Slashdot Mirror
Google to Launch Mac Version of Google Desktop UPDATED
phaedo00 writes "Arstechnica is reporting that Google today announced that they are pursuing a Google Desktop for Apple's Mac OS X. Google chief executive Eric Schmidt saying it had to be rebuilt from the ground up because of the fundamental differences between the Mac OS and Windows. 'We intend to do it,' Schmidt said." Update: 10/30 23:51 GMT by M : Seems like Reuters and others may have heard wrong about a potential Mac version.
Why would google try to compete with Spotlight which will offer a lot more features than googles win-desktop search does?
It's great to see this happening, but what I'd really like to see is a Linux version.
Of course, most of the world doesn't care, so it wouldn't be likely 2 happen.
I guess Google must not know that Linux has now outpaced desktop installs vs Mac's..
Besides it would make sense to do both the only real difference is the UI programming at least for OS X, the filesystems on both systems are very similar.
Soon we'll have all the windows virii ported too... It'll be just like old times...
BSD version :)
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
Just wondering if they will make it open source. Any ideas, or should I have RTFA?
I'm loving the Windows, version, so yeah, bring on the Mac version too :)
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
I'm curious what improvements Google will make to the overall user experience of Mac OS X. Search is already a fundamental part of the Mac desktop experience: virtually every application features a search field in the upper-right hand corner of the window (lower-right-ish for some bizarre reason on iCal). The Google mantra of "search, don't sort" is at least partially alive on this platform today.
I thought Google doesn't suffer so much from bad design. Tying such app to platform is definitely very bad design choice, especially if there are plans to port it to different platforms. They could save a lot of development time by using platform abstraction instead of direct usage of Win32 API throughout the code. I wonder why Google engineers have chosen such a strange approach. Maybe they were too short of time?
The idea of desktop search is good, but I think the google version lacks in few details.
.doc .ppt etc. formats.
You cannot define which directories to index, and it only indexes single machine. (understandable since it's desktop search, not small network search)
The google search keeps index of the data on the desktop harddrive. If you have lots of files, the index size gets insanely large, some say nearly 2Gb when you have large amount of documents lying around.
It would be relatively easy to build something similar which would work over administrative shares using samba crawlers with defined administrative password for each machine, and you'd have control of which data it would collect. Maybe nfs crawlers too. Plenty of both freely available.
Tricky part is to create the meta indexing of the containing
But the more open developement would allow other indexing, such as ID3 tags.
And perhaps you could add your own meta data to indexed files by filetype, and enhance the search for example only images by containing meta description something like: "meta this image has: cat vase window apple". Search for apple and it returns that picture, crude but works atleast partially.
Problem with this kind of version is that you'd need separate server for the searching, you could reuse some old machine for this.(not problem for most of people here since everyone has extra box somewhere in intranet)
Make the search running with mysql+apache and it would be almost platform independent.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
The competition is going to be tough on the Mac platform with launchbar, quicksilver allready there and do not forget apple's upcomming spotlight. Seems like another fine example of a function at which the Mac platform is ahead of its competition: "fast access to content".
Just MacGoogle it!
Sunny Dubey
The question is: why?
I have the WWDC Tiger Beta and Spotlight is just flawless. It's totally integrated into the desktop instead of just being browser based, it supports way more file formats, it searches in real time as you type, it lets you save searches as virtual folders and what not...
Not to mention that Mac users are a fanatical bunch that usually upgrade when they have the chance, meaning that a year from now the majority will be using Tiger.
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
Or, if Qt is an issue, why not Java ?
And we are talking Google, the Champions of the internet, and a serious competitor for MS on some areas ... cross platform should be the way to go for them !
..."Competing with Apple==BAD!!!!"
Don't you guys ever think... "man, more competition...maybe Apple will offer me more next time around to compete with google"
Or
"Wow, I really like this new google desktop search engine. I think I'll use it"
Sometimes I think apple could offer crap on a stick and you fanatics would buy it and defend it just because Apple told you to.
Oh, and before you ask, I own 5 Macs, including a pair of powerbooks, a G5, and 2 iMacs, but get a little real here.
" will make to the overall user experience"
Most people "use" a computer.
Mac fanatics have a "user experience".
theres already a wonderful desktop search program called quicksilver for mac os x thats much more secure than google
I'm using Windows ME and Google Desktop only works on XP and above. Comon, I'm not so far behind the curve, am I? I suppoe that's what you get for buying a new machine right before Windows puts out a new OS.
Google, I wanted to try this out. I'll even make you a deal, I'll stop using the Google Drive thing if you put out the Desktop for Windows 98 machines.
Thank you.
--
RumorsDaily
Launching a MAC version of google desktop? The CEO must be on weed when making such decision.
Or am I the only person in the world who knows just where I put everything on my computer? You come up with an organized system, and follow it. It's not Rocket Science -- it's more like Computer Science.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
They can't create a Linux version because all the OSS hippies will just blast it for being evil propriety software and run around posting links to some BS app on SourceForge thats supposedly 6.2 million trillion times better than GDS.
Besides, it's also way too easy to install. Linux users are masochists that way.
It could be that the first version of Googles software doesn't do anything that Spotlight doesn't. But they probably have a business plan that is far more far reaching than people think.
They may just be doing the ground work and getting an installed base for the next version Google Desktop which will connect you to froogle and let you search your desktop as well as your Google Mail in one fell swoop.
I'm just trying to think how they can integrate their Google Desktop with what they already have to make money.
Didn't they just buy a map company?
So you could have this one box where you do a search and if Google Desktop recognizes it as an address it'll bring up a map instead of searching your local computer. Much like it gives you the answer 4 when you type in 2 + 2 instead of searching the web.
So Google is in a position where they can give you one single search box which will let you search for anything you want and it will intelligently look in the right place.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Great ideas, but last time i tried spotlight or the Google Desktop search they didn't handle network shares at all.
... i'm sure spotlight will handle file permissions much better.
Which, in the case of google's multiple user problems it probably a blessing
Now there's spyware for MacOS too.
I'm so glad that they weren't left out of all of the fun.
Spotlight is not an app, it is a collection of technologies which make it possible for 3rd party apps to support searching.
At the same time, the 1st party (Apple) will be demonstrating how it's done by building search into all the system's own apps, eg, searching for the control panel which changes the desktop pattern within the control panels area. Yes, I know I'm calling them control panels when they're actually system preferences because most posters sound like they haven't used Mac OS X.)
This doesn't mean 3rd parties shouldn't attempt to compete at searching, quite the reverse: Spotlight is FOR 3rd party developers who want to do searching..
So not only would Google Desktop not be in competition with Spotlight, it could actually use its hooks into the OS to create something very powerful indeed.
Just what I was dreaming of, spyware for my mac :-D
I think that google realises that the good will of the geeks is very important.
They know, that for their line of business, the geeks are a really powerful, _highly_ opinionated, bunch of people. Should we start disliking Google we will start telling our relatives to use some other search engine.
If they court us and we continue to like them, or maybe even like them more, then we will scoff at anyone who uses another search engine.
So, even if Linux has a small market share that market share is a highly influential group in the society.
So I think they will offer this for Linux. It is enormous good will.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Does anyone else have an issue with GDS not 1) un-indexing files which are no longer on the computer and 2) being utterly useless for the times when you want to search for a filename which has a common name, as you get a gazillion results of text-files?
The market share of Linux is NOT measurable in any way since it mostly isn't sold but downloaded and who knows how many time each user downloaded their distros for various reasons (I know I downloaded parts of many flavors of Linux, I don't use them at all, I tried them and haven't stick with it). Someone downloading Linux doesn't mean he is going to use it, he might just want to do this, try it, that doesn't mean he will use. So, NO way of measuring the market share of Linux, plus Linux comes in a myriad of flavors called distros most of which contain stuff that will only run on their packages, Linux isn't even compatible with Linux most of the time. So which distro has the market share over the Mac? None, Linux the kernel might be popular but it's hardly a system. Even if you consider it a system we go back to point number 1; its market share CANNOT be measured.
So speculate as much as you whish give yourself any amount of pat in the back but reality check:
Linux is a patchwork of bordelic code made by some incredibly self-centered devellopper that won't take a iota of criticism and truly live in an alternate reality, I know its hard to take but this is how me and every person I work with view this. It doesn't have any significant market share and if truly more than 5% of the world use this tell me why I have seen only 3 Linux box in the past years (last year actually) in internationnal conventions on subject ranging from science to politics to education to unions to IBM conventions and so on. This is my job I am an AV technician and I do mostly internationnal conventions of all type, people come there from all over the world to speak on a myriad of subjects, I have seen WAY more Macs than I have seen Linux boxes, their number is even groing to the point where my boss actually wants to BUY some Macs for the company because they are now inevitable. PC data me as you whish this is where we are at. And I am writting this on my personnal PC a 4230$ machine that runs windows, I am no mac freak in any sense of the term, this is pure observation. BTW even when doing a convention on its Linux services, IBM asked us to use windows machine for their convention and not even 1% of the attendants were using Linux.
Have you ever thought that the MS "war" on Linux is merely a way to divert your attention from the Mac by making another system suposedly the center of attention, a system that has, as of now, no chance to compete with anyone outside of the server market?
Now since I said that on Slashdot I find it sad that most won't read this (this reality check has been in need for a long while and has been formulated by MANY in hope that one day, instead of whinning, the Linux community actually accepts it and do something about it so it can become the great stuff it should be), I'll be modded down first thing following the post...
Everybody is asking why compete with Spotlight... I say power grab. Get it out before Longhorn, get it out before Tiger... cash in on the google brand-name. There's more coming, this is just getting their foot in the door. A few years ago they could've really gone for the whole enchillada with a tactic like this... now... prob too late. Any thoughts?
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Google Desktop = Google + Spotlight. Google Desktop could be used as front-end for combination of Spotlight and web searches. So in future, it'll handle all local searches using spotlight and add extra features like searching gmail and other web-related stuff.
zeia award
http://www.up0.com/
If only the search tool would support OpenOffice documents, it would be more useful to many people. Surely the zip'd XML dormat is easier to figure out than the intentionally-difficult-to-parse Offiec format. [Hint for google employees]
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
The situation is simple:
Spotlight for Mac owns Google Desktop for Windows.
Google desktop is great on Windows, which has nothing. But on Mac... it can't compete with the type-ahead find. The only way it will come close is if they change their strategy and create a desktop app rather than a web app.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Does much the same, but is already there and is pretty and cool.
Check out Quicksilver.
wheres the win95 version already? :/
The end goal of google desktop is attach advertisements to information gathered from data all over your machine. I haven't downloaded it, so I'm not entirely sure of its capabilities or whether is does that or not (I only have a mac here). However, considering that something like this is more like spyware with vastly intelligent (patented) algorithsm, oppose to Gators strstr() algorithm.
Spotlights end goal is to help you find your files without using that crap Finder. Apple doesn't want you to use Safari to receive ads collected by Spotlight and then buy stuff, its another improvement to the steering wheel for your computer. Google wants to generate ad revenue and your data is part of their business model.
I personally don't like any company using my computer as an advertising platform, it just erks me. I don't want to be part of business model that doesn't profit me and doesn't guarantee my privacy and protection, which Google and no other company can.
I'm a mac user and I welcome Google's support for my platform of choice.
Google have a habit of creating things that just work and are easy to use: I really like GMail for example. Hence, they are a perfect match for the Macintosh which aims (and largely succeeds) at doing the same thing.
I don't like the idea of having to use a web browser to access the information. Perhaps Google could use WebKit to create a GD specific browser. It should be really easy, O'Reilly even showed a noob like me how to do it myself.
Tim O'Reilly posted a clarification to this story in the Ars discussion thread attached to the post. He's the one who asked the original question about the Mac port, and the answer he heard was much more equivocal and less certain than what Reuters is reporting. Be sure and check the post again to get the update.
Senior CPU Editor | Ars Technica | http://arstechnica.com/
"Kind of like the difference between "making love" and "getting f****d.""
Its more like the difference between a janitor and a "sanitation engineer"
"Comon, I'm not so far behind the curve, am I?"
Dude, you're about 5 years behind the curve.
ME is still fine for what it is, but it seems a bit naive to complain the latest software doesn't work on the old Win9x codebase.
Cory quotes Tim O'Reilly, "He was fairly equivocal, saying that it was a hard problem, requiring a whole separate project, not just a port, because of the differences in the operating systems. He made no announcement of actual plans to deliver the product, or even that Google was actively working on it"
Sounds like Reuters misquoted someone because lots of people who were actually there are saying that he didn't say anything like that:
k to p_for_o.html/
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/30/google_des
True that the Jaguar upgrade was nearly the death knell to the graphic artist team I was familiar with, but it would be unrealistic to think most Macheads (such as myself using an iBook G4 to write this response) wouldn't upgrade along with the new releases. Even at $100 a pop, there is really no alternative to upgrading in the long run. Sweet thing about single vendor lock-in proprietary systems, ain't it? Such is life.
Mac OSX: Sacrificing liberty for beaut
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
This isn't just about finding files; Spotlight (and similar systems) give you the metadata to make decisions based on a lot of file properties, and to make searches/take action based on that, instead of just on the file name or the text contents. Like BeOS used to be. So you can set up views of 'All my Family Images', or whatever else, that don't go stale like a folder does.
Folders may be one of the biggest mistakes in UI design; I'm glad we're getting away from them. In my opinion we should just get rid of them completely and have a flat store with lots of choice for metadata and versioning of files.
Why should you have to choose one category for a file, and consign it forever to that bin? The worst solution is to duplicate files or start trying to create sym links. The best solution is to rethink the views that are allowed on the data.
If we had built metadata into file systems in the first place, we wouldn't have the mess of 'file extensions' we have today. We also wouldn't be trying to shoehorn files which may have a lot of different references and uses into one category, just because our computers give us one, and exactly one, way to categorise information.
In short, by saying 'I know where everything is' you are working round a shortcoming in your Finder/Explorer/File system.
He went on to explain that because the way Operating Systems work so differently and how built in the Google Desktop is there's no way to just port it over to a different OS so it has to be redone from scratch -- http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/30/google_deskto p_for_o.html
Google may have a great web strategy but they don't understand the desktop OS and how Microsoft will bury them. If they didn't design Google Desktop to be platform independent from the get go, Google will have no hope of it working on the next version of Microsoft's OS, because Microsoft owns the platform, and won't tolerate third-parties providing "essential" services.
Having had two decades to watch MS bury competitors, it's unbelievable that a company with billions of dollars in capital doesn't understand the need to design independent of MS APIs. Companies like Adobe understand that . . . .