As I touched on very briefly in my post about the Google X Lab, Google has been designing, developing, and recently even testing a driverless car. The car is designed to actually be able to sense other cars on the road, turns, signs, and other important factors and drive itself, with human supervision. Google's self-driving Toyota Prius actually went through even more testing last month. It was able to successfully drive a blind man to a local Taco Bell. There were of course supervisors from Google present, making sure everything went smoothly and there were no major problems.
This is obviously a huge step in the development of these cars. I don't doubt at all that after enough designing and testing, Google would be able to successfully create a reliable driverless car. What I think would take longer would be to gain society's acceptance. I highly doubt that people would just accept that a driverless car has been invented and trust it to take them from A to B. With the exponential growth of technology, it sometimes takes a while for society to trust it. I imagine people would be extremely skeptical, and some would even completely refuse to trust it. I imagine they would originally be used for people with handicaps although most likely end up as a consumer project. It seems Google is making legitimate steps towards this completed product so it will be very interesting to follow the progress.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Appeals court rules against Google's YouTube
In 2006, as YouTube was becoming hugely popular in the online video department, Google knew that it would continue to grow and decided to purchase YouTube for $1.65 billion. Compared to recent deals and purchases Google has made, this seems like a minor transaction. At the time however, YouTube was under a great deal of scrutiny and pressure because of many copyright issues they were encountering over many videos on their site. Google decided that either these issues would work themselves out and not be a problem, or that the potential damages were far less than the rewards YouTube would bring. All in all, I would say they were correct and that acquiring YouTube was an excellent transaction for them.
These suits have been going on ever since then, and perhaps Google thought they would never pick up real traction. However, a US Appeals Court ruled today that YouTube, and consequently Google, knowingly broadcasted copyrighted videos on their website. In 2010 a lower court had originally ruled in favor of YouTube, allowing companies to have videos uploaded by users on their site. Viacom Inc. is the company that filed this $1 billion lawsuit, claiming there were thousands of videos on YouTube of different television shows that broke copyrights laws. They are definitely not the only company claiming this though. After the original ruling in 2010, Judge Jose Cabranes ruled again YouTube, claiming that "a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website." This could be a huge event in the overall timeline of online videos. The debate about whether or not these websites are liable for copyright infringing material has been going on for quite some time. I wonder if this ruling against a major company in Google could be a catalyst for major changes online.
These suits have been going on ever since then, and perhaps Google thought they would never pick up real traction. However, a US Appeals Court ruled today that YouTube, and consequently Google, knowingly broadcasted copyrighted videos on their website. In 2010 a lower court had originally ruled in favor of YouTube, allowing companies to have videos uploaded by users on their site. Viacom Inc. is the company that filed this $1 billion lawsuit, claiming there were thousands of videos on YouTube of different television shows that broke copyrights laws. They are definitely not the only company claiming this though. After the original ruling in 2010, Judge Jose Cabranes ruled again YouTube, claiming that "a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website." This could be a huge event in the overall timeline of online videos. The debate about whether or not these websites are liable for copyright infringing material has been going on for quite some time. I wonder if this ruling against a major company in Google could be a catalyst for major changes online.
Stempel, Jonathon, and Yinka Adegoke. "Appeals Court Reinstates Viacom Lawsuit against Google's YouTube." The Christian Science Monitor. 05 Apr. 2012. Web. 05 Apr. 2012. <http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0405/Appeals-court-reinstates-Viacom-lawsuit-against-Google-s-YouTube>.
Google Acquires TxVia To Fuel Google Wallet Ambitions
Google wallet was introduced last year and is basically what it sounds like. It is a virtual wallet that you can have on your mobile phone, facilitating many different types of payments you may need to make. According to Google Wallet's information page, if you have Google wallet and the online store you are shopping with accepts Google Wallet, you can check out much quicker. The reason for this is that Google saves your credit cards on the cloud, very securely they insist, so that you just click a few buttons and can pay in no time. Users can also pay at physical stores using Google Wallet and redeem different offers the stores may offer.
Google Wallet, unlike countless other apps Google releases, did not gain popularity as quickly as hoped after last year's release. TxVia is a mobile payments technology company, similar to the type of service Google Wallet provides. This past week Google purchased TxVia and with it came their over 100 million accounts and part of their team. This acquisition will help Google compete with some of the bigger mobile payment companies such as PayPal, owned by eBay. If Google Wallet can get a decent user base, hopefully this service can grow and both make them money and improve their overall mobile technology department.
Similar to my last blog, this is a situation where Google uses the money it has to purchase a smaller company in an attempt to keep up with a bigger competitor. They use the money they have to make more money. Goes along with the old saying, "You need money to make money." The rich get richer, not that I have any problem with it. I don't blame Google at all. They refuse to fall behind in nearly any category which to me is actually pretty respectable.
Google Wallet, unlike countless other apps Google releases, did not gain popularity as quickly as hoped after last year's release. TxVia is a mobile payments technology company, similar to the type of service Google Wallet provides. This past week Google purchased TxVia and with it came their over 100 million accounts and part of their team. This acquisition will help Google compete with some of the bigger mobile payment companies such as PayPal, owned by eBay. If Google Wallet can get a decent user base, hopefully this service can grow and both make them money and improve their overall mobile technology department.
Similar to my last blog, this is a situation where Google uses the money it has to purchase a smaller company in an attempt to keep up with a bigger competitor. They use the money they have to make more money. Goes along with the old saying, "You need money to make money." The rich get richer, not that I have any problem with it. I don't blame Google at all. They refuse to fall behind in nearly any category which to me is actually pretty respectable.
Google Buys Motorola for Patents
Google has purchased Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. The deal still must be approved by Chinese regulators, although it has already received approval from both the United States and Europe. The reason that Google has spent so much money on purchasing Motorola is to beef up its patent portfolio, according to Allen Lo, Google's Deputy General Counsel. Lo, who previously worked for three years at the US Patent and Trademark Office, oversees the patent law group at Google.
The reason Google wants all Motorola's patents, and continues to try to increase their patent count, is to play defense in patent litigation. According to an article by CNET, Google has not once sued another company for patent infringement. Not once. This seems amazing to me, that a company so large, who probably gets infringed upon more than any other, has never been the aggressor in patent litigation. Lo was quoted as saying, "We have principles, things that we don't see ourselves doing." I guess they just do business by not worrying about what other companies are doing, and focusing their resources on bettering their company. It really seems to be working out for them.
While Google does not believe in suing other companies, they will not shy away when someone tries to sue them. This is also one of the main reasons they want a larger patent portfolio. It seems that often times when a company gets sued for patent infringement, a good defense is to have a good offense, meaning a threat of a counter suit. They show the suing company that they have a certain patent, perhaps very similar, and it may lead to both companies wishing to settle outside of court. This article was really interesting to read because not only does it deal with Google, which I have been reading so much about, but it has to do with patent laws and all the stuff we have been learning in class.
The reason Google wants all Motorola's patents, and continues to try to increase their patent count, is to play defense in patent litigation. According to an article by CNET, Google has not once sued another company for patent infringement. Not once. This seems amazing to me, that a company so large, who probably gets infringed upon more than any other, has never been the aggressor in patent litigation. Lo was quoted as saying, "We have principles, things that we don't see ourselves doing." I guess they just do business by not worrying about what other companies are doing, and focusing their resources on bettering their company. It really seems to be working out for them.
While Google does not believe in suing other companies, they will not shy away when someone tries to sue them. This is also one of the main reasons they want a larger patent portfolio. It seems that often times when a company gets sued for patent infringement, a good defense is to have a good offense, meaning a threat of a counter suit. They show the suing company that they have a certain patent, perhaps very similar, and it may lead to both companies wishing to settle outside of court. This article was really interesting to read because not only does it deal with Google, which I have been reading so much about, but it has to do with patent laws and all the stuff we have been learning in class.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Google X Lab
My last blog about the augmented-reality glasses and perhaps eventually contact lenses really got me thinking. This is the kind of stuff that interests me. So I wondered where does Google come up with this stuff. In a sense, it was an easily answered question. In another sense, I will never know. Some quick searches pointed me toward the Google X Lab, where Google, for all intents and purposes, creates the future. We have all had ideas when we were young that deep down we figured were impossible, maybe a flying car, maybe some sort of teleportation device. Well, Google is making these a reality. Ok, maybe not these two examples but you know what I mean. People that work in the Google X Lab are smart, like very smart. They come up with inventions and designs that I consider to be in the future. Such inventions include the space elevator or driverless cars (see here). The crazy thing is, many of these futuristic inventions are very near ready. Driverless cars have been tested for some time now, although who knows when they would be ready, and more importantly, when society would be able to confidently accept them onto the roads in mass.
The great thing about Google X Lab is its secrecy. It is exactly as you would expect. Nobody knows where it is, and when someone gets fired or quits, it is a big deal to keep it secret. Google's co-founders were both reportedly seriously involved in the lab until Larry Page became CEO, and he diverted his attention elsewhere.
Larry Page and his co-founder Sergey Brin have both expressed serious interest and high hopes for artificial intelligence. One main point holding AI back has been computational power, which Google has alot, I mean alot, of. Google now has eleven data centers scattered across the globe and considers their servers to all be one supercomputer. Still not enough to simulate a human brain, Google continues to grow and believes in the coming years that it will be possible. Amazing, interesting, mind-blowing, yet scary things are on the horizon, and Google seems to be behind it all.
The great thing about Google X Lab is its secrecy. It is exactly as you would expect. Nobody knows where it is, and when someone gets fired or quits, it is a big deal to keep it secret. Google's co-founders were both reportedly seriously involved in the lab until Larry Page became CEO, and he diverted his attention elsewhere.
Larry Page and his co-founder Sergey Brin have both expressed serious interest and high hopes for artificial intelligence. One main point holding AI back has been computational power, which Google has alot, I mean alot, of. Google now has eleven data centers scattered across the globe and considers their servers to all be one supercomputer. Still not enough to simulate a human brain, Google continues to grow and believes in the coming years that it will be possible. Amazing, interesting, mind-blowing, yet scary things are on the horizon, and Google seems to be behind it all.
Google Begins Testing Its Augmented-Reality Glasses
Not only is Google developing applications to keep up with competition, they are also designing and developing augmented-reality glasses. What are those, you ask? Well they look pretty much what they sound like; they are futuristic and sit lightly around your head with a small lens just above one eye, but low enough they you can look into it. Yea, but what do they do? Everything, it seems. They are designed to be your smart phone and camera in one, among other things. You walk around the city with these on, receive a phone call, and click a small button or give a voice command and you are on the phone. You want some information or a map of your location? Just give it the command and it pops right in front of your eye. This is all part of Google's Project Glass (quite fitting) and Google has recently allowed people to wear the glasses around in public to test them out.
Oh, you still aren't impressed. Well listen to this. Babak Parviz, an Associate Professor at the University of Washington and specializes in Bionanotechnology, has recently built a contact lens with pixels in it that can display images and information to the wearer. So if this futuristic, Star Trek-esque pair of glasses is maybe too bulky for you, or not quite fashionable enough, maybe you should just wait until these contacts come out. Granted, the glasses are still being tested and have a while before they will be sold, but think about how fast this technology is moving. These glasses haven't yet been released and already are similar contact lenses being invented. I can't imagine the contact lenses will have all the same capabilities as the glasses, but I know I would prefer not wear glasses all the time. I've never had to wear contact lenses but I am pretty sure I would break my streak if it meant I could basically wear information inside my eyelid.
Oh, you still aren't impressed. Well listen to this. Babak Parviz, an Associate Professor at the University of Washington and specializes in Bionanotechnology, has recently built a contact lens with pixels in it that can display images and information to the wearer. So if this futuristic, Star Trek-esque pair of glasses is maybe too bulky for you, or not quite fashionable enough, maybe you should just wait until these contacts come out. Granted, the glasses are still being tested and have a while before they will be sold, but think about how fast this technology is moving. These glasses haven't yet been released and already are similar contact lenses being invented. I can't imagine the contact lenses will have all the same capabilities as the glasses, but I know I would prefer not wear glasses all the time. I've never had to wear contact lenses but I am pretty sure I would break my streak if it meant I could basically wear information inside my eyelid.
Google and YouTube pair up with Paramount
Google Play is going to have an even greater impact than what was originally expected. In an article from this morning, The Washington Post reports that Google has added over 500 more movies to its already extensive list of movies available to rent on Google Play or YouTube. These movies will apparently be available in both the United States and Canada. These 500 movies are a result of an agreement with Paramount Pictures, which now makes it five of the major six studios working with Google on this project. Paramount joins Warner Bros. Pictures, Columbia Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, and Universal Pictures, with 20th Century Fox being the last one to not have a deal in place with Google. To rent one of these movies for a 48 hour period, it would cost a customer $3.99 for new releases, and $2.99 for older movies. There will also be a $1 charge for HD.
Google refuses to get left behind when it comes to any form of technological innovation or idea. Whether it be keeping up with Apple, Amazon, or Netflix, they always seems to at least be able to match the competitor. I am very interested to see how well Google Play does, in particular with this movie rental idea. I read an article a little while back about how Wal-Mart is now entering the movie rental business, offering to transfer a movie from the hard copy you own to the cloud, allowing you to view it anywhere you like. It costs the customers only $2 to make this transfer. We all know about Netflix and their streaming or movie delivery options. And now there is Google. The $3.99 is certainly a lower price than going to the movies, but seems to be a little more than perhaps stopping at a RedBox and renting a movie for $1 per night. I think the ability to view it from your computer, phone, tablet, or maybe even TV will help make Google Play a real player in the growing movie rental industry.
Google refuses to get left behind when it comes to any form of technological innovation or idea. Whether it be keeping up with Apple, Amazon, or Netflix, they always seems to at least be able to match the competitor. I am very interested to see how well Google Play does, in particular with this movie rental idea. I read an article a little while back about how Wal-Mart is now entering the movie rental business, offering to transfer a movie from the hard copy you own to the cloud, allowing you to view it anywhere you like. It costs the customers only $2 to make this transfer. We all know about Netflix and their streaming or movie delivery options. And now there is Google. The $3.99 is certainly a lower price than going to the movies, but seems to be a little more than perhaps stopping at a RedBox and renting a movie for $1 per night. I think the ability to view it from your computer, phone, tablet, or maybe even TV will help make Google Play a real player in the growing movie rental industry.
Google building data center in Taiwan
Google currently has six data centers throughout the United States, two in Europe, one in Hong Kong, and one in Singapore. They recently announced that they plan to build a third one in Asia, located in Taiwan. The data centers hold computers, servers, and other hardware and software that process the huge amounts of information Google has to constantly handle. Google believes this third data center in Asia will help meet the increasing demand for Google's products and hopefully increase their popularity.
What is interesting to me is the increasing demand for Google's services in Asia and the strained relationship Google has with China. Obviously, the government of China is quite different from those of these other three countries, but I can't help but wonder what the deal is. Is Google attempting to gain so much popularity in these neighboring countries to rub it in China's face? Maybe it is just a coincidence that the place where more users are getting on the internet everyday in the world is right next to the country where Google has had public problems with for a number of years. I am not exactly sure what is going on, but it is also worth noting how Google has relations with entire countries. They are so large, popular, and powerful, they have their own foreign relations. It is crazy that they almost represent the US when they interact with foreign nations. I just hope they behave and if Asia has a great demand for their services, hopefully they can bring it to them.
Article: http://www.nwitimes.com/business/technology/google-building-data-center-in-taiwan/article_95e493a3-351d-5e0a-9d62-bdec17bbffdb.html
What is interesting to me is the increasing demand for Google's services in Asia and the strained relationship Google has with China. Obviously, the government of China is quite different from those of these other three countries, but I can't help but wonder what the deal is. Is Google attempting to gain so much popularity in these neighboring countries to rub it in China's face? Maybe it is just a coincidence that the place where more users are getting on the internet everyday in the world is right next to the country where Google has had public problems with for a number of years. I am not exactly sure what is going on, but it is also worth noting how Google has relations with entire countries. They are so large, popular, and powerful, they have their own foreign relations. It is crazy that they almost represent the US when they interact with foreign nations. I just hope they behave and if Asia has a great demand for their services, hopefully they can bring it to them.
Article: http://www.nwitimes.com/business/technology/google-building-data-center-in-taiwan/article_95e493a3-351d-5e0a-9d62-bdec17bbffdb.html
Google found guilty in Australia
It seems as though Google AdWords service has gotten them into a bit of trouble. As stated in a previous blog, Google AdWords is what appears first when you use their search engine. Companies create advertisements, and give them to Google to display on their search engine. Google has a complex algorithm that scans the page you are on, your search history, and combines it with your search query to determine which advertisements to display. It displays the ones it believes the user is most likely to click, and thus creates traffic for the advertiser and revenue for Google. Four of these advertisers used the names of their competitors as key words, so that when someone searches for their competitor, their advertisement appears. This was deemed by the court to be misleading to users and begged the question: is Google at fault or does all the responsibility lie with the advertisers.
Federal judges in Australia have made up their mind on that question. They believe Google is indeed at fault, saying, "It is Google’s technology which creates that which is displayed. Google did not merely repeat or pass on a statement by the advertiser: what is displayed in response to the user’s search query is not the equivalent of Google saying here is a statement by an advertiser which is passed on for what it is worth." They are basically saying that Google does not just pass along these advertisements. They have their algorithm which manipulates which ads get displayed, and thus are at least partially responsible for what the ad displays. As damages, Google will pay all costs of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as well as set up a compliance program, aimed at making sure this doesn't continue to happen.
In this scenario, I could not agree more with the court. Google indirectly chooses which advertisements should be displayed and there is no way they can claim complete ignorance with regards to the content of the ad. They are more than just a middle man, and the Australian court has realized this and made the right decision.
Article: http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/62517-google-found-guilty-of-serving-misleading-ads-in-australia
Federal judges in Australia have made up their mind on that question. They believe Google is indeed at fault, saying, "It is Google’s technology which creates that which is displayed. Google did not merely repeat or pass on a statement by the advertiser: what is displayed in response to the user’s search query is not the equivalent of Google saying here is a statement by an advertiser which is passed on for what it is worth." They are basically saying that Google does not just pass along these advertisements. They have their algorithm which manipulates which ads get displayed, and thus are at least partially responsible for what the ad displays. As damages, Google will pay all costs of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as well as set up a compliance program, aimed at making sure this doesn't continue to happen.
In this scenario, I could not agree more with the court. Google indirectly chooses which advertisements should be displayed and there is no way they can claim complete ignorance with regards to the content of the ad. They are more than just a middle man, and the Australian court has realized this and made the right decision.
Article: http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/62517-google-found-guilty-of-serving-misleading-ads-in-australia
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Google vs. Oracle headed to trial
Oracle is a Northern California based technology company. They produce and sell both hardware and software. Oracle is accusing Google of patent infringement because they believe Google's Android software infringes upon patents that protect Oracle's Java computer language. The code is originally from Sun Microsystems, which was purchased by Oracle in January of 2010. Google's defense is that before Sun Microsystems was purchased by Oracle, it was open-sourced software and could be used by anyone. The two sides recently attempted to settle the difference outside of court with a mutual agreement. However, they were unable to do so and thus will be heading to court in the next few weeks. Google offered Oracle 3 million dollars as well as a minuscule share of Android, however Oracle declined.
While reading this article, a few things came to mind. The first was that I can't understand how there is so much grey area with these laws. We have learned a lot about many different IP protection laws, although we have admittedly only scratched the surface. There are far more details in the laws that I don't know but I do know that it seems like these companies are constantly involved in some form of dispute or in court. One would think that these multi-million dollar companies would have people who know the law like the back of their hand. Because of this, it seems like in many cases a company just jumps on the opportunity to sue, knowing full well that the other company would prefer to avoid court and will end up settling. I'm not claiming this is always true but I can't imagine all these cases aren't black and white.
Also, it blows my mind how much money these companies must spend year after year on court cases. Not only does this mean actually court cases, lawyer fees, settlements that don't make it to court, and time wasted, it also include any money they end of losing in court and any type of damages they are liable for. It must cost them a fortune.
Article: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/settlement-talks-fail-in-google-vs-oracle-patent-case/932066/2
While reading this article, a few things came to mind. The first was that I can't understand how there is so much grey area with these laws. We have learned a lot about many different IP protection laws, although we have admittedly only scratched the surface. There are far more details in the laws that I don't know but I do know that it seems like these companies are constantly involved in some form of dispute or in court. One would think that these multi-million dollar companies would have people who know the law like the back of their hand. Because of this, it seems like in many cases a company just jumps on the opportunity to sue, knowing full well that the other company would prefer to avoid court and will end up settling. I'm not claiming this is always true but I can't imagine all these cases aren't black and white.
Also, it blows my mind how much money these companies must spend year after year on court cases. Not only does this mean actually court cases, lawyer fees, settlements that don't make it to court, and time wasted, it also include any money they end of losing in court and any type of damages they are liable for. It must cost them a fortune.
Article: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/settlement-talks-fail-in-google-vs-oracle-patent-case/932066/2
Google Art Project
About a half hour ago I had no idea what Google Art Project was. I could have guessed, and perhaps been pretty close, but I didn't even know something as cool as this existed as a Google service. Google Art Project essentially gives you virtual access to thousands and thousands of woks of art from over 150 museums across the world. It allows the user, similar to Google Street View, the ability to virtually tour many museums and look at the art on display. The user can view the images in extremely high quality and take as long as they want looking at them. When the project first began about a year ago, Google claimed that they had about 1,000 images in 9 countries. Today, they claim over 30,000 images in 40 countries. This announcement was made today, Tuesday April 3, at the Art Institute of Chicago by Google's President and executives. The director of the Art Institute is very enthusiastic about the project, saying, "By sharing works of art in this way all it will do is increase the interest in visual works of art and the desire to come to institutions like the Art Institute."
This project is very interesting to me, as it brings a serious cultural aspect to the different services Google offers. It allows people who might not otherwise be able to visit these famous museums the ability to at least look at a high resolution image of them. A few weeks ago I stumbled upon a website with a virtual camera on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It was one large image where I could pan around and zoom in on any particular piece I wish. While I expect the actual in-person experience to be 10 times better than my online experience, I had an experience with it nonetheless. For people that don't need to spend thousands of dollars traveling overseas to see their favorite art, it seems like a reasonable replacement opportunity. Users can also save and organize their favorite images, just another accessory Google has added to help improve the experience.
Google Art Project Premieres Upgrades in Chicago
This project is very interesting to me, as it brings a serious cultural aspect to the different services Google offers. It allows people who might not otherwise be able to visit these famous museums the ability to at least look at a high resolution image of them. A few weeks ago I stumbled upon a website with a virtual camera on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It was one large image where I could pan around and zoom in on any particular piece I wish. While I expect the actual in-person experience to be 10 times better than my online experience, I had an experience with it nonetheless. For people that don't need to spend thousands of dollars traveling overseas to see their favorite art, it seems like a reasonable replacement opportunity. Users can also save and organize their favorite images, just another accessory Google has added to help improve the experience.
Google Art Project Premieres Upgrades in Chicago
Google Play all about the cloud
The first time I heard of Google Play was when my Android Market app needed an update and Google Play replaced it. I didn't know this happened and I couldn't find my market app until I noticed Google Play was new and I checked that out. Originally, I thought that it was just a new name for the app market, another way to get Google's name on everything android. Turns out I was very wrong. Google Play is far more than just a market for applications. The way my friend described it, "It's like Google's iTunes." And that doesn't even cover everything it offers. According to the Wired article, it is a combination of the android market, Google Music, and Google's eBookstore. And everything is on the cloud, meaning you can access it from your android phone, your tablet, or your computer.
Like my friend noted, and like the article notes, it seems like Google's way of keeping up with Apple. Over the last few years, mainly since the iPhone became popular, Apple has seemed to be the standard for mobile technology, and this was made even more true when the iCloud was implemented. iCloud (am I supposed to capitalize that?) is basically where Apple users can store all their music, pictures, information and have it accessible when they get on their other iDevices. It's a brilliant way to store data as well as streamline users to your specific products, having them all be on one market. We have noticed Google doing this for a while now, with their personalization methods, but Google Play seems to raise the bar a little bit, bringing it near level with Apple. As an android owner, I hope Google Play can bring androids on the same level as iPhones, as least as far as their market and cloud goes.
Like my friend noted, and like the article notes, it seems like Google's way of keeping up with Apple. Over the last few years, mainly since the iPhone became popular, Apple has seemed to be the standard for mobile technology, and this was made even more true when the iCloud was implemented. iCloud (am I supposed to capitalize that?) is basically where Apple users can store all their music, pictures, information and have it accessible when they get on their other iDevices. It's a brilliant way to store data as well as streamline users to your specific products, having them all be on one market. We have noticed Google doing this for a while now, with their personalization methods, but Google Play seems to raise the bar a little bit, bringing it near level with Apple. As an android owner, I hope Google Play can bring androids on the same level as iPhones, as least as far as their market and cloud goes.
Google TV coming to Europe
According to an article by GigaOm.com, Google has decided to release its TV application over in Europe come next September. According to Google's information page, Google TV is basically when your Google account is hooked up to your television so that you can do many tasks on TV that you would normally do online. This could include using Google applications such as Google Play, their application market, YouTube, or other services such as Netflix Instant or Pandora. Google is implementing this along side Sony, a major company that produces and sells television sets. This means that when Sony sells a TV, their remote control will have a Google Play button already on it for direct access, facilitating the use of this service even further.
Samsung, LG, and Vizio are also all releasing TVs known as Google TV devices this year, with the same Google TV capabilities but much cheaper and more affordable to the average consumer. It seems as though every single day Google is implementing an application, or developing a service that is not necessarily more intrusive, but definitely a part of a new aspect of our lives. They have already done an unbelievable job at attracting internet users to their sites and applications, and now it seems as though they are moving into the TV market as well. So far they have at least stuck mostly to software and applications. I can't help but wonder if they will ever venture into the hardware market and maybe come out with a computer or television of their own?
Samsung, LG, and Vizio are also all releasing TVs known as Google TV devices this year, with the same Google TV capabilities but much cheaper and more affordable to the average consumer. It seems as though every single day Google is implementing an application, or developing a service that is not necessarily more intrusive, but definitely a part of a new aspect of our lives. They have already done an unbelievable job at attracting internet users to their sites and applications, and now it seems as though they are moving into the TV market as well. So far they have at least stuck mostly to software and applications. I can't help but wonder if they will ever venture into the hardware market and maybe come out with a computer or television of their own?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Google vs. PayPal
According to this article, it looks as though Google is wrapped up in a legal battle, this time with another large online company, PayPal. PayPal is an online business that allows and facilitates money transfers from one party to another over the internet. They are suing Google, claiming that Google misappropriated trade secrets of PayPal's. PayPal claims that a former employee, now working with Google, took confidential with him. Osama Bedier is a former PayPal executive who when he left PayPal, got hired by Google and supposedly provided them with information about PayPal's mobile-payment business. Bedier is now the Vice President of Payments at Google and was a leader for Google in developing the Google Wallet, the very application PayPal believes they stole trade secrets for.
PayPal is also claiming that another one of its former executives, Stephanie Tilenius, was a part of the misappropriation and also took trade secrets with her to her. Tilenius is now the Vice President of Commerce.
This whole situation does not look good for Google. Without knowing too many details about each companies applications, it seems to be more than a coincidence that two PayPal executives left them, got hired by Google, and Google comes out with an extremely similar product to what PayPal was working on. They thing I don't understand is how they go about proving something like this. I guess they could search Bedier and Tilenius's hard drives, but I am not sure what that would prove. It they did have documents on personal computers, they might be in trouble with PayPal, but how does that hurt Google. It seems as though there would need to be hard evidence against Google to get them in actual trouble for anything. The whole thing is a pretty sketchy situation.
PayPal is also claiming that another one of its former executives, Stephanie Tilenius, was a part of the misappropriation and also took trade secrets with her to her. Tilenius is now the Vice President of Commerce.
This whole situation does not look good for Google. Without knowing too many details about each companies applications, it seems to be more than a coincidence that two PayPal executives left them, got hired by Google, and Google comes out with an extremely similar product to what PayPal was working on. They thing I don't understand is how they go about proving something like this. I guess they could search Bedier and Tilenius's hard drives, but I am not sure what that would prove. It they did have documents on personal computers, they might be in trouble with PayPal, but how does that hurt Google. It seems as though there would need to be hard evidence against Google to get them in actual trouble for anything. The whole thing is a pretty sketchy situation.
Balaban, Dan. "PayPal Vs. Google Suit Reveals Rivalry Over Expected M-Payments Bonanza." NFC Times. 27 May 2011. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nfctimes.com/news/paypal-vs-google-suit-reveals-rivalry-over-expected-m-payments-bonanza>.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Google's Antitrust
According to our textbook (link here), about 65% of the search engine market is owned by Google. As is obvious for anyone that uses Google extensively, a lot of their services are intertwined. They use their applications to enhance their other applications and their search engine often directs their users to more Google services and applications. It helps keep uniformity for their users and is extremely beneficial. Their competitors however believe that there are antitrust implications and it could be considered a monopoly.
This comes off to me as a bit ridiculous, and even immature. These companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, and AT&T, and major corporations and have been out-done by Google for years. I think it is a bit excessive to claim a monopoly because Google links its search results to its other applications. Not only does this actually benefit Google users, it is simply a good business practice. Now it might be obvious that I am a big advocate of Google's services. I love having all my information and applications intertwined. If Yahoo wants to do this with their Messenger, News, and E-mail applications, not only would I be fine with it, I would applaud them for being smart.
I believe that one company promoting their company is completely fine and expected. They are simply using a service that they provide, to promote their other services and enhance all of their users' overall experience.
This comes off to me as a bit ridiculous, and even immature. These companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, and AT&T, and major corporations and have been out-done by Google for years. I think it is a bit excessive to claim a monopoly because Google links its search results to its other applications. Not only does this actually benefit Google users, it is simply a good business practice. Now it might be obvious that I am a big advocate of Google's services. I love having all my information and applications intertwined. If Yahoo wants to do this with their Messenger, News, and E-mail applications, not only would I be fine with it, I would applaud them for being smart.
I believe that one company promoting their company is completely fine and expected. They are simply using a service that they provide, to promote their other services and enhance all of their users' overall experience.
Chinese Hackers Attack Gmail
In June 2011, Google Inc. and the government of China got into yet another verbal scuffle. It seems two US officials had their Gmail accounts hacked as well as Chinese political activists and other officials across southeast Asia. Google was able to track the origin of the attacks, and they came from Jinan, China which is actually the location of a large intelligence operation for the Chinese Army.
Upon learning this, Google made some implications that the attacks may have come from the government of China in an attempt to gain classified information. Google and China have been going back and forth for years because of disagreements about censorship. As discussed in an earlier post, China had Google censor some search results for many years until Google decided to quit doing so, saying they don't believe in internet censorship.
What is scary about the uptight relations between Google and China is the overall clout of both of them. We have the most populated country in the world, lead by a very controlling government going against one of the largest corporations in the last few years, based out of the USA, whom already has many people against them. Even though Google has nothing to do with our government, they certainly represent us and China is not afraid to include the USA in the arguments. So two of the most powerful countries in the world are jabbing at each other about the internet, even though our government is not involved. Hopefully Google can represent the USA well and this does not escalate into anything more serious.
Upon learning this, Google made some implications that the attacks may have come from the government of China in an attempt to gain classified information. Google and China have been going back and forth for years because of disagreements about censorship. As discussed in an earlier post, China had Google censor some search results for many years until Google decided to quit doing so, saying they don't believe in internet censorship.
What is scary about the uptight relations between Google and China is the overall clout of both of them. We have the most populated country in the world, lead by a very controlling government going against one of the largest corporations in the last few years, based out of the USA, whom already has many people against them. Even though Google has nothing to do with our government, they certainly represent us and China is not afraid to include the USA in the arguments. So two of the most powerful countries in the world are jabbing at each other about the internet, even though our government is not involved. Hopefully Google can represent the USA well and this does not escalate into anything more serious.
Google's Start-Up
Google Inc. has a very interesting story when it comes to their start-up as a company. Similar to Facebook, they originated in college, Stanford University. Two graduate students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were both in the computer science department at Stanford and interesting in the way different web pages linked to one another. With the internet and number of websites growing rapidly, they felt that it was a great topic to research further. With the help of a few of their professors, they were given a research grant and quickly developed the PageRank data search algorithm. Using Stanford's facities and equipment, they got an initial test-set of 24 million pages and used their data to write a research paper.
By 1998, they had received another $10,000 grant, updated their computers and servers, moved everything into a friend's garage, and changed the project name to Google Inc. Their algorithms and page design were both much better than existing search engines, so they were immediately successful and blown away by the success. Because they were still students at Stanford when they created the algorithm and were working with the school's equipment, the two of them reached a licensing agreement with their university for rights to the algorithm. The rest is history. They blew up in the following years, their investors made enormous amounts of money, and Stanford benefited hugely as well.
This is what is very interesting to me. Even though Google's algorithms were created entirely by these two students, Stanford continues to benefit immensely from it. 1/3 of the license fees for Google's patents go to the Computer Science Department and another 1/3 to the school of engineering. It is very interesting how schools can make so much money off of their students. Many classes at Penn State involved students taking a course and giving actual proposals to companies such as Geico. From what I understand, Geico pays Penn State fees to be able to use their students. So the students pay to go to the school, the school makes money from the company, and the company gets work from the students. The students also get very valuable work experience in many cases. The relationship between a school and their students' work is really interesting. It is understandable though that Stanford keeps making money off of Google because without Stanford, Google probably would never exist. That is tough to imagine. This link has some very interesting pictures and stats about the start-up of Google.
By 1998, they had received another $10,000 grant, updated their computers and servers, moved everything into a friend's garage, and changed the project name to Google Inc. Their algorithms and page design were both much better than existing search engines, so they were immediately successful and blown away by the success. Because they were still students at Stanford when they created the algorithm and were working with the school's equipment, the two of them reached a licensing agreement with their university for rights to the algorithm. The rest is history. They blew up in the following years, their investors made enormous amounts of money, and Stanford benefited hugely as well.
This is what is very interesting to me. Even though Google's algorithms were created entirely by these two students, Stanford continues to benefit immensely from it. 1/3 of the license fees for Google's patents go to the Computer Science Department and another 1/3 to the school of engineering. It is very interesting how schools can make so much money off of their students. Many classes at Penn State involved students taking a course and giving actual proposals to companies such as Geico. From what I understand, Geico pays Penn State fees to be able to use their students. So the students pay to go to the school, the school makes money from the company, and the company gets work from the students. The students also get very valuable work experience in many cases. The relationship between a school and their students' work is really interesting. It is understandable though that Stanford keeps making money off of Google because without Stanford, Google probably would never exist. That is tough to imagine. This link has some very interesting pictures and stats about the start-up of Google.
Google Book Project
Google officially began the Google Book Project in 2004, in an attempt to spread knowledge, information, and specifically books, the its users across the globe. They wished to scan thousands of books and put the digital copies on their website. They implemented a search feature so a user could search for a specific book and see if it was available. To complete this, Google got help from many Universities, including Harvard, Stanford, and University of Virginia. These colleges, along with the New York Public Library, provided Google the books as well as their facilities. By 2009, Google had scanned and uploaded full books in over 100 languages to users from 124 countries.
A pretty obvious problem with Google Book Project was its legality, in particular with copyright laws. After all, copying entire books was not too legal with the Copyright Act. At this point, about 16% of the books Google had scanned were already in the public domain and thus there weren't many issues as far as copyright laws. Another nine percent were not in the public domain and were still under copyright protection. In order to be able to make these available, Google found many of the copyright owners and made them legal. For the remaining 75% however, they were still under copyright law but the owners were nowhere to be found - either dead or non-existent as a company any more. To get around copyright laws with these, Google only uploaded small snippets of them.
I think what Google did with the Google Book Project is great. Everything we do nowadays can be done from home; people shop, watch TV, do research, and talk with friends all from their home and on their computer. Why not make books available as well? Now, I have tried to read a book on Google and it is pretty terrible. After maybe 15 minutes, it is a strain on the eyes and is no longer worth it. However, numerous times I have gone on and read a snippet or used a book for research. It is like a nice library in digital form.
It also seems as though Google did everything as properly as possible. Anytime copyright issues were brought up, they were happy to collaborate with copyright owners and libraries to get this project done. It seems their main goal was to provide their users with knowledge, information, and entertainment, and they have definitely done that.
A pretty obvious problem with Google Book Project was its legality, in particular with copyright laws. After all, copying entire books was not too legal with the Copyright Act. At this point, about 16% of the books Google had scanned were already in the public domain and thus there weren't many issues as far as copyright laws. Another nine percent were not in the public domain and were still under copyright protection. In order to be able to make these available, Google found many of the copyright owners and made them legal. For the remaining 75% however, they were still under copyright law but the owners were nowhere to be found - either dead or non-existent as a company any more. To get around copyright laws with these, Google only uploaded small snippets of them.
I think what Google did with the Google Book Project is great. Everything we do nowadays can be done from home; people shop, watch TV, do research, and talk with friends all from their home and on their computer. Why not make books available as well? Now, I have tried to read a book on Google and it is pretty terrible. After maybe 15 minutes, it is a strain on the eyes and is no longer worth it. However, numerous times I have gone on and read a snippet or used a book for research. It is like a nice library in digital form.
It also seems as though Google did everything as properly as possible. Anytime copyright issues were brought up, they were happy to collaborate with copyright owners and libraries to get this project done. It seems their main goal was to provide their users with knowledge, information, and entertainment, and they have definitely done that.
Google in China
Many people may or may not know about Google's situation in China. Basically, the government of China asked Google to sensor a number of words from its search engine in 2006, but only when being searched from China. Essentially, China did not want its citizens to be able to search certain terms and phrases that it deemed inappropriate. One of these phrases was "Tank Man," referring to the famous 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square. The government was using Google to control what the people did and did not have access to. Google reluctantly agreed and for a number of years, went through with this censorship, even though that is very strongly against Google's beliefs.
The owners and founders of Google have always been huge opponents of censoring the internet. They have even made public statements about keeping the internet uncensored, as is shown in this official Google blog. Finally, in 2010, Google stopped censoring the Chinese search results after Chinese citizens attempted to hack into them and gain information about politics and the military. The Chinese government was extremely unhappy and lashed back at them, attacking them publicly.
During the time that Google was censoring the Chinese search results however, the United States Congress was the one threatening Google. The Global Online Freedom Act was a bill that, even though it never became law, would make Google's actions in China illegal. So the United States was acting very strongly against censorship. While reading about this, I could not help but remember a bill that was being considered just over a month ago in the United States. That's right, SOPA and PIPA. If these bills were to be passed, the government would have been granted power to essentially censor the internet to its citizens. And again, although the bill was not passed, it was being seriously considered by a number of Congressmen. So just a few short years ago, our Congress was publicly against censorship, threatening to punish American companies that censored other countries, but this year, in 2012, all of the sudden a number of Congressmen legitimately thought it would be a good idea to impose these restriction on our own soil? Doesn't make much sense to me. I can't help think that maybe censorship isn't the real issue to them, they are just looking to flex their power and maybe make a few bucks.
The owners and founders of Google have always been huge opponents of censoring the internet. They have even made public statements about keeping the internet uncensored, as is shown in this official Google blog. Finally, in 2010, Google stopped censoring the Chinese search results after Chinese citizens attempted to hack into them and gain information about politics and the military. The Chinese government was extremely unhappy and lashed back at them, attacking them publicly.
During the time that Google was censoring the Chinese search results however, the United States Congress was the one threatening Google. The Global Online Freedom Act was a bill that, even though it never became law, would make Google's actions in China illegal. So the United States was acting very strongly against censorship. While reading about this, I could not help but remember a bill that was being considered just over a month ago in the United States. That's right, SOPA and PIPA. If these bills were to be passed, the government would have been granted power to essentially censor the internet to its citizens. And again, although the bill was not passed, it was being seriously considered by a number of Congressmen. So just a few short years ago, our Congress was publicly against censorship, threatening to punish American companies that censored other countries, but this year, in 2012, all of the sudden a number of Congressmen legitimately thought it would be a good idea to impose these restriction on our own soil? Doesn't make much sense to me. I can't help think that maybe censorship isn't the real issue to them, they are just looking to flex their power and maybe make a few bucks.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Google AdWords
Since Google is essentially free to us, its users, how does it make so much money and remain profitable? The answer is Google AdWords. How it works and how to go about getting an advertisement can be found here. The way I understand it is that a company pays Google to have their link at the top of a Google search result. You can tell these are ads because they are usually the first few results, they have a shading around them, and it says "Ads" - easy enough to tell. Anyway, different ads will come up depending on what you search. If you are looking for a t-shirt, a t-shirt company's ad will come up. Each time you click on these ads and give the company a visitor to their site, Google charges them a certain amount of money. It could be up to $.50 per click, which seems like a lot if you ask me.
What I love about these ads is first of all, it allows Google to be free to the user. Second of all, Google makes it pretty clear these are advertisements with the different shading around them and the warnings they give. This makes it pretty easy for me to avoid them. Yes, I realize they might have some stuff I am interested in but I know that what I am actually looking for is in the links that Google returns based on its algorithm, not the ones they get paid to return. I am all for having Google be free, and I respect that these company's want to pay to have their links out there, but no way am I clicking on them.
Another thing Google does is monitor these clicks to make sure it is not spam. If the shoe company Finish Line wants to mess with their competitor Footlocker, they could have someone go out and click these AdWords links to make Footlocker pay Google. Google actively monitors the links to make sure this isn't happening which surprises me. They are going out of their way to make sure companies are not paying them too much money - seems way too fair to be the practice of a huge company like Google. So basically Google is providing us with an amazing service for free, they sure are making enough money for themselves, and the company's can get their names out through AdWords. Seems like a legitimate relationship with positives for all parties involved.
What I love about these ads is first of all, it allows Google to be free to the user. Second of all, Google makes it pretty clear these are advertisements with the different shading around them and the warnings they give. This makes it pretty easy for me to avoid them. Yes, I realize they might have some stuff I am interested in but I know that what I am actually looking for is in the links that Google returns based on its algorithm, not the ones they get paid to return. I am all for having Google be free, and I respect that these company's want to pay to have their links out there, but no way am I clicking on them.
Another thing Google does is monitor these clicks to make sure it is not spam. If the shoe company Finish Line wants to mess with their competitor Footlocker, they could have someone go out and click these AdWords links to make Footlocker pay Google. Google actively monitors the links to make sure this isn't happening which surprises me. They are going out of their way to make sure companies are not paying them too much money - seems way too fair to be the practice of a huge company like Google. So basically Google is providing us with an amazing service for free, they sure are making enough money for themselves, and the company's can get their names out through AdWords. Seems like a legitimate relationship with positives for all parties involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)