Hello!
I´m interrested in Android as well as in the tm G1.
Now the G1 is announced here in Germany for the second of february.
My problem at the moment is, that I have read and heard, that google is collecting data (everything)! So if you read the "terms and conditions", what do you think about that or don´t you care? I mean they have the rights over everything you load/send/post/get....and more!
How do you handle that fact personally for you?
Greetings!
Carter
That's just the nature of the emphasis on cloud computing. Personally my stance is simply to not conduct any business on my G1 that I would mind Google knowing/datamining. Regardless of what companies claim in their privacy policies, the very best way to 100% guarantee your data will be misused is simply to not willingly give it out.
Edit: also keep in mind that the (potentially) datamining portions of Android generally revolve around those apps and services which are closed-source apps provided by Google that are not a part of the Android Open Source Project. These include for example the Market, GMail, GTalk, and so forth.
ok, I get your point, but what is the G1 without Gmail/Calendar etc.
And thats all google.
Because of the poor response on my question I think that the majority doesn´t care about google´s data collecting hype.
In my eyes their acting is scary....imagine the details they know about you and many many other people....
just my opinion...
Greetz!
They don't collect any personal information. Not only that but they don't have people looking at these records. A computer does all the work, and is only used to find keywords.
Look at this site's search (the one on xda not google) it works by taking every word and putting it in a database and when you search the word it shows the corresponding posts. so post1 has wordA and post2 has wordA and wordB, and when you search for wordB you only get post2. The same concept is in place for google... except it goes one step further. The spider takes out words that are not needed. Well they have been using this for your GMail for sometime as well. It is why they have excellent spam control and it is why google is so awesome. They use the same process to check emails when you click links. Basically they are just trying to find out who uses what sites for what reasons. If they figure out all this they can better help you and the company you were visiting.
Chances are if you are on a site that is doing something illegal Google already knows it exisists.
someone can always watch if they want, on a g1 or PC, or anything connected. Just don't do anything dumb.
i think its obscene and absurd how gung hoe they are with it. If you want access to the playstore gawdam they better have every member of your family and every person you've ever met profiled as well as around the clock location tracking with a serial # and every keystroke on your device. And dont you dare make any attempts to disable any of their spyware or you can kiss YouTube apps and the play store goodbye. Its pathetic what they've done to Android and its users. And the reason it pisses me of the most is because I don't even really use free apps. They're all either paid for or open.
so after posting an excerpt of my letter to Dan Morrill, the author of the absolutely idiotic statement regarding what they're doing, i received several PMs asking me to post the whole thing. It's so long it wont fit in a single post, so read it all. if you dont want to read a wall of text, stop here and go to a new thread.
Mr. Morrill,
First, I would like to bid you a good day, as I'm sure this letter is going to effect it. Yes, that is a bold statement to make at the onset, but writings such as these have a way of eating their way into your psyche and leaving a lasting impression that could very well sour your appetite at lunch time.
Perhaps I should introduce myself. My name is XXXXXXXXXXXXX, and I am an amateur developer on the Android platform. I am also a user of many of the custom Android builds that have come out since the release of the source development kit, including the build made by Steve "Cyanogen" Kondik. Ah, yes, now you see what this letter is going to be about.
So lets start with the basics. Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation that released a supposedly open-source platform onto the mobile device market. Now, I say mobile device as opposed to mobile phone, simply because there are products being released, such as the Zii EGG, which do not support telecommuniations, yet are still running on the Android platform. Now, in any reasonable programmers mind, the reason for making a platform open source, regardless of what the Public Relations people spin it as, is to alleviate some of the burden on the actual in-house development teams. The source code created by thousands of bright minds is doubtless going to yield a much stonger end result than that of a small development squad. Its simple mathematics. Well, that point alongside the fact that the original linux developers made no secret of their intentions by open-sourcing their operating system, which paved the way for Android many many years later.
In addition to that, all of the applications included in the "stock", or unmodified and officially released Android, builds are free. Any user with internet access can use any of these functions through the internet, with the blessings of your employer, free of charge. Yet, somehow, this has caused a sort of hiccup between your supposed idea of free development and that of the general public. Now, before you warp your mind into "this guy doesnt know what he's talking about" mode, think about the principles that your company was founded upon. You wanted to beat out the corporate giants and look out for the little guy. Oh yes, I've done my homework on Google over the years. The benevolent company trying to provide free services for the masses that the "evil-empire" corporations would deny free access to. Ironically enough, this letter is being written to you on Google Docs, another of your free services. Quite troublesome, it would seem.
And now, lest I digress further, I'll shift to the meat of the topic. In your statement regarding the cease and desist letter to Mr. Kondik, you claim that the sales of your free software to be used on mobile platforms being provided to the end user by custom developers for free would hurt the bottom line. Perhaps you should re-examine your own words. Free software being given to the masses by developers whom you claim to encourage is huring your profit share because you cannot sell the use of it to large corporations. Pardon me if I fail to understand the rationale behind such a contradictory and obviously ridiculous statement. But just so that you can understand my position on the matter, lets look at a related position. Google produces an internet browser, Chrome. Mozilla, a competing franchise, produces Firefox, their own browser. Developers for firefox have created applications which borrow on Google's proprietary code to access the functionality of the various features and programs. Are these developers charged for being able to include such features? No. Are these developers caused to halt their activities through threats of legal action for providing end users access to the capabilities that Google readily offers for free? No. So where is the disparity between allowing a competitor to do such things and tying the hands of developers of YOUR open source platform from doing the same?
Before I go further, let me give you a little background on myself to illuminate things. I used to work for XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. I worked in one of their call centers with well over a thousand people, almost a quarter of whom purchased the G1. More than 50% of those users had custom builds running on their phones. How would I know this? I personally installed it on over 300 and gave instructions to many more who wanted to do it themselves. This was one call center. But your apparent attitude on the situation makes it apparent that providing these people with custom software that includes the Google-based programs that were ORIGINALLY ON THE DEVICE AT PURCHASE, is illegal. I'm sorry sir, but that notion is preposterous. All of the Android-based mobile platforms on the market today include the software that caused you to send Mr. Kondik a cease and desist letter. This means that every single end user who purchased one of the devices paid that bottom line you spoke of. Any other rationale is impossible. Non-supporting devices will not run Android, and as such, the only way to use the device is to have purchased one. This brings us to the logical conclusion that those applications, such as GMail and Google Talk are PAID FOR. The situation is equitable to this situation: Joe purchases a computer from a major distributor, say Dell. Dell gives Joe a complimentary piece of free software (available on the Dell website) which updates his drivers on the Dell website, included with his purchase. Joe decides he doesnt particularly like the operating system on the computer, and installs an operating system more to his liking, that also happens to include the Dell software. But lo-and-behold, that free software shouldnt be free to Joe, even though he paid Dell's bottom line through his original computer purchase.
Your flaw is that you are obviously trying to "spin" the situation. Unfortunately, its a thin disguise and everyone can see through it, clear as crystal. These people that I speak of? Developers. The developers whom you claim to encourage. This brings me to my next point. Developers are essentially software hackers. They take the code from a program, rip it apart, improve on it, and then put it back out on the market for other developers to toy with. Perhaps, in your travels as a computer programmer, you have come across a copy of the much fabled "hacker's manifesto". Free access to data. That is what it was about at its core philosophy. You claimed to provide developers with that free access through Android, and then punish the people whom you claim to support.
Have you ever seen "The Devil's Advocate", Mr. Morrill? Al Pacino has an excellent line in which he is describing the way God imbued man with instinct, saying "Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow." Is this not what you've done here? You've given us, the developers, what you claim to be an open-source platform, written for mobile platforms that contain previously installed versions of the software, and also containing applications that each and every possible user would have purchased through buying the device on which they run. Then you tell us that it is illegal for us to modify any portion of that software which you see fit at any given point in time. Perhaps you should have just kept it closed-source, so that anything innovative wouldnt stir controvversy, as it would have truly been illegal. You give us a gift and then set the rules in opposition as it suits you.
Now, if I havent struck a nerve yet, perhaps I will in my own belief on the subject. You FEAR us. The android development team put out an initial platform. The developers, using the source code given to us, have turned out platforms on several different versions that utilize more functionality with greater performance, more flexibility and a wider range of features than ANYTHING that the official releases have even come close to. Mr. Kondik's releases are a prime example of this. He has created a version of the platform which utilizes every aspect of the platform infinitely better than the official releases. He has also included functionality from FUTURE releases, constantly and consistently improving on such, in a timeframe that should have your development team in absolute hysterics. That, sir, is what I believe this is about. Fear and shame. Never did you imagine that the Android development community would be able to surpass the Godly heights of the original development team, but we have and continually do so. It's his popularity that earned him the letter. He posed the biggest threat to your team by sharing a creative vision with anyone willing to install it that your team couldn't possibly compete with. But what about all of the other major developers? As of right now, I can count over a hundred different custom builds that include much of the same functionality and applications that Mr. Kondik's software includes. Are you going to attempt to stop them too?
(continued in post #2)
I assume you have been on the internet before. I assume you know that it spans the globe and has absolutely no limits or boundaries. It is freedom at its peak. Anyone, anywhere can express anything they want. The beautiful thing is that it enables people to communicate, and thereby collaborate in real-time. An internet community with thirty thousand people doesnt have to find a meeting room with enough chairs. This is the problem you're facing. You have attempted to cut the head off of a snake that you created. Unfortunately, on the internet, when you cut off the head of a snake, the body doesnt die. A thousand more heads spawn in its place, angrier, defiant and more intent on their purpose. Perhaps that should be a wake up call.
Mr. Morrill, I hope that in reading this letter, you have come to realize the gravity of your position. You have not only hurt yourselves, but angered an entire community, consisting of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. These are the people who write the applications that are sold on the Android Market. These are the people who have the time to spare to ensure that you still have a job by creating works of digital art, using the code that you claim to be "open source". Are you so obtuse as to believe that these people are going to slip silently into the night when their creativity is stifled by the whims of a multibillion dollar corporation? I think not, sir.
You simply cannot give freedom to the masses and then attempt to bind their hands, as you are attempting to do in this case. This has ended in cataclysmic failure for every culture and every authority that has attempted to do so in history. We live in a global society of ingenuity. People WILL find a way. The creative power of the developers of the android community will inevitably break you. History has shown ample evidence that a creative mind cannot be beaten down. No army of lawyers, no amount of cease and desist letters will stop the tide of creativity.
It's like a bear. The choice you had was to embrace this creativity and nurture it or to poke at it with a stick. Mr. Morrill, are you aware of the consequences of poking a bear with a stick? Some thought on that will bring you to an obvious, and quite unpleasant, conclusion.
Had you simply left well enough alone, the damage might have been minimal, but at this point you could be looking at a 2009 reenactment of the Boston Tea Party, with the Android platform playing the part of the British tea. The damage to your "bottom line" was so infinitesimally small as to equate to a mouse burping on a rush hour subway car in New York City. As stated previously, it is simply my belief that your development team was offended by the fact that amateur developers would put them to shame. Does Android come with a complimentary set of swim trunks? Perhaps you might invest. I hear Boston Harbor gets cold in the winter.
In closing, perhaps you should let the immortal words of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto echo through your mind as you contemplate the statements made in this letter:
"I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve".
Mr. Morrill, the giant is awake now, and his resolve is beyond your wildest dreams. I truly hope you are prepared to reap the consequences of what you have put in motion.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
amazing. your right they do fear us and they have woken a sleeping giant. what i dont get is the fact that these roms are making this phone better. as you said you gave over 300 people instructions how to do this at the call center. if anything these devs are helping google make sales, and google doesnt even have to make a better product. they make they same thing tht has been out since 0ct.22.2008 and the devs make it better. you sir are a god among men.
Wow, great letter, really looking forward to hearing the response to this - If you'd post it that is ;-)
You misspelt "purchased" in the eighth paragraph btw
yeah, this was the pre-spell-checked rough draft. the copy that i sent him was clean as a whistle.
Interesting letter. Not to mock you or anything, but it reminds me a lot of Keith Olbermann.
I am a RSA for TMO, and one of the major selling points was that Android was (is?) Open Source. That was a big deal to many customers.
I don't think the folks over a Google realize how tech savvy even the dumbest tech user is.
Had probably a 60 year old man come in the other day and he had put Hero on his G1 by himself.
(No offense to any oldsters.)
The world is changing, and Google just jumped in front of that subway train you mentioned.
this was truly a great letter. i would love to see the response (if you even get one) to this. i feel inspired to go do something now...
Android users, this is your call to arms.
Before you go and write long winded threatening letters to someone, maybe you should look into what you are writing about first. The person you are writing the letter to is an employee of a company that tells him what to do. I doubt after all of the help he has given developers and "hackers" in the Android irc channel, that he was just planning on striking everything down. My guess, and that of many others who know of him (havent chatted a lot, but he is social with us) would be that he was told to write that post. I dont want cyanogen roms to go away either, but I think you are going at it the wrong way. Hate the company, not the developers.
And after re-reading the post, you mention installing this on devices that already have it. The exact same arguement I used but you must also realize that an HTC hero does not get these Google Apps. It is an HTC branded phone and instead gets HTC branded apps. The "With Google" phones are the only ones that come with these apps pre-installed. Even then, apparently (I just found this out today) that your license to these apps does not allow you to copy them OFF of the device they came on. So that cut down another idea we had: copy the apps from the rom to SD, flash image, copy apps back.
Once again, I do not disagree with you or your anger, I just disagree with who you are directing it at.
irrelevant. "i was just doing what i was told" is never an excuse. it doesnt work in the justice system, and it doesnt work here. i could elaborate more, but i really dont want to invoke Godwin's Law this early in the conversation. he opened his mouth. he made himself the target. everyone is a nice and helpful person until they show their true colors.
perhaps its just me, but i'm one of those people that actually hold to my ideals. if i'm fighting for something and my boss tells me to do otherwise, i'm going to tell him to pack sand. if I get fired, i can always find a new job, but I can do so with my integrity intact. he had a choice. everyone always has a choice.
also, to your second post, the HTC branded phones arent the subject of controversy. the apps are "free". i quote free because it isnt true in this case. how is distributing the official Gmail app for free any different than accessing the same capabilities through another means? if I were to delete the official GMail app off of my phone entirely and instead access my gmail account through a browser, wouldnt that have the same effect on Google's "bottom line"? I'm still using the same service and not paying for it. Similarly, with the hero, if you have access to GMail through any email application or browser, are you not violating the same concept? You're still using the core of google's intellectual property for free. Their only real solution is to make the Google apps paid applications that everyone has access to if they want to shell out the cash, or simply drop the whole thing.
Are they going to stop people from creating custom GMail apps too? Cause if so, they've got a big fish to fry, cause they'd have to go after everyone who wrote a gmail plugin for firefox as well. any way you look at it, they're not going to stop the development community from going on, its simply too big.
If Dell gives you a "free" copy of vista on your laptop, and then you buy a compaq with linux installed on it. Does that mean you have the right to install your "free" vista on the compaq also? It was free! How about you write a new windows shell and you bundle your free windows vista with it. And you also throw in your free copy of Office that came with it.
I understand their point and I realize these examples are not EXACT enough to matter, but the point does. They give you the apps for A SPECIFIC device and they give them to you with rules. Rules that we do not like.
I feel that they instead of C&D'ing him, should have had a little sit down with him. Said "hey, we realize you are doing a lot of good for us by promoting our product and giving those who want more what they ask for when we cannot, but we have some rules for you. A, you must make every attempt you can to make sure the roms you distribute go on authorized "With Google" devices. B, not release stuff you do not have permission to release." This would allow google to control what he releases enough to fit within the rules (keeps carriers from saying "hey, he can release your apps without paying, why cant we?"). They would also benefit from the many thousands of users who flock to these custom roms but realize they are unusable in their bare forms.
And so you do not have to, I will be the first to pull the term nazi out of my hat in this one
I agree completely. As i said in the letter, they could have nurtured creativity (i.e. having a sit down with him and saying "hey look, we know that this is going to non-google devices and we cant have that, so make an attempt to not let it happen") or poke it with a stick. They chose the stick, and now they get to reap the backlash.
I also understand your initial examples, and while they do hold true for the circumstance, windows isnt lauded as being an open-source platform. In addition, i havent heard of microsoft going after people who create custom shells that utilize windows information, so long as they put a disclaimer on it saying that you're only allowed to use them if you're running an authorized copy of the OS. The same should have been done here, as you suggested.
Also, microsoft has specific anti-piracy safeguards in place to keep you from installing that software on your compaq that didnt come with it. Can you get around it? sure. Piracy happens, but its also illegal. But google has no such safeguards on the apps. Is it because they lacked the foresight to see this coming? Absolutely. If they didnt want the apps installed on non-branded/non-approved devices, then perhaps they should have made it impossible to do so. Sure, people would eventually find a way around it, but then they'd have a legitimate piracy gripe. As it is now, they dont. You dont hand a kid a cookie, let him eat half and then snatch it away because he shared the chocolate chips. You keep him away from the cookies from the get-go.
It really is a sad state of affiars. If something is going to be free, such as GMail, then Google shouldnt care how the users access it. How big of a chunk of their profits do you think its really going to hurt if people with the hero get a free copy of the gmail app? I bet their legal team made for handling this "issue" than it would cost them in ten years. If the apps in question were paid apps, then I would completely understand. People shouldnt get something free that they should have to pay for, which is one of the reasons that XDA has such a strict "warez" policy. But thats not the case.
The simplest solution would have been to realize that "oops, we did tell them it was open source, maybe we should clarify a bit and see if we can come to a reasonable understanding". But alas...
Also, to your point that the apps came with a specific device, what about those that purchased a device with those apps? We have a right to be using them as we see fit. When I bought my phone, I never signed anything that said that I couldnt theme the application if I wanted to. Google never made me sign a contract. And they couldnt, it would be ridiculous. What about people that purchased them on ebay or craigslist without a contract? They still bought the device and are the owner, and they certainly didnt have to agree not to modify any content. Is google going to go after every developer and every themer now too? Are they going to go after every end user who modified their content? It's just as illegal as making a rom that allows it to happen in the eyes of the law. Apple is attempting to do the same sort of crap with people jailbreaking the iphone. They're saying that even though you bought it, apple technically still owns it, so anything you do to it is illegal. Theres a huge legal debate going on over it right now and apple looks like theyre probably going to lose.
The safeguard they have in place is lack of root access. If you have root access yo have exploited a bug and are acting out of the designed use of the phone. You would not be able to backup or otherwise access these app files. Also, you would not be able to flash the new rom without root, which you gained by exploiting a bug.
Absolutely. But at the same time, the whole "exploiting a bug" argument is similarly null. If the bug never existed, two things would be true:
1. There would be no custom roms for end users, which Mr. Morrill says he supports and looks forward to seeing more of. This would be true since the idea of creating custom software would be idiotic as nobody would be able to install it. The only people utilizing the open-source framework would be major development houses, such as what creative is doing with the plazma stem-cell android that they're putting on the EGG. Application development has nothing to do with open source. The iPhone is not open source, but you can still develop apps for it.
2. The claim that they have about the free distribution of their intellectual property would hold merit, as it would be legitimate software piracy, instead of an unintended side effect of faulty design.
The first point is what makes this a farce. We, as developers, found a way to get custom software onto our devices, something which we were never intended to do. One of two things should have happened at that point: they should have let us continue to do it, which they did (closing the loophole could have been done, they could have found a way to prevent downgrading, seeing as there are no other OS options for the device) or they could have stopped it there and said that exploiting the bug is illegal. Its been a year since the device came out. This has been going on for a YEAR. You mean to tell me that this is an issue NOW and wasnt a year ago when it first started? Its only an issue because they're not the only game in town anymore. Ridiculous. Someone got their feathers ruffled and wanted to take out the little guy.
Ok, I am not going to keep replying to your endless wandering rebuttals. I feel you are wrong in who you are aiming your hate mail at and that is the end of the story.
Thats fine, and I do apologize for being excessively adamant about it. But I still feel I'm right. You only paint a target on yourself if you're prepared for people to shoot at you. Thats all I can say about it.
Darkrift said:
If Dell gives you a "free" copy of vista on your laptop, and then you buy a compaq with linux installed on it. Does that mean you have the right to install your "free" vista on the compaq also? It was free! How about you write a new windows shell and you bundle your free windows vista with it. And you also throw in your free copy of Office that came with it.
I understand their point and I realize these examples are not EXACT enough to matter, but the point does. They give you the apps for A SPECIFIC device and they give them to you with rules. Rules that we do not like.
I feel that they instead of C&D'ing him, should have had a little sit down with him. Said "hey, we realize you are doing a lot of good for us by promoting our product and giving those who want more what they ask for when we cannot, but we have some rules for you. A, you must make every attempt you can to make sure the roms you distribute go on authorized "With Google" devices. B, not release stuff you do not have permission to release." This would allow google to control what he releases enough to fit within the rules (keeps carriers from saying "hey, he can release your apps without paying, why cant we?"). They would also benefit from the many thousands of users who flock to these custom roms but realize they are unusable in their bare forms.
And so you do not have to, I will be the first to pull the term nazi out of my hat in this one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
About your dell giving you a "free" copy of vista. As long as that CD key is only used on one computer, you can use that CD key on ANY computer. Read their TOS. Your are wrong about a lot, but right about some. Changing the integrity of the windows shell is illegal, because that is microsoft property and NOT open source, but anytime you purchase an OS, or computer, you OWN that cd key of the software, all apps that come included as well. Could you try another example?
nice letter.
not so sure about the whole HTC (not "with google") phone thing- my magic is a HTC magic (32A) and it came will every single google app preinstalled on it.... not sure about hero though...
MontAlbert said:
nice letter.
not so sure about the whole HTC (not "with google") phone thing- my magic is a HTC magic (32A) and it came will every single google app preinstalled on it.... not sure about hero though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hero did too.
Regards,
Dave
Is anyone else watching the web 2.0 summit ? gingerbread is being discussed!
Sent from my Google Phone
Just tuned in. Link if anyone else is interested:
http://www.web2summit.com/web2010
Thanks paul
Sent from my Google Phone
OMG Gingerbread next few weeks.
Chrome os next few months... gingie next few weeks!
Sent from my Google Phone
Liveblog in case anyone missed it:
(Added bold / fixed spelling errors)
Live Blogging Google CEO Eric Schmidt At Web 2.0 Summit
http://searchengineland.com/live-blogging-google-ceo-eric-schmidt-at-web-2-0-summit-56025
Nov 15, 2010 at 5:31pm ET by Danny Sullivan
Google CEO Eric Schmidt will be speaking today at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco. I’m here and will be live blogging his remarks, when the session begins.
Schmidt is set to speak at 2:35pm Pacific, and he’ll be interviewed on stage by John Battelle and Tim O’Reilly. Live blogging to start shortly. There’s also a live stream here.
John asks about news from a new device from Google…
Eric: we don’t make devices
John: A new device powered by software.
Eric: I have an unannounced device here. Showing an Android phone, looks like the Nexus 2 / Nexus S that’s been rumored. Showing how you tap the phone on a Google Place icon, a picture of one in real life, one that has I guess MSE? encoding, and he taps and it finds where he’s out.
This will be in the new Gingerbread operating system that will come out in the next few weeks. Secure element in it.
John: you could do payment?
Eric: Yes, industry term is tap-and-pay.
====
Idea you could take these into stores and replace credit cards.
John: There are tons and tons of credit card numbers, say Amazon has, does this change the game.
Eric: we see ourselves as a technology provider, not trying to compete with those others.
Tim: But still if you’re doing payment, someone’s doing the processing. You expect to partner in that.
Eric: Yes.
Tim: But you have Google Checkout
Eric: That’s a piece of this. Might be an NFE chip, by the way, he mentioned it again. Oh, and all your hot Android phones out there now won’t likely have this chip already so….
====
Tim asks about search, Eric says “forget search” then jokes in the new regime you have to label jokes — IE he’s joking about forgetting search but goes on to say this is beyond search in that if you’re walking down down the street, offers and other info can just be presented to you without having to search.
John: What are you dissatisfied about with Android?
Eric: Like to have more emphasis on application side, but it’s tough, because you have to get volume of handsets and the platform first, then the apps follow.
====
Tim: how about search as a competitive advantage in trying to find apps.
Eric: We don’t think of it that way. People are obsessed on the competitive landscape rather than the focus on the market overall.
John: What about the divorce from the carriers, something he feels Jobs did right with iPhone, I don’t want your stuff on our phone.
Eric: Agrees with some. Talks there are open and closed system. We’re willing to let vendors do things, we think that’s the right model. So he kind of dodges it.
John: When you closed the store, you said there would never be a new model.
Eric: I said Nexus 2 (IE, if a Nexus S comes out, don’t say he said it wouldn’t).
John: What about environment now with talent, the pay raises given out recently.
===
Eric: The origins of the raise were in the spring. Still coming off the recession, made some core investments, looking at acquisitions, then looking also at sharing of success with others in the company.
Found there are people at Google even if well paid still struggling with sky-high property prices, so this is component about that. But more than that, “we just thought it was good for the whole company.”
====
John: What about trying to maintain the start-up culture.
Eric: we hire a couple hundred of people a week. reports Google is losing talent is “poor writing” by journalists, in his opinion. Oh, and he wasn’t joking when he said that.
===
John: Google’s been in hot water with some agencies around the world, in some responses to then, you said it’s our job to push up to the “creepy” line.
Eric: again, this is an example of quotes being taken … i wish I could push everything up to YouTube so people can see it. The point I was saying is that there is clearly a line that we should not cross it.
====
We’ve gotten onto the auto-driving cars that Google has. Sorry, had to copy stuff over and swear didn’t miss that much. Anyway, Eric says that they think driving cars in this way are legal by various reads.
John’s getting back to the line, leading Eric to say the main issue is that society is going to have to confront all types of uncomfortable questions about privacy, need for policing and all types of issues because so much is coming online or being monitored, such as street camera (run by the government) in Britain.
John: But you have to (Google) make some decisions about products yourself, as with Street View
Eric: We learned that you can’t just rush a product out. The engineers’ political views, for example, might not match government views. Started with face blurring and license blurring (actually, I didn’t think that was part of the initial launch). Most countries was OK. But some wanted houses deleted, and that was added. Still in Germany, not enough, a permanent opt-out of your house. It was a reasonable accomodation to the local sensitivities. People there now love Street View. Things this is how things will go forward.
===
John: are you planning a set of products around social that may be seen as competitive to Facebook.
Eric: because of this obsession with competition, everything we do seems competitive. I’d rather answer the question by saying we agree that social information is important, in particular the name value graphs. That link structure has great value. The classic example is in search, where with your permission, if information you provide is being used. And by the way, that’s a deal Facebook and Microsoft announced.
Tim: Didn’t Mark say they didn’t use you because they saw you as competitive in your space.
Eric: I can’t speak for Mark.
John: Why not use Facebook Connect. There are clearly business reason you aren’t doing that. You don’t want to strengthen Facebook.
Eric: That’s not literally how we think. One of the fundamental principles on the internet is that this kind of information is open. So I worry, as a general response, not just about Facebook, that things are developing to keep too much information private.
====
John: Can you take a minute to educate on how came to joint statement with Verizon on net neutrality and different views on wired and wireless web.
Eric: Which is not what we said. Let’s define the terms. Net neutrality has meant if you have one video type like video, vendors won’t discriminate one video provider over others. But it has always allowed data in general to be discriminated against.
So the problem with the telcos is that they don’t want to be regulated. they say they’re OK with this, but they don’t want the govt writing regulations when they’ve just left being regulated.
So our response was lets look at wired, where you often have less choice if only one choice, so less competitive. We did that to encourage more conversation in the industry.
====
Tim: Location is a key part of mobile. You recently moved Marissa Mayer to a new position….
Eric: She was promoted…
Tim: We see more and more focus there?
Eric: Absolutely. Google Maps is phenomenal. It’s changed his own view of the world.
Tim: No question, just walking with Google Maps on the phone, you’re never lost.
John: Google TV just recently in market, how’s it going, what’s the beef with the networks hating on it?
Eric: Finally at a point where you can have computer-powered TVs that work, with browser, etc. As I understand the industry’s concerned, do you realize you taking a dumb TV and making it smart, one said. Yes, and the idea is that the TV will be harmed by all this access too to internet content. I disagree. I think people will watch more TV.
Tim: But they’ll also watch through other venues, like Netflix.
Eric: But Netflix pays a pretty penny for that content to the owners. But what do you think will fundamentally happen with TV, they’ll go to the web and watch stolen content or go to watch more TV. I think more TV. Stresses also that the TV now becomes a major new platform.
====
Q&A: What’s the next billion dollar rev opp for Google?
Eric: The next large one is clearly in the display business.
Question: You probably talked with networks before you launched Google TV and they were on-board [actually, they weren't].
Eric: Says reading more drama than there is. A whole bunch of people are happy. There are some concerned, and you’d expect that. But, “we want to make the revenue larger” for everyone and is “quite confident” that “we’ll get through this one.”
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Paul.
Does anyone have a video of the interview? The blog post seems mixed opinion with quotes.
avio07 said:
Does anyone have a video of the interview? The blog post seems mixed opinion with quotes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The full 45 minute interview is now on YouTube:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/16/nexus-s-teaser-by-eric-schmidt-now-available-on-video/
It has been brought to my attention that many android application developers have no idea how to properly class their applications by name. Here we will review a few common terms specific to this context.
Here is a list of terms in no specific order which we will review in this document.
Free
Lite / Basic
Standard
Advanced
Proffesional
Premium
Trial
Demonstration
Firstly let me start by saying that the word 'free' should never be in an application title. There are exceptions to this rule. For example a video game might have the word free in its title, such as 'free world defenders.' It should be clear to the developer that the word 'free' should not be used in an application title in reference to the cost of ownership. In practice this is at best unprofessional and untidy.
It may seem to the beginning developer that this would add clarity and destinction to a specific release of an application but this is an unnecessary clarification as most applications are already classified by price categories. At best all the developer has achieved is lengthening the title of the application and flagged it as possibly unworthy of usage. Most people don't expect to get much of anything for free. Keep this in mind when you develop your freeware applications.
I have also found that many developers have taken the word 'professional' entirely out of context. Instead of providing an example just yet, let us explore what the word professional actually means.
pro·fes·sion·al adj.
1.
a. Of, relating to, engaged in, or
suitable for a profession: lawyers,
doctors, and other professional
people.
b. Conforming to the standards of a
profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a
source of livelihood or as a career: a
professional writer.
Let's apply this definition in the context of software applications. Joe is a blogger. He blogs all day about his life. In fact there is almost nothing that Joe would not blog about. Joe decides that he could get more blogging done if he could quickly post his thoughts from his mobile. Joe goes to the market and he finds three things: Blogger Free, Captain's Blog, and Blogger Professional.
Joe thinks for a second... He decides right off the bat that he is no ordinary blogger and that he does not want deal with advertisements, so he overlooks Blogger Free without hesitation. Joe thinks that Captain's Blog sounds interesting. He decides to look it over because Blogger Professional sounds like it may have more features than he is really interested in. Joe is happy with Captain's Blog, and it is the first thing he blogs about saying: "I'mma live happily ever after!"
The term 'professional' implies that your application will employ features useful to the individual who requires industry standard adherence to specific guidelines laws, regulations, or operating procedures. Users in this market will have certain expectations. It is important that whenever you use the tagline 'Professional' that you have done your research and tested your product in the field with real professionals.
Usually products that employ groundbreaking features or features that can't be found anywhere else attempt to call themselves professional, but as stated before this term is at best reserved for industry professionals who require specific functionality. The proper tag for this kind of application is 'advanced.' Because it provides advanced functionality.
Some applications are so prolific that they require two tags such as 'professional advanced' or 'professional basic.' Yes, there is a 'professional standard' (no pun intended) as well as many other combinations. use whatever makes sense. I call these titles of prestige.
The term 'standard' implies, that an application meets or sets "the bar" by which applications that perform similar functions must reach to begin to consider themselves competition. It also implies that there is more to come or more to be had from this application and it's descendants or even its competition.
The term 'basic' or 'lite' is essentially the same as the term 'standard' but basic/lite implies the bare minimum required to achieve an acceptable effect. Usually this is an application with reduced functionality in order to meet a restriction on cost, time space, or otherwise.
The term 'premium' implies that your software is giving the best functionality there is, or the best functionality that it has to offer. this term should not be used lightly by any developer who wants to be taken seriously in the world of software engineering.
Trialware implies that an application has either full or limited features on the basis of time or functionality. Trialware is not freeware and should never display advertisements for anything other than itself. It is a platform for you to exhibit your product and the main idea is to sell YOUR full product. This is when you call your product a 'Trial.'
The difference between a trial and a demonstration may seem vague but it is not so. It should suffice to say that a 'trial' can be upgraded or unlocked, and a 'demonstration' can be replaced or succeeded with the final product. A demonstration may also have advertisements for other programs or services offered by the developer or its affiliates.
If you like this paper let me know! This is my first draft. Feel free to comment constructively and chat amongst yourselves with proper regard to the topic.
- Posted via mobile
Here is something else that I had not thought of while drafting this document. The term 'full' is like the term 'free' it is completely redundant or otherwise pointless to state that an application incorporates all of its functionality.
I am not yet sure where I stand on the term 'donator' but I am sure I would like to know what the application is donating to. If it is feeding starving children I would like to pat it on the back and send my donation in as well.
The terms 'plus' and 'extended' were not covered either. These terms are highly acceptable and they imply that the application has extra functionality which is not available in other versions.
These terms work very well with titles of prestige or as new ones. For example: 'proffesional standard plus,' 'standard plus' or 'extended basic.' These can be shortened into abbreviations to create some interesting artifacts such as 'PSP,' 'SP,' or 'EB.'
If you are running a charity, consider using the terms '+,' 'plus,' 'extended,' or the abbreviated forms instead of 'donator.'
- Posted via mobile
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors LOL
I'm thinking of calling my next app "Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
No sarcasm...honest
Rootstonian said:
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors LOL
I'm thinking of calling my next app "Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
No sarcasm...honest
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should do this, the reviews alone would be great
Rootstonian said:
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I failed 7th grade twice and dropped out of high school in the 9th grade. So what's YOUR point?
It's okay I understand you are neither professional nor do you aim to be. I taught myself everything I need to know in the field.
I have over 10 years programming experience and I can program in more than 7 different languages including assembler. My point is if you don't try to do anything better you never will. Good luck with fart maker.
- Posted via mobile
Scientia est potentia.
Knowledge is power. Is it for me to decide what you do with it?
- Posted via mobile
I understood your point was making jokes before you ever made your first post to this thread.
There are exceptions to this rule. For example a video game might have the word free in its title, such as 'free world defenders.'
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fart Maker PLSTF
Interesting artifact.
datajosh said:
You should do this, the reviews alone would be great
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree.
If you like this paper let me know! This is my first draft. Feel free to comment constructively and chat amongst yourselves with proper regard to the topic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't believe the topic of this thread suggests that the readers are searching for jokes.
Since we are on the topic of making jokes...
Rootstonian said:
"Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Free trial demo (FTD) Would make a better artifact than 'trial free' for this application.
LOL. Try less jokes and more focus.
SERIOUSLY, I'm not kidding
- Posted via mobile