How do you know they're not planning to really emulate Apple's "success" and move to proprietary hardware/software and tell all of their "partners" to go pound sand? A walled garden would be next.
They could, but that would be insane. Those "partners" would still be pumping out craploads of hardware and need something that would run on it, finally bringing about the Year of Linux on The Desktop, just as the Mayans predicted. When billion dollar businesses are told to fuck off by their trusted partners they don't just go quietly into the night, they do (possibly spiteful, crazy and dickish) things to try to stay afloat.
Sorry, what? When I write an email or text on my Android the entire text gets sent to Google? Even if I decide not to send it? The issue is that, when using Siri, the full recording is sent back to Apple's servers where they perform processing. This could allow them to do spy stuff with what people falsely assumed was privat einformation, since a lot of people don't realise that anything you tell Siri you also tell Apple HQ.
Now, are Apple doing evil with what Siri sends them? Probably not. but when you're the CIO of a billion dollar tech company you probably don't want to base your company's technological future on "it's probably fine".
Rules to workplace flirting:
1) don't, unless the other party expresses interest.
Wait a second, surely the way that the other person expresses interest is by flirting? Right?
One major difference between Google and facebook is that Google sells your eyeballs to advertisers, facebook sells your information.
Whether you think that makes a large ethical difference is up to you, but the practical implications are significant -- essentially, Google acts as a black box in between advertisers and users, which is a system I massively prefer. Facebook will literally sell your name and address. I think that this is a significant improvement.
Of course, the other point is the question of trust. Can people trust Google? Maybe. I do, but I'm very careful about it, and I believe a lot of other people are too. The moment they start locking down services or locking in users, or the moment I actually find them doing something 'evil' (and no, accidentally leaving Kismet on a default setting does not count) I'm leaving them completely. Facebook, however, I don't trust at all with anything. That's trickier, since I live in a different city from where I grew up and a lot of my friends still live, and frankly facebook is in common usage, but then it's a trade off. I definitely don't put anything on facebook that I wouldn't say on national TV.
Another reason Google is in my good books, at least, is because they look at the long term. They want more people browsing the web as a general business goal, so they develop an awesome browser -- not necessarily to win the browser wars, but to make all browsers better. Then they also make it open source. Then they build driverless cars. Then they provide the best free mapping system in the world. Then they add satellite / overhead imagery to it.
Google might not be perfect, but they're by far the best multinational corporation I've ever come across.
They get paid well below min. wage. Basically they are paid below poverty to serve you food because they get tips. So your food is cheaper because they get paid crap... we can get people to push they get a proper wage I tip. Usually 15% (it was 10% 15 years ago). Some time more, rarely less
Okay, so you think you should support the system of them getting paid nothing? As I understand it - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - the reason that they get paid below minimum wage is because they get tips, and in order to make it legal to pay below minimum wage their employer has to check the tips they get against their wages. In other words, a restaurant can't say, "We're paying you $1/hour because you get tips." But they can say, "Minimum wage for the shift you just worked comes to $50. Minus $30 tips, here's your $20."
That means that tipping is the same as paying their employer specifically for treating their staff like crap - the staff get no benefit whatsoever. Of course, I may be wrong, in which case you're just supporting a system in which people arbitrarily get paid less than minimum wage because they can rely on handouts.
Then again I live in England where a minimum wage job is enough to live on, and everyone has to be paid it regardless of whether they also get given stuff. Really, I don't see the difference between your system and a system where your boss says, "Hey, I see you got a new shirt for Christmas. How much do you reckon it's worth? OK then, that's coming out of your next paycheck." Or, alternatively, "So, I hear you celebrate Christmas. You get gifts for that? OK then, your wages go down."
" It's always been about how much money Sony can squeeze out of a customer, even after they've already paid for the console."
Let's just compare this asinine claim to reality:
* Sony, just like PC gaming, provides FREE ONLINE to every single PS3 owner.
...which I cannot use, since I won't update to remove the OtherOS functionality I was sold.
* Sony provides FREE DEDICATED servers for all major competitive online games just like on the PC
...which I can't use.
* Sony is developer friendly and completely open to FREE add-on content for PS3 owners to download
...which I can't access.
* Sony's wildly successful 20 million+ userbase online world, Home, is completely FREE to every PS3 owner
...except for me.
* Sony allows cheap, off the shelf harddrive upgrades
* Sony allows cheap, off the shelf keyboard and mice to be used with the system
Wow, what a bunch of evil gamer hating misers are those Sony guys...
Oh, I didn't realise that they'd used cheaper generic parts instead of fabricating much more expensive proprietary hardware. And then they didn't go to excessive lengths to block the use of that hardware that was easier and cheaper for them to use. Good God, they are lovely after all. Such lovely, lovely thieves.
Fuck Sony, and fuck anyone who doesn't think they're all a bunch of douchebags.
It's not hard to admit errors that are [only] cosmetically wrong. -- J.K. Galbraith