Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Going All-Google To Replace Your PC and TV Service

Posted by Unknown on from the owning-things-is-so-90s dept.

GMGruman writes "James Curnow writes 'Google's vision of computing involves tossing your PC or Mac and moving to a cloud-centric, all-Google ecosystem. Call it the Googleplex: a mix of the Chrome OS-based Chromebox PC or Chromebook laptop, one or more Android tablets — perhaps a 10-inch model for work and a 7-inch Nexus 7 for entertainment on the go — and a Nexus Q home entertainment system that you control via an Android device.' So he takes the 'Googleplex' for a test drive to see how well it delivers on the Android/Chrome OS vision." But what about throwing xbmc or MythTV onto an old (or cheap new) box with a couple of huge drives (HDTV's being glorified monitors and all)?

98 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like a dream come true... by Scowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... for advertisers.

    1. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by dimeglio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Advertisements already pay for "free" TV (well, some of it). If Google can give away software and cloud services using advertising why isn't that a reasonable option?

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    2. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by Scowler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're not talking about the generic TV advertisements we just fast forward over using the DVR. We're talking 24/7 tracking, personalized, invasive, interactive commercialization being thrust at your face any time you interact with an electronic device. I'm surprised anyone in the AdBlock Plus crowd (which presumably includes most of Slashdot) would even consider going near this paradigm.

    3. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps because its not all that bad? Assuming there would be no possible way for the government to use this information (which is really the main threat) how is being able to have more relevant ads directed at you a bad thing? Especially if it means cheaper hardware?

      Consider cable TV for instance, despite the fact you are paying your cable provider who is then paying the networks for content, you still have ads with few exceptions. Even the networks that don't run ads still have annoying interruptions (this is especially true in radio also).

      When it comes down to it though, as long as the content is being displayed on your device and runs through your local network, you have the ability to control it and you always will.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assuming there would be no possible way for the government to use this information ...

      "No possible way"? If this information exists then the government is always one small step away from accessing it.

      ... how is being able to have more relevant ads directed at you a bad thing?

      You might want to ask the teenager who wasn't ready to tell her parents she was pregnant, whose home started receiving pregnancy related targeted advertising. Pick something you are not ready to share with parents or a spouse or your boss (advertising goes to work not home - for example ads in a browser when your boss walks in), reapply the preceding.

    5. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You won't have the ability to control it. Google will have your media and decide what you can and cannot use. People bitch about Amazon pulling a book over legal issues and you're really ready to trust Google not to fuck you?
       
      I have some seafront property in Montana to sell you... cheap!

    6. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by Scowler · · Score: 3

      When it comes down to it though, as long as the content is being displayed on your device and runs through your local network, you have the ability to control it and you always will.

      Not if that content is copyrighted.

      I think you overstate people's tolerance for ads these days. Hulu Plus is... I canceled it after less than a month of using it. And how long can you browse without AdBlock turned on before you go nuts?

    7. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it works as well as the current round of 'targeted advertising' your pregnant teenager might well get Viagra adverts.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      personalized, invasive, interactive commercialization being thrust at your face any time you interact with an electronic device

      I dunno about 'invasive' but frankly I wish ads *were* more personalized to me. I'm not going to buy a Ford Truck or talk to my doctor about Cialis. I'm not interested in tampons, Sunny D or a Verizon cell phone.... Tell me about something I might care about. Of course if Facebook is anything to go by, that's an impossibility - They can't get it right either.

    9. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You prefer random advertisements that have nothing to do with your interests?

      I don't want to watch the commercials I see most of the time on television because they don't interest me. Every now and then I'm skipping forward on the PVR and see a commercial that interests me and rewind. I know lots of other people do it too.

      So my other choice is the option to have less* advertising that's more targeted because it actually knows some stuff about me that's useful for filtering my probable interests. Wow, that sounds terrible.

      *in all likelihood, it would be less, since targeted ads should obviously pay better than random advertising.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    10. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by RocketRabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course, all this talk about targeted vs. untargeted ads ignores the elephant in the room: People don't like ads at all, and will block them if possible. Why even bother debating targeted vs. untargeted when it's clear that the majority will choose no ads, knowing that it's an option?

    11. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by dgatwood · · Score: 4

      The problem is, we already have that. It's called Amazon's suggestions. And it usually does a pretty good job. What it does not do is provide a reason for the product vendors to spend money on financing unrelated things like TV shows.

      Unfortunately for companies like Google and Facebook, the only way targeted advertising can work well is if it is done by a company that actually sells products and knows what a given person has actually been buying. You can't realistically hope to guess what someone is going to be interested in buying based on what they search for or what they talk about (unless they're searching product listings, and even then, without the ability to delete stuff from your search history, searches are useless). It just doesn't work that way. I talk about computers all the time. That doesn't mean I'm in the market for buying a Dell. I'm pretty much a Mac-only house except for a couple of Linux boxen (either old junk hardware or self-built). And I rarely buy software; I have software that does what I need. And I rarely buy computer peripherals. So pretty much anything I talk about on Facebook or search for through Google is going to be a red herring.

      Worse, in a world where just about everything has product reviews on Amazon, if you don't make a good product, it doesn't matter how much advertising you do. When buying products that cost more than a few bucks, most people research the product through such a site. Thus, we're rapidly moving to a point where R&D spending is crucial to sales, and advertising only matters if the potential buyer has never heard of your product.

      Which leads me to the ultimate realization that, at least in the long term, advertising is dead. With the availability of better alternatives that do a great job of showing you things that you want to buy (and only while you're in a shopping mood), there's just no room for advertising in a modern society. Apart from advertising to encourage consumption of cheap trinkets like cans of Coke or movie tickets or whatever, advertising can't realistically provide much benefit to the advertisers above what they get from "people who bought X also bought Y", coupled with reviews. And even then, the value is dubious unless the viewers just happen to be hungry or in the mood to go watch a movie in a crowded theater with a sticky floor and screaming kids throwing popcorn at them.

      Unfortunately for Big Media, this means that in the fairly near future, content creators are going to have to face up to reality and choose one of two paths: direct sales or patronage. Ad-supported content is on the way out, and the sooner everyone acknowledges this, the sooner we can move on to more sustainable business models.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't.

      Sincerely,

      Some of the AdBlock Plus crowd.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    13. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      So, basically, we're talking about Google becoming Apple?

      No thank you.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    14. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      If it works as well as the current round of 'targeted advertising' your pregnant teenager might well get Viagra adverts.

      Humor aside, you are confusing spam with targeted advertising. Spam is about as non-targeted as you can get.

    15. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by Scowler · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you make that analogy. Apple's business model is to sell hardware. Ads and iTunes purchases are just gravy to them. For now, however, Google's primary business model is advertising. Obviously, you can infer I hope they diversify away from that model...

    16. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by Scowler · · Score: 1

      I believe we'll soon hit an "uncanny valley" when it comes to personalized ads... we aren't there yet though. When I say "uncanny valley", I mean the ads are so well targeted that you could believe a friend, relative, or other close person is actually hand-picking out ads for you and placing them on your screen. Almost like the ads are predicting that you'll need something before you even realize you need it. A lot of us will be seriously creeped out for a while until we figure out how to deal with this technology properly.

    17. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by Scowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a narrow view of advertising, one that I suggest is incomplete.

      Let's say, hypothetically, there is a Coca-Cola ad on the side of this page, even though you rarely drink Coke, and have no plans to drink more at the moment. And let's say you only superficially see and note it. And you still don't rush to the vending machine to purchase a coke.

      Has the ad failed? I say probably not. For most people, they may subconsciously note that Coke is a common thing to drink, a tasty thing to drink, and there may be a statistical increase in the likelihood that they purchase one a week from now, a month from now, with some restaurant meal.

      In other words, advertising has long term payoffs, from simply informing customers about a product to getting into a person's subconscious.

    18. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by edumacator · · Score: 2

      Spam is about as non-targeted as you can get.

      It is!?!

      Thank God, I thought all those Extenze and V!agra ads came from sites my wife had been surfing. I feel so much better now.

      --
      An important change for education.
    19. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      I have a degree in communications. I'm well aware of that purpose of advertising. However, as I understand it, those subconscious effects primarily change a person's impulse buying choice between commodity products (products for which there is little to no differentiation between vendors' goods). The more expensive the buy, the less likely people are to buy on impulse. The more differentiation between goods, the more likely people are to have a strong preference.

      The problem is that although there's still a lot of impulse buying, it is mostly for stuff that would piss people off if they had to watch ads for it, like laundry detergent. These days, the ads people would choose to watch, if they were allowed to choose ads (but were forced to watch ads), would be ads for products that are actually interesting. Unfortunately, apart from informing the customer of what is out there on the market (which sites like Amazon can do much better), those ads are unlikely to sway their buying decision because of the instant availability of reviews and other information that provide much better differentiation than ads possibly could.

      As the amount of available ad-free content grows, people get more annoyed by ads, and tolerate them less, choosing ad-free alternatives instead. This futher compounds the problem, both by reducing the number of people who see the ads and by associating a negative emotion (annoyance) with the product being advertised, which is likely to do more harm than good. And even if people don't get annoyed at the ads for commodity producers like Coke or Tide, they can't possibly provide enough advertising dollars to support all of the world's media needs.

      Incidentally, the opinion that advertising's effetiveness is waning is supported by studies.

      Now I will admit that there is still the possibility of replacing some of that ad revenue with money from product placement, but there aren't enough companies who could benefit from that to pay the bills long-term, IMO, and that doesn't work nearly as well for non-entertainment content (news, for example). And it certainly won't work as a means of paying the cost of developing software, maintaining websites, etc.

      Unless, of course, this post was a paid product advertisement for Tide, in which case... well, call me a shill.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    20. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by fa2k · · Score: 1

      In practice, targeted ads are horrible. I've been getting ads for phone plans for 3 months, since I started looking for a contract. I bought one 2 months ago, but they haven't stopped. I would rent a VM somewhere to run some various services if it was really cheap, but all I see are ads for web hosting. And then I see Pedobear trying to sell me some kind of insurance on slashdot. (and no, I'm not a pedo)

      In theory, targeted ads are slightly better than normal ads. I don't mind getting untargeted ads as long as I can skip them. That's the best targeting: I get to decide what is interesting. I don't buy the whole idea that information is so helpful to show ads. There's too many unknowns, which could only be known by a hyper-invasive system. If there was a voluntary registration of age, gender, interestst, economic situation, location, preferences, etc (which would be a good idea IMHO), I would just put "generic" on all .

    21. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because its not all that bad?

      It really doesn't bother me that much that someone could track all of my internet traffic, although I guess that means the end of midget transsexuals with horses porn viewing.

      What bothers me is when they get the data wrong or are unable to ascertain the differences between my traffic and someone elses using the same internet connection. A few years ago I applied for a higher end, less expensive insurance product that required they check me out pretty thoroughly. In fact, that was as invasive as when I got a top secret and nuclear Q clearance some years ago. They were very inquisitive about my ex girlfriends ex husband, who apparently got himself into some problems with fraud. Because she and I held a homeowners policy 9 years earlier, their system crossed me with her, she with him, and therefore me with him. Except I never met him, speak to him or have any doings with him. I had to sign a document asserting those facts, and the whole thing took hours of time and delayed my acceptance for a few weeks.

      The cloud model is also pretty much the same construct as the mainframe, although the terminals are a little smarter. Variability of performance and response coupled with the fact that you never save money on a centralized approach, coupled with the same reasons existing today that caused us to flee centralized computing (takes too long to get changes made, poor flexibility, one size fits nobody, etc). Hell, google printed headers and footers on all printed chrome pages, whether you wanted them or not, even if they ruined the print by forcing it to two pages. I think that was the case when chrome first launched, and it wasn't until a few months ago that they added a checkbox for headers/footers. Years. Why? Printing isn't important to google. They'd prefer you keep revisiting a page with your phone or tablet, where they get more page views and potential ad clicks. But for years I've had to switch to IE to print something out, even though thousands of requests to google to add this functionality were made each and every year.

      It all sounds pretty good, but I think the cloud will be a good place for backups, extra copies of stuff, documents you want to access while on the road, and copies of savegames like xbox lives cloud storage. Not to run apps or offload ordinary processing or to own all my data. Probably not ever.

      The amusement of all of this stuff ended when I installed skydrive and it found and uploaded a file from a flash drive containing all of my user names and passwords. I neither told it to, nor did it tell me it was looking for and uploading stuff, that was just its default. Yes, I know keeping a password file is stupid but I work with hundreds of sites, and there isnt a common username or password I can use with all of them since some require an upper case/special character/number sequence while others refuse to accept the same, and some require periodic changing, whether I want to or not. Another symptom of 'centralized' computing...you have to live by their rules...all 900000 variants of them, 899999 of them not what you want.

      And as others mentioned, if you think this data exists and the government (or your garden variety anonymous type hacker) cant get it, well...thats so innocent and sweet that my blood sugar just went up 50 points.

    22. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by manaway · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty much a Mac-only house except for a couple of Linux boxen (either old junk hardware or self-built). ... Which leads me to the ultimate realization that, at least in the long term, advertising is dead. With the availability of better alternatives that do a great job of showing you things that you want to buy (and only while you're in a shopping mood), there's just no room for advertising in a modern society.

      A "Mac-only house" with a couple of computers running Linux is not a Mac-only house. It is an example of cognitive dissonance, Orwellian double-think; and believing such is a demonstration of Apple's successful marketing. Proof that advertising is not dead. "Going all-Google" is the same thing with a different name.

      How does a non-marketing person think? "My house has 7 computers." Dull, isn't it? Missing all the drama and bickerings and thrills of marketing speak. Feels peaceful though.

    23. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by aaron552 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, this is actually an option for Google advertising.

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    24. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      People may want to know about products, but they know that they can't get accurate or useful information from advertisements. Offers and sales might appeal to a few people, but most folks I know don't go in for it.

    25. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You're wrong on the back of the basic thought puzzle that is 'why do companies spend so much on marketing as it is now if nobody likes it?'

      The fact of the matter is, it works, and it works because most people aren't that interested in facts. Some basic marketing history would teach you this -- there was an era when marketing targeted facts and it didn't work. Nobody cared to read why this soap worked better than that soap, they care that this soap claims to make you happy. You can think that's bunk all you want, but millions of dollars of research goes into this every year and keeps coming back with the same results.

      Sure, a few people don't like it, but speaking for the vast majority without data to back it up is presumptuous.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    26. Re:Sounds like a dream come true... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      So because you didn't like the specific ads you got, which sound to be mostly related to your actual interests (a phone and hosting, as opposed to diapers or cleaning products), you think targeting doesn't work.

      You know its not that hard to do a private browsing session and check what ads you get online without the tracking data instead ...

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  2. A MythTV box? by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But what about throwing xbmc or MythTV onto an old (or cheap new) box with a couple of huge drives (HDTV's being glorified monitors and all)?

    But then the content would be cached in a large cheap local buffer, and not streamed from the cloud over bandwidth-constrained wired or wireless connections. Not only would MAFIAA not approve, but Google/Doubleclick wouldn't get analytics/metrics.

    You didn't think that the availability of cheap general-purpose computing hardware was supposed to benefit the consumer, did you?

    1. Re:A MythTV box? by jythie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the bigger problem is MythTV and xbmc. They are great if you enjoy playing with computers, but if what you want is a zero maintance device that lets you start interacting with the content you want, they are pretty terrible and require non-trivial upfront research since you have to make sure all the 'old' hardware you get for it will work.

    2. Re:A MythTV box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is this, 2005? MythTV is out man, everything is XBMC and downloaded content. You actually subscribe to cable or satellite "all in one" bullshit? LOL, I guess someone has to be the n00b sheep.

    3. Re:A MythTV box? by arkane1234 · · Score: 2

      Actually yeah, I do subscribe to cable. It costs me $40, and don't have to worry about updating/maintaining a computer attached to my TV. I also have Netflix for $7.99 and I can watch movies through my ps3, apple tv, sony bluray, etc.

      Then again, just the fact that you're using a computer to get stuff onto your tv makes me believe it's not about rights or anything else, it's just that you don't have a lot of expendable income. I'm sorry.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:A MythTV box? by yotto · · Score: 1

      I won't speak to the grandparent, but I am doing similar (though with less 'tude). It has nothing to do with disposable income, it has to do with the fact that $40 (though around here it's closer to $60) a month for something I don't use very much is stupid. When I cancelled cable it was because I only watched 3 weekly hour-long shows, and they were all on (free) Hulu. I also watched 2 daily half-hour shows that were also on Hulu.

      The 3 weekly shows have since been canceled, so now all I watch on Hulu are the daily shows (hint: one of them is actually named "The Daily Show").

      The only new show that has caught my eye is the SHIELD show, and if they think I'll pay $20/episode (assuming about 3 episodes a month) they're crazy.

      --
      Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
    5. Re:A MythTV box? by fa2k · · Score: 1

      You can't beat free. It varies a lot from place to place, but the stuff you get for free over the air in the UK is all I need for TV and almost for films too (I have a large backlog of things I "should" have watched, but haven't). I don't mind ads, I have a "skip forward" button for when I have seen them before or they aren't interesting (cars, "lady products", etc). Of course, you can beat free with free, i.e. torrents, but I've been trying to go legal lately.

  3. I actually have by taktoa · · Score: 2

    most of this set up. Google TV on my HDTV, an Android phone, and a Chromebook for the kitchen. And I like it... they're robust, functional, easy-to-use products.

    1. Re:I actually have by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I'm interested in your opinion about a "Chromebox PC" as mentioned in the summary... I didn't realize Chrome was intended as a full-fledged PC OS?

  4. Or, I could just be a normal person, and... by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Buy whatever electronic devices I find favorable, and configure them however the fuck I want.

    That way I can avoid their "ecosystem", with its inherant vendor lock in, and pervasive bullshit entirely!

    As a consumer, that sounds far more desirable.

    However, I do see where other normal consumers may fall victim here, since getting all the equipment and services from a single company should (theoretically...) make setup and use easier.

    Personally though? When I plop down on the couch to veggify some braincells, I want a few annoyances as possible, which mans the equipment has to do whar *I* want, and not what a bunch of shyster lawyers in hollywood, and a bunch of beancounters in the bay area google HQ want.

    If that means DIY home theater with MythTV and a raid array, so fucking be it.

    1. Re:Or, I could just be a normal person, and... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      A normal person -would- use the same vendor for everything because in general it "just works". The cable box/DVR "just works" for them, if it breaks they just call Comcast/Dish/DirectTV and get another one. Its the geek option to go for MythTV and the like. And honestly, even the Google option is going to give you much more freedom than the average person has now with an HDTV, Cable Box, DVR and blu-Ray player.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Or, I could just be a normal person, and... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Most people will have a cable company supplied DVR/DigitalCable box, a different brand of television, and a different yet brand of stereo surround sysytem.

      The "google" solution would have all these devices made by google.

    3. Re:Or, I could just be a normal person, and... by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      ... and people wonder why I'm so pissed at Apple for making this locked-in 'eco-system' bullshit palatable. For now, the Google devices mix and match with pretty much any technology and tend to use open standards, but it's worth keeping an eye on them. The attraction must certainly be there.

    4. Re:Or, I could just be a normal person, and... by aaron552 · · Score: 1

      The "google" solution would have all these devices made by google.

      Nexus phones are made by Samsung at the moment and Nexus Tablets by ASUS. Chromebooks are also made by other hardware vendors. The only "Google" device that is "made" by Google, AFAIK, is the Nexus Q

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    5. Re:Or, I could just be a normal person, and... by aaron552 · · Score: 1

      I don't think a "locked-in" Google ecosystem is going to happen. At least not any time soon. Google benefits immensely from not having to make or market hardware running Android. It's still primarily in the search and advertising businesses. Android and other "hardware" is simply a means to get targeted advertising and Google search to the consumer.

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
  5. Unrealistic vision by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google would like you to believe in a world where you get all of your media from their devices across the Internet. Unfortunately, that just doesn't work in the real world. The little old lady next door has already been hit with insane overage charges by AT&T because she dared to watch Netflix. Follow the Google vision and your overages will not only include things like Netflix but will include your own movies and even music unless you have an uncapped provider who you can believe will stay uncapped (AT&T only announced the caps last year). Maybe in Kansas City where Google offers fiber and doesn't impose monthly limits this would be a good thing, but not in the rest of America where our government grants monopolies to service providers but lets them chip away at the service rather than building out their networks.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Unrealistic vision by edcheevy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't that the point of the whole Google Fiber experiment? If Google can get generate enough interest to merely break even on Fiber, they can deliver ALL of our information from the cloud, uncapped, and fully scanned/monitored/analyzed 24/7... Advertisers will have no choice but to go through Google. The government will be fully on board because Google will grant monitoring access.

    2. Re:Unrealistic vision by olau · · Score: 2

      While that may be true today, Google is probably building this stuff so that when the world is ready, Google will be there for them.

    3. Re:Unrealistic vision by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      haahhahahahahahahaha!~@!
      *wipes eyes*
      ahhahahahahahahahaha!!E!

      is that what they told you? *snort* hahahaha

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  6. Scary by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I fear a world run by google and apple. They are both companies with a shiny outer layer and a dark dark underneath that won't be clear until it's too late to do anything about it.People need to remember that (especially google) the people using their services are not their customers, and that google doesn't owe them one thing. They will use every method at their disposal to be able to charge more for whatever advertising/marketing/human sorting they are working on that day. Nothing is free, you pay one way or another. Wether you pay with money or with your personal information, it's just the same.

    --
    Mean what you say...say what you mean.
    1. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing is free, you pay one way or another.

      How does that apply to only google and apple, and not say... the entire universe?

      When you figure out that nothing is free PERIOD, everything else starts making sense.

    2. Re:Scary by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      If you're interested in products and services from those companies, I think You need to make a couple of simple decisions.

      Which do you value less your freedom or your privacy?

      You don't actually need to pick either, but both of these companies do have attractive products and services for those willing to accept the loss of one of these. Personally, I'm fine with it as long as we always have a reasonable choice to to pick one of these. If either gets to be big or pervasive enough (like Microsoft did), we lose ... again.

    3. Re:Scary by theRunicBard · · Score: 2

      Well yeah, google doesn't owe them anything - their services are largely free. What, you think that Google Search has some obligation to give me something back? Isn't that what the fantastic search was? Extend that to other Google services. Free email, chat, social network, maps, videos, etc, etc, etc, ETC ETCETC! Isn't that worth a few ads? Couldn't you... I don't know, NOT click on the ads? Can we just... grow up and accept that nothing is completely free? You say that, but you still complain about it. What do you propose as an alternative? Some services charge you and you complain about the cost. Google rolls in for free (money-wise), but with ads, and people complain about the ads. Let me guess, if Google just got rid of all tracking and ads, you would complain that Larry Page isn't giving you foot massage? And if he gave you one, you would complain it didn't have a happy ending?

    4. Re:Scary by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      I'm a "real customer" of Google, e.g., I spend a lot of money for their services. Guess what. They have never offered to sell me their users' information. Pull the tinfoil a little tighter, man.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    5. Re:Scary by fermion · · Score: 1
      Video on demand is Netflix and Amazon. Both are hardware agnostic. Apple and Google cannot match what these players are doing because they are pushing a platform instead of serving users.

      Apple is going succeed and MS is going to succeed and Amazon is going to succeed and Google is going to succeed in different way. The thing of interest is who is leading and who is following and who is panicing. Google has not had a successful hardware consumer product and is so desperate for one that it is contaminating it's home page. MS is copying the iPad full screen UI. Google is trying to sell content, but no one is interested.

      The other thing about google is that they are not really willing to play hardball, the kind of hardball that Amazon is playing with the Kindle. Google is looking for profits.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:Scary by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Way to miss the point. Apple and Google's asking PRICE is way too HIGH. PERIOD.

      When they come back with a reasonable offer where they don't expect to spy on our lives, they'll be invited back to the negotiating table. Until then, nobody owes them respect just because their CEOs thought up some crazy evil business plan .

    7. Re:Scary by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Video on demand is Netflix and Amazon. Both are hardware agnostic. Apple and Google cannot match what these players are doing

      What you say is true of Google perhaps, but not at all true of Apple. Tons of people use iTunes to buy TV shows, and to some extent movies.

      Apple is far ahead currently of Amazon in terms of delivering downloaded media content to homes. Netflix is probably ahead of both, but then you'd expect that with a service that offers all you can view for a flat fee.

      You also left out Hulu, really also a bigger player than Amazon in delivering media...

      And Hulu is important because it illustrates that between Apple/Google/Netflix/Amazon, really the people calling the shots are the guys producing the media. And they are not loosening their grasp anytime soon.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:Scary by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Apple wants to sell you devices and has control issues. Google wants to sell you devices, the software they run and the network that connects them, watching everything you do so they can sell it all to their customers.

    9. Re:Scary by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Nothing is free, you pay one way or another. Wether you pay with money or with your personal information, it's just the same.

      And the Slashdot privacy nuts need to remember that, for most people, even when they know that the cost is their personal information, it's a cost they are willing to pay. Hell, I'm fully informed and willing to pay it. The private information that Google has access to is not really valuable to me. I can trade it to Google for something that is. Exchanging something someone else wants more than you do, for something you want more than they do, is the basis of trade.

      People need to remember that, although they might consider it anathema to provide any single datum to an external party in case the government finds out you bought a toothbrush last Friday, most people don't.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  7. Cant happen by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not going to debate if its a good idea or not, as ISPs with their non-neutral bandwidth limits have eliminated this sort of option anyway.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  8. Re:"PC or Mac" by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    "What? You mean a mac is really just a PC with a special bios that let's it run OSX? OMG! Everything I know is wrong!"

  9. "Replace your PC" by neminem · · Score: 1

    If I had a "Chrome OS-based Chromebox PC or Chromebook laptop", would that not be by definition a PC? So I'd just be replacing my PC-with-one-OS with a PC-with-a-different-OS. Better than predictions that in the future we'll all be doing everything on little tablets (laughable), but still, no thanks.

  10. TV Ratings from Google? by joelwhitehouse · · Score: 2

    I wonder how AC Neilsen feels about this. Why spend the big bucks Neilsen's market research on what people are watching -- when google can tell you what people are watching, and for less?

  11. A tablet won't do for work. by Wee · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seriously: a 10" tablet for work is a joke. Even one 24" 1920x1200 monitor is a chore sometimes.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:A tablet won't do for work. by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      A litte arm powered tablet might as well be powered by frito-lay for what I use computers for at work.

      Industrial CAD eats cpu cycles for breakfast, while chuggng down ram allocations like a fratboy at a weekend bender.

      Don't even get me started about how the touch interface simply won't work for what I do either.

      No, Tablets will *NEVER* replace an engineering seat. Not under this paradigm anyway.

    2. Re:A tablet won't do for work. by Abreu · · Score: 1

      But it might replace a secretary or clerical seat...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    3. Re:A tablet won't do for work. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, a tablet for work is indeed a joke, unless you're a salesman or a CEO, or work at the McDonald and your tablet is used as a point of sale.

      And assuming you're a salesman, or a CEO, the only Android tablet I would even consider for work is the Asus Transformer, because of its dockable keyboard which also acts as an extra battery, and that model is not even listed among the options. I guess Asus did not pay Infoworld enough to get included in there.

      For everyone else: accountants, developers, IT, admins, editors, and designers, they'll need larger screens and access to more traditional software to do the bulk of their work.

  12. Re:Just one question by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    It is a rectangular display device with a built in radio frequency tuner and an audio subsystem intended for the playback of home entertainment motion pictures, and the reception and display of live broadcasts.

    This particular form of entertainment was slowly phased out in favor of superior offerings toward the end of the 20th century.

  13. Re:LOL! Hahahahahahaha! by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    So... In other words...

    I think I get it now...

  14. Chromebook by fm6 · · Score: 1

    I've had a chance to play with a Chromebook, and yeah, it's a very well designed product. But I remain skeptical about its commercial success. There's too much lockin to PC-based applications, and people are much too thoroughly trained in non-cloud file systems. This may well change, but I wouldn't bet on it happening soon.

  15. Sorry, your connection is dropped by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't like using software that depends on online connections to operate. Connections are not fast enough or reliable enough. Nor are they secure. Compute Locally.

    1. Re:Sorry, your connection is dropped by houghi · · Score: 1

      I don't like using software that depends on online connections to a marketing company to operate

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  16. Re:"PC or Mac" by jythie · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a fine grasp of technology to me. Everyone knows when the word 'PC' is used the speaker means an x86 CPU running a Windows varient and Mac referrers to a computer made by Apple. In the real world words have multiple meanings depending on the context, and going around complaining that someone is using the words incorrectly if they were being used in another context is needlessly pedantic.

  17. Executive summary by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    The Googleplex solution is currently too limited and won't let normal users do a lot of what they'll want to do. But if you like incessantly fiddling around, this may sort of work for you.

    (I cheated and read the article - sorry)

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Executive summary by Eyezen · · Score: 1

      +10^10^100

  18. Just Flashblock for me by tepples · · Score: 2

    And how long can you browse without AdBlock turned on before you go nuts?

    I don't use an ad blocker; I just use an SWF blocker, which keeps advertising at a tolerable level. If advertisers have something substantial to say, surely they can boil it down to text or a still JPEG, and if so, let 'em. Flash ads are for video sites like YouTube and Newgrounds.

    1. Re:Just Flashblock for me by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      This presumes you want Google in your life at all. They belong in your hosts file under 127.0.0.1 as their terms of service are largely indentured servitude. No Google Apps? Have a better day.

      The model of give-up-your privacy for free and seductive half-apps has to go.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  19. Correction by tooyoung · · Score: 1

    As long as we're talking Android, a tablet is the perfect work device - small, portable, thin, light weight device. We only make the comment that a tablet isn't suitable for work on iPad stories to dissuade people from buying Apple.

  20. Can't use common peripherals by tepples · · Score: 1

    So I'd just be replacing my PC-with-one-OS with a PC-with-a-different-OS.

    You'd be replacing your PC with a different PC that can't use common peripherals such as a flatbed scanner or a webcam. I've noticed that some employers are starting to require people to have a webcam on their home PC to get or keep a job. And until some counterpart to AIDE comes out, you'd be replacing your PC with something that can't even self-host its own developer tools.

    1. Re:Can't use common peripherals by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      WHICH employers require (!) a webcam at home for employment?

      sure does not sound like the typical geek engineering W.A.H. stuff. I don't know of any geeks that would tolerate that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  21. PCs will still be available at some price by tepples · · Score: 1

    As far as I can tell, the biggest danger that alarmists cite about a "post-PC" world is that the price of a PC will shoot up due to loss of economies of scale. For people who need a high-end PC and are willing to pay for one, like people who do industrial CAD for a living, those will still be available.

    1. Re:PCs will still be available at some price by tepples · · Score: 1

      So what action should I take today or next week against ACTA and TPP?

  22. It's happening, but more slowly than you claim by tepples · · Score: 1

    [TV] was slowly phased out in favor of superior offerings toward the end of the 20th century.

    It was a little later than the 1990s, as you claim. I'd say around 2006 is when TVs started to be replaced with large computer monitors that had a built-in TV receiver for backward compatibility. Some parts of your vision are still taking a while to happen: it's taking a long time for high-speed Internet access without a harsh cap to reach rural areas, and a lot of people are still reluctant to connect a general-purpose computer to a living-room-sized monitor.

  23. Re:"PC or Mac" by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    Well, that's the motherboard, yeah... by that logic every computer is basically the same.
    The rest of it is engineered quite a bit differently than a Dell/HP/Sony/Toshiba/etc.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  24. So this is the future by cvtan · · Score: 2

    Cell phone crappy camera instead of a good camera. And now: TA DA!!! Watching video on a 7-in screen. I'm too old for this nonsense.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  25. That case was more a problem for Target by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You might want to ask the teenager who wasn't ready to tell her parents she was pregnant

    She told them because she wanted to. Not because she HAD to. Otherwise she could have just said "I don't know why I'm getting this stuff". I mean, it's just advertising. Why would her parents not have believed her?

    In that scenario Target was worse off than the girl, because the parents were angry with them at first.

    (advertising goes to work not home - for example ads in a browser when your boss walks in)

    How is that going to happen? Are you logging on to personal websites at work? If it's cookie based stuff, how would it follow you there?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That case was more a problem for Target by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Are you logging on to personal websites at work?

      I'm not but plenty of people do. Chat with someone who does tech support for a company and ask them what they find in browser histories.

      If it's cookie based stuff, how would it follow you there?

      We are discussing google services which require a login, not cookies.

    2. Re:That case was more a problem for Target by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I'm not but plenty of people do.

      Right, people that wouldn't care. So, problem solved.

      We are discussing google services which require a login, not cookies.

      For those that care you use Firefox with privacy turned on. That's how I would access any Google service from a system not my own (and sometimes even from my own system).

      Again, you are really making too big a deal out of something people would not generally care about much. I don't recall ads delivered by google to ever have been so NSFW I would ever care if a boss saw them. You get those ads on porn sites, and if you are surfing those at work well then, good luck to you I say because IT is ALSO WATCHING YOUR PORN.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:That case was more a problem for Target by perpenso · · Score: 1

      We are discussing google services which require a login, not cookies.

      For those that care you use Firefox with privacy turned on. That's how I would access any Google service from a system not my own (and sometimes even from my own system).

      How does private browsing prevent google from knowing who you are, again you **logged into** a google service.

    4. Re:That case was more a problem for Target by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      How does private browsing prevent google from knowing who you are, again you **logged into** a google service.

      It keeps your google ID out of the rest of the browser windows you are using. So if Google wants to feed me ads about lemon flavored tampons or whatever, they'll only appear in my gmail window, and not in any other browser windows that contain google ads (which means all of them basically) since thy have no clue what my Google identity is.

      Similarly searching for a potentially embarrassing term on Google is best done from a browser window with privacy enabled so it drops the link back to your google ID.

      I'm talking a whole separate browser instance mind you.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. Easy, browse with Flash blocked by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Not if that content is copyrighted.

    Dude! That makes NO SENSE. The key is in that first part of the term, "COPYright".

    If material is copyrighted you can't re-distribute it, but you can sure as hell block, mangle or ignore it locally as you please.

    Hulu Plus is... I canceled it after less than a month of using it.

    Yet millions do in fact pay for it so we can see how far off the norm you are in regards to advertising.

    And how long can you browse without AdBlock turned on before you go nuts?

    I don't use any ad-blockers because I like the sites I enjoy, all free, to continue to exist.

    But realistically they way I tolerate the web is to have a flash-blocker on. That gets rid of the really obnoxious stuff, especially pop-unders (yes I have popup blocking enabled, but I just click randomly on paged I read out of habit and that often triggers pop-unders).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  27. Aha! Theories disassembled by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The more differentiation between goods, the more likely people are to have a strong preference.

    Consider Coke and Pepsi. The difference between them really is minor, and yet they evoke incredibly strong preferences in just about anyone I've ever met.

    although there's still a lot of impulse buying, it is mostly for stuff that would piss people off if they had to watch ads for it, like laundry detergent.

    Are you sure about that? People seem to hold strongly onto laundry detergent brands.

    These days, the ads people would choose to watch, if they were allowed to choose ads (but were forced to watch ads), would be ads for products that are actually interesting.

    So what is interesting about deodorant? And yet - Old Spice Guy.

    If the only advertising that will work anymore is interesting advertising, then that is the ad agencies job, to make ANY product advertising interesting. There is no product so lowly or humble that interesting advertising cannot be created for it. The days where you could simply slap a logo up and people would be forced to stare at it for 20 seconds are over, so the advertising industry has to adapt. But it can, we have already seen it do so.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. I bet... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Every huge technology company (Or in googles case advertising company) wants total control over all your gear and your data.

    Being honest and telling everyone this is actually your plan or that this model somehow represents the future and you will like it is an interesting strategy however the answer is still "no".

    This is for googles own good too. The more we stand by and help google corrupt its own soul the worse off everyone including google is in the long run.

  29. PC? No. TV? Meh. by billstewart · · Score: 2

    Replace my primary data storage with cloud services? Not a chance. Run my applications cloud-based off cloud-based storage rather than on local storage? No, that's way too slow; even serving disks across Wifi is slow. Not only is it not cost-effective, and not performance-effective, but more importantly, I don't control my data that way.

    Get most of my TV from Google/Hulu/Netflix/etc. instead of Comcast? Meh. Most of it's probably there, and digital broadcast TV probably looks better than analog most of the time, but still, it doesn't strike me as worth the trouble.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  30. Re:Aha! Theories disassembled by dgatwood · · Score: 2

    Consider Coke and Pepsi. The difference between them really is minor, and yet they evoke incredibly strong preferences in just about anyone I've ever met.

    IMO, Coke and Pepsi taste nothing alike. Coke has a much stronger bite to its flavor—almost a tartness—that Pepsi does not have. They are a commodity from a functional perspective. From a flavor perspective, not so much.

    Are you sure about that? People seem to hold strongly onto laundry detergent brands.

    Yes, I'm sure. People typically buy what they are used to buying, so the main advantage to advertising of products in an established commodity market is hooking new buyers who haven't formed an opinion yet or to introduce new products.

    So what is interesting about deodorant?

    Nothing. Which is why I haven't put up with watching a deodorant ad in about ten years.

    There is no product so lowly or humble that interesting advertising cannot be created for it.

    Your threshold for "interesting" must be a lot lower than mine. Unless I'm either learning something new or being seriously entertained, it isn't interesting. And nobody seems to care about the first one, which pretty much leaves "seriously entertained". Statistically speaking, such ads, though memorable, don't result in a lasting brand impression, which makes them not particularly useful.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  31. Re:PC? No. TV? Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To put it simply, try downloading over the Internet when your Internet connection is down. That's the great thing about local storage.

    "HDTV's being glorified monitors and all"? Isn't putting an apostrophe there considered incorrect?

  32. HireVue by tepples · · Score: 1

    WHICH employers require (!) a webcam at home for employment?

    Any company whose HR department uses HireVue, for one thing.

  33. Gnu & GPL never anticipated ChromeOS, Mac, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The otherwise far-sighted, prescient GNU project and their GPL never imagined anyone would take a GNU/Linux PC and cripple it to make it a walled garden. So far, this has been the paradigm followed by Apple (Mac and other BSD stuff), Google (ChromeOS), Amazon (their middleman browser), etc. They've taken open source software and turned it into the very thing open source was meant to stop from happening, the locked-down walled garden.

  34. Re:Aha! Theories disassembled by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Your threshold for "interesting" must be a lot lower than mine.

    Very likely, mine I think is just about perfectly average, which makes me a great leading indicator of what ads will be popular - any ads I like have invariably been widely liked. I enjoy analyzing ads and thinking about why they might work or not.

    However, I cannot believe you can talk about advertising without acknowledging the massive success that was the Old Spice Guy. If you don't understand what happened there, I don't think you know the face of modern advertising or what has been successful.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  35. Re:Aha! Theories disassembled by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    I don't even know what the "Old Spice Guy" is. That line of ads didn't have enough impact to get even a single mention by anyone I know, including my 459 Facebook friends, or any of the folks I converse with around the halls at work, or at church, or.... So maybe the line of ads was effective among the market segment who actually still watches commercials, but that market segment is rapidly dwindling.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  36. Re:Aha! Theories disassembled by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I don't even know what the "Old Spice Guy" is. That line of ads didn't have enough impact to get even a single mention by anyone I know, including my 459 Facebook friends, or any of the folks I converse with around the halls at work

    And yet if you asked 90% would know what I am talking about.

    It was huge at the time, and it is the future of advertising. If you truly never heard of it, you cannot possibly know what is to come.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  37. ChromeOS and webcams by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    You'd be replacing your PC with a different PC that can't use common peripherals such as a flatbed scanner or a webcam.

    Well, other than the fact that Chrome OS can certainly use a webcam.