By Ruben(nerd) Schade, a UTS university student and IT guy in Sydney and Singapore. c.2004
“Our vision for Android is unchanged and Google remains firmly committed to Android as an open platform and a vibrant open source community,” Android head honcho Andy Rubin said in a statement. ~ Wired
Not content with just copying the iPhone UI, now Google is trying their hand at generating their own reality distortion field. It's open, darn it!
Fortunately there are still enough people willing to rush to their defence. ;)
The manufacturer of my second mobile phone in primary school being bought by my third search engine. Pardon the French, what a mindf*ck!
With the acquisition of Motorola Mobility -- the company that was spun off from Motorola because spinoffs are always as successful as they are on television -- Google has now officially entered the mobile hardware game.
Of course, with all the marketing hype swept to the side, we know why Google did this: for the patents. Clearly still smarting from declining a share of the Nortel patent portfolio then complaining about it in a rather sorry way, they're now out on the offensive. If you want to sue them for the patents they're violating, they can sue you back!
For a blog of nerdish interests I've talked for far too long about legal nonsense for a while now though, so instead I'd rather talk about the tech itself.
As I said above, this acquisition (I always though that'd be a great name for a ship) is Google's first move into the hardware business for their handsets. While it may be a further step backwards in their alleged openness, it seems like it was a logical business decision.
In response to the fragmentation and mixed user interface experiences their hardware partners were deploying in order to differentiate their products from every other Android device, Google entered the game with Google branded phones. These reference implementations, dubbed the Microsoft Signature Experience, allowed Google to claim handset makers were free to implement Android however they saw fit, but that there was a Right Way To Do It.™ Namely, that they should use Android exactly as is.
With a hardware division under their wing now, it seems entirely possible Google will develop their own vertically integrated device.
While the likes of HTC are welcoming the move officially, you've got to think their rhetoric about protection from patents will soon be overshadowed by fear. I mean, as a consumer why would you get a Google phone from someone other than Google, particularly given Google develops most of Android in house in an Eric S. Raymond Cathedral and has access to large swaths of closed Android source code they can use to their competitive advantage.
Needless to say, very interesting developments. And feel free to call them Motoroogle too; I just came up with it in my head but I'm sure I haven't been the first to.
The soap opera of Google Android versus Everyone Else continues.
Frank X. Shaw on Twitter:
We offered Google the opportunity to bid with us to buy the Novell patents; they said no.
Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something that they could use to assert against someone else.
SO partnering with others & reducing patent liability across industry is not something they wanted to help do
And Brad Smith on Twitter:
Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no.
I'm surprised John Gruber of all people would take these Microsoft tweets at face value; at this stage it's just Microsoft's word against Google.
Still, if it's uncovered Google declined to be a part of the patent consortium with Microsoft and Apple because they wanted all the leverage for themselves, it blows their entire altruistic defence argument out of the water.
From the Official Google Blog:
If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners.
So their logic is, only by having the patents to themselves can they defend the patent infringements in Android, and their competitors know this. This seems to just reinforce Frank X. Shaw's last tweet, this is a move to save themselves not the industry. Gives new meaning to that graphic they used in their Google IO slides.
This goes for Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, Google and everyone else: please treat us with a little respect and be candid about your motivations with all this patent nonsense. We're all getting tired of it.
Maybe I'm just bitter than I can't get a webOS phone here, and the Nokia N9 looks amazing but is doomed to failure.
Provided they have, I see six potential reasons why, some of which would be the result of doing no evil!
Firstly, have they really discontinued the toolbar? From their download page:
Google Toolbar for Firefox is compatible with Firefox version 4 or older. To find out what version of Firefox you're using, click the Help menu and select "About Firefox" (on the Mac, the option is located in the "Firefox" menu).
If you use Firefox version 5 or newer, you won't be able to use Google Toolbar.
While technically this isn't an admission that the software is discontinued, relegated to the alarmingly large pile of dead Google projects (or Lab if you will), it may as well be.
Apparently the Google Toolbar had many great features, including links to Google Reader, an unread email count for Gmail, an easy way to share discovered sites, a Google search box.
Despite this, I never got around to installing it. Not because I was afraid, but because I felt no need to have it. I already had third party extensions for many of the features the toolbar provided, bookmarklets for the rest, and the all important search box was already in the top right hand corner.
That said though, there seem to be enough people who did use its features who are willing to run insecure, older versions of Firefox just to keep it. Those are some dedicated (if foolish) people!
As with the closure of Google Labs, the end of this toolbar leaves us with lots of questions; or at least it leaves a lot of questions with me. Which is to say, I'm thinking of lots of questions, if I asked these out loud right now there'd be nobody here to answer, and I talk enough to myself as it is.
The first possibility is financial, though I have a hard time buying (see what I did there?) a company with Google's resources couldn't keep a person or two on the payroll to keep their toolbar efforts current.
The second is the inevitable streamlining middle managers and shareholders start to demand of companies that have reached a certain size and can no longer justify frivolous things like R&D and customer service. Google is certainly not the nimble, informal creature it once was, perhaps this is just a sign of its "maturity"... though I hope not its peaking.
The third potentially paints Mozilla as the evil folk. Part of the allure for Google having people running their toolbars in Firefox must have been that searches didn't incur a referral fee to Mozilla. Perhaps with increased competition, Mozilla needed the cash and twisted Google's arm. There's no evidence of this, and it seems silly Mozilla would go out of their way to screw their primary source of revenue, but the speculation is irresistible.
The fourth is a technological one. The Mozilla team have promised greater sandboxing of extensions, perhaps by doing so Google can't track browsing behaviour anymore, therefore killing the real reason for the toolbar's existence.
The fifth reason is feature duplication, and the fact Firefox mainline now has many of the toolbar's features. This was the only reason entertained by the Google folks officially, though I can't help but think it's not the only one.
While all these are possibilities (remote or otherwise!), I reckon this has more to do with Google wanting more holdouts on Chrome. The Google Toolbar collecting information about browsing habits in Internet Explorer and Firefox is valuable, but not as valuable as people surrounded by Googlyness in Chrome.
In the words of Dave Winer, this was purely a business decision. Perhaps the Google team figured the carrot of faster rendering and program execution had failed to entice everyone, so the stick of a reduced Google experience may persuade the rest. If Google+ takes off, one can imagine deep integration with Chrome that could also be partly achieved with a toolbar, but without one available it'll give people more of an excuse to switch. Anti-trust?
I trust Google more now than I did Microsoft in the 1990s, but I'm not as sure that I'm wrong about this as I wish I was.
With the launch of their Google+ social network, Google have now allowed webmasters to have the +1 buttons on their pages. Should I use them?
From http://www.google.com/webmasters/+1/button/:
Add +1 to your pages to help your site stand out. +1 buttons let people who love your content recommend it on Google search
Aside from having pages ranked with these buttons appearing on their new Google+ profiles, it's clear Google plans to use these to influence their search results. The potential ethical dilemma this introduces is for another post.
I've eschewed (gesundheit) having external, dynamically loaded JavaScript here since this site's inception because of privacy and speed concerns, but this is the first time I've had an inkling of questioning my decision.
Given these +1 buttons are appearing in all their search results, would it make much practical difference allowing you to click here too? Either way, it's an optional process you're entering into, I'd just be making it a bit easier to share on sites such as Google+.
I'm not sure. What do you think?
This wouldn't the first time I've let people share my posts with another service; until the latest site redesign I had a beautifully simple, static Bookmark on del.icio.us link that worked like this:
<a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=[PERMALINK]&title=[TITLE]">Bookmark This on Del.icio.us</a>
Then there were the ways you could allow people to subscribe to your blog in various blog platforms, such as Google Reader:
<a href="http://www.google.com/ig/add?feedurl=http://rubenerd.com/feed/">Google Reader</a>
Many of my concerns would be alleviated if Google had a similar, GET request mechanism for +1 instead of relying on JavaScript. This would be cool:
<a href="http://plus.google.com/share?url=[PERMALINK]&title=[TITLE]">+1</a>
I suppose they're doing some verification in that JavaScript to prevent click fraud, and to tie a vote to a particular Google account; but then again the del.icio.us link essentially achieved the same thing while being static, provided you were logged into your del.icio.us account.
Oh well, I suppose I'd need JavaScript after all if I wanted to implement this.
Lobbying exposing ninja Alex Sadleir made a comment on Google+ today demonstrating just how much Google knows about our interests. Curiously, I didn't get anything back.
From http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/view/ in my Google account, on every machine I've tried it on:
Your categories
You have opted out of Google's interest-based advertising. No interest categories are associated with your browser.Your cookie
Google stores the following information in a cookie to associate your ads preferences with the browser you are currently using:
id=OPT_OUT
Opting out of this stuff sounds like something I'd do, but I don't remember doing it. I'm not sure which of the following reasons caused me to not have any information with them, but throwing them all out there as suggestions.
Finally, it goes without saying that I don't use Google Chrome or Android, though I do use their Google Search app, Google Maps and on occasion YouTube on my iTelephone. Whoops ;).
Most likely these reasons are placebos and are merely evidence of my paranoia; Alex would be the first to point out this doesn't mean Google doesn't know anything about me. One could assume they do gather information, but they just don't make it public.
Either way, I'm impressed that Google at least acknowledges I don't want them following me... as much. Right?
In the words of one of my friends on the service, I finally "caved" and registered for Google+. If you're on it, feel free to add me, do a search for Ruben Schade, esq ^_^.
Having used it for a day now, its pretty clear Google has made no secret of its intentions for Google+. I've read people making broad, sweeping claims that the service serves a niche between Twitter and Facebook, but it's clearly targeted at the latter. And that's a Good Thing™.
The layout is the same as Facebook, the threaded conversations Facebook presumably brought in from their acquisition of FriendFeed are the same, the tabs and even the optional photos along the top are the same. Instead of Facebook's trademark light blue and grey, Google+ is grey and... grey. It's streamlined and minimalistic, in much the same way Facebook was when people were leaving the awful mess of MySpace. Remember MySpace?! CANNOT UNSEE.
Along with the familiar interface to entice Facebookers away, the Google team have also gone out of their way to counter Facebooks insidious, intentionally obfuscated privacy settings that have continued to make headlines. People who think these Circles will always ensure their information is safe from leaking to the wrong people are deluded of course, but the interface for adding people to various circles and the explanations of everything in Plain English are a refreshing change.
More importantly, even if Google+ fails (all but the most dyed in the wool fans readily admit history isn't on Google's side), I hope this demonstration of how privacy settings should be presented provide the impetus for others to implement similar systems, to take privacy more seriously, and that users themselves will stop being so apathetic and start demanding it. A long shot I realise, but who knows?
As I said, I've been using it for a day now and love what they've done with the UI. As a Google Reader user, my Buzz stream is presented as a separate tab, though I wonder how long that'll be the case before its folded into our Google+ profile directly. It certainly seems redundant having two "life streams", but then again Google seems unusually tolerant of such service duplication. Will Google Reader continue to exist in its current form, or will Sharing on the service be replaced with +1?
I'm really exited to see how this all pans out!
If you’ve done nothing wrong, You’ve got nothing to fear;
If you’ve something to hide, You shouldn’t even be here;
You’ve had your chance, Now we’ve got the mandate;
If you’ve changed your mind, I’m afraid it’s too late;
We’re concerned, You’re a threat;
You’re not integral, To the project.
~ Eric Schmidt
~ Pet Shop Boys, Integral
The bad news is, Google+ is run by Google, a company who's overwhelmingly primary source of revenue is selling our habits to behavioural advertisers, not paying tax on it, and that is regularly compelled to disclose information to American intelligence agencies.
While I acknowledge they're vastly more ethical and transparent than Facebook, we still must maintain vigilance and follow common sense rules about cloud computing. Don't use the service for anything private. Withhold certain personal details, and mix in a little BS! Use a profile picture of yourself from your snowy trip to the Czech Republic where your face is obscured enough to render facial recognition algorithms useless!
As I say now, don't be used as a cloud tool, use it as a tool!
The reason why I abstained from Google+ initially is that Google's launching and failing of social network after social network has become a running joke, and that I was less than enthusiastic about starting over for a fifth time. Many of the arguments being used to justify its existence and why it's "different from all their previous services" are what people said... about their previous services. Make no mistake, so far the script has been exactly the same.
Facebook needs some serious comeuppance, and Google is one of the few companies with enough clout, name recognition and cool to take them on. Provided they commit to transparency, Google does have the potential to take the high road against Facebook and be a force for good again.
Google recently released Google+, a new social network. Do you think you need another social network? ~ The Daily Post
You mean, another Google social network, or another social network in general? I've had revolutionary Orkut, Knol, Jaiku, Wave and Buzz accounts that went nowhere, so it's hard to muster enthusiasm for yet another of this company's efforts. If it gains some traction I'll look into it further.
One thing's for sure, Facebook sorely needs some competition. I'm uneasy about trusting Google with my personal information (not necessarily their fault), but I trust them far more than Facebook. Then again, I'd trust Diaspora more.
As for the name, it's almost as lame as Apple's Ping, but not as bad as Qrocity!
This seemingly random comment from Sandrew Loset on an old blog post about Twitter sparked this post! I need to do more feedback entries like this :).
Twitter, Google, Facebook & PGE Smartmeters exist only to spy on you and sell your information to advertisers. They spy on every single thing you do, look at, click on and sell it.
They also will give the information to people who are suing you and to any agency that requests it. Don’t use them.
Get privacy software on your computer. Don’t be a tool for them anymore.
Clearly Sandrew noticed I was discussing Twitter and dropped in his cookie cutter response that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, but a comment is a comment nonetheless and I think he raises a good point! I know this because it's largely what I've been saying here for years, right down to the concerns regarding law enforcement.
Where Sandrew Loset and I differ are on the pragmatic details. Sure the easy thing to do is to refrain from using any cloud services, but this is becoming an increasingly untenable position, particularly as more services move online and more of our applications are web based.
No, instead of abstaining from them outright, cloud services must be seen as tools like any other, and as such the key to using them effectively is to be smart. As I've repeatedly stated here over the years, don't use cloud services for confidential or private information, assume your material is always in the clear, and if you must store material of a sensitive nature, not only encrypt it but ensure only you know the keys.
This isn't limited to cloud computing, our internet enabled smartphones (and even regular phones) are tracked based on tower coordinates, and our computers can be traced with an IP address (this will only become easier with IPv6 and the inevitable decline of NAT). We sacrifice as much privacy online as we want for the extraordinary utility we derive from it. It's a continuum, and though I tend to place my pin closer to the privacy side, I still use Twitter publicly, I have Google accounts (though no longer for email) and a Facebook profile with a fake name and even faker details.
Sandrew reminds us to remain vigilant, which is a worthy lesson. That said, I advocate something cheekier. Don't be a tool for cloud services, make them a tool for you.
Earlier this month Glyn Moody wrote a great post on how Google could be a force for good again, in particular by reversing the trends in their definition of open, in Android, with OpenStreetMap, the principal behind Google Books, and with patents. I'd add greater privacy controls in Chrome rather than just retorting that smart people use Chromium, bringing DoubleClick under control, and paying taxes.
I used to have great respect and admiration for Google (as you can tell by reading my old material here!) and I still hold them in higher regard than most companies, but cynicism regarding their do not be evil mantra set in around 2009. Unlike some though, I have every confidence they can reverse the trend.