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.
> 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.
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.
The next step is to pull all slashvertisements for Google Glass.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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.
"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.
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
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 ).
I wonder if there aren't any exceptions for limited-access preview items. This first generation of Google Glass isn't available for sale to the public, and buyers of the Explorer edition have to agree to some things before they can purchase them.
Also, I don't believe people from outside the United States were eligible to apply for the Explorers program. Perhaps the EU law you mention doesn't include any exceptions allowing Google to impose these restrictions, and that's why it was limited to US residents. Or maybe not. Google tends to do everything in the US first anyway.
I'm sure the devices available for public purchase won't have any resale restrictions, once those arrive.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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.
Given that "Glass Apps" are web apps that send and/or receive information to the device via the Mirror API, I'm trying to imagine how that would even work.
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.
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
The best collective noun for Glass users I've heard so far - Glassholes :-)
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.