3 ms·

This seems a little naive to me. Google requires you to be logged into a Google account to access the OS. Given that fact they'll have access to everything th

This seems a little naive to me. Google requires you to be logged into a Google account to access the OS. Given that fact they'll have access to everything the user does. So the opportunities to make a profit are endless to the point of being terrifying. They'll be able to datamine your entire Computing experience and they'll have the computing power to combine that with data from other people. "Hey Ford, want to sell some cars? By looking at people's browsing history and calendar appointments we can tell you the hightest concentration of people who need cars will be in these locations at these times" In that context fees like the $50 a year for Google Apps seem insignificant

orangecat 16y ago
Google requires you to be logged into a Google account to access the OS. Really? I thought it was like Android, where setting up a Google account was encouraged but not mandatory. If that's the case I'm revising my assessment of Chrome OS from "pointless" to "actively dangerous".
- brudgers 16y ago
  >"actively dangerous" When was your evil-o-meter last calibrated?
izendejas 16y ago
Right. That's what Schmidt is referring to when he says Google wants to do "search for you". Assuming Google makes privacy controls more visible and there's someone to keep them in check, I frankly believe that this is a better model than what we currently have today. Many of the ad companies are way more evil (think spyware) and way more ineffective. In their mind, they can't be transparent. But that's because they want to take shortcuts and track your every click surreptitiously without really wanting to add any value to you directly (that is they don't have as big a stake in getting it right), the user, and only to turn around and sell this data to others and make a quick profit. That model is broken from the beginning and I'd rather not continue down this path. So if Google, Facebook or anyone can give me more controls, more transparency, then that to me is a more compelling model and I'll gladly share more relevant information with them because I know that they'll turn around and offer me better search results, better ads, better book recommendations... whatever. If they don't someone else will, but at least with Chrome OS, you have the option--don't buy a machine with it.

orangecat 16y ago

Google requires you to be logged into a Google account to access the OS. Really? I thought it was like Android, where setting up a Google account was encouraged but not mandatory. If that's the case I'm revising my assessment of Chrome OS from "pointless" to "actively dangerous".

brudgers 16y ago
>"actively dangerous" When was your evil-o-meter last calibrated?

izendejas 16y ago

Right. That's what Schmidt is referring to when he says Google wants to do "search for you". Assuming Google makes privacy controls more visible and there's someone to keep them in check, I frankly believe that this is a better model than what we currently have today. Many of the ad companies are way more evil (think spyware) and way more ineffective. In their mind, they can't be transparent. But that's because they want to take shortcuts and track your every click surreptitiously without really wanting to add any value to you directly (that is they don't have as big a stake in getting it right), the user, and only to turn around and sell this data to others and make a quick profit. That model is broken from the beginning and I'd rather not continue down this path. So if Google, Facebook or anyone can give me more controls, more transparency, then that to me is a more compelling model and I'll gladly share more relevant information with them because I know that they'll turn around and offer me better search results, better ads, better book recommendations... whatever. If they don't someone else will, but at least with Chrome OS, you have the option--don't buy a machine with it.