25 ms·

Google Fights Back

423 points by denzil_correa 7y ago

bunnycorn 7y ago
Google should fight back at last years promisses. Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant? Last year they promised they would call my hair saloon for me, and it's all BS. Like everything they say every year, it never works in real life. But I see lots of "journalists" praising it, while criticizing Siri as useless. Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promise "it's the next year".
- creato 7y ago
  > Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant? https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-google-duplex-869476/ https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-google-duplex-86947...
  - bunnycorn 7y ago
    It simply doesn't work, at all. Prove that it does work. Because it just doesn't exist at all. You pointed to an Android fanboy's site. It's not the reality: https://mashable.com/article/google-io-2018-report-card-duplex-android-pie-gmail-maps/ https://mashable.com/article/google-io-2018-report-card-dupl... This is to put it lightly....
    - briffle 7y ago
      I have been using the call screening feature on my Original Pixel for months now. It works very well. I can't comment on making reservations via phone, since we don't often go to places that require reservations, but the call screening is great.
    - jjulius 7y ago
      You've made this claim a few times in this thread now. Can you please elaborate as to what about Duplex, specifically, has not worked for you? Edit: A quick browse through OP's comment history suggests that s/he might not be US-based. Should that be the case, then it's not that Duplex is flawed, it's that it's simply not available where they live.
- kmlx 7y ago
  > Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant? already available in 44 states, they’re bringing it to the web. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/google-is-bringing-ai-assistant-duplex-to-the-web/amp/ https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/goo... > Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promise "it's the next year". there’s zero rush when there’s a chance of killing people. also this: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/5/7/18536003/waymo-lyft-self-driving-ride-hail-app-phoenix https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp...
  - bunnycorn 7y ago
    It simply doesn't work in any real life situation. Yes, the problem of self driving cars is they can kill people, that's the whole problem, thing is that google is always promising that "they are here for all", "it's the next year", etc. it's all BS. You don't have a google self driving car, and you didn't book your hairdresser via duplex, and you won't be booking your car or anything through any of this. Those are the facts.
    - bilal4hmed 7y ago
      duplex is available though, have you even tried using it ? can you provide any basis for your "facts" Siri being subpar when compared to Google Assistant is well established.
      - bunnycorn 7y ago
        > Siri Is this about Siri?
        andromeduck 7y ago
        You're the one who brought it up.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- m0zg 7y ago
  >> Where is their self driving car too? Waymo is not a car company. They don't have the capability to make an actual car even if the autonomy stuff worked well enough to be used nationwide. Which it does not and will not in the foreseeable future.
  - bunnycorn 7y ago
    They promised that we all be driving in self driving cars in 2017. And they announced they partnered with FIAT Chrysler automotive. Google simply doesn't have it. Google sells this BS to journalists, and they sell it to Wall Street. That's only why Google is worth $817B.
    - theDoug 7y ago
      You seem fixated on the word "promise," which I've never once heard said. Assistant calling and Duplex appointment booking were both available within the year, across most of the United States, but you claim neither work.
    - TulliusCicero 7y ago
      Where did they promise it, again? "Company is wrong about release date of cutting edge technology" isn't exactly a new story.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bovermyer 7y ago
  I suspect you're also crying about still not having the jetpack we were promised in the 50s. Vision is imprecise.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
  I downvoted you because you are peddling outright lies. Google Duplex has been launched and you can use it today to book appointments in restaurants that are not on any table booking platform. Have you tried it? If you haven't, please do. If you have, and you still insist on saying it doesn't exist, please explain what it will take to convince you. (Edit: I went through your comment history and your comments pattern match to either a troll or an Apple shill, neither of which are welcome here. Please take this to reddit)
  - marnett 7y ago
    Google Duplex is only available in the US, that is less than 5% of the population. HN is a global community - it is entirely believable that GP is unable to use this service that, after a year, is not available outside the US market. Also, please do not accuse people of being trolls. It is against the site guidelines and is not constructive discourse.
    - kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
      a) Their comments indicate otherwise. b) They could say that then. Instead they are blaming Google for more or less lying about Duplex, which is quite disrespectful to the people who have actually worked on it. c) If they had expressed disappointment about the service having limited availability, I'd not be here making this point.
    - SquareWheel 7y ago
      >it is entirely believable that GP is unable to use this service They didn't say "it isn't available to me". They said it was "BS" - that is, that it was a lie and isn't a real service. They could have easily verified for themselves this isn't true. They could have even read the linked article which specifically mentions that Duplex did in fact come out.
- bunnycorn 7y ago
  Looks like I bothered some fanboys, the Earth still rotates around the Sun. I don't have time for people that refuse to accept the truth, and the fact is that "duplex" is not even a shadow of what they promised last year, doesn't matter to anyone but for fanboys because the assistant usage is exactly as you expect: Siri the most used, then Samsung's Bixby then Google's... in a market where Android dominates, it's shameful for Google to lose so clearly at their core competence, so they push so hard for their image as a "cut above the rest" that some people actually believe it. https://www.businessinsider.com/siri-google-assistant-voice-market-share-charts-2018-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/siri-google-assistant-voice-... This is in the US, where Apple only manages a 36% smartphone market share, and google assistant is available on the iPhone, but Siri isn't on non-Apple devices https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-had-the-most-smartphone-activations-in-the-US-in-Q1-2019.418259.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-had-the-most-smartphone-...
kerkeslager 7y ago
> The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.” This is why a) free/libre software and b) Moore's law are important. Trading privacy for convenience is a real trade you can make right now, and nobody benefits from pretending it isn't--the first step to fixing that problem is to admit it exists. But there's no inherent reason this has to be done "on the cloud" (which is just a marketing phrase for "on other people's computers"). As an industry, I would like to see us putting more computing power into end users' hardware and more intelligence into freely available software so that more of this work can be done on people's personal computers without giving their data to amoral corporations.
- oblio 7y ago
  Moore's Law died 5 years ago. And services completely negate Open Source.
- gnode 7y ago
  It's not really about it being cloud based. It's about having a central trusted party with access to private data which has public utility. As an example, Tesla collects lots of private data about their users' driving, in order to train their self-driving tech. Doing this in a free software solution (if you consider the training to be part of the software) would be less practical, as it would require training journeys to be publicly available. The way out of this situation is to develop competitive solutions which are less private data dependent.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > Doing this in a free software solution (if you consider the training to be part of the software) would be less practical, as it would require training journeys to be publicly available. I think most free software folks would agree that the training data doesn't have to be public. I do agree that there's some problem to be solve here, though. Part of the point of free software is to be able to trust that the code you are running is serving your interests. Right now I don't know of any proofs of concept of manipulating what an AI does by manipulating the training data, but it's a very plausible attack vector.
areoform 7y ago
Google owns my soul. Their boxes know when I sleep, when I wake, how much I exercise, what I listen to, my innermost thoughts, my chats with loved ones, what I watched on Netflix last night, what my company does, the flu I have at the moment, what the hypochondriac in me looks up in the middle of the night, what I buy, whom I call, what I spend money on, where I spend it... I nominally pay for these services, but I suspect it makes me a vassal instead of a serf. Google consumes. Google contemplates. Google cognates. Google knows. Google sees me while I will never get to see it. At face value, as long as Google is Google, everything is okay but what happens when google is Google no more? When it goes to join the great corporate farm in the sky? What happens to the exabytes of data they’ll have gathered by then? Who will own it once Google is Google no more? What will happen to our lives once the data changes hands a decade or four from now? Are there any contingency plans for the largest dataset on Earth? Do we get to know these plans? Who the fuck owns MySpace now? Say what you will about Apple (and I’ve said a lot), at least I know where we stand. I have switched to iOS and I recommend that you should do the same. At the very least, Google will no longer know when you sleep.
- fdchn2019 7y ago
  I love Google. I bought an Oppo phone. But all my data goes through their app - even when i switch off their SMS feature that data still goes through their app and i guess they intercept it and send it to a dial home server. And I'd rather my data goes to Google. So when I can afford a Google Pixel - gonna buy one But anyone who thinks he's wrong - Remember into whose hands Java fell.
  - oblio 7y ago
    Sun was a colossal screw up, though. IBM is still around, making billions. As is Microsoft. Google will probably bury me.
- gcbw2 7y ago
  > what happens when google is Google no more? Google already have many, many advertising partners to whom they gladly provide your location and other data. But they anonymize it, so you are safe ;)
bovermyer 7y ago
I'm impressed with the direction Google is taking, and how they've pivoted in the face of public awareness of privacy concerns. I like the Google products and services that I use. There are some that I miss (Reader) and some that just confuse me (Bookmarks), but the core works for me. Based on commentary I've seen, I may be the only person on Hacker News to think so. Regardless, I'm hopeful for the future.
- kitotik 7y ago
  Google pivoted? When? And from what to what? Still a company that collects and sells consumer data and ads right?
  - neogodless 7y ago
    Technically "we do not sell your data" ;) "We just have your data, and sell promises to show you exquisitely targeted ads based on our exhaustive data about you."
    - umanwizard 7y ago
      That is not a technicality; it is a completely different thing. I would definitely stop using Google if they actually sold my data. I don’t mind them using it for ad targeting.
      - umeshunni 7y ago
        Sure, but as seen many times in the comments here, even 'technical' HN posters seem to not understand the differece.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    Generally, Google does not sell personal data. They use personal data to sell ads.
    - antpls 7y ago
ProAm 7y ago
Privacy is going to be the most valuable commodity of the 21st century. Google is doing everything in its power to buy/take/borrow that commodity from people (just like FB. Amazon, MS, etc...) They can say things like "We are moving from a company that helps you find answers to a company that helps you get things done…We want our products to work harder for you in the context of your job, your home, and your life, and they all share a single goal: to be helpful, so we can be there for you in moments big and small over the course of your day. " But I don't buy it.
- the_duke 7y ago
  > But I don't buy it. Actually, I do buy it! What that actually means is: injecting Google into every aspect of your life. Would that bring a usability improvement for users? Maybe. But it also gives Google what it craves - all the data they can possibly have about you.
- pier25 7y ago
  > Privacy is going to be the most valuable commodity of the 21st century. Pretty bold statement. Can you expand on that?
  - grenoire 7y ago
    OP is probably confusing service with commodity, as privacy is not a tangible to be sold or exchanged.
    - Despegar 7y ago
      >privacy is not a tangible to be sold or exchanged It is right now in the US (outside of health data). It isn't in the EU because of GDPR.
    - ProAm 7y ago
      No I did mean commodity, but a personal commodity. Essentially when you are born you are born into a certain level or amount of privacy. And slowly as you age and use technology, everything you wished to remain personal or private is slowly given away or sucked away, stolen, etc.... It's near impossible to remain a private individual in today's world. And privacy is something that once gone you can never get back. So I refer to it as a personal or individual commodity, and these corporations would love nothing more than to take that from you... for in their words "the greater good". Clearly an opinion piece.
HillaryBriss 7y ago
If Google's possession of all this data makes many new good things possible, then sharing this data broadly and freely with others would make even more good things possible. Would Google share the data with other corporations so that they, too, can innovate and serve the consumer even better? I mean, if I buy into the notion of Google's benevolence, I should buy into that notion for other corporations, shouldn't I?
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  This feels like bait, but I'll answer anyway. No. You should decide whether to give your personal data to organizations on a case by case basis, depending on whether you trust the organization in question, and the value proposition they offer in exchange for your data. If a company is able to share your data with whomever they want, you don't have that choice anymore. Which is why something like GDPR would be good to have in the US.
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
    of course some companies will abuse our trust, but, overall, most will try to do good things and create new innovations that benefit everyone. the good that comes out of having this data freely available will overwhelm the damage. these huge data sets exist -- but only in the hands of Google. that seems a shame.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Isn't that the purpose of Google Takeout? If Google isn't providing the most value for your data, you can take it elsewhere. That's how I use Internet services. If they don't do anything useful with my data, I don't use them. If they do something useful with my data, I use the one that does the most useful thing with my data. Thus, Gmail over other email services and Slack over whatever nonsense Google's messaging product managers are pushing today. And Apple services for nothing — collecting data and not being helpful with it is stupidity, not "privacy."
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
gambler 7y ago
>It all begins with our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful, and today, our mission feels as relevant as ever. I said this 15 years ago and I will repeat it again. Google is like a man selling boats after a dam brake. They are profiting by managing the problem, not by fixing it. It is to their benefit if the problem actually gets worse. In other words, looking at their long-running effects and initiatives, I see that they aim to change the Internet so that it's completely unusable without their services. (The recent stunts with AMP and Gmail are great, obvious examples, but it didn't start there. It was going on for a very long while.) This not the kind of thing that I want to spread to my offline life.
- falcolas 7y ago
  Google is also holding the plunger that helped create the dam breakage. Not to mention the pry-bars being applied to any attempts to fix the dam. EDIT: For those who want to downvote, consider that the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from the use of your personal information to target you with ads, and that most of the advances in ad targeting using personal data have been made by Google.
  - darkwizard42 7y ago
    I think you are espousing an "ADS ARE INHERENTLY BAD" mentality that just doesn't resonate with people. I want to know about the best services that are useful for me. I do not want to be advertised women's swimsuits on Instagram (I'm a male with no interest in purchasing said item). When I see ads that are useless its infuriating. However, when I see an ad for Allbirds or a cool new leather jacket, I feel very much inclined to explore or purchase a product that I will genuinely be happy with. So, ads aren't inherently bad, they become bad or unfulfilling when they aren't personally relevant or become overly invasive in experience or content.
    - gervase 7y ago
      It resonates with me, because I view ads as (intrinsically) mentally intrusive. I find seeing any ad, regardless of its relevance, infuriating; the advertiser is paying someone, not me, to place a thought or perception into my brain that I do not want there. If I decide that I want to purchase a new jacket, for example because I'm traveling to a much colder climate, I want to be able to seek out (ideally unbiased) information about jackets and make my own decision. Some of that might be in the form of advertising, but I will have made the decision to seek it out, rather than my plane ticket purchase being mined and then targeted with a clothing company ad. I consider it to be equivalent to someone unexpectedly spooning food into my mouth, then arguing "Well, you have to eat anyway, why are you complaining?" It violates my sense of agency. Perhaps I have a higher desire for agency than most?
iforgotpassword 7y ago
Apart from the privacy concerns I'm rather hesitant to switch to anything they make, only to see them kill it off again later. But well that also happens all the time when they buy other companies, so you cannot really avoid that from happening to you. Just like the nest news from yesterday.
convivialdingo 7y ago
In the video, they say they have compressed translate, vision and speech into "just over 100kb." That seems pretty magical. Perhaps it is all server-side?
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago
  > Perhaps it is all server-side? Probably. > translate, vision and speech To me, these types of technology are both wonderful, and particularly dangerous. With Google Translate, I was able to read technical posts on a Russian forum, which contained a piece of critical information to the problem I was trying to solve. And with Google's speech recognition on YouTube, highly accuracy text transcripts are now generated at an industrial scale, and even in real-time, that enabled me to see parts of unintelligible speech in some videos which are otherwise impossible to understand. In the future, it's expected that these types of technologies would see greater applications, for example, using automatic translation in international conferences or private conversations is not a "far future" Sci-Fi idea anymore, and may eventually be crucial tools for a specific propose, or even play a central role in the human society. > The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.” On the other hand, due to the very nature of these types of technology, it's mostly impractical to deploy them locally, the only natural way to implement these is running them on Google's computers. It means soon enough, Google, would have access to massive volumes of information, not only personal, but human information, such as private conversations and communications. And unlike those cheap IoT devices you could refuse to purchase, using these services may be essential (e.g. being able to understand the conversations) to live in a digital society. And even if it's not Google, the information collected would be vulnerable from another service provider as well, in addition to a government subpoena. To some extents, the search engine already showed the existence of these problems - it's not possible to run a search engine on your computer (I know there are some FOSS Proof-of-Concept projects, but they are what they are...), the search engine has to be operated by a large centralized provider which would be able to see and track everything you've searched. Meanwhile, you must use an search engine to find information produced by the human civilization. In the future, it's certain that Homomorphic Encryption and Differential Privacy may be important and must-have solutions, but only for some very specific applications, they allow some computations and queries to be performed by a 3rd-party without revealing their contents or nature. Theoretically, if there's a future breakthrough in applied cryptography, you would be able to execute an entire blackbox program on someone else's computer without revealing anything. But I doubt if there's a solution in general.
marssaxman 7y ago
I appreciate the fact that they are being transparent about the nature of the deal they are offering. I suppose my own naivete was partly to blame, but I might not have wasted my time going to work there back in 2011-2012 if they had been clearer about their value proposition. I remain convinced that Google is full of intelligent, thoughtful, well-intentioned people who are shackled to a business model I will not participate in, and all of their beautiful technical achievements therefore remain irrelevant to my life.
chris_engel 7y ago
So if I am using an ad blocker and dont see any ads at all, dont I just _cost_ google, facebook, etc. money from using their services and having them store my data? What if the majority of people would block all ads? Wouldnt data collection become meaningless?
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  These scum companies use data gathered from your friends as well, so even if you block ads, they will still use data gathered about you to “improve” the ads your friends get.
- __jal 7y ago
  > Wouldnt data collection become meaningless? Data is used for more than advertising. These data silos are enormous blackmail machines waiting to be activated. There is tons of evidence of crime, adultery, extortion, and all the other fun things humans get up to in there. Google, FB, and the other big surveillance outfits protect this data now. Who knows what happens tomorrow, or if that protection is "enough", or if $nation_state will grab what's stored in their borders, or... Building these blackmail machines is incredibly dangerous, _even if you completely ignore_ the garden-variety privacy problems they cause for "little people".
- OkGoDoIt 7y ago
  Ads are much harder to block on mobile. Especially on iOS, it's nearly impossible to block ads in a native app. There are some tricks you can do with a VPN but the coverage isn't great and it's error-prone enough that I don't bother, which means casual ad-block users like my sister will absolutely never go that route. So to the extent that mobile is the future, it seems ad-blocking is not a long-term solution.
  - pdimitar 7y ago
    As much as I like iOS, I agree with you and I am still waiting for a good ad-blocking solution. But I am not sure it's ever going to come. Many smaller devs and studios publish free apps which they monetise only with ads. Not sure Apple wants to scare off millions of developers by officially streamlining app ad-blocking. On iOS, VPN remains the only good choice so far, sadly.
_bxg1 7y ago
Say what you will about Google, they're really good at PR. They and Facebook share the most indefensible tech business model in today's political climate (at least in the west), but Google does such a better job of obscuring and re-framing that fact than Facebook does.
- djakjxnanjak 7y ago
  Facebook’s mistake was making an enemy of the media by demoting their status in the news feed. This has led to many reporters and their friends being put out of a job. Now everyone thinks Facebook is public enemy #1 for selling ads when other major companies have the business model of literally burning the Earth.
- OkGoDoIt 7y ago
  I think there's also a distinction about what you get in return. When I let Google track my location, I get useful hyper relevant results for searches. When I let it track my emails, I get useful flight reminders and package delivery notifications. But Facebook doesn't really need to track my location to offer the service I want from it, the extra privacy invasion very specifically only helps advertisers. By giving it access to my contact list I can add friends more easily which is nice, but it also does so much more analysis of my extended offline friend network than I want it to, which feels like it hurts me more than it helps me. Both companies are monetizing my private data, but with Google it feels like I get enough out of the deal that I'll (sometimes grudgingly) allow it. With Facebook I feel like it's an adversarial relationship where I have to constantly defend myself from FB. Obviously each person's valuation of the deal will be different; for some people there's no amount of usefulness Google could offer to justify the data they collect. But I suspect for many people Google is on the right side of the usefulness to creepiness ratio.
  - aerique 7y ago
    Flight reminders and package delivery notifications... seriously? This is what we let Google ruin the internet for? For all the things people have mentioned here: maps, e-mail, search, docs, etc. there are alternatives. Sure, they're not (yet) as good or convenient but put some effort into this guys.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I think people misinterpret Google's vision as neutral: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" They want to make Laplace's Demon real in the form of their publicly traded company. That's a breathtaking vision statement. They explicitly want to collect every piece of information on everything that happens worldwide, and then influence how that information is used. "Useful" is in the eye of the beholder and is the wonderful escape command that lets them do anything they want. If that doesn't inspire/terrify you then it should.
ausjke 7y ago
Everyone was concerned about the old big brothers: the government, the police,etc. Now the real big brothers are silently here already: Google, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook,etc. They can own the government and the police force if they want to, and all citizens, of course.
phasnox 7y ago
Yet another hit piece. It's disgusting how obvious and desperate these are getting. > To put it more succinctly: “Yes, we collect a lot of data. But that data makes amazing things possible.” I don't like Google, but stating that collecting data is bad just because, doesn't sell it for me. Oh, and this refers to data already available to the general public. It makes me wonder if there is something behind. What's the agenda behind all these hit pieces? I really don't know.
- blub 7y ago
  It could be that it's a hit piece concocted by the secretive privacy cabal, still working at their evil plan to hurt people by making them control their private information and at the same time to inconvenience powerful corporations from doing whatever they want.
  - bepvte 7y ago
    There is no privacy cabal that you sarcastically suggest, but there is a lot of money to be made out of paranoia, justified or not. Protonmails worthless encryption, the dubiously safe vpn ads I see everywhere. I tend to see a lot of exaggerations from some privacy oriented companies. I still trust those companies far more, and a sizable portion doesnt try to spread fear and exaggeration, though, but I do believe that a lot of companies are trying to make a ton of money off of paranoia they help create.
    - pdimitar 7y ago
      > Protonmails worthless encryption Can you elaborate on that, please?
      - bepvte 7y ago
        Protonmail advertises special end to end encryption thats only available when sending emails to other protonmail users. Others get the standard TLS that every provider uses. Recently they added a feature convert emails a link to a page that asks the non-protonmail user for a password (not a private key or login) and then decrypts the email in the browser, which I find pretty worthless.
busymom0 7y ago
I think this is all just a PR stunt and Google's business model goes against user privacy. It's quite interesting the way people are more willing to trust Google than Facebook with their data though. I think this might come from Google actually offering more "useful/needed/can't live without" offerings vs facebook's more vanity based services. For example, Google takes your very privacy sensitive location data but also returns you amazing mapping capabilities (google maps), transit information, nearby points of interests etc. They might have access to all your text messages, emails, contacts etc but returns you useful features like the last year's Duplex feature or auto reply suggestions in emails etc. Facebook's vanity based offerings are quite shallow imo - Instagram is just hyper edited pictures to scroll through, messenger/whatsapp might be useful but it has quite good competition from iMessage or simple text messaging. So for people who actually care about privacy, they are still okay with Google having their data but are not okay with Facebook having their data because FB doesn't really offer much of real value. This could be because Google being a much older company than FB. FB has also had quite major privacy issues (Cambridge Analytica being one of the major ones) and they have shown that they really don't care at all about privacy. One thing to note though, I still don't think Google should operate the way they do and I am not willing to compromise so much of my privacy. That's why I stick with iOS even though I know Android offers more power (especially since I am an iOS and Android Developer). iOS's AI might be inferior but it gets the job done for me and I appreciate the privacy stance of Apple over Google.
- britch 7y ago
  It is possible for most people to live their lives without Facebook's Apps. It is not possible for most people to live their lives without some form of Google, whether it's search, email, drive, maps, docs, or calendar. It's almost impossible to function today without using Google or interfacing with someone who is using Google. People are more OK with Google because there is no alternative.
  - busymom0 7y ago
    Don't forget YouTube! I sort of agree but I think this is changing for better as competition improves. If I were to rate google services in order of importance and lack of decent competition, it would be: 0. YouTube 1. Maps 2. Search 3. Email 4. Docs 5. Drive 6. Calendar I put YouTube as 0 as it is at the very top of the list. There's virtually no comparable competition for YouTube and that's why Google is also getting away with abusing their power with YouTube trending feed, censorship, demonetization, clickbait etc. YouTube really needs some proper competition but I really doubt any company will want to take over this massive infrastructure. I don't consider Twitch to be a competition for YouTube for non-gaming content. Maps is the only one which I cannot live without. Apple Maps has improved drastically in the last couple years though but in Canada, they are still not as good as Google. But they seem to be on the right track. DuckDuckGo is pretty good actually and I think most people can get the job done pretty well with it. For email, there are okay competitions and I still have an alternate yahoo email but they have been going downhill in last few years. Docs is one place where Microsoft Office is good but Docs is superior if online collaboration is needed. Dropbox is superior to google drive imo, especially since I am on iOS and Mac. I have never used Google Calendar as I use iOS offerings and it does pretty well. I think if Apple can improve their Maps and if Siri stops being so useless, it would be for the better and will help take away some power from Google. And somebody really needs to compete heavily against YouTube.
sidyapa 7y ago
Regarding that lady. I am from India and I see 100s of people everyday struggling with this exact problem, unable to read what's written. BUT as awesome the technology is it doesn't solve the advertised problem. The very same people, almost everyone I know/see are above the age of 20 and don't even bother to learn the language when they easily can from the $.01 books available almost everywhere. You can give them a tool but how will you give them the motivation?
- hathawsh 7y ago
  I found that lady fascinating. I wonder if she has a learning disability. In any case, Google's solution is amazing: by highlighting the word while reading it to her, she is likely to learn to recognize words, leading her to improved literacy. If this solution works as well as Google hopes, Google may end up raising literacy throughout the world. Even if that means Google gets more data about everyone, I think the effects on the world would be a net positive.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
This is a painfully well contrived bit of PR. When companies start peddling poor people in need from some desperate place to pull on our heartstrings ... it's a problem. If this were something related to their core product - maybe. But this is virtue signalling at it's ugly finest. Surely, they mean well. Kudos for that - it's good they're spending a tiny portion of their trillion dollars doing that. What I object to - strongly - is the attempt to brand themselves by this act, to imbue themselves with some kind of moral fervour, especially in such an emotional way. "Look at these puppies, they were starving, and then we saved them! Everyone likes puppies, right?" Ok, so they actually saved puppies. ---> Now please fix our privacy problems, which is actually the core of what you're supposed to do.
meh206 7y ago
The F'ing Circle.
dewiz 7y ago
The problem with google’s mission is that it doesn’t say which information has to be accessible to whom and in what way it’s going to be useful. Given that google’s income is mostly from advertising, it feels like the mission is about making my information available to someone else, and useful for them to make money.
- Liquix 7y ago
  Absolutely agreed. The doublespeak and lack of transparency leaves a really bad taste in one's mouth. It would be one thing if they were very straightforward the 'with whom' and the 'for what' of the data they harvest. Users could weigh the pros and cons, make an informed decision, and move on. But instead they choose to masquerade as a forward-thinking philanthropic organization, burying their ulterior motives behind pages of fine print and intentionally vague 'disclosures' about what they do with your data. Wearing a disguise makes one appear guilty. I would be wary of any individual or group intentionally presenting a false image in order to mask their true intentions.
aj7 7y ago
They get the most elementary thing wrong in their “mission.” The very first search link should be the most relevant, right? Now the entire first PAGE is often bought and paid for.
carlsborg 7y ago
Good job Google. Nicely done.
Circuits 7y ago
Honestly the amount of people concerned about their "privacy" is shocking... kinda makes one wonder what most of these people are up too, what are they trying to hide? Obviously, some people are just concerned for good reason but I get the feeling most people are concerned because their hiding shit. If it means that an literate mother of 3 from India can become literate when it counts then Google execs can take naked pictures of me and publish them in the New York times for all I care.
- ploika 7y ago
  When I get a plumber over to my apartment to fix the sink I don't want him telling his colleagues what's in my medicine cabinet.
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  "Not having anything to hide" isn't a great argument because some people, for completely legitimate reasons, do have something to hide. It could be an abused person hiding from their abuser. It could be somebody with strong political views entering an unfriendly territory. There's reasons for privacy and it should be protected. That said, there's also much value in allowing this data to be free. Google are open about their business model (and they always have been), and provide services that make use of it. I do think it's funny when people accuse them of "harvesting data" or "surveilling" people. That's just using emotional language to paint a more sinister picture than is warranted, and it's rampant on HN unfortunately. Try to watch out for extremist positions on both sides of the debate. Reality is more nuanced.
bigend 7y ago
Google has become so evil, their whitewash attempts are a sad joke.
cafebabbe 7y ago
Just look at Admob latest releases notes, and understand this is all PR bullshit
PaulHoule 7y ago
This article is uncritical. In particular it doesn't mention the critical problem that Google makes its money from advertising, not from people who pay for premium phones or premium services. That is, you are still the product. I recognize social positives from advertising, but there is a fundamental conflict when you are dependent on "free" services paid for by a third party.
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  You can still make money from advertisements if you don’t track everything your users do. Magazines don’t know how long you look at a page and they still sell ads. It’s just harder.
  - PaulHoule 7y ago
    The services would still be bad services. I don't see tracking as the problem with Google. The problem with Google is that it crowds out competition, also that it contributes to a "data smog" environment. The way we would get better services is to pay for them ourselves so we establish a feedback loop such that encourages better services from our point of view (not that of advertisers)
jxramos 7y ago
What exactly is the fighting back in this article?
dreamcompiler 7y ago
Every company has two mission statements: The stated one and the real one. Google's real mission statement is "make shitloads of money selling everyone's personal information to advertisers." The noises Google makes about being "useful" are just cover for the fact that being useful is the only way they can entice everyone to give them that personal information for free. If Google could get a law passed that required everyone to have a grain-of-rice sized Android tracker implanted in their body, Google would do it in a heartbeat. And then the need for all that expensive "usefulness" would be over.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
  >a grain-of-rice sized Android tracker implanted in their body I don't even think they need that with everyone having a smartphone.
- gordon_freeman 7y ago
  This is a very cynical way to look at Google's business. I agree that their business model is based on connecting (mostly relevant) ads from the advertisers to the users with the help of user data but I do find some of those ads pretty useful. Let me just give you one example: I had almost missed the due date for the smog check on my car and at the last moment I searched on Google with query "smog check nearby" and I found the top Ad with the nearest to me and with the cheapest rate for the smog check service. I had a really good and pleasant experience as well. So That's Google for me: It helps me when I need it the most.
- umeshunni 7y ago
  Given that you lack basic understanding of how advertising works, the rest of your argument is moot.
  - dreamcompiler 7y ago
    Please enlighten me as to what I'm missing about how advertising works.
    - 7y ago
NoInputSignal 7y ago
I see a lot of comparison of device makers, with regards to privacy, in this thread. I think this is a moot point, in that data is collected regardless of what company, service, device is used. The fact that the data is being collected is key; your anonymity is compromised regardless. Google is an easy target due to their size and market share, but many people here work for tech companies of all sizes. Reflect on what data that company collects, how it is leveraged, and if the semantics is much different. Collect, leverage, repeat.
justinmchase 7y ago
The inline translate text using your camera, right from search was in windows phone circa 2010. Just sayin'. This feature plus offline maps caching & offline routing with subway info was incredibly useful for a European vacation my wife and I took. RIP WP8
azazel75 7y ago
So we live in a society that isn't able to find the resources to teach someone how to read and get free... Instead that people can buy an Android phone and become a slave of the technology... what a shame
gigatexal 7y ago
Yeah I don’t buy any of it (full disclosure I and my household are an Apple only household). I’ve been moving away from google services. It’s slow. And it’s tough because most everything they do is so damn good: google search, amazing; google maps, gold standard imo; gmail — eh? It’s rather good. But I would rather a company like Apple study me because currently they’re not in the business of monetizing my every thought, action, or whim. I pay a premium for the hardware and in return I get a company hellbent on privacy so much so that they refused to unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist. So while I often hate that DuckDuckGo’s results are sometimes wildly laughable compared to Google’s I’ll continue supporting privacy first companies and pay a premium to do so before I let my phone be a Google phone.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
The author is naive about monetization. Google should not care if making a better product hurts its existing revenue sources. If Google doesn't do it, someone else will. A smart company worries about having the best products that people want to use first and about monetizing those products second, and unlike a startup, Google has the luxury of being able to wait to monetize new products until the ecosystem around them becomes clearer. The author's simple-minded reasoning is why Microsoft was late to the Internet search engine game.
mordymoop 7y ago
I wonder if someone can explain to me why I should be upset about Google collecting my data. I would pay money for Google to continue collecting my data and improving its predictive model of my behavior, in order to better address my needs as they arise. They're getting better and better at this over time. It has improved my quality of life.
archey1 7y ago
If only this technology could actually educate people, instead of being used as a crutch. This is what Google wants, to have you so dependent on their technology that living life without them is nearly impossible without them.
mark_l_watson 7y ago
For me, a timely discussion. Early this year I signed up for GSuite, copied stuff over from the free gmail account I have had for about 15 years, decided Cloud Search, etc. made the privacy hit worthwhile. Well, I got fed up this week because release of new GSuite services lags the free offerings, and sometimes just aren't released. I lived with switching between free and paid accounts depending on what I was doing (made OK by using Firefox containers). So, I switched my ProtonMail account to a paid for account, applied my custom domain, and flipped back to using Apple's Calendar, Siri, Maps, etc. Literally Google lost a tiny bit of my business because their paid for product in some ways was worse than the free offerings. I can see myself going back to Google paid services in the future but they have to up their game.
Markoff 7y ago
how does illiterate pass through driving license test that they can rent a car?
peter303 7y ago
Mission statement at I/O "be helpful for everyone" They showed how their improved software helps diabled and illiterate people around the world.
MildlySerious 7y ago
The first thing that comes to mind here is Google trying to remove the edge they themselves required to get into the position they are now in. They used and abused data for two decades (and will continue to do so) to become an absolute behemoth. If they now play the "privacy" card it will stifle competition even more, as there will forever be a compromise on either the amount of data they are able to gather, or the public perception due to being less "privacy" focused than big G.
throwing838383 7y ago
I changed my default search engine and homepage to DuckDuckGo. Two weeks later, I didn't even realize I was still using DuckDuckGo -> it's that good. Once people realize this, and how easy it is to switch, google may be in trouble. i don't have anything against google. I just think, having only 1 search engine is too much power for any 1 company, no matter how benevolent.
mikedilger 7y ago
Google is not too evil presently, but nothing is guaranteed and the amount of data they have gives them more power than most nation states. So on principle I've been degoogling. Here are my approaches: search: duckduckgo android: copperheados (dead ended, waiting for puri.sm librem 5 on order) chrome: firefox, containers, uMatrix. Isolated usages of chrome w/o logging in. gmail: fastmail youtube: peertube docs/sheets: local software (libreoffice) reCaptcha: isolated chrome usage w/o logging in, or I avoid the website and email the webmaster. fonts: uMatrix block them, I live with the fallback fonts. On my sites I host the fonts locally. analytics: uMatrix blocks it. I don't need it myself. maps: OSM or other mapping websites earth: [never needed it] sky?: [never needed it], stellarium I'll know that I'm invisible to them once my family members start getting funeral service advertisements. Unfortunately, they can still see me.
ycombonator 7y ago
I will stick to my on device privacy thanks. I know it costs more but its well worth keeping my entire life out of being a lab rat for company that wants to do good for yet to be born rats.
telltruth 7y ago
Most of the things demoed existed before in Translate app. I have used it and as far as I know someone good hearted at Google did this in his/her 20% time. The speaker, who seems to be some sort of executive, pretended that this is new achievement from her side and Google is suddenly socially responsible. I don't get this article and its author.
prirun 7y ago
The other day I sent my nephew a text on my smartphone: As Morphius said, "Now do you believe?" My Android phone decided what I really meant was "As Amorphous said..." So maybe before they decide they want to control everything in my life with all the data they are collecting, they should figure out spell correction first. I got the spelling wrong, but their correction was completely stupid.
maxwellito 7y ago
I would love to pick all of the arguments in this topic and fit them in this: https://maxwellito.github.io/tilt/ https://maxwellito.github.io/tilt/ Not sure if I'm the only one but I don't see a perfect solution on the smartphone part: - iOS is privacy focussed but walled garden and overpriced and impossible to repair. - Android is affordable and hackable but Google powered. - Cyanogen alternative: not easy to access and remain dependant to the Play Store to get apps (so back to Google power)
dav43 7y ago
Can Google become privacy focused faster than Apple can develop decent software/services, thats the question.

423 points by denzil_correa 7y ago

Google should fight back at last years promisses. Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant? Last year they promised they would call my hair saloon for me, and it's all BS. Like everything they say every year, it never works in real life. But I see lots of "journalists" praising it, while criticizing Siri as useless. Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promise "it's the next year".

creato 7y ago
> Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant? https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-google-duplex-869476/ https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-google-duplex-86947...
- bunnycorn 7y ago
  It simply doesn't work, at all. Prove that it does work. Because it just doesn't exist at all. You pointed to an Android fanboy's site. It's not the reality: https://mashable.com/article/google-io-2018-report-card-duplex-android-pie-gmail-maps/ https://mashable.com/article/google-io-2018-report-card-dupl... This is to put it lightly....
  - briffle 7y ago
    I have been using the call screening feature on my Original Pixel for months now. It works very well. I can't comment on making reservations via phone, since we don't often go to places that require reservations, but the call screening is great.
  - jjulius 7y ago
    You've made this claim a few times in this thread now. Can you please elaborate as to what about Duplex, specifically, has not worked for you? Edit: A quick browse through OP's comment history suggests that s/he might not be US-based. Should that be the case, then it's not that Duplex is flawed, it's that it's simply not available where they live.
kmlx 7y ago
> Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant? already available in 44 states, they’re bringing it to the web. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/google-is-bringing-ai-assistant-duplex-to-the-web/amp/ https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/goo... > Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promise "it's the next year". there’s zero rush when there’s a chance of killing people. also this: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/5/7/18536003/waymo-lyft-self-driving-ride-hail-app-phoenix https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp...
- bunnycorn 7y ago
  It simply doesn't work in any real life situation. Yes, the problem of self driving cars is they can kill people, that's the whole problem, thing is that google is always promising that "they are here for all", "it's the next year", etc. it's all BS. You don't have a google self driving car, and you didn't book your hairdresser via duplex, and you won't be booking your car or anything through any of this. Those are the facts.
  - bilal4hmed 7y ago
    duplex is available though, have you even tried using it ? can you provide any basis for your "facts" Siri being subpar when compared to Google Assistant is well established.
    - bunnycorn 7y ago
      > Siri Is this about Siri?
      - andromeduck 7y ago
        You're the one who brought it up.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
m0zg 7y ago
>> Where is their self driving car too? Waymo is not a car company. They don't have the capability to make an actual car even if the autonomy stuff worked well enough to be used nationwide. Which it does not and will not in the foreseeable future.
- bunnycorn 7y ago
  They promised that we all be driving in self driving cars in 2017. And they announced they partnered with FIAT Chrysler automotive. Google simply doesn't have it. Google sells this BS to journalists, and they sell it to Wall Street. That's only why Google is worth $817B.
  - theDoug 7y ago
    You seem fixated on the word "promise," which I've never once heard said. Assistant calling and Duplex appointment booking were both available within the year, across most of the United States, but you claim neither work.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    Where did they promise it, again? "Company is wrong about release date of cutting edge technology" isn't exactly a new story.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bovermyer 7y ago
I suspect you're also crying about still not having the jetpack we were promised in the 50s. Vision is imprecise.
kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
I downvoted you because you are peddling outright lies. Google Duplex has been launched and you can use it today to book appointments in restaurants that are not on any table booking platform. Have you tried it? If you haven't, please do. If you have, and you still insist on saying it doesn't exist, please explain what it will take to convince you. (Edit: I went through your comment history and your comments pattern match to either a troll or an Apple shill, neither of which are welcome here. Please take this to reddit)
- marnett 7y ago
  Google Duplex is only available in the US, that is less than 5% of the population. HN is a global community - it is entirely believable that GP is unable to use this service that, after a year, is not available outside the US market. Also, please do not accuse people of being trolls. It is against the site guidelines and is not constructive discourse.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
    a) Their comments indicate otherwise. b) They could say that then. Instead they are blaming Google for more or less lying about Duplex, which is quite disrespectful to the people who have actually worked on it. c) If they had expressed disappointment about the service having limited availability, I'd not be here making this point.
  - SquareWheel 7y ago
    >it is entirely believable that GP is unable to use this service They didn't say "it isn't available to me". They said it was "BS" - that is, that it was a lie and isn't a real service. They could have easily verified for themselves this isn't true. They could have even read the linked article which specifically mentions that Duplex did in fact come out.
bunnycorn 7y ago
Looks like I bothered some fanboys, the Earth still rotates around the Sun. I don't have time for people that refuse to accept the truth, and the fact is that "duplex" is not even a shadow of what they promised last year, doesn't matter to anyone but for fanboys because the assistant usage is exactly as you expect: Siri the most used, then Samsung's Bixby then Google's... in a market where Android dominates, it's shameful for Google to lose so clearly at their core competence, so they push so hard for their image as a "cut above the rest" that some people actually believe it. https://www.businessinsider.com/siri-google-assistant-voice-market-share-charts-2018-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/siri-google-assistant-voice-... This is in the US, where Apple only manages a 36% smartphone market share, and google assistant is available on the iPhone, but Siri isn't on non-Apple devices https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-had-the-most-smartphone-activations-in-the-US-in-Q1-2019.418259.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-had-the-most-smartphone-...

kerkeslager 7y ago

> The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.” This is why a) free/libre software and b) Moore's law are important. Trading privacy for convenience is a real trade you can make right now, and nobody benefits from pretending it isn't--the first step to fixing that problem is to admit it exists. But there's no inherent reason this has to be done "on the cloud" (which is just a marketing phrase for "on other people's computers"). As an industry, I would like to see us putting more computing power into end users' hardware and more intelligence into freely available software so that more of this work can be done on people's personal computers without giving their data to amoral corporations.

oblio 7y ago
Moore's Law died 5 years ago. And services completely negate Open Source.
gnode 7y ago
It's not really about it being cloud based. It's about having a central trusted party with access to private data which has public utility. As an example, Tesla collects lots of private data about their users' driving, in order to train their self-driving tech. Doing this in a free software solution (if you consider the training to be part of the software) would be less practical, as it would require training journeys to be publicly available. The way out of this situation is to develop competitive solutions which are less private data dependent.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > Doing this in a free software solution (if you consider the training to be part of the software) would be less practical, as it would require training journeys to be publicly available. I think most free software folks would agree that the training data doesn't have to be public. I do agree that there's some problem to be solve here, though. Part of the point of free software is to be able to trust that the code you are running is serving your interests. Right now I don't know of any proofs of concept of manipulating what an AI does by manipulating the training data, but it's a very plausible attack vector.

areoform 7y ago

Google owns my soul. Their boxes know when I sleep, when I wake, how much I exercise, what I listen to, my innermost thoughts, my chats with loved ones, what I watched on Netflix last night, what my company does, the flu I have at the moment, what the hypochondriac in me looks up in the middle of the night, what I buy, whom I call, what I spend money on, where I spend it... I nominally pay for these services, but I suspect it makes me a vassal instead of a serf. Google consumes. Google contemplates. Google cognates. Google knows. Google sees me while I will never get to see it. At face value, as long as Google is Google, everything is okay but what happens when google is Google no more? When it goes to join the great corporate farm in the sky? What happens to the exabytes of data they’ll have gathered by then? Who will own it once Google is Google no more? What will happen to our lives once the data changes hands a decade or four from now? Are there any contingency plans for the largest dataset on Earth? Do we get to know these plans? Who the fuck owns MySpace now? Say what you will about Apple (and I’ve said a lot), at least I know where we stand. I have switched to iOS and I recommend that you should do the same. At the very least, Google will no longer know when you sleep.

fdchn2019 7y ago
I love Google. I bought an Oppo phone. But all my data goes through their app - even when i switch off their SMS feature that data still goes through their app and i guess they intercept it and send it to a dial home server. And I'd rather my data goes to Google. So when I can afford a Google Pixel - gonna buy one But anyone who thinks he's wrong - Remember into whose hands Java fell.
- oblio 7y ago
  Sun was a colossal screw up, though. IBM is still around, making billions. As is Microsoft. Google will probably bury me.
gcbw2 7y ago
> what happens when google is Google no more? Google already have many, many advertising partners to whom they gladly provide your location and other data. But they anonymize it, so you are safe ;)

bovermyer 7y ago

I'm impressed with the direction Google is taking, and how they've pivoted in the face of public awareness of privacy concerns. I like the Google products and services that I use. There are some that I miss (Reader) and some that just confuse me (Bookmarks), but the core works for me. Based on commentary I've seen, I may be the only person on Hacker News to think so. Regardless, I'm hopeful for the future.

kitotik 7y ago
Google pivoted? When? And from what to what? Still a company that collects and sells consumer data and ads right?
- neogodless 7y ago
  Technically "we do not sell your data" ;) "We just have your data, and sell promises to show you exquisitely targeted ads based on our exhaustive data about you."
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    That is not a technicality; it is a completely different thing. I would definitely stop using Google if they actually sold my data. I don’t mind them using it for ad targeting.
    - umeshunni 7y ago
      Sure, but as seen many times in the comments here, even 'technical' HN posters seem to not understand the differece.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Generally, Google does not sell personal data. They use personal data to sell ads.
  - antpls 7y ago

ProAm 7y ago

Privacy is going to be the most valuable commodity of the 21st century. Google is doing everything in its power to buy/take/borrow that commodity from people (just like FB. Amazon, MS, etc...) They can say things like "We are moving from a company that helps you find answers to a company that helps you get things done…We want our products to work harder for you in the context of your job, your home, and your life, and they all share a single goal: to be helpful, so we can be there for you in moments big and small over the course of your day. " But I don't buy it.

the_duke 7y ago
> But I don't buy it. Actually, I do buy it! What that actually means is: injecting Google into every aspect of your life. Would that bring a usability improvement for users? Maybe. But it also gives Google what it craves - all the data they can possibly have about you.
pier25 7y ago
> Privacy is going to be the most valuable commodity of the 21st century. Pretty bold statement. Can you expand on that?
- grenoire 7y ago
  OP is probably confusing service with commodity, as privacy is not a tangible to be sold or exchanged.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    >privacy is not a tangible to be sold or exchanged It is right now in the US (outside of health data). It isn't in the EU because of GDPR.
  - ProAm 7y ago
    No I did mean commodity, but a personal commodity. Essentially when you are born you are born into a certain level or amount of privacy. And slowly as you age and use technology, everything you wished to remain personal or private is slowly given away or sucked away, stolen, etc.... It's near impossible to remain a private individual in today's world. And privacy is something that once gone you can never get back. So I refer to it as a personal or individual commodity, and these corporations would love nothing more than to take that from you... for in their words "the greater good". Clearly an opinion piece.

HillaryBriss 7y ago

If Google's possession of all this data makes many new good things possible, then sharing this data broadly and freely with others would make even more good things possible. Would Google share the data with other corporations so that they, too, can innovate and serve the consumer even better? I mean, if I buy into the notion of Google's benevolence, I should buy into that notion for other corporations, shouldn't I?

TulliusCicero 7y ago
This feels like bait, but I'll answer anyway. No. You should decide whether to give your personal data to organizations on a case by case basis, depending on whether you trust the organization in question, and the value proposition they offer in exchange for your data. If a company is able to share your data with whomever they want, you don't have that choice anymore. Which is why something like GDPR would be good to have in the US.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  of course some companies will abuse our trust, but, overall, most will try to do good things and create new innovations that benefit everyone. the good that comes out of having this data freely available will overwhelm the damage. these huge data sets exist -- but only in the hands of Google. that seems a shame.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
Isn't that the purpose of Google Takeout? If Google isn't providing the most value for your data, you can take it elsewhere. That's how I use Internet services. If they don't do anything useful with my data, I don't use them. If they do something useful with my data, I use the one that does the most useful thing with my data. Thus, Gmail over other email services and Slack over whatever nonsense Google's messaging product managers are pushing today. And Apple services for nothing — collecting data and not being helpful with it is stupidity, not "privacy."
- HillaryBriss 7y ago

gambler 7y ago

>It all begins with our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful, and today, our mission feels as relevant as ever. I said this 15 years ago and I will repeat it again. Google is like a man selling boats after a dam brake. They are profiting by managing the problem, not by fixing it. It is to their benefit if the problem actually gets worse. In other words, looking at their long-running effects and initiatives, I see that they aim to change the Internet so that it's completely unusable without their services. (The recent stunts with AMP and Gmail are great, obvious examples, but it didn't start there. It was going on for a very long while.) This not the kind of thing that I want to spread to my offline life.

falcolas 7y ago
Google is also holding the plunger that helped create the dam breakage. Not to mention the pry-bars being applied to any attempts to fix the dam. EDIT: For those who want to downvote, consider that the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from the use of your personal information to target you with ads, and that most of the advances in ad targeting using personal data have been made by Google.
- darkwizard42 7y ago
  I think you are espousing an "ADS ARE INHERENTLY BAD" mentality that just doesn't resonate with people. I want to know about the best services that are useful for me. I do not want to be advertised women's swimsuits on Instagram (I'm a male with no interest in purchasing said item). When I see ads that are useless its infuriating. However, when I see an ad for Allbirds or a cool new leather jacket, I feel very much inclined to explore or purchase a product that I will genuinely be happy with. So, ads aren't inherently bad, they become bad or unfulfilling when they aren't personally relevant or become overly invasive in experience or content.
  - gervase 7y ago
    It resonates with me, because I view ads as (intrinsically) mentally intrusive. I find seeing any ad, regardless of its relevance, infuriating; the advertiser is paying someone, not me, to place a thought or perception into my brain that I do not want there. If I decide that I want to purchase a new jacket, for example because I'm traveling to a much colder climate, I want to be able to seek out (ideally unbiased) information about jackets and make my own decision. Some of that might be in the form of advertising, but I will have made the decision to seek it out, rather than my plane ticket purchase being mined and then targeted with a clothing company ad. I consider it to be equivalent to someone unexpectedly spooning food into my mouth, then arguing "Well, you have to eat anyway, why are you complaining?" It violates my sense of agency. Perhaps I have a higher desire for agency than most?

iforgotpassword 7y ago

Apart from the privacy concerns I'm rather hesitant to switch to anything they make, only to see them kill it off again later. But well that also happens all the time when they buy other companies, so you cannot really avoid that from happening to you. Just like the nest news from yesterday.

convivialdingo 7y ago

In the video, they say they have compressed translate, vision and speech into "just over 100kb." That seems pretty magical. Perhaps it is all server-side?

segfaultbuserr 7y ago
> Perhaps it is all server-side? Probably. > translate, vision and speech To me, these types of technology are both wonderful, and particularly dangerous. With Google Translate, I was able to read technical posts on a Russian forum, which contained a piece of critical information to the problem I was trying to solve. And with Google's speech recognition on YouTube, highly accuracy text transcripts are now generated at an industrial scale, and even in real-time, that enabled me to see parts of unintelligible speech in some videos which are otherwise impossible to understand. In the future, it's expected that these types of technologies would see greater applications, for example, using automatic translation in international conferences or private conversations is not a "far future" Sci-Fi idea anymore, and may eventually be crucial tools for a specific propose, or even play a central role in the human society. > The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.” On the other hand, due to the very nature of these types of technology, it's mostly impractical to deploy them locally, the only natural way to implement these is running them on Google's computers. It means soon enough, Google, would have access to massive volumes of information, not only personal, but human information, such as private conversations and communications. And unlike those cheap IoT devices you could refuse to purchase, using these services may be essential (e.g. being able to understand the conversations) to live in a digital society. And even if it's not Google, the information collected would be vulnerable from another service provider as well, in addition to a government subpoena. To some extents, the search engine already showed the existence of these problems - it's not possible to run a search engine on your computer (I know there are some FOSS Proof-of-Concept projects, but they are what they are...), the search engine has to be operated by a large centralized provider which would be able to see and track everything you've searched. Meanwhile, you must use an search engine to find information produced by the human civilization. In the future, it's certain that Homomorphic Encryption and Differential Privacy may be important and must-have solutions, but only for some very specific applications, they allow some computations and queries to be performed by a 3rd-party without revealing their contents or nature. Theoretically, if there's a future breakthrough in applied cryptography, you would be able to execute an entire blackbox program on someone else's computer without revealing anything. But I doubt if there's a solution in general.

marssaxman 7y ago

I appreciate the fact that they are being transparent about the nature of the deal they are offering. I suppose my own naivete was partly to blame, but I might not have wasted my time going to work there back in 2011-2012 if they had been clearer about their value proposition. I remain convinced that Google is full of intelligent, thoughtful, well-intentioned people who are shackled to a business model I will not participate in, and all of their beautiful technical achievements therefore remain irrelevant to my life.

chris_engel 7y ago

So if I am using an ad blocker and dont see any ads at all, dont I just _cost_ google, facebook, etc. money from using their services and having them store my data? What if the majority of people would block all ads? Wouldnt data collection become meaningless?

Nextgrid 7y ago
These scum companies use data gathered from your friends as well, so even if you block ads, they will still use data gathered about you to “improve” the ads your friends get.
__jal 7y ago
> Wouldnt data collection become meaningless? Data is used for more than advertising. These data silos are enormous blackmail machines waiting to be activated. There is tons of evidence of crime, adultery, extortion, and all the other fun things humans get up to in there. Google, FB, and the other big surveillance outfits protect this data now. Who knows what happens tomorrow, or if that protection is "enough", or if $nation_state will grab what's stored in their borders, or... Building these blackmail machines is incredibly dangerous, _even if you completely ignore_ the garden-variety privacy problems they cause for "little people".
OkGoDoIt 7y ago
Ads are much harder to block on mobile. Especially on iOS, it's nearly impossible to block ads in a native app. There are some tricks you can do with a VPN but the coverage isn't great and it's error-prone enough that I don't bother, which means casual ad-block users like my sister will absolutely never go that route. So to the extent that mobile is the future, it seems ad-blocking is not a long-term solution.
- pdimitar 7y ago
  As much as I like iOS, I agree with you and I am still waiting for a good ad-blocking solution. But I am not sure it's ever going to come. Many smaller devs and studios publish free apps which they monetise only with ads. Not sure Apple wants to scare off millions of developers by officially streamlining app ad-blocking. On iOS, VPN remains the only good choice so far, sadly.

_bxg1 7y ago

Say what you will about Google, they're really good at PR. They and Facebook share the most indefensible tech business model in today's political climate (at least in the west), but Google does such a better job of obscuring and re-framing that fact than Facebook does.

djakjxnanjak 7y ago
Facebook’s mistake was making an enemy of the media by demoting their status in the news feed. This has led to many reporters and their friends being put out of a job. Now everyone thinks Facebook is public enemy #1 for selling ads when other major companies have the business model of literally burning the Earth.
OkGoDoIt 7y ago
I think there's also a distinction about what you get in return. When I let Google track my location, I get useful hyper relevant results for searches. When I let it track my emails, I get useful flight reminders and package delivery notifications. But Facebook doesn't really need to track my location to offer the service I want from it, the extra privacy invasion very specifically only helps advertisers. By giving it access to my contact list I can add friends more easily which is nice, but it also does so much more analysis of my extended offline friend network than I want it to, which feels like it hurts me more than it helps me. Both companies are monetizing my private data, but with Google it feels like I get enough out of the deal that I'll (sometimes grudgingly) allow it. With Facebook I feel like it's an adversarial relationship where I have to constantly defend myself from FB. Obviously each person's valuation of the deal will be different; for some people there's no amount of usefulness Google could offer to justify the data they collect. But I suspect for many people Google is on the right side of the usefulness to creepiness ratio.
- aerique 7y ago
  Flight reminders and package delivery notifications... seriously? This is what we let Google ruin the internet for? For all the things people have mentioned here: maps, e-mail, search, docs, etc. there are alternatives. Sure, they're not (yet) as good or convenient but put some effort into this guys.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

I think people misinterpret Google's vision as neutral: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" They want to make Laplace's Demon real in the form of their publicly traded company. That's a breathtaking vision statement. They explicitly want to collect every piece of information on everything that happens worldwide, and then influence how that information is used. "Useful" is in the eye of the beholder and is the wonderful escape command that lets them do anything they want. If that doesn't inspire/terrify you then it should.

ausjke 7y ago

Everyone was concerned about the old big brothers: the government, the police,etc. Now the real big brothers are silently here already: Google, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook,etc. They can own the government and the police force if they want to, and all citizens, of course.

phasnox 7y ago

Yet another hit piece. It's disgusting how obvious and desperate these are getting. > To put it more succinctly: “Yes, we collect a lot of data. But that data makes amazing things possible.” I don't like Google, but stating that collecting data is bad just because, doesn't sell it for me. Oh, and this refers to data already available to the general public. It makes me wonder if there is something behind. What's the agenda behind all these hit pieces? I really don't know.

blub 7y ago
It could be that it's a hit piece concocted by the secretive privacy cabal, still working at their evil plan to hurt people by making them control their private information and at the same time to inconvenience powerful corporations from doing whatever they want.
- bepvte 7y ago
  There is no privacy cabal that you sarcastically suggest, but there is a lot of money to be made out of paranoia, justified or not. Protonmails worthless encryption, the dubiously safe vpn ads I see everywhere. I tend to see a lot of exaggerations from some privacy oriented companies. I still trust those companies far more, and a sizable portion doesnt try to spread fear and exaggeration, though, but I do believe that a lot of companies are trying to make a ton of money off of paranoia they help create.
  - pdimitar 7y ago
    > Protonmails worthless encryption Can you elaborate on that, please?
    - bepvte 7y ago
      Protonmail advertises special end to end encryption thats only available when sending emails to other protonmail users. Others get the standard TLS that every provider uses. Recently they added a feature convert emails a link to a page that asks the non-protonmail user for a password (not a private key or login) and then decrypts the email in the browser, which I find pretty worthless.

busymom0 7y ago

I think this is all just a PR stunt and Google's business model goes against user privacy. It's quite interesting the way people are more willing to trust Google than Facebook with their data though. I think this might come from Google actually offering more "useful/needed/can't live without" offerings vs facebook's more vanity based services. For example, Google takes your very privacy sensitive location data but also returns you amazing mapping capabilities (google maps), transit information, nearby points of interests etc. They might have access to all your text messages, emails, contacts etc but returns you useful features like the last year's Duplex feature or auto reply suggestions in emails etc. Facebook's vanity based offerings are quite shallow imo - Instagram is just hyper edited pictures to scroll through, messenger/whatsapp might be useful but it has quite good competition from iMessage or simple text messaging. So for people who actually care about privacy, they are still okay with Google having their data but are not okay with Facebook having their data because FB doesn't really offer much of real value. This could be because Google being a much older company than FB. FB has also had quite major privacy issues (Cambridge Analytica being one of the major ones) and they have shown that they really don't care at all about privacy. One thing to note though, I still don't think Google should operate the way they do and I am not willing to compromise so much of my privacy. That's why I stick with iOS even though I know Android offers more power (especially since I am an iOS and Android Developer). iOS's AI might be inferior but it gets the job done for me and I appreciate the privacy stance of Apple over Google.

britch 7y ago
It is possible for most people to live their lives without Facebook's Apps. It is not possible for most people to live their lives without some form of Google, whether it's search, email, drive, maps, docs, or calendar. It's almost impossible to function today without using Google or interfacing with someone who is using Google. People are more OK with Google because there is no alternative.
- busymom0 7y ago
  Don't forget YouTube! I sort of agree but I think this is changing for better as competition improves. If I were to rate google services in order of importance and lack of decent competition, it would be: 0. YouTube 1. Maps 2. Search 3. Email 4. Docs 5. Drive 6. Calendar I put YouTube as 0 as it is at the very top of the list. There's virtually no comparable competition for YouTube and that's why Google is also getting away with abusing their power with YouTube trending feed, censorship, demonetization, clickbait etc. YouTube really needs some proper competition but I really doubt any company will want to take over this massive infrastructure. I don't consider Twitch to be a competition for YouTube for non-gaming content. Maps is the only one which I cannot live without. Apple Maps has improved drastically in the last couple years though but in Canada, they are still not as good as Google. But they seem to be on the right track. DuckDuckGo is pretty good actually and I think most people can get the job done pretty well with it. For email, there are okay competitions and I still have an alternate yahoo email but they have been going downhill in last few years. Docs is one place where Microsoft Office is good but Docs is superior if online collaboration is needed. Dropbox is superior to google drive imo, especially since I am on iOS and Mac. I have never used Google Calendar as I use iOS offerings and it does pretty well. I think if Apple can improve their Maps and if Siri stops being so useless, it would be for the better and will help take away some power from Google. And somebody really needs to compete heavily against YouTube.

sidyapa 7y ago

Regarding that lady. I am from India and I see 100s of people everyday struggling with this exact problem, unable to read what's written. BUT as awesome the technology is it doesn't solve the advertised problem. The very same people, almost everyone I know/see are above the age of 20 and don't even bother to learn the language when they easily can from the $.01 books available almost everywhere. You can give them a tool but how will you give them the motivation?

hathawsh 7y ago
I found that lady fascinating. I wonder if she has a learning disability. In any case, Google's solution is amazing: by highlighting the word while reading it to her, she is likely to learn to recognize words, leading her to improved literacy. If this solution works as well as Google hopes, Google may end up raising literacy throughout the world. Even if that means Google gets more data about everyone, I think the effects on the world would be a net positive.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

This is a painfully well contrived bit of PR. When companies start peddling poor people in need from some desperate place to pull on our heartstrings ... it's a problem. If this were something related to their core product - maybe. But this is virtue signalling at it's ugly finest. Surely, they mean well. Kudos for that - it's good they're spending a tiny portion of their trillion dollars doing that. What I object to - strongly - is the attempt to brand themselves by this act, to imbue themselves with some kind of moral fervour, especially in such an emotional way. "Look at these puppies, they were starving, and then we saved them! Everyone likes puppies, right?" Ok, so they actually saved puppies. ---> Now please fix our privacy problems, which is actually the core of what you're supposed to do.

meh206 7y ago

The F'ing Circle.

dewiz 7y ago

The problem with google’s mission is that it doesn’t say which information has to be accessible to whom and in what way it’s going to be useful. Given that google’s income is mostly from advertising, it feels like the mission is about making my information available to someone else, and useful for them to make money.

Liquix 7y ago
Absolutely agreed. The doublespeak and lack of transparency leaves a really bad taste in one's mouth. It would be one thing if they were very straightforward the 'with whom' and the 'for what' of the data they harvest. Users could weigh the pros and cons, make an informed decision, and move on. But instead they choose to masquerade as a forward-thinking philanthropic organization, burying their ulterior motives behind pages of fine print and intentionally vague 'disclosures' about what they do with your data. Wearing a disguise makes one appear guilty. I would be wary of any individual or group intentionally presenting a false image in order to mask their true intentions.

aj7 7y ago

They get the most elementary thing wrong in their “mission.” The very first search link should be the most relevant, right? Now the entire first PAGE is often bought and paid for.

carlsborg 7y ago

Good job Google. Nicely done.

Circuits 7y ago

Honestly the amount of people concerned about their "privacy" is shocking... kinda makes one wonder what most of these people are up too, what are they trying to hide? Obviously, some people are just concerned for good reason but I get the feeling most people are concerned because their hiding shit. If it means that an literate mother of 3 from India can become literate when it counts then Google execs can take naked pictures of me and publish them in the New York times for all I care.

ploika 7y ago
When I get a plumber over to my apartment to fix the sink I don't want him telling his colleagues what's in my medicine cabinet.
SquareWheel 7y ago
"Not having anything to hide" isn't a great argument because some people, for completely legitimate reasons, do have something to hide. It could be an abused person hiding from their abuser. It could be somebody with strong political views entering an unfriendly territory. There's reasons for privacy and it should be protected. That said, there's also much value in allowing this data to be free. Google are open about their business model (and they always have been), and provide services that make use of it. I do think it's funny when people accuse them of "harvesting data" or "surveilling" people. That's just using emotional language to paint a more sinister picture than is warranted, and it's rampant on HN unfortunately. Try to watch out for extremist positions on both sides of the debate. Reality is more nuanced.

bigend 7y ago

Google has become so evil, their whitewash attempts are a sad joke.

cafebabbe 7y ago

Just look at Admob latest releases notes, and understand this is all PR bullshit

PaulHoule 7y ago

This article is uncritical. In particular it doesn't mention the critical problem that Google makes its money from advertising, not from people who pay for premium phones or premium services. That is, you are still the product. I recognize social positives from advertising, but there is a fundamental conflict when you are dependent on "free" services paid for by a third party.

tinus_hn 7y ago
You can still make money from advertisements if you don’t track everything your users do. Magazines don’t know how long you look at a page and they still sell ads. It’s just harder.
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  The services would still be bad services. I don't see tracking as the problem with Google. The problem with Google is that it crowds out competition, also that it contributes to a "data smog" environment. The way we would get better services is to pay for them ourselves so we establish a feedback loop such that encourages better services from our point of view (not that of advertisers)

jxramos 7y ago

What exactly is the fighting back in this article?

dreamcompiler 7y ago

Every company has two mission statements: The stated one and the real one. Google's real mission statement is "make shitloads of money selling everyone's personal information to advertisers." The noises Google makes about being "useful" are just cover for the fact that being useful is the only way they can entice everyone to give them that personal information for free. If Google could get a law passed that required everyone to have a grain-of-rice sized Android tracker implanted in their body, Google would do it in a heartbeat. And then the need for all that expensive "usefulness" would be over.

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
>a grain-of-rice sized Android tracker implanted in their body I don't even think they need that with everyone having a smartphone.
gordon_freeman 7y ago
This is a very cynical way to look at Google's business. I agree that their business model is based on connecting (mostly relevant) ads from the advertisers to the users with the help of user data but I do find some of those ads pretty useful. Let me just give you one example: I had almost missed the due date for the smog check on my car and at the last moment I searched on Google with query "smog check nearby" and I found the top Ad with the nearest to me and with the cheapest rate for the smog check service. I had a really good and pleasant experience as well. So That's Google for me: It helps me when I need it the most.
umeshunni 7y ago
Given that you lack basic understanding of how advertising works, the rest of your argument is moot.
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  Please enlighten me as to what I'm missing about how advertising works.
  - 7y ago

NoInputSignal 7y ago

I see a lot of comparison of device makers, with regards to privacy, in this thread. I think this is a moot point, in that data is collected regardless of what company, service, device is used. The fact that the data is being collected is key; your anonymity is compromised regardless. Google is an easy target due to their size and market share, but many people here work for tech companies of all sizes. Reflect on what data that company collects, how it is leveraged, and if the semantics is much different. Collect, leverage, repeat.

justinmchase 7y ago

The inline translate text using your camera, right from search was in windows phone circa 2010. Just sayin'. This feature plus offline maps caching & offline routing with subway info was incredibly useful for a European vacation my wife and I took. RIP WP8

azazel75 7y ago

So we live in a society that isn't able to find the resources to teach someone how to read and get free... Instead that people can buy an Android phone and become a slave of the technology... what a shame

gigatexal 7y ago

Yeah I don’t buy any of it (full disclosure I and my household are an Apple only household). I’ve been moving away from google services. It’s slow. And it’s tough because most everything they do is so damn good: google search, amazing; google maps, gold standard imo; gmail — eh? It’s rather good. But I would rather a company like Apple study me because currently they’re not in the business of monetizing my every thought, action, or whim. I pay a premium for the hardware and in return I get a company hellbent on privacy so much so that they refused to unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist. So while I often hate that DuckDuckGo’s results are sometimes wildly laughable compared to Google’s I’ll continue supporting privacy first companies and pay a premium to do so before I let my phone be a Google phone.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

The author is naive about monetization. Google should not care if making a better product hurts its existing revenue sources. If Google doesn't do it, someone else will. A smart company worries about having the best products that people want to use first and about monetizing those products second, and unlike a startup, Google has the luxury of being able to wait to monetize new products until the ecosystem around them becomes clearer. The author's simple-minded reasoning is why Microsoft was late to the Internet search engine game.

mordymoop 7y ago

I wonder if someone can explain to me why I should be upset about Google collecting my data. I would pay money for Google to continue collecting my data and improving its predictive model of my behavior, in order to better address my needs as they arise. They're getting better and better at this over time. It has improved my quality of life.

archey1 7y ago

If only this technology could actually educate people, instead of being used as a crutch. This is what Google wants, to have you so dependent on their technology that living life without them is nearly impossible without them.

mark_l_watson 7y ago

For me, a timely discussion. Early this year I signed up for GSuite, copied stuff over from the free gmail account I have had for about 15 years, decided Cloud Search, etc. made the privacy hit worthwhile. Well, I got fed up this week because release of new GSuite services lags the free offerings, and sometimes just aren't released. I lived with switching between free and paid accounts depending on what I was doing (made OK by using Firefox containers). So, I switched my ProtonMail account to a paid for account, applied my custom domain, and flipped back to using Apple's Calendar, Siri, Maps, etc. Literally Google lost a tiny bit of my business because their paid for product in some ways was worse than the free offerings. I can see myself going back to Google paid services in the future but they have to up their game.

Markoff 7y ago

how does illiterate pass through driving license test that they can rent a car?

peter303 7y ago

Mission statement at I/O "be helpful for everyone" They showed how their improved software helps diabled and illiterate people around the world.

MildlySerious 7y ago

The first thing that comes to mind here is Google trying to remove the edge they themselves required to get into the position they are now in. They used and abused data for two decades (and will continue to do so) to become an absolute behemoth. If they now play the "privacy" card it will stifle competition even more, as there will forever be a compromise on either the amount of data they are able to gather, or the public perception due to being less "privacy" focused than big G.

throwing838383 7y ago

I changed my default search engine and homepage to DuckDuckGo. Two weeks later, I didn't even realize I was still using DuckDuckGo -> it's that good. Once people realize this, and how easy it is to switch, google may be in trouble. i don't have anything against google. I just think, having only 1 search engine is too much power for any 1 company, no matter how benevolent.

mikedilger 7y ago

Google is not too evil presently, but nothing is guaranteed and the amount of data they have gives them more power than most nation states. So on principle I've been degoogling. Here are my approaches: search: duckduckgo android: copperheados (dead ended, waiting for puri.sm librem 5 on order) chrome: firefox, containers, uMatrix. Isolated usages of chrome w/o logging in. gmail: fastmail youtube: peertube docs/sheets: local software (libreoffice) reCaptcha: isolated chrome usage w/o logging in, or I avoid the website and email the webmaster. fonts: uMatrix block them, I live with the fallback fonts. On my sites I host the fonts locally. analytics: uMatrix blocks it. I don't need it myself. maps: OSM or other mapping websites earth: [never needed it] sky?: [never needed it], stellarium I'll know that I'm invisible to them once my family members start getting funeral service advertisements. Unfortunately, they can still see me.

ycombonator 7y ago

I will stick to my on device privacy thanks. I know it costs more but its well worth keeping my entire life out of being a lab rat for company that wants to do good for yet to be born rats.

telltruth 7y ago

Most of the things demoed existed before in Translate app. I have used it and as far as I know someone good hearted at Google did this in his/her 20% time. The speaker, who seems to be some sort of executive, pretended that this is new achievement from her side and Google is suddenly socially responsible. I don't get this article and its author.

prirun 7y ago

The other day I sent my nephew a text on my smartphone: As Morphius said, "Now do you believe?" My Android phone decided what I really meant was "As Amorphous said..." So maybe before they decide they want to control everything in my life with all the data they are collecting, they should figure out spell correction first. I got the spelling wrong, but their correction was completely stupid.

maxwellito 7y ago

I would love to pick all of the arguments in this topic and fit them in this: https://maxwellito.github.io/tilt/ https://maxwellito.github.io/tilt/ Not sure if I'm the only one but I don't see a perfect solution on the smartphone part: - iOS is privacy focussed but walled garden and overpriced and impossible to repair. - Android is affordable and hackable but Google powered. - Cyanogen alternative: not easy to access and remain dependant to the Play Store to get apps (so back to Google power)

dav43 7y ago

Can Google become privacy focused faster than Apple can develop decent software/services, thats the question.