Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Jan 2012 22:45 UTC
Google Google has updated its privacy policy - in fact, it has consolidated a mess of over 70 different privacy policies each covering an individual service into one, simpler policy. You'll now be treated as a single account, and data will be shared between Google services to make search results and ads more personalised (I assumed they already did that - makes sense).
Permalink for comment 504958
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Alternative perspective
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 27th Jan 2012 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Alternative perspective"
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

One implication is that Google's revenue source, desktop search, is very threatened by the rise of mobile device internet activity, particularly where that mobile activity replaces desktop activity.
(...)
It's response is to either pressure data owners to open their kimono or to try to kill their business by using their large advertising revenues to fund free competing products and services which do collect user data for Google. I don't much like that, it seems anti-innovative to me.


I'd rather see a thousand "innovative" silo-curators run out of business, than see the internet dragged back to the days of AOL when public content was walled-off into various incompatible silos. The "innovation" that you're so eager to see flourish is essentially the Web 2.0 version of file format lock-in - but even worse, because at least 3rd parties could build converters to get around format lock-in.

Your rationale seems to be little more than: closed silos are a threat to Google, and Google is evil, so closed silos must be good for everyone else. That's extraordinarily myopic - curated silos aren't just a threat to Google, they undermine everything that allowed the Internet to win out over glorified BBSes like AOL. Though maybe you consider that an "anti-innovative" outcome too...

You want to talk about implications? Speaking of AOL, one of the reasons they were initially successful was exclusivity agreements with content producers (E.g. several major print magazines initially eschewed websites in favor of areas on AOL). How long do you think it's going to be until Apple tries to pull the same thing - E.g. write a nice fat cheque to Facebook, so that Facebook can only be accessed through the iOS app & every other platform gets locked out? Or say, Amazon decides to limit their services to Kindle users. Would you consider that innovative? And if Google opposed that, would you consider that "anti-innovative"?

(See? Two can play the "loaded questions" game)

Not to mention that fact that having the internet dominated by Software-as-a-Service silos is probably the fondest wet dream of Big Content. Simply because it gives them the opportunity to control content on the Internet in the same way they've controlled content on traditional media. Viva la innovation, right?

This means that all internet activity that generates significant user activity which cannot be collected by Google is seen as a threat by Google, as is any attempt by users to remain private in their internet activity.


Riiiiiiiiight, I can't the number of accounts I've read where Google beat the doors of providers of members-only sites, or a private intranets, or any webmail systems outside of GMail, etc - and tried to run them out of business unless they opened up their system to public indexing.

Reply Parent Score: 2