backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on May 29 at 1:31 PM

Google wants ads everywhere

Don’t act surprised; you knew this was coming. When Google announced that it was purchasing Nest Labs for $3.2 billion in cash back in January, many people questioned the company’s motives. Google is an advertising company at heart, and the notion that it could “taint” a fundamentally sound product like the Nest Thermostat was on the minds of many people.

Even Google and Nest were aware of possible concerns over privacy, and provided the following notice when the deal was announced:
 
Our privacy policy clearly limits the use of customer information to providing and improving Nest’s products and services. We’ve always taken privacy seriously and this will not change.
 
Today we’re learning that Google has plenty of ideas for how to reach customers, and serve them ads at all times. And it looks like Google’s recent Nest purchase will be a lynchpin for this endeavor moving forward. The Wall Street Journal has uncovered a letter sent by Google to the SEC in which it talks about how ads could be served in the future using “refrigerators, car dashboards, thermostats, glasses, and watches.”
 
Let’s see here:
Google disclosed this information to the SEC as it is looking to redefine the term “mobile” with regards to ad revenue. The company added that, “Our expectation is that users will be using our services and viewing our ads on an increasingly wide diversity of devices in the future.”

 [Comic courtesy The Joy of Tech
 
None of the aforementioned product categories have become advertising hotbeds for Google yet, but the company is definitely eying the possibilities.

Source: The Wall Street Journal



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Duh.
By Motoman on 5/21/2014 11:29:32 AM , Rating: 5
What do you think is going to happen when Google gets their hands on something?

Won't be long until pretty much any electronic appliance is going to be connected to the web. You know, so the refrigerator can call Big URL to tell him that the condenser is about to fail, and send a repairman out automatically.

And then there will start to be little RFID thingies, or something similar, in all the food packaging, so the fridge can tell you when your milk is about to go sour. Sounds great, right? And then it shows you ads for milk from local grocery stores. Sweet! And then it analyzes all the food you've got in your fridge, freezer, and cupboard and starts recommending recipes...and telling you to pick up some capers because that would go well with other stuff you tend to buy...and by the way I see that you're buying an unusual amount of pickles and ice cream, so I presume the wife is pregnant so here's some coupons for Lamaze classes and we've referred you to some nanny and babysitting services too.

And on and on and on...more and more ways for Little Sister to keep an eye on you and learn more about you every day.

No thanks.




RE: Duh.
By xti on 5/21/2014 11:33:17 AM , Rating: 3
it might be good if it catches you eating gallons of ice cream. then it zaps you with a stun gun or something.

dont be scared.


RE: Duh.
By Mitch101 on 5/21/2014 1:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
On the plus side it could tell you if something in your fridge has been recalled for food contamination.


RE: Duh.
By rsmech on 5/21/2014 2:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
Always give a positive so people forget the negative. Privacy, freedom, liberty always have a price.

Comment not directed personally at you, just the premise of the trade off.


RE: Duh.
By Alexvrb on 5/24/2014 2:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
I for one welcome our new appliance overlords!

Also, the pic in the article is awesome.


RE: Duh.
By bodar on 5/21/2014 7:24:33 PM , Rating: 3
"This pill gives you genital herpes but will totally prevent athlete's foot."

OMG, sign me up!


RE: Duh.
By FaaR on 5/21/2014 1:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking, will my Google Fridge play ads only when I open the door, or like, on the hour every hour/every 15 minutes-ish, perhaps timed with TV commercial breaks?

I suppose Google has a patent application pending to independently mute my HiFi system, so that its ads won't get drowned out and "ensure consumer exposure and maximize vendor satisfaction"...


RE: Duh.
By GulWestfale on 5/21/2014 2:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
i wonder if this is some sort of "ad bubble" that will burst sometime in the future.

years ago, when so many communication companies went under (remember nortel?) it was at least partly because they had overestimated the size of the market. there are only so many routers you can sell. only so many ISPs out there.

so how long before google runs out of companies that are willing or able to advertise? there is not an infinite supply of those, after all. is someone at GM or ford thinking 'hey, i totally have to pay to put our latest car on a thermometer!' when they already have print, TV, and internet ads?


RE: Duh.
By FaaR on 5/21/2014 7:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
You raise an interesting point. I guess Google wouldn't necessarily want to make these gadgets its own dedicated ad stream (due to risk of fragmentation), but rather just consider them another outlet for its existing adsense program or whatever the F it's called.

...And "your" nest would not have noscript/adblock built-in either, I'd think. :P


RE: Duh.
By FITCamaro on 5/21/2014 3:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
That'll be from your government and the ACA since they have a vested interest in keeping you healthy.


RE: Duh.
By Alexvrb on 5/24/2014 2:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
Only until retirement. After that, it's Soylent Green time!


RE: Duh.
By Jeffk464 on 5/22/2014 12:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it might be good if it catches you eating gallons of ice cream.


Don't put ice cream in your fridge problem solved.


RE: Duh.
By NellyFromMA on 5/21/2014 11:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. However, there's no better test of mass appeal than letting the market decide for itself if there is an appetite for this.

I think its creepy and uninteresting but there is a large demographic of people who are fine giving you all their behavioral information without regard for the ramification, and its that consumer that Google covets most. But, do no evil, right?


RE: Duh.
By Motoman on 5/21/2014 11:57:41 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
However, there's no better test of mass appeal than letting the market decide for itself if there is an appetite for this.


The problem is this: people are stupid. Essentially no one gives a second thought to all the information they freely give to Facebook, the fact that Gmail reads every word in every email their send or recieve, the fact that their iPhone knows exactly where they are at any moment in time, creating a perfect tracking system for all of your activities, etc.

And even when you present such information to people, and advise them to at least consider it, the response you get is "meh. I don't care what FB/Gmail/whatever is doing with my data. It's convenient for me to use and I'm not going to change."


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: Duh.
By retrospooty on 5/21/2014 1:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
"I mean, wtf, and people say I'm the angry raving loon here? Every time you post it's some rant completely out of touch with this audience."

Girls, Girls, relax... You are both angry raving loons.

:P


RE: Duh.
By Labotomizer on 5/21/2014 2:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
My initial reaction to ads on a fridge or thermostat wasn't very positive. However Motoman's OP outlining the types of data that the fridge could correlate and deliver sounds f'in awesome. I'd put item tracking in the pantry if it could do that. And happily let it tell me the best place to buy milk in the process.

Advertising is actually getting better. As the platform correlates more and more data you actually end up with ads that you may actually be interested in. It used to be that the ad banners would never show me something I'd ever think of purchasing. Now? There are times where I see one and it's something interesting.

There are some scary ramifications that could result from this. But if this continues on the current course and is used to make everything around you smarter then it's not all bad. I'd love a smart fridge. I deal with enough stupid people that smart inanimate objects sound fantastic. Not doing something because it "could" be used for something bad would have resulted in us being extinct, since starting a fire could have been really, really bad.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 3:29:24 PM , Rating: 1
It's just more Luddite talk from our technically minded community lol.

If they actually could put RFiD tags on food and it be cost effective, which I doubt, the possibilities would be awesome.

Imaging fruit lasting twice as long, because the fridge knows exactly what humidity to keep the produce drawer at?

Imagine the fridge adjusting temperature zones in real time, based on what types of food products are put where?

Imagine freezer burn being entirely a thing of the past?

I mean...wtf is going on here? I don't come to "DAILY TECH" to see people going "New technology, must fear, must shun!" like a goddamn caveman.


RE: Duh.
By someguy123 on 5/21/2014 5:37:49 PM , Rating: 3
Cheap RFID tags will become practical well before it ever becomes practical to have a refrigerator with a bunch of vacuum drawers and individual refrigeration coils necessary to somehow isolate and control temperatures of a drawer that isn't in its own isolated chamber.

I don't even see where he complains about the convenience of having technology. The complaints are all about the obnoxious nature of advertising. Whenever I'm on a computer without adblock I'm just amazed at how ridiculous and prevalent ads are all over the internet. Even on youtube you've got these 15 second ads stalling videos that are only a few seconds long. It is ironically more convenient to get a minute long ad because you can skip them after 5 seconds. Google is pushing for more ads in your living room, but hopefully it will never become "standard". It's not as though you can slap adblock on your smartfridge.

This is nothing against google, though. Corporate culture in general seems to believe that raw exposure is more important than good exposure. I spent a few years working for retailers and they simply do not care if they are annoying employees and customers with ads because the assumption is that there will be at least one sucker in the bunch. Sales numbers and customer satisfaction kept going down in every district and their response was to pressure customers even more by having everyone on the floor push product and services. Pressure came from the top down thanks to bonus incentive (which even us lowly store management would receive and was at times greater than our base salary) and I'm sure google has similar incentive plans for increases in ad penetration.

Anecdotally, I believe there are actually a larger percentage of customers who hate advertising culture than people would assume, mainly because advertisers exploit the survey system (get 10$ off with survey! please rate highly!). From my experience most customers hated dealing with all the service ads, "special offers", recommendations and clubcards but dealt with it because there was no other choice. Nowadays we have relatively hassle free etailers like amazon and B&M is getting destroyed.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2014 1:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
Doh I'm so stupid, I didn't think of recipes. If your fridge knew what foods you had in it via RFID, it could go to 'the cloud' and suggest possible recipes for you on it's display.

That would be so killer.


RE: Duh.
By atechfan on 5/22/2014 1:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not everything is pre-packaged. I hardly see your RFID on all food items idea working. What about people who shop at Farmer's Markets, or buy directly from the farmer, or, gasp, grow their own stuff? What about loose produce you bag and weigh yourself? Is every piece of fruit supposed to have an RFID sticker in that case? Or will stores have to be able to produce them to stick on the bag at bagging time? Do you even think this stuff through, or do you just say, it's Google, must be a good idea?

Some of us don't want our fridge to do more than keep food fresh. That is what it was designed for. If I need to know a recipe using what I have on hand, I'll look in the fridge and the pantry, then open up a book. Novel concept I know.

Funny how those of us who stated the Nest purchase was about Google selling more ads were called paranoid, yet now their is evidence that this is exactly what they had in mind. Not that Google is doing wrong by doing so. Ads are pretty much their only revenue source, so of course they want to expand on that. But most people are getting sick of ads everywhere they go, and Google is foolish if they think their will not be backlash if they try to monetize even more streams of advertising.

I expect ads if I'm trying to watch a free Youtube video. That makes sense. But I do not expect to see ads on my fridge or on my car dashboard. I suspect that more people feel that way than not.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2014 3:24:19 PM , Rating: 1
It's not "my" RFID angle, read the OP. Jesus, what is with you?

In fact I expressed serious doubt we would ever see such a thing. Again, read the posts beforehand please.

quote:
But most people are getting sick of ads everywhere they go


Hyperbole. Ads are at an all time low. Millions of people have "cut the cord" and use streaming services with ZERO commercials like Netflix. Online ads are obliterated by installing a simple browser plug-in. And we have DVR's that can skip commercial breaks automatically.

I NEVER could have predicted this when I was a kid or young adult. People think they have ads now!? They have NO idea how things used to be.

quote:
Some of us don't want our fridge to do more than keep food fresh. That is what it was designed for. If I need to know a recipe using what I have on hand, I'll look in the fridge and the pantry, then open up a book. Novel concept I know.


Okay see? That's just more Luddite talk.

I have an app on my phone where I enter all the alcoholic beverages and mixers and so on, and it uses that to produce a list of drink recipes. I was really shocked how many it found the first time I tried it.

So in your world I could have just "opened a book" and found those all as easily? Uh hell no, just no.

Same thing with the fridge idea. We throw massive amounts of food away each year. If we used available technology to help people figure out how to prepare meals out of seemingly random stuff in their fridge, that would be a novel use of it indeed.

I'm just saying, I don't come to Daily Tech to see silly arguments against technology like "FRIDGES ARE FOR MAKING STUFF COLD, I DON'T WANT IT TO DO NOTHING ELSE!!". I mean, is there some other "tech" site where you can take your old man "get off my lawn" act to people who give a fuck and want to hear it?


RE: Duh.
By Alexvrb on 5/24/2014 2:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
I like technology, but that doesn't necessarily mean I like having an advertising firm use technology to watch my every step, track my location, shopping habits, food preferences, etc, so they can make more money throwing targeted ads at me from every display I own. You could have a device that does pretty much everything that's been mentioned offline, without taking that information and selling it and using it for advertising purposes.

Of course, that wouldn't mean no subsidy. Nothing is free, and even if your information is worth nothing to you, it's worth something to Google and the NSA alike. Oh, and having such devices spy on you makes it easier for the NSA to scoop information that you're letting others collect - legally and otherwise. In some cases this is data stored online that they wouldn't had access to without you willingly giving it to Google, FB, et al.

Next up: Google gun safes. They're only ~10% the cost of an equivalent dumb safe - AND they keep track of inventory for you and inform you of sales on ammo! How can you lose?? It's right up your alley!

Friend Computer loves citizens that enjoy being spied on. Now chide others for not wanting their every move documented... wait, you've already done that. OK, chide them for not wanting technology involved in every aspect of their life... check. Good work, and remember: we don't want any "domestic terrorists" getting out of line, so keep those reports coming in! If you feel an urge to vote for a libertarian or conservative candidate, report yourself immediately. Zap zap.


RE: Duh.
By Moishe on 5/29/2014 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Know what's ridiculous? Calling people names because they have their own opinions. What makes it worse is that you'd claim to be pro-choice, pro-freedom, pro-free market, etc... but someone wants to do something in an old fashioned way and now they're a luddite, nevermind why.

Better get rid of that car with a manual transmission. Better have a robo-vacuum, robo-lawn mower, NEST, etc... otherwise you're being a hypocrite.

Most of us here love tech. We love what it does for us and we're not afraid of it, yet sometimes the "old" way is more enjoyable. It might be a connection with our personality or simply personal preference. So what's the big deal?


RE: Duh.
By salmonman on 5/21/2014 12:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
I challenge you to look at it in another way.

Yes, I freely give my information to Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and any other number of "Free" service providers. I completely understand why they want this information and what they are doing with it. Why am I stupid for legitimately not caring if Google knows what brand of razor I buy? The service they provide me is more valuable to my life than any perceived tracking they might be doing by reading my email. I simply treat every one of these services the same: I don't put any information into them that I wouldn't say in a physical public place where someone could overhear. If there's something truly private I need to discuss with someone, i'll do it in person or over the phone, not on facebook or by email. Just because a service isn't god-as-my-witness private does not mean it inherently has no value.

On the flip side, I've already come to terms with the fact that advertising agencies are going to be shoving ads in my face on a daily basis. If they know what kind of razor I use, maybe someday one of those ads will show me that CVS has them on sale right as I'm running out and prompt me to purchase. I'd consider that a net positive life experience compared to the "throw it and see what sticks" advertising methods of the past, they can show me as many tampon commercials and Lexus adverts as they want but I know quite well I'll never buy either of these things.


RE: Duh.
By retrospooty on 5/21/2014 1:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
"The service they provide me is more valuable to my life than any perceived tracking they might be doing by reading my email. I simply treat every one of these services the same: I don't put any information into them that I wouldn't say in a physical public place where someone could overhear. If there's something truly private I need to discuss with someone, i'll do it in person or over the phone, not on facebook or by email."

Exactly... And no-one if forced to use any of it. I do often put personal things on email, but not gmail. I use my work or my pop3 email for that.

This is just like people that complain about a TV show they dont like or dont agree with... TURN THE CHANNEL!


RE: Duh.
By Labotomizer on 5/21/2014 2:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
WTF!? No, if something offends me then Christ will rain down hell fire on it. Simple as that. Change the channel... Clearly you're joking.


RE: Duh.
By rsmech on 5/21/2014 8:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why wouldn't you put personal information with Gmail? I understand many here aren't average users but if you see a problem with Gmail what exactly is it because most average users see all email the same. That's part of the problem. They aren't protected with false assumption.

It may all be harmless but even you don't think so or you wouldn't be separating Gmail from others. So deep down something about it bothers you also.


RE: Duh.
By retrospooty on 5/22/2014 8:29:31 AM , Rating: 3
That is part of the "if it bothers you dont use it". I dont use it. My gmail account is really just used for account related stuff. It's a free service and rather than complain about it I just dont use it. - Simple.


RE: Duh.
By Mitch101 on 5/21/2014 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well said however the problem lies in when you opt out and yet the devices (not this in particular) continue to collect information without your consent or are never given an option to opt out and they still collect your information.

4 ways Google is destroying privacy and collecting your data
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/4_ways_google_is_d...


RE: Duh.
By Labotomizer on 5/21/2014 2:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Then don't use that device... Problem solved.


RE: Duh.
By Mitch101 on 5/21/2014 4:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't an issue until Google purchased Nest and changed the terms of the original agreement. People who purchased devices before Google acquired Nest should be able to opt of the ads. Now that Google has purchased Nest they certainly have IP and personal information on the registered users. Something they didn't have a choice to opt out of. Consumers may not be comfortable with Google having their information but weren't given a choice when Google purchased Nest.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 4:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People who purchased devices before Google acquired Nest should be able to opt of the ads.


Just curious, but what law states this exactly?

quote:
Now that Google has purchased Nest they certainly have IP and personal information on the registered users. Something they didn't have a choice to opt out of.


Logic fail. If Google has personal information on pre-buyout Nest users, then that means Nest had the information already.

So what's the difference to the end user? It's not like Google retroactively stole information they weren't already willingly giving.

Come on, you have no case here.


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 5:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Logic fail. If Google has personal information on pre-buyout Nest users, then that means Nest had the information already.

I think you are the one failing at logic here. Having information does not mean you use it the same way. Company A could have a very strict confidentiality agreement with their users. They agree to never give away user data. Company B comes along and buys company A, but they have no such privacy agreement. A person may have entrusted their information to company A because they agreed to keep information confidential, but now that company B owns it, they start selling it off. That is not fair to the end user, since that's not what they agreed to.

quote:
It's not like Google retroactively stole information they weren't already willingly giving.

Do you really believe these are the same? So if you entrusted very sensitive information to your friend, but then your friend's role was replaced by some super shady character that you don't know or trust, and your friend just gave him that sensitive information, you would be OK with that? You can absolutely be willing to give your information to one entity and not another.


RE: Duh.
By retrospooty on 5/21/2014 5:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
You are missing something here though... Mitch said "People who purchased devices before Google acquired Nest should be able to opt of the ads""

- What ads? Are there ads on a Nest?

Here is what we actually have here "The Wall Street Journal has uncovered a letter sent by Google to the SEC in which it talks about how ads could be served in the future using “refrigerators, car dashboards, thermostats, glasses, and watches.”"

That is a long LONG way from anything in actual practice. If they were to do anything like that it would be impossible to be forced into it without agreeing to it. The end result if (big if) this were to go thorugh would be you get the future "Google home" suite or whatever for free, or at low price if you agree to have the ads. If you dont want it, dont buy it.


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 6:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I wasn't really trying to make a point about Mitch's comment at all. Mine was more about what happens when use information trades hands. If I entrusted information to someone because they agreed not to use my information a certain way, but then sells it to someone else who doesn't, what should happen? I disagreed with Reclaimer's statement that since I willingly gave my info to the first company that I should for some reason have no issue with giving it to the second company that bought them.


RE: Duh.
By retrospooty on 5/21/2014 7:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
"If I entrusted information to someone because they agreed not to use my information a certain way, but then sells it to someone else who doesn't, what should happen?"

I would think (hope) that the new company would have to update their terms of service and allow you to accept or opt out. If they sold your data without you signing up for that it should be illegal.

I know many things/service/credit cards I have had were bought out by other companies... From what I can recall, you always get a new "terms of service" notification when changes are made.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 6:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
So wait up, let me understand your logic.

If I buy a company, I'm obligated to honor any and all user agreements they had in place before the point of sale? No matter what?

Dude come on, you're being stupid!

Google has absolutely NO obligation to honor ANY agreements made before Nest sold out. How could you believe differently?

Goddamnit what is wrong with you? Act like a grown man that has some sense about him!


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 6:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Apologies inighthawk, for some reason I thought Mitch posted that not you.

My points still stand, but the harshness and insults were intended for him, not you.


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 6:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, no worries.

The problem is that this is a gray area to me. I can't really say what the proper solution would be. On the one hand, I would expect that if a user entrusted you with valuable information, a user should be allowed to opt out (i.e. have his or her information removed from your data pool) when the terms of service and privacy policies change, especially during something like a business merger. The terms set by the second company may not match what I signed up for. On the other, there is a valid point in the feasibility of the situation.

But I still feel my example above was accurate. If you entrust sensitive information to someone you trust, and someone you don't trust buys that information, do you still feel safe with them having your information?


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 6:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
Okay well how about this angle, we have ZERO evidence Google plans to target existing customers with ads. All they did was suggest they *might* at some point in the future.

I'm sure Google isn't going to force existing users to do anything. They'll probably make a completely different Nest model for that with a bigger screen I would imagine.


RE: Duh.
By retrospooty on 5/21/2014 7:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
I could see it... "It's hot today Dave... Would you like a cold beverage"


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 7:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't mean to imply "they will" with some guarantee or anything. My statement is actually not really about Google at all, just a statement in general. I was more or less concerned that you didn't see the potential privacy issue involved in selling a database of user information to another company which does not hold the same privacy policy as the original owner.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 7:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was more or less concerned that you didn't see the potential privacy issue involved in selling a database of user information to another company which does not hold the same privacy policy as the original owner.


Why should I be? That information stopped being "yours" the minute you gave it away. As long as nothing illegal is being done with it, fair game.

We're not talking credit card info or social security numbers here. This data is harmless! Why are we acting like this is so important?


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 7:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I guess we just don't see eye to eye on things. I don't give information to people I don't want to have it, and expect it to stay that way. I am a very private person. I like keeping my private life my own. I don't share my name, phone number etc across the internet for everyone to see. People don't need to know that. I don't have a Facebook account, my emails accounts typically have barely enough info to be considered registered, often with fake names.

I'm not going to try and explain why I and others feel this way. You've made it clear in the past that you don't seem to care about privacy, and anyone who seems to disagree with you is just called a luddite for not embracing new technologies, including social ones. Sorry to disappoint you I guess. Agree to disagree.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 7:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
And that's fine. You're completely free to opt-out and not use the Internet or whatever. You aren't a "luddite" for being a private person.

But some people here, not saying that's you, don't seem to understand this is how the ENTIRE Internet functions now. It's why you can go to a website and read it for free. It's why you can send emails for free. Play games for free. Listen to music for free, etc etc etc.

It's paid for by ad revenue. If you don't like it, fine. But I guess what I'm saying is, stop trying to ruin it for everyone else. And just because something bothers you, doesn't mean it's criminal and should be stopped.


RE: Duh.
By rsmech on 5/21/2014 8:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
No one said there was an obligation but that doesn't mean as a customer you can't get upset. I doubt you have a smile on your face whenever someone changes verbal or written term you had with them. You don't mind making arrangement with someone and all of a sudden they're a no show or change the price, no big deal get over it.

Opt out should be an option for previous owners based on both Google and Nest statements at time of merger. Do no evil!

It's not a Google thing. There is a difference in something being unethical and illegal. Does do not evil just apply to legality because legally most lawyers are good people.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2014 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Opt out should be an option for previous owners based on both Google and Nest statements at time of merger. Do no evil!


I think you and I have completely different ideas of what "evil" is.

However previous owners absolutely CAN opt out. In a variety of ways. Exactly how do you think Google is going to compel them to do something they don't want?

quote:
There is a difference in something being unethical and illegal.


Most of you seem to think making profits are unethical altogether, if not outright "evil".

Why are you all getting so worked up over something that's completely hypothetical at this point? It's as if Google has already done something "evil" to Nest users. Nothing has happened yet, and we don't even know if something will!


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 3:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well said however the problem lies in when you opt out and yet the devices (not this in particular) continue to collect information without your consent or are never given an option to opt out and they still collect your information.


That's an Internet problem, not a Google problem.

The Internet just wasn't designed with anonymity in mind. You of all people should know that, but after reading your "2x boost with DX12" nonsense, I'm starting to have doubts.

Basically everything you do online, and everywhere you go, you are being tracked by someone or at the very least, leave big ass bread crumbs that anyone can follow back to you.

And I cannot believe you're using Salon.com as your source. Was that the most technically minded web-related establishment you could find to back your anti-Google diatribe? I guess that's the kind of thing that happens when you use Bing; an op-ed from a horrible rag.


RE: Duh.
By Mitch101 on 5/21/2014 4:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
Google is in the business of collecting, targeting, and selling your information. They are absolutely part of the problem.

Google Faces German Order to Change Handling of Personal Data
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-05-12/google...

Google glass lawsuits may spur as well with people not wanting glass to collect their personal identities, what they wear and where they are and go. Im not referring the wearer of google glass either but the people glass facially recognizes as the wearer matches identities to its facebook competitor.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 4:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google is in the business of collecting, targeting, and selling your information. They are absolutely part of the problem.


So is Microsoft, but you don't seem to have a problem with them. But Google's business model? You pretend it's some horrible moral issue.

Mitch, it's Google. You would say anything.

The only 'problem' here is the one in your head. Everyone knows how Google operates, nobody cares. It's better than the alternative.


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 5:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So is Microsoft, but you don't seem to have a problem with them. But Google's business model? You pretend it's some horrible moral issue.

Source? Because last I checked, Microsoft does not sell user information to third parties, but Google does. This is (almost entirely) Google's revenue source.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 6:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft runs an ad agency that uses collected data for targeting ads, JUST like Google.

Microsoft also owns a large portion of Facebook, where they collect Facebook users data for their ad agency.

They own Skype, which again, they use to target ads.

Bing, same thing.

Since they run a targeted ad agency, it's pretty safe to assume ALL data gathered from their many services, as well as Windows itself, is used for that purpose.

http://advertising.microsoft.com/en-us/display-ad-...

Not sure when you "checked", but this isn't a new development.

This is why Microsoft's "Scroogled" campaign was especially in bad taste. Because they are doing the same thing.


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 6:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
But none of this actually implies they are selling your data. They provide advertising APIs which the company can specify criteria. The internal advertising software uses Microsoft's own internal database of user information to then target the ads. I'm sure Microsoft probably uses various points of user data to provide targeted ads, but that is a different concept than selling user data. Microsoft isn't collecting my phone number from my Skype profile then selling it for 15 cents to a telemarketing agency.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 6:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
Wait what? No, wrong. They use data collected from THEIR services, and sell it to people using THEIR ad agency, to specifically target ads.

How are you not getting that?

Microsoft is a HUGE seller of data. They sell user data to the FBI, CIA, NSA. They sell user data to political campaigns.

All of this is easy to find with web searches. Known facts.

http://gizmodo.com/how-much-microsoft-charges-the-...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/micro...

quote:
Microsoft isn't collecting my phone number from my Skype profile then selling it for 15 cents to a telemarketing agency.


Well neither is Google. But where did I say they were doing that? I'm really confused. Do you understand how targeted ads work?


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 7:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Fair point on your first link, but the second only talks about using user data between their own services, not quite what I was referring to. But I was responding more specifically to this:

quote:
quote:
Google is in the business of collecting, targeting, and selling your information . They are absolutely part of the problem.

So is Microsoft , but you don't seem to have a problem with them. But Google's business model? You pretend it's some horrible moral issue.


http://translationmusings.com/2008/09/07/does-goog...


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 7:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
But they are selling your data, THROUGH their own ad service. JUST LIKE GOOGLE!

Dude why are you doing this to me? This isn't hard to comprehend. What's the problem?

Seriously I'm getting a headache. I proved to you Microsoft runs the exact same targeted ad agency model that Google does, leveraging data from it's own services to provide targets for buyers. I've also proved they directly sell private info to others.

What more do I have to do!?


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 7:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
I never contested they did targeted advertising. (When did I imply they didn't? This was never even part of my point...)

I also assumed my previous post implied an "ah, you are correct" when I mentioned "fair point on the first link"

I'm not sure where the problem is...


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 7:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
But you said this:

quote:
Source? Because last I checked, Microsoft does not sell user information to third parties, but Google does. This is (almost entirely) Google's revenue source.


Then even after I showed they did, you kept arguing.

Just...okay.


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 7:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
But you didn't. I was asking for sources about Microsoft selling user data. You eventually, after a few posts, gave me one to the FBI thing. Fair source, argument done. The others had nothing to do with that. I never said Microsoft didn't have targeted ads or used their own data internally. I'm not sure why you even brought that up.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 8:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wtf?

That's what Mitch was talking about! Google "selling users data" through targeted ads!!! I simply pointed out that MICROSOFT DOES THE SAME THING!

Holy sh*t man. Why are you making this WAY more convoluted than it is????

quote:
I'm not sure why you even brought that up.


.....

Because that WAS the discussion!


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/21/2014 8:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's called a branch in a discussion. You divert to a secondary point brought up by something that was said, but is not necessarily related to the root point of the debate.

This seems to be a theme in debates between you and me in the past. You generally think I'm always talking about the same thing that the OP is, but I'm usually just making a point on one specific thing you said, and is completely unrelated to the point of debate.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2014 8:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
Okay well just do me a favor next time, because I honestly do enjoy debating with you.

Just help me onto this branch of yours. Because at some point it had to be pretty obvious I missed the DETOUR sign and was plowing straight ahead.


RE: Duh.
By inighthawki on 5/22/2014 11:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
Sure thing :)


RE: Duh.
By FITCamaro on 5/21/2014 3:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not for it but yeah. If people are stupid enough to buy it, then that's their choice. Then they'll whine though when its hacked and all their food goes bad.

"Darn you Google! Why did you sell me something that added convenience to my life!?!"


RE: Duh.
By Alexvrb on 5/24/2014 2:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually low pricing will override other concerns, in many cases. So the appeal isn't in the product, necessarily, so much as it is in the pricing. Of course the discrepancy won't be quite that bad in appliances (at least to start). But when you see two identical fridges and one is $100 cheaper, for example... most people buying it won't even know what exactly the device does differently (other than the openly advertised positives/features).

Heck, I don't think most people have a clue what happens to their emails or any of their other information. The rest don't care (or don't care enough to go elsewhere). In the end, whether it's a thermostat, fridge, smartphone, tablet, watch, or Chromebook... the real product is the userbase, and the real customers are those paying Google to throw ads at you.


RE: Duh.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: Duh.
By kattanna on 5/21/2014 12:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
learn more about you every day


and your posts do that very thing for me

;>)


RE: Duh.
By chmilz on 5/21/2014 3:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
I look forward to the day when next to the "Smart" products, are equally branded "Dumb" products.

I like connectivity and integration, but I really don't think I need my toaster to send toasting metrics to the cloud and displaying ads for preserves that work best on bread toasted for 23 seconds at 9:14am.


RE: Duh.
By TheSlamma on 5/21/2014 5:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
I remember back in the 90's people were up in arms at what MS did, antitrust court cases, support for Netscape and other open source, etc etc.

Sadly people now just lay down to their corporate masters. Enjoy your lack of Net Neutrality too.


RE: Duh.
By Motoman on 5/21/2014 5:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
And here's some more fun I just stumbled across:

http://consumerist.com/2014/05/21/facebook-can-now...

For the moment, forget that it's a FB feature. It's done on your phone. Your Apple or Android phone. There's now the capability for your phone to listen to what's going on around you. That means more than them figuring out you still have a thing for Debbie Gibson...it means they can figure out what TV shows you watch...which tells them everything from whether or not you like romcoms to what your political leanings are.

It can tell them what languages you're fluent in. It means that, in theory, they could listen to your conversations and pick up on key words...like, you mention to your wife that you need to renew your auto insurance - and then magically your fridge and thermostat start showing you GEICO ads.

Paraniod? Mmm...any more paranoid than we were when we found that phones were tracking our geolocations by default, instead of having that feature off by default? Any more paranoid than we were when we found out that Apple was storing stuff you'd said to Siri?

Think people. I know it's hard for a lot of you...but you need to start doing it.


RE: Duh.
By Jeffk464 on 5/22/2014 12:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
So my fridge will no what I'm out of and google can feed me adds for who has what I need on special. Sounds ok to me.


RE: Duh.
By Arsynic on 5/22/2014 2:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
Then the NSA hacks your refrigerator and Michelle Obama sicks the IRS on you for buying too much junk food.


Targeted Ads
By SlickRoenick on 5/21/2014 11:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
Google typically wants you to log into a device (phone/pc/tv) so that they know who you are so they display relevant ads. Would this mean that homeowners would have to start logging into their refrigerators and thermostats???




RE: Targeted Ads
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/21/2014 11:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I have two Nest Thermostats, and they are logged onto the internet 24-7 via my established account (via my email address) for monitoring purposes. And they have motion sensors, so it knows when I'm upstairs or downstairs -- and at what time.

So perhaps in the future I could go downstairs at 3AM, walk past the thermostat, and it lights up showing me an ad for Ambien ;-)


RE: Targeted Ads
By Mitch101 on 5/21/2014 11:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
Or if it detects two people pass "Viagra" as friend passes by after that a local cab company.


RE: Targeted Ads
By kattanna on 5/21/2014 12:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
I love our nest..

let me see.. its currently 69 deg inside with 31% humidity, and the heat is set to 50 degs, basically off

i like having that remote control

i also love the daily usage charts, lets see.. absolutely no usage for the past 3 days.. nice!

if google wants to send an ad to it.. so be it.. we never really see it, and we actually had to turn off the motion sense because where it is we pass by it so rarely, it kept thinking we were never home and turned the whole thing off

LOL

we are thinking about getting a couple of the smoke detectors and use them to add the motion sense


RE: Targeted Ads
By marvdmartian on 5/21/2014 2:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose they're useful in areas like yours, where the weather might change often enough to bother with a gizmo like that.

Where I live, we basically have 3 weather seasons:
1. Too damn hot to have the windows open, A/C is on
2. Too damn cold to have the windows open, heat is on
3. The 3 weeks in between these seasons, when both heat and A/C are turned off, and the windows are open.

So unless Google plans on sneaking into my house, and taping their ads onto my refrigerator door, they're going to be SOL. I won't bother buying fancy stuff, like NEST thermostats and internet-capable refrigerators, until that's ALL that's available to buy.


RE: Targeted Ads
By Labotomizer on 5/21/2014 2:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
So, you live in Texas...


RE: Targeted Ads
By retrospooty on 5/21/2014 4:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
I was gonna say Arizona.


RE: Targeted Ads
By marvdmartian on 5/22/2014 7:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, Texas. Fairly close to the OK state line.

I exaggerated the 3-week "spring" and "autumn" a little bit, though some years it seems that way! Two years ago, when we had our killer high temperature summer, we broke these records:
- earliest 100 degree day (April)
- most number of 100 degree days in a year
- longest string of consecutive 100 degree days

Believe me, that makes for a VERY long summer!


RE: Targeted Ads
By Motoman on 5/21/2014 11:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
No. You'll register the serial number to activate the warranty, and that will tie the device to your household.

Don't want to register the device? OK. But no warranty for you then.


RE: Targeted Ads
By Labotomizer on 5/21/2014 2:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
Or you could buy a Honeywell thermostat. Or another fridge. Or, and this one might be hard to comprehend, not connect it to the internet...

These are all optional services. If my social security card and driver's license start tracking my habits then I'll be worried.


RE: Targeted Ads
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2014 2:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Fridges that come standard with high-res multi-touch displays aren't exactly on the market, and wont be for some time, if ever.

He's making it seem like he's being forced into something. Don't want, don't buy!


RE: Targeted Ads
By ritualm on 5/21/2014 5:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't want, don't buy!

Starting to be impossible for coil-top stoves, and fridges that require internet connections to operate are not that far off.

Your claim is hogwash.


RE: Targeted Ads
By retrospooty on 5/21/2014 5:33:36 PM , Rating: 1
"Starting to be impossible for coil-top stoves, and fridges that require internet connections to operate are not that far off. Your claim is hogwash."

Wait... What? /facepalm.


RE: Targeted Ads
By ritualm on 5/21/2014 10:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
Try going to an appliance store. Coil-top stoves still exist, however the trend is moving towards flat-tops. Combined with the sad fact that these appliances stop being reliable before 5 years were up...

My mother's flat-top completely failed (as in, all cooktop surfaces are emitting smoke!) in a little over a year. Fixing it would cost more than half its original purchase cost.

Fridges that connect to the internet are still relatively new. Well, wait a few more years - these things will become as commonplace as 7" tablets. A cybersecurity attack vector that originates from your home's appliances, isn't that great?


RE: Targeted Ads
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2014 12:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hey kid, have you ever cooked on a coil-top stove? News flash, they SUCK! There's a reason everyone is moving away from them.

My parents have an induction cooktop, it's AMAZING. It can boil a huge pot of water in one minute flat, my coil-top takes like 10! And it's more energy efficient, and cooks with zero hot spots, perfectly even heat.

The only thing better is gas.

quote:
My mother's flat-top completely failed


Big freaking deal. Myopic much?

You can take the best built, most reliable thing on the planet. And there's someone out there who had one blow up on them. It happens, always gonna happen.


RE: Targeted Ads
By retrospooty on 5/22/2014 1:21:42 AM , Rating: 1
Dont tell him his coil stove sucks... He will get all bent and tell you you are unfairly biased against coil stove users then rant on about it.


RE: Targeted Ads
By Motoman on 5/22/2014 11:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Optional services? You sure about that?

http://consumerist.com/2014/05/20/decline-new-priv...

The manufacturer can just turn off the features you bought the product for if you don't agree to give them your data. Not conjecture. Already happening.


RE: Targeted Ads
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2014 11:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't Apple start this years ago? Nobody seemed to care then. If their idiot customer base rejected it then, we probably wouldn't be facing it now.


RE: Targeted Ads
By marvdmartian on 5/22/2014 2:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
And, once again, people can choose to go with another product. All that guy lost was some features his smart TV offered, that were probably easily duplicated by his smart DVD or Blu-ray player.

Plus, remember what happened when Hollywood decided to make it impossible to copy, at first, videotapes, then later, DVD's and Blu-ray disks? Yeah, that's worked out really well, hasn't it?

So what's to say that someone can't also figure out a work-around for this sort of problem too?


RE: Targeted Ads
By NellyFromMA on 5/21/2014 11:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
In addition to account-based profile building, which is Google's favorite, they also build profiles based on IP Address even though they are most often dynamic (but not so dynamic that a useful ad-target profile can't be generated typically). They likely also have ways of tying several dynamic ips to a given anonymous individual but I'm not clear on how that would be done.

So, its certainly possible for Google to achieve its desires without account log in.

However, it's pretty likely that your devices would be registered under your account and have some type of service running on it that acts as a means of identifying the device consistently without a static IP similar to DDNS.


Soon...
By lagomorpha on 5/21/2014 11:36:43 AM , Rating: 3
How much longer until Google starts broadcasting advertisements into our dreams?

...

Or data mining our dreams for better directed advertisements?




RE: Soon...
By coburn_c on 5/21/2014 1:26:01 PM , Rating: 4
"..not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree. "


No Way
By mgilbert on 5/21/2014 2:03:36 PM , Rating: 3
I'll avoid buying ANY device that bombards me with ads. I use adblock on the Internet, and DVR every show I watch. Enough is enough. Over my dead body...




RE: No Way
By Labotomizer on 5/22/2014 2:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
This type of attitude annoys me to absolutely no end. So you're saying that you're entitled to free everything? The ads are what pay for the shows you watch and the web sites you frequent. By blocking them you're effectively robbing those places of revenue. So when we're having to pay for NBC content or for the pleasure of reading Dailytech forum posts you can thank yourself and other idiots like you.

Ads that show information relevant to an individual are actually a GOOD thing.


RE: No Way
By bsim50 on 5/23/2014 3:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
Adblock only started becoming popular when ads got ridiculously and unnecessarily intrusive (animated, flash, with audio, posing as fake anti-virus pop up alerts, etc). Likewise, "ad skip" features only started appearing when ad breaks got ridiculously long +5mins etc. Half the "damage" to the ad industry is entirely self inflicted.

Likewise for TV shows, there have been such obnoxious DOG's (Digital Onscreen Graphics, ie, logo's that cover the actors face talking, pop-up "coming next" ads covering the action of the current show), overly loud voiceovers, unreadable credits due to yet more ads, etc, that plenty of people have bought DVD boxsets just to get away from that crap, so people are indeed already "paying for their content"...


By Schrag4 on 5/21/2014 11:32:51 AM , Rating: 3
Now instead of paying a couple hundred bucks for a Nest thermostat, ad revenue will fund it instead, right? (of course not)

Before I said "Pass." Now it's a "HELL NO!"




No Surprise
By MWink on 5/21/2014 11:36:25 AM , Rating: 3
Smoke detector: "FIRE! FIRE! Evacuate immediately and cool down with a nice bottle of brand x mineral water! Don't forget to save your phone which has been sent a $0.10 off coupon."

Yeah, I'm not one bit surprised. This is just one of the reasons I lost any iota of interest I had in Nest products when I heard Google bought them.




AdBlock
By Flunk on 5/21/2014 4:35:03 PM , Rating: 3
I'm starting work on my new product, Adblock for "things". It's either going to run on your router or between the router and modem and block all ads for all your appliances and other devices.

I plan to release it right after Google releases this junk.




If they put ads on my Nest...
By masamasa on 5/22/2014 12:46:27 AM , Rating: 3
...I'll be joining the class action against them. Enough with the damn ads infringing on every aspect of your life. I don't need that crap in my home and certainly not on my thermostat.




What, me worry?
By tonyswash on 5/21/2014 7:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
This story conjured up a long forgotten memory from my childhood, back when I was an avid reader of Mad Magazine. The magazine did a typical spoof cartoon report about the spread of pervasive advertising and one frame I remember was set on an airplane and as the passenger tilted the cup of coffee that had just been served it revealed, on the inside bottom of the cup now at eye level, an advert for a parachute.

I like some ads because they are clever or witty, but only about 1%, and I find some ads useful, but only about 1%, the rest are just irritating.




For the Sake of Argument..
By WhatKaniSay on 5/21/2014 1:35:08 PM , Rating: 1
What if this article reads... "Apple wants ads everywhere"

How will DT readers respond?




RE: For the Sake of Argument..
By retrospooty on 5/21/14, Rating: 0
"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki