from the you-are-the-product-and-someone-else's-customer dept.
Chances are, everyone here is familiar with the old maxim "If you're not paying for the service, you're the product, not the customer", and if the abundance with which it is uttered is anything to go by, chances are, most people reading this will have agreed with the statement. But Ramez Naam over at The Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies has called this wisdom into question, hilighting the many ways in which the role of users on advertisement driven sites differs strongly from the role of products in more conventional business models.
A list of his bullet points (with explanations excluded from the summary for the sake of keeping it brief) include:
-You can stop using the service. You can deny the company that provides it the revenue you represent.
-You can look around for competitive offerings, and choose one of those.
-You can use the service more… or less.
-You can tell the world how great this service is, how great this company is… Or how awful they are.
-You can make those choices on the basis of utility, or beauty, or privacy, or politics, or morality, or any principle or basis you choose.
-You can change the service itself.
It would seem that the conclusion being drawn here is not so much that you are JUST the customer after all, but that things are a bit more complex than this meme would suggest. Is he onto something? Or just trying to lull us into handing over our data because "we're not actually the product so it's okay"? And does the same apply for other models of distributing free content while generating revenue that may not be advertising based (such as with many distributions of open source software)?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday September 22 2014, @05:34PM
If I'm the product, (and being a Google user, I probably am the product), I sure haven't seen many effects of being packaged, shrink wrapped and sold. I suspect there are buyers out there with a bad case of buyers remorse.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Horse With Stripes on Monday September 22 2014, @05:58PM
frojack, you don't offer a money back guarantee to advertisers? What kind of world are we living in? What's next, you're going to tell us that you mouse over ads just to tease them but you don't click?
(Score: 3, Funny) by JNCF on Monday September 22 2014, @11:56PM
frojack is a click tease.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Monday September 22 2014, @06:06PM
I think the whole point of profiling you is that you *don't* see what is being done to you. The profile allows Google and its customers to control what you see. Maybe that airline ticket you bought would have been $50 cheaper if the airline didn't know your spending habits. How would you expect to notice manipulation like that?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 22 2014, @06:33PM
Maybe that airline ticket you bought would have been $50 cheaper if the airline didn't know your spending habits. How would you expect to notice manipulation like that?
True. People notice this stuff all the time. Shop on an iPhone? Prices are very often higher.
I have a browser (EPIC) I use for this occasionally and it connects through a proxy, clears cookies, etc. I've noticed some small price differences when visiting some shopping sites. But they haven't always been cheaper when browsing anonymously. Sometimes they are higher prices when I browse anonymously.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @06:46PM
> Maybe that airline ticket you bought would have been $50 cheaper if the airline didn't know your spending habits.
> How would you expect to notice manipulation like that?
It can be even more subtle than that - no one has unlimited time to comparison shop. We all have short lists that we run through when shopping and rarely do we go more than 3-4 down the list before making a purchase decision. By profiling us, google et al are able to figure out just how best to get their paying customers on to our short lists.
Here is one example that can cost google users a 34% premium. [time.com]
(Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Monday September 22 2014, @10:03PM
FT researchers found that five out of six items displayed in Google’s sponsored results cost more than the exact same items purchased via different merchants—ones that are not necessarily advertising with Google, but which generally can be found further down on the list of a Google search’s results.
I think your example is misleading. The difference in price is not between Google- and non-Google searchers for a product on a specific website. It's between sites that run marketing campaigns via Google paid ads, and websites that don't. Considering the cost of Google marketing efforts, it makes sense that marketers relying on traffic from paid ad placement charge more for a product to offset these marketing costs than a search marketer relying on organic search traffic. The price difference is made up in volume, like most large companies.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday September 23 2014, @08:50AM
(Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:25PM
Good point - especially w/r/t of **search** advertising. I should have stopped at "misleading example".
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 3, Informative) by mojo chan on Tuesday September 23 2014, @11:23AM
Maybe that airline ticket you bought would have been $50 cheaper if the airline didn't know your spending habits. How would you expect to notice manipulation like that?
Just load up another browser or clear you cookies, then search again.
This sort of profiling actually works in your favour if you know how to (ab)use it. For example last time my car insurance was due I went on my current insurer's site and they were offering a year for £580. I had two no-fault accidents last year (other people hit me) so I guess that's why it shot up. Anyway, I did a few comparison quotes on sites that included my current insurer in the mix. They obviously saw me doing that and noticed that other companies were offering much lower prices, so a week later sent me a revised offer in the post for £250. That was only about £5 more than the lowest quote and lower than last year, so I took it. Saves me the hassle of switching and sending documentation to the new insurer. Also saved me the hassle of chasing the last third party to hit me for the difference in the increased premium.
Works with flights, random products, all kinds of insurance. The rest of the time a combination of AdBlock, Disconnect, Privacy Badger, wiping cookies + other data, using a VPN (protects against GCHQ and ISP spying as well) and a few other tricks mean I'm fairly confident I come out on top.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Monday September 22 2014, @07:21PM
In the case of Google and a few other places, this statement is used as pure FUD. For service of this sort, you're not the product, you're the *audience*. The better an audience Google can attract, and the better they can target content (mostly ads, but now extending to books, movies, etc directly) the more money they make and the more people want to use them. Your payment for being an audience member if free software services (GMail, Calendar, Search, etc) which most people like, and targeted ads which people seem to be of varied opinions on. Personally, I think they're a good idea, but I could see being creeped out by them.
You'll notice I didn't include Android in the list of services. Android exists more to keep the web open than to accumulate data. If it didn't exist, Apple would have a vast mobile market-share and would have started forcing everything to their own ad services ages ago. As I've mentioned before, I'm a fan of Google in some cases because we have the same goal (and open web) but for different reasons. I also think the personal information for free software and services trade is currently a pretty good deal.
As often happens, a good sound-bite can spread misinformation and panic people. Of course, Google's popularity and trust is based primarily on their behaviour (which for the most part has been exceptional as companies go), and their reputation for security and privacy. If they ever have a big iCloud-type leak, or start doing unethical things I think we'll see a lot of people find that it's actually pretty easy to switch service providers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @08:15PM
You sound like a very whiny fangirl. How fat are Larry and Sergey's dicks planted up your ass?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @08:21PM
In the case of Google and a few other places, this statement is used as pure FUD.
How exactly is it FUD? Someone saying something you don't like does not make it FUD. What Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt is being spread by rightfully pointing out that you are the product Google sells?
You'll notice I didn't include Android in the list of services. Android exists more to keep the web open than to accumulate data.
The funniest part is you believe this tripe. Android exists in order to lock more people into Google services. It is not about keeping the web "open".
As I've mentioned before, I'm a fan of Google in some cases because we have the same goal (and open web) but for different reasons.
Yes, you are a fawning little girl for Google which makes you blind to the many reasons why people don't like them. Disliking Google does not mean one is spreading FUD as you're hysterical reaction implies.
If they ever have a big iCloud-type leak
You might want to read this [techcrunch.com]:
Since many of the images appear to have been taken with Android devices and webcams, the leaked images may not have originated from the iCloud photo backup service at all. Many services have automatic backup tools, and could be accessed in similar ways to iCloud (as above).
But TechCrunch is just spreading FUD, right?
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday September 22 2014, @09:29PM
Pictures are forwarded and the Apple services were wide open to brute force attacks. Yes, I am assuming that this was the attack vector though. These are also only the ones we know about. That service has been open for ages. Of course that statement could apply to any service, known to be exploitable or not.
Feel free to list some reasons that people dislike Google.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Monday September 22 2014, @08:48PM
Hahahaha! Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Android exists to put Google's tracking device on people's bodies instead of Apple's. Lip service to the open web has little to do with it.
That is like saying if I were not being eaten by a lion, I would be eaten by bears. Yes, it is true that Android is the only competition stopping evil Apple, but since they are both out to track me, whether I am screwed by Apple or screwed by Google seems pretty academic.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday September 22 2014, @09:23PM
I'll remind you that you can use Android without any Google services whatsoever.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday September 23 2014, @11:22AM
If you can name an Android phone that comes without Google Play Services [arstechnica.com], I'll buy it ASAP. What is Google Play Services? From what I've read [softonic.com], it appears to be a Trojan horse.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday September 23 2014, @12:50PM
Amazon Fire Phone.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:10PM
No deal! I do not want to go out of Google's frying pan and into Amazon's fire [venturebeat.com].
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Tuesday September 23 2014, @04:57PM
Who cares what it comes with when flashing CyanogenMod is so simple?
Since when did nerds get so afraid of voiding warranties?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @08:50PM
I have wondered if 1 (or more) of the other Linux-based mobile OSes [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org] would have made the leap to fill that void and would have been as strong against iThingies.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday September 22 2014, @08:54PM
I pretty much agree with your assessment, except the last sentence.
In general, its almost impossible to own a Android phone without at least a Gmail account. Too much stuff is tied into that. It would be
hard to switch, and the only half way trustworthy alternative place to get apps would be Amazon.
We don't know for sure how much of our backup data, and app data, and images, and documents that get stored on Google's are
requested by police and three letter agencies, but there are accounts and passwords of Google accounts every once in a while:
See http://time.com/3318853/google-user-logins-bitcoin/ [time.com]
Google is pretty good at detecting these, even if you don't use their Two Factor Authentication setup.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday September 22 2014, @09:38PM
I would assume a lot of data is handed over, as indicated by their transparency reports. I think they were also the first company to start doing that, or certainly one of the first. Yahoo seems to be fighting a bit harder against them than Google at the moment though.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday September 22 2014, @09:42PM
I meant to mention that F-Droid [f-droid.org] is a great, trustworthy place to get apps as well.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Tuesday September 23 2014, @05:02PM
This. I'm utterly appalled any time I see someone using a FLASHLIGHT APP that advertises at them.
Seriously, open source software exists for Android, and you don't need root to use it. More of course would be nice, but it's silly to ignore the fact that as of right now, you can run your file manager, media players, browser, email, calendar (offline even), SSH clients, IRC, XMPP, and secure SMS/voice calling apps, all without touching the Play store, and generally without giving up access to the source code. IDK about you, but that covers the important stuff for me, leaving my hands a bit less tied when it comes to making decisions about software that has policies I'm not the most psyched about.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday September 23 2014, @06:33PM
Yep. And Android itself is open source. Run one of the AOSP ROMs. Don't want to install the Play store or use Google services? Don't. Other than some of the hardware drivers (still, I think), you can run completely free and open software on Android if you choose.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by francois.barbier on Monday September 22 2014, @05:41PM
Going on with the argument:
"If I'm not paying for free software (as in open source debian), am I the product?"
I know I'm guilty of using both arguments, but only when it suits me...
(Score: 3, Informative) by arashi no garou on Monday September 22 2014, @06:27PM
In this particular case, you have to look at what Debian gets from you, compared to what Google gets.
With Debian, you can submit a bug report, or not. They will greatly appreciate it if you do, and likely use it to improve the product. With Google, you can submit a bug report, or not, and if you do it goes into the void to never be heard from again. There is simply no one at Google listening to the user's complaints, because they are too busy listening to their advertisers.
With Debian, their goal is to make the world a better place through Free and Open Source software. By using their software, you are a part of making that happen. With Google, their goal is to make money through selling your information to advertisers and showing those advertisers' ads to you. By using their software, you have no choice but to make that happen.
With Debian, you can join the team as a developer, package maintainer, document writer, prolific tester, platform evangelist...and so on. There are many ways to contribute to the project, but you don't have to; you can simply use the software and give nothing back, and they are fine with that. With Google, it's possible to get hired and work there, and get paid a lot of money. But most of us won't, and even if you do work there, you are still having your eyeballs sold to the advertisers who pay your paycheck.
Now with all of that said, I don't even use Debian, I prefer Slackware. I used it as an example because you mentioned it, but the story remains the same. Google sells your information to their customers (advertisers), who end up paying twice: Once for that information, and again when you click on their links in Google search or ads in Android apps. With an open source project, yes you get a "free" product, but you can choose to contribute in any way you see fit to "pay" for it. That's the difference: You have a choice. You don't with Google, apart from not using their products at all. And even then, if you have friends who do you'll inevitably pop up in their data.
(Score: 1) by francois.barbier on Monday September 22 2014, @06:49PM
+1 Informative.
Thank you for the excellent reply, sir.
There's nothing to add.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday September 22 2014, @09:50PM
With Google, you can submit a bug report, or not, and if you do it goes into the void to never be heard from again. There is simply no one at Google listening to the user's complaints, because they are too busy listening to their advertisers.
Bullshit.
I've filed bug reports on Google products, both on their Forums, and via email. I had a problem with the Google Play (market) app.
Not only did I get forum Help, but the emailed asking for my phone number and if it was ok to call. (Note: they already had my phone number on file, but took the time to ask for it again and permission to call).
They asked questions pertenant to my problem report, called back the next day and gave me a link to a custom .APK which solved the problem. That version rolled out about two weeks later.
You have to post/email like you have at least LOOKED at the on line help, and not be all snarky. Its not that hard. If your solution can be found by a google search, don't expect much help.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday September 22 2014, @10:48PM
Also bullshit in that Google never actually sells your information. To do that would mean they no longer have it to themselves; it's their most valuable resource. They use your information to target ads to you. If they sold it to someone else, the someone else could do the same themselves. As I said above, you are the audience, not the product.
(Score: 1) by arashi no garou on Monday September 22 2014, @11:27PM
Ah yes, the Play market app. One of their biggest sources of revenue. Of course they will respond to an occasional bug report on something that generates real money.
Try filling a bug report on the Android OS itself, or on Hangouts, or Gmail. Good luck with that. And if you do have luck, be sure to come back here and tell us how your one anecdotal experience is representative of all of Google's services, and how it's not possible that other users have been ignored by them because you had one good experience. You speak for all billion+ Google users, right? Issues like this [google.com] didn't really happen and are completely made up thousands and thousands of times, all across Google's servers, for no reason at all. Riiight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @03:58AM
At least Microsoft appears to be changing direction a bit with Win 9. Whereas GNOME, Ubuntu et all don't give a damn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @08:47PM
I don't have any empirical evidence, but I have always thought that the ideal time to gripe about software's quality, especially FOSS, is during the RC (release candidate) stage--or even at the beta stage.
Do you ever try those builds?
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @12:22AM
There is simply no one at Google listening to the user's complaints,
BS seconded. I've noticed a few problems with Google Maps and they email back when they have fixed or removed the problems. Might take a week or two.
(Score: 1) by DaTrueDave on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:43AM
There is simply no one at Google listening to the user's complaints
The one time I had a problem with Gmail, I received a personal response in a couple of days and we had a decent email discussion over the next few days. They weren't able to completely fix my problem, but I now know what causes it and how to partially avoid it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @10:53PM
With Free Software you are not the product, you are the user. User that has the freedom to change that software.
If you're not paying, you're the product, not the customer
But you are not getting a product when you are not paying either. You are getting a service, "free" service. And under said service, they extract data about you, aggregate it and deduce your patterns so said patterns can be packaged off and sold in form of "you pay us X for advertising, and we'll provide you with customers Y% more often than anyone else".
Google wants to know you and cater to your needs and wants. Like a farmer for their milking herd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @01:38AM
Mind the difference between service and product. Service requires upkeep (maintenance). Copyable products, like software, once published, do not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by unauthorized on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:25AM
Going on with the argument
You are not. The argument is against organizations who hold that attitude, it's not that all organizations who deliver a free product do so.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Monday September 22 2014, @05:43PM
The list of reasons:
1. You can stop using the service. You can deny the company that provides it the revenue you represent.
2. You can look around for competitive offerings, and choose one of those.
3. You can use the service more… or less.
4. You can tell the world how great this service is, how great this company is… Or how awful they are.
5. You can make those choices on the basis of utility, or beauty, or privacy, or politics, or morality, or any principle or basis you choose.
6. You can change the service itself.
The meme is based on a sensible assumption that you are using the free product and that you like and will continue to use the free product. It wouldn't make much sense to apply the meme if those things weren't true.
This knocks out 1 (Also just because I stop using it-they don't have my eyeballs, doesn't mean they don't have some of my contact details to sell.)
Also knocks out 2 and 4 (why would I be using it if I didn't get something out of it that was positive?) 5 is true enough, but again, assumed I already am using it. 3 is true, but I'm not sure what the relevance is - it's all based on the product being used. I'm not sure how to apply 6 to FB and other social media and "free" services.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday September 22 2014, @05:46PM
Let me write a post on a submission about a post about how someone doesn't understand the difference between "customer" and "consumer".
Great. Read a dictionary. Or a history of OTA radio/TV business model. Case closed.
(Score: 2) by TGV on Monday September 22 2014, @08:02PM
As in?
> The pigs can stop eating. By starving themselves, they can deny the company that provides it the revenue they represent.
(Score: 2) by khakipuce on Tuesday September 23 2014, @07:41AM
I've always felt it was more like managing a nature reserve or game park, i.e. the warden creates a certain set of conditions to attract a certain type of animal. The animals are free to wander off if they want but it's easier stay in the area that provides the habitat you need than go and look for a new one.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @05:54PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 22 2014, @06:16PM
Afterall, even if I did leave GMail, Google would still have all of the accumulated value my data is still providing.
Which, I maintain, is not that much value.
Presumably, if you leave Gmail, you would no longer log in when you browse the web, and all that targeting of ads goes to waste.
Throw in cookie management and Adblock and you become useless to them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @06:29PM
Usage of Google's services has always been a one-way street. We're not protected in any significant way. To be honest I'm not sure how exactly you'd label that, I don't think product or customer quite fits.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @10:31PM
>>I don't think product or customer quite fits.
How about livestock?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @11:51PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Interesting) by darthservo on Monday September 22 2014, @06:15PM
Physical products have a finite lifetime. Customers have a finite lifetime as well. The product specifically is information about customers.
These products could theoretically last infinitely. They can also be mass produced with ease. They also aren't dependent on how long or often a customer uses a service. A service can get information and even make some assumptions based on use, however minimal. A customer visits something once (not even log in with an account), and there's some information product right there. Once the product is established it may be so permanently.
So while a customer may not be a "product" according to classic business definition, the product's existence is dependent on them. This product can be 'enhanced' based on how much information a customer gives - willingly or unknowingly. The product may never expire. It can easily be purchased for other services' benefit, and the real benefit is that the same product can be resold multiple times.
It doesn't matter how much or how little a service is used - there is always product.
"Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration." - Dwight D Eisenhower
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday September 22 2014, @06:29PM
It's pretty cool that we get to play with these puzzles and games, *and* get free food and protection from the elements and predators. Hey, giants in the funny white robes with the sticks and tablets, thanks for doing this for us -- you ever want a tummy rub, just ask!
(Score: 2) by cykros on Monday September 22 2014, @06:36PM
So, the issue here seems to be that it's not as black and white as it's often laid out, rather than that you're not still being utilized in order to foster and advertisement based business where the real customers are indeed the advertisers. And it's less that your DATA is the product being offered either, because to an advertiser, that still isn't all that of value without the real clincher:
Your Eyeballs.
It's less that you're the product, and more that you're providing a sort of labor, of sorts, in viewing the ads, for which you are compensated not monetarily, but in the form of service.
And I think that's a fair assessment. The question everyone should be asking themselves, then, is "is the service I am getting paid in worth the labor I am doing?". One might argue that being able to say, read static text on a page at the expense of being "put to work" seeing ads on the page isn't so bad (assuming the ads aren't laden with malware...), but perhaps that being yanked around by a social media outfit that makes changes and opt-in "features" that end up having you provide more than you bargained for may be something worth giving the boot.
It may be hair splitting, but it does seem to offer a bit more of an accurate map for the territory than the meme does.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Monday September 22 2014, @06:51PM
I think that was certainly true in 1997, and that is how advertising works in other media (TV, print, etc.). However, tracking cookies and Big Data changed all that. It is not enough for advertisers to put out a one-size-fits-all message and hope for the best. They want to stalk me so they can set a trap (target advertising), to find and exploit the time when I'm most susceptible to being separated from my money. You may think of me as a fool for sometimes falling into the trap. I would consider myself a bigger fool if I denied that targeted advertising could ever trick me into spending money I shouldn't.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Monday September 22 2014, @06:38PM
even if not all of the roads are pointed DIRECTLY at Rome.
The reason an aphorism works is not because it describes everything in great detail, but rather describes the overall principle in an elegant and accurate way.
Is the revenue model for "something you pay for with money" and "a service that monetizes the user (either in sold data, advertising, something else)" identical? No. As TFA points out, there are multiple material differences between paid models and "notionally free" revenue models.
But regardless of how different they are, a company using a "free" product still HAS a revenue model. And there are a very limited number of ways that revenue model can work. And all of them involve the user - selling access to the user to advertisers, selling "value added" items to the user, selling the user's profile data to 3rd parties. Are there differences? Sure. Are they significant? Not really - if you're not paying money, someone's making money off you indirectly somehow (spoiler warning: Even if you ARE paying money it's likely someone's STILL making money off you indirectly somehow).
Also, the bullet points presented are extremely simplistic about what a "paid" model means - it assumes a "pay once" model (or at least a long-term subscription model) as the only "paid" model. A more reasonable model (for both "free" and "paid" models) is a subscription model - I pay by the month for (say) ESPN Insider or the New York Times online. If we consider that model, virtually all of the points apply equally well in both cases (I can walk away, I can deny them revenue by not using the service, etc.). I can complain about their crappy site/product equally well in both cases. Over a long enough time horizon, EVERYTHING'S effectively a rental (possibly with different renewal periods). Windows 7 is only an "owned" product if you don't consider you might have to upgrade in ~3 years.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mesa Mike on Monday September 22 2014, @08:14PM
The fishmonger's product is fish, but he still has to care about his product, lest it spoil and his customers don't want to buy it.
Likewise, us users of "free" services. Even if we have some leverage in how we are treated, we are still the spoilable product. If the ad monger lets his product spoil, it becomes less valuable, and he loses customers.
(Score: 1) by robpow on Tuesday September 23 2014, @06:57AM
Best summary so far. But this topic won't get fully resolved until we have a car analogy. Anyone?
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Monday September 22 2014, @08:35PM
I wasn't spawned from the secret Google birthing pools (at least to my knowledge). As someone else pointed out, that doesn't make it an invalid aphorism.
TFA takes it completely literally. Quoth the article:
A pretty silly way of looking at it, in my opinion.
I'd like to see Google, Bing, FB et. al last a year without any income from advertising, metrics or data mining. We'll see how valuable their 'customers' are then.
I prefer to think of it like commodities. This post is a commodity for the people who own Soylent News. My Google search page view is a commodity for Google. It's then a case of balancing what you get in return.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday September 22 2014, @09:55PM
Free services have a contract of sorts. This varies greatly between services. I offer my friends free email accounts on my server, they help me debug it.
Soylentnews offers good discussion but we provide the community for that to work.
These interactions are not particularly exploitative.
Facebook offers its customers population metrics concerning webs of social interaction and tracking
data. This is a high price for helping people get the occassional fuck buddy.
Google takes from us all. Advertising is not their main game. They trade shares, get the jump on patents and manipulate elections. Society is their product and we should know it as data hegemony.
So let's not conflate all these different types of "free" services, some might as well put a cannula in your vein and suck out your blood, others exchange your utility, opinion or labour in somewhat more of a fair deal.
The ones that are the real problem are the ones you cannot walk away from.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 23 2014, @01:58AM
Those three secondary activities are inconsequential compared to search engine-based advertising, their primary source of revenue.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:45AM
For now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 23 2014, @01:52PM
For forever. There are plenty of businesses and money out there. For example, there's somewhere around 5-10,000 businesses just in the US which trade shares. So trading shares isn't going to magically make Google money when so many others do it too.
Patents are a bit more exclusive, but a lot of other companies have them too. And they have a short shelf life of 17 years.
And there's a vast number of parties who can manipulate elections. What makes Google special?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 23 2014, @03:37PM
Nothing's forever.
Research. From which something original may result. May change the primary source of income for Google.
(apologies for the confusion, I was replying only to search engine-based advertising, their primary source of revenue. part)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @06:43AM
I find that a lot of these services or software packages are in popular use. In such cases the bullet points are a joke.
-You can stop using the service. You can deny the company that provides it the revenue you represent.
This is always an option. Don't use FB, Google, gMail, or the MS Office your workplace provides.
You end up with a shrinking world and join the unconnected billion 'at the bottom'... but they're happier.
-You can look around for competitive offerings, and choose one of those.
Sometimes harder to do than you think. The big guns know they have little competition, or quietly crush it (example: Google slowly strangling Mozilla), buy them out or plain out-popular them. When the toaster-using masses have chosen, its over.
-You can use the service more… or less.
What does this even mean? I guess using FB for only some updates, or like some folks and Twitter "I am walking from my office to the tearoom now."
This applies to any service - free or not. Use the brain.
-You can tell the world how great this service is, how great this company is… Or how awful they are.
Maybe illustrated by the restaurant that tilted the 1-star reviews on the extortionist website.
But in real life, these cases are far and few between. Bubbling "I love gMail" or "I love FB" every 2nd posting proves you are a twit in need of a life. And the opposite, "I hate Servicename" begs why are you still using it.
-You can make those choices on the basis of utility, or beauty, or privacy, or politics, or morality, or any principle or basis you choose.
FTW? I choose the principle of a triangle. Now there, go fix this horrid system of yours!
-You can change the service itself.
Good luck. Hello Mark Z, I'd like to change the way you run FB... comedian material indeed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:57PM
C'mon guys. It's just a matter of perspective.
From the perspective of the money both Google and the Users are the product.
How is this any different than "Information wants to be free."