Google said that the key of computing technology lies in the cell phone application

Google said that the key of computing technology lies in the cell phone application

Google said that the key of computing technology lies in the cell phone application

Free Online Articles Directory

Why Submit Articles?
Top Authors
Top Articles
FAQ
AB Answers

Publish Article

0 && $.browser.msie ) {
var ie_version = parseInt($.browser.version);
if(ie_version Hello Guest
Login

Login via

Register
Hello
My Home
Sign Out

Email

Password

Remember me?
Lost Password?

Home Page > Marketing > Press Releases > Google said that the key of computing technology lies in the cell phone application

Google said that the key of computing technology lies in the cell phone application

Edit Article |

Posted: Jul 06, 2010 |Comments: 0
|

]]>

The latest news from overseas media, the Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, summit in 2010 – Activate, insisted that the electronic products are leading the brand-new fashion, and become the mainstream of people getting news, cell phones have become the key technology development, the world many top field opening and development teams were sent in the cell phone platform development work. But the key is, the developer in application development, as a first consideration of the cell platform, and then we will consider the Windows and apple Mac platform etc.

The Eric Schmidt said the development trend of the computing technology including computing clouds, networking and cell Internet and cell Internet growth compared with our real life is more closely, so every large manufacturer will focus on cell phone Internet. At Google in cell Internet domain has its own unique advantages, and by increasing the Android smartphone equipment in this advantage.

The Eric Schmidt thinks that many enterprises in the technology industry are actually is the destruction of their causes, the enterprise is always the same mistake, and committed to innovation, is not willing to turn a blind eye to the things for innovation and development and must take risks, thus finally unable to adapt to the development of technology and eventually ruin.

The Eric Schmidt, said without ineffable that Google now also has some problems, including the contents, and service homogeneity is the biggest problem, more and more companies entering the field at Google andbring some not small impact, although Google is at the leading position, if not active in technology and services on innovation, then may also have to perish from the way, but now, the possibility is still small, because the Google itself pays much attention to innovation.

Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/press-releases-articles/google-said-that-the-key-of-computing-technology-lies-in-the-cell-phone-application-2782177.html”

(ArticlesBase SC #2782177)

Liked this article? Click here to publish it on your website or blog, it’s free and easy!

www.goodscool.com -
About the Author:

Wholesale cell phones Cheap cell phone

]]>

Questions and Answers

Ask our experts your Press Releases related questions here…200 Characters left

Does google voice use cell phone minutes ?
I want to use a 3g internet dongle with the google android 7 inch mid pad but it wont connect to the internet?
Does this program also notify the phone that is being monitored ? If I am correct this monitors the phone and the computer? How many computers can you monitor? How much does it cost?

Rate this Article

1
2
3
4
5

vote(s)
0 vote(s)

Feedback
RSS
Print
Email
Re-Publish

Source:  http://www.articlesbase.com/press-releases-articles/google-said-that-the-key-of-computing-technology-lies-in-the-cell-phone-application-2782177.html

Article Tags:
cell phones, cell phone internet, wholesale cell phones

Related Videos

Related Articles

Latest Press Releases Articles
More from www.goodscool.com

How to Pair Your Bluetooth Headset with Your Cell Phone

Nicole Lee shows you how to pair any Bluetooth headset with any Bluetooth-enabled cell phone (03:09)

Top 5 Cell Phones for Summer 2009

CNET’s Tom Merritt counts down the top 5 cell phones for the summer of 2009. (02:20)

3D Cell Phone: CNET Loaded 10/25/2010

Barnes & Noble plans to launch Nook Kids by year’s end, Sharp stops making PCs while Sony finally stops making the cassette Walkman, and a very small, odd cell phone in India can do 3D without the glasses. (02:49)

How to Buy a New Cell Phone

This Tech video will give you helpful tips and advice when looking to buy a new cell phone. (01:15)

How to Reduce Cell Phone Cancer Risk

Try these smart strategies to reduce your cell phone radiation cancer risk. (00:49)

Inexpensive Wholesale Cell Phone Accessories For Your Online Business

There’s no doubt every business owner, no matter which business line he is in, desires to have the cheapest but the greatest collection of stuff in the street or internet market.

By:
catmimi510l

Technology>
Cell Phonesl
Feb 09, 2010

The Way To Seek Affordable Wholesale Cell Phone Cells

Disregarding how pricey your mobile phone is. When you are on the go and your cell phone is within the dashboard with a dead battery, it’s of no value. The cause can be anything only it’s futile to blame at your adapter or your auto battery charger.

By:
catmimi510l

Business>
Online Businessl
Feb 08, 2010

Tips To Buy Wholesale Cell Phone Accessories At Cheapest Prices

Without a doubt, you may come by millions of wholesale cell phone accessories in your city. No matter which brand or model your mobile phone is, you can come by nearly every cell phone accessories you may need. Every single cell phone maker has concerned divisions which are in the business of wholesale cell phone accessories. Because these cell phone accessories are of affordable rate yet great demand, they are produced in great quantity.

By:
cici wangl
Businessl
Feb 11, 2010

Cheap and Inexpensive Wholesale Cell Phone Accessories Over Internet

Internet has transferred our lives entirely from the way of arranging business concerns to opting kids dressing. Nearly each and every field of your life is covered by internet and you can see whatsoever you can ideate in the land of internet. Researching cyberspace for your cell phone and cell phone accoutrements isn’t a extremely fantastic task.

By:
Black Smithl

Technology>
Cell Phonesl
Jan 11, 2010

The Top Secret to Obtain Low-Priced Wholesale Cell Phone Accessories

Craigs list is actually believed as one of the best option to buy wholesale cell phone accessories from extremely discount prices. Venues offer large plenty of wholesale cell phone housings in a few dollars. Aside from, in case you are any wholesale cell phone accessories shop, you might sell your own wholesale mobile phone supplements at the lowest price.

Pages: 1 2 3

View the original article here

Google destroys 25 Chrome notebooks to highlight the advantages of the cloud

December 10 2010 by admin in News |

Today, Google’s prototype notebook dubbed the Cr-48, began showing up on the doorsteps of a lucky few. Fortunately, a few of us here were fortunate enough to be a part of that group and we just recently gave you our first impressions.

Now that the device is out in the open, Google has posted a pretty entertaining video of the Chrome notebook through their googlechrome YouTube account.

In the video, our host Glen Murphy uses his Chrome notebook to type a note to a friend. His device  is then repeatedly destroyed in several dramatic ways, however, because his information isn’t store on the device itself, he is able to pick up right where he left off.

It’s done really well, just like the notebook.

ic_BeSocial_Buttons()

View the original article here

Google Docs Advanced Editing Comes to the iPad

December 10 2010 by admin in News |

Hot from the GooglePlex is that iPad users can now not only view docs in Google Docs, edit them in Google Docs, but now we can also switch to the Desktop view to get the full power of Google Docs editing:

This update comes on the heels of Google turning on editing on for the mobile version of Docs.

We’re going to take this update for a test drive and check back in here with a update shortly.

Update…. I tried this out on my iPad and recorded the fun on my FlipCam, but while it’s processing I have some first thoughts:

Using Desktop mode isn’t perfect. Don’t expect things to work like it would on your laptop.The toolbar works better in landscape mode, but the keyboard works better in portrait mode (because the keyboard takes up less room).I think using a Bluetooth keyboard would make the whole editing process smootherIf you really need to edit a Google Doc on the go, and really need to use the extra formatting, then this is worth a try, however you might be frustrated in the process (especially if you don’t have a keyboard with you).

Recommendations: Better than a sharp stick in the eye and will do in a pinch, but I think using Pages or another iPad-centric application for editing will be a lot easier and less frustrating.

Here’s the video of me using Google Docs on my iPad in Desktop Mode…yeah it wasn’t easy and I’d opt for SimpleNote or Pages over this any day:

ic_BeSocial_Buttons()

View the original article here

Alibaba now tops Google in online advertising share in China

December 10 2010 by admin in News |

Google’s decline in the Chinese search market has been widely documented this year after it withdrew from the country over allegations of hacking and its refusal to censor search results.

The final irony being Google’s own Zeitgeist 2010 figures released yesterday that show the top search term in China in 2010 was Baidu.

Now, new figures have been released for the third quarter of 2010 that show Google has given up the second place slot in online advertising in China to e-commerce giant Alibaba.

The figures, released by Beijing based research firm Analysys International show that Baidu still has the largest share of the online advertising market, but, that Alibaba has now passed Google to take second place.  Alibaba is the owner of taobao.com, China’s largest online marketplace.  It is TaoBao that probably accounts for Alibaba’s strength in the online advertising market.

Also interesting is Sina, and even Tencent who are very close to pushing Google even further down the table into fourth or fifth place when the figures for the fourth quarter are released.

ic_BeSocial_Buttons()

View the original article here

Federal Agency GSA Moving To Google Apps Agencywide

December 2 2010 by admin in News |

The General Services Administration (GSA) has awarded a $6.7 million five-year contract to Unisys Corp under the Alliant Governmentwide Acquisition Contract, which, partnered with Google and others, will move the entire agency into cloud-based services.

The GSA will become the first federal agency to move email to the cloud agencywide, with all of its employees moving over to the new system (other agencies have moved ‘sub-entity’ emails to the cloud before, but not agencywide). The GSA says that the move will save taxpayers $15 million over five years (other agencies have moved sub-entities’ e-mails to the cloud, GSA is the first to utilize a cloud-based system for e-mail agencywide).

Casey Coleman, GSA Chief Information Officer said in a press release:

Cloud computing has a demonstrated track record of cost savings and efficiencies. With this award, GSA employees will have a modern, robust e-mail and collaboration platform that better supports our mission and our mobile work force, and costs half as much.

Google told us that, “After a competitive bidding process that took place over the past six months, [the] GSA just announced that it will move its 15,500 employees to Google Apps for Government.” Google also says that it will be releasing a statement on the Official Google Blog shortly. When it does so, we’ll update here.

Just yesterday, we reported that a Microsoft exec unsurprisingly bashed Google’s enterprise ambitions, and while government isn’t exactly enterprise, it’s pretty close, so this is certainly a substantial win for Google in the government/enterprise sector, whomever the other bidders where (the GSA did not list them in the press release, though we are trying to find out who they were).

ic_BeSocial_Buttons()

View the original article here

Google implements “don’t be evil” into its algorithm; uses reviews for rankings

December 2 2010 by admin in News |

There is a certain place, where the algorithm and the human mind have to come to meet. Google has found that place many times in its past, and has just found it once again in a very interesting story.

The idea of one business is solid enough — even if you do bad business, you’ll get reviews. Given enough reviews, thus creating enough links, you’ll eventually move up in search results. However, as Google rightly notes, in the Official Google Blog, “being bad to your customers is bad for business.”

The story started out in the New York Times, explaining the methods by which the “business bully” was hoping to profit from bad reviews of his business. It seemed to be working, at least until Google got wind of the story.

Google states that it had a number of options:

Block the siteSentiment analyisisShow reviews by results

The ultimate answer? Apparently it has something to do with magic, because Google is speaking in terms that are easy to understand but hard to follow:

Instead, in the last few days we developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide a extremely poor user experience. The algorithm we incorporated into our search rankings represents an initial solution to this issue, and Google users are now getting a better experience as a result.

Moving forward, Google says that someone might find a loophole to game the results in a similar manner. For the time being, however, the issue should be fixed. Oh, and that magic? Google relays that it can’t reveal the methods behind its algorithm. Surely you’re not surprised.

There’s an interesting piece, over at Search Engine Land, that describes a bit more about why the negative reviews theory won’t work in practice. The short term positive influence that was had for the business in question was due in part to being linked to from the New York Times. In the longer term, however, Google’s own methods would likely have killed the result.

ic_BeSocial_Buttons()

View the original article here

Successfully root Google TV and win $1,000

November 30 2010 by admin in News |

Google TV, depending on what you read, will change television as we know it due to its features, or is already failing miserably due to some networks blocking content.

With networks trying all they can to prevent the success of Google TV, built on the Android platform, others want to take it and customize it in a way that makes it all their own.

To that end, MagicAndroidApps has offered the “Google TV Root Bounty,” a $1000 reward for the first person to complete a successful root of Google TV through software hacking.  In order for one to claim the prize, the Google TV box will have to accept the installation of third-party apps, accomplishing this feat prior to Google’s unveiling of the Android Market for Google TV.

More specifically, one must successfully root, and add third-party application support before Google unveils third-party application support for the platform. Moreover, for the platform to be considered rooted, the end-user must be able to install third-party applications. Finally, you’ll need to include a YouTube video displaying the root and installation of the apps.  Succeed and you’ll receive your payment through PayPal.

The Android Market for Google TV will launch early next year, so get to hacking and you just might be the lucky recipient of a $1000 prize!

View the original article here

Google Maps: Whistle for a Cab..

And there’s more, here and here.

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Automotive Social Media Marketing; Google Analytics - Interpreting and Acting on Your Data

November 24th, 2010 | Videos

First time here? Subscribe to Social Media eXchange for more interesting content

Au­to­m­o­tiv­e­ So­cial M­e­dia M­ark­e­ting­; G­o­o­g­le­ Analytics - Inte­rpre­ting­ and Acting­ o­n Yo­u­r Data

View the original article here

Google Docs is rapidly getting better: now with drag and drop file uploads

November 24 2010 by admin in News |

Google has been making a major push with Google Docs recently, and it’s been pretty interesting to watch. We’ll list the recent improvements in a minute, but first, here’s the latest improvement: drag and drop file uploads.

Is this mind-blowing? No, but it should make uploading files that much easier, and – along with the recent addition of adding images to documents via drag and drop – it shows a direction that we really like seeing: easier integration with the desktop.

Google also announced “compact controls” today, which basically takes away the Google Docs header, displaying your email address, etc, at the top of the screen so that users of smaller screens have more screen real estate to work with.

As we said above, Google has been going all out on Docs over the last six months. Here are some of the most important new features:

Of course, Google is trying to cyphon away as many users from Microsoft Office as possible, and we could see an even greater adoption if Chrome OS becomes an enterprise hit (we’re pretty skeptical of Chrome OS right now though). That said, Docs is a very useful collaboration tool that we’re glad to see getting better, and fast.

View the original article here

Automotive Social Media Marketing; Google Adwords Target Car Buyers Seeking Green Vehicles

November 22nd, 2010 | Videos

First time here? Subscribe to Social Media eXchange for more interesting content

A­utom­­otiv­e­ S­ocia­l M­­e­dia­ M­­a­rke­ting; Google­ A­dwords­ Ta­rge­t Ca­r Buy­e­rs­ S­e­e­king Gre­e­n V­e­h­icle­s­

View the original article here

Google needs to face facts: Nobody needs Chrome OS at this point

November 23 2010 by admin in News |

A week ago at the Web 2.0 Summit, Google CEO Eric Schmidt made the clearest statement yet about the difference between Android and Chrome OS: Android is for touch and Chrome OS is for keyboards. He also made it pretty clear that Chrome OS will not be available in 2010 – but then again, maybe it will. But regardless of when/if we actually see it, all of this is really good to know, because it makes it much easier to say this:

While some people might be interested to play with it, nobody needs Chrome OS at this point – it would be dead-on-arrival.

It should be pretty apparent by now that hardware manufacturers are in no way thrilled by the prospect of Chrome OS. They keep deflecting questions not only about when they will offer netbooks/laptops with Chrome OS, but also about whether they will ever do so. There is a pretty good reason why too: Windows 7 is selling like hotcakes.

When Google announced the ‘idea’ of Chrome OS in July 2009, everyone went gaga, and put in the context of 18 months ago, it’s not that hard to see why we all did: there was no Windows 7 or iPad, Android was frankly just terrible and Chrome (the browser not OS) was not nearly where it is today. People might not have exactly known it at the time, but they were dying for a bigger iPhone (Steve Jobs certainly knew) and the promise of Chrome OS just seemed to be a way to get there. We didn’t understand how far Android would come so quickly, and the iPad was just a dream.

Beyond that, at the time, netbooks were selling like crazy, and everyone was high on ‘the cloud’ (in many ways we still are), so beyond Ubuntu, which never caught on with the public – though it is a super OS – there was a need for something new in ultraportables, and Chrome OS at the time was seemingly as good a shot as anything.

However, the technology landscape is vastly different now than it was 18 months ago because of the three reasons listed above. First there was Windows 7, which frankly is sufficiently good enough for anyone with a netbook, and it is almost universally pre-installed in netbooks now, and we just don’t see how Chrome OS will displace it from that spot. Then there is the iPad, which, with the addition of iOS 4.2 today becomes even more of a netbook killer. Then of course there is Android and the Chrome browser.

Plain and simple, the existence of Android also with the rapidly iterating Chrome browser are the most compelling reasons to believe that we do not need Chrome OS. Chrome the browser is rapidly gaining not only adoption but functionality, and since it is cross-platform, it really has the best chance to accomplish what Google really wants to do, and that is have complete lock-in to your Internet experience (witness Google TV). While Android might “be for touch” as the iPad has demonstrated, if you don’t want to type on a tablet, you just get a bluetooth keyboard, and you’re ready to go. Assuming that Android 3.0 is even half of what it is being cracked up to be, Google will have a mature-enough-tablet-OS that will quickly have plenty of apps.

Granted, Apple splits its software development focus between OSX and iOS, but as we’ve seen with the MacBook Air, even Apple is trying to converge and bring more touch to OSX. There are two major differences between Apple and Google, however, on this front. First, Apple has been producing desktop software (i.e. for keyboards) for around 30 years, so it’s not like Apple is saying, “Great, iOS is doing great, now let’s build a keyboard-based OS” – which is exactly what Google is doing.

Second – an possibly more importantly – Apple builds hardware, something Google has stated numerous times that it has no plans to do (which of course is the right strategy). So Apple produces an OS for its popular Mac line, which makes perfect sense. However, Google is apparently building an OS that doesn’t have a hardware use (at least not officially announced).

So this really begs the question: is Google actually still building Chrome OS for a consumer market, and if so why? Google has shown a penchant – even to extent of making it a point of pride – that it is willing to drop major initiatives when they reach the ‘fail’ stage, as evidenced by Google Wave. Here’s our prediction: Google has already basically given up on Chrome OS – at least as a consumer product, though we could see a scenario where it offers it as an enterprise version that is bundled for Google Apps customers, especially as Google is apparently still hiring for the Chrome OS team – and is stalling until it can roll out Android 3.0, at which time it will officially send Chrome OS the way of Wave (at least in the consumer realm). Both products were good thoughts at the time, but on was too early and the other it’s turning out, is too late to the game.

View the original article here

Why Google Acquiring Groupon Is NOT The Way To Go

November 21 2010 by admin in News |

Who knows if the rumors about Google lining up to buy Groupon are true or not but there is usually no smoke without fire in these cases. The rumored figure for “the fastest growing business ever” is around the $3 billion mark but I’m not sure this is the perfect fit and I can see problems for both sides if this deal was to go through.

When it comes to acquiring start ups Google have not always been the best at getting them integrated with their own services or backing them to the full. Just look at how long it took to get grand central turned in to Google Voice or ask the Foursquare guys what Google did to their first hot start up Dodgeball. The key to the ongoing success for Groupon is speed and how quick they can roll the service in to other cities and countries. Competitors are springing up all over the place and Groupon need to keep growing as fast as possible and having the distraction of a complicated deal might not be the best thing in terms of their growth.

The problem for this sector is that margins will get squeezed due to the fact that the business model could not be easier to copy. Competitors are already popping up all over the place with a mixture of carbon copies and more niche plays popping up in every country in the world. The margins have been great at the start but margins will get squeezed more and more as the competition tries to undercut each other. This is very much about a race to the bottom. I believe Google could be buying the company at the highest possible valuation.

Google are about to launch their new social strategy including Google me and a social gaming platform and probably think Groupon would be the perfect compliment to these other social tools. Although Groupon involves lots of people and social elements though it really relies on email as the primary point of contact with their customer. Who knows what the new social efforts from Google will look like but I’d be far more excited about the self serve deals platform that Facebook unveiled a couple of weeks ago. Google does like making money though and they could just be buying this as a standalone money making machine that has nothing to do with their other social efforts.

Google is great at numbers and technical problems but Groupon is not something that you can easily automate. It takes huge amount of sales staff to get the deals in place and it’s not an automated process like most of Google’s other products. There have been some noises about introducing self service platforms around Groupon which would make a lot of sense and allow the business revenues to scale at an even bigger pace but we know that Google’s strength is numbers and data and not people businesses.

The big question that people have to ask is why would you sell the fastest growing business? To start a bidding war? Because you knew it didn’t have the legs long term? I know people enter business for different reasons but If I owned the fastest growing business ever that had the sort of revenue and traction that Groupon has I wouldn’t want to sell it to anybody. Having said all of that $3 billion is not a small amount of cash and is more than enough for the Groupon team to enjoy the rest if their lives with.

View the original article here

Google Invests $1 Million Dollars in Shweeb’s Human Powered Monorail

November 21 2010 by admin in News |

As part of Google’s Project 10 to 100, they’ve donated $1 million dollars to Shweeb, a company that wants to make an eco-friendly, human-powered monorail. The project sorted 150,000 ideas from over 170 countries, narrowing it down to 16 final ideas, which were then voted on by the public. In the end, Google donated a total of $10 million to five winning projects, working on global issues. Shweeb won for driving innovation in public transport.

The human-powered pods on the monorail are intended for short to medium distances in urban settings. Google’s $1 million will fund research and development to test the “recumbent cycling technology.” Basically, Shweeb puts humans in clear pods which are then powered by people kicking their legs as if they were on a bicycle. The original adventure ride concept system is situated at Agroventures Park in Rotorua, New Zealand.

See a video of it here:

View the original article here

Google and Facebook: The Gloves Come Off

November 15 2010 by admin in News |

Facebook is trying to stake its claim on Google’s turf.

The consensus in the technology world is that Facebook’s Monday event will see the release of a Facebook email service of some kind, a direct shot at Google’s Gmail. While this is the most blatant shot that Facebook has taken at Google, it’s hardly the only one. Moreover, Google has fired a few volleys of its own at the social network giant.

This most recent bout between the two companies, as well as recent tensions and accusations of employee poaching, raises one glaring question: Since when is the technology industry a gang war? That is, Why are Facebook and Google horning in on each other’s turf?

(more…)

View the original article here

Google Finance

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Why Google can’t build Instagram

Tonight I was talking with an exec at Google and I brought up the success of Instagr.am (they’ve gotten more than 500,000 downloads in just a few weeks) and asked him “why can’t Google do that?”

I knew some of the answers. After all, I watched Microsoft get passed by by a whole group of startups (I was working at Microsoft as Flickr got bought by Yahoo, Skype got bought by eBay, etc etc).

I told him a few of my theories, and he told me back what they are seeing internally. Turns out he was talking to me about these items because Google, internally, knows it has an innovation problem (look at Google Wave or Buzz for examples of how it is messed up) and is looking to remake its culture internally to help entrepreneurial projects take hold.

1. Google can’t keep its teams small enough. Instagram was started by two guys who rented a table at DogPatchLabs in Pier 38 (the first time I met the Instagr.am team was when Rocky and I did this video on Dogpatch Labs). The exec I was talking with said Google Wave had more than 30 people on the team. He had done his own startup and knew the man-month myth. For every person you add to a team, he said, iteration speed goes down. He told me a story of how Larry Ellison actually got efficiencies from teams. If a team wasn’t productive, he’d come every couple of weeks and say “let me help you out.” What did he do? He took away another person until the team started shipping and stopped having unproductive meetings.

2. Google can’t reduce scope like Instagram did. Instagram started out as being a far different product than actually shipped (which actually got it in trouble with investor Andreesen Horowitz, according to Techcrunch). It actually started out as a service that did a lot more than just photographs. But, they learned they couldn’t complete such a grand vision and do it well. So they kept throwing out features. Instagram can do that. Google can’t. Imagine you come to Larry Page and say “you know that new social platform we’re building? Let’s throw 90% of it out.” Google has to compete with Facebook. Instagram had to compete with itself. As to Andreesen: this is why lots of my favorite companies like GoPro or SmugMug never took any VC. The pressure to “go for the home run” destroys quite a few companies.

3. At Google, if a product becomes successful, will get tons of resources and people thrown at it. Imagine you’re working at Google and you have 20% time. Will you keep spending that time on a boring project that isn’t very cool? No, you will want to join a cool project like Instagram that’s getting love around the world and getting tons of adoption. If the Instagram team were at Google they’d have to deal with tons of emails and folks hanging outside their cubes just to try to participate. I saw exactly this happen at Microsoft when a small team I was enamored of started getting tons of resources because it was having some success.

4. Google forces its developers to use its infrastructure, which wasn’t developed for small social projects. At Google you can’t use MySQL and Ruby on Rails. You’ve gotta build everything to deploy on its internal database “Big Table,” they call it. That wasn’t designed for small little dinky social projects. Engineers tell me it’s hard to develop for and not as productive as other tools that external developers get to use.

5. Google’s services need to support every platform. In this case, imagine a Google engineer saying “we’re only going to support iPhone with this.” (Instagr.am is only on iPhone right now. They’d get screamed out of the room) and they need to support every community that Google is in world-wide. I remember at Microsoft teams getting slowed down because they’d need to make sure their products tested well in every language around the world. Oh, some screens didn’t work because some languages are read right to left? Too bad, go back and fix it. Instagram doesn’t have those kinds of problems. They can say “we’re English only for now, and heck with everyone else.”

6. Google’s engineers can’t use any Facebook integration or dependencies like Instagram does. That makes it harder to onboard new customers. I’ve downloaded a few iPhone apps this week and signed into them, and added my friends, just by clicking once on my Facebook account. My friends are on Facebook, I don’t have a social graph even close to as good on Google. Instagram gets to use every system it wants. Google has to pay “strategy taxes.” (That’s what we called them at Microsoft).

7. Google can’t iterate in semi-public. Weeks ago Kevin showed me Instagram and loaded it on my phone. He asked me to keep it somewhat quiet, but didn’t ask me to sign an NDA. He also knew it would actually help him if I did leak something about Instagram (I didn’t). What he really needed at that point was passionate users who would try it out and give him feedback about what worked and what didn’t. Bug testing. Now Google will say “we eat our own dogfood” but the reality is that you need to get people outside of your company to invest some time in you. Google can’t do this, because it causes all sorts of political hell. Instagram has no political problems to worry about, so was free to show it to dozens of people (when I got on it there were already hundreds of people who were using Instagram and I had it weeks before its official launch). I saw tons of bugs get fixed because of this feedback and those early users were very vocal believers in the product.

8. Google can’t use Eric Reis-style tricks. Eric’s “lean startup” methodology advocates making sure that customers want something, before going on and building infrastructure that scales. Google, on the other hand, has to make sure that its services scale to hundreds of millions of people before it ships a single thing. Google Wave failed, in part, because it couldn’t keep up with the first wave of users and got horridly slow (and that was even with an invite system that kept growth down to a reasonable rate).

So, how does a big company innovate? Well, for one, Google can innovate by buying companies like Instagram. For two, Google can use its strength in places where small companies can’t dare to go. For instance, building autonomous cars (I have a video with Stanford’s Center for Automotive Research that shows how these cars work and you can see that building stuff like that takes teams bigger than two people. Although to demonstrate that Google gets the power of small teams, Google’s car’s algorithms were mostly approved by just one person, I’ve learned).

Another way? How about open source? Build a system so anyone can code and add value without sitting in meetings and things seem to take off. At Rackspace (the web hosting company I work for) we’re noticing that with OpenStack, which is already seeing some pretty cool new innovations (coming soon) added by people who aren’t even working at Rackspace. As I look around the coolest companies in the valley, like Cloudera, I see the same mentality in place: they know they’ll get slower as they get bigger, so they are trying to build systems that let innovative, entrepreneurial, developers add value without getting caught in the politics of a bigger company. Take it outside of tech, look at TEDx. There they’ve enabled thousands of conferences around the world to use the TED name, but in a way that doesn’t require a lot of approvals from the mother ship. That keeps them innovative, even if they stop innovating at their core (everyone outside continues the innovation).

Sachin Agarwal, one of the founders of Posterous, echoes these comments in a post about what he learned working at Apple (Small teams rule).

Some of these lessons sure seem counter intuitive. Remove people from a team if you want to make it more productive? But I have heard this over and over again in my journey through the world’s best tech companies.

So, how about you? Are you seeing the same problems at your work? When I do I point them out and we try to fix them.

By the way, you can see my Instagram photos done with my iPhone on Tumblr and I’m “Scobleizer” on that service, if you want to follow me.

View the original article here

Google launches Place Search

Google will automatically choose the Place search, rather than a general web search, if it thinks your query is about a place. It will also place the new link for “Places” in the left-hand panel of the search results page so that you can switch to these results whenever you want. This new feature will be available in 40 different languages and will be slowly rolled out to users around the world. Until then, you can use this link to get familiarized with the feature. At present Place Search is available for the desktop only, but a mobile version is in development and should be available soon.

My two cents

Okay! I tried the special link to find more about my favorite place. The new layout had more relevant links compared to the normal search result layout but I was more interested in the search format rather than the destination and I must admit that it will take me longer to get used to this new format of search layout. But that can differ from person to person. So I would suggest you to try it out once.

Location-based services such as Foursquare and recently launched Facebook Places have gained importance in the last 12 months. All these services are now trying to tap the locally-served advertising. Google has also been trying hard to encourage the local businesses to come online,  a no-brainer as it sees small-business-oriented advertising technology as the next big source of revenue growth. The latest rolled out feature further validates the point. Now it remains to be seen whether this new place search feature establishes rapport with the users or not. What do you think of the new Place-Search feature, do let me know.If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS Feed OR Email Alerts!

ArrayArrayArrayArrayArrayArrayArrayArrayArray

Related PostsGoogle Brings Latitude Feature To Orkut – Location Based Social Networking Is Next?MSN launches India-Centric Mobile Services, Wants To Develop Location Based Search!Can Apple’s iPhone Succeed Where Google’s NexusOne Failed?Mobile Advertising On A HighAndroid Market reaches 100,000 Apps, Apple still far ahead!

Categories: International, News, Web, google
Tags: google, location based services, location-based search, place search

About the Author

Will the real Michael Arrington please stand up when it comes to Google vs. Facebook?

I’m confused.

Techcrunch founder Michael Arrington seems to be saying that Facebook is wrong to suck up data from Google’s contact systems, especially after Google has tried to block Facebook from doing that.

Because Mike and I have had only one really violent argument. I’ve always thought that Facebook should have opened up and should allow users to take contact info to other systems. Where did that argument break down? In May of 2008. Yes, more than two years ago! On a Gillmor Gang (you can read the transcript, I think the original recording has disappeared, unfortunately, but I’ll try to find that in the morning).

Why did that argument happen? Because I let Plaxo test a system that would suck just my friends email addresses out of Facebook and put them into Google’s contacts. Doing that broke Facebook’s terms of service, and got me kicked off of Facebook for a day.

Only I thought that we should ALWAYS be able to move email addresses and names back and forth between these systems without any restrictions.

Only I have been consistent. Glad to have Mike on my side finally.

But, now, let’s discuss this. It’s too late. Google has already lost its database to Facebook. It’s now posturing and doing that poorly. A friend said Google should be cheered for finally standing up. Oh, yeah, that’s like cheering the zookeeper for finally closing the gate after all the animals get out. It’s over. Google allowed the biggest identity theft migration we’ll ever see in our lifetimes. Those animals aren’t going back in the zoo. How do I sign on Techcrunch today? With my Facebook identity, not my Google one.

What’s funny is that Facebook IS making moves to open up. Back when we had that argument Facebook wasn’t open at all. Today when you use a new music service it already knows about all the previous music you’ve liked. Why? Because of Facebook’s new open systems that didn’t exist two years ago. And I can list a ton of such examples of other such systems that have been built on top of Facebook’s open graphs.

Yes, Facebook still forbids email addresses to go elsewhere. They SHOULD open up, and I’ve heard from some company employees that say they are considering such a move.

The problem? It’s too late for Google. Facebook knows this, which is why it’s being more open. Why? Well, my Google social graph has rotted. The 8,000 names on my Google Contacts are attached to email addresses that are old, not good, and phone numbers that are old, not good. Tonight I tried to call someone from my phone’s contact list. The number was dead. I went to Facebook, grabbed his new number there and I even made the call right from the Facebook iPhone app.

It’s too late for Google to get all of our contact and other data back. They should have closed the zoo gate two years ago. They didn’t. They lose.

Nice for Arrington to get on Google’s side now that the game is already over. When will the real Michael Arrington stand up for true data portability?

What Google needs now isn’t just the email address. It needs our social graph too. Chances that Zuckerberg will hand that over? Between zero and zero.

For some more fun, lets look back at some of Arrington’s quotes from that Gillmor Gang, shall we?

“Arrington: Well OK, let me talk about that because what Scoble did… See, Scoble screwed up earlier this year, because he used a Plaxo tool that went into Facebook and grabbed all of his friends contact information. And that’s not trivial to do because all that contact information is presented in a JPEG. It’s an image because Facebook doesn’t want people to easily scrape it.

So Plaxo went in, pulled up the friends list, pulled up each page. Used optical character recognition software to turn that into free text and then export it into Plaxo. And because of that, Facebook just banned Robert Scoble. Shut down his account temporarily. He was wrong then. And the reason I think he was wrong to try to do that is he thought, “This is my data, I want to export it.”

But my argument was, that isn’t his data, that’s my data. If I’m his friend and he’s pulling my contact information out of it, he’s changed the rules on me. The rules that I know are set by Facebook, which is that the data is presented only in an image, etcetera and he’s exporting where God knows what could happen to it.

And I don’t know if, a couple years ago I wrote about a company called Jigsaw. Which actually people get paid to upload contact information for possible sales leads. And I think it’s one of the worst things on the Internet. And so this sort of this my basic contact information, I need to have some control over who gets that and how. So I think he was wrong. And I think he knew he was wrong.

So yesterday, he sees this situation happen where Facebook bans Google from letting people export their own contact information. And in his eyes, I think he saw it as an analogy to what happened earlier in the year. So he changed his position and said, “No, no. I think Facebook is right. I think, hey, it showed I was wrong earlier in the year, and Facebook’s right to sort of stop this and protect and my data.”

And so the post I wrote was: “Look, Robert, you’re wrong both times. You were wrong the first time because you were talking about my data, my contact information that you were exporting. Then, yesterday, you’re talking about your own data and how Facebook should have the right to stop that from being exported if you choose to export it.”

Scoble: Let me have something to say here. Let’s back up. There’s two issues here. One, if you really are going to let me act like it’s my data to do with whatever I want, when you give me access to your email address…

Arrington: Oh, God. You’re still stuck on that.

Scoble: I am stuck on it…

Arrington: No, Robert! No! If I hand you my business card, does that give you a right to publish that information on the net and sell it to other people? Which is Jigsaw’s business model.

Scoble: Who said I’m selling it to anybody? It’s not why I’m using it. It’s just an email address.

Arrington: But that’s Jigsaw’s business model.

Scoble: And I’m sick and tired of you guys mischaracterizing what I said! I never said I was going to give it out to the public…

Arrington: It doesn’t matter, Robert. You changed the rules. It doesn’t matter what you were going to do. You changed the rules.

Scoble: I did not change the rules.

Arrington: You took the data. I gave you the data under this explicit set of rules, and those explicit set of rules are: you can look at it as an image on Facebook when you’re logged in. And you took that data, you exported it to a third-party service that I don’t have a relationship with…

Scoble: OK. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait! Let me have a say. You ripped me an asshole without giving me a chance to say anything. Wait a second.

First of all, you friended me. That’s an implicit act giving me some rights. Second of all, you give me your email address, which has no utility at all in Facebook. Why would you give that to me? Are you saying that I can’t enter that email address into Gmail and send you an email? I can’t enter it into Outlook and send you an email? Or I can’t go over to Yahoo email and send you an email? Is that what you’re saying?

Arrington: No.

Scoble: Then how did I..?

Arrington: I’m thinking you can’t turn it into pretext and export it to a third-party service — who has huge privacy issues, by the way. That’s what I’m saying you do.

Scoble: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Back up, back up, back up. If you give me the ability to enter it into email, into Outlook, that explicitly gives it access to some other things.

Arrington: No. I’m explicitly…

Scoble: It does.

Arrington: Robert, let me explain very carefully…

Scoble: When you hand me your business card…

Arrington: Wait, Robert. Let me explain it really carefully. When I give you my email address, I’m not giving you the right to hand that email address over to third-party services to do with what they want.

Scoble: Yes you are. Absolutely you are. Because, guess what: you already are. You’re giving me the permission to put it into Gmail. That’s a third-party service. You’re giving me the permission to put into Outlook. That’s a third-party service.

Arrington: Hold on. Robert, hold on. You’re right in that I am implicitly giving you permission to put it into Gmail, probably add it to your contact list there, and send me an email. What I don’t want you doing is going to third-party services like Plaxo, which have a horrible reputation when it comes to privacy, and giving them control of that data.

Scoble: You have no right to tell me what to do with that data. You have absolutely no control and no right to control how I use that email address.

Gillmor: OK. All right. Now, here’s where you both have to listen to me for a second.

Scoble: OK.

Gillmor: The fundamental right is the user’s right. The user’s right is an understanding — what some people call a social contract — of what is going to be done with that data. When somebody violates that understanding, forget about the legal conditions, the terms of service, the assumptions on the part of the person who is going to do something with that data. Forget about all that. If the user’s rights are violated, according to the user, from that moment on, the social contract between that user and other people is broken…

Scoble: It’s not the user’s right…

Gillmor: Hang on. Hang on. I’m almost done. And that user, writ large, is going to have a big, big role in what happens to data, generally, moving forward. So, when you went and, as an agent of Plaxo, went after that data, it’s not that we don’t trust you, Robert — of course we trust you. We don’t trust the person that comes along and rummages around in the garbage can and picks up all this data and says, “Oh, hey, cool,” and all of a sudden, we’re getting spammed within an inch of our life for the rest of our lives about the stuff.

Scoble: First of all, Mike’s email was already in Outlook before I scraped it off of Facebook. Second of all, it’s already in Plaxo. But you don’t have access to that account in Plaxo. That’s my account, and it’s my data, and if Plaxo starts fucking with my user rights, then I’m going to go ape shit.

Gillmor: The point is that you are a representative of what could go wrong. It is not that you are wrong. It is that if you establish a precedent to be able to access data in the way you did, other bad actors can come along, and they can broadcast it on Mars and open up a lemonade stand around it.

Scoble: Here’s the whole problem with this whole argument. If he friends me, he’s giving me some trust. If I misplace that trust by putting his email address on my blog, for instance, without his permission…

Arrington: Plaxo.

Scoble: No, Plaxo keeps it private. It’s for my own uses. You don’t have access to my…

Gillmor: You don’t know that Plaxo keeps it private. That’s a contract between you and Plaxo, and I don’t necessarily agree to that contract.

Scoble: Well, OK. But you don’t have control. You are not in control here.

Gillmor: We only have control of our relationships with the people that we know.

Scoble: Exactly.

Gillmor: If you violate that trust, no matter how innocently you do so, it comes back on you, not on Plaxo.

Scoble: Exactly. I’d better choose my vendors very carefully, and make sure that if they screw me, I go ape shit.

Gillmor: Well, I’ve never heard you go ape shit about Plaxo, because I think they screwed you big-time.

Arrington: And here’s the other thing, Robert. This is a bit of a red herring, because we’re talking about whether, when I give you an email address, it’s mine or yours.

The biggest problem here is that that it screwed up your head, and it got you thinking, “Wow. I just got trashed on the Internet. Maybe I was wrong.” And then the new issue comes along, and you’re so screwed up from the last issue that you’re like, “Oh, OK. This time on the side of right, so Facebook was right in protecting this data.” And again, what happened was you were just dead wrong again.

Scoble: [laughs]

View the original article here

The technology inside the Google self-driving cars

You’ve probably heard that Google has these cool cars that can drive themselves. Above is a video of one of them driving down Freeway 280 that I shot almost a year ago (I had no idea I was driving next to a car that was capable of driving itself. I should have known something secret was going on because the driver braked hard to get away from my camera). Yes, there’s a driver behind the wheel, but the car is capable of driving itself.

But Google is very closed-lipped about what these cars are actually doing. I’ve asked several times, to several different people, to get a ride in one, and to be able to interview the team about what they are doing. I keep getting turned away.

I’ve learned a few things, though, in the last few weeks. For one, Mike Montemerlo is the brains behind many of the algorithms that run the car. I interviewed him back in 2007. When I talk with folks familiar with the Google program they all say he knows more about the code running the car than anyone else, so this interview is important to go back to and watch. You can see a real visionary at the beginning of his journey to invent the future.

Recently I went back to Stanford to visit the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (which, funnily enough, spells “CARS”). This is the coolest place for a geek. You want to inspire your kids to learn computers? Show them what the cars of the future will need. Hint: computer scientists.

In Part One of the tour, you get to see the latest brilliant kids who are pushing cars to do things even race cars can’t do. But in Part Two, you get to see the technology that is inside the Google self-driving cars (the Google team came from Stanford, and the approaches are very similar and the two teams keep pretty close ties). In Part Three of the tour, coming next week, you’ll get a look at the solar car team.

So, what did I learn from Mike Sokolsky, who is a research engineer in the artificial intelligence lab at Stanford? Well, they are studying ways to process a massive amount of data (there’s a tiny datacenter inside the back of the car) and make real-time decisions. Was that a stoplight? Was that a cat? A ball? A child?

One thing he ends on, is the challenges ahead for getting this technology into production cars. He thinks it’ll be more than 10 years. Why?

Well, most humans don’t like the idea of a car that drives them around. They like control, and this car would take control away from them.

There’s a deep set of insurance issues, too. What happens if one of these cars causes a wreck? Who is responsible?

Of course there’s also the cost. The Stanford car has about $300,000 worth of gear inside of it. It’ll take 15 to 20 years to reduce the cost of the gear to $3,000 or less (I remember about 20 years ago Steve Wozniak proudly showed me his dye sublimation color printer. It cost him $40,000 in 1990 dollars. Today a better printer costs about $50).

Funny story, the LIDAR unit on top of the car? It was invented by David Hall. His Silicon Valley-based company, Velodyne, used to make subwoofers. I sold those in my consumer electronics store in Silicon Valley. A few weeks back his wife called me and told me a bit about him. I love that people don’t understand why I put my cell phone number on my blog — this is exactly why. It’s +1-425-205-1921 by the way. In the video we did at Stanford you can see that the LIDAR shows how it maps the world in 3D 10 times a second.

Can these technologies do even better than humans can? Absolutely. Check out this video of a sliding move into a parking spot by the car we visited. I can’t do that. Can a race car driver? Yes. But can a race car driver have sensors that know exactly how far to push adhesion to the road? Not always. The Stanford engineers I’ve talked to say they are already able to do things that would be difficult for a race-car driver to do over and over again.

This technology is the most mind-blowing stuff out there now. It’s like seeing the future. Enjoy!

More details are on Building43. Thanks to Rackspace for letting me chase around world-changing technology like this. Do you have world-changing technology? Let us know at scobleizer@gmail.com.

Here’s a report from ABC News, which gives you a look inside the Google car:

View the original article here