Google Desktop API Released

aarbear writes "Airbear Software has just released an API to Google Desktop, a free tool from Google to search your own computer. In short, the API allows access to Google Desktop through the command line. Results are outputted to a file formatted with either XML, CSV, or custom formatting. The API is implemented through Airbear Software's popular Google Desktop add-on, gdSuite, so the API also adds advanced search options to Google Desktop. Google Desktop Search allows you to instantly find emails (from Outlook and Outlook Express), chats (in AOL and AOL Instant Message [AIM]), and web pages you've viewed in Internet Explorer. In addition, you can find any file by filename and can search inside Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint files. However, before gdSuite and this API, users could only search from their web browsers."

Comments

It's only a matter of time...

[G-Licious!]

...before spyware becomes Google Desktop enabled!

Spyware?

[prash_n_rao]

Wow! Sounds like it opens up a whole new avenue for spyware! With this, won't it be easy to write software that can access, without your knowledge, your personal mails, chat logs, browser history, etc.? All with a simple API! I wonder.

Re:Spyware?

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

The spyware would then need to be bundled with this API, which would increase the size of the spyware, making it more susceptible to detection. Of course, it would make coding spyware a lot easier, but it would limit the spyware to those who have Google Desktop installed, which is a small minority of all Windows owners. Most spyware is written to reach as large a population as it can, so I don't believe major spyware vendors will limit themselves to Google Desktop. Script kiddies, on the other hand, will most probably use this to their advantage. In any case, any spyware that actually is on your PC already is dangerous, with or without access to Google Desktop and any related APIs.

Re:Spyware?

[aarbear]

It's a good point, but if someone really wants to write spyware for Google Desktop, they would do it regardless of whether there is an API.
Also, any developer with any common sense will realize that the APIs as I have them on the web site ...
a) cannot legally be redistributed
b) have a number of pesky dependencies built in that make it harder to redistribute and increase the file size.
c) To actually work, the API must show a wizard to configure it. This is almost certainly not sneaky enough for spyware or a virus... a user can just click exit

Of course, any developer who actually wants to use them for a good purpose can just contact me for the redistibutable, that fixes the above problems.

Slashvertisment

[zemoo]

Isn't this just a plug for the Airbear product? Look at the submitter!

Who would realistically use this API for anything serious? Google will probably break it on the next program update anyways (GMail notifiers, anyone?)

Re:Slashvertisment

[aarbear]

First of all, even though this is self-promotion, it is still news, no matter who says it. That's the whole idea of press releases! If the slashdot editors thought it was inappropriate to post this because it was self-promotion, they wouldn't have posted it. It's that simple. Plus, the API is freeware, so I'm not making money on this.

Who would use this API? I devloped this API mainly because a handful of developers asked me to. They want to use this API to extend Google Desktop farther than I did. Plus, even if the next version of GDS does change their HTML formatting, I will be only one step behind and update the API and gdSuite to work ASAP.

Re:Slashvertisment

[no soup for you]

Google will probably break it on the next program update anyways (GMail notifiers, anyone?)

Google has a GMail notifier utility. Or are you talking about something else?

Kudos to the creator. Google hired the guy who wrote a POP interface to GMail. congats, I think its a great idea

Spyware Aspects - Google desktop only searches what it has access to. In a windows environment, if you can get to a file/data, then a process on your behalf can. Solve THAT problem, and this won't be a problem.

Re:Slashvertisment

[zemoo]

Actually, I realize I was a bit too hasty - at first glance, it definitely looked like you were charging for the product, or at least inciting developers to use the API so you could install your own product at the same time.
Now it looks like you don't charge for the API? Then why not release the source?

Re:Slashvertisment

[aarbear]

I am not charging for the API because I, as a poor, frugal student, hate having to pay for products and don't want to be a hypocrit by charging for my own. At the same time, however, I don't want to release soure because I want to keep control of my work and who uses it, just like most other freeware developers who don't release source. Also, if I released source, spyware/malware developers could capitolize on it, as other have pointed out.

Fulltext search in 2005

[vbouret]

I cannot believe we are in 2005 and that it still takes 2 minutes to find 20 messages out of 2000 with the standard Outlook search.

I still cannot get why Microsoft has to buy another company (Lookout Software) to be able to do something as simple as fulltext search on file formats they all mostly own.

Re:Fulltext search in 2005

[superpulpsicle]

I can't believe we are in 2005. And M$ Outlook can only integrate 1 hotmail account at a time.

Re:Fulltext search in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe we are in 2005, and certain people still use outlook (express)...

Re:Fulltext search in 2005

[aarbear]

That would be the whole point of Google Desktop and the API: to let users and now developers search emails, files, etc. instantly.

Re:Fulltext search in 2005

[Mr. Byaninch]

I guess I'm late with this, but I'm really happy with all my Hotmail accounts (8 of 'em) and the way they all come together in Outlook Express. I have searched them a couple of times, and it took a minute or so to search 80 or 90 megs of messages... what do I care? Faster than I could do it on my own.

Now I know the poster above said just "Outlook', but I've got to think Outlook Express is at least as accommodating as the full Outlook.

And I'm not even mentioning how spam-free they (Hotmail accts) are, compared to a year or so ago. I'm not a BG fan, but Hotmail and Outlook Express are high on my list of good, free stuff

Microsft, Google, and the search wars

[drakethegreat]

Both have failed in my mind. Its not like google has released a tool to the unix world either, which shows that they still put the market above the glory. Microsoft has always sucked at producing its own quality software and its nothing new but it is sad. When the biggest company in the world with thousands of programmers can't create an efficient indexing tool for searching, you have some problems. I just wonder about the quality of longhorn and I will continue to use linux for years to come most likely. It would appear that locate is a tool that the windows world is badly in need of the fact that its been around as long as it has should be humiliating to windows developers. Just now they are figuring out how to create indexed searches on hard drives and the media makes it a huge deal. Well they lost to unix based systems by a matter of years.

Re:Microsft, Google, and the search wars

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Why would Google release a Google Desktop Search for Linux or Mac OS X, when both have applications which already provide an equivalent service? Windows was clearly the best choice because Windows' Indexing service is horrendous, and thus Windows would benefit from such a service.

'Do no evil' is not equivalent to 'Do for those that also do no evil'.

Re:Microsft, Google, and the search wars

[cyber0ne]

Its not like google has released a tool to the unix world either, which shows that they still put the market above the glory.

First and foremost, Google is a business. What you call "put[ting] the market above the glory" they call "turning a profit." I won't pretend to know their business in any way, but it's safe to say that targetting the 90% marketshare over the 10% is a better idea.

Note also that other OSes already have, and have had for years, excellent search tools. An avid *nix user who has incorporated locate, grep, sed, awk, etc. into all his scripts and tools isn't about to run this.

When the biggest company in the world

Walmart?

with thousands of programmers can't create an efficient indexing tool for searching, you have some problems. I just wonder about the quality of longhorn and I will continue to use linux for years to come most likely.

Agreed. I imagine Longhorn will be shiny and new and suck in all kinds of innovative ways. I'll still end up with a copy in my hands and I'll still install it on one of my machines, but that's neither here nor there. I'm mostly curious to see it just to see where Microsoft is taking their overall design of this product, or if it's just another re-hash of the same old crap that's been going on since 95. Sure, a lot in Windows has gradually changed since 95, but they're keeping up the same pattern of replacing one design flaw with another and watching the whole thing bloat out of control. I picture a ball of duct tape that they just keep adding to, hoping that the next piece will make it a perfect sphere.

It would appear that locate is a tool that the windows world is badly in need of the fact that its been around as long as it has should be humiliating to windows developers.

Again, agreed. I can't imagine how something as vital as a set of search tools has eluded them for so long. Perhaps they haven't seen a need for anything of the sort, but all too often I hear an "average user" complain (on IRC mostly) about how he/she downloaded a file and now doesn't know where it is. A search-engine style tool for their machine would be the obvious solution, in my opinion.

Note, however, that you make mention of locate as a tool badly needed by Windows. This somewhat contradicts your earlier assertion that Google should release their software for *nix, since here you point out that something already exists. Again, I'm just pointing out that the *nix world has no vacuum to be filled by Google's Desktop Search, so they have very little reason (other than "geek cred") to make a *nix version.

Just now they are figuring out how to create indexed searches on hard drives and the media makes it a huge deal. Well they lost to unix based systems by a matter of years.

This isn't the first time they've done something like that. I remember back in school when I read an article about an innovative new feature in the upcoming Windows 2000 which will save diskspace by allowing users to create "hard links" to duplicate files on their computer. It brought a small chuckle to my day. I don't know what ever happened to that "innovation" and I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing in Windows. I guess the greatest disappointment was that I hoped at the time that they were taking the first step to replacing shortcuts with symlinks. Alas, I'm still waiting.

Re:Microsft, Google, and the search wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is doomed. Click fraud will kill them.
http://www.clickscoring.com/click_fraud.shtml

Re:Microsft, Google, and the search wars

[xigxag]

I don't know what ever happened to that "innovation" and I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing in Windows.

Of course Windows has symlinks. Whether or not you want to actually use them is another story.