Tagged: google RSS

  • jimmy 8:20 pm on February 11, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , google   

    Hey folks! In case you hadn’t noticed, this blog is kinda dead. My last post was just a couple days before I got on Google+, which has basically replaced The Stream as my life “mini blog.” So please circle me on Google+ to keep up.

    Barring some big change, I plan this to be my last post here. Thanks!

     
  • jimmy 9:27 am on July 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , google,   

    What’s that quote about never achieving anything if you never try? I’m reminded of that when Zuckerberg took this jab at Google on Wednesday: “Entrepreneurs who focus on a specific type of thing will always do better than a company trying to do a million things.”

    Google may have tried to do “a million things”, and many have failed, but at the end of the day Google has the search market cornered, the web video market cornered, a massively successful mobile operating system, is a leader in Internet Governance (among many other things) and is worth $172 billion, more than twice Facebook’s Venture Capitalist-inflated valuation.

    Facebook has a social network dogged by privacy issues. Given that the entire point of social networking is to share private information, this is somewhat laughable.

    Now Google is putting all of their $172 billion-market-capped eggs into the social basket, not-so-famously saying that if they fail at social the company fails. (The reasoning for this is simple: Google’s cash cow is search/search ads. If Facebook decided to build a “social search engine” and pimp it their 750 million users Google would be dead. Overnight. The options are: 1. do a deal with Facebook, but Microsoft Bing beat them to that; so it’s 2. create an in-house social network to get your hands on your OWN set of “social signals” to put into search, if Facebook is killed in the process…so be it, they’re new in the Valley anyway.) The (of course unstated) goal is the utter and complete destruction of Facebook-as-we-know-it for the survival of Google. Mark Zuckerberg knows this (everyone in tech knows this, although the likes of TechCrunch pretend that there’s some weird future where Google+ and Facebook can both successfully co-exist…this is utter and complete bullshit).

    What we’re watching unfold this summer is the beginning of a literal fight to the death of Google and Facebook. Both entered the ring, only one may exit the victor.

    My money’s on Google. Sure Google fails somethings, and G+ will be a bumpy road, but Google has the maturity to try risky things and sometimes fail. Those risky failures taught Google some important things, and it seems they’ve taken the lessons they learned from Buzz, Wave and Orkut (although calling Orkut a complete failure is a bit of a stretch…it locked up the Brazil and India social media markets before Facebook went global and knocked Orkut down in those markets, what, only last year?) to heart and is crafting Google+ to be something awesome.

     
    • Elizabeth 4:24 pm on July 10, 2011 Permalink

      I like that there’s a new kid on the block with social networking, and I like that it’s a very experienced kid with a whole lot of previous, mind-blowingly successful projects under its belt. My money is also, tentatively, on Google+.

  • jimmy 9:19 am on February 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , google,   

    I love how people say Google will never be able to pull off a “social product” (like a Facebook or MySpace type service) because they’re all engineers (think Delbert) and are therefore not good at thinking in those terms, but then turn around and ascribe malice to mistakes that amount to “social awkwardness” (think Delbert at a party) on a corporate scale.

    I know it’s probably not the same people, but I kinda want to put both types of people in a room together and make them hash it out. Because both things can’t be true. Either they’re cunning geniuses who are just waiting until their servers collect enough information on all of us to enslave us all (or defraud us? Or something. It’s never quite clear. It’s just “scary”), or they’re a company full of kinda socially dumb geniuses who theoretically COULD do that, but in reality are too busy tweaking their super-fast JavaScript rendering engine to realize it.

    I’m probably beating a dead horse bringing Facebook into this, but FB knows 10 times what Google does about you, and they’re NOT awkward engineers. Do the freaking math there.

     
  • jimmy 11:31 pm on January 5, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ces, google, , tablets,   

    We of course have yet to see Android 3.0/Honeycomb (the version of Android supposedly built with tablet computers in mind) live in action, but it’s interesting to me that it took Android 3 years after the iPhone launch to produce a phone that matched or exceeded the iPhone in most people’s minds (there are so many Android devices, but the first time I remember hearing a lot of people talk about an Android phone matching the iPhone was with the Droid Incredible in summer 2010); but it looks likely that it will be only a year if not less since the iPad’s April 2010 release before the Android community and Google respond to the iPad with a matching or better device(s).

    Food for thought on the eve of this tablet-focused CES.

     
  • jimmy 8:57 pm on August 12, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: google, , ,   

    I’m very black-and-white when it comes to loyalty. I can tolerate a reasonable amount of shadiness (nobody’s perfect, right?) but when a certain line gets crossed, you’re out. I’m sad to report that Google has now crossed that line in my opinion. This makes me unimaginably angry, not only because I wrote an impassioned defense of them just a few days ago, but because Google was the very best ally the Net Neutrality movement had, just dropping out of the fight would be one thing but to switch sides while pretending not to is just the height of arrogance, stupidity, hypocrisy, and just plain rude to anyone with half a brain. Trusting Google to the point of calling out the NYT was probably a stupid thing to do, but on the other hand they’d never shown themselves to be suck dickfaces before now. Quite the opposite, in fact, as I pointed out in my defense of them.

    I’m also just kinda depressed because I’m one of those kooky people who believes the corporations are out to ruin the world and with Google being mostly not evil I had a tiny bit of hope. Now that’s gone.

    Screw it.

     
  • jimmy 8:18 am on July 12, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , google, , , zynga   

    TechCrunch reported today that Google has invested over $100 million into the gaming company Zynga (they make Farmville, among many other Facebook games). In addition, Google is hiring an extremely high level “Product Manager, Games.”

    This, in my mind at least, adds creditably to both the idea that Google is creating a social network (“Google Me”…I sure hope they rethink that name) to rival Facebook (why else would they be going into the gaming space in a big way, and with Facebook’s biggest provider of games to boot?) and that they’re making sure to do it right, as I talked about a few days ago.

     
  • jimmy 11:17 am on July 9, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , google, ,   

    The fact that Facebook has been buying other companies JUST to snap up ex-Googlers is EXACTLY why Google is (rumoredly) building Google Me. I’ve made no bones about my growing distaste for Facebook (or my love of Google, for that matter), so I would love to see Google go into the social space (and with something a bit more thoughtout than Google Buzz, please?) and it seems to me that Facebook going on a multi-million dollar spending spree to hire former Google employees into top Facebook positions isn’t helping them avoid a challenge from Google.

    One theory says that with Facebook’s half a billion users and Google’s rocky track record with social media Facebook need not be very concerned with such rumors, and that may well be true. But that’s not how I see it. Despite the mumblings of folks who say Google’s only ever been successful with one thing (memo to such people: SUCCESS doesn’t always equal “profit”. Just look at Firefox, which holds the #2 spot in the browser wars while being completely free; or Google Chrome for that matter, which is the browser with the fastest growth rate and also completely free) Google has, in fact, a huge array of products and services that have had varying degrees of success (search, obviously, has had the most success, but also Google Maps (anybody use MapQuest anymore?), GMail (not as big as Yahoo! or MSN, but arguably the better of the three), YouTube (not created by Google but nurtured by them since they bought the service in 2007, and a great source of social media experience for the company), Blogger (like YouTube, Google bought it in 2003 and has been gaining experience from it ever since), Orkut (a social network built by a Google employee and very popular (to the tune of 100 million active users) in Brazil and India) and, of course, Android, to name only a few. Goggle Buzz, which many people cite as proof that Google only understands algorithmic things like search and serving ads based on keywords, I think was and as a well-meaning attempt at social media, and I think the last 6 months of trying to do “high-profile” social media development has probably taught the company a lot about how to approach this area. Before (and even still mostly since) Buzz was launched the social elements of most Google products (comments on a YouTube video or sharing something in Google Reader) has been separate and (I presume) managed by a different team (Orkut, for example, is managed by people on an entirely different continent from most of the other Google services’ managers). My sense and hope (and this is only a theory, backed up with only a few quotes here and there) is that after the issues raised by the Buzz release Google realized they needed to be even more focused on social if they want to meaningfully play (and I think anyone who wants to survive on the web over the next 5-10 years needs to “play” with social: either linking in (via Facebook Connect (*shudder*) or Twitter’s oAuth, or whatever) or being the ones linked in to (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)) and that they need to make their next move more than just a “side project”. All this means they need to not just let a couple of employees build something cool (like Orkut or Google Wave), but they need to dig around all 10,000 of their engineers, they need to find the 3 dozen who know how social works (if Facebook has managed to hire so many ex-Googlers who know social, there must be some still at Google…I hope) and they need to put them together in a room with a representative from every team that manages a product or service that Google wants to integrate with their social network (YouTube, Blogger, Orkut, Buzz, etc.).

    Then they need to hire someone from the EFF to make sure they don’t create a company-imploding privacvy shitstorm, and they also need to poach somebody from Apple’s (or maybe HTC’s) UI design team to make it look awesome.

    That’s probably not exactly what they’re doing, but I’m hoping this is a metaphor for reality.

    This…kinda took a different direction from how I meant it to. It also took me 90 minutes to write (all those sources, and possibly because I have an addled brain from a head cold and being awake all night) so I’m going to leave whatever it is at this point and take myself off to bed…since 7am is waaaaaaay past my bedtime.

     
  • jimmy 11:37 pm on April 24, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , google,   

    Two things I know:
    1) the world of technology moves at a breakneck speed, with new ideas, companies and softwares coming and going in a matter of weeks.
    2) the world of business also moves quickly, but it’s also defined by financial quarters.
    Bonus #3: for some reason a lot of people (especially the bigger/more “official” firms) who report tech market shares (web browsers, operating systems, etc.) seem to report data normalized over quarters or even entire years.

    This is crazy to me, because it ignores huge trends in the data. Trends that would show up much, much sooner in more detailed, more realtime data.

    All that is a rather long preamble to this: as far as I can tell, working on outdated data that’s not detailed enough, very few people seem to realize how well Android is doing in the smartphone market recently, and also how iPhone OS might not actually being doing so well, despite iPad hype and strong sales of both the iPhone and iPod Touch. If you were to just look at yearly average data over a few years, you’d come away with the impression that iPhone is gaining strong and the ‘Droid is so-so, certainly not a threat to the fast-growing iPhone marketshare.

    But dig deeper, into more detailed views of the data, and things begin to change. It turns out that with no new handset since last summer, and despite iPad hype, iPhone OS hasn’t gained much share, and some sources even say it lost some share. All the while Android, a heretofore “possible future threat” to Apple/iPhone, has DOUBLED its share of the smartphone market since last fall and now commands possibly 10 percent of the US smartphone market to iPhone’s 25-45% (depending on where you get your data). Coupled with a possible slide or slowing of iPhone OS share, this seems like a big coup for Android.

    But of course, we love to love Apple (iPhone OS’s creator) and love to hate (or just ignore) Google (Android’s creator).

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel