I just love in-liners... They tend to stick to details instead of ideas
*sigh* Ok, so to clarify, the bank HAS your information, of course. It DOES update it's policy from time to time, that's also true.
Now inline this:
Do you believe your bank shares purchase information with its commercial affiliates? If so, how does this demonstrate? Did you ever get targeted commercials according to your purchases?
And inline this:
Can you really not opt-out of the shit envelops they send?
Your comparison between Google and banks is actually pretty funny, you might as well have compared Google to your best friend who knows stuff about you.
It's what is done with this information that matters. Google publicly admits to have collected wi-fi data "by mistake", they store tracking cookies that expire in twenty years, they go over your emails, meaning they harvest data OTHER people, not using Gmail - too. Moreover, it is Google's mission to hold as much targeted information on you as they can, this is their main income - MUCH different than banks (we all know where these guys dig their gold).
No thanks. I'm fine with my credit card company, who haven't, on even a single occasion sent an EULA update allowing them to harvest my information for whoever knows what reason, and do not try to harvest my phone number sugar coating with "security concerns in case I lose my password".
This company has grown too large and is WAY too much intrusive in its current form.
For those of you with nothing to hide, please try to picture the following scenario:
Google opens an HR company, specializing in delivering EXACTLY the person you like for the job. By which criteria? ENDLESS! They can practically deliver a person who has no interest in porn, spends 30% of his online time reading
Call me paranoid, but I'd like to fall into the category of "No known bank account" at Google inc. Do no evil my ass
IMO Netbooks failed because they imitate laptops. Take an Asus transformer, and you got the device the netbook should've been - small, energy efficient AND running a more fitting OS than Windows for mobile devices. Asus got the direction this market is going to and moved from manufacturing netbooks to making the transformers, which are not $200 devices
It makes little difference to my point between if the netbook died before or after the tablet. It would've died when tablets arrived anyways. I think it's fair to say, due to the lack of interest in netbooks of any kind today, that this market has voted for tablets
One of the main advantages for the netbook was it ran Windows, making it fully compatible to the PC at home, just like Windows 8 will be run on surface and PCs.
Today however, Microsoft has to be very convincing to drive users into Windows 8 for mobile devices, as iOS and Android exist and synchronize with all kinds of desktops, windows included, quite nicely without running the same OS they do
Maybe for Microsoft's survival.
The surface ARM is no more than another netbook (remember those? TABLETS replaced them), and the surface x86 version is just another ultra portable with touch screen support.
As far as Window 8 is concerned, Microsoft is used to shoving its products by leveraging its monopoly in the OEM market. The case with mobile devices however is very different. Microsoft HAS to prove Windows 8 is worth all the fuss (comparing to existing Android and iOS), with the only advantage (which is yet to be tested) of having apps for your Windows based x86 share information with their ARM counterparts (please spare the build-once for both platforms BS). This synchronization may have been a killer app in the early mobile device days, but today information is synchronized across all platforms quite easily.
Microsoft is definitely all-in on this one, if people adopt Windows 8 as a mobile OS, we may very well see Windows taking over the mobile devices market. If it won't, it's only a matter of time until desktop OS's (or at least Windows OS for most desktops) is obsolete, and so will be Microsoft.
Only time will tell, but my money is on a colossal failure for Microsoft
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.