These feelings are totally valid, and they unfortunately can prevent the rest of the community from acquiring a valuable resource. Free wifi in San Francisco (One of the techiest cities in the world) feels like a "no-brainer." Free wifi represents the values I would like to see more of in the world, namely cooperation, altruism and generally an increase in non-monetary exchanges.
As for the rest of the negatives, the kind of data Google might collect is statistically useless - the sample bias is just too strong. And since I have worked at Google, I know that many many Googlers feel VERY STRONGLY about not doing creepy/immoral things like that. You may feel differently, and that's ok, and I suggest attempting to meet and talk to more Googlers.
Finally, there has been much criticism about Google "not giving back" to the community. First, as an employer, Google pays their employees well, and all the taxes associated with that (see articles about SF's budget to a record high due to tech employment, and the boost of social services as a result). Secondly, Google buses, while derided, create a calmer, more peaceful city population, and massively reduce the # of cars on the road. And lastly by pushing forward projects like this (and I'm sure that SF city is preventing things like capture portal ads or whatever) I feel this improves the city.
Many Googlers != All Googlers != Google
How would you explain this? http://mashable.com/2012/02/17/google-caught-tracking-safari...
Google then: * Acknowledged the problem and apologized * Stated that the workaround was meant to be used for their "+1" buttons and such, but not for advertisements * Stopped giving out these cookies for advertisements on Safari * Was sued by the FCC for $22 million * Is now being sued by consumers on nebulous grounds
If you accept the claim that it was an accident to begin with, I don't see that Google did anything wrong.
[1] http://mashable.com/2013/01/25/google-safari-tracking-lawsui...
Non-paywall article: http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/24/free-wifi-san-francisco-goo...
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a charitable act is a charitable act. If you want to invent a hidden agenda for this, then the most reasonable one would be Good PR.
That's amazing.
(Also, how much does open air attenuate 5GHz signals, anyway?)
Edit: Interesting reading: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html
(Picked because it was also a SF area newspaper/news website, similar to Chronicle).
(You'll also notice that, URL differences and some presentation issues like font choice aside, the photo, caption, and the line of the article above the paywall fold on the Chronicle site are identical to the photo, caption, and first line of the article on the sfgate site.)
(I haven’t tried Google’s wifi near their office in Chelsea, maybe it’s better.)
Wifi seems consistently to be a poor choice for large, uncontrolled spaces. If anyone can make it work through sheer engineering will, it’s Google, but the evidence thus far is that it is a misapplication of technology.
LTE et al do a much better job of it, because they are engineered for such environments. Why do we keep pinning our hopes on wifi?
It is the only wireless technology that is standard on every device.
Or: to attack the same problem from another angle: I'd be happier if we had either decentralized replacements for Google and Amazon and Ebay.
I'd prefer these platforms - and the vast wealth and power they create - to be either in the hands of the general public, or in the hands of democracy, than to be controlled by the whims of the nouveau riche.
they have just done that with the Netflix deal and Chromecast - already cancelled, barely 24h after it was made available.
it's bad enough to be dependent on gsearch and gmail, no need to also get dependent on wifi access, etc. for "free", with no guarantee it will work tomorrow.
