Tagged: tech RSS

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

    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 11:31 pm on January 5, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ces, , , tablets, tech   

    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 6:47 pm on November 15, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , tech, zuckerberg   

    One reason I intensely dislike Zuckerberg? He’s a freaking liar. “This is not an e-mail killer.” Hello. They’re giving 500+ million users [the option of] facebook.com E-MAIL addresses. There’s NO WAY they don’t think they’re going to pull several million teens off of Gmail or Yahoo or MSN. Sure, they’re not trying to kill enterprise Outlook users, but that doesn’t make it any less of a killer of some uses of e-mail. The entire presentation reeks of this. The multiple denials of this being a “Gmail killer” seem suspect at best.

    And this is from someone who doesn’t see myself using the new product. Though I can see how the “social graph filter” feature would be very compelling to many, many people. That’s why I think it’s disingenuous to say it never crossed their minds that this could “kill” (and/or take major share from) traditional e-mail. Especially since many features of it are a ripoff of Gmail’s priority inbox and Google Wave.

    /ten cents worth

  • jimmy 8:34 pm on October 12, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , tech   

    Is there some kind of secret pact among tech bloggers that anyone who thinks The Social Network is anything but a purely fictitious pack of lies must be destroyed and/or had hundreds of words devoted to mocking them? I haven’t seen the movie, nor have I ever met Zuckerberg, but the pure and unwavering support of FB coming from the tech blogosphere is kind of weird to me. Is it simply that they don’t want to lose access to not just sources at Facebook, but also any other “satellite” company that would be scared of “crossing” FB by talking to someone critical of them?

    Am I being too conspiratorial? Is it simply the fact that The Social Network is a pack of fictitious lies and the bloggers have nothing better to talk about? (Actually don’t answer that, because at this point I’ve put on my tinfoil hat and quite honestly trust nobody on this issue.)

  • jimmy 9:11 pm on September 4, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , tech, ,   

    I feel fairly certain that this is the future of Hurricane Hunter operations, and I find it very exciting:

  • jimmy 3:28 am on August 20, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: conservapedia, fcc, government, , , , tea party, tech   

    Over 11 pages of Tea Party activists/groups signed this letter and not one person caught the huge factual inaccuracy in the fourth paragraph? The one about 1994 being “before the Internet was ever conceived”? Even if whoever actually wrote this letter doesn’t know the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web (I don’t personally think the average non-geek needs to know the difference, however when we’re talking about Internet policy you damn well should know the difference) and was sourcing the date that Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the WWW, the citation of 1994 is still not correct, as “before the [WWW] was ever conceived” would be 1988 at the latest. But assuming they DID know the difference between Internet and WWW, it seems they didn’t take the time to quickly use the Google to find out a quick history of the Internet. Or, if they prefer, they could look it up on Conservapedia, which tells us that TCP/IP (basically what makes the Internet run) was invented in the 1970s, about 2 decades before 1994.

    On a side note, Conservapedia’s article on the Internet mentions Al Gore’s famous slip-up and explains why he said what he said: in 1991 he sponsored a bill that helped fund many computer projects, including the Internet and the first graphical web browser. I mention this because the aforementioned letter starts out “Over the past 25 years, the Internet has flourished in large part due to the extremely limited role that government has played.”

    Now, interpretations of “extremely limited” will vary, but I’d say the Congressional Act that Wikipedia credits with “building the Information Superhighway”, was lauded by then-president Bush and caused Marc Andreessen (a co-creator of the aforementioned web browser and now a private venture capitalist involved with Digg, Twitter, Facebook and Skype) to comment “If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn’t have happened, at least, not until years later” doesn’t really count as “extremely limited” in any way, shape or form.

    That bill was in 1991. Last I checked, 1991 was 19 years ago, which is less than 25 years ago.

    Get your numbers right, Tea Party, and we might be able to talk about “so-called ‘Net Neutrality’ regulations,” but until then leave the Internet policy debates to people who actually understand it. Or know how to use Conservapedia.

    OK, one last thing: dig into the history of ICANN and you can see the hand of the government all through it. It’s pretty technical and it’s hard to follow some of the different trails, but it’s clear that the US government has had a hand in Internet policy ever since the beginning, and still does.

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

    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: , , , tech, 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: , , , tech   

    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 9:15 am on June 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , tech   

    I started writing a big long essay about this nearly 4 hours ago, all about how it wasn’t bad that we might be thinking differently, how a change in brain activity might be in response to a change in society and not the other way around. It was geeky, it was impassioned, it was well on its way to full-on rant-ness. But then I got distracted by watching Jim Parsons on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and then The Colbert Report and then Super Late Fun Time. I don’t know what that proves, but I think it might be something that makes me very, very annoyed.


compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc