Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:48 UTC
Legal Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.
Thread beginning with comment 528919
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Whining by proxy
by Tony Swash on Mon 30th Jul 2012 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Whining by proxy"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

"[q]Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy.

Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world.


Not to mention that iAd probably works in a very similar way to Adwords...
"

...and I totally forgot iCloud. [/q]

Are you arguing that Apple collects data on the content of documents stored in iCloud on a per user basis in a similar way that Google collects data in say Gmail in order to commercialise that data in a similar way that Google does?

If so then some evidence supporting that hypothesis would be useful.

It seems to me utterly obvious that Apple and Google have different business models (neither of which is 'good' or 'bad') and that those different models mean that the function of cloud storage is different in each company.

In the case of Apple it's core business is primarily, overwhelmingly in fact, as a device maker and all it's services and software offerings are intended to add value to the devices and make it inconvenient (but not impossible) to move to another company's device. Collecting data on user behaviour is a secondary and very minor aspect of what motivates Apple. iAd is a tiny part of Apple's business.

Google's core business on the other hand is selling targeted advertising, targeting that is wholly based on user data, so collecting user data is very central to what Google does, it is a prime motivator and is crucial to it's business model. So what motivates Google to offer cloud storage and services is to collect user data and to ensure that users remain with an ecosystem which allows Google to collect that data.

Is any of this news to anyone? I would be astonished if anyone found what I just said any way controversial.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Whining by proxy
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Jul 2012 12:04 in reply to "RE[6]: Whining by proxy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Are you arguing that Apple collects data on the content of documents stored in iCloud on a per user basis in a similar way that Google collects data in say Gmail in order to commercialise that data in a similar way that Google does?

If so then some evidence supporting that hypothesis would be useful.


Yes. Per Apple's own privacy policy which governs iCloud:

"We also use personal information to help us develop, deliver, and improve our products, services, content, and advertising."

"We also collect non-personal information − data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."

"We may collect information such as occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, location, and the time zone where an Apple product is used so that we can better understand customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising."

And this is just a selection. Anything you send to Apple - whether they classify it as 'personal' or not - can and will be used for advertising and other purposes. Just like Google.

Google does so in a completely automated fashion (no people involved), and it's pretty obvious Google has far more advanced tools to do so than Apple does (since it's, as you agree, it's Google's core business). In other words, I'd much rather (but still wouldn't and therefore don't) store my data at Google than at Apple.

On top of that, Google gives far, far, far more insight in and control over the data they have collected on you. Apple provides nothing of the sort. Zero. Seems like someone has something to hide.

Edited 2012-07-30 12:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Whining by proxy
by Tony Swash on Mon 30th Jul 2012 12:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Whining by proxy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"Are you arguing that Apple collects data on the content of documents stored in iCloud on a per user basis in a similar way that Google collects data in say Gmail in order to commercialise that data in a similar way that Google does?

If so then some evidence supporting that hypothesis would be useful.


Yes. Per Apple's own privacy policy which governs iCloud:

"We also use personal information to help us develop, deliver, and improve our products, services, content, and advertising."

"We also collect non-personal information − data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."

"We may collect information such as occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, location, and the time zone where an Apple product is used so that we can better understand customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising."

And this is just a selection. Anything you send to Apple - whether they classify it as 'personal' or not - can and will be used for advertising and other purposes. Just like Google.

Google does so in a completely automated fashion (no people involved), and it's pretty obvious Google has far more advanced tools to do so than Apple does (since it's, as you agree, it's Google's core business). In other words, I'd much rather (but still wouldn't and therefore don't) store my data at Google than at Apple.

On top of that, Google gives far, far, far more insight in and control over the data they have collected on you. Apple provides nothing of the sort. Zero. Seems like someone has something to hide.
"

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I don't care that Google collects data about me or anyone else. I also don't care if Apple collect data, or who has the best privacy policies. Those things are interesting but I don't care about them.

I do think that the role of collecting user data is far more important in Google's business model than Apple's business model, that it explains far more of what Google does than of what Apple does.

For example I don't think anyone would argue that Apple's device products are just sold as a way to collect user data, rather they are Apple's prime product and collecting user data is a side game and so if one wanted to analyse what drove Apple to make it's big strategic decisions one wouldn't start with the collection of user data.

Conversely the collection of user data is central to Google's business model and it is therefore a useful place to start when trying to understand what motivates Google's strategic business decisions. Why did Google do Android? It cost an awful lot, even without factoring in the costs of the Motorola acquisition. Is there any doubt that Google's prime motivation in doing Android was ensure that it's services, and hence it's ability to collect user data, were not shut out of the rapidly growing mobile device market? There is nothing wrong with that motivation, it's logical from Google's point of view.

All this is a long way from my main point in my original comment. What Google is doing is absolutely OK and as long as it is not illegal that have every right to do it. But only a fool thinks that is has no consequences. Google is trying to destroy the business model of a wide range of companies which is absolutely OK and not 'evil' or anything like that. But it has consequences. Google's competitors and those companies who are being deliberately threatened by Google's actions have every right to fight back, again if the way they do so is legal.

But to argue that anyone is being unfair to Google is simply just pathetic. As I said what I really can't stand is the whining self pity and the pretence of martyrdom.

"All we did is try to destroy your business and now you are being really nasty to us. Why!"

Pathetic.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Whining by proxy
by ilovebeer on Mon 30th Jul 2012 15:28 in reply to "RE[7]: Whining by proxy"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

On top of that, Google gives far, far, far more insight in and control over the data they have collected on you. Apple provides nothing of the sort. Zero. Seems like someone has something to hide.

No, Google does not but I'm sure they appreciate that you think otherwise and are willing to blindly defend them.

Btw, if you've been paying attention to the news lately you would have seen a report about Google and their less-than-stellar behavior regarding your privacy.. Here's a snippet for your enjoyment, compliments of Reuters:

" Google said on Friday it had not kept its promise to delete all the personal data, such as emails, its Street View cars collected in Britain and other countries in 2010.

The U.S. company admitted in May 2010 that its vehicles, which photograph neighborhoods to create street level images, had accidentally collected data from unsecured wireless networks used by residents in more than 30 countries.

The failure to comply with a promise to delete all the data was notified to Britain's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which said the fact that the data still existed appeared to breach an undertaking signed by Google in November 2010.

"The ICO is clear that this information should never have been collected in the first place and the company's failure to secure its deletion as promised is a cause for concern," the ICO said."

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Whining by proxy
by Tony Swash on Mon 30th Jul 2012 16:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Whining by proxy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Thom I think we are talking at cross purpose.

Let me clarify: I don't care about Google or Apple collecting mine or anybody else's personal data, or how strong or weak their respective privacy protections are. I just don't care. It's not an issue that excites me.

I do think that the collection of personal data plays different roles in Google and Apple's core businesses. This means that if one wishes to understand what drives each company's strategic decision making then I would say that the collection of personal data carries far less weight in Apple's decision making than in Google's. Is that statement in any way even remotely contentious?

Apple core business is making devices, collecting user data is a peripheral activity. Google sells targeted advertising, the collection of personal data is central to that business. The Android initiative is for Google all about preventing their services (search, gmail, location, social networking, whatever) from being shut out of mobile services. Those Google services only exist to ensure that Google can collect user date and sell advertising. Android is for Google an attempt to ensure that Google's services continue to be baked into devices so Google can continue to collect user data and sell advertising. Again - is that statement in any way even remotely contentious?

We seem to have drifted a long way from the main point I was making which is that there is noting wrong with Google using free offerings as a way to undermine other companies products and business models in order to guarantee that Google services proliferate. On the other hand there is nothing especially noble or worthwhile about Google's business, it's just a business like all others, but there is nothing especially noble or worthwhile about Apple's business either.

But if Google attacks other companies business models it is ludicrous to cry foul if those companies fight back.

"We tried to destroy their business and now they are fighting back. How unfair!"

How pathetic.

Reply Parent Score: 2