- Geek Week: Campaigns mired in sleaze, Microsoft & Google make peace
- Smoke, mirrors, and Google's privacy policies
- Google is 10 – but far from a perfect 10
- Chrome sweet Chrome?
- The end of Microhooglemania?
- Get ready for the (pørn) free Internet
- Whose Tube is it, anyway?
- It may be Google's data, but it's you they're gonna arrest
- Google's Virgin marriage
- Will Google Wireless carry the day?
October 10, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Geek Week: Campaigns mired in sleaze, Microsoft & Google make peace
A gaffe and a half. God bless YouTube. Make the smallest mistake and it's captured forever and replayed a billion times. During a rally this week John McCain called his supporters "my fellow prisoners" [video]. (Maybe he thought he was back at the Hanoi Hilton.) Meanwhile, at a rally in Florida, Obama supporter Jim Pacillo introduced Joe Biden as "the next vice president of the United States, John McCain" [video]. (He also said, "we have a simple pretty choice in this election.") In the past, such slip-ups would have been forgotten. Now they're immortalized. So my question is, who should feel more insulted, the GOP prisoners or the faux McCain?
With the greatest of sleaze. Psst, pass it on. John McCain is a brutish, insensitive, egocentric lout. Barack Obama is not only in bed with radicals, criminals, and (gasp) foreigners, he's also taking advice from the clowns who ruined Fannie Mae. Hey, I'm not saying this, it's my inbox. I don't know about you, but I've received more sleazy (and inaccurate) pieces of attack email during this election cycle than in any I can remember. And I bet you have too. Time to take a deep breath and remember the cardinal rule: If it comes to you via email, it probably isn't true (unless it's coming from your boss, and then it definitely isn't true).
A bipartisan effort. Cringester "Bernard" found something interesting on the Web this week: Microsoft endorsing Google Desktop. Well, not exactly. He found an article on Microsoft's Windows Mobile site on how to create a wireless office using a Windows smart phone. Apparently the censors at MSFT didn't read it very carefully, because buried near the bottom was a recommendation for DeskFinder, an app that requires Google Desktop and doesn't support Vista (yet). With all this political rancor in the air, it's nice to see somebody cross the aisle and shake hands with the other side, even if by accident.
Got hot tips or more examples of sleazy online politics? Share them below or email me direct: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on October 10, 2008 07:17 AM
September 15, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Smoke, mirrors, and Google's privacy policies
Hi, my name's Cringely, and I am powerless over my Google addiction. ("Hi, Cringely.")
If there actually were a 12-step group called Googler's Anonymous, I think millions of us would join -- as long as it wasn't run by Google.
Last week, with the grace and solemnity of a god descending to earth to bestow favor upon us puny humans, Google announced changes to its data retention policy: Starting next year the search giant would now only hold onto all of your search data and your IP address for 9 months instead of 18 months. And thus the bowing and scraping in the mainstream press began: All hail mighty Google, lord of all data.
Except that Surveillance State blogger Chris Soghoian looked a little more closely at what Google actually plans to do, and asked them to elaborate a bit. Here's what they told him:
After nine months, we will change some of the bits in the IP address in the logs; after 18 months we remove the last eight bits in the IP address and change the cookie information. We're still developing the precise technical methods and approach to this, but we believe these changes will be a significant addition to protecting user privacy.... It is difficult to guarantee complete anonymization [sic], but we believe these changes will make it very unlikely users could be identified.... We hope to be able to add the 9-month anonymization process to our existing 18-month process by early 2009, or even earlier.
As Soghoian points out, even after Google changes "some of the bits" (ie, one or two numbers at the end), reconnecting the dots between the unique ID Google's tracking cookie drops on your machine and your full IP address is trivial. The announcement was designed to make headlines and appease regulators while doing nothing to release Google's stranglehold on your data.
Their solution? Kill your cookies. The Register's Cade Metz quoted an anonymous Google spokesperson (how's that for irony?), who said:
"We have focused on IP addresses, because we recognize that users cannot control IP addresses in logs. On the other hand, users can control their cookies.....When a user clears cookies, s/he will effectively break any link between the cleared cookie and our raw IP logs once those logs hit the 9-month anonymization point. Moreover, we are still continuing to focus on ways to help users exert better controls over their cookies."
Of course, clearing your cookies means losing all your log in information or selectively parsing the cookies you want and the cookies you don't want -- either option is a total pain. The private browsing modes of the latest generation of browsers may help slightly (though IE8's apparently leaks like a sieve), but only after Google has had its way with your data for more than a year.
Maybe it really is time to start a Googler's Anonymous group. Or for Google to make amends for its half-hearted attempts at protecting customer privacy.
Do you care if Google knows where you searched last summer? Post your thoughts below or email me direct: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on September 15, 2008 07:59 AM
September 07, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Google is 10 – but far from a perfect 10
It hardly seems possible that Google is now a tween. But it's true: ten years ago, on September 7, 1998, Google Inc. was born.
Back then there were a dozen ways to search the Web -- Excite, Lycos, Alta Vista, Hotwire, Yahoo, etc. -- none of them particularly good. I would go from one to another, trying and usually failing to find the information I needed.
Google changed all of that. It won the search wars the way you're supposed to win things -- by being simpler, faster, and better than everyone else. It quickly became my home page and that's where it remains.
As Google has rolled out more and more free services, I've given each of them a spin. After a week of using Google Maps I booted MapQuest out of my bookmarks folder. I ditched my PIM after Google introduced Google Calendar. Google News has replaced my morning newspaper.
But everything Google touches does not turn to gold. Gmail's offer of a free gig of storage revolutionized the notion of Web mail and obliterated the economic model Yahoo Mail and Hotmail were struggling to develop. But though I use Gmail, it won't replace my desktop software. I love the idea of having all my mail in the cloud, but Gmail's interface blows. I can't believe they've never overhauled it.
So far I've been totally unimpressed by Google Docs – it won't replace Open Office for me. Froogle, Google's shopping search engine, has a cute name but that's about it. I looked at Orkut for about five minutes; that was enough. And where are the off-line solutions for Gmail and Google Calendar? They should have been ready a year ago. (Google Gears, anyone? Hello?)
Now we have Chrome and the Android phone. Together these are the most significant Google releases since the original search engine. Chrome could enable a Windows-free thin-client future; an Android phone could be that thin client.
But these apps – and everything else the company does – come back to the single most troubling thing about Google: its insatiable appetite for data. Though the company's privacy record is better than many, it's not great. And everything it does, from introducing new services to swallowing up ad delivery companies, adds to that treasure trove of data.
Here's the product I'd like to see the Sergey-Larry-Eric troika introduce before another ten years elapse: Google Privacy. Give me something that ensures I have total control over my information; that nobody – marketers, service providers, lawsuit-happy media companies, Uncle Sam or Google itself – can snoop around my digital domain.
Do that, and I'll stop complaining about the company that I rely on so heavily to feed my Net addiction. I might even buy them a cake or something.
And oh, by the way, Happy Birthday.
What would your life be like without Google? Post your thoughts below or email me direct: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on September 7, 2008 01:13 PM
September 03, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Google finally enters the browser business (finally fulfilling years of rumors), and you'd think there was nothing else going on in the world -- no political conventions starring pistol-packing ex-beauty queens with pregnant teenage daughters, no hurricanes turning the weather over the southeast into the world's biggest daiquiri machine. Nope, nothing but all browsers all the time.
Everyone and their dog is doing back flips trying to review the browser before anyone else. So there's a lot of Chrome out there on the Web today, some of it more polished than others.
[ Check out InfoWorld's Special Report for all the news, reviews, and commentary on Google's open source Chrome browser. ]
But first, a question. Before it made the Chrome beta available, Google felt compelled to publish a comic book describing its many technical wonderments. So: Why is it everyone feels the need to generate comic books to explain things to us? (Or, for that matter, why Hollywood would be dead without Marvel or DC Comics?) Have Americans grown into such dim bulbs that we need pictures to understand anything?
Having watched two weeks of political conventions on TV, I'm thinking the answer might be yes.
Now, the browser. I spent the first 10 minutes using Chrome feeling rather dim myself because I could not locate the friggin' "home" icon. Then I discovered why: Google hid it. You have to go to Chrome's Options menu to turn it on. So it seems the wattage coming out of Google isn't as high as it used to be either.
Otherwise, though, Chrome is amazingly nimble and stable, page loads are lightning fast, and it runs rings around Firefox and IE in terms of system resources. I opened 25 tabs at a time, trying to see when it would hit the wall. It didn't. And total memory usage was still under 100MB, though it's hard to tell exactly since Chrome seems to open separate executables for each tab. That also means if one page crashes, it doesn't take your whole browser with it (at least, theoretically).
I've never managed to open more than 10 tabs or windows inside IE without it bringing my system to its knees. I can do more than 20 in Firefox, but then it starts to waddle like Rosie O'Donnell carrying a 30-pound Butterball between her thighs. So Chrome lives up to the hype in that regard.
Now for the downside. As Infoworld's Paul Venezia notes, it still lacks plug ins for Java and Shockwave. Technologizer's Harry McCracken also notes that Chrome is innovative and impressive, but woefully incomplete: It doesn't support RSS or even the Google Toolbar (hmm, shades of Microsoft there). The always list-happy PC World offers up seven reasons to love Chrome and seven reasons to hate it -- with the biggie being #5 on the hate list: by using Chrome, you're handing yet another slice of your privacy over to Google. And once they finally turn evil -- fahgeddaboutit.
Of course, Chrome is an early beta that will add plug ins and features over time. I'm sure the warts will also grow more obvious.
Some analysts are saying Chrome is the dagger that will strike Microsoft in the heart. (Though I'm pretty sure you need to kill vampires with a wooden stake.) I think they got the plot right but the characters wrong. If any one is going to get thrown under Google's Chrome wheels, it will be Firefox. Internet Explorer is still protected by Newton's Third Law of User Inertia: As long as it still works, most people will be unmotivated to change. It's why AOL is still around after all these years.
Those who seek alternatives like Firefox will naturally be attracted to the open source Chrome, which bears more than a fair resemblance to it. And Mozilla gets nearly all of its revenues from a search deal with Google. I can't imagine the G-men continuing to do that once Chrome comes out of beta (my prediction: 2012). After that, well, buh-bye Firefox, it's been nice knowin' ya.
Now: When they start selling 2-pound notebooks with just Chrome on them as an OS and everything in the cloud, that's when Microsoft needs to worry. I'd certainly line up to buy one. Wouldn't you?
Is Chrome a Windows killer? Or are we all suffering from browser fatigue? Post your thoughts below or email them to me: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com.
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on September 3, 2008 07:40 AM
June 13, 2008 | Comments: (0)
It's over, finito, kaput. The fat lady hasn't merely stopped singing, she's taken off her girdle and waddled home. There are now so many forks stuck into the Microsoft Yahoo deal that it looks like a cutlery display.
This time its really really really really really really really really over. Really.
Or maybe not.
I understand Carl Icahn was so upset at the news that he locked himself in his bedroom and pistol-whipped his Jerry Yang doll. ("You've been a very very naughty CEO and now you must resign your board seat.")
But as one disgruntled suitor walks out, in comes a new one looking spiffy in a bow tie and carrying a bouquet of pansies. Moving from a forced marriage to Microsoft to a 'friends with benefits' non-exclusive deal with Google is like going from shacking up with some hulking brute to dating your gay cousin. You may look stylish when you're out shopping together, but this marriage isn't going anywhere hot.
The grammatically challenged Michael Arrington of TechCrunch was also chewing on his pillow and sobbing about the horrible injustice done to him by Yang et al. To hear him tell it, Yahoo's decision has destroyed the company and the Internet itself:
Yahoo’s hatred of Microsoft runs so deep that they were actually, in the end, willing to destroy the future of their company just to keep it independent for a short while longer. They’ve ignored the wishes of their shareholders, employees and many now former key employees in killing that deal. And apart from Google, CEO Jerry Yang, President Sue Decker and possibly Tim O’Reilly, I don’t believe there is anyone in the world that is happy with what has happened.
Given that in Arrington's world everyone is a VC, that might seem true. But in the world where the rest of us live, most folks really didn't want Microsoft swallowing Yahoo and then coughing up the fur and bones, like an owl digesting a mouse. And once Microsoft gets their teeth into something, you know they won't stop chewing til it's gone.
What's the matter Michael, did you short Google's stock or something?
Problem is, this story really isn't over over. Yahoo still needs to elect a new board, so there's a proxy battle yet to fight. Microsoft is still third in Net search ads and slipping further behind, and Steve Ballmer would rather floss with barbed wire than lose at anything.
There's really only one way to settle this. Jerry Yang and Steve Ballmer wearing sumo wrestler suits, battling mano-a-mano. Last man standing gets to breathe Google's fumes as it rockets into space, leaving them all behind.
Is it really over? And is a Yahoogle better for consumers than a Microhoo? Post your thoughts below or email me direct: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com. You can also take the BuzzDash poll here. I'll report on the results in a future blog post.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on June 13, 2008 07:37 AM
June 02, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Get ready for the (pørn) free Internet
It seems obvious now that Google is not going to save us from the rapacious clutches of the Phonecablopoly. After securing a safe haven for its Android operating system, the goo-goo-Googlers bowed out of the FCC's wireless spectrum auction, leaving big chunks of the analog TV band to Ma Bell's bastard offspring, Verizon and AT&T.
Suddenly, like a knight in shining white satin, the FCC is threatening to swoop in and carry the day. It has floated a plan where the winner of the public auction for the 2155 MHz band would be required to provide free, wireless Net access over part of that spectrum.
This is not unprecedented. That's the model used to develop television, to cite one obvious example. Similar proposals for free wireless Net access have been floated in the past and rejected. But none of them came directly from the FCC.
Naturally, there's a catch, and it's a doozy. This free wireless Internet would come without obscene or adult content. Carriers would be required to deliver the data bits without the naughty bits.
Yes, the Internet without pørn. Kind of like bagels without cream cheese or Siegfried without Roy.
Me, I'm perfectly sanguine with the idea of a mobile Internet free from adult content (I also only read Playboy for the articles.) If I want to see somebody making the beast with two backs -- or several beasts of different species -- I know where to go.
But I'm in the minority. The percentage of men who range the Net for pørn is about the same as men who lie about the size of their fiscal endowments -- pretty much all of them. Surveys typically note that one third to two thirds of all male Net surfers (and a smaller but significant percentage of women) have visited adult Web sites, but those are just the folks honest enough to admit it.
Ridding the Net of naughtiness is fraught with difficulty. There are really only two ways to do it, and they both suck. One is by using filtering software. While these apps have gotten more sophisticated over the years, they face an insurmountable problem: defining what is and isn't obscene. So they miss a lot of stuff some people would find offensive, while blocking other stuff that doesn't really deserve it.
The second solution is actually worse. That's where people decide what subset of Net content goes up on the wireless band. And while humans can make more nuanced decisions than software, they quickly turn political. Who makes those decisions and what is their agenda? If you can block adult content, then surely you should block sites promoting hate speech and terrorism. And from there, well, the party's just getting good. Once you start censoring content, where do you stop? There are plenty of folks out there who'd be happy to rewrite our Constitution, starting with the First Amendment. They're not the ones I want delivering the Internet.
Who should decide whether to put cream cheese on your bagels, you or the government? Post your opinions below or email them to me here: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com. But please, try to keep your comments clean. Don't make me censor you.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on June 2, 2008 07:06 AM
May 28, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Frankly, I thought Viacom's $1 billion law suit against YouTube was dead. YouTube has been kicking people off its site left and right for posting copyrighted material, even if they didn't always deserve it. And Viacom had started allowing its best material -- like South Park and The Daily Show -- to be shown on the Web for free. It sure sounded like Peace in Our Time.
Apparently not. Earlier this week, Google filed its response to Viacom in court, raising the specter that a loss could put the very nature of the Net at risk -- “threatening the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information.”
As part of its defense, Google claims YouTube has been following the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, which essentially says you're fine as long as you rat out and/or shut down those who offend. For ISPs, safe harbor translates into handing personal account information to the RIAA after subscribers have been accused of swapping files online. (Even if you happen to be dead at the time.) For YouTube, it means removing offending clips and shutting down accounts -- even if the clips don't necessarily break copyright laws.
That's not enough for Viacom. They want to take YouTube down. But their claims about the damage they've suffered at the hands of YouTube stretch credulity beyond the breaking point.
For example: Nearly every story on this topic carries Viacom's claim that Al Gore's eco-doc An Inconvenient Truth has been viewed on YouTube “an astounding 1.5 billion times.” Viacom's actual complaint doesn't say that. It alleges that 150,000 “unauthorized clips” owned by Viacom (including An Inconvenient Truth, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report) have been viewed a total of 1.5 billion times on YouTube – an average of roughly 10,000 times apiece, if my third grade math skills haven't completely failed me.
An Inconvenient Truth grossed almost $50 million worldwide at the box office. (For a 100-minute Powerpoint presentation by one of the world's most boring bipeds, that's phenomenally good.) It made another $32 million in DVD sales. Let's assume $5 per ticket and $16 per DVD, just to make the math easy. That means, at minimum, 12 million people paid to see that movie. Yet, somehow, thousands of YouTubers watching two minutes of Al Gore holding a pointer are depriving this $11.5 billion company of desperately needed income.
When someone posts, say, a two-minute segment from The Colbert Report, what has Viacom lost, exactly?
1. YouTubers are depriving Colbert fans from entering into their Wayback Machines to go back in time and rewatch the original broadcast.
2. Colbert fans will no longer TiVo the show it the next time it airs, depriving them of the opportunity to watch it while fast forwarding past the commercials that have already paid for the program.
3. Viacom would be deprived of the income it would receive from selling the Complete Works of Stephen Colbert on DVD – except that the people most likely to buy the DVD are the ones who watch (and post) Colbert clips on YouTube.
4. Viacom would also be deprived of people who encounter Stephen Colbert for the first time on YouTube and say, “Is that guy kidding or is he really a right wing whack job? Let's tune in and find out.”
Fact is, Viacom isn't afraid of YouTube cutting into TV viewers or DVD sales. They're afraid of YouTube cutting into the future of broadcast and cable television: Internet video. You know -- the market that didn't exist until it was practically invented by this little Silicon Valley startup called YouTube?
This isn't about copyright, it's about competition. Like most everything on earth, it all comes down to money. Not just the billion Viacom is suing for – the tens of billions that will come later, when we all have IP-driven TVs that get their content off the Web. That's why Viacom decided to set Jon Stewart free on the Web. They weren't doing it to be cuddly. They want to kill off the amateurs so they have the field to themselves.
Viacom's big problem? They're fighting the same battle the record companies have been fighting. Every time the RIAA took down another file-sharing network, three more sprang up to take its place. Take down YouTube, and the videos will just show up somewhere else – or, more likely, a dozen other places.
Even if Viacom wins this battle, they'll lose the war. The question is, what will we lose in the meantime?
Would you rather watch YouTube than TV? Post your thoughts below or email them to me direct: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com. Swell swag awaits the tastiest tips.
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on May 28, 2008 04:16 AM
February 25, 2008 | Comments: (0)
It may be Google's data, but it's you they're gonna arrest
Sergey Brin has weighed in on the whole MicroHoo fandango, and not surprisingly he's agin' it. At Google's Lunar X prize announcement last week, Brin told the Associated Press:
The Internet has evolved from open standards, having a diversity of companies. And when you start to have companies that control the operating system, control the browsers, they really tie up the top Web sites, and can be used to manipulate stuff in various ways. I think that's unnerving.
I'm right there with you, Serge. And when Google legal beagle Dave Drummond talks about "preserving the underlying principles of the Internet: openness and innovation" I just feel good all under.
After all, Google is one of the most open companies on the Net. Also: I'm the father of Jamie Lynn Spears' love child, and I give handsome lessons to George Clooney.
The problem with that last paragraph is that none of those statements are true. Google is one of those companies that seems completely open -- 'here, come in and have a oat bran muffin while we massage your feet' -- until you ask them a question about what they do or why they do it. Then they cinch up tighter than a frog's nether regions.
For example, try asking Google what it's planning to do with all the user information it collects after it has fully digested DoubleClick? Or why it needs to retain IP addresses for Google searches? Good luck getting any response at all.
In fact, Google's biggest privacy accomplishment in the last year has been deciding to hold onto users' IP addresses for only 18 months instead of 24. Gee, I feel more anonymous already. Don't you?
Last week, Google's Public Policy Blog posited the argument that IP addresses are not personal information, because they are often shared between machines and users. (Though, personally, my home office has a static IP.) This makes sense until you think about it for 15 seconds. Strangers have also occupied my home address in the past, and probably will do so in the future. But if you ring my doorbell today, I'm the one who answers.
And if you look at the server logs of any Web site I've visited, you'll find my IP address along with a time stamp. In most cases it's a trivial matter of proving that at the very least it was my computer, if not me personally, who was there. If I happen to have been logged into Google at the time, you'll find the whole ball of wax in my search history. If not, the site probably dropped a cookie on my system with a unique ID number in it.
Of course, Google won't share this information with anyone... unless they have a court order. Or a National Security Letter. Or maybe the spooks have already tapped into one of the Network Access Points outside the Googleplex.
But an IP address is pretty good all by its lonesome. It is after all what the RIAA has used in the 20,000+ lawsuits it's filed against terrorists evil doers file swappers. They take the IP address and demand the subscriber information associated with it from your ISP, who can either hand it over or fight a legal battle with the record companies. Guess which route most of them choose?
In the old days, I might have to do something suspicious or even vaguely illegal to warrant such attention. In these days of warrant-free searches and laptops impounded at the borders, who knows what it takes to get flagged by the feds? I'd rather not find out. And that in turn makes me a more cautious, even paranoid, Web surfer.
And Sergey? If you really believe in an innovative and open Internet, it's time to open up a little yourself. Tell me why you need my IP address information for 18 months. Better yet, give me the choice of whether you can really have it. Because right now, Google feels like a much bigger threat to my privacy than Microsoft and Yahoo combined.
Whose IP address is it, anyway? Weigh in below or email me here. Top commenters qualify for cool swag.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on February 25, 2008 07:49 AM
December 10, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Yet another billionaire bachelor bites the dust. By now, Google's Larry Page and his betrothed Lucy Southworth have been hitched on Richard Branson's private island in the Bermuda Triangle (actually Necker Island in the British Virgin Isles). Sir Richard himself played best man, and I understand Elvis was master of ceremonies.
(What it is about the Google Guys and secret island weddings? Sergey Brin did much the same with bride Anne Wojcicki last May. Attendees had to swim, snorkel, or skiff their way to the ceremonies. It must be some deep GeekBoy fantasy.)
And if you're wondering, the answer is no, I wasn't among the 600 invited guests, and yes, I am miffed. So much for that set of steak knives I was planning to buy them.
The more interesting marriage, to my mind, is the one between Page and Branson -- and I don't mean that in a pass-the-baby-oil kind of way.
Neither man has met an industry he didn't want to disrupt -- music, airlines, wireless communications, space travel, advertising, media, etc. Both the Google Guys and Branson appear to have a genuine interest in using technology to solve our environmental problems -- and are willing to put serious money behind it. Both seem determined to not do business as usual.
Imagine a world where the two great forces merged. Branson builds it, Google slaps ads on it, we buy it. A new cartel for the new century. Or something like that.
Hey, there are weirder scenarios. But before we solve all the world's problems, we'll let Larry and Lucy enjoy their honeymoon.
If Google and Virgin merged, what would the new company be called? Post your thoughts below or e-mail them to me here. Top tipsters qualify for cool swag.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on December 10, 2007 06:58 AM
November 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Will Google Wireless carry the day?
Looks like the Goo-goo-googlers are going to bid for a swath of the 700 MHz spectrum after all. Though the revenue engorged G-men could probably pay the $4.6 billion minimum bid out of petty cash, some analysts say they may need a wireless partner to pull off instant nationwide access. Then again, this is Google we're talking about. Even their failures are better than most companies' successes. And the airwaves used to carry Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres reruns offer a kind of reach cell networks can't touch.
As Good Morning Silicon Valley's John Murrell sagely notes, if there's any industry that could use disrupting, it's the wireless biz. Thinking on this I am once again reminded how much the Big 4 wireless companies resemble the Big 4 music companies in the pre-Napster era. Snuffing out or swallowing up the competition, jacking up prices while letting product quality slide, and generally jerking around their customers.
For example: locking you into onerous contracts with steep early exit penalties. Cutting you off for exceeding the limits of their “unlimited” access plans. Charging you $2.49 for a 20-second snippet of a song that costs 99 cents on iTunes. And so on.
The problem with this approach is that when you screw your customers often enough they tend to seek alternatives, legal or otherwise. Usually the upstarts can be easily squashed. But Google doesn't look very squishy to me. Unlike the telecoms, they're not sitting atop a mature industry desperately seeking new revenue streams. They're the Big Kahuna riding the wave of an industry whose crest isn't even in sight.
I think the wireless giants are in for a good spanking, and I hope it hurts. Google wireless may not turn out to be the Napster of the mobile industry, but I'd settle for the equivalent of iTunes – a high-quality reasonably priced alternative that works.
Would you sign up for G-wireless? Post your thoughts below or send me an email. Tipsters whose contributions are used in the blog qualify for new Cringe swag of a beery nature.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on November 19, 2007 06:51 AM
October 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Google is on the move, and I'm not just talking about its stratospheric stock price. (Let see, I have $600 to burn. I can a pretty nice desktop, a kick**s digital camera, or one share of Google Inc.)
The Future of All Online Commerce has opened new offices in San Francisco, a stone's throw from InfoWorld.com HQ (and if we had any stones, we'd throw some). No Segways have been sited careening through the halls but, yes, a gourmet chef is on hand.
Inside sources tell me Google prepares food for its staffers at the AT&T ballpark down the street, then trucks the comestibles over to Spear Street, where hot plates stand at the ready. (I hear the food is personally delivered by Barry Bonds, who then hangs around to see if anyone wants a foot massage, though these rumors have yet to be confirmed.)
But it's not all chicken cordon bleu and haricots verts on the Google front. A California court has reinstated an age discrimination case brought by Brian Reid, the company's old former director of engineering. Reid was already on the downward slope of his first century when Google hired him in 2002.
Reid claims he was fired in 2004 after being repeatedly called "slow, fuzzy, lethargic, and sluggish" by his boss, 15 years his junior. Hey, that's me on a good day. Fortunately, I have job security. You've heard of working for peanuts? At InfoWorld they mean that literally. Nobody else would work this cheap.
Got hot news of the technical type? Lay it on me direct or post it below. Cool swag awaits the lucky few to be quoted herein.
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on October 8, 2007 07:17 AM
August 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Is it just me, or did we all miss something truly big in the recent Google-FCC fandango?
For those of you just tuning in, Google offered to meet the $4.6 billion minimum for bidding on chunks of the 700-MHz spectrum now used for analog TV broadcasts. That spectrum might otherwise become a vast wasteland (ignoring for a moment the fact TV already is a vast wasteland) when all television broadcasts go digital in 2009.
But first, Google wanted the FCC to change a few things about how it allots spectrum and the kinds of services that can be provided over it. Google didn't get everything it wanted -- for example, the FCC nixed the idea of letting big spectrum owners auction off bits of bandwidth to smaller companies. But it got the Feds to open up part of the spectrum to new devices and services, and that's probably enough.
(Personally, I love the way the casual way Google flashes its roll, show us all those billion dollar bills, and says,"if you just do some things our way, you can have some of this." Unfortunately, they have yet to make the same offer to me. )
Google hasn't said whether it will ultimately bid, or what it plans to use that spectrum for if it does. But the G-men can do just about anything they want at this point, including becoming the world's biggest wireless ISP. So the same radio waves that used to deliver "Gilligan's Island" could soon deliver Googlian's Island.
And if that happens, little buddy, watch out.
That duopoly created by the telcos and cable operators to control all home broadband access? Gone. Those problems getting WiMax installations off the ground (and the huge gaps between them)? Sayonara. Net neutrality? No problem. Those bandwidth restrictions on your wireless card account? Who cares?
And while you're online, would you like to make a VoIP call? Download a movie? Watch endless reruns of "I Dream of Jeanie"? Oh, and by the way, the Internet is now free, because we know that if you see enough Google ads you'll eventually click on some of them, and that more than pays the bills.
Free ubiquitous Internet access and all it entails. What more could any grown geek want?
Of course, this is all wild speculation. Maybe Google doesn't want to be the world's ISP. But it could, if it wanted to (and the FCC let it). That surely must be giving the fat cats at AT&T and Comcast some serious acid reflux.
As they say on the idiot box, tune in tomorrow.
Would you want Google to be your ISP? Post your thoughts below or email them to me here. Top tipsters may win a dream date with Ginger or The Professor.
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on August 8, 2007 06:52 AM
July 24, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Google Street View has made sport out of capturing strangers' embarrassing personal moments. Google Earth has snapped photos of Chinese nuclear subs, making much unhappiness in the temple of their Beijing fathers. But does that stop the insatiable G-men? Heck no. It seems Google has acquired a company called ImageAmerica, which takes aerial photographs using high-res cameras that can resolve objects on the ground more than six inches long.
Google: “We know what you did last summer (and, by the way, nice tan lines).”
The company hasn't said what it plans to do with such highly detailed imagery. My prediction for the next killer app in the product pipeline: Google Blackmail.
What does Google know about you, and when did they know it? Reveal your secrets below or email them to me here. The best confessions will receive absolution in the form of some cool swag. (Just make sure Google doesn't see you getting it.)
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on July 24, 2007 08:27 AM
June 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Is Google 'hostile to privacy'?
Privacy International has released preliminary findings of its study of privacy practices at 20 major Net companies, and has named Google the worst of a generally bad lot.
In its cheerfully color-coded system, only Google receives PI's black spot, labeled "Hostile to Privacy." Reading the comments in the prelim report (PDF), it seems Google is getting dinged primarily for a) collecting oodles of information, b) being vague about what it does with this data, and c) not returning PI's phone calls. Frustrating, yes. Alarming, maybe. But hostile?
If this was merely PI's way of getting Google's attention, it worked. Google allegedly responded by spreading rumors that PI was in Microsoft's pocket. (Knowing Simon Davies, PI's London-based head honcho, I'd say 'not bloody likely.') Davies responded to that by publishing a strongly worded open letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt. The spitting match continues.
Other Net giants didn't fare much better. None of the 20 sites received PI's highest ranking (“privacy friendly and enhancing” -- a Robin Hood green), and only the BBC, eBay, Last.fm, LiveJournal, and Wikipedia were rated “generally privacy aware but in need of improvement” (hospital blue). AOL, Apple, Facebook, Hi5, Reunion.com, Windows Live Space, and Yahoo were labeled blood red "Substantial Threats."
It's great that organizations like the UK-based Privacy International (and its US counterparts like EPIC, EFF, and CDT) are fighting for individual rights in an increasingly surveilled world. But I think they may be overreaching a bit with this one.
I can think of plenty of folks hostile to privacy -- like China, the two dozen other countries that censor citizen access to the Internet, and our current administration. But Google is not the boogie man. At least, not yet.
Of course, I know what you're thinking, but the rest of the world doesn't. Share it with them below, or send a confidential email here. Top tipsters may receive a Cringe bag that blows their cover forever.
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on June 12, 2007 07:14 AM
June 07, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Smile, you're on Google camera
When Google sent cars outfitted with cameras into the streets of five major US cities, it probably didn't expect to snap photos of people breaking into homes and large women wearing scanty underthings. But that's what you'll find on Google Maps' new Street View feature.
The idea was to augment Google Maps with 360 degree views of neighborhoods in the Bay Area, Denver, Las Vegas, Miami, and New York, with more cities to follow. And in that it succeeds admirably. In fact GSV has temporarily supplanted YouTube as the web's newest time wasting craze. There are now sites where you can contribute new and fascinating tableaus you found on GSV.
But Google also captured more than it probably bargained for. Panorama can quickly turn to paranoia if you're one of the poor unfortunates Google caught getting a speeding ticket, or the guy who appears to be breaking into a San Francisco apartment house, or the tall gentleman walking into an adult book store in Oakland's Chinatown. (You know, he looks awfully familiar... isn't he a teacher? A priest? An elected official?)
Any of these folks can ask Google to remove their photos. According to Google's Kate Hurowitz,
Each Street View imagery bubble contains a link to "Street View Help" where users can report objectionable images.... Users who want to report an image they find objectionable can do so by clicking on the "report inappropriate image" link. They will be asked to verify their identity. The image will be removed while their claim is verified. If found to be inappropriate or sensitive the image will be removed permanently.
Well, that's the way it's supposed to work. I asked Google to remove a photo of a San Francisco woman wearing a thong when significantly more fabric was required to do the job, but as far as I can tell it was never removed. Ditto for a pair of cats I found loitering in a window in Mountain View. Fact is, it's entirely up to Google whether these images get scrubbed.
Google says GSV isn't violating personal privacy because it only captures things that are already in public view. But in real life these things don't remain in public view. On Google Street View, they do – until Google removes it or revisits that part of town. That guy will always be walking into the same adult bookstore; that thong will always be two sizes too small.
Right now Google seems less like Big Brother and more like Gladys Kravitz in Bewitched – the nosy neighbor always peeking at you from behind her curtains. But the day images from Street View get introduced as evidence in a civil or criminal trial, that will all change.
When you least expect it, you're elected. Whether you want to be or not.
Been caught doing something naughty by Google? Spill the beans below or email me here. Submitters of the juiciest stories may receive a screaming yellow Cringe bag that can be spotted at 200 yards.
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on June 7, 2007 08:41 AM
TOP STORIES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Migrating to Vista
- CX4: Leading-Edge Midrange Storage for Virtualized Environments
- Turning Information Into A Competitive Advantage
- Your Guide to Troubleshooting Application Problems
- AT&T Article: Reinventing the Telephone with VoIP
- Coordinating Marketing and Sales Across the Entire Revenue Cycle
