Slashdot Mirror
Google Forbids Advertising On Glass
An anonymous reader writes "Contrary to widespread thought, Google Glass will not be an advertising platform: 'Google Inc has lately told app developers that they are not allowed to present ads to Google Glass users and they are also not permitted to sell users' personal and private information for the fulfillment of advertising needs. The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever, because the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing and other related activities, therefore, the featured podium cannot be used to advertise products as it will cause the user experience to diminish.' Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one." You're not supposed to resell the Glass hardware, either.
I have a hard time believing that they will make all their revenue on hardware alone. They will have access to search and activity data combined with a feed that shows people's whereabouts and habits. This marketing data will be worth way more than any direct advertising.
Sig: I stole this sig.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
> Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one
Or, you know, collecting user data such as location, what the user is looking at and browsing, and so on. Which then in turn can be used to target advertising.
"may not "serve or include any advertisements" and they "may not charge" users to download apps for the device."
"not permitted to sell users' personal and private information for the fulfillment of advertising needs. "
I'm confused. So its a hobbyist only device?
what is the difference between "presenting ads to Google glass users" and "internet browsing"? Is Glass going to come with built-in ad-blockers for all web pages? Are they going to build special software to prohibit Glass-specific advertising on web pages that are not in any kind of partnership with Glass? This seems to me like a way of controlling the advertising revenue streams for Google more than anything else, since Google's pages are larded with ads and Glass will inherently drive traffic to those pages, both inside and outside of the Glass environment. I wonder if it even raises antitrust implications, as it tremendously biases the products toward Google's advertising & commerce platforms while pushing others out.
They say this now but after Microsoft or Apple sell an ad supported product for cheaper they'll change their minds quickly.
when I go to google.com with those?
and surely they would be taking a cut of the app sales, so no hw only vector there.
moreover.. they don't yet have a profit vector for it.
but don't worry, there's a very thin line between "information" and "advert" when your app exists solely for the purpose of finding nearest mcdonalds.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The next step is to pull all slashvertisements for Google Glass.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
If you're walking around you'd want to see what shops have to offer. Often I'll type in a very wide search in to Google maps and see whats about. If you like comedy and some cafe has a comedy place in the back which runs every other second month on a tuesday, which you'd never know about. It would be good to see that information augmented in. Set some very tight preferences so you're not being blasted with everything and you're good to go.
Also, If the gps picks up that you are doing over 8mph it should turn off everything. Does it do that? It you're on a bus or train tough. If you go over 200mph you get a speed ticket. I'm not accepting you're on a plane.
What about web sites that pick up on the user agent string?
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Google adds. No one else may compete and you only buy a right to use them as they are a copy of the pair of glasses at Google. Not an actual pair etc.
http://saveie6.com/
Contrary to widespread thought, Google Glass will not be an advertising platform... yet!
Not only are developers not allowed to advertise, they aren't allowed to charge for the software either. So how are they going to be paid for their work? How are they going to be paid for the content; the servers?
If the answer is that they're not, then that's going to limit the applications to amateur hour stuff.
And is it really no advertising, or is it no third party advertising. Hard to imagine Google not using their usual revenue stream.
But "sponsored notices" I am sure will be fully supported.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
The no ads is a provision of the agreement required to use the API that lets web apps connect to glass, its not enforced by EULA or DRM
well, I guess you better go back into your cave because that is never going to happen.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
It's distracting, causes ADD, causes eye strain, will get you mugged, people will use it while driving, induces battery phobia to the max, looks idiotic, causes memory degradation in your brain, and the controls are significantly less fast than a PC, laptop, tablet, or cell phone. Is that a good start?
Sure you can.
Any ad spewing to Glass software gets kicked out of the market. If users still want it they can get it through alternate markets.
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
They'll make their revenue with Google Play and Chrome Web Store store revenue, since Glass has functions that require pairing with an Android device, and Glass apps are basically (by device features) limited to being auxiliary interfaces to web services for which the primary interface will almost certainly be either a traditional web or mobile app.
It is just a display for an android device.
Ad blocking on and android device is pretty simple.
You can even just install Firefox and the adblock plus extension if you only want to block web browser ads and are not rooted.
Remember how Cable TV started out with no advertisements, to give people a good reason to plunk down big wads of cash every month for stuff like what they got free over the airwaves? Remember how short that lasted, once cable acceptance picked up? This no-ads/tracking thing is just a phase to get Google Glasses in front of everyone's eyeballs; then we'll get ads full blast.
The no resale limitation appears to be on the developer version that is out now. If they did that with the commercial one, they would have a giant shitstorm on their hands, both PR and legal.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Google doesn't want developers to incorporate ads into their apps for glass. Lots of app developers create a "free" version of their app that is supported through advertising. It's this particular aspect of advertising that Google is trying to prevent from happening.
Its dependent for on external resources. There doesn't need to be a kill switch on the device to disable it, all Google has to do is pull it from the authorized list on the servers it relies on.
DO NOT TAUNT GOOGLE GLASS!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I'd wager that hardware revenue alone would make it worth it if glass is "the next big thing." I'd also wager that cutting out the middleman between google and consumers, and potentially being squeezed out such as happened with apple, makes it even more worth it. Say MS starts going around to android hardware manufacturers and saying "Okay, you won't have to pay us to license those patents you infringed on (translation: used android) if you start shipping firmware that routes every search through Bing instead of google." Apple and Facebook team up too maybe. And google starts losing users.
Or has that already happened? I don't know, I find legal insanity either boring or infuriating, so I try to ignore it usually.
It's $1500 for a SoC phone of fairly basic specifications (mainly due to desired low power consumption), and an off-the-shelf display module. As long as they managed to buy the module in bulk from the OEM rather than buying a packaged end-user product from a reseller, then the majority of cost for development would be in creating the interface, not in developing the hardware. Google's voice search and Now already existed from their Android work, so it's specifically the UI they had to adapt for HUD usage. I can imagine they at least broke even selling just a few thousand.
If they're not going to blast these glasses with ads then it's because they've found a better way to exploit you. Probably selling your movements, then letting local merchants spam you.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You can't LEND it to anyone? How strict is that? Do they mean you can't let someone try it out for a few minutes? And is that just for this first round of people, and they'll loosen the terms once it really goes public?
Technoli
Presumably, from your comments, you don't want it. That's fine, you aren't the whole market.
I think you're totally correct,
While apple has been about the walled garden, google has been about the green valley with large high hills surrounding that discourage you to leave(but you can). Google is into building devices and products that make you use their other services that generate more value through advertisement and data collection. Google doesn't need to get your money from google glass after you buy it, because chances are you are going to use google.com, gmail and probably other services as well from them. These as we all know already track the information they are banning on glass anyways. The device is made to drive users to the other advertisement revenue streams and the larger the adoption of it(like the android phones) the larger their market share is for other services.
Most of the people I know that use an android phone use gmail and google search built in as well as their play store and some of the other apps. This is the driving force behind android and glass.
This also means that users can simply uninstall the app. Since it isn't Google that's doing the ads it shhould be fairly easy to get rid of the offender.
People will not ever get used to having apps constantly and without provocation pushed into their face. You know what you get when you load a website. You know what you get when your turn on your TV or radio. But walking down the street just to have the latest Amazon sale pushed into your peripheral vision will mean that the app will be deinstalled.
What it won't prevent is showing those email notifications of that shop you once did business with and that has been pestering you ever since. And you will get solicited ads when you ask where to go for lunch. These informations will propably be pulled right off Google Maps and I highly suspect that this is where Google will be making its money.
Also bear in mind that this thing isn't always on. You will either have to wake it up by fondling it or sloooowly lifting your head. So shoving unsolicited ads into your vision wouldn't work most of the time since it most likely will be turned off. Battery life isn't that good on that thing to have it turned on the whole day.
20 minutes into the future
Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one.
That conclusion is not supported by the fact that Google does not allow advertising on Google Glass. Google Glass is not exclusively an output device, it is also a sensor array. The data collected by the sensor array would be very valuable to Google's surveillance and analytics programs. Whether Google will store, use, or distribute any of the data collected by the Google Glass sensors has not, as far as I know, been addressed.
Generally speaking, Google seems to have a very solid understanding that it is inexpensive to store data and a significant opportunity cost to discard it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever...
Really? When? Where? I cannot find any reference whatsoever to Google making that statement, only references, like this one, to an anonymous source claiming it. I feel confident that if Google had "explicitly and openly" said any such thing that I would have been able to well, you know, google it ;-)
Unmentioned here is the fact that Google is also forbidding developers to charge for their software, leaving developers with no revenue model at all. I imagine this is intended as an exploratory phase, and there is intent to in the future allow some revenue model for developers, but not giving any clue as to how developers might be allowed to make some money seems like a really good way to stifle development right from the outset.
It's important to note that only third-party developers are prohibited from placing ads; Google isn't bound by the same rules. My tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory says they want to get people used to Glass first, and then start slowly implementing ads until they feel commonplace and accepted. If Glass is plastered with ads from the beginning, no one will use it, and Google knows this.
That said, it would be great if it never has ads. I would be willing to pay more (were I in the market for Glass) for no ads on a device such as this.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
They will also make money by having shops listed on Google Maps.
Rumor has it that they want to sell the consumer version at 750 bucks. If they sell enough of them then they won't be selling at a loss, I guess. If they somewhat make that price point I will get one. After I have sorted out how to deal with my prescription glasses, that is.
20 minutes into the future
Well... of course you can sell it if you want. It would not be against the law to do so. You did buy the hardware. It will, however, stop working for the new owner at some point in the future.
Let's be clear. "You're not allowed" does not mean men from black helicopters coming through your skylight denying you your resale rights.
Who says they can't charge for software?
I have plenty of pay for software on my phone, right next to the FREE software. So far the phone has not exploded.
Why do you want it?
Dear TheGratefulNet:
You may not be willing to accept the 'always capturing video and audio' concept (and neither am I); but the world, as in the vast majority of people, will most definitely welcome it.
You can count on it.
Bingo. Hence the "no resale, renting, lending, letting other people touch, etc." provisions in their "agreement" - this device appears to be intended to "train" users to be happy sending all of their information to Google, but this requires Google to be able to always "know" who is using which device at all times in order for the data to be fully useful to them (for "personalization", of course.)
In other words, this is like Facebook(tm), but even more so (and you have to pay $1500 for the honor of feeding Google's files on your behavior, which helps the illusion that THEY are giving YOU something, and not vice-versa.)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever, because the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing and other related activities, therefore, the featured podium cannot be used to advertise products as it will cause the user experience to diminish
So it's designed for internet browsing and stuff...like smartphones???
I'm so sick of ads taking up my tiny screen space, my pathetic battery life, and my worthless monthly bandwidth. This is the worst in apps made by every random developer who thinks he's entitled to make a constant revenue stream from throwing together a piddly app to do something basic like a kitchen timer. I even had an app that was supposed to be an app-store release of the ICS camera app...and it had an ad on the screen when you were using the camera! All he did was release the ICS camera app!
How about standing up to these developers, Google? Huh?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
You appear to be confusing the end user with the service/app provider.
Don't you get it? They said it would only be a platform to browse the web. We all know there are no adds on the web.
In the EU it is not legal to try and forbid anyone to resell items acquired by any means whatsoever. You buy it, you become the owner, you can do with it what you want: resell it, destroy it, lend it, rent it out, give it away. Google's gonna have a hard time with Euro Commissary iron Nellie ( Neelie Smit-Kroes, who already severely flogged them ).
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
So you have one?
If not, how is your list anything other than total nonsense?
They don't want you selling it because it's a development device that is only being sent to a select group of people. Your reason doesn't even make sense, if it was sold the new owner would obviously use it with their own account.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
dear TheGratefulNet:
the world is not willing to acceept your 'always wanting privacy' concept. we are rightfully annoyed at your persistence and insistence that the majority of people Care(tm).
you are clearly trying to incite fears in a populace that is too uncaring to give a shit but let me state again, clearly and unambiguously:
MOST. PEOPLE. WANT.
it was an interesting idea for 'self-aware people' but just not really fitting into what we, as a society, so clearly want.
please just stop trying to force the issue. you come off as jerks when you do that.
Keep in mind the glasses are currently only distributed as a developer device, much like an SDK. Not a consumer device. The no reselling restriction present in the EULA is very similar to those applicable to SDK in other markets.
I have a hard time believing that they will make all their revenue on hardware alone.
That was an unsupported assumption being made by the submitter.
Google isn't allowing third-party app developers to display ads. That's completely different from stating that THEY won't display ads or incorporate paid partners into whatever "services" they offer on the devices. Heck, for all we know they'll require a Google+ membership before a company will be included in their listing of nearby entities.
#DeleteChrome
When did evil suddenly mean anything not perfectly pure and good? Most business isn't actually evil but is far from "good". They never promised to "do only good", they just promised to not do the evil things they could easily do in the business model they have chosen. There's a whole range of things that don't obviously fit into either the good or evil column there. While libre is inherently a good act, non-libre isn't automatically evil.
Google isn't forbidding advertising on Glass. They're forbidding non-Google advertising.
I'm a geek. I'm too excited about the technology and what I can do with it to give a flying fuck about the "societal and cultural implications".
No one's forcing you to buy Google Glass. Don't worry - no one will come and shove them down your throat. So I don't get what exactly your problem is.
I'm a geek. I want something new because I'm excited by the technology. It's enough of a reason to start out with.
Lol. It's hilarious to see people's paranoid rantings.
FYI - Google would be utterly stupid to allow merchants to spam users. Or even sell their data to them.
> They'll make their revenue with Google Play and Chrome Web Store store
> revenue
They can't sell apps, either.
Don't worry - no one will come and shove them down your throat
Not literally, anyway... Figuratively, yes they will.
http://www.inquisitr.com/256025/steve-wozniak-says-apple-ruined-siri-technology-after-acquisition/ Here is Steve Wozniak showing how siri was destroyed by Apple advertising “What are the five largest lakes in California?” and “What are the prime numbers greater than 87?” (91). To which Wozniak replied, “It’s incredible. It’s like it understands ‘greater than.’”
Wozniak also notes that his former question about California Lakes now brings up lakefront properties while his question about prime numbers now displays information about prime ribs
The relevant quote in the article is "At the moment, there are no plans..."..
#DeleteChrome
The no ads is a provision of the agreement required to use the API that lets web apps connect to glass, its not enforced by EULA or DRM
Is there also a provision that Google may change the EULA at any time, without prior notice? eg. When sales have taken off and enough people have been suckered in by the promise of no ads.
No sig today...
Probably selling your movements
Google doesn't sell any user data.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If it were libre, then that means you could do anything you want with it, including make it support ads. So in this case, it'd be worse. You prevent ads via the developers working with the API, the user doesn't have do anything. I also don't see what DRM has to do with anything here.
I think I have figured out the appeal of Google Glass. People saw Terminator 2 and remember all the information the terminator had at his 'eyeballs' and thought it was really, really cool. Google glass is an attempt to make this happen, next up Google Robot.
They already have to the OS of course, it will be simple to port 'droid' to it's next version that we'll call 'robot'. It's a small and light weight OS that can run on a variety of hardware platforms and was meant for one shape but adapted to another. It will adapt well to it's future cyborg form without a lot of expected difficulties. It features the following advantages ready for production today:
The operating system is made for remote management and updating without human intervention.
Many programs are available and can be readily downloaded as needed for a variety of situations as needed.
It has fairly good battery life and can be recharged via USB ports which are everywhere.
It's open source and so it can be modified by anyone/thing.
Other related developments:
Drones are all over the place, they can even fly jumbo jets without human pilots now.
We already have Google Car, so autonomous Priuses are here to bore everyone to death already.
Google fiber is being rolled out to allow for a nice robust network that humiliates all other providers in the US
The only logical conclusion? The founders of Google are entirely too fond of the Terminator movies and are planning on releasing Google Skynet to take over the world. Once Google decides to purchase SpaceX and start launching their own Google Satellites it's time to run for the hills...
"You can't prevent ads without either an onerous EULA with over-the-top enforcement or some hardcore DRM."
So my blocking hosts file in my android phone is "hardcore DRM"? I prevent ads on my android devices just fine.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Those terms are only on the test, development devices. It's ridiculously unlikely that they will be on the retail version.
Probably selling your movements
Google doesn't sell any user data.
Actually, slight correction, I believe the Google privacy policy does allow selling of aggregated data. I should have said Google doesn't sell any individual user data.
Also, disclaimer: I work for Google but don't have any inside information about this. My comments are based on the published privacy policy.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The app developers will not be displaying ads on glass, but this doesn't mean that Google will not make add revenue from this device. I can see at least two ways to that: 1. The information they gather on you from the device will probably be used to increase the value of the targeted ads on their other platforms: google search, Google+, Gmail. 2. They can can show on top of the search (like they do in google search) or mark more prominently on the maps paying businesses. Some developers on android seem to do well without selling ads, so they shouldn't be affected by this rule. Others that distribute for free and rely on flashy adds, will have to drop out are make their offerings attractive enough for the users to pay fro them.
No, Google is not using Glass to sell the OWNERS of Glass ads. That might happen eventually, but a more valuable service is being performed by Glass owners for Google. Namely the gather of information on other people THROUGH your glass. Sell an ad for Glass - you just get the owner, who's just a tiny part of the population. However, that person may encounter hundreds of people on the street daily - gathering information on them would generate far more returns.
After all, Google has already announced they'll identify people based on their faces and clothing, and probably use that information to tie into what they already have on you (matching you captured with your Google account, say).
A Glass user walks to a restaurant for lunch and casually ends up scanning all the patrons. Google now can sell ads to competing restaurants and deals for that restaurant to all those people.
Naturally, you cannot hinder the adoption of Glass by having developers spew ads at users - it will kill Glass
"FYI - Google would be utterly stupid to allow merchants to spam users. Or even sell their data to them."
Of course they would. That's what Google does to make money.
No, but in my country the app developer isn't the "End User", and the terms and conditions of an API service agreement are not a "License Agreement".
The only part that the API agreement and an EULA have in common is that they are both "agreements".
I know its too much to expect slashdot posters to RTFA, but is it really unreasonable to expect reading the part of the post you are responding to that you cut-and-paste-and-blockquote in your response? The no ads thing isn't part of the EULA at all, so changing it wouldn't involve changing the EULA.
They are giving you something, otherwise not only would nobody pay for it, they wouldn't use it even if it were free. I get so sick of all the something-for-nothing entitlement attitude that pervades society these days. Heaven forbid that companies actually make money to pay their costs, employees, and have some kind of, you know, profit for their shareholders. Google does this by selling data, boo fucking hoo. Meanwhile the people giving them data get in return free (huge) email, free phone service, free online storage, free office-oriented web apps, etc. etc.
For glass they get all sorts of services delivered in real time in a non-obtrusive but always visible way. Some people will find this useful enough to BOTH pay for and give Google data. If people don't know what's really involved, whose fault is that really? Go into any court and argue 'but your honor, I didn't read the contract I signed' and see how far that goes. You'll be lucky if they don't laugh at you while dismissing your case. People need to be responsible for themselves, and stop expecting that "free" means they give nothing. It just means they don't have to tender money. Everything beyond that is up to contract terms. Ugh. I blame parents. My parents sure as hell didn't let me grow up thinking I was owed anything, or that I could just flop around the world hoping somebody else would be responsible for my interests/rights. Fucking grow up people. Being an adult is more than just age, you have to take control of your own life and go to the trouble of understanding the framework you live in.
And all you wankers who defend the ignorant, knock it off. You're not helping them.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Google has nothing except user data to sell.
They may not disclose individual data.
But they definitely sell it.
Google got their approach backward.
If they'd stayed with search, they could've charged companies by how successfully, quickly, easily, and uniquely people -found- the company's products when they wanted to solve a problem or fill a need and went searching for good answers.
Make what you sell good, and well and accurately and easily described, in a way that explains what need it satisfies -- and search will enable people to find it easily; Google should have gone the route of finding a way to charge for the success Google provided the company -- success at being found.
Companies that make crap, poorly described, misleading stuff that needs advertising -- not stuff you want to find -- is the model they chose instead.
My contribution: block all the ads I can, and resolve never to buy -anything- that gets pushed in my face when I don't want it.
If you want me to buy something from you, describe it clearly and fully and if I need it, I'll be able to find it.
Killfile web ads now, same as it was used for Usenet posts.
If it makes you angry or crazy or distracted and wastes your time --- Killfile it, AdBlock it, NoScript it.
Don't get caught by the crap, ignore the crap.
I love how you rush to say how Glass is catalytic in whole host of things when it isn't even in common use and no studies have been done. What a bunch of reactionary hyperbolic tripe.
(... the fuck is "battery phobia" anyway?)
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
There is a saying the goes something like "don't attribute to malice which can be explained by stupidity".
I wonder if their decision is based on my twist on that saying "don't attribute to kindness that which can be explained by avoiding liability and bad press". Perhaps they dont want to be caught showing ads to the first person who gets hit by a bus because his/her focus was on the display watching a sexy ad and not the world around them?
It's not about active ads. I'm sure they'll get revenue for passive advertising. You're wearing glass, you search for a restaurant, you get a list of local restaurants with directions... I can see pretty easy ways to embed ads into that whole process, and display USEFUL ads.
Most folks don't have problems with advertising that helps them find what they're looking for.
First, I think you lost track of context, and are confused about "they" -- GP was about how Google would make revenue, and Google most certainly can sell apps through the Chrome Web Store and the Google Play store, and make money from them in exactly the way described.
Second, even if you were (as I suspect) mistaking GP for a post about Glass app developers, you'd still be wrong: they can also make money from apps by selling mobile or Chrome Web Store (or iOS App Store, or other) apps for services for which the Glass app that enhances the same service is a selling point. They can't charge for the Glass app itself or charge an additional fee for access to the Glass features in another service, but nothing stops them from selling a service (whether the other user interface is web, mobile, or both) which has Glass features as a selling point to drive sales, where the Glass app that connects to the service is free and no extra charge is levied for access to the Glass features.
They are going to eat some costs. This is like video game console development. You eat some costs upfront to get the entire ecosystem out there. They did the same thing with Android. Facebook did the exact same thing. If the platform is a cesspool of ads, no one will want to use it. Once it's in widespread use they can do what they want with it. I doubt they have a lot of interest in developing hardware either. They want to get the ecosystem into widespread usage any way possible, then take a step back and be the masters of that ecosystem, letting everyone else do the work for them. Then they'll begin figuring out how to integrate ads, but that is 5 years away I'm sure. Ads are like step 30 and they've just barely reached step 1.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Which is why they don't want you to sell or even loan them to anyone else. It would mess up the database they have on you.
google has been about the green valley with large high hills
... the incinerator at one end, the toxic waste dump at the other, and a highway lined with billboards between the two. But it's not as expensive to live there as somewhere nice.
Absolutely. It's not needed. They know who they are spying on by which Google account it's logged in to.
Reminds me of watching commercial- and float-free youtube before google's acquisition.
Google keeps its data for itself. It doesn't give its most valuable assets to anyone no matter how high the price. It would be absurdly stupid to do that. Not to mention against their very obvious privacy policies.
But even without the policy in place, it's just a bad business decision. Google's entire business model is based on trust. If users feel they can't trust Google with the information they give them, they'll stop using their services.
Wake me up when they start giving my information to third parties. Till then, it's just paranoid rantings.
Who says they can't charge for software?
TFA, you dumbass.
Just like you can count on everybody buying a Segway because they are too lazy to walk.... hey, wait a minute.
MOST. PEOPLE. WANT.
You need to get out more. Most people haven't got a clue what it is. And if they see people wearing them they'll think they're assholes.
Don't worry - no one will come and shove them down your throat.
Well that's one of two places where owners are going to find them shoved if they aren't very careful about where they use them.
Selfish mobile phones users in cinemas have nothing on the potential for jerks to be annoying with Google glass.
As long as its a public place, others will just have to shut up and put up with it. If it's a private venue, then the owners have the right to lay down whatever rules they want of course.
Looks like someone RTFAed.
You must be new here.
Decisions like this should, by law, be in the hands of the users.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
As long as its a public place, others will just have to shut up and put up with it.
Live in a gated community do you? No, other people don't have to shut up and put up with it. Their freedom to protest at your public use of Google glass is just as great as your freedom to use it.
It is not "a display device for an Android device" (with or without the "just"), it doesn't require an Android device. It has some features which can leverage a paired Android device, but mostly is a device that ties to web-based services (both Google and third-party via the Mirror API.)
The Terms don't say "no ads". They say "no third-party ads allowed in this Developer Preview". The loopholes don't need to be pointed out, do they?
They can stick their glass up their ass
Great idea: then they'll be transmitting livelink goatse 24/7. Thanks a lot!
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
1. Welcome to slashdot, we don't RTFA.
2. See Rule 1
They can't charge for google glass specific software. The idea is to get them to support glass in the normal software and not double dip.
Well.. what they sell is created/summarized from user data and so it *is* user data. What else could it be?
You might want to phrase it as not personally identifiable user data. But who defines what personally identifiable is? You or them? Personally I don't care. I use a privacy extension to block all of the ad companies.
It's not a phone, it's a Bluetooth accessory. And the price hasn't been set at $1500. We have no idea what they will be selling this for when it gets released, but over $1000 seems incredibly unlikely.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
How on earth can Google be expected to place their OWN ads in your apps, if it's too cluttered with YOUR ads ? How naive are tech journalists these days ? Hardware-only revenue ? Yeah right, this is Google we are talking about.
Unless they are giving a written contract promising to refund the full amount of your purchase while also letting you keep google glass, then this promise is worth the paper it's written on.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Obviously you are talking out of your ass. SMH.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
How is it that so many people are spouting the same ridiculous nonsense?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Oh sure, protest all you want. You merely don't have the right to "shove them down anyone's throat". Write a book, a poem, draw something, shout, hold placards or whatever you feel like. But you can't stop others from doing it. You can try and persuade them. Not force them to stop.
I could see restaurants paying to have their listing show up first, or at least higher in the list. This could go for any sort of product/business search.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Also, they can gather information about consumer preferences and habits. They can then turn around and sell *that* information to marketers and advertisers.
I agree with you. That's the smarter move.
Well.. what they sell is created/summarized from user data and so it *is* user data. What else could it be?
In most cases, Google actually doesn't sell data at all. I understand there are some minor revenues from selling aggregated data. But selling data isn't really Google's business.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Google has nothing except user data to sell.
Google effectively sells eyeballs.
Perhaps this is just a difference in semantics, but it appears to me that you completely misunderstand Google's business model. Google does not collect your data and sell it to advertisers. Google allows advertisers to bid on how much they'll pay Google if Google shows you their ad and you click on it. Google doesn't even give advertisers a significant amount of control over who sees their ads. Advertisers can segment their advertising campaigns geographically (to enable local advertising), but that's generally it. Google uses what they know about you to decide which of the available ads you're likely to be interested in, weighted by the advertisers' bids to maximize Google's revenue. Nothing in that process provides advertisers with your information.
That's what Google sells: your eyeball and, more importantly, the service of matching your eyeball to the ad most likely to get you to click.
I believe Google does get a little revenue from selling aggregated data, but that's an insignificant side business.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
the story says "the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing." Is it wrong? do we know for sure?
Public TV/Radio doesn't have ads either. They have sponsorships, which are of course completely different than advertisements because of the spelling. Was there a ban on sponsorships? How about product placements? Endorsements? Recommendations?
Weird that this is the only comment so far that even mentions this part of the story. Can you imagine if Apple put this restriction in place with the next iPhone?
Whoa, Swilden, you can't just stop there. You have to explain it all the way otherwise you look like a complete head-over-heels Google fanboy-with-blinders-on.
No Google doesn't read your mail. The OP is full of shit. And the "Scroogle" propaganda campaign by Microsoft is the worst kind of FUD.
But they make their money from having data about their users. In aggregate. They sell ad-space. SPECIFICALLY, they sell TARGETED ADS. That aggregated data? It comes in a spreadsheet of "who do you want to sell ads to" next to a number of users. You're technically correct. They don't sell that data. It's given away for free in their BUY AD SPACE NOW page.
So they don't read your email.
They don't sell your personal information.
They don't sell (much) aggregated information about you.
But they make a FUCKTON of money collecting aggregated information about you and selling ads which target you.
It's a surveillance platform, not an advertising platform.
Raise your hand if you think government will NOT have access to the exabytes of data these things are going to generate.
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you
Funny, most of us have been saying that about our computers/browsers for years and Google hasn't listened.
So I don't have to shut up and put up with it after all.
I'd wager that hardware revenue alone would make it worth it if glass is "the next big thing."
Is there a substantial market for cell phone accessories that cost twice as much as the phone itself?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They want to be the only ones to sell your data. I assume the advertising restriction has to do with real-estate, but by phrasing it the way that they have that still leaves them available to sell any of your information that they want to whoever they want. They just want to cut out the competition.
I didn't know Youtube had ads until I used a computer without AdBlock. Who knew!
This story reminded me of Accelerando, where the augmented vision systems in the future become ad filters. Every surface is active and covered with ads vying for your attention, and everyone needs augmented vision to filter them out so you don't go crazy.
Alright, let me rephrase it so that people who can only read literally have a chance:
Is there anything preventing google from allowing adverts in the future? eg. When sales have taken off and enough people have been suckered in by the promise of no adverts.
No sig today...
I think that with the device like this, the line between the ad and just some info becomes more blurry. Say, you walking into a clothing store. Glass knows where you are, knows you are shopping and it may show you ads for the stuff you might like (based on the profile they collected on you) *in this very store*. I think the single add like this will cost a crapload of money, so they don't have to show them all the time.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Some people around me do.
I know one thing Glass is really good at: making me want to punch whoever wears them in the fucking face. Its like bluetooth earsets are back, times hundred.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
I don't see what's paranoid about it. Google is a major public corporation with a responsibility to increase shareholder value. Additionally, their business is selling you stuff (on behalf of other corporations). Everyone should be far more concerned about the kind and amount of data they give Google. Whether they sell it to third parties or just use it on behalf of those third parties seems pretty minor.
I don't misunderstand the business model.
It's to collect money from advertisers by pushing stuff at viewers.
"I'm feeling lucky" now tells me I'm feeling hungry and gives me a map of restaurants near where I am.
Dagnabbit, when I want food, I -know- how to search for food I want.
I'm a living organism. We do this instinctively.
Google's business could have been search: making sellers more competent at describing what they have to sell, where, when, and how, and on what terms, so they can be found by people who want something -- so someone can find something simply, straightforwardly, least effort for best result.
Google could have been a reference librarian for the marketplace, helping people by narrowing a search interactively, even querying the potential seller to improve their information if people keep asking for something Google figures out is probably what the seller wants to sell, as well as querying the potential buyer.
Go to a good library. Talk to a good reference librarian. Say you want something very specific that you don't know how to find.
Google could be that.
Instead the web becomes more and more layers of repeated stuff, and readers go through clicking page after page after page.
And the more pages are presented, the more the advertiser's stuff shows up, the more chances there are for clicks. $$PROFIT$$ eh?
Gubbish.
Google's business could have been search. I'd gladly buy from a seller that made the effort -- one that paid Google to help make their information clearer, more distinctive, and more easily discoverable (what searches do people do trying to find this sort of thing?). Save me time, save me trouble, save me from distraction, make search better.
Instead the model is to stuff the web with more stuff I have to work harder to ignore all the time, eating up the time I have to live.
Why, yes, I am old enough to remember when signs didn't glare, pages didn't shout, and I could go to Usenet and -ask- for something
and if I asked cleverly enough, showing I"d done my homework, people would answer - and then everyone else could find the answer later.
Like, as Borges says somewhere, going into a dark huge library and shouting my question -- and hearing answers coming back.
Google could have been that library.
Someone will, eventually.
First to market (well usually second to market, actually) will have a huge advantage over the next few. If you're willing to make Google Glass awesome through a great app, you will get mindshare for the future iterations...which will probably have a regular, for-profit marketplace.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Google themselves, in a slashdot story, plus other slashdot stories from 3rd parties stated every one of those as existing or likely possibilities. Battery Phobia is an uneasy feeling while using any product that has a battery because you know that sometime in the future it's going to run out. Even at 90% battery, you feel like it's always there...waiting! It's constantly ticking away like a countdown to shutdown. Then you worry about when you can charge it and what you have to do that day and where the charger is and if you'll make it through a meeting without needing a charge or if using an app is draining the battery 5x faster or not.
Needless to say, I only ever use a laptop when it's plugged in whenever possible.
Most folks don't have problems with advertising that helps them find what they're looking for.
Especially if those ads don't look like ads. Product placement, anyone? Prioritized search responses? How are you going to know, with the SEO blackhats vs. the Google algorithm?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
It's actually a poorly thought out business plan to bait and switch with ads. But nice try at being cynical. If profit is based on sales it relies on keeping the device viable, ads diminish that.
A Glass user walks to a restaurant for lunch and casually ends up scanning all the patrons. Google now can sell ads to competing restaurants and deals for that restaurant to all those people.
If this actually happens, how long until a restaurant (esp. a chain resto) finds out and then bans Glass from premises? How long until others follow suit? I seriously doubt Google wants even the above strategy.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
It's not a minor point because I trust Google not to give my data to anyone and not to use in a bad way. If that trust is broken people stop using their stuff. So they have a powerful business incentive to be good in this regard.
1) You're right.
2) You're wrong. Developers can't sell apps.
It's a draw!
I have a hard time believing that they will make all their revenue on hardware alone. They will have access to search and activity data combined with a feed that shows people's whereabouts and habits. This marketing data will be worth way more than any direct advertising.
They don't need to show you ads to generate revenue. Your Google account, linked to them, is the real value. The ads they show you *off* the Glass hardware when you're logged in on your computer become a lot more valuable when Google knows that much more information about the things you do off the computer.
It's not a phone, it's a Bluetooth accessory. And the price hasn't been set at $1500. We have no idea what they will be selling this for when it gets released, but over $1000 seems incredibly unlikely.
I wouldn't assume that. The trendy new thing has been above that price point lots of times in the past.
The original "fashion" StarTac was over $1000, adjusted for inflation, 20 years ago, as one example that comes to mind.
Not that I'll be using it, but let me go out on a limb and say Google Glass is AWESOME. Alright you cynics, who shall cast the first stone?
Nothing cynical -- Google already tracks your browsing via their ad network, to increase the value of the ads they sell. Remember, you're their product, not their customer.
Add to that warehouse of information about you online all the things you do offline, and you become a much more valuable product for them to sell.
I have the same experience as you regarding no separate ads, whether at the beginning, middle, or end, due to Adblock+. When he stated float-free youtube, I do believe he means all those damned popup thought bubble ads overlayed on the video itself. Those have to be turned off by clicking the Hide Annotations button on the player toolbar. I have not found a way to make those be turned off by default, and so that is the first thing I click once the video begins playing. But yeah if I didn't have Adblock+ to kill the traditional commercials, I'd have abandoned Youtube long ago. ABP also works quite nicely on Hulu, though with them you get a 30second blank spot bitching at you to stop blocking it! I feel a little bit giddy looking at that screen. Good time to go get some more Mt Dew and Doritos!
No, I'm not wrong. Developers cannot sell Glass Apps, true. But I didn't say they could. What I did say is that they can sell online web applications for which the corresponding Glass App is free. The Glass App still can drive revenue, by making the paid app it supports more valuable to users.
The best collective noun for Glass users I've heard so far - Glassholes :-)
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
With the exception of the omitted cellular modem and amplifiers, and the different display, the components running Google Glass are the same as you'll find in any number of smartphones. $1500 is what they're selling for now (or rather, sold for while available), as a development kit. If they intend to go full-scale, then volume production will further reduce part and manufacturing costs.
From his post http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3662715&cid=43483391
So I don't have to shut up and put up with it after all.
I think we will happily allow you to protest our wearing of Google Glass devices, so long as you do it in the Free Speech Zone we've set up across town in that fenced in area under the overpass. You will also find there plenty of Tea Party folks and Occupy Wall street folks there to keep you company whom we identify as "right wing" or "left wing" to keep them from getting together and ending up effective political machines, when we all know that both of them have the same "we are pissed at the people currently in power" grievance.
But feel free to go all "Dennis Leary in Demolition Man" about people who can afford toys you can't afford or simply don't want.
Now hold up. As other posters have pointed out, the conspiracy that the OP is trying assert is most likely a condition of these devices being developer models and that makes sense. What he is correct about, is that many companies and even our politicians quite often do try the old "This is us giving you something, not the other way around." No one can deny that. You said it yourself (in not so many words) that nothing is ever truly free. The reason people expect free to mean no obligation in return is because that's it technical definition. Alot of us know better though. I also agree that the Glass device itself is worthy of monetary payment if it's good hardware. So no beef there. What I do take offense to is that you took this thread and made it all political so I'm gonna tear it apart and challenge your ideals.
Where is this actual group of people who always scream something-for-nothing? In any population there will always be some that refuse to do anything at all, sure. That group though has always been statistically small and it will never be eradicated. You just have to deal with those. What I hear most conservatives claim about the people who are lazy good for nothings sucking off the government teet are in actuality people who are on disability, social security, the mentally ill, foster/orphan children and the like. These folks met the criteria to claim these benefits so they aren't freeloaders, we as a society (and in general decent fucking human beings) have decided to take care of them as opposed to let them die in the streets. People on Social Security and Unemployment are especially immune to the criticisms. Those are insurances. They paid into them and are most definitely entitled to get their money back! That isn't something for nothing. Veterans benefits are also another untouchable. They went to war for the ideals this country purports to uphold so you are goddamned right they deserve everything they earned. We broke em, we should fix em.
What I hear the people scream is not something for nothing, they say "Where's my fair share?" You also defend Google saying they are a corporation who made a product so deserve to be paid for it cause it wasn't free to produce. I agree, however, many corporations (none of my following statements necessarily apply to just Google) think THEY ARE ENTITLED to your business. They lock you into contracts (software companies), setup protected monopolies (power/cable/utilties), legislate failed business models (Banks/RIAA/MPAA), and most all business categories beat competition down with patent upon patent that may not even be valid! It seems like every quarter we get another news story talking about how Exxon has made a new record all time high profit of eleventy billion dollars. Libertarians and Conservatives alike will say that this was came by honest, that they worked hard, tightened up those boot straps, and are now reaping their success. If it is honest, then you'll never hear me bitch about it. But just like you and I know what free really means, at least I see that profit was anything but honest. They get un-needed subsidies, tax breaks, tax shelters, favorable legislation, and a whole myriad of other benefits that you nor I could even possibly have a hope of receiving. On the flip side, Liberals also think that we can just do bread and circuses and everything will be ok. That's not right either.
How much money is enough? I expect you or another poster to reply: As much as the market can bear. Do you really know what that means? That means you are stressing the system so hard that one more unit of whatever measurement you are using will break it (to simplify it for laymen). That is a flaw in capitalism that needs patched. We had an article the other day about lithium batteries. The most highly moderated posts all said something to the effect of if you charge them to 100% all the time or discharge them completely you will break them. The ideal charge mode was never below 10% and not more than 90%. Also look at s
The no resale limitation appears to be on the developer version that is out now. If they did that with the commercial one, they would have a giant shitstorm on their hands, both PR and legal.
Umm, if this was some simple one-off run of devices why did they sell them at all? Why not "loan" them to people they feel like loaning them to and hit them with a no resale clause? Hell, they could have auctioned the suckers off among the 1% and made a ton and hit them with the no resale terms! If this isn't them testing the waters for the same (or at least somewhat more restrictive than Android-proper) terms for the commercial release I would be surprised.
P.S. This thread on /. you don't think would qualify as the beginnings of a PR shitstorm? Don't think Google eyes aren't in here right now...recording on their Glass! [that recording thing was only partially serious]
I don't think these glasses are for you.
Proclaiming yourself to be a geek and then proceed to buy a hyped-up expensive product by a big corporation does not correlate. Want to be a real "geek" then watch anime, become a brony and get a dakimakura. Bonus points for going to cons. Extra bonus points for dressing up like your favourite character. Extra extra bonus points for ending up on Your cosplay sucks.
Speaking as somebody who dispassionately discharges a laptop battery almost completely twice a day on weekdays, you sound like a twit with potential mental health problems. Find a therapist.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Ah, you fit the profile of a google glass user perfectly... No social conscience.
Fine, let me rephrase, most people will want after google advertises it at them through all their various media they have direct control over.
You do not need a tin-foil hat for this.
The entire point of a this type of desire if ads. When you pass a shop, or look at an item for sale is a store. You will get sale locations and prices, etc all.
All this means is that ads will be a fundamental part of the device, and should not be adding in piecemeal by developers.
I guaranty you day one launch will filled with ads, portrayed as pertinent information.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
That's pretty naive. You may have worked out some kind of trust with Google (I certainly haven't), but the majority of Google's product either don't care or don't know. The majority of Google users don't think about how much information Google has on them, how it's used, or how it could be used. Google doesn't have any business incentive at all to be "good," only to not be so obvious about what they're doing that the mainstream takes notice. Google has not been uniformly good. They've already been caught willfully disregarding users' explicit privacy requests (the Safari circumvention).
You say you trust Google. So who's in charge of Google? Your friends Schmidt, Page and Brin hold negligible portions of Google. Check out the major holders: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG+Major+Holders. You're actually trusting Fidelity Investments and Vanguard.
Dude...have some faith :)
I give the benefit of the doubt first. Only after I have concrete proof that Google is selling my data will I lose that trust. And like I said, there's no need for Google to earn a few extra pennies by selling my data to third parties. They're doing just fine as of now.
Normally, I would agree with you...
I bought in to the whole Sirius/XM model of subscription-based radio with no ads... look where that got me.
User logging on... 300 baud... 300 BAUD?!? (Click!) NO CARRIER
You seem preoccupied with selling your data. Google is in a position to do more harm with it than just about anyone they might sell it to.
I do not have faith in the good intentions of corporations. I use Google services where it makes sense, in the knowledge that I'm giving them something for what they're giving me. I don't just give them whatever they ask for (or take) because, hey, they said they wouldn't do any evil!
At least you agree that Google would be dumb to sell the data to anyone else.
So...what harm do you fear from Google having that data?
It's a micro-display module, small field-of-view, and look-through. It's not exactly ground-breaking technology, and essentially equivalent modules have been on sale for the past couple of decades for anyone willing to actually buy one (and, until the last decade, can afford research/military pricing). Those tiny DLP chips and miniature LCDs used in projectors? They aren't found just in projectors.
YOU don't read the articles because you're a dumbass. And you'll stay a dumbass because you continue to avoid reading things that would inform you.
WE do read TFA. That's why we know what we are talking about.
Ah, you fit the profile of a google glass user perfectly... No social conscience.
I have a social conscience. I just don't ascribe stupid spying motives to Google Glass because I'm not a paranoid schizophrenic who is too mundane to figure out a profit model for the things that doesn't involve spying. Just because you can't see how to make money out of the things without spying doesn't mean that Google can't either.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_23067322/silicon-valley-companies-quietly-try-kill-internet-privacy
"... A recent letter signed by 15 companies and trade groups -- including TechAmerica, which represents Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other technology companies -- demanded that the measure's author, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, drop her bill. They complain it would open up businesses to an avalanche of requests from individuals as well as costly lawsuits.
One early consequence of the heavy lobbying: A hearing on the bill, AB1291, scheduled for last week, has been pushed to next month.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a co-sponsor of the Right to Know Act, accuses the business groups of overreacting to hide their true intentions: to keep out of the public's eye the lucrative practice of amassing personal information on people who use online services, computer apps, social networking sites and other portals that track people's locations, buying habits, favorite foods and movies, and even their sexual orientation.... ... ... The push for the new law comes as tech, banking and marketing firms find more ways to mine vast amounts of personal information on consumers to target their specific needs. Some websites have installed as many as 100 tracking tools that kick in when consumers visit them, according to the bill's analysis.
Many Facebook apps tap into their users' and their friends' profiles, including sections on religious, political and sexual preferences; race; income; and health concerns. Third-party advertising and marketing companies buy, sell and trade personal information that they get from mobile phones, financial institutions and social media sites.
Some mobile applications share location information and phone numbers of users -- a concern to advocates of domestic violence victims.
Consumers who live in 27 countries that belong to the European Union already have the right to know what data companies have on them -- laws that are being complied by Facebook, Google and others that are opposing the California legislation.
Google did not reply to requests for an interview; a Facebook spokesman declined to talk about the bill. The California Chamber of Commerce referred all calls to TechAmerica, the trade group that represents major Internet companies...."
"... the reason for everything must publicly appear. Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest, because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what in other governments are called LEADERS.
It can only be by blinding the understanding of man, and making him believe that government is some wonderful mysterious thing, that excessive revenues are obtained...."
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-03.htm