According to Doug Lynch at xda-developers.com:
Android TV owners recently received an update across multiple platforms that have started to display sponsored content with a "Promotional Channels' title in the launcher of the Android TV software. We're currently seeing reports that it has shown up in Sony smart TVs, the Mi Box 3 from Xiaomi, NVIDIA Shield TV, and others. This has been an incredibly off-putting change for a lot of Android TV users. What makes matters worse is people were unable to disable the ads at first, but Reddit user Felisens seems to have figured out how to disable them.
[...] Update: Google's response
A Google spokesperson gave us the following statement:
Android TV is committed to optimizing and personalizing the entertainment experience at home. As we explore new opportunities to engage the user community, we're running a pilot program to surface sponsored content on the Android TV home screen.
Related Stories
If you're looking to buy a TV in 2025, you may be disappointed by the types of advancements TV brands will be prioritizing in the new year. While there's an audience of enthusiasts interested in developments in tech like OLED, QDEL, and [Micro LED], plus other features like transparency and improved audio, that doesn't appear to be what the industry is focused on.
Today's TV selection has a serious dependency on advertisements and user tracking.
[...] One of the most impactful changes to the TV market next year will be Walmart owning Vizio. For Walmart, the deal, which closed on December 3 for approximately $2.3 billion, is about owning the data collection capabilities of Vizio's SmartCast OS.
[...] In 2025, buying a Vizio TV won't just mean buying a TV from a company that's essentially an ad business. It will mean fueling Walmart's ad business. With Walmart also owning Onn and Amazon owning Fire TVs, that means there's one less TV brand that isn't a cog in a retail giant's ever-expanding ad machine.
[...] Further, Walmart has expressed a goal of becoming one of the 10 biggest ad companies, with the ad business notably having higher margins than groceries. It could use Vizio, via more plentiful and/or intrusive ads, to fuel those goals.
And Walmart's TV market share is set to grow in the new year. Paul Gray, research director of consumer electronics and devices at Omdia, told Ars Technica he expects that "the new combined sales (Vizio plus Walmart's white label) will be bigger than the current market leader Samsung."
[...] 'Walmart has told you by buying Vizio that these large retailers need a connected television advertising platform to tie purchases to," Martin told Bloomberg. "That means Target and other large retailers have that reason to buy Roku to tie Roku's connected television ad units to their sales in their retail stores. And by the way, Roku has much higher margins than any retailer.'"
[...] TV brands have become so dependent on ads that some are selling TVs at a loss to push ads. How did we get to the point where TV brands view their hardware as a way to track and sell to viewers? Part of the reason TV OSes are pushing the limits on ads is that many viewers seem willing to accept them, especially in the name of saving money.
[...]Still, analysts agree that even among more expensive TV brands, there has been a shift toward building out ad businesses and OSes over improving hardware features like audio.
"This is a low-margin business, and even in the premium segment, the revenues from ads and data are significant. Also, the sort of consumer who buys a premium TV is likely to be especially interesting to advertisers," Gray said.
[...] In 2025, TVs will continue focusing innovation around software, which has immediate returns via ad sales compared to new hardware, which can take years to develop and catch on with shoppers. For some, this is creating a strong demand for dumb TVs, but unfortunately, there are no immediate signs of that becoming a trend.
As Horner put it, "This is an advertising/e-commerce-driven market, not a consumer-driven market. TV content is just the bait in the trap."
Related articles on SoylentNews:
Facebook Ad Partner Admits to Listening to Your Microphone to You Serve Ads on What You Talk About - 20240904
Prime Video Cuts Dolby Vision, Atmos Support From Ad Tier—and Didn't Tell Subs - 20240217
After Luring Customers With Low Prices, Amazon Stuffs Fire TVs With Ads - 20231112
The Role of TV Ad Content in Viewers' Zapping Behavior - 20220717
It's Still Stupidly, Ridiculously Difficult To Buy A 'Dumb' TV - 20220416
Vizio TVs Are Now Showing Banner Ads Over Live TV - 20220403
TV Advertising's Watershed Moment: It is Finally Becoming More Like Digital - 20200409
Smart TVs Sending Sensitive User Data to Netflix and Facebook - 20190918
Android TV Users are Seeing Ads after Latest Update - 20190404
Taking the Smarts Out of Smart TVs Would Make Them More Expensive - 20190122
Facebook Wants to Hide Secret Inaudible Messages in TV Ads - 20180703
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @01:24PM (28 children)
Google has just provided the world (as it relates to Televisions) with the biggest argument for buying the over priced Apple TV. I think it is the last IP TV device that doesn't show commercials on the home screen/launcher/default screen.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @01:31PM
Advertising coming in 3.... 2.... TOYOTA SAVINGS!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 05 2019, @01:34PM (16 children)
I would no buy an Apple TV either. No way. No how.
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday April 05 2019, @01:35PM
And no proofreading. And no caffeine.
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by aiwarrior on Friday April 05 2019, @01:49PM (14 children)
My LG TV has spotify, netflix and youtube and i do not see any advertising. It is simple and does it's thing. It maybe not be the most powerful but it is enough. It also spies but you actually have to agree to it, and i did not, so the voice thing does not work.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @02:00PM (7 children)
You connected your tv to the Internet?
Your tv is spying on you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday April 05 2019, @03:21PM
Not if it's connected to the internet through a hdmi plug to a linux computer.
Sometimes I wish I were better about pirating, rather than buying streaming media, though. It's really fucking annoying that I should see a real moral compunction against fairly paying for things I enjoy.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday April 05 2019, @08:05PM (4 children)
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @09:00PM (3 children)
DNS-over-HTTPS will exfiltrate your data even with a pi-hole.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @09:45PM (2 children)
Egress Filtering [wikipedia.org] FTW!
DNS sinkholes [wikipedia.org] like Pi-hole aren't bad, but as you pointed out, local DNS restrictions can be overriden, and not just with DNS-over-HTTP. Assuming your firewall allows DNS requests outbound (necessary because you don't have the whole 'net in your DNS resolver or server caches), there are a bunch of things that can be done:
1. Using hardcoded DNS servers on the device
This can be defeated by -- you guessed it -- egress filtering -- only allow your local DNS servers to send DNS requests to the Internet
2. Using hardcoded IP addresses for ad servers to avoid DNS sinkholes
Again, egress filtering is your friend -- block outbound access for the device in question
3. DNS-over-HTTP
This can also be defeated via egress filtering with Policy-based Routing [wikipedia.org]
The best (if potentially inconvenient and possibly blocking services you might wish to use) way, of course, to defeat data exfiltration is to block *all* access from the device to the Internet with...wait for it...egress filtering. :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @08:12AM (1 child)
I'm not disputing anthing you wrote. But a pi-hole doesn't do egress filtering, does it?
I'm also interested how you would do egress filtering if Google decides to use ajax.googleapis.com for both DoH and as data collection drop point.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:23AM
I have no idea what pi-hole's capabilities are.
I read a brief summary that implied it was a DNS sinkhole with a gui. I don't know if it has packet filtering capabilities.
Then again, if it runs on top of Linux/Unix your can always use netfilter/iptables [wikipedia.org]. But if you do that, why bother with pi-hole at all? Just set up your own BIND server and blackhole to your heart's content. Or use something like pfSense [pfsense.org].
As for egress filtering on various types of web traffic, that can be handled via policy based routing [wikipedia.org] (PBR). However, determining whether it's application or spying traffic may be problematic with https, as the detail you require may be in the packet payloads rather than the headers.
If you need to perform PBR on https traffic, you'll need to implement a transparent proxy, decrypt the payloads, then make a routing decision (in this case, route vs. drop) based on the content. This can be done with Squid [squid-cache.org], Privoxy [privoxy.org] or other tools.
As for Google using ajax.googleapis.com for DoH (DNS over http(s)?) that shouldn't be a problem for PBR, as the payload will obviously have data structures as required by the DoH API. Again, if https is in use, you'll need to use a transparent proxy to decrypt, filter then connect/drop.
HTHAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by aiwarrior on Saturday April 06 2019, @11:10AM
Hmm maybe I am unconventional but, I actually do not use my TV for any other content, than the above services. Given that they are internet services, not having internet would make my TV an expensive black frame. Furthermore what is the difference between being spied on the computer, phone or tv? I think that privacy needs to be kind of piecewise. For example, does my computer contain sensitive information? If yes, encrypt it. Does my email account store sensitive information? If yes run your own server. If my phone contains sensitive information buy a burner phone etc. Compartmentalize and set procedures/workflows that require higher sensitivity. If you want to be completely anonymous, good luck passing on most modern technology and world, and paying a huge productivity penalty.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Friday April 05 2019, @02:03PM (5 children)
I also have a TV that is "smart". Yet I have never used those features. It is able to spy on me and see that I alternate between a two different HDMI inputs. (DVD or RoKu)
RoKu is an ancient word which fell out of use several millennia ago, that, loosely translated, means: screw cable tv! Linguists say the word is derrived from an earlier language where the word was TiVo.
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Friday April 05 2019, @05:02PM (4 children)
I know you are making a joke, but I'll say it anyway. If it is connected to the internet, they can tell what you are watching.that stands even if you only watch hdmi input.
I'm not saying no one is able to spy on me. I like the conveniences in trade. By limiting the number of people holding a copy of my life story I improve my odds of staying out of breaches though.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @05:32PM (3 children)
I have a Vizio "smart" tv (and yes, I am aware of the spying and other nastiness they do).
However, I use it as a dumb monitor. I don't even switch HDMI inputs, as it's just plugged into an HDMI output jack on my A/V receiver (not network connected).
What's more, to keep the Vizio from sneakily connecting to any available WiFi network (it certainly can't connect to mine), Initially, I just didn't connect it to a network at all. But then I noticed that it was trying to connect to every WiFi network it could see, even after I disabled WiFi.
So now I'm using wired ethernet and a static IP address (I suppose I could do this with WiFi too, but I have the extra port and I don't want the Vizio searching for some open WiFi somewhere. I do egress filtering on my firewall to block *all* traffic from the Vizio device. I also created dummy DNS zones on my local DNS servers for the domains that the Vizio attempts to contact and have 'A' records pointing back at the Vizio TV.
I suppose this would work for Android TVs too, assuming you don't wish to the use the "smart" capabilities.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @08:14AM (2 children)
Ethernet over HDMI [hdmi.org].
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:29AM (1 child)
And where does it go from there? The AV receiver has no network connectivity of any kind. What's more, the Vizio itself is blocked from sending *any* traffic to the Internet.
Given that I said all that in the post to which you replied, what's your point?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @01:11AM
If your AV receiver is a cable box, it can get your data out.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday April 05 2019, @02:05PM (8 children)
Yes, buy an even more locked in device. Apple will NEVER give you ads..... nosirreeee!!!!
Oh, you mean there's a reason that broadcast television, and even the cable TV you pay for, has to be supported by ads?
This is a case of newer generations intentionally burying their heads in the sand, or how programmed stupidity from our educational system has primed people to buy into marketing instead of thinking critically.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @03:16PM (1 child)
Oh, you mean because they know their content isn't valuable enough so that people would want to pay money just to see that content? Are you saying it's because they wouldn't be in business if they had to live off the money their viewers would give them themselves to be subjected to their drivel?
You mean the opposite of what NetFlix does?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday April 05 2019, @06:17PM
Pretty much, yep. And don't think that NetFlix won't reach a price point where they can't bump up any further but a few little ads will work nicely. They might be the last to go but once no blowback happens on AndroidTV - and it won't - the way will have been paved for them.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @04:28PM (1 child)
No it doesn't. Putting ads in there is an admission that what you think your content is worth is not the same as what your viewers think it is worth because if they did, they'd pay that to you (and they don't, proving the point).
It's a further admissions that you are in the game for money and not for providing quality work. This would be fine, but then you must be honest and say it loud!
The fact that you think advertisement is a necessity shows that you have internalized and normalized its existence. You are incapable of imagining a world without it, and I find that sad and concerning.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @06:00PM
It's not that at all. Content providers often use ads to profit from their content (broadcast networks, basic cable, etc.), while others charge for their content (HBO, Netflix, etc.) to profit.
This is different. This is your TV's OS manufacturer showing you ads, for which *they* get paid, without actually providing any new benefit to users (they already paid for that TV, right? Notice I didn't say "buy" because apparently they didn't).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @06:02PM (3 children)
I'm old enough to remember when cable TV first started being rolled out widely across the US. One of the main selling points to get people to pay for TV was the cry of "no ads!" Of course, after enough people were signed up, they started putting ads in, even on the supposedly "pay only" channels.
The reason that cable TV has ads is to make more profit. There was a time when a lot of cable channels didn't have ads. That time is gone.
Apple TVs will have ads eventually. Because they can.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday April 05 2019, @06:18PM
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah! who remembers history.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @10:29PM (1 child)
You speak the truth. All those cable channels with ads on them now, well, what few there were back in the very early days (grand total channels amounted to something like 28) they actually had no ads. The ads snuck in later, after they had convinced you to pay for what you used to get for almost free (broadcast, but you had to suffer ads, so it wasn't truly free).
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday April 06 2019, @12:59AM
Even worse, those 42-minutes show (18 minutes of ads per hour) get compressed/sped-up down to 37 minutes (23 minutes of ads per hour) during reruns.
How (older) Americans got lobotomized into accepting this as normal rather than flat-out cut the cord is always amazing me.
But then again, they do also watch a 4-hour broadcast with 11 minutes of actual plays in it, so they can comment on the ads the next day...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @10:25PM
No, Google just proved why one should never buy a "smart tv" and should instead attach a device that you, the user, have control over, to one's non-smart TV to play content.
And why that same content should be obtained via Torrents and/or Usenet.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday April 05 2019, @01:27PM (9 children)
Hahahahahaha. You though those boxes you "bought" actually belonged to you? You thought that it would not eventually turn on you and rape you bloody?
Welcome to the future! Where YOU are the product!
Google. "Fuck you, we're advertising"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Friday April 05 2019, @01:53PM (8 children)
NEVER take an update from android if you are happy with how your android works.
for years, I have a decent enough phone. I never took updates.
for some reason, I decided to try. it was a one-way trip and now I have shit on my home screen (we're talking ancient phone from cyanogen era, the orig google phone, no less) and no way to get back.
I re-learned my lesson and never will take updates.
the whole 'phone' (now tv) system is broken beyond fixing. and by design, too.
what a clusterfuck. phones could have been real pocket computers that we own. instead, they are tracking devices that we don't actually own, yet pay for.
it amazes me that few learn the lesson about 'refuse all updates'.
(have to do that with MS, too since their updates have been toxic for a few years now; since the demise of win7)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday April 05 2019, @02:22PM (5 children)
Derrr, but if you don't update, you might get maaaalware!... Oh, wait. :P
On another forum I visit there is a member that always gets their panties in a wad and starts scolding people left and right whenever they talk about turning off updates. He says he works in the security industry.
What he won't acknowledge is that vendors these days almost always abuse updates. If running updates only fixed real bugs and security problems, with perhaps occasional critical minor non-intrusive new features, then almost nobody would object to running updates!
But as it is, when someone runs an "update" these days, they can be absolutely sure that some feature they need will disappear, some tool they use will break, some abusive new garbage will appear, user interfaces will change for the hell of it, old printed documentation will become invalid, and they very well might not even be able to use the device for they purpose they bought it for any more.
The point is, anyone who is concerned about "security" must acknowledge that mis-using updates like this is detrimental to security! There literally needs to be laws against vendors making unwanted changes in mandatory updates.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 05 2019, @02:59PM (2 children)
I take my computer to the SS. Philip and James Catholic Church, ask priest to bless my computer, and to perform an exorcism on it. That's how I got Microsoft out!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @03:33PM
I took my computer to Jack Lalanne to be exorcised.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @12:17AM
It was the dunking underwater for 2min part of the exorcism which really got the M$ out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @04:17PM
Except one user's security vulnerability is another user's godsend for allowing them root on their own device. IOW, good luck defining "unwanted" in a clear and legally binding manner that isn't itself a horrible twisting of the language.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @09:04PM
Well you know what they say... one person's malware is another person's freedom protector.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @03:11PM
Younger people still laugh at me when I say this.
There's always some chic Indian guy who has parents that are lawyers or are in IT that updates everything and has no idea how it really works. usually he leads the pack of laughing at simpletons like me that is clinging to something that still works when he's got two or three phones he can't decide between because they all have things he doesnt like but continues to buy high end marketing devices anyway because its cool or something.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @05:37PM
Actually, doing updates (or even changing distributions) and rolling them back is really easy.
Just do NanDROID backups [gadgethacks.com] of the device before applying updates/new distribution and if you don't like it, you can roll it back to the backup image.
I suppose this could work on Android TVs too, but I don't have one so I have no idea.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @01:58PM (9 children)
Ads on TV? What could go wrong? A lot ...
Even though people have less (or no) control over the physical (or digital) products they purchase, they do have a lot of control over their choices and brand loyalty. Intrusive is not a good marketing approach for long-term customer loyalty or retention.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday April 05 2019, @02:08PM (7 children)
Except that company 1 sees company 2 being intrusive and supposedly profitable and so company 2 does it. Then company 3 gets into the act. There is no company 4, because the market won't support more than 3.
When all players become equally intrusive you will have no distinguishment in the market between them. And the market has proven time and time again that the pink elephant who tries to advertise that it is the NOT intrusive one will fail and be trampled to death by the mobs clamoring for what the grey elephants put out.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @02:13PM (2 children)
Then don't buy a smart TV, or don't hook it up to the internet. Those choices are still in the hands of the consumers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @06:50PM (1 child)
Until there are no TV's left except smart TV's, or the day that the TV's will be required to have an internet connection to work at all.
Enjoy your freedom while you have it, for it is unlikely you'll ever get any more of it unless you wash your hands of the whole thing and decide you don't need to consume media on video anymore.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @08:34PM
Yeah! Get away from consuming video. Read DRM'd books and paywalled websites, and listen to music through services that spy on you instead!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday April 05 2019, @03:23PM (1 child)
Yeah, there's often a lot of call for "vote with your dollars", but I really am getting damn close to "vote with my guillotine" being the best and fairest approach to express my views to the market.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday April 05 2019, @10:10PM
I am more down the line of the way Prohibition was repealed. People were drinking left and right, regardless of law.
Well, now its Copyright and DRM.
We will get what we tolerate.
If they can piss off enough people, anyone promising to throw the whole DRM Copyright thing out on its ear will find themselves quickly elected to political office.
The same thing that ended prohibition.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday April 05 2019, @04:23PM (1 child)
So it's back to torrents and mythtv.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @05:09PM
Or don't buy a smart TV ... and display whatever content you see fit.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snospar on Friday April 05 2019, @06:24PM
I've no problem with Ads on TV as long as that TV service is free to me, the viewer, and is somehow being paid for by the advertising. What I strongly object to is being forced to watch adverts on a service that I have paid for. Amazon Prime has started to stick adverts for other programs at the start of the content that I want to watch and I can't see any way to skip these or turn them off completely. I find that behaviour abhorrent as I'm trying to use a service I've paid for and one that isn't being subsidised by the advertising industry.
As usual the only people who get to access content without any of these forced adverts are the pirates and we wonder why their numbers continue to swell (according to the media industry).
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 05 2019, @02:07PM (2 children)
I recently read, just this week, an article with a graph of various streaming TV platforms. To my surprise Android TV was about 50 ish percent. Why, because a lot of Chinese "smart tv" manufacturers use a forked open source Android TV with no Play store, but with preinstalled apps for Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Spotify, etc. This forked "android tv" probably doesn't phone home to Google's mother ship, but to a different mother ship instead.
Apple TV was bigger than RoKu which also surprised me.
I wish I had a link.
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @03:40PM
As in huge piles of it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EvilSS on Friday April 05 2019, @05:24PM
I also wonder if Android TV includes Amazon Fire sticks. Fire OS is a derivative of Android and those sticks being hackable to get Kodi on them makes them quite popular.
(Score: 4, Informative) by progo on Friday April 05 2019, @02:30PM (2 children)
The summary should have explained this for those who don't know. I watch TV only on laptops and tablets and I'll never buy a "smart TV". Is Android TV a hardware product or some kind of software add-on?
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Android TV is an operating system. And it appears that in this story, Google is asserting ownership of the device by "updating" it to add "features" the vendor didn't sell to the user.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @05:45PM
Apparently, some TV vendors are using the same functionality, but most seem to allow you do disable it. The Google update stops you from doing so.
According to Ars Technica [arstechnica.com]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @05:53PM
My apologies. However, I thought that the quoted section explained this fairly clearly:
I don't use Android TV and don't have any of the products mentioned. In fact, I didn't even realize that Google had any control over third-party TV devices that used Android. But it was pretty obvious to me what they were talking about from the context. As such, I didn't think it was necessary.
Just so it's clear now:
Android TV == A fork of Android used on TVs.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @07:46PM (13 children)
you piss all your customers off, you will vanish so fast it will be like a vacuum..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @07:50PM (12 children)
You seem to misunderstand who, exactly, Google's customers are. They are advertisers, not users. Users are the *product*.
This type of stuff will only endear Google even more to its customers.
Try to keep things straight.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday April 05 2019, @09:01PM (9 children)
You can become Google's customer; G Suite is 6 USD a month. If you read the contract terms, you will find it is very different from the "consumer" terms in terms of data ownership and support.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @09:22PM (5 children)
A fair point. But since nearly 85% of Google's revenue comes from serving ads, you'll still be *product* and G-Suite is a tiny portion of Google revenue [techcrunch.com].
I imagine that the terms would be significantly different. But as far as the advertising business is concerned, you're still product.
So who do you think they're going to prioritize? Your $6/month? Of course they will, because you are the most important source of revenue for Google.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 05 2019, @09:50PM
Ouch. I missed that one of the links that should have been above wasn't functional. Sorry about that. The above *should* read:
My apologies.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday April 06 2019, @08:57AM (3 children)
> you'll still be *product*
Uh, that's not how it works. In the ToS for the consumer products Google can use your data for ads. In the ToS for the enterprise products Google cannot use your data for ads. If they do, you can sue Google for violating the contract.
Even if you personally cannot sue Google due to legal fees, all of the businesses and schools using the same product can, and I'm sure there are lots of lawyers happy to lead a class action for blatant breach of contract against Google.
>So who do you think they're going to prioritize?
They're going to prioritize not breaching the terms of their contract, as they are a huge fat target for any lawyers looking for a quick paycheck. For example, G Suite can also be used for HIPAA data, and HIPAA is one of those rare regulations that actually has a bite (millions of dollars per year per violation category plus potential criminal penalties).
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:46AM (2 children)
Does the ToS cover Google services like Search, YouTube and Chrome, or just G Suite apps?
If not, you're still product when you use those services.
I'm glad you've found a tool set that meets your needs.
I prefer my data and tools to be local, including mail clients, mail servers, data storage, productivity apps, etc. As such, G Suite really isn't for me.
In any case, I'd appreciate it if you could confirm whether or not your G suite subscription covers stuff like search and youtube. Thanks!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday April 06 2019, @09:47PM (1 child)
> Does the ToS cover Google services like Search, YouTube and Chrome, or just G Suite apps?
Just the G Suite apps, and for good reason because the ToS on them is very tight. I don't see how other things like YouTube could even work because there's no way to provide those services while allowing you to have full data ownership. G Suite also guarantees feature support, so that would mean YouTube cannot change any features without at least a year of advance notice for example. Chrome ToS only applies to Google's sync service, the only data that Chromium itself sends is metrics which can be disabled or compiled out.
You can disable non-covered services on your G Suite account, which is what I do to draw a very clear line on data ownership. All data on my G Suite account is owned by me, and I have a separate consumer account when I need to deal with other Google services, with the full understanding that the data there is not fully owned by me.
On a side note, everything on Google cloud platform is also covered by a similar enterprise ToS, even if you use a consumer account. For better or worse, all of Google's services have their own ToS. It means more ToS to read, but it also means your interaction with each individual service is compartmentalized.
I heartily recommend reading the ToS of every service you use. This is basically the equivalent of reading the fine print on credit cards/loans and it being tedious is no excuse; it can only come back to bite you in the ass.
> I prefer my data and tools to be local, including mail clients, mail servers, data storage, productivity apps, etc. As such, G Suite really isn't for me.
Sure. I don't see how G Suite prevents that however; I personally use POP and local backups of data, so I'm basically using G Suite as a cloud backup (e.g., Dropbox) and as an SMTP/MTA service which is annoying to set up yourself (you need to set up rDNS, DMARC, DKIM, SPF, spam filtering, webmail if you want it, and stay off blacklists). But whatever works for you.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 06 2019, @11:06PM
I couldn't agree more. And not just for online stuff. One should do so for anything that has service associated with it, like mobile phones.
I've been fortunate in that I have six static IPv4 addresses (yes, this is a consumer DSL link, but I've had this service for nearly 20 years) that I use to host my own DNS and various services on several domains.
SMTP/SPAM filtering is really easy to to set up and configure. Sendmail/Postfix/Exim configs aren't too onerous and SpamAssassin is also easy to configure.
SPF is also pretty easy to configure. DMARC/DKIM is a little more challenging as it requires DNSSEC, but I haven't found it to be a big deal.
As for blacklists, I've run into that twice or three times over the past 15 years or so, and it is a pain in the ass, but as long as you use appropriate blackhole lists and don't allow your mail server to be an open relay, it's not really a big deal.
I know, it's a bunch of work. But I set much of this up long before there were "cloud" (read: someone else's servers) services.
I don't recommend doing so for most people. I've been doing this sort of thing, both personally and professionally, since the early 1990s (starting with KA9Q [wikipedia.org] back in 1990), so my perspective (and experience) is significantly different from most people.
What's more, I spent quite a few years doing InfoSec work professionally, which has made me quite conscious of the issues associated with anything connected to the Internet. As such, I don't store my data on any device or services over which I don't have full control. I've made exceptions to this rule, but only with data I've locally encrypted myself, with keys generated/managed/accessible only to me.
Yes, I realize that I'm much more paranoid than most folks. But that's nothing new. I recall sitting through a "securing Sendmail/DNS" session at SANS in 2000 and realized halfway through that I was much more paranoid in terms of locking things down than the presenter himself.
Quite. For us all.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 05 2019, @10:43PM (2 children)
You will still not be a Google customer, but just another subject to extortion.
Pray that Google doesn't alter the deal further.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @10:51PM (1 child)
I hope you're not in Europe. Now that the new Copyright Directive has been passed, you're engaging in copyright violation for Star Wars Episode 5. And you know how Disney gets about that stuff.
Let us know when you get out.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @07:17AM
Need to be adopted by each country first.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:06AM (1 child)
> You seem to misunderstand who, exactly, Google's customers are. They are advertisers, not users. Users are the *product*.
Triggered pet peeve !
Non-native English pedant to the rescue !
Users are consumers.
You should know, for you have been told dozens of times already!
/Non-native English pedant
/Pet peeve
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:35AM
Not in this case. Besides, you should take the old saw, "believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear," to heart.
Or am I Poe'ing this? Yes, I think I am. Oh well. I'm not going back.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @08:42PM
But since you stupid assholes keep buying their shit you deserve all the spam and spying you get...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @08:59PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:04AM
s/enrage/enlarge/
Have you tried Google Lube yet ?