
Google Pixel Launch [LIVE] - pixelfeeder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__DrcWO92VI?hn
======
domas
Actual stream from Google:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4y0KOeXViI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4y0KOeXViI)

------
throwaway98237
compare this launch to a SpaceX launch, or an Apple event.

it looks like a required university course at 8am. the background is not of
the greatest resolution. the presenters are deadpan. the crowd is, less than
enthusiastic.

last thought, google just went all in on the business model of "eroding
personal privacy" to "capture value to increase shareholder value". the
presenters are continuously driving home the point that the "google assistant
is at the center of it all". there is zero pretension of your data remaining
your data. HN is constantly having spirited conversations around Snowden and
related revelations, but then seems to give a pass or benignly ignoring
google's steady erosion of user privacy.

~~~
eitally
I love that you used a throwaway for this. I think it's perfectly reasonable
to have this reaction, but it's also perfectly reasonable to allow the kind of
data sharing Google (and others) require in order to provide "intelligent"
assistance. I don't think it's reasonable to bring out the pitchforks every
time a company requires user data in order to provide an arbitrary service
that would be otherwise impossible.

~~~
throwaway98237
fair enough assumption :) but i actually plan on using this one going forward.
i lost the password for my normal handle, which is "JustUhThought". finally
decided it was time to get an account for which i had the password. thought a
"throw away" handle was nifty, because others might assume i was being more
"honest" due to to the cloak of a throw-away, and so more likely to take my
comment at face value.

i agree that it is perfectly reasonable as a product. however, this is there
_entire_ business model. it is why they provide free storage for photos. it is
why they want to get hardware into user's hands. it is why they do not provide
end-to-end encryption for their communication apps. to me that is a
distinction with a difference. it is a philosophy, not a product. and as i see
our society marching into the future with a technological infrastructure at
it's core built on the philosophy that it is ok to erode personal privacy for
the benefit of the private corporation, i worry.

i think we should all get out an protest. but _not_ with pitchforks. i'm a
strong believer in public discourse, public disobedience, peaceful protect,
constructive criticism, and constructively building alternatives.

~~~
eitally
I get you, but I philosophically disagree and personally place significant
value on the benefits I, as a consumer, receive from "intelligent" services. I
also completely understand your POV re: erosion of privacy, and that's a-ok,
too. Speaking as a googler, though, I think you attribute far too much to
malice when what from their POV are stepwise improvements to consumer
services.

But yes, unless things change at the macro level, we're pretty quickly moving
into a future ruled by corporations: health, energy, technology, etc, and that
is scary.

~~~
throwaway98237
I don't attribute malice actually. Sorry if I came across like that. I believe
this whole shift is occurring because of systemic structures and incentives
rather than individuals motivations. A rational employee is going to do the
best they can at their job within the framework of their company, the economy,
and the regulatory environment. The same can be said of those in the C-suites.
And the same can be said of the investors. I don't believe there is any
conspiracy or individual malice. I believe it is a very boring, rational
outcome of the overall operating environment we've created.

In that context, I believe that it's important to prioritize "citizen" issues
over "consumer" issue, and security over convenience. Google has done some awe
inspiring work, much of which I believe Google could have accomplished without
requiring a user to agree to a single ToS governing all Google products,
without demanding access to _all_ user data. Statistical methods have come a
long way, and much smaller data sets coupled with more explicit interaction
with its stakeholders/customers (out in the open, explicit conversations vs
deep dives into data without notifying the sources of the data) can still
enable almost everything Google is doing. The stuff that would not be enabled
within that framework could still be accomplished by Google explicitly paying
folks to provide data sets (paying people to read scrips or have conversations
explicitly recorded for instance) for the express purpose of building up data
sets to work against for deep learning related to NLP for Google's
"assistant". Lord knows Google has the cash to afford such an approach. But,
since Google's current corporate structure requires it to highly prioritize
profits, it just takes the data from _private_ conversations.

The argument then is, well, that's what happens when you utilize a free or
subsidized service. Yes, that is what you get. But it is _not_ the only way we
could be going on about this business. We just have our priorities all mixed
up, because of the systemic incentives.

------
pixelfeeder
I'm hoping some updates on the VR work they're doing

~~~
fixermark
Those updates happening now.

------
throwaway98237
pushing "smart devices, dumb users" into the future

