No Secret Plan at Google?

daltonlp writes "A number of smart folks have speculated that Google might leverage its computational resources to create some kind of massive online application delivery platform. Here's why they are probably wrong." One of more intelligent insights into Google, and it's pleasantly devoid of theories of Google taking over the world.

Comments

NOW I can have my coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't do anythign until I have my google news of the day

Re:NOW I can have my coffee

[Ulric]

And today's big news is that someone believes that Google are going to not do something.

Re:NOW I can have my coffee

[ZoneGray]

Imagine if Gogle were in merger talks wth SCO.

Re:NOW I can have my coffee

[BewireNomali]

"A9.com is a powerful search engine, using web search and image search results enhanced by Google, Search Inside the Book® results from Amazon.com, reference results from GuruNet, movies results from IMDb, and more."

Lol, you're still using Google, dude.

Re:NOW I can have my coffee

[flumps]

... McScoogle? Sounds like some sort of Scottish clan

Bandwidth?

[bird603568]

They didn't hire Rob and Marc to work on giving you online spreadsheets.
If they did this or an OS, which they wont as the article says wouldn't it cost them and the used massave amounts of bandwidth?

Re:Bandwidth?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

SHort of bandwidth? Perhaps that's why they where looking at un-lit fiber?

sound like Google is very successful

[coolcold]

people started to spreading FUD as to how Google would dominate the world.

I for one welcome our Google overlord

Re:sound like Google is very successful

[disposable60]

If you're seeking quotes, see my journal. (yes, this is otherwise OT, sorry)

Definition of "Secret"

[Chess_the_cat]

If there was a secret plan you wouldn't know about it anyway so saying "There is no secret plan" is nonsense.

Re:Definition of "Secret"

[nyri]

If you want keep a secret you have to keep it secret that you have a secret to keep.

Re:Definition of "Secret"

[micromoog]

Furthermore, you have to keep it secret that you have to keep it secret that you have a secret to keep.

-1, Obvious, had to be said

Re:Definition of "Secret"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Google = Internet Echelon.

Security Focus

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum80/43.htm

http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html

Re:Definition of "Secret"

[MyIS]

I wonder if they are referring to the 2. ??? step.

Google's usefulness

[episodic]

What amazes me is that google constantly comes out with USEFUL and credible apps.
Google Search = has long been the standard
Google Groups = complete usenet archive
Google Mail = arguably the best free email service now.
Google Local = returns excellent results even for my small town!
Google Maps = it is all I use to plan a trip now
Google Search = it is all I use to search my 1/2 terrabyte of storage.
Picasa = one heck of an image manipulation/retrieval program.
I for one welcome an innovative company that provides me with excellent apps. If they wanna design an OS - I'm yelling to GO FOR IT!
It will take someone with google's clout to do this.

Re:Google's usefulness

[WIAKywbfatw]

There's a world of difference between designing a few good applications and designing a viable alternative to the OSes that we have today.

Two words for you: driver support. Do you know how much effort is involved in getting just that relatively minor part of an OS right?

Re:Google's usefulness

[Ciderx]

But...

Google Groups 2 = complete usenet archive, now horrifically crippled by terrible interface
Google Desktop Search = the worst of all the desktop search apps
Picasa 2 = The upgrade that feels like a downgrade
Google Image Search = nigh on useless search engine that often points to images that don't really exist on the web page, or the web page itself even exists.

Its not all good, y'know.

Re:Google's usefulness

[I confirm I'm not a]

designing a viable alternative to the OSes that we have today.

Two words for you: driver support.

OK, I know this is all alleged, so this is all moot, but wasn't the idea behind a Google OS that it would be a hosted OS? In other words we access it remotely, and Google decide on the hardware? Why would a hosted OS need driver support (I'm assuming that Google already have drivers to support the hardware they currently have, etc)?

Re:Google's usefulness

[LokiSteve]

Why would they make their own?

We already know that they're Linux experts over there, and Google is a household name. Think about this in terms of a WebTV mentality.

"You use Linux!?"
"No, it's GoogleOS. WTF is Linux?"

Re:Google's usefulness

[houghi]

agoogle constantly comes out with USEFUL and credible apps
Google Groups = complete usenet archive

I beg to differ. They have not 'come up' with it. They just bought the dejanews data. Also the new interface is worse then the old version they had. Dejanews was much, much easier to use fronm a Usenet point of view. The old google was not great, but it was OK. What they have now is, to me, completele crap. I rather use Outlook Express instead of Google and I say that as a slrn user.

Re:Google's usefulness

[WIAKywbfatw]

So lose your internet connection and your PC becomes just a heavy paperweight? Gee, thanks but no thanks.

Re:Google's usefulness

[ciroknight]

I'm personally surprised that Hello hasn't gone to the presses yet as being the next big thing.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Emil Brink]

Google Maps = it is all I use to plan a trip now

Excellent, that makes more space for the rest of us here out in the rest of the world. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's that little area that Google Maps seems to ignore for now. Sometime in the future, perhaps you can use the service to plan a visit. :^)

Re:Google's usefulness

[tdhillman]

That of course is predicated on the idea that losing your internet connection is going to be a part of the picture as the technology grows.

Given that as recently as fifteeen years ago no one knew what the internet was beyond a select few, it's not out of the question that the coming fifteen will give birth to a ubiquitous internet presence.

Current technology will die and be replaced by another paradigm- it is just a matter of time. Heck, reasonably usefu GUIs are merely 20 something. There's a lot of change to come and many folks will argue that online app delivery will be the norm in the future- giving Apple and other companies a chance to reap the benefits.

Re:Google's usefulness

[mr.newt]

Driver support is not a "relatively minor part of an OS," driver support is the definition of OS. (OS stands for operating system, remember?)

Consult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

Re:Google's usefulness

[ciroknight]

You know, it really does no good to say all of that here. Send Google an email about it. Their developers are usually pretty kind if you are good mannored, and will at least reply with something like "We're on that" or "Thanks for your concerns".

Sad to me that nobody else ever does this when they have a problem with their service. I complain at every chance I get, because if they don't hear the complaints, they don't know how to improve.

Re:Google's usefulness

[ciroknight]

...Personally I don't plan on driving to [random foreign country], my car doesn't need to see the ocean bottom, but I get your point..

Re:Google's usefulness

[King Babar]

So lose your internet connection and your PC becomes just a heavy paperweight? Gee, thanks but no thanks.

And this is so much different than what happens if Google didn't host your files?

More seriously, I think arguments about how screwed you are when you lose your internet connection sound a bit like arguments That Crazy Old Man used to make about electricity, and why those new-fangled electric gadgets were never going to catch on.

Re:Google's usefulness

[carbon116]

Some of the more useful services (Maps, Local for example) are not available outside of the US. That's hardly "world" domination. Oh wait...it is.

Re:Google's usefulness

[I confirm I'm not a]

So lose your internet connection and your PC becomes just a heavy paperweight? Gee, thanks but no thanks.

Well personally I can't see much advantage either, but I'm guessing you are (and I certainly am) a non-typical user. And for many typical users there are plenty of other things that can occur to turn their PC into a paperweight; I'd guess that the average downtime of an internet connection is probably less (based on my experiences with employers who don't understand the concept of redundancy ;-) than the downtime of a spyware-infested PC, say.

...and, if Google did pull this off (and I'm sceptical that they're even interested in trying), people could afford to invest in redundant connections to the 'net, and save by buying thin-clients.

Note that I'm merely saying this is do-able - not that I think it's worth doing, or has any value to me if it is done.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I know this is all alleged, so this is all moot, but wasn't the idea behind a Google OS that it would be a hosted OS? In other words we access it remotely, and Google decide on the hardware? Why would a hosted OS need driver support (I'm assuming that Google already have drivers to support the hardware they currently have, etc)?

What you're describing isn't an OS.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Crayon Kid]

Two words for you: driver support. Do you know how much effort is involved in getting just that relatively minor part of an OS right?

Then implement GoogleOS over the Linux kernel (or BSD kernel, or whatever). Let the kernel folks worry about drivers and the kernel itself. Let Google pick it up from init and take care of the rest. Perhaps work with the kernel people on adding kernel hooks that will allow to boost the userspace capabilities towards whatever Google wants to obtain.

Re:Google's usefulness

[HarpyG]

Now now since when is Canada part of the US ?

Re:Google's usefulness

[Novous]

>I beg to differ.

That's fine, since you have the right to have a different opinion. But the majority certainly has a differing opinion which states "we like Google." And I have to agree. I use Google everyday.

Re:Google's usefulness

[WIAKywbfatw]

If under this plan my hardware is just acting as some glorified dumb terminal then, yes, it is much different.

Right now, if I lose my internet connection then I can use my PC in hundreds of ways. But if I'm reliant on some remote server to deliver any of my OS, applications or files then not having access to that server is severely going to restrict what I can do.

Also, as if this needs to be said, it's not exactly the most practical idea for notebook users, is it? Last time I checked, wi-fi wasn't universal.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Wildclaw]

I agree with most of what you said. I just wanted to give you a small tips about how to get the old Google Groups interface. Since Gougle Groups 2 is still in beta the new interface hasn't been propagated to Google's country domains. This means that you can still use groups.google.ca etc. to get the old interface.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Lord Pillage]

More seriously, I think arguments about how screwed you are when you lose your internet connection sound a bit like arguments That Crazy Old Man used to make about electricity, and why those new-fangled electric gadgets were never going to catch on.

That argument is flawed. Crazy Old Men ranting about electricity is completely different. People rely on their computers, especially in this time=money world.

People weren't commonly using electricity, so they had nothing to lose by trying it (or not trying it for that matter). But as other arguments are saying, that the internet will be as reliable as ever with very little down time, to remove this problem, then it seems like this remote OS could work; Of course this is ignoring the fact that if someone walked by and cut your cable you'd be screwed.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Shakrai]

That of course is predicated on the idea that losing your internet connection is going to be a part of the picture as the technology grows.

Because as technology grows they will invent some sort of fiber optic cable that is immune to being damaged by some moron with a backhoe who could not be bothered to call the buried cable number.....

Re:Google's usefulness

[mbannonb]

Rah! I do a search through Outlook's emails, and the app hangs for 5 to 10 minutes on XP.

I do the same search with Google's Desktop App, and I have the results in a second.

They've got something figured out.

Re:Google's usefulness

[1u3hr]

You know, it really does no good to say all of that here. Send Google an email about it. Their developers are usually pretty kind if you are good mannored, and will at least reply with something like "We're on that" or "Thanks for your concerns".

I've sent several such, polite, not flames, and possibly got back one or two robot acknowledgments and nothing more. So, this is not generally true. At least bitching about it here is therapeutic.

Re:Google's usefulness

[pebs]

That argument is flawed. Crazy Old Men ranting about electricity is completely different. People rely on their computers, especially in this time=money world.

People weren't commonly using electricity, so they had nothing to lose by trying it (or not trying it for that matter). But as other arguments are saying, that the internet will be as reliable as ever with very little down time, to remove this problem, then it seems like this remote OS could work; Of course this is ignoring the fact that if someone walked by and cut your cable you'd be screwed.

both responses so far missed the point (or maybe got it, but argued against it still). You rely on electricity, right? Without electricity your computer wouldn't run (granted you can have batteries, but that runs out). No one (other than Crazy Old Men) sits around and says "don't rely on a computer because you might have a power failure". We just use our computers, and when the power fails, we wait until it comes back up.

If people come to rely on their internet connections the way they do power, it'll be the same scenario. Like the way we have battery backup and generators, their will be a backup connections for those who really need 24/7 connections. Your fiber connection fails? Use cable/DSL/dial-up/cellular as backup. For example, my cable provider already provides dial-up in addition to cable which I can use if my cable goes down.

Re:Google's usefulness

[smallguy78]

crikey, attack of the 13 year old flamers

Re:Google's usefulness

[poot_rootbeer]

You forgot:

Orkut - a lot like Friendster or MySpace, except less popular and with a much dumber name

Also, you forgot Poland.

Re:Google's usefulness

[poot_rootbeer]

In other words we access it remotely, and Google decide on the hardware?

Google would decide on THEIR hardware, yeah, but YOUR hardware would still be a wildcard.

Computing terminals can very greatly in features and performance, and therefore need a wide variety of drivers available for them. This is true even of dumb terminals; just check out how many different terminal type definitions a Unix or Linux system ships with.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Headcase88]

Eventually, they'll be so many redundant cables that this won't be an issue. Losing the Internet will eventually be like losing your power, ie, a rare occurance.

Heck, I'll take that a step further and say it'll be like losing your phone line, ie, a really rare occurance.

Re:Google's usefulness

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

What do you do when your power goes out? I have not had my cable internet connection go out in months and when it does it is rarely longer than a few minutes. The power goes out at least as often and I can't use my PC at all. Then again, you can't really build an emergency internet generator can you...?

Re:Google's usefulness

[fireorange]

If you are a Google AdWords advertiser, you can use ask any questions in the admin section, whether it's about AdWords, AdSense, the SERPs, etc. I currently do $200k/year with Google AdWords so I have a my own rep that I can phone at any time :)

Re:Google's usefulness

[Anm]

WARNING: INCOMING GRAMMAR NAZI


befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig

Actually... befuddled is an adjective. The -ed suffix transforms a verb into adjective describing the state of being in the action.

Re:Google's usefulness

[I confirm I'm not a]

Google would decide on THEIR hardware, yeah, but YOUR hardware would still be a wildcard.

(First up, I'm not a proponent of this idea, merely someone who clarified what it is alleged Google may be doing).

I'm not sure I see why it would matter to Google what hardware you have? Google would be providing a filestore, and saving to their hardware. Any local hardware at your end would - presumably - already have drivers installed locally. Re: terminals. A typical *nix system may well need to inter-operate with any number of legacy terminals; Google's "OS" only needs to interoperate with a browser (admittedly not as straightforward as it could be, but still significantly easier).

Re:Google's usefulness

[WIAKywbfatw]

Hey, I don't know about you, but I've lost my broadband connection (normally for a few hours at a time) about half a dozen times in the last year, because of a neighbour accidentally cutting my cable, local outages, etc. In that time, I've never had a power cut.

Perhaps if I lived in California or something then power outages would be an issue, but I don't.

Losing my internet connection is an inconvenience right now but if my connection meant my OS, apps and files were gone too then it would be a real pain in the posterior.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Tim Browse]

I think the main point the GP was making was that Google did not 'come up with' the idea of a searchable usenet archive. As stated, Google bought it from Deja.

Re:Google's usefulness

[kenneytechnologies]

Google has arguably created a single source solution for probably 90% of what anyone does using the internet, and they have done it wil a (relatively) small organization. Grow that organization to the point that it can support/replace/overcome established applications and os's, and google will become the slow, lumbering behemoth that stand in the way of progress, versus being at the forefront of it. Faster Better Cheaper works in the software world, too.

Re:Google's usefulness

[v01d]

If people come to rely on their internet connections the way they do power, it'll be the same scenario.

This is where you seem to be missing the point. People don't rely on their internet connections the way they do power. Part of the reason is that internet connections aren't all that reliable.

My company has a DS3, and it rarely has any problems. But it does sometimes. At home I have both cable and DSL, because I do rely on the internet and neither is reliable enough.

Re:Google's usefulness

[King Babar]

OK, first I'd like to clarify that I'm not that interested in a Google OS in the sense of: something you need to have to boot your machine. What I *am* interested in, however, is something like a remotely mounted Googlefs archive of all my files, lovingly backed up and redundantly kept available and, yes, google-searchable at will. And the irony here is this is *just* because:

Also, as if this needs to be said, it's not exactly the most practical idea for notebook users, is it? Last time I checked, wi-fi wasn't universal.

Actually, NOT having user files on one machine is *precisely* the most practical idea for notebook users. Right now, the biggest pain I go through on a daily basis is syncing everything up. Given my essentially casual nature and the fact that I use any of 4 different PCs and a notebook during the day, this becomes a hassle. Now, sure, some things are already remote mounts from the university, but not everything I have really belongs there, and they have a pretty tiny quota by default.

And as far as wifi not being universal, maybe it's not in some backwater locations, but here in central Missouri it's as good as universal. We have wireless in every building I work in, on campus generally, in every restaurant/coffeeshop I go to regularly, at home (of course). Also at every airport I've been to recently, at the conference site for the last 8 consecutive meetings I've been to, at 7 out of the last 8 hotels I've been to for said conferences... No, it's not completely seemless. Yes, quality has varied. But wireless connectivity in my life really is getting up to complete.

Or I can put it another way: inside of 3 years, you'll be able to buy a notebook computer that will have *no hard disk at all*; it will have 20 gigs of flash, firewire and USB ports, and maybe just maybe a DVD/CD (but I doubt it). Disklessness is where I want to be, and if Google can make it so, I'll pay them actual money for that blessed state.

Re:Google's usefulness

[1u3hr]

If you are a Google AdWords advertiser,

I'm not, so they ignore me.

Re:Google's usefulness

[Shakrai]

Heck, I'll take that a step further and say it'll be like losing your phone line, ie, a really rare occurance.

I'd like to think that will one day be true but experience tells me otherwise. First off the PSTN is only that reliable because the various state regulatory agencies and the FCC forced them to be that reliable. Yet whenever anybody around here suggests that we allow those same agencies to regulate ISPs/VOIP/etc there are cries of stifling innovation.

Second off, the backhoe scenario is not the only one by which your internet access goes down. Hacked routers/servers, clueless administrators and acts of God will still work to take your connection down. Or how about ISPs that just don't give a damn? My old ADSL provider seemed to schedule regular maintenance during the height of business hours. If they were willing to do that to commercial customers paying $200+ a month what kind of priority do you think residential ones get?

Besides, it doesn't matter how many redundant wires there are, for the next decade or so I highly doubt there will be redundant wires going to the doorstep. There's one pair of copper wires going from my house to the CO for my DSL. Ditto for cable (replace pair with coax). Wireless isn't any better because there's one antenna somewhere that could be damaged/destroyed.

The only way you'll solve the aforementioned problems (except for acts of God and backhoes) is to regulate the ISP business and force a standard of reliability on them. Perhaps this will happen one day as the Internet becomes more and more crucial in our lives. Perhaps one day I'll actually be able to get a service level agreement for my commercial ADSL or cable account. Perhaps there is a great pumpkin Charlie Brown....

Re:Google's usefulness

[pebs]

This is where you seem to be missing the point. People don't rely on their internet connections the way they do power. Part of the reason is that internet connections aren't all that reliable.

My company has a DS3, and it rarely has any problems. But it does sometimes. At home I have both cable and DSL, because I do rely on the internet and neither is reliable enough.

Hmmm... In one sentence you say people don't rely on the internet [the way they do power]. In other sentence you say you rely on the internet and have both cable and DSL at home just like I described would happen for people who really needed 24/7 internet reliability. I was speaking more about the future, but it looks like you're doing exactly what I'm talking about right now.

Maybe I missed some point somewhere, but sounds more like you are proving my point.

Re:Google's usefulness

[gracefool]

What is it that you prefer in Picasa over Picasa 2?

No.. its can't be.. its...

[Anonymous Coward]

its... SKYNet!!!
Whats wrong with my computer.. would I like to play a game? Global Themonuclear War?? No! Wait.. whats going on with...

~~~~^@^@@##$&@@@))^^^~~~ DISCONNECTED.

Re:No.. its can't be.. its...

[wjsteele]

That is one WOPR of a joke!

Sorry... couldn't resist.

b

How many open source projects

[eric76]

Of their developers spending 20% of their time on pet projects, I wonder how many of those are open source projects of various kinds.

Re:How many open source projects

[mikkom]

I wonder how many of those are open source projects of various kinds.

I don't think the employees can decide that, I think (at least that's what I've read on most sources that discuss about this matter) that your "pet projects" that are developed on worktime are owned by google.

This is for example how orkut got born. "In affiliation" with google at the end of the page means in real world "This is google property".

Re:How many open source projects

[Mythling]

As well, I would like to know that if they created there own operating system, would it to UNIX based, or something new, concidering that 20% of production time is devoted to personal projects. Is that enough time to intorduce a new operating system structure?

Re:How many open source projects

[oliverthered]

The first programming company I worked for done something similar, it was understood that pet projects could be used without license for any purpose by the company, they didn't however say that I couldn't also use project.
Because we were working small contracts about 10-20% of our time was filled with pet projects.

I developed an application called 'shite to basic', that performed a number of tasks,
like formating code, spell checking comments, checking tab order on forms, looking for poorly names variables, looking for complex or messy code, and dependency tracking.

The dependency tracking bit was used for some y2k testing, it was easy to track the dependencies of all functions that use dates, or used functions that used dates etc...

hacess also started out at work at a pet project, but ended up being used to recover some lost data in an access database for a client.

Re:How many open source projects

[VAXcat]

This post got me to fantasizing that Google could decide to do an OS project, and buy VMS from HP, then adapt it to x86 and other architectures...

A little at a time

[hugesmile]

Successes are built in small increments: Add 5% functionality here. Grow 10% there. Expand by 15% in this market.

Failures (and business declines) often happen in big chunks: Lawsuit settlement of tens of millions of dollars. Major market shift away from your technology.

This is just smart business. Google will continue to move and enhance and grow in manageable increments. If they try to take over the world, it will be suicidal.

Anyone remember the dot-bomb era? The survivors are those that performed managed growth and bit off pieces that could be chewed. The failures tried to take over the world, and translate eyeballs into unrealistic company valuations. Works for a while, then you get an unemployment check....

Re:A little at a time

[PhiznTRG]

Successes are built in small increments: Add 5% functionality here. Grow 10% there.

That is the reasoning that my boss must be using which leads to the feature creep, resulting in a bloated, late, unusable product.

Bah! Taking over the world.

[FooGoo]

They are taking over the world. They plan on taking over the world by not taking over the world. "Hey, Google is nice....they aren't taking over the world" Then before you know it you page ranking what to eat, who your friends are, what car to buy, where to live, where to work.

Then whammo you can't live without Google telling you what to do in nice little browser friendly bites.

Wait nevermind...I already do that.

Lets welcome our Page Ranking pverlords.

Re:Bah! Taking over the world.

[millwall]

Looks like they've even taken over your username, FooGoo! ;)

Google taking over the world

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

pleasantly devoid of theories of Google taking over the world

Damn they have infiltrated Slashdot now. Google I am on to you.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Groups = complete usenet archive

This was acquired, not created by Google. And arguably, the old Deja capabilities were better (wild card searching) than what Google currently offers (mainly cosmetic changes and no wildcards). Personally that is what brought me over to Google, not the search engine itself. I was quite happy using Yahoo for targeted categorized searches and metacrawler for more extensive stuff. Google just had that cult of personality thing going and they've been riding the wave ever since. After all, just what makes gmail all that great anyway? I think the ad's are an abomination and I use hushmail.

Re:Correction

[Herbst]

I really dislike the downplaying of what Google did with the Usenet archives. Yes, they acquired older archives (Google is not around as long as Usenet is...duh). They located and assembeled various pre-Deja archives (1981-1995), they acquired Deja archives (1995-2000 - Deja never hosted anything from before 95) and since the end of 2000 they are the only ones who archive/index/host a fairly complete (text-only) Usenet feed. The addition of the pre-Deja archives was a Big Thing. Nobody managed to assemble such a complete Usenet archive ever before. Many people thought that most of these archives were lost in time, but now we have to ability to browse back to the Stone Age of the internet(!) I find this archive truly fascinating.

Info about the timeline of this archive here and its composition here.

Anyways, comparing UI/feature set of Deja (well, before they sold out at least) to Google Groups (as it was) and to the new Google Groups Beta (which I don't like that much either) is a different topic. I'd choose the considerably improved relevance of Google Groups searches (phrase-search, anyone?), over Deja's wildcards anytime.

Time travel

[bigtallmofo]

In anticipation of the day when Google does become evil and takes over the world and we all wish that we had a time machine so that we could go back to 2005 and stop Google while we still had the chance, I've been doing some searching for plans to build such a contraption.

It seems those Google bastards have anticipated even this!

Re:Time travel

[outofpaper]

Any one see the ebay ad on the side of that googel search

"Time Machine For Sale
Low Priced Time Machine
Huge Selection! (aff)
ebay.ca"

Damit while google might not want to help you with your time traveling mission ebay boody will.

Re:Time travel

[TitusC3v5]

In anticipation of the day when Google does become evil and takes over the world and we all wish that we had a time machine so that we could go back to 2005 and stop Google while we still had the chance, I've been doing some searching for plans to build such a contraption.

It seems those Google bastards have anticipated even this!

Advertising will be the death of them yet, however. If you look to the right, you'll see that ebay has exactly what you're looking for at a low, low price...

Re:Time travel

[Barsema]

Remove the quotes, and you get some pretty good answers

Re:Time travel

[sonsonete]

Of course, what we'll all really be wishing is that we had a time machine to go back to 2005 so we could buy a few shares of GOOG.

Re:Time travel

[tehshen]

It doesn't look like they're selling anything, actually.

"Nothing
Great deals on Nothing
Shop on eBay and Save!
www.eBay.com"

Re:Time travel

[kyojin the clown]

New and Used apparently; who the hell sells a working time machine?

Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods, this isn't flame bait but why the fuck is this news? This hasn't been posted numerous times. "A number of smart folks have speculated..." Which smart folks? Why the fuck can't you link to them? "..Here's why they are probably wrong.." One view of why they're wrong. Oh and from TFA "But this theory could be wrong." You know, I know I'm bitchin' and moaning, but I've been a long time reader of /. but this site is really going down hill. We need to do something to make this site back on top again and it starts with appropriate articles, not loosely written blogger tripe.

Re:Why is this news?

[dynamol]

Amen to that.

Re:Why is this news?

[noidentity]

Revised article summary:

"A number of smart folks have speculated that Google might leverage its computational resources to create some kind of massive online application delivery platform. I'm so smart that my speculation that they are wrong is probably correct. Er but it's still just more speculation."

Re:Why is this news?

[daltonlp]

"But this theory could be wrong."

Well, yeah. It could be wrong.

"A number of smart folks have speculated..." Which smart folks?

A valid point. It's more like "a couple" than "a number". And I did not link to all of them. I am a lazy person. Bad on me.

"We need to do something to make this site back on top again and it starts with appropriate articles, not loosely written blogger tripe."

Damn right. Are you listening, editors?! Do what the AC says and make this site back on top!

Re:Why is this news?

[KillerDeathRobot]

It's not news per se, it's an editorial. I don't see how a reasonable, insightful article about one of the tech industry's big stars is inappropriate for Slashdot, even if it isn't technically news.

I would argue that it's retarded rants from AC's that make /. go downhill.

Until Google charges me...

[jmcmunn]

I don't care what they do or how many sites they have that are trying to "control my online experience". Right now, I use their search engine and their email. Their maps look pretty, but it is still easier to use mapquest for me.

It's nice to read things like this article, because until Google is "selling" me something, and it comes preloaded (or pre-bookmarked) on my computer, I am not concerned in the least bit. Why do we have to hear about why or why not they have a consipracy to take over the world? They write good stuff for the web, and people use their stuff by choice. I've never heard someone outside of Slashdot say "Man, that company Google is taking over my life. I can't do anything online without being forced into using Google."

I do like the part at the end of the article about MS having to test their new browser against Gmail, Google Maps, and Google itself. It does add a bit of irony that finally MS and IE have to worry about being compatible instead of the other way around.

Re:Until Google charges me...

[weeblewobble]

Google is "selling" you something. Something very real. Ads. You may not notice them, b/k like most of us (and me) you tune them out. But that little sidebar we ignore is Google's bottom line. You may never click on it, same as I'll never buy a Hummer even though the ads are on the Tv shows I watch, but we are all paying for it. Buy anything from anyone who advertises with Google, and you are paying for Google.

They're no different, or more innovative, than Yahoo was in 1995.

Re:Until Google charges me...

[Apathetic1]

The bit about Microsoft having to test IE7 against Gmail and Google Maps was an entertaining thought but I'd say it's more likely that Microsoft will do what Microsoft does best. IE's not done until Gmail won't run.

The difference I can see with Google is that because their applications are web based (and thus fairly quickly repaired), the cost of another antitrust suit might outweigh the potential benefits of breaking Google's applications.

Re:Until Google charges me...

[jmcmunn]

No, they are not selling me anything. They are selling advertisers the right to show me links. Which, I might add are less annoying than the flashing picture ads on every other site.

But regardless, they are not selling me anything. They are advertising TO ME, but I ignore them.

Re:Until Google charges me...

[wheany]

IE's not done until Gmail won't run.

After which it will take exactly 2 days before GMail works with IE7.

benefits of breaking Google's applications.

You are a loonie.

Re:Until Google charges me...

[cpeterso]

Google Maps is easier to use and looks cooler than MapQuest, but it has a FATAL flaw. When you print Google's color maps on a B&W printer, the highlight color they have chosen to trace the route to your destination is the same color as the streets!! Maybe I should actually report this to them..

Contents (Site Appears to Be Slashdotted)

[Lemurmania]

Google has no secret plan - posted March 17,2005
Hey look. Someone else is predicting that Google will user their super-mega-ultimate-supreme server farm to replace your PC's operating system.

That sounds familiar.

I do not buy it. Let's look at some of the arguments:

"Google has hired OS experts like Rob Pike and Marc Lucovsky! Clearly they are toiling away on the Manhattan project of OS research, which will culminate in some kind of...SOMETHING! Some kind of something which will sweep Microsoft from the face of the earth!"

A more likely scenario is that Google does indeed perform OS research, but not for you and I. For themselves. Their clusters use a custom filesystem. They run linux, but it's been modified from the original Red Hat. They need (and can attract) smart folks to build and extend these systems. But it's all for the benefit of storage and search. They didn't hire Rob and Marc to work on giving you online spreadsheets. Sorry.

"Google uses wowie-zowie javascript for Gmail and Google maps! Clearly this is the harbinger of their browser-based OS-like-thingy!"

I think they use javascript because it works well. It's one step beyond html. Like any other technology-driven company, they'll use the best tools they can, even if those tools aren't mainstream yet. I've looked at the source code for both Gmail and Google maps, and I believe they are two entirely different projects, run by two separate groups. The goal of one is to make a good web-based email service. The goal of the other is to make a good online map service. I find it difficult to fit those pieces together into a master strategy. I think they evolved independently.

"Google has invested in native clients like Picasa and Keyhole maps and Desktop Search! Clearly this is an aggressive move into the consumer application space!"

Well, that's partly true. But Google isn't primarily interested in selling consumer apps. I think Picasa and Keyhole were acquired because Google wants to own delivery channels (browsers) for data that doesn't currently have a good delivery channel. Html data is delivered by a web browser, and it's probably a bit late for Google to own that. But Geographic data (the real thing, not road maps) has no browser, except either a full-blown GIS system or a lightweight client like keyhole. Photos on your hard drive have no browser (unless you have a mac).

I think Google desktop search was kind of a fluke. Something they could do fairly easily (right?) with some market opportunity (because windows default search BLOOOOOOOOOOWS). A low-investment play that incidentally forced MS and Yahoo to play catch-up.

Let's talk about business strategy. It's fun to imagine that Google has some awesome master plan for controlling all computerdom. But I have a simpler theory that I think fits the evidence:

A) Google cares first and foremost about web search. Most of their architect-level employees will be working on making search better. I think one of Google's big shots said something similar right out loud. Search is what they do.

B) Google cares secondly about new kinds of search. Book search. Place search. Image search. Discussion group search. Product search. Email search. Because they have an advertising model that can be targeted to most any type of search. (Google also cares about new kinds of search because web ads may not work forever.)

C) Google cares thirdly about interesting new things. These come from employees. Depending on which source you believe, Google employees spend either 10% or 20% of their time working on personal projects. (Update: It looks like 20% is the correct number) The really successful projects get publicized via Google labs. Google maps started as one of these. I bet Gmail did too.

I'm especially interested in (C). 20% is a lot of time. Would your company willingly slash 20% from its developer-hours? Why is this important?

For one thing, it's the world's best marketing department. Those Google labs pro

Re:Contents (Site Appears to Be Slashdotted)

[Anonymous Coward]

or read the story at mirror dot where it still has some formatting

Redirects from Googledot, I assume...

[Seoulstriker]

Damn, I think we're getting re-directs from Googledot.org. Yikes.

Anything could be possible

[millwall]

The article highlights that Google developers are allowed to spend 20% of their time on what daltonlp calls "lab projects, personal projects, forever-in-beta projects, whatever".

Google constantly produces revolutionary innovations that noone can foretell. (How many of you thought you would have 1gb of email space for free?)

Conclusion is, I don't quite buy daltonlp's arguments for why it would be impossible that one of these lab projects is to develop browser based os/applications.

Re:Anything could be possible

[smallguy78]

whilst Microsoft techies are fortunate to be allowed to spend 100% of their time on "forever-in-beta-quality-projects"

20% of company time to goof off (productively)

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

That 20% is also key for attracting talent. Working at Google has a lot of perks (so I hear), but for a developer, the ability to work on personal projects is magic. To my knowledge, no other company offers this.

3M Does. Just thought I'd mention that.

Re:20% of company time to goof off (productively)

[revividus]

Medtronic has a similar program also, I believe.

But I agree, that's probably still fairly rare.

Re:20% of company time to goof off (productively)

[David Leppik]

Okay, so maybe Google is the first company NOT BASED IN MINNESOTA to do this.

Re:20% of company time to goof off (productively)

[Jurph]

In some DoD fields, it is routine for an analyst to be involved in several short-term projects and one or two long-term "pet projects". Time is generally dedicated to whatever you're most interested in that day, or whichever project has become hottest in the eyes of your boss. If the boss doesn't have a priority -- which is often! -- then you get to spend as much of your time as the mission permits (sometimes the entire work day) on pet projects. The boss will occasionally come around and ask "so what are you working on?" but other than that, it's highly discretionary.

For me, the experience was enjoyable because I'm self-motivated, but I also know lots of junior officers who were bored -- their loss!

Mirror

[Broke Mirror]

http://daltonlp.com.nyud.net:8090/daltonlp.cgi?ite m_type=0&item_id=424

If...

[caluml]

But this theory could be wrong. If Google creates some kind of OS of the gods, I'll happily admit my error :)

They don't need to reinvent the wheel.

World domination? Nah.

[mr_Spook]

Despite that Google isn't out to take over the world their impact on the net is quite amazing.

Google's long standing tech demo that is their search engine has become pretty important. In fact, for the most part, if it doesn't come up on a google search, it doesn't exist.

There have been so many memes spawned from google as well... Google-whacking, google fights, google bombing, etc.

Let's not forget the chaos that ensued when GMail opened up either.

They don't need to take over anything, really, everyone's eating out of the palm of their hand.

Theories?

[filmmaker]

...pleasantly devoid of theories of Google taking over the world.

Theories? Oh, we're well past that...

Google...

[wpiman]

I read the article by Molly Wood- and I think she may be a little off as well.

She predicts a world where all the apps are central and we simply connect to them in a server/client mode. This way- things are portable to us. Our PC at home and our PCs are world no longer become unsynched- they are one. Goto your neighbors house- and it is just like your home environment cause it is portable.

Well- right now many of us carry memory stick key fobs on our keychains. I current carry a gig USB stick. How long time someone puts a bluetooth device inside it? How long until they can add a processor die and some RAM? In ten year- you may be carrying your entire PC on your keychain. Put your keys into your monitor at work- and there is your environment- no network needed. No fees to pay to a central server. If you could carry your PC as you would a keyfob- would you care about having a centralized server?

Re:Google...

[16K Ram Pack]

I think it's about horses for courses.

A 1GB USB stick may suit you because it's portable. It carries all your data. You can go to someone else's PC and retrieve your data.

Now, what about the programs? What about security? What about sharing of data?

Centralised systems sometimes make a lot more sense.

Re:Google...

[sakri]

I had that same discussion with a colleque the other day... we concluded that you can still lose your keys, drop em in a swimmingpool (or whatever) or have them stolen... but with this proposed thin client OS, you just have to carry a weightless memory of a keyword in your head... This is an extremely seductive idea... in a way, I'm already using my gmail accounts as a kind of a personal "thin client" content server... I store anything from "funny attachements" to serious work related documents there (no, not passwords etc. and yes I'm sometimes skeptical and paranoid as your average nerd:) ).

I won't however go into the speculation business of wether this seductive concept will take place or not... let alone world domination...

Re:Google...

[grahamsz]

If you've ever used a sunray environment then you'll know how nice this can be.

My workspace follows me on my badge. I can go to a collegues office with a problem, and by putting my badge in their system i can show them my desktop exactly as i left it.

A few months ago the power died in my building one weekend, so i just walked across campus to another building and carried on where i left off.

When i go into a meeting i can start up staroffice with my presentation and have it ready to go before i walk into the conference room. When i get there I can insert my badge into the sunray and my slides appear on the projector.

Plus i get the benifit of having 12 or 16 cpus and as many gigs of ram at my disposal. I can run as many tasks as I can concieve of at one time without suffering a sluggish user interface. Oh and everything lives in a datacenter with regular backups.

Extending this to home users isn't so easy, but it's a very neat idea in the business space where you dont have so much need for full screen video or games.

Parent is right and look who submitted article...

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy who wrote the link submitted the article. Way to go for self-promotion.

News Flash

[Tidor]

Breaking News:
Google not taking over the world.
Return to your homes.
Reinsert Google Brain Wave Devices.
Listen to the happy music.

On it's way maybe

[Nijika]

Somebody put me on to this;

Gumstix

With platforms like THIS, what you're thinking can't be too far off. A keychain computer. Wouldn't have to be too powerful, it'd just need a small, projectable display and a virtual keyboard.

Re:On it's way maybe

[wpiman]

I imagine in the not to distant future- we could do away with monitor cables as well.......

Heck with IPV6- we could give every pixel on every monitor its own IP address- and have your monitor plug into the nework or use Wifi 6.0 to send your screen images to monitor.

Re:On it's way maybe

[LesPaul75]

Doooood, those look awesome. 400MHz! Where's the Slashdot article on those things? :)

The "Waysmall" PCs are really interesting, but I can't find any info on their HD (or whatever other nonvolatile storage). It says they have 64MB SDRAM and a 4MB flash of some sort. Surely that's not all? What are you going to do with 4MB when the OS probably takes the majority of it?

Still, they are definitely cool. Slap a GB or two of flash or a microdrive onto one of those and you've got something.

Re:On it's way maybe

[LesPaul75]

Ok, nevermind... It looks like there was a slashdot article, after all: here.

Re:On it's way maybe

[cpeterso]

I'm still waiting until I can use my mobile phone as my PC. When mobile phones get fast enough, I should be able to dock my phone to a big keyboard and monitor, just like a laptop. My data and apps would always be with me, but I can access them using the best available hardware interface wherever I am. The oqo device is almost there, but I want something that is smaller and a phone.

hmm, maybe I should patent this idea before someone markets it. :)

There's already a documentary on this...

[Myriad]

History has already been written!

Google and Amazon.com will merge into, the grid will be born, Blog's will rule the news... oh, it's just too sad to go on...
See it for yourself!

Blockwars: free, multiplayer, head to head game similar to Tetris.

Re:There's already a documentary on this...

[Danimoth]

amazoogle.com, they will sell us books about what we search.

If they are not they will perish

[codepunk]

Come on get real google has the largest looming threat of it's corporate life on the horizon one from which they will not survive unless they take serious action right now. When MS releases longhorn and their new browser I fully expect that MSN search is gonna be wound into everything they can put it in. This will have the same exact effect that it had on netscape certain death. The only way to avoid this and have any chance to compete is to push firefox like mad, push firefox specific features, xul etc... In effect they have
to push their own version of firefox as a platform if they are to survive.... But it may already be too late..

I love FF and Google but they are about to fall into the same mistake as others before them by not responding to the threat.

Re:If they are not they will perish

[16K Ram Pack]

The problem for Microsoft could be that Google is just THE search application now. I know no-one who uses anything else, and I'd feel pretty mad using a PC that constantly tried to badger me towards MSN Search.

I think it's going to be really hard for Microsoft to defeat online apps, if that is their aim. They are too detached from the PC. If they try and break them, they won't win.

Re:If they are not they will perish

[PhreakinPenguin]

Speaking of getting real. Google is a little bit idfferent than Netscape was. I don't care how much people say they loved Netscape and how wonderful it was, the bottom line is that it was an inferior product. Still is IMHO. Google is leaps and bounds better than MSN Search and 99.9% of the net knows it. I really could care less if LongOverDueHorn has MSN Search integrated as it's not going to stop me, or anyone else for that matter from using Google. Comparing Google's fate to Netscape is like comparing intercourse's fate to a dildo.

Re:If they are not they will perish

[codepunk]

Nobody doubts that Google is a way better search engine but the reality is that MS is gonna bundle the hell out of MSN search. The first few browsers MS put out sucked too but everyone used them because it was bundled....It does not have to be better it just has to be good enough....

Re:If they are not they will perish

[codepunk]

You might be mad but joe six pack is gonna just say ok I will use msn search from now on...It does not
have to be better just good enough.

Suggested 20% project

[hey]

Hey Google people, try this for a personal project...

Take the same Linux you run in house, customize it so it can boot on a regular PC. It launches into Firefox. There are icons with colorful links to Gmail (for your mail), OpenOffice (for your word processing) and Picassa (for photos). Call it GoogleOS.

Re:Suggested 20% project

[LokieLizzy]

Now come on. Would we really need Google to do that?

Argh! No you idiots!

[bigberk]

Geez why would they go the route of a costly infrastructure setup when they already have what they need?

I'll tell you what they're doing, they are using knowledge of what everyone around the whole world is searching for to tap into all kinds of consumer trend and demand opportunities. You know all those shoppers club cards that track your purchases, and credit cards which track all your spending habits? That data is awfully valuable. And Google has the best knowledge in the world. All they have to do is perfect the way the data is organized and packaged to marketing buyers.

For a quick glimpse of the possibilities, let's say you play the stock market. Wouldn't it be brilliant to know what potential investors are really interested in this week, what they have been researching online... well Google knows! I'll be they realize this, and are working on a way to capitalize on it.

Google's browser!

[hedge_death_shootout]

According to one of the comments on that blog, which I read before it finally crumbled under the weight of slashdot, commenter 'Rick' claims that Google Deskbar uses Google's own fab, internally written browser.
This internally written browser is apparently 'fast and incredibly compatible'.

Sounds great! Problem is, the browser component in Google Deskbar == Internet Explorer.

I chuckled.

Link not works

[MaDeR]

Well, maybe it is only me...

Facts incorrect

[GeckoX]

Google created Google Groups.

Google only acquired the archives themselves, ie the data. They developed the storage/search/retrieval/interface-for-the-above system which acts on that data.

Re:Facts incorrect

[Crayon Kid]

Google created Google Groups. Google only acquired the archives themselves, ie the data. They developed the storage/search/retrieval/interface-for-the-above system which acts on that data.

And let's not forget the new beta Google Groups , which implement communities and are effectively a direct competitor for Yahoo! Groups. It's very nice, I've tried it already. Plus it allows for one time login using your Gmail account. Watch out Yahoo.

The greatest feat the Devil accomplished

[mi]

... was convincing humans, he does not exist.

Google's plan

[karthikram]

Maybe they are looking at being a Application Service provider.

Re:Google's plan

[hey]

Not a bad idea. I could see lots of business that don't want to hire and IT depts outsourcing to Google.

The real reason..

[jimbro2k]

The real reason not to have a plan is that if you have a plan, you risk feeling obligated to follow it even when conditions change and the plan no longer makes sense.
By being adaptable, and taking advantage of opportunities when they appear, you can take over the world without a "plan".
Of course, you still need to have done all the preparation so you can sieze the opportunities when they appear, but since you can't know ahead of time what or when, let your people work on their own stuff 20% of the time. By the laws of chance, some of them will be doing what you will need.
Profit!!

our Page Ranking pverlords?

[game kid]

In that case, Google must have already pwned us.

They are taking over the world. They plan on taking over the world by not taking over the world. "Hey, Google is nice....they aren't taking over the world" Then before you know it you page ranking what to eat, who your friends are, what car to buy, where to live, where to work.

Yeah, they're much like one of those nice girls in high school. They're friendly, and mean to do good, but you end up obsessing over them 'cause they're so blatantly hot. They take over your mind with their curves intelligence and self-confidence...and of course that keeps a man from ever getting some real (for lack of a better term) knowledge.

Google is the hot, slimmed-down, super-smart chick of the Internet; if it was a girl, it'd be that rare case of someone who wouldn't spoon-feed you with gossip unless you want her to, would be there for you the moment you need her, would help you with research, and would even get the mail for you. She'd even let you see others. Sounds like a supermodel to me.

questionable insight

[khallow]

Here's the problems I have with this article. First, the guy who wrote the article and notified slashdot, wasn't able to keep his site up. What insight can he possibly have when he apparently lacked that kind of obvious foresight? Second, he's beating up on the weak. I have less respect for people who can't chose difficult targets.

Thinking that Google is going to enter the OS business or that if they did, they would have a chance is not the sign of a sound, rational mind. It's like taking candy from babies. And dealing with that conspiracy theory doesn't address the other conspiracy theories.

Third, he ignores that Google is highly overvalued for a "search" company. Google's market cap is $49 billion. If they are really just a "search" company, then maybe their P/E should be more in line with high growth companies at around 40 instead of 124. Yes, that means dropping the value of the company by a factor of three. I base this on that their search advertising looks relatively saturated to me. I don't see where the huge growth in value is going to come from.

Fourth, he ignores that this looks exactly like a dotcom moment. Google is making a sizeable profit (which is vastly better than all but a handful of dotcoms past or present), but they aren't exhibiting the kind of growth potential (IMHO, of course) that justifies 124 times P/E.

Finally, he places way too much emphasis on getting Microsoft to play good doggie. Being able to force Microsoft to make their sites compatible with yours isn't that interesting. The New York Times or Amazon gets that as well. And after all, Microsoft has by far the largest army of programmers in the world. It's not going to have a measurable impact.

Re:questionable insight

[wheatking]

a very good/insightful investor piece on google is at http://www.sagecapital.com/Archiv/c271.pdf (The great Google challenge. Wanna bet?) by Sage Capital (Switzerland) discussing google valuation, P/E, P/S ratios and bringing some sanity overall to comparisons with other investments...

Re:questionable insight

[daltonlp]

the guy who wrote the article and notified slashdot, wasn't able to keep his site up. What insight can he possibly have when he apparently lacked that kind of obvious foresight?

You're right, what an idiot :) I actually did modify the code beforehand to make it more efficient. It wasn't enough. Should have been a static page. How embarassing.

he's beating up on the weak. I have less respect for people who can't chose difficult targets.

A fair criticism. I didn't need to be so sarcastic. The Good-bye, computer; hello, world! article has some worthy points.

Third, he ignores that Google is highly overvalued for a "search" company.

Yes. This is because I am entirely void of knowledge about the stock exchange. It is as foreign to me as the rituals of ancient Hindoostan.

Finally, he places way too much emphasis on getting Microsoft to play good doggie. Being able to force Microsoft to make their sites compatible with yours isn't that interesting.

It's interesting to me.

Centralized computing sucks

[Eternally optimistic]

Hosted OS is a good idea if you want more control over your stupid users - just give them terminals and they can't break so many things.

But unlike electric power generation, providing a large central capacity is harder than a distributed one. That is why people how need tons of compute power use grids.
The added cost of the distributed approach is in system admin related costs.

Personally, I like to write programs on my computer, and make it do things the service provider didn't think of. People like me are a minority, but there are millions of us all over the world.

404

[HarpyG]

Now the reason for people speculating that Google is building an OS to be wrong is a 404 error. I've seen bad argumentation on /. but this is definitely the worse one yet.

Re: Stock Market

[bigberk]

The stock thing was just an example. The point is, knowledge is valuable and Google has a lot of knowledge about people through their searches and index. Google could make money and still keep their streamlined, free search engine -- it doesn't necessarily have to be all ad revenue.

Repeat after me: Leverage is not a verb

[shermozle]

Repeat after me: Leverage is not a verb

Re:Repeat after me: Leverage is not a verb

[rbarreira]

Are you sure?

Re:Google = Echelon?

[Urger]

Use Scroogle then if your afraid of Google's cookies.

Re:Parent is right and look who submitted article.

[daltonlp]

Yes. The next Roland Piquepaille, that's me! Self-promotion is awesome. Despite what your parents may have told you, it does not lead to blindness or hairy palms.

Wadda you mean, if it doesn't come up on Google

[blueZ3]

it doesn't exist? I googled my own name and nothing ca... [no carrier]

The defense department has a poem about this

[St. Arbirix]

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

--Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

The Original Redhat

[un1xl0ser]

The article states:

"They run linux, but it's been modified from the original Red Hat."

I didn't know that Red Hat was the original. :-/

Google Gossip

[chord.wav]

I'm not saying this because of this article in particular. I'm talking of all the Google gossip out there.

This reminds me of an e! show. Always speculating all possible what ifs of the company of the moment. Everyday, there's a new article on what they will do or where they could be heading. Some articles doesn't even contact Google for comment.

Aren't there any other topics to talk/write about?

Get a grip

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

hey asshole thanks for ripping on multiple post of mine. Fuckface"ripping" on you post??? Get a grip! What I said was that Google has expressed interest in buying up dark fiber!

Me? I'm waiting for..

[CSG_SurferDude]

Me? I'm waiting for singles.google.com too go live.

Picasa

[erik_flannestad]

>I think Picasa and Keyhole were acquired...for data that doesn't currently have a good delivery channel.

The other interesting thing that Picasa does is make Google's job easier.

Images are a pain to search for, because Google has to get likely information about their content from alt tags (that no one uses) or context.

My undrestanding is Picasa writes the users' comments and information to the EXIF tags of their images. This allows Google to read that information without having to guess context from the content of the webpage. This is an enormous benefit, for what was probably a relatively minimal investment.

Their Stock Price Says there Is a Secret Plan

[mlmitton]

As of today, Google's market capitalization is 50 billion dollars. That's 25 times the size of Novell, 20% of the size of MSFT, 3.5 times the size of Sun, a bit bigger than Yahoo, 3 times the size of GM, about the size of Honda, and a tad smaller than Disney (which, remember, owns ABC).

If you think advertising revenue from search/adwords/etc justifies this stock price, you're crazy. (Same goes for Yahoo.) Of course, the market can always be wrong, but clearly the market *believes* that Google has some giant plants up its sleeve. I can't think of much that would fit the bill unless it was some form of application serving over the Net.

And, unless those Google employees have been dumping stock left and right, they must believe Google has something big up their sleeve as well.

Re:Parent is right and look who submitted article.

[daltonlp]

Thanks, but not now...I'm spent.

Google.exe

[shubert1966]

Search Results are great, datasets are better.
Google has been analyzing their own state-of-the-art technology for a relatively very, long time. This is a company that specializes in Categorization. A Library is not an operating system per se, but if you need it and it's top-notch and it's free - which member of a sizeable consumer demographic is not going to click "OK?" Public institutions will.

Google has lots of the highway exits covered and they are scanning and indexing more and more everyday. They've made M$ studder a few times here and there and quite frankly they seem comfortable with themselves. Let a bot loose in the stacks of history and you've got GoogleXML in various flavors that really changes the anti-trust landscape.

Google could whip up a Google'nix (O/S) for aging PCs and install their suite of packages and have a valuable resource for every home. So it is that precipitous; but it's just a little soon I think.

That darned map better have mileage and scale!

Hah!

[frank_adrian314159]

Here's why they are probably wrong... One of more intelligent insights into Google, and it's pleasantly devoid of theories of Google taking over the world.

If they really wanted to take over the world, they'd be smart enough to hide it from you.

In fact, they're so smart, they'd know you'd be thinking they'd hide it from you so they'd come out and say they were going to take over the world so you'd think they weren't really going to.

Actually, they're so very, very smart, they'd know you were thinking that they'd know you'd be thinking they'd hide it from you so they'd come out and say they were going to take over the world so you'd think they weren't really going to, but they wouldn't tell you so you knew that they'd be...

Oh, hell, I'm confused. Is Google planning on taking over the world or not this week? Who has the memo?