The Great Anti-Google Conspiracy

Chris Thompson — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:25:47 +0000

Such is the state of the media industry that any hope of remuneration, no matter how remote, is greeted with giddy breathlessness. And so we have word over the weekend that Microsoft (MSFT) execs have been secretly conspiring with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (NWSA) to "de-index" Google (GOOG) from its Web pages, effectively depriving Google users from accessing news stores published by Fox et al, but allowing Bing users to keep reading the stories of the day via Microsoft.

The story first broke in the Financial Times, and it's as follows: Microsoft has been quietly approaching a variety of news outlets, offering cash to get them to block Google's search bots from scanning their pages and indexing important stories as part of its Google News function. Google, of course, has been notoriously coy about the subject of paying for the opportunity to do so, arguing that truly interesting stories will compel readers not just to scan the headline but to click to the story and possibly whatever advertising may accompany it. Now, it appears that News Corp. has bitten on the deal and will partner with Microsoft to offer them a more or less exclusive relationship; if you want stories from Fox News or any or Murdoch's media properties, Bing will be where you go to find them.

This has sent reporters into a tizzy, offering them a hope, however slim, that the free and universal access to information offered by the Internet won't necessarily destroy every job in the industry. "The biggest beneficiary of the tussle could be the newspaper industry, which has yet to construct a reliable online business model that adequately replaces declining print and advertising revenues," writes the FT team that broke the story.

And as Chadwick Matlin has written in these very pages, Murdoch's aggressiveness in charging people for content via Hulu could ultimately offer a lifeline for a media industry flabbergasted by a world in which readers and viewers get creative content for free. But will it work?

Wired writer Eliot Van Buskirk is at least a little skeptical. "In the short term, this could be disastrous to News Corp’s publications." he writes. "Google doesn’t need the news—or, to be more precise, it doesn’t need any specific news source. If bloggers have taught the world anything, it’s that one journalist’s facts can become the basis of another journalist’s story." In other words, information will leak out, no matter how strenuously you try to monopolize it. In addition, Googlewatcher Jeff Jarvis cites a study that tracks the number of eyeballs following a group of German publishers that have tried to assemble a similar Google-blocking coalition and notes that Wikipedia—which would almost immediately incorporate important news regarding any subject the German press would care to report—enjoys three times the appearances on the first page of Google search results as any of the German publishers do, for any given subject. So block Google News all you want, Jarvis claims, and users will just pop over to Wikipedia if they want the latest dirt on Britney or whomever. Imagining that even Murdoch can stop this phenomenon, he concludes, is "a swine flu of stupidity."

Derek Thompson over at the Atlantic begs to differ. It's not access to information that matters, he argues—it's the money. All the Web traffic in the world has done diddly-squat to boost revenues, and without that, you can't stay in business. So even if readers can go around Google to eventually find the latest news on whatever they're interested in, Murdoch's deal could still keep the journos in drinking money. "[Jarvis is] not engaging with the central problem, which is that today's online ad rates can't save journalism," Thompson writes. "So why blame Murdoch for looking for something that can?"

Google Chrome OS: The Prologue

Chris Thompson — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:03:56 +0000

Yesterday, the engineers at Google (GOOG) announced more details for the company's new operating system, dubbed Google Chrome OS. It's like Android, except it's for the personal computer and it's not out yet. But, as Googlers emphasized yesterday, it promises to be "blazingly fast."

In fact, as Wired reported yesterday, the new operating system is designed to load within seven seconds and "boot up like a TV," said vice president of product management Sudar Pichai. Unfortunately, you won't be able to download it off the Intertubes and load it onto your own computer. If you want the chance to test-drive the Chrome OS, you'll have to buy a new computer—typically a cheap netbook—and you won't get the chance to do that until late 2010, when the first generation of Chrome-powered netbooks are released by Google's partners.

Again, this is part of Google's effort to remake the world of information toward a cloud-based orientation. Microsoft (MSFT) has long dominated the present tech world, with software directly installed into the hard drive of your computer, servers to support said software, and periodic updates you must restart your computer to install. But as Inforworld blogger Neil McAllister points out, Chrome's Web-based platform frees up netbooks from having installed hard drives to run so much software. All they need, he says, is a screen, a keypad, and a Web browser. Google will do the rest.

It's an utterly fascinating idea; from now on, hardware will be cheap, and you won't have to contemplate a $2,000 bill when your Web machine finally gives up the ghost. But again, you get what you pay for. If Google is partnering with cheap knockoffs that offer low quality for low prices, consumers may well get irritated at the general shoddiness of the physical product. And they may well transfer that irritation to Google's grand Chrome scheme. We'll just have to wait a year and see what kind of hardware partners Google has chosen to hitch its wagon to.

Presented By:

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:03:56 +0000

Big Chrome Announcement Today

Chris Thompson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:44:12 +0000

Google (GOOG) is planning to hold a big press conference at the GooglePlex today, where engineers and flacks will unveil new details about the much-discussed Chrome operating system. This is part of the company's big push for cloud computing, in which users dispense with the usual model of expensive personal computers and run with lightweight, cheap netbooks that use the web itself as the platform for office software. The grand scheme is this operating system will mesh perfectly with the cheapo netbooks and advance Google's dream of having users carry small devices that carry just enough processing power and memory to run Internet browsers, letting the cloud do the rest of the work.

Wired writer Brian Chen has a few concerns about the new rollout. Specifically, when will we actually get to use it? And is Google really going to partner up with the netbook manufacturers, when netbook sales have shown signs of tapering off? ZDNet blogger Jason Hiner has another worry about the netbooks: they tend to suck, and you get what you pay for.

The presser is scheduled for 1 p.m. Eastern Time. CNet will broadcast the event live, and you can watch by clicking here.

Is Google Plotting a Super-Phone?

Chris Thompson — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:53:45 +0000

We're used to Google (GOOG) doing something unexpected, or diving into a business no one could have foreseen. But the latest rumors are so completely counterintuitive that we have a really hard time believing them: Google is building its own smartphone. Not an operating system or software platform to hand out to handset manufacturers. Its own phone.

This comes from TechCrunch reporter Michael Arrington, and it has industry watchers shaking their heads in disbelief. Here's Arrington's story: For months, Google's engineers have been working on a smartphone that will be sold, both directly and through retailers, under the Google brand. Unlike other Android phones, which are built and designed by business partners that don't have to take every suggestion Google makes, the phone will be entirely designed by Google itself, which would give Google absolute control over the phone, a la Apple (AAPL) and the iPhone. Possible manufacturers include HTC, Samsung, and LC, with LC emerging as the likeliest partner. The launch date will be sometime in early 2010.

Almost immediately after Arrington filed his story, Googlewatchers arrived at exactly the same conclusion: This is a terrible idea. Where to start? Let's try Silicon Alley Insider's Dan Frommer. Google's main objective, Frommer points out, is to sell ads on mobile Internet devices. That's where it's always made money, and that's what it's best at. Selling the actual phones is a sucker's game; it comes with a lot of logistical headaches, and the profit margin is far too low. For one thing, it's very probable that Google doesn't have a phone carrier lined up to provide the reception. Carriers also subsidize the phone manufacturing itself, enabling companies to sell a $600 product for $200 in order to cash in on service contracts in the long term. Would you buy a Google phone for $600? Didn't think so.

In addition, Frommer notes, this would amount to a serious bait-and-switch for companies that have already committed to building Android smartphones. Once companies like Verizon (VZ) realize that they've been hustled by Google, they're going to drop using Android as soon as they can, in addition to never trusting Google again. And, as PC World writer David Coursey points out, the consequences of such a betrayal would extend well beyond the smartphones.

"What would this mean for Chrome OS?" he writes. "Suppose you are a netbook maker, would you want Google selling hardware against your own? Better to partner with a company you understand—Microsoft—than one with seemingly no limit on its ambition. A Google-branded phone could render Chrome OS DOA."

All these headaches, just to get into a business with low profit-margins and a lot of preexisting competitors? Don't make sense. We can think of only one plausible explanation: Google is more than a little frustrated with how unimaginative all the current Android designs are, and it's building a prototype to show manufacturers how it could be done, and possibly to ultimately license the design to someone like Motorola. Otherwise, it's a sucker's bet.

Latin TV Comes to YouTube

Chris Thompson — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:30:41 +0000

Well, it's finally here. Google (GOOG) and the Authors Guild finally unveiled their second attempt at setting up a settlement to the class action stemming from Google's Book Search project to digitally archive all human knowledge. And wouldn't you know it? It's not very interesting. Under the new agreement, an independent "fiduciary" would be set up to oversee and license the sale of orphan works, or books that are still under copyright but whose owners can't be found. Critics of the deal have already told the Wall Street Journal that they don't like the new arrangement any better than the old one, and the Justice Department can't possibly be satisfied, since this deal doesn't remotely address most of their concerns. So we're back to Square One.

No, the much more interesting news is the announcement that YouTube has inked a new deal with Univision, the Spanish-language television network, to stream new shows in their entirety on the Web site. Sadly, the most popular offerings, the delightfully florid telenovelas, won't be part of the deal, as they are produced by an independent Mexican company, and the network didn't have the right to stream them. Nonetheless, this is a major development in the business of content on the web. As PC World writer Jared Newman notes, this is the first time an independent network has committed so much content to free, ad-supported distribution on YouTube; other studios dole out 30-year-old relics, if they work with YouTube at all. Meanwhile, three of the major TV studios (ABC, NBC, and Fox) insist on controlling the venue where their shows are streamed. They insist that people watch their shows on Hulu.

But Univision has a completely different model in mind. Not only will it offer all of its content for free on YouTube, it has the right to offer it on other Web sites as well. While Hulu and CBS are determined to limit the number of places where their content is displayed, YouTube and Univision are wedded to the idea of ubiquity. Since these are completely contradictory models of monetizing Web-based content (subscriptions vs. ads, limiting access vs. universal access), it will be interesting to see which works—assuming either one will.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal points out that this deal is something of a watershed moment for YouTube's Latin presence. The company's Spanish-speaking audience grew by a fairly remarkable 80 percent last year, and this should only draw more viewers in.

The Job Interview from Hell

Chris Thompson — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:32:19 +0000

We've all had them, but Google (GOOG) seems to spawn more than its fair share. Lately, the Googlesphere's been buzzing about some of the search company's notoriously arcane interview questions, which seem designed to simultaneously test your math/engineering skills and unnerve you to see how you'll react under pressure. (ex: "Why are manhole covers round?") Now, Silicon Alley Insider has a fun account from one of its own ad reps, who once interviewed for a Google gig but was unceremoniously shown the door. Here's her sad denouement:

"I didn’t even get a sympathetic laugh. 'That’s all. Good luck with your job search.' The phone clicked—I was stunned. The abrupt sign-off was a clear indication that I wouldn’t be considered for round 2. Interviewing can be demoralizing, and that’s just how I felt as I sat with my cell in my hand, vowing to switch to Yahoo for life."

Jeez. Read the whole thing for more Googly grimness, and don't forget to watch this interview with the ad rep while you're at it. Best part: it's sponsored by Research In Motion, whose Blackberry is now competing with Android phones all over the world.

Chrome OS a Week Away

Chris Thompson — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:01 +0000

Them's the rumors, anyway. According to multiple news reports, Google (GOOG) plans to release its new Chrome operating system some time next week. TechCrunch's Michael Arrington was the first to break the news, and he's got a few details about what might and might not work on the new system.

Word about the new OS first broke in July, when Google spokespeople announced that they would roll out the product sometime in the fall. Now it appears to be right around the corner, although Arrington predicts that there might be a few bumps in the road. For one thing, he writes, "Driver support will likely be a weak point. We’ve heard at various times that Google has a legion of engineers working on the not so glamorous task of building hardware drivers. ... People will want to download this to whatever computer they use and have it just work."

In addition, Google will probably tease out the release, making it compatible with just a few PC brands at first to work out the kinks. Although the company has announced a dizzying number of PC manufacturers it plans to work with, these won't all be available when Chrome debuts next week. If it debuts; after all, Google's still keeping mum about the release.

Meanwhile, CNet Stephen Shankland claims that another Chromish thing is about to pounce upon an unsuspecting public: The Chrome Web browser for Mac is about to be released in beta sometime in early December. Of course, Chrome's PC version has been bopping around the world for months, impressing quite a few users with its speed and security, and Mac freaks have been waiting to take a crack at it on their machines. Recently, Shankland was reading over a Mac developer mailing list and came across a note from a Google engineer, referring to a "Beta launch in early December."

So there you have it: two major Chrome events in the space of one month. It's all so exciting. Are we nearing the End Times? Were those damn Mayans right after all?

Wolfram Alpha Builds Ring Around Google

Chris Thompson — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:40:47 +0000

Wolfram Alpha, the computational search engine that offers answers to explicit questions rather than links to sites that might tell you the answer, just got a lot more relevant. And it's all due to the growing antagonisms among Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google (GOOG).

Yesterday, Microsoft announced that from now on, users can access Wolfram Alpha's computational technology when they use Bing to search for certain specific answers. Bing program managers Tracey Yao and Pedro Silva wrote that with the new technology, users can now calculate their body mass index or answer such questions as how many calories are in that hamburger you're going to fry. (We'll refrain from commenting on the irony of using some of the most sophisticated new algorithms in the world to feed your vanity. Wait, no we won't.) The technology is being gradually integrated into Bing's search page, and should be up and running in the next few days.

Meanwhile, Singularityhub.com's Aaron Saenz reports that Wolfram Alpha has now debuted a search app for Apple's iPhone, giving Apple's customers the chance to wield their wicked smart, if not perfectly user-friendly, search engine.

Obviously, Apple and Microsoft will take any advantage against Google they can get, and Wolfram Alpha may one day be a formidable tool in the search wars. But, as Saenz points out, not yet. "As cool as [Wolfram Alpha] may be, I don’t find myself using it very often at all," he writes. "When I do, it’s often to play around rather than find desperately needed information. Still, I admire the technical prowess of the site, and there’s no doubt in my mind that at some point this sort of expansive knowledge and computational database will be necessary and popular."

Can We Trust Google's Wi-Fi Gift?

Chris Thompson — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:38:30 +0000

When Google (GOOG) announced yesterday that it was offering free Wi-Fi at 47 airports this holiday season, it didn't take long for Googlewatchers to suspect an ulterior motive. After all, this is a company that has found a way to make billions off of services it offers for free. And no one gives you somethin' for nothin'. So what, our Internet sourpusses ask, is Google's hustle here?

Meg Biallas at National Public Radio offers one scenario: Plugged-in travelers will be invited to make charitable donations in the spirit of the season, and Google will pocket some of the proceeds as a "processing fee." That said, Biallas concedes, the company is waiving such fees for two of the three nonprofits it suggests people donate to. And Google is matching donations up to $250,000. So that angle feels played out. Still, we like where Meg's going with this somehow.

ChannelWeb reporter Rick Whiting thinks it's about Google's rep. The company, he writes, could use a little more suction in Washington, as it's pushing Net Neutrality and high-speed wireless Internet access. Its brand has taken a hit with Google Book Search and Gmail's recent troubles, and competitors Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) have already rolled out free Wi-Fi around the country. Google, he figures, needs some good PR.

Finally, Seth Weintraub at ComputerWorld thinks Google may use this opportunity to do some consumer research and test new technologies. "Why did Google choose this Christmas campaign?" he writes. "Could they be seeing how many people would use a free Wireless ISP service with advertising? This could be a survey to grab numbers on how many people use this and what type of bandwidth they use. Or could this be a beta test of their upcoming wireless IPv6 ISP service?"

Obviously, it's only human nature to get your bullshit detectors revved up when someone wants to give you something for free. But Google has a tendency to make everyone a little more guarded when it rolls out something like this. The company revolutionized the advertising market when it offered the best search engine for free, and its rivals, from AltaVista to TomTom (TOM2) to every media and entertainment company on the planet, never saw what Google was up to until it was too late. Google has a way of making money before anyone sees its next move, and we're all watching, waiting to catch wind of the hustle. Those guys are just too damn smart; they gotta be up to something.

Update: Google spokesman Andrew Pederson read our post and called to say: Calm down, everyone. We're just giving people a little gift for the holidays. Sheesh. "Is that a negative thing?" he asked incredulously. "Is that bad?"

Alluding to the NPR post above, Pederson marveled at how quick so many are to suspect the smallest act of generosity: "We understand that people are going to be questioning us, and that's all well and good. ... But we have a sterling track record."

We understand; it's not easy being Google. But people have this habit of freaking out when a company comes along and changes the rules of every industry it touches. Is there anything that Google hasn't irrevocably transformed? Pederson knows folks are jumpy about Google's impact on modern life. But that's, well, life. "With innovation comes disruption," he said. "We've made our peace with that."

AdMob Gets a Payday

Chris Thompson — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:15:43 +0000

We know you're waiting for the Google's (GOOG) latest stab at resolving the Book Search lawsuit, but it's been postponed till Friday. Meanwhile, here's another big headline for ya: Google has just bought AdMob, the company that specializes in bringing advertising to your mobile Internet device. The price tag? A breathtaking $750 million in Google stock. That's up in YouTube territory and one of the search giant's biggest gambles to date.

The Los Angeles Times has an excellent piece on the get, placing it in the context of Google's larger business model, as well as highlighting the company's potential to disrupt every industry on Earth outside of waste management. Google is in the advertising business, and its model is to provide free services or content for online users while pitching ads at them. Since smartphones are positioned to be the next big platform for these services, it makes sense that Google would want to make or buy tech that delivers those ads efficiently. Meanwhile, its notion of what might be offered for free has swelled so much that heretofore untouched industries have been hammered by Google's ambition. GPS navigation technology? Google's got that, driving TomTom's (TOM2) stock down 32 percent. Buying music online? Google just rolled out a serious competitor for iTunes. More and more, the search company is expanding its definition of what used to cost money, but can now be offered for free. Consumers will be thrilled, assuming they still have jobs after all the industries in the world have rolled over and died.

Finally, Silicon Alley Insider's Henry Blodget reports that the reason why Google shelled out so much cash for AdMob is that Apple (AAPL) was trying to buy it as well. Blodget finds this mystifying. "Why would Apple want to go into the ad business?" he writes. Well, it seems to be working for Google.

The Google Books Deadline is Now

Chris Thompson — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:20:30 +0000

We know you're as excited as we are. Sometime today, Google (GOOG) must submit a new agreement with the Authors Guild to settle a lawsuit over the search giant's plan to scan and digitally archive every single book published and preserved in the history of humanity. As we mentioned last September, the Justice Department issued an opinion that the previous agreement violated fundamental aspects of anti-trust law, and the federal judge overseeing the agreement was likely to reject it without key changes. Google and the Guild got a month to change to revise the agreement, which is due by midnight tonight.

As you undoubtedly know, the Google Book Search settlement deal was a remarkable accident of litigation. Thanks to quirks in the class action, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers were almost incidentally given the right to negotiate with Google on behalf of every single author, publisher, or copyright holder on Earth, even if they have never learned that their publishing rights were being discussed. Aside from the fundamental unfairness of this arrangement, such a deal would give Google an insuperable advantage over anyone who wants to create a similar archive, but doesn't have the legal opportunity to negotiate with every writer on the planet all at once. Which gives Google an effective monopoly on human knowledge, at least in digital form.

So everyone is waiting to see how Google and its partners will try to make their deal more palatable to the courts. And a lot of folks are already launching preemptive strikes, declaring in advance that Google's latest offering will be nothing but a fig leaf to cover the anti-trust bits. Peter Brantley, the director of the Internet Archive and a key opponent of the deal from day one, told the Financial Times, "I assume it will be more a surgical type of change, without changing the core direction."

Meanwhile, Brantley's partner, anti-trust lawyer Gary Reback, sat down with Washington Post tech blogger Cecilia Kang and laid out what he thinks Google must do to meet his approval: Avoid setting up a situation whereby Google becomes the de facto exclusive controller of the only digital archive of the world's knowledge; let authors figure out how their books are being used by Google and allow them to opt out if they want to; and ensure that all would-be researchers, commercial and otherwise, have access to the archive.

Which means, really, that Google must give control of the archive to the feds or some other public entity, or at least treat the archive as a public resource, available to anyone for next to no cost, unless the copyright holders object. That's a pretty tall order; come midnight, we'll know what Google's counterproposal is.

Eric Schmidt's Burning Question

Chris Thompson — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:52:57 +0000

More goodies from Ken Auletta's new book Googled. When Eric Schmidt applied for the CEO gig, Larry Page and Sergey Brin weren't exactly thrilled to see him. In fact, they didn't really want a CEO at all, but the VCs who were funding them insisted on hiring "adult supervision." So they subjected Schmidt to a battery of rigorous tests, including something called the "airplane test." It's fairly simple: If you had to sit next to this guy on an airplane, they asked themselves, would he be interesting enough to talk to for the next five hours?

Fortunately, Schmidt wowed them with one ace up his sleeve: He was a Burner. "He passed the airplane test when he revealed that he, too, was a regular attendee at Burning Man," Auletta wrote. "How much of a suit could he be?"

Even so, settling in at Google (GOOG) could be tricky. How would Schmidt handle the unique, let-the-engineers-play-in-the-sandbox culture at the GooglePlex? Here's how. "Schmidt was assigned a small office containing two desks, but before he arrived an engineer looking for a place to park spotted the empty office and moved in," Auletta writes. "According to Rajeev Motwani, who continued to advise his Stanford proteges, when Schmidt arrived he assessed the situation and quietly took the second desk. 'They became office mates. Can you imagine a company where an engineer can move into the CEO's office? That tells you a lot about Eric, and about the company. He understood the company's DNA, which is that what you do defines your importance.' "

Presented By:

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:52:57 +0000

Fort Hood on YouTube

Chris Thompson — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:25:43 +0000

As Americans come to terms with yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, they aren't just doing it privately. They're broadcasting their thoughts to the world via YouTube, and those thoughts range from the grief-stricken to the tasteless. First comes the shock, such as this gentleman's reaction:

Then the befuddled grief kicks in, as the scale of the outrage begins to register:

Almost immediately, folks start to wonder about the political ramifications. This gentleman's already worrying whether Muslims will suffer reprisals:

This lady's ready to share every expletive she's ever learned:

Someone's already found a way to blame Obama:

And the first tasteless joke has already appeared. Curiously, this guy had no problem slapping his name on at the end, and even thanked his wife for the inspiration:

As we've always said, every major news event has a Google (GOOG) angle. When you combine the exhibitionism of human nature with technology that empowers people to broadcast every thought to the world, Google even finds a way to be relevant to a massacre in Texas.

Google Gives in to Privacy Concerns

Chris Thompson — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:09:37 +0000

Google's (GOOG) leaders have always had something of a tin ear when it comes to apprehending how afraid people are of its power and ubiquity. Ken Auletta's new book, Googled: The End of the World As We Know It, has a case in point. When the company's engineers rolled out Gmail, they were delighted to announce that each user had virtually unlimited memory storage, so no one had to delete e-mail to free up space. Why, they asked themselves, do we need a delete function? After all, it just clutters up the page and distracts people.

In a classic case of thinking like an engineer, the Googlers had no idea that the public would be appalled at this. People were already spooked at the idea that a Google bot would be scanning their e-mails, looking for keywords to pin ads next to. They had to have control over their private communication, advisers warned Google's leaders. Astonishingly, Larry Page responded by saying, "We want them to start thinking differently."

That didn't last long. The Electronic Privacy Information Center called for Gmail to be shut down as a threat to basic Internet privacy, and the befuddled engineers had to restore the delete function. Unless people can control how much personal information Google collects, it seemed, they would regard the company as Big Brother.

Today, Google debuts its latest effort to mollify such privacy concerns. The company has launched Google Dashboard, a navigable list of all the information (search terms, YouTube videos you watched, etc.) that it has collected about you. From now on, users can look over all the personal data they've inadvertently shared with Google, delete anything that makes them uncomfortable, and change privacy settings to limit Google's, shall we say, curiosity. Here's a little film that shows how Dashboard works.

Clearly, Dashboard is an acknowledgement that folks are uncomfortable with Google's virtual panopticon. But are they? CNet reporter Matt Asay argues that the vast majority of people won't bother to use Dashboard, because at the end of the day, they're worked up over privacy only in the abstract. "For all our hand-wringing over privacy—and for good reason—the reality is that most of us, most of the time, really don't care," he writes. "Or, rather, if accessing useful services or getting work done more efficiently requires some privacy concessions, we gladly concede."

And this will only work in Google's favor more over time. Take privacy concerns over cloud-based computing, for example: "Am I concerned about Google snooping on the documents we write and store in Google Docs? Let's just say I worry more about my time fixing [Microsoft] Office than whether Google gleans any information from my 12-year old's seventh-grade essay."

So will people actually use Dashboard to lock out Google's prying eyes? Or will they shrug their shoulders and go on with their day? Only time will tell.

Bill Gates' Chronicle of a Death Foretold

Chris Thompson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:33:48 +0000

As you might imagine, we've been eagerly perusing Ken Auletta's new book on Google (GOOG), searching for tasty tidbits on the Monster That Ate Silicon Valley. And we're ready to deliver to our faithful fans!

The first treat is a slap at Bill Gates, the last monster. When Auletta interviewed Gates back in 1998, he asked him, "What challenge do you most fear?" His reply? "He rocked gently back and forth, sipping from a can of Diet Coke, and silently pondered the question. When he finally spoke, he did not recite the usual litany of prominent foes. ... Instead, he said, 'I fear someone in a garage who is devising something completely new.' "

That someone was Sergey Brin, who even then was sitting in the Computer Science department at Stanford, thinking up something completely new. In his spare time, he exercised his brain by reorganizing the numbering system for the rooms in Stanford's computer science building. That building was constructed thanks to a generous grant by ... Bill Gates.

Revealed: Google Job Interview Questions!

Chris Thompson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:21:46 +0000

The San Francisco Chronicle's tech blog has been stirring up life in the Valley lately, with a series of posts about Google's (GOOG) increasingly dull and conventional workplace culture. The vaunted sandbox and 20 percent time climate, Googlers complain, is giving into the inexorable pull of big organizations toward boring management arrogance and bureaucracy. In particular, tech blogger James Temple writes, Google's hiring practices allegedly favor fancy Ivy League degrees and 4.0 GPAs, leaving potentially more interesting candidates shit outta luck.

We can't say one way or another, and a Google representative has complained about the posts: "Our hiring process is designed to give both the company and the candidate a complete picture of how they will fit and we think it works exceptionally well." But the stories have prompted a few people to share the kinds of interview questions potential Googlers face. Lewis Lin, a Seattle-based interview coach, has decided to share 140 questions he's come across over the years, and there are some real doozies in the pack. Here are a few of the choicer ones:

Why are manhole covers round?

You're the captain of a pirate ship, and your crew gets to vote on how the gold is divided up. If fewer than half of the pirates agree with you, you die. How do you recommend apportioning the gold in such a way that you get a good share of the booty, but still survive?

What is the probability of breaking a stick into 3 pieces and forming a triangle?

Design an evacuation plan for San Francisco.

A man pushed his car to a hotel and lost his fortune. What happened?

You are shrunk to the height of a nickel and your mass is proportionally reduced so as to maintain your original density. You are then thrown into an empty glass blender. The blades will start moving in 60 seconds. What do you do?

Presumably, the last question evaluates skills for negotiating with Steve Ballmer.

What's Google Wave Really For?

Chris Thompson — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:41:38 +0000

That's the question on the minds of everyone who doesn't have access to the beta version of Google Wave floating around the Internet right now. As more than one person has noticed, the Wave may be an amalgam of e-mail and instant messaging and blogs and wiki pages, but you really have to use it in order to understand what it does. Meanwhile, Gina Trapani and Adam Pash have created an interactive guide to the Google Wave, offering advice on everything from the basics to how to set up a wave, add graphics, and create interactive widgets to make the wave the easy and revolutionary communication tool it's supposed to be. Of course, the guide uses wiki tech, so readers with other insights can share them and enhance the tool.

Still: What's it for? Don't we already have e-mail and instant messaging and Twitter, and don't all these tools more or less work just fine? John Stokes at Ars Technica has finally figured out what Google Wave is really supposed to do: It's the ultimate Dungeons and Dragons game. Gamers around the Web, Stokes claims, have already begun using the wave to set up new online multiplayer role playing games, and the result is mesmerizing, if you're into that sort of thing.

"It's been a cliché that the first thing humans do upon inventing a new medium is distribute pornography with it," Stokes writes. "While this cliché may hold true for most humans and most media, there is one conspicuous exception: the computer geek. From Nethack to play-by-post forums on the WWW, the first thing that computer geeks do upon inventing a new medium is play Dungeons and Dragons with it—the porn comes later, after the role-playing game itch is scratched."

Google Music Search Debuts

Chris Thompson — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:43:45 +0000

So the rumors were true. On Wednesday, Google (GOOG) launched its new music search service, Google Discover Music. In partnership with several online music retail outlets, Google now offers the experience of immediately listening to a snippet of any song by any artist, with an option to buy the song on the spot.

From now on, whenever you search for a song, musician, group, or lyric, Google will flash the artist at the top of your search results. If you searched for a particular song or lyric, the company will offer you a link to hear a piece of the song right away, along with a link to one of its numerous business partners (imeem, lala, rhapsody, et al), where you can buy the song for 99 cents. If you searched for an artist, a sampling of his or her work will appear next to an image of the artist.

As we mentioned last week, this has to be seen as a direct challenge to iTunes, the premier seller of music online and a key service of Apple (AAPL), once a natural ally of Google's, but now increasingly its bitter rival. We'll gawk as this all plays out in the next couple of months. Meanwhile, here's a quick tutorial of how Google Discover Music works.

Google's Big Day

Chris Thompson — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:20:23 +0000

Today, Google (GOOG) pulled off a real hat trick, as the company and its partners announced three major deals that shook up everything from GPS technology to smartphones and cloud computing. What's next, Google, smart-grid tech? Actually, that's not so far-fetched.

Coup No.1: The company announced that as part of its newest Android smartphone operating system, Google will offer a GPS-based service that gives users turn-by-turn directions to navigate your car to its destination. The technology will mirror the service offered by Tom Tom and other devices, except, of course, that it will be free, bundled up in your hand-held Internet device. Obviously, this will eat into the business of Tom Tom and Garmin (GRMN), who have this antiquated notion of charging money for their gizmos. And, in fact, shares of the two rivals immediately fell on news of the new offering, by 20 percent and 17.2 percent, respectively. According to the New York Times, Google plans to offer the service for the iPhone and other devices as well.

Coup No. 2: Verizon (VZ) let analysts and the tech press sneak a peek at its latest smartphone, the Droid, which is the first to operate with Android. According to the Detroit News, Verizon executive Greg Haller left no doubt that the phone would mount a direct challenge to Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T). After running through all the fancy new options, Haller bragged, "I can tell you the applications all work. They're there. They are not applications that are screened by Google." This was a clear reference to Apple's policy of screening new apps for its iPhone, and was a shot across Apple's bow that no one could miss.

Coup #3: The Los Angeles City Council announced that it was giving Google a $7.5 million contract to run its e-mail, word-processing, and other office software services, giving Google's cloud computing model a serious shot in the arm. It's not the money, obviously; Google has more than enough of that. It's that Microsoft (MSFT), which was also vying for the contract, lost out—and so did its model of offering executive software installed on each machine.

That's three body blows in the space of 24 hours. Clearly, Google's on a roll.

Huh? Google's Censoring China?

Chris Thompson — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:56:34 +0000

The controversy between China and Google Book Search over copyright infringement just keeps getting richer. When the Chinese Written Works Copyright Society first began complaining that Google Book Search had copied 17,000 books without permission from the authors, we were tickled to note how seriously the Chinese authorities suddenly took issue with piracy. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports, editors at the books section of the People's Daily Online have accused Google (GOOG) of censoring them. That's right—censorship.

On Oct. 21, the People's Daily Online books section began running a series of stories about Google's dubious practice of digitally scanning copyrighted books by Chinese authors, without either seeking their permission or offering much beyond $60 a pop in compensation. Shortly afterwards, Google search results for stories on the books section site were flagged with a warning: "This site may contain malicious software that could harm your computer."

Google China spokesperson Cui Jin told the Global Times that the warning was automatically generated by stopbadware.org, a malware protection company that has partnered with Google. But the People's Daily has a different opinion, quoting one of its own representatives as saying, "Google has maliciously blocked the channel in retaliation" for the Google Book Search stories.

We've often taken a dim view of Google Book Search and the company's presumption to pretend that the Authors Guild negotiations give it the right to set publishing terms for every author or copyright holder in the world, regardless of whether they even know about Google's archiving project. But Chinese authorities have blocked both YouTube and Google periodically, and Google China preemptively blocks any content that might raise irritating questions about Tiananmen Square or human rights as a requisite to do business there. Let's just say that watching the Chinese Communist Party's official organ complain about censorship is a wholly unprecedented experience.

Android Gaining on Microsoft?

Chris Thompson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:16:59 +0000

New York Times scribe Saul Hansell has an interesting story today on the rise of Android, the Google (GOOG) smartphone operating system that is ever-so-slowly eating into the client base for Microsoft's (MSFT) Windows Mobile system. Android, Hansell claims, has a number of substantial advantages over Windows Mobile. For one thing, it's free whereas Windows Mobile costs between $15 and $25 to install. In addition, Android's open-source software allows programmers to offer an endless array of applications, letting users customize each phone to meet his or her own needs. With Windows Mobile, it's take it or leave it. And leave it people seem to be doing; Microsoft's share of the smartphone market has fallen from 12 percent to 9.3 percent since the second quarter of 2008. Meanwhile, smartphone manufacturers and phone carriers are adding Android to their lineups.

In fact, Financial Times reporter Chris Nuttall claims, Android could soon emerge as the major smartphone that isn't the iPhone. Android systems now operate on 12 different phones with 32 phone carriers supporting them around the world. And Motorola, HTC, and Samsung are all busy developing their own Android-based handsets.

Still, that's a lot of buzz for a product that currently boasts only 1.8 percent of the global market. In a follow-up to his story, Hansell argues that Apple (AAPL) is still the major market monster but that Google is playing a slightly subtler game than you might think. All Google is trying to do, he suggests, is make sure there's no single dominant mobile operating system that could use its market share to isolate the user from Google's services. Offering free, open-source systems guarantees that the operating system market is sufficiently fragmented that Google still has room to maneuver. "Android doesn’t have to beat the iPhone," he writes. "It just has to be better than Windows Mobile."

Sergey Brin Presses the Flesh

Chris Thompson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:00:35 +0000

Presumably stung by Microsoft's (MSFT) announcement that it had already set up a Bing Twitter search page, Google (GOOG) alpha dog Sergey Brin shook up the Web 2.0 conference by, well, showing up and walking around. Really, that's all it takes to get everybody talking. That's some kinda juice.

Anyway, John Battelle chatted up the big guy about this and that, and the tech journos got out their notepads and started scribbling. TechCrunch has as thorough a transcript of the conversation as we've seen, and it's mostly Sergey being coy: Yes, we miss Tim Armstrong, who recently jumped ship to run AOL. No, I wasn't in on the new deal to feature tweets in Google search results. No, I've never tried to buy Twitter.

And then there's this delightful bit of bitchiness, courtesy of Search Engine Land:

Battelle: "Do you like Bing? You a Bing user?"

Brin: "I use all search engines out there. Bing reminds us that search is a competitive market. There's PowerSet, that Microsoft bought. There's Cuil. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on. It's a shame that Yahoo is abdicating."

"They would say they're not."

"Sorry. That was my impression."

And the shiv slips between the ribs! Yahoo (YHOO), of course, is trying to get a Microsoft search deal past the feds, and Brin accurately, if rather frankly, calls this a tacit admission that they just can't compete on their own. We never knew Russians had a gift for understatement.

Presented By:

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:00:35 +0000

Bing, Bing, Bing: We Have a Winner!

Chris Thompson — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:55:37 +0000

And Microsoft (MSFT) got there first. At the Web 2.0 conference this week, company execs announced that they had cut a deal with both Facebook and Twitter to start searching tweets and Facebook status updates, incorporating them into Bing's search results. PC World reports that you can already try Bing's new all-Twitter search service by clicking here. At the site, you'll see a query field with which you can search all the magic little tweets that are zipping around, as well as a cloud that displays the most popular search topics. In case you were wondering, everyone's talking about Balloon Boy. Of course.

Meanwhile, Google (GOOG) announced that it, too, has cut a real-time search deal with Twitter. But its version won't be out for at least a few months, and Google reps are keeping mum about what it will look like. Not even Danny Sullivan could get a straight answer. "I couldn’t get clarity on whether there will be a standalone Twitter search," he wrote yesterday. "Personally, I think there will be, or that there will be a combined microblog search service." We're sure that whatever Google rolls out will go over like gangbusters, but there's no denying that by getting out its Bing version so early, and right at Web 2.0 to boot, Microsoft has won this round.

But not everyone is happy with the news. Jared Newman, for example, has a number of worries, such as whether user privacy will be protected, how (or whether) the two companies will keep out phony Twitter rumors about Kanye West's demise, and do we really have to scan tweets if we just want to search like we always have? For the cantankerous among you, it's a nice read. So read it.

Will Google Launch the iTunes Killer?

Chris Thompson — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:01:55 +0000

The details are sketchy, but it appears that Google (GOOG) is planning to introduce a new search service that will feature streaming music and an option to buy songs.

According to CNet, the service will be called OneBox, and Google will partner with two separate online music companies: Lala and iLike.

Here's how it will work, according to TechCrunch's Michael Arrington. Type an artist's name in the query field, and the usual search results will pop up. But just above the results, you'll see a thumbnail photograph of the musician or group, along with four different links to play streaming songs, provided via Lala and iLike. Click on each of these, and a music player will pop up and stream at least some of the songs, along with an option to buy it from Google's partners.

Arrington adds that Google is expected to formally announce this service on Oct. 28, at which point we'll learn more details. Meanwhile, we're awfully intrigued by a throwaway line by PC World reporter Daniel Ionescu: "Is Google gunning to become the next Apple?"

Indeed. This feels like Google's most direct challenge yet to Apple's (AAPL) line of business. Forget about the Chrome operating system or the various smartphone wars; Google is taking on iTunes. If these reports are true, the long honeymoon between the two companies is definitely over.

Google Books Hits A Chinese Wall

Chris Thompson — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:09:46 +0000

Not that we feel too sorry for a company that's sitting on more than $20 billion in cash, but Google (GOOG) has stumbled into a new hornet's nest vis a vis its massive Google Book Search project. This time, it's in China.

According to PC World, the China Written Works Copyright Society has just learned that Google's been scanning books written by its members and still under copyright. To be precise, Google has reportedly digitized some 17,000 copyrighted books, which hasn't pleased the society's leaders much. Now they're considering whether to take legal action against the company or adhere to whatever settlement will be worked out between Google and the Authors Guild. (PC World reporter Owen Fletcher tries his best to inoffensively point out how novel it is for Chinese creators of intellectual property to be incensed that someone has pirated their work. It didn't really work, but nice try.)

The fact that Chinese writers are just now learning that Google's scanned their work underscores the problems and arrogance inherent in the class action settlement, which seeks to negotiate publishing rights on behalf of every single author, publisher, and copyright holder in the world. According to the Wall Street Journal, Google's offer to pay copyright holders $60 for each book the company scanned has left some writers furious. "Go scan Harry Potter and then pay J.K. Rowling $60, see if she'll take it!" the Journal reports author Chen Cun told the Chinese press. Author Wang Xiaofeng had a slightly more oblique take on the plan. "Do no evil, but fine to be worse than beasts in an evil moment," he wrote. We'll let you know what that means as soon as we figure it out.

Archives

The Great Anti-Google Conspiracy

Google Chrome OS: The Prologue

Presented By:

Big Chrome Announcement Today

Is Google Plotting a Super-Phone?

Latin TV Comes to YouTube

The Job Interview from Hell

Chrome OS a Week Away

Wolfram Alpha Builds Ring Around Google

Can We Trust Google's Wi-Fi Gift?

AdMob Gets a Payday

The Google Books Deadline is Now

Eric Schmidt's Burning Question

Presented By:

Fort Hood on YouTube

Google Gives in to Privacy Concerns

Bill Gates' Chronicle of a Death Foretold

Revealed: Google Job Interview Questions!

What's Google Wave Really For?

Google Music Search Debuts

Google's Big Day

Huh? Google's Censoring China?

Android Gaining on Microsoft?

Sergey Brin Presses the Flesh

Presented By:

Bing, Bing, Bing: We Have a Winner!

Will Google Launch the iTunes Killer?

Google Books Hits A Chinese Wall