Social Cache.
A Nemo blog. Dealing with uncommon cents.

From the Official Google Blog:

Introducing the Google Chrome OS
7/07/2009 09:37:00 PM
It’s been an exciting nine months since we launched the Google Chrome browser. Already, over 30 million people use it regularly. We designed Google Chrome for people who live on the web — searching for information, checking email, catching up on the news, shopping or just staying in touch with friends. However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web. So today, we’re announcing a new project that’s a natural extension of Google Chrome — the Google Chrome Operating System. It’s our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be.

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Because we’re already talking to partners about the project, and we’ll soon be working with the open source community, we wanted to share our vision now so everyone understands what we are trying to achieve.

Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We’re designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don’t have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.

Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips and we are working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year. The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform. All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies. And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform.

Google Chrome OS is a new project, separate from Android. Android was designed from the beginning to work across a variety of devices from phones to set-top boxes to netbooks. Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems. While there are areas where Google Chrome OS and Android overlap, we believe choice will drive innovation for the benefit of everyone, including Google.

We hear a lot from our users and their message is clear — computers need to get better. People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up. They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them. They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files. Even more importantly, they don’t want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates. And any time our users have a better computing experience, Google benefits as well by having happier users who are more likely to spend time on the Internet.

We have a lot of work to do, and we’re definitely going to need a lot of help from the open source community to accomplish this vision. We’re excited for what’s to come and we hope you are too. Stay tuned for more updates in the fall and have a great summer.

Posted by Sundar Pichai, VP Product Management and Linus Upson, Engineering Director

Let’s keep this simple – the scenario that is unfolding in the battle between the big three internet companies that matter, Google, Twitter and Facebook, is about access to personal data; what you care to share with Facebook and Twitter is important and Google wants in on it. With Twitter and Facebook it lies in the data surrounding experiential awareness and reputation management; the who, the what, the where. In Google’s case it is, in the words of Fred Vogelstein, about how “for the last decade or so, the Web has been defined by Google’s algorithms—rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world.”

Dispassionate atlas versus he says, she says.

That’s not a pithy statement; what you and I say about a brand online is becoming more important than indexing – Vogelstein again – “Internet users behave[d] differently on Facebook than anywhere else online: They use[d] their real names, connect[ed] with their real friends, link[ed] to their real email addresses, and share[d] their real thoughts, tastes, and news. Google, on the other hand, knows [knew] relatively little about most of its users other than their search histories and some browsing activity.” Characters in [ ] my edits.

He goes on – “In [Facebook CEO] Zuckerberg’s vision, users will query this “social graph” to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire—rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search. It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center. In other words, right where Google is now.” Google can currently search and index your tweets but Facebook is a walled garden and unless Facebook grants access to that data within, then Google is out of luck. The battle for dominance in the “promised land of online brand advertising” has been engaged.

In the past Facebook users have spoken out angrily about any perceived misuse of their personal data and Facebook has always backed down. Last April Google announced the ability to create detailed profiles so that anyone searching for a persons name could find that profile – it remains to be seen if there was a heavy take up of that service offering.

What does this intercine warfare between Facebook and Google mean for you and I? I’d say that now, more than ever, we have to pay attention to our personal brand reputation and brands must monitor all instances of conversations, both positive and negative, online.

Related posts:

John Battelle – Google Vs Facebook? What we Learn from Twitter

SEO and SEM will be Dead As You Know It in 6 Months

Tony “Frosty” Welch – Who Killed Social Media?

Update June 24th 09 – Facebook Messages to Become Public by Default

I read an interesting story in the NYT today – Mourning Old Media’s Decline. It wasn’t a feelgood piece:

“It’s been an especially rotten few days for people who type on deadline. On Tuesday, The Christian Science Monitor announced that, after a century, it would cease publishing a weekday paper. Time Inc., the Olympian home of Time magazine, Fortune, People and Sports Illustrated, announced that it was cutting 600 jobs and reorganizing its staff. And Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the country, compounded the grimness by announcing it was laying off 10 percent of its work force — up to 3,000 people. Clearly, the sky is falling. The question now is how many people will be left to cover it.” [BTW, Time Inc may have a hard time in a digital age - it didn't mention its own story on its own web site...]

That’s an important question. Where do we go to get our news? For me it’s the New York Times homepage every day. And if the paper fails because online advertising fails to keep up with the decline in paid subscriptions who will report the news? Really, think about it – all the technology in the world will not bring us up-to-the-minute breaking news if no one is reporting it.

The “cesspool of useless information” line in this post’s header is not a lament from an old school journalist either, it’s from Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google.

Move over, iPhone. The Google phone has arrived. T-Mobile has partnered with Google to launch the G1, which is the first phone to feature Google’s Android software. As you may have guessed, Android makes the phone function very similarly to the iPhone.

Like the iPhone online store, the Android Market is full of free applications and widgets developed by programmers around the world. A big difference between Google and Apple though is that Google will allow open submissions to its store instead of turning away programs it deems inconsistent with its mission.

Critics cite the G1’s biggest improvement over the iPhone as being the Menu button that pulls up a panel of large buttons of functions that relate to what you’re doing. For PC fanatics, it’s the equivalent of a right-click button on a computer mouse.

As would be expected with version 1.0 of this phone, there are many small glitches, but these are expected to be ironed out quickly. Some bright points though are picture messaging, voice dialing and the option to turn any song into a ringtone. Additionally, as a Sidekick phone, the screen pops open with a small keyboard underneath.

Though the G1 isn’t as streamlined or beautiful as the iPhone, soon enough Androids will expand into a variety of formats and networks. Finally, adopters looking for an iPhone alternative have some viable options.

Photo courtesy Thor Swift/Wired.com

Found on the Wired blogs. Google’s Udi Manber spends endless time thinking about how search can be improved. One big reason many searches don’t succeed, he believes, is that despite the 20 billion or so Web pages in Google’s indexes — including the 2 million items in Wikipedia — the information simply isn’t there.

“The process will take 20 seconds with credit cards,” says Knol product manager Cedric Dupont. Phone checks will take a minute or so. This vetting, Manber hopes, will give knols accountability and, in the case of high-status authors, the benefit of a solid reputation.

Update: Here’s Knol from Google.

As CNet reports today, Hollywood and YouTube may be edging towards their own version of Pax Romana. Meanwhile, beyond the learned walls of the law courts and Google’s battle with Viacom, we here at Social Cache have been scratching our heads over Viacom’s position.

Obviously Viacom is up in arms over what it argues is copyright infringement whenever one of its artists’ songs are used in a user-generated video. Their lawyers are even arguing that in most cases they want to set aside the notion of fair use. That in itself is ridiculous as in a lot of circumstances Viacom has stepped over the edge of copyright boundaries. In 2007 Viacom sent YouTube 100,000 takedown notices! And as this video from the EFF points out, many of those videos that Viacom had asked YouTube to remove, were not infringing anyone’s copyright.

We ourselves received a takedown notice and had a video removed from YouTube. The video was of one of our numerous snowboarding expeditions to Mt Hood and it included a clip of a song by the group White Zombie. We could have argued that under the law if we had used the music for parody, for comment, for criticism, for news reporting or for non-commercial use then we’d be in the clear. In this instance it was the latter – non-commercial use. We couldn’t be bothered, we weren’t that attached to the video and anyway, like millions of other folks, we put up videos at an alarming rate. Here’s our latest.

So here’s the Nemo and Social Cash POV. By removing our video Viacom denied thousands of people the pleasure of hearing a White Zombie song. One of its own artists! And no money was changing hands. One solution – Viacom should provide YouTube with a license from a roster of its artists who agree that their music can be used in a video for non-commercial use. In return YouTube provides its users with a simple license that allows users to add music from these artists to their amateur videos for non-commercial use for a small fee of, perhaps $3.00. Now Viacom and its artists get a share of this revenue, YouTube users won’t receive takedown notices, and Viacom can go a long way to recouping its, no doubt, millions of dollars it is spending on these lawsuits.

You’re welcome. Let me know why it won’t work….

Meanwhile over at MySpace, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has a business that’s built on the backs of thousands of unsigned musicians. Who is looking out for them?