Google Planning Mobile Media Search Engine?

Google Planning Mobile Media Search Engine?

Just a link to what I'm reading at the moment. C'mon, Google! We want you in the mobile phone market.

I also was recently thinking that it's interesting that we Google fans usually seem to be Mac fans as well, mostly because of the characterization of MS as the devil incarnate. However, Apple's operations have not been "open source" by any means, though they do continue to strive to produce superior products.

The principle behind most geeks' love for Google seems to be related to organic growth. Finally, here's a company, in Google, that is not perfect, but seems to be honestly stretching its arms to reach the goals that will really advance its industry for the better. There is a connection here with open source software - especially since most of Google opens up most of their products to independent developers by releasing APIs and publishing development tips on blogs.

So do we cheer for Apple based on principle or quality? If we say it is principle, then it would seem that MS should be our shining example of what collaboration could achieve. While it also seems that most collaboration with MS is not by choice as much as by necessity, the PC, MS's domain, is built from the innovation of a variety of companies, big and small, and advances piece by piece, as different corners of the computer world discover new things. The PC's development is a textbook example of organic innovation and growth.

This is in contrast to Apple's Macs and Powerbooks, which have been produced in an almost completely closed system since Apple's inception. Apple writes the software, develops the hardware, produces accessories, and now even owns stores where the computers are sold. Nobody "works" on their IMac or IPod, but most PC owners who are tech-proficient wouldn't consider it necessary to send their computer off to the shop in order to upgrade a piece of hardware.

So, the principle alley seems to lead us away from Apple, and therefore we must go the quality route, which would make some sense, if we can justify spending the extra dollars for what we get out of an Apple. That is the basic question - is the Apple computer worth the bigger price tag?

Don't Knock Wikipedia!

Nicholas Carr on how Facebook and Wikipedia might fit together

The above link is to popular author Nick Carr's article on how he thinks that, from a revenue standpoint, it would make sense for Facebook to imitate a Wikipedia website for the next addition to its network. This suggestion is on the heels of Facebook's announcement that it will launch a craigslist-like site to compete with the minimalist classified ad machine that gets most of its traffic from 20-somethings who are in college (i.e., likely Facebook users).

Of course, his idea makes sense from the point of view of Facebook's bottom line. At least, it does in the short run - the very short run. The problem is that, once the Facebook users, as young and self-involved as they are, realize that they are the only ones posting to the "Facebookpedia" (or "Wikiface" - I think that's a better title!). The wisdom of the crowd is only as good as the crowd from which it draws is big. The bigger the crowd, the more wisdom, obviously. Therefore, wisdom drawn from just 22-24 year olds won't grow near as fast or deep as the real wiki, which means that soon, the Facebook users will simply go back to using the same old Wikipedia, at which point Facebook risks losing its growth in popularity completely. An unimpressive venture that's really a copy of a very successful website would be detrimental for Facebook, in my opinion.

From a user-of-the-web standpoint, I'd also be worried if this idea is successful for Facebook. I personally love the site and the company - I think their open-source approach to their calling is great, and they've allowed themselves to branch out, to their benefit, creating the fastest growing network on the web. Such innovation benefits the cause of the web immensely as the forum for the free expression and flow of though. So, I'd be cautious about anything that might take away steam from something as beneficial as Wikipedia.

These are my humble thoughts. Any other opinions would be welcomed.

An Open Source OS that's NOT Linux

Google, if you're listening at all - I mean, I am within your blog-dom - I'm asking you to take up the challenge and move toward offering a complete line of software - including an OS. After buying and setting up computers and computer software for my small office over the past year, I have been overwhelmed by way that Microsoft has gradually attempted to force its software down the throats of small offices and large offices across the world - and I believe it is stifling innovation and competition. The latter is a "no, duh" observation; Microsoft is obviously taking a copyright-and-monopoly approach to software development, trying to use the current laws that protect innovation and authorship to cement its own place in the market for years to come. Their attitude has made it virtually impossible for someone else to spend the amount of money necessary to compete. Impossible, that is, until now.

Google is now the world's largest software company, and they have already ventured into software. Now that they're not afraid anymore, I would be the first to buy a Google attempt at a fully-functional operating system that is user-friendly like Windows, but does not cost a person or a company thousands of dollars to outfit just a few systems. Obviously, this need doesn't have to be met by Google-source - it could be met by any number of open-source developers out there who have the time and money to devote to such a project (*ahem* - are you listening, Mozilla?), but the thing I am worried about is usability. I don't have any interest in a piece of software that's only useful to developers and network administrators, as is the current case with Linux. The obvious problem with having a small outfit develop something is support - someone like Red Hat, though well-intentioned, is not big enough to promote or support its product in the same way that MS is. MS has constant updates and help docs online, which are supposed to alleviate the problems caused by the fact that their software is crappy and is designed to use the monopoly status MS enjoys to coerce offices into spending thousands of dollars per year trying to keep current.

My vision is a system that would cost $100, or would come pre-installed on a new computer, and then would always stay current through an online membership system, which would have an annual cost of something like $50 or $100/year. Imagine the possibilities, if the systems were always updated properly, automatically, and then people enjoyed the same massive technical support that MS purports to give.

New Earth-blog at Google

From Search Engine Watch Blog...

Google Launches New "Geo" Blog

This seems like a great opportunity for search to expand, and to me seems like a completely new frontier of technology, even. I also think that this is a huge opportunity for Open Source to show us why open collaboration is far superior to the monopoly-and-copyright approach to web and software development. While it is not really producing true "open source" software, Google genuinely promotes the open source movement by opening up its software APIs to the rest of the world. It also promotes the flow of open source by not charging a penny for the use of the software. They do stake a claim on the authorship of that software, but their claim doesn't cost me several hundred dollars per computer per year, like it does with some other companies. (Yes, that was a NOFOLLOW link.)

Again, I am making a play on the "striving" theme. This is definitely something where we will be always striving, never arriving. I don't really think the Web-Earth project will ever "arrive," in the sense that everyone will be satisfied, all at the same time, causing development to cease for a time until we all have holographic computers that display an actual globe in front of us, and then we work on Web Earth 2.1, or "XP". I don't think the striving of the entire community of developers can be held inside of one company - nor can the desires and needs of the world be met by one community of developers. And that's why open source (combined with "Google source") will be the ones to "win" this war by fighting the true fight.