Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Displays Google Input Devices

Google Forbids Advertising On Glass 274

Posted by timothy
from the ban-those-stupid-foam-markers dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Contrary to widespread thought, Google Glass will not be an advertising platform: 'Google Inc has lately told app developers that they are not allowed to present ads to Google Glass users and they are also not permitted to sell users' personal and private information for the fulfillment of advertising needs. The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever, because the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing and other related activities, therefore, the featured podium cannot be used to advertise products as it will cause the user experience to diminish.' Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one." You're not supposed to resell the Glass hardware, either.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Forbids Advertising On Glass

Comments Filter:
  • by ModernGeek (601932) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @10:48AM (#43482645) Homepage
    I have a hard time believing that they will make all their revenue on hardware alone. They will have access to search and activity data combined with a feed that shows people's whereabouts and habits. This marketing data will be worth way more than any direct advertising.
    • They'll make their revenue with Google Play and Chrome Web Store store revenue, since Glass has functions that require pairing with an Android device, and Glass apps are basically (by device features) limited to being auxiliary interfaces to web services for which the primary interface will almost certainly be either a traditional web or mobile app.

      • by Cinder6 (894572) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:23AM (#43483039)

        It's important to note that only third-party developers are prohibited from placing ads; Google isn't bound by the same rules. My tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory says they want to get people used to Glass first, and then start slowly implementing ads until they feel commonplace and accepted. If Glass is plastered with ads from the beginning, no one will use it, and Google knows this.

        That said, it would be great if it never has ads. I would be willing to pay more (were I in the market for Glass) for no ads on a device such as this.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18, 2013 @12:07PM (#43483511)

          It's not about active ads. I'm sure they'll get revenue for passive advertising. You're wearing glass, you search for a restaurant, you get a list of local restaurants with directions... I can see pretty easy ways to embed ads into that whole process, and display USEFUL ads.

          Most folks don't have problems with advertising that helps them find what they're looking for.

        • by vlueboy (1799360)

          Reminds me of watching commercial- and float-free youtube before google's acquisition.

      • by bfandreas (603438)
        They will also make money by having shops listed on Google Maps.

        Rumor has it that they want to sell the consumer version at 750 bucks. If they sell enough of them then they won't be selling at a loss, I guess. If they somewhat make that price point I will get one. After I have sorted out how to deal with my prescription glasses, that is.
    • I'd wager that hardware revenue alone would make it worth it if glass is "the next big thing." I'd also wager that cutting out the middleman between google and consumers, and potentially being squeezed out such as happened with apple, makes it even more worth it. Say MS starts going around to android hardware manufacturers and saying "Okay, you won't have to pay us to license those patents you infringed on (translation: used android) if you start shipping firmware that routes every search through Bing ins
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by EdZ (755139)
      It's $1500 for a SoC phone of fairly basic specifications (mainly due to desired low power consumption), and an off-the-shelf display module. As long as they managed to buy the module in bulk from the OEM rather than buying a packaged end-user product from a reseller, then the majority of cost for development would be in creating the interface, not in developing the hardware. Google's voice search and Now already existed from their Android work, so it's specifically the UI they had to adapt for HUD usage. I
    • by prelelat (201821) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:18AM (#43482989)

      I think you're totally correct,

      While apple has been about the walled garden, google has been about the green valley with large high hills surrounding that discourage you to leave(but you can). Google is into building devices and products that make you use their other services that generate more value through advertisement and data collection. Google doesn't need to get your money from google glass after you buy it, because chances are you are going to use google.com, gmail and probably other services as well from them. These as we all know already track the information they are banning on glass anyways. The device is made to drive users to the other advertisement revenue streams and the larger the adoption of it(like the android phones) the larger their market share is for other services.

      Most of the people I know that use an android phone use gmail and google search built in as well as their play store and some of the other apps. This is the driving force behind android and glass.

    • I have a hard time believing that they will make all their revenue on hardware alone.

      That was an unsupported assumption being made by the submitter.

      Google isn't allowing third-party app developers to display ads. That's completely different from stating that THEY won't display ads or incorporate paid partners into whatever "services" they offer on the devices. Heck, for all we know they'll require a Google+ membership before a company will be included in their listing of nearby entities.

    • by pesho (843750)
      The app developers will not be displaying ads on glass, but this doesn't mean that Google will not make add revenue from this device. I can see at least two ways to that: 1. The information they gather on you from the device will probably be used to increase the value of the targeted ads on their other platforms: google search, Google+, Gmail. 2. They can can show on top of the search (like they do in google search) or mark more prominently on the maps paying businesses. Some developers on android seem to
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by tlhIngan (30335)

      I have a hard time believing that they will make all their revenue on hardware alone. They will have access to search and activity data combined with a feed that shows people's whereabouts and habits. This marketing data will be worth way more than any direct advertising.

      No, Google is not using Glass to sell the OWNERS of Glass ads. That might happen eventually, but a more valuable service is being performed by Glass owners for Google. Namely the gather of information on other people THROUGH your glass. Se

    • They are going to eat some costs. This is like video game console development. You eat some costs upfront to get the entire ecosystem out there. They did the same thing with Android. Facebook did the exact same thing. If the platform is a cesspool of ads, no one will want to use it. Once it's in widespread use they can do what they want with it. I doubt they have a lot of interest in developing hardware either. They want to get the ecosystem into widespread usage any way possible, then take a step back and
  • Would be bad if the ad experience would double: glass and browsing.

    CC.

    • Does Google say anyting about "Product Placement?"
  • Hardware revenue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18, 2013 @10:51AM (#43482687)

    > Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one

    Or, you know, collecting user data such as location, what the user is looking at and browsing, and so on. Which then in turn can be used to target advertising.

  • by F9rDT3ZE (2860845) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @10:54AM (#43482709)
    what is the difference between "presenting ads to Google glass users" and "internet browsing"? Is Glass going to come with built-in ad-blockers for all web pages? Are they going to build special software to prohibit Glass-specific advertising on web pages that are not in any kind of partnership with Glass? This seems to me like a way of controlling the advertising revenue streams for Google more than anything else, since Google's pages are larded with ads and Glass will inherently drive traffic to those pages, both inside and outside of the Glass environment. I wonder if it even raises antitrust implications, as it tremendously biases the products toward Google's advertising & commerce platforms while pushing others out.
  • Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afxgrin (208686) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @10:54AM (#43482719)

    They say this now but after Microsoft or Apple sell an ad supported product for cheaper they'll change their minds quickly.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BasilBrush (643681)

      That is the opposite to Apple's way, so they won't do it. And Microsoft launching new hardware isn't much of a threat to anyone.

      Google Glass will fail on it's own (lack of) merits.

      • Re:Whatever (Score:4, Interesting)

        by afxgrin (208686) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:45AM (#43483309)

        My point is that if it is successful as a product competitors will attempt to recreate a similar experience and may not see any issue with having ads. If ads become 'workable' into the product it will likely be used to subsidize the cost of the competing product hence making a lower priced product with similar or the same functionality. For Google to stay competitive in the long road they would likely need to implement ads. Turning on intrusive ads now would be awful if they want consumer adoption of the product.

  • when I go to google.com with those?

    and surely they would be taking a cut of the app sales, so no hw only vector there.
    moreover.. they don't yet have a profit vector for it.

    but don't worry, there's a very thin line between "information" and "advert" when your app exists solely for the purpose of finding nearest mcdonalds.

  • by kamapuaa (555446) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @10:57AM (#43482749) Homepage

    The next step is to pull all slashvertisements for Google Glass.

  • That seems daft (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ciderbrew (1860166)
    If you're walking around you'd want to see what shops have to offer. Often I'll type in a very wide search in to Google maps and see whats about. If you like comedy and some cafe has a comedy place in the back which runs every other second month on a tuesday, which you'd never know about. It would be good to see that information augmented in. Set some very tight preferences so you're not being blasted with everything and you're good to go.

    Also, If the gps picks up that you are doing over 8mph it should t
  • What about web sites that pick up on the user agent string?
    • That's a thought. By that or the use of CSS media, one should be able to block Google glass users from accessing a site just as easily as optimising a site for Google glass. Another fine way of boycotting it.

  • by rodrigoandrade (713371) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:01AM (#43482795)

    Contrary to widespread thought, Google Glass will not be an advertising platform... yet!

    • Exactly. It will be one day, just not right now. New products need curb appeal. A cool factor. It's really hard to wow a first time user with a product filled with ads. Once they get enough users things will change. The original google search engine did the exact same thing. Once it was in common usage they started inserting "sponsored links." First you develop the technology, get everyone to use it, THEN you squeeze them.
  • Lol (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:04AM (#43482823)

    But "sponsored notices" I am sure will be fully supported.

  • Cable TV (Score:5, Insightful)

    by femtobyte (710429) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:10AM (#43482897)

    Remember how Cable TV started out with no advertisements, to give people a good reason to plunk down big wads of cash every month for stuff like what they got free over the airwaves? Remember how short that lasted, once cable acceptance picked up? This no-ads/tracking thing is just a phase to get Google Glasses in front of everyone's eyeballs; then we'll get ads full blast.

    • by danhuby (759002)

      I think I agree with that. Google are probably worried that initial sales would be hampered by the preconceived notion that it would be used for major eyespam.

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Remember how I canceled cable and switched to netflix? If you were not aware that stopped the advertising right quick. It's cheaper too.
      I suggest you do the same.
      Glass is just a front end for the smartphone, you can block the adds there.

      • by femtobyte (710429)

        Remember how Netflix took a couple decades to arrive after cable was already fully ad-ridden? Remember how the general public today still doesn't know how to fully ad-proof their browsers and root their cellphones, so even if a few uber-nerds slip through the cracks, Google will still have succeeded at further pushing omnipresent privacy invasion on the general public? gGlass is "just a front end for the smartphone" that gives them direct "push" capability straight to your eyeballs, and constant recording f

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          Adblock plugins are generally the most popular plugin for browsers. No need to root a cellphone to install a web browser plugin.

          It is not constantly recording. The battery could never do that. It even has a warning light that lets people know when you are recording as well.

          Before netflix you could rent these round shiny disks that had videos on them without advertising. Before that they had these cartridge looking things with magnetic tape spooled up inside. Again all of this was available for those decades

          • by femtobyte (710429)

            Battery life is only a minor technical hurdle, being steadily surmounted. Whatever can record for a couple hours today will be able to record all day in a few years. Anyway, Google probably doesn't need/want continuous video (yet); a frame grab every few seconds will give them a perfectly good sampling --- where you are, what brands and products you look at, what things you own, who you talk to --- on a highly granular few second basis; capturing 24FPS probably wouldn't add much more. Oh, and all those rent

  • by rs1n (1867908) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:13AM (#43482937)
    Google doesn't want developers to incorporate ads into their apps for glass. Lots of app developers create a "free" version of their app that is supported through advertising. It's this particular aspect of advertising that Google is trying to prevent from happening.
    • Lots of app developers create a "free" version of their app that is supported through advertising. It's this particular aspect of advertising that Google is trying to prevent from happening.

      And yet at the same time they are preventing developers for charging for software. It's like a developer magnet... pointing the wrong way.

  • DO NOT TAUNT GOOGLE GLASS!

  • If they're not going to blast these glasses with ads then it's because they've found a better way to exploit you. Probably selling your movements, then letting local merchants spam you.

    • by bhagwad (1426855)

      Lol. It's hilarious to see people's paranoid rantings.

      FYI - Google would be utterly stupid to allow merchants to spam users. Or even sell their data to them.

      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        "FYI - Google would be utterly stupid to allow merchants to spam users. Or even sell their data to them."

        Of course they would. That's what Google does to make money.

        • by bhagwad (1426855)

          Google keeps its data for itself. It doesn't give its most valuable assets to anyone no matter how high the price. It would be absurdly stupid to do that. Not to mention against their very obvious privacy policies.

          But even without the policy in place, it's just a bad business decision. Google's entire business model is based on trust. If users feel they can't trust Google with the information they give them, they'll stop using their services.

          Wake me up when they start giving my information to third parties.

    • by swillden (191260)

      Probably selling your movements

      Google doesn't sell any user data.

      • by swillden (191260)

        Probably selling your movements

        Google doesn't sell any user data.

        Actually, slight correction, I believe the Google privacy policy does allow selling of aggregated data. I should have said Google doesn't sell any individual user data.

        Also, disclaimer: I work for Google but don't have any inside information about this. My comments are based on the published privacy policy.

      • by ankhank (756164) *

        Google has nothing except user data to sell.
        They may not disclose individual data.
        But they definitely sell it.

        Google got their approach backward.
        If they'd stayed with search, they could've charged companies by how successfully, quickly, easily, and uniquely people -found- the company's products when they wanted to solve a problem or fill a need and went searching for good answers.

        Make what you sell good, and well and accurately and easily described, in a way that explains what need it satisfies -- and searc

  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:21AM (#43483013) Homepage

    Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one.

    That conclusion is not supported by the fact that Google does not allow advertising on Google Glass. Google Glass is not exclusively an output device, it is also a sensor array. The data collected by the sensor array would be very valuable to Google's surveillance and analytics programs. Whether Google will store, use, or distribute any of the data collected by the Google Glass sensors has not, as far as I know, been addressed.

    Generally speaking, Google seems to have a very solid understanding that it is inexpensive to store data and a significant opportunity cost to discard it.

  • by sribe (304414) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:21AM (#43483015)

    The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever...

    Really? When? Where? I cannot find any reference whatsoever to Google making that statement, only references, like this one, to an anonymous source claiming it. I feel confident that if Google had "explicitly and openly" said any such thing that I would have been able to well, you know, google it ;-)

    Unmentioned here is the fact that Google is also forbidding developers to charge for their software, leaving developers with no revenue model at all. I imagine this is intended as an exploratory phase, and there is intent to in the future allow some revenue model for developers, but not giving any clue as to how developers might be allowed to make some money seems like a really good way to stifle development right from the outset.

  • by gottabeme (590848) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:29AM (#43483101)

    The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever, because the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing and other related activities, therefore, the featured podium cannot be used to advertise products as it will cause the user experience to diminish

    So it's designed for internet browsing and stuff...like smartphones???

    I'm so sick of ads taking up my tiny screen space, my pathetic battery life, and my worthless monthly bandwidth. This is the worst in apps made by every random developer who thinks he's entitled to make a constant revenue stream from throwing together a piddly app to do something basic like a kitchen timer. I even had an app that was supposed to be an app-store release of the ICS camera app...and it had an ad on the screen when you were using the camera! All he did was release the ICS camera app!

    How about standing up to these developers, Google? Huh?

  • In the EU it is not legal to try and forbid anyone to resell items acquired by any means whatsoever. You buy it, you become the owner, you can do with it what you want: resell it, destroy it, lend it, rent it out, give it away. Google's gonna have a hard time with Euro Commissary iron Nellie ( Neelie Smit-Kroes, who already severely flogged them ).
    • by swillden (191260)

      In the EU it is not legal to try and forbid anyone to resell items acquired by any means whatsoever. You buy it, you become the owner, you can do with it what you want: resell it, destroy it, lend it, rent it out, give it away. Google's gonna have a hard time with Euro Commissary iron Nellie ( Neelie Smit-Kroes, who already severely flogged them ).

      I wonder if there aren't any exceptions for limited-access preview items. This first generation of Google Glass isn't available for sale to the public, and buyers of the Explorer edition have to agree to some things before they can purchase them.

      Also, I don't believe people from outside the United States were eligible to apply for the Explorers program. Perhaps the EU law you mention doesn't include any exceptions allowing Google to impose these restrictions, and that's why it was limited to US residents.

  • Google isn't forbidding advertising on Glass. They're forbidding non-Google advertising.

  • Prevent a Siri (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tuppe666 (904118) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:44AM (#43483283)

    http://www.inquisitr.com/256025/steve-wozniak-says-apple-ruined-siri-technology-after-acquisition/ [inquisitr.com] Here is Steve Wozniak showing how siri was destroyed by Apple advertising “What are the five largest lakes in California?” and “What are the prime numbers greater than 87?” (91). To which Wozniak replied, “It’s incredible. It’s like it understands ‘greater than.’”

    Wozniak also notes that his former question about California Lakes now brings up lakefront properties while his question about prime numbers now displays information about prime ribs

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      Let's see:

      5 largest notable lakes by surface area in California (US State)
      1 Salton Sea 950 km^2
      2 Lake Tahoe 499 km^2
      3 Goose Lake 380 km^2
      4 Honey Lake 190 km^2
      5 Mono Lake 180 km^2

      "89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167 173, 179, 181, 191... (infinity primes)"

      Looks like they fixed it.

  • I think I have figured out the appeal of Google Glass. People saw Terminator 2 and remember all the information the terminator had at his 'eyeballs' and thought it was really, really cool. Google glass is an attempt to make this happen, next up Google Robot.

    They already have to the OS of course, it will be simple to port 'droid' to it's next version that we'll call 'robot'. It's a small and light weight OS that can run on a variety of hardware platforms and was meant for one shape but adapted to another. It

  • There is a saying the goes something like "don't attribute to malice which can be explained by stupidity".

    I wonder if their decision is based on my twist on that saying "don't attribute to kindness that which can be explained by avoiding liability and bad press". Perhaps they dont want to be caught showing ads to the first person who gets hit by a bus because his/her focus was on the display watching a sexy ad and not the world around them?
  • Google Inc has lately told app developers that they are not allowed to present ads to Google Glass users and they are also not permitted to sell users' personal and private information for the fulfillment of advertising needs.

    Decisions like this should, by law, be in the hands of the users.

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum

Working...