5 ms·

It's a shame that they don't mention that the purpose of Android is to safeguard Google's access to this information.

by gibwell 13y ago

YOSPOS 13y ago
People will slowly realize it once Google starts monetizing it more. Ads in Gmail are the start.
DannyBee 13y ago
Uh, no it's not. I'm not even sure where people get this stuff. The purpose of android was twofold, AFAIK 1. Andy thought the mobile experience of most users was a lot shittier than it needed to be. While the sidekick was a success, Google was able to provide a vastly larger amount of resources to bear on the problem than his startup could (and well, his startup was running out of money :P). The main goal of android, believe it or not, was to fix this shitty experience. 2. Also, one of the strategies was to keep the carrier's walled garden app models that were becoming popular (this was before apple) from eating Google alive by demanding cuts of ad/other revenue from Google's inevitable mobile apps. Actually, back in these days, the most worrying people on these fronts were the carriers, not Nokia/BlackBerry/whoever. Android and the iPhone essentially commoditized carriers. Before, they essentially controlled what apps got to run on their network. Now they fight it out to be "the best iphone experience". Nobody was sitting around thinking about how they were going to get and use personal info from phones into ads.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  > Nobody was sitting around thinking about how they were going to get and use personal info from phones into ads. And how do you know this? Google is one of the smartest and richest technology companies out there. Is it inconceivable that they could foresee and plan 5-10 years into the future?
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Oh, that's easy: I was there. I was in meetings about strategy now and then. I certainly don't claim to know everything (I worked outside android team but helped it. I received the same awards/etc the team got), but I know enough. Now, you can certainly choose not to believe me. But I can state for sure the main intent of the people building and running android was to build a great mobile experience for users. When I say "nobody was thinking about ads". I don't mean "nobody considered the possibilities". I mean: Nobody saw it as a goal. It was not driving the decision making process. In fact, some people saw it as an anti-goal.
    - gibwell 13y ago
      I don't think you are contradicting the original point. Nobody is saying that the android team sat around in a smoke filled room plotting about how it could be all about ads. Once Android was at Google, obviously most people would be focused on making a successful platform first and foremost. Nevertheless, the reason for Google as a whole to own such a platform is to protect its revenues streams. Google's revenue streams rely on access to data about user behavior. Android's strategic purpose was to ensure that Google controlled the platform so that the separate goal of capturing user information would not be threatened by other corporations.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        I am in fact, contradicting it. "Android's strategic purpose was to ensure that Google controlled the platform so that the separate goal of capturing user information would not be threatened by other corporations." False. I have explained the strategic purpose of android. I have explained what the main concerns were. User information capture was not among them. You have restated that you believe it was something else. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Every piece of evidence I have and know about says you are incorrect.
        gibwell 13y ago
        You said: "one of the strategies was to keep the carrier's walled garden app models that were becoming popular (this was before apple) from eating Google alive by demanding cuts of ad/other revenue from Google's inevitable mobile apps." Google's ad business relies on access to user data for targeting. If Google has a strategic goal to protect the ad business, it therefore also has a strategic goal to protect it's access to user data.
- huxley 13y ago
  Not sure I understand your #2 point, Google basically gives most of its share of app sales to carriers (70% developers/25% carriers/5% Google) and also an undisclosed share of all mobile ad revenue. Edit: as to your point about Google wanting to fix the bad experience in mobile, that doesn't contradict the idea that they wanted to monetize the platform, 96% (2011) of all of Google's revenue came from advertising. You'd have to be delusional to imagine that has no impact on their decision making and strategies.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    I can state without a doubt in my mind that the original purpose was not to monetize the platform. If it happened to be possible, sure, great. But Google would absolutely have considered Android a rousing success even if it had not been possible. I hope i'm not really that delusional, considering I was involved in the decision making and strategies so that I could ensure they could be defended legally. None of what i've said is actually even confidential. Andy Rubin has stated the same things in interviews over the years. I guess people just assumed he was selling them a line?
    - gibwell 13y ago
      I'm sure you're right about the motivations of many of the people within Google being essentially, 'to build a better platform'. I don't believe the idea that this was an entirely altruistic goal. I don't think what you are saying contradicts the overall idea that the underlying reason for Google to invest in Android was to protect it's access to data about users against other corporations. I.e. Many people at Google were motivated to create a good platform. But the reason for creating a platform at all was fundamentally to make sure that it was Google's good platform. The fact that Google requires access data about customer behavior for it's business model can't just be washed away by pointing at the motivations of the people tasked with making Android successful - a lower level goal.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        "I don't think what you are saying contradicts the overall idea that the underlying reason for Google to invest in Android was to protect it's access to data about users against other corporations." It does. You keep trying to twist what i'm saying into some kind of complementary statement. It isn't. All evidence I have and know about tells me Google did not invest in Android to protect its ability to gather user information. Full stop. It sounds like you don't believe this. That's fine. It does not change what I am saying :)
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  After so many years of betrayal, lies, manipulation and even downright illegal activities, it should be pretty obvious what the goal of anything Google does is: get to know as much private information as possible, by any means possible, and monetize it. I could understand the confusion a up to a few years ago, but hell, these days they're barely hiding it anymore. You're not sure where people get this stuff? Maybe because when someone uses every tool they build to hit people over the head, at some point the logical conclusion may be that hitting people over the head is the goal of developing those tools, regardless of what the PR says?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    This comment was so shrill ("betrayal"?) that I wanted to see if it was representative of the user in general. And what I found was that on almost every page of their comment history there are similarly venomous anti-Google comments. I guess if a blogger like John Gruber can inspire totally random two-minute-hates on HN, I shouldn't be at all surprised that Google can too.
    - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
      It's interesting that you object more to the term "betrayal" than for instance "illegal activities". I was referring to the multiple occasions when Google stated "we stand with you on X" and then did a 180 (for instance on net neutrality), if you can think of a more appropriate and less "shrill" term than betrayal, please enlighten me. English is not my first language. Anyway, is it really so surprising that I loathe a corporation that is engaged in the systematic international violation of civil rights, but thanks to great PR is still worshiped as force for good? As for my comment history, yeah, perhaps I should be a little less trigger happy when it comes to Google.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        It's not so much that you're hating on Google (it's a message board, who cares?) so much as that the specific vector of your distaste for Google was so orthogonal to what 'DannyBee was talking about.
code_duck 13y ago
Google makes money from ads, and the y have products that are designed to help them do so. Let me know when I should start being alarmed.
nl 13y ago
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ Android's purpose was to make sure Apple didn't get a mobile monopoly, and then freeze Google out of the Mobile search biz. You comment is a bit unclear - you may well have meant this yourself.
anxiousest 13y ago
Careful, if you troll using Microsoft talking points you might be mistaken for their shil.

It's a shame that they don't mention that the purpose of Android is to safeguard Google's access to this information.

by gibwell 13y ago

It's a shame that they don't mention that the purpose of Android is to safeguard Google's access to this information.

YOSPOS 13y ago

People will slowly realize it once Google starts monetizing it more. Ads in Gmail are the start.

DannyBee 13y ago

Uh, no it's not. I'm not even sure where people get this stuff. The purpose of android was twofold, AFAIK 1. Andy thought the mobile experience of most users was a lot shittier than it needed to be. While the sidekick was a success, Google was able to provide a vastly larger amount of resources to bear on the problem than his startup could (and well, his startup was running out of money :P). The main goal of android, believe it or not, was to fix this shitty experience. 2. Also, one of the strategies was to keep the carrier's walled garden app models that were becoming popular (this was before apple) from eating Google alive by demanding cuts of ad/other revenue from Google's inevitable mobile apps. Actually, back in these days, the most worrying people on these fronts were the carriers, not Nokia/BlackBerry/whoever. Android and the iPhone essentially commoditized carriers. Before, they essentially controlled what apps got to run on their network. Now they fight it out to be "the best iphone experience". Nobody was sitting around thinking about how they were going to get and use personal info from phones into ads.

r0h1n 13y ago
> Nobody was sitting around thinking about how they were going to get and use personal info from phones into ads. And how do you know this? Google is one of the smartest and richest technology companies out there. Is it inconceivable that they could foresee and plan 5-10 years into the future?
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Oh, that's easy: I was there. I was in meetings about strategy now and then. I certainly don't claim to know everything (I worked outside android team but helped it. I received the same awards/etc the team got), but I know enough. Now, you can certainly choose not to believe me. But I can state for sure the main intent of the people building and running android was to build a great mobile experience for users. When I say "nobody was thinking about ads". I don't mean "nobody considered the possibilities". I mean: Nobody saw it as a goal. It was not driving the decision making process. In fact, some people saw it as an anti-goal.
  - gibwell 13y ago
    I don't think you are contradicting the original point. Nobody is saying that the android team sat around in a smoke filled room plotting about how it could be all about ads. Once Android was at Google, obviously most people would be focused on making a successful platform first and foremost. Nevertheless, the reason for Google as a whole to own such a platform is to protect its revenues streams. Google's revenue streams rely on access to data about user behavior. Android's strategic purpose was to ensure that Google controlled the platform so that the separate goal of capturing user information would not be threatened by other corporations.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      I am in fact, contradicting it. "Android's strategic purpose was to ensure that Google controlled the platform so that the separate goal of capturing user information would not be threatened by other corporations." False. I have explained the strategic purpose of android. I have explained what the main concerns were. User information capture was not among them. You have restated that you believe it was something else. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Every piece of evidence I have and know about says you are incorrect.
      - gibwell 13y ago
        You said: "one of the strategies was to keep the carrier's walled garden app models that were becoming popular (this was before apple) from eating Google alive by demanding cuts of ad/other revenue from Google's inevitable mobile apps." Google's ad business relies on access to user data for targeting. If Google has a strategic goal to protect the ad business, it therefore also has a strategic goal to protect it's access to user data.
huxley 13y ago
Not sure I understand your #2 point, Google basically gives most of its share of app sales to carriers (70% developers/25% carriers/5% Google) and also an undisclosed share of all mobile ad revenue. Edit: as to your point about Google wanting to fix the bad experience in mobile, that doesn't contradict the idea that they wanted to monetize the platform, 96% (2011) of all of Google's revenue came from advertising. You'd have to be delusional to imagine that has no impact on their decision making and strategies.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  I can state without a doubt in my mind that the original purpose was not to monetize the platform. If it happened to be possible, sure, great. But Google would absolutely have considered Android a rousing success even if it had not been possible. I hope i'm not really that delusional, considering I was involved in the decision making and strategies so that I could ensure they could be defended legally. None of what i've said is actually even confidential. Andy Rubin has stated the same things in interviews over the years. I guess people just assumed he was selling them a line?
  - gibwell 13y ago
    I'm sure you're right about the motivations of many of the people within Google being essentially, 'to build a better platform'. I don't believe the idea that this was an entirely altruistic goal. I don't think what you are saying contradicts the overall idea that the underlying reason for Google to invest in Android was to protect it's access to data about users against other corporations. I.e. Many people at Google were motivated to create a good platform. But the reason for creating a platform at all was fundamentally to make sure that it was Google's good platform. The fact that Google requires access data about customer behavior for it's business model can't just be washed away by pointing at the motivations of the people tasked with making Android successful - a lower level goal.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      "I don't think what you are saying contradicts the overall idea that the underlying reason for Google to invest in Android was to protect it's access to data about users against other corporations." It does. You keep trying to twist what i'm saying into some kind of complementary statement. It isn't. All evidence I have and know about tells me Google did not invest in Android to protect its ability to gather user information. Full stop. It sounds like you don't believe this. That's fine. It does not change what I am saying :)
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
After so many years of betrayal, lies, manipulation and even downright illegal activities, it should be pretty obvious what the goal of anything Google does is: get to know as much private information as possible, by any means possible, and monetize it. I could understand the confusion a up to a few years ago, but hell, these days they're barely hiding it anymore. You're not sure where people get this stuff? Maybe because when someone uses every tool they build to hit people over the head, at some point the logical conclusion may be that hitting people over the head is the goal of developing those tools, regardless of what the PR says?
- tptacek 13y ago
  This comment was so shrill ("betrayal"?) that I wanted to see if it was representative of the user in general. And what I found was that on almost every page of their comment history there are similarly venomous anti-Google comments. I guess if a blogger like John Gruber can inspire totally random two-minute-hates on HN, I shouldn't be at all surprised that Google can too.
  - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
    It's interesting that you object more to the term "betrayal" than for instance "illegal activities". I was referring to the multiple occasions when Google stated "we stand with you on X" and then did a 180 (for instance on net neutrality), if you can think of a more appropriate and less "shrill" term than betrayal, please enlighten me. English is not my first language. Anyway, is it really so surprising that I loathe a corporation that is engaged in the systematic international violation of civil rights, but thanks to great PR is still worshiped as force for good? As for my comment history, yeah, perhaps I should be a little less trigger happy when it comes to Google.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      It's not so much that you're hating on Google (it's a message board, who cares?) so much as that the specific vector of your distaste for Google was so orthogonal to what 'DannyBee was talking about.

code_duck 13y ago

Google makes money from ads, and the y have products that are designed to help them do so. Let me know when I should start being alarmed.

nl 13y ago

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ Android's purpose was to make sure Apple didn't get a mobile monopoly, and then freeze Google out of the Mobile search biz. You comment is a bit unclear - you may well have meant this yourself.

anxiousest 13y ago

Careful, if you troll using Microsoft talking points you might be mistaken for their shil.