'The discourse is unhinged': how the media gets AI wrong - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/25/ai-artificial-intelligence-social-media-bots-wrong <comment><USER2> This sort of sensationalism, in general, is so completely ingrained into reporting that it's hard to separate from journalism itself. It's part of the journalistic style, an inevitability of the medium.

We see an article, click a link, by a paper, but we are never committing to more than a second or two of attention at a time. The headline makes you read the byline. The byline gets you reading the second sentence. At every step, a journalist loses most of her readers. The winning strategy is to increase "story," play to existing opinions, be sensational, use bait... There are flavours and degrees, but by and large writing like this is n inevitability of the medium, of journalism.

If you are reporting on programs that "developed a type of machine-English patois to communicate between themselves.." you are reporting on whether or not the skynet singularity is coming, almost certainly.

If we want something different, I think we'll need a medium change.

Personally, I was hoping e-readers would catalyze a new medium subtype: 30-100 page mini books. A lot of "news cycle.." the drip, drip, sensation of the day journalism just isn't a good way of understanding anything.

What happened between North Korea and the US this year? What's been happening with the Syrian war? Brexit as of July 2018...? I would be very happy to exchange the daily/weekly news bulletins for monthly/quarterly mini books.

<comment><USER3> But most people don't want that, sadly.

Instant mass media has shown us that people want to consume media about other real people -- that they admire in some fashion -- going through life. Not reporting, explanation, facts, or science.

So reporters have responded with tweets and instant feedback on anything that's happening. Many times even when nothing is happening, they know they have to put out some kind of personal emotional response to keep the audience.

Newspaper and in-depth reporting worked for the most part because nobody really cared about the author. They cared about the material. That's flipped upside down now. The material doesn't matter as much as the author. Even the reall good occasional long-form material you might find is all geared to get you into a personal, minute-by-minute "relationship" with the author. To become part of the tribe.

<comment><USER2> Oh I don't know... there are wants and there are wants.

I wouldn't put it down to some moral failing of humanity. The problem is more of a systemic one than a fundamental one.. I think.

The way we use our phones/computers, our time and such... it adds up to a system where decisions are instant and reflexive. It adds up to a medium, with all its trappings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 'The Gell-Mann amnesia effect is a theoretical psychological phenomenon, the term itself being coined by author, film producer and academic Michael Crichton after discussions with Nobel-Prize winning physicist Murray Gell- Mann.

Originally described in Crichton's "Why Speculate?" speech, the Gell-Mann amnesia effect labels a commonly observed problem in modern media, where one will believe everything they read from a journalist even after they come across an article about something they know well that is completely incorrect.

The conclusions found and perspectives portrayed by the author are entirely erroneous, often times flipping the cause and the effect. Crichton notes these as "wet streets cause rain" stories.

In short, most eloquently put by Thomas L. McDonald, the Gell-Mann amnesia effect defines the idea that "I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong."'

— [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell- Mann_amnesia_effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect)

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure it's true though. Look at any polls about trust in the media. It's been falling for a long time. People are becoming aware that journalists are systematically unreliable and it's having an impact.

<comment><USER6> And unfortunately the alternative people have found is random hearsay on the web. The dieticians lost our trust and now we're just eating junk food instead.

<comment><USER7> They've been finding random hearsay for a while now. Tabloids had a huge audience, and they're the kind of newspapers many were reading for years. Is the Daily Mail or Sun or Mirror or Express more accurate than some clickbait farm? Probably not.

Most people were't exactly reading [insert name of reputable publication] for their daily news, it was low quality tabloids with a helping of TV and radio pundits.

<comment><USER8> > Tabloids had a huge audience, and they're the kind of newspapers many were > reading for years.

Outside of NYC, the US has basically no daily tabloids.

> Most people were't exactly reading [insert name of reputable publication] > for their daily news

Most people in the US that were reading _any_ daily news were probably reading the dominant local newspaper or one of the latter reputable metropolitan or national papers, because that covers pretty much all the daily written news outlets they would have had access to.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure how often the National Enquirer and it's supermarket checkout line cousins publish but they are certainly available and fairly popular (very popular histically) outside of NYC.

Our disagreement could be a dialect thing though, when I say tabloid I mean a printed paper that consists entirely of stories about UFOs and lurid celebrity gossip. I believe in other parts of the world tabloid has something to do with the format of the paper and the content is considered somewhat but not totally disreputable.

I'm not sure which meaning the other posters are using.

<comment><USER8> > I'm not sure how often the National Enquirer and it's supermarket checkout > line cousins publish

Both common local tabloids (which are often have basic journalistic standards, though they frequently have...interesting...editorial viewpoints) and the supermarket tabloids like the Enquirer are weeklies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Success in developing working AI is not so much of a big step in progress for AI in general.

It would be more interesting if we could understand what happens in those black boxes, and synthesize it. All we see is showcase projects and services, but never something you can run on a client computer.

It really looks like machine learning is just brute forcing problems until you have a partial solution key to a problem, without understanding how it works internally. Granted, it's progress, but why isn't it possible to use the data of a trained ML network for further analysis? I see many models of learning, but not a lot of analysis or simplification of the resulting data.

I would have thought AI would help science understand what intelligence is, but obviously it's always money first, science later. You often see a lot of tools and models, but not a lot of good insights.

<comment><USER11> AI doesent do latteral thinking that well yet. Its a meta problem, thinking about thinking requires selfawareness.

But saying its just bruteforce is missing the larger point, much of evolution is bruteforce.

Of course its money or power first thats how you pay for these things to begin with, with utillity we wil get more and more conscious ai but its obviously going to take time but a blip compared the time evolution have used.

<comment><USER12> There's this continual refrain from AI people: "well evolution is just brute force too", or "the brain is just doing complex statistics too" as if that explains anything at all. There are different ways of implementing "brute force" and "complex statistics" \- what matters is the implementation, not the terminology. Clearly AI is not even remotely close to "thinking" or "awareness" in the human sense. We don't even understand the implementation of those things in humans. It is ignorant conceit to think we will just magically stumble upon the answer with zeitgeist machine learning techniques.

<comment><USER13> _We don 't even understand the implementation of those things in humans._

And we don't have to, unless you're insisting on something that might be referred to more aptly as "Artificial Human Intelligence". Generally speaking though, in the AI field, there's no particular belief that AI _must_ work the same way human intelligence works. If AI research leads to discoveries that help us better understand human intelligence, that's a nice perk, but nobody treats that as the ultimate goal.

That said, of course it makes sense to try and model after human intelligence to the extent we can, since we are currently the best example of intelligence we have available to use as a template.

 _It is ignorant conceit to think we will just magically stumble upon the answer with zeitgeist machine learning techniques._

Who is out there suggesting that we will "just magically stumble upon the answer with zeitgeist machine learning techniques"? From where I sit, it seems that most contemporary researchers who are focused on Deep Learning / Deep Reinforcement Learning / etc. are not talking much at all about "Artificial Intelligence" in the general sense. And the people out there talking specifically about "Artificial General Intelligence" (Ben Goertzel, Marcus Hutter, Pei Wang, etc.) certainly aren't claiming that all we need is the currently faddish ML techniques. See, for reference:

[http://agi-conf.org/2017/?page_id=20](http://agi-conf.org/2017/?page_id=20)

[http://agi-conf.org/2016/schedule/](http://agi-conf.org/2016/schedule/)

[http://agi-conf.org/2015/schedule/](http://agi-conf.org/2015/schedule/)

etc..

<comment><USER10> > but nobody treats that as the ultimate goal.

I remember watching Andrew Ng's course on ML and he was often talking about "AI dream".

I think that the goal of AI is to build machines that are progressively more intelligent. To build those machine you have to build an artificial form of intelligence, to further analyze and research what intelligence really means.

I don't think humans are really able to visualize a form of intelligence other than human or mammal/earthly life forms. Our intelligence comes from an evolutionary need to figure out things in order to survive, but it's an earthly version of how we evolved. With that said, I think we can already say that our definition of intelligence will always biased because we put our human intelligence on a pedestal, and worst than that, we won't be able to detect other forms of intelligence because of those reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This quote is nice: "We've told stories about inanimate things coming to life for thousands of years, and these narratives influence how we interpret what is going on now," Bell says. "Experts can be really quick to dismiss how their research makes people feel, but these utopian hopes and dystopian fears have to be part of the conversations. Hype is ultimately a cultural expression that has its own important place in the discourse."

Hypes are not necessarily wrong. I also think in the end you won't get AI winters anymore. If it is advanced enough AI will be used and you won't get the genie back in the bottle.

</comment><comment><USER15> >The result is dangerous

The complaints in the article seem to apply to crapy sensationalist journalism in general and there is much more danger from that applying to immigrants, politics war and the like. If the Sun prints some nonsense Facebook's bots does it really matter? Nonsense about the enemies WMDs on the other hand can costs thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

<comment><USER5> It does matter yes. Journalists have inordinate influence on politicians, if an outlet (much more likely the guardian in this case) is making nonsense claims about bots it can easily lead to legislation, especially if it lets politicians feel they're doing something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Media does not get AI wrong... media wants to create sensationalism that drives clicks so it publishes stories to that effect. It happens for every topic people fear which these days includes terror and AI...

<comment><USER17> Also, for the most part, media is merely parroting the sensationalism from within the AI industry. It's not the media that is actually allocating millions of dollars to the possibility AI might become self aware and start attacking people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The AI hype also seems to lead to sub-hypes in certain fields. E.g. in the legal profession there is a new buzzword called "Legal Tech". The hope is that AI-driven programs will eventually transform the field. While I think this is certainly possible and will eventually happen, it is astonishing how few programs there are admit the huge hype and countless workshops and conferences about the topic. And while it is possible to compile a list of programs and companies on the market, from my experience most of them aren't actually really used in business.

<comment><USER19> I am a lawyer and a coder and I have to disappoint you that that hype is very real indeed.

The problem is two fold a) Lawyers completely underestimated the decision making abilities of software even without AI b) People who are not lawyers that completely overestimate the complexity of legal resolution.

(a) Happens because the software we lawyers use is basically... well... crap and most lawyers are clueless when it comes to technology, even ones that specialize on it. (b) Happens because of TV and Movies have created this fantasy legal world where lawyer, especially expensive ones can prove that they are elephants because of their virtue to win arguments.

Surprisingly and this was also a surprise to me when I started to study law, law and coding is much closer than people think because there is a lot more logic than there is tv drama in a real court room.

Not only AI should not have problem resolving legal issues , judging from its current achievements, but it can help with the most valuable skill for a lawyer which is pattern recognition. Our profession bombards us daily with tons of data that is extremely hard to organize and keep track of. This applies more on civil than criminal law , but most of law is civil law anyway (economical issues), and this data is documents used as evidence, case law (court cases that have created a precedence) and of course legislation.

Also there is no much of an option really, AI is pretty much unavoidable because the ever evolving immense complexity of modern society has made legal resolution so complex that court cases take up to decades to be fully resolved which of course is not a viable solution.

An example is the IT law which has been a huge suffering for courts and legislators to keep up with its rapid evolution in a profession where court cases and legislations take decades to move forward. In IT decades are in legal terms , centuries.

AI will replace lawyers , for that I have no doubt, cause law is a dying profession anyway for the reason I explained above. Obviously lawyers will still be around for a long long time but yes AI will fundamentally change the profession. The profession is in desperate need of modernization as it has barely evolved that last few thousands of years.

The problem was never what AI can do, it can do amazing thing, the problem is supply and demand. AI is a field of huge demand and minimal supply but then this is a problem that has rampaged the coding profession which is why freelancer coders make more money than lawyers.

<comment><USER20> _> Also there is no much of an option really, AI is pretty much unavoidable because the ever evolving immense complexity of modern society has made legal resolution so complex that court cases take up to decades to be fully resolved which of course is not a viable solution._

Instead of turning law into a computer game where the company with the most TPUs wins, why not simplify or reform the system so that human beings can understand it? Isn't the point of the legal system to resolve conflicts between people, not computers?

I'm worried that we're driving off a cliff of incomprehensibility, where things happen but nobody can understand why. Or even if they do, they don't have the authority to override the system which is making the decision. Reforming the system outright is always too risky -- it's been working OK so far, right? But what happens when it stops working? How can you fix a system you don't understand?

<comment><USER19> Simplification is an illusion. Simplification works great for understanding and learning , I completely agree but is terrible on problem resolution. Mainly because problems don't get simple just because you want them to. Secondly because the nature of knowledge and the world we live in is of immense complexity.

You are absolutely correct though that we are indeed driving off a cliff of incomprehensibility , I cannot count the times when I have caught , including myself, lawyers and coder not understanding even basic concepts like OOP or legal responsibility under the influence of drugs and alcohol. It's not that the concepts are hard to understand but they are so numerous it becomes so easy to get lose track of where you are , where you were and most importantly where you are going.

When I started coding back in the end of 80s coding in Assembly was not that hard. After 30 years of coding I decided to go back to Assembly I just got blown away how much more complex it became, though obviously not surprised, and of course I discovered that even Assembly coder mostly use C libraries cause well, otherwise it gets insane really fast.

My solution to this may sound insane but in life I have learned that when I have a crazy idea ,usually, I end up being correct. I do believe that AI wont replace us but rather augment us. I am not talking about cyborgs , singularity and these nonsense I am talking about software that helps you navigate through the chaos of information. And when I say AI I mean it in the most vague way possible obviously the technology will change in the future in so many ways.

The only viable solution for the human being is to either find news ways to take advantage of the potential of his own intelligence or augment himself in some way.

Afterall its not a secret that AI is already used to construct AI and this opens the door to a ton of potential.Afterall is it not coding all about automated decisions making ? It's not as if we have not being trusting automated machines for thousands of years. But nonetheless humans are terrified of technology. The marvel of the human condition.

<comment><USER5> I guess the issue is the definition of problem. If the law reaches a point where you need AI augmentation to understand it, that's a good sign it's being applied to problems it can't actually address or which may not even exist at all.

Look at GDPR. It's impossible to know what it really means. Huge efforts are put into action with no idea of whether it will be considered good enough or not. That's not a problem you can fix with ai. You need better law (in this case, no law would be better)

<comment><USER21> I'm OK with a computer assisted legal code so long as our policy makers recognize it for the public good that it is. If there is a standardized "legal robot" then everyone who is eligible to votr should have free access to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's rather disingenuous of AI researchers to complain of overhype when they are the ones claiming that their tech should be used to drive cars and hence, as we've seen, kill people.

AI winter will be caused, once again, by the failure of the technology to do what the researchers and practitioners claim it can do. This time, tragically, with fatalities.

<comment><USER23> It seems reasonable enough to argue both that 1. AI should take over certain human roles like driving, which causes millions of fatalities due to human error, and 2. it's silly to frame every new step in AI as part of a grand road to SkyNet. The first is proposing AI for a discrete task, the second is extending this way way out to consciousness or something.

<comment><USER22> Yes, but it's my argument that claim 1 is incorrect and overhype. AI cannot drive better than humans, and that was an hubristic claim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What probabilistic generative model of language generates ``Balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to''? Is this a bigram model taking the highest probability continuation? Certainly nothing modern, right?

<comment><USER25> Neural networks as usual. What I make of it is that the programs noticed that some words had more effect than others, and just started spamming those for maximum value. Source: [https://code.fb.com/ml-applications/deal-or-no-deal- training...](https://code.fb.com/ml-applications/deal-or-no-deal-training-ai- bots-to-negotiate/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It is fascinating how the whole thing is following the classical hype cycle. This and blockchain will tank, and, then come back at a later stage, hopefully, matured.

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I did my masters' thesis in 2004 using evolutionary algorithms. No ordinary person would talk to me about that, even worse, I was easily labeled an outsider and a nerd. Today, people having AI skills are the cool kids on the block. That's the good side of the hype: it's bringing all these nerd topics into the mainstream.

<comment><USER27> _This and blockchain will tank, and, then come back at a later stage, hopefully, matured_

I think it's a mistake to conflate the two, they are unrelated and orthogonal to each other. AI has a whole raft of problems waiting to be solved as soon as it develops enough but blockchain is very much a solution in search of a problem _that only it can solve_. Every proposed application of it eventually requires a "trusted third party" and then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. In a former role I sat in on many fintech pitches where painfully earnest people from outside the industry proposed solutions to problems that they only imagined existed... I mean at the level of claiming that only blockchain can do something that actually the Medicis were doing in the 15th century...

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The Musk AI hype is quoted extensively - but these articles never get into Musk's line largely being reheated Yudkowsky. I had one of these discussions just a couple of days ago, where I had to point out that Musk was an accomplished businessman and engineering manager, but not actually a working engineer at any point ...

<comment><USER5> They may well be partly true but when setting up SpaceX he immersed himself in rocket physics and basically became a self taught rocket scientist. He isn't just a manager.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Instead of documentation for the press on how to cover scientific topics, don't patronize these rags. What exactly is the point of correcting the press?

</comment><comment><USER30> Good old capitalism cannot stop mixing reality and sale-speak, only if you start taking the "magic sauce" pitch for technical facts, it's no wonder you end up scaring yourself. On that same note, I kind of understand that AI researchers have this need to sell their craft as magic sauce. That's how selling things works, after all. Here we go in another cycle of debunking the same magic sauce as common snake oil.

<comment><USER31> Real AI researchers shouldn't need to be "selling" their craft. You're confusing "data scientists" at places like Facebook and Google with genuine scientists.

<comment><USER32> "Real AI researchers" also need to, if they want to get funded for their research.

<comment><USER31> There's a certain amount of puffery that goes into a grant proposal, but it's nothing like marketing-speak. For one thing, "magic secret sauce" will never get you funded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Optimization and statistical algorithms known as "AI" are far far far away from surpassing humans. Philosophically, it will never happen, we can create intelligence at best equal to human being's, but creating that kind of "AI" would be equal to creation of life which is beyond scope of technology.

AI is as dangerous as we decide it can be, for example we can create gun with camera and shoot to people based on their looks. Law and common sense should not allow that, that's criminal activity.

I think AI should grow, and take over boring and repetitive tasks. This will free up many people form dull jobs and new jobs on top of that will be created, i.e. jobs to tune and organize AI units of computations and talk to other people about results.

<comment><USER34> The mistake is viewing AI as somehow on the same curve as human intelligence. As if AI gets better and better and edges closer on the curve to human intelligence.

It's more a different kind of intelligence which happens to be able to do some of the same tasks. It already far exceeds human ability, at the tasks that particular flavor of intelligence is good at. We don't need to be looking at things people do and asking how deep neural nets can do those as well, we need to be looking at deep neural nets and asking which tasks they're uniquely capable of doing.

<comment><USER35> > We don't need to be looking at things people do and asking how deep neural > nets can do those as well, we need to be looking at deep neural nets and > asking which tasks they're uniquely capable of doing.

I remember seeing a post here a while ago, talking about essentially this process. The poster was disappointed that AI researchers tend to get to the point where a new approach starts bearing fruit, and then get sidetracked finding applications for the new approach and forget about the search for 'real' AI. IIRC this was also suggested as an explanation for the "once we can do it it doesn't count as AI" phenomenon.</comment></comment></comment>


Text on your computer with (Android) Messages for web - <AUTHOR> https://messages.android.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Opened Messages and this popped up.

Unfortunately, scanning the QR code just seems to result in a spinner -- I'm curious to know if anyone else has more success?

Edit: third time worked, seems fairly straightforward. Not sure I'll ever use it.</comment>


VLC for iOS Pulled from the App Store - <AUTHOR> http://planet.videolan.org/ <comment><USER3> Disclaimer: VideoLAN Chairman and lead VLC developer here.

I've written the most important analysis on the matter [http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc- devel/2010-Novembe...](http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc- devel/2010-November/077457.html) and [http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc- devel/2010-Decembe...](http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc- devel/2010-December/078262.html)

Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free.

Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms.

After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones.

Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December...

Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore.

Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...

<comment><USER4> Apple doesn't have to spend their time discussing with you about legal dispute among copyright holders. If anything, you are lucky that they don't ban the developers who posted the app in the first place. I wouldn't mind a policy that said: "if you ever get us in a copyright dispute, you are banned forever from our store"

Instead, Apple was told that the app had a copyright problem, and it took them 2 months to take it down. Yes, it's slow, but no, they are not evil in doing so.

<comment><USER5> > "if you ever get us in a copyright dispute, you are banned forever from our > store"

Hey! Angry Birds stole my intellectual property.

<comment><USER6> Maybe the word _legitimate_ should have been in there.

<comment><USER7> That would conflict with "Apple doesn't have to spend their time discussing with you about legal dispute among copyright holders."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems that this is the best analysis for now. [http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc- devel/2010-Novembe...](http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc- devel/2010-November/077457.html)

Apple changed App Store terms. Previously:

The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party

Now:

...unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the "Licensor"), in which case the Licensor's end user license agreement will apply

So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on GPLv2.

<comment><USER3> Well, you have missed my update here: [http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc- devel/2010-Decembe...](http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc- devel/2010-December/078262.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL.

Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications).

I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.

<comment><USER10> Aren't large portions of Webkit under the LGPL?

Though, perhaps the differences in innovation in the BSD kernels vs. Linux is demonstrative?

<comment><USER9> The LGPL is _much_ different than the GPL.

<comment><USER10> The LGPL is copyleft too. The comment was about copyleft licenses.

<comment><USER9> The LGPL is copyleft in the sense that making changes to a library that uses LGPL copies the license; software that links to that library is free to have whatever license the developers choose. I have no problem with that.

<comment><USER10> You said that Webkit didn't have a license that required contribution back and used it as an example to highlight the difference in innovation. But, it _does_. So, it's not a good example for your argument. That was all I was pointing out.

What is it about infrastructural applications that makes copyleft licenses more appropriate (and visa-versa)? That is, what makes them spur innovation in the infrastructural roles and hinder it in end-user roles?

<comment><USER9> With open-source infrastructure software like web servers and databases, the software is not a product. There's no disadvantage to being forced to publish your modifications, and the license does not infect your end-user software that runs on them (the actual products).

The problem with the GPL in regards to user-facing software is that a developer using GPLed libraries is forced to publish ALL of his source code, even when he has not made any modifications to the library itself. In this situation there are no advantages for the developer (and serious disadvantages, even if you're not trying to sell the software for a profit but just want to maintain your rights to the source code), and there are also no advantages for the library project itself.

This is why, for example, the core engine of MongoDB is GPL licensed, but the MongoDB drivers are Apache licensed. If the drivers were also GPL licensed, developers would likely just choose to use one of the many alternatives with more palatable licenses.

<comment><USER10> So, you're saying that for an end-user developer, it's "appropriate and beneficial" for their infrastructural components to be GPL. But, it's not for components that directly link to their end-user product, because it forces their product to be GPL?

What about web servers and databases that are sold as products? Why does that same argument not apply for them?

And, what about the users themselves? The GPL guarantees that everyone downstream (not just the next developer) gains the advantages of having the source be open. The hypothetical library project that licensed under the GPL _does_ gain an advantage because they have access to the source for software that uses their code.

I definitely agree that MIT/BSD/Apache/etc. licenses give developers more options wrt. licensing and distribution. But, I don't see how that necessarily encourages innovation. Nor, do I see how that innovation is encouraged only in the case of end-user software vs. more infrastructural software.

<comment><USER9> I don't see a problem with people selling infrastructure software commercially. It's well within their rights to make money off of their work. Just as developers who release open source code under a non-GPL license are asserting that they don't mind if someone expands on their work and makes a few bucks off of it. To me, that seems much more "free" and egalitarian. I mean, if I was _really_ concerned about it I'd just require attribution. Fair enough.

I think that GPL vs. non-GPL in end-user software is just a difference in philosophy. I feel that it should be up to developers whether they want to open source their modifications or not. It seems that the majority of developers do publish and contribute back any modifications that are beneficial to the original project, but I don't think they should be forced to also publish the modifications that are only of any benefit to the modifier.

<comment><USER10> There are two cases that we're addressing:

1\. A developer writes an end-user application, but doesn't want to free their software. Clearly, this person isn't going to use GPL libraries.

2\. A developer modifies an end-user application licensed under the GPL. If a developer makes a modification and then _distributes_ that modification, then clearly it was of use to someone outside of that developer. The GPL guarantees that every person who uses that modified software gets the source.

But why is it good for an infrastructure product to be free, where it's bad for the end-user product?

Or, is this as simple as the fact that most free infrastructural products don't require the end-user product to be free. So, it's "appropriate and beneficial" for them to be free. But, most free libraries _do_ require the end-user product to be free, so it's bad for the developer who may or may not want to make their product free. If I've accurately summarized, then at what point where does that "appropriate and beneficial" aspect disappear?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So is this what GPL developers consider a "win?" The GPL seems designed to create something for developers to fuss about. The net effect is pretty stupid compared to BSD/MIT/Apache. It's been long ago proved that the community deals fairly with contributions of any kind. The only difference then with GPL is that it locks out many legitimate uses (businesses) that might have otherwise been available. That's not "free," that's "restrictive," no matter how many times Stallman bangs his drum.

<comment><USER12> No this is what a GPL developer considers a "loss". Specifically, yet another demonstration of why developing for someone else's walled garden is a bad idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Now up in Cydia on my repo: <http://rpetri.ch/repo>

Adjusted source to allow installation to /Applications is here: <http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC>

<comment><USER3> Nice!

Could you submit patches that make sense for upstream?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> According to TUAW [http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app- stor...](http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/), its one Rémi Denis-Courmont employed under Nokia who waged the campaign. How true is it? Sounds more like a corporate conspiracy than a fight for principle.

<comment><USER15> What a bunch of ugly, hateful people. VLC developers devote thousands of hours of their own free time so users can have a FREE kick-ass piece of software, and what they get in return is being called "freetard", "prick" and "asshole", just because Apple refuses to honour their license.

I thought my opinion of Apple fanboys was pretty low already, but it seems it's got much further down to go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> How does this work for people who've downloaded it? I've got the better part of Family Guy's run on my iPhone playing with VLC. That combo has brought me more enjoyment than all of my other apps combined.

On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the correct decision after all?

<comment><USER17> Going off of what has happened in the past, you can keep using that copy you downloaded (and the use the copy on your computer to load it onto more devices) as long as you want. It's just not sold anymore.

<comment><USER18> You'll also probably be able to get it from other sources if you're jailbroken.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So how does this in any way enhance the freedom of users?

<comment><USER20> It's always a question of what the license authors believe is the _overall_ freedom for users. Let's imagine I concoct a brand new license called "NoDRM." My license allows you to distribute copies of the software, modify it, charge for it, do whatever you like provided that you do not add any kind of DRM to it.

I distribute Wood and Stones with the NoDRM license:

<https://github.com/raganwald/wood_and_stones>

Now somebody creates a new platform, let's say it's a watch that runs games. It has DRM built into everything it runs. It has a DRM-Store that allows free- as-in-beer apps. It is wildly successful, millions of people have these watches and everyone wants to play Go on them.

So: These millions of users want the "freedom" to run my app with DRM. I believe on principle that the world is more free if authors like me take a stance against DRM, which by definition limits freedom to every user downloading my game.

You can debate which position enhances freedom, but I think it's reasonable to agree that the author of a NoDRM license and the person choosing a NoDRM license believe they are enhancing freedom even as they deny users the right to use their app with DRM on it.

Personally, what I believe is that _free software licenses--like the fictitious NoDRM--ensure that users are free to choose free alternatives_. Most users won't make that choice, but then again most people aren't self- employed either. Nevertheless, our respective societies are considered free because self-employment is an option, and software is free if free software is an option.

<comment><USER11> You twist the word "freedom" just like Stallman. The influence of the open source software movement has always been negligible. The net effect is that we lose all of the protesters' work (substantial), and the protesters don't change anything. The Apple App Store isn't going to change policy because you withheld "Wood & Stones," but some Go enthusiast is the worse.

It's like an autoworker who wants everybody to unionize, and so he organizes sit-ins, but instead of ever forming the union that one guy just sits around all the time not working, ticking everybody else off.

<comment><USER20> What do you mean by _we lose all of the protestors_? If I don't want my software encumbered by DRM, I don't want my software encumbered by DRM. Do I belong to you? Does my software belong to you? How is it you "lose" me or my software? If you want it, here are my conditions.

I don't owe "some Go enthusiast" anything. They are not the worse off for anything, I didn't give them something and take it away. In fact, what I did was say, "If you choose to use a platform without DRM, you can get this thing I wrote for free." But hey, if that doesn't float the Go enthusiast's boat, he sticks with DRM. It's his choice, I am not stopping him from doing anything.

Arguing that I have some moral obligation to write software for proprietary distribution is like arguing that I ought to write Windows software because more people can use it. Which leads to arguing that I ought to stop writing programming tools and start writing games.

You and the Go enthusiast are free to choose free software or proprietary software, or nearly free software, do what you like. Better still, _you're free to write your own software from scratch and stop whining about what other developers choose to do with the fruit of their labours_.

How much more freedom do you want? And where do you think the freedom to write software without kowtowing to a corporation came from? Free software, that's where.

And no, I'm not like an auto worker sitting all the time not working, and neither is anybody else who writes free software. Does this look like not working to you?

<http://github.com/raganwald/>

I'm working, it's just that I choose what I work on, and under what conditions it may be distributed.

A better comparison would be that someone writing free software is like a hippie who grows his own coffee beans and sells them at the side of the road by his farm. You can't buy them at Tim Horton's or Dunkin Doughnuts because the hippie doesn't like what the big chains do with the coffee.

So you go to the hippie or you don't drink the coffee he grows. The problem is that you bought yourself a shiny espresso machine that only takes pods distributed by the manufacturer. So even if you buy the hippie's beans, you can't make yourself any coffee with them because the machine won't take them unless they've been shipped to the manufacturer and packaged into little special pellets.

How is this the hippie's fault for not liking big coffee chains or espresso machines? You can drink plenty of coffee, and you can buy a plot of land and grow your own coffee to be distributed by the espresso machine maker. You can buy a different kind of espresso maker that takes ground beans directly.

The hippie is free and you are free. The hippie hasn't shut down the big chains, but that isn't his goal. His goal is to sleep at night, comfortable that he has made choices compatible with his personal beliefs and that he has given other people the freedom to make choice compatible with their personal beliefs.

I can think of no greater definition of freedom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Will someone please summarize? The link makes only a vague statement about incompatibility between GPL code and the App Store...

<comment><USER8> FSF said it best: [http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app- store-...](http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl- enforcement)

<comment><USER22> So if someone wanted to be an asshole, they could send takedown notices for Pixie Scheme III (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2059242>) as well as all other apps that are under GPL and Apple would no doubt follow the same approach and take them away?

Seems like a good way for closed source apps to remove their open source competition.

<comment><USER23> "Someone" needs to be the legal owner of the GPL'ed code in question for the takedown notice to have any legal meaning.

<comment><USER24> But that could be a tiny portion of the code overall.

One developer with a grudge can cause a problem, even if that developer has a tenuous connection to the project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Of course this is App Store's problem, and VLC for iOS should be no problem to install from Cydia.

<comment><USER25> (If any VLC developers happen to read this, I'm happy to help you package it up for submission to Cydia.)

<comment><USER3> Please do so...

Just remember to name it "VLC" or "VLC media player" and not "VLC Media Player"

<comment><USER26> mind clarifying please? why would this be important?

<comment><USER27> Maybe "Media Player" is a trademark of someone? Maybe they already had problems with that before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Battle for Wesnoth had the same problem: <http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/>

</comment><comment><USER28> Looks like Rémi Denis-Courmont pulled his blog and his resume. What is going on there? His posting is aggregated on planet vlc, but it does not link to the original.

<comment><USER29> Managed to pull it through the Google Cache into Google Docs, from which I was able to obtain the original PDF:

<http://ompldr.org/vNndvaA/CV.pdf>

<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3232537/docs/CV.pdf>

What I'm guessing is of interest:

Email: firstname.lastname@example.com

Ph. #: (+358) 50 487 6315

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> So Rémi Denis-Courmont is basically putting his open software principles ahead of the utility users would get on their iPhones. Very noble indeed...

<comment><USER31> One might equally say that Apple is putting their App Store principles and desire to control their products ahead of the utility of their users. Very noble indeed ...

<comment><USER32> Apple isn't trying to claim a moral high ground here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I would like to understand something here. As far as I was explained by experts (I'm not a lawyer) GPL license does not allow to publish software on closed / proprietary platforms controlled by ToS similar to Apple AppStore. My understanding it is not that VLC on iOS is breaking AppStore ToS but GPL license which is very restrictive when you release something based on it but it is not open sourced.

Am I wrong here?

</comment><comment><USER34> I don't have an iPhone because of this walled garden approach to software on it. I'm glad that this has happened as maybe there will be fewer walled garden type situations in the future. It is a pity for users who miss out on VLC but they've made a choice by buying a product that's locked to a single marketplace for apps and they have to live with that.

</comment><comment><USER35> Putting aside all the issues involved here, what I don't understand to begin with is why any other iOS dev has not done an app that can play back the kind of AVI files most people have in their collections to begin with. Is it that hard? Or did devs shy away from it because they never expected Apple to approve such an app? Now that Apple has, will someone else come in with something else? This is a capability that's truly needed. There's just no way I'm going to ever convert my AVIs to MP4s. It'd be faster and cheaper just to get an Archos Android tablet to play those videos. (Note I mention Archos specifically because for years they've developed that capability and have ported that native software to now run under Android.)

</comment><comment> ryan-allen This is very disappointing. VLC is a great product and so are the iPhone and iPad devices. Not having to convert video and being able to play them on the devices was very welcome!

It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.

<comment><USER3> We'll work to get it back there...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> If you are curious about the differences of terms in the iTunes store policy and what has been introduced by the "Mac App Store":

[http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/leg...](http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> Why isn't there a third-party app store, by the way? iPhone only runs executables signed by Apple? I suppose that on Android, if Google's Android market sucks anyone can create a new market that ranks the applications better or simply lures in better apps?

<comment> mike-cardwell On Android you'd be able to just put your app on your website and let people download it. Or email it to them as an attachment. Or any of the other traditional ways of distributing applications.

<comment><USER38> Mind that this is only true for vanilla Android, not for all Android phones.

<comment> mike-cardwell I didn't realise that. I thought that they all allowed apps to be installed from outside the market. How common is this restriction?

<comment><USER39> All AT&T phones have the restriction, as well as most Android ebook readers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> "This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone."

Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus on VLC for Android?

<comment><USER41> The VLC iOS app was developed by a company in France named Applidium, not the core VLC dev team. Applidium develops iOS apps.

So no. This does not mean there will be more focus on VLC for Android.

If anything I think this is a bad thing for all software currently using the GPL.

I understand the claim and ultimately it's the author's decision, but I feel that using the GPL in this fashion is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.

<comment><USER42> What is ironic or hypocritical about it? There are general licenses which provide more freedom to the users (including limiting freedom of others in derivative works, which might be ironic in somebody's eyes), and this software uses a license which prohibits limiting distribution related freedoms (among others) because its authors wanted it that way. It is not ironic or hypocritical, it is only being consistent with the choice. (Do you mean that using GPL in the first place is ironic or hypocritical in some way?)

If you choose a license and don't follow it, what is the point of using that license?

By using GPL, you deliberately give a piece of software a life of its own. Because of the license, the action taken is not merely the author's decision, but something anyone can do, even if the author didn't wish for it (although it is only natural that the author is the first one to pursue compliance with the license he chose.)

This is not a bad thing for GPL'ed software. Instead, it is exactly what is (or at least should be) expected from using GPL. As said, there are also other licenses to use. If your expectations are different, use different license and don't submit to a license you find inadequate.

<comment><USER43> Well, ironic in the sense that the GPL is supposed to keep software free (libre), but in this case, it really restricts the end user by not allowing them even to load the app. You have to wonder who was being hurt by having GPL software on the App Store - if you're an actual iPhone developer, then you can most certainly download the source provided by Applidium under the GPL, and build your own copy of the software. If you're a dev that works on other platforms that uses the same GPL code, you can still download the code and use it. If you're not a dev, then you couldn't care less about access to the code or not, because as a non-dev, you can't use it. So just who's rights were being trampled on by the code being on the App Store?

Remi's stance is not principled. Everyone that would want to have access to the source had access to the source. He has done this because of some idealogical dislike that he apparently has of the Apple ecosystem. Fine, it's within his rights, but he doesn't get to claim that he was the principled one in this incident, quite the contrary.

<comment><USER42> The users would be allowed to load the app, that is not the issue.

The distributor (Apple) is not allowed to impose further restrictions upon GPL'ed software. Surely the users are ultimately the losers, but that is not fault of the creators of the software, but of the distributor (Apple) who likes to keep a stranglehold over its users.

A simple lift on the terms of usage for Apple's service would resolve the issue trivially, even effortlessly. Why do not Apple's customers ask their vendor why this can't be done?

Alternatively, if there was any other way to (trivially, e.g. without jailbreaking) get the application into the device there would not be a problem at all.

IMHO, the FOSS ecosystem built on GPL cannot tolerate and sustain violations towards the license without eroding the meaning of the license. This is the issue of principle, and that is why it makes perfectly sense to stick to the license.

The true irony of the case is in that Apple's customers - even those who know about such great products of the free software ecosystem as VLC - <USER2> submit to the restrictions of Apple's platform and are surprised not to enjoy the same freedom as those who choose otherwise.

Edit: It seems that the distribution issue has actually been resolved, and the problem has shifted to other GPL-uncompliant restrictions, and ultimately to Apple's own decision to withdraw the app, without discussion.

<comment><USER32> There is a trivial way to get the application onto the device: pay the $99/year fee to be a developer and re-sign a 'beta' version.

<http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/wiki/iOSDeveloperSelfSign>

The problem here is that someone has made the assumption that the GNU GPL is permitted to impose restrictions on third parties or platform vendors. It isn't.

What happened here is that someone didn't understand what the GNU GPL does and does not do (and that includes the FSF, IMO) with respect to third-parties and platform vendors.

<comment><USER42> With all respect, IMO paying 99 dollars a year, getting a developer license and re-signing the application yourself is far from 'trivial'.

That aside, for me it is hard to see how Apple would not be the first-hand distributor for apps in its app store, as it clearly wants to control all distribution from the beginning to the end.

By loosening their stance on this (allowing easy installation of applications by other means) they would position themselves quite differently.

<comment><USER32> It's trivial. One used to have to pay thousands of dollars for a compiler. On some platforms, you _still_ do, because gcc is substandard on the platform.

The GPL can't impose on third parties.

<comment><USER42> Is applying for a developer license from Apple really trivial? Is it not possible for Apple to simply not grant the license if they, for example, wish to deprecate a platform?

Do you have, or know a text that provides a proper explanation of 'GPL cannot impose restrictions on third parties', as the license (v2 as in the subject) clearly says:

6\. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

What counters the statement "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"?

Edit: formatting of the cited paragraph.

<comment><USER32> Apple is acting, more or less, as an FTP site plus an OS vendor in this case. In theory, the GPL can put obligations on the FTP site as a distributor, but it cannot out obligations on the OS vendor.

If this were the case, it would not be possible to ship ANY non-GPL-compatible software on Debian, for example, even in a non-free environment.

The question comes down to what the distribution site does, and they have two clauses: one for commercial and ne for non-commercial interests. They do not seem to be in conflict to me.

<comment><USER42> (I can only wonder what in my comments has been inappropriate enough to justify the downvotes. Simply disagreeing on a civilized opinion shouldn't prompt censors to act.)

If a distribution site requires to accept a contract between the distributor and the downloader regarding the usage of the downloaded programs, it is not equal to an FTP site which merely puts programs available.

I don't understand how Apple's position as an OS vendor affects the situation, if the question is about distribution. I would really enjoy a thorough explanation about it, if there is one, since to me it does not make any sense.

If there is no conflict (any more) between Apple's terms of usage for downloaded apps and GPL, then it all boils down to Apple's decision to remove the application without reason (other than an invalidated claim of copyright infringement). In that case, all the other GPL'ed software could be returned to distribution.

I can imagine that even Apple's own personnel has hard time following all the changes in their own terms and their implications of cases like this, and that's why it would be the best if Apple simply lifted the restrictions of their platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is one reason why I have _no_ desire to use Apple products and have essentially retired my iOS device. This restricts a great library of possible software from ever making it to my device and restricts the possibility of a decent freedom that some developers wish to give. This would not be a big deal if you could distribute software like on a normal computer (or most other mobile OSs.. including Blackberry, Palm OS (historical at least), Android, Windows Mobile (historical at least), Maemo, and so on). I shouldn't have to worry about the official distribution channel's restrictions imposing on what is essentially my computer as a whole.

<comment><USER28> Uhhh it is not Apple that restricts software. It is the GPL.

<comment><USER45> No, it is Apple's ToS and it is appropriate imho that GPL software cannot be distributed through the iJail AppStore.

May people choose other less restricted platforms instead.</comment></comment></comment>


Thyssenkrupp presents Multi, the first magnet drive elevator rope-free - <AUTHOR> http://www.gizmag.com/thyssenkrupp-magnet-drive-elevator/34976/

<comment><USER2> This is pretty cool. At first I thought the horizontal movement thing was ridiculous until I thought about how it could be used to improve the efficiency of shaft usage, since it means you can have many cars (not just one or two) per shaft simultaneously.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder what the backup is for when the power fails while several cars are in one shaft.</comment>


Tips for better sleep - <AUTHOR> http://blog.willjennings.net/87/9-tips-for-the-best-sleep-of-your-life/

<comment><USER2> "Regulate the light in your life" and "Alcohol is lying to you" are really true for me. If I read a book instead of Reddit, I can fall asleep in 30 minutes. And wine always wakes me up with the 2am hangover.

And a little Benadryl always helps.</comment>


Why Google wants to replace Gmail - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/article/2838775/why-google-wants-to-replace-gmail.html <comment><USER2> Sigh. So many fallacies. Let's take one: Google wanted to replace Gmail with G+? Umm, no. It's a complete non-sequitur.

The purpose of Inbox isn't to "mediate" something for the purpose of mediating it. Elgan seems to suggest that first Google decided they had to intrude with meditation, and then came up with the idea of Inbox to justify it. The reality is, mediation falls out of the architecture of email anyway.

Most day to day interpersonal communication has moved away from email and into chat apps. Your email outside of work is largely an incoming federated asynchronous dumping ground for receipts, bills, notifications, and other things. It's become unmanageable for many people, a nuisance.

Inbox is an attempt to improve the experience of email given the reality of how it's used. _All email is mediated_. The way RFC822 email works is, MTA's transfer messages between services, and MUAs are responsible for the presentation of that email to users. MUAs mediate mail, for example, IMAP4 SEARCH and folders are mediation mechanisms for mail. Mail clients are free to present data from MUAs in any form they want. The fact that people have largely copied the same 'From,Subject,Date' table format that's been with us for the last 30 years isn't part of any spec, it's for lack of trying.

Inbox changes nothing about the unpinnings of mail (SMTP), what it wants to do is change the user interface that presents the mail so that it has superior summarization, sorting, searching, and clustering. That requires some form of mediation unless done completely on the client side, but doing it completely on the client side imposes some performance downsides, especially on mobile.

It's not as if Gmail doesn't "mediate". It spam filters, it has priority inbox, it automatically puts stuff into tabs like "Promotions". Even providing indexing and searching of mail is a form of meditation.

Elgan has penned an opinion piece that tries to impute some reason for Inbox other than what user interface designers and product managers have been aiming for -- usability goals. The implications about wanting to find excuses to mediate and take away control are utter nonsense.

<comment><USER3> I don't think you're grasping Elgan's meaning of "mediate".

He mostly means "monetize", in that Google is a company built entirely on slipping paid placements into things while disarming people's aversion (or even realization) that they're being advertised to.

Gmail is mediated in the technical sense, but Gmail Adwords is hardly an efficient channel into which subtle paid manipulation can be injected. If Google started adding ads into emails in transit everyone would flip. This is suboptimal for Google.

Whatever Inbox is today, it's a break from the email model that Google can freely evolve into a channel optimized for injecting paid content, in a way that people won't be outraged over. When everyone is using Inbox, Google calls the shots over what you see and true "mediation" can begin.

> Inbox is an attempt to improve the experience of email given the reality of > how it's used.

No, Inbox is a Product by a company that holds a monopoly on Internet advertising. They're not in the business of improving the experience of email with a free product. They'e ultimately in the business of finding more subtle and effective ways to deliver ads. If you refuse to believe this, then congratulations to Google for a mission accomplished.

<comment><USER2> You are absolutely wrong on that last point. That is not how products are developed at Google and it is not how Inbox was developed. I work on Inbox, and I have never once, ever, in three years, seen anyone mention how this will be used to enhance ads or monetization. The entire focus, every single design doc, every single product manager meeting, has been on improving the experience of email for the user.

The ads division is mostly firewalled off from the daily concerns of people developing products at Google. They supply cash to the treasury, people think up cool ideas and try to implement them. It works just like startups, where you don't always know what your business model is going to be. Gmail started as a 20% project, not as a grand plan to create an ad channel. Lots of projects and products at Google have no business model, no revenue model, the company does throw money at projects and "figure it out later" how it'll make money.

Do you think Johnny Ive, when designing the Apple Watch is concerned more with the business side of how they'll up-sell different watch bands to make money, or do you think he is absolutely focused on delivering a product experience that is fantastic and that if they do a good job, the business will do well?

Someone may figure out how to shove ads into Inbox later. There are separate teams who figure stuff like that out. But those people are not the ones who control the product features, purpose, or design goals. They don't come to us and say 'Hey, we want to sell more ad space in Gmail, do you think you could come up with a UI to cluster emails so we can surface more ads?' That is not how things work. Products start with ideas to solve user problems, not with ads.

Notice, G+ has been out for years and still doesn't show ads. Do you think G+ was designed to show ads? It was not, otherwise it would have shown them already. Someone will retroactively figure out how to do it at some point. In the same vein that Twitter was launched without knowing how they'd put ads in it.

Products at Google, from Search, to Mail, Calendar, Docs, et al are designed primary to help users. If we do a good job, we will retain our user base, and someone will figure out how to convert that to revenue, be it ads, or direct payments.

Ads are a necessary evil, but they are not the primary motivating force driving designs or features, either inside Google, or in the wider startup community.

<comment><USER4> You are making a distinction that doesn't matter to people who don't work at Google. Of course the products are designed by those building them primarily to help users, that's how you run a dev team properly.

But the strategic decisions about what projects get funding and promotion and integration into the google ecosystem and cross promotion, etc. take these things into account. So the end result is that, like every other company on the planet, how revenue is generated affects how products are made. The fact that it's indirect at Google is actually the norm.

"they are not the primary motivating force driving designs or features, either inside Google, or in the wider startup community"

If Ads are the primary revenue generator and the company is long lived then they are one of the primary motivating factors, it's just good management to hide that from the passionate makers who build great things because it is a distraction and a fucking downer.

<comment><USER2> If the distinction doesn't matter, then why is the parent article and you imputing motives and intent to Google? Follow the evidence then, treat Google as a black box, and measure the result, rather than speculate on "intent and strategy" to which you aren't privy.

So, when you see Inbox by Gmail being even more intrusive with ads than regular Gmail, you can raise your arms in the air and declare that you were right all along -- "I told you so!"

I feel like a person who wrote a novel and based one of my characters on an old woman who worked at the corner store, but yet a literary critic reads the "hidden meaning of the text" and insists the woman really represents my mother. And then when it's pointed out that the character is based on a real person who is not my mother and the critic is simply wrong, it's claimed the woman must secretly represent my relationship with my mother anyway.

You're basically asserting that years of product meetings, in which ads are not discussed, and which the only concerns are how to improve user workflow and usability in email, in which we do countless user studies getting feedback from experiments, and then making changes in the system so that people tell us it's working better for them, all of this really is an engineering and product team being manipulated by strategic decision makers.

And while we think what we're really doing and working on is making it easier to manage your mailbox and get at information quicker, we don't realize we're playing right into the hands of a Machiavellian plan by the executives/board to use those same mechanisms for even more intrusive ads, and they haven't let us in on the secret.

Or, maybe we're just trying to make the mail experience better so that people don't get sick of gmail or mail altogether, and go off and use WhatsApp, social network "mail", or some other communication mechanism not ruined by a deluge of noise. Maybe we're concerned that if we don't make things better, users will go elsewhere.

Or maybe, after 10 years, we just thought it was time to give gmail a refresh as it was getting long in the tooth.

All are better and more plausible explanations than the idea that this is a monetization plan for gmail. I personally don't believe mail can ever be monetized effectively like that. Personally, I think mail ads are pretty ineffective and not huge revenue generators.

<comment><USER4> Ah, I think we are talking about slightly different things, and it seems you still aren't catching the meaning of "mediate" being used here. I don't think Inbox will be more intrusive or be more annoying because of ads. I think the user experience, like the user experience of gmail, will be great.

The reasons for impuning the motives of Google here are political and consequentialist, not about user experience or software quality.

It's about the consequences of having a 3rd party organize and filter your communications according to it's own incentives rather than yours, it's a discussion about power.

It's about the politics of service providers putting themselves in the middle of p2p communication in order to surveil them (to monetize the software/service with ads in this case, although of course the NSA is happily given a copy).

It's not about thinking people at Google are mustache twirling villians or bizdev douches who ruin things by plastering ads on them, it's about the crappy direction that well-meaning people are taking the internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > That's why Google killed Google Reader, for example. Subscribing to an RSS > feed and having an RSS reader deliver 100% of what the user signed up for in > an orderly, linear and predictable and reliable fashion is a pointless > business for Google.

If you understand this - you start to understand most of Google's decisions (even if you might not like them).

<comment><USER6> I understand it, I just don't buy it. Reader was a great opportunity to apply machine learning. When left neglected to a couple of days, my feed reader becomes a huge pain to sift through. There's a lot of room for innovation in this space, a la Inbox.

I'm not accusing Google of anything, but their treatment of Atom/RSS can be likened to Microsoft's old Embrace/Extend/Extinguish strategy. I honestly believe that in some ways it's worse off now than it would've been had Google not got involved. Killing Reader was at worst malicious and at best irresponsible.

<comment><USER5> This is sort of interesting double-speak on Google's part.

1\. Kills RSS - forces people to receive updates from people / blogs / companies you want to follow in email.

2\. Wow, that inbox is looking pretty messy - we should help clean it up!

3\. We made a nifty little app to help keep your inbox clean (and filter out those annoying companies you used to subscribe to via RSS).

4\. Our customers like their inboxes clean - so if you're a company and you want to talk to your customer - you better pay for a spot.

RSS + Email were dumb pipes. Google's doing everything in it's power to control those pipes either y eliminating them (RSS) or using their near- monopoly to shift people to a new standard (gmail/inbox). Now, this is all smart on their part, but not necessarily great down the road for consumer or companies.

<comment><USER7> _Really_? You _actually think_ email became a mess just because Reader was shut down? It's not like there are about elventy hojillion competitors in that space to choose from!

This smells like the "new coke" argument to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1\. People should try to understand what Wave actually was. It was an experiment to test new features. Nothing more, nothing less. Many of those features are found in Google Drive and Docs now.

2\. I don't think Google wants to "replace" Gmail but change how we use email. (If the end product will be called Inbox, Gmail or something completely different is not important.) I see Inbox in the same way I saw Wave. As an experiment. The features which work will be merged in one way or another into Gmail. The others don't.

3\. Google already changes Gmail. The smart label were just the first step. The aim is, that you don't create filters yourself but that the algorithm does it for you. Inbox is a second step in this direction.

4\. One loser in all this are open protocols. Those were never meant for this. So either someone develops a new IMAP or open protocols will disappear. Like with Hangouts and XMPP.

<comment><USER9> You say that Wave was just an experiment, nothing more, implying that it was never meant to be a product and to attract users. It didn't appear this way when Google announced that Wave would be discontinued. Instead of saying "hi everyone, thank you for participating in this experiment" they provided this as an explanation of the shutdown: "Wave has not seen the user adoption we would have liked."

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not sure I find this article all that compelling because I think it's founded on a faulty premise:

> Email is the "dumb pipe" version of communication technology, which is why > it remains popular.

Email might be a dumb pipe. Gmail is anything but that.

Data mining personal emails is an advertiser's dream. The second I start sending emails to my spouse about purchasing a house, lo and behold Google can show me an ad for homeowner's insurance. Given correct semantic analysis, it's incredibly persuasive and highly targeted advertising.

It's arguably akin to wiretapping or spying on my text messages - and lest we forget, there was a huge class-action lawsuit against Google that argued just that.

> Carriers resist becoming "dumb pipes" because there's no money in it

There's a boatload of money to be made in email, even as a 'dumb pipe', if you're an advertiser targeting ads at people based on the contents of those e-mails.

Further, and this I could easily be wrong about, isn't the whole American telecom industry the complete antithesis to the argument "there's no money to be made as a dumb pipe"? Even if net neutrality is maintained, I don't see anyone realistically arguing that Comcast will become nigh-unprofitable in the near future.

Maybe there's no money to be made as a newcomer onto the scene, and competition can be fierce at the lower tiers, but Gmail is certainly an established player in the e-mail game.

<comment><USER11> To support the statement that dumb pipes can be incredibly profitable: Intelsat. They openly admit they are a commodity business focused on MHz and Mbps, and have no problem consistently hitting 70% margins.

<comment><USER12> Businesses like Intelsat's have high barriers to entry (literally!). If the business were easier to get into, competition would be fiercer, and the margins would be quickly erased.

<comment><USER11> I don't disagree that competition would destroy those margins, but isn't a barrier to entry just a barrier entry? And the telcos like ATT and Comcast will still have the good fortune of being on the other side of the barrier, no? Whether it's launch costs, thousands of mile of cable, or spectrum rights, fat margins are supported all the same.

<comment><USER13> It's well established that high barriers to entry reduce competitive pressures on margin. If nothing else, it discourages outsiders from trying out new business models that drive down prices, because it increases the amount of capital necessary to test out a new approach (and the capital is harder to raise if you're using a new strategy.)

Consider Uber vs taxis - if there were massive entry costs to the cab / private car category, a company like Uber would have trouble raising enough money to get launched. So the existing cabs wouldn't ever experience the competitive pressure from Uber, because it would never enter the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love the dumb pipe -- I'm finding it more and more as a product developer, that you have to mix helpers with the dumb pipe.

For example give user 100% control, while supplying actions that shortcut what would typically be a long human activity.

As soon as you begin relying on the automagical world without a good set of controls for the user, your users begin to have more questions and concerns about how the sausage is made.

</comment><comment><USER15> When I first started using Inbox I thought "Neat, it's all the Google Now-like stuff that they had incorporated into Gmail, but done a lot better". Whether Google rummaging through your email is something desirable is a serious question, but let's not pretend Gmail did anything fundamentally different in this regard.

Inbox was probably launched as a separate product because replacing Gmail with this interface could have sparked a mass exodus by users resistant to change. I personally like that I can switch between the two products when I need to do something quickly in an interface I'm already comfortable in.

</comment><comment><USER16> I haven't ever heard the term 'dumb pipe' before, but I think I'll have some difficulty getting it out of my head now. This is a really interesting take and it seems to make a lot of sense. Is there validity in it? Is gmail a much less lucrative business than Google+ per minute spent there? Will Inbox bombard us with things Google thinks we want to see that will ultimately be paid advertisements? Only time will tell.

<comment><USER5> More likely they'll differentiate between friend email & promotional email (or emails from services you actually signed up for) and then charge those same services you signed up premiums in order to show up in your inbox (think facebook, but instead of fan reach, it happens in your inbox).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I disagree. At the end of the day, Google's business is selling ads to the highest bidder. Gmail is an ad conduit, but Google Reader was not.

Gmail isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

<comment><USER5> You misunderstood the point of the article. Gmail is an ad conduit - but it's a glorified contextual display ad conduit. There's only so much upside there.

However - selling email advertisers prime position for their precious emails and conveniently "bouncing", "hiding", or marking any non-paid emails as "spam" is much, much more lucrative.

He's not arguing that gmail isn't an ad conduit - he's arguing that they're not efficiently monetizing the email sector as best they can (and Inbox is another attempt to improve that).

<comment><USER17> What?

This isn't the point of the article--nothing in it even implies anything about people buying a spot in your inbox--and selling an advertising email slot guaranteed not to fall into the spam folder would be the _dumbest_ move an email provider could possibly make.

We also only have to look as far as the fact that sometimes email from Google themselves gets put in the spam folder to see the likelihood of this coming to pass.

<comment><USER5> "Buying a spot" is hyperbole, but that's the direction it's headed (not saying that will be the exact iteration). The point of the article is that Google is moving / transitioning businesses into areas where they can effectively monetize it (and gmail is a great tool, but doesn't bring in the desired cash flow atm).

> and selling an advertising email slot guaranteed not to fall into the spam > folder would be the dumbest move an email provider could possibly make.

Explain your thinking here?

<comment><USER17> > _The point of the article is that Google is moving / transitioning > businesses into areas where they can effectively monetize it_

Except it's not the point. The article points out that it's moving to mediated consumption of email instead of just a good interface on "here's all your email". There's no argument about cash flow in the article, and you'll have to actually demonstrate that they're moving in that monetization direction to assert it.

Meanwhile I'm not sure what a non-hyperbolic version of "buying a spot" would be, so you'll have to specify for me to respond to it.

>> _and selling an advertising email slot guaranteed not to fall into the spam folder would be the dumbest move an email provider could possibly make._

> _Explain your thinking here?_

Google makes money if people choose to use their products. Since so many people already use Google products today, there is some lock in due to convenience (all my email is already in there, I have an Android phone at least until my contract renews, etc), but offering a spam filter that doesn't work as long as someone is willing to pay would be a death blow.

The Promotions tab contains advertising in email, but it's the advertising you signed up for. For some reason this blows people's minds, but people really do sign up for those email updates from businesses to see new products and deals. Having a way to organize those emails is not some sinister new advertising plot by google.

Not to mention that an offer by google to make sure spam bypasses the spam filter for only 1 cent per 1000 messages or whatever is kind of going to get noticed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The real change was snailmail/phones to email (because store and forward, read at my leisure, global, offline workflow is a primary design element, can be sent automatically, free). That's a hard feature set to compete with.

We already have functional tools to solve the nominal 'my inbox is full' problem.

Spam is a bigger problem - CPU required to scrub it can be significant for a well established email account, and the complexity cost in running this infrastructure yourself pushes everyone to federated commercial services which has become a geopolitical fail equating to zero privacy.

There are people working on this ... I just hope they can succeed. Any of the various projects want to check-in in this thread with status updates?

</comment><comment><USER17> > _I 'm predicting that Google will end Gmail within the next five years....Of > course, Google may offer an antiquated "Gmail view" as a semi-obscure > alternative to the default "Inbox"-like mediated experience._

Way to really go out on that limb.

Being an "algorithm business" isn't necessary or sufficient for the argument being made here. I can't tell if this is a "google wants all the eyeballs" argument or a "if all you have is a hammer" argument, but, either way, it doesn't follow.

</comment><comment><USER19> Although he has many fair points, jumping to the assumption that Google would shut down gmail doesn't seem to be very careful. He is talking about why Google wants to kill email and his reasoning is right — too bad not everyone understands that. But the real question is not if they _want_ , but if they _can_.

Now, can they? It's too complicated for me to say something clearly. They are not the only mail hosting providers and I'm not even sure that gmail is the leading one amongst "common people", that is "your customers". If your customers use email, _you_ will be using email. If you use email, and your colleagues use email then turns out everybody around uses email and your company shall be using email internally too. If your company is using gmail services and gmail shuts down, your admin will be starting your own mail server in a hurry. In that light I would say I'm very much wanting gmail to be shot down, because it means no more excuses to not setting up your own SMTP server.

So I believe Google could gently move some part (maybe even major one) of their users to some service of their own, but if it will be far enough from email, being more like "recommended to you" feed, then people eventually will feel the need in service that could "just deliver that fucking message, goddammit!" and Google will lose niche they are leading at in favor of niche where they will be more like competing with Facebook and, probably, losing.

If email persists then, they will lose ability to read emails of millions of people basically for nothing. So, no, I don't believe they will shut down gmail. Not as long as email exists at all.

</comment><comment><USER20> Seems like Elgan is saying Google is like a cable company and their goal of organizing the world's information is analogous to a cable company's marriage of content & carriage and bundling services to follow the "dumb pipe" metaphor all the way through.

It's implied that Google is doing this organization for us not because there's room for innovation and improvement, but because they simply want to insert themselves into our lives anyway they can.

I think it's more likely that Google doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, they want make a better bath tub. If that reinforces their role as middle man, fine, but it isn't like Inbox is a superfluous solution in search of a problem! And it isn't like Gmail doesn't already have a lot of intelligence and monetization built in to it on top of the basic protocol that make it a business winner for Google anyway.

</comment><comment><USER21> Email existed for decades before Gmail came on the scene, and it will exist if Google kills Gmail. If Google thinks they can be successful in creating a walled garden internet where they mediate all the communication, they should re-read the history of AOL.

</comment><comment><USER22> This might sound controversial but I believe it would actually be better if Google would close down their service.

There is too many people using it for their email which creates unhealthy imbalance, also the shut down would not be as painful since there are plenty of other mail providers. For that reason though they won't do this.

I agree with the authors suggestion regarding that Google does not want any service that acts as "dumb pipe".

It explains what happened to Dejavu (currently Google Groups), or current separation of Google Talk from the rest of XMPP network.

It seems like Google Voice will be next, I am starting to think that they used it for training their voice to text functionality, but since now there are other services such as Google Now/Voice Search they probably no longer need it.

</comment><comment><USER23> No one in this entire thread agrees. Why are we even talking about it?

Stop upvoting this link bait rubbish to the frontpage HN.

</comment><comment><USER24> Why are people allowed to post links to computerworld on here? The site is right behind buzzfeed in zero content click bait "list-articles". I really hope the admins start moderating bottom feeding "news" websites from HN.

<comment><USER25> It's the same reason Google employees can vote each other up to support and defend Google. It's all self-serving.</comment></comment>