The Era of the Faceless Giant Corporation Is Over

It wasn't all that long ago when the names of companies were more likely to make me think of unfeeling skyscrapers reaching toward the heavens with their steel and glass than I was to think of the people inside who made the brand stand for something, and architected the products to make them do what they do. But the last decade's increased potential for transparency and public visibility of company employees and leadership, culminating in some's active use of social media has made many of these previously faceless giants - Google, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Amazon... human. And this transformation adds a clear expansion of loyalty between these previously untrusted, unseen companies, and their customers - as those who see the companies as a collection of humans not so much as cogs in a massive machine, but instead as peers.

While many a blog post or Twitter stream has sounded out a screed against a company or a product, I am now more cautious than ever to avoid emotional critical rants against companies and brands I feel may have done me wrong. Some of this is due to the increased transparency of said companies - and no doubt a good amount of it has been my lucky position to gain access to some of the most respected brands in the business, to meet the people who make the decisions and see each day as a challenge with aims to shared goals, just like we do.

In March of 2006, I wrote a post titled "Giving Microsoft a Human Face", highlighting the work of the secretive "Mini-Microsoft", saying the blog helped provide "a clear view into the struggles and triumphs and wishes that are true in any corporation", be it Microsoft or a small business. I was similarly impressed with Robert Scoble's work while he was at Microsoft, and blogs from tech leaders like Jonathan Schwartz at Sun. Two years later, I admitted to you that I have a bias in favor of small companies, and am less likely to give the big ones a pass. But as time passes, I am seeing even the biggest companies as a collection of small units. And the more engaged they are in the blogosphere, or on Twitter, the easier it is to reach them for product feedback and customer service, the more the image of the skyscraper melts away.

In the 2008 post, I used the example of Google as a company big enough that I could still shake my fist in the event of bumps. I said, "The big guys are held to higher standards, and always will be. It comes with the territory." But even in the last eighteen or so months, Google to me has changed. Through interactions with many on the Google Reader team, discussions with Matt Cutts, and getting to know Rick Klau on the Blogger team, Google seems just as accessible as any other corporation, despite its large size.

On Friday, I spent three hours at Google headquarters in Mountain View, working face to face with Rick and a pair of skilled Google engineers, working on making changes to my blog. Though the front end should not have changed in appearance, you can see that posts now display as coming from blog.louisgray.com instead of www.louisgray.com/live as they did before. While the URLs have changed, so too has the hosting. I've been hosted on FTP for four years, and made the big move yesterday, while aiming to avoid any issues. Rick, seeing me as a good test case for an established blog with more than 2,000 posts, wanted to see if we could find any hiccups that could possibly befall other Blogger users in the same scenario. And despite the fact I was in one of the world's most tech-savvy corporations, we definitely ran into issues. Some were possibly my fault. Others were probably due to my old Web host, Register.com. But we worked as a team, and finally got it all figured out, a little behind schedule.

Google (and Rick specifically) didn't owe me any special hands-on effort. In the old way of customer service, companies tend to just post guidelines on the Web, and should you not have all running perfectly, it's either your fault outright, or you need to be hand held with customer support. But the new era of customer service, marketing and sales is transparent and personal - and this should go for every company, big and small.

Before I get any comments saying that Google reached out to me because I'm "A-List" (I'm not) or anything of that note, trust me, I know I was lucky, and I let Rick and his team know I appreciated their elite intervention. I try to provide Google and all other services I work with a good amount of customer feedback, and yesterday was as much about that as it was them providing me aid.

I look at the technology space, and for the most part, companies have made that transition from closed to open, from inert to living. I believe that many other industries could serve to improve and open up. After all, who is the public face of a company like GE? Fisher Price? McDonalds? These companies that would probably sit immobile in the face of a hate-filled rant still look like buildings to me. And I believe that they too will open up. The era of being dark and hidden and untrusted is over.

FTC Disclosure: Google let me eat lunch at their place for free yesterday. It was yummy.

Framed: Should Microsoft, and Would Apple... Fight Back vs. Google?

Wednesday's announcement from Google that they were releasing a Web browser plugin called Chrome Frame for Internet Explorer gave IE users many of the same core elements they would receive by surfing with the native Chrome browser - namely support for HTML 5, and massively improved JavaScript performance. Google's goal has largely been seen as setting the stage for Google Wave, working to get Web surfers off older, outdated browsers, like Internet Explorer 6, and providing them a richer experience. But this process, as noble as it may be, has me wondering if its competition, Microsoft, won't be finding a way to shut it down. After all, I am pretty sure Apple would if given the same choice.

Many across the tech Web are lauding the move as easier for Web consumers to perform than a rip and replace strategy to ditch IE and turn to Chrome, despite its clear benefits. After all, it's said users are comfortable with plugins like Adobe Flash, and Chrome Frame would just be a simple plugin. But isn't this a lot more like what Palm did in faking us all out by pretending its Pre mobile phone was really an iPod, in order to gain access to iTunes?

While Google didn't make any noise about looking to similarly decapitate Safari, and put Chrome in Apple's browser, there are definitely times when I find my preferred browser lagging behind the most-popular surfing options. Even Google's Toolbar, which includes the new SideWiki we discussed on Wednesday, does not have a native version for Safari, but maybe, if Google found a way to push Chrome in Safari, it would.

Matt Mastracci, co-founder of DotSpots and a sharp Web developer, reminded me this evening that Safari "isn't built to be extensible", making Toolbar integration or Chrome Framing a real challenge, but even if they could somehow pull it off, I don't see Steve Jobs and Cupertino sitting idly by. No doubt the next system update, or Safari point release, would knock it out of the sky, the same way they have updated iTunes in the past to stop jailbreaking of iPhones, or the way Microsoft posts Windows Updates to stop malicious code from hitting their user base.

Microsoft is already whining and saying that running Chrome Frame as a plug-in increases the potential for bad code and malicious scripts to hit customers. (See: Microsoft: Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure) It is not my tendency to jump on Redmond's side, and I certainly don't believe their scare tactics, but they have to be hotly debating their next move. It would not surprise me if the opportunity to disable Chrome Frame was being thought about as part of the next "Critical" Windows Service Pack update, executing a high-stakes game of cat and mouse between Microsoft and Google, and potentially the Justice Department - who didn't ever get its wish of splitting Microsoft up after its monopoly games with Netscape.

Apple's recent ploys to knock Palm Pre out of iTunes, and its controversial blockage of Google Voice make it clear they have every intent to control their users operating system and iPhone experience. In fact, as they have not really been taken to task in the way Microsoft has for anti-competitiveness, I would see Cupertino more likely to be proactive in trying to fight Google here. The only question is, will they ever get the chance to do battle?

Real-time Search: What's Most Important Now, Not Most Accurate

This afternoon, at TechCrunch's Real-Time Crunchup event, representatives from many of the innovators in the real-time search space had a quick round table aimed at furthering the discussion, framed by a question by moderator Erick Schonfeld, who said that some on the panel may believe real-time search is defined by Twitter Search, while others believe it is "everything on the Internet, but with a freshness or recency component". And while many different companies, including the standard-bearers, like Google and Microsoft, are looking to take on this new challenge, how they are doing it differs greatly.

Danny Sullivan, author of Search Engine Land, said, "We need better definitions of what it is, so as consumers and users, we understand what we are interacting with. Through Twitter and a few other services, you have the option to publish in a few seconds. Maybe you call it social sharing search." (He also posted a summary of the players last night)

Some of the participants could be defined by how large a percentage of their data was initiated through Twitter, and how they worked with the data, including filtering.

"I would define it as what are people saying in real time about my topic," said Gerry Campbell of Collecta. "It's not what is most important, but it's what is in real time now."

This bifurcation of the "one right answer", often championed by the existing search leaders, versus what's most right "now" is helping to separate the old school search engines from this new breed. But don't think that the more-established companies are taking this lying down.

Google's Matt Cutts, who has been at the company since 2000, said "we have always talked about freshness of content." He relayed a history of his time at Google, saying they once had a "war room" of how they could refresh their search index as frequently as a month. By 2003, the company had moved from monthly updates to daily updates, and a few years later, in 2007, integrated the company's Blog Search product into its main search results. "We have rearchitected our system to be as recent as possible," Cutts said.

As updates flow in at an ever-increasing pace from all corners of the Web, search engines have the daunting task of getting accurate responses out there, while ignoring off-topic or harmful data, such as spam. And those who manage to get the formula right will have a serious leg up over those who don't filter well, making their results more noise than signal.

"Drinking from the firehose is a ticking time bomb," said Kimbal Musk of OneRiot. "Even by filtering 90 percent of what is going on with the Iran election, you're still only going to get a tiny slice, and a good portion of that is spam. If you don't filter content, you are going to get more and more spam." He later added, "If you stick to Twitter alone, you will have a spam-filled and biased data set."

With Twitter's API getting to a point where more and more companies are relying on it as their engine and data source, each is working of a common data set, and how they interact with the information will make the difference. And yes, Microsoft or Google may give you one result that is most accurate, but not for this moment, and not with any kind of impact from your friends or in terms of how that data is being interacted with in real time.

Sean Stutcher of Microsoft clearly stated this information is becoming more relevant, saying, "The sentiment around a link could be changing, and that might become very relevant to a user."

In an isolated search world, where an index is an index and the right answer is the right answer, that might not matter. But in real-time, it could matter immensely. As each of these companies works through their user interfaces, their data sets, and improves filters and social aspects, it should be very interesting to see how they separate from the pack and help define their goal.

Google’s Apps Surround Search, Pulling a Reverse Microsoft

As the discussions around Bing continue, I found myself often thinking of how the product would need to not just be marginally better than Google search for me to switch, but dramatically better - not due to an inherent bias on my part, but because of how the landscape has changed. Under our nose in the last decade, Google has grown to represent much more than just a search engine – essentially recreating the major pieces of the operating system experience around their crown jewel, with a large number of hooks that have me choosing their search over others, even if competitors are “good enough”. And the more I think about it, Google has pulled a “reverse Microsoft”, not so much in an anti-competitive sense, but in terms of how they have created customer lock-in.

Microsoft is in an unenviable position many times when it comes to the Web. Nearly two decades of underperformance on search, portals and Internet access have the Redmond giant constantly changing its approach as it tries to fend off more nimble competitors. But as we all know, it ripped its way into the Web discussion in the mid to late 1990s through leveraging its operating system monopoly to push Internet Explorer to the #1 position against Netscape, adding onto its leading position in office productivity suites, and yes, the OS.

Microsoft customers could be seen climbing the ladder of Microsoft lock-in from the bottom up – starting with the operating system, adding the office suite, the e-mail application, the Web browser, and sometimes, the MSN portal or search engine.

In contrast, Google started with its search engine and has worked the other direction – adding a formidable e-mail option in Gmail, an office suite with Google Docs, a Web browser with Chrome, a portal with iGoogle, and many utilities designed to make us come to Google as our information engine – from Google Maps and Earth to Google Reader.

Meanwhile, as Microsoft came under fire for bundling its browser as part of the operating system and forcing OEMs to preload it and not its competition, Google went out and signed deals making its engine the predetermined default in practically all non Internet Explorer browsers – including Mozilla’s Firefox and Apple’s Safari browser, making it a formidable barrier for other engines, Microsoft's included, to gain share. And as we discussed previously, late last year, in the debate on mobile phones and Web browsers, where I argued that the new tactics will be “all about the hooks”, there’s no question that Apple’s iPhone, combined with Google’s Android platform, will extend the share of Google’s engine even further on the mobile Web.

So far, Google has escaped serious drama in the world of anti-trust, a benefit its competitor from Redmond does not enjoy. As Microsoft is forced to contend with pulling its browser from the operating system in Europe, or seeing flack for Bing taking over as the default search engine in Internet Explorer 6, Google continues to make deals that make its kingpin position even more secure, and add new applications that make me even less likely to leave the site. After all, if I switched to Bing, I would still have no intent to ditch Google Reader. Microsoft has never really competed with Google Maps, making that a no brainer, and though Google’s office suite online isn’t the best or biggest, arguably, at least when I am using Microsoft’s office suite, I am doing it offline, away from the real battlefield of tomorrow.

When Google first debuted and we were measuring its success in the speed of response, or simply by the number of pages in its index, I don’t think we foresaw how it would turn one of the most aggressive tech monolith’s advantages on its head. While I recognize Google Search might not be dramatically better than Bing or even Yahoo! Search at this point, once you take the brand names away, it’s the hooks that have got me.

Palm and Bing Triumph Over Low Bars They Set for Themselves

Amidst the buzz from Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference that took over the tech news world today, in the shadows, something very weird has happened. Companies that were once market leaders, and then, later, laughed at as the ugly stepchildren in tech, are being championed once again. And this time, they are being lauded not because they are the best necessarily, but because they are doing a good enough job to avoid ridicule - a good enough job for us to praise them for not completely being full of fail. Of course, I'm talking about Palm's new Pre and Microsoft's latest search entry, Bing.

I have never seen, touched or tasted a Palm Pre. I've heard they are hard to come by, and they were only available initially to a select list of reviewers. So far, the reviews are good, and the Pre is being seen as a real challenger to the iPhone. While we all ignore the traditional market leaders, like Nokia, Sony Ericsson or Motorola, it is Palm, Apple and Google who have us talking about phones. And Palm, despite being brand new and having an application store with a few dozen applications, compared with the tens of thousands on the iTunes Store, is giving people pause because it is even coming up at all. We had left them for dead, and they are rising like Lazarus, becoming part of the conversation, when most of us expected them to just go away.

Similarly, Microsoft's Bing continues to get positive writeups as people realize you can search with it and not suffer a fatal disk error. Over the weekend, a site was built that showed Bing going head to head with Google and Yahoo!, in a blind test, and doing very well, more so than likely any of us would have anticipated. While it still was losing, the results, showing it competitive at all, were enough to change our perceptions a bit - after years of seeing Microsoft unable to impress us while under assault from Mountain View.

It's quite odd, really. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that much of the tech blogosphere likes so much to rally around failures that when something miraculous like Bing being ahead of Yahoo! search in market share for a 24-hour period happens, it becomes front page news - or that the Pre actually had people waiting in line for its debut. We were all prepared to write about the disaster, so when something resembling a middling success struck, it caught us all by surprise.

But a few days of positive headlines and friendly nods cannot a market share leader make.

Palm wades into a hostile cell phone environment where Apple leads in mindshare and has the ears of thousands of developers looking to make serious coin. Google has extended their reach to many different applications beyond vanilla search - from YouTube to Google Reader, GMail, Maps, Earth, Docs and so much more, making replacing a search engine or swapping out mobile phones, once a choice has been made, that much more difficult. As I wrote on FriendFeed, and said in Jesse Stay's first podcast tonight, even if the Pre and the iPhone were feature equal, it's the integration with iTunes and all its applications that makes the difference for me now. I'm invested in this platform, and I'd venture a guess that a ton of other people are too, AT&T or not.

As for Bing? Google is the default search engine in my Safari. I trust Google to get the right results, and even catch myself searching it for results from my own blog posts' history often. Bing is a cute alternative - something to use if Google ever ticks me off, or magically, goes down for any extended period. But it hasn't delivered the "wow" experience that tells me a good reason to switch. Microsoft may have built a better mousetrap than their previous models, but they don't have enough bait.

Microsoft and Palm. One, the current and longtime leader in operating systems and office software. The other, the onetime leader in handheld operating systems. Now, today, both have tarnished brands looking for a little spitshine. They may have gotten a little buffing, but not enough to have me seeing them in a new light.

Personal Heresy: What OS You Use Is No Longer Critical

Last September, when Google's Chrome Web browser was first introduced, I told you how I spent the day on Windows, just to use it. While Google is making headway in bringing their Web browser to the Mac platform, or so I've been told, it just hasn't happened yet. In the interim, Apple introduced Safari 4 Beta with many of Chrome's much-awaited features, and Safari has remained my browser of choice, as I tend to find Firefox too slow and too bloated, especially as extensions are added.

Today, I came across an article by Rick Klau, who works at Blogger for Google, saying how he was using Chrome on his Mac, also through VMware, but most importantly to me, as a result of Microsoft's new Windows 7 evaluation program, which lets you gain access to the operating system for free for a year. With my nose in the air, I've watched from my Mac laptop the struggle Microsoft has had with Vista, and how users are begging for Windows 7 to arrive. I've seen Steven Hodson and others talk excitedly about what's planned from Redmond, and largely, I haven't cared. I didn't think it applied to me.

But think of what Rick told us. Any Mac OS X user who has VMware Fusion (or Parallels, I assume), can get access to Windows 7 today, just by downloading the 32-bit version of the .ISO file from Microsoft and getting started. No CDs. No hassles. Just an evaluation key, and letting VMware do the work. The geek in me overruled my Mac bigotry today, so guess what? I'm writing this post in Chrome on Windows 7 in VMware on Mac OS X. It just works.


What? Windows 7 installing on my Mac?

Windows 7? Mac OS X? Does It Matter Any More?

So - back to the focus of the post. For the better part of two decades, I have ranted and raved that Macs are superior, whether it be for the hardware or the OS. The Mac vs. PC commercials on TV are very amusing and help cement the belief I've got a better product. I can largely ignore malware, and know I can get a consistent experience from Mac to Mac for the most part.


Logged Into Windows 7 And Checking the Computer

Sharing My Desktop Between Both Mac and Windows

But I'm starting to think more and more that it really doesn't matter any more. I won't be ranting about the cloud and saying all software is dead, but within an hour, I've got my Web browser set up to all the bookmarks and social services I constantly use. I have iTunes in VMware on Windows 7 seeing all my music from the Mac. I have an FTP client I can use to post to the blog. Practically all I really need the Mac for is the Adobe Photoshop family, Microsoft Office and the comfort of knowing my e-mail is saved locally as well as through MobileMe.


A Typical, Active Web Session, But On Chrome and Windows 7
(Click for a larger image)
I don't feel I need to go feature by feature of Windows 7 and see if it has all the bells and whistles that Mac OS X does. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But with very few exceptions, I could switch to Windows in this environment, and not lose too much sleep - something that would be made even more possible were I to push all my mail to GMail and take my word processing to Google Docs, for example.

Also in September of 2008, I speculated that the new world of browser choices is all about the hooks, especially from each company's mobile platform. The iPhone loves Safari, as you know. But Safari is also available on Windows, and the iPhone can be synced on iTunes on my Windows 7 partition. Hmm.

The line between what is an Operating System, and what is a Web browser, is getting increasingly blurry. And the traditional benefits of the Mac that always had me red in the face and starving of oxygen when trying to convert non-believers are going away. Maybe that's why I stopped caring about Apple rumors, as I told you last week.

If I do run into somebody willing to listen about what operating system they should choose, I can without hesitation say the Mac, because it's still what I know best, and I have had such a good track record with Apple. But Windows 7, so far, is good enough for most people, provided they can avoid bugs, malware and other irregularities.

So you tell me, am I out of my mind, or finally seeing the light?

How Microsoft Views Holes In Today's Search Process

As I mentioned on Wednesday, I attended an update from Microsoft's Powerset team in San Francisco, to gain insight into how the Redmond machine was viewing what's considered to be a mature search market - seeing just what opportunity they believed they had in a space where Google is the king and Microsoft's offerings, whatever they are called these days, usually are viewed in a role similar to court jester, fairly or not. And while the team aimed not to drown us in a well-known ritual called "Death By PowerPoint", they offered us a background presentation to take home on USB keys, chock full of statistics. We were sworn not to distribute the slides, but permitted to use any and all data from within. Maybe it's a style thing.

After looking at the provided materials a few ways, it's clear that the Powerset team at Microsoft is looking at massive amounts of data, citing that search engine users report high levels of satisfaction with their current search provider, but waste an incredible amount of time honing search queries to find the perfect result. Amidst a digital content information explosion rich with links and an ever-growing number of Web sites, Microsoft believes that better tools are needed to help users find their answers more quickly and get on with their solution.

Their statistics, which cited Pew Internet, Comscore and Harris, among others, state:

• 49% of people perform Web searches each day
• Users are searching 23% more frequently per person, year over year from 2008 to 2009
• Satisfaction with search is at approximately 65%

So yes, search is critical, but the data speaks to a somewhat frustrated universe of users, who are spending upwards of 10 minutes on average per Web search, making anywhere from 4 to 6 search queries apiece before coming to a decision. Interestingly, Microsoft's presentation differentiates between standard searches and those that are used simply for navigation (such as finding a Web site domain), as those need only one or two queries per session to complete.

Assuming the data is correct, and Web searchers are taking multiple queries to find an acceptable action, Microsoft found that even after users come to a decision, ostensibly by clicking a search result, almost half the time the user will end up searching for the query again, with 19% performing the exact query, and an additional 30% being a partial repeat of that query, signifying they weren't satisfied with the link they had selected.

The end result, as Microsoft lays out, is that despite users saying they are happy with their search engine experience, about half say they do not expect their queries to be successful. They cited success expectations ranging from 53% to 57% in the categories of Product Purchase, Local Activity, Specific Facts and Finding Information. While more than two thirds of users say search is frequently part of their decision making process, half they time they anticipate being disappointed.

As with any Marketing-driven presentation, Microsoft tries to summarize their to do list with three buckets:

• Opportunity: Better Results
• Opportunity: Organized Experience
• Opportunity: Powerful Decision Tools

Taken in aggregate, the opportunity is as it always has been - help users find their data in a simple way that delivers a successful action, in a cleanly delivered fashion.

Searching through the deck doesn't mention Kumo, or Live Search, or Powerset or MSN, or any of the many names Microsoft has tossed around. It simply says there are issues to be solved, and suggests the opportunity is out there to create something better that helps customers and delivers a higher level of satisfaction. From the discussion on Tuesday, it seemed the Powerset guys believed they had a more relevant approach to delivering better results, and possibly in a better organized way. The struggles, of course, will be in how they can search out new customers who will find a better experience with their product against well-respected competition. Can they better optimize their results to reduce the number of times you execute a query?

I would believe that much of the blame lies not with the search engines, but the links themselves downstream. Until Microsoft, Google, Yahoo! or anybody else can be held accountable for the whole content of the Web, at the end of the day, they are passing you off to a third party, who may or may not have the answer you are looking for. It's possible to continue tweaking the algorithms to and fro, and making the search experience easier, but there will always be room for error, with the exception of fact-based searches (which may explain why Powerset started with Wikipedia as its data set).

Additionally, every search engine is working with a set of users that could be improved. While it's a faux pas to blame the user, there is a very high chance, in my opinion, that users are not really sure what it is they are looking for, and their own search methodologies could be improved. It's likely the Web has reached a stage where "good enough" is "good enough", and multiple queries or keyword tweaking will be the norm for some time.

Microsoft Live Search Employee Says Search Engine Analysis Flawed

On Tuesday evening, I attended a get-together with some of the minds behind Powerset, the $100 million natural language search engine acquisition slowly being integrated into Microsoft's Live Search engine. The goal? To keep the San Francisco startup natives feeling still connected to their roots, and not detached as part of the Redmond software monolith, while also giving interested tech reporters and bloggers an opportunity to see why Microsoft has any chance in the search market against its primary foe, Google. While I'll talk later about some of the statistics they offered, there was a conveyed perception that traditional reviews of search engines are flawed in their simplicity, in their context, and are not in depth enough to gain a clear knowledge of what's complex subject matter.

Discussed in detail on Senior Program Manager Mark Johnson's blog, Deliberate Ambiguity (See: "How *not* to rate a search engine"), the feeling is that reviewers commonly perform three queries before rating an engine "good" or "bad" - their own name, a hot topic of the day, and then something completely random. If the engine being tested doesn't match expectations, then it's off to the woodshed. (See: Cuil, Searchme, and other engines that have not been embraced for such examples)


Is Live Search Feeling Lucky? They Say Try It for a Week.
Instead of a simple Live Search vs. Google three query test, Mark recommended users try out Live Search for a full week, arguing that their own experiences would trump any simple demo. And as we discussed yesterday, one person's experience could be wildly different from another's, people primarily focus on the first search result, ignoring the bulk of the iceberg, and that it can be extremely difficult to infer intent and importance of results.

For example, as we discussed yesterday, assuming the working set of a search engine is Wikipedia, as Powerset's search engine prototype was, the web crawler will incorrectly determine that years associated with entries are of incredible importance, given how often they are referenced. As a result, rather than World War Two events rising to the top in importance, computers are more likely to trust results labeled '1944' or '1942' - so how do you teach computers to think like humans and correctly rate influence and importance? He adds, concluding his post, "this is rocket science."

At the quick meetup, questions around Microsoft's potential to dethrone Google were plentiful. We talked about how the once-mighty Alta Vista had once had a significant lead, and even after Google's debut, it held a corner in image search and language translation, before those too were eroded. Could Microsoft find a position that Google just doesn't do well? Could Microsoft start to be good enough such that if people tried to use Live Search for a full week, that Google would seem 'less good'? I even overheard a comment at the event that said in user groups, those surveyed preferred results that displayed a Google logo, even if the results shown were from Live Search.

The Google brand just means trusted search for many people, and even the Microsoft monolith is finding competition to be incredibly difficult. Google managed to find a market space that didn't need Microsoft, and could compete on its own revenue terms, without being frozen out by a competitor who could offer a parallel offer for free, a la Netscape. Even if Microsoft has built a better mousetrap, it is going to need to find a way to communicate that to users and deliver them a compelling reason to make a switch - and if Mark's words are to be believed, users and press aren't doing the needed research to help communicate their progress.

Boring May Be Profitable

By Rob Diana of Regular Geek (Twitter/FriendFeed)

YAWN. Supposedly, that is what we are looking for in an application. Before you misunderstand me, the idea started with a quote from Fred Wilson's blog, "the great moves are usually greeted by a yawn". I am not commenting on the product in question, Twilio, but the general idea. So, what are the great successes in software and internet businesses? Microsoft, Oracle and Google immediately jump to mind. I am not sure if anyone would have called Microsoft sexy or really interesting like they do with Twitter or FriendFeed. Oracle was never an interesting company, by most standards, because they work in data management, which only data people like myself find interesting. Lastly, Google was mostly greeted with "what do we need search for" questions.

Steven Hodson wonders if the future and Web 3.0 will be very boring:

"There is a hubbub of activity as everyone is rushing around putting all the pieces together... At some point though everything is in place – the building is completed and then everyone sets about to do the day by day business of working in that new building. You know the boring stuff."

Typically, boring means corporate or enterprise systems. Boring means data management. Boring also means stable. However, these things normally translate into large amounts of revenue. Social media and social networking have not really converted mainstream corporations. There are some early adopters using sites like Twitter, but that is not the norm. Social media will take some time to gain adoption because there is very little direct return on investment. Advertising is easy to measure, but using Twitter for customer service has no direct correlation to revenue. So, there needs to be a lot of convincing in order to start using social media in the enterprise.

On the other side of the coin is the semantic web or what many people have been calling Web 3.0. The semantic web will not be what people were originally expecting for quite some time. However, many of the semantic companies are trying to create a bridge to the future. A concept that is being promoted is "linked data" for the web. This is the infrastructure for the semantic web. Once the data is linked, we can query the data. But there is a lot of data management that needs to be completed before we can really take advantage of the semantic nature of the data.

Yeah, all of this sounds boring, but the revenue model is much different. To earn a significant amount of revenue on the internet, you need either a million subscribers paying $5 per month or a ton of traffic in order to generate ad revenue. An enterprise installation of social media software could easily start at $30,000 with yearly maintenance of 25%. Granted, corporate customers can be harder to get and typically require a dedicated sales force, but the revenue can quickly grow.

Yes, it is boring, but it is also profitable.

Read more by Rob Diana at RegularGeek.com.

Web Two Dot Oh DotCom Dot Cloud Colon Slash Slash

This afternoon I had the opportunity to attend a session presented by TechCrunch, hosted by Steve Gillmor, around cloud computing, featuring some of the Valley's thought leaders, from many of the biggest names in all of tech, ranging from Salesforce.com to Rackspace, Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Sun, Ning, FriendFeed, Facebook, Amazon.com and a small handful of startups. Each of the participants discussed how their product leveraged the cloud, what it was about this new approach to harvesting data storage and computing that made their products execute the way they do, and how they approached new problems of bandwidth, capacity, licensing, security and scale.

The event, essentially a two parter, with early-stage start-ups presenting for five minutes apiece in front of an expert panel for the first half, and a roundtable of technology elite for the second half, saw a healthy dosage of skepticism mixed in with what was largely a genuine desire for these companies to try and deliver higher-quality services for their users by taking advantage of new protocols.

With everybody saying the word "cloud" to represent customer data or computing being stored independently of local physical disk or blade servers, the word itself grew to be mocked. One 'expert' said cloud was the new "dotcom". Another compared the cloud to rabbits as they kept multiplying, and a third called the cloud "Kool-Aid". With the move of terminology over the last decade from "Dotcom" to "Web 2.0" to "Cloud", you can see why people would be necessarily wary of jumping on the newest movement with two feet.

All names aside, there is as much fact as there was fad in the cloud. The cloud's benefits are clear as data can be stored independent of physical disks, and doesn't require dedicated storage and server administration. Code developers want anytime access to infinite bandwidth and storage, and consumers want instant response times. As the panel debated the genesis of enterprise apps absorbing consumer application features, it was clear that each was facing challenges impossible just a decade ago, and the cloud's availability changed everything.

Paul Buchheit of FriendFeed referred to the Internet as just one big computer, and said that instead of shipping software in a big cardboard box with floppies to introduce version 3.0, you could just ship new code three times a day. Mike Schroepfer of Facebook talked about how his team could handle 1 billion status messages of 100 characters each on a different level of storage than the 1 billion images, each a few megabytes apiece. And Marc Benioff of Salesforce.com won the prize for the best quote of the day, saying, "As an industry, we are always overestimating what we can do in a year and underestimating what we can do in a decade."

Benioff's quote is no doubt true. The next engineering team I meet that hits the initial proposed date with all the requested features is the first one I will meet. But a decade ago, we wouldn't have expected to stream full-length feature films without buffering, or do many of the things we do online, always having been limited by location, bandwidth, memory, storage, or even operating systems. Now, the operating system is even less a part of the discussion. While the panel was held at Microsoft's Silicon Valley office, practically all presentations were done on Apple Macintosh, and featured FireFox, not Internet Explorer. Now, consumers and businesspeople expect to get all their applications and data from anywhere on any device. It was enough that Benioff even left his laptop behind on a trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in favor of his BlackBerry Bold.

It is happening. Not too long ago, yet another meme went around the Web on what the Internet looked like in 1996 - a blink of an eye when you think about it. In 1996, I was hosting a personal home page, using WebStar, on my Apple Macintosh Performa 631 CD, with all of 8 megabytes of RAM. Now, my blog is hosted on the cloud. The images themselves are on the cloud. My participation in social networks like Facebook and FriendFeed... is done on the cloud. And I'm taking my iPhone everywhere. I used to despise the term cloud, and used to rail against it with my colleagues at 3Cube back in 1998 to 2000, but it looks like I lost that battle. Good thing all of us as consumers are winning.

Safari 4's Introduction A Clear Salvo In the New Chrome Wars

In today's Web-centric computing world, there is practically no more important software than that of the Web browser. While an argument could be made that one's e-mail is equally as important, the move to Web-hosted mail services, like GMail and Apple's Mobile Me means that the Web browser itself is where most of today's work gets done. The move from the operating system being the center of our world, and the prism by which we see everything, to that of the Web browser, was central to Netscape's annihilation by Microsoft, and has now practically come true, even as Navigator's time has now come and gone.

Almost 14 years after Netscape as a company went public, a new wave of browser wars is upon us. And while, yes, Internet Explorer, the standard on practically all Windows-based PCs, is still the market share leader, the innovation is not being perceived as coming from Redmond. Instead, it's products like Firefox, Google's Chrome and Apple's Safari which are pushing the envelope and working to enhance our browsing experience. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it's gotten to the point that even if they made a better product with all the possible bells and whistles, nobody outside of Dare Obasanjo would give them credit.

Yesterday, as practically every tech blog on the planet mentioned, Apple introduced a new 4.0 beta version of the Safari browser, including speed enhancements, and most notably, a Top Sites feature that mimics Chrome's most visited sites page. And while other usability enhancements were made, including to the toolbar, expanded browser history and further integration with Google's search bar, it was this addition of "Top Sites" that has everyone thinking about how Apple is taking on Google's Chrome even before the company comes out with its much-awaited official Mac version.


My Top Sites - After Editing Out All Work-Related Sites
And this is exactly the dialog that has long-been needed in the browser space but was lacking when IE finally reached the summit atop Netscape's corpse. Opera and OmniWeb and iCab all had their handful of users, but never gained the kind of mindshare and deployments possible from Firefox, Safari and Chrome. Now, it could be said that Microsoft is being hit from all sides after years of letting Explorer stagnate. (I first called it the Chrome Wars on FriendFeed yesterday)

Being hard wired both as an Apple fanboy and an early adopter, I downloaded Safari 4 beta as soon as I knew it was available. After finally updating the laptop with the latest security updates, we were good to go - and honestly, there will be no turning back. For whatever reason, over the last few weeks, I have had the worst time keeping Safari up and running. Every new tab welcomed a new opportunity to stall and require a force quit. But Safari 4, after a full day's aggressive use, hasn't fallen on its sword even once. And considering I spend practically all my waking hours in front of a browser, that's a good thing.

For me, it's the stability and the speed, and the support for standards, that will make using Safari on a daily basis a success. The Top Sites feature is interesting, a cute way to have 12 pages on hand to click through at all times, but it's not exactly going to save me a ton of time. With RSS, keyboard shortcuts and autocomplete, it's not like I was taking tons of time to enter URLs and go site to site. So yes, we like the new features, but we like it even more that it doesn't crash and will support new Web services that may be using bleeding-edge code.

And while I assume you already know, Safari is more than just a Web browser for Macs. It's also available for Windows, and forms the core browsing experience on the iPhone and iPod Touch. You can get the new Safari 4 beta here: http://www.apple.com/safari/download/.

What's Growing Faster? Software Bloat or PC Capabilities?

There is an old adage in the storage business. No matter how large you make the hard disk, users will find a way to fill it. The same seems true in the bandwidth and networking business - build a bigger pipe, and customers will find applications that use it up. The same concept extends to me as a consumer, for my traditional software experience. While my laptop is tremendously more capable than its predecessors of 2, 5 or 10 years ago, it sure doesn't seem like the software loads any more quickly, and I still find myself closing applications or forcing them to quit when the whole thing grinds to a halt.

Back in late 1998 after I got a first-generation iMac, complete with a then-acceptable 32 megabytes of RAM and a 4 gigabyte hard disk, I marveled at the gargantuan install needed for the latest version of Microsoft Office. I remember specifically telling a friend to just wait... as the next one would take more than a gigabyte of space. Sure enough, that's practically accepted, and now, it's not too uncommon to see downloads, and even software updates, that are in the hundreds of megabytes.

But the issue is less about capacity and more about the perception of speed. Yes, my laptop can do more than its forefathers. It can do new things with the Web and with video that were never before possible. But booting Microsoft Office, Adobe PhotoShop, FireFox and other products still manages to slow down my system to a crawl. It's gotten to the point that I've even eliminated possible reasons for the slowdown. I hardly ever boot into VMware Fusion any more, to run Microsoft Outlook. I stopped using an external monitor at work, and try to recharge my iPhone only when I don't need full use of my MacBook Pro. And that doesn't even extend to other RAM and processor hungry apps, like one of my personal favorites, TweetDeck.

For whatever reason, it seems that software developers have, for the most part, chosen to add features, and not optimize for speed. I don't think it took more time to boot Microsoft Word 5.1 on my old Performa than it takes to boot Microsoft Word 2008 on my MacBook Pro, even if the Megahertz speed on the processor has increased from 33 MHz to 2.2 GHz, and the RAM from 24 Megabytes to 2 Gigabytes. And lest you think I'm picking on Microsoft, Apple's iPhoto has also been a slow to load memory hog in its own right.

If somebody told me ten years ago that I could increase my processor speed by 1,000 percent, and my RAM by about the same amount, I would have expected to be able to hit "Select All" on my Applications folder and then "Open" to run them all at once. But there's no way. At this point, even with my current machine, I probably can run Mail, iTunes, a Web browser and one more application without slowness. Add one or two more apps to the mix, and we're in spinning wheel city.

In one my recent tirades against how often my machine was slowing down, I heard the all too common reply: "Time for a new one?" but the answer should be no. It's time the pace of the treadmill whereby hardware needs to speed up to handle the new software should slow. Get it to work, and get it to work fast. Please.

The Zune Phone Is Not Pink

By Mona Nomura of Pixel Bits (FriendFeed/Twitter)

The Zune phone is not pink, and I am not talking about the actual color.

"Pink" is the code name of Microsoft's latest secret project that has everyone buzzing. There is speculation "Pink" is the new Zune phone. Or is it simply software? Only Microsoft knows the answer, and the rest of us can only guess.

I am a Zune phone nay-sayer, especially at this time. Back in October, I expressed how a Zune phone would not make sense for two major reasons:

Licensees

It would make a lot of WinMo hardware partners unhappy if a Zune phone was launched in January - unless WinMo 7 is ready to launch January 7th (CES). Which means there should already be WinMo 7 mock-ups and demo phones. If so, where are the rumors and leaks?

PlayReady (DRM)

Microsoft has yet to move its own DRM system PlayReady into the Zune. Can Microsoft's mobile team...

1. Implement PlayReady
2. Integrate the PlayReady Zune prototype into a phone
3. Successfully integrate the Danger OS and the Zune
4. Launch WinMo 7 simultaneously as the Zune phone

... in less than a month?

Perhaps I am completely off the mark and Microsoft: is simply going to forget PlayReady existed (PlayReady has been hibernating since its announcement in 2007), is planning to disregard licensees, roll-out WinMo 7, all for a... phone.

Yeah, sure. And Steve Ballmer is monkey dancing, live, three feet away from me.

Read more by Mona Nomura at Pixel Bits

Facebook and Its Partners - What Are They Up To?

By Mona Nomura of Pixel Bits (FriendFeed/Twitter)

If the Internet is like high school, Facebook is like the new kid embraced by the in crowd - just by existing. Despite no monetization track record and a no clear revenue model, Microsoft believes in them - to the tune of 240 million dollars worth of trust. They are also partnered with one of the silent giants, Salesforce.com, the CRM database software corporation behind a lot of sites we use.

Facebook has overcome controversial privacy issues, and keeps growing, despite continued complaints about annoying application invitations, an unintuitive redesign, and is still embraced by the public, even with spam issues. Most recently, Facebook made a bold move, penetrating the single log-on realm with Facebook Connect, which initiated a push for the OpenID movement (again).

So... who is Facebook? What makes them so extraordinary? And why are they so loved?

Beyond their popularity, it's the partnerships that concern me most.

Microsoft is one of Facebook's biggest investors. Salesforce and Facebook recently held a conference presenting their future plans. Just yesterday, Salesforce and Google announced they are furthering their partnership. Now I am not anal about privacy - at all. But it is no secret, Facebook is looking to venture into enterprise and I can not help but wonder: What does all this mean to us, the users? Will the partnerships effect us? If so, how?

I attempted researching to find answers, but largely came up empty. In a way, technology news (specifically Social Networking) is like American politics. Unless you know where to look, most of the information is spun, like political rhetoric. Perhaps I am not looking hard enough, but most of my questions remain unanswered.

So I am turning to you, the readers, to help answer these questions. What do you think these various partnerships mean? How do you think it effects us? When it comes to Facebook and its partners, should we be concerned about privacy issues? Or does it even matter?

Please, enlighten me.

Read more by Mona Nomura at Pixel Bits

Ten Tech Things I'm Thankful For

I don't know about you, but some of the technology we take for granted still seems exciting and mysterious to me. Ever stop in the middle of your laptop and say - wow... I'm seeing streaming video, live, wirelessly in high quality? Ever stop when on a cell phone and realize you're talking to someone thousands of miles away and hearing them respond in real time? It may seem like we take these things for granted, and only speak up when there are problems, but that's far from the truth. On this Thanksgiving holiday, I thought I'd highlight ten things I'm grateful for that impact us in a positive way.

1) I'm Thankful for a Competitive Culture of Curiosity

Without curiosity and aggressive competition, innovation would be at a near stand-still. Experimentation, testing and looking for new markets or way to improve existing markets or products enables new ideas to develop, and new approaches to be found for existing products and activity. In Silicon Valley, entrepreneurialism is encouraged and celebrated, and it's actually okay to fail or work at a failed company multiple times in one's career, so long as you keep trying.

2) I'm Thankful for Expanding Bandwidth and Data Storage

Any of us can look backward at our first computers, and modems, and laugh at how many megabytes of RAM or hard disk space we had, or how we might have tried to get to the Internet at 4-digit baud speeds. Over the decades, you've seen a move on the network side from 10 megabit to 100 megabit, through 10 gigabit on the corporate side, and to high-speed broadband for consumers, not to mention 3G for iPhones and other wireless gadgets. Hard disks have grown from megabytes to gigabytes and now terabytes, enabling higher quality images, video, music and other data exchanges to take place quickly and be stored longer. The growth of bandwidth and data storage has essentially paved the way for the online software repositories, iTunes, YouTube and many other intensive Web apps that are powering today's digital economy.

3) I'm Thankful for The Removal of Geographic Barriers

We may have to get a passport to travel from country to country, but online, I'm talking and engaging with people from around the globe every day. While places like the Silicon Valley still maintain a lead in terms of available networking opportunities, the Web lets me connect with entrepreneurs in Europe, bloggers in Australia, India, and Canada, or around the world. In fact, just a few weeks ago I managed to reach Robert Scoble by cell phone when he was traveling in China, as I'd mistakenly thought he'd already come home. While it would take a day of travel to see him, I could get him live with a few taps on the iPhone. Also, I've befriended people from a wide variety of countries and places around the United States on the myriad of social networks.

4) I'm Thankful for the Ease of Publishing

The Web has dramatically increased the potential to publish in real-time over the last few years. For free, I can register to send short updates to Twitter, or full-length blog posts to Blogger, WordPress or TypePad. There is no application to fill out, or editorial board to approve content. The ease of publishing lets anyone with a voice or something to share get out there quickly to all interested to see.

5) I'm Thankful for the Ease of Discovery

There's a reason Google is thought of as the most successful company of our generation. They focused on the ease of searching and discovery of all the world's information - starting with the World Wide Web at large, and expanding to images, videos, books, news, and trying to ease discovery across different languages with translation tools. Google, and others, expanded to desktop search and discovery to let you find even your own documents. This ease of discovery speeds academia and business, and lets even the most obscure opinions or publications be found, assuming you're on topic and the searcher uses the right keywords.

6) I'm Thankful for the Ease of Data Mobility

Yesterday, I saw a road sign saying "5 1/4 miles" to our destination, and it reminded me of the old 5 1/4" floppy disks, which gave way to 3 1/2" floppy disks, Zip drives, USB keys, and of course, attachments by e-mail, which negated the need for much of the portable physical media. Now, I know that my data is accessible from the Web on essentially any computer or mobile device, no matter where I am. All my e-mail accounts flow to the iPhone. All my bookmarks are synched from my home computer to the iPhone, and I can log into any of my online accounts from any computer to pull down my data or get my personal experience.

7) I'm Thankful for the Ease of Access to People

The combination of the ease of publication and discovery makes it easier than ever to find ways to contact people, by phone, by e-mail, or through social networks where they are active. The old days of the Yellow Pages and White Pages and Blue Pages that you needed to thumb through to find local businesses or your neighborhood directory are gone, replaced by personal address books that stay on your computer and cell phone, and online directories that are searchable. Additionally, those who publish are often easily reachable, even if just through comment pages on their site, giving you a platform for conversation and exchange.

8) I'm Thankful for the Opportunity to Exchange Ideas

Nobody is an expert on everything, but just about everyone is an expert on something. Where I have weaknesses, or limited understanding, it is fairly easy now to find resources or individuals who have strength, and who are open to discussion. Combined with the ease of discovery and publication, rather than posting items here and waiting for people to answer, I can go to these sources and engage with them where they want to engage at their point of comfort - be it on their preferred social network, their blog, their user forum or bulletin board.

9) I'm Thankful for the Acceptance and Promotion of Standards

As technology consumers, we have our idiosyncrasies. I may prefer to use Mac OS X computers, and use the Safari Web browser. You may prefer Windows Vista, and like Internet Explorer or Firefox. But, in theory, our Web experience should be the same. While there was a time when Mac documents and PC documents or Mac formatted disks and PC formatted disks were wildly different and non-transferrable, both platforms have practically unified so documents and applications are largely equivalent on all platforms and an experience can be universal. The acceptance of standards for all things on the Web, from the GIF and JPEG standards to those for HTML, Java, CSS and PHP, ensure that Web sites and applications can increasingly behave appropriately and within guidelines, regardless of the consumer's setup and geography. While I know things could still improve, the community has made incredible strides in pursuing unity.

10) I'm Thankful for Never Accepting the Status Quo as Good Enough

Where much is given, much is expected. As Web bandwidths increase, as disk storage increases, as ease of access increases, and the number of people getting on the Web and using it for all aspects of commerce, friendship, and communication increases, the capability of each site and application gains the potential for improvement. And I've yet to meet a site or an application that simply stops working, saying they have stopped all bugs, and that the experience could not possibly get any better. Google is constantly improving and experimenting with their search index and results. Microsoft and Apple are constantly rolling out new iterations to their operating systems, their applications and their Web browsers. And startups are always coming and going, not just in an effort to make the people working there some money, but because they want to make a real difference through leveraging the cutting edge of technology.

As a consumer and as someone who for more than a decade has worked in Silicon Valley, looking to help develop and distribute differentiated products that aid customers, I know I will never accept what we have as good enough. But I appreciate the opportunity to exchange ideas, to reach new people, to discover new content and to publish where I can. That's part of what's enabled exchanges such as this. What are you thankful for in the world of technology and what do you believe I left out?

Microsoft and RIM? I Don't Think So.

By Mona Nomura of Pixel Bits (FriendFeed/Twitter)

There's speculation of a possible Microsoft-RIM marriage. It sounds appealing, but highly unlikely. Steven Hodson points out Microsoft has never been in hardware. I agree hardware is a factor but the bigger question is: can a MSFT-RIM team compete in the Mobile Market?


(Pie chart via jkOnTheRun. Thank You!)
In 2007, the mobile world was heavily Symbian dominated at 57.1% of the share. WinMo was 2nd with 11.5%, followed by RIM at 8.9%. Currently, the leader board is Symbian = 57.1%, RIM = 17.4%, and WinMo = 12%. In just one year, RIM shot past Microsoft with a 126.4% growth rate.

Phenomenal.

If MSFT and RIM merged, they would take 29.6% of the market, and still be only half of Symbian - with two separate platforms. RIM's number one selling point is its push mail and server. As Electronista points out, server integration would be a potential nightmare. With iPhone's increasing momentum, would Microsoft and RIM risk potential loss while the integration takes place? Not to mention, RIM's co-CEOs are heavily involved. I highly doubt they would agree to Microsoft taking over the solid system they built. And even if the merger isn't hostile, would it make sense for Microsoft to obtain two different platforms?

Then, there's the issue of software. Android is Open Source. Linux is Open Source. Max OS X is Open Platform. Symbian-Nokia announced in June they will go Open Source. I'm guessing Microsoft will eventually go Open Source. (Perhaps sooner than we all think, since Gates departed in June.)

BUT

If Microsoft joins the Open Source game too late, RIM and WinMo would most likely be left behind. Why would anyone choose devices that aren't as flexible as Open Source / Platform ones? Would it make sense for RIM to join forces with anti-Open Source Microsoft? Especially since we're seeing tremendous growth rates?

I don't think so.

What I do know is this. The mobile market is changing, and this is only the beginning. Exciting times for us geeks! So what's your current phone? Are you waiting for a particular handset?

Read more by Mona Nomura at Pixel Bits.

Google at 10 - a Decade of Innovation - But Challenges Ahead

By Charlie Anzman of SEO and Tech Daily (FriendFeed/Twitter)

Yesterday, Google posted a fascinating timeline of the past ten years.

For those of us that have been around since the days when Yahoo! dominated search (and Google wasn't 'here' yet), the timeline brings back a lot of memories, and also causes some pondering about the future.

Google's juice has always been their corporate culture. I've written about it before. A few weeks ago, Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, commented that they try not to buy a lot of companies because it's easier to innovate from within, rather than to try and change the way a company does things. (Paraphrased).

Others are complaining about Google's stock price. A careful look at insider trading over two years showed many (current) employees cashing out in the 300's per share. Was 700+ in 2008 ever really in the cards? Did Wall Street expect a little too much?

Now we see Google literally firing on all cylinders. A new Web browser (Chrome), a significant upgrade to Picasa (and Picasaweb), and lots of other upgrades, APIs, additions and announcements made over the past two months.

There's little disputing the fact that Google (and the Internet) have literally created and/or eliminated exisiting business models (or significantly changed them). Not just Internet models but brick and mortar businesses as well. They've also created opportunity for those who continued to read, learn and took advantage of it.

Now, people don't Yahoo-it, or MSN-it (even though they do), the vernacular is Google-it ... and that alone is HUGE.

Interestingly, for you advertising buffs, Google has no tag line. There is no 'what we are' or 'what we do'. Obviously, someone recognized very early on, that the Internet (and the world) was changing so fast, it was difficult to predict exactly where Google's strengths would emerge. That continues to be the case.

I find I now have the same reaction to Google's success that I did to Microsoft's many years ago. Both serve as an example of how just a few people can create something BIG in just a few short years and set an example for those thinking about doing just that.

Like Microsoft, and many others, Google is a role model of sorts for entrepreneurs everywhere.

As they grow and mature, it will be difficult for Google to maintain their corporate culture, but not impossible. The perks of working at the Googleplex make complete and total sense. Help people forget about their mundane day-to-day worries so they can think, be creative, and work.

So …. Happy Birthday Google! One can only imagine (or better yet vision) what the next ten years will bring.

Read more by Charlie Anzman at SEO and Tech Daily.

The New World of Browser Choices is All About the Hooks

In a perfect technology world, every Web site and every Web application would perform the same way across all Web browsers, operating systems and mobile devices. But we're not in a perfect world, and Web surfers' experiences are being increasingly determined by browser-specific plug-ins, third party applications and tie-ins with the host operating system. The result makes it less likely that one Web browser user can make a switch, after having invested in one specific application to get a tailored user experience.

Today's big news/rumor is that Google is preparing their own Web browser, called Chrome, which is based on WebKit, the same foundation underlying Apple's Safari browser. While the news hasn't been confirmed by Google outright, all indications make it appear to be true.

(Update: Google has now made it official)

There Are A Lot of Questions About Chrome

With news of Chrome, Web enthusiasts are already asking questions - will it support the GreaseMonkey scripts designed for FireFox? Will it be released for Mac OS X on the same day it's released for Linux and Windows? And, as it's so early, at least the latter question can't be answered. But assuming they are using WebKit, it's unlikely GreaseMonkey scripts could be used out of the box.

Today's Web Browsing Experience Comes Down To:

1. Speed
2. Reliability
3. Compatibility
4. Data Portability
5. Extensibility

It is no longer enough to load the fastest. The time when you could put Internet Explorer and Netscape or Safari and Firefox side by side and show me how quickly they loaded HTML pages or performed JavaScript renders is gone. People just expect the browsers to work. And if they crash even once a day, users are unhappy. So Speed and Reliability are assumed.

Compatibility, for the most part, is a small issue at this point. It's a rare site that says "Please Use Internet Explorer" or "Your Operating System is Not Yet Supported", although that does happen. That's why initial response to Internet Explorer 8, beta 2, was so tepid, as it really did fail the basic expectations. (See Steven Hodson's critique)

That leaves what I see as the most important points going forward: Data portability and extensibility, and the biggest trojan horse I see going forward to impact the browser marketplace is the iPhone.

If Google Announces Chrome, Does Apple Put it In the iTunes App Store?

Apple made a custom, light-weight, version of Safari for the iPhone, which makes their Web browser the default browsing experience for what's the world's most talked-about cell phone. Using Safari on the iPhone makes it more likely that you will use Safari on your Mac or your PC because it can synchronize your bookmarks, and unify your browsing experience. Changing bookmarks on your desktop means they are changed on the iPhone.

Today, there are no alternative Web browsers for the iPhone. No Firefox, no Opera, and definitely, no Internet Explorer. While Google and Apple appear to be friends, and Google makes applications for the iTunes Application Store, and therefore, the iPhone, can you see Apple opening up the option for users to browse in Chrome instead? And even if they did, the likelihood of Chrome's behavior being mirrored to the desktop, via iTunes, is slim.

Apple playing the role of gatekeeper to the iTunes Store will be a bigger deal as the iPhone increases in market share.

Could Mozilla/Firefox Apps Be Re-written for WebKit?

There are scads of great GreaseMonkey scripts designed for some of the social networks I use, including FriendFeed. In addition, the Google Reader overlay, Feedly, only works in Firefox, so as long as I stay in Safari, I don't use the product at all. To date, Safari has badly trailed Firefox and IE in terms of getting add-ons, like browser toolbars and plug-ins, but if Google were to enter the market with another WebKit-based browser, that could shake things up.

So What About the Hooks?

As a Mac user and a MobileMe customer, my e-mail, Web browser bookmarks, and address book are synchronized across my devices, both laptop and iPhone, and the data is available online from any computer, in the cloud. Because of these hooks, I'm not a good candidate to move away from Safari any time soon, and I'm more tied into Apple's infrastructure of E-mail, Address Book, and iCal than ever before.

For others, it's Google who has the hooks. From their Google Calendar to GMail and Picasa, they've trusted Google with their personal data. For these folks, Google will undoubtedly tailor Chrome to their interests, and it would be hard for competitors like Apple and Microsoft to make the interoperability any better. But this, of course, leaves out the iPhone scenario, which leads us to Android, Google's approach to make a next-generation phone operating system, distributed through multiple handset partners.

Now, instead of seeing that a browser is faster, or more pretty, or has more features, it's more important that we can move our data around between devices and that the applications don't hiccup. We may not have seen it at first, but as the major browser vendors start to tie in to the applications you use every day, they're getting more of a hook into you as a customer, and reducing your potential to use an alternative product. Even before we see Google's Chrome in action, I know it will take being lighter, faster, and as reliable, to start, plus featuring the type of hooks that Safari does today, on the iPhone, to make me consider it anything more than a hobby and as a primary browser alternative.

We've come a long way since Microsoft embedded Internet Explorer in the Windows operating system and was deemed a monopolist, but that won't stop the big players from playing favorites with their own applications and giving you reasons to stick around.

The Even Geekier Approach to Fantasy Football

You would think with trying to keep the blog regular, working a full-time job, keeping active on all kinds of social networks, and raising two month old twins, I wouldn't need yet another time sink. But, clearly not knowing my own limits, I agreed to return to the world of Fantasy Football after taking a two-year hiatus, re-joining the league where I was active from 2001-2005, even though I haven't been paying attention to the NFL at all, and couldn't tell you the starters on just about any squad. So, why do I think I have a chance taking on a group of couch potatoes who have bye weeks and depth charts memorized? The answer: Because I'll be the biggest nerd in the room.

Here's what I do to keep myself challenging for the league title each year:
(I've won the 12-team league twice in five years and finished second once):

1. I don't pick favorite teams or favorite players.

When I was growing up, the San Francisco 49ers were the team of the decade. They won four Super Bowls, and Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott and Roger Craig were superstars. But in the last decade or so, the team might as well have fallen into the Bay, and I don't really care. As a result, I'm not drafting them too highly or unfairly promoting my hatred of their rival.

2. I only bring a laptop to draft day, not a pile of magazines and highlighters.

While some guys show up with their dog-eared copies of ESPN the Magazine and Sports Illustrated or Football Weekly, and six colored markers, as well as the year's bye week schedule and an up to the minute injury report, I just bring my laptop and have Microsoft Excel ready to go. While they shuffle papers around and debate how their home mock drafts differ from the real deal, I'm ready to sort and click between tabs to find my data.

3. I believe past performance is the best indicator of future performance.

I don't need to see teams play or practice to believe a quarterback and a wide receiver have "chemistry", or need to see if a guy has had a good off-season regimen. Instead, the most important data is how well they performed relative to their peers at the position in previous years, according to the rules of the league you are playing.


My 2004 Data Set With 2003 Results
That said, I use the tools that are available to get the data I want, and it all goes into Excel, including:

• A worksheet that shows the previous years' league results, sortable by position, name, team, total points, overall points ranking, and average points per week.
• A worksheet that shows the bye weeks
• A worksheet that shows the most recent injury report, by team
• One or more worksheet with the proposed draft order from ESPN or USA Today

I then create two net new tabs, including:

• A worksheet that will display the team I have drafted.
• A worksheet that tracks the entire league's draft for the season

Once all the data is in there, I'm ready to go to work, as soon as the draft starts. As picks are made by each other team, I quickly highlight those who are off the board in multiple places - on the tab showing last year's statistics, and on the mock draft boards from ESPN and USA Today. At this point, the draft isn't that much different in Excel as it is on paper, but as time progresses, and the all too typical first few rounds get chewed up by running backs, quarterbacks and the occasional wide receiver, my preparedness has an advantage.

If your fantasy football league was online last year, all you usually have to do is go to last season's end of year report, and do a copy/paste into Excel, which will recognize all the columns and set you up for sorting nirvana. If at first you don't succeed... keep trying until you do. Worst case, save the pages as HTML and you can bring them to the draft day on the laptop.


The 2004 Draft, A Down Year for Me
Where others are deciding whether to take a team defense or their third running back, I can go and use Excel's Sort option to its fullest. I can take the highest players available based on their points per game average from the previous season, or do the same to fill a position I need. I can know whether taking a good quarterback will mean all that much relative to the next highly rated option, or if I should keep filling the backfield.


My 2004 Roster, For Example
And the latest rounds are where I make a killing. At this point, especially as most drafts are on Saturday mornings, and guys are joking around about taking players who are injured, or complaining about how the guy just before them snaked Fred Taylor or Torry Holt, I can sneak in and find players that were rated highly last year or by the major sports publications, yet haven't been drafted.

In 2004, my 10th round pick ended up being Willis McGahee of the Bills. In 2005, I got Larry Johnson of the Chiefs in round 12, who ended up being excellent injury protection for Priest Holmes, scoring 17 touchdowns on 1,549 yards rushing. As the rest of the teams use all the allotted time, often accidentally drafting players that have already been taken, my turn comes around every 12th pick, and I look to my Excel sheets for the answer. Yes, they overlooked my secret weapon, and I'll be setting myself up for the win, again.

This year's draft time is 10 a.m. tomorrow morning, and I've made it a little more fun by getting Drew Olanoff of ReadBurner and Strands to be part of the festivities, as well as two friends from work, all of whom are joining the league for the first time. We'll see who wins the battle of Fantasy Football geeks.

On the Web, If You're Not Growing, You're Dying

Often, perception of a site or service's momentum can be self-fulfilling.

Even over the last two years of my writing on this blog, the companies I cover have changed, as what used to be relevant has become less so, and new hotshots have come to take their place. But while some niche services are on their way to becoming household names, others that could have done so are fading, when compared to their peaks of 1, 2 or even 5 years ago.

One tool showing the decline of brands relative to one another is Google Trends, which measures how frequently a keyword is searched for as a percentage of the total searches on the Web.

Using Google Trends, you can see the near-death of older Web 1.0 brands, like Netscape, Lycos and Alta Vista, the plateauing of early Web 2.0 brands, like MySpace, and the deflating balloon of weakened brands, such as Technorati, Digg and Microsoft.


Netscape's Downfall... In Graph Form.

And Lycos Follows Suit.
A little more than a week ago, Google Trends made news by introducing the ability to track data on Web sites, but the service's core element helps shed some light on the fact that the interest level in Technorati has been slashed in half in just the last 12 months, that MySpace peaked a year ago, as did Digg.


The Technorati Monster Is Starving.

And Digg Is In a Rut.

MySpace Is Floating in Space.
Meanwhile, as both Google and Yahoo! have continued an upward trajectory of world interest, Microsoft has seen steady decline every year, starting in 2004, when the data was first tracked.


The Only Thing More Depressing is MSFT Stock.
At one time, it was fun to point out that the Technorati monster had escaped, that Technorati wasn't up to challenging Google Blog Search, or to debate whether Digg's relevance was going to decrease with its move away from solely having a tech focus. But Google Trends lays out on the table the tougher news - nobody cares, and the number of people actively looking for news on Digg or Technorati is going down, while many, many other services are rapidly growing.

While the entire market of Web measurements is questionable, from Alexa to Compete.com and all sorts of competitors in between, it'd be interesting to see Google get even more aggressive with their trends, showing the velocity of a term's decline or ascension. Maybe that'd get the point across a little better for those saying their damaged brands aren't in trouble.

And lest you think Google Trends is all bad news, it's not. Take a look at hotter stories, like Twitter, FriendFeed, Facebook or Google itself to see what an up and to the right arrow looks like. But if these brands aren't careful, like some of those listed above, they too could stagnate and fall. And once you slow, you're really just preparing for the inevitable drop.