strategy occurs to a Google exec. And it sucks, because I'd love to use Google Now, Home, etc. I just don't trust them with those data streams.

pas 9y ago
First, Google Now/Home is pretty shit. At least around here (Hungary). Second, if you worry about your file getting in the wrong hands (either now or later), then paying them won't help with that. To provide the services they provide they need to have that file.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I think it's more useful in the US, but more importantly, it stands to become much more useful as more AI-personalized services are rolled out. The downside is that Google needs to have the information in my file for it to be useful (or to build a shadow file without my knowledge). Paying at least makes explicit the bargain we're striking. As opposed to Google offering me something for free, then having every incentive to suck as much money out of what they can glean from me, I'm instead simply paying them for the true cost of the services I consume.
  - pas 9y ago
    I think Google is very much thinks that if you start paying, you might eventually look for alternatives. And that'd lead to a pricing war. And so on. And, more importantly, if they roll out a new service and you start using it, you'll immediately start thinking about the cost of using it. Or people will start to "demand" more for their money. (Things like support.)
    - ethbro 9y ago
      On the other hand, in their favor, if I was paying for Google then I'd still be using it. And in the absence of new government-mandated information portability laws, they would still be able to have a file on me -- and therefore offer superior services than their information-less competitors. But I do think you're right about the "branding" issues. They don't want to broach that can of worms because it reminds people that things aren't free and Google is making money to pay engineers and shareholders somehow.

by ethbro 9y ago

pas 9y ago

First, Google Now/Home is pretty shit. At least around here (Hungary). Second, if you worry about your file getting in the wrong hands (either now or later), then paying them won't help with that. To provide the services they provide they need to have that file.

ethbro 9y ago
I think it's more useful in the US, but more importantly, it stands to become much more useful as more AI-personalized services are rolled out. The downside is that Google needs to have the information in my file for it to be useful (or to build a shadow file without my knowledge). Paying at least makes explicit the bargain we're striking. As opposed to Google offering me something for free, then having every incentive to suck as much money out of what they can glean from me, I'm instead simply paying them for the true cost of the services I consume.
- pas 9y ago
  I think Google is very much thinks that if you start paying, you might eventually look for alternatives. And that'd lead to a pricing war. And so on. And, more importantly, if they roll out a new service and you start using it, you'll immediately start thinking about the cost of using it. Or people will start to "demand" more for their money. (Things like support.)
  - ethbro 9y ago
    On the other hand, in their favor, if I was paying for Google then I'd still be using it. And in the absence of new government-mandated information portability laws, they would still be able to have a file on me -- and therefore offer superior services than their information-less competitors. But I do think you're right about the "branding" issues. They don't want to broach that can of worms because it reminds people that things aren't free and Google is making money to pay engineers and shareholders somehow.