In that context fees like the $50 a year for Google Apps seem insignificant
In that context fees like the $50 a year for Google Apps seem insignificant
Assuming Google makes privacy controls more visible and there's someone to keep them in check, I frankly believe that this is a better model than what we currently have today. Many of the ad companies are way more evil (think spyware) and way more ineffective. In their mind, they can't be transparent. But that's because they want to take shortcuts and track your every click surreptitiously without really wanting to add any value to you directly (that is they don't have as big a stake in getting it right), the user, and only to turn around and sell this data to others and make a quick profit. That model is broken from the beginning and I'd rather not continue down this path.
So if Google, Facebook or anyone can give me more controls, more transparency, then that to me is a more compelling model and I'll gladly share more relevant information with them because I know that they'll turn around and offer me better search results, better ads, better book recommendations... whatever. If they don't someone else will, but at least with Chrome OS, you have the option--don't buy a machine with it.
Really? I thought it was like Android, where setting up a Google account was encouraged but not mandatory. If that's the case I'm revising my assessment of Chrome OS from "pointless" to "actively dangerous".
When was your evil-o-meter last calibrated?