Google to demo Chrome OS; Detail launch plans

Google will give a technical update on its Chrome OS.

The company is holding an event at its Mountain View campus. The event will be “a technical announcement,” but Google will be showing a few demos as well as detailing its launch plans for this year.

The Chrome OS is in its infancy, but there has been a lot of buzz around a potential launch. At the event, Sundar Pichai, Vice President of Product Management, and Matthew Papakipos, Engineering Director for Google Chrome OS, will be talking up reporters.

Garett Rogers has wondered if launching a bare bones preview of the Chrome OS is a concern. He noted:

The initial release of Chrome OS will likely be very bare-bones, bordering on useless — but depending on what kind of feedback they get, it may grow rapidly. The “release early and often” mantra adopted by many software companies that use agile practices can be extremely dangerous, however.

Is Chrome a security risk?

My lovely bride of 30 years worked from home yesterday, hoping to save our city some gas.
An e-mail came in from her administrator around mid-day which she decided to share with me.
It told all users to shut down Chrome.
The e-mail called Chrome a security risk. It told all users within the company to use Firefox or Internet Explorer, to shut Chrome down.
I don’t know how serious those concerns are. Without identifying my wife’s employer I will say it’s a conservative company, very security conscious, and often proactive.
But this is a good time to ask how well Chrome is doing. Google Analytics says 1 in 40 visits to ZDNet Open Source are now done with Chrome. It’s currently on build 2200, Version 0.2.149.30. (Click the wrench, then the About tab.)
Personally I have noticed that Chrome often crashes Shockwave and Flash pages. Thanks to its redundant tab-based design, whole browser sessions don’t die, but these plug-in crashes are more common than with Firefox.
I have also found that, despite its promise, it pays to shut Chrome down every once in a while and re-start it. The lack of add-ons can be annoying, as when I’m asked for personal information or want to search a page for a word or phrase.
Other reviewers have not been so kind. Some bloggers are already calling it a failure, and the criticism is global in scope.
On the other hand, this open source browser is already being forked, as with a German version dubbed Iron.
This, to me, is good news. It may be the most important news.
It is wrong to evaluate Chrome as you would a new TV show. It is wrong to consider it solely in terms of Google because, like Firefox, this is an open source product subject to the open source process.
But what I think or what any other reporter thinks really does not matter. What do you think? Are you using Google Chrome now? Do you plan to? When? And if not, why not?

(I refers to Dana Blankenhorn)

Former Google product manager ‘disappointed’ by T-Mobile G1

Ulf Waschbusch, a former Google Mobile Product Manager and current MySpace mobile employee, says, in so many words, that the HTC-made, Google Android-powered T-Mobile G1 is far from an iPhone killer — in fact, it’s just downright disappointing:
The reason many people see the G1 as ugly and old-fashioned is simply… because it IS! It’s a design unchanged for a while (it’s now available in Zune-brown along with white and black). The hardware itself though went through many iterations I am sure, as it’s top-notch (3G on AWS, GPS, 3MP autofocus camera etc.).
Waschbusch writes that he’s a fan of how the hardware works and Android OS, but that “the G1 Hardware is somewhat…well…dated” in looks, paling to HTC’s own Touch or Touch HD. “I just don’t like the design/looks of the device,” he writes.
Which, for a mass-market product aimed at consumers, might be a big problem. After all, what family truly cares about the ins and outs of Android? They just care about making calls, checking e-mail, taking photos — the typical package. Doesn’t matter who’s behind it or how “groundbreaking” we all say it is.
Gizmodo reports that Waschbusch also expressed his frustrations with other aspects of the G1 in his Facebook status:
Ulf is disappointed but not surprised about the ‘G1′. Where’s the cheap data plan? Where do I plug in my headphones? No video player? How do I get contacts in it?
Precisely my concerns, too, when I played with the device first-hand at the launch event (same goes for Josh). And if consumers don’t really take to it, who cares what us tech-inclined people think?

Microsoft and Yahoo stop talking, and Google wins

Today Microsoft and Yahoo officially stopped talking — the day, I’m sure, Yahoo investors were dreading. The hope that Microsoft and Yahoo might still work out a deal fizzled, and as result, Yahoo shares plummeted 10% before trading ended today.

today announced that discussions with Microsoft regarding a potential transaction — whether for an acquisition of all of Yahoo! or a partial acquisition — have concluded. The conclusion of discussions follows numerous meetings and conversations with Microsoft regarding a number of transaction alternatives, including a meeting between Yahoo! and Microsoft on June 8th in which Chairman Roy Bostock and other independent Board members from Yahoo! participated. At that meeting, Microsoft representatives stated unequivocally that Microsoft is not interested in pursuing an acquisition of all of Yahoo!, even at the price range it had previously suggested.

It worked out well for Google though — no Microsoft/Yahoo merger on the horizon, and a fresh partnership that lets them put ads directly onto Yahoo properties. Jackpot! They are careful to point out why this deal is good, and not evil on their blog:
This is not a merger. Rather, we are merely providing access to our advertising technology to Yahoo! through our AdSense program.
This does not remove a competitor from the playing field. Yahoo! will remain in the business of search and content advertising, which gives the company a continued incentive to keep improving and innovating. Even during this agreement, Yahoo! can use our technology as much or as little as it chooses.
This does not prevent Yahoo! from making similar arrangements with others. This arrangement is not exclusive, meaning that Yahoo! could enter into similar arrangements with other companies.
This does not increase Google’s share of search traffic. Yahoo! will continue to run its own search engine and advertising programs, and the agreement will not increase Google’s share of search traffic.
This does not let Google raise prices for advertisers. Google does not set the prices manually for ads; rather, advertisers themselves determine prices through an ongoing competitive auction. We have found over years of research that an auction is by far the most efficient way to price search advertising and have no intention of changing that.

Here are some excerpts from the announcements made by Google and Yahoo:

“[Google] has reached an agreement that gives Yahoo! the ability to use Google’s search and contextual advertising technology through its AdSense(TM) for Search and AdSense for Content advertising programs. Under the agreement, Yahoo! has the option to display Google ads alongside its own natural search results in the U.S. and Canada. In addition, Yahoo! can serve contextually targeted ads on its U.S. and Canadian web properties as well as on its current publisher partner sites.” — Google

“Yahoo! believes that this agreement will enable the Company to better monetize Yahoo!’s search inventory in the United States and Canada. At current monetization rates, this is an approximately $800 million annual revenue opportunity. In the first 12 months following implementation, Yahoo! expects the agreement to generate an estimated $250 million to $450 million in incremental operating cash flow.” — Yahoo


Garett Rogers is employed as a programmer for iQmetrix, which specializes in retail management software for the cellular and electronics industry.

The search engine conundrum

i=Zack Whittaker.
Amongst many things, Zack Whittaker is a good-for-nothing, pink-sock wearing, British student at the University of Kent in Canterbury UK studying computer science.

I was looking through the Channel 8 Students Union earlier on and noticed an important point concerning search engines. It’s widely known that search engines are the most viewed websites on the Internet because they are the starting point to look for something. We may even know the direct link to the website we’re looking for, but sometimes people find it simpler to plug in a quick query to get there faster, after all we are getting more and more impatient when it comes to browsing.

I thought it would be a good idea to weigh up the differences and also to see which works better for students using the two most rivalled search engines in the world - Google and Live Search.

Which search engine is better for students? Which allows you access to the data faster, in a better readable format, and which ultimately benefits the user without raising blood pressure levels? I’m taking a stab in the dark at this one, with little-to-accurate results likely.

Note: for you eagle eyed nutters, people with too much time, those who hate me already readers, you’ll notice these screenshots aren’t 100% accurate. The data should be, but I’ve cropped and moved some bits around to get them to fit on screen without breaking the backend engine.

Test 1 - The Maths Question
Most of you already know you can type in a simple maths query into a search engine and get an answer, or at the very least a link to a page which will help. I tried 3x + 2 = 15, which should give me a result for x. I know by working it out in my head it’ll be around 4. I tried Google first.

It failed me. I’m impatient, I’m tired, and I haven’t had a cup of tea in a while - I want an answer straight away and Google hasn’t given it me. I tried Live Search next, with a much more desirable result.

My first result was the answer, and accurate to 6 decimal places too. It doesn’t help when it’s a recurring number, but even still, Google 0, Live Search 1.

Test 2 - The Geography Question
A student isn’t necessarily a solitary being - we need to move from place to place, normally to find more sources of alcohol. When that is the case, we rely on a good old web search to point us in the right direction. Say I wanted to get to Canterbury and I had no idea where it is (I realise now it’s stupid, because I already live here, but go along with me for the time being). I’ll tap it into a search engine. Live Search worked last time so this time it’s first up.

What? I don’t care about the news articles, I was hoping for pretty pictures telling me how to get there! I tap it into Google and get this:

Now that’s more like it - a little map telling me where about it is in the country, and one click to a full size map for better viewing. What’s better is the application of a start address, allowing me to tell Google where I want to travel from and it’ll return driving directions. Without a doubt, Google 1, Live Search 1. Level pegging.

Test 3 - The Ultimate Question
Philosophy students are well known for asking the impossible and questioning reality - but most students do that as they’re stumbling to another bar after being kicked out the last one. In the spirit of the late Douglas Adams (of which his death confirms for me - exercise is bad for you), I thought it’d be a good idea to question both search engines for the ultimate question - the answer to life, the Universe and everything.


Both produce the same result, which means philosophy students will be happy content (at least) and drunken students can sleep easy that night. Google 2, Live Search 2.

Test 4 - The Scientific Question
Everyone at some point will need to know that 26Mg is a radiogenic daughter product of 26Al but for the time being, a simple scientific answer needs to be on hand. Say you’re a budding scientist and you need to quickly find out the electron configuration of Einsteinium - plug in a few keywords and hopefully we’ll get a result straight away.

Again, except this time with Live Search rather than Google, impatience is definitely not a virtue and we want the answer here and now without any screwing around. Sure, the answer is there in the first result, but something big and bold would be nice to point it out. I try Google:

There we have it - written right at the top in bold letters to point it out to me. Considering most students seem to work well in the dead of the night, eyesight suffers and a visual indicator does help. Google 3, Live Search 2.

Test 5 - The Language Question
Every student will need to look up a definition of a word at some point - whether you’re doing a science degree and need to know what ionisation is, or studying 18th century Spanish history and don’t know what enlightened absolutism is. Forget using a dictionary, you thought you could survive on Wikipedia. You need a definition function compatible with a search engine. In this case, I want to know what “defenestration” is:

Ahh - straight away we have a definition of defenestration, and a link to an external site. What’s even better is Google returns often a .edu, .ac.uk or a .gov address which is deemed “more accurate” than other domains for the reason they have to be accurate. Not ruling out other search engines, I try Live Search anyway:

The define: function works in both search engines, but this is what really pisses me off. Live Search provides a link to its own MSN Encarta dictionary instead of providing links to other “more trustworthy” sites like seen in Google’s results, that of Princeton University. I’ll have you know I clicked the “No” link when it asked me whether it was useful. Even though the result was the same, the principle of not linking elsewhere shows they’re greedy. Even students have principles - granted, not many, but still some. Because of this, Google 4, Live Search 2.

Overall I’ve come to the conclusion that even though Google seems to score higher in some areas, Live Search doesn’t do too badly. They both have some impressive features, and everyone has their own person taste to which engine they prefer. I’ve always preferred Google, but the statistics don’t lie - more people worldwide prefer Google, and in my understanding, so do students