Is that really possible today? Have you tried to browse the web without trying to hit Google servers? Do you know how hard it is? No common man is capable of doing it frankly.
Not hitting their servers is different to not using their services.
You can block cookies to their domains, or just block all third party cookies, and then you will be pretty safe from them doing anything to track you. The browsers make this pretty easy - I would argue that is in reach of 'the common man', or at very least one who can use Bing (however Bing will profile and track you just like Google, of course).
What have you tried? Couldn't a browser extension just drop any requests for domains owned by Google? I think the problem you're trying to describe is that of their services being too good to give up.
If it was a institution where people expressly donated their data for research then that is the right way to do it. The concern is about selling that data and using it for other commercial purposes. Another concern is about creating this single repository of data that can then be exploited my incremental updates to TOS that nobody reads or understands.
The author is trying to use that relationship to stress a point which stands no matter whether the founder is related to Google founder or not. Take that piece of information out and the point that the author is making still stands. Google has showed us that by luring people to share their private information, it is possible to sell your users eventually. Now you don't have to be related to a Google founder to learn and use that business model. If there was any other company that followed the same practice and didn't explicitly allow me to own my data and delete it from their databases I'd be worried about that company as well. No matter whether they are related to Google or not. The relationship to Google just make me extra worried because of the history of Google.
The point has nothing to do with the relationship between the companies. Like the commenter upthread said, it was a clumsy way to transition into the topic. 23AM could be a Microsoft spin-off, or a Bloomberg company, or a Koch Brothers company: the same points would stand.
The reason Google matters is that it demonstrated that the business model of hoarding and capitalizing on personal information works. The rest of the article spells out ways in which 23AM is already capitalizing on its stored information.
>>> it demonstrated that the business model of hoarding and capitalizing on personal information works
Marketing companies and spammers are using this model all the time. AFAIK most of Google's income is from ads which use very little of personal information (yes, I know about targeted ads but I have a feeling marginal utility of those vs. just having ads on Google which everybody uses is not that high).
Miracast isn't "open" - devices require certification, and the Miracast and Wi-Fi Direct specifications cost $200 each. It's also supported by relatively few devices right now (since, you know, certification), and I seem to recall there are some compatibility issues between manufacturer implementations.
The RROD was really crappy, for sure. But ultimately MS did do do the right thing, or at least they tried. On the other hand, Sony has never stood behind their consoles. From the PS1 cd drive wearing out prematurely [0], to the PSP's analog nub falling off[1] to PS2 disc read errors [2] to... on and on. Sony has never once helped the consumer in these situations. For most Playstation owners, buying multiple systems per generation is just part of owning a Playstation.
Don't forget the original PSP had an extremely high rate of stuck pixels in their displays.
And while I have had multiple RRODs with the 360, I have all working 360s via replacement, while my YLOD (Yellow Light of Death) PS3 is dead without replacement.
Haha, I remember: They even went to say that if you had less than 5 dead pixels (IIRC) even if they were in the middle of the screen, they would not replace your unit, because it was under the limit of "acceptable" dead pixels.
Perhaps you're younger than me? I was in college when the PS1 was in its prime. I literally know of no one (both personally and on the internet) from that time that didn't buy at least two PSXs, if not three. The PSXs poor reliability was a huge deal and controversy at the time. The PS2's poor reliability was enough to warrant a class action lawsuit (that Sony lost).
I've not kept up on PS3 reliability, as when my PS2 died, I decided to never buy another Sony product again.
I use to own a PS1 and a PS2 (The PS2 being the last console I have owned). I never heard about these problems until now.
You'd be hard pressed to find a 360 owner that doesn't know of the RROD. You'd be hard pressed to find a non-gamer below their 30s who hasn't heard at least once something about the RROD.
Don't mistake this for praise of Sony. Obviously they have a serious problem with the PS4, and I despise the corporation for plenty of other reasons. All I'm saying here is that Microsoft's 360 problems are in a class of their own (it is too early to say if the PS4 will match or exceed the 360 issues, perhaps it will).
That's not my point. Of course the RROD was a monumental issue. Probably the biggest video game hardware related issue ever.
My point is Sony's hardware is quite famous for being extremely unreliable. Every Playstation generation has been plagued with issues. Widespread, class action lawsuit worthy, issues. Sony has never once addressed them, admitted them, or made any effort to improve their quality. Sony simply doesn't care.
The PS4 already having quality issues is not a surprise at all. Yet the Xbox One having quality issues would surprise me. And that is where the difference lies.
> My point is Sony's hardware is quite famous for being extremely unreliable
s/hardware/game systems/
Sony had a reputation for quality (and style) prior to (and aside from) the Playstation.
According to a friend of mine that worked for them back-in-the-day, the SCE division was a sort of black sheep within Sony, insular and culturally rather distinct, and even rather hated by mainstream Sony management (especially at SCE's "height" when they became crazy arrogant). However, the Playstation was so insanely popular that Sony had little choice but to tolerate it.
I don't know what things are like now, but I'd think that time, the importance of the PS to Sony, and things like the PS3 fiasco ("they can just get a second job to pay for it!") may have moderated SCE and brought it into the fold somewhat.
[Sony's other divisions weren't perfect, of course, and especially really low-end stuff (e.g. $25 phones) not made in Japan didn't really transcend their price-point. But they've always had a pretty good reputation in general.]
I'll rephrase: The fact that I was previously ignorant of widespread hardware failures of Sony hardware probably says something itself.
Hell, I'll spell it out for you: those issues were not in the same league as the Xbox 360 failures. Even non-gamers, such as myself, are aware of the 360 RROD. There are fucking Cracked articles about it for crying out loud.
A mechanic might know that a 2005 Toyota Tacoma has an issue where the fizzbuzz widget wears out after too many miles... Everybody knows that the Ford Pinto had an issue. The 360 RROD was Microsoft's Pinto.
If you clicked on the link above, you will see that nearly 40% of the Amazon reviews are 1*. There is a good chance that most of those people received a dead PS4. Agree that not everybody who received a good PS4 left a positive review but this certainly does not make it looks like a minority.
Definitely reaching there - you can't assume a large majority of people who ordered from Amazon are leaving reviews. You already know that people without a working console will no doubt go leave a review, so the sample is significantly skewed.
We won't know if this is a real problem until Sony says something.
Disclosure: I ordered my PS4 from Amazon in June, received it yesterday, it works fine...and I have no reason to write a review about it.
Also, it looks - at a glance - like more of the 5* reviews are from verified purchasers than the 1* reviews. Presumably a bunch of people who didn't buy from Amazon and had a DOA PS4 went onto Amazon and posted an angry review, but people who got a working one had no reason to.
Those of us who got a console in good condition most likely don't post. I got a launch console from Amazon & even applied the update, and it worked like a charm. I've no complaints so far (minus the horrid launch lineup).
If after using only xbox, you bought and received a PS4 from Amazon, would you leave a 1 star ranking because of the interface look? 3-stars, maybe; 2-stars, maybe; but if you put 1* on the first day after paying hundreds of dollars, then it means that you had some serious unexpected, unwelcome surprise.
Is that really possible today? Have you tried to browse the web without trying to hit Google servers? Do you know how hard it is? No common man is capable of doing it frankly.