The blog entry is focused on monetization, not privacy.
23 also has a deal with Pfizer.
And they have hired people, e.g., from Genentech, that will help them try some drug discovery research themselves.
But does anyone outside the company seriously believe this is going to lead to anything? They are not a therapeutics company.
They are a data broker.
Why not just submit DNA samples directly to a drug company instead of a data broker?
The only thing we can call "shoddy" here is 23andme's original business model: selling genetic test results. The question some are asking is whether they knew that when they started.
With the collected data, they now have value. There will be buyers.
Whether that value is ever passed on to patients is less certain.
Is your DNA is now the "intellectual property" of a company?
The company sells rights to access sequence infromation from your DNA, i.e., their intellectual property, for up to 60 million.
Do you get any of that "up to 60 million"?
And why should you?
It's not like it's your DNA.
You sold it.
Well, actually you paid a fee to some company -- that has been threatened with being shut down by the FDA -- to take your DNA.
Who started this company? Ex-wife of Google founder.
According to Wikipedia the fee has jumped from $999 down to 99 then to 199.
So what's the service worth?
I don't know but I have a feeling it ends in 9.
Personal genomics is a great idea that has been around for a long time. Well before Google and Facebook.
But this company, applying "the Google approach" to biotech, was never a good idea.
That's only my opinion.
It's quite possible each of the 1 million or so donors was happy to donate their DNA "to science".
The issue I have with "the Google approach" is that the company is not doing much except collecting data and running cheap tests -- and of course marketing.
There's no world class research at 23andme. God only knows what they'll do with the money they get from selling people's personal information.
They are just middlemen, selling off people's personal information for a easy profit.
And there is nothing wrong with blocking these transfers either.
It is the user's own computer and the user's own network subscription after all. User pays for these resources.
As for the software, users get to choose the software. They might prefer software that does not use so much bandwidth. And there's nothing wrong with that.
"Which, BTW, is exactly what would happen if we succeeded in outlawing DRM on PCs."
"Customers wouldn't bat an eye either..."
So what's the problem then?
Customers come first, right?
If they are happy, then what's the problem?
Why force commercial content into the so-called "general purpose" web browser? The way you describe your negotiations I get the impression that scare tactics, e.g., piracy, are being used as leverage.
What are you hoping to achieve?
Also, it is interesting how you transitioned from DRM in a browser to "DRM on PCs". This is a much broader question.
Is the only purpose of a personal computer to run a web browser?
Is the only purpose of the internet "the web"?
Is the only use of a network to transfer commercial content?
