Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Announces One Pass Payment System

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-pass-to-pay-them-all dept.

Android 135

eldavojohn writes "Riding the tail of Apple's 30% announcement, Google's Eric Schmidt has announced One Pass, a new method for users to pay for content. The BBC is reporting that Google is taking a 10% cut. One Pass will work on Google sites and on phones and tablets as the announcement notes: 'Readers who purchase from a One Pass publisher can access their content on tablets, smartphones and websites using a single sign-on with an email and password. Importantly, the service helps publishers authenticate existing subscribers so that readers don't have to re-subscribe in order to access their content on new devices.' This is to be handled through Google Checkout."

cancel ×

135 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fight! (-1)

tekgoblin (1675894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35225694)

Google Vs. Apple, FIGHT!

Re:Fight! (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35225738)

Google's only charging 10% juice as opposed to Herr Jobs' 30%...FaTaLiTy!

Re:Fight! (0, Redundant)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35225772)

"This is to be handled through Google Checkout."

Who uses that?

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35225800)

not many yet, thats why they make nice stuff go through it.

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35225806)

Nobody outside the USA and UK.

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35225892)

Paypal isn't a smart choice, so it's either Checkout or CC.

Re:Fight! (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35225952)

Because?

Re:Fight! (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226046)

Because paypal has a notoriously bad customer experience if anything ever goes wrong with a purchase.

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226178)

Apple has buffered me from bad experiences on their store.
I've never had to deal with Paypal directly because Apple runs their store well.

Re:Fight! (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226202)

Paypal USED to have a bad experience, until they were sued by the US DOJ and a bunch of states. They've improved a lot - if the package gets lost, or not as advertised, you can get your money back via filing a paypal dispute.

Re:Fight! (1)

Tobenisstinky (853306) | more than 3 years ago | (#35225908)

But Google is taking 100% of where you are, what you are reading, what you are viewing, what demographic you are in ....

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35225936)

So is Apple.

Re:Fight! (1)

Majkow (604785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35225940)

and apple isn't?

Re:Fight! (3, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226064)

Actually apple isn't.

Apple will not disclose what you buy and are reading to publishers. it is why publishers are all pissed off.

Google will not only tell the publishers what you are doing but also sell that to their own ad services, so you find ads for your favorite fetish porn while reading books to your kids.

Re:Fight! (3, Funny)

dingo8baby (1262090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226082)

If it wasn't for the fetish porn, i wouldn't have kids to begin with.

Re:Fight! (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226336)

well played

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226396)

Another clueless idiot. AdWords works because GOOGLE does the selecting. Unless you CLICK THE FUCKING AD then the advertiser doesn't get any click information. Knowing Google, this will be the same. Knowing Apple, their databases will be hacked to leak everyone's data.

Re:Fight! (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226736)

Actually, the advertiser gets demographic information including the amount of times your advert was viewed. But these are just numbers and aren't associated to anyone specifically. If you saw an ad that I made, I wouldn't be able to tell it was you. You would be one out of millions without even an IP associated to any of it. People are listed only around regions but it's so you can better decide to who you want to advertise to. If you're getting a CTR that yields a higher return in Florida than in Arkansas, then you'll want to focus your money in Florida instead.

Then you have those who actually places the ads on their website. They have access to all the information they need about their current visitors with a general idea on who's coming by so they can properly place advertisements around the site depending strictly on demographics. If your website is about technology gear, then you'll want to target ads for girls if you're in a girl-centric category, same goes for guys. At the end of the day, it benefits both the visitor and the companies involved because without advertising (that works), there wouldn't be many free sites on the net. The lack of -some- privacy, even though it's completely anonymous, is a small price to pay for a generally open internet.

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226546)

Actually they are. Need I remind you about the fact that they're spying on people's GPS/cell tower locations, despite the app requesting the location has nothing to do with APL? Oh, and if you use one of their devices, you've already agreed to share it with them "and their partners"?

Re:Fight! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226816)

You have no evidence of that, and you use a strawman. SO, in short, you suck.

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226016)

And who cares? There are so many ways to get this info already, the privacy fight is dead. Whatever privacy you think you have, is an illusion. I'm not saying that because I think we shouldn't have privacy, I'm just saying it because I've recently been doing some research on myself (I'm a very private person) and the amount of info I found was staggering. Some of it is even correct, and almost none of it was posted by me directly (and thus very hard for me to prevent.) I've just given up. These days the only way you can really have privacy is by living as a hermit without any contact with other people. Even using false names only sort of works because of the many cases where partial information can be correlated with other info (shipping address for anything you actually want delivered, etc).

Re:Fight! (1, Troll)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226042)

Wrong.

Both companies record what you are reading and your personal info, which is nothing new.

What is new is that Apple, as of iOS v4, is tracking your exact (GPS) location and is selling the data (after making it anonymous) to other companies. That was widely reported last July when it was announced.

On Android that is opt-in. Google is only tracking who decide they are OK with being tracked and Google has never sold user data.

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226618)

If Google did sell data, they'd be unofficially dead tomorrow. So much industry attention is on them, waiting for Google to stumble, that we'd never hear the end of it over the next 2 years; and the government would wage a competitor-driven war against Google.

But if Bing was caught selling user data, then little focus would be given to it.

I used to be annoyed at the hypocricy. Now I just don't care what happens. Business is never fair or just.

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35225950)

Google's only charging 10% juice as opposed to Herr Jobs' 30%...FaTaLiTy!

But you have to host the content yourself, and users have to accept the risk you might go out of business - REVERSE FATALITY!

Re:Fight! (2)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226570)

Google is willing to give away customer data. Apple is not.

As a consumer, I'll take the Apple road.

Re:Fight! (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226128)

>>>Google Vs. Apple, FIGHT!

Apple creates Safari.
Google strikes-back with Chrome for with below 50 MB memory usage.

Apple release new iMac for $500!
Google releases PC for $100.
FATALITY.
Google wins.

Re:Fight! (2)

pasamio (737659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227206)

Apple steals "KHTML" from KDE and calls it "Safari"
Apple releases their browser code and calls it "WebKit"
Google takes "WebKit" and calls it "Chrome"

Wait what?

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35227312)

And Chromium is infinitely better than that abortion called Safari. Rendering engines aren't everything.

Re:Fight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226582)

Google wins [googlefight.com]

Google Checkout? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35225728)

You mean the payment system that's only available to businesses in about three countries and completely useless to the rest of the world?

Re:Google Checkout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35225962)

You mean the payment system that's only available to businesses in about three countries and completely useless to the rest of the world?

This sums it up. Google may offer a lot of services but outside USA it's essentially just a search engine. Voice, checkout etc are not even available in Canada.

Re:Google Checkout? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226510)

This sums it up. Google may offer a lot of services but outside USA it's essentially just a search engine. Voice, checkout etc are not even available in Canada.

Canada... isn't that another one of those made-up places, like Imagination Land?

Amen (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226072)

I guess being next door to US, Canada doesn't count as a worthy place to have Checkout available to merchants but they sure don't tell you that till you sing up and then get shafted.

Re:Amen (2)

Reapman (740286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226294)

Eh? I have a merchant account with Google and I'm in Canada.... Granted I'm talking Android, maybe your refering to something else..

Re:Amen (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227284)

You can pay, you cant sell

Re:Amen (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227370)

Well, I sell Apps on the Android Market...

Re:Amen (-1, Troll)

denaircompressor (1997946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227502)

denair air compressor [denaircompressor.net] china's best air compressor seller, germer import monitor

Re:Amen (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227586)

links in slashdot comments don't help page rank, fool. also nobody wants your chinese made garbage

Re:Amen (2)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35228330)

Actually its the other way around. More countries are able to sell apps on the Android Market than are able to buy them.

Re:Google Checkout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226076)

That is the one !

Re:Google Checkout? (2)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226122)

Google would love it if the whole world is using its payment system. The problem is laws (esp. financial regulation), lack of law enforcement and corruption in a lot of countries, not Google. Some countries are just more trouble than they are worth.

Re:Google Checkout? (1)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226196)

... lack of law enforcement and corruption in a lot of countries, not Google. Some countries are just more trouble than they are worth.

First they take on corruption in China, now they're taking on corruption in Canada! Thank God for Google!

Re:Google Checkout? (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226290)

That would be down to the differences in financial regulation. It is smarter for Google to start with US and get the system working within the largest market then add countries one by one, than to try to setup a system to handle every single country in one go. It was same with Paypal, they started with US only and now they handle 100+ countries.

Largest market (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226952)

It is smarter for Google to start with US and get the system working within the largest market

"Largest market" has more than one meaning. The People's Republic of China has more population than the USA, as does India. The 27 states of the European Union also have more population than the 50 states of the USA.

Re:Largest market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35227650)

The 27 states of the European Union are either countries with different laws, or in the case of the UK, 3 different sets of laws, so at least 29 jurisdictions.

Re:Largest market (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227932)

The 27 states of the European Union are either countries with different laws

The 50 states of the United States of America are states with different laws. I'd compare the current organization of the European Union to that of the united States of America* for their first decade, when they operated under the Articles of Confederation. I'm pretty sure the EU will go down the same path fairly soon, with member states ceding more sovereignty over commerce among the several states to the EU in the next round of treaties after Lisbon.

* small-u united = confederation, 1776-1788; big-U United = federal republic, 1789-

Re:Largest market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35228332)

OK, I would think one meaning of Largest Market for an online payment system that is most likely to be used is the market that spends the most money online

Re:Google Checkout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226654)

I imagine this will use their Android version of checkout which, and I quote, supports:

Merchants in Argentina*, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil*, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel*, Italy, Japan, Mexico*, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia*, Singapore, Spain, South Korea*, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan*, United Kingdom, and the United States can also use Google Checkout to sell applications on Android Market.

Re:Google Checkout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226694)

You mean the payment system that's only available to businesses in about three countries and completely useless to the rest of the world?

Wait... there are 3 countries?

Re:Google Checkout? (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226978)

Hey, it beats having the retailer (*cough*Amazon*cough*) decide for me whether or not I can buy something from a foreign vendor with a card issued in the US.

Re:Google Checkout? (2)

alostpacket (1972110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227500)

That's not true for the mobile/Android Market stuff. They also have 7 countries for publishers for the launch of this service (From the Goog blog link: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. -- did you read the link? I'm betting not ).

Anyways, your criticism seems a bit off. I'm sure those 7 will increase as they get the details sorted. So while maybe you can do a worldwide simultaneous launch of a financial transaction system, us mere mortals understand that some things take time to get underway.

Here's the Android Market:

Currently, developers in the below countries may register as Google Checkout merchants and sell paid applications:

http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=150324 [google.com]

1. Agentina
2. Australia
3. Austria
4. Belgium
6. Brazil
7. Canada
8. Czech Republic
9. Denmark
10. Finland
11. France
12. Germany
13. HongKong
14. India
15. Ireland
16. Israel
17. Italy
18. Japan
19. Mexico
20. Netherlands
21. New Zeland
22. Norway
23. Poland (Don't forget about Poland!)
24. Portugal
25. Russia
26. Singapore
27. South Korea
28. Spain
29. Sweden
30. Switzerland
31. Taiwan
32. United Kingdom
33. United States



/Poland -- never forget.

Awesome, now get cut the OEMs in (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35225752)

So they have some reason to upgrade old phones. They aren't going to do it with no incentive.

Otherwise you might as well just quit now cause devs will either target the phone with the features they want and have a limited amount of potential customers until everyone has completed the 2 year contract upgrade cycle OR devs will target 1.6 to get the largest audience and well, it won't be worth bothering with Android devices.

Re:Awesome, now get cut the OEMs in (1)

LodCrappo (705968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226022)

From another article:

"It won't be limited to Android, either. Google says that One pass "offers payments in mobile apps, in instances where the mobile OS terms permit transactions to take place outside of the app market". Not the iPhone then, but it's possible we could see One Pass on BlackBerry OS, WebOS, Windows Mobile or even Symbian."

Sounds like the payments are done in the apps, not the OS. If so, should work fine on older Android systems, no need for an update from oems.

Re:Awesome, now get cut the OEMs in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226246)

If you want to stay relevant, you sometimes have to do both. Bleeding edge users affect your reputation the most. We've already set up an additional compile path on Gingerbread to use native audio. Eventually we'd have to do it anyway as devices merge in that direction.

Comparison (1, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35225764)

It will be interesting to see how these systems (OnePass and Apple's App Store) compare. Does anyone know if Google is hosting the content free of charge on the Google App store, or is this payment system independent of hosting? It seems like the latter from the two articles I read, but they were both vague. In the end I suppose most publishers will use both to target the most eyeballs, but with both mobile powerhouses stepping in, Amazon and B&N and Sony are going to have to step up their game.

Re:Comparison (2)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226150)

I think there are more important issues then where the content is hosted.

The most important so far is the 30% cut Apple is taking versus Google's 10%.

Apple's system is opt-in for providing publishers with your contact info, whereas Google is opt-out (by default they will provide your contact info, including e-mail address).

Also important, Apple's system only works on Apple devices and doesn't let you take your content with you if you want to use a non-Apple device.

Google's system attempts to work everywhere (it has a browser version). If the browser version of Google's service uses Flash (for the DRM) it won't work on Apple devices and Apple would block it from their App Store, so it might not be available on Apple devices.

I've often wondered whether that is one of the main reasons why Apple blocked Flash - it gives companies a way to deliver protected content to Apple users without Apple tax and approval? Doing DRM in javascript is possible but very difficult and probably less effective.

Re:Comparison (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35228210)

One other big difference is that Apple is requiring that prices for products sold via their system are the same or better as in any outside sales channel the seller may also provide.

Ownership (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35225870)

I think it's very misleading when they say it's "our content" which "we own".
You don't own the content unless it's in your possession.
In the virtual world I have a Beam Rifle and a Plasma Sword but it doesn't mean that I "own" one.

Who the customer is... (4, Interesting)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226054)

The big difference for me between Apple's and Google's approach isn't the 30% / 10% - that can be changed by either party in either direction at any time. The freakin' huge difference is in the user-privacy settings.
  • Apple make the user specifically opt-in on a case-by-case basis for letting the publisher grab hold of your name & zip-code
  • Google by default send your name, zip-code, email address to the publisher.

In Google's eyes, you are the product they are selling to the customer (the publisher). In Apple's eyes, you are the customer. I know which I prefer.

Simon

Re:Who the customer is... (2)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226112)

While I appreciate the implications of this sort of thing I don't see the problem in this situation.

If I purchased directly from the publisher wouldn't I be providing that information anyway? If I were a publisher I'd definitely like to know who's buying from me so why should I be blocked from getting that info?

Re:Who the customer is... (2)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226526)

While I appreciate the implications of this sort of thing I don't see the problem in this situation.

If I purchased directly from the publisher wouldn't I be providing that information anyway? If I were a publisher I'd definitely like to know who's buying from me so why should I be blocked from getting that info?

But if you buy from Amazon, both Amazon and the publisher get your information. If you buy from Google then Google, the publisher and anyone else that Google wants will get your information.

Re:Who the customer is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226846)

Are you the kind of person who edits Wikipedia by providing citations to your own posts here on Slashdot -- as if they are authoritative sources?

Re:Who the customer is... (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226894)

Because I don't want you to know I am reading your publication, for what ever reason. Maybe I don't want people knowing I subscribe to 2600, or high times, or Visual Basic magazine... especially not Visual Basic Magazine.

Just because you sell me something doesn't mean you have the right to my information.

Re:Who the customer is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226146)

In Apple's eyes, you are too dumb to make your own choices. You don't need access to web content that uses a format Apple doesn't like. You don't need a variety of form factors and options, instead you will be happy with exactly what everyone else gets, regardless of your actual needs.

Do not want.

Re:Who the customer is... (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226180)

Until Apple changes it's mind or caves in. Anyhow giving your details to the subscriber is what you do today when you subscibe to the paper variant, why is this all of a sudden a privacy violation?

Re:Who the customer is... (0)

LodCrappo (705968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226194)

How exactly is Google "selling" your information? It makes for a nice little quip, but I don't see truth here.

You know, there was a time when publications would not sell you a subscription without your *full mailing address* (the horror). Is a name, email and zip code really that big of a deal?

Re:Who the customer is... (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226316)

This is why I vow to only subscribe to paper magazines! This way they'll NEVER figure out my name, zip-code, or email !!!

Re:Who the customer is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226362)

I buy mine from either a news stand, or the apple store.
I don't care to have the magazine resell my information to their advertisers.

[sigh] (1, Troll)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226442)

Yes, yes, it's obvious that the old-fashioned way was just as egregious. That's not really the point.

Let me try and put it using a different allegory...

In olden-days, in order to subscribe to XYZ weekly, you had to present your backside to the publisher, who took a run-up, and then kicked your arse as hard as he could with his hob-nail boots. You'd go flying through the air to land in the cold, wet slush outside Ye Olde Publisher Shoppe. Dripping wet, soaked to the skin, you'd go home and nurse yourself through the resultant pneumonia whilst reading your periodical.

On Googleworld, this still applies, even for virtual periodicals. You still get the whopping big kick up the arse, and you can then read your periodical.

On Appleworld, you get to choose whether the publisher kicks you up the arse. Some people will choose 'Yes, please. Kick me up the arse', presumably for some suitable trade-off in kind. Most people will not.

Just because it was always thus is no justification for it to remain so. Apple are looking after the customer here; Google are selling the customer out to the publisher in the name of Mammon (as well as using the personal details themselves, of course).

Simon

Re:[sigh] (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226602)

No, on Appleworld, you get to pick whether Apple kicks you up the arse, or the publisher does. Either way, you get an arse-kicking. Apple just uses immaculately tailored boots instead of the publishers old hobnails.

Re:[sigh] (2)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226692)

Well, if you're going to bring in the retailer (to somewhat strain the analogy), you get to choose between:

AppleWorld: Apple kick you up the arse.

GoogleWorld: Both Google and the publisher kick you up the arse.

Google's kick is an especially hard one (they've been watching mythbusters, and have a specially-designed hydraulic arse-kicking machine) because of how far and wide they track you.Both Apple and the publisher are relatively small-potatoes compared to the stratosphere-reaching implications of being kicked up the arse by Google.

Simon.

Re:Who the customer is... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226320)

This is entirely false. Read the ToS for Google Checkout. Google don't send anything to the seller that you don't want sent - including email address. They send the seller an anonymized email address for correspondence if necessary.

Re:Who the customer is... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227560)

They send the seller an anonymized email address for correspondence if necessary.

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter (using an anonymous email address, of course)

Re:Who the customer is... (1)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226452)

One is opt-in, one is opt-out.

You think that is more important then the 20% difference?

Re:Who the customer is... (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227616)

it's not a 20% difference, it's a 300% difference, apple charges 3 times as much as google, conversely google charges one third as much as apple.

Re:Who the customer is... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226578)

user "privacy" settings.. about as effective as the 'close door' button on the elevator.. You are not the customer. You are an "ugly bag of money".

Re:Who the customer is... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226872)

" In Apple's eyes, you are the customer."
BWAHAHAHAhahahah.. of thats rich.

You need to stop listening to Apples press rleases. or rather, learn to think properly when reading them.
Here:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/16/2132225/Google-Announces-One-Pass-Payment-System#comments [slashdot.org]

"Apple says customer privacy will be protected and users will be prompted with an option to share their name, email and zip or postal code with a publisher when they subscribe. When a user shares information, personal info will be governed by a publisher's privacy policy and not Apple's, the company says."

No explain to me how a publisher can get all the information it need to set up the service, and yet not know who you are?
In other word, you won't have a choice if you want the subscription. This is a magician choice; where you ahve the illusion of control, but for all practicality, you do not.

Re:Who the customer is... (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227018)

In Apple's eyes you are leasing their property, you don't own your own hardware.

Re:Who the customer is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35228136)

You are a product to Apple as well. They may not give the information to the publisher but to think Apple won't use it in a way similar to how a publisher would use it is naive in the extreme.

Instead of publisher X saying: Space Cowboy likes to read about topics A, C and D I will use that information.

Apple will say: Hey publisher X, Space Cowboy likes to read about topics A, C and D which you publish information about. Would you like to pay for us to advertise to him/her?

This is bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35228228)

Google by default send your name, zip-code, email address to the publisher.

Do you want to give us a cite for this horse shit?

Credit card comparison (1)

ApharmdB (572578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226160)

Who would have ever thought that the 1-3% service fee that credit cards take from retail & other transactions could be considered small? Kudos to Google & Apple for managing to make Visa & Mastercard look good.

Re:Credit card comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226372)

To be fair, the closer comparison (Google Checkout) takes a maximum of 2.9% + 30 cents per transaction (less with sufficient volume), which is pretty much in line with the credit card service fees.

Re:Credit card comparison (1)

Aquitaine (102097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226950)

It's more like 2-4% these days, and that's apples to oranges. You aren't making your purchase because you found something on Visa or Mastercard's web site. Visa and Mastercard didn't build the mall you were shopping in when you found the product. Apple and Google are selling marketplaces - not just handling the financial processing.

Re:Credit card comparison (1)

robogun (466062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35228266)

Google and some would argue Apple are providing marketplaces - a single go-to point for files for specific devices.

A better comparo might be Ebay, which rapes its sellers for an average of 25%, once listing fees, closing fees, monthly Store subscriptions, and mandatory Paypal fees are accounted for.

Google becoming less relevent (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226318)

Google did a good search engine. Even more important Google understood that it had to provide good service so that people who knew better would allow Google to set a cookie on the computer for the ad side of the business. The ad side of Google is about as ethical of 2o7, so without the search the ad business would be worth much less.

But search is not going so well. JC Penny hacked Google [google.com] for months before the NY Times called them on it, and now it is unclear if Google will or can do anything about it. JC Penny did nothing illegal. Given the current state of technology, Google no longer has a relevant search engine. It is too easily hacked. Often the top searches are ad farms that auto generate random phrases to match a search. I am more and more going to known good locations for answers. It reminds me of then the web got too big for Yahoo to hand pick sites or too popular for key words to be a honest proxy for Alta Vista to index. Google can whine that what JC Penny did was unfair, but whining is not going to fix search. Maybe MS will fix search, and Google will see ad revenue drop.

And what is my point? Instead of innovating search, Google is copying what everyone else is doing. Now, Docs might be good enough to allow Google to dominate ads, but I can see the day coming when I am going to turn off the Google cookie. Certainly checkout is not valuable enough to trade personal information. Google should fix search and not just complain that others are doing perfectly reasonable thing to maximize their profile. Link farms are not the evil. Bad Google algorithms are. And as long as Google plays me too, they will not be in the forefront. If we think this cannot happen, look at Nokia.

Re:Google becoming less relevent (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226644)

I think that you offended a google fan with mod point...

Re:Google becoming less relevent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226748)

Hey look. It's another one of Bonch's shill alts.

Re:Google becoming less relevent (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227454)

Yeah, except with almost everything Google was the leader, or they did it better.

This search thing with JCPenny? it has been fixed..

And link farms are wrong. However why you even begin to think Google wont' fix it is beyond me. They have had issues like this before, and fixed them. There history is very solid,. Could that change? certainly, but there is no evidence of that happening at this time.

Too much stuff associated with one identity... (3, Insightful)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226322)

I really like google, but I don't like the idea of associating SO much with my online google identity. I've still not "linked" my youtube and gmail accounts. I have a Google Checkout account, but only because I trust them more than I other companies like Buy.com and don't want to bother creating a Buy.com account.

The part that strikes conflict in me is having entertainment and education video associated with my google account. That alone is enough to extrapolate any political leanings, sexual preference, likely circle of friends, etc...

Summary of realms I keep separate online:
Gaming
Video Entertainment
Buying Habits
Career/Work
Tech Communities
Humor Communities

I would really prefer to keep all that separate and Google's not making it easy.

Re:Too much stuff associated with one identity... (1)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226532)

Personally I like having so much of my data with a single company - it makes it easier to keep an eye on.

With Google, I know that they will use it to advertise to me, but they won't sell it or leak it. If that changes I will hear about it.

If that data were spread amongst ten companies there would be no way I could keep track of it and feel comfortable that it wasn't be sold or spilled.

Re:Too much stuff associated with one identity... (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227918)

I'm not so sure about choosing to defy a single huge bully rather than many wimpy ones. At least with each little advertiser, one has your name, but not your birthday, or location, or preference in pr0n search terms. Google* being your "single point of failure" is very dangerous dangerous when the failure involves ALL your data at once.

Big bully means "Google" or Apple, or even our wife --all are bad but well-informed single points of failure. The point is that anyone that has enough confidential information can ruin you, and your "I will hear about it" only works out well if the transgression you "hear" about it is slow enough that you can jump ship without being affected, and obvious enough to be discovered and stopped. Think of how ineffective it is to "recover" by suing a person that already destroyed your liver prescribing the wrong medicine for years, or negligently crushed your spine with their car without your getting an advance permission slip in the mail :)

Re:Too much stuff associated with one identity... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226940)

It doesn't matter.

If you are going to do something online, then use Google.
The difference between something being 'easy' for them and 'hard' is about 2 minutes

All you shit can be link together be experts. So why make it hard on yourself?

The only way there are truly separate is you only do each one from a different computer, in a different location and never use the same data. like CC, or paypal.
So, it's not really practical.

Re:Too much stuff associated with one identity... (2)

gox (1595435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227700)

+1

Having my e-mail account linked to some video sharing web-site or even social networking is not a big deal. I can create unlinked new accounts anytime I like and inform whomever I need to keep in touch with. I change my accounts all the time when I feel uncomfortable with the provider or the identity itself. But having some personal property associated with my on-line identity is like an anchor. I hope that they implement it in a way that you can disassociate identities, at least the data linked to those identities if need be. I like being able to redirect my main e-mail address to a GMail account and using it as a data store. Yes it's easy to trace but I at least know that I can opt-out without suffering much. This new thing looks as if I would have to close all my "other" Google accounts if I really need to distance myself from one of the associated identities.

This is BS.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35226604)

All this crap about companies starting to charge just to distribute the content is going to bite them in the ass. What this is going to do is drive news content to be distributed freely as part of a twitter aggregator app that will scrape the data and present the news in a customized version for the end user. Screw Apple, Screw Google, Screws Newscorp and anyone else that tries to impose this scalping model. Really, you're not as important as you think you are.. And everyone may just discover that some day soon....

Continental OnePass (1)

KPU (118762) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226880)

Great, now I can spend my Continental OnePass miles [continental.com] to buy content.

One Pass to rule them all.. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35226966)

But beware, if you use it The Eye of Sergey will be fixed on you.

That's one "pass"? right? Not one "click"? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35227920)

Just want to be sure no patents are being infringed here...

Again Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35228120)

A day late and a dollar short. Google cries "me too, me too" once again. For once I would like to start seeing Google bring the innovations to the world rather then following in kind. They have the knowledge, manpower and money to create some very good things, and while they make things better for the most part, its hard to put a finger on what Google has really done that is "new". Late to the browser game, late to social networking, late to the OS game, wasn't the first web search, wasn't the first to bring ads, wasn't the first to make a phone OS, wasn't the first to offer online email services, wasn't the first to bring the Cloud to the world.... this list goes on.

I think Google needs take the "beta" sticker off the company and make something unexpected and new for a change.

Net Neutrality My #$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35228308)

Google is a company that backs net neutrality. And then it goes and levies a gatekeeping charge on top of content? Man, I don't like the telco's imposing their will any more than anybody, but when shenanigans like this are the norm, no wonder the telco's want to get more money for desirable content. I think this basically should remove any illusions about net neutrality. As difficult as it may be to make it succeed, I think FreedomBox is our best hope.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?