The Case for Google+

Since the July release of Google+, I have struggled to find a use for the service.  Don’t get me wrong, Google+ is actually a really well designed network.  The UI is clean, I love Circles which realistically display our relationships with others, and it has some pretty good integration into the rest of Google’s services.  Google has made a wonderful social networking platform with tons of potential, arguably more elegant and better designed than Facebook.  Yet, I can’t find a damn reason to use it.

Facebook, with its 700 Million+ users, is living proof of the economic power of “network externalities.”  The service becomes only as useful as the number of people who use it.  Seeing as how that number is more than twice the population of the United States, I’d say Facebook has a pretty damn strong network.  With upwards of 1000 friends, I’ve invested a lot of time, effort, and clicking “accept” on friend requests on Facebook to just pick up and move to a new system.  The fact is that I have upwards of 4 years of networking locked into Facebook’s closed walls.  It’s hard to move on, especially when the new system requires a Google Account.  It’s hard to move on from Facebook.  Love it or hate it, Facebook is the definition of “ubiquitous” and though often a kludge of a system, it gets the job done.

But I think there is a real point to Google+.

Advertisement

Google Buys Motorola Handset Division

Google has announced their acquisition of Motorola Mobility, a major manufacturer of cellphones and Android smartphones, for $12 Billion. The deal is a major game changing event in the mobile landscape as Google, maker of the Android Mobile OS, has now acquired a hardware division. With this, Google has mobilized a new army in the smartphone wars.

Motorola Mobility was a company that emerged from the splitting of the original Motorola. Once mighty presence in virtually every sector of the tech industry, the company fell on hard time in the latter part of the last decade. The company split into Motorola Mobility, in charge of the handset business, and Motorola Solutions, in charge of the company’s IT, Telecommunications, and heavy industry business. Since then, Moto Mobility has had a major resurgence as a premiere Android handset maker – the company was responsible for launching Verizon’s Droid line of premium smartphones back in 2009. Motorola’s Android history is not all roses, but it has had far more wins than many other OEMs with great handsets like the Atrix, Photon, Droid and Droid X smartphones.

Now here we are, with Android’s own mother swallowing up one of the platform’s most stalwart contributors. It’s a ballsy move for a company that has so far refuted claims of opening a hardware division. Google claimed they wanted to be gatekeepers to Android, only worrying about licensing to other manufacturers. With the exception of the Nexus One and Nexus S, the company has lived a perfectly comfortable life with others worrying about the hardware side of the Android platform.

So why now has Google absorbed one of the largest cellphone makers in the world? Many believe it has to do with patents. Google, Microsoft and Apple have been on patent buying binges over the past year, trying to secure any and all innovations in the ever more competitive mobile market. Apple and Microsoft led a power play initiative to block Google from the purchase of several patents from Nortell, a Canadian telecommunications company that went under in 2008. The move places Google behind its competitors in terms of IP stockpiles. Meanwhile, Motorola has decades of innovation under its legal belt in the areas of mobile phone technology. This move gives Google access to a large backlog of patents.

But this seems like too huge a purchase to be simply for patents. If Google wanted Moto’s IP, the company could have worked out a far more affordable licensing agreement. While Larry Page maintains that Motorola will still be operated as an independent company and not the hardware arm of Android, I believe that’s nothing more than fluff. Google has seen the success in Apple’s draconian control over hardware. Apple shapes the hardware to perfectly marry software in a way Google can only dream of. Throughout the history of Android, every OEM has skinned, modded and hobbled their Android offerings into an inconsistent platform. Wildly different features, platform fragmentation, and poor customizations have all lead to an Android that can’t be as Google envisioned the OS. Licensing deals were good for the platform’s infancy but Google doesn’t want to be reliant on the endeavors of third parties anymore. Google wants to run the show.

The Nexus One and Nexus S established the defacto design of Android 2.0 and 2.3. Google likes being in charge of hardware design, even if they won’t admit it. Now, with Motorola, Google has an entire company that it can point in the right direction. Ensuring you get Vanilla android, and hardware that perfectly matches the software. Sure, Google will play nice with HTC, Samsung and LG – Google still needs them to control the market – but from now on, Google will run the show. They have an entire hardware team at their disposal now with an legendary brand name. Sure, the name Motorola will endure, but beneath the branding this will be all Google from now on.

In the end, this could be good. Android devices may now get that Apple-like polish they deserve from Google’s devices while offering choice from other OEMs. Is it the best of both worlds? Maybe. OEMs might revolt, Apple might go on the offensive again, and the Nokia-Microsoft partnership might whip up something really jaw dropping. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Facebook Gets Skype, Google Gets Social

L’shalom my dear readers. Excuse the Hebrew and blatant Judaism in the greeting, but that’s kind of the world I live in now with my summer job. A lot of stuff has erupted in the social scene over the past couple of weeks and I haven’t been able to report on any of it due to time constraints. Regardless, it’s been an impressive couple of weeks for Facebook and Google, so let’s break it down.

Facebook last week unveiled their new deal with Skype which brings voice chat to Facebook. The announcement was not ground breaking but more of a nice progress report for the social networking giant. Face book’s partnership with Skype is pretty interesting since Microsoft just recently purchased the VoIP company. Perhaps Microsoft bought Skype knowing about the Facebook partnership and wanted to use Skype as a Trojan horse into the company. That’s one expensive Trojan horse but I still can’t figure out Microsoft’s reason for the purchase so this remains my top explanation.

The real big news was Google’s unveiling of their oft-rumored social networking platform, Google+. After days of searching I found an invite and have been exploring the service ever since. My verdict so far: it’s Google’s Facebook. Whether that’s good or not remains to be seen. Google+ is pretty simple. You have a basic profile and associated friends. A “Stream” acts as the newsfeed which displays updates from your friends. Where Google+ really excels is in the use of “Circles”. These are layers of friendship that allow you to organize friends by what they really are: family, friends, acquaintances, or just celebrities you are following. Circles takes back the overuse of the word “friend” by breaking contacts back down into their real physical relationship. It also allows for more specialized distribution of data to just the right people you want to get certain information.

But in the end, Google+ is nothing ground breaking. Like Facebook you make friends, share content and post messages to other people. It has a chat infrastructure through GChat that allows for video communication. Of real benefit is the tighter integration with Google services like GMail, Picasa, and Google Buzz. All these services funnel into Google+, finally providing a social layer to these independently weaker products. That may be how Google can take on Facebook. They’ve got the search, email, and mobile front in the palm of their hand. And finally, Google+ is not a kludge like Facebook. It’s clean and minimal unlike Facebook’s jigsaw puzzle-like design showing bits of older designs everywhere.

In the end, the social network war may be beginning, but it’s stupid. Facebook has 800 million users. Its de facto. Google+ will never be good enough to get me out of Facebook’s ecosystem. It will only supplement it.

Google I/O Conference 2011: The Kitchen Sink

Wow.  Just wow is all I can say about the past two days for Google.  The Search Giant turned all around software badass has turned it up to 11, announcing new services, software, and hardware for every corner of its market.  Android, Chrome OS, new features in YouTube, and whole new way to consume music.  Plus, there have been some major policy changes that should make being an Android user far more desirable.

Starting with Android, Google has announced Honeycomb 3.1, which should be adding some much needed refinement to Google’s tablet-only OS.  Major improvements include massive support for peripherals and devices through the Open Accessory API.  Based on USB, the API will allow Android to interface with a nearly endless about of devices like Xbox controllers and mice and keyboards.  Google has also announced the ADK (Accessory Development Kit) that allows developers to build any device they want to interact with Android.  Best of all, it’s based on Arduino – an open source circuit board that provides USB controllers, memory, processor, add-on pins for additional modules, and the software needed for interfacing with Android.  The options here are pretty incredible and should allow Google to effectively launch their own version of “Made for iPod.”  3.1 also includes performance enhancements, UI refinements for widgets, and upgrades to the standard applications.  It will also be hitting Google TV, if that matters.

Could Steve Jobs be the Hero HTML5 Needs?

Fall out continues from Google’s announcement last week of dropping H.264 support from the Chrome browser.  It has become clear that while Google hides behind a veil of promoting openness on the internet and ending the codec schism, they are really making a move to promote WebM and even send support to their buddies at Adobe.  It’s bad people and every media outlet with some stake in the future of HTML5 has come out with near universal disapproval.  Of course, some support it in the genuine belief that we should not have royalties associated with HTML5.  While that is a completely valid belief, don’t think for a second that’s Google’s real intention.

So I’m going to suggest something pretty radical here, and bear with me as I explain.  We don’t need Google to be HTML5’s guardian.  Instead, I nominate Steve Jobs.  Over the past few years, Jobs has on rare occasions released manifestos of sorts on topics that he feels are worthy of an extended response beyond his usually terse emails.  It was Jobs who placed the last nail in the coffin on DRM for music downloads when he released his “Thoughts on Music” essay in 2007.  Few fully comprehend how much of a landmark effort that was by Jobs, unequivocally placing Apple is support of a world without DRM.  By later that year, EMI was offering DRM-free content and eventually the entire music industry folded in 2009.

Then, in 2010 Jobs provided another manifesto against the current state of web video with “Thoughts on Flash”.  While less ground breaking than ending DRM, the remarks about Flash laid down the law in Apple’s development community that they will do all in their power to move away from the plug-in that they only begrudgingly have to support.  Jobs alluded to HTML5 often in that essay, but I think he can guide HTML5 away from the damage that Google has created.  It may involve the “Reality Distortion Field” but HTML5 needs an enthusiastic leader.  Jobs and Apple was that leader for iOS, but they now need to lead the rest of the internet.

I’m not saying this because H.264 has to be the codec of choice, but because Google propping up Flash with their move towards WebM.  It’s no secret Google has gotten very cozy with Adobe over the years.  They bundle Flash 10.1 with Android 2.2, Youtube continues to be one of the largest repositories of Flash video on the net, and Chrome now has Flash player bundled in it.  In Google’s ideal world, you will have two options for video: Flash with H.264, and HTML5 with WebM.  Sure, Google may want to see HTML5 end Flash eventually, but not as long as they have such a rich relationship.  Think about it: clearly Adobe was very threatened by Apple’s refusal to adopt Flash video on iOS.  So they turned to Google as their trojan horse into the mobile space.  Google makes it clear they are ok with Flash continuing, this is a quote from their Chromium Blog post yesterday regarding the issue:

H.264 plays an important role in video and the vast majority of the H.264 videos on the web today are viewed in plug-ins such as Flash and Silverlight. These plug-ins are and will continue to be supported in Chrome.

See?  Google is saying that if you want H.264 video, just turn to Flash and Silverlight plug-ins.  Plugins like the WebM version arriving for Safari and IE9 soon.

Given that Adobe and Google are creating a power play against Apple and the rest of the MPEG, I think Jobs is the man to continue the support of H.264 as the preferred codec for HTML5.  There should be no compromise.  How does Jobs do this?  Apple extends an olive branch by forgoing the royalties they would get from their contribution to the H.264 standard.  The time is now for Apple to nail Flash’s coffin shut by ensuring that H.264, the best video codec on this damn earth, does not remain a jewel in Flash’s crown.  Help us Steve Jobs, you are our only hope.

Google Misinterprets “Open”, Threatens HTML5

Over the past two years we have seen a different Google emerge on to the internet.  They’re not just a search company anymore, but one of the most integral software companies in the history of the internet.  Building operating systems, web services, sponsoring custom hardware, and powerful browsers.  But as Google’s ambitions have grown, the company’s greed and cliché corporate malice has become more visible.  First they spar with Apple, then they attack net neutrality, and now they threaten to undo all the progress of HTML5 in the past year.  This newest development has arisen from the news earlier this week that Google will drop support for H.264 in HTML5 from the Chrome browser and most likely all their web services.  Focusing completely on their own “open” video codec: WebM, and Ogg Theora instead of the “insufficiently open” standard of MPEG-4/H.264.

Ed Note: Some of this editorial may reference the recent ArsTechnica article “Google’s dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness” by Peter Bright.  Bright gives an excellent overview of the situation surrounding Google’s decision.  The editorial will use Bright’s remarks and thoughts as support or possibly refute a few of his points.  I recommend you read that article as well at some point for a more complete understanding.

Let’s start at the beginning and weigh how Google considers the term “open”.  To paraphrase Bright’s position, which I agree with: they don’t know shit!  H.264 is the definition of open.  The video codec was designed and standardized by ISO and ITU-T, the authorities on standardization on this planet.  The technology was compiled and developed by a team of engineers stemming from across the industry, voted on and ratified by an international standards organization.  Now, compare that with Google’s WebM.  That was originally called VP8, built by the private firm On2 (in secret) before being acquired by Google.  They released it as a free and open standard, but they have yet to submit it to a standards organization and Google controls the codec by itself.  So you tell me, what is more open here?

Google’s Shines Light on Its Other OS

We all think of Android as “the Google OS” but did you know the search giant’s ambitions don’t stop in the mobile market.  Last year Google previewed the Chrome OS: an operating system completely dependent on Google’s cloud services and based on Google’s Chrome operating system.  Google wants to change how we use our computers – shifting away from local software to online application.  As well, Chrome OS plans to set a new bar for low impact software – able to run on low-end hardware with little local storage.

Google is in a unique position to possibly change the way we use computers. They already have a bevy of online productivity software replicating local software counterparts with Google Docs, Picasa, Maps, Talk, Voice, Calendar, and GMail.  While these online services may not be the most powerful and advanced applications out there, they have one major advantage: cloud syncing.  Being saved on an online server allows content to be accessed throughout the world, and could end the age-old problem of forgetting a document when on the move.  The Chrome Web Store will allow developers to create HTML5 applications that can also run in the cloud, or in an offline mode.

Google’s Chrome browser is an interesting choice as the framework for an entire OS.  Mostly because it’s never been done before.  The Chrome browser has extensive processing control with its inherent separate process model.  This keeps tabs in their own isolated process so if it crashes, it won’t bring the entire browser down.  Essentially, it means that the Chrome browser already had the rudimentary needs for multitasking and kernel access.  Chrome OS simply takes this farther by installing a kernel directly into Chrome for hardware and memory control.  The interface though is just a browser living in a ROM.

It makes for an OS that runs are very, very limited hardware.  As of now, Google has only announced one reference design under the name Cr-48 (an isotope of Chromium).  The no-frills laptop will run low-end hardware – probably an Intel Atom processor or mobile ARM chip.  Google is, in many ways, taking the approach of light OSes used in tablets back to the PC, with a focus on cloud connection.  It remains to be seen if this will work out, but I’d love to have a return of low-footprint operating systems in a world where their overhead only increases.

Chrome OS should be shipping on special hardware by 2011.

Google Bakes Some Fresh Gingerbread for the Holidays

Android  has by all accounts been a dazzling success in the year 2010.  Verizon wholly embraced the platform and has released some of the best devices the world has ever seen with Google’s mobile OS.  Sprint used Android as the platform to launch their 4G network with the monstrous EVO 4G.  T-Mobile relied on the OS to revitalize its handset catalog in the Sidekick post-mortem.  And Google itself tried to change how we buy our phones with the ambitious Nexus One.  The OS has also seen relatively rapid improvements in the year.  Android 2.0/2.1 revamped the UI into elegance, and has brought an infant OS into a strong adolescence.  2.2 “Froyo” brought major performance enhancements with Just-in-Time (JIT) execution, integrated Flash player, and a bevy of enhancements to mobile hotspot and VoIP work.

Today though, things get even more interesting.  Today Google announced Android 2.3 “Gingerbread”.  While not as massive in under-the-hood changes as Froyo, Gingerbread is gonna be a wonderful enhancement to an already irresistible package.  A big enhancement for 2.3 is improved gaming development.  Apparently the boys at Google did not like all the high-end games going to Apple’s iOS platform (seriously, Epic’s game is looking ridiculously awesome).  As such, they’ve improved a lot of coding in the SDK which will improve performance for graphically intense applications.  It’s good to see Android now have a more viable shot at gaming.  This also plays nicely into the rumors that Sony is releasing a PlayStation-branded phone that would use these enhancements.  Other enhancements on the technical side include a rebuilt keyboard with better spacing and multi-touch support (that’s a big one for me, as I love the iPhone’s keyboard but can’t seem to get smooth with Androids), increased audio codec support, standard VoIP and SIP support through Google Voice with video calling, an integrated task manager (glory, glory hallelujah!), and support for Google’s burgeoning video codec: WebM née VP8.

Need Some Help Figuring Out the Web? Ask Google

In the past decade, Google has done a lot to sort through the chaos of the internet to make it accessible to us.  Their algorithms have provided us with the most powerful search engine on earth, one that can scour petabytes of information in seconds to give you reliable websites and services for information.  They’ve also expanded into a variety of wonderful and extensive web applications like Google Docs and Youtube which are now integral to our internet lives.  Yet despite all this, the internet can still be a mystery.  People often use these services all day, but don’t really know how it works or what it really is.  What is cloud computing, really?  Or cookies?  Or HTML5?

Well Google wants to help.  And today they have published a sort of digital children’s book called 20 Things I Learned About Browsers and The Web.  It behaves kind of like an Apple iBook, but uses HTML5 to simulate the animations.  In reality, the “book” explains in plain english a lot of terms that are now common in internet speak, but not always fully comprehended.  It starts off with big concepts like cloud computing and HTML and Javascript, and then starts to delve more in-depth into topics like security and protecting against malware.  I recommend checking it out, it’s a really simple read that pretty much sums up these complex topics with minimal techn0-babble.  If nothing else, it’s a great demonstration of HTML5’s interactivity.  I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the service is a little bit of a Google love-fest.  They spend an awful lot of time name dropping their own services, reminding you consistently how much they own you.  But hey, it’s their product, let them market it.

Check out the digital comic here.

Google’s Fall from Grace

Last week, in one swift motion, Google redefined itself and threw away a decade of progress it had made in the war for net neutrality.  Last week, Google allied itself with Verizon and submitted a plan to the FCC that would utterly and completely alter the landscape of internet regulation.  The outcry was immediate, the PR disaster was brewing, and Google now faces opposition from both sides of the net neutrality battle.

It’s ironic actually, since Google used to be one of the strongest advocates for a free, open, and heavily regulated internet.  Once upon of a time, Google was the epitome of corporate advocacy for net neutrality.  Being a company so dependent on the internet, and one that could have profited immensely from cutting deals with telecoms, it took tremendous discipline and moral fortitude for them to resist the temptation to fold in with telecoms.  Instead, Google provided free and open alternative services to those proliferated by ISPs.  Google was a standing force against the draconian control of ISP service contracts and lock-in services.