You might also enjoy:

--Dear Google, Please Allow Users to Merge Accounts or Build Account Switching into Chrome. --Internet Explorer users click ads 5x more often than Google Chrome users [DATA] --Google Voice Asks Users to Donate Voicemails --Google Voice Lite Users Can Now Pick a Number [Instructions] --Apple Field Testing Next-Gen iPhone

You may have noticed that I have been blogging less often.  Before I was averaging around two posts a day and now I’m down to a few per week. (During this slow down, page views and unique visitors have held steady. Thank you, Google.) The topic I covered the most frequently was mobile devices (mostly smartphones) and that will continue. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to cover mobile devices for a few reasons:

1. Information overload makes blogging phones difficult. It seems like a new phone is announced or leaked almost every few days. Virtually every major tech blog now covers mobile devices heavily. Bloggers who rely on reading other blogs for post ideas need to sift through thousands of posts a day to stay on top of the latest developments. If you have interests in other topics too, you can expect thousands of additional posts to show up in your RSS reader. Unless you blog full time, it is difficult to stay abreast of current topics.
2. The mobile device blogging space is becoming increasingly saturated; is it possible to have a unique view of the iPhone 4 reception problems? I suppose but it’s unlikely. Is it worthwhile to write the 1,001st post about the HTC Evo 4G’s battery life? Hell, there’s probably an entire blog or two dedicated to the HTC Evo 4G’s battery life.
3. Products are less differentiated because Android is spreading like wildfire. Let’s face it, comparing an Android 2.1 to an Android 2.1 isn’t the most exciting thing in the world. If they’re running the same OS, then the phones will produce a somewhat similar experience. Sure, processing power, camera quality and other factors matter but high-end mobile devices seem to have much more in common than in the past. Frankly, it is difficult to remain interested in comparing somewhat similar devices, e.g., a Droid 2 and a Samsung Galaxy S Pro. Maybe Blackberry OS 6.0 will shake things up a bit but I see it more of a copycat OS than something revolutionary.
4. The “leaked” photos scene is the modus operandi of the industry. Almost every major manufacturer and carrier seems to intentionally leak photos and specs far in advance of launch. (One notable exception is Apple.) This is becoming increasingly transparent and Jonathan Geller (a/k/a Boy Genius) estimated that 70% of leaks are planned. So, if you want to be in the inner circle of reporting phone leaks, then you need to cozy up to device manufacturers and carriers like Geller. Bottom line: you’re not going to get your hands on a Droid X before Engadget. Of course, you can go the remaining 30% route and hang out in German beer gardens located near Cupertino, CA hoping for the next Apple slip-up.

These are just some of the reasons why I’ve been blogging less. Other reasons include being busier with other activities and shifting my blogging to Buzz ratio in favor of Buzz.

I probably bit off more than I could chew when I launched this blog in November. The idea was to write about anything tech that interests me. By doing so, I have become interested in more and more tech topics. Going forward, I expect to continue at my current blogging pace but to try to come up with unique posts and share more personal opinions (instead of regurgitating a bunch of leaked photos and planted rumors). I’m my own editor and can shift the direction of the blog at any time without running the decision up a flagpole. That’s one of the things I like best about blogging.

You might also enjoy:

--Social Networking Phones — KIN 1 and KIN 2 [Verizon] --HTC Portofolio of Phones for 2010 Q1&Q2 Leaked --Top U.S. Mobile Phones: iPhone (4%), Blackberry Curve (3.7%), Mot. Razr (2.3%)… --Microsoft’s Secret Event on April 12th: Unveiling Project Pink Phones --Citrix Receiver Coming for Blackberry and Android Phones

We will probably need to change the design of our pricing where it will not be totally unlimited, flat rate.

This spawned a flurry of blog posts and struck fear in the hearts of smartphone users across the country. However, a piece in FastCompany takes a different view. Should someone who uses data casually be required to “buy” as much data as someone who streams movies all day and all night? That’s what flat rate data plans do. Presumably tiering data plans can result in fairer apportionment of the fees the carriers collect.

Dan Nosowitz, author of the article, points out that AT&T and other carriers are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to tier data plans which suggests that you pay for what you use, in a general sense. However, if you decide to use the same amount of data but divide it among multiple devices (i.e., tether your computer to your smartphone), you’re hit with additional fees. It is difficult to justify these tethering fees because tethering itself does not drive up the carrier’s expense.

I really like the FastCompany article but it misses one critical component. Consumers who want to stay in the lower data tiers can rely on Wifi signals to install apps and download massive files. Many home internet providers do not cap bandwidth and public Wifi is becoming widespread.

I tossed a picture of Sprint’s HTC Evo 4G at the top of this post for a reason. Sprint has a $10/mo. data surcharge (on top of the standard data charge) for the Evo. It was assumed that this charge related to the use of the 4G WiMax network. However, Evo owners who live nowhere near a 4G lit area are required to pay the surcharge. Official word eventually came out of Sprint that, basically, the Evo is so cool that Evo owners are more likely to use more data than other Sprint smartphone customers, even on a 3G network. In other words, Sprint is already trying to tier its data without officially saying so.

I wonder if people who have recently signed up for or renewed unlimited data contracts will be offered incentives to dump their existing contracts for tiered data plans. Early equipment upgrades? My pure guess is that we won’t see that but it’s an interesting possibility.

You might also enjoy:

--Internet Explorer users click ads 5x more often than Google Chrome users [DATA] --Tips for Selecting Your First Smartphone --Smartphone Rube Goldberg [Video] --J.D. Power Smartphone Report 2010: Survey Says… --HTC Incredible Coming to Verizon in Two Weeks?

In my 2009 year end post on this blog, I cited several ways Google and Apple would lock horns in 2010. I understated the music battle that was brewing but I wrote:

This is a relatively minor attack but Google now streams music through its web interface. If you Google for an artist, some songs will appear and you can stream them in their entirety. In some cases, you can  purchase the tunes as MP3s through the providers of the streams. I speculate that Google is merely dipping its toes in the water at this point but you can expect a full blown music search and billboard rankings in the not-so-distant future.

The Fall launch of Google Music rumor almost certainly has to be true. Why? Because Google Chrome OS, which launches this Fall lacks the ability to install software and cannot, by itself, play MP3s. Current rumors suggest that the music service will support cloud-hosting and music purchases. This is somewhat similar to GrooveShark or the service formerly known as Lala that was acquired by Apple and hasn’t been relaunched yet.

I expect that Google Music will be tied tightly into the Google ecosystem. Perhaps it will be intertwined with YouTube, Buzz, Orkut and other social aspects of Google.

You might also enjoy:

--Google to Launch Facebook Killer, “Google Me” [Rumor] --Updated: Google Chrome OS to Launch by Next Friday? --Google Teaming up with HTC to compete with Apple Tablet? [RUMOR] --Music (Video) Mondays on Google Buzz --Dell Mini 3 Smartphone Featuring Android to Launch in China Later This Month

In my opinion, the most interesting part of the L.A. Times piece is the following:

Geller and his team of three bloggers have been credited with contributing to a major change in how the digital hardware business handles product leaks and marketing. Four years ago, it was an industry of secrecy, with prototypes closely guarded from competitors. Now, Geller estimates that 70% of leaks are planned — because he’s been on the disseminating end of many.

BGR succeeded and sold for millions because it had a unique product to offer. Geller had mysterious access to mobile phone trade secrets in an era when other bloggers and reporters didn’t. Perhaps he sold the blog at the right time because the underground media campaigns with planned leaks made the product he offered more commonplace. Now, we see mobile phone leaks originating on several dozen blogs. BGR, although still a terrific source for this information, isn’t always the first any more.

I’m curious if a bunch of MBAs have decided that the underground campaign produces the largest bang for the buck.  Surely, the campaigns are not very expensive. A blurry photograph goes a long way. Look at all the Motorola leaks over the past couple of weeks… Droid 2, Xtreme, etc.

However, I was wondering why more formal announcements about upcoming products aren’t made more often. How difficult would it be for RIM to issue a press release with screenshots of OS 6.0 instead of pushing a couple shots to BGR? In this regard, Apple seems to stand out from the crowd. Other than a mistake by an employee at a bar, Apple rumors tend to be minor and never appear to be planned leaks. Instead, Apple announces big news at big events. At this point, I’m just thinking and typing out loud but maybe the Apple model is a better model. Information that spreads tends to be official word from the company and it’s reliable.

You might also enjoy:

--Blackberry OS “Leaks” … Should you try them out? --Windows Phone 7 Series [Intriguing] --New Phone Roundup [Video] --Sprint’s HTC “Supersonic” 4G Phone [Specs] --Luxury TAG Heuer MERIDIIST Phone

What is Google?

It’s a conduit through which advertisers reach people who have shared their personal preferences with Google. While Google was initially purely a search engine, that is no longer true today. As I wrote yesterday, Google wants to know everything it can about each and every person. Reiterating yesterday’s musings:

Whom do you phone? Google Voice.

To whom do you write? Gmail, Google Wave and Google Buzz.

What do you buy? Google Checkout and Google Product Search.

What do you watch on television? Google TV, which is anticipated to launch with Sony next month.

What do you read? Google Reader and Google Scholar, despite some bumps in the road.

Where do you eat? Google Maps, 800-GOOG-411, Google Places.

What ailments do you have? Google Health, although it appears to be a flop.

Where do you work? Google Profiles.

Where do you live? Google Maps.

What do you look like? Google Profiles and Google Visual Search, perhaps tied together one day.

Where are you? Latitude, Google Buzz and Google Places.

Where did you go and where will you go? Google Calendar.

While the search business fits into this overall picture, it is important to note that very little of the preference harvesting today relies heavily on it.

What is Facebook?

Similar to Google in a sense. Facebook is a conduit through which advertisers reach people who have shared their personal preferences with Facebook. This really begs the question, what do we share with Facebook? Not much when compared to Google. Facebook is far less efficient at harvesting information and has fewer tentacles. These are the questions Facebook may be able to answer about a particular user:

What is your name?

What do you look like?

What is your birthday?

And so on. Facebook also knows what social games you enjoy playing and what you “Like.” Facebook cannot answer most of the questions above that Google can answer. Facebook doesn’t have an email client, a calendar, mapping software, voice transmission, video transmission, etc. Google is much more efficient at harvesting information because it has many more web properties and, not surprisingly, they happen to be the best in most areas.

As an aside, this is where Facebook has truly gone off the deep end: Facebook is giving away the crown jewels. It is now divulging your preferences (“Likes” cannot be made private, for example) to third parties who can archive them indefinitely. This is contrary to the Google platform that seeks to obtain everything tidbit of information about you but tries to lock down that information for Google’s use only. (Buzz was a notable, accidental exception but that mistake was remedied within a couple of days.)

Implications

Search vs. Social is bullshit. Google is social. Google services allow me to communicate with friends and family by Gmail, Wave, Buzz, Voice, etc. I can read their thoughts in emails, hear their voices, see their faces, etc. What makes Facebook more “social” than Google? The fact that someone I went to elementary school with posted about her breakfast food and that she spilled orange juice on her new shoes? Now, there’s the “search” issue. This deserves emphasis:

Facebook does not have a map of the entire internet; Google does.

Google is a better platform for other reasons. It is better organized. I know where to find information I seek. My appointments are on my calendar, my emails are in my inbox, etc. I can archive everything. Facebook provides us, primarily, with a stream of crap that tells me about my friends’ virtual farms, mafias, fish, etc. I see a bunch of happy birthday posts too. The Facebook stream is entirely disorganized and it is not archived in a useful way.

The argument that Facebook will somehow whip Google in the near future baffles me. Google is way out of Facebook’s league in so many different areas. It harvests information better. It protects information it harvests better. It offers utility to its users. If provides us with services that Facebook cannot even come close to providing any time soon. So, this Facebook > Google argument that is being tossed around the internet seems like nonsense to me. I put my money where my brain is. I’m holding my GOOG stock and maybe building the position especially since some people were recently fooled by the blogosphere into believing that Facebook is a serious threat to Google. It isn’t right now and couldn’t become one for a very, very long time.

You might also enjoy:

--Google Diversification, Search Fading? --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Why Google Visual Search for Android is Ingenious… --Google Visual Search… Snap Your Phone’s Camera at Anything --Sony XPERIA X10 meets Google Visual Search [VIDEO]

I predict that the next decade will be less about one single theme and significantly less about search. Obviously, I am on the outside looking in but these are my thoughts: Google is keenly aware of the fact that this transition is already occurring. To counter this anticipated reduction in traffic, Google has diversified into, well, just about everything relating to your preferences. Google continues to focus on its mission of organizing the world’s information. To do this, it needs to collect information. Where is lacks information, it devises a solution for obtaining it. In no particular order:

Whom do you phone? Google Voice.

To whom do you write? Gmail, Google Wave and Google Buzz.

What do you buy? Google Checkout and Google Product Search.

What do you watch on television? Google TV, which is anticipated to launch with Sony next month.

What do you read? Google Reader and Google Scholar, despite some bumps in the road.

Where do you eat? Google Maps, 800-GOOG-411, Google Places.

What ailments do you have? Google Health, although it appears to be a flop.

Where do you work? Google Profiles.

Where do you live? Google Maps.

What do you look like? Google Profiles and Google Visual Search, perhaps tied together one day.

Where are you? Latitude, Google Buzz and Google Places.

Where did you go and where will you go? Google Calendar.

And, I’m sure I’m missing more than a few fronts where Google is amassing information. As we all know, Google collects this information to sell advertisement space on your screens and mobile devices tailored to you. The genius of this all is that people actually trust Google, perhaps rightfully so. Advertisers do not have access to the answers to every question above, only Google does. Google has been and will be fundamentally an advertising intermediary. The game has changed: it’s no longer about finding something.com hidden away somewhere in the deepest depth of the internet but it’s more likely about giving you what you want, often for free, in exchange for your preferences. What do we receive for free? Search, email, voice transmission, video transmission, web apps, operating systems (albeit not directly but, rather, by eliminating the OS “tax” on devices), news, financial information and the list goes on and on. Most of the world has decided that we benefit from this exchange of preferences for free services. It’s really a unique and fascinating model. Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, recently used the term “platform provider” to describe what Google wants to become. It’s a unique type of company unlike any other.

[As an aside, contrast the Google model with Facebook which simply wants to collect your preferences and share them with the world. The Facebook model is a far less comfortable compromise for the person the least bit concerned about privacy.]

Google is diversifying in other ways too. Google Apps, the enterprise version of the free online office suite, will probably meet with tremendous success. This arena is monetized differently. No business enterprise wants to share its confidential information with Google in exchange for advertisements. Instead, for a reasonable cost, companies pay for the cloud-based services. Google Apps fundamentally differs from just about every other Google property in this regard.

Google sits on a boatload of cash right now and could diversify into other areas as well. It dipped its toes into the hardware water with the Nexus One but I do not anticipate a significant push in the hardware direction. Google simply wants more, better information and faster. By diversifying, Google has solidified itself as the conduit through which we deposit our preferences and information and donate some eyeball movements and mindshare to advertisements that we might find appealing.

[I will likely write a follow-up piece regarding competition in the "platform provider" business with a focus on Facebook.]

You might also enjoy:

--Facebook vs. Google isn’t about Social vs. Search --Why Google Visual Search for Android is Ingenious… --Google Visual Search… Snap Your Phone’s Camera at Anything --Sony XPERIA X10 meets Google Visual Search [VIDEO] --Google Scholar Legal Search…Nipping at the Heels of Westlaw and LexisNexis

Crowdsourcing is the outsourcing of tasks to a large community. An example of crowdsourcing is a cellphone app that reports gasoline prices and asks users of the app to report back prices they observe. Facebook is attempting to crowdsource the internet. Instead of crawling the internet with sophisticated spiders that follow every link, they shift the task to the website owners who must install a “Like” button and to the Facebook populance who must click the buttons to make the system work.

This fundamentally differs from Google’s approach to indexing the web in a few ways. Google spiders the web to detect new content. This approach is changing somewhat through advancements like PubSubHubBub (say that ten times fast) which allow content providers to push their updates to Google and burn real-time RSS feeds. Google also crowdsources the internet in a way but it does so seamlessly and, more importantly, privately. When you search for pages on Google and click links, Google learns both what you like (without clicking a button) and also uses this information to target advertisements and even rank pages in your own search results. In the aggregate, this information (your clicks) is used to rank pages.

So, what’s the difference? Facebook has slowly chipped away at users’ privacy. For example, Facebook updates are now public by default. Perhaps Twitter paved the way for that change but it was not a welcomed change by many. Now, Facebook users are being asked to essentially display their internet preferences and browsing history to their “friends” and the general public. The privacy implications of this scheme are profound. Imagine if Google’s Chrome browser or Google.com asked users to opt-in and make their browsing history public (even on a per-click basis). People would be, rightfully so, outraged. Facebook is being raked over the coals by privacy groups and many people who actually understand what is being proposed. However, the cuteness of “Like” concept and the appeal of the Facebook brand have blinded some people from questioning the entire concept. Frankly, I don’t plan on clicking Like buttons and I believe that people should really think critically about the system that is being implemented.

Somewhat uncomfortably, this website has a Facebook button in the upper right. This enables those who click to see posts in their Facebook stream. This button was created long before we were asked to rank the entire internet. It was intended to serve an entirely different purpose and it wouldn’t bother me one bit if you choose to unlike Tech Bottle but follow the posts another way (by e-mail, Buzz, Twitter, RSS readers, etc.). While on the topic of unliking, I have read that unliking something might pluck the logo off of your profile but there will be other ways to determine a user’s past likes. So, if you Liked Coke last week but want a job at Pepsi this week, you might have sunk yourself.

P.S. Another major issue with the Facebook scheme involves sharing your personal information with other Facebook partners across the web. You probably saw a small box about this at the top of your Facebook stream. This is another somewhat confusing change to Facebook and I have opted out of it. I don’t think it is clear what data will be shared and exactly how it will be used. Perhaps I will become more comfortable with a personalized internet and opt-in at some point but for now, I prefer the internet the way it is.

UPDATE: Matt Cutts, a high profile Google employee, just suspended his Facebook account. http://searchengineland.com/matt-cutts-deactivates-facebook-account-40543

You might also enjoy:

--Facebook vs. Google isn’t about Social vs. Search --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Chat Roulette — The Circus of the Internet --Internet Explorer users click ads 5x more often than Google Chrome users [DATA] --Today’s Facebook Privacy #FAIL

Blogging was once seen as a “look at me!” activity involving only the most self-absorbed people. I think that subset, like nearly the rest of world, has moved to Facebook. It’s definitely become the preferred platform for narcissists (but not all Facebookers are narcissists, of course). I considered blogging anonymously back in November and decided against it. I never intended to write anything controversial on Tech Bottle and I didn’t see a need to pretend to be someone else. Although I write under my own name, I blog for the reasons given below (not to draw extreme attention to myself) and I think they’re compelling reasons for people to consider writing a blog.

There are probably around 200 million blogs in the world covering virtually every topic imaginable. I chose technology as my primary theme but some people blog restaurant reviews, photography, travel, karate, knitting (5.6 million Google hits for “knitting blog”), etc.  Last year, I found myself renewing my interest in technology. I like tinkering with computers, mobile phones and other gadgets. Right out of the gate, I knew I’d have fun playing with WordPress and creating the infrastructure for a blog. I’m frequently tinkering with the blog. Also, I found myself talking people’s ears off  in “real life” about technology. I was more interested in these topics than some of the people with whom I associate. I decided to blog to find other people with similar interests (geeks, I suppose) and share my thoughts. I also “mashup” or repost items that I find interesting from other sources with attribution. Between the various social networks, primarily Twitter and Buzz, I have been able to meet people throughout the blogosphere who also share some of my interests. I discovered new blogs to read and we don’t talk each other’s ears off. Blogs are entirely on-demand; you can tune into things that interest you and tune out to things that don’t. The blogosphere is something like the world’s largest newspaper with every blogger serving as his or her own editor-in-chief.

Blogging is a good recession activity. WordPress (start at WordPress.org, not WordPress.com) and other blogging platforms are completely free. Domain names and hosting are cheap. If you’re willing to allocate a little bit of space to advertisers (Google AdSense is pretty easy to set up), you’ll come out ahead even with a modest following. In my first few months of blogging, I’ve covered my annual expenses.

I’ve enjoyed blogging more than I thought I would. If you’re passionate about something or willing to become passionate about something, you’ll likely enjoy blogging too.

You might also enjoy:

--TechBottle Blog Milestone: 25,000 Visits --If you have a website or blog, Get Clicky [Plug] --2009 Blog Stats for Tech Bottle & 2010 Goals

The Apple “lock-down” on the iPad is bad for consumers. The closed App Store that Apple rules with an iron fist is not the future model of computing that I would like to see.

I’ve been reading a lot about the iPad, primarily because that’s all there is to read in the tech world at the moment. In particular, I just read Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo’s post on MSNBC entitled, “ Apple’s iPad is the future. This is why.” It’s a worthy read but the headline suggests that the iPad will conquer the competitors. I hope not. This is why.

Apple products are undoubtedly inventions. When I think of revolutionary inventions, the automobile comes to mind and some analogies are apropos. Think back to the days of Henry Ford. In 1909 he remarked about Ford’s latest invention, the Model T, “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.” This is exactly what Apple is telling us by bolting the iPad to the App Store. Apple also goes one step further and prohibits you from repainting your car. You can only run Apple approved apps, pay commissions to Apple for their app blessings and customize the system within the framework Apple allows. The childhood game of “Mother May I” comes to mind. HackerNews ran a headline that read, “The iPad is a LEGO set that can only be assembled into what’s drawn on the box.”

Would you purchase a computer that could only run software that the hardware manufacturer approves? This is where I believe Apple is heading. The distinction between a tablet and a computer will be blurred as we add peripheral keyboards to tablets. Will the next MacBook support the installation of software?

Android tablets have more appeal to me because they will not be locked-down. You want a red car? You can have a red car. You can customize your system to your heart’s content but there’s a catch. Apple has been on a patent frenzy lately and Apple v. HTC shows that it may attempt to enforce some of them. Will Android tablets have pinch-zoom in the aftermath of Apple v. HTC? Imagine if Henry Ford patented the car stereo. If you wanted one, you’d be forced to drive a black Model T. Toss in patents on floormats, leather seats and virtually anything else slightly innovative. This is Apple’s playbook. They want to control your experience. Some people are willing to make accept the bargain, pay the so-called Apple “tax” mark-up prices and let Apple control their computing experience.

The patent system has its merits and without it companies wouldn’t innovate, so the argument goes. Perhaps the life of patents should be shortened, especially in light of the speed with which technology advances and the profits that companies can reap in such a short period of time. Recovering R&D expense happens over a shorter horizon than it did in the past. Instead, we have a patent system that helped propel a company that was once on the verge of extinction to the third largest U.S. company by market capitalization. Back to the point…

Is the “Apple-makes-decisions-for-you iPad” a product you really want? I’ll go with an Android tablet or just stick to my netbook that runs two linux variants and Windows 7.

You might also enjoy:

--Android alternative to iPad, the Neofonie WePad [Specs] --Apple iPad vs. Adobe — what’s going on and why Adobe is playing the porn card… --iPad Jailbreak happens in under 24 hours; more appealing now? --PC Mag’s Video Review of iPad #betterthanexpected

This is a follow-up post to one I wrote two weeks ago entitled, “Bad News for Blackberry [Survey].” I use a Blackberry Tour and I have been less than satisfied with it. Both the hardware and software disappoint. I have been quite open about my disappointment. Nonetheless, I don’t really have a dog in the fight between mobile platforms but I intend to switch to Android soon, probably on an HTC manufactured phone. Obviously, I haven’t been alone in my whining about the Blackberry platform and Research in Motion generally. However, I was surprised to read Brett Wyman, the founder and owner of BlackberryOS.com, post to his site a searing rant against RIM. He cites the terrible web browser and inadequate app development among the reasons he sees RIM failing in North America.

This is the third time I’ve written this but the only scenario that could save RIM is releasing a industry-leading browser and a shift from installation-based apps to browser-based apps. I don’t think either of these two events will happen within a reasonable period of time. RIM is notoriously slow to release apps and I don’t see the browser project moving along at lightning speed. Its Twitter app development has moved along at galacial speed. It still hasn’t been released, not even in the new beta testing area of the RIM website. Frankly, they should have purchased BitStream a long, long time ago to acquire its BOLT web browser technology.

In the mobile industry news breaks hour by hour and significant advancement in devices occurs every few months. Already, we’re seeing prototypes of 4G phones like the upcoming “Supersonic” HTC Evo 4G. RIM, however, has products in the development WAY too long. People have been talking about Mr. T (the Blackberry Slider) for more than a year. Yet, what do we have? We have some crappy photographs of the phone. When will this product launch? Some have said April. I highly doubt it. It’s supposed to sport a flashy new OS and the new WebKit browser. I can’t imagine RIM having either one ready for the market in time for an April launch. Expect delay, delay, delay… maybe we’ll be
“blessed” with some more crappy photographs along the way. If RIM thinks that will keep users salivating for Blackberry, they’re very wrong.

I think RIM might want to consider a Plan B, specifically the following: ditch your crappy OS for recreational consumers (as opposed to business customers) in favor of Android. This would immediately result in a better browser and better app development. They could try to code a proprietary Blackberry Messenger client for Android. Admittedly, keeping it locked down on RIM-made devices would be difficult. Frankly, I don’t think they have the foresight within the company to go this route but I say, “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Capitalize on the RIM brand but offer the best technology has to offer. It’s something short of plainly giving up but they’re hardly in the running among recreational consumers, as survey data shows. Ardent RIM supporters invested in RIM’s success like Brett Wyman are becoming former RIM fans.

You might also enjoy:

--SocialScope for Blackberry to Support FourSquare --Mini Review: Nimbuzz [Free] for Blackberry… IM/VOIP Client with Facebook Support --Blackberry vs. Android --Switching from Pandora to Slacker (available for Blackberry, iPhone and Android) --Samsung Galaxy Q: Android takes on RIM’s Blackberry [Rumor]

Versatility could be Android’s greatest strength but also its greatest weakness. At this point, Android has only Apple as a significant competitor. Blackberry, Palm and Nokia’s platforms are significantly lagging in app development and mass appeal. All the hype coming out of CTIA revolves around Android and Android alone. As of mid-February, 60,000 Android handsets were shipped per day. Now we’re seeing demos of tablets that run Android, cars based on Android and even home appliances. So, what can be wrong with an operating system this versatile?

Compare Android with Apple which has tightly controlled its user experience. Apple designs the hardware and software. It now rules the App Store with an iron fist. This approach, distasteful to some, has created a consistent user experience. Apple has dominated marketplace in terms of apps and hardware sales (especially if you lump together iPod Touch sales with iPhones). Contrast that with Google’s approach with Android.

Android is primarily an outgrowth of Google’s “openness” doctrine. It’s a way for Google to insure that it can get its advertisements to your eyeballs. The development of Android was ingenious because Google has virtually eliminated the risk of being shut out of the mobile market. While it appears likely to lose the Apple faithful’s eyeballs, it will clearly clean up on the rest of them. The central question remains: Will Android rule the world as Google intends?

Some have criticized Android for “fragmentation,” which means that different handsets are running different versions of Android. While this has been a serious problem, it appears that most newer handsets will launch with Android 2.1 and the underlying OS will be consistent across manufacturers and carriers.

I believe the single biggest threat to Android is simply branding. Unlike Apple, which controls the user experience, Android can be molded into just about anything. The ability to mold Android is a great strength, on the one hand, but a serious weakness, on the other hand. Awful Android hardware is bound to make it to market (like the upcoming Kyocera cheapy phone demoed today at CTIA). Say a person purchases an Android phone with a defective antenna. That person may become soured towards Android even though the fault was unrelated to Android. Or an Android car made in China is known for engine fires, etc.  I’m not saying the public is dumb enough to blame the OS for every hardware failure but this “open” user experience could actually harm the Android brand vis-a-vis a closed Apple-like ecosystem.

Further, the “open” user experience leads to significant inconsistency. When Android is molded, the software can take on completely different forms. A Sense UI experience on an HTC handset varies considerably from an experience on a Sony Xperia 10 which differs from an experience on a Kyocera cheapy phone. This further diminishes the brand.

Android was probably primarily developed to keep the pipeline open between Google services and phones, just as the Chrome browser does on the computer. Nonetheless, the brand remains centrally important to its widespread adoption. This leaves Google in a dilemma. It could regulate the Android experience and regulate the ecosystem (i.e., toss out traditional “openness”). This could lead to better branding and a consistent user experience. Perhaps Google would have better marketshare if it took this approach. However, the “do no evil” company would probably drive up the cost of handsets, alienate the open source community and slow the adoption of the OS in favor of marketshare. Instead, Google chose a completely different approach but primarily out of necessity. It released its own hardware with HTC that satisfied Google employees who rigorously tested the Google Nexus One. It set the bar by which other Android devices are measured. Google wasn’t looking to necessarily outsell the upcoming HTC Incredible, for example. I believe it was simply looking to protect the brand by demoing Android on well designed hardware and avoid regulating the ecosystem it has fought so hard to keep “open.” Think of the Nexus One as the model by which Android should be measured. That’s what Google wants you to do.

You might also enjoy:

--No Nexus Two; Nexus One Major Success for Android, Says Google --Google Nexus One being reviewed in the blogosphere… --Confirmed: Google Nexus One Phone Coming to Verizon in the Spring --Hacker Porting HTC Desire ROM to Google Nexus One Phone… --Where Google is heading… Google Translation for Android

Click to Enlarge

I almost never write about Microsoft products (once or twice I have) but I think Windows Phone 7 Series looks very promising. Maybe the mid-to-late 1990s antitrust issues with Microsoft have permanently soured some towards the company. Are people still bitter that Microsoft effectively killed Netscape? I was recently reminded that a decade has passed. Microsoft could have a different ethos. Afterall, we’re going to get a cloud-based version of Microsoft Office later this year. Who would have thunk it? Windows 7 wasn’t such a disappointment either. One problem with Microsoft is that it still relies on the “old” model. It still primarily sells things in boxes. It doesn’t give things away in expectation of recouping the cost in advertising revenue and good will. Nonetheless, I think if you approach Windows Phone 7 Series objectively and disregard whatever beefs you may have with Microsoft, it looks like a revolutionary, new phone OS. It’s not the dated WinMo that’s been patched and updated over the years. It might do cool things and do them well. We’ll know more after the CTIA this week.

I’m not really sure why I’ve seen 20+ articles dedicated solely to the copy-and-paste issue this past week. Some are writing that Microsoft Windows 7 Series doesn’t have a place in the market. I wish more people would be open-minded about this OS. Favorable reviews won’t mean that Apple, Google and RIM have “lost.” Competition benefits all of us and monopolies often become complacent. If this new phone OS were designed by a start-up, I think we’d see more excitement and fewer people ripping on it. Windows Phone 7 Series looks pretty darn good to me. (I just hope it integrates well with Gmail or I can’t even consider it. :))

You might also enjoy:

--Ubuntu 10.04 instead of Windows 7? [Linux] --Boy Genius himself and phone leaks --New Phone Roundup [Video] --Sprint’s HTC “Supersonic” 4G Phone [Specs] --Luxury TAG Heuer MERIDIIST Phone

Nonetheless, I’m not in the business of predicting stock prices and I want to clarify a remark I recently made about RIM (which included a stock chart for Nasdaq:RIMM). In my post about the Crowd Science survey, I commented:

Perhaps if RIM’s stock is beaten up badly (it still has a market cap of $42B), it could become a takeover target.

While I stand by the remark, I don’t mean to imply that RIM has no hope for the future. RIM is executing a strategy that could work.

As any Blackberry user will tell you, app development for the Blackberry plainly sucks compared to iPhone and Android. I don’t foresee this changing and I don’t think RIM does either. Instead, RIM is betting that mobile apps will be replaced by platform independent mobile web apps. RIM’s energy is focused on its WebKit web browser which was demoed at the MWC 2010. While it wasn’t included in Blackberry OS 5.0, it will almost certainly be a highlight of OS 6.0. Recently, images of the OS 6.0 interface leaked (via BBLeaks.com) which appear to me to be authentic. They include:

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

In my opinion, the biggest take away from the photos is the use of widgets and feeds. Useful widgets could make Blackberry competitive even if traditional app development significantly lags other platforms. Also, current Blackberries have no native support for RSS feeds. In fact, at holiday time, Crackberry.com sponsored a petition to request Google to develop an RSS reader for the Blackberry which evidently failed. If Blackberry had native support for RSS feeds, this would be a huge plus. Many Blackberry users use the very popular Viigo app but it has limitations and cannot run in a widget mode.

RIM is updating its Blackberry Internet Service (BIS) service on March 28th which will, among other things, improve Gmail integration. This is a significant step in the right direction for non-corporate customers.

The leaked photos of the Blackberry Slider (Codenamed “Mr. T”) were poorly received in the Blackberry community but the device could be a surprise success. While the Palm Pre never really lived up to expectations, the Blackberry Slider has a larger screen and better branding. Some are speculating that the device will be released in April. I doubt that it will. As I mentioned before, BGR reported that the Slider has been failing internal testing. RIM employees should be working day and night to work out the problems because many of Verizon’s Blackberry customers, me included, are seriously interested in the Android phones. Both the Nexus One and HTC Incredible will be released for Verizon within the next few weeks. Perhaps I’m stating the obvious: The later the release of the Blackberry Slider, the less likely it is to penetrate the increasingly competitive smartphone market.

In other RIM news, a new Blackberry manufacturing plant will be opened in Latin America soon.

Unlike Palm, which basically curled into the fetal position and died, RIM has a strategy. Its success depends on many factors but it could succeed. I’m not betting money one way or another.

You might also enjoy:

--Blackberry support waning; RIM should make some Android devices --Blackberry vs. Android --Blackberry OS 6.0 Pictured --LinkedIN for Blackberry… Finally! --Bad News for Blackberry [Survey]

65 Google buzzers replied with comments. I commented: “Microsoft is pushing Bing prematurely. Wired ran a very good article about Google which, among other things, compared the accuracy of results between Google and Bing. Bing was pathetic.”  The Wired article is entitled, “Exclusive: How Google’s Algorithm Rules the Web.” In that article, Google’s accuracy is compared with Microsoft Bing’s.

I have no doubt that Google will dominate internet search, perhaps in perpetuity, but this has less to do with the algorithm Google uses than the Wired title suggests. Google is womping the competitors because it has something they don’t… better data and a steady flow of it.  When I say better data, I don’t mean that Google knows about web pages that other search engines don’t (although it’s quite possible). Google search is the smartest around because it has a phenomenal algorithm, no doubt, but also because it has been collecting data generated by humans (clicks) for a very long time. Between the data and the algorithm, Google can predict what content you want to view. In a sense, Google search is the high watermark for artificial intelligence. It can predict human behavior based on a person typing a word or two.

According to the Inside Google special on CNBC, Google saves everything typed into Google indefinitely. Your own search results are identified with your Google account and IP address for a period of 18 months and then anonymized. This information makes Google smarter. Now, a full 20% of Google searches are actually tailored to you and differ from Joe Schmoe’s search results.

Enter Bing.  Bing is an outgrowth of MSN Search.  MSN Search was never a dominant player in the search business. AltaVista, Yahoo and others were Google’s chief competitors. In the early days, search was dominated by who had the biggest map of the internet which was a function of the “spidering” software.  Another factor was the algorithm used to produce results. Google won the search war but it did it by being innovative and leveraging data. It learned if you clicked the what you were looking for and didn’t return to Google for another X seconds.

Microsoft is trying to play catch up. It needs to brand Bing but it also needs Bing to accurately predict what you want to click. How can it accomplish this when Google has virtually monopolized the search market? Maybe spending $2.0B in the UK will bring in $2.0B+ worth of data (clicks). Then again, maybe it won’t.  It will be difficult to leverage this localized data because Google will generate more and arguably better data in the same period of time globally. It’s data where Google excels; even if Bing had precisely the same algorithm and the same map of the web, it would lose the search war on data alone.

Bing’s strategy seems somewhat outside of the box. Colorful graphics and promotions seem to be in Bing’s playbook. These seem like mere window dressing to me. When it comes to getting accurate results, Google wins. It knows what I want to click. Will Bing ever be smart enough to be a viable alternative? I’m not sure but spending $2.0B in advertising off in the U.K. won’t propel it ahead of Google.

You might also enjoy:

--Motorola Droid Wacked Out Advertising

If you haven’t watched the video, I’ll sum it up. Google’s core strength is the search business. Google wants to be branded indelibly as the map for the internet. (It didn’t pick the Parisian Love Superbowl advertisement by accident.) Up until now, Google crawled the web to map it. The map was periodically (but not continually) updated. Some sites refreshed daily, some hourly and some nearly instantaneously. Now, more and more, consumers are looking for instantaneous news and communication. Google Buzz was created primarily to bring content to Google instead of the present model of crawling the wires to update Google’s map of the web.

The Twitter Argument

If you want breaking news, you can find it on Twitter and find it faster than anywhere else because all major news outlets bring content to Twitter. Twitter is the king of real-time news. Twitter doesn’t crawl for anything. Google got very lucky recently when it inked a non-exclusive deal to index Twitter. (Microsoft did too.) Although little is known about the contract, the rumor is that Twitter received a combined $25 million for the indexing deals (which, in turn, put Twitter in the black for 2009). This is a threat to Google for a variety of reasons. First, the contract may not be renewed or could go exclusively to Microsoft in the future. Also, the entire Twitter company could fall into unfriendly hands. Google does not like relying on any company that may not commit itself to “openness.” Second, Google probably paid more for the Twitter contract than it cost Google to build its own Twitter-like service, Google Buzz. Third, Google Buzz is virtually guaranteed to be more successful than Twitter due to the tie-in with Gmail which has an installed active user-base of approximately 174 million regular users.

Why Facebook Isn’t a Serious Threat Yet

Facebook has yet to challenge Google’s model of mapping the web. While you can do rudimentary web searches through Facebook, nobody does. Facebook is not populated with the same real-time news content as Twitter. This trend is shifting with the growing number of fan pages and professional accounts but up until now Facebook was simply a place to crack a joke to a large crowd, post pictures of kids or invite people to a party.

HOWEVER, Facebook could easily become a serious threat. It is among the most sticky of all websites. It has an installed user-base of over 400 million users. If it made a serious push to have meaningful content come to Facebook (news outlets, blogs, etc.), it could challenge Google’s efforts to be the best map of the internet perpetually.

Predictions

Twitter will get wiped off the map by Google Buzz. It may continue to exist in a MySpace-like state. Some lesser player could buy it or it might have a weak IPO. The real fight will be Google vs. Facebook but that’s on the horizon and will only occur if Facebook makes a meaningful effort to map the web. The scariest scenario for Google would be Microsoft and Facebook uniting forces. Bing plus Facebook could mount a meaningful long-term challenge to Google. Keep in mind that Microsoft already has a small piece of Facebook. So, Google isn’t simply looking for a piece of the social networking business. It is also playing defense to keep its dominance in mapping the world’s information.

You might also enjoy:

--TweetDeck terrific for Facebook, no need to espouse Twitter --If you missed Buzz this week… all the buzz is about… Buzz. --Google Buzz: Effects on the Blogosphere and Digital Media --Google Buzz deserves a second chance --Google Buzz — Complaints and Suggestions

Photo courtesy of IntoMobile via TheFlashBlog via Wired

Despite the silliness, there’s a real war being waged here with a significant amount of money at stake. Apple makes a ton of money off of the App Store. If it allowed developers access to the iPad through Adobe Flash, they could circumvent the App Store and target consumers through the browser. (This is the route Google is going with HTML versions of Google Voice for the iPhone after being shut out from the App Store.) It’s no secret that Adobe wants Flash-based games to be the future in mobile device gaming. Google (yeah, I always tie things into Google), on the other hand, supports fully open operating systems. At the inaugural showing of the Google Nexus One, Google made it clear that the Nexus One will have native flash support in the future.

This difference in approaches leaves consumers in a quandary. On the one hand, Apple is the great innovator but rules it devices with an iron first. On the other hand, Google is not a hardware innovator but allows consumers significant choice. It seems like most consumers are wooed by innovation these days. Google sorely needs hardware innovation like being the first to offer an RFID equipped phone because choice plus innovation could dethrone Apple in the mobile phone arena. And, from Google’s perspective, the sooner the better. It’s going to be tough to compete with 100,000 Apple app developers and a few million apps in the App Store.

[inspired by IntoMobile]

You might also enjoy:

--Adobe sentiment: “Go Screw Yourself Apple.” --The iPad “Lock-Down” is Bad for Consumers --Android alternative to iPad, the Neofonie WePad [Specs] --Pre-Release Device Photos … Mobile Phone “Porn” --Google Checkout Credit Card Processing Goes Down

Unless you were born yesterday (which would really suck because of its proximity to Christmas), you already know that Google is fundamentally an advertising company. In 2008, Google generated over $21 billion dollars in revenue and over 95% of that revenue was generated by Google’s Adwords program. Year end numbers for 2009 will probably be at least as impressive. Google’s success, however, depends on it not remaining simply an advertising company.

The Google Revenue Equation Explained

Google makes money when someone clicks on sponsored web search result or an advertisement placed elsewhere by Google (like the advertisements to the right of this text). I emphasize the word “clicks” because the mere fact an advertisement displays does not, itself, generate any revenue for Google. The Google Adwords program only charges the advertiser if someone clicks on the advertisement. Similarly, Google’s Adsense program, the system that pays websites to display Google advertisements, only pays websites if the Google-placed advertisements displayed are actually clicked.

The Google “Revenue Equation” is really no secret: the more people online and the more time they spend online the more revenue Google generates. The reason this has held true (around $20 billion true in 2008) is that Google dominates online search and online advertising and many people click advertisements occasionally.

Problems with the Google Revenue Equation

Google relies heavily on its success in mapping and organizing the web via its proprietary search engine technology to generate revenue. While I do not know the breakdown of advertising revenue from *.google.com sites and other sites, I suspect that the vast majority of Google’s revenue is generated by sponsored search results and other advertisements on *.google.com. This is problematic because web searches are becoming less and less relevant to many web users.

First, there are other ways to satisfy curiosity, research and find relevant information–Wikipedia phenomenon. Any aggregator of information draws people away from Google’s web search. If you want a tidbit of information (ranging from the cast of a television show to information about aerospace), Wikipedia is a very good starting point. The footnotes can direct you to other websites, often more authoritative and more comprehensive than Wikipedia itself. Google is entirely shut out. However, it would be fair to point out that most Wikipedia pages are probably assembled with the assistance of Google’s search engine. But, keep in mind that there are far more readers of Wikipedia pages than there are authors. Although it is difficult to label Wikipedia a competitor of Google’s (Wikipedia is a 501(c)(3) under the tax code and presently generates more than 50% of its traffic from Google searches), it draws traffic away from traditional search engines. Again, any aggregator of information draws people away from Google’s web search.

Second, “sticky” social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are drawing people away from websites that generate money for Google. Not only are more and more people joining these sites, many spend an increasing percentage of their online time on these sites. Furthermore, these sites are also becoming portals for real-time news reports, Twitter especially. Most major newspapers tweet breaking news and links to their news stories. Many blogs, including this one, generate more traffic from Twitter than from Google searches. As social networking sites add features, they also draw people away from some Google properties. For example, some people rely heavily on Facebook and Twitter for private messages and rely less on Gmail.

Third, newbies rely more heavily on Google’s search than experienced web users. Newbies often do not know where to begin or how to find content that will interest them. Experienced web users have found their favorite sticky websites and use bookmarks and favorites to organize them. I would argue that the attractiveness of running a broad-based web search diminishes substantially as a person spends more time online (an inherent problem in the Google Revenue Equation). Many people would rather search their favorite sites or specialized sites that have information that they find interesting. Also, I contend that newbies are more likely to click on advertisements than experienced web users for the reasons cited above and out of confusion. Accordingly, newbies are worth more to Google than experienced web users.

Fourth, a bubble could develop in the online advertising market. While there is unlikely to be a shift away from online advertising to other forms of advertising, the ROI for online advertising may become more transparent to advertisers in the future and some may choose not to invest heavily in online advertising. If this occurs, it would have a material effect on Google’s revenue.

Wait, Google’s Not Run by Dummies!

Google is is keenly aware of how to generate revenue and constantly and shrewdly diversifying.

First, Google is attempting to rely less heavily on the Google Revenue Equation. Google is successfully marketing to businesses and governmental entities its web-centric, cloud properties like Google Docs, Google Calendar, Gmail and other business tools as a replacement for hosted servers and Microsoft products. In doing so, Google seeks to generate a higher percentage of its overall revenue (something north of 5%) from non-advertising sources.

Second, Google is trying to bring the web to newbies, those that produce the most revenue for Google. Chrome OS is fundamentally all about bringing the web to people who either do not know how to use computers and/or do not have the need for sophisticated standalone software. It would be ideal for children, senior citizens who are not tech savvy and the developing world. First, it will be easy to use. It is simply a web browser–nothing more and nothing less. Second, it can run on very inexpensive hardware, thus bringing more people online. (Rumor has it that Google sent out an RFP to leading netbook manufacturers to mass manufacture a basic notebook that can run Chrome OS. I believe that Google can significantly profit by giving away (literally gratis) cheap Chrome OS netbooks to newbies.)

Third, Google is attempting to create its own sticky properties and acquire sticky properties. Orkut is a social networking site owned by Google but it has been a almost a complete failure (except in Brazil where it is the dominant online social network, I recall reading).

Google Wave could become a sticky property. First, Google Wave is Wiki-like, potentially drawing traffic away from sites like Wikipedia. Second, it has the potential to compete with social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. Google Wave, however, is more difficult to understand and use than other forms of communication.

Google has sought to acquire sticky properties, most recently Yelp. I would expect Google to spend a significant percentage of its coffers on purchasing sticky properties. This will be a difficult path to pursue, however. Already, Google is encountering antitrust resistance to acquisitions. (We learned this week that Google is drawing FTC scrutiny of Google acquiring AdMob. This hints at what regulators think of Google making acquisitions, although AdMob is an advertising company, like Google.) Maybe Google will make a bid for Facebook one day? One hurdle, perhaps insurmountable, would be antitrust regulatory concerns under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. Going with the Facebook hypothetical, Google could be on somewhat better legal ground, oddly enough, if it had never deployed Orkut.

Fourth, Google is trying to capitalize on real-time news and indexing of social networking sites. Not so long ago, Google inked a deal with Twitter to incorporate real-time Twitter results into its web search engine. Also, as it did with Google Finance, Google is experimenting with streaming real-time results.

Fifth, Google is actively looking for content that it can sell to subscribers. Google is seeking to add premium content to YouTube, including first run television shows which would stream without commercials. It faces stiff competition in this area from Apple which is aggressively pursuing major outlets for content deals.

Sixth, Google is diversifying away from the keyboard and web searches. Google is quite seriously entering the mobile devices arena (phones and tablets), not only by programming the Android OS but also by manufacturing the upcoming Google Nexus One handset. Google is looking to dominate voice transmission; Google Voice is simply the tip of the iceberg. Google acquired a VOIP provider this year and will roll out a Skype-like service which will integrate with Google Voice. When phone number porting is added to this equation, Google will be a juggernaut in the transmission of voice.

Bottom Line

Google is an advertising company and the Google Revenue Equation is ingenious and simple. However, Google’s success depends heavily on proactively pursuing revenue that is generated by other means. This clearly appears to be Google’s approach. Again, Google’s not run by dummies.

[Credit: Ben Parr, Co-Editor of Mashable, in his July 11, 2009 post entitled "The Google Revenue Equation, and Why Google’s Building Chrome OS," introduced me to the basics of the Google Revenue Equation.]

You might also enjoy:

--Google testing allowing some users to login to multiple Google accounts; Thank You! --Where Google is heading… Google Translation for Android --Google Diversification, Search Fading? --What Google could do to whip iTunes [Wired.com article] --Google Chrome OS World — Winners & Losers in the Paradigm Shift

Security and the “Public” Computer

The personal computer will become the public computer. Given the hardened security of Chrome OS (it repairs itself if it detects a problem and software cannot be installed), there’s virtually no threat to publicly available Chrome OS machines. I suppose the two primary threats are two-fold: online phishing scams and “cuckoo egg” machines (you heard it here first, I don’t know what else to call them).

Online phishing scams are not unique to public computers. They’re threats every web user faces and, with some minimal degree of security consciousness, can be avoided. Perhaps DNS redirects, like the one that hit Twitter the other night could compromise user data as well, e.g., if the redirect target is part of an elaborate phishing scam. But, in any event, they do not compromise a public Chrome OS computer.

A “cuckoo” egg machine, as I use the term, is something that has the look and feel of a Chrome OS machine but actually has a rogue OS installed. It’s a variation on the phishing scam but one that could be a more serious problem. Imagine a machine that boots like Chrome OS and harvests Gmail logins (which serve as user accounts on Chrome OS) and corresponding passwords. If installed in a public place, this could be a big problem… much worse than ATM hacks. Hardware manufacturers might be able to create machines incapable of running another OS. This would be a significant step in preventing the cuckoo egg attack; although, someone hell-bent on carrying out this scheme could invest in look-alike hardware.

In any event, Chrome OS will be the most hardened of all computer OSs, thus making it the best candidate for a “public computer.” Microsoft Windows machines in hotel lobbies will be replaced (and quite rapidly) with Chrome OS machines.

Yes, Google will manufacture (or outsource the manufacturing) of Chrome OS machines and will install them in public places… unfettered use will be completely free.

This is a no-brainer for Google. Keep in mind Google’s revenue equation. 97% of its revenue is generated by online advertising. Google’s revenue equation is time online generates money for Google. The more people online and the more time they spend online, the more revenue Google generates. We donate our eyes and our clicks and receive Google products for free.

Google is sitting on more than USD$20,000,000,000 (that’s 20 billion if you don’t want to count zeros) in cash. A Chrome OS computer could be manufactured for $150 or less, perhaps much less. I am writing on a netbook that sold at a discounted retail price of $200. It can run Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.10 and, yes, Chrome OS easily. Chrome OS is very light on resources. It’s basically just a Chrome browser!

Say Google installed a bank of Chrome OS public computers in an airport. Assume further that from time to time someone clicks on a Google ad. Even assuming that this happens infrequently, say once per hour, Google recoups the cost of the machine very quickly. I don’t have each figures on the average revenue generated by an individual click on a Google ad. In general, I know the range is wide because I have been an Google Adwords customer in the past and know that some keywords are cheap and others can be expensive. In any event, assume the average revenue generated by an individual click is $0.50 (could be disclosed in Google’s SEC reports). So, these are our variables… $0.50/hour generated on a machine that is manufactured for $150… in 300 hours (12.5 days!) the Chrome OS machine is profitable and the rest is pure gravy. The Chrome OS machine would generate $3,480 in revenue per year. The profit on the investment would be ($3,480-$150)/$150… 2,220% profit in one year on each Chrome OS machine that generates a single Adwords click per hour. Each Chrome OS machine basically prints money for Google!

Say my assumptions are way off.  Maybe by a factor of 24 on Adwords clicks (if for example, in the unlikely event Bing becomes popular or some shift occurs in online activity)… so, each Chrome OS machine generates $0.50 per day (obviously a gross underestimate–even a public payphone could still generate more than $0.50 per day) and we continue to assume that each machine costs $150. The machine would still be profitable after 300 days, less than a year.

What’s being left out of this equation?

Wifi/wiring/connectivity expense. Google is already giving away Wifi at airports. This is a sunken cost, in economic terms, and many facilities would adsorb the cost. This is already the case with free Wifi in many public places (coffee shops, fast food restaurants, hotels, libraries, etc.). Google could simply say that if any establishment will provide free Wifi, Google will donate Chrome OS machines.

Shipping and installation expense. Certainly this would be less than a $20 per Chrome OS machine, which hardly throws off the numbers. Also, Google could redeploy machines to maximize profits… from the library to the airport or vice versa at times.

Opportunity cost. Would these clicks occur without Google installing a Chrome OS machine? Well, yes, sometimes and no, sometimes. Maybe someone would be clicking from home instead of clicking in the coffee house. But in cases like airports and basically anywhere computers would be used and aren’t currently being used there’s enormous profit potential.

Theft/Blackmarket. Google might able to remotely disable a Chrome OS machine. Even if it couldn’t, would Google care if someone stole one and hocked it on eBay? As long as the Chrome OS machine is used and generates revenue, who cares?

Back the Original Point

The fact that Google wants to simplify the user-switch feature in Chrome OS and speed up the process suggests to me that this OS is being tweaked for public places. Why? Because Google absolutely will install or donate Chrome OS machines in very large numbers very soon.

Google needs to continue to “own” the web for this plan to succeed … but that’s true whether or not they give away the Chrome OS machines. Google needs to compete with upstarts and continue to generate revenue through online advertising.

P.S. $20,000,000,000 (Google’s cash on-hand) divided by $150 (cost per machine) is equal to 13.3 million Chrome OS machines.

You might also enjoy:

--Ubuntu Netbook Remix vs. Google Chrome OS [Netbooks] --Chrome OS Netbooks Arrive in June --Why Google won’t have antitrust issues with Chrome OS… --Google Chrome OS World — Winners & Losers in the Paradigm Shift --Try Google Chrome OS Now… Stratus0s

My Experience

As discussed, Chrome OS is just a boot up to a linux version of the Chome browser (and a very old version… no bookmark sync, extensions or fancy stuff). There’s no flashy boot screen yet (or shutdown screen? … nobody can seem to figure out how to shutdown the OS from within the gdgt build). It does show some promise… especially for Google. Logins are Gmail.coms. If you want to run it, you need to register with Google. Your entire experience in Chrome OS is essentially Google-centric.

Google’s Playbook

This is what I speculate is Google’s playbook: Step 1: Chrome OS is designed for getting people online who aren’t current online. I’m thinking senior citizens, young children and people with insignificant means like some in the developing world. Google just wants more eyeballs and clicks. Viewing and clicking ads are Google’s revenue equation. 97% of Google’s revenue is generated through advertising. Maybe the Chrome OS boot up screen and shutdown screen will be prime property for advertising one day (your undivided attention for a full 5 seconds or so). How much would an advertiser pay to be on every Chrome OS boot screen or shutdown screen for an entire day? Or break it up and target the ads to certain demographics. This will make Super Bowl advertising look like child’s play. I read today some speculation that Google could give away Android-based Nexus One smartphones and profit by bringing more people into the Google world. If that’s even within the realm of possibility, giving away low-end Chrome OS  netbooks seems even more plausible. Step 2: As the gateway drug to the web, more companies will focus on web-based apps or die. When this occurs, many computer users will only need Chrome OS.

Antitrust Issues

The developer build of Chrome OS that I installed comes pre-installed with links to Microsoft Hotmail and Yahoo Mail. These links are probably provided not to spread the adoption of Chrome OS but to alleviate the antitrust concerns that bad boy Microsoft created in the mid-1990s when it tied Internet Explorer to Windows, thus “suffocating” Netscape. But, this makes me ponder… what if the OS is the browser and only the browser? That is the essence of Chrome. Want to run Firefox? You can’t. Want to run Internet Explorer? No way. This differs from the Microsoft fiasco in a number of relevant ways.

First, Microsoft already had market dominance. Almost every PC came pre-installed with Windows or was designed specifically to run it. Chrome OS has zero percent market share. Google is doing a “reverse Microsoft”… like building Internet Explorer first and a crippled Windows second.

Second, Chrome OS is absolutely free. Google is giving it away. If you want Firefox or Internet Explorer, you can strip Chrome OS off your computer and load a different OS. In some cases, this may not be possible if your netbook doesn’t have sufficient specs to run a different OS. Keep in mind that Chrome OS is designed to run on as little as possible and really cheap netbooks may be manufactured that can essentially run Chrome OS and Chrome OS alone.

Third, we now live in a web-centric computing environment. Software has been replaced, essentially, with web apps and that’s where Google dominates. In the Microsoft case, Netscape needed access to the desktop. (For the legal types, think Otter Tail Power Company vs. United States.) Without adequate access, a company would be extinguished. Notably, we’re seeing the web-centric shift in the mobile platform too. I’ve recently read that some significant app developers disgusted with Apple’s App Store are now programming exclusively in HTML5 to get to the mobile market through the browser. Installation is being replaced with bookmarks and favorites. That’s the future of both computing and mobile devices.

Fourth, Google has the “do no evil” motto and I believe it…  but, more importantly, regulators believe it. The Google’s revenue equation just has to stay popular. With whom? Computer users, the voting public, elected officials and regulators. Google is branding the company in the best way possible. Most people pay nothing for Google services and enjoy them immensely.  What about free wifi in airports? Travelers love it.

So, I don’t really see a showdown between Google and government over Chrome OS and antitrust issues. Privacy is where the showdown will be and I’ll save that for another day.

Final Remarks

Google just has to avoid becoming bad boy Microsoft to reign supreme. Chrome OS is a significant component in the ingenious Google strategy. It’s not just a weak alternative to Windows. Donate your eyes and clicks and enjoy.

You might also enjoy:

--Chrome OS Netbooks — Hell Yes, Google will give away computers. --Google Chrome OS World — Winners & Losers in the Paradigm Shift --Try Google Chrome OS Now… Stratus0s --Google Chrome OS Business-Style in 2011 --Chrome OS World Weakest Link… Google Docs

FourSquare is already gaining steam amongst geeks and non-geeks alike. It’s a located-based service that allows users to check in at various locations using their cellphones, earn points and even become the “Mayor” of some locations. Back in July, Jennifer Van Grove at Mashable.com suggested that FourSquare could become the next Twitter and earlier this month Pete Cashmore said on CNN.com that located-based apps will rule 2010. FourSquare apps are already available for Android and iPhone. A Blackberry app is in the works. Rumor has it that SocialScope’s alpha now supports FourSquare. While it certainly looks promising for FourSquare…

…what will happen when some hacks the service to win a double porterhouse at the best steak place in town? That’s where I think this service could be heading… thus, ruining it for the folks who are simply looking for a way to integrate their online social networks with their real social networks and earn cool prizes at the same time.

FourSquare relies on a cellphone GPS capabilities to send location information. Spoofing your longitude and latitude from a cellphone probably isn’t that difficult. There were 290 FourSquare check-ins at the DEFCON Hacker Conference this year. Presumably, it’s on the hacker radar. No longer will it be about getting “root” access to a computer.  It will be about chowing on the best double porterhouse.

Location can be reported a number of different ways. While GPS is one method, unique QR Codes could be generated at various locations that encode data (up to 2,953 bytes). The problem here is that someone could merely snap a photo of the QR Code and post it up to TwitPic for everyone else to enjoy. Perhaps RFID tags will be used when RFID reader cellphones are released. Rumors are swirling that the next-gen iPhone will sport RFID readers.  Perhaps that would provide the highest level of security for located-based apps like FourSquare. Keep in mind that many corporations rely on RFID technology for swipe cards in the workplace.  RFID tags could also be combined with GPS or QR Codes to even better protect the double porterhouse.

Maybe FourSquare (and whatever follows… some say Google’s QR Code system is a precursor to a competing product) knows what they’re doing and the system will be protected. But, keep in mind that as the prizes for Mayors improve, the likelihood that someone will cheat the system rises. I think the vast majority of FourSquarers are looking to simply have fun, locate friends and brag about being Mayor of their favorite haunts. Nonetheless, a few bad apples could destroy the rewards system unless FourSquare stays a step ahead.

You might also enjoy:

--Harvard partners with FourSquare --SocialScope for Blackberry to Support FourSquare --FourSquare for iPhone & Android (Blackberry Beta App Very Soon) --Blackberry users can all check-in with FourSquare

• Google Voice and 1-800-GOOG-411 collect voice samples which Google can transcribe to text. Google Voice is capable of transcribing both English and Chinese.
• Google also has extensive text translation services.  For a long time, the search engine could translate web pages to another language. Google just added translation services to its popular RSS reader, Google Reader.
• Google quietly just launched its own dictionary today.

Put the pieces together. Google knows the meaning of what a person says (at least in English and Chinese).  As Google Voice rolls out to the rest of the world and accumulates enough data about other languages, it will be capable of translating other languages.

Why would Google provide such a service? Google owns all the pieces already. It fits their motto of managing the world’s information and facilitating communication. I won’t go as far as to predict an ETA but I think it is a near certainty this translation service is in the works.

You might also enjoy:

--Android Monster – HTC Scorpion heading to Verizon [Rumor] --Google Android in Your Car’s Dashboard --Why Google Visual Search for Android is Ingenious… --Apple iPhone dual-booting Google Android… Really. [Video] --Android too Versatile? Google’s Response: Nexus One

The revisions specifically regulate certain blogger endorsements. The relationship between the blogger and the advertiser must be conspicuously and fully disclosed if it falls within the Guides’ definition of “endorsement.” Furthermore, the advertiser and the blogger are subject to liability for misrepresentations made by the blogger.

What is an “endorsement”?

Postings by a blogger who is paid to speak about an advertiser’s produce will be covered by the Guides, whether the blogger is paid directly or by a third party (like a PR firm) on behalf of the marketer.  The donation of a free product to a blogger may bring the blogger’s statements within the FTC’s definition of “endorsement.”  A blogger who purchases a product with his or her own money and praises it on a blog or message board will not be considered an endorsement covered by the Guides.

According to the FTC, the “fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the [blogger] is such that the [blogger’s] statement can be considered ‘sponsored’ by the advertiser and therefore an ‘advertising message.’”  This is an analysis that must be made on according to the facts and circumstances of the situation and include: (a.) whether the blogger is compensated by the advertiser or its agent; (b.) whether the product or service was provided for free by the advertiser; (c) the terms of any agreement; (d) the length of the relationship; (e) the previous receipt of products or services from the same or similar advertisers or the likelihood of future receipt of such products or services; and (f) the value of the items or services received.  The relationship between the blogger and advertiser could be compromised, according to the Guides, by the receipt of a single high-priced item.

If a blogger frequently receives products from manufacturers because he or she is known to have wide readership within a particular demographic group that is the manufacturer’s target market, the blogger’s statements are likely to be deemed “endorsements.”

What’s the Penalty?  Will the FTC enforce the revised Guides?

Media was abuzz about the $11,000 per occurrence penalty. Kudos to Jennifer Vilaga at FastCompany.Com for inquiring with the FTC about the intended enforcement of the revised Guides. According to Richard Cleland, Asssistant Director, Division of Advertising Practices at the FTC, “the $11,000 penalty is not true.”  Instead, he reported to Vilaga, “Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law. To the extent that I have seen and heard, people are not objecting to the disclosure requirements but to the fear of penalty if they inadvertently make a mistake. That’s the thing I don’t think people need to be concerned about. There’s no monetary penalty, in terms of the first violation, even in the worst case. Our approach is going to be educational, particularly with bloggers. We’re focusing on the advertisers: What kind of education are you providing them, are you monitoring the bloggers and whether what they’re saying is true?” Assistant Director Cleland also remarked: “we’re going to rely more on voluntary compliance than prosecution.”

No related posts.

Brief Introduction

Chrome OS will initially be an alternate OS for netbook computers.  It will boot up fast, load the Google Chrome browser and do nothing more.  You will not have the ability to install additional software.  This benefits Google because, as Parr points out, Google reaps profits from people spending more time online.  Chrome OS promotes an entirely “webcentric” computing experience.  Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Wave, Google Docs, etc. will be the replacements for programs like Microsoft’s Office suite. Furthermore, most information will be stored online in the cloud.  If this shift occurs and Chrome OS eventually finds its way from netbooks to computers, I predict the following classes of winners and losers.

Industry Winners

1. Google wins and wins big.  Google has the best map for the web in its search engine and some of the very best webcentric applications.  Figuratively speaking, Google owns the web.

2. Companies that provide access to the web or own the underlying infrastructure.  Although competition will increase, the dominant players should benefit.

3. Sites that generate views and retain interest (“sticky” sites).  Facebook is a prime example.  Recently valued at around $9.5 billion, Facebook draws more people into the web and it probably among the stickiest of websites.  Companies like Facebook benefit in the same fashion as Google, through advertising revenue.

4. Content providers capable of producing sticky content.  Talented writers, reporters and bloggers serve to benefit by either publishing their own content or selling their services to sites.

5. Programmers who produce webcentric applications.

6.  Some low-end device manufacturers.  As more people shift to cloud computing and the Chrome OS, computers that are somewhat underpowered by today’s standards will be in demand.  Many computers will basically be “dumb terminals” merely capable of launching a browser, displaying pictures and streaming media.

Industry Losers

1.  Microsoft.  Microsoft lives and dies by the sales of software in boxes.  Remember, in Chrome OS, software cannot be installed.  Microsoft has very few webcentric properties and applications.  Nobody “Bings.”  The only somewhat serious webcentric utility Microsoft has is Hotmail/Live Mail which lags far behind Gmail in features.

2. Companies that piggyback on Microsoft sales.  Good examples are companies that write anti-virus software for Windows.

3.  Almost any software company that sells discs in boxes.  These companies will need to reprogram their applications to be entirely web-based or face extinction.

4.  Eventually high-end device mass manufacturers.  Probably for many years some industries will need to rely on software that can be installed.  The CAD industry, graphic designers (currently no suitable replacement exists for Adobe Photoshop in the webcentric world) and other technical software.  When these products become available in the webcentric world, only dumb terminals will be needed.

5. Companies that manufacture data storage for anyone but content providers, hard drive manufacturers specifically.  In the webcentric world, data is stored in the cloud.

6.  Old media (like print and radio which are already dying a slow death) and possibly cable television. In the webcentric world, everything is on-demand. As internet speeds increase, Chrome OS will be the vehicle through which users find content to enjoy. Content providers slow to adapt and provide all of their content through a browser will suffer.

Consumers Could Win

Consumers could benefit from a webcentric world.  Chrome OS is free.  Low-end hardware will be less expensive because devices will not be pre-packaged with Windows and there will be more demand for low-end hardware.  Competition in the access to the web will drive down the cost of access (driven in part by cellular companies and free Wifi spots).

Businesses may benefit.  Initially, there will be costs to revamp networks to run a webcentric system.  In the end, businesses may only have to pay for cloud expenses–online storage and perhaps online processing.  No more expensive servers.

Consumers Could Lose

The cloud could fail.  You could lose important information, all of it.  Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy and rewind will need to be prevalent in the webcentric world.

Google could “Go Rogue.”  Although highly unlikely, Google could begin charging for anything and everything at any rates it deems appropriate. Keep in mind that the Sherman Antitrust Act, the primary antitrust act in the U.S. used to regulate anti-competition, only applies to restraints on trade. Merely increasing prices (from free to the-sky-is-the-limit) is part of the capitalist system and not regulated.  Google has, thus far, avoided antitrust discipline because it has not engaged in any prohibited anticompetitive conduct. Perhaps legislators would keep a potentially “rogue” Google in check.

Become an Early Adopter?

If you want to try the webcentric world today, simply boot up your computer and delete everything but the browser.  Chances are good that you could accomplish most of what you want to do on the computer.  This could be where we are heading.

P.S. Follow up article.

You might also enjoy:

--Chrome OS World Weakest Link… Google Docs --Mobile World Congress Feb. 15-18… Rumors and More --Why Google won’t have antitrust issues with Chrome OS… --Google Chrome OS Business-Style in 2011 --Chrome OS Netbooks — Hell Yes, Google will give away computers.

If you kicked the tires in Google Wave, you might have also noticed the image to the right which shows some ghosted options for transferring files to a wave.  There are similar options under images, some of which are not ghosted.  This prompted me to consider storage capacity for waves, particularly public waves.  Presumably, Google is not planning on allowing people unlimited wave storage. Gmail doesn’t.

So, assuming they implement a quota system, how would that work?  You create a wave.  Your friends dump files and videos into it.  They are stored in the wave, I believe.  Who owns the wave for quota purposes?  Specifically, I was thinking about public waves.  I create a wave about the latest gadget and 40 people upload HD videos into the wave.  Are they counted against my quota?  Alternatively, are those videos stored outside of the wave in their own directories?  If so, what happens to the wave if they delete the HD videos?  Placeholders?

You might also enjoy:

--Want Your Google Wave Invitation? More Coming in “Weeks.” Suggestions. --Google Wave Survey — Kudos to Team — Aware and Listening --Brief How-To: Google Wave — E-mail Notifications --Google Wave team at it again… soliciting your feedback --Mozilla Labs Raindrop (Efficiency) vs. Google Wave (Revolution)