Google = Google+ Google = Google+ Earlier this week I participated in Google’s partner conference, entitled Zeitgeist after the company’s annual summary of trending topics. Deep readers of this site know I have a particular affection for the original Zeitgeist, first published in 2001. When I stumbled across that link, I realized I had to write The Search. The conference reminds me of TED, full of presentations and interviews meant to inspire and challenge the audience’s thinking. I participated in a few of the onstage discussions, and was honored to do so. I’d been noodling a post about the meaning of Google’s brand*, in particular with respect to Google+, for some time, and I’d planned to write it before heading to the conference, if for no other reason than it might provide fodder for conversations with various Google executives and partners.
Jeff Bezos wasn't just rambling today when he was talking about Amazon's cloud services in the middle of the consumer-focused Kindle triple-launch. Amazon's Kindle has massive implications for the tablet market, but the Silk browser has some implications for the Web at large. And don't expect the Silk browser to stay confined to the Kindle Fire. By funneling traffic through Amazon's own servers, it may create some privacy implications and security concerns for individuals and businesses. The Implications of Amazon's Silk Web Browser - ReadWriteCloud The Implications of Amazon's Silk Web Browser - ReadWriteCloud
Google+ had a chance to compete with Facebook. Not anymore AFP/Getty Images. Shortly after Google launched its new social network in June, many companies—including several online magazines, Slate among them—attempted to create “brand profiles” on the service. The rush was a testament to Google’s power to drive a flood of users to any new site it launches. Though Google+ was pretty rough around the edges, many observers called it a credible alternative to Facebook, so it made sense for companies to get in on the ground floor. Farhad Manjoo is a technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal and the author of True Enough. Google+ had a chance to compete with Facebook. Not anymore
The Internet is entering its big-box phase, and Google wants to be Walmart. Reuters Google Music will not change your life. The new service, which debuted Wednesday at an event in Los Angeles, cobbles together a bunch of features that should be familiar to music fans. There's an iTunes-style library that sits in your web browser. There's a music store that lets you share songs with friends via the web giant's social network, Google+. GoogleMart: Google's Plan to Become the One-Stop-Shop of the Mobile Web - Jordan Weissmann - Business GoogleMart: Google's Plan to Become the One-Stop-Shop of the Mobile Web - Jordan Weissmann - Business
Google+ Was Never a Facebook Competitor The social web is a well reported topic within the media today, and for good reason. We are in a transitional change with how we communicate with each other online, how brands reach consumers and how organisations market to their audience. We are undoubtedly immersed in the technology age, and our lives, the way we interact with others, is changing totally. Google+ Was Never a Facebook Competitor
Is Too Much Plus a Minus for Google? « Is Too Much Plus a Minus for Google? « Thursday, January 12th, 2012 On Tuesday, Google announced something called Search, plus Your World (SPYW). It marked a startling transformation of the company’s flagship product, Google Search, into an amplifier of social content. Google’s critics—as well as some folks generally well intentioned towards Google—have complained that the social content it amplifies is primarily Google’s own product, Google+.
Daniel Soar reviews ‘The Googlisation of Everything (and Why We Should Worry)’ by Siva Vaidhyanathan, ‘In the Plex’ by Steven Levy and ‘I’m Feeling Lucky’ by Douglas Edwards · LRB 6 October 2011 Daniel Soar reviews ‘The Googlisation of Everything (and Why We Should Worry)’ by Siva Vaidhyanathan, ‘In the Plex’ by Steven Levy and ‘I’m Feeling Lucky’ by Douglas Edwards · LRB 6 October 2011 This spring, the billionaire Eric Schmidt announced that there were only four really significant technology companies: Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, the company he had until recently been running. People believed him. What distinguished his new ‘gang of four’ from the generation it had superseded – companies like Intel, Microsoft, Dell and Cisco, which mostly exist to sell gizmos and gadgets and innumerable hours of expensive support services to corporate clients – was that the newcomers sold their products and services to ordinary people. Since there are more ordinary people in the world than there are businesses, and since there’s nothing that ordinary people don’t want or need, or can’t be persuaded they want or need when it flashes up alluringly on their screens, the money to be made from them is virtually limitless. Together, Schmidt’s four companies are worth more than half a trillion dollars.
RV890, Norway 2011. Toward the end of Lewis Carroll’s endlessly unfurling saga Sylvie & Bruno, we find the duo sitting at the feet of Mein Herr, an impish fellow endowed with a giant cranium. The quirky little man regales the children with stories about life on his mysterious home planet. “And then came the grandest idea of all! The Grand Map, Avi Steinberg The Grand Map, Avi Steinberg
Use Google? Time to Get Real About Protecting Your Digital Self - Sara Marie Watson - Technology Google's decided to integrate the data it has about you, which means you better think about the digital tracks you're leaving. Search, browser, email. These are the most essential tools of an Internet-connected life, and for many of us, Google offers the best of breed. Aside from sharing a common log-in, it hasn't been clear how complete Google's consolidated view of any given user might be across its suite of products -- until yesterday. Now it is patently clear: Going forward, Google is compiling its user data across all of its products, resulting in an omniscient, informed, one-true profile of you, all in the name of serving you more relevant information -- and, of course, ads. This comes as no surprise. Use Google? Time to Get Real About Protecting Your Digital Self - Sara Marie Watson - Technology
How Google's New Privacy Policy Could Affect You How Google's New Privacy Policy Could Affect You You’re on the way to a meeting. Traffic seems to be slowing. A text comes in: “You’re going to be late. Take the next exit for alternate route.” It’s from Google.
Search engines are morphing into something new: vast brains that don't just show links, but respond directly to questions you ask in everyday language Editorial: "Do internet companies have all the answers?" SEARCH engines have barely changed since Google was founded in 1998. Sure, they run on blazingly fast servers and are powered by sophisticated algorithms, but the experience itself is basically the same: users enter a word or two and the engine spits out links to the most relevant pages. That is about to change.Last month, Google rolled out its "knowledge graph", which serves up facts and services in response to search terms - not just links to websites. Why Google will soon answer your questions directly - tech - 06 June 2012
Google+ comScore: Google's social networking lags behind FaceBook, MySpace
Look, Google, we've got a plan to help you win on social. There's only one catch: You have to give up on the notion that animates Google Plus. Out in the Mojave Desert, there's a place called California City that's fascinated me ever since Geoff Manaugh brought its story to the Internet's attention. The city is one of the largest in the state by land area, but its population sits at a mere 14,718. The facts together indicate the grandeur of the planned community's conception and its failure. tl;dr version Technology - Alexis Madrigal - How Google Can Beat Facebook Without Google Plus
(image) Here’s a short overview of Google’s past few months: It’s angered policymakers and pundits with a sweeping change to its privacy settings. It’s taken a beating for favoring its own properties in its core search results. It’s been caught with its hands in Apple’s cookie jar, and despite the fact Facebook and others previously condoned the practice, it was savaged for doing so. Why Hath Google Forsaken Us? A Meditation.
This morning, the Pew Internet and American Life Project released the results of a February survey analyzing Americans' feelings about online privacy. The main takeaway is something of a paradox: The majority of us are uncomfortable with personalized search and targeted ads. At the same, time, though, we're more satisfied than ever with the performance of search engines. Taken together, the polling shows that there is a great uneasiness about the status quo of data collection on the Internet. And yet, people like using the Internet. In phone calls with Pew, 65 percent of Internet users said it's generally "a bad thing" if a search engine collects information about individual searches and then uses it to rank someone's search results -- because it may limit the information you get online and what search results you see. Americans Love Google! Americans Hate Google! - Megan Garber - Technology
Last August, Google (GOOG) Chief Executive Officer Larry Page fulfilled a pledge made to one of his senior executives, a square-jawed former attorney named Dennis Woodside. Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook had been trying to poach Woodside to make him Apple’s head of sales; Google had persuaded him to stay, in part by promising him a bigger job, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, but who asked not to be named because the discussions were private. Now it was time to make good. It's Official: Google Is Now a Hardware Company
The Case Against Google
Google Wants to Legalize Same Sex Marriage Worldwide - National