Then why are Amazon and Microsoft counted among the 4 surveillance companies the OP?

Also it is arguable if behavioral targeting meaningful increases revenue over day, keyword targeting.

Are there any studies?

> Then why are Amazon and Microsoft counted among the 4 surveillance companies the OP?

Perhaps because they both have surveillance as part of their business models?

> Also it is arguable if behavioral targeting meaningful increases revenue over day, keyword targeting.

I never made any comment about the revenue impact of various forms of advertising. I was merely stating the plain fact that advertising can be done without spying on people, and an ad company that works this way would not count as a "surveillance company".

> Perhaps because they both have surveillance as part of their business models?

The majority of Microsoft and Amazon's revenue doesn't come from advertising. That was my point about Apple, which is, although their primary market is HW, they are getting into services, and they did have iAds, and they are exploring ads on the App Store.

Again, in MS's revenue breakdown, advertising is a rounding error. And Amazon purchaser of ads.

> The majority of Microsoft and Amazon's revenue doesn't come from advertising.

I was talking about surveillance, not advertising specifically. Surveillance is embedded deeply into both company's business models even if we ignore the advertising side of their businesses.

Advertising and surveillance are two different things, and each can exist without the other.

Why is surveillance embedded into MS's business model? For the vast majority of Microsoft's existence, their products were sold even without a network connection. Microsoft's business model is not based on data collection about users.

Here's a breakdown from their last filing:

$15.0 billion revenues, 16.0% of the total, from the D&C Licensing segment.

$10.2 billion revenues, 10.9% of the total, from the Computing and Gaming Hardware segment.

$7.5 billion revenues, 8.0% of the total, from the Phone Hardware segment.

$8.8 billion revenues, 9.4% of the total, from the D&C Other segment.

$41.0 billion revenues, 43.9% of the total, from the Commercial Licensing segment.

$10.8 billion revenues, 11.6% of the total, from the Commercial Other segment.

The vast majority of their revenues, that is, their primary business model, is licensing Windows and Office, running Azure, selling XBox. Bing, and other online services that rely on "surveillance" are not a major part of their bottom line.

If you're trying to claim they observe their customers and use it to optimize their products, e.g. how Amazon displays results to you when you search for something, well, Apple does that too. They track your App Store installs, i.e. Surveil them, and use it to for what to show in the App Store.

As they shift to services, this behavior will only increase.

I mean, you can claim Google and Facebook are primarily based on data, but Microsoft is quite obviously, a company whose entire history is mostly consumer licensed OS, and enterprise/small business software, and most of their products ran offline.

I don't have any love for Microsoft, but you seem to be deliberately trying to make their business model about data, and it currently, is not.

True. Microsoft used to be a company built around building and selling software. I used to respect that company. Since Windows 10 telemetry, plus targeted ads as part of the core OS, plus Cortana, the business model has changed for the worse.

Capitalism delivers the best targeted ads systems money can buy. Targeted ads systems are more efficient if they are measuring the effect of each ad on each individual, short and long term. The best way to measure such effects is by implementing 24/7 surveillance of every human, in cyberspace and real life. While Microsoft may be playing catch-up with Google and Facebook, it is firmly set to build a surveillance network of its own, with the first elements already here.

> Why is surveillance embedded into MS's business model?

You'd have to ask Microsoft. I suspect it's mostly to reduce production costs.

> If you're trying to claim they observe their customers

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The problem with their behavior on this score is that you can't make them stop without engaging in fairly extreme measures.

> Apple does that too

Yes, so?

> you seem to be deliberately trying to make their business model about data, and it currently, is not.

If it's not, then why are they so aggressive about collecting data about me and my use of my machines? Why not let me stop that?

The only reason that makes any sense is because doing so is a core aspect of their business model.

> The only reason that makes any sense is because doing so is a core aspect of their business model.

No, it's not the only reason to collect analytics. They are often used to QA, product improvement, and knowing where to invest your time and effort in your product.

Microsoft Word, for example, has become a super-bloated featuritis packed product. If Word tracked how many times people used each feature for example, they'd have a pretty good map of what they could deprecate or prune to create a streamlined version for example.

Game companies use analytics often to figure out what game mechanics were fun or interesting for people, and what features were wasted. Imagine you put a lot of effort into a 'mini-game' mechanism inside of a game, and found that people spent one minute in it and never touched it again.

Now, you could argue they could collect this data with differential privacy techniques, and they should, but there's a difference between using data as part of your business model, by selling a service that leverages said data (e.g. ads), and using data to make better decisions.

Prior to "tech", companies still collected information on their customers as much as they could to improve their business, they just did it the old fashion way with annoying surveys that no one likes to fill out and which are inaccurate.

> They are often used to QA, product improvement, and knowing where to invest your time and effort in your product.

Ah, I see where our disconnect is happening: all of those uses count as being part of the business model to me.

In any case, I fully understand why telemetry is used. My objection is when it's not possible to opt out of telemetry (having to opt in would be much better, of course).

If someone is gathering data about me or my use of my machines without my informed consent, that counts as spying. What purpose the data is being put to is irrelevant (although it would be relevant to my decision about whether or not I'm going to consent).

Most apps these days will say something like "collect anonymous usage statistics to improve product quality" with an opt-in. Does that satisfy you?

Both Apple and Google are using differential privacy in different products to do this, Chrome for example, collects telemetry via provable differential privacy.

You can't make someone half-pregnant. You can't preserve privacy in "some products". You've got to do it across the board. For example, Google is in the business of tracking your location to sub-meter accuracy. Then corroborate that information with everybody else to create a shadow social graph. They don't need to ask users for their friend list, a la Facebook 2005, and that is a reason why they gave up on building an explicit social network after Google Plus faltered: they've got the data through a different channel. Whenever Google pays lip service to privacy, it is because they have alternate, possibly higher accuracy, privacy violating channels in place. In the specific case of Chrome, it's likely they are concerned about the legal fallout from Microsoft / Internet Explorer antitrust hearings.