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!

Going All-Google To Replace Your PC and TV Service

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the owning-things-is-so-90s dept.

Android 134

GMGruman writes "James Curnow writes 'Google's vision of computing involves tossing your PC or Mac and moving to a cloud-centric, all-Google ecosystem. Call it the Googleplex: a mix of the Chrome OS-based Chromebox PC or Chromebook laptop, one or more Android tablets — perhaps a 10-inch model for work and a 7-inch Nexus 7 for entertainment on the go — and a Nexus Q home entertainment system that you control via an Android device.' So he takes the 'Googleplex' for a test drive to see how well it delivers on the Android/Chrome OS vision." But what about throwing xbmc or MythTV onto an old (or cheap new) box with a couple of huge drives (HDTV's being glorified monitors and all)?

cancel ×

134 comments

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

LOL! Hahahahahahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195171)

No, thanks. Do not want!

Re:LOL! Hahahahahahaha! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195343)

You WILL take the cock, and you WILL, through your screams which only fuel the passion, enjoy it. Dissidence will be silenced forcefully. Refusal will be met with immediate termination.

Re:LOL! Hahahahahahaha! (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41195467)

So... In other words... [moonbuggy.org]

I think I get it now...

PC? No. TV? Meh. (2)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#41197819)

Replace my primary data storage with cloud services? Not a chance. Run my applications cloud-based off cloud-based storage rather than on local storage? No, that's way too slow; even serving disks across Wifi is slow. Not only is it not cost-effective, and not performance-effective, but more importantly, I don't control my data that way.

Get most of my TV from Google/Hulu/Netflix/etc. instead of Comcast? Meh. Most of it's probably there, and digital broadcast TV probably looks better than analog most of the time, but still, it doesn't strike me as worth the trouble.

Sounds like a dream come true... (4, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41195185)

... for advertisers.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (3, Insightful)

dimeglio (456244) | about 2 years ago | (#41195277)

Advertisements already pay for "free" TV (well, some of it). If Google can give away software and cloud services using advertising why isn't that a reasonable option?

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (5, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41195325)

We're not talking about the generic TV advertisements we just fast forward over using the DVR. We're talking 24/7 tracking, personalized, invasive, interactive commercialization being thrust at your face any time you interact with an electronic device. I'm surprised anyone in the AdBlock Plus crowd (which presumably includes most of Slashdot) would even consider going near this paradigm.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#41195357)

Perhaps because its not all that bad? Assuming there would be no possible way for the government to use this information (which is really the main threat) how is being able to have more relevant ads directed at you a bad thing? Especially if it means cheaper hardware?

Consider cable TV for instance, despite the fact you are paying your cable provider who is then paying the networks for content, you still have ads with few exceptions. Even the networks that don't run ads still have annoying interruptions (this is especially true in radio also).

When it comes down to it though, as long as the content is being displayed on your device and runs through your local network, you have the ability to control it and you always will.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (5, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41195453)

Assuming there would be no possible way for the government to use this information ...

"No possible way"? If this information exists then the government is always one small step away from accessing it.

... how is being able to have more relevant ads directed at you a bad thing?

You might want to ask the teenager who wasn't ready to tell her parents she was pregnant, whose home started receiving pregnancy related targeted advertising. Pick something you are not ready to share with parents or a spouse or your boss (advertising goes to work not home - for example ads in a browser when your boss walks in), reapply the preceding.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41195623)

If it works as well as the current round of 'targeted advertising' your pregnant teenager might well get Viagra adverts.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41196001)

If it works as well as the current round of 'targeted advertising' your pregnant teenager might well get Viagra adverts.

Humor aside, you are confusing spam with targeted advertising. Spam is about as non-targeted as you can get.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (2)

edumacator (910819) | about 2 years ago | (#41196759)

Spam is about as non-targeted as you can get.

It is!?!

Thank God, I thought all those Extenze and V!agra ads came from sites my wife had been surfing. I feel so much better now.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41197067)

Speaking of targeted advertising, I want to know how they all found out I have such a small penis.

That case was more a problem for Target (1, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41197317)

You might want to ask the teenager who wasn't ready to tell her parents she was pregnant

She told them because she wanted to. Not because she HAD to. Otherwise she could have just said "I don't know why I'm getting this stuff". I mean, it's just advertising. Why would her parents not have believed her?

In that scenario Target was worse off than the girl, because the parents were angry with them at first.

(advertising goes to work not home - for example ads in a browser when your boss walks in)

How is that going to happen? Are you logging on to personal websites at work? If it's cookie based stuff, how would it follow you there?

Re:That case was more a problem for Target (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41197481)

Are you logging on to personal websites at work?

I'm not but plenty of people do. Chat with someone who does tech support for a company and ask them what they find in browser histories.

If it's cookie based stuff, how would it follow you there?

We are discussing google services which require a login, not cookies.

Re:That case was more a problem for Target (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41197581)

I'm not but plenty of people do.

Right, people that wouldn't care. So, problem solved.

We are discussing google services which require a login, not cookies.

For those that care you use Firefox with privacy turned on. That's how I would access any Google service from a system not my own (and sometimes even from my own system).

Again, you are really making too big a deal out of something people would not generally care about much. I don't recall ads delivered by google to ever have been so NSFW I would ever care if a boss saw them. You get those ads on porn sites, and if you are surfing those at work well then, good luck to you I say because IT is ALSO WATCHING YOUR PORN.

Re:That case was more a problem for Target (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41197873)

We are discussing google services which require a login, not cookies.

For those that care you use Firefox with privacy turned on. That's how I would access any Google service from a system not my own (and sometimes even from my own system).

How does private browsing prevent google from knowing who you are, again you **logged into** a google service.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195471)

You won't have the ability to control it. Google will have your media and decide what you can and cannot use. People bitch about Amazon pulling a book over legal issues and you're really ready to trust Google not to fuck you?
 
I have some seafront property in Montana to sell you... cheap!

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (3)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41195475)

When it comes down to it though, as long as the content is being displayed on your device and runs through your local network, you have the ability to control it and you always will.

Not if that content is copyrighted.

I think you overstate people's tolerance for ads these days. Hulu Plus is... I canceled it after less than a month of using it. And how long can you browse without AdBlock turned on before you go nuts?

Just Flashblock for me (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41195665)

And how long can you browse without AdBlock turned on before you go nuts?

I don't use an ad blocker; I just use an SWF blocker, which keeps advertising at a tolerable level. If advertisers have something substantial to say, surely they can boil it down to text or a still JPEG, and if so, let 'em. Flash ads are for video sites like YouTube and Newgrounds.

Re:Just Flashblock for me (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 2 years ago | (#41196051)

This presumes you want Google in your life at all. They belong in your hosts file under 127.0.0.1 as their terms of service are largely indentured servitude. No Google Apps? Have a better day.

The model of give-up-your privacy for free and seductive half-apps has to go.

Easy, browse with Flash blocked (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41197365)

Not if that content is copyrighted.

Dude! That makes NO SENSE. The key is in that first part of the term, "COPYright".

If material is copyrighted you can't re-distribute it, but you can sure as hell block, mangle or ignore it locally as you please.

Hulu Plus is... I canceled it after less than a month of using it.

Yet millions do in fact pay for it so we can see how far off the norm you are in regards to advertising.

And how long can you browse without AdBlock turned on before you go nuts?

I don't use any ad-blockers because I like the sites I enjoy, all free, to continue to exist.

But realistically they way I tolerate the web is to have a flash-blocker on. That gets rid of the really obnoxious stuff, especially pop-unders (yes I have popup blocking enabled, but I just click randomly on paged I read out of habit and that often triggers pop-unders).

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (3, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 2 years ago | (#41195693)

personalized, invasive, interactive commercialization being thrust at your face any time you interact with an electronic device

I dunno about 'invasive' but frankly I wish ads *were* more personalized to me. I'm not going to buy a Ford Truck or talk to my doctor about Cialis. I'm not interested in tampons, Sunny D or a Verizon cell phone.... Tell me about something I might care about. Of course if Facebook is anything to go by, that's an impossibility - They can't get it right either.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (4)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#41195925)

The problem is, we already have that. It's called Amazon's suggestions. And it usually does a pretty good job. What it does not do is provide a reason for the product vendors to spend money on financing unrelated things like TV shows.

Unfortunately for companies like Google and Facebook, the only way targeted advertising can work well is if it is done by a company that actually sells products and knows what a given person has actually been buying. You can't realistically hope to guess what someone is going to be interested in buying based on what they search for or what they talk about (unless they're searching product listings, and even then, without the ability to delete stuff from your search history, searches are useless). It just doesn't work that way. I talk about computers all the time. That doesn't mean I'm in the market for buying a Dell. I'm pretty much a Mac-only house except for a couple of Linux boxen (either old junk hardware or self-built). And I rarely buy software; I have software that does what I need. And I rarely buy computer peripherals. So pretty much anything I talk about on Facebook or search for through Google is going to be a red herring.

Worse, in a world where just about everything has product reviews on Amazon, if you don't make a good product, it doesn't matter how much advertising you do. When buying products that cost more than a few bucks, most people research the product through such a site. Thus, we're rapidly moving to a point where R&D spending is crucial to sales, and advertising only matters if the potential buyer has never heard of your product.

Which leads me to the ultimate realization that, at least in the long term, advertising is dead. With the availability of better alternatives that do a great job of showing you things that you want to buy (and only while you're in a shopping mood), there's just no room for advertising in a modern society. Apart from advertising to encourage consumption of cheap trinkets like cans of Coke or movie tickets or whatever, advertising can't realistically provide much benefit to the advertisers above what they get from "people who bought X also bought Y", coupled with reviews. And even then, the value is dubious unless the viewers just happen to be hungry or in the mood to go watch a movie in a crowded theater with a sticky floor and screaming kids throwing popcorn at them.

Unfortunately for Big Media, this means that in the fairly near future, content creators are going to have to face up to reality and choose one of two paths: direct sales or patronage. Ad-supported content is on the way out, and the sooner everyone acknowledges this, the sooner we can move on to more sustainable business models.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (3, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41196397)

That's a narrow view of advertising, one that I suggest is incomplete.

Let's say, hypothetically, there is a Coca-Cola ad on the side of this page, even though you rarely drink Coke, and have no plans to drink more at the moment. And let's say you only superficially see and note it. And you still don't rush to the vending machine to purchase a coke.

Has the ad failed? I say probably not. For most people, they may subconsciously note that Coke is a common thing to drink, a tasty thing to drink, and there may be a statistical increase in the likelihood that they purchase one a week from now, a month from now, with some restaurant meal.

In other words, advertising has long term payoffs, from simply informing customers about a product to getting into a person's subconscious.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#41196985)

I have a degree in communications. I'm well aware of that purpose of advertising. However, as I understand it, those subconscious effects primarily change a person's impulse buying choice between commodity products (products for which there is little to no differentiation between vendors' goods). The more expensive the buy, the less likely people are to buy on impulse. The more differentiation between goods, the more likely people are to have a strong preference.

The problem is that although there's still a lot of impulse buying, it is mostly for stuff that would piss people off if they had to watch ads for it, like laundry detergent. These days, the ads people would choose to watch, if they were allowed to choose ads (but were forced to watch ads), would be ads for products that are actually interesting. Unfortunately, apart from informing the customer of what is out there on the market (which sites like Amazon can do much better), those ads are unlikely to sway their buying decision because of the instant availability of reviews and other information that provide much better differentiation than ads possibly could.

As the amount of available ad-free content grows, people get more annoyed by ads, and tolerate them less, choosing ad-free alternatives instead. This futher compounds the problem, both by reducing the number of people who see the ads and by associating a negative emotion (annoyance) with the product being advertised, which is likely to do more harm than good. And even if people don't get annoyed at the ads for commodity producers like Coke or Tide, they can't possibly provide enough advertising dollars to support all of the world's media needs.

Incidentally, the opinion that advertising's effetiveness is waning is supported [marketingtoday.com] by [adweek.com] studies [theequitykicker.com] .

Now I will admit that there is still the possibility of replacing some of that ad revenue with money from product placement, but there aren't enough companies who could benefit from that to pay the bills long-term, IMO, and that doesn't work nearly as well for non-entertainment content (news, for example). And it certainly won't work as a means of paying the cost of developing software, maintaining websites, etc.

Unless, of course, this post was a paid product advertisement for Tide, in which case... well, call me a shill.

Aha! Theories disassembled (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41197407)

The more differentiation between goods, the more likely people are to have a strong preference.

Consider Coke and Pepsi. The difference between them really is minor, and yet they evoke incredibly strong preferences in just about anyone I've ever met.

although there's still a lot of impulse buying, it is mostly for stuff that would piss people off if they had to watch ads for it, like laundry detergent.

Are you sure about that? People seem to hold strongly onto laundry detergent brands.

These days, the ads people would choose to watch, if they were allowed to choose ads (but were forced to watch ads), would be ads for products that are actually interesting.

So what is interesting about deodorant? And yet - Old Spice Guy.

If the only advertising that will work anymore is interesting advertising, then that is the ad agencies job, to make ANY product advertising interesting. There is no product so lowly or humble that interesting advertising cannot be created for it. The days where you could simply slap a logo up and people would be forced to stare at it for 20 seconds are over, so the advertising industry has to adapt. But it can, we have already seen it do so.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41197845)

there may be a statistical increase in the likelihood that they purchase one a week from now, a month from now, with some restaurant meal.

There is only one fluid you should drink with a restaurant meal, and that is water. Anything else affects the taste of the meal.

The chef and / or his staff has sweated in the kitchen to make your broiled fish taste just right and you're going to spoil it with a glass of sugary water? The chef should come out and smack you.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41196313)

I believe we'll soon hit an "uncanny valley" when it comes to personalized ads... we aren't there yet though. When I say "uncanny valley", I mean the ads are so well targeted that you could believe a friend, relative, or other close person is actually hand-picking out ads for you and placing them on your screen. Almost like the ads are predicting that you'll need something before you even realize you need it. A lot of us will be seriously creeped out for a while until we figure out how to deal with this technology properly.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (1, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 2 years ago | (#41195723)

You prefer random advertisements that have nothing to do with your interests?

I don't want to watch the commercials I see most of the time on television because they don't interest me. Every now and then I'm skipping forward on the PVR and see a commercial that interests me and rewind. I know lots of other people do it too.

So my other choice is the option to have less* advertising that's more targeted because it actually knows some stuff about me that's useful for filtering my probable interests. Wow, that sounds terrible.

*in all likelihood, it would be less, since targeted ads should obviously pay better than random advertising.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (3, Interesting)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about 2 years ago | (#41195775)

Of course, all this talk about targeted vs. untargeted ads ignores the elephant in the room: People don't like ads at all, and will block them if possible. Why even bother debating targeted vs. untargeted when it's clear that the majority will choose no ads, knowing that it's an option?

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (0)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 2 years ago | (#41197463)

To be fair, I don't think that's true. Advertising works for a reason -- people do actually want to know about new products, they do want to be told about options and offers and sales. The sick truth is people do actually appreciate advertising. cf. the old adcritic website.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 2 years ago | (#41195957)

We wouldn't.

Sincerely,

Some of the AdBlock Plus crowd.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 2 years ago | (#41195963)

So, basically, we're talking about Google becoming Apple?

No thank you.

Re:Sounds like a dream come true... (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41196289)

I'm not sure how you make that analogy. Apple's business model is to sell hardware. Ads and iTunes purchases are just gravy to them. For now, however, Google's primary business model is advertising. Obviously, you can infer I hope they diversify away from that model...

A MythTV box? (3, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | about 2 years ago | (#41195187)

But what about throwing xbmc or MythTV onto an old (or cheap new) box with a couple of huge drives (HDTV's being glorified monitors and all)?

But then the content would be cached in a large cheap local buffer, and not streamed from the cloud over bandwidth-constrained wired or wireless connections. Not only would MAFIAA not approve, but Google/Doubleclick wouldn't get analytics/metrics.

You didn't think that the availability of cheap general-purpose computing hardware was supposed to benefit the consumer, did you?

Re:A MythTV box? (3, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41195477)

I think the bigger problem is MythTV and xbmc. They are great if you enjoy playing with computers, but if what you want is a zero maintance device that lets you start interacting with the content you want, they are pretty terrible and require non-trivial upfront research since you have to make sure all the 'old' hardware you get for it will work.

Re:A MythTV box? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41196817)

They may require some upfront knowledge right now but once you get it all set up it can be incredibly easy. I'm in the process of making an xbmc addon (probably be finished with it tonight) that allows me to easily search, download and catalog tv shows/movies directly from my apple tv using the normal atv remote. Even the way i've had it set up for the past year is incredibly simple but it requires a web browser to do all of that which means i can't do it all directly from my atv.

Re:A MythTV box? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195535)

What is this, 2005? MythTV is out man, everything is XBMC and downloaded content. You actually subscribe to cable or satellite "all in one" bullshit? LOL, I guess someone has to be the n00b sheep.

Re:A MythTV box? (2)

arkane1234 (457605) | about 2 years ago | (#41196013)

Actually yeah, I do subscribe to cable. It costs me $40, and don't have to worry about updating/maintaining a computer attached to my TV. I also have Netflix for $7.99 and I can watch movies through my ps3, apple tv, sony bluray, etc.

Then again, just the fact that you're using a computer to get stuff onto your tv makes me believe it's not about rights or anything else, it's just that you don't have a lot of expendable income. I'm sorry.

Re:A MythTV box? (1)

yotto (590067) | about 2 years ago | (#41196597)

I won't speak to the grandparent, but I am doing similar (though with less 'tude). It has nothing to do with disposable income, it has to do with the fact that $40 (though around here it's closer to $60) a month for something I don't use very much is stupid. When I cancelled cable it was because I only watched 3 weekly hour-long shows, and they were all on (free) Hulu. I also watched 2 daily half-hour shows that were also on Hulu.

The 3 weekly shows have since been canceled, so now all I watch on Hulu are the daily shows (hint: one of them is actually named "The Daily Show").

The only new show that has caught my eye is the SHIELD show, and if they think I'll pay $20/episode (assuming about 3 episodes a month) they're crazy.

I actually have (2)

taktoa (1995544) | about 2 years ago | (#41195207)

most of this set up. Google TV on my HDTV, an Android phone, and a Chromebook for the kitchen. And I like it... they're robust, functional, easy-to-use products.

Re:I actually have (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41196483)

I'm interested in your opinion about a "Chromebox PC" as mentioned in the summary... I didn't realize Chrome was intended as a full-fledged PC OS?

Or, I could just be a normal person, and... (3, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41195243)

Buy whatever electronic devices I find favorable, and configure them however the fuck I want.

That way I can avoid their "ecosystem", with its inherant vendor lock in, and pervasive bullshit entirely!

As a consumer, that sounds far more desirable.

However, I do see where other normal consumers may fall victim here, since getting all the equipment and services from a single company should (theoretically...) make setup and use easier.

Personally though? When I plop down on the couch to veggify some braincells, I want a few annoyances as possible, which mans the equipment has to do whar *I* want, and not what a bunch of shyster lawyers in hollywood, and a bunch of beancounters in the bay area google HQ want.

If that means DIY home theater with MythTV and a raid array, so fucking be it.

Re:Or, I could just be a normal person, and... (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#41195387)

A normal person -would- use the same vendor for everything because in general it "just works". The cable box/DVR "just works" for them, if it breaks they just call Comcast/Dish/DirectTV and get another one. Its the geek option to go for MythTV and the like. And honestly, even the Google option is going to give you much more freedom than the average person has now with an HDTV, Cable Box, DVR and blu-Ray player.

Re:Or, I could just be a normal person, and... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41195421)

Most people will have a cable company supplied DVR/DigitalCable box, a different brand of television, and a different yet brand of stereo surround sysytem.

The "google" solution would have all these devices made by google.

Re:Or, I could just be a normal person, and... (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#41195611)

... and people wonder why I'm so pissed at Apple for making this locked-in 'eco-system' bullshit palatable. For now, the Google devices mix and match with pretty much any technology and tend to use open standards, but it's worth keeping an eye on them. The attraction must certainly be there.

Unrealistic vision (5, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 years ago | (#41195247)

Google would like you to believe in a world where you get all of your media from their devices across the Internet. Unfortunately, that just doesn't work in the real world. The little old lady next door has already been hit with insane overage charges by AT&T because she dared to watch Netflix. Follow the Google vision and your overages will not only include things like Netflix but will include your own movies and even music unless you have an uncapped provider who you can believe will stay uncapped (AT&T only announced the caps last year). Maybe in Kansas City where Google offers fiber and doesn't impose monthly limits this would be a good thing, but not in the rest of America where our government grants monopolies to service providers but lets them chip away at the service rather than building out their networks.

Re:Unrealistic vision (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195293)

I got unlimited 4G from Verizon. I am a boss. You are a noob.

Re:Unrealistic vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195403)

No you don't.

Re:Unrealistic vision (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | about 2 years ago | (#41196035)

haahhahahahahahahaha!~@!
*wipes eyes*
ahhahahahahahahahaha!!E!

is that what they told you? *snort* hahahaha

Re:Unrealistic vision (3, Interesting)

edcheevy (1160545) | about 2 years ago | (#41195433)

Isn't that the point of the whole Google Fiber experiment? If Google can get generate enough interest to merely break even on Fiber, they can deliver ALL of our information from the cloud, uncapped, and fully scanned/monitored/analyzed 24/7... Advertisers will have no choice but to go through Google. The government will be fully on board because Google will grant monitoring access.

Re:Unrealistic vision (2)

olau (314197) | about 2 years ago | (#41195463)

While that may be true today, Google is probably building this stuff so that when the world is ready, Google will be there for them.

Re:Unrealistic vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195837)

While that may be true today, Google is probably building this stuff so that when the world is ready, Google will be there for them as the new government / world order

FTFY

Scary (5, Insightful)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | about 2 years ago | (#41195255)

I fear a world run by google and apple. They are both companies with a shiny outer layer and a dark dark underneath that won't be clear until it's too late to do anything about it.People need to remember that (especially google) the people using their services are not their customers, and that google doesn't owe them one thing. They will use every method at their disposal to be able to charge more for whatever advertising/marketing/human sorting they are working on that day. Nothing is free, you pay one way or another. Wether you pay with money or with your personal information, it's just the same.

Re:Scary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195511)

Nothing is free, you pay one way or another.

How does that apply to only google and apple, and not say... the entire universe?

When you figure out that nothing is free PERIOD, everything else starts making sense.

Re:Scary (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#41195641)

If you're interested in products and services from those companies, I think You need to make a couple of simple decisions.

Which do you value less your freedom or your privacy?

You don't actually need to pick either, but both of these companies do have attractive products and services for those willing to accept the loss of one of these. Personally, I'm fine with it as long as we always have a reasonable choice to to pick one of these. If either gets to be big or pervasive enough (like Microsoft did), we lose ... again.

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41196655)

The laws of physics are a reliable master.

Re:Scary (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 years ago | (#41196995)

Way to miss the point. Apple and Google's asking PRICE is way too HIGH. PERIOD.

When they come back with a reasonable offer where they don't expect to spy on our lives, they'll be invited back to the negotiating table. Until then, nobody owes them respect just because their CEOs thought up some crazy evil business plan .

Re:Scary (2)

theRunicBard (2662581) | about 2 years ago | (#41195685)

Well yeah, google doesn't owe them anything - their services are largely free. What, you think that Google Search has some obligation to give me something back? Isn't that what the fantastic search was? Extend that to other Google services. Free email, chat, social network, maps, videos, etc, etc, etc, ETC ETCETC! Isn't that worth a few ads? Couldn't you... I don't know, NOT click on the ads? Can we just... grow up and accept that nothing is completely free? You say that, but you still complain about it. What do you propose as an alternative? Some services charge you and you complain about the cost. Google rolls in for free (money-wise), but with ads, and people complain about the ads. Let me guess, if Google just got rid of all tracking and ads, you would complain that Larry Page isn't giving you foot massage? And if he gave you one, you would complain it didn't have a happy ending?

Re:Scary (0)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | about 2 years ago | (#41196413)

Thanks for the sarcasm. You must have been top of your class. There is a difference between putting ads on a webpage and storing your information to sell to their real customers. If you're too thick witted to understand that, then that's not my problem, it's yours.

Re:Scary (2)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#41196619)

I'm a "real customer" of Google, e.g., I spend a lot of money for their services. Guess what. They have never offered to sell me their users' information. Pull the tinfoil a little tighter, man.

Re:Scary (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41196765)

Video on demand is Netflix and Amazon. Both are hardware agnostic. Apple and Google cannot match what these players are doing because they are pushing a platform instead of serving users.

Apple is going succeed and MS is going to succeed and Amazon is going to succeed and Google is going to succeed in different way. The thing of interest is who is leading and who is following and who is panicing. Google has not had a successful hardware consumer product and is so desperate for one that it is contaminating it's home page. MS is copying the iPad full screen UI. Google is trying to sell content, but no one is interested.

The other thing about google is that they are not really willing to play hardball, the kind of hardball that Amazon is playing with the Kindle. Google is looking for profits.

Re:Scary (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41197429)

Video on demand is Netflix and Amazon. Both are hardware agnostic. Apple and Google cannot match what these players are doing

What you say is true of Google perhaps, but not at all true of Apple. Tons of people use iTunes to buy TV shows, and to some extent movies.

Apple is far ahead currently of Amazon in terms of delivering downloaded media content to homes. Netflix is probably ahead of both, but then you'd expect that with a service that offers all you can view for a flat fee.

You also left out Hulu, really also a bigger player than Amazon in delivering media...

And Hulu is important because it illustrates that between Apple/Google/Netflix/Amazon, really the people calling the shots are the guys producing the media. And they are not loosening their grasp anytime soon.

Re:Scary (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#41197629)

Apple wants to sell you devices and has control issues. Google wants to sell you devices, the software they run and the network that connects them, watching everything you do so they can sell it all to their customers.

Cant happen (3, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41195285)

Not going to debate if its a good idea or not, as ISPs with their non-neutral bandwidth limits have eliminated this sort of option anyway.

"PC or Mac" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195289)

If that phrase indicates the author's grasp of technology I have no interest in what else they have to say.

Re:"PC or Mac" (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41195301)

"What? You mean a mac is really just a PC with a special bios that let's it run OSX? OMG! Everything I know is wrong!"

Re:"PC or Mac" (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | about 2 years ago | (#41196055)

Well, that's the motherboard, yeah... by that logic every computer is basically the same.
The rest of it is engineered quite a bit differently than a Dell/HP/Sony/Toshiba/etc.

Re:"PC or Mac" (2)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41195523)

Sounds like a fine grasp of technology to me. Everyone knows when the word 'PC' is used the speaker means an x86 CPU running a Windows varient and Mac referrers to a computer made by Apple. In the real world words have multiple meanings depending on the context, and going around complaining that someone is using the words incorrectly if they were being used in another context is needlessly pedantic.

"Replace your PC" (1)

neminem (561346) | about 2 years ago | (#41195309)

If I had a "Chrome OS-based Chromebox PC or Chromebook laptop", would that not be by definition a PC? So I'd just be replacing my PC-with-one-OS with a PC-with-a-different-OS. Better than predictions that in the future we'll all be doing everything on little tablets (laughable), but still, no thanks.

Can't use common peripherals (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41195721)

So I'd just be replacing my PC-with-one-OS with a PC-with-a-different-OS.

You'd be replacing your PC with a different PC that can't use common peripherals such as a flatbed scanner or a webcam. I've noticed that some employers are starting to require people to have a webcam on their home PC to get or keep a job. And until some counterpart to AIDE [google.com] comes out, you'd be replacing your PC with something that can't even self-host its own developer tools.

Re:Can't use common peripherals (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41196583)

WHICH employers require (!) a webcam at home for employment?

sure does not sound like the typical geek engineering W.A.H. stuff. I don't know of any geeks that would tolerate that.

TV Ratings from Google? (2)

joelwhitehouse (2571813) | about 2 years ago | (#41195331)

I wonder how AC Neilsen [wikipedia.org] feels about this. Why spend the big bucks Neilsen's market research on what people are watching -- when google can tell you what people are watching, and for less?

A tablet won't do for work. (3, Informative)

Wee (17189) | about 2 years ago | (#41195335)

Seriously: a 10" tablet for work is a joke. Even one 24" 1920x1200 monitor is a chore sometimes.

-B

Re:A tablet won't do for work. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41195375)

A litte arm powered tablet might as well be powered by frito-lay for what I use computers for at work.

Industrial CAD eats cpu cycles for breakfast, while chuggng down ram allocations like a fratboy at a weekend bender.

Don't even get me started about how the touch interface simply won't work for what I do either.

No, Tablets will *NEVER* replace an engineering seat. Not under this paradigm anyway.

PCs will still be available at some price (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41195731)

As far as I can tell, the biggest danger that alarmists cite about a "post-PC" world is that the price of a PC will shoot up due to loss of economies of scale. For people who need a high-end PC and are willing to pay for one, like people who do industrial CAD for a living, those will still be available.

Re:A tablet won't do for work. (1)

Abreu (173023) | about 2 years ago | (#41195779)

But it might replace a secretary or clerical seat...

Correction (1)

tooyoung (853621) | about 2 years ago | (#41195707)

As long as we're talking Android, a tablet is the perfect work device - small, portable, thin, light weight device. We only make the comment that a tablet isn't suitable for work on iPad stories to dissuade people from buying Apple.

Re:A tablet won't do for work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195959)

I noticed, that I could never go back to a single display and a single desktop/session. Placing two programs side by side on a single screen is crippling, unless it's *really* big, and Alt-Tabbing is a kludge. Two screens on the other hand make side-by-side work bearable. And I plan going to a hand full of small movable screens for things like instant messengers, status displays, tool boxes (think Photoshop) or terminal sessions, and two or three big ones for full-screen applications.

Re:A tablet won't do for work. (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#41195983)

Yes, a tablet for work is indeed a joke, unless you're a salesman or a CEO, or work at the McDonald and your tablet is used as a point of sale.

And assuming you're a salesman, or a CEO, the only Android tablet I would even consider for work is the Asus Transformer, because of its dockable keyboard which also acts as an extra battery, and that model is not even listed among the options. I guess Asus did not pay Infoworld enough to get included in there.

For everyone else: accountants, developers, IT, admins, editors, and designers, they'll need larger screens and access to more traditional software to do the bulk of their work.

Just one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195345)

What's a TV?

Re:Just one question (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41195393)

It is a rectangular display device with a built in radio frequency tuner and an audio subsystem intended for the playback of home entertainment motion pictures, and the reception and display of live broadcasts.

This particular form of entertainment was slowly phased out in favor of superior offerings toward the end of the 20th century.

It's happening, but more slowly than you claim (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41195755)

[TV] was slowly phased out in favor of superior offerings toward the end of the 20th century.

It was a little later than the 1990s, as you claim. I'd say around 2006 is when TVs started to be replaced with large computer monitors that had a built-in TV receiver for backward compatibility. Some parts of your vision are still taking a while to happen: it's taking a long time for high-speed Internet access without a harsh cap to reach rural areas, and a lot of people are still reluctant to connect a general-purpose computer to a living-room-sized monitor.

Google is spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195359)

Google is spyware

Slashvertisement BULLSHIT. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195459)

You Slashtools will do anything to make another dollar via thinly disguised
advertising, won't you ?

Chromebook (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41195481)

I've had a chance to play with a Chromebook, and yeah, it's a very well designed product. But I remain skeptical about its commercial success. There's too much lockin to PC-based applications, and people are much too thoroughly trained in non-cloud file systems. This may well change, but I wouldn't bet on it happening soon.

No, let's not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195485)

Call it the Googleplex: a mix of the Chrome OS-based Chromebox PC or Chromebook laptop, one or more Android tablets

No, let's not. First of all The Googleplex is the longstanding name of the Google campus. The more appropriate name for this vision is GoogleBorg.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, many more people than marketeers want us to believe want large screens for our movies, without concern for buffering, delayed starts, stuttering, low resolution or concern that leaving the TV on all day will bust an ISP-bill-cap in our ass.

For computing, us nonconformist Google and tablet holdouts still like our computers to have large screens and physical keyboards. We also like having at least a copy of our files stored locally for immediate and unfettered access. Perhaps we could access the files on our local computer via a tablet for our own convenience. Shock!

Many of us don't trust Google and folding all of our services into Google's hands is not an option that we will even debate. Let alone the inherent and demonstrable issues like; Google perceives a violation of their ToS in your Google+ account and locks your account barring your ability to access your files or email, watch television, use a computer, etc. And whose tech support would you call when this happens?

No, this twits vision of GoogleBorg will never be allowed to happen, even if it is what Google hopes for.

Re:No, let's not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195541)

Google Borg is something else: http://www.quora.com/What-is-Borg-at-Google [quora.com]

Sorry, your connection is dropped (3, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#41195509)

I don't like using software that depends on online connections to operate. Connections are not fast enough or reliable enough. Nor are they secure. Compute Locally.

Executive summary (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41195655)

The Googleplex solution is currently too limited and won't let normal users do a lot of what they'll want to do. But if you like incessantly fiddling around, this may sort of work for you.

(I cheated and read the article - sorry)

Re:Executive summary (1)

Eyezen (548114) | about 2 years ago | (#41195989)

+10^10^100

Google turning evil doesn't surprise me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195715)

Whenever an organization claims a particular course of action, drift to complete opposition is not uncommon. Maybe it just seems that way but... remember when Wal Mart sourced everything from within the US? It was part of their mission statement. Then Sam died and the rest is history.

When Google came along with "don't be evil", I was like "oh crap". I saw this coming; but I'm still amazed at how quickly they're going that way, especially with their desire finagle into payment systems and extract a hipster tax from everybody.

thank $god (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195847)

that I have not owned a TV in 10 years. and I am in my late 20th. google is not going to change that.

I simply do not trust Google anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195851)

Google's a huge company now that's under revenue pressures. They need to sell more ads and access to private info to advertisers (their customers). Google's the company that's caused more privacy violations and paid out more fines to FTC than any other company in history.

I still use Google search but that's about it. I've ditched all other google services for other, more privacy friendly, alternatives.

That’s not a PC! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41195915)

Chrome OS is not a computing environment, but an appliance that happens to run on a (poor poor wasted) computer.
If you can replace your PC with it, you never were a computer user in the first place, and I want you to hand in your geek card.
A real computer user automates his work away. Instead of complaining that the computer saves the work we wouldn't have without it.
You literally tell it what to do (as in a shell script or customized software), and when to do it (e.g. an udev event or cron job), and then sit back, relax, and enjoy.

I can't stand watching a freely programmable computer being crippled like that. It's such a waste of freedom and power...

We should stop referring to such devices as computers. They are information and entertainment appliances. Otherwise we confuse computer literacy with being able to use MS Office.

This sounds like the Apple model. (1)

ANonyMouser (2641869) | about 2 years ago | (#41196393)

I find myself wondering if they have a patent for it.

So this is the future (2)

cvtan (752695) | about 2 years ago | (#41196525)

Cell phone crappy camera instead of a good camera. And now: TA DA!!! Watching video on a 7-in screen. I'm too old for this nonsense.

ATSC rules! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41197437)

I just record ATSC off the air (using a USB widget, VLC and cron). It's inexpensive and no Big Brother.

I bet... (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#41197725)

Every huge technology company (Or in googles case advertising company) wants total control over all your gear and your data.

Being honest and telling everyone this is actually your plan or that this model somehow represents the future and you will like it is an interesting strategy however the answer is still "no".

This is for googles own good too. The more we stand by and help google corrupt its own soul the worse off everyone including google is in the long run.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>