...I'm quoting that paragraph only to prove the point that carriers, even GSM and prepaid carriers, do have more influence than you think over Google Play (it's just that they don't exercise that option as much as they could, simply because they're getting a cut from Google Play).
Also, I suppose that GSM carriers with mostly prepaid accounts don't have as much as an incentive to block apps on Google Play since it's so easy for consumers to leave them if they do.
But note that Google doesn't even take a stand on this. It will side with the carrier if it chooses to block apps on Google Play. And it will side with the consumer if the consumer decides to remove the sim card from their device.
One thing is clear however, it is that Google doesn't want to upset carriers (at least, that must have been the policy at the time that article was written three years ago. Obviously, as Android has been increasing its marketshare, its negotiating power has been constantly increasing as well, and it could suddenly turn around and decide to do everything different one day).
This is just wrong. There is no carrier when I buy apps on Google play. I buy from the google web site. Most of us are not using contracts for mobile phones, my phone is unlocked, my phone provider varies with whatever SIM I use, they do not receive Play store money from Google.
This is true enough if you're using a wifi-only tablet. On Google Play, it says "No Carrier -" plus the model name of my tablet. That being said, I have many phones, many of them unlocked, I can tell you for a fact that Google Play (even the web version) knows what is the last carrier I was using with each phone. I can show you a screenshot if you want.
Also here is an old article. I say "old" because my carrier US T-Mobile no longer does this for any phone, even locked ones, but for a time, Google Play used to filter tethering apps from its app store search results (based on the request of carriers). And Google Play did this filtering even with unlocked GSM phones as evidenced by the quote below.
If you just want to get out from under the carrier’s thumb, you’ve got precious few options. GSM phones that store the carrier identity on SIM cards can be removed from the device. Just power off the phone, pull the SIM, and power the device back up. Now your Play Store should be free from carrier interference. When you put the SIM back in, your apps selection will go back to the way it was, so no updates for the unauthorized tethering apps you sneakily downloaded. Also, rooted users can manually alter the files that identify the carrier, allowing them access to blocked apps.
Obviously, that didn't prevent me from downloading an app from a web site instead, which is what I ended up doing anyway, but I'm quoting that paragraph only to prove the point that carriers, even GSM and prepaid carriers, do have more influence than you think over Google Play (it's just that they don't exercise that option as much as they could, simply because they're getting a cut from Google Play).
Problem is verification though. The claim above could just as easily be something he pulled out of his ass. I find it very hard to believe that Google keeps 0% of their app store revenue when carrier billing is used.
I agree. It's a tough pill to swallow, but equally tough to swallow would be how Google convinced all the carriers (even the carriers at the lower end of the market) to give up on their super lucrative and purposefully crippled ringtone/wallpaper/J2ME app stores in favor of Android phones.
And by the way, this strategy from Google just didn't come out of thin air. There are online videos of Google executives talking about this problem with carriers very early on during the Barcelona GSMA World Mobile Congress. For instance, Google noticed that more than 50% of searches on Google originating from South Africa and Indonesia were actually coming from mobile phones (instead of computers).
And they made some future projections and did the math, and they knew full well that being allowed to advertise on mobile phones wasn't just going to be an extra-curricular hobby for them, but a matter of longterm corporate survival. At least, that's what you'll get out of watching those early speeches, because it is true that they do not get into the specifics of how they were going to convince the carriers.
Here is the exact wording used from the Android Google Play developer console. The emphasis in bold is mine.
For applications and in-app products that you sell on Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the price. You receive 70% of the payment. The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees.
It doesn't say "goes to Google". You're the one who conjured up that wording.
In fact when carrier billing is involved, the full amount doesn't even go to Google first, it can first go to the carriers, which then return the 70% commission back to Google for the app developers.
In any case, please note that this text you selected was not the original source for my information. I'm just clarifying it because you're the one who brought it up and contaminated it with your assumptions.
30% goes to Google, who splits it between "distribution partner" and "operation expenses", though the exact ratio is not published. Do you have actual inside information you just violated an NDA to share, or are you just guessing?
I'm not guessing. I'm just repeating what I've heard.
If someone is violating an NDA, it's not me. I would never do that, even under a pseudonym. I've sourced this information from multiple people (granted, that information is several years old, so things may have changed, I don't know), but at the time even they didn't tell me this was private information (although in hindsight, it may make sense that it could be).
Thanks to me anyway, a television satellite network even abandoned its plans to develop its own proprietary Google TV alternative. So it's not like this information is working against Google.
When you buy an app on Google Play, 30% automatically goes to the carrier, and only 2% goes to Google as a transaction fee (Google doesn't even take that extra 2% if carrier billing was used instead of Google Wallet).
Google's main cash cow is really advertising anyway. But even with advertising, Google also gives a revenue-share to carriers. Google has been giving them this money without even being asked. Google knew from the very beginning that if it was going to be allowed to do business and advertising on cell phone networks, it was going to need the willing cooperation of the cell phone carriers.
If this announcement is going to affect anyone, it's really going to affect Microsoft and Blackberry. These two do not share their spoils with carriers. In the case of the iPhone, Apple doesn't share revenues with carriers either, but at least Apple still has some decent leverage against carriers.
So what should expect from this announcement? Ad-blocking may become a reality soon on cell phone networks, but don't expect this opt-in feature to come to the consumer for free against Google ads. Whatever cost it will end up being, it will have to be more money than Google is already paying carriers.
A digital currency could help curb black market exchanges, fight corruption and restore the country's image.
On one hand, the poster wants to create a black market of digital currency outside the reach of its government and outside the reach of its laws.
But on the other hand, he wants to curb black market exchanges and fight corruption. I'm having trouble seeing the difference. A government official will be just as happy stealing bitcoins and amazon gift cards as stealing cash.
why is it whenever I search for an image I get thousands of pictures that have absolutely nothing to do with what I am searching for?
Never search for hard core porn with safe-search turned on, that just doesn't work. Yes, I know. Sometimes, I also wish that Google came with an instructional manual, but sadly, it doesn't.
Another area Google fails miserably at, especially compared to Baidu, is searching for copyrighted materials. With Google, it's DMCA this and it's DMCA that, along with a number of annoying paywalls. With Baidu, as long as you're not searching for photos of Tiananmen Square, you're golden.
It's only fair that we use our own robots, to get through their robots, and to speak to their customer service representatives (who may not be robots themselves, but who may act like robots anyway).
"Please cancel my Comcast subscription.", "By the way, I'm recording this phone conversation for proof that I've actually cancelled my Comcast subscription. So let me ask again, please cancel my Comcast subscription.", "I don't care about any of that, please cancel my comcast subscription. ", "What was your name and employee number again? Thank you 'John, I can't give you my last name because of company policy'. Despite the fact that I've given you my social security number, my address, my birthdate, the maiden name of my mother. Once again, please cancel my comcast subscription. ", "No, I don't want to be transferred to your retention specialist. Hello, hello..."
Busy signal...
"Is anyone there? Fuck all of you!! I just want to cancel my Comcast subscription!!"
Busy signal...
"I'm just a robot. I can do this all day. Please cancel my Comcast subscription!!"
Click. The Comcast system has just hung up the phone.
I think that compares well to the average Californian.
Which makes one of my points.
If your tractor/self-driving car was only going 5 miles an hour on an empty highway, and if god forbid, I plow my car into yours because I'm an idiot and I drive too fast. It may be legally and technically my fault, but it doesn't mean that you weren't partially responsible either (however small that responsibility may be).
I'm not sure why a simulator would ever want to bash people that hard. You'd think it'd be almost more jarring to have the simulation just stop completely -- lights go on, screen dark.
Please don't do that. Don't stop the simulation at the moment of the crash itself. I hate it when you guys do that !
I want to know how many spectators I was able to take out (I mean avoid). I want to know if I was able to survive the ambulance ride and how many times they needed to use those paddles on me. I want to know if any of my bones are broken, if my brain is damaged, if I ever wake up, if I'll still be able to function in the bedroom, if I'll still be able to walk, and/or if I'll be able to pay my hospital bill (in case I'm over-billed and my insurance only covers a portion of it). And last but not least, if I happen to die, I want to be able to watch my funeral, and I want to know how much time my significant other grieves before she (or he) starts banging somebody else.
Because every Australian I have ever talked to has complained about not paying enough for digital music, digital games, and digital movies.
It's like the Australian government commissioned a bunch focus groups, attached electrodes to people's brains, read their minds, and did the exact opposite of what everybody wanted.
3 of 3 failures you say, but what is the success rate?
Whether they only made three predictions, or 100,000 predictions, was besides the point for me. I was assuming that they used the best three predictions they could find that backed up their claim (which actually they do not). Had those three predictions been correct, then yes, I would have asked for more data and I would have dug deeper. As it stands, I didn't need to do any of that.
And please do not take my last paragraph too seriously, I was attempting to make a joke. I do not believe they're able to predict any earthquake to the accuracy they say they can, but that also doesn't mean I actually believe that their incorrect predictions will lead to correct predictions if we just flip their claims around.
how about a list of times they predicted an earthquake and nothing happened.
without context its meaningless
That's incorrect. They do give you all the context you need.
They say they can predict earthquakes between 20 days and 30 days before they occur. For the Japanese earthquake, they failed. For the North Italy earthquake, they failed. And for the Iran earthquake they failed. Three out of three failures, even taking into account their standard error rate of plus or minus 5 days, I'd say those failure rates are pretty significant.
Those guys should go into the earthquake insurance and earthquake protection business. It's as if someone was paying actively attention to their predictions, and was actively making sure that no earthquake would ever occur during any of the 10-days windows they predicted. Please don't tell me that's just a coincidence. Nobody can be that unlucky. The entire stock market should just follow these guys, and bet against them consistently.
Why in the hell would anyone train their replacement though? If you see your job forcibly being taken over by someone else, I would say screw you and walk away.
Lack of personal financial reserves if you can't find another job right away. Also if you quit, you lose your unemployment benefits. It's better just to stay, and do as little as possible while you look for another job and save as much money as possible.
That being said, staying in a company until you get laid off (or until you find another job) may not always be a winning strategy. When the EDF in France got privatized, they couldn't fire their employees and no one wanted to quit, so they launched a campaign of harassment and unnecessary displacement, that eventually resulted into an epidemic of suicides within the company. Basically, their employees were made to move every three months, and management ensured that the new location where they would be posted, were always as far away as possible from their family and friends.
I could personally target one legitimate publisher with many DMCA take down requests (where I lie about my identity). And I could do this repeatedly. That would create a pattern. Wouldn't it?
Also, I wonder what happens when a scammer is discovered. Is the ebook taken back by Google like Amazon did with 1984? Google Play Books is a DRM bookstore, so technically it could do that.
No one I know actually uses Google Play Books. It's full of DRM and Google doesn't even prevent competing bookstores from appearing on Android. So it's not like anyone is actually buying any ebook from them. Their prices are not even discounted compared to the ebooks from other bookstores without DRM.
To be fair, I don't know if Steve Ballmer would even know how to use Powerpoint, or Microsoft Word, if he didn't have an assistant that did it for him.
If Google takes a pirated ebook down in response to a DMCA notice, the pirates simply upload another copy of the same title.
This could be a problem with books having different regions, different editions, and even different covers within the same edition. Also, a DMCA notice doesn't mean that there was necessarily a copyright violation, but a claim there was a copyright violation.
However, after Buford published a videogram that her brother recorded via JPay to Facebook, prison administrators cut off her access to the JPay system, sent Benson to solitary confinement, and stripped away some of his earned "good time." To justify the discipline, prison officials said they were enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights and terms of service.
How does this make any sense?
Are we in third world country where the brother is punished for what his sister allegedly did?
This guy just needs to buy his work back from his employer.
Despite what appearances may suggest, his employer is not his friend. His employer is there to profit from his work. So he just needs to make his employer a financial offer they're likely to accept, and then see what happens. Everything potentially has a price. Everything is negotiable.
Slashdot Mirror
Ie, most colleges refused historically to enroll black students,
And the said can be said for Asian students or Jewish students.
Harvard historically discriminated against them too.
...I'm quoting that paragraph only to prove the point that carriers, even GSM and prepaid carriers, do have more influence than you think over Google Play (it's just that they don't exercise that option as much as they could, simply because they're getting a cut from Google Play).
Also, I suppose that GSM carriers with mostly prepaid accounts don't have as much as an incentive to block apps on Google Play since it's so easy for consumers to leave them if they do.
But note that Google doesn't even take a stand on this. It will side with the carrier if it chooses to block apps on Google Play. And it will side with the consumer if the consumer decides to remove the sim card from their device.
One thing is clear however, it is that Google doesn't want to upset carriers (at least, that must have been the policy at the time that article was written three years ago. Obviously, as Android has been increasing its marketshare, its negotiating power has been constantly increasing as well, and it could suddenly turn around and decide to do everything different one day).
This is just wrong. There is no carrier when I buy apps on Google play. I buy from the google web site. Most of us are not using contracts for mobile phones, my phone is unlocked, my phone provider varies with whatever SIM I use, they do not receive Play store money from Google.
This is true enough if you're using a wifi-only tablet. On Google Play, it says "No Carrier -" plus the model name of my tablet. That being said, I have many phones, many of them unlocked, I can tell you for a fact that Google Play (even the web version) knows what is the last carrier I was using with each phone. I can show you a screenshot if you want.
Also here is an old article. I say "old" because my carrier US T-Mobile no longer does this for any phone, even locked ones, but for a time, Google Play used to filter tethering apps from its app store search results (based on the request of carriers). And Google Play did this filtering even with unlocked GSM phones as evidenced by the quote below.
If you just want to get out from under the carrier’s thumb, you’ve got precious few options. GSM phones that store the carrier identity on SIM cards can be removed from the device. Just power off the phone, pull the SIM, and power the device back up. Now your Play Store should be free from carrier interference. When you put the SIM back in, your apps selection will go back to the way it was, so no updates for the unauthorized tethering apps you sneakily downloaded. Also, rooted users can manually alter the files that identify the carrier, allowing them access to blocked apps.
Obviously, that didn't prevent me from downloading an app from a web site instead, which is what I ended up doing anyway, but I'm quoting that paragraph only to prove the point that carriers, even GSM and prepaid carriers, do have more influence than you think over Google Play (it's just that they don't exercise that option as much as they could, simply because they're getting a cut from Google Play).
Problem is verification though. The claim above could just as easily be something he pulled out of his ass. I find it very hard to believe that Google keeps 0% of their app store revenue when carrier billing is used.
I agree. It's a tough pill to swallow, but equally tough to swallow would be how Google convinced all the carriers (even the carriers at the lower end of the market) to give up on their super lucrative and purposefully crippled ringtone/wallpaper/J2ME app stores in favor of Android phones.
And by the way, this strategy from Google just didn't come out of thin air. There are online videos of Google executives talking about this problem with carriers very early on during the Barcelona GSMA World Mobile Congress. For instance, Google noticed that more than 50% of searches on Google originating from South Africa and Indonesia were actually coming from mobile phones (instead of computers).
And they made some future projections and did the math, and they knew full well that being allowed to advertise on mobile phones wasn't just going to be an extra-curricular hobby for them, but a matter of longterm corporate survival. At least, that's what you'll get out of watching those early speeches, because it is true that they do not get into the specifics of how they were going to convince the carriers.
Here is the exact wording used from the Android Google Play developer console. The emphasis in bold is mine.
For applications and in-app products that you sell on Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the price. You receive 70% of the payment. The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees.
It doesn't say "goes to Google". You're the one who conjured up that wording.
In fact when carrier billing is involved, the full amount doesn't even go to Google first, it can first go to the carriers, which then return the 70% commission back to Google for the app developers.
In any case, please note that this text you selected was not the original source for my information. I'm just clarifying it because you're the one who brought it up and contaminated it with your assumptions.
30% goes to Google, who splits it between "distribution partner" and "operation expenses", though the exact ratio is not published. Do you have actual inside information you just violated an NDA to share, or are you just guessing?
I'm not guessing. I'm just repeating what I've heard.
If someone is violating an NDA, it's not me. I would never do that, even under a pseudonym. I've sourced this information from multiple people (granted, that information is several years old, so things may have changed, I don't know), but at the time even they didn't tell me this was private information (although in hindsight, it may make sense that it could be).
Thanks to me anyway, a television satellite network even abandoned its plans to develop its own proprietary Google TV alternative. So it's not like this information is working against Google.
Google gets 30% and then gives it to the carrier. I know that for a fact. This is happening in your country as well.
The headline is missing the point.
When you buy an app on Google Play, 30% automatically goes to the carrier, and only 2% goes to Google as a transaction fee (Google doesn't even take that extra 2% if carrier billing was used instead of Google Wallet).
Google's main cash cow is really advertising anyway. But even with advertising, Google also gives a revenue-share to carriers. Google has been giving them this money without even being asked. Google knew from the very beginning that if it was going to be allowed to do business and advertising on cell phone networks, it was going to need the willing cooperation of the cell phone carriers.
If this announcement is going to affect anyone, it's really going to affect Microsoft and Blackberry. These two do not share their spoils with carriers. In the case of the iPhone, Apple doesn't share revenues with carriers either, but at least Apple still has some decent leverage against carriers.
So what should expect from this announcement? Ad-blocking may become a reality soon on cell phone networks, but don't expect this opt-in feature to come to the consumer for free against Google ads. Whatever cost it will end up being, it will have to be more money than Google is already paying carriers.
A digital currency could help curb black market exchanges, fight corruption and restore the country's image.
On one hand, the poster wants to create a black market of digital currency outside the reach of its government and outside the reach of its laws.
But on the other hand, he wants to curb black market exchanges and fight corruption. I'm having trouble seeing the difference. A government official will be just as happy stealing bitcoins and amazon gift cards as stealing cash.
why is it whenever I search for an image I get thousands of pictures that have absolutely nothing to do with what I am searching for?
Never search for hard core porn with safe-search turned on, that just doesn't work. Yes, I know. Sometimes, I also wish that Google came with an instructional manual, but sadly, it doesn't.
Another area Google fails miserably at, especially compared to Baidu, is searching for copyrighted materials. With Google, it's DMCA this and it's DMCA that, along with a number of annoying paywalls. With Baidu, as long as you're not searching for photos of Tiananmen Square, you're golden.
I sure hope I'm getting residuals for this. I'm pretty sure my voice is on these recordings.
Me, I'm waiting for the consumer edition.
It's only fair that we use our own robots, to get through their robots, and to speak to their customer service representatives (who may not be robots themselves, but who may act like robots anyway).
"Please cancel my Comcast subscription.", "By the way, I'm recording this phone conversation for proof that I've actually cancelled my Comcast subscription. So let me ask again, please cancel my Comcast subscription.", "I don't care about any of that, please cancel my comcast subscription. ", "What was your name and employee number again? Thank you 'John, I can't give you my last name because of company policy'. Despite the fact that I've given you my social security number, my address, my birthdate, the maiden name of my mother. Once again, please cancel my comcast subscription. ", "No, I don't want to be transferred to your retention specialist. Hello, hello..."
Busy signal...
"Is anyone there? Fuck all of you!! I just want to cancel my Comcast subscription!!"
Busy signal...
"I'm just a robot. I can do this all day. Please cancel my Comcast subscription!!"
Click. The Comcast system has just hung up the phone.
My robot redialing...
Busy signal...
My robot redialing...
Busy signal...
4 Out of 48 Have Accidents, None Their Fault
I think that compares well to the average Californian.
Which makes one of my points.
If your tractor/self-driving car was only going 5 miles an hour on an empty highway, and if god forbid, I plow my car into yours because I'm an idiot and I drive too fast. It may be legally and technically my fault, but it doesn't mean that you weren't partially responsible either (however small that responsibility may be).
I'm not sure why a simulator would ever want to bash people that hard. You'd think it'd be almost more jarring to have the simulation just stop completely -- lights go on, screen dark.
Please don't do that. Don't stop the simulation at the moment of the crash itself. I hate it when you guys do that !
I want to know how many spectators I was able to take out (I mean avoid). I want to know if I was able to survive the ambulance ride and how many times they needed to use those paddles on me. I want to know if any of my bones are broken, if my brain is damaged, if I ever wake up, if I'll still be able to function in the bedroom, if I'll still be able to walk, and/or if I'll be able to pay my hospital bill (in case I'm over-billed and my insurance only covers a portion of it). And last but not least, if I happen to die, I want to be able to watch my funeral, and I want to know how much time my significant other grieves before she (or he) starts banging somebody else.
That's great news!
Because every Australian I have ever talked to has complained about not paying enough for digital music, digital games, and digital movies.
It's like the Australian government commissioned a bunch focus groups, attached electrodes to people's brains, read their minds, and did the exact opposite of what everybody wanted.
3 of 3 failures you say, but what is the success rate?
Whether they only made three predictions, or 100,000 predictions, was besides the point for me. I was assuming that they used the best three predictions they could find that backed up their claim (which actually they do not). Had those three predictions been correct, then yes, I would have asked for more data and I would have dug deeper. As it stands, I didn't need to do any of that.
And please do not take my last paragraph too seriously, I was attempting to make a joke. I do not believe they're able to predict any earthquake to the accuracy they say they can, but that also doesn't mean I actually believe that their incorrect predictions will lead to correct predictions if we just flip their claims around.
how about a list of times they predicted an earthquake and nothing happened.
without context its meaningless
That's incorrect. They do give you all the context you need.
They say they can predict earthquakes between 20 days and 30 days before they occur. For the Japanese earthquake, they failed. For the North Italy earthquake, they failed. And for the Iran earthquake they failed. Three out of three failures, even taking into account their standard error rate of plus or minus 5 days, I'd say those failure rates are pretty significant.
Those guys should go into the earthquake insurance and earthquake protection business. It's as if someone was paying actively attention to their predictions, and was actively making sure that no earthquake would ever occur during any of the 10-days windows they predicted. Please don't tell me that's just a coincidence. Nobody can be that unlucky. The entire stock market should just follow these guys, and bet against them consistently.
Why in the hell would anyone train their replacement though? If you see your job forcibly being taken over by someone else, I would say screw you and walk away.
Lack of personal financial reserves if you can't find another job right away. Also if you quit, you lose your unemployment benefits. It's better just to stay, and do as little as possible while you look for another job and save as much money as possible.
That being said, staying in a company until you get laid off (or until you find another job) may not always be a winning strategy. When the EDF in France got privatized, they couldn't fire their employees and no one wanted to quit, so they launched a campaign of harassment and unnecessary displacement, that eventually resulted into an epidemic of suicides within the company. Basically, their employees were made to move every three months, and management ensured that the new location where they would be posted, were always as far away as possible from their family and friends.
I could personally target one legitimate publisher with many DMCA take down requests (where I lie about my identity). And I could do this repeatedly. That would create a pattern. Wouldn't it?
Also, I wonder what happens when a scammer is discovered. Is the ebook taken back by Google like Amazon did with 1984? Google Play Books is a DRM bookstore, so technically it could do that.
No one I know actually uses Google Play Books. It's full of DRM and Google doesn't even prevent competing bookstores from appearing on Android. So it's not like anyone is actually buying any ebook from them. Their prices are not even discounted compared to the ebooks from other bookstores without DRM.
What about ebay they’ve been selling illegal stuff for as long as the site exists no one sued their arses.
Wrong. Ebay got sued for that many times. And in some cases, it even lost.
To be fair, I don't know if Steve Ballmer would even know how to use Powerpoint, or Microsoft Word, if he didn't have an assistant that did it for him.
If Google takes a pirated ebook down in response to a DMCA notice, the pirates simply upload another copy of the same title.
This could be a problem with books having different regions, different editions, and even different covers within the same edition. Also, a DMCA notice doesn't mean that there was necessarily a copyright violation, but a claim there was a copyright violation.
However, after Buford published a videogram that her brother recorded via JPay to Facebook, prison administrators cut off her access to the JPay system, sent Benson to solitary confinement, and stripped away some of his earned "good time." To justify the discipline, prison officials said they were enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights and terms of service.
How does this make any sense?
Are we in third world country where the brother is punished for what his sister allegedly did?
This guy just needs to buy his work back from his employer.
Despite what appearances may suggest, his employer is not his friend. His employer is there to profit from his work. So he just needs to make his employer a financial offer they're likely to accept, and then see what happens. Everything potentially has a price. Everything is negotiable.
moving all its US cloud servers to Saudi Arabia, to save on air conditioning bills
Are you sure this makes sense ?
Greenland yes, SA no.
SA no, sarcasm yes.