This would be interesting: Real-time information (140 characters) about what people are doing and who's following them. Why does Google care? Maybe because their massive data centers can store all the twitters, harvest them, mine them, and deduce trends. If Google knows what I'm doing right now ...
But the deal isn't done. Read about it here.
more later. I have go twitter before it's too late!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article really does seem to ignore the simple fact that Google would have access to even more information to sell to their advertisers. Putting ads directly on a site such as YouTube or Blogger is not the only way for Google to benefit from the acquisition of these sites. The mere idea of more information with which to profile someone makes Twitter very valuable to Google. Imagine if you tweet that you are at a Dodgers game, and they next day an ad for tickets shows up on your email account. This would make advertising through Google even more attractive to companies, leading to a large increase in revenues without a single ad showing up on Twitter
ReplyDeleteexactly! And just imagine when all this data is stored and harvested over the long term... But this also raises the very fundamental point that WE ARE FREELY AND WILLINGLY PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION. It's not like Google is getting it from the thin air. We give it over. The key for Google is to engineer or acquire tools in which people willingly and enthusiastically provide the data. By themselves, the tools are pretty much useless.
ReplyDeleteI think technology like this can become very dangerous if it falls into the hands of a capitalist that seizes the opportunity to use our information against us. We are free and willing to provide this information but only do so because we are drawn in by advertisements and promotions without thinking about the ultimate effect of us relinquishing private information. WE assume that our information will only be used for the purpose that we are giving it without thinking about the fact that access to it might not end there. WE might be enticed to provide information for purposes of a free credit report or a free family history report or something along those lines, but google keeps this information and can effectively use it against us by personalizing advertisements and promotions that we would be more likely to be interested in. If we are traveling around town shopping for a new car and report it via twitter, we might get ads for consumer reports or various car companies and lured in to spending money on things that we typically wouldn't. Our health problems might be on file because we provide that information in order to get a health assessment or something similar, and then we get medical companies and insurance agencies contacting us to purchase their services and products. I don't agree with Google gaining rights to Twitter and tracking services because of the potential for this information to be used in the worst way.
ReplyDeleteI find this news very interesting, not surprising, and not really a problem at all. I, unlike chrissy1988, fail to see the problem in a car company contacting me after I say that I am going to look at cars. Actually, I love that concept. No longer do we need to even search anymore, instead, the results come to you! Now, granted...just pondering this idea right now, certain implications and restrictions come to mind that all rely on NETWORK NEUTRALITY. But given that the net will remain neutral, I think that this sounds like a wonderful idea and a great direction for marketing to head.
ReplyDeleteQuestion of the day for you guys...Is the internet all about marketing/sales/money? Or is there more to it? Is there a goal for creators to create a community, provide a platform to reach a goal, to create a useful tool, or do all of these things, communities, platforms, and tools revolve around what creates the most revenue? Passion and desire for simple creation must play the largest role right?
I think part of the Google-Twitter collaboration is Google trying to get a presence in the cell phone arena (via the Android OS and Google SMS http://www.google.com/mobile/default/sms.html). This would be a very viable part of their business because of a growing mobile phone culture in America and the West (as seen by products such as the Blackberry and iPhone).
ReplyDeleteI also think that Google’s acquisition of Twitter would be a bad move business-wise, even though Twitter is perhaps the most well known of mobile phone culture in English speaking countries. As the PC World article mentions, Google’s acquisitions of Youtube and Blogger haven’t been that profitable. Yet they could be; Google could track what Youtube videos you like or what Blogger-powered blogs you read, and email you relevant advertisements. But they don’t; they’re not stupid enough to sabotage their own image and lose business.
I can understand why people are worried though. The capability without someone to keep Google honest is very frightening. If we become too reliant on using Google as our jumping point for browsing and information, could the company use that to their advantage to hide criticism from the watchdogs? (I doubt this would happen; once it is discovered, internet denizens would find ways to make the information known, even if the information is suppressed and removed. This happened with code cracking HD-DVD’s protection and information about Scientology.)
I also think a lot of people are over reacting to what would happen with Twitter, because a lot of third parties already mine information from Twitter. There are hash tags to find certain topic mentions in Tweets and even sites where that pull random tweets to show “real time” internet thoughts/postings.
As for Kevin’s question, maybe I’m an optimist but I believe the internet can mix good services with profit or sustainability. The thing is, the company has to make people believe it is worth the money (if it tried to run on donations method like Wikipedia does) and compromises (getting targeted advertising from Google). If the user isn’t willing to give up information (although recognizing when information is being given up is another matter), then he/she has the option to switch to another competing site.
I want to also ask a question though. Are we holding Google up to a double standard? I think a site like Facebook has far more of a potential of violating our privacy and sharing the information gathered with third parties or people you know. Google is *not* primarily a social networking site and does not have so much easy information connecting us to products (such as the favorite movies and books you list on your profile). And Facebook uses targeted advertising the same as Google does.
For me, Google acquiring Twitter will, as Kevin argued, be beneficial. Since all information that is queried in Google is never thrown out, all of this information that is collected will help dissect individual consumers. Even without Twitter, information about what we search, browse, and shop is stored into the databases at Google and sorted and analyzed. Slowly, Google will understand each consumer on the individual level and marketing will become specific. Thus, instead of seeing advertisements on billboards and in public, more advertisements will be sent to cellphones and emails. With Twitter, the consumer market will become more efficient, as real-time information will facilitate quicker acquisition of what the consumer wants. Thus, instead of seeing annoying ads for things that I don’t want or have no interest in, advertisements will take to my liking and will be catered efficiently. When I am on the market for a car of a certain brand, Google will direct advertisements for the best deals on WHAT I WANT. But, for those against the Google invasion, I think that this would be a subscription, for privacy issues of course. So, in the end, Google will provide instant gratification for what we are looking for, while still being in check since the service would be subscription based.
ReplyDelete