On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:57:01 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Usually with these installers, there's a checkbox you can uncheck to
>>> tell it not to install the other crap you don't want. Usually. If you
>>> remember to turn it off. (And don't do a silent install or something.)
>>
>> Yes, there is, and what I was specifically talking about was early
>> versions of Java that didn't have the option to not install the Google
>> toolbar.
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out why having a Google toolbar, or a Wolfram
> Alpha toolbar, or any other kind of toolbar is actually *useful* for
> anything...

Remember what you wrote yesterday about free things that should cost 
money?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm still trying to figure out why having a Google toolbar, or a Wolfram
>> Alpha toolbar, or any other kind of toolbar is actually *useful* for
>> anything...
>
> Remember what you wrote yesterday about free things that should cost
> money?

...which is exactly what this whole thread is about, yes.

Clearly it costs money to make (say) the Java runtime environment. But 
how does making you install the Google toolbar make money for anybody?

Come to think of it, the Google toolbar cost money to make too...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:57:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> I'm still trying to figure out why having a Google toolbar, or a
>>> Wolfram Alpha toolbar, or any other kind of toolbar is actually
>>> *useful* for anything...
>>
>> Remember what you wrote yesterday about free things that should cost
>> money?
> 
> ...which is exactly what this whole thread is about, yes.

Indeed.

> Clearly it costs money to make (say) the Java runtime environment. But
> how does making you install the Google toolbar make money for anybody?
> 
> Come to think of it, the Google toolbar cost money to make too...

So the return on that must be higher than the costs involved.  Guess 
what: you're the product being sold.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Clearly it costs money to make (say) the Java runtime environment. But
>> how does making you install the Google toolbar make money for anybody?
>>
>> Come to think of it, the Google toolbar cost money to make too...
>
> So the return on that must be higher than the costs involved.  Guess
> what: you're the product being sold.

It's not news that Google sells people to advertisers. What I can't 
figure out is in what way the Google toolbar helps with that process.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:06:31 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Clearly it costs money to make (say) the Java runtime environment. But
>>> how does making you install the Google toolbar make money for anybody?
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, the Google toolbar cost money to make too...
>>
>> So the return on that must be higher than the costs involved.  Guess
>> what: you're the product being sold.
> 
> It's not news that Google sells people to advertisers. What I can't
> figure out is in what way the Google toolbar helps with that process.

To be honest, I don't know either - perhaps because it adds to the user's 
profile and makes search (and other things) more convenient, so it hopes 
to increase the user's usage of Google's services.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Incidentally, people talk about how FB has all this valuable user data
> and how they're using it to do ultra-targeted advertising. ARE YOU
> KIDDING ME? Have you *seen* their adverts? What are they aiming with? A
> blunderbuss?! Because the targeting is just laughably poor. For example,
> constantly spamming me with ads for dating websites, even after I
> changed my profile to indicate that I'm no longer single.
>
> Sometimes, you do something like change your status to mention
> Marmite(tm), and an advert for Marmite(tm) appears. Sometimes you say
> something like "man, I'm really looking forward to the weekend", and get
> an advert for Hellman's mayonnaise. And sometimes, you say something
> like "hey Helen, that was some great dancing yesterday" and get adverts
> for Black & Decker power tools. I mean, seriously, WTF? This is not
> "targeted advertising", this is "randomly generated spam".

I don't consider it spam if the advertiser pays for the ad.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Clearly it costs money to make (say) the Java runtime environment. But
> how does making you install the Google toolbar make money for anybody?

I've used the Opera Web browser since its adware days.  I liked it so much that
I actually paid money for it--not to get rid of the ads, but because it was some
damn good software.

Then Opera dropped the ads and became totally free.  I don't for a moment regret
paying for it, but I couldn't help wondering how they made their money.

I just found out a few weeks ago.  They made a deal with The Google making The
Google their default search engine.  For Java, the toolbar probably helps direct
users to The Google, where the selling may begin.

(Incidentally, this may explain why Yahoo! blocks Opera users from its Web
services.  I've been wondering why Yahoo! so callously blows off its Opera-using
customers when those customers complain.  The Opera browser, for its part,
intercepts Yahoo!'s browser-sniffing JavaScripts and modifies them on the fly,
which works until Yahoo! upgrades their sites, and then the demand to change my
browser returns, and the complaints once again fly to Opera and Yahoo! customer
service, and both outfits are eerily tight-lipped about why Yahoo! hates Opera
so viscerally.

Sigh.  And I had thought the browser wars were over.)

Post a reply to this message

On 4/10/2011 6:20 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:59:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> A better explanation might be "if it costs somebody money but you didn't
>> pay for it, you're being sold".
>
> That's the best way to look at it I've seen. :)
>
> Jim

GPS strikes me as a counter-example.  It costs somebody (the US military 
/ government) a lot of money.  I didn't pay for it except by the most 
circuitous reasoning (not being a US citizen).  I don't see how I'm 
being sold by it or for it.  Now I do have to pay for a GPS receiver but 
there isn't as far as I know any component in that cost for building and 
running the satellite network, ground stations etc.

To every generalisation there is at least one obvious and irrefutable 
counter-example - even this one.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/10/2011 07:32 AM, Paul Fuller wrote:

> GPS strikes me as a counter-example. It costs somebody (the US military
> / government) a lot of money. I didn't pay for it except by the most
> circuitous reasoning (not being a US citizen). I don't see how I'm being
> sold by it or for it. Now I do have to pay for a GPS receiver but there
> isn't as far as I know any component in that cost for building and
> running the satellite network, ground stations etc.
>
> To every generalisation there is at least one obvious and irrefutable
> counter-example - even this one.

Allow me to refute: The US government *needs* GPS, whether you have 
access to it or not. Once you have a GPS service, it costs nothing to 
allow civilians to access it as well. (Indeed, it would cost money to 
*stop* then accessing it.) Ergo, in fact giving you GPS isn't costing 
anybody anything.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/10/2011 7:01 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 07:32 AM, Paul Fuller wrote:
>
>> GPS strikes me as a counter-example. It costs somebody (the US military
>> / government) a lot of money. I didn't pay for it except by the most
>> circuitous reasoning (not being a US citizen). I don't see how I'm being
>> sold by it or for it. Now I do have to pay for a GPS receiver but there
>> isn't as far as I know any component in that cost for building and
>> running the satellite network, ground stations etc.
>>
>> To every generalisation there is at least one obvious and irrefutable
>> counter-example - even this one.
>
> Allow me to refute: The US government *needs* GPS, whether you have
> access to it or not. Once you have a GPS service, it costs nothing to
> allow civilians to access it as well. (Indeed, it would cost money to
> *stop* then accessing it.) Ergo, in fact giving you GPS isn't costing
> anybody anything.

Perhaps that is true.  But it contradicts your definition:

 >> A better explanation might be "if it costs somebody money but you
 >> didn't pay for it, you're being sold"

As you probably know the GPS signal used to have a publicly available 
accuracy of about 100m.  Accuracy to about 20m was available only to the 
military as that part of the signal was encrypted.  That was the 
original design and implementation.

It took a deliberate decision to make the full accuracy available for 
civilian use.  Simply deciding this and implementing it no doubt cost a 
significant amount.  Then the military has developed extra capability to 
'deny' GPS to selected areas when they desire.

That and other requirements no doubt cost more than the strictly 
military requirements.

Even if I'm simply travelling on a commercial airliner I'm benefiting as 
a result.  As far as I know there is no direct payment to use the service.

Post a reply to this message