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?

Google Wave

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

What Now? Consumption Habits?

2. What are MY content consumption habits, at that point?

Not sure. I'm guessing that I'll still rely on blogs a great deal. I like the idea of blogging and there is a plethora of legit bloggers producing really excellent work. I have no reason to think that blogs will suddenly cease to interest me. Cover your eyes and ears blog-haters but maybe blogs are going to be the newspapers of my generation? They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm ok with being entirely online. With the advent of internet TV, both in original and syndicated content, I'm wondering if everything won't come from the 'net? Windows 7 is heavily emphasizing home networks as something even the most tech-handicapped (this was found on the Official WindowsVideos channel) can create/use/maximize them. Now, we can link together our computer, gaming system, Blu-Ray player, television and stereo into one large network, streaming video and audio both ways to every device in our house, with all of the content coming from the net. Cable TV should be bracing themselves for a big change.

In undergrad, having not the money to subscribe, the time or energy to walk across campus to my tiny mailbox to pick up a stack of paper with day-old-news, I made the jump to an almost all-online news consumption habit a few years ago. I can't remember the last time I sat down with a mainstream paper to read about the news. In the past couple of years, almost all of my news consumption is online as even the slowest newspapers have finally begun to realize that this internet thing may be for real and as a result, have digitized their content for internet reading. While I can enjoy and sympathize with the nostalgia for the good ol' days of newsprint, I'm not sure its continued existence is as important as some of the Armageddon forecasters seem to think it is. Journalism will be ok without newspapers: there are enough journalists that care deeply enough about their craft and jobs that they'll figure out a way to make it work and even the most skeptical folks will come around eventually.

I am guessing that I'll be using mobile devices a great deal more to consume my news. As smartphones continue to evolve and tablets become more prominent, mobile users will be in heaven. You'll be able to consume your news wherever you go. Even now, you can watch live sports on the go with the correct subscription. This idea of mobile content is where we're headed. It's nice to sit at your computer watching streaming video. It'll be cooler to do it while walking down the street.

What Now? What Comes After Newspapers?

Going off of Colin's prompt, there are three things that need to be addressed in the wake of newspapers demise:

1. What do YOU see in [their] place?

2. What are YOUR content consumption habits, at that point?

3. What role do you see yourself playing, possibly even as a content creator?

I'll take them one at a time:

1. What do I see in [their] place?

Blogs, Social Networks, News Aggregators, Tech still TDB.

For starters, I get as much of my news from blogs today as I do from more traditional news outlets. In fact, anything cultural, I'll get from a variety of blogs that I've rounded up and read regularly. Film, Music, TV, etc. are all better covered by bloggers and internet only journalists than they are by any mainstream newspaper (NY Times Film section aside. AO, you're the man! But I actually think your internet-only material is better than some of your print stuff, brilliant!) The news is quicker and more personal (After art is best covered from a subjective opinion. There is nothing worse than objective art coverage). As film critics get the ax across the country, the blogosphere is filling with film writing that is really excellent: informative, insightful and passionate.

Social Networks already have cemented themselves as invaluable tools for news coverage. All you Twitter haters need look no further than the Iran Elections and the Mumbai terrorist attacks for the reason why Twitter must exist. At a time when, in Iran, the government had widespread censorship over what could be reported about the uprisings surrounding the elections, leaving, in the process, the mainstream press in the dark, Twitterers across the country became THE source for news. What followed was a tremendous amount of unfiltered, unedited information revealing the real truths behind what was happening. Combined with grainy, pixelated YouTube videos, these brave activists/citizen journalists risked their own lives to shed light on the ugly conditions of a country fighting to reclaim itself.

There is no reason to think that Twitter has seen it's peak or even, it's entire potential. This is a service that will continue to mature and evolve. The Twitter train is leaving the station and you can either choose to acknowledge its growing importance and get on board or get run over. It's not stopping once it's fully on its way. I'm not sure that Facebook will have the same importance as a news source. As the more innovative Twitter has grown in popularity and importance, Facebook has merely copied it. The new news feeds are directly modeled on Twitter's platform and as long as Facebook continues to focus on useless, time wasting apps like Mafia Wars and Social Interview rather than truly innovating as a worthy news platform, it'll stay as a nice way to stay in touch with friends but nothing else. I'm a fan of Facebook for what it does but it isn't Twitter and doesn't have the same level of excitement surrounding its potential.

News Aggregators have already established themselves as a vital and fun portion of the 'net. As newspapers bite the dust, they'll only continue to grow in importance. Rather than having to wade through pages of stories one isn't interested in (which may actually be a good thing), one can search for a single news item and get a range of coverage (which may actually be a better thing). No longer is someone forced to rely on just the Courant's (or AP's) coverage of an item. Now, you can see more coverage than anyone could possibly know what to deal with. If you're not looking for a single item, head to Google News' main page and you've got yourself the front page of a region-less, multi-sided newspaper. It'll take an adjustment for readers who like folding newsprint but it's not an impossible leap.

Finally, by 2014, who knows what'll be around? Let's take a look at five years ago. In 2004:

-Facebook was just being founded. Now, it's a widespread phenomenon that has 300 million users in 5 years.
-Digg was founded. Now it's one of the most popular social news networks on the planet.
-A small email service was launched. Gmail now has 146 million users despite being in "beta" for much of the five years.

That's just three services that are now synonymous with the larger internet. Impressive to say the least. Now, what comes in 2014? Who the hell knows and really, who the hell can guess? Was Twitter predicted in 2004? Certainly not by the just-launching Facebook, which had no newsfeed. Certainly not by a large portion of the Facebook audience who flipped their collective shit when the news feed was introduced (now, almost all of which, I'd be willing to bet, spend 90% of their Facebook time gleefully scrolling through their feed, while cursing the hand that fed them, Twitter).

My guess? Probably something along the lines of Google Wave, an even-more-instant-than-Twitter real-time-service that somehow gets news to millions in a blink of an eye. That'll actually be it's name: EvenMoreInstantThanTwitterRealTimeServiceThatImprovesOnTheIdeasOfGoogleWave. Google Wave users will hate it.

What Exactly Happens When You Do the Google (from my perspective)?

I could be entirely wrong but here goes:

When a user accesses Google, during the initial transfer between the site and your machine, a cookie is loaded through the browser (assuming cookies are enabled) onto your HDD. This cookie contains information about both your browsing habits, your machines settings and any unique settings you want the website to load when you access it.

After the initial transfer, you sit at the Google homepage. When you type in your search term and hit search, the phrase is run through a database that Google maintains and updates regularly (not sure exactly how regularly, but I'm guessing hourly). The phrase is cross-referenced with phrases in websites around the internet. When the phrase hits a match, the match is added to your list of search results. I'm assuming the most popular websites on the internet are searched first and most often, thus allow Google to provide those websites near the top of their list. After the list is completed (at an insane speed, the site will list the time taken to complete the search), it is displayed to the user, after which they can continue on.

Probably totally wrong, but that's my guess.

Google's "Don't Be Evil" Motto

I have to admit, the motto "Don't Be Evil" is one of the strangest I've ever heard strictly for the fact that it actually doesn't say anything. If one reads the Google Code of Conduct, there isn't much surprise there. However, the actual motto itself is odd.

What exactly does "Don't Be Evil" mean (Google's explanation aside)? It certainly doesn't mean "Be Good". It doesn't mean "Don't be really bad". What exactly would qualify as an "evil" act? Aren't the ideas of good and evil ultimately subjective? One man's good is another's evil. A tax hike for some is good because it pays for social programs. It's evil to others because it causes them to lose their hard-earned dollars. Evil is a shifty term, one that will mean different things to different people, thus leaving a motto that doesn't actually say anything.

Is the invasion of privacy evil? If so, are cookies evil? Or are they a benefit that allows easier access to the web?

Is an attempt to control ideology and create hegemony evil? If so, is the specific manipulation of search results to promote certain ideas evil? Or is it a way to show more popular results over more obscure sites so you don't waste your time sifting through trash?

Are monopolies evil? If so, is the total control of a marketplace evil? Or is it just a result of Google consistently innovating and producing better products?

These are questions that will receive different answers from just about everyone you ask. So, how do we expect every Google employee to understand the meaning of a term that is so shift to us? Is it possible that the company keeps its employees so well informed and educated that there is not the gray area here? I would be surprised if that is the case.

Google, Cookies and Privacy

The privacy debate that continues on ad infinitum is certainly an interesting and timely one. In fact, I believe that the problem of privacy invasion will become one of the major mainstream discussion points of the early 21th century as more and more people educate themselves on some of the practices that websites use.

As to where I fall on the subject, more often than not, I side with the people here. I'm a believer that people should be able to what they chose, within the confines of the law, in private. It should not necessarily be public knowledge that your 45 year-old neighbor spends his evenings in a pink dress while watching Teletubbies, nor if your 15 year-old neighbor spends her time watching explicit videos. I disagree with large sections of the Patriot Act. I'm a firm believer in the freedom of speech and expression People should be free to act however they want in their own private space (and in most instances, in the public space as well). They should not be judged or labeled as a result. Yet, I'm not sure how I feel about cookies, as I believe, for the most part, that this is a privacy issue that gets too much attention.

While some may find it invasive that a company could potentially be looking at your browsing habits and as a result, catering their website to better fit your needs and desires, I find it convenient that the next time that I access the site, parts of it will be pre-loaded as I want it. Some worry that ESPN.com (or for the purposes of our discussion, Google) takes down some info about you to better serve you (and sell to you) the next time you visit the site. I don't. People often think that their actions are more important to massive companies than they actually are. Chances are, that if a cookie is placed on your machine by Amazon, Jeff Bezos isn't looking to use you to take over the world. It's probably so Amazon can give you those nifty recommendations the next time you stop by to check out the daily Gold Box sales. They may use some basic info about you to conduct some marketing. They probably aren't looking over your entire browsing history in order to see if you frequent adult oriented sites. Bezos could care less.

Still, I recognize the fear, the big brother mentality that accompanies this type of "harmless" cookie. I just don't buy it. It's something when a town places cameras at every intersection in town (hello, West Hartford!) and could feasibly track your cars every move (although once again, I'm thinking West Hartford has bigger issues on their mind than whether the white Prius driven by Kevin Simpson has passed over South Main Street yet. Is there a potential cause for concern here? Could cookies feasibly be manipulated to track your every move? Absolutely. Yet, my issues with privacy generally come with their inhibition of your everyday activities, when they get in the way of being able to live a normal life. But, when the "invasion of privacy" comes with faster load times, better website experiences and catered ads? I'll take my chances.

Who Exactly is Google's Client?

Colin posed this question last night and the more I think about it, the less I seem sure of an answer. Let's take a look at some possibilities:

1) The User- Google provides the search according to what you, the internet user, ask for.
2) The Sites Being Searched- Google provides the sites with an easy way for users to find it.
3) Advertisers- Google provides the platform for advertisers to get their message across.

I'm not even sure that these are all of the possible clients. Each have their own argument to go with them and each seem equally valid. What are some of the other clients that Google is invested in? Do they favor one over the other? Is the user really the main concern for Google or are they siding in a different way? I've got to admit that this question is really fascinating me. Previously, I had always thought that their primary client was me, the user. However, the sites that I'm searching for are being helped nearly as much, if not more so than I am. How else would I find obscure sites around the web? I'm really not sure.

Google: The New Microsoft?

This idea has been a long lingering one but if we're going to be discussing Google, it deserves a mention and a look. I think it's been more or less established and agreed upon that when Microsoft achieved total market domination, the quality of their operating systems (and products in general) took a hit. Rather than not resting on their laurels and continuing to push the products that made the company what it was then, Microsoft sat back and lost most of its steam. Windows XP ended up a decent product, but it took many service packs to get there. Vista was an unmitigated disaster, nearly destroying the Windows name in the process. Now, with Windows 7, which I haven't used (a converted-Mac user) but have heard very good things about, Microsoft may have started to feel the heat again and push out a quality product during its initial release, not 2 years down the road.

Where's the heat coming from? As far as I can tell, two places: the fine folks at Apple and our study for the week, Google. First, Apple is as innovative a company that exists today (yes, even more so than Google). In roughly the past decade, Apple has completed the following:

1) The creation of the iMac in 1998, which almost single-handedly helped the company survive.
2) Threw total game-changer #1 into the mix with the iPod in 2001, the same year they opened their first retail store.
3) Threw total game-changer #2 into the mix with the iPhone in 2007, which has revolutionized the cell phone industry and even made people question what is possible for a hand-held computer.
4) Launched the iTunes Music Store, legitimizing digital downloads in the process and creating what-is-now the largest music retailer in the United States and potentially putting traditional record stores out of business.
5)Has continually improved and perfected upon their own OS, Mac OS X, now in it's 7th iteration, Snow Leopard.

Google, on the other hand, has seemingly revolutionized everything we think about the internet. With their search engine, Google Maps, Gmail, Google News, etc, internet computing has been Google's bread and butter. In terms of software, very few companies can hold a candle to what Google has done since it's creation in late 1998. However, their story is eerily similar to Microsoft's. Apple is relatively safe from this as most of their innovation this decade has come from the creation of game-changing hardware and their acceptance of being a specialty producer, in which their users pay a premium for the product. Microsoft and Google on the other hand exist much more strongly on the software side of the equation, which leaves the question. Can Google continue to innovate for the mass-market when there is no one else really innovating alongside them? Microsoft launched Bing this year and while it has enjoyed a good dose of popularity, I believe that there are very few that believe it will unseat Google as the de-facto search engine of choice.

Is there anyone else out there producing a quality, innovative product that will appeal to the mass market and cut into Google's dominance? I'm not sure. While there are many highly qualified companies producing exciting and innovative work, few, if any, are achieving mainstream popularity and success. While that may seem like a good thing for Google now, it may seem like a bad thing for the users in another couple of years, when Google launches Google Vista, to the world's horror.