Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Fights Back

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 475 posts

Re: Google Fights Back

#441

Post by pdimitar »

icebraining wrote: post #362
pdimitar wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I admire people like Richard Stallman and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, IMO they fail to understand that most people simply don't care -- they have a life, job, family and stuff they like to do in their free time and they want technology to enable them and save them time, not get in the way and take their free time. I used Debian as a main driver for several years and lost patience around 2010. Using a MacBook Pro with…

They don't fail to understand it. They just realize that if people don't push back, they won't have freedom to tinker even when they need it .

"What if"-s and theoreticals don't help any discussion. It's very evident by now that people en masse don't push back. And there are no signs that this is changing as well.

Instead of being hung up "but if the people just do this...", how about we formulate a new strategy based on the facts observed so far?

Re: Google Fights Back

#442

Post by msh »

pdimitar wrote: post #439
msh wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of router would you get? 10 gigabit options seems very expensive.

Ubiquiti or Mikrotik. No more than $400 last I checked. Per device though, so router + switch could go up to $800 - $1000. Quite an investment I admit. But it's long-term. I don't anticipate changing that setup for like 10 years.

Ubiquitys cheapest router that can do 10 G is the edgerouter infinity which cost a lot more than 400 usd.

Re: Google Fights Back

#443

Post by naasking »

britch wrote: post #253
groovybits wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I agree with this sentiment. Google did not need to give this stance at I/O. It appears that they're being as transparent as they can about the fact that our data is their business model. I get it: our online privacy is important. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to remain truly anonymous on the Internet, and this is mostly thanks to Google. However, the converse could be Google using our data for mal…

> the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any. You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either. What frightens me is that IF something happens and Google is compelled or chooses to give that data to an entity to use maliciously there will be nothing we can do. As I look at it: It is dangerous for that much data about that…

> You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either.

Then again, since Google controls so much of what you see, would you ever be exposed to this evidence?

Re: Google Fights Back

#444

Post by kerkeslager »

Notorious_BLT wrote: post #287
kerkeslager wrote: post #6

> The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.” This is why a) free/libre software and b) Moore's law are important. Trading privacy for convenience is a real trade you can make right now, and nobody benefits from pretending it isn't--the first step to fixing that problem is to admit it exists. But…

The average user isn't willing to pay more for their devices just to avoid the seamless sharing of their data with google. There's a reason people stopped buying desktop computers and are relying on mobile devices and cheap laptops for more: its cheaper and they don't care about the hidden "costs" of their data being shared. In addition, sure, people could absolutely create local, non-cloud ways to accomplishing a lo…

Just because something doesn't make anyone money doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

Re: Google Fights Back

#445

Post by pdimitar »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #379
icebraining wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't fail to understand it. They just realize that if people don't push back, they won't have freedom to tinker even when they need it .

Also, for those believing in free markets: freedom to tinker for you is also the freedom to ask your friend or pay a local professional to tinker on your behalf. It doesn't mean everyone has to be a tinkerer, only that everyone can be. The opposite of that is requiring to go through the official vendor for every little thing you need to tweak.

I don't believe in free markets. I am too much of a realist for that. :)

I ask you what can we realistically do though?

It's very apparent that budget Androids that lag like hell and break down often aren't to the general populace's taste if they have a choice -- in my "poor" country (Bulgaria) people get loans so they can buy the Galaxy S10 or Huawei P30, en masse. Most people I've known in my life buying budget Androids only did so because of money constraints. I only knew 2 people who bought cheap Androids to tinker -- and it was because they loved tinkering with tech more than having sex with their wives, or spending time with their kids, or go jogging.

I already said I am not OK with Apple lobbying against the right to repair.

But I have no recourse as a customer. My iPhone is legitimately saving me time and frustration for a no small amount of leisure and work activities. If it didn't, I'd be using a budget Xiaomi for life. But here we are.

What would you do? Would you sacrifice your free time so you can punish the big evil corporations? And how?

Re: Google Fights Back

#446

Post by tekknik »

nirvdrum wrote: post #142
pdimitar wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand (also upvoted). This is why I bought the 256GB versions (although your photo archives might be even bigger). Not sure what I can recommend but in any case I'd probably get a professional camera with 400GB SD card. :D I mean, if you guys like to make long videos during a time outside, why not? I agree Apple's proposition has cracks by the way. Not arguing that. As for W10 Mobile, yep -- I sold my Lumia 15…

I finally gave in and moved back to Android. My wife wanted my Lumia 950 XL and she loves it. She's not going to be pleased when she needs to move to something else. That dedicated camera button is an incredibly nice feature. As for photos, I wouldn't say I take hundreds of gigabytes. The point is I don't want to have an anxiety attack over running out of space where I have low coverage. I can get a 512 GB microSD ca…

You can easily connect an iPhone to a computer and copy the pics off of it. You don’t need to swap an SD card around

Re: Google Fights Back

#447

Post by tekknik »

pdimitar wrote: post #434
kingaillas wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Cost is rarely a concern unless you are barely making ends meet. Well then 40% of American households are concerned: https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-house... I'm a former ios user (9 years, from my 3GS in 2009 to my 6S which I used until 2018) that switched to Android last year mostly out of cost. Apple crossed a threshold I'm unwilling to follow. Now I have a moto x4 that was just $300 so I'm…

I can fully relate to the part of "not being terrified of breaking the phone". That's a peace of mind I didn't have for a long time and I still miss it. That being said, don't most US households get carrier-financed phones?

I’m not sure but most iPhone users i know have Applecare so this is only an issue for those who thinks the price is too high

Re: Google Fights Back

#448

Post by nirvdrum »

pdimitar wrote: post #436
nirvdrum wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overestimate how much free capital the average person has. Even in my case, where I could afford an iPhone with max storage (to assuage my previously stated concerns), I'd have a really hard time justifying it. We budget pretty diligently, so we'd have to justify to ourselves why paying a premium to Apple is a better use of our capital than anything else. I came really close to buying an iPhone 8+ about a…

> I think you overestimate how much free capital the average person has. I most certainly do, but as mentioned in a sibling comment, don't most US households use carrier-financed phones? That's like, $20 - $50 extra a month? The 3 years usage period is kind of surprising to me because it clashes with my anecdotal evidence somewhat -- I've known 20+ people holding on to iPhones for 5-6 years. But I am pretty sure the…

Thanks. It's been a nice a discussion. I don't often get to engage in this sort of discourse, so it's been a fun thread.

Re: Google Fights Back

#449

Post by tekknik »

pdimitar wrote: post #164
y4mi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get 10Gbps upstream where you live? And actually afford it? Wow... That's not the case almost anywhere though. And you won't be able to access your own stuff without internet either. That's would be very annoying for music, imo.

The far Eastern Europe (Bulgaria where I live, and Romania) has one of the best internet connections in the world. ;) In my case I am on 1Gbps ingress/egress for ~43 EUR a month and could negotiate a deal for a datacenter level of a link (10Gbps) but I don't want to. The reason I'll go for 10Gbps router and a 10Gbps switch is because if you put a NAS in your home network then the gigabit speeds will never be achieved…

To each their own but this is quite a bit overkill. I’m running a gig connection (with only 40mbps ingress) with a 16TB NAS setup and it serves all my needs. People in this thread are complaining about the Apple premium but then you see people talking about buying multiple thousand USD NAS setups to get around having to use cloud storage.

Re: Google Fights Back

#450

Post by kerkeslager »

gnode wrote: post #49
kerkeslager wrote: post #6

> The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.” This is why a) free/libre software and b) Moore's law are important. Trading privacy for convenience is a real trade you can make right now, and nobody benefits from pretending it isn't--the first step to fixing that problem is to admit it exists. But…

It's not really about it being cloud based. It's about having a central trusted party with access to private data which has public utility. As an example, Tesla collects lots of private data about their users' driving, in order to train their self-driving tech. Doing this in a free software solution (if you consider the training to be part of the software) would be less practical, as it would require training journey…

> Doing this in a free software solution (if you consider the training to be part of the software) would be less practical, as it would require training journeys to be publicly available.

I think most free software folks would agree that the training data doesn't have to be public.

I do agree that there's some problem to be solve here, though. Part of the point of free software is to be able to trust that the code you are running is serving your interests. Right now I don't know of any proofs of concept of manipulating what an AI does by manipulating the training data, but it's a very plausible attack vector.

Post reply on HN