Of course they did.
A controversial idea, but you know how much easier this would be for everyone if Google offered an option for users to be paid for volunteering your information to them? It's a precedent most fledgling ad companies wouldn't be able to match... even if it's just a few dollars a month, or maybe 30ish bucks a year. It'd cut into Google's bottom line, but it would eradicate the competition.
And then on top of that, you've got the security and privacy wins by baking the product to be secure by default but allowing consumers to accept a paycheck to disable some of it for Google. That risk calculus works for plenty of people (if not for myself).
Google's wins:
• Security and Privacy by default
• Dismantling start-up competition who can't afford to pay for the data they harvest
• Growing marketshare.
Drawbacks:
• Immediate hit to Google's revenue stream
• Permanent assignment of value to data in the perception of consumers
The only big outstanding risk would be posed by rivals with large warchests able to subsidize a similar payment scheme, but honestly once that's done, the winner is a public which now has the ability to monetize their data.
I also see nothing about not still collecting information about you. It appears to just remove showing you some ads.
Much better.
"rent us out to the highest bidder" is the perfect description of Google and FB's business model. It's hard to imagine how either company could change course at this point, even if they wanted to.
Even if there is nothing wrong with the business model, the "prices" can still be unfair. A lot of the values of these things are inherently difficult, if not impossible, to calculate (at least seemingly).
Except that is an awful idea.
Attempting to out-compete those companies has not historically been a very successful tactic. I think that's what's meant.
Even on the other end of the scale,I subscribe to Backblaze and Evernote.
Have you not seen their Opinion Rewards app for Android? They do precisely that.
This is about valuing the usage data itself that's passively collected on the Android platform.
Those things go, outside of Google, for 2$/month minimum, and more often 10$ per month ...
Similar things go for Google's index of the web, phone operating system, ...
There's no reason for the suppliers of raw materials here not to raise their prices (from zero). If anyone wants to provide it for less, so be it, but given that Google wants insight into everyone marketable, there's no reason for people not to raise their own prices for the data they supply.
but maybe only a temporary one. after knifing the babies (i mean honestly outcompeting the startups), Google could discontinue that option and stop all the payments.
at least for a while, until a fresh crop of foolhardy competitors boldly entered that market again.
One might reasonable argue that YT Red just removes ads, but doesn't do anything for privacy / data collection. But I have two questions for them: 1. what makes you think people would gladly pay for privacy (any glaring example)? , 2. even if Google were to offer such an option, would you trust it?
Counterpoint: Apple, one of the most profitable companies.
People have been giving their money to Apple before they even flaunted a strong pro-privacy stance, and I have yet to see an ad from Apple that I did not opt in for (although their recent Apple Pay emails have been slightly annoying, given that I'm in a country where I cannot use Apple Pay but there's no option to opt-out from only Apple Pay related emails while still receiving offers for other Apple services.)
Rich people with lots of disposable income would, not surprisingly, prefer quality for a higher price. But that is not the business model of Google, nor is it applicable for everyone.
[0] https://news.vice.com/article/exclusive-canada-police-obtain...
[1] http://blogs.blackberry.com/2016/04/lawful-access-corporate-...
Sure, don't they make >95% of all google profits.