Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j24zc0l wrote

Reply to comment by canabus420 in Experts warn smart toys for children could be collecting user data that might be sold by AmethystOrator

How do you think “free platforms” pay for themselves?

13

SchAmToo t1_j25fqx4 wrote

No no, you’re not allowed to tell the Internet that free services cost money to run. They don’t like that. “I deserve this for free” “okay then we need to sell something to someone to run it” “no!”

−14

Rpanich t1_j25pnf1 wrote

… are you under the impression these smart toys are given out for free?

6

SchAmToo t1_j25vbn4 wrote

You’re getting a more interactive toy that uses internet services constantly which costs server and development costs (on going) for cheaper. They need to offset that price. The price of the toy is likely significantly less than if they charged you a lifetime of service availability

−7

Rpanich t1_j25wrhi wrote

So what you mean to say is:

“I deserve this for free because I paid for it” “okay then we need to sell something to someone to run it” “fine, just don’t steal my children’s data and sell that as extra profit” “no”

4

SchAmToo t1_j25x5z2 wrote

Okay so you’d rather pay a subscription! Great.

−8

Rpanich t1_j25xkof wrote

No? I paid for the item. It’s the companies job to make sure it works.

Sell the toy at a higher price if they need to; don’t pretend to sell something for cheap when you’re secretly planning on stealing data for profit?

6

SchAmToo t1_j25yjg9 wrote

So then don’t buy it. If you’re getting something for extremely under what you think it’s worth, there’s only a few reasons why. But getting a smart toy that does smart things, it’s gotta talk to servers that need maintaining.

In that case it’s pay a subscription or sell data. It’s not overly private data (e.g Timmy that lives on this street loves Transformers? No, nothing like that, or it shouldn’t be), and especially when it comes to children that stuff is VERY red tape. If they’re breaking the law, then the law will catch up.

But the world has decided it deserves free or cheap things that need to be maintained and they also don’t want ads, and they also don’t want people to sell info, and they also don’t wanna pay a subscription. Maybe you’re taking this personally, but the Internet at large wants things for free and no string attached. The money to run this stuff has to come from somewhere, and most people don’t want to pay more (or at all).

1

Rpanich t1_j26090l wrote

> So then don’t buy it.

I won’t, but I also think other parents have the right to know what is being collected and stolen from their children?

I dont know how old you are, but you know those servers existed in the 90s right?

We played Warcraft 1 and 2, StarCraft 1, and Diablo 1 and 2 on online for a one time payment of 60 bucks.

Then suddenly world of Warcraft came out for free, but requires 5 dollars a month.

So you’re arguing that the thing that was clearly possible and functional for a decade can’t work because… companies today don’t find it profitable.

So I guess my question is: if it was possible in the past, and technology has only become cheaper and more powerful, why is it suddenly impossible now and also why does every company show record profits while everyone is complaining about how they’ve changed?

2

SchAmToo t1_j261e4e wrote

It wasn’t viable. That was why all those games used peer to peer to do their actual game playing. The lobbies were barely anything to handle but even then, it made it very costly. Blizzard also was losing money on that, and games back then didn’t have the numbers things do today. This is the difficulty that games have today and why DLC and what not is important. Server costs are extraordinary that most people don’t get. I am an engineer who works on keeping things alive over a decade of maintaining services. It’s not cheap!

I agree! parents should know what’s being sold about their children, AND it should be WAY more upfront than a 500 page ToS…but at the same time these types of things need money and when people get upset at what’s being done, but also don’t wanna do the alternatives… what does that leave us? That’s the hard question the next 5 years will be struggling to answer.

0

Rpanich t1_j262c9h wrote

So it was possible, but too expensive.

And they changed their business model to hide the fee to the users.

And then decided to completely hide it and steal from the users.

Exactly. So instead of accepting the shitty way, I am proposing a better way.

So why do you want to advocate for the shitty way? Are you profiting from this system, or do you just have no imagination for how it can be solved?

3

SchAmToo t1_j263g5s wrote

I’m not advocating the shitty way, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of everyone (else) saying how dare they sell data when every other way constantly fails because everyone complains about it. Companies keep changing how they make things cheaper for users which I agree isn’t great. The problem is users have been hidden so much when they find out they’re paying for it in some other way they’re up at arms they’re paying anything for it.

That’s the crux of the problem for me. Many people are entitled now to free YouTube with no ads and also don’t sell my info! Okay, but how is YouTube gonna make money to not only host all of these videos but also let you view them? Internet, servers, etc, it’s all pricey. And I know the response is “well Google makes enough money” but they make it because every service has to pay for itself.

Frustrating to see everyone shitting on services for trying to make costs make sense. Some companies do really well, and then we look at others and say “why can’t you just pay for it” when they’re already in the red. Look at Twitter. Losing all this money and yet one of the biggest companies in the world. Lot of tech services lose money.

0

Rpanich t1_j264ot2 wrote

So instead of saying “that’s how it has to be stop complaining!” Why don’t you advocate for government regulation?

> Many people are entitled now to free YouTube with no ads and also don’t sell my info!

Great straw man, but I pay for YouTube premium.

> Okay, but how is YouTube gonna make money to not only host all of these videos but also let you view them?

From the like 10 bucks I pay them a month.

> is “well Google makes enough money” but they make it because every service has to pay for itself.

What about the profit though? The extra money they make AFTER the costs? What excuse do you have for that? “They deserve it”?

> Frustrating to see everyone shitting on services for trying to make costs make sense

Oh yeah, that’s the reason right? That’s why people are mad? Or is it the WAY they’re trying to make up the costs? You think people are angry because companies are trying to make any profit? Not because they’re secretly stealing children’s data and selling it to predatory third parties?

> Look at Twitter. Losing all this money and yet one of the biggest companies in the world.

Look at Twitter in 6 months, and then look at all the new twitters pop up, and then look at the people be more careful about which “new Twitter” they chose after learning about this current Twitter.

So why do you think Twitter, and all these other massive companies, require you to defend them? Will the world end if they collapse? Will the world be worse if they collapse?

4

SchAmToo t1_j2691y8 wrote

I’m pointing out massive companies because it details if they’re struggling how are smaller companies doing? Also pretty bad. The big companies normally can operate at a loss but it’s a much bigger risk for smaller companies. More servers for more users can be $$ but if they under provision then it’s risk that if they blow up they lose their spot. It’s hard!

You keep bringing the argument to my own actions like I’m not doing any of the things you talk about. It’s not really good for debating this topic, it’s mildly ad hominem. I was trying to have a debate about the state of things, I’m not here to talk about my own actions and your assumptions of what I do and don’t do.

0

Rpanich t1_j269zhk wrote

> I was trying to have a debate about the state of things

No, you’re here to defend the current stage of things, while claiming you’re against it, despite the fact that you’re arguing against people who want to change it and telling them to accept it.

If you’re CLAIMING to say it’s bad, then doesn’t it make sense to use your energy to fix it rather than to tell people to accept it? It’s not an ad hominem, it’s an honest question. Unless of course you’re lying and actually just love this stupid system?

3