[KyadCK]

you mean them giving users targeted advertisements in exchange for a free service is a swindle? it's not like they're selling your identity to the russian mafia.

I was going beyond that. With all the money they make off of user data, i wonder why even the need for advertisements to use the service to help pay for it except to make it that much more annoying to use. With all that data on google drive they now get to keep, you'd think they'd give the users a little dignity and say "hey, no ads ever google drive users". And no, it's not a free service. All your stuff becomes there's automatically on google drive; that's the payment.

What google is getting in return by being able to claim all your stuff as their's is a hell of a deal for them (they get to make off with serious ****, while all you get is a little  storage and perhaps some "app" integration). It may be a nice service, but what you get in return for what they get to keep is why  google is swindling people.

Do we really need a russian mafia exaggeration in a day and age where personal information on the internet is and has been big money? It's not that they'll sell the data,...wait, yes they will. That's why they want your stuff on your google drive account so badly. They also want to retain your data for their purposes too, probably make better ads with all of the pictures for all the photos that just got branded with googles TOS, etc.

  I think google would sell your data to the horny obese lady mafia.

Last I checked, Facebook says "what you upload is ours" (as in what you upload is legally theirs, being a member is that contract apperently) and Google says "What you upload is yours, but we'll probably use it for adverts". I would love to see this source that says Google owns what you upload.

And I agree with Polpolion, Proof or don't post.

As far as I'm concerned, Google is the cool Big Brother who gives you nice things and doesnt tattle on you unless Bigger Brother (Gov) wants to know directly. (Thanks Patiot Act...)

[karajorma]

Yeah, I was going to get annoyed at that list of terms and conditions until I noticed that the long list of rights they were giving themselves only apply to them advertising or adding new services.

I take much greater exception to Facebooks "All your stuff are belong to us" attitude.

[Mikes]

Google is terrifying. Their standing position is still "Don't be Evil" though.
If that changes, I'll panic.

"Don't actually say that you are Evil"...  if that s not an entry on that "How to be an Evil Overlord" list, then it should be LOL.

[S-99]

I don't have a facebook account or any social networking accounts (i don't find social networking of any kind of use i'd need). My analyzation of possible scenarios comes from the fact that i shouldn't trust service agreements with such clauses in them.

Call me paranoid, i don't care, i was too broad with analyzing.

[Polpolion]

a reasonable conclusion to reach if you cannot trust yourself to use these services responsibly

[S-99]

I can use these services responsibly. I just don't agree with all of these questionable TOS's these days. As for social networking, i don't like the employment practices happening with them. I also have no need for these services.

Since i don't agree with them because i find that stuff detestable, i will have nothing to do with them. I will tell others to be wary. Granted my stance was don't use it. I'll just tell people to be careful instead. Another area of TOS's these days is forced arbitration. But, that's another topic.

EDIT:

a reasonable conclusion to reach if you cannot trust yourself to use these services responsibly

I don't find people inviting me to a million apps, looking at my friend's drama, people i don't know wanting me to add them,  staying up with the current bull**** buzz of the people in my friends list, or putting my data in the "cloud" as needs. This is not about me trusting myself to not use the service responsibly. Aside from the crappy TOS's that i don't trust and my disgust, i simply don't have a need.

[Bobboau]

an alternative to iTunes

sounds like that would be "confusingly similar to an existing Apple product" and would therefore not pass the compliance review.

[karajorma]

You mean you can't buy any 3rd party programs that allow you to download music on the iPhone?

Even if you can't, I still doubt that would be anywhere near as anti-trust as Google though. After all, you chose to put yourself in that nightmare when you bought an iPhone. Anti-trust is about people not being able to have any choice because the alternatives have been crushed.

How many people use a mapping solution other than Google maps on their PC? And I don't mean just us tech-literate types.

[Ghostavo]

What about Chomp being bought by Apple and removing the previous existing support of other mobile operating systems? Or Siri?

Are you forced to support every platform you've ever supported once your application reaches a certain level of popularity?

[karajorma]

Are you forced to support every platform you've ever supported once your application reaches a certain level of popularity?

No. Anti-trust means that if you have a monopoly or near monopoly in one field, you can't then use it to exploit another one.

Google has a massive share of the mapping and webmail markets. So I'll ask again, what monopoly do you think Apple have in a non-mobile phone market that they have exploited to sell iPhones?

[Bobboau]

lets, see, they have a dominant position in the tablet market, though it's not quite a monopoly, music players and music distribution, they could be said to have a monopoly.

but I'm not sure I see how not actively supporting rivals equates to trust-like activities, you can access gmail just fine using any IMAP compatible email client. the fact that they support IMAP is the very opposite of what you are accusing them of.

[Ghostavo]

Are you forced to support every platform you've ever supported once your application reaches a certain level of popularity?

No. Anti-trust means that if you have a monopoly or near monopoly in one field, you can't then use it to exploit another one.

Google has a massive share of the mapping and webmail markets. So I'll ask again, what monopoly do you think Apple have in a non-mobile phone market that they have exploited to sell iPhones?

So the answer to the question is "Not unless you own one of the platforms."?

[karajorma]

I totally fail to understand your meaning.

but I'm not sure I see how not actively supporting rivals equates to trust-like activities, you can access gmail just fine using any IMAP compatible email client. the fact that they support IMAP is the very opposite of what you are accusing them of.

And you can install other browsers on Windows but that didn't mean MS won their anti-trust case.

I still don't see how you can say that Apple are more anti-trust?

[SypheDMar]

I don't follow. You can uninstall any Google product you have on your PC, and you can choose not to use any Google products on the internet. There are alternatives. Those that use Google products choose not to use the alternatives.

[Bobboau]

they are more anti-competitive because they will chose to litigate at the drop of a hat, and on the platforms they own they do not let competitors in, in other words you will never be able to install a microsoft/google/opensource operating system on any of their hardware, at least not without them wanting to imprison you, and finaly if you own a company that makes apps you had better hope that apple does not decide to make something similar to what you have made or they will simply ban you from all of their phones, as nasty as MS was with the IE thing, at least you could go out and download an alternative, with apple if they decide they don't want an app on their phones they will simply remove it from the app store, and there is nothing you can do about it.

further the reason MS lost it's anti-trust case was because they bundled IE. all of google's products are things you have to go out of your way to get to begin with so I don't see how there is a parallel.

[Ghostavo]

I totally fail to understand your meaning.

Well, I'm basing these questions on the following comment.

I very much look forward to this only having mobile apps which are poorly updated or non-existent for all the platforms except Android. Like they do with pretty much every other app for their services. Quite frankly I have no idea how Google have thus far avoided an anti-trust investigation on this issue and I hugely look forward to the day when they get one.

I assume you are implying that Google should be investigated for anti-trust behavior because they update apps infrequently for other platforms or don't provide them at all. You seem to base your reasoning on these applications having a monopoly in their market (I disagree, but I don't really care on this point) and Google using them to somehow creating a competitive advantage in other markets.

However, this behavior is identical to most, if not all, competitors in the mobile OS market. For example, Microsoft has Skype and keeps it updated most often on its own OSs. Every competitor has at least one product in a market that they have a large majority or virtual monopoly over and uses it to further their mobile OS.

So if everyone is doing this, should they all be investigated for these practices? Is condemning them for this going to be some sort of slippery slope? The problem is that the idea of forcing them to support platforms seems somehow wrong. You are forcing them to add extra costs for what might not be, disregarding anti-trust behavior, good allocation of resources.

[Bobboau]

apple is only 20% of the smart phone market. it makes seance that they would allocate 4 times as many resources to support it.

[S-99]

Last I checked, Facebook says "what you upload is ours" (as in what you upload is legally theirs, being a member is that contract apperently) and Google says "What you upload is yours, but we'll probably use it for adverts". I would love to see this source that says Google owns what you upload.

You didn't know i at least posted some kind of proof on page one? The proof that you're looking for too. Here it is again.

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services.

They definitely use people's google drive uploaded content to improve the services (but hey, no one other than me can imagine a world where people who host the service don't abide by the TOS, but whatever).

The wording of all of that says your stuff is ours for x purpose (x being improving the services), even when you part ways and stop using y service, the license that we required to use y service to use your stuff never expires. That rings of "we own your stuff" pretty strongly. I mean hell, uploading content automatically licenses your stuff to them and it never expires even if you stop using the service.

I'd still never recommend a service like this. Even under the innocent guise of just using people's content for improving the service by ads and everything. You're still signing over everything on the drive to them, and that's too much power to have over the people who use google drive. It's offensive and insulting to ask people to surrender that much for this service.

[Polpolion]

1) license for use != ownership. Anyone that's been to a university operated computer lab can tell you that it's not even close.
2) I still see no evidence suggesting that google intends to do malicious things with your data.

also, afaik, people are kind of legally bound to the TOS. Try suing google if they violate it. (oh wait, that would require evidence, wouldn't it?)

[KyadCK]

1) license for use != ownership. Anyone that's been to a university operated computer lab can tell you that it's not even close.
2) I still see no evidence suggesting that google intends to do malicious things with your data.

Exactly. They are saying it gives them the right to use it, but not that it is theirs. Google wouldn't want to own it anyway since if people host illegal data, and google claims ownership of all data uploaded, they can be brought to court.

Liiiiike... the RIAA bringing them in for a song. (or 20,000 songs. Google is big enough for the fun numbers)