Googley iPhone Goodness


It is obvious that Google is going to embrace mobile applications very, very powerfully in the coming year and it looks like Google has a great first iPhone effort with their new search application featuring a lot of automated guessing so you can avoid the most painful part of the mobile experience – typing.

Of course things are *really* going to get interesting this fall or early next year when a new Google mobile phone will come out.    Although Google has produced branded hardware for some time in the form of search appliances these had an extremely limited distribution.   The upcoming  “G Phone” will be a *huge* success if it offers iPhone functionality at a lower price.   I think the latest assumption is that a Google phone will be made by HTC for Dell though I have not checked in on this recently.    I think the Google branding factor will be incredibly powerful, and predict that *most* users will choose  a “Google gPhone” over an “Apple iPhone” assuming similar features and cost.    This isn’t to suggest the iPhone market cannot exist alongside a gPhone, and clearly the iPhone is the mobile device to beat, so the game is very much on right now in terms of smartphone competition.     Sprint’s new “Instinct” is an excellent device with many advantages over the old iPhone (e.g. Geolocation), though I think we’ll see functionality in these devices converge as early as next year with no compromises for users.   Computing is rapidly moving to mobile.

Here is a demo of the iPhone application at the Google Mobile Blog

Google blog

Google Ranking Needs a Spanking


Over at the Google blog today Amit Singhal has post 1 of 2 that promises an introduction to Google ranking.  As usual I’m disappointed in the way Google maintains what to me is a pretense of transparency while using some very ruthless and mysterious tactics to downrank sites they claim don’t meet quality guidelines.   Google (correctly) sees themselves as warring with spammers for control of the web but (incorrectly) thinks transparency is the wrong approach in this fight.

There were some rumblings last year of contacting webmasters directly about site problems but my understanding is that this would represent only a tiny fraction of total sites under penalty.    Of course, due to so little transparency in this area we can’t know the real numbers.

I’ll hope Amit’s second post is a LOT more specific, because I think he’s already practicing the kind oblique speak that is becoming commonplace when many from Google talk about ranking:

Amit:
No discussion of Google’s ranking would be complete without asking the common – but misguided! 🙂 – question: “Does Google manually edit its results?” Let me just answer that with our third philosophy: no manual intervention.

That statement is false, and he should not say it.   He does try to clarify later in the post:

I should add, however, that there are clear written policies for websites recommended by Google, and we do take action on sites that are in violation of our policies or for a small number of other reasons (e.g. legal requirements, child porn, viruses/malware, etc).

Action?  Yes, of course he means the *manual intervention* he said above does not happen.  Google has a right to pull sites out of the rankings, though it is annoying how much they talk about NOT manually intervening when they do it.    Because of no transparency nobody outside of Google knows how often they manually intervene.    Amit makes  it sound like it’s only for horrors like child porn or malware, but note that the use of inappropriate “SEO” tactics such as “hidden text” can get you removed and even banned from the Google index.   Unfortunately for small sites – e.g. “Aunt Sally’s House of Knitting website”  Aunt Sally may have no idea her webmaster is using these tactics.   How often does this happen?    My guess is that hundreds of thousands of legitimate sites are ranked very improperly due to technical penalties, but due to no transparency (and probably no measure of this at Google) nobody knows.

The big Google problem is that the policies for algorithmic downranking are not *clear enough*.  Many SEO companies prey on this lack of transparency, ironically often using Google’s mystique to lure unsuspecting businesses into expensive “optimization” schemes that don’t work or can get them seriously penalized.

Part of Google’s search algorithm philosphy is that they don’t share details because spammers would exploit them before honest people.   Although a weak case can be made for this idea, a better one is that in  non-transparent systems dishonest folks will do *better* because they invest more energy into finding the loopholes.    For example inbound linking, a very hot SEO topic last year at SES San Jose, has complex rules nobody understands outside of Google.    For example linking between sites in an information network can be advantageous or it can be penalized depending on whether Google (rather than the community or webmaster) sees the practice as manipulative of the algorithm or user-friendly and thus allowable.

Amit – a clear policy is one where the webmaster will know, rather than guess, what they are doing to annoy the Google algorithm or the manual intervention folks.

There is a pretty good source for information about how to approach site architecture for optimal ranking and it is to read Matt Cutts’ SEO related posts here.

Although Matt won’t give out much about the algorithmic penalties that create much of the Google confusion and frustration for established websites, if you follow Google’s guidelines and Matt’s posts on SEO you are unlikely to have serious problems with ranking.     Of course unless you work to optimize a new website you will have the *standard problems* with ranking since your competition is probably doing basic SEO on their site.   I’d argue (along with many SEO folks) that the best way to enter things this late in the game and hope for good ranks is with a topical *blog* to support your website.   Start with several posts about your general area of business, using a lot of the terminology people would use to find your website, and add posts regularly.

I’ll be covering the SES San Jose Search Conference and expect to hear a lot more debate about the issue of transparency, blogging, and SEO.

Lively by Google: Will Lively bring death to Second Life?


Google lively is a very clever social interaction “environment” that is simple to set up and modify, and may appeal a lot to folks who like some visual feedback when chatting with others.   I don’t think this will replace the experience for hard core second life folks, but I’m fairly sure it’ll cut the number of *new registrations* at Second Life by quite a bit.      In fact I’m sure they are now discussing how to handle this major assault on what was a virtual monopoly (literally and figuratively) at Second Live.

I’m unable to embed my Google Lively rooms here, though I just tested and they work fine in blogger blogs.

It’s funny how things come back around.   About ten years ago I got my tourism board of directors to experiment with “virtual meetings” using avatars and within a simple browser framework.   I even forget the program.    The technology was fine – even it allowed chats and a way to “carry” groups of people to different URLs so you could demo new web pages and such.     However the mostly non-tech crowd simply was not comfortable interacting in this fashion and I got very limited participation.    Even now this is the case for many, but I think the growing number of technophiles combined with the current generation of young folks who are very comfortable with virtual worlds will open up this type of “conversation” to include a large segment of the population – enough to make this a significant new addition to the online communication landscape.

Niniane Wang from Google has the intro blog post:
Official Google Blog: Be who you want on the web pages you visit

The New York Times Brad calls this a “Whackier” kind of Google, which I think is a compliment.

Facebook tells me I’m overweight – this is *good* targeted advertising?


Logging into Facebook I was assaulted presented with an advertisement featuring a picture of an incredibly fit fellow’s chiseled abdomen with the caption “48 YR OLD Overweight?”….

I suppose I should be thankful this was not a picture of a shirtless Mark Zuckerberg, but ..

I’m 48 so I can’t believe this was a coincidence – obviously Facebook is using my personal information to target ads to me – using the information they said they’d keep confidential and I really don’t want shared with any old Tom, Dick, or Hairy bodybuilder advertisers.

As I’ve noted before online privacy is largely an oxymoron, and I’m really not very concerned about the privacy “violation” here.  However something about this pisses me off – I think partly because after all the hype – including from people like me – I hate to think this is the best we can do with targeted advertising.

Sure, I’m a *little* overweight but I don’t need the bogus overpriced green diet junk advertised to me here by Mr. Muscleydude.    This is the classic type of junk product “seen on TV” presented in an annoying way using information I don’t want given out to advertisers.   In my book Facebook has already pushed past the limit of advertising more than is welcome by me, and I get the strong feeling that with revenues in question we’ll see a lot more of these marginally relevant ads in the future.

Showdown at the Yahoo Corral Coming August 1


Carl Icahn and Microsoft appear to be coordinating an attack on the current Yahoo board with today’s joint announcements by Icahn and a Microsoft stating they are ready to do a major deal with Yahoo.    The animosity towards Microsoft is conspicuous given that one can reasonably argue (I would) that Microsoft remains pretty generous all things considered.   They appear to comfortable with a share price in the same neighborhood of the $33 that Yahoo rejected months ago, despite the fact that shareholder discontent with Yahoo’s price and board combined with continued US economic concerns would arguably support a somewhat lower valuation.

In this corporate showdown at the Yahoo Corral  I think Jerry Yang and David Filo have drawn the unfortunate roles of Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury

I got a huge kick out of Kara Swisher’s disturbing picture of the corporate death match:

… another boost today with a classic wrestling double-body slam that Icahn and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer perpetrated on Yang today by unveiling their own dysfunctional love match–united in hatred of current Yahoo leadership.

I think however that Kara is very wrong to suggest that Icahn toppling the Yahoo board is “unlikely”.   Most of the small shareholders do not have the vested interest in the company of a Yang or Filo and are likely to support Icahn.   More importantly, I think that Yang has lost what appeared to be a sort of hypnotic impact  on some of the existing board members and large shareholders and even if they are not stating this publicly I’m fairly confident they’ll be voting for Icahn in August.    For small investors it is painful to turn away a 50%+ boost in share value – for big investors it could spell their eventual ruin.     With billions at stake I think the predictive model here is fairly simple:   Yahoo will be sold either in part or whole to Microsoft at a share price of about $34.     I’ve been saying this for some time and see nothing to suggest it’s not going to happen in August- just a bit later than a rational market model would have suggested because egos and exaggerations, and the legendary Silicon Valley v. Microsoft animosity got in the way.

Disclosure: I’m Long on Yahoo

Zakaria vs Hannity


Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN’s excellent new show Global Public Square, is debating Sean Hannity today on Hannity’s America.   The topic appears to be Hannity’s insistence that “America is the greatest country on earth” and as far as I can tell he wants everybody, regardless of nationality, to agree.

I’m a huge fan of Zakaria’s broad, intelligent view of the role of the USA in our complex world and not a fan of Hannity’s sometimes spooky form of “shout down conservatism” where, unlike rounded folks like Zakaria, Hannity simply refuses to discuss or even acknowledge our many USA defects, choosing instead to personally malign many who he sees as standing in the way of his “my country right or wrong and my country is never wrong anyway” naivete.

Hannity correctly notes a lot of the things that make the USA a great country, but his blindness to our defects, especially our massive and irresponsible spending on unneeded military projects and our newfound enthusiasm for mixing fundamental religion and politics does a disservice to the wisdom of the founders who clearly understood how critical it was to think and debate the issues of governance and society far more broadly than most modern conservatives (or liberals) tend to do..

Google’s KinderGate: Your kids are welcome here for $57,000 a year.


When I first read about trouble in Google land over child care costs I thought it would be another case of the how super well paid but whiney Silicon Valley parents were unreasonably complaining about a minor bump in their charmed luxury lives. But maybe not.

Google appears to be on a search for the holy grail of child care, and even after charging parents for the service Google wound up subsidizing things to the tune of 37,000 *per child per year* – managing to spend the approximate average national income on every kid lucky enough to reach the nirvanesque kinderplex environment. The solution to this negative cash flow – unusual for the company known for showering employees with benefits like laundry service and free meals – was to raise the child care rates to about 2500 per month per child.

The NYT reports that two kids in Google childcare will run you $57,000. Although Googlers take home an average of something like $140,000 per year this isn’t going to ruin them, but this sure ain’t a page from the Brady Bunch days.

The situation is interesting economically but I think even more interesting as an experiment in Google’s approach to social engineering, which I think argue may be failing because it may not be able to scale in the same fashion as many of Google’s magnificent technological innovations.

Although Silicon Valley employees have historically enjoyed some great benefits, Google shined as the company that outdid everybody with free gourmet meals, free laundry, and great parties all within a context of individual freedom to work pretty much as you pleased as long as you were productively engaged, and even that was defined in some part by the employee.

This approach seemed to be working well, but I wonder how much of this was just an illusion caused by Google’s huge wash of incoming cash. The NYT article suggests that the company hardly even noticed the child care subsidy until recently. I’m guessing that only recently have the Google bean counters been called up from their free lunch to sharpen their pencils and find ways for Google to trim the company budget.

There are obviously two huge human resource pressures on Google now as it grows within the context of providing the world’s best company bennies. First is the fact that the legions of Googlers are for the most part…kidless. As employees age, especially the key folks from the early days, Google will see a lot more departures of key folks and a lot more demands for family time and benefits. Even stronger will be the pressure from the growing number of employees in Google’s empire, far more of whom are likely to be “in it for the money and perks” than in the early days. I remember touring the Googleplex a few years ago with an exec who, when asked about this problem, said it was not happening. But I think that was about 10,000 employees ago and before the level of concern over Google’s KinderGate scandal.

I will be very interesting to see if Google can scale their sometimes pesky human resources as effectively as they have scaled their technological and commercial resources.

I’m guessing…make that strongly predicting….the answer is no.

New York Times Reports

Twitter, Identi.ca, and the future of the internets


Open source Twitter competitor Identi.ca has had a lot positive buzz and powerful early adopters, but it sure does not feel to me like they’ll have any more luck than Pownce or Plurk has in overtaking Twitter as the microblogging platform of choice.

Some of the challenge is simple convenience – people who are on Twitter are going to be reluctant to spend the (small but annoying amounts of) time needed to sign up new contacts and reconfigure devices.

But mostly I think Twitter just enjoys the big advantage of being the service the introduced a lot of people to the art of posting notes to friends and followers and linking to blogs and articles as you see fit.    I don’t like the term “microblogging” because I think few of the twitter comments rise to the level of a blog post, but clearly this approach is gaining ground and perhaps more widespread appeal than blogging because it requires so little time and effort.

Penn and Teller and PseudoScience


Showtime’s show with Penn and Teller is called “Bullshit” and it’s usually really entertaining. Not exactly scientific method here, but I appreciate how they dispense with nonsense somewhat ruthlessly.

I don’t know why Penn is so compelled to say the F word so often, but the show is a very entertaining way to examine silly, bogus, or stupid claims by health, government, and others.

Bullshit is a huge global problem because people choose to believe other (usually misinformed or opportunistic) people rather than examine questionable claims with their own research, now relatively simple to do thanks to the internet. Research won’t get us all thinking the same, but it’ll help keep the irrational nonsense out of the discussion.