What's After Google?

It all made me think, though, that storage and searchability are huge battlefronts in the future of 'net culture. In the world of search, Google is inadequate and even if it were adequate it doesn't make sense to give it so much power. My guess is that there will be, there should be eventual search engine models that work in different ways. Maybe even search engines that mirror our various perspectives a little bit. Either that, or materials will be grouped and archived in places that make them easier to search in a more specific and nuanced and efficient way than the Google page-rank system.

Over the course of the semester, we've spent a great deal of time looking at Google, its model and its implications. However, in the end, we only really scratched the surface of what Google is and what it could be. The above quote, from one of Colin's posts earlier this week, made me wonder what exactly is going to challenge Google to really innovate? Is anything going to or will Google become the next Microsoft, become complacent, put out second rate products content to only change minor issues until they really drop a true bomb and are forced to reassess?

It's fairly obvious that Google has figured out how to maximize the internet better than just about anyone else. If you think this isn't true, I'd like for you to explain to me how Google continues to put out products that people flock to (i.e. Gmail, Wave, Earth, Maps, etc.) almost compulsively. Watching the fervor over Google Wave invites has become almost comical. As soon as someone lets others know that they have an allotment, people immediately jump at the opportunity. I'm not even sure if these people who want a Wave invite even know what they're getting into or what they'll use Wave for. They just want to be a part of the excitement of the new cutting edge Google product. I'm probably as guilty as others when it comes to this but in my defense, I've been spending some serious time figuring out what Wave can do to help make my life easier.

I remember the craziness that followed the release of Windows 95. Midnight openings, lines out the store, general insanity. That was for an OS, something that a lower end computer user might not be able to fully understand the differences between A and B. For the cool concept programs that Google is slinging around, it's no wonder that the nerds and techies are losing their shits. The question is whether Google can keep it up.

If not, what happens? Ultimately, someone or something is going to have to come along and light a fire under Google by putting out a superior product that excites users. Microsoft is trying this with Bing with mixed results. Alexa has got it as the 20th most popular site on the web right now, which given it short lifespan thus far, is pretty impressive. Yet, who are these people that use it? Outside of it's initial release, during which commercials were everywhere, I haven't had a single conversation with someone where they've even mentioned Bing, much less suggested I use it. Microsoft advertises Bing as being the first "decision engine", suggesting that Bing can make choices for you. It's an interesting idea but I don't really see how it's being implemented on the site. Bing's searches are roughly the same as Google's and their search results pages are alittle more cluttered. I'm not sure whether it's just my being used to Google or what, but I'd much rather continue to use that as opposed to making the jump.

Still, the idea of a "decision engine" seems like a step in the right direction. Even the most adept Google searchers have moments of frustration trying to find the info you desire. There is a lot of stuff out there and it can be tough going at times. With a search that helps to point you towards sites that it'll think you'll like, it could eliminate a number of headaches. However, given the uproar earlier this year about cookies, how that site would know your browsing habits is a tough question, one that I don't have the answer to. I suppose that a search engine could link into a social network, given the user's permission, and determine interests that way but once again, I'm not sure I want to be searching for information and only being given what I already have an interest in, back.

This is why I'm not a computer programmer and it's why I would have failed during the .com boom. I don't have enough foresight to predict the future or think of the next biggest thing. I'd like to think that when something comes down the pipe, I can identify them but to think it up from scratch, that's a different story.

What do you think comes after Google (something will)? Maybe that isn't the best way to phrase the question since nothing has come "after" Microsoft seeing as how the big M is still rocking. Perhaps the better way to ask it is, what will out-Google Google? Who'll one up the kings of the internet as this still relatively young technology continues to grow?

Quick Twitter Thought

Avatar, James Cameron's first film since Titanic, had initial screenings last night. However, since the film has what is known as a review embargo, no critic is supposed to post or release his/her initial reviews until a specified day, which for Avatar is the day of release. As a result, true "reviews" are few and far between with most writers attempting to stay on the studio's (20th Century Fox) good side. Twitter messages, however, are abundant and it seems as if one of the larger news services, Reuters, is picking that up as their story:

"If initial reviews and Twitter buzz are any indication, it may be money well spent for film studio 20th Century Fox."

"Twitter lit up with comments from journalists leaving the tightly guarded premiere. "James Cameron is a freakin' genius! I can't say much but wow, I loved it," wrote Alex Billington of the movie website FirstShowing.net.

The London Guardian's Mark Brown wrote on Thursday that "Avatar" was "really much, much better than expected, (it) looked amazing and the story was gripping -- if cheesy in many places."

"The terrible film that some had been anticipating had not materialized. It was good," Brown wrote."

I was struck by this line. Since Reuters isn't able to report on enough true reviews to make their story worthwhile, they went to the next best thing Twitter. It is them openly acknowledging that Twitter is the place to go for news. Does this also mean that Tweets will open a new avenue for critics to get their voices unofficially heard prior to the the lifting of the release embargo? If so, this is an important and interesting development for the film community to see how studios come down on writers breaking embargo on via Twitter in the future.

EDIT: The embargo has been lifted. Does it have anything to do with the Tweets?

Tweeting Groom

I'm not sure if the Tweeting and Facebooking Groom is falling under the criticism of McLuhan. If nothing else, it seems as if his doing this was done with a sense of humor and even satire. When watching the video, never did it cross my mind that he was doing this seriously or that he honestly really felt the need to update his status. Doesn't this actually signify a critical view of these uses of these technologies? In doing this, the groom is satirizing the people who feel the need to update their feeds endlessly on Facebook with such useless and inane information such as their relationship status. It's gotten to a point where your status on Facebook is nearly as important as your status in the real world. The groom seems to recognize this and at the opportune moment, decides to poke alittle fun. Would I have done something like this at my wedding? Hell no. Do I think it is a sign of the Twitter/Facebook apocalypse? Absolutely not.

What Would MM Think?

Colin posed the question, "What would McLuhan think about our class?" Honestly, I think it would be a mix of excitement and anxiety. As Matt D. points out in the comments to Colin's post, there are increasing number of students using laptops during class time. During a media class, this could be both a positive and negative. When studying media, having the tools that you're discussing right in front of you could be a good thing, assuming that the said laptop is utilized correctly. However, at the same point, it seems to be McLuhan's exact fear of users blindly utilizing technology without thinking about it. In fact, it couldn't be a better example for it. Instead of paying attention in a class designed to talk about the intersections of old and new media types, people are absorbed into a piece of technology. It seems to be McLuhan times 10!

However, at the same point, McLuhan might be pleasantly surprised to see the increasing number of upper level classes that have media and the way it affects our lives on the syllabus. Let's face it, over the past 10 years, talking about emerging media in an academic environment has broadened tremendously. No longing does a student have to be in a Computer Science course to be able to seriously discuss technology. We all sit in an English class and have covered such topics as Twitter and Facebook, two technologies that have barely/not existed for 5 years. Forget about a history of scholarship, Trinity is offering a course on topics literally as they are taking hold. Rather than sitting back and allowing these new techs to blindly take over our lives, we've spent the better half of the semester critically engaging with alot of ideas and themes that many mainstream American's take for granted or even worse, don't even think about.

We now live in a time period where emerging tech takes significantly less time to reach a wide usage. For McLuhan, the speed in which computer and user interaction is moving would have to be worrisome. Rather than saying stop and think, people are flying into these new ideas without considering their impact. I'm not sure that McLuhan could have imagined the speed in which we now consume information, not to mention the number of ways that we can. However, the very fact that our class exists is proof enough that we need not be worried about these technologies, but must merely more carefully consider the advantages/disadvantages that they offer. I'm throwing it out there that McLuhan would be happy with our class, some minor quibbles aside. At the very least, he'd be happier with ours than with other classes, in which the same type of laptop use is permitted despite nothing on the syllabus that warrants their being there.

Google Wave

I got myself an invite to Google Wave but I'm not exactly sure where to start? Suggestions?

Comcast and Hulu

Just as I was talking about the future of internet TV, here this comes.

Reddit Vs. Digg

I was looking over Reddit today, a site that I had heard of but never really utilized, primarily because I'm typically at Digg for this type of thing. It seems as if both sites accomplish roughly the same task of allowing users to vote for news/articles that are deemed most newsworthy. Without having an in-depth view of everything that Reddit offers, Digg initially strikes me as the more efficient option of the two. While Digg is certainly not flawless, it's design and execution seems more carefully considered, resulting in a cleaner, easier to pick up and use site. Reddit's homepage is so overloaded with text that it is a bit daunting. In fact, I think the style of the site may limit whatever substance is behind it.

I love the idea behind both. I like the idea of a news source aggregating stories based on how other users like myself feel about them, as opposed to an editor high in the structure of a newspaper. Its a Journalistic socialism. But, if pushed, I'd much rather head to Digg than Reddit.