Home » google
Google+ wants to grow its celebrity circle; add verified accounts
Google plans to increase the number of celebrity members on its new Google+ social network by developing a way to verify their identities, reports CNN.
The company hopes that having celebrities join and use Google+ will help publicize the three-week-old social network, according to company e-mails obtained by CNN.
While Google+ is typically compared with Facebook, Google may instead be choosing to duplicate Twitter’s successful strategy of attracting celebrities. Twitter has proven that famous users can help a social network to grow.
In 2009, actor Ashton Kutcher and media mogul Ted Turner competed in a highly publicized race to reach a million Twitter followers. Also, the social network was instrumental in propelling late night talk show host Conan O’Brien’s career forward after he parted ways with NBC. And more recently, actor Charlie Sheen joined Twitter after being fired from CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men — gaining 500,000 followers in one day. In all three instances, the microblogging social network became more prominent in the public eye.Yet, an identity validation process is essential if Google+ wants to leverage publicity by celebrities that join the service. Validating accounts would prevent impostors from posing as famous personalities. It could also help legitimize celebrity accounts much in the same way Twitter does by featuring a “verified” stamp of authentication.
A company spokesperson declined comment to VentureBeat about both Google+’s pursuit of celebrities and the status of verified accounts. However, it’s safe to assume that the company will start verifying celebrity Google+ accounts at some point in the near future — perhaps along with the public launch of Google+ planned for later this month.
William ShatnerThe lack of verification may already be ruining Google’s chances of gathering high-profile celebrities. For instance, actor William Shatner had his profile removed shortly after joining. Some speculated that the lack of identity verification caused users to report the account as fake.“My Google+ account was flagged for violating standards. Saying hello to everyone apparently is against the rules maybe I should say goodbye?” Shatner tweeted shortly after getting banned Monday. Although his account was quickly restored, the experience isn’t ideal for a new user.
Late night show host Conan O’Brien shown in the image above.
Google no longer supporting IE6
In a post on the official Google enterprise blog, Google announced that it will be pulling support for Google Apps and the Google Sites Wiki for IE6 users.According to Google the web has evolved over the past ten years and the internet is no longer about simple text pages but about rich, interactive applications. In order to ensure your business gets the best possible internet usage and the most powerful apps you should upgrade your browsers. Chrome was not officially suggested, but it's clear where Google is going with this.
The most natural upgrade for an IE6 user is going to be to IE8, Microsoft's latest version of Internet Explorer. It's unlikely that many of the people who are still using IE6 will jump from that to Firefox, although no doubt there will be a few conversions. More than likely however, Google is going to win over more new converts thanks both to its current advertising campaigns and its dismissal of Internet Explorer (6). Some believe those who do make the switch to Chrome will sacrifice a lot in terms of personal privacy, although it's unlikely most will ever realize this.
According to Net Application, an internet research firm, IE6 is still used by around 20 per cent of all internet users. Google's announcement will no doubt shake up the browser market although it doesn't stop there. As of the start of March Google will no longer be supporting IE7, Firefox 3, Safari 3 or Chrome 4.
Google Social Search Goes Live, Adds New Features
Google has begun the rollout of its Social Search product, a way of seeing customized search results based upon the people in your social network. Social Search has been an opt-in Google Labs experiment since its debut in October, but will be available as a beta product in the “next few days” to all users on Google.com.
Our article on the initial debut, Google Social Search Launches, Gives Results From Your Trusted “Social Circle,” provides an in-depth guide to how Google Social Search, including:
- how to access Social Search (reminder: it’s under the “Show Options” link on the search results page)
- how it determines your social circle
- how it finds and presents content created by people in your social circle
- how it ranks the content it shows
- and more
With today’s rollout to Google.com, there are a couple interesting additions to Social Search since our previous coverage that deserve mention.
What’s New with Google Social Search
First, a Social Search “dashboard” — Danny suggested this in his October article. The dashboard shows two elements of what’s happening behind the scenes:
- a list of everyone in your social circle and how you’re connected to them
- a list of all of your own content that might appear in other users’ social search results
Google provided this screenshot of this dashboard:
This is a great addition to Social Search, but it’s still missing a way to remove people from your circle or cleanup the list in any way. In my circle, for example, I’m connected to both “Jeffrey Quipp” and “Jeff Quipp.” It’d be nice to be able to combine those into just one Jeff.
When using Social Search, you’ll be able to access this dashboard by clicking either of the “My social circle” or “My social content” links that appear next to the heading that tells you that you’re seeing Social Search results, like this:
And that’s the second addition Google has made to Social Search: It now includes image search as well as regular web search. Google says you’ll be able to see images that your social circle has shared on sites like Flickr and Picasa.
Social Search Optimization?
While playing around with Social Search for a couple hours last night, the marketer in me came to the conclusion that I need to optimize for Social Search. Off the top of my head, here are two quick ideas:
- Build out my Google Profile with additional information about the other social networking sites I use.
- Make connections with more friends via Gmail and Google Chat (which gets top-billing on the dashboard’s list of contacts in your circle).
If I’m hoping my content shows up more often when others use social search, these things seem pretty obvious. Theoretically, they should improve the content I see when using Social Search, too.
10 Predictions for 2010 In the World of Tech
1. Twitter Manages to Complete 2010 With No Major Hacking or Security IncidentsDespite a strong 2009 that saw the microblogging service graduate from the geeks to more mainstream appeal, Twitter remained plagued by a number of uptime issues and some extremely visible hacking and security incidents that led to slowness and downtime. As part of the company's maturation process, Twitter will build the personnel and infrastructure necessary to withstand such future attacks, and 2010 will go major incident free. There may be some slowness, but no outages via the dark corners of the Web.
2. Seeing Android and iPhone, Windows Mobile Will Aim for Parity, and Fail Microsoft, jealous at all the consumer and media attention around the iPhone, and now Android, will try to remain relevant, launching a new version of Windows Mobile, and hyping its own apps, just like they did when they launched the Palm PC line (later Pocket PC) following the PDA's rise to power. Their approach will not be seen as comparable to Android or iPhone and will not change their market share in a positive way.
3. Apple Will End Exclusivity With AT&T, Adding T-Mobile and VerizonWith AT&T being a massive black eye for Apple's iPhone in the US, the company will finally end exclusivity with the telecommunications carrier, and strike deals with both T-Mobile and Verizon. Consumers will be able to switch carriers and keep their numbers. Unsurprisingly, users may find that those networks aren't perfect either.
4. Facebook Will Announce a Migration Plan for FriendFeed UsersThe mystery around Facebook's plan for FriendFeed will become clear in the first half of 2009, as not only does the company improve its network with FriendFeed-like elements, but existing users of FriendFeed will be given guidance on how the two networks can converge, while protecting their existing content and contacts.
5. Google Wave Will Exit 2010 Still In BetaWhile Google Wave will continue to improve and may open up to all visitors, without requiring invites, the product will still be seen as experimental, and will not shed its beta tag, keeping it through the end of the year, much like GMail and other products from Mountain View before it.
6. Facebook, Zynga, LinkedIn Will All Go PublicAfter a dearth of IPO activity in the last two years, 2010 will see a resurgence, especially from Silicon Valley VCs, who are eager to make profits to help assuage the wounds of losses from the last few years. Facebook and LinkedIn will be among the larger IPOs, with Zynga also filing, and other smaller companies following suit.Twitter may file, but will not be public by the end of 2010.
7. Chrome OS Netbooks Will Be Available from Major RetailersGoogle's Chrome OS will reach a maturity level that it will be sold on netbooks alongside more traditional offerings from major retailers including Best Buy.
8. Many Social Media Experts Will Launch Mediocre AgenciesMany of the self-proclaimed social media experts will leave their corporate day jobs and strike it out on their own, looking to convert the world to Twitter and Facebook fan pages. A good number of them will find that the world of business relies a lot more on revenue than it does on retweets and @replies, and may walk away disappointed.
9. Google, Facebook and Apple Will All Make $1B+ AcquisitionsIn addition to the new public market activity, acquisitions will again become trendy. Google and Apple will make full use of their growing cash hordes, and will make at least one ten-figure transaction in the year. Facebook, fresh off its cash raised from the IPO, will do the same, largely in stock.
10. The Real-Time Search Market Will ConsolidateOne or more of the active dedicated real-time search companies will find differentiation difficult, especially with Google, Bing, Twitter Search and others participating. The trailing market share participant will either merge with an existing site, will close down, or look for a low-budget buyer.
Read more…
2. Seeing Android and iPhone, Windows Mobile Will Aim for Parity, and Fail Microsoft, jealous at all the consumer and media attention around the iPhone, and now Android, will try to remain relevant, launching a new version of Windows Mobile, and hyping its own apps, just like they did when they launched the Palm PC line (later Pocket PC) following the PDA's rise to power. Their approach will not be seen as comparable to Android or iPhone and will not change their market share in a positive way.
3. Apple Will End Exclusivity With AT&T, Adding T-Mobile and VerizonWith AT&T being a massive black eye for Apple's iPhone in the US, the company will finally end exclusivity with the telecommunications carrier, and strike deals with both T-Mobile and Verizon. Consumers will be able to switch carriers and keep their numbers. Unsurprisingly, users may find that those networks aren't perfect either.
4. Facebook Will Announce a Migration Plan for FriendFeed UsersThe mystery around Facebook's plan for FriendFeed will become clear in the first half of 2009, as not only does the company improve its network with FriendFeed-like elements, but existing users of FriendFeed will be given guidance on how the two networks can converge, while protecting their existing content and contacts.
5. Google Wave Will Exit 2010 Still In BetaWhile Google Wave will continue to improve and may open up to all visitors, without requiring invites, the product will still be seen as experimental, and will not shed its beta tag, keeping it through the end of the year, much like GMail and other products from Mountain View before it.
6. Facebook, Zynga, LinkedIn Will All Go PublicAfter a dearth of IPO activity in the last two years, 2010 will see a resurgence, especially from Silicon Valley VCs, who are eager to make profits to help assuage the wounds of losses from the last few years. Facebook and LinkedIn will be among the larger IPOs, with Zynga also filing, and other smaller companies following suit.Twitter may file, but will not be public by the end of 2010.
7. Chrome OS Netbooks Will Be Available from Major RetailersGoogle's Chrome OS will reach a maturity level that it will be sold on netbooks alongside more traditional offerings from major retailers including Best Buy.
8. Many Social Media Experts Will Launch Mediocre AgenciesMany of the self-proclaimed social media experts will leave their corporate day jobs and strike it out on their own, looking to convert the world to Twitter and Facebook fan pages. A good number of them will find that the world of business relies a lot more on revenue than it does on retweets and @replies, and may walk away disappointed.
9. Google, Facebook and Apple Will All Make $1B+ AcquisitionsIn addition to the new public market activity, acquisitions will again become trendy. Google and Apple will make full use of their growing cash hordes, and will make at least one ten-figure transaction in the year. Facebook, fresh off its cash raised from the IPO, will do the same, largely in stock.
10. The Real-Time Search Market Will ConsolidateOne or more of the active dedicated real-time search companies will find differentiation difficult, especially with Google, Bing, Twitter Search and others participating. The trailing market share participant will either merge with an existing site, will close down, or look for a low-budget buyer.
If mobile-to-cloud sync is big in 2010, it's game over for Microsoft
Sync will define connected tech products released or updated in 2010 and the few years that follow. Tech companies that get sync right will set the agenda for the delivery of content and services. Right now, Amazon, Apple and Google are sync leaders. Microsoft is a player but competing in the wrong game.
In a March 2008 blog post, I asserted that "synchronization is the natural killer application for the connected world." I also warned that "should Google get synchronization right before Microsoft, it would be game over. Google would be able to extend the relevancy of the Web platform back to the desktop on its terms -- think invading army -- and across many devices or services." It's game over now, and Microsoft has lent Google a helping hand in self-destruction.
Google gets Sync Right
In last week's post, "10 things Microsoft did wrong in 2010," I faulted the company for licensing ActiveSync to Google -- in February. Immediately, Google used ActiveSync for e-mail, calendar and contact synchronization from its cloud services to iPhone and Windows Mobile handsets. Google also used the technology to provide Exchange Server sync with Google Apps, so that businesses could use the hosted service instead of Outlook.
Sync is quickly defining Google's mobile handset and mobile cloud strategies. In using Android-based handsets, I've found Google push sync to be exceptionally fast and functional -- and extensible. For example, Facebook sync and notifications are a marvel on the T-Mobile MyTouch compared to Apple iPhone. Google is quickly rolling out real-time notifications and sync to all its services and providing in Android and Chrome means for developers to easily tap into these functionalities.
It's not a question of if but when Google will use sync services in conjunction with mobile phone location services to provide better real-time search, such as sale prices at nearby stores or barcode scannable coupons. The pieces already are in place. Last month, my daughter forgot to bring a $20-off coupon to Sephora. But she had it in Gmail on her Android-based Motorola CLIQ. The store simply scanned the barcode from the phone screen. But what if she had been able to subscribe to an Android phone location-based Sephora service that sent a notification and barcode coupon when in proximity to the store? Sync is more than just about moving calendars, contacts and e-mail between mobile devices, clouds services and computers.
Sync is the elixir for ebooks, too. It's the magic behind Amazon's Whispernet and Whispersync services that delivers ebooks to iPhone, Kindle or PC -- and marks where the reading last stopped. Amazon and Google sync services share something fundamentally important in common: Device to cloud; no PC required. Barnes & Nobles' Nook ebook reader is the same, and it runs Google's Android.
Longhorn short on Sync
For Microsoft, the most natural place for sync is the operating system. During Professional Developers Conference 2003, Microsoft product managers touted a new synchronization layer coming with Windows Longhorn. But Microsoft dumped sync with many other features during 2004 and 2005. OS synchronization could have nipped the Google and cloud services problems in the bud. Sync should have been the feature pulling computational and informational relevance back to the PC operating system. Instead, sync will shift computational and informational relevance to mobile devices and cloud-based services.
Sure, Microsoft has several different sync services and strategies, and some of the technologies, like Zune 4.0 and Zune HD, work well. Windows Live SkyDrive and Windows Live Sync are promising sync services, but they're too PC-centric too late. Amazon and Google have got better device sync, and Google is a looming Microsoft competitor.
Then there is Apple, which offered sync as part of Mac OS years ago but perfected the mechanism through iTunes. Apple's media software is a strange sync engine, for all the well it works. What business would want to use iTunes as sync engine for calendars or contacts? But iTunes sync works exceptionally well, such that it recalls where the user stopped watching that movie on Apple TV, iPhone, iPod, Mac or Windows PC and resumes at the right place. Apple's sync consistency and quality are exceptional.
MobileMe takes Apple sync to the device and cloud, where it belongs. Push address book, calendar and e-mail sync works surprisingly well. I've never had a problem with it on any iPhone. Apple's push notification service is a sync workaround that is acceptable, even if deficient. Better: The more real-time sync available with widgets residing on some handsets' homescreens. My daughter has this with her CLIQ, as I have with some Nokia touchscreen handsets, such as the N97.
What If
Sync is the glue binding together cloud services and mobile devices -- and it will reach mature delivery in 2010. Amazon gets it. Apple gets it. Barnes & Noble gets it. Google gets it. Microsoft is getting it, but not fast enough. Amazon had a terrific holiday selling Kindle ebook readers, which could only be spoiled by the rumored Apple tablet. Sync will enable delivery of newspaper and magazine subscriptions in 2010, more real-time than what Amazon does today with Kindle.
* If Google turns search and location-based GPS into a sync service...
* If Apple offers TV subscriptions via iTunes for portable devices and Apple TV...
* If Amazon can support more devices -- and include more content such as music and videos...
* If Apple releases a versatile tablet with combined audio book, ebook, enews, music, podcast and video store...
* If Android becomes the most widely deployed mobile operating system (by number of supporting hardware manufacturers)...
* If Digital Newsstand partners Conde Nast, Hearst Corp., Meredith Corp., News Corp. and Time produce an ebook reader or cut content deals for other devices...
...Sync will be 2010's defining technology, even if not heralded by tech pundits.
Where is Microsoft's sync strategy? In too many ways, it's stalled. Microsoft sync is scattered across consumer products, although it's more vertically defined in the enterprise. But even enterprise advantages can't make up for what's missing: A cohesive mobile operating system, sync service and device strategy. Microsoft has mobile pieces in place, but it's a puzzle apart. Other companies are innovating in sync -- and delivering real and useful products now -- whereas Microsoft makes promises of something better to come.
The company to watch most closely is Google, which during the 2008-09 recession made strategic research investments and released new products or services that are defining. Apple is a sync leader, too. Microsoft helped Google -- and also Apple -- along by licensing ActiveSync. How strange is that?
Read more…
In a March 2008 blog post, I asserted that "synchronization is the natural killer application for the connected world." I also warned that "should Google get synchronization right before Microsoft, it would be game over. Google would be able to extend the relevancy of the Web platform back to the desktop on its terms -- think invading army -- and across many devices or services." It's game over now, and Microsoft has lent Google a helping hand in self-destruction.
Google gets Sync Right
In last week's post, "10 things Microsoft did wrong in 2010," I faulted the company for licensing ActiveSync to Google -- in February. Immediately, Google used ActiveSync for e-mail, calendar and contact synchronization from its cloud services to iPhone and Windows Mobile handsets. Google also used the technology to provide Exchange Server sync with Google Apps, so that businesses could use the hosted service instead of Outlook.
Sync is quickly defining Google's mobile handset and mobile cloud strategies. In using Android-based handsets, I've found Google push sync to be exceptionally fast and functional -- and extensible. For example, Facebook sync and notifications are a marvel on the T-Mobile MyTouch compared to Apple iPhone. Google is quickly rolling out real-time notifications and sync to all its services and providing in Android and Chrome means for developers to easily tap into these functionalities.
It's not a question of if but when Google will use sync services in conjunction with mobile phone location services to provide better real-time search, such as sale prices at nearby stores or barcode scannable coupons. The pieces already are in place. Last month, my daughter forgot to bring a $20-off coupon to Sephora. But she had it in Gmail on her Android-based Motorola CLIQ. The store simply scanned the barcode from the phone screen. But what if she had been able to subscribe to an Android phone location-based Sephora service that sent a notification and barcode coupon when in proximity to the store? Sync is more than just about moving calendars, contacts and e-mail between mobile devices, clouds services and computers.
Sync is the elixir for ebooks, too. It's the magic behind Amazon's Whispernet and Whispersync services that delivers ebooks to iPhone, Kindle or PC -- and marks where the reading last stopped. Amazon and Google sync services share something fundamentally important in common: Device to cloud; no PC required. Barnes & Nobles' Nook ebook reader is the same, and it runs Google's Android.
Longhorn short on Sync
For Microsoft, the most natural place for sync is the operating system. During Professional Developers Conference 2003, Microsoft product managers touted a new synchronization layer coming with Windows Longhorn. But Microsoft dumped sync with many other features during 2004 and 2005. OS synchronization could have nipped the Google and cloud services problems in the bud. Sync should have been the feature pulling computational and informational relevance back to the PC operating system. Instead, sync will shift computational and informational relevance to mobile devices and cloud-based services.
Sure, Microsoft has several different sync services and strategies, and some of the technologies, like Zune 4.0 and Zune HD, work well. Windows Live SkyDrive and Windows Live Sync are promising sync services, but they're too PC-centric too late. Amazon and Google have got better device sync, and Google is a looming Microsoft competitor.
Then there is Apple, which offered sync as part of Mac OS years ago but perfected the mechanism through iTunes. Apple's media software is a strange sync engine, for all the well it works. What business would want to use iTunes as sync engine for calendars or contacts? But iTunes sync works exceptionally well, such that it recalls where the user stopped watching that movie on Apple TV, iPhone, iPod, Mac or Windows PC and resumes at the right place. Apple's sync consistency and quality are exceptional.
MobileMe takes Apple sync to the device and cloud, where it belongs. Push address book, calendar and e-mail sync works surprisingly well. I've never had a problem with it on any iPhone. Apple's push notification service is a sync workaround that is acceptable, even if deficient. Better: The more real-time sync available with widgets residing on some handsets' homescreens. My daughter has this with her CLIQ, as I have with some Nokia touchscreen handsets, such as the N97.
What If
Sync is the glue binding together cloud services and mobile devices -- and it will reach mature delivery in 2010. Amazon gets it. Apple gets it. Barnes & Noble gets it. Google gets it. Microsoft is getting it, but not fast enough. Amazon had a terrific holiday selling Kindle ebook readers, which could only be spoiled by the rumored Apple tablet. Sync will enable delivery of newspaper and magazine subscriptions in 2010, more real-time than what Amazon does today with Kindle.
* If Google turns search and location-based GPS into a sync service...
* If Apple offers TV subscriptions via iTunes for portable devices and Apple TV...
* If Amazon can support more devices -- and include more content such as music and videos...
* If Apple releases a versatile tablet with combined audio book, ebook, enews, music, podcast and video store...
* If Android becomes the most widely deployed mobile operating system (by number of supporting hardware manufacturers)...
* If Digital Newsstand partners Conde Nast, Hearst Corp., Meredith Corp., News Corp. and Time produce an ebook reader or cut content deals for other devices...
...Sync will be 2010's defining technology, even if not heralded by tech pundits.
Where is Microsoft's sync strategy? In too many ways, it's stalled. Microsoft sync is scattered across consumer products, although it's more vertically defined in the enterprise. But even enterprise advantages can't make up for what's missing: A cohesive mobile operating system, sync service and device strategy. Microsoft has mobile pieces in place, but it's a puzzle apart. Other companies are innovating in sync -- and delivering real and useful products now -- whereas Microsoft makes promises of something better to come.
The company to watch most closely is Google, which during the 2008-09 recession made strategic research investments and released new products or services that are defining. Apple is a sync leader, too. Microsoft helped Google -- and also Apple -- along by licensing ActiveSync. How strange is that?
Google acquires online display advertising company Teracent
Google has acquired Teracent, an online display advertising company that has developed technology to automatically serve computer-configured display ads in real-time from a library of different creative elements. Google plans to make this technology available to advertisers using its Content Network and the DoubleClick programme.
“Teracent's technology can pick and choose from literally thousands of creative elements of a display ad in real-time -- tweaking images, products, messages or colours. These elements can be optimized depending on factors like geographic location, language, the content of the website, the time of day or the past performance of different ads,” Google has said.
Read more…
“Teracent's technology can pick and choose from literally thousands of creative elements of a display ad in real-time -- tweaking images, products, messages or colours. These elements can be optimized depending on factors like geographic location, language, the content of the website, the time of day or the past performance of different ads,” Google has said.
Google Warns Users About ViddyHo
After Google Talk users were targeted by scammers attempting to steal their login information, Google warned them to use caution when asked for personal information online.
“This is a phishing attempt,” the company said in a statement, “and we encourage users to be very careful when asked to share their personal information.”
Phishing is the tactic of tricking consumers into surrendering passwords, account numbers and personal information with phony Web sites, spam and various other deceptive measures. Banks are frequently targeted, as scammers try to pry into customers’ online accounts, and popular services like eBay’s PayPal are also often spoofed. Now phishing is rearing its head on the social Web, with attacks directed at Twitter and Google Chat.
Google said it had blocked the addresses being used to send messages, and that several browsers, including Firefox, Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome, were displaying a warning when users attempt to visit the ViddyHo Web site. Viddyho.com is also identified as a phishing site in Google’s search results.
GTalk users who inadvertently entered login information on the fraudulent site should change their Google Account password and security question, the statement said.
Yahoo and Google Partner Again : Serving AdWords in Yahoo Results
Is the end of Yahoo Search Marketing near? Yahoo has announced that they are running limited tests of AdWords sponsored search ads (or Google AdSense for Search, which are AdWords served in the search results of non-Google search properties) beside Yahoo Search results.
Yahoo says that the test will apply only to traffic from the Yahoo.com site in the U.S. and will not include Yahoo!’s network of affiliate or premium publisher partners, like the Newspaper consortium or other Yahoo partners. Yahoo says that the test is expected to last up to two weeks and will be limited to no more than 3% of Yahoo! search queries.This test is a direct result to the Microsoft takeover attempt, even though Yahoo is not admitting it :
Yahoo!’s board of directors is exploring strategic alternatives to maximize stockholder value, including exploration of potential commercial business arrangements. The Company noted that the testing does not necessarily mean that Yahoo! will join the AdSense for Search program or that any further commercial relationship with Google will result. The Company further stated that it would not comment on the nature or timing of any potential relationship.
Back to the beginning of this post. Will Yahoo dump Yahoo Search Marketing and replace it with Google AdWords?
I seriously doubt that Yahoo will throw away or sell their search marketing technology, which outdates Google AdWords in its core history. Yahoo will more than likely use Google AdWords to power the terms or industries which Yahoo is not bringing in as much revenue for.
OR Yahoo will probably serve Yahoo Search Marketing results for the first sponsored search results, then supplement secondary results with AdWords, in a similar fashion that Ask.com has done with Google or Microsoft did with supplementing adCenter ads with Yahoo.
This isn’t the first time Yahoo and Google have worked together, since Yahoo gave Google its start more or less when the company let Google power Yahoo search results earlier this decade.
Hopefully more news will come out of this relationship as it develops, especially if Yahoo can generate much and a response from Microsoft on this Google Yahoo partnership is eagerly expected.
Google reaction regarding Microsoft’s proposed purchase of Yahoo
Here’s what’s really going on:
1. Google doesn’t mind this deal going through at all. Google knows they will be able to outrun a “Microhoo.” Why do they know that? Because they’ve been able to outrun them both separately. As I said on Channel 5 news on Friday night: put two turkeys together and you don’t get an eagle.
2. Google stands to gain HUGE by slowing down this deal. Every month longer that
this deal takes is tens of millions in Google’s pockets. Why? Well, the real race today isn’t for search. Isn’t for email. Isn’t for IM. It’s for ownership of your mobile phone. I met the guy who runs China’s telecom last week in Davos. He’s seeing six million new people get a cell phone in China every month. So, every month that Microsoft and Yahoo will be stuck in some courtroom arguing out why this is a good deal means money in the bank for Google as they close mobile phone deal after mobile phone deal.
3. Email is not where the money is. Google knows this. So, who cares that Microsoft and Yahoo have a monopoly there? There’s only one way to make money with the 600 million who are on either Microsoft’s Hotmail or Yahoo’s email: get them to join other services where there ARE ways to make money. Danny Sullivan told me that this deal is all about search. He’s right. But you gotta be able to get those 600 million people to not just use your email, but come over and use your search. Google is trying to slow down these teams from doing that. But Google knows that even if Microsoft and Yahoo join email and do a pretty decent job of integrating search into there that Google will still see more growth in both email and search than Microsoft and Yahoo together will see. Why? Have you compared Google’s offerings to the others? I have (I am a Hotmail user). Even though I am locked into Hotmail cause my email address is all over the Web I’d rather be on Gmail and Google’s offerings are better integrated and better designed.
4. IM is harder to monetize than email is. Do we really think Google is concerned about either email or IM? If they were they’d be pouring lots of resources into Gmail and Google Talk. Hint: Google isn’t doing that. Why not? Because they aren’t taking their eye off the mobile ball. They are hoping that everyone else does, though, by sending this note. It sure did work, too. Damn the bloggers all took the bait and either called Google arrogant or hypocritical or annoying. Google is all of those things here, for sure, but they are damn smart and are doing this for their own purposes.
Now, we can argue about whether this deal is good or not, or whether it’ll work out for Microsoft or not, but people, don’t take your eye off of what Google is really up to here. Google is having fun by causing Microsoft to react, not to mention that if its little note is taken seriously this deal will be slowed down by six months or more while government regulators look it over. Even in the best of situations it’s going to take a year for these two huge companies to integrate and figure out how to work with each other. So, every month that this gets delayed is gold in Google’s pockets.
1. Google doesn’t mind this deal going through at all. Google knows they will be able to outrun a “Microhoo.” Why do they know that? Because they’ve been able to outrun them both separately. As I said on Channel 5 news on Friday night: put two turkeys together and you don’t get an eagle.
2. Google stands to gain HUGE by slowing down this deal. Every month longer that
this deal takes is tens of millions in Google’s pockets. Why? Well, the real race today isn’t for search. Isn’t for email. Isn’t for IM. It’s for ownership of your mobile phone. I met the guy who runs China’s telecom last week in Davos. He’s seeing six million new people get a cell phone in China every month. So, every month that Microsoft and Yahoo will be stuck in some courtroom arguing out why this is a good deal means money in the bank for Google as they close mobile phone deal after mobile phone deal.3. Email is not where the money is. Google knows this. So, who cares that Microsoft and Yahoo have a monopoly there? There’s only one way to make money with the 600 million who are on either Microsoft’s Hotmail or Yahoo’s email: get them to join other services where there ARE ways to make money. Danny Sullivan told me that this deal is all about search. He’s right. But you gotta be able to get those 600 million people to not just use your email, but come over and use your search. Google is trying to slow down these teams from doing that. But Google knows that even if Microsoft and Yahoo join email and do a pretty decent job of integrating search into there that Google will still see more growth in both email and search than Microsoft and Yahoo together will see. Why? Have you compared Google’s offerings to the others? I have (I am a Hotmail user). Even though I am locked into Hotmail cause my email address is all over the Web I’d rather be on Gmail and Google’s offerings are better integrated and better designed.
4. IM is harder to monetize than email is. Do we really think Google is concerned about either email or IM? If they were they’d be pouring lots of resources into Gmail and Google Talk. Hint: Google isn’t doing that. Why not? Because they aren’t taking their eye off the mobile ball. They are hoping that everyone else does, though, by sending this note. It sure did work, too. Damn the bloggers all took the bait and either called Google arrogant or hypocritical or annoying. Google is all of those things here, for sure, but they are damn smart and are doing this for their own purposes.
Now, we can argue about whether this deal is good or not, or whether it’ll work out for Microsoft or not, but people, don’t take your eye off of what Google is really up to here. Google is having fun by causing Microsoft to react, not to mention that if its little note is taken seriously this deal will be slowed down by six months or more while government regulators look it over. Even in the best of situations it’s going to take a year for these two huge companies to integrate and figure out how to work with each other. So, every month that this gets delayed is gold in Google’s pockets.
Microsoft bid is better than stagnating, say Yahoo insiders
Sometimes change--any change--is good.
For a company hobbled by cultural and management problems, a $44.6 billion hostile takeover bid from Microsoft may be just the kick in the pants Yahoo needs to rejoin the fight against Google--and potentially Microsoft.
That's at least some of the sentiment inside Yahoo in the days following Microsoft's unsolicited buyout offer. Many Yahoo employees don't want to join Microsoft's workforce, but they see the bid as a catalyst for change, one way or another. As a result, the mood is surprisingly buoyant and business as usual among some Yahoo executives, according to one source familiar with the company.
"Most people want to win and something bold needs to happen, so this could be the catalyst to make that happen sooner one way or another," said a source inside the company. "Either Yahoo steps up and does something bold, or Microsoft takes over. If Jerry's smart he could use this as a rallying cry."
Still, you could say the mood at Yahoo is mixed. For some who fear that they will be laid off in the coming 7 percent cutbacks (or about 1,000 employees), Microsoft's proposed takeover bid just gums up the works even more. Engineers and product managers who would like to see the company rally on new products say the thought of a drawn-out acquisition that raises more cultural and management questions than answers them is distracting.
"With the pending layoff...plus this acquisition stuff, it's hard to focus on anything," said one Yahoo employee who asked to remain anonymous.
The concern, specifically for some employees, is that if Yahoo management can't pose enough of a challenge to Google--and neither can Microsoft management--how can a combined entity with the same management mix best the search leader? "There's a need for a powerful rival to Google, but which management is finally going to do the job?" asked one Yahoo employee.
Some within Yahoo are just frustrated that the company has found itself in the situation.
"Everybody I work with is pretty disillusioned with Yahoo," said a Yahoo engineer, who asked not to be identified.
He predicted Yahoo will do anything it can to fight a Microsoft takeover, even if it means turning to Google for help. "I would assume having Microsoft take over would be Jerry's worst nightmare."
(CNET News.com's Elinor Mills contributed to this report.)
For a company hobbled by cultural and management problems, a $44.6 billion hostile takeover bid from Microsoft may be just the kick in the pants Yahoo needs to rejoin the fight against Google--and potentially Microsoft.
That's at least some of the sentiment inside Yahoo in the days following Microsoft's unsolicited buyout offer. Many Yahoo employees don't want to join Microsoft's workforce, but they see the bid as a catalyst for change, one way or another. As a result, the mood is surprisingly buoyant and business as usual among some Yahoo executives, according to one source familiar with the company."Most people want to win and something bold needs to happen, so this could be the catalyst to make that happen sooner one way or another," said a source inside the company. "Either Yahoo steps up and does something bold, or Microsoft takes over. If Jerry's smart he could use this as a rallying cry."
Still, you could say the mood at Yahoo is mixed. For some who fear that they will be laid off in the coming 7 percent cutbacks (or about 1,000 employees), Microsoft's proposed takeover bid just gums up the works even more. Engineers and product managers who would like to see the company rally on new products say the thought of a drawn-out acquisition that raises more cultural and management questions than answers them is distracting.
"With the pending layoff...plus this acquisition stuff, it's hard to focus on anything," said one Yahoo employee who asked to remain anonymous.
The concern, specifically for some employees, is that if Yahoo management can't pose enough of a challenge to Google--and neither can Microsoft management--how can a combined entity with the same management mix best the search leader? "There's a need for a powerful rival to Google, but which management is finally going to do the job?" asked one Yahoo employee.
Some within Yahoo are just frustrated that the company has found itself in the situation.
"Everybody I work with is pretty disillusioned with Yahoo," said a Yahoo engineer, who asked not to be identified.
He predicted Yahoo will do anything it can to fight a Microsoft takeover, even if it means turning to Google for help. "I would assume having Microsoft take over would be Jerry's worst nightmare."
(CNET News.com's Elinor Mills contributed to this report.)
Social Search is Coming
In a recent interview with VentureBeat, Marissa Mayer, Google's VP of Search Products & User Experience, spoke of Google's interest in social search and their future plans in that area. Social search, which may be the defining quality of Google's next generation of search products, is any search that is aided by a social interactions or connections. Offline, social search happens everyday. For example, when you ask a friend for a recommendation on a movie to see or a good restaurant, you're essentially doing a verbal social search. Online, social search has not been incorporated in Google's search results yet, but Mayer says that will change in time.Privacy Issues
Integrating social search into search results is tricky, says Mayer, because people view search as a private activity. Most people just aren't that comfortable letting their whole network of friends know what they have been searching for. Google knows that they must respect that privacy, so they would want the user to explicitly approve any friend connections that would be used to add social elements to the search results. (In other words, you won't just log on one day and find your Google search results re-ranked based on what your MySpace friends are doing.)
How Will It Work?
When asked how Google is planning on implementing social search, Mayer mentions a few different ideas they have which include labeling, identifying users like you, social network integration, and a social-influenced PageRank.
Labeling: With labeling, Google users could annotate the search results and those notes could then be shared with friends on their social network or with others like them. She mentions that this has worked to some extent in Google Co-Op in certain areas, like health, but overall annotation is not a model that works well in its current state. However, the benefit of annotation is that it avoids the privacy issues because someone who is labeling search results presumably does not mind that others would see those notations.
Users Like You: Another option might involve Google taking a page from Amazon's book, and adding "others like you searched for ..." or "other people who did this search also did searches..." to Google's search results. Although useful, these related queries don't truly integrate results from your friends, nor do they influence the search result rankings, so they are not the best example of pure social search.
Social Network Integration: To identify your friends and allow them to influence search results, Google may even try social network integration with search. Using aggregate statistics on your friends' searches would allow privacy to be maintained, but you would also be able to see trends that are important to you. Initially Google would leverage the Google user base and the connections that exist within it. However, 3rd party social network integration may come in time as well. Mayer uses the example of how you could see that several of your Facebook friends had searched for a particular topic one day - a stat that would be provided without user names. If a large number of your friends are searching for something, it's likely that you may be interested in that topic, too.
Social-Influenced PageRank: With today's version of PageRank, it's the link structure of the web that determines the most authoritative pages. However, Google believes that people would naturally give more authority to pages their friends visit. To bring in this influence, Google could take web history and then allow that data to influence rankings, so that pages that your friends visit would rank higher in search results. Today, Google web history is still an opt-in option and if it was going to be used to influence rankings, that would hopefully be an opt-in choice as well, but Mayer does not go into that level of detail.
The Future
So, what is the future of search? Mayer responds, "I think one way it will be better is in understanding more about you and understanding more about your social context: Who your friends are, what you like to do, where you are. It’s hard to imagine that the search engine ten years from now isn’t advised by those things."
In most industries, a merger of two major companies would cause everyone else to panic over a decline in competition.
In most industries, a merger of two major companies would cause everyone else to panic over a decline in competition.
But in the case of the online advertising market, advertising and media executives said on Friday that they liked the prospect of a combined Microsoft and Yahoo. Google, they said, has become so dominant in its grip over the online audience that the merger might be the only way to produce a competitor strong enough to face off with it.
“It’s so reductive to say ‘Google is evil’ or ‘Google owns everyone,’ ” said Sarah Chubb, president of CondéNet, the digital arm of Condé Nast. “But what it comes down to is, competition is good for everyone in the marketplace.”
And competition, Ms. Chubb and other executives said, would surely be increased if Google’s foes bulk up. Despite more than a year of courting advertisers and media companies, Microsoft continues to lag Google in online ad sales and in its share of the consumer search market. Yahoo, once a prime competitor to Google, has been slipping since the departure last summer of several ad sales executives who had deep relationships with ad agencies, the executives said.
Google, on the other hand, continues to expand its ad revenues at rates nearing 30 percent a year, and it owns the sites with the most total worldwide traffic. Google also received good news last month when the Federal Trade Commission cleared its merger with DoubleClick. That company delivers display advertisements for Web sites and has deep relationships with many media companies. (Google is still waiting for clearance from the European Commission.)
Many people in traditional media companies and ad agencies had started thinking that Google had simply won the battle. Just two weeks ago, the Publicis Groupe, one of the largest ad holding companies, announced that it had been working closely with Google to develop advertising technologies — becoming the first major player in traditional advertising to publicly embrace Google.
Other ad executives have been more cautious in their involvement with Google. Martin Sorrell, chief of the WPP Group, another advertising conglomerate, labeled Google the “frenemy” in 2006.
A WPP Group executive said Friday that Microsoft’s $44.6 billion bid for Yahoo was great news.
“It has to be good to have more than one strong company,” said Mark Read, director of strategy for the company, which owns ad agencies like JWT and Ogilvy & Mather. “It is good for investment. It is good for competition.”
A combined Microsoft and Yahoo would beat Google in Web traffic and come closer in ad revenues. Most importantly, the pair would give Google a greater challenge as it tried to enter display advertising, because Yahoo has the largest share of that market.
Google made most of its fortune through small text ads that are tied to Web searches or other content on a page. But media companies expect much of the growth in online advertising to come from display ads — flashy pictures and videos that are purchased by companies like Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble.
There are companies that would not be happy with a deal for Yahoo. Time Warner, for example, is expected to try to spin off its AOL unit, and Microsoft and Yahoo were widely considered to be possible bidders.
“AOL missed its chance,” said Shar VanBoskirk, an analyst at Forrester Research. “I’ve been thinking: would Google have any reason to buy AOL? I just don’t think they need it.”
Consumers also may not like the idea that data about more of their Web meanderings would end up under the same roof.
Part of the allure of the Internet for advertisers is the potential to use consumer data to deliver different ads to different people, based on their interests. Google has long told investors that it aims to be a pipeline for all advertising in the future, on the Internet and elsewhere, and the company is experimenting with ways to use data about consumers to deliver targeted television and cellphone ads. A postdeal Microsoft would have a bigger trove of data about Web users and could take advantage of it across more sites.
In the short run, a stronger Microsoft might force Google to lower the cut of revenue it takes from media companies when it places ads on their sites. But in the long term, traditional media companies may find themselves more beholden to the technology that Google and the combined Microsoft-Yahoo develop. Ms. VanBoskirk went so far as to suggest that media companies should stop trying to sell ads on their own and, instead, license their content to the technology companies.
Advertising executives said they expected more shakeouts.
“Whoever the players are, they need to be strong,” said Rishad Tobaccowala, chief executive of Denuo, a unit of the Publicis Groupe that focuses on emerging and future technologies. “While Google might be one player and Yahoo-Microsoft another player, the other global players might be Nokia, China Mobile, Apple plus Disney.”
By LOUISE STORY
Published: February 2, 2008
But in the case of the online advertising market, advertising and media executives said on Friday that they liked the prospect of a combined Microsoft and Yahoo. Google, they said, has become so dominant in its grip over the online audience that the merger might be the only way to produce a competitor strong enough to face off with it.“It’s so reductive to say ‘Google is evil’ or ‘Google owns everyone,’ ” said Sarah Chubb, president of CondéNet, the digital arm of Condé Nast. “But what it comes down to is, competition is good for everyone in the marketplace.”
And competition, Ms. Chubb and other executives said, would surely be increased if Google’s foes bulk up. Despite more than a year of courting advertisers and media companies, Microsoft continues to lag Google in online ad sales and in its share of the consumer search market. Yahoo, once a prime competitor to Google, has been slipping since the departure last summer of several ad sales executives who had deep relationships with ad agencies, the executives said.
Google, on the other hand, continues to expand its ad revenues at rates nearing 30 percent a year, and it owns the sites with the most total worldwide traffic. Google also received good news last month when the Federal Trade Commission cleared its merger with DoubleClick. That company delivers display advertisements for Web sites and has deep relationships with many media companies. (Google is still waiting for clearance from the European Commission.)
Many people in traditional media companies and ad agencies had started thinking that Google had simply won the battle. Just two weeks ago, the Publicis Groupe, one of the largest ad holding companies, announced that it had been working closely with Google to develop advertising technologies — becoming the first major player in traditional advertising to publicly embrace Google.
Other ad executives have been more cautious in their involvement with Google. Martin Sorrell, chief of the WPP Group, another advertising conglomerate, labeled Google the “frenemy” in 2006.
A WPP Group executive said Friday that Microsoft’s $44.6 billion bid for Yahoo was great news.
“It has to be good to have more than one strong company,” said Mark Read, director of strategy for the company, which owns ad agencies like JWT and Ogilvy & Mather. “It is good for investment. It is good for competition.”
A combined Microsoft and Yahoo would beat Google in Web traffic and come closer in ad revenues. Most importantly, the pair would give Google a greater challenge as it tried to enter display advertising, because Yahoo has the largest share of that market.
Google made most of its fortune through small text ads that are tied to Web searches or other content on a page. But media companies expect much of the growth in online advertising to come from display ads — flashy pictures and videos that are purchased by companies like Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble.There are companies that would not be happy with a deal for Yahoo. Time Warner, for example, is expected to try to spin off its AOL unit, and Microsoft and Yahoo were widely considered to be possible bidders.
“AOL missed its chance,” said Shar VanBoskirk, an analyst at Forrester Research. “I’ve been thinking: would Google have any reason to buy AOL? I just don’t think they need it.”
Consumers also may not like the idea that data about more of their Web meanderings would end up under the same roof.
Part of the allure of the Internet for advertisers is the potential to use consumer data to deliver different ads to different people, based on their interests. Google has long told investors that it aims to be a pipeline for all advertising in the future, on the Internet and elsewhere, and the company is experimenting with ways to use data about consumers to deliver targeted television and cellphone ads. A postdeal Microsoft would have a bigger trove of data about Web users and could take advantage of it across more sites.
In the short run, a stronger Microsoft might force Google to lower the cut of revenue it takes from media companies when it places ads on their sites. But in the long term, traditional media companies may find themselves more beholden to the technology that Google and the combined Microsoft-Yahoo develop. Ms. VanBoskirk went so far as to suggest that media companies should stop trying to sell ads on their own and, instead, license their content to the technology companies.
Advertising executives said they expected more shakeouts.
“Whoever the players are, they need to be strong,” said Rishad Tobaccowala, chief executive of Denuo, a unit of the Publicis Groupe that focuses on emerging and future technologies. “While Google might be one player and Yahoo-Microsoft another player, the other global players might be Nokia, China Mobile, Apple plus Disney.”
By LOUISE STORY
Published: February 2, 2008
Technology in 2008
Three fearless predictions
1. Surfing will slow
PEERING into Tech.view’s crystal ball, the one thing we can predict with at least some certainty is that 2008 will be the year we stop taking access to the internet for granted. The internet is not about to grind to a halt, but as more and more users clamber aboard to download music, video clips and games while communicating incessantly by e-mail, chat and instant messaging, the information superhighway sometimes crawls with bumper-to-bumper traffic.
The biggest road-hog remains spam (unsolicited e-mail), which accounts for 90% of traffic on the internet. Phone companies and other large ISPs (internet service providers) have tolerated it for years because it would cost too much to fix. Besides, eliminating spam would only benefit their customers, not themselves.
How so? Because the big fat pipes used by ISPs operate symmetrically, with equal bandwidth for upstream and downstream traffic. But end-users have traditionally downloaded megabytes of information from the web, while uploading only kilobytes of key strokes and mouse clicks. So, when spammers dump billions of pieces of e-mail onto the internet, it travels over the phone companies’ relatively empty upstream segments.
That can’t last. For a start, millions of gadgets are joining the human hordes. Any gizmo worth its silicon these days has its own internet connection—so it can update itself automatically, communicate autonomously with other digital species, and anticipate its user’s every whim.
Part of the solution?Soon, portable media-players, personal navigators, digital cameras, DVD players, flat-panel TV sets, and even mobile phones won’t be able to function properly without access to the internet. Expect even digital picture frames to have a WiFi connection so they can grab the latest photos from Flickr.
Meanwhile, users are changing the way they use the internet: they are now uploading, as well as downloading, gigabytes galore—thanks to the popularity of social networks like Facebook, YouTube and MySpace.
Hailed by the industry as the wave of the future, “user-generated content” is proving to be a tsunami of unprecedented proportions. Everyone, it seems, is suddenly a budding Martin Scorsese, bent on sharing his or her home-made videos with fellow YouTubers.
Once the biggest files being shared via Napster and other P2P (peer-to-peer) networks were MP3 music tracks occupying a few modest megabytes. Today, music videos and TV episodes of hundreds of megabytes are being swapped over the internet by BitTorrent, Gnutella and other file-sharing networks.
And it’s all two-way traffic. The whole point of P2P is that everyone who is downloading is simultaneously uploading to others.
That’s just the beginning. Legal or otherwise, swapping multi-gigabyte high-definition video and movie files is becoming increasingly common.
In fact, it will soon be the norm. Television networks have found they can make more money from advertising while giving their show away for free over the internet than they can from broadcasting them. Now the movie studios are learning to do much the same.
The result is a gridlock. That the telephone companies are running out of bandwidth can be seen from their equipment orders.
Cisco, the leading supplier of core routers used to direct traffic over the internet’s backbone, has just had another bumper quarter, with net income up 37% over the same period a year ago. Juniper Networks, another information-technology firm, did even better. Both companies credit the proliferation of social networks, the craze for internet searching, multimedia downloading, and the widespread adoption of P2P sharing for the surge in new business.
While major internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast all plan to upgrade their backbones, it will be a year or two before improvements begin to show. By then, internet television will be in full bloom, spammers will have multiplied ten-fold, WiFi will be embedded in every moving object, and users will be screaming for yet more capacity.
In the meantime, accept that surfing the web is going to be more like travelling the highways at holiday time. You’ll get there, eventually, but the going won’t be great.
2. Surfing will detach
Earlier this month, Google bid for the most desirable chunk (known as C-block) of the 700-megahertz wireless spectrum being auctioned off by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in late January 2008. The 700-megahertz frequencies used by channels 52 to 69 of analog television are being freed up by the switch to all-digital broadcasting in February 2009.
The frequencies concerned are among the world’s most valuable. They were used for broadcasting UHF television because they suffered little atmospheric absorption, could be beamed for miles, and could then penetrate all the nooks and crannies in buildings. Their relatively short wavelength makes the transmission equipment compact and the antennas small.
Mobile phone companies lust after the 700 megahertz frequencies because of their long range and broadband capabilities. They see lots of lucrative things like mobile television and other broadband services to offer customers.
But the 700 megahertz band is also the last great hope for a “third pipe” for internet access in America. Such a wireless network would offer consumers a serious alternative to the pricey and poor DSL (digital subscriber line) services they get from the likes of AT&T and Verizon, and to the marginally better cable broadband Comcast provides.
Over the past couple of months, techdom has been abuzz with rumours about Google getting into the mobile phone business—with a G-Phone to trump Apple’s iPhone. That’s highly unlikely.
The speculation was triggered by the company’s recent unveiling of its Android operating-system for mobile phones. But the whole point of Android is not to allow Google to make fancy handsets, but to make it easier for others to do so.
The aim, of course, is to flood the market with “open access” phones that have none of the restrictions that big carriers impose—like not being able to download software and games from other makers, or search the internet freely, or make free VoIP (voice of internet protocol) calls from within a WiFi hotspot.
Android has been made available to a group of manufacturers orchestrated by Google and known as the Open Handset Alliance. One of the nimblest of the group, HTC of Taiwan, has already started showing a BlackBerry-like prototype based on the Android operating system. Expect to see a raft of Android phones from other manufacturers over the coming months.
Nor is Google in the business of building a network of cellular antennas and fat communications pipes. Should it win the bidding for C-block, it would presumably team up with Frontline Wireless, a startup with serious expertise and money behind it.
That’s because Google’s core business is organising knowledge and giving users access to it. Google makes its money—and lots of it—from matching advertisers to consumers who use its search engine to look up things, not from tinkering with slim-margin ventures like wireless networks.
But despite owning the world’s largest knowledge base—with over 60% of the online search market—Google is at the mercy of others who control the on-ramps to the internet. That rankles.
Worse, it has no way of getting at the other billion users who rely more on mobile phones than personal computers to organise their lives. Clearly, the time has come to muscle into the moribund mobile-phone business.
Bidding $5 billion or more (the reserve is $4.6 billion) to beat out wireless heavyweights like AT&T and Verizon could give Google the option to become a cell-phone operator in partnership with Frontline, with a ready supply of handsets from its alliance partners and none of the hassles of running a network. Alternatively, it could become an internet service provider with a long-range wireless network to rival the WiMAX networks being built by Sprint and others.
But Google may want to do neither. Sceptics note that Google single-handedly persuaded the FCC to attach all manner of “open access” provisions to the C-block of frequencies—something that was anathema to the mobile-phone companies. Verizon even sued the FCC in a bid to block its move to open access.
Having failed to do so, Verizon now says it will open its network to third-party devices sometime in the future—and presumably for an additional charge. But the FCC is not just taking Verizon’s word for it.
The winner of the C-block of frequencies, whoever that may be (and Verizon is the odds-on favourite), will have to open the network to any device that meets the basic specification. And the devices themselves will have to be open to other suppliers’ software and services.
In short, win or lose, Google has already achieved its objective. Internet searches will doubtless be as popular among mobile-internet surfers as among their sedentary cousins. Owning at least 60% of the mobile search market is the prize Google has been after all along.
3. Surfing—and everything else computer-related—will open
Rejoice: the embrace of “openness” by firms that have grown fat on closed, proprietary technology is something we’ll see more of in 2008. Verizon is not the only one to cry uncle and reluctantly accept the inevitable.
Even Apple, long a bastion of closed systems, is coming round to the open idea. Its heavily protected iPhone was hacked within days of being launched by owners determined to run third-party software like Skype on it.
Apple’s initial response was to attempt a heavy-handed crackdown. But then a court decision in Germany forced its local carrier to unlock all iPhones sold there. Good news for iPhone owners everywhere: a flood of third-party applications is now underway.
The trend toward openness has been given added impetus by the recent collapse of the legal battles brought by SCO, a software developer. Formerly known as Santa Cruz Operations, the firm bought the Unix operating system and core technology in 1995 from Novell (which, in turn, had bought it from its original developer, AT&T).
Short of cash, SCO initiated a series of lawsuits against companies developing Linux software, claiming it contained chunks of copyrighted Unix code. Pressured by worried customers fearing prosecution, a handful of Linux distributors settled with SCO just to stay in business.
But IBM, which uses Linux, was having none of it, and fought the firm through the courts until it won. SCO is now operating under Chapter 11 of the American bankruptcy code.
The verdict removed, once and for all, the burden that had been inhibiting Linux’s broader acceptance. Linux is now accepted as being Unix-like, but not a Unix-derivative.
Bulletproof distributions of Linux from Red Hat and Novell have long been used on back-office servers. Since the verdict against SCO, Linux has swiftly become popular in small businesses and the home.
That’s largely the doing of Gutsy Gibbon, the code-name for the Ubuntu 7.10 from Canonical. Along with distributions such as Linspire, Mint, Xandros, OpenSUSE and gOS, Ubuntu (and its siblings Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Xubuntu) has smoothed most of Linux’s geeky edges while polishing it for the desktop.
No question, Gutsy Gibbon is the sleekest, best integrated and most user-friendly Linux distribution yet. It’s now simpler to set up and configure than Windows. A great deal of work has gone into making the graphics, and especially the fonts, as intuitive and attractive as the Mac’s.
Like other Linux desktop editions, Ubuntu works perfectly well on lowly machines that couldn’t hope to run Windows XP, let alone Vista Home Edition or Apple’s OS-X.
Your correspondent has been happily using Gutsy Gibbon on a ten-year-old desktop with only 128 megabytes of RAM and a tiny 10 gigabyte hard-drive. When Michael Dell, the boss of Dell Computers, runs Ubuntu on one of his home systems, Linux is clearly doing many things right.
And because it is free, Linux become the operating system of choice for low-end PCs. It started with Nicholas Negroponte, the brains behind the One Laptop Per Child project that aims to deliver computerised education to children in the developing world. His clever XO laptop, costing less than $200, would never have seen the light of day without its clever Linux operating system.
But Mr Negroponte has done more than create one of the world’s most ingenious computers. With a potential market measured in the hundreds of millions, he has frightened a lot of big-time computer makers into seeing how good a laptop they can build for less than $500.
All start with a desktop version of Linux. Recent arrivals include the Asus Eee from Taiwan, which lists for $400. The company expects to sell close on four million Eees this financial year. Another Taiwanese maker, Everex, is selling its gPC desktop through Walmart for $199.
When firms are used to buying $1,000 office PCs running Vista Business Edition and loading each with a $200 copy of Microsoft Office, the attractions of a sub-$500 computer using a free operating system like Linux and a free productivity suite like OpenOffice suddenly become very compelling.
And that’s not counting the $20,000 or more needed for Microsoft’s Exchange and SharePoint server software. Again, Linux provides such server software for free.
Pundits agree: neither Microsoft nor Apple can compete at the new price points being plumbed by companies looking to cut costs. With open-source software maturing fast, Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, MySQL, Evolution, Pidgin and some 23,000 other Linux applications available for free seem more than ready to fill that gap. By some reckonings, Linux fans will soon outnumber Macintosh addicts. Linus Torvalds should be rightly proud.
1. Surfing will slow
PEERING into Tech.view’s crystal ball, the one thing we can predict with at least some certainty is that 2008 will be the year we stop taking access to the internet for granted. The internet is not about to grind to a halt, but as more and more users clamber aboard to download music, video clips and games while communicating incessantly by e-mail, chat and instant messaging, the information superhighway sometimes crawls with bumper-to-bumper traffic.
The biggest road-hog remains spam (unsolicited e-mail), which accounts for 90% of traffic on the internet. Phone companies and other large ISPs (internet service providers) have tolerated it for years because it would cost too much to fix. Besides, eliminating spam would only benefit their customers, not themselves.
How so? Because the big fat pipes used by ISPs operate symmetrically, with equal bandwidth for upstream and downstream traffic. But end-users have traditionally downloaded megabytes of information from the web, while uploading only kilobytes of key strokes and mouse clicks. So, when spammers dump billions of pieces of e-mail onto the internet, it travels over the phone companies’ relatively empty upstream segments.
That can’t last. For a start, millions of gadgets are joining the human hordes. Any gizmo worth its silicon these days has its own internet connection—so it can update itself automatically, communicate autonomously with other digital species, and anticipate its user’s every whim.
Part of the solution?Soon, portable media-players, personal navigators, digital cameras, DVD players, flat-panel TV sets, and even mobile phones won’t be able to function properly without access to the internet. Expect even digital picture frames to have a WiFi connection so they can grab the latest photos from Flickr.
Meanwhile, users are changing the way they use the internet: they are now uploading, as well as downloading, gigabytes galore—thanks to the popularity of social networks like Facebook, YouTube and MySpace.
Hailed by the industry as the wave of the future, “user-generated content” is proving to be a tsunami of unprecedented proportions. Everyone, it seems, is suddenly a budding Martin Scorsese, bent on sharing his or her home-made videos with fellow YouTubers.
Once the biggest files being shared via Napster and other P2P (peer-to-peer) networks were MP3 music tracks occupying a few modest megabytes. Today, music videos and TV episodes of hundreds of megabytes are being swapped over the internet by BitTorrent, Gnutella and other file-sharing networks.
And it’s all two-way traffic. The whole point of P2P is that everyone who is downloading is simultaneously uploading to others.
That’s just the beginning. Legal or otherwise, swapping multi-gigabyte high-definition video and movie files is becoming increasingly common.
In fact, it will soon be the norm. Television networks have found they can make more money from advertising while giving their show away for free over the internet than they can from broadcasting them. Now the movie studios are learning to do much the same.The result is a gridlock. That the telephone companies are running out of bandwidth can be seen from their equipment orders.
Cisco, the leading supplier of core routers used to direct traffic over the internet’s backbone, has just had another bumper quarter, with net income up 37% over the same period a year ago. Juniper Networks, another information-technology firm, did even better. Both companies credit the proliferation of social networks, the craze for internet searching, multimedia downloading, and the widespread adoption of P2P sharing for the surge in new business.
While major internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast all plan to upgrade their backbones, it will be a year or two before improvements begin to show. By then, internet television will be in full bloom, spammers will have multiplied ten-fold, WiFi will be embedded in every moving object, and users will be screaming for yet more capacity.
In the meantime, accept that surfing the web is going to be more like travelling the highways at holiday time. You’ll get there, eventually, but the going won’t be great.
2. Surfing will detach
Earlier this month, Google bid for the most desirable chunk (known as C-block) of the 700-megahertz wireless spectrum being auctioned off by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in late January 2008. The 700-megahertz frequencies used by channels 52 to 69 of analog television are being freed up by the switch to all-digital broadcasting in February 2009.
The frequencies concerned are among the world’s most valuable. They were used for broadcasting UHF television because they suffered little atmospheric absorption, could be beamed for miles, and could then penetrate all the nooks and crannies in buildings. Their relatively short wavelength makes the transmission equipment compact and the antennas small.
Mobile phone companies lust after the 700 megahertz frequencies because of their long range and broadband capabilities. They see lots of lucrative things like mobile television and other broadband services to offer customers.
But the 700 megahertz band is also the last great hope for a “third pipe” for internet access in America. Such a wireless network would offer consumers a serious alternative to the pricey and poor DSL (digital subscriber line) services they get from the likes of AT&T and Verizon, and to the marginally better cable broadband Comcast provides.
Over the past couple of months, techdom has been abuzz with rumours about Google getting into the mobile phone business—with a G-Phone to trump Apple’s iPhone. That’s highly unlikely.
The speculation was triggered by the company’s recent unveiling of its Android operating-system for mobile phones. But the whole point of Android is not to allow Google to make fancy handsets, but to make it easier for others to do so.
The aim, of course, is to flood the market with “open access” phones that have none of the restrictions that big carriers impose—like not being able to download software and games from other makers, or search the internet freely, or make free VoIP (voice of internet protocol) calls from within a WiFi hotspot.
Android has been made available to a group of manufacturers orchestrated by Google and known as the Open Handset Alliance. One of the nimblest of the group, HTC of Taiwan, has already started showing a BlackBerry-like prototype based on the Android operating system. Expect to see a raft of Android phones from other manufacturers over the coming months.
Nor is Google in the business of building a network of cellular antennas and fat communications pipes. Should it win the bidding for C-block, it would presumably team up with Frontline Wireless, a startup with serious expertise and money behind it.
That’s because Google’s core business is organising knowledge and giving users access to it. Google makes its money—and lots of it—from matching advertisers to consumers who use its search engine to look up things, not from tinkering with slim-margin ventures like wireless networks.
But despite owning the world’s largest knowledge base—with over 60% of the online search market—Google is at the mercy of others who control the on-ramps to the internet. That rankles.
Worse, it has no way of getting at the other billion users who rely more on mobile phones than personal computers to organise their lives. Clearly, the time has come to muscle into the moribund mobile-phone business.
Bidding $5 billion or more (the reserve is $4.6 billion) to beat out wireless heavyweights like AT&T and Verizon could give Google the option to become a cell-phone operator in partnership with Frontline, with a ready supply of handsets from its alliance partners and none of the hassles of running a network. Alternatively, it could become an internet service provider with a long-range wireless network to rival the WiMAX networks being built by Sprint and others.
But Google may want to do neither. Sceptics note that Google single-handedly persuaded the FCC to attach all manner of “open access” provisions to the C-block of frequencies—something that was anathema to the mobile-phone companies. Verizon even sued the FCC in a bid to block its move to open access.
Having failed to do so, Verizon now says it will open its network to third-party devices sometime in the future—and presumably for an additional charge. But the FCC is not just taking Verizon’s word for it.
The winner of the C-block of frequencies, whoever that may be (and Verizon is the odds-on favourite), will have to open the network to any device that meets the basic specification. And the devices themselves will have to be open to other suppliers’ software and services.
In short, win or lose, Google has already achieved its objective. Internet searches will doubtless be as popular among mobile-internet surfers as among their sedentary cousins. Owning at least 60% of the mobile search market is the prize Google has been after all along.
3. Surfing—and everything else computer-related—will open
Rejoice: the embrace of “openness” by firms that have grown fat on closed, proprietary technology is something we’ll see more of in 2008. Verizon is not the only one to cry uncle and reluctantly accept the inevitable.
Even Apple, long a bastion of closed systems, is coming round to the open idea. Its heavily protected iPhone was hacked within days of being launched by owners determined to run third-party software like Skype on it.
Apple’s initial response was to attempt a heavy-handed crackdown. But then a court decision in Germany forced its local carrier to unlock all iPhones sold there. Good news for iPhone owners everywhere: a flood of third-party applications is now underway.
The trend toward openness has been given added impetus by the recent collapse of the legal battles brought by SCO, a software developer. Formerly known as Santa Cruz Operations, the firm bought the Unix operating system and core technology in 1995 from Novell (which, in turn, had bought it from its original developer, AT&T).
Short of cash, SCO initiated a series of lawsuits against companies developing Linux software, claiming it contained chunks of copyrighted Unix code. Pressured by worried customers fearing prosecution, a handful of Linux distributors settled with SCO just to stay in business.
But IBM, which uses Linux, was having none of it, and fought the firm through the courts until it won. SCO is now operating under Chapter 11 of the American bankruptcy code.
The verdict removed, once and for all, the burden that had been inhibiting Linux’s broader acceptance. Linux is now accepted as being Unix-like, but not a Unix-derivative.
Bulletproof distributions of Linux from Red Hat and Novell have long been used on back-office servers. Since the verdict against SCO, Linux has swiftly become popular in small businesses and the home.
That’s largely the doing of Gutsy Gibbon, the code-name for the Ubuntu 7.10 from Canonical. Along with distributions such as Linspire, Mint, Xandros, OpenSUSE and gOS, Ubuntu (and its siblings Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Xubuntu) has smoothed most of Linux’s geeky edges while polishing it for the desktop.
No question, Gutsy Gibbon is the sleekest, best integrated and most user-friendly Linux distribution yet. It’s now simpler to set up and configure than Windows. A great deal of work has gone into making the graphics, and especially the fonts, as intuitive and attractive as the Mac’s.
Like other Linux desktop editions, Ubuntu works perfectly well on lowly machines that couldn’t hope to run Windows XP, let alone Vista Home Edition or Apple’s OS-X.
Your correspondent has been happily using Gutsy Gibbon on a ten-year-old desktop with only 128 megabytes of RAM and a tiny 10 gigabyte hard-drive. When Michael Dell, the boss of Dell Computers, runs Ubuntu on one of his home systems, Linux is clearly doing many things right.
And because it is free, Linux become the operating system of choice for low-end PCs. It started with Nicholas Negroponte, the brains behind the One Laptop Per Child project that aims to deliver computerised education to children in the developing world. His clever XO laptop, costing less than $200, would never have seen the light of day without its clever Linux operating system.
But Mr Negroponte has done more than create one of the world’s most ingenious computers. With a potential market measured in the hundreds of millions, he has frightened a lot of big-time computer makers into seeing how good a laptop they can build for less than $500.
All start with a desktop version of Linux. Recent arrivals include the Asus Eee from Taiwan, which lists for $400. The company expects to sell close on four million Eees this financial year. Another Taiwanese maker, Everex, is selling its gPC desktop through Walmart for $199.
When firms are used to buying $1,000 office PCs running Vista Business Edition and loading each with a $200 copy of Microsoft Office, the attractions of a sub-$500 computer using a free operating system like Linux and a free productivity suite like OpenOffice suddenly become very compelling.
And that’s not counting the $20,000 or more needed for Microsoft’s Exchange and SharePoint server software. Again, Linux provides such server software for free.
Pundits agree: neither Microsoft nor Apple can compete at the new price points being plumbed by companies looking to cut costs. With open-source software maturing fast, Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, MySQL, Evolution, Pidgin and some 23,000 other Linux applications available for free seem more than ready to fill that gap. By some reckonings, Linux fans will soon outnumber Macintosh addicts. Linus Torvalds should be rightly proud.
Google pitches Gphones to Verizon
Google is pitching its vaunted Gphone to Verizon Wireless, but the odds are still against the search giant striking a major deal with the second largest phone company in the U.S.
The Wall Street Journal and Reuters reported Tuesday evening that Google is in "serious discussions" with Verizon Wireless to put its mobile "GPhone" software on Verizon phones.
For months, people have been speculating about the rumored Google "GPhone." Most people believe that it's not a specific phone, but is more likely an operating system or software that integrates many of Google's mobile services, like Web search, Gmail, Youtube, and Google Maps, onto phones made by existing handset makers. But more than simply integrating Google services onto handsets, the new Google mobile OS is believed to be an open platform on which application developers would have free reign to develop a slew of new applications and services.
The WSJ said in an earlier article published Monday that Asian cell phone makers HTC and LG Electronics will be the first two handset makers to use the software.
But Google-powered phones will be useless unless the company can strike deals with mobile operators to allow them on their networks. T-Mobile USA is rumored to be the first U.S. operator that will sign on with Google. And now the WSJ has said that Verizon Wireless is also in "serious discussions" with Google over using phones that have its new software embedded.
Verizon Communications Chief Operating Officer Denny Strigl admitted on Monday during an investor call that the phone company has been in talks with a lot of companies, including Google. But he didn't elaborate. His comment was in response to a question about the upcoming 700Mhz auction.
Verizon and Google have been publicly squabbling for months over the "open" provisions the Federal Communications Commission adopted as part of the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum. The provisions require winners of the spectrum auction to allow any device to connect to networks using that spectrum. Verizon had filed a lawsuit against the FCC. But last week, it dropped its complaint and said it would no longer appeal the provision.
Despite this change of heart, Verizon Wireless' history indicates that it's still very unlikely the company would agree to offer phones with tons of Google-branded services on an open platform. The reason is very simple. Of all the mobile operators in the U.S., Verizon is the most aggressive in protecting its "walled garden." It has some of the most stringent testing of new phones, and it is very selective about the applications it allows onto its "deck."
What's more, Verizon is also very cautious about allowing other companies to brand services on its network. For example, Verizon Wireless uses a search application from a smaller company on its VCast mobile service, which it brands itself, instead of using a search tool from a bigger company such as Google or Yahoo. And instead of leveraging existing music libraries as its competitor AT&T has done, Verizon has built its own music and video library.
So what could Google and Verizon be talking about? The most likely scenario is that Google is offering Verizon the ability to use its operating system to integrate any applications it wants into its phones. Most of Verizon's phones today are built on either Qualcomm's BREW environment or on a Windows Mobile platform. Google may be offering Verizon a free or very cheap licensing deal to use its software on phones. Verizon could still lock-down the phones if it chooses. This means that the Google-powered phones on a Verizon network might not be "open" at all to consumers or developers.
The new Google software will also supposedly offer integration with advertising platforms. And this is something that Verizon or any mobile operator would likely find very interesting. Today, mobile advertising makes up a small fraction of revenue, but carriers expect to generate a significant amount of revenue from mobile advertising in the future.
At the end of the day, Google's biggest market for the supposed Gphone software may not be with any of the U.S. carriers. Instead, Google will likely find a great upside in aiming its open platform at the developing world where people are much more likely to access the Internet on a cell phone than they are on a PC.
"A Google-software enabled phone makes the most sense in emerging markets," said Charles Golvin, an analyst with Forrester Research. "The next 1 billion to 2 billion cell phone users are going to be people in these markets. And most of them will not own a PC. For Google to grow its Internet audience there, it makes much more sense for them to optimize the Web experience on a phone."
The Wall Street Journal and Reuters reported Tuesday evening that Google is in "serious discussions" with Verizon Wireless to put its mobile "GPhone" software on Verizon phones.
For months, people have been speculating about the rumored Google "GPhone." Most people believe that it's not a specific phone, but is more likely an operating system or software that integrates many of Google's mobile services, like Web search, Gmail, Youtube, and Google Maps, onto phones made by existing handset makers. But more than simply integrating Google services onto handsets, the new Google mobile OS is believed to be an open platform on which application developers would have free reign to develop a slew of new applications and services.
The WSJ said in an earlier article published Monday that Asian cell phone makers HTC and LG Electronics will be the first two handset makers to use the software.But Google-powered phones will be useless unless the company can strike deals with mobile operators to allow them on their networks. T-Mobile USA is rumored to be the first U.S. operator that will sign on with Google. And now the WSJ has said that Verizon Wireless is also in "serious discussions" with Google over using phones that have its new software embedded.
Verizon Communications Chief Operating Officer Denny Strigl admitted on Monday during an investor call that the phone company has been in talks with a lot of companies, including Google. But he didn't elaborate. His comment was in response to a question about the upcoming 700Mhz auction.
Verizon and Google have been publicly squabbling for months over the "open" provisions the Federal Communications Commission adopted as part of the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum. The provisions require winners of the spectrum auction to allow any device to connect to networks using that spectrum. Verizon had filed a lawsuit against the FCC. But last week, it dropped its complaint and said it would no longer appeal the provision.
Despite this change of heart, Verizon Wireless' history indicates that it's still very unlikely the company would agree to offer phones with tons of Google-branded services on an open platform. The reason is very simple. Of all the mobile operators in the U.S., Verizon is the most aggressive in protecting its "walled garden." It has some of the most stringent testing of new phones, and it is very selective about the applications it allows onto its "deck."
What's more, Verizon is also very cautious about allowing other companies to brand services on its network. For example, Verizon Wireless uses a search application from a smaller company on its VCast mobile service, which it brands itself, instead of using a search tool from a bigger company such as Google or Yahoo. And instead of leveraging existing music libraries as its competitor AT&T has done, Verizon has built its own music and video library.
So what could Google and Verizon be talking about? The most likely scenario is that Google is offering Verizon the ability to use its operating system to integrate any applications it wants into its phones. Most of Verizon's phones today are built on either Qualcomm's BREW environment or on a Windows Mobile platform. Google may be offering Verizon a free or very cheap licensing deal to use its software on phones. Verizon could still lock-down the phones if it chooses. This means that the Google-powered phones on a Verizon network might not be "open" at all to consumers or developers.
The new Google software will also supposedly offer integration with advertising platforms. And this is something that Verizon or any mobile operator would likely find very interesting. Today, mobile advertising makes up a small fraction of revenue, but carriers expect to generate a significant amount of revenue from mobile advertising in the future.
At the end of the day, Google's biggest market for the supposed Gphone software may not be with any of the U.S. carriers. Instead, Google will likely find a great upside in aiming its open platform at the developing world where people are much more likely to access the Internet on a cell phone than they are on a PC.
"A Google-software enabled phone makes the most sense in emerging markets," said Charles Golvin, an analyst with Forrester Research. "The next 1 billion to 2 billion cell phone users are going to be people in these markets. And most of them will not own a PC. For Google to grow its Internet audience there, it makes much more sense for them to optimize the Web experience on a phone."
Google launches open APIs for social networks
Borrowing a page from Sun's Java playbook, Google is announcing a way for programmers to build social applications for multiple Web sites at once.
Google's version of this "write once run anywhere" concept is called OpenSocial, a set of common application programming interfaces (APIs) that will enable developers to create applications for social networks, blogs and any Web sites that accept the OpenSocial code. Currently, developers have to write new programs for each site, even if the functionality will be the same on each site.
This initiative "marks the first time that multiple social networks have been made accessible under a common API," according to a Google statement.
This announcement illustrates how Google is courting developers and possibly attempting to outdo Facebook in openness. Facebook opened up its platform to developers in June and the site was immediately flooded with all sorts of useful and not-so-useful apps. Google, Yahoo and others have been heavily espousing the beauty of open platforms and making moves to that end.
Not surprisingly, Facebook, which recently reportedly chose Microsoft over Google for an exclusive ad and investment deal, is not one of the OpenSocial-enabled sites.
Google's social network, Orkut, is among the sites that will accept apps written using OpenSocial APIs, as is LinkedIn, hi5, iLike, Slide, Ning, Friendster, and Plaxo.
A Google representative would not say whether Google had talked to Facebook and MySpace about joining the initiative or comment on why they were not involved.
The OpenSocial resources for developers and Web sites will be available at code.google.com/apis/opensocial.
Google's version of this "write once run anywhere" concept is called OpenSocial, a set of common application programming interfaces (APIs) that will enable developers to create applications for social networks, blogs and any Web sites that accept the OpenSocial code. Currently, developers have to write new programs for each site, even if the functionality will be the same on each site.
This initiative "marks the first time that multiple social networks have been made accessible under a common API," according to a Google statement.
This announcement illustrates how Google is courting developers and possibly attempting to outdo Facebook in openness. Facebook opened up its platform to developers in June and the site was immediately flooded with all sorts of useful and not-so-useful apps. Google, Yahoo and others have been heavily espousing the beauty of open platforms and making moves to that end.
Not surprisingly, Facebook, which recently reportedly chose Microsoft over Google for an exclusive ad and investment deal, is not one of the OpenSocial-enabled sites.
Google's social network, Orkut, is among the sites that will accept apps written using OpenSocial APIs, as is LinkedIn, hi5, iLike, Slide, Ning, Friendster, and Plaxo.
A Google representative would not say whether Google had talked to Facebook and MySpace about joining the initiative or comment on why they were not involved.
The OpenSocial resources for developers and Web sites will be available at code.google.com/apis/opensocial.
Shared Stuff - new technology from Google
Google recently introduced a new technology called Shared Stuff which allows you to share any web page, email or links with friends. Shared Stuff saves your shared page in a separate page similar to your profile page which is publicly visible or not on the web according to your settings.‘A Shared Stuff page is a collection of all the links that you want to share online with friends’.
You can bookmark the Shared Stuff button in your browser for easy access. Whenever you see the Google sharing button, on the sites, click it to share the current webpage in whatever way you prefer
This widget offers following three main ways to share content with your friends and family. 1. Add the item to your Google Shared Stuff page, 2. Email the page, with a custom message and 3. Posting the page to some related social bookmarking sites
Google May Partner Anil Ambani for Undersea Cable Project
Google is beefing up the infrastructure to make use of rising internet usage across globe especially in Asia-Pacific regions by setting up its own under-sea cable across Pacific, under a project called Unity. This would help Google to meet its data and video transfer requirements from US to Asian countries.Reliance Communication’s Flag Telecom is believed to have initiated a talk with Google to take a stake in its trans-Pacific cable project between United States west coast and Far East Asia on a long term lease
Reopen Closed Browser Tabs in Internet Explorer
If you accidentally close a tab in Firefox, you can easily retrieve it by pressing Ctrl+Shift+T. If you do the same mistake in Opera, Ctrl+Alt+Shift+Z will help you reopen the most recently closed tab.
Coming to Internet Explorer, there's no inbuilt feature to restore closed tabs
Click Usability & Accessibility
An overview of what impaired users encounter when using in accessible websites.
Read more…
Google - Click Privacy
Three public-interest groups are expected to file a joint complaint on Friday with the Federal Trade Commission calling for an investigation into the potential threat to consumer privacy posed by Google's planned acquisition of DoubleClick.
The Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), along with the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (U.S. PIRG), are asking the FTC to stop the $3.1 billion merger until the trade commission investigates Google's data collection and storage practices, orders DoubleClick to sweep out its data storehouse and requires the search giant to offer a public plan for safeguarding consumer privacy.
