First Android Phone Lands on Earth

The first mobile phone to operate using Google's Android open platform will soon be available to T-Mobile customers in the U.S., after which it will touch down in the U.K. and then across Europe. Called the G1, the phone sounds like a mix of the iPhone and BlackBerry Bold, with a dash of Nokia N95 and Sony Ericsson K850 thrown in for good measure. What I mean is that it loooks to incorporate many of the best features of these phones to create a (hopefully) really, really cool product.

First, there's the touch-screen interface that slides down to reveal a QWERTY keyboard. This is combined with a BlackBerry-like trackball as an alternative means of operation. To zoom into a Web page, tap the screen (similar to the "pinch" function with the iPhone). One set-back I've noticed with the Bold is that, when I'm surfing a Web page, I'm forced to close it down to go back and check newly received e-mails. With the G1, you can easily go back and forth between Websites and e-mails.

Like both the iPhone and Bold, the G1 operates on the 3G network, and also integrates WiFi access. If you want to access e-mail, the device syncs seamlessly with Gmail, plus most other POP3 or IMAP accounts. To boot, it also boasts other Google favourites, like Maps, Street View, Gmail, and YouTube. A really cool feature: there's a built-in compass that will let you view locations at 360-degrees around you by just moving the phone in your hand.

The integrated digital camera is a step above the standard camera phones at a moderate (but certainly not industry-leading) 3 MP. Music playback and purchase is also an important facet of the phone experience. Using a new application developed by Amazon.com, customers can search, purchase and download from more than six-million DRM-free tunes.

Android is built around an open source platform, which means that pretty much anyone can develop an "app" for an Android phone that can then be downloaded to the device. The best part, however, is that Google will be offering Android to participating phone manufacturers for free. In addition to HTC, these currently include Motorola Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., and LG Electronics Inc.; as well as Texas Instruments. At launch, apps will include one designed for comparative shopping (ShopSavvy), and another that tracks daily behaviours in order to help users become more environmentally-conscious.

While Canada isn't on the list of companies to initially see this phone, I'm hopeful that it will eventually come here. It will sell in the U.S. for $179 with a two-year voice and data agreement starting October 22.

Could the device blow the iPhone out of the water? Who knows. But judging from the basic specs and design description, I'd say it has a pretty good chance.

Web Search is Cuil

A new Web search engine called Cuil was brought to my attention this morning by several sources. The reason it's been gaining consumer attention is that Cuil is actually owned by a power-couple: Anna Patterson, who headed up Google's search index and Web page ranking team; and Tom Costello, a former researcher and developer of search engines at Stanford University and IBM. Clearly these guys hope to take a big hunk out of Google's considerable search engine pie.

What makes Cuil different from other search engines, says the company, is its method of indexing. Results from a total of 120 billion Web pages are organized in such a fashion that the most relevant content appears first, rather than the sites that are most highly trafficked. It sounds like a small difference, but if Cuil were to take the lead in the web search arena, it could mean huge changes in online activity, and major benefits for smaller-scale Websites.

For example, many ad agencies base their dollar spends on not just Website ranking, but also the amount of traffic a site receives. If a site doesn't get a lot of traffic, but has really relevant content, it would, in theory, become the top-ranked result. Naturally, of course, these top ranks will eventually lead to more traffic. But if Cuil were to become the standard, it could shake things up from an advertiser perspective. More attention would have to be paid to relevant content (something that requires deep, and often subjective, analysis to measure) rather than a set of numbers.

Conversely, as smaller sites might benefit, the bigger, more highly-trafficked sites could become lower-ranked. If a site's content tends to be sporadic, quick hits that attempt to reel in users, for example, it might not make it as high in relevancy ranking. Of course the sites that will benefit from Cuil's methodology the most are those that have a nice balance of good, relevant content and high traffic.

"Cuil presents searchers with content-based results, not just popular ones," explains Costello, "providing different and more insightful answers that illustrate the vastness and the variety of the Web."

Results are organized into groups and sorted by category. While it sounds appealing, this could frustrate some that are used to the line-listing method. Search refinement suggestions are also provided to help web surfers narrow down what they're looking for.

Those sensitive about Internet security will also appreciate another facet of Cuil: since clicks have no bearing on the search results, the company will not collect any personal data on users.

I tried to give Cuil a go, but I got the following message:

We’ll be back soon...
Due to overwhelming interest, our Cuil servers are running a bit hot right now. The search engine is momentarily unavailable as we add more capacity.
Thanks for your patience.

You'd think that with owners of such calibre, they'd have anticipated and prepared for an overwhelming response on the day of launch, but I digress...

With that said, the best I can do for now is include a screen shot of what the search page would look like (above). If you want to try giving it a go, you can visit the site at http://www.cuil.com/. Hopefully it will be back up and running soon!

Will you try Cuil?

Google Makes Websites; Is There Anything Google Can't Do?

Google is best known for its search engine technology, which lets you find out anything about pretty much, well, anything with the click of a mouse. But the company has ventured into other areas over the years: cool Earth maps; e-mail via Gmail; documents; blogging software (like this one!); photo sharing via Picasa; videos via its purchase of YouTube; and now even mobile phone technology through a new mobile application platform called Android. Now, the company is taking a stab at creating Websites that users can easily edit, search, and maintain in small groups, or even through large corporations. Is there anything Google can't or won't do? And what's more, how on earth does the company continue to be able to offer such services for free?

Is Google just trying to get us all to use its applications, only to tack hefty fees onto them once they've convinced us that they're worthwhile? Or is this just an indication of the direction the technology industry is headed as a whole, with Google heading the apprehensive pack? Hmm...

Google is certainly attempting to take a huge chunk of business away from Microsoft, which offers many similar services (Hotmail, Word, Windows Media Player, and so forth). In turn, Microsoft is making moves to gobble up what it can as well (e.g. Yahoo!) to better compete against the search engine/Web behemoth. Either way, is it good for one company to have such power over the Web and your computer activities? Something to think about...

But back to Google's new Web technology, which is aptly named Google Sites. The application would make it easy to instantly update content to a Google-created Website, like adding study notes for a class project; calendar information for a group; and yes, even YouTube videos. And, of course, searching within the site is powered by none other than Google Search. Three versions are available: the basic Standard edition, which is free; and Education (free) and Premier ($50/yr. for each user account) editions, which add tons of functionality, including source code to integrate with your existing structure; third-party applications and services; and, in the Premier edition, a larger storage capacity for e-mail.

"We are literally adding an edit button to the web," said Google's Vice President and General Manager of Enterprise, Dave Girouard. "Creating a team Website has always been too complicated, requiring dedicated hardware and software as well as programming skills. Now with Google Sites, anyone can create an entirely customized site in minutes, and invite others to contribute."

Sure, this service might not necessarily be the way to go for big businesses, but for a school course, personal Website, or even temporary promotional Websites, Google Sites might just satisfy some cravings.

I have to give Google credit for building its massive empire, and creating products that are not only helpful and easy to use, but also in many cases, very affordable. Google is quite obviously a force to be reckoned with when it comes to anything and everything to do with the Web.

Should Microsoft Buy Yahoo!?

Last week, Microsoft placed a whopping US$44.6 billion offer to purchase shares of Yahoo!, which has been struggling as of late due to stiff competition from companies like Google and YouTube. In December 2006, Yahoo! underwent a major reorganization, and recently, it has been rumoured that hundreds (or even thousands!) of jobs could be cut from the company. So when Microsoft swoops in with a major bid that likely no one else could (or would!) attempt to beat, is this the Golden Ticket Yahoo! has been looking for? More important: will this spell disaster for consumers everywhere?

It's no secret that takeovers are essential in this industry for a number of reasons. Sometimes, it's to build capital in order to invest in things like R&D to create the amazing products we see today. Other times, it's to help effectively compete against major powerhouses: two (or more) heads are better than one, right? Other times, it might be a mutually beneficial relationship, where each company can compensate for a particular weakness by utilizing the strengths of the other. But many times, the reason is the sheer need to be number-one, and take out anyone in your path.

Before you jump to conclusions, I'm not saying this is Microsoft's intention nor motivation. But the bid wasn't exactly a "hey, we'll throw a bone out there and see the reaction." It was a move that would almost definitely obliterate all other bidders, and dangle a carrot in front of Yahoo!'s eyes that might just be far too tempting to resist.

Microsoft already owns plenty in the online arena; and we all know about its dominance in computing. The company recently made sure it had a major foot in the door of the growing social networking world by securing a US$240 million stake in popular Website Facebook.com. If Microsoft combines forces with Yahoo! as well, what sort of "competition" will be left?

Sure, Google isn't an "innocent" party in this equation, owning major properties like YouTube, and online advertising behemoth DoubleClick. But at what point will it become absolutely impossible for any company to get their foot in the door, and the power be placed in the hands of too few?

Many argue that we see the same sort of problems in the cellular phone industry in Canada, where three main carriers dominate, only one of which operates on the worldwide standard of GSM. However, the opening of the wireless spectrum to new entrants this coming May could change this. Meanwhile, the ongoing debates about a potential merger between satellite radio providers Sirius and XM in the U.S. lead to the same antitrust-like issues.

Bottom line: acquisitions and combining forces certainly help to advance technologies in ways that one company might not be able to accomplish. But we have to draw a line somewhere.

On that note, I always laugh at friends or family that want to "boycott" a particular brand because of a bad experience. Half the time, the brand they decide to go for instead is actually owned by the same parent company, showing that their efforts are, quite frankly, futile. The sad truth is that there are so many conglomerates out there, that the company that makes your socks probably also owns the place where you had dinner last night, along with your favourite shampoo. Business is business, of course. But competition is what adds to the excitement, and leads to continual innovation.

YouTube Works on Copyright Video Filtering Technology

In an effort to ward off evil, copy-written videos from being posted on YouTube, Google says its working on some sort of video-recognition technology that would be able to detect content that infringes upon copyrights before it is actually posted.

Although I don’t think it’s right to leave a problem to fend for itself, I also wonder how well such a technology would work. It’s no secret that every time a technology is introduced to prevent illegal copying or distribution of content online, some tech geek hacker finds a way to crack it, and we’re back to square one again.

In some ways, the current method of waiting until illegal material has been flagged and promptly removing it might be the most successful way to go. Sure, some content ends up leaking to a small portion of visitors that manage to catch the video in time (like in the case of the movie Sicko, where about 600 people saw it before it was removed). But is preventing this worth the possibility that the new technology could wrongfully identify a personal video and prevent someone from posting their own stuff? What’s more, if someone is anxious enough to view leaked content online, he’s probably just as anxious to get out there and watch the actual movie/show as well.

Trying to control the behaviour of millions and millions of users will indeed be difficult; especially since YouTube sees thousands of videos posted on its site per day. But it’s a move Google must make in order to protect the rights of content owners. This is especially important since several lawsuits have been made against Google/YouTube, claiming that the company allowed thousands of unauthorized clips to be posted.

According to Times Online, a Viacom lawyer (one of the firm’s named in the suit) said that if the filtering mechanism helps, they’d be "very grateful" for it. But, all plaintiffs in the suit feel that YouTube should have acted sooner.

Google says the new filtering technology should be implemented by September. I can’t wait to see how it pans out!

YouTube Gets Sicko, Personal

The widely popular video viewing and sharing Website YouTube is getting personal…in nine additional countries. The company plans to launch Websites in Brazil, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, all of which will be translated to the country’s native tongue. Videos specific to each country will be highlighted on each respective site, adding even more of a personal touch.

This is a brave move for YouTube (which is now owned by online search behemoth Google), especially in the wake of ongoing, pesky copyright issues. Several allegation have come forward accusing YouTube of allowing users to post copyrighted material: everything from funny skits from Saturday Night Live (yep, those do exist from time to time), to sporting events.

YouTube’s most recent trouble came yesterday, after copies of the upcoming Michael Moore documentary Sicko was posted to the site, in the form of 14 clips that made up the entire 124-minute film. They were removed as soon as YouTube was made aware of them, but alas, a lucky 500-600 people got a taste of the sickness before it was taken down.

This brings us back to the whole content distribution argument, which is a hot topic in consumer electronics, computers, and Internet these days. Should YouTube be held responsible if its users post copyrighted material? Even if the firm has a strict policy against it, and promptly removes the video once its existence is known? Should the posting YouTube member be held responsible for infringing on copyrights? Should YouTube pay a sort of royalty fee to companies who’s copyright is infringed upon via posted videos?

In the end, it all boils down to one thing: compensation. People need to get paid. If we can find the proper balance between open content distribution and acceptable compensation, the online world would be a much better place.

[Note: The screen shot image that accompanies this entry is actually from the trailer for the movie Sicko, which is still available on YouTube.]

Split Screen Web Searching

A company called SearchBoth.ca has developed a Website that presents search word/term results in split screen format: one side showing Google results, and the other showing Yahoo!

The first thought when I read the announcement was: “Why the heck would anyone need to search both at the same time?" But the more I pondered the idea, the more I realized that the simplistic nature of this new Website is exactly what makes it so appealing.

Think about it: you’re essentially doubling search results in one click. Sure, there’s likely a lot of overlap. But it’s all about ranking: sometimes the result you’re looking for is higher ranked on Google than it is Yahoo!, and therefore shows up on the first page instead of the second, or third, or fourth, for example.

This site could also serve as a useful tool in helping users determine which search engine works best for their particular needs. You might realize over time that Google produces more relevant results; or that Yahoo! has a better handle on your specific topic interests.

I gave SearchBoth a quick test run, and it is exactly what it promises to be. Search results are presented instantaneously (I’m on a high-speed Rogers connection and using IE6). Place the cursor inside either the Google or Yahoo! results, and that selected side shifts to take up the majority of the screen. Move the cursor out of the window and it flips back to a 50/50 split. It can get annoying because, as you move the cursor (likely by force of habit), the screen toggles side to side in turn. But you’ll easily get used to it.

My quick searches didn’t determine a definite “winner” of the search engine race. The results were actually pretty evenly skewed, with everything I wanted either first on the list, or somewhere on the first page of results. As it stands, I only use Google for web searches. But I’m willing to give SearchBoth.ca a try to see if it yields better, faster, or more relevant results over the long run.

SearchBoth has also launched similar sites in the U.S. (SearchBoth.com), UK (SearckBoth.co.uk), and Australia (SearchBoth.com.au), each of which searches Google and Yahoo! in the respective countries.

You might be reading this and thinking “what a stupid idea”. But don’t forget that some of the greatest inventions probably sounded really stupid at first inception: especially when it comes to the ‘net. YouTube, anyone? I thought so. Who’s laughing now.