Philip Eng

Hi Phillip!
I think Apple and Microsoft have build two totally different app-download platforms, and I tend to think that their individual methods work best for their audiences… For example, Apple’s deep-pay but highly secure purchasing platform also utilizes a stricter sense of app approval- meaning some apps on the Microsoft store or other platforms never make it to Apple because their app requirements are usually much higher than other competitors. This results in a high-end play store, with only the best of the best purchased and displayed. On the other end, Microsoft operates as a more open forum, where coders that meet a certain standard can post their products to get to a wider audience without a lot of security and approval measures. This makes a lower-end economic play store that is attractive to a wider audience that may not care for the luxury or high-end of the Apple store.

I find it funny that Apple and Google are siting data security as the reason for the high fees. Apple is a little better, but they both do all kinds of things with our data that we do not want them to. My fear with this 30% is how much of it is being based onto the user. If a company knows it needs to sell at $5 to make a profit, and they know they will loose 30%, they will charge the user $7 to cover the fees. So, me as a user is paying two extra dollars because of Apple’s and Google’s money grabs.

Thank you for sharing this article Philip. I have just seen videos of a prank going around where a wife repeatedly speaks baby related words into her husbands phone and the husband becomes confused as to why he is receiving all these baby ads out of nowhere. I think this goes to show how well known it is that our everyday devices are actually listening and not just tracking our searches. Technology is such a new industry and is changing so fast that I think its hard for the government to keep up with laws and regulations to match its.

While I understand that the data collected from voice assistants is very useful to marketers/advertisers, from a consumer side I do think it’s creepy when my phone pulls up an add for something I was just talking about! This is one of the reasons we don’t have an Alexa and we keep the microphone on our Google Home off (we basically just use it as a speaker). I mentioned this in another comment on someone else’s post, but I wish companies would be more transparent about this kind of thing. If I am going to use a voice recognition service, I think it would be more ethical for a company to tell me explicitly that they are going to be listening and pulling data from what I’m saying. However, like Chand mentions above, I do think the major problem is that the government cannot keep up with technological changes fast enough to create regulations that would protect us. Is it putting too much onus on corporations to expect them to behave ethically when there is no incentive to do so from the government?

I’m surprised with Siri that Iphone’s aren’t able to unlock our phones based on voice command. Google and Siri spend so much time listening to us that they haven’t enacted this innovation. When I think of the future, I think of everything being voice-activated. Communication is key to data tracking; instead, it’s in written or verbal form and then stored. Without proper government regulations, then I believe technology should halt. Technology is built upon replacing humans anyway, so consumers should want to regulate a happy-medium between us and the tech world.

I would not doubt that our apps are listening when “active”. My next-door neighbor swears that her phone is listening because of the same point you mentioned regarding adds displaying a short time after a conversation. Personally, I don’t use siri that often, so I just turn Siri’s listening capability off on both my phone and watch. I lean toward the side of caution when considering if I want to convert my house to a smart home, or not. It just concerns me how much access we are providing these platforms through all our internet connected devices with no barriers of entry.

I can’t count how many times I’ve come across an Ad after talking about what was being advertised (And though it may sound crazy I’ve even seen Ads after thinking about a product/service). Like everyone else mentioned, I believe this level of data sharing is unethical with permissions but I also see how consumers could benefit from being reminded of things that are on our mind, if permitted. For example, I believe that I have the worst memory especially for a relatively young person. I can think or even talk about something and if I don’t write it down, I can completely forget the topic, plan and train of thought. I personally would opt in to these devices listening to my conversations (sometimes) but I would at the same time want it to be my prerogative. Thanks for this post!

I am glad to see so many people taking steps to prevent companies from getting information on them. However, there is little you can do at this time, short of not using the technology. I found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S35_BfymTgE . It talks about how even on airplane mode and not connected to the internet, your phone still tracks and stores information about your travels. Then as soon as you hook it up to something, it sends all that data someplace.

As a marketer I am torn. On the one hand, I think the amount of real time data is unbelievable useful. Not just for mass customization, but also for measuring returns from those ads. On the other hand, I think it is a dangerously slippery slope. However, I see this also as a branding opportunity. Duck duck go has started making a name for itself as a privacy minded search engine. As more consumers start thinking about this, it will become a product differentiator. I also feel the all or nothing user agreements need to go. I should be able to pick and choose the sections I want to agree to. Even just having the choose over some will make me feel more comfortably with using a product.

This is a great post, especially since we have to read the case study about TikTok. It seems a bit crazy that TikTok is being forced to either sell its company or be banned by the U.S. It has captured the eyes of many millennials and teenagers, as said with how many users are on the app monthly and how long these users view the app compared to its competitor. If it is somehow able to change its protocols or avoid being bought out, I think it will eventually beat out the $20 billion evaluation. It now all depends on what will happen next. If it does get bought out, the social media industry will be forever impacted.

Great read! Really crystalizes the TikTok case study that we are preparing for next week’s class. I think the billion dollar question we have to ask ourselves here: is the juice worth the billion dollar squeeze?

With some estimates going as high as $30-50 billion for TikTok, Microsoft really has to feel that the app’s potential, in terms of its AI learning and user data for some 80 million users in the US, is of enough value to pull the trigger. There’s so much external pressure here that it can’t be an easy decision to make. Good luck to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella!

You are absolutely right. The value of TikTok is not the viewers and the content, although it is a nice bonus, it is the AI language itself. However, the question then is if TikTok would sell that part of the firm. They may be willing to turn over the data to appease the White House, but are they willing to turn over their AI program? They have been forcing US firms to turn over intellectual property for years to get access to the Chines market. Is it time for US firms to do the same?