Latest Authors United letter to Amazon Board

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

My purpose is not to attack you, but I admit to being a little frustrated because the distinction you have made is currently meaningless, and you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid elaborating. Why tell Duckie he is not the customer if it doesn't make any difference? In the context above, you are replying to a quote that said, amongst other things, that Google is good for its customers. The obvious implication of saying Duckie is not a customer is that Google is not good for Duckie or indeed for other "non-customers" of Google's free services. All I am asking is why not?

No, the obvious implication of saying Duckie is not the customer is that Google is more focused on pleasing their paying customers. Saying that Google is more focused on their paying customers does not imply that they are bad for everyone else. What you are saying the logical equivalent of saying that If I am good to family members, then I must be bad to everyone else. You don't seem to be willing to accept the idea that I can be good to people outside my family, even though I care more about people inside my family.

Google can be good to non customers, however when choosing between pleasing paying customers and pleasing someone else, they are most likely going to choose to please paying customers. That observation goes quite a way to explain a number of Google's more controversial privacy moves over the years. Google does a good job of reversing those decisions when they get push back, but it explains why they made the initial decision.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I think one of my favourite passages from Alice in Wonderland is instructive here:



Since no one is "to be master" precision is important. And when. as seems to happen frequently, you claim to be misquoted, a little bit of grace in pointing out what you meant to convey would be nice (though not of course compulsory).

What you apparently meant to say, according to your own later post, is that:

"if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer."

I don't agree with this statement, but it is pointless to get into an argument about it. It obviously derives any semblance of coherence from this particular situation where Google sells the data it gathers, and can not stand as a general principle. Nevertheless, what is the relevance of being a "customer" or a "product"? Since you have not elaborated on this point, I can only guess, and do so at the peril of your future "strawman" allegation if my guess is not to your liking.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that your statement is correct (though it is not). What difference does it make? Are you in fact implying that Google does not treat you as well as it would a customer? If so, in what ways? What point or points are you trying to make?

Just to note, what I am saying is not that I'm being misquoted, it is that people are assuming some dark implications beyond what I am actually saying. Thus, somehow saying that you are not Google's customer is morphed into Google is evil, or some such nonsense. If I mean to imply that Google is evil, then I will say Google is evil. I'm not real fond of the idea that one has to read between the lines for what I really and truly mean. I tend to either say straight out what I think or not say anything at all. All this hidden meanings that people try claim that I have hidden in my posts is pure projection.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, the obvious implication of saying Duckie is not the customer is that Google is more focused on pleasing their paying customers.

And that is where you are simply wrong. Does it hurt you that much to admit that there is paying customers (me included) other than those that place ads?

And contrary to your belief, Google does have to please all of them (again me included) users of free services like Google Search BEFORE they can make the advertisers happy. Nobody using their search (because it sucks) means nobody can see the ads either. So it is in the very best interest of Google to make and keep the free users happy.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

And that is where you are simply wrong. Does it hurt you that much to admit that there is paying customers (me included) other than those that place ads?

And contrary to your belief, Google does have to please all of them (again me included) users of free services like Google Search BEFORE they can make the advertisers happy. Nobody using their search (because it sucks) means nobody can see the ads either. So it is in the very best interest of Google to make and keep the free users happy.

I would also say that I'm a paying customer, since I pay for extra storage on Google Drive, as well as Google apps for business. Google has many many free services, but the days when everything was offered free and the only ones paying were the advertisers is long gone. Of course, we all know that pwalker8 won't ever admit that he's wrong, and I'm sure that somehow this will be categorized as a strawman argument.

Shari

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

I would also say that I'm a paying customer, since I pay for extra storage on Google Drive, as well as Google apps for business. Google has many many free services, but the days when everything was offered free and the only ones paying were the advertisers is long gone. Of course, we all know that pwalker8 won't ever admit that he's wrong, and I'm sure that somehow this will be categorized as a strawman argument.

Shari

Whatever. If you really, really want to clap your hands and say "I do believe that Google has my best interest at heart" then be my guest.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Whatever. If you really, really want to clap your hands and say "I do believe that Google has my best interest at heart" then be my guest.

Show me where I said that? I don't believe that ANY company has my best interests at heart. I believe that smart companies do think about the interests and needs of their customers...and I'm also saying that you are WRONG when you say that advertisers are Google's only paying customers.

Shari

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, the obvious implication of saying Duckie is not the customer is that Google is more focused on pleasing their paying customers. Saying that Google is more focused on their paying customers does not imply that they are bad for everyone else. What you are saying the logical equivalent of saying that If I am good to family members, then I must be bad to everyone else. You don't seem to be willing to accept the idea that I can be good to people outside my family, even though I care more about people inside my family.

Google can be good to non customers, however when choosing between pleasing paying customers and pleasing someone else, they are most likely going to choose to please paying customers. That observation goes quite a way to explain a number of Google's more controversial privacy moves over the years. Google does a good job of reversing those decisions when they get push back, but it explains why they made the initial decision.

Thank you for finally making your point so we can discuss it. There are likely differences between how Google treats customers of its free services as opposed to its payed services. I simply doubt that any such differences are material to this thread. As Duckie so correctly pointed out, without the "payments" in the form of information from the "free" customers there would be no business selling ads. This means, amongst other things, that it is not free to simply exclusively prefer the interests of one group of customers over the other. It is in Google's interests to treat its "free" users as valued customers, and it does so imho pretty well. That is not to say that it never gets things wrong or makes mistakes, but, as you pointed out, they are usually very responsive when they do make these mistakes. And altruism has nothing to do with it. It is plain business sense.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Just to note, what I am saying is not that I'm being misquoted, it is that people are assuming some dark implications beyond what I am actually saying. Thus, somehow saying that you are not Google's customer is morphed into Google is evil, or some such nonsense. If I mean to imply that Google is evil, then I will say Google is evil. I'm not real fond of the idea that one has to read between the lines for what I really and truly mean. I tend to either say straight out what I think or not say anything at all. All this hidden meanings that people try claim that I have hidden in my posts is pure projection.

The problems you describe, at least in this case, occurred because you simply did not make your point. And, quite frankly, getting you to make your point was like extracting teeth. Stating that Duckie is not a customer makes no real point, unless you also state that you consider this means "Google is more focused on pleasing their paying customers". Otherwise, it not only invites but requires that others read between the lines to ascertain what point you are trying to make.

I appreciate that it is difficult to be one of a few dissenting voices on an issue, and quite frankly you and I seem to have different opinions on virtually everything so far. But it is not personal. These forums would be very boring without different views. I value your contributions (though some more than others). Members are here because of a common love of books and reading, which can sometimes be forgotten. I think you will find that if you check your posts to see that you have made the points you wish to make clearly and explicitly you will have less "strawman" difficulties in the future.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by darryl

I think you will find that if you check your posts to see that you have made the points you wish to make clearly and explicitly you will have less "strawman" difficulties in the future.

Amen!

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

The problems you describe, at least in this case, occurred because you simply did not make your point. And, quite frankly, getting you to make your point was like extracting teeth. Stating that Duckie is not a customer makes no real point, unless you also state that you consider this means "Google is more focused on pleasing their paying customers". Otherwise, it not only invites but requires that others read between the lines to ascertain what point you are trying to make.

I appreciate that it is difficult to be one of a few dissenting voices on an issue, and quite frankly you and I seem to have different opinions on virtually everything so far. But it is not personal. These forums would be very boring without different views. I value your contributions (though some more than others). Members are here because of a common love of books and reading, which can sometimes be forgotten. I think you will find that if you check your posts to see that you have made the points you wish to make clearly and explicitly you will have less "strawman" difficulties in the future.

Some of you guys are worse than one of my ex-girlfriends. Every little statement has to be analyzed and dissected for hidden meanings and points. Every statement doesn't have a hidden point or meaning.

The real point to the statement is that if you aren't paying for it, then you aren't the customer. Being the customer and what that involves has different implications for different people and different companies and is a totally different discussion. Ducky said that he was the customer, I said that since he isn't paying he isn't the customer in Google's eyes. What Ducky's expectations as a customer are, I don't know and rather imagine are quite different than mine. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Some of you guys are worse than one of my ex-girlfriends. Every little statement has to be analyzed and dissected for hidden meanings and points. Every statement doesn't have a hidden point or meaning.

The real point to the statement is that if you aren't paying for it, then you aren't the customer. Being the customer and what that involves has different implications for different people and different companies and is a totally different discussion. Ducky said that he was the customer, I said that since he isn't paying he isn't the customer in Google's eyes. What Ducky's expectations as a customer are, I don't know and rather imagine are quite different than mine. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

So I AM the customer, then, since I am paying for the services I get from Google, right? Does the fact that Google does have paying customers that are not advertisers or big corporations change your argument at all? At least a little bit?

Shari

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Ducky said that he was the customer, I said that since he isn't paying he isn't the customer in Google's eyes. What Ducky's expectations as a customer are, I don't know and rather imagine are quite different than mine. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

You seriously need to stop bringing me into the discussion. Every time I mentioned being a customer, I literally meant being a customer. I make money for Google, not indirect through ad-revenue, but directly from my bank account into theirs. I even make money for Google from my bank account -> retailer -> Google when purchasing Nexus branded devices.

No need to keep insulting me again by calling me a product.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by shalym

So I AM the customer, then, since I am paying for the services I get from Google, right? Does the fact that Google does have paying customers that are not advertisers or big corporations change your argument at all? At least a little bit?

Shari

I wouldn't be surprised if you hear somesuch nonsense as: "Of course you are not a customer, you are only extra eyes for the real customers."

I am still waiting for a source from the all so legendary Wall Street Journal that will once and for all prove that the only customers of Google indeed merely place ads.

(And yes, if it slipped right by you, I am being sarcastic to the point of no return - so sue me)

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Some of you guys are worse than one of my ex-girlfriends. Every little statement has to be analyzed and dissected for hidden meanings and points. Every statement doesn't have a hidden point or meaning.

The real point to the statement is that if you aren't paying for it, then you aren't the customer. Being the customer and what that involves has different implications for different people and different companies and is a totally different discussion. Ducky said that he was the customer, I said that since he isn't paying he isn't the customer in Google's eyes. What Ducky's expectations as a customer are, I don't know and rather imagine are quite different than mine. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

In my view what you say above is not what your post conveyed, particularly in the context of replying to a post saying Google (and Amazon) are good for their customers. To post that you are not a customer in those circumstances without also implying that Google is not good for the author of the post you are replying to would, once again in my opinion, require an express disclaimer with your post, or failing this a prompt clarification. I don't know if there is anyone reading this thread who interpreted your post in the way you say above you intended it, though I doubt it. I simply suggest, in the interests of avoiding these continual "strawman" arguments, that you check your posts with an eye to whether they do in fact convey your views accurately to those reading. Also, if others respond to your posts answering arguments you did not make and the like, consider whether the fault lies with them or with a lack of clarity in your post.

Finally, let's call an end to the discussion of customers and products.

[disconnected]

This article I saw today talks about two-sided markets. It's from the NYT so I think it counts as one of ten free articles they allow you each month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/up...abt=0002&abg=1