Slashdot Mirror
Google DVRs and TV Advertising
Ray writes "Google may be creating their own branded digital television DVR / satellite service. A DVR that lets you "Log In" with your Google Account before you begin your television watching would allow Google to serve up relevant ads based on: the program you are watching, your search history, the type of emails you have received in the past 24 hours (excluding spam hopefully), or anything else Google can track. Imagine the possibilities... You are watching Google Satellite TV through your "internet ready" Google DVR."
...if the broadcast flag will affect this Google digital signal. Seems like kinda poor timing on Google's part with the whole broadcast flag issue still up in the air. Maybe they know something we don't.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Is this the sort of thing where you need like a google media device in between the satellite and your tv? If not, how long before Google decides on putting one of those out?
Why would being served even targetted adverts over my recordings be preferable to the current solution of no adverts at all?
This is a solution in search of a problem, surely?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
The main problem with any profesionaly made DVR these days they have to load the sucker with DRM to keep from getting sued (ala Replay TV). MythTv is slowing getting to the point when a non-linux person will be able to buy a prepackaged hardware set and then load from a bittorrted iso all there software updates and it will be superior.
I would imagine that they would at least be able to serve up something more relevant... but would they allow me commercial skip? Is having a DVR with no commercial skip "evil" or just good business? If they were relevant ads, I might be incluned to watch...
All Victoria's Secret ads... let me go get on their mailing list real quick...
I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
I guess we won't be needing this after all.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Google may be the second coming. It's still a bit early to know for sure and all we really have is rumors and speculation. But, Slashdot seems to feel that Google is the second coming so, it seems only logical that it is a fact.
We'll be repeatedly reporting further on this unsubstantiated rumor for weeks to come. Unless further rumors are revealed.
Imagine watching Dirty Harry through this PVR. Just as "Make my day" line is read an ad for the Smith & Wesson firearm company pops up.
No way is Google going to spend the capital to do their own satellite system or the licensing fees to use someone elses. They'll be doing it over broadband to a hard drive within the Set Top Box.
If they want this thing to be cost effective for HD, they should use Swarmstreaming.
You smell that? Do you smell that?... Speculation, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of speculation in the morning. You know, one time we had a random Google idea, rumor-blogged for 12 days. When it was over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' rumored product. The smell, you know that speculation smell, the whole blog. Smelled like... victory.
The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
This article is pure speculation based on a domain name (googledvr.com) that Google doesn't even own! The article says that Google "might buy the domain" from its owner should Google want to start a DVR service. TiVo is becoming marginalized and plans to make its money from advertising technology-sharing agreements with cable companies and patent licensing.
The article even mentions "GBrowser," which as we all know is Google's Master Plan to unseat the most popular web browser in the world, bar none.
Google also owns googleporn.com. Can we have an article about how they're about to put every porn site out of business?
For more information, click here.
"...would allow Google to serve up relevant ads based on: the program you are watching, your search history, the type of emails you have received in the past 24 hours (excluding spam hopefully), or anything else Google can track. Imagine the possibilities..."
I am, and I'm not terribly thrilled with them.
Is the typical Slashdotter concerned with the sheer volume of information that is being collected about people by a single corporation? I'm afraid I'm not going to shed my skepticism just because Google claims to "do no evil".
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I can see it now. Ads for pr0n and naked celebrities will be coming up on the TV!
Also, if I subscribe to the Tin Foil Hat newsletter, will Google start sending me ads for products that will block those ads?
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
I sure some content creators will sign deals with Google, but many content distributors will have a knee-jerk anti-Google reaction because this makes Google a direct competitor (e.g., another company distributing ad-supported content).
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Your viewing habits are minor compared to what you search for.
you can leave a tv screen on while you go out and not be actively watching, but google knows every click you already make.
I would rather have no advertising in whatever I watch, but since thats not an option, wouldn't it be tonnes better to have relivent adverts displayed during the programs?
liqbase
If they can give me targetted ads, they can give me targetted TV shows. More shows I like, available when I want to see them. All to get me to watch ads that are for stuff I might actually want to buy. Sounds good.
Hooray! First the Web, then TV... I can hardly wait until all media are subsumed into the maw of a single corporation. What could possibly go wrong?!?
Read my blog.
I see no reason to complain. Google, Wal-mart, etc. can track my viewing/purchase/search habits all they like. How is this going to be abused? Now I'm a security and privacy nut - but this seems excessive. They'll show ads to me based on my interests? Great! I'd rather see ads for things I'd purchase than crap I don't want. Wal-mart decides to stock shelves with things that are relevant to my area's purchase history - so if I go into a Wal-mart, it's more likely to carry something I intend to buy.
It's smart business - a hell of a lot smarter than blindly throwing ads out there hoping they'll be used. In fact, I'd argue that the Internet is more relevant because businesses can see the value in it. Many of us wouldn't have jobs if there weren't such potential.
I would never trust Microsoft in a million years to do anything like that, and I don't trust Google either.
Calling the article pure speculation is generous - it's making an outrageous claim to drive traffic to ZDnet...
It costs money and time to create good content. Even brilliant stuff like IMPS took years of volunteer work to produce. In the network age, the question becomes, how do we pay for this content? People will still develop free content for the joy of creativity, but if they can't feed their families, they'll have to do it part time in addition to a day job. Suppose the revenues from google's targetted ads were so good that google could afford to provide the consumer with a free (basic) TV, a free digital media device, and a free basic video stream (with ads) of popular programs. Would there be people who'd gladly go for this? You bet. Would this be a huge benefit for the very poor (as long as they gave and were able to give informed consent and the tracking was no worse -- no more evil -- than the automated tracking of google mail)? I think yes. Would there be people who'd rightly be outraged at the violation of their privacy that this would entail? Yep. They'd obviously not be members of such a service.
No surprises here. Google has been slowly but surely horizontally expanding into other types of directed advertising. Print (magazines). Radio. And soon, video content.
Print media is the only place I see this not fitting in with Google's business plan, unless it's used as just a way to offer its advertisers a complete advertising package.
What I see:
If any content can be delivered via the internet, Google will find a way to place targeted ads alongside that content. Whether Google uses existing content delivery systems (e.g., banner ads), or develops their own (e.g., GoogleDRV), they will continue to horizontally expand in targeted advertising.
Not a bad thing, IMO, since it provides revenues for publishers, who will (hopefully) keep their product free or low-price (well, to the consumer, anyway).
So what areas are still relatively untapped by Google? Internet radio? DRV, for now? How about regular television -- can't targeted advertising be delivered via Cable?
Google will continue to offer new services, innovative or not, that have the potential of increasing both ad-views and responses.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If I can get free sat/cable TV with a DVR and all I have to put up with is a _reasonable_ ammount of targeted ads that I can not skip with the DVR, I'll sign up. I can not afford cable or sat tv seing as I have two kids and a wife in grad school, so I would welcome this.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Time for a reality check, I think. Googles honeymoon is over, Slashdot is lambasting them.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
I think Google is overreaching at this point. I guess Google's now trying to float off of their cachet to move into other industries.
Parent has a good point in asking why we would want to use Google's DVR when there are ad-free versions already available. Indeed, isn't the *point* of a DVR to get rid of ads? Am I missing something?
On top of that, the example of Tivo indicates that there are evidently some issues with the technology/market as it is (the DRM "forced delete", for example), and I'm not sure if Google's DVR system will resolve any of those, though I wouldn't put it past Google to figure out a way to get it working.
But I'm not sure if I'm buying this "total integration" thing Google's pushing. What are they going to get from my email? I send an email to my friends saying, "Wow, did you catch the latest 'Lost'?" and Google knows to record 'Lost'? I think in the end, some separation of the different aspects of my life is a good thing and I'm not eager to plug my whole life into Google just yet.
I know that right now I use a DVR service so that I can SKIP commercials. I am not going to pay somebody money and switch services so that they can give me the same functionality, plus serve me advertisements. Seriously!!! Even targeted ads! I refuse to pay to be a captive audience for advertisements, no matter how well they fit my profile.
This would be a smart business model if Google were competing against DVR services that forced random advertisements on their customers, but that's not the case at all.
Hey, if you enjoy paying for the communication medium, the content, and then a PVR on top of all of that, so be it. Me? I want a PVR that eliminates advertising completely as that's why I purchased one.
If I didn't have a DirecTivo I wouldn't have my Tivo anymore either. I told them repeatedly that I would drop them like a rock if they started showing me ads on top of the ads I was skipping while I was paying $14/mo to eliminate ads.
YMMV.
Are you afraid that Google will spy on you? Edit - Preferences - Cookies - Allow sites to set cookies - Click "for the orginating web site only", select Keep Cookies: until I close Firefox That being said, there is also a lot of plug-ins like the ones who show "Page Rank" that track you. And the Google spyb.. eh, toolbar. But those are optional additions, just like keeping cookies (or accepting them at all) is a choice IF you have basic computer knowledge.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
That's how tv started out. That's how radio started out. Eventually, you get offered a "better" serivce (cable, sirius in the above instances) with no ads. Then the ads come back. Rinse, repeat. Eventually google will start charging, and offer ad-free for a fee, but it's more of the same shit.
Strange. Google is assuming that you'll be watching television alone (or at least with like-minded souls). Since my wife is a crystal-loving hemp-wearing nature lover and I'm a technodroid, it'll be interesting to see what sort of targeting goes on as we watch shows together on the Googletube.
Google, Wal-mart, etc. can track my viewing/purchase/search habits all they like.... Now I'm a security and privacy nut
:-)
No, you're not
In any case, the issue is not what kind of ads you'll be shown. The issue is that information is power.
I recommend reading up on the failed confirmation of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court of the United States...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
It doesn't sound like Google to work as a personal DVR. I think it seems more likely that they will get a copy of every TV show they can find, and let you view them over a streaming connection. that way, you can see it as often as you want, but only when you're connected to Google, so there isn't a "permanent ownership" issue we get from a DVR, so we avoid the broadcast flag.
And then people wouldn't be so mad about ads, since the idea would be time-shifting. "wait, I get to watch pretty much any tv show whenever I want? Ads, meh, I'll browse in another window when ads are on"
We seem to be getting a new "Google May Be" every week. Google must be busy working on their
DVR, OS, nationwide WiFi, Office, Wallet, Auctions, AOL, satellite, and the list goes on.
He bases his conjecture on some domains he believes were registered by google, such as googlehdtv.com.
I think Google could come up with a better name than "googlehdtv" if they really wanted to get into this game.
Anyway, apparently he doesn't know about 'whois', because he could have easily seen that this was registered by a domain speculator, not by Google.
domain: googlehdtv.com
created: 09/Apr/2004
last-changed: 09/Apr/2005
registrant-firstname: Hdtv
registrant-lastname: Websites
registrant-organization: hdtvwebsites.com
registrant-street1: 2821 egypt road
registrant-pcode: 19403
registrant-state: PA
registrant-city: audubon
registrant-phone: +1.235551212
registrant-email: hdtvwebsites@yahoo.com
( That Slashdot "lameness filter" sucks. It wouldn't let me post the basic whois output, saying there were too many "junk characters". I have to keep adding crap to get around it.)
Move over Microsoft, there's a new evil empire in town.
> How is this going to be abused?
Why does something have to be "abuse" before we have the right to complain about it, or refuse it? A society doesn't function well if too many people go out of the way to piss people off and their entire defense is "I'm not touching you, I'm just waving my finger 1/4 inch from your face"
You can object to annoying as well as abusive.
> They'll show ads to me based on my interests
No, they won't show -anyone- ads based on their interests. They'll show people ads based on their advertiser's needs, adjusted for their perception of your interests.
- If you're interested in something that no one pays google to advertise, you won't see an ad for it.
- If you're not interested in something someone pays google a -lot- to advertise, you'll probably see it anyway.
- If google incorrectly estimates your interest in things, they'll show you things you aren't interested in.
This is tricky; just because you ask a question about something, or someone emails you about something, there is no reason to believe that this is an interest of yours. I work on a lot of things that require me to search on subjects I have -zero- personal interest in. I shudder to think about the kind of ads that would get served up to me.
All of this assumes a direct relationship between what I search on and what I'm interested in possibly purchasing. That assumption is untested and I feel it's largely invalid.
Suppose I search for information about Wimbley cars so I can show my sister what a piece of crap the 2006 Wimbley is. Suddenly I'm inundated with ads for the new Wimbley.
> Wal-mart decides to stock shelves with things that are
> relevant to my area's purchase history - so if I go
> into a Wal-mart, it's more likely to carry something
> I intend to buy.
Assuming you are typical of the people in your area. If you aren't, Wal-Mart loses your business, and due to the fact that they are looking at a limited and inherently biased subset of data *, they don't correct for error.
* using purchasing habits requires them to have the product first in order to detect that people have an interest. If everyone wants the new Whizmo Cranfraz, but Wal-Mart doesn't carry it, Wal-Mart doesn't see that everyone wants it. In brick-and-mortar, this is detected by examining other vendor's sales or asking questions. In the net arena, this often goes undetected.
Also, vendors tend to make assumptions based on close matches. They assume that if you buy a John Doe brand Doohickey for $N, you'll be fine with them dropping the John Doe brand in favor of the Richard Roe, for $N-10 dollars, or for the Jane Doe brand Thingamajig, because the Thingamajig does -almost- the same thing as the Doohickey.
All you have to do is look at the remaindered Personal Organizers, MP3 players, and copies of Lotus Ami Pro in the $3 junk bin to see the fallacy with that. Not everything is an interchangable commodity item.
I've worked in retail and wholesale, and I've seen just how -badly- this kind of thing is normally done. Most businesses can get a 2000% improvement in identifying customer needs by scrapping the crap customer tracking technology and having sales people talk to the customers. For every one person you identify as being interested in product A, you have 25 people come in, look for product B, and leave without talking to the manager or a salesperson when they couldn't find product B or a salesperson to help them.
Sorry for the heat; as you can see, this is an area that bugs me; better advertising is no substitute for customer service.
> It's smart business - a hell of a lot smarter than
> blindly throwing ads out there hoping they'll be used.
It's smarter; it's only "a hell of a lot smarter" if they do it "a hell of a lot better" than most people who try this kind of thing.
> In fact, I'd argue that the Internet is more relevant
> because businesses can see the value in it. Many of
> us wouldn't have jobs if there weren't such potential.
Just don't forget that many folks here -don't- have jobs, in part because of half-planned attempts by businesses to leverage the net's potential value.
Yes, but you are paying to skip those commercials. Both in the cost of the DVR, and in the cost of the cable/Sat service. If Google Actually gave away the service, many people would be ok with the commercials. I'm paying ~$75 a month for TV. Thats not counting the ~1000 I spent on the DVRs. If I could cut out that $75 a month fee, I might consider turning off the Commercial Advance. I would consider it even more if they would reduce the commercial time from 15 minutes out of the hour to something more like 5. Given that the ads would be targeted, they should be able to get 3 times more revenue per ad than what regular TV offers.
Yes but with the way TIVO and other DVR/DVR-like services are heading how long will you be able to enjoy the luxury of fast forwarding through commercials? It seems to me that this will get shot down sooner or later for all but the most niche programs. They already have the broadcast flag to abuse and slowly but surely as revenue on the DVR business model slips they will quietly remove the ability to skip the commercials. At least Google's being up front about it.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
If only there was a way I could pay some sort of one off subscription and have loads of advert free TV.
Oh, there is
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
As much as I think Google is a cool company, I fail to see how this is a good thing, while doubleclick's tracking cookies are evil.
....shall I go on?
And make no mistake....doubleclick's tracking cookies are definitely evil. Along with hitbox, valueclick, linkexchange, adsmart, adbureau, adtech, linksynergy, focalink, avenuea, mediaplex,
How can targetted advertising from these companies be evil, while targetted advertising from Google results in the phrase: "Imagine the possibilities..."?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
try slysoft.com AnyDVD.
:)
with the ability to jump past all that trash - either to MainMenu or the actual movie... its pricesless if you watch or use dvd's on your pc
DVD viewing is enjoyable again and ripping is a breeze
Sorry to continue off topic, but I have to say something here.
None of the "footage most people have never seen" on that site is conclusive, at best. The "missiles" they claim to have on footage are barely a pixel on their footage, and hardly even resolve. And, for the WTC, the structure did not collapse from the bottom, but from where the planes hit. "Missiles" to destroy the building would have been useless.
Any scrambled military craft were scrambled to shoot down any more such commercial planes.
The WTC collapsed because it was a steel structure superheated by the plane fuel igniting. The "double tremors" of the building people reported were likely caused by 1, the plane hitting the building, then the second by the fuel igniting and exploding. Those events wouldn't have happened simultaneously.
I hate sigs...
Quick question, off the topic of the main story.
You have a theory, and I don't agree with it. That's fine, of course, we're both entitled to our opinions of what happened. However, why is it that you bring up the theory in the middle of discussions when it has nothing to do with it?
Editing out the Pentagon theory, your post was excellent, and had a point directly within the boundaries of the article and the following discussion. It really made me rethink some of my ideas about letting my TV security go to the dogs. But the mention of the Pentagon theory sorta made me wonder what the hell was going on.
For instance, if I'm talking about internet security, and how people should pay more attention to their computer settings, get the latest patches, etc., and I bring up the opinion that the Kansas school system is really sort of silly sometimes, I've brought no more value into the discussion about internet security. I've actually made myself look a little more like an obsessed crackpot, regardless of what I'm arguing about, even if the idea I inserted is completely true. Is that the impression you're wanting to make, or are you trading off some of the topical value of your post in order to bring up an issue that you feel needs to be raised?
Just trying to ask an honest question about your motives, no offense intended (seriously). I'm just curious about that kind of stuff.
You got me thinking. Imagine 5 years in the future ...
Targeted ads are now common. Everything you do from the grocery store to internet surfing habbits is tracked and everything is taylored to what you are interested in. Now, your mother-in-law comes over for dinner some night. Afterwards everyone retires to the livingroom to watch a movie you have recorded using Google's free DVR and service. After a short time of viewing, your mother-in-law is shocked and upset when all of the targeted ads are for Herpes treatments, 900 sex lines, ED medicine, and American Girl Dolls (you sick bastard!).
!hoD
Google is investing in Space Elevator technology, in order to launch space billboards.
However, the billboards will have those lenses that cause a different image to appear from different angles, so that advertising can be targeted to each 50 mile wide strip of land.
UV lasers will shine from the billboards, designed to catch reflections from the irises (iri?) of anyone looking at the billboards, in order to calculate the response to each ad.
Now imagine Google Video getting subscription to every cable/satellite channel it can get (probably also from Canada, Japan and some other countries), recording it all in HDTV resolution and Dolby Digital sounds, and serving it up through the internet for a small fee (well.. compared to full cable that is). Content is distributed via Akamai and Partners, so it's always fast. For a few extra ads before show starts you get extra $10 off a month.
And those are nice and relevant ads (I am ok with that, in fact I ofter rewind cool ads and watch them again). And you don't need to buy a box. No need to have a clear view of the southern skies. No need for $75 a month cable package just because the channel you love doesn't come in Basic cable. No need to think whether you pre-programmed all shows you want to be recorded. No need to think about recording conflicts (each TV channel thinks it's the pinnacle of human artistic creativity and tries to push shows at the same time "competitors" do). No need to worry about missing interesting stuff -- because your preference block is finely tuned and known to Google via your watching browsing and emailing habits.
How about that?
Would you sign up for this service? I am waiting...
Hyperom.com