People are going to revolt at some point against a home environment covered in ads. Public space is probably a lost cause; it's gonna be blanketed in advertisements that dynamically change with passersby, not that much different from the vision in Minority Report. But inside the house? No, I don't think people will tolerate ads on their walls, or on LCDs built into their chairs, or alongside kids' drawings on the fridge, and so on. Maybe I'm out of touch, but that sort of intrusion crosses some kind of line with me. Granted, people gradually become less resistant as changes becomes more ubiquitous-- but if the home doesn't remain sacrosanct, what will? Will church pews eventually include screens that let you enter your donations with credit card, rather than putting cash in the basket? If so, will those screens be attached to a system that tracks the most generous congregants, and sends them targeted ads? I'm just making this example up-- but you can see how an ad-saturated world could easily take a turn toward the dystopian.
I suspect Google knows this. My church example is a little silly, but it's not remotely the most extreme concern out there. There will be a demand for smart home appliances that don't inundate us with ads, and if Google doesn't want to play in that space, Apple or Microsoft or someone else will. Yes, Google generates revenue through ads-- but Nest could fit into this agenda without actually featuring ads itself. Data about my home heating preferences might be used to generate all kinds of data that would be useful to advertisers. Fine, whatever. If they determine that I want ice cream because I keep running the AC, they can email me a coupon for Rocky Road when my phone tells them I'm near a supermarket. But I don't need to see the ad on the damn thermostat. Google can crunch numbers and generate ads, but just send the ads somewhere they make sense-- back in gmail, or to a browser, or on my phone, etc. They can even take over my TV and create personalized commercials. But I'm never going to look at email on my toaster, so why I should have to look at ads? Google's going to collect and analyze data from connected devices, and it's going to get a lot of ad insights from that effort. But the devices don't need to be the delivery mechanism for the ads. We're going to have plenty of screens. Let's keep ads off of some of them.
Though, ubiquitousness does not imply a good product. E.g., food sold by McDonalds is everywhere worldwide, but is not considered to be good (at least, to most people who have truly had good food).
My point is, Honeywell are not known for innovation in the consumer market.
And I agree, Nest did copy the emblematic rotary design. Though I believe it was not as a homage to Honeywell's, but rather for simplicity, aesthetics, and user-interface design. The rotary dial affords more degrees of freedom than buttons, and looks better (it can be made "invisible" as Nest has done).
Makes you wonder why Google does this. Who they really care about.
I don't agree with your point about Honeywell giving Nest any challenge. Honeywell has never made a good product. They take average technology and use it to add bells & whistles to their products (they give no real benefit to their customers other than flashy screens and beeps). This is very different from Nest, which is all about creating advances and new capabilities.
Nest made their mark because their product is truly great -- it actually learns your habits (temperature-related) and it uses the weather to basically predict what you want. And it actually does a decent job. Nest was founded by basically a bunch of former Apple employees, who understood design (not just aesthetics, but also software and user-interface).
Now, Google comes along, and is trying to squeeze Nest (not realizing they're ruining it). Because they're clueless (or maybe single-mindedly ad-focused)
1) Google issued several press releases trying to clarify the news. They did not say Nest will never put ads on its screens. Google's statement is guarded and carefully worded: "Nest ... does not have an ads-based model and has never had any such plans," This is Corporate Speak -- and it talks only about Nest's past. Google did not say Nest will never show Ads. Ads are Google's entire corporate strategy -- they will never disclose their strategy.
2) Google's entire business model is based on advertisements (and the data they need for it). It relies on clueless users giving their personal data to Google, freely. Google then sells that (our) data to advertisers -- to anyone that pays them (even thieves who form fake companies). Google could care less if their data discloses when you're home and when you're not, what road you drive to work, and what stores you shop at and when. (all of this is free, from the GPS data they get for free, from every android phone).
How Enterprises Are Attacking the IT Security Enterprise
To learn more about what organizations are doing to tackle attacks and threats we surveyed a group of 300 IT and infosec professionals to find out what their biggest IT security challenges are and what they're doing to defend against today's threats. Download the report to see what they're saying.
2017 State of IT ReportIn today's technology-driven world, "innovation" has become a basic expectation. IT leaders are tasked with making technical magic, improving customer experience, and boosting the bottom line -- yet often without any increase to the IT budget. How are organizations striking the balance between new initiatives and cost control? Download our report to learn about the biggest challenges and how savvy IT executives are overcoming them.
- Terms of Service
- Privacy Statement
- Legal Entities
- Copyright © 2017 UBM, All rights reserved
Tweet This
User Rank: Apprentice
6/5/2014 | 4:37:38 AM
Google does not need to show ads on every app, device, and service they provide. But, they do collect information on you from all these.
And from this, they refine their profile on you. Google has more information on more people than any organisation in the world. They make the NSA look trivial. So much information held by one private company can only end badly.