7 ms·
Niantic made 700 million dollars last year, mostly selling virtual game items.
by ipsum2 2y ago
Niantic made 700 million dollars last year, mostly selling virtual game items.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoWhy would anyone think niantic would protect user-data from profit?
- melagonster 2y agoMaybe they trust Pokemon as a IP? Usually Nintendo keeps your data safe.
- HPsquared 2y agoIs this model not a safe use of the data?
- JohnMakin 2y agoIt’s on niantic to prove that it is, not for the millions of unspecting users to prove it isn’t.
- melagonster 2y agoDepend on normal users' feelings, I'm sure when I play Switch, they won't sell my data. But when people use Google's service, this is the default setting .
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoWell, if it's being used for "military" purposes, it's sure not safe for someone!
- saxonww 2y agoSarcastically, no one should. Unsarcastically, a lot of people believe user data belongs to users, and that they should have a say in how it's used. Here, I think the point is that Niantic decided they could use the data this way and weren't transparent about it until it was already done. I'm sure I would be in the minority, but I would never have played - or never have done certain things like the research tasks - had I known I was training an AI model. I'm sure the Po:Go EULA that no one reads has blanket grants saying "you agree that we can do whatever we want," so I can't complain too hard, but still disappointed I spent any time in that game.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago> Unsarcastically, a lot of people believe user data belongs to users, and that they should have a say in how it's used I can understand that people believe this, but why do they do? Nothing in our society operates in a way that might imply this.
- saxonww 2y agoIs that true? Off the top of my head I think GDPR in the EU might have something to say about this. I don't know if those protections exist anywhere else or not. In the US, people get very upset about things like traffic cameras, and public surveillance in general. Those are usually data-for-punishment vs. data-for-profit (...maybe?), but people here resist things like data recorders in their cars to lower car insurance. At least to me, being unhappy about Niantic's behavior here does not seem the least bit unusual.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago> In the US, people get very upset about things like traffic cameras, and public surveillance in general. People get upset about a lot of things in the US. In fact—for some unknown reason we consider it a form of political activity to get upset over things. However, there is not any political party trying to court voters by advocating for dismantling the intelligence state.
- 2y ago
- stevage 2y agoBecause not everyone is a seasoned IT professional.
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoI don't think you need to be an "IT professional" to understand that not paying money doesn't imply that you aren't giving away value.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoIt might even go further than that - I'd say the typical person is more suspicious of free open-source software than the typical "IT professional".
- stevage 2y agoI would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the people playing Pokemon Go have never even considered the question.
- kortilla 2y agoThis is disingenuous. They charge for gems and this model is well understood to make a fortune without selling user data at all
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago> They charge for gems and this model is well understood to make a fortune without selling user data at all I don't understand what this has to do with the topic at hand. Are you suggesting that people can't conceive of the sale of their data because they can conceive of whales amortizing the cost of their video games? That seems contradictory in your estimation of people's ability to grasp the world.
- Dylan16807 2y agoDid you forget your original question? "How did you imagine they were making money without pimping your data?" I imagined they were making money in the big obvious way they make money! I can conceive of them selling user data, but it's not their core business model, and they would operate basically the same if they couldn't sell user data. It was never some obvious thing that they would do this.
- brendoelfrendo 2y agoI'm not a fan of the way you moved the goal posts here. You argued that Niantic would obviously use user data to fund game operations. Then we see that they don't actually need to do that, and that the game could fund itself. Then you argue that well, we shouldn't assume that they wouldn't try to monetize user data, shame on us. I agree that those who know how tech companies operate should be extremely pessimistic as to how users are treated, but I don't think that pessimism has permeated the public consciousness to quite the level you think it has. Moreover, I don't think it's a failing on the part of the user to assume that a company would do something in their best interest. It's a failing of the company to treat users as commodities whose only value is to be sold.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoBut some numbers pusher somewhere saw an opportunity to make even more money and write good quarter number, padding themselves on the shoulder for a job welll done, without ever wasting a thought about any such unimportant thing as ethical implications...