


Microsoft CEO's keynote was full of juicy comments












Comments     Threshold


Google's "Freedom"
By Tony Swash on 5/22/2010 8:28:26 AM , Rating: 5
Came across this interesting take on Google's recent announcements:

It included this perceptive statement:

"It’s true that Google doesn’t want to control what you do. That’s not where they make their money. They make money by watching what you do. They want to watch it, record it, analyze it, and then monetize it by serving ads to you.

Let’s re-interpret Google’s keynote highlights through the perspective of the paranoid. Tinfoil hats on:

Google wants to make sure that every part of your life happens under their searchlight. They don’t want you to use desktop apps; they want you to use apps on the Web, so that they can observe how much time you spend at each task, and get at least a vague sense of the data you work with.

They want you to use their mail service, so that they can better understand your relationships with other people.

They don’t want you to send data to your phone via a secure, user-controlled cable. They want you to do it through the Internet, so that they can note the sort of music you like, the locations you’re interested in, the places you’ve been.

They also want to be able to “push” apps onto your device that you might not want, and let websites push data into specific apps. They want the ads they push onto your device to have an unusually close level of interaction with your phone hardware and the data therein.

And Google wants to know what you do in your living room. What shows do you watch? What shows do you record? Once you’ve recorded them, how long until you watch them? Do you watch them all the way through? Did you pause during a commercial? What did you do during that pause? Did you visit a site or search for a keyword? What was that keyword?

OK, tinfoil hats off. That’s hot stuff, eh?

I’m not suggesting that Google is this devious. What you’ve just read is simply what happens when you run the pages of Google’s two developer keynotes through the same software that interprets all of Apple’s motives as sinister, controlling, anti-freedom, and anti-innovation.

In truth, both companies have ambitious goals for themselves and want to create two things: Priority 1 is immense positive cash-flow. Priority 2 is terrific products and services, which lead to successful accomplishment of the first priority. If their own goals collide with another company’s, that’s not their lookout."

RE: Google's "Freedom"
By SkateNY on 5/22/2010 11:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
Let's all be adults here, even for those for whom this is a huge stretch.

No company controls us. Advertising and marketing use coercion in the service of having consumers first buy and then continue to use their employers' products.

Once I make a purchase, I'm free to break, abuse, forget about, trade, sell, lend or discard the product.

The grand delusion among Apple, Microsoft and Google critics is that each of them, in their own way, forces us to do and buy things we either don't need or want.

There's not only an app for that; there's also medication.

RE: Google's "Freedom"
By Tony Swash on 5/23/2010 10:56:19 AM , Rating: 3

Exactly - that's the point I was trying to make with the quote I posted.

The notion that Apple is closed (bad, reduces freedom, locks customer in) and Google are good (open - everyone is happy in and free in Googeland) is just plain daft. People can buy or use the products and services of either company.

Each company has a different business model which seeks to maximise its own advantage - but that's just business. Whats silly is couching everything in some juvenile human rights context as if one company is evil and another good.

No is forced to buy Apple products so if anyone doesn't like them just shop elsewhere. Similarly you don't have to use Google to search.

RE: Google's "Freedom"
By B3an on 5/23/2010 11:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's nice to see a well written and mature post by you Tony. Not the usual Apple fanboy stuff. Keep it up.

RE: Google's "Freedom"
By The Raven on 5/24/2010 10:41:16 AM , Rating: 5
It's not that they force you to use their products. It is that they "force" you to CONTINUE to use their products. I'd say using the word 'force' is hyperbole, but it is well employed.

(The following scenario may or may not be filled with inaccuracies, but is used to illustrate a concept. I have heard as much so I am rolling with it. Oh nevermind, I'll just change the names so I don't get sued.)

If you buy music on your uPhone, you might have to use uTunes or an uPod to listen to it. You can't just decide to start using WMP or Rhythmbox when you get sick of uTunes. So you will continue to use uTunes because of the DRM that is attached to it. Or you can forfeit the hundreds of dollars that you spent building your library and start over again with a different content distributor like 7digital or Amazon (which BTW you can use with any media player).

So you are being strongly coerced into use iTunes because of the data (songs) that you will forfeit. You had the freedom to choose it in the first place, but now you feel like you don't. That is what people are talking about.

If you were to be a little bit more detailed in your statement, I think that you would find why people prefer to be free in 'Googleland'.

Google is good (open - everyone is happy in and free in Googeland)

You point out here why Apple is bad, but don't really point out why Google is good (and I use that statement loosely).
But I guess this is why you don't seem to value the freedom that they are pushing with Android. Research why an open OS is better and then come back and fill in you own blank (the part where you mention Googleland).

The other part of this is that the companies using closed source OSs/apps to get as much money as possible usually prey on the uneducated who don't realize that they are 'stuck' with that product or they face a large manuf/dev induced penalty. This in turn takes market share away from those companies/organizations that are selling/giving a slightly less polished (due to inferior funding) product that uses open standards, and we go around the wheel over and over again until people realize that they're being scammed.

The critics are just trying to get us out of the wheel sooner than later. So don't hate.

Besides, I'd rather hear someone cry about how Apple, Microsoft and Google are evil than hear any more about the iP-- or iP----.

RE: Google's "Freedom"
By Tony Swash on 5/24/2010 6:43:09 PM , Rating: 1

You do realise that you can export iTunes DRM protected tracks as an unprotected MP3 file on a CD anytime you want don't you?

Nobody is locked into anything. Its a bit of a hassle to do it but its doable. As far as I know, based on what Steve Jobs has said publicly, Apple would remove DRM from iTunes in an instant if the music labels would go along with it. Apple don't make much money on selling music - they make it from selling the iPod - and are not particularly interested in DRM except where it is required to get the music labels to sign.

RE: Google's "Freedom"




RE: Google's "Freedom"
Microsoft has recently released documentation on the PST file format.


RE: Google's "Freedom"

RE: Google's "Freedom"
By The Raven on 5/25/2010 4:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
Also, even if the burning and ripping of CDs did result in a perfect transfer of the .AACs, it is still a hassle as you said, and that would factor into someone's decision to switch to a different program. I mean I have hundreds of CDs myself and if I had bought all that on iTunes, I would probably never pull myself away from iTunes.

RE: Google's "Freedom"

RE: Google's "Freedom"
By hiscross on 5/26/2010 12:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
It appears from the not so savy responses that some people like being tied up to enjoy their hinded desires. I always wondered why a certain group of people use public bathrooms for their pleasures, now I think I know. For the rest of us, who enjoy life with the opposite sex and can make a decision, walk, and chew gum at the same time agrees with your thread. Nice post.

