201–210 of 270 posts
1. These companies have been collecting our information for years now. Some have acces to what we write in are emails, but of course, they never read them, they just scan them for marketing purposes? 2. Why do I feel certain people's information has been looked at, scrutinized, cross checked, collated, etc. by certain savvy insiders. Warren buffet, George Sorrows, any of the financial movers and shakers, information…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'it really is a giant among giants.' You're confused. That would be Alphabet, not Apple. To put it in perspective for you, Google has: ~90% of the search market ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-... ) ~90% of the smartphone market ( https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/18/gartner-androids-smartphon... ) ~50% of the online advertisement market ( http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Google-Still-Domin…
> However, Alphabet its influence and reach is far, far beyond that of Apple. Its just not as flashy & visible. You just gave some very "flashy & visible" examples of Alphabet's influence while citing only a "big pile of cash" as Apple's flashy & visible trait. Apple have always been the most secretive and they almost NEVER announce something before they're ready to advertise it. Did anybody see the New Mac Pro redes…
> I think the winds of the world are changing direction; people are becoming increasingly aware about privacy concerns, and these issues keep making the headlines.
It seems like only a minority cares about privacy concerns to even understand them well and take some action. Even when privacy issues make the headlines, billions of people just shrug their shoulders (and perhaps a few thousand say a curse word or two) but still go back to the same old ways they've been using Facebook, Google, etc.
I feel sad that the winds aren't changing direction, or at least not fast enough to be a force to reckon with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're forgetting the massive impact the iPhone had on the mobile web. Before the iPhone was released, the mobile web was a mixture of rudimentary WAP/WML, or if you were lucky awful browsers that tried to render HTML. Everybody hated it. Then the iPhone was released and it had a web browser in the same ballpark as real desktop browsers. What's more, WebKit was open-source. In next to no time, all the major phone ven…
I'm not arguing that smartphone was a huge step forward, just saying that it was only a matter of "when" and "who" not "if". Also, as for mobile web boom, I think the introduction of 3g was the key factor, there was only so much you could do with GPRS/WAP..
Yeah, that was my thought exactly. However, iPhone software was so radically different from everything else at the time that I still wonder "what" it would have been and what the App Store revolution would have looked like.
Of course, in this alternate universe it's just as likely that other amazing advancements happened because Apple didn't do iPhone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Modern machine learning depends heavily on data. If you have 100x the data, your algorithm is going to outperform a superior algorithm in most cases, because the data is the source of the intelligence. It's a big, scary barrier for startups, for innovation, and we're running the risk of creating data superpowers that can't be competed with. Some algorithms don't perform well until they have a threshold of data. When…
"THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT!" Should there be? I'm not quite sure. I mean, personally I feel a lot safer managing my own data privacy with what I give these companies, rather than having a government do it for me. And I'm not exactly a libertarian, I just think it's rational that this should be decentralized, the risk of a company turning against "us" is a lot less than a government, given history. "I've switched away fro…
Last time I checked, Google search had 98% market share in Germany, Android had 78% market share worldwide. I don't see how you can talk about decentralisation given dominance like that.
Whether or not a de-facto monopoly is a bad thing can be argued, I guess. (I personally think it is) But if one is present, I don't see why handing the power to a government that is (in theory) regularly elected and bound to basic rules of conduct and transparency is worse than handing the same power to a private entity which is bound to nothing except the expectation to grow and benefit their share holders.
You can. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference*
Until facebook decides to shut down this api - which is at their sole discretion.
Hope they do not use that as an acronym.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT!" Should there be? I'm not quite sure. I mean, personally I feel a lot safer managing my own data privacy with what I give these companies, rather than having a government do it for me. And I'm not exactly a libertarian, I just think it's rational that this should be decentralized, the risk of a company turning against "us" is a lot less than a government, given history. "I've switched away fro…
I just think it's rational that this should be decentralized, the risk of a company turning against "us" is a lot less than a government, given history. Last time I checked, Google search had 98% market share in Germany, Android had 78% market share worldwide. I don't see how you can talk about decentralisation given dominance like that. Whether or not a de-facto monopoly is a bad thing can be argued, I guess. (I per…
I was starting to get worried about the data collection already happening individually at these big companies. Now that they have announced a partnership which potentially combines all this data together, I feel so much better! The funny thing is, the companies are ALWAYS going to put a positive spin on this. Not very different from the WhatsApp "we won't show ads, ever" messaging. Now I am in the camp which says "Fo…
I am however worried that this would make it even easier for a government agency to get bigger and bigger datasets of personal information
I was starting to get worried about the data collection already happening individually at these big companies. Now that they have announced a partnership which potentially combines all this data together, I feel so much better! The funny thing is, the companies are ALWAYS going to put a positive spin on this. Not very different from the WhatsApp "we won't show ads, ever" messaging. Now I am in the camp which says "Fo…
Modern machine learning depends heavily on data. If you have 100x the data, your algorithm is going to outperform a superior algorithm in most cases, because the data is the source of the intelligence. It's a big, scary barrier for startups, for innovation, and we're running the risk of creating data superpowers that can't be competed with. Some algorithms don't perform well until they have a threshold of data. When…
>>"As of today’s launch, companies like Apple, Twitter, Intel and Baidu are missing from the group. Though Apple is said to be enthusiastic about the project, their absence is still notable because the company has fallen behind in artificial intelligence when compared to its rivals — many of which are part of this new group." It seems Apple's lack of engagement in the community [1] is really starting to hurt it. Did…
As for AI, Apple is a small and outsider player which will hurt in the long term.
Since you didn't explicitly state whom it will hurt, the devil in me reads this sentence as Apple's involvement (or lack of it) will hurt all people. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT!" Should there be? I'm not quite sure. I mean, personally I feel a lot safer managing my own data privacy with what I give these companies, rather than having a government do it for me. And I'm not exactly a libertarian, I just think it's rational that this should be decentralized, the risk of a company turning against "us" is a lot less than a government, given history. "I've switched away fro…
I just think it's rational that this should be decentralized, the risk of a company turning against "us" is a lot less than a government, given history. Last time I checked, Google search had 98% market share in Germany, Android had 78% market share worldwide. I don't see how you can talk about decentralisation given dominance like that. Whether or not a de-facto monopoly is a bad thing can be argued, I guess. (I per…
They're not legislated as the Official Search Engine of the EU. Microsoft too once had 98% market share. As did IBM.
Also, think of China, where Google has no market share. Baidu will grow and bide its time.
"But if one is present, I don't see why handing the power to a government that is (in theory) regularly elected and bound to basic rules of conduct and transparency is worse than handing the same power to a private entity which is bound to nothing except the expectation to grow and benefit their share holders."
If you want to entrench the western world to assume Google is a permanent fixture, you write laws and regulations that make that assumption and turn it into a publicly transparent utility. This is how Theodore Vail turned AT&T into a monopoly for nearly 80 years in the USA. It wasn't necessarily "bad", at least for the first 50 years, it consolidated and standardized service, and provided transparency. But AT&T eventually turned against us by blocking future competition, and it took 15 years of fights to break it up. Plus its "transparency" also developed the presumption of letting the government have access to its data carte blanche to spy on its citizens. Personally, I'd rather not have an organization possibly run by Donald Trump know too much about me.
We could also break them up, or put anti-trust fetters on them, but that requires serious scrutiny before doing, as it might lead to massively unintended consequences.
"Until facebook decides to shut down this api - which is at their sole discretion."
Unlikely, given that API is the only reason anyone pays them money.