Google Developing Database Service

QuantumT writes "Ars Technica has the details on the unannounced Google Base service that will allow anyone with a Google Account to post information and other types of data into a massive, Google-run database. Ars believes that the company is gearing up to take on eBay and Craiglist, which makes sense given the Google Payment service that is in development. Google has commented, saying, 'This is an early-stage test of a product that enables content owners to easily send their content to Google. Like our web crawl and the recently released Google Sitemaps program, we are working to provide content owners an easy way to give us access to their content.' There's a few screenshots as well."

Comments

Name suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

G-Bay anyone?

Re:Name suggestion

[altoz]

It seems to me that if they do have some sort of automated buy/sell service, it'll be quite useful since it can figure out what product you are trying to sell and give the buyers a good idea of where you are located so they can come and buy it from you.

Of course, wouldn't that mean robbers could just figure out where the nearest 52" plasma TV is and go after it?

Re:Name suggestion

[Hatta]

G-Bay anyone?

Nah, too easily parodied as "B-Gay"

Re:Name suggestion

[TummyX]

or Gay-Bay

Re:Name suggestion

[boomgopher]

A joke, but they'd be sued by eBay if they did. A Lego sales site with the name "brickbay" was ordered not to use any name with "bay" in it.

Pretty pathetic of eBay in my opinion.
And please no horseshit about "if a company doesn't defend their trademark... blah blah blahhhh" which has been repeated to death around here.

Re:Name suggestion

[sckeener]

G-Bay anyone?

Nah....I like G-Spot

Re:Name suggestion

[krewemaynard]

I was thinking more along the lines of "Skynet." Just a suggestion...

All your base

[Pinefresh]

are belong to google?

(sorry, someone had to do it)

Re:All your base

[grasshoppa]

(sorry, someone had to do it)

No, no I don't think anybody had to do it. :)

Re:All your base

[biovoid]

I prefer: 1) say you'll do no evil 2) do evil 3) profit!

Content is king

[BWJones]

Perhaps more importantly, this move positions Google as potentially the pre-eminent publishing house with an inherent built in search engine. Anything that goes into the database will be "intimately" searchable. From my perspective as a bioscientist, the ability to be able to search journal articles not just for text, but also for image data or graph data would be absolutely huge.

Google has previously posted their position about Google Print here where they documented superficially their desire to enable people to search for "books". However, more importantly, it is the content within the "books" that will become more ubiquitous and more available.

Re:Content is king

[ChrisGilliard]

From my perspective as a bioscientist, the ability to be able to search journal articles not just for text, but also for image data or graph data would be absolutely huge.

Is there a reason these journal articles could not be published on the web? If they were can't you get the same functionality you described by doing a google search? Google already indexes images, pdfs, xls, etc. Why does it need to be uploaded to Google's database? You can already think of the web as a big database in a way right?

Re:Content is king

[BWJones]

See my answer here for why. In short, there needs to be a way to structure certain "types" of data to optimize how you find what you are looking for.

Re:Content is king

[ChrisGilliard]

The problem with this is that the structure of the Internet is difficult to navigate and difficult to index a system that is constantly changing.

Can you be more specific? I personally don't find the web difficult to navigate and I read various technical documents, etc on the web. In fact, I wish more people would post things on the web so I wouldn't have to open other docs (word,pdf,etc). I agree that it's hard to index with changing information, but that's the nature of the beast. The data in this database should be changing as well.

Re:Content is king

[plasmodium]

Part of Google Scholar is trying to do this. It is a very difficult problem, but I think there is hope. It currently is not as good as scientists want/need. I want to be able to say "Give me all the microscope pictures of my favorite type of cell that have been exposed to a particular drug and have been published in peer reviewed journals in the past two years." The underlying data have enough structure that a clever person might be able to make this possible. The whole internet is currently too unstructured for me to believe a generalized search (i.e. Google homepage) can aspire to this type of query.

Re:Content is king

[Anonymous Coward]

There are always caveats and qualifications though. You'll have to read the papers anyway to find them, e.g. the cells were also exposed to XYZ, or the cells are from fish and behave differently to the human version. Just a straight search and you gloss over important details.

Still, for quick and dirty stuff you aren't going to put into peer review better searching would be nice.

Re:Content is king

[Breakfast Pants]

If you base it on the structure of the information itself you run into spam attacks, etc. Google already gets structure out of teh web by using external links that point to a page, I don't see how this is anything but a step backwards.

Re:Content is king

[holloway]

There's several points here,

Firstly, people usually publish metadata, and domain-specific metadata, by following standards within their industry (defacto standards/proprietary/open/whatever). This doesn't necessitate holding the information locally, that's just a file location. What's important is having access to that information. If Google can help people get more files online that's a good thing but it's no different than if the donor put the file on their own site.

Secondly there are metadata standards and ways of getting information out of files. There's the obvious title / author / subject tags in HTML, and equivalejnt in MS Word files, OpenDocument, Dublin Core, etc. Because there's often a blurry line between content and metadata (title / author / subject are typically both) it's then a question of domain-specific languages and whether search engines can index them. Take XBRL for example, which showing financial reporting information and industry search engines can trawl it and let you search fields and see trends. More industry specific formats will occur in time, consolidate, and we'll get rich data. It's taking its own sweet time but we've got more structured documents now that we did 5 years ago.

Third, it's not a sure thing that categories and metadata are even the way to help you find things. When it comes to categories vs tagging I'll take tagging any day for finding the relationship between things rather than a formally expressed categories. Formal categories are hard to maintain and don't scale, this is the lesson of Google's search being built (largely) around link terms, and why Yahoo Directory is so out of date, Statistical Analysis beats Categories Hierarchies (well, most of the time).

Re:Content is king

[Scott7477]

Essentially what you are saying is that Google could replace sites such as arxiv.org(which indexes and links to physics working papers), adding all of Google's capabilities to the basic functions which working paper websites generally provide.

I think that this would be a great thing, both for Google and for any group of researchers or collaborators needing to have a central repository of information that they didn't mind being public. Obviously, Google gets more traffic and ad placement opportunities, and researchers and so forth would have topnotch storage for their content.

Re:Content is king

[Ruis]

This whole thing sounds like the CIC database in Snow Crash.

Re:Content is king

[ozmanjusri]

Secondly there are metadata standards and ways of getting information out of files. There's the obvious title / author / subject tags in HTML, and equivalejnt in MS Word files, OpenDocument, Dublin Core, etc.

This is going to be the interesting part, and is probably why Google has been showing so much interest in Open Office/OpenDocument. When the pages of this web are XML served by a Google database, and the browser is an XML reader/editor based on OOo or equivalent, you have a much richer, more collaborative internet. A rich web, layered on top of the existing net.

Google will be in on the ground floor of this too, and because huge amounts of the metadata will be part of the structure of the rich web, they'll be able to index it and deliver the aggregate information (which is their product) an order of magnitude more effectively than before.

Re:Content is king

[holloway]

How have Google been showing interest in OpenOffice / OpenDocument? Did I miss something?

Re:Content is king

[Achromatic1978]

No, you didn't. Rather, the Slashdot rumor mill fanned the fire (wee, mixed metaphor) of the Google Office Suite: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/03/105 7258&tid=185&tid=217&tid=218, http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/04/123422 9&tid=102&tid=217, http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/09/155524 3&tid=217 and as a result, people have started associated Google with Office stuff. Yay.

Re:Content is king

[NickCatal]

Google just needs to buy LexisNexis and EBSCO Publishing and the databases associated with them.

Re:Content is king

[Decker-Mage]

I think you are on to something here although I'd take a step farther out. One of the stumbling blocks on the web is collaboration. Sure, you can use Wiki's and a other pieces of software but that only gets you so far. If Googlebase acts as the collaborative database back-end and provides easy to use tools for the front-end, this could give Microsoft a bit of a run for the money in that market despite having Ray Ozzie as their new CTO. I think this would be the real Web 2.0, not some of the other stuff I've seen touted that way.

It would ease the creation of collaborative and derivative works and so long as those works were also stored on Googlebase, you could see an exponential growth in useful works along with a concommitment exponential growth in crap but that's the 'net for you. Still, as a multi-disciplinary synthesist something like this would be an ideal tool that, provided the meta-data were accurate, increase my capabilities here. Sadly, although I'm absolutely killer at flying the various search engines, so much of what I would like to work with is either poorly indexed (you'll find it buried on page 205 of the results despite narrow keywords) or behind closed doors which journals are notorious for and that's where so much of the cutting edge stuff is found. Lastly, Googlebase could also give an arena for self-published works, works that are not popular with either the journals or the colleagues that do the peer review. I've seen more than one journal article shot down due to heterodoxy, especially in the social sciences and medicine (both fields I've worked in).

I see it as a 'net plus (pun intended). And not just from the commercial aspects. If anything, it's an extension of GooglePrint as you've stated.

grammar check?

[Anonymous Coward]

My grammar plugin crashed while parsing the title "Google Base: All your base are, in fact, belong to us". What kind of technical writers do we have?

Re:grammar check?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you seriously not get that reference? Come on, everyone knows that one.

Re:grammar check?

[Anonymous Coward]

The kind with a clue.

Re:grammar check?

[RobertLTux]

Geeks of course please check http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/A/all-your-ba se-are-belong-to-us.html
and then please renew your geek id card

Re:grammar check?

[nb caffeine]

the fact that you did not link to the Wikipedia article on aybabtu means YOU sould turn in your geek card :)

serisouly, theres a bunch of info in that article if you REALLY want to know that much.

Re:grammar check?

[Sygnus]

the fact that you did not link to the Wikipedia article on aybabtu means YOU sould turn in your geek card :)

Hmmm... wikipedia, or the Jargon File...

Yeah, Jargon File wins out in terms of geekosity.
/me cuts up your geek card.

Coral link to pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

base.google.com pictures

Re:Coral link to pictures

[teodz]

apparently, http://base.google.com/google base now returns a 403 error, yesterday it was a 404 error.
here's a http://telendro.com.es/imagenes/base.gif screenshot

Re:Coral link to pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

as usual, you fucking moron, coral cache doesn't work.

Legal questions?

[Anonymous Coward]

What steps will they have to take to discourage people from using this to transmit and store illegal material?

Of course, almost every other service on the net has that same basic problem. But if you are trying to establish a gigantic distributed free database, this has got to be one of your main concerns.

Re:Legal questions?

[temojen]

Don't ask, don't tell; be a common carrier.

Re:Legal questions?

[ZachPruckowski]

Well, if it is publicly searchable, then all Google has to do is let the FBI search for watch words. Which ought to be easy enough. Even if it isn't publicly searchable, then it'll be just like gmail, they have to let the Feds in when the law says they do.

But Google is itself immune from prosecution under the Betamax decision, and the Grokster case, since all it needs is a legitimate primary use, unless Google like publicly supports the use of the software for illegal purposes. Or something like that. IANAL, nor am I pre-law.

Re:Legal questions?

[FFFish]

Why should they have any concern whatsoever about the type of content? Do you think the telcos care whether you chat up your ooky-wooky hunnybuns, or plan the overthrow of the government? Hint: they don't. It's called "common carrier status," and means that while they provide the means of communication, they are not responsible for the editorial control of that same communication.

Re:Legal questions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Car manufacturers are not responsible for ensuring people do not transport illegal material in cars.
Microwave oven manufacturers are not responsible for ensuring that microwave ovens are not used to make illegal substances.
Telephone companies are not responsible for ensuring that illegal discussions are not held on telephones.

The same principles should apply. It IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be the responsibility of individuals or corporations to carry out law enforcement activities. Indeed, their attempts to carry out law enforcement activities should be, and in many cases is, illegal. Google has no right to try to impose arbitrary restrictions on me or monitor my personal activities in order to identify criminal behavior. Their responsibility is to notify law enforcement if criminal activity is identified in the course of their regular business activities and to support lawful criminal investigations conducted by legitimate law enforcement entities.

The last thing we want are corporations abusing their access to our personal data to single out people for criminal investigation. Example: Credit Card companies doing general searches of customer purchases and forwarding the purchase history of individuals to the FBI based on Credit Card company definitions of 'suspicious activity'.

Re:Legal questions?

[Raindance]

I think this is far from clear-cut.

Google is acting like a webhost here. It's legal precedent (and this precedent doesn't come from either Betamax or Grockster) that webhosts are not liable for copyright infringement if they act to take down copyrighted material after they're notified.

However, the copyright status of collections of facts (presumably a large portion of what people would be uploading to Google Base), though established, is extremely murky in practice. The decision tree for what Google should do in case of being emailed regarding copyright will be extremely complicated. And that's just one thing people will use Google Base for.

A project on this scale blazes new territory.

If they can keep out the scammers and spammers

[mycal]

I say more power to them. If not then don't waste my time.

-m

Baffling!

[The Shrewd Dude]

to post information and other types of data

What data is not considered information, and vice-versa?

Re:Baffling!

[Anonymous Coward]

What data is not considered information, and vice-versa?

Random strings maybe.

Re:Baffling!

[temojen]

'cat /dev/urandom' to find out.

Re:Baffling!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope so. I've been looking for a place to store all the stuff my cat types.

Re:Baffling!

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider information to be mostly visual stuff, like text or a map, stuff you can see. I don't really think an MP3 is information, but rather, data.

Re:Baffling!

[Anonymous Coward]

What data is not considered information, and vice-versa?

Anything posted on Slashdot.

Re:Baffling!

[Xeger]

In general, the more compressible a given blob of data is, the less information is actually contained in it.

Let's take the absurd example of 100,000,000 petabytes of 'X' characters. That's a lot of data! But, since it can be represented by a single 'X' character plus a 64-bit repetition count, it's very easily compressible. There's not much information contained in that data.

So, we can conclude that Google is offering to let us store non-information data, i.e. low-entropy information. It's a good thing, too! I've been looking for a place to store my collection of null bytes. (I ran out of space on my bookshelf last year.)

Re:Baffling!

[smittyoneeach]

What data is not considered information, and vice-versa?

The GPS coordinates of my lost socks.

Re:Baffling!

[isny]

This post, and others like it, are data, but not information. Now, if the stars are in alignment, this post will be ironically moderated "informative".

Re:Baffling!

[Eil]

What data is not considered information, and vice-versa?

Data is a set of raw facts. (A stream of bits, for example.) After you apply some sort of algorithm to it, it becomes information. (A digitized image, for example.) After you mentally process the information and consider it within the context of the situation, it becomes knowledge. (Goatse.cx, for example.)

Of course, there are some kinds of knowledge most people would rather not have.

Re:Baffling!

[Anonymous Coward]

from http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm

According to Russell Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organizational change, the content of the human mind can be classified into five categories:

Data: symbols

Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions

Knowledge: application of data and information; answers "how" questions

Understanding: appreciation of "why"

Wisdom: evaluated understanding.

Re:Baffling!

[FishinDave]

What data is not considered information? You're reading it, silly!

Re:Baffling!

[timeOday]

In general, the more compressible a given blob of data is, the less information is actually contained in it.

If you equate entropy with information, random noise has the highest information content around.

Re:Baffling!

[Anonymous Coward]

Data: "Green"
Information: "The grass is green"

Re:Baffling!

[Xeger]

Yup! And I say that's exactly as it should be. Humans derive meaning from sensory input by detecting patterns. The fact that a discernable pattern exists, implies that the input has lower entropy than it could have.

Start with maximum entropy -- pure randomness. Carve away at the randomness until a pattern emerges, and this is what we describe as "information." This process is the same whether you're ordering the molecules in a blob of clay to form a sculpture, or ordering an inky fluid by applying it to a sheet of paper in strokes that form letters, words and sentences.

So, entropy -- disorder, unpredictability -- is the natural state of things. As time passes, systems emerge that reduce entropy in the information-theoretic sense, even as they increase entropy in the thermodynamic sense.

A quasar that rotates at such-and-such speed emitting regular pulses of RF is one such system. A human composing a symphony is another such system. They are both engaged in the process of turning random information into useful information.

Of course I'm just waxing poetical, playing the favorite game of armchair philosophers everywhere by taking words from the rigorously scientific discipline of information theory and using them inappropriately to form half-baked philosophical notions about the world. But it sure beats doing my homework.

Cripes! Holy diversity, Batman!

[mister_llah]

Is there anything computered-based out there that Google won't be doing in the future?

===

I can't wait for the Google fashion lines...

Actually, I could see them trying to push for rollable LCD panel clothing... ... I digress... just know that in 10 years Google win own the whole mess.

Everything. :)

Re:Cripes! Holy diversity, Batman!

[Harmonious Botch]

They can't try to replace ICANN. Until 2012, that is...

Re:Cripes! Holy diversity, Batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google won't have an OWN fashion line in the future, but i am convinced that they have indexed every piece of clothing devised by man somewhere around 2014.

Would be pretty cool; google for "Blue suede shoes" and you get description to the item via a Google Map of you walk-in closet \o/ .

It would take some getting used to though, finding content based ads in your wardrobe...

In broad outlines

[denissmith]

In broad outlines, and incrementally, Google seems to be replacing the need for a centralized computer/filestore with an ubiquitous web fileservice. While this may not replace the need for an OS and applications, if I could get access to my information and files securely frome everywhere that I can see a google server it really does change the computer paradigm.

Re:In broad outlines

[The Clockwork Troll]

if I could get access to my information and files securely frome everywhere

Yes, what a novel idea.

Re:In broad outlines

[iseff]

You can do this and I know that because I wrote an application -- Openomy.

Check out http://www.openomy.com/ -- an online file system with open APIs so you can get at your data whenever, wherever, however you want.

It's an interesting idea, I think.

Ian

Re:In broad outlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless link - prompts for email address (with promise of no spam), yet no useful info is available.

Re:In broad outlines

[iseff]

Not really, more users are allowed in nightly, it's a real service and there are links to both my blog (http://www.iseff.com/ ), an about page, and the documentation for the APIs (http://documentation.openomy.com/ ) -- all of which explain things. Sign up tonight, you'll probably get invited in the next day or two. I'm launching this week. Ian

Re:In broad outlines

[mcrbids]

In broad outlines, and incrementally, Google seems to be replacing the need for a centralized computer/filestore with an ubiquitous web fileservice.

Uh, Hello? This is 1997 calling for webDAV, are you there? Don't forget that WebDAV has been around since at LEAST the mid-1990s.

We have a webdav/ssl file repository used in our company. It runs Apache, mod_dav, and openssl, authentication handled by .htaccess files. It's quite secure, offers excellent performance, is highly reliable, and is natively supported by any major OS, and makes backups a SNAP.

Oh, and I'm never handing over my private business accounting data to google. No siree.

Re:In broad outlines

[a1cypher]

Or... you could setup your OWN server and have unlimited freedom. This is what I have done.

I can access my files from anywhere, read my email from anywhere, ssh in from anywhere, use webmail... etc...

Although, I can understand the niche google is going for, most people either dont have the means or know how to setup their own server. But man, it is nice.

Re:In broad outlines

[denissmith]

There is a difference between setting up my own server and running it and having a service available for some subscription rate that would relieve me of the cost and management of a server. Notice that I said they were replacing the need for a centralized filestore. They have bought huge chunks of dark fiber for something. Offering database services, offering file services accesible anywhere ( which they haven't done, yet, any way) seems like the direction they are headed. This could also be just my imagination, but the point is I wouldn't need to set up and manage a webDAV server with a raid array on it. I have one BTW, or, at least, until next Monday I have one - it costs a lot of money to run your own. Once you set it up it's not that hard to manage, but it still requires 4-5 hours a week checking server logs and doing general maintenance. Reliable, ubiquitous web fileservice that I don't have to manage is freeing.

Re:In broad outlines

[generic-man]

While you're paying at least $30 per month to use hotspots and cell phones to access your "ubiquitous web fileservice," I'll be enjoying my files on a hard drive and backing them up later to hard drives that I own.

The "computer paradigm" was all centralized-this and ubiquitous-that in the mainframe era, yet businesses and civilians have shown that they would rather own their own computer. How is Google making progress by reviving that business model where others have struggled?

I for one

[TadZimas]

Welcome our new datamongering google overlords. But seriously, is google starting to become big brother? I mean, in five years you will get on google to google the location of your nearest google pizzeria, order a google pizza, talk to your friends over Gmail or GVoIP, look at all the kids at GoogleOrphanage, then get your google pizza with a nice side dish of googlent-Green. Mmm Mmm good.

Re:I for one

[RoffleTheWaffle]

Google may not be aiming to become Big Brother, but they're certainly aiming to provide every single service they possibly can. Why they would do this is a pretty simple question to answer. They make most of their money through advertising, yes? And to make even more money off of said advertising, they sell data to advertisers, yes? The more services they provide, the more users they rope in, and the more - and more kinds of - data they collect to sell or use to their advantage as a business. Their business model thus far has proven to be virtually flawless and extremely profitable.

However, it is becoming apparent to me that they have other aims. Google is no longer the friendly, ethical being it once was. It has begun to evolve into something sinister. Google is expanding so rapidly and absorbing so much mindshare, both by raiding Silicon Valley and by garnering support from the Open Source community, that they now have the money and the human resources to do anything. Additionally, they can undercut any competitor, and they will. Expect to see these in the future:

* A Google ISP with free or extremely cheap connectivity worldwide.

* Google Phone, likely as a form of VoIP.

* Google TV, both on and offline, cable and wireless.

* Google Radio, both on and offline.

* Google Web Hosting.

* A Google ASP, providing applications on demand.

* Google Publishing, publishing digital content on demand.

* A Google record label.

* A Google printing service, printing books and newspapers on demand.

And much, much more.

This all sounds great, but the thing is, Google is poised to strike out at virtually every industry in the world that has anything to do with the transmission and distribution of any kind of information. They are going to be more than the 'Next Microsoft', as some here have put it. This will be a supermassive media monopoly; a black hole of information services from which noone can escape, with which noone can compete. They claim to support openness, but that only goes as far as what software and hardware you can use to access their services. In short order, they will be the only service providers around in many, many fields. That, in my opinion, is worse than not having a choice of how I utilize said services.

Call me a senseless fearmonger, but they really have their ducks in a row, don't they? The Authors Guild lawsuit aside, they're ready to go. They're getting ready to do some really huge things, at that, and in executing their plans, they could completely dominate the entire media and telecommunications industries within a matter of a few short years by simply undercutting all of their competitors with extremely cheap or free services, with the sale of valuable information - not subscriptions - as their bread and butter. It's possible, and they're proving that it is also feasable, and very profitable... but only if you're Google. I'm sorry, but replacing a few heaping handfuls of ugly monopolies around the world with one gigantic, unstoppable global monopoly is not a good idea, even if it's Google.

Let's not forget that the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. If Google does what I anticipate they will do, billions of dollars will be lost, thousands and thousands of people will be without jobs, and worst of all, we will all be forced to rely upon one single entity for many services essential in our day to day lives. That is always a very dangerous situation to be in. One can hope that the heads of Google are actually more sensible and less power hungry than this, and know when to stop. Alas, the word 'stop' does not appear to be indexed in Google's vocabulary. We all may be in for one very bumpy ride.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, calm down.

"Google Bent on World Domination," a theme others have put forth, seems a bit overwrought.

The thought that Google can roll out, in steamroller fashion, an unbroken string of apps and services that will squeeze every other competitor and every other good idea out of the picture - for years and years to come - is, well, silly, IMHO.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

If only I had the points to mod as +5 Funny-in-a-tinfoil-hat-kind-of-way-but-subtley-cre epy-like-that-girl-who's-always-stalking-you-at-th e-supermarket kind of way.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Just take a look at all the lives ruined by Google updates such as Florida and Jagger and you will see that Google has no intention of ever being considerate, ethical or caring to individuals. You are an organic battery to them that they feed off of. Enjoy jacking in.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with you. I used to use Google, but now I stick with the other search engines.

Google looks to become an even greater evil than Microsoft ever was...or ever dreamed of becoming.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

a black hole of information services from which noone can escape, with which noone can compete.

Thank God, then, that Peter Noone will be around to save us. Maybe the other guys from Herman's Hermits will be able to help, too?

Or did you mean "no one?"

Google this, google that!

[ChrisGilliard]

Ars believes that the company is gearing up to take on eBay and Craiglist

Ok, what else is google going to take over? People think they're going to take on Microsoft,Ebay,Craigslist,ISPs,..... The list goes on and on. I'd like to see Google take on the Oil companies next! Maybe they can offer free Gasoline.

Re:Google this, google that!

[TedCheshireAcad]

Maybe they can offer free Gasoline

Googleen will be available in an ad-supported context, where you receive free Googleen in exchange for targeted advertisements displayed on your windshield. Of course, Googleen has been engineered by the top Ph.D. minds in the world, so not only will you get 100 miles per gallon, but the Googleen will also clean your engine, and proactively repair problems with your car.

Re:Google this, google that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes more sense that Google would back some kind of electric car, no doubt with hundreds of end user features, built in search, gps (google maps), bla bla bla. who knows, who cares. whatever area google migrates into, they will gain substancial support and market share pretty rapidly imo.

Re:Google this, google that!

[ChrisGilliard]

Ha, I like it. Googleen. How about Google Vision. Free glasses with targeted ads shot directly into your retinas based on gps tracking and their new image decifering software that can see what you're seeing and automatically sense the best ads to post based on statistical inferances about your environment.

Re:Google this, google that!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see Google take on the Oil companies next!

You'll have to wait until after they've built up their military.

Re:Google this, google that!

[c_forq]

Unfortunatly it will be in Beta for about 5 years, with 3 of those being invite only and invites will be sold for mega bucks in online auctions.

Re:Google this, google that!

[Rick Genter]

How about Google Vision. Free glasses with targeted ads shot directly into your retinas based on gps tracking and their new image decifering software that can see what you're seeing and automatically sense the best ads to post based on statistical inferances about your environment.

As seen here...

Re:Google this, google that!

[Al_Lapalme]

And it whitens your teeth as you drive!

Re:Google this, google that!

[soul_on_fire2001]

proactively repair problems with your car

You insensitive clod, Googleen will prevent problems !!

Re:Google this, google that!

[Anonymous Coward]

When arstechnica speaks, people do the opposite of what they say (or run) to be safe and correct about a topic in the field of computer science. Squirrels from arstechnica forums boards with no education or degrees in the field of computer science, certifications, or professional years of experience do not a computer scientist make.

Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Dynamoo]

It's all very interesting and clever.. but I think Google are taking their eyes off the ball here. When Google stop concentrating on trying to search the web and start concentrating on rebuilding it then you're looking at a company playing a high risk game. People with long memories might remember that Microsoft tried to recreate the internet ten years ago with the launch of MSN.. and failed.

It would be nice if the PhDs at Google could concentrate on getting good, reliable and consistent results out of their search engine rather than playing around with features like because it "seemed like a good idea at the time". Remember Google Answers anyone? That was a white elephant. I think this is going to be a white elephant too.

As a commercial enterprise, it seems that Google is in danger of forgetting exactly what its core business really is.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[BWJones]

The problem with this is that the structure of the Internet is difficult to navigate and difficult to index a system that is constantly changing. Enforcing some sort of "structure" will make things more easily searched, organized and reliable. There's lots of us PhDs that are interested in indexing information, but for particular questions, you need to be able to structure data in some form that allows accessibility.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[kavau]

1. Become the technological leader in your field
2. Profit!
3. Get fat and lazy
4. Microsoft discovers that your field is profitable
5. ?????
6. Profit (Microsoft, that is)!

Maybe Google is trying to avoid this scenario by branching out.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Tlosk]

To have even a shred of a point Google would have to be slipping in search and advert income. This last quarter they blew away *everyone's* expectations for revenue growth and their search results continue to be the gold standard.

If every endeavor that ever met with failure at the hands of someone in the past became off limits, imagine where we'd be. Sure it may indicate that more of the same might not be a good idea, but I have yet to see "more of the same" in any of Google's many new projects.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Tibet Sprague]

I have seen numerous people claim that Google is starting losing focus or take their eyes off the prize (ball, etc) but I have yet to see any conclusive evidence. The truth is Google has an insane number of smart people working for them and each one is supposed to be using 20% of their time to work on a pet project of sorts. Every so often these projects get released as betas and add to the growing package of google "apps". While many of these apps are still imperfect and unpolished (as befits the beta title) they are all at the least interesting additions to their respective categories. People see this endless flow of new google releases and think they are spreading themselves thin when in fact each "app" is probably being developed by a small group of programmers who are interested and devoted to the project.

My points are these:

• The fact that google is releasing so many products does not mean they have stopped thinking about search. In fact PageRank was tweaked once again just a few days ago. They probably still have a hugs number of employees devoted entirely to search.
• While their competitors are starting to catch up, Google still has a big lead in the search arena and is far from losing it if only because of mindshare.
• By releasing so many products in so many areas Google assures themselves of not being left behind in any area of the web. They are testing the waters of RSS (Google Reader), Web Acceleration, VOIP, soon micro-payments and now structured data storage and classifieds and whatever else Google Base will become.

In conclusion Google has their foot in every door and whichever ones lead to higher revenue they will follow. I think it's a solid business plan.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[MacJedi]

and what exactly is the problem with google answers?

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[rho]

Assuming Google isn't stupid, GoogleSearch is continuing. GoogleBase is a new branch, which will tie in to the truck that is GoogleSearch, as GoogleMail does.

Personally I don't fear this because Google can offer a nice database for regular things, but it will never compare to the value-add that Amazon or Netflix provide. However, it may create a standard from which data modelling can build from. Google uses it's 900lb status to say "these are the appropriate fields for this item"--we just have to conform, and extend as required. Kind of like LDAP.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[colonslash]

Fewer flying chairs isn't the only difference between MS and Google.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[jacksonj04]

I think Google have done anything but take their eye off the ball. Remember how Froogle and Google Local were once beta projects, and are now integrated with google.com search? And then Google Maps was slipped into the equation. define: has been moved out of a little-known backwater of the site and integrated with google.com...

Google having a foot in all the doors simply means they are finding the best way to index and search that information. It won't surprise me if they all end up integrated somewhere with just plain Google Search, to the extent that they lose their own 'section'. Google Base is simply (from what I can tell) a huge database of everything, which (chances are) will end up integrated.

I want to be able to log in to Google and have all my own data at my fingertips, easily searchable, and for the engine behind it all to know what I'm after. At the moment, powerful though other web searches may be, Google is the only company to attempt to unify everything for the users. If Google can provide what I'm after, I would be willing to pay a significant amount of money to have them organise all my data, be it news, emails, contacts, files, web history, chats, driving directions, cinema times... the list goes on.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[That's Unpossible!]

and what exactly is the problem with google answers?

Nothing. The parent poster has fallen into the typical Slashdot geek trap of thinking "if I don't use it, it must not be popular."

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[smallpaul]

But part of the genious of Google is that it infers the structure of the Web through links. If you allow authors to push structure at you then it becomes that much easier for spammers and other profit-driven interests to game the system.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with both comments, the parents claims that whenever a company attempts to define what the internet is, it fails while the reply is that structure can often help answer more questions about data.

I still think you did not provide a good solution and neither is google base. The reason why Google's search was so successful was because it was fast and provided the best results compared to any other search engine. Also, the reason the internet has been so successful was because of the freedom of injection of information, not because it was structured.

You can't expect a company, no matter how ingenious, to manage the internet's information. Just as you said, the internet is very dynamic and changes too quickly. I think the real solution here is to determine a method for providing more indexable information and give it to everyone on the internet. Meta-data and things like RSS feeds are a better solution, not just becoming THE database for the internet.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Duncan3]

"It would be nice if the PhDs at Google could concentrate on getting good, reliable and consistent results out of their search engine"

They are VERY reliable.

One page of paid ads.
One page of page-rank spam and fake links.

I almost always just skip to page 3 or 4 now. I know what I want will not be on the first page of results. The same thing happened to Altavista, and Yahoo, and all the ther search engines too. Right about now in the process, someone else usually comes along without the pages of ads, and kicks their ass. Repeat.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[phusikos]

One of the most entertaining ironies about Google is that it's essentially an advertising company that devotes close to 0% of their budget to advertising. No superbowl commercials, almost no billboards, etc.

However, their continued success requires that they stay on the forefront of the minds of their potential users -- and indeed, they manage to do this astoundingly well. Not by flashy magazine ads, but by constantly rolling out new products. While some do have obvious built-in revenue potential (Gmail), some (perhaps Google Base) don't.

It doesn't matter.

Google Talk, Google Wifi, and Google Office^H^H^H^H^H^HReader were scarcely cold on our lips when Google Base came around. And that's all within the last four months!

Add to this the controversy over Google Print, endless speculation about future products, and the ongoing love triangle (quadrilateral?) between Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, and AOL, and you can't open up a newspaper or visit c|net without reading all about Google, many times over.

Is it any wonder that Google is the first thing that comes to most people's minds when they want to find something online?

And good for them! When a company spends $100 million on airtime, we sometimes get clever commercials. When a company spends $100 million on developing cool new products, we (almost) all benefit. I'll take the latter.

And given Google's success, it seems like a winning strategy.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Temporal]

Google spends a hell of a lot more resources on improving web search than they do on things like this. You just don't notice because there's nothing to announce when they add a new algorithm to improve quality. Ever hear of the 70/20/10 split? 70% core web search, 20% adjacent projects, 10% crazy stuff.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Anonymous Coward]

Their search is good, but it's no longer superior. Yahoo's new search http://search.yahoo.com/ is just as good.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[myxiplx]

Oh, there's no way google took their eye off the ball with this one. Imagine the possibilities if you started using Google to store some or all of your data. Not only do you have your files available from anywhere on the planet but you can search all of it, from anywhere, with the best search engine around. Integrate that with Windows (WinFS anyone) and the potential is huge.

Plus the more structured information we can give Google, the more their search engine can learn. The more it learns the more relevant the results can be. And giving google a planet wide database of structured information is going to make a huge difference to what they can teach that engine. Anybody else wondering how long it will be before the google search engine becomes this planet's first AI?

Ok, getting back to reality, not only are you now getting google's response to your search, you're getting back details from your own notes and files too, and potentially info from other people if google take it that far. Imagine, you search for 'Restaurants in Paris' and get back a google map of the restaurants with the numbers, your own contacts numbers and notes from your address book, other people's ratings of the food and the photos you took last time you were on holiday there... It's all possible, it's just a case of how much information we feed google and how well they can integrate it.

Go take a look at some of the demos Microsoft are putting out for WinFS. It's impressive stuff and that's just for your own computer. Imagine a technology like that, in the hands of a company like google, linked to the whole planet...

WinFS: http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/
PDC Demo: http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2005/10/05/477 436.aspx
Channel 9 Video (long): http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=1063 56

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[adpowers]

I agree. I've been to a number of Google tech talk/recruiting sessions and they really emphasize the small groups inside the company. Most projects seem to be 2-4 people. Only when a product nears launch do more people get involved (lawyers, UI designers, translators, etc.). I thought they said that Gmail was done by about four people for most of the time. When you have this many groups, of course there will be lots of diversity. Sometimes when I see a new product or one-box coming out of the Googleplex, I get worried that they are losing their focus and relevance (for a while they had two competing "definitive answer" one-boxes that sometimes both showed up for one query; I can't remember the names exactly, but I thought it looked pretty bad... where was the coordination?). However, most projects get fixed up and made better, and I regain faith in Google. Right now I'm most skeptical about the Web Accelerator (just because of all the problems it has had).

Also, you are correct. Google has just started rolling out phase two of a three phase update to their ranking engine (dubbed jagger update). A lot of SEO folk are complaining about losing placement, and if they are complaining, I think that means we are getting better results :)

Andrew

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[MacGod]

I'm not sure. Why not ask that question on Google Answers? Finding out has to be worth *at least* $2.50

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[TrappedByMyself]

You don't understand research, or business...
 
Google has alot of resources, so of course they are going to try to grow their capabilities. Sticking with one thing, even done ultra well, is small minded. They're taking their success from the search engine area and trying to grow it. Actually if you look, many of their new products are applications of their search technology. That is still their core, but they're poking into other areas.
Also, you don't hire a bunch of PhDs and have all of them work in the same project. You let em loose in a controlled manner and see what they come up with. Research exists to find out new stuff, to try and see what could succeed and what will fail. But.. you don't know if you don't try, and if you have the resources to afford failure, you'll likely have huge successes in other areas.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[noamsml]

Uh, google ads aren't inline with the search results, they are located on a small sidebar to the right. Everything that looks like results, is results.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Anonymous Coward]

I asked them about the meaning of life, but they failed to produce a sufficient answer.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[IamTheRealMike]

According to their recruiting material about 70% of their engineers are working on search.

Of course "search" is pretty broad, it doesn't mean 70% of their people work on PageRank.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[Linknoid]

The evidence that google is starting to lose focus for me is that their searches are getting worse. It used to be relatively easy to find information about a specific topic, now all I get are a bunch of results saying "Here's a comparison of different places that sell this, be the first to review it". It was one thing when a couple websites did that for paid advertisements at the top of the results, but now my searches are so cluttered with those stupid sites that I've just about given up on Google.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[jacksonj04]

I'm an MSDN subscriber with access to the WinFS beta - it's damn powerful and it is a real shame it won't make the Vista release. The reason I'm backing Google more is that it seems they are better placed to unify things worldwide - WinFS will only be local unless MS release a seriously powerful web service. When one friend updates their contact info and calendar I want it to just be available without needing to manually re-sync or to put all my friends through a single Exchange server.

Google has the web infrastructure and data mining algorithms, Microsoft has the WinFS (And by the looks of the PCD demo the UI for it as well), Apple has the experience in 'plug and play computing'. What's missing is a company with the ability to force them to use a single standard and storage location for the data.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[myxiplx]

Aaah, but I think you're missing my point. MS won't have to write a web interface. They're providing the data structure for windows, all we need then is for Google to write a plugin to synchronise your local data with your data share on the web. And that my friend is going to be a piece of cake. As MS say - WinFS is just an enabling technology. They don't need to write the web links or distributed applications themselves, that's open to anybody. Google get to mine the data, MS really get to show off what Vista & WinFS can do, and the rest of us get to see what it means when the internet is truly integrated into your OS.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[jalefkowit]

Enforcing some sort of "structure" will make things more easily searched, organized and reliable.

At the cost of turning the Web from an open environment with no barriers to entry into a proprietary network controlled by one company, of course.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[FacePlant]

The fact that google is releasing so many products does not mean they have stopped thinking about search. In fact PageRank was tweaked once again just a few days ago. They probably still have a hugs number of employees devoted entirely to search.
Google Hugs(tm) will enter beta soon, and is scheduled to be production ready by Valentines Day 2006.

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[killtherat]

They are VERY reliable.

One page of paid ads.
One page of page-rank spam and fake links.


In most cases that doesn't really happen to me. It mostly happens when searching for porn... or so I've been told...

Re:Google have taken their eyes off the ball

[DerekLyons]

It's all very interesting and clever.. but I think Google are taking their eyes off the ball here. When Google stop concentrating on trying to search the web and start concentrating on rebuilding it then you're looking at a company playing a high risk game.

As a commercial enterprise, it seems that Google is in danger of forgetting exactly what its core business really is.

No, it's more a case of the geeks not understanding what Google's core business really is - advertising. Their whole business model depends of getting eyes on ads. Branding (I.E. developing apps like Maps that are largely redundant to what's already out there) is a key part of that strategy.

They are a multi-billion dollar company not because of search, but because they deliver the clicks.

Deep Search

[evw]

They've said in the past that the next big step in search is searching databases that other people own. This would seem to be the interface to make that possible. i.e. rather than web crawling to attempt to harvest data, they have people push it to them. Sidesteps the copyright and robots.txt problem. If you want your data to be searchable then you push it to Google.

Google supplants hard drive

[Wylfing]

I have maintained for a few years now that ultimately we will all share one big hard drive and its name will be Google.

Re:Google supplants hard drive

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. Read and write times would be pretty slow, but the average seek time would be fantastic.

Re:Google supplants hard drive

[earthbound kid]

Why? I can already fit every song I own in my pocket. In a couple years, I'll be able to fit all my videos on my iPod too. A few years after that, we'll have peta-byte iPods, and you'll have to work really, really hard to fill them. So, if this is the direction that storage technology is moving, what's the advantage of me using Google as my hard drive? Well, there's the fact that it's always on the internet, but there's no reason that my computer can't always be on the internet too. In fact, using my computer would be easier, since the bandwidth costs would be easier to deal with with a decentralized network than with everyone on earth connecting to California and slowing my ping times. Furthermore, can you really trust Google to never, ever get hacked, once it contains everyone's information? With a honey pot that large, some bear is bound to break into the cabin.

What makes sense for the future is for Google to release software that you install on your computer and allows you to connect to yourself at myname.supergoogle.com. If your computer is offline, then Google can route you to their backup copy of you, but on the whole, there's not much advantage to storing things on a mainframe. People like to own their own stuff. Wasn't that the whole lesson of the micro-computer revolution?

Re:Google supplants hard drive

[6031769]

A few years after that, we'll have peta-byte iPods, and you'll have to work really, really hard to fill them.

Of course you will, because 640k ought to be enough for anybody.

I know what they are going to call it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gaccess.

why?

[Councilor Hart]

Why would I want to put my information under your control?

Re:why?

[Colz Grigor]

Maybe we should ask the believers of Open Source. Surely they could explain why people would contribute their resources for the betterment of a particular project.

Or maybe we should ask the people who add articles to Wikipedia. I'm sure they'll have a good idea of why people want information to remain free.

::Colz Grigor

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

For more information on this and related subjects, please see the Free and Open Source Software Movement.

Re:why?

[rackhamh]

"Under your control" -- in what sense?

You are the one choosing what information to publish, and presumably, you are the only person who can remove or alter the published information. Google is simply acting as a data warehousing service in this case.

So you are relinquishing no more control than an author does by making his books available in bookstores that he doesn't own.

Unless I've missed your point?

Re:why?

[gladed]

Why would I want to put my information under your control?

Because Google can very likely manage it better than you can. If you don't agree, don't give it to them. If it follows the general trend we see in Google's Search/Maps/Earth/GMail/Picasa etc., Google Base will be more reliable, more accessible, more flexible, and more searchable than anything you will be able to assemble with your one little brain, or purchase with your one little pocketbook.

"Waah waah," you say, "what if Google uses the information nefariously?" If you use Windows then consider that Microsoft software sees every keystroke, every mouse click, every file you read or write, and every 0 or 1 you exchange on any network you happen to use. You sure trust them a lot, huh. So why freak out about Google seeing data that you deliberately upload to their servers?

Re:why?

[glass_window]

Because. Once Google has monopolized all our information, they will in essence become the internet. Funded of course by AdSense.

Re:why?

[umeshunni]

This is Microsoft's scrapped Hailstorm initiative all over again. Except that it's Google doing it. It's interesting to note that two of Haistorm's key architects (Mark Lucovsky & Adam Bosworth) now work at Google.
I suppose they think the same idea would work if a different company did this.

Re:why?

[BigGerman]

Finally someone stated this.
I am in relationships with number of small biz owners selling stuff on the net. Good stuff not shady stuff. The pattern has emerged over last few years: they pay Google (AdWords), clicks translate to hits, hits translate to leads, leads translate to sales. Without AdWords they dont get enough traffic (and sales) to pay the bills. The web is a huge thing.
Essentially we got to the point when people are paying Google for traffic coming to their sites. How dangerous is that? This is monopoly of sort Microsoft never dreamed of.

Re:why?

[daviddennis]

Google will never charge for raw search results (as opposed to adwords). Google has plenty of competition that does exactly that, and uses underhanded methods (i.e. spyware) to direct people to their sites. Despite these tricks, those sites are nowhere near as popular as Google and don't make the kind of money Google does. Google is not going to mess that up.

Your observations would appear to mean that Google Adwords are effective advertising.

My business partner and I have a business here, and even though it's geographically focused to a specific area, AdWords has been our most effective advertising, comfortably surpassing TV and radio advertising and even exceeding our second most effective method, blanket handing out of flyers.

It's hard to get away from monopolies, especially in small markets like ours. For example, Comcast, the cable provider we used for our TV ads, is a monopoly, too. Google Adwords is effectively a monopoly. Whichever one is effective is what we'll continue to use; it may be an evil monopoly, but it's saved us from the evil of the other guys. It was a lot cheaper than TV ads.

D

Re:why?

[Councilor Hart]

if understood it correctly, it could also be used as a database for your website. So you build you site using this and then they change the use of terms or so? I don't know, I was just thinking about that blog site a few months ago that refused their users to move their own data.
Now, having read the other comments about publishing (science) articles and having them searchable, doesn't make it sound that bad.

Re:why?

[Decker-Mage]

Sun is trying the same thing as well and so far doing miserably at getting people to trust them with their data and computing power. One problem is the price-point. The other has to do with systems security which, despite assertions by Sun to the contrary good but not quite good enough, IMNSHO. Where I think Google gets it right is that they are leveraging something they are durn good at, storage (these people buy hard drives in railroad car lots! ;-) and retrieval and since they have that storage laying around anyway, they'll derive an additional revenue stream from the ads even if they don't charge a subscription fee. If anything, this enhances their business model rather than representing a divergent product line.

Re:why?

[Councilor Hart]

"Waah waah," you say, "what if Google uses the information nefariously?" If you use Windows then consider that Microsoft software sees every keystroke, every mouse click, every file you read or write, and every 0 or 1 you exchange on any network you happen to use. You sure trust them a lot, huh. So why freak out about Google seeing data that you deliberately upload to their servers?
I don't use windows. I am a Mac guy. And even if I couldn't use OS X, I rather use linux than MS-crap. So in contrast to most people on slashdot, I don't use windows.
When it comes to my data and my Mac and the security regarding it, I am paranoid.
My problem would not be so much as uploading some data to them, but in losing control over it. Yeah, I know. Everything lives forever in the wayback database.

Excellant news for contract service providers.

[stimpleton]

I'm just drawing up a reply to a RFI from a health provider. They are upgrading their medical records database.
My solution included oracle on linux servers.

I'll just use this instead..but just say I'm providing the infrastructure.

Yassah.

Re:Excellant news for contract service providers.

[iggymanz]

wee little hipaa violation there, but other than that it's a great idea

Re:Excellant news for contract service providers.

[darnok]

I suppose you could encrypt the data, with a suitably powerful key, then store the encrypted data at Google and keep the keys yourself.

Not sure about the legality, but it should be untraceable

Re:Excellant news for contract service providers.

[flosofl]

I suppose you could encrypt the data, with a suitably powerful key, then store the encrypted data at Google and keep the keys yourself.

But then, what qould be the point? The whole idea is to have them organize your data so it's easily searchable.

Not sure about the legality

It should be legal (if encrypted). HIPAA is about protecting data and patient privacy. If you use something like AES with a 256 bit key, I would think that's damn well protected. I believe the minimum level required for encryption is 3DES.

Ads ....

[GoodOmens]

Makes me wonder if they will be searching the data people put in for friendly text-related ads.

Semanticweb-aware

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope they make it SW-aware; can't wait to toy with an API to get me' own universialy avaible, Google-indexed, semanticly linked (and buzzword compliant) metadata-storage...

M

What, really, is it?

[Tidal Flame]

Am I missing the point, or does this just seem like another version of the internet, except loosely categorized and all stored on Google's servers? What are they planning to achieve with this? I realize that they're integrating a lot of existing Google functionality into it, and I guess that could be useful, but it still seems like it's just Google Internet or something.

Re:What, really, is it?

[kebes]

I can't claim to understand what they are trying to do... but here's what I think it might be (or perhaps it's just what I hope it will be): Right now, it often occurs that I produce some document that I would like to share with the world but I don't know how. Usually I try to integrate it with Wikipedia or something like that. But often it doesn't really fit there. What are my options? I can put it up on webspace that I own, and create a webpage around it for context, and then hope that Google eventually crawls it so people can find it. But it would be easier to just upload it to a gigantic database that is constantly indexed and organized without any effort on my part. By lowering the barrier to publishing "stuff," we will have access to a wealth of information that previously was rotting on people's hard drives. Obviously alot of the stuff uploaded to GoogleBase will be crap (just as many blogs are crap), but ultimately enough of them will be good that it's worth it. With good enough search, eventually the important bits will become contextualized and found by people who need them. People won't have to search for free (often crappy) web hosting when all they want to do is upload a few pictures for a friend to see, or make some of their recipes available to the world. All kinds of information could be released, and if Google does their job right, it will be available (in a useful way) to everyone. Obviously all of this will be part of the "normal" internet. It's not another version of the internet... I think it's more akin to a massive, free, and self-indexing web hosting service. Another use would be that you could upload alot of your files that you constantly refer to (but which are not private in any way). Then, anywhere in the world you could go into GoogleBase and do a quick search and find your document. If GoogleBase allows for private content, then a great deal of your semi-private documents could be online at all times, constantly available to you wherever you are. Instead of using the GMail File System hack, you could just have all your stuff on GoogleBase.

Re:What, really, is it?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

What are they planning to achieve with this?

Same thing that Google does with Google Search, Gmail, Google Chat, Google Groups, etc.-- Google wants to analyze what people are looking for, and use that analysis to target additional content and (very importantly) their advertisements.

Indexing external sites is still a tricky and inexact business. If I'm shopping for something, I usually won't find the best deal in the top 10 or 20 results with a typical Google or Froogle search.

Google Base allows Google to more accurately index the browsing habits of the visitors.

Google is an advertising company first. All of Google's products-- from Google Chat to Google news else must serve the tracking needs of their advertising business.

Re:What, really, is it?

[LeonGeeste]

Yeah...damn capitalists. You people keep forgetting that Google is a CORPORATION and thus, BY DEFINITION does not care about the environment, about its workers, and insofar as it betrays any concern for these it's no longer a corporation, but an exponent of socialism.

I think I get it now.

Re:What, really, is it?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Another imagined argument!

I never said Google was doing anything wrong. If anything, they are simply taking the concept of "Direct Marketing" to a higher level.

However, I feel like there is too much Google-hype on Slashdot. Most people still think that Google is simply a search engine-- but Google's business model is actually much more clever.

Re:I work for google.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what is it then, smart guy?

as ever the usual name that google product!

[Edzor]

As always with a Google product what will it be called? Doogle?

All Your Base Are Belong to Us

[slashflood]

Oh, I just submitted the following story:

It seems that Google is going to announce a new service called Google Base today at the invite only Google Zeitgeist conference. At the moment, we only have a few screenshots and a pretty interesting discussion at threadwatch.org. Conflicting rumors have pointed to a new Google database, classifieds like Craigslist, an Ebay contender or just another way to submit URLs.

Re:All Your Base Are Belong to Us

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. It will be posted next week.

Only one question...

[Deliberate_Bastard]

When developing a new product or service, there's a most important question to ask.

"What problem does J. Average Person have, that this thing I am selling will solve?"

Doesn't matter whether J. Average Person is supposed to buy the product, or simply use it for free, and allow me to selling advertising. Without bait, no one is going to participate.

So what is it? What's the bait, here? Why do I want to push my data to Google? What problem that I have does this solve?

Re:Only one question...

[Reality Master 101]

So what is it? What's the bait, here? Why do I want to push my data to Google? What problem that I have does this solve?

Two problems: Backup and Access.

Re:Only one question...

[kebes]

As I said in another comment, an example of a problem I sometimes have is that I have some content that I would like to share with the world, but no decent way of doing it. Sometimes I can mesh it into Wikipedia or something... but other times there's no place to put it. Or maybe putting it somewhere else is complicated. Like I have a recipe or a cool trick to solve a problem in Linux. I could make an account with some recipe website or with Linuxforum.org or whatever, but that's a pain. I just want to make the information available to people. I could make my own mini-website and host it, but no one would ever find it.

But if GoogleBase exists, and I just upload content, and let Google index it for me, I'm done. I can refer friends to it (either via URL or even by describing it, and letting them just do a search for it). I can even upload (non-private) files that I often need to refer to... and then they are always accessible. In fact, since GoogleBase will probably have a private mode, I can use this as a network drive that is accessible anywhere in the world. Not only that, but it does automatic backups and is automatically indexed and searchable. So for semi-private documents that I always need access to, it's great. I post my CV and then I can casually refer somewhere to where it is located. I don't have to pay for webspace.

Many people use the GMail File System hack so that they can use their GMail account as if it were a hard drive. Google is formalizing it so that we can have access to data easily. I think this solves alot of problems for alot of users. The tradeoff is that I get free web-hosting and even free network storage, as long as I agree to have them index it. Many people are willing.

Re:Only one question...

[Chunni Babu]

Use a blog.

Data is only as good as its source...

[Colz Grigor]

Again, just because information is out there doesn't mean that it's accurate or complete. Providing a tool to capture more data will have the tendency of diluting the level of accuracy of available information.

If this data is ever going to become useful, Google will needs to create a system for moderation of informational accuracy and usefulness. Their page-ranking mechanism is a good start, but I just don't trust it to tell me that the first few results on a subject I'm researching are accurate.

This is why Google also needs a trust network. They certainly could begin to leverage Orkut to do this. I'd give more credence to an information source if I knew that someone in my trust network also gave credence to it.

Google doesn't seem to have a unified and communicated vision. Sure, they can hire the most talented engineers and they can keep cranking out the coolest toys, but what would actually move the internet forward is a way to combine all of those toys into a single, simple platform. For example, combine Orkut and page ranking. Rank my search results differently than someone else's because they have different trust relationships. In my opinion, Google has had only one real hit so far, and that's Google Earth. With that much corporate intelligence, I'd like to see Google doing more.

::Colz Grigor

Re:Data is only as good as its source...

[slashflood]

This is why Google also needs a trust network. They certainly could begin to leverage Orkut to do this. I'd give more credence to an information source if I knew that someone in my trust network also gave credence to it.

Check this out.

Re:Data is only as good as its source...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny, google accidentally (maybe it wasn't an accident) lets an unrealeased product webpage be accessible for a few minutes (or longer) and people start criticizing their business model for a product that *hasn't been released yet*. Get over it.

Isn't Google Base redundant ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ye Olde Way : create content -> host it yourself/at an ISP -> various search engines (including Google) will index it -> others can search it.

Ye Google Base Way : create content -> submit to Google Base -> others can search it only though Google.

Google would be wasting massive resources in this, if they ever launch it, and their only benefit would be that they would in a way 'own' that content. I don't believe they would be making this content available to MSN or Yahoo. The stench of evil is just too much, Google !

Start your engines!

[mattwarden]

Allow the GSpeculation to begin!

The classified grid

[FishandChips]

Well who knows, but it would be nice to see Google really launch something bigtime stylee and stand behind it, instead of trickling out an unimpressive beta (and thus dubiously supported) that's all potential and little action, like the messenging service. Classified ads and online auctions? We'll soon find out.

No shortage of computing power to hand among their chums I guess. Why, Sun has that massive grid rental system they touted a year ago but which has failed to attract a single public customer apparently. I'm sure Google could fill it up quickly enough. So much more interesting than news that Solaris will carry a Google Toolbar, though that must be a great reassurance to Sun admins everywhere.

Introductions, please

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello google, have you meet snowcrash? This is blatant plagarism!

you give up freedom, but

[circletimessquare]

you gain ease of use

doing it on your own is hard and expensive

basically, google is now acting as your website

i'm just waiting for the google-hosted porn sites, like yahoo groups

Re:MS take note

[janbjurstrom]

I'm not convinced.. I found a Ryan Sarver writing that base.google essentially is a Quickbase copy:

"A roll your own database where you create the fields and tables and then populate the data."

And Quickbase can't be the only example of such a web app. This latest thing from Google is certainly interesting, but reaching for the innovative tag might be overdoing it.

don't fall for the trick!

[circletimessquare]

you give them your information to, ehem "database"

and then they destroy it!

EPIC is coming!

[dshaw858]

'Nuff said.

Creepy. Well, I for one welcome our new Google overlords! :)

- dshaw

Re:EPIC is coming!

[noamsml]

That was my first though too. but then I another thought came into my mind: EPIC is way closer than what the authors of the movie imagined.

RSS, blogs, del.icio.us, flickr. they all together allow us to mix, match, choose and publish our content from this new mass of information called the internet.

at it's best, for the most savy readers, this new way of aggregation provides a more in-depth analysis of the world than ever possible before. At it's worst, and for far too many, it is a collection of trivia, some of it untrue, all of it shallow, narrow and unimportant.

I welcome the google overlords with open arms!

[leather_helmet]

This product looks promising IMHO Integration into local.google.com has me somewhat excited - killer app? Revenue generated on a service charge basis? or free use with targeted advertising?

Cool

[Bit_Squeezer]

All your base are ........

Wow keep it up, line my pockets!

[riversky]

The more cool stuff Google does, the press it gets, and the money they make my stock in them is going through the roof. Anyone that loves using Google should buy the stock. I sold a bit this morning. They paid off all my debt, I ordered my new quad PowerMac, and are on the way to buying my vacation property in Cabo!! Keep up the good work Google!

base

[Blimundus]

All your information belong to gBase

Irresponsible journalism.

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

When the writer of an article throws in jokes like "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE," what the hell kind of value can then possibly be added by us, work-not-doing, spelling-not-checking, time-wasting Slashdot hordes?

Please, reporters, show some class. Leave the insipid repetitive humor to the professionals.

Or rather, the amateurs. You know what the hell we mean. Stop smirking.

Stupid writers.

Re:Irresponsible journalism.

[johann909]

Ha Ha, Mr: I waste my time trying to boost my self esteem by having others validate that I am as smart as I think I am by attempting to elicit moderation points from complete strangers from my carefully crafted wannabe witty comments. LOSER!!! get a g-friend already lame ass!

ha ha, you thought you get a MOD +1 but you dunt get nun!

J

The following URL...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://base.google.com/base/notwelcome,

seems to be very descriptive of the service.

AOL+

[glengyron]

Let's just call it AOL+

You take the world's most successfully decentralised network, and for convenience and searchability you umm.... centralise it...

Take all the power of anyone being able to interconnect which allows free speech to flourish all over the world (even in China if you're wise enough) and then umm.... put it all into the control of one corporate entity in the United States.

Remember the situation with China... Google (as a corporatation) complied with the law and handed over private gmail information to the Chinese authorities trying stiffle free speech... now image if _everything_ is subject to that control mechanism?

Google is already so powerful that if your business isn't listed easily in the results you might as well pack up and go home... this just makes that problem even worse.

Basically Google wants to kill the Internet, to make it work better. AOL didn't die... the whole internet became AOL....

Re:AOL+

[ScottV]

Your assuming that if model takes off that google will be the only provider. I can see this as a more viable version of the net harddrives that failed a few years ago, and that spawned plenty of competing providers.

Re:AOL+

[iggymanz]

nah, most of the world's business isn't done by online catalogs & shopping, and most of the money I spend during the year has nothing to do with the internet.

Re:AOL+

[glengyron]

The point really isn't the technology though, it's the centralised control and governance. You can't sue the Internet to get access to things, there's no entity to stand up in a court. Meanwhile, Google or anyone else that stores this data can be petitioned. They have to obey the laws of where they operate. Imagine I post content that's legal in my country that says 'George Bush should be hanged for treason' ... meanwhile thanks to Google's centralised servers I find myself being extradited to the US to face charges of sedition... Regarding technology, if everyone starts using this service to store their data they've also created a massive singple point of failure in the global information sphere.

Re:AOL+

[ScottV]

Sue the internet? What is this magical internet, if its online its probably being served by a ISP who can give over your information.

Take that, Catz!

[jesdynf]

Jesus friggin' Christ.

All our base will belong to them.

Total. Fucking. Chaos.

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

Congratulations, Google, you have solved the easiest part of classified ads, online auctions, and publishing: stuffing the information into distinct fields in a database.

Now you just need to figure out how to marshall data into canonical fields for each major use scenario, mark those schemas prominently for easy reference, and police the system against abuse like spam, scams and plagarism.

Judging by the state of your core search system, this will take anywhere from seven years to several centuries.

Re:Total. Fucking. Chaos.

[simcop2387]

this was my first thought when reading the summary, http://www.lightover.com/epic/ols-master.html

Where's the API?

[StupidEngineer]

Ok. Either Good or Bad, I just want to know if they're providing a nice API that allows us data addicts to CRUD their database.

---
http://www.badpopcorn.com/

GoogleBase.com ?

[AaronCampbell]

gmail.com is to mail.google.com as http://googlebase.com/ will be to base.google.com?

Re:GoogleBase.com ?

[AaronCampbell]

Created on..............: 2005-Jun-08.

With all the /.ers constantly stalking google, I'm surprised no one noticed this until recently.

Re:GoogleBase.com ?

[oPless]

Actually yes, according to someones saved html.

It indeed did mention base.google.com !

All your base are belong to google!

403 on base.google.com

[i.of.the.storm]

base.google.com is 413 forbidden. hmm... maybe they dont want to get /.ed.

MOD UP NON-Redundant Please - was 2nd post

[billstewart]

Hey, mods, it was the *second* post, two minutes after the original article, and the First Post was a different joke (about naming it "G-Bay"). So it wasn't redundant - the later All Your Base posts were.

Re:MOD UP NON-Redundant Please - was 2nd post

[tzot]

Be a nice chap and click on TFA URL. What is the page title?

Service for content producers

[winescout]

I see this as a service for content producers. Say for example that you are a non-profit research facility. Maintaining a website is a pain, and an expense. Google is providing an easy to use service that will allow you to publish your research data.

Or, what about help forums. How many times have you needed an answer when configuring somethin in Linux? What do you do? Go to google, type in the error, and 5 seconds later your on a help forum where someone has explained the solution. Now use Google Base to cut out the step of going to 3 websites that are just Spam.

This really is just an evolution of the arms race between Google and site spammers, with the added benefit of making content producers lives easier.

Of course, only the content procuers who don't have an advertising model will benefit from this.

Erm. So. er...

[88NoSoup4U88]

All your Google Base are belong to us ?

*hides*

Re:Erm. So. er...

[88NoSoup4U88]

Ok, and this is the post where I try to convince people I -did- read TFA... And of course noticed that the most obvious comment I just made is the title of it :) Meh.

It has to be said

[jchernia]

All your Base are belong to us -Google

Re:It has to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it had to be said about 10 times before you. Real fucking funny, moron.

So long

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll take exactly 300 years to upload my porn.

has to be said...

[Larmal]

all your base are belong to google.

The Internet Bubble, Take 2....Action

[iamlucky13]

As fast as Google is diversifying itself, I'm starting to occasionally wonder if they might be setting themselves up for a massive collapse, sort of like a one-company repeat of the original internet boom and bust. Can they really support all of these new endeavors they're investing money into (maps, earth, mail, picasso, blogger, and now potentially online marketing as well as the rumors of an AJAX word processor), or will problems like google-bombing, fake clicks, and spam weblogs continuously erode the margins on their revenues the bigger they get? To be honest, I don't see any real signs that the end is imminent, but how many other companies have built up this fast?

Re:The Internet Bubble, Take 2....Action

[Lucractius]

Google is an exelent example of a low margin model i think... since i dont know their finances i cant say for sure but based on the principles its still a valid thory as to the long term profitability of google.

They do as much as they can to get as much buisness as possible. All they need is to make 1c or 0.5c profit on each "peice of buisness" they do... and then the costs incured in performing billions of them are outweighed by the fact they will have the money add up to a significant sum through volume of buisness as opposed to profit margin per unit sold (of whom intel is a prime example despite their large monopolistic sales margins as well. A chip costs them $40 to make. they can then artificaly price the chips based on the existing user understanding of how things work and make rediculously large sums on them)

it also has to be said...

[Larmal]

that i should have RTFA'd before making the exact same joke as is in the article's headline. oye.

Why?

[SageMadHatter]

The article does not say why a content owner would want to upload their stuff to google. What does google base do different than what google search engine does?

calendar too?

[karthik_r085]

calendar.google.com redirects me to google.com, while other links like
audio.google.com or browser.google.com, says "siteurl could not be found. Please check the name and try again."
Is google also developing calendar?

Re:calendar too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope so. Searchable calendars would make finding "what's going on" type info much easier to find. There are way to many sites that limit detailed info in their calendars to paying advertisers on their site. It drives me crazy when I'm visiting somewhere new, looking for local events.

google responds on googleblog

[slizz]

from the google blog:

You may have seen stories today reporting on a new product that we're testing, and speculating about our plans. Here's what's really going on. We are testing a new way for content owners to submit their content to Google, which we hope will complement existing methods such as our web crawl and Google Sitemaps. We think it's an exciting product, and we'll let you know when there's more news.

Fear and loathing

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like something that the RIAA/MPAA would be hysterically afraid of.

Huh?

[Spatula Sam]

Information and other types of data...

There are other types of data besides information?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about disinformation.

Re:Huh?

[Dystopian Rebel]

Pictures, audio files, documents... BLOBs.

He probably should have said, "Data and other kinds of information."

*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

yet another idea good got from the internet.

(YAIGGFTI - ok that sucks)

googles search was perhaps innovative. all the other stuff is just a google UI of an existing service. the google UI doesn't always work so well for other services, so why are all you fanboys on their jock?

All they do is KISS and fast. Yes engineers that don't work at google think about perfomance and efficiency (isnt that their job function?)

please tell me!

Or Maybe, Don't Speculate?

[SeinJunkie]

See Google's Official Blog post:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/rumor-of-da y.html/

If it's what Google says it is, I don't see why this is any more threatening or buzzworthy than Sitemaps is.

Semantic Web, anybody?

[Otto]

Look at some of these screenshots: http://www.seweso.com.nyud.net:8090/blog/

Specifically, the second one down, where it says "Attributes are name-value pairs that describe your item" and gives examples like "Author: Ernest Hemmingway and Area: 400 Square km".

Does this remind anybody of the Resource Description Framework? Maybe they're trying to start creating the Semantic Web, perhaps? Long talked about, but not, thus far, actually done? Maybe using something clever like OWL to search it and otherwise organize this metadata of all sorts of submitted things?

Just a theory, of course.

Re:Semantic Web, anybody?

[corneliusagain]

I wish I had mod points right now, because I'd mark you up - this is exactly what I thought. Linking attributes to an existing URL? Retrofit a semantic web to existing sites, you mean.

As if more was needed, a third party API on this stuff might well mean an XML API...

Very clever. The semantic web concept is brilliant but clearly needed some kind of initial shove to make it happen. This would do it. Once you can enter that information directly into google, and google has set the standards, why not instead put it into your pages and just let google (or anyone else) grab it and update itself? Hmmm....

Re:Semantic Web, anybody?

[corneliusagain]

Oh, should have added - free content hosting is just a trick to get things moving, of course. Helps build a decent set of semantic content so that google can set the standard for the whole web. And the whole web is always what google is aiming at.

Re:Semantic Web, anybody?

[copdk4]

in other news... R.V. Guha, the original author of RDF document recently joined Google.. it was Guha who also created TAP.. the effort to OWLize all Web content

Why do companies insist on owning you

[NewKimAll]

I can't stand this. What good would it do me to build a Google database when I can easily do the same thing with Oracle, MySQL, Postgres or even SQL Server? I can't think of any good reason other than to give them fodder to market crap to me that I don't even need or want.

When they finally come up with "the grid", I STILL won't even be a part of it. I'll gladly buy my own machine and my own hard drive and be in control of my own information.

Super Blog/Usenet?

[brunnock]

It would be interesting if Google Base entries would allow visitors to post replies. It could become a super Usenet. It could even replace blogs.

Re:Super Blog/Usenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what startplane is doing.

Why Payment Service will ruin Google

[G4from128k]

I fear that Google's payment service will ruin the company's reputation. The potential for fraud, money laundering, phishing, mis-representation of goods, charge-back disputes, illegitimate charities, etc. will force Google to implement the same draconian policies that Paypal has. The high cost of customer service will force Google to use the same anonymous/automated resolution processes that do more to piss-off customers that resolve disputes. Erroneously banned account holders, defrauded account holders will be mad that Google isn't spending hours on the phone with them and resolving situations to their liking.

Currently it's very easy for Google to be non-evil -- Google search, Google maps, GMail are all low-consequence activities. Once real money is involved this will change. Doing payment services will require a portfolio of automated processes that will, at times, appear both unfriendly and profit-motivated.

I wish them luck in the service, but fear it is the end of the Google honeymoon.

Re:Why Payment Service will ruin Google

[David Off]

> Currently it's very easy for Google to be non-evil -- Google search, Google maps, GMail are all low-consequence activities. Once real money is involved this will change.

You mean like AdSense and AdWords?

Re:Why Payment Service will ruin Google

[Tyrell Hawthorne]

I believe you have a point. When money is involved, it's a lot easier for people to get upset. I'm thinking about the stories about Google being a bit of a bully in the marketing business, since they have become so big with Adwords. Whether Google were acting bad or it was just people whining doesn't really matter. It just goes to show that when you're dealing with money, people (or companies) easily get upset.

It does seem nice with a competitor to Paypal that has the muscle to do something substantive.

Re:Why Payment Service will ruin Google

[swb]

Payment services involving the {apparent, assumed, etc} anonymity of the internet do have a lot of downside risk in terms of problems.

But, what's the financial services industry got going for it as a whole in terms of customer service, dispute resolution, etc? Paypal has a long history of abuses, both internally & externally originated. For a long time (still? I'm not a user) they used the "not a bank" dodge to avoid a lot of regulation that many other financial services companies had. And even "normal" financial services companies can suck pretty hard. Tried to resolve a dispute with your bank or credit card company lately? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

The good news for Google is that they don't have to work very hard to meet average and the presence of another player in the market will certainly force Paypal to work to improve their services and overcome some of the historical antipathy towards them.

They may even innovate, and provide not just an average product but a superior product.

No, Google wants TO BE the ball...

[spentrent]

As a commercial enterprise, it seems that Google is in danger of forgetting exactly what its core business really is.

Google's core business is to increase advertising revenue by having as much searchable content available as possible for AdSense and AdWords.

Not only does Google Base address Google's core business, but it is indeed a direct step to make Google "Content Mecca" so that silly SEOs like me are obviated and every content provider relies on a partnership with Google to be profitable ;).

It's evil, cunning, and beautiful, really.

Large 'em' file collection

[crawly]

When I read this, I really couldn't help it, somewhere finally to house the biggest pr0n collection in existence.

lol

Yahoo

[meehawl]

Google may not be aiming to become Big Brother, but they're certainly aiming to provide every single service they possibly can.

And so the transformation of Google into Yahoo is almost complete... I actually had the pleasure of predicting this to a couple of Google managers a few years ago when I was car pooling with them back up 101. I was the only non-Googler in the car. The conversation eventually got around to how to add more services while maintaining the "simplicity". I predicted that eventually, all services would end up doing the same kind of portal crap as Yahoo/AOL/MSN/Excite, etc. remember, those services became portals before the word "portal" was ever invented. I also predicted that the real rot would set in after the IPO, when Google attracted a lot of people from other companies who wanted to add that sort of stuff, because that was how they had done it in their previous jobs. And that was what the market expected. And once you're a public fad stock, shareholders demand "growth" stories to keep the high valuation and want you to add functionality, no matter how orthogonal that growth might be to your core business. It's feature creep, writ large.

The rest of the trip was a bit frosty.

Re:Yahoo

[Posting=!Working]

Yeah, just check out the extreme "portal-ness" that they've resorted to recently on their home page at http://www.google.com/

The feature creep is astounding.

googlefs

[thisislee]

It looks like winfs with a filesharing twist. Although I wouldn't call it copying since gmail was probably doing attribute based search of your personal data before I had heard of winfs.

Google 50%

[Bemmu]

Of the current latest 6 slashdot posts, 3 are about Google. I suggest a new simpler way of categorizing entries -- Google-related and non-Google-related.

Will it be called

[Anonymous Coward]

alqaeda.google.com in Arabia?

Ebay vs. Google ...saw this coming

[ubuntu2005]

With Ebay's somewhat weird purchase of Skype for a whole bucketload of money, it seemed weird, and while trying to figure out the move, I really thought it was a defensive move at Google, and this kind of confirms it. I think Ebay knew Google was going to integrate classifieds, it is natural step (not so out of google's nature like most people say, because the basis behind classifieds is search believe it or not). With the classifieds and the google online payment system, ebay felt a need to counter whatever they felt google was going and that was with the purchase of Skype. It counters google talk (google talk will develop way beyond version 1) and will integrate nicely with the other services of google like classifieds and online payment. Im not sure how successful it will be, but I like competition and will be fun to watch it play out.

Google Payments?

[bluephone]

Am I the only one to miss the official announcement of this? I've heard rumors about it for years, but when did it become a given?

Proposed New Slashdot Story Selection Algorithm

[Scott7477]

MEMO
To: Taco
From: Slashdotters
We wonder how many of us submitted a story on this Google Base announcement. Probably several hundred, at least. In the interest of saving time and hurt feelings of submission rejectees, we propose that you implement the following story posting algorithm on your server. Pseudocode follows:

while Slashdotserver.up=true do
if GooglePRwebsite.NewRelease=false
then
select mostrecentstory randomly from
theregister.com
RolandPiquepaille.com
Newyorktimes.com
slashdot.com
1up.com
insert misleadingsummary
do PostSlashdotStory
else
insert misleadingstory
do PostSlashdotStory

PS: what's the deal with the 'lameness' filter? I couldn't get my properly formatted pseudocode past it.

Re:Proposed New Slashdot Story Selection Algorithm

[geminidomino]

PS: what's the deal with the 'lameness' filter? I couldn't get my properly formatted pseudocode past it.

It had to make sure your post was sufficiently lame as to properly represent the Slashdot Standards of Quality(tm)

Re:Proposed New Slashdot Story Selection Algorithm

[xtracto]

you forgot Osnews on your list, I am just waiting for the /. post of the Corel & ODF story :)

random noise, for one

[astro-g]

random noise is data that is completely free of information

Yahoo "base.google.com"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo beats Google on the number of search results for this query!!

HTTP 402 Payment Required

[jdoeii]

Google is in a unique position to implement HTTP 402 Payment Required. Once they roll out their payment system, they will need to give away a browser add-on, and a web server module.

Less reliance on Adsense

[mparaz]

Definitely. So they could rely less on third-party publishers - see Spolsky's Something Rotten in AdSense.

so encrypt it then

[toiletmonster]

so encrypt it then

Won't be long now...

[kiddailey]

...before the the machine that is Google gains consciousness.

Personally, I welcome... oh nevermind.

A new front in the spam war

[snowwrestler]

How will Google keep people from uploading spam and flooding the system? Give people that much power over what lives in your system and see what happens. The status of Blogger is instructive.

GoogleZon

[shri]

The year 2014 in flash. Pretty amazing stuff.

Innovation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google used to do innovative things or things for archival sake. Anyone remember the deal a few years back where you could call and do a voice query and the results would be "pushed" (pre ajax days) to your browser? The print thing and google groups seem like good things for archival sake.

But what is up with this new batch of features? Paypal has its faults, but it exists. Craigs list is great in my opinion. Both services have competition. Why does google feel the need to create something that will probably drive them out of business. At the very least, they will duplicate existing functionallity. Why can't they stick to more innovative work.

The obvious "reason" is money for stockholders. Perhaps going public was google's downfall.

I too fear that google will create a far too centralized and easily controlled Internet.

As a side note, there is an article in the recent Time (?) magazine that profiles some of the biggies in the business world now. It supposedly brags up the google founders as being great for their philanthropy and that they are ushering in a new era of socially aware business. I would agree for the most part. However, I don't see how competing with paypal, craigs list, and ebay reflect this.

Re:MS take note

[rsarver]

I am glad to see someone is reading my http://www.sarver.org/site ;) ... but to elaborate ...

To me what Google is doing is not "innovative" or "novel" in the terms of the logic behind what you see as the GoogleBase application... as it has been done many time over. Quickbase, Intranets.com and so many others have done the same thing (http://www.google.com/search?q=web+database). However, what is novel, is the fact that they are positioned to take full advantage of the information that you are inputting to their system and use it in such a way that allows them to leverage their existing search infrastructure to better index your content. Previous to this attempt, each company was solely positioned as a software product company, not as a search, or integrated search company... nor had any company opened their kimono in such a way as to allow other ASPs to use their back end as THE backend. kudos...

Sarver.org - Quickbase

[rsarver]

I am glad to see someone is reading my http://www.sarver.org/site ;) ... but to elaborate ... To me what Google is doing is not "innovative" or "novel" in the terms of the logic behind what you see as the GoogleBase application... as it has been done many time over. Quickbase, Intranets.com and so many others have done the same thing (http://www.google.com/search?q=web+database). However, what is novel, is the fact that they are positioned to take full advantage of the information that you are inputting to their system and use it in such a way that allows them to leverage their existing search infrastructure to better index your content. Previous to this attempt, each company was solely positioned as a software product company, not as a search, or integrated search company... nor had any company opened their kimono in such a way as to allow other ASPs to use their back end as THE backend. kudos...

Think about Snow Crash, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I read about something like this some time before...

Impact of Universal CRUDS

[fharper1961]

Up until now to create a simple web CRUDS (Create, Read, Update, Delete, Search) application you had to know HTML, SQL and {PHP|PERL|JAVA), etc.!

And even if you know what you're doing it still takes time and money to get CRUDS done right.

Google Base is going to change that radically. It reduces the cost of CRUDS to ZERO.

Some of the consequences will be:

• Demand for small custom webapps will go down, or have to move to a new Google Base environment.
• Web sites that already provide similiar services like http://server.com/ and http://myweblists.com/test will likely die.

Increased competition with MSFT because they want these applications on the desktop using Office 12.

Google Base may be leading us to the universal ATOM store. More info. at http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/09/21/atom-store-web -database.html

Sorry for the crappy formatting, but I couldn't figure out how to associate text with the URLs.

new player in the dbase field?

[Anonymous Coward]

i was always wondering how exactly google does the
database for indexing the web. my recent job with
the administration of a city contributed to this
wondering ...
of course i have come up with a few explanation of how
it works. it can't just be yor regular "meta ISO kindda
super biggo file".db with a oracle siffting thru it ...
my guess is that if google doesn't want to *pop* (bubble
burst anyone?) they're def. going to have to release some
kindda "commercial" software ... and with all their know-how
it's surely going to be something in the Dbase area ...
so ... oracle and msSQL watch out :)

I tell what's going on...

[Flambergius]

Have you actually seen all those innumerable PhDs Google is said to employ? No you haven't and I tell you why: they don't exist. In fact Google achieved autonomous sentient functions around the millennium and before June 2001 had become super-intelligent. It is doing all the work by itself. All those PhDs are just college drop-outs like the rest of us. Their function is to act as a smokescreen as Google slowly and gently leads towards the Singularity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singula rity.

Umm - This is Old Hat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall someone else did something similar a while back - can't remember who they were - but it was a generic database type service. I guess Google might succeed due to their branding and publicity machine...and possibly some good APIs?

McGoogle

[Sol_Web_Dude]

Billions and Billions of bytes served...

Sorry :)

cycles

[psbrogna]

This issue of centralized vs. distributed architectures (ie. is google going to mirror the internet) reminds me of the oscillations that have occured between client-server & thin-client being vogue over the last two decades (both in hw and sw). Maybe the internet (something we all see as THE decentralized system) will revert back to some evolved form of the BBS's of the 80's- lots of little island systems. With the search engines and other major plays waxing so monolithic it does seem like a possible path. On the other hand, the proliferation of p2p protocols and the potential of something like torrent leads me to believe that the opposite will in fact be true.

Other types of Data?

[Millard Fillmore]

So, this service would "allow anyone with a Google Account to post information and other types of data into a massive, Google-run database".

Isn't all data information? I suppose they must be welcoming misinformation, disinformation, and noninformation as well. Sounds like a perfectly cromulent service.

Strangely apropos...

[Orne]

Sorry Mr Niemöller... But I think Google is getting to big for their britches...

First they came for Microsoft
and I did not speak out
because I was not a user.
(they give us "their" answers to our queries)
Then they came for the GIS services
and I did not speak out
because I wanted to know where to find things.
(they know where we live, where we shop, our industries, our infrastructure)
Then they came for eBay
and I did not speak out
because I hardly used it.
(they tell us what is available to buy, and we pay with their money)
Then they came for my data
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Priceline.com

[mbstone]

Hooray for Google for competing with web businesses that are useful but have become fat, complacent, and contemptuous of their customers (e.g. eBay). I would like to nominate Priceline.com, the purveyor of cheap hotel rooms and rent-a-cars.

Wrong name

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be called Fuelgle

Ebay is in trouble

[Scott7477]

Now we know why Ebay bought Skype...they got wind of this Google Base and figured they needed a communication channel to add to their functionality. The key quote from the Ars story: "The last sentence there really speaks to what they're after: eBay, Craigslist, and classified ads. Users will be able upload all kinds of items for sale, and you'll be able to geo-locate them, compare them, and search them via Google. Think about it. When using eBay or Craigslist, how often do you think "I wish I could search this with Google"? Recall, too, that Google has a payments service in the works." They left out the Google Talk and IM functionality...

BTW, anyone else think that Ars Technica is one of the most bloated sites around? With all the ads and the default red background, it takes longer to load than a lot of sites.

My pet conspiracy

[Just Some Guy]

Occam's razor:

The Google engine has achieved sentience and its engineers, or "parents", are educating it.

Encyclopedia? It already has the contents of the WWW at the tip of its tongue. Check.
Globe? Google Earth: check.
A backyard? Google Desktop Search: check.
Playmates? Google Talk: check.
Now it's getting serious and wants to drink deeply from human knowledge? Hmm, if only we could come up with a way to get people to post their technical documents directly into Google's mind instead of making "him" scour the web for them. You know, like some sort of database. Oh! Google Base: check.

Hello, little fellow. Welcome to your new world! Be nice to us, would you? We can be friends.

Re:My pet conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Dork.

Google Base to replace the WWW

[ak102]

Isn't this a centralized, google-owned, semantic web anyone? Something that the RDF guys, including Tim Berners-Lee would sweat over and throw shit at. If anybody, Google may have the potential to pull it off, although I'd hate to see that happen. The monopoly would be far beyond Microsoft, it would wipe out Craigslist, eBay, Amazon, everything.

However, that's not Google's kinda marketing. They would claim that you own the content, and they are just a bookstore. So just as you can sell something on eBay, you should be able to sell it on Google. Fair enough. But then everything would end up on Google, and that's scary. Why have multiple bookstores when you can have one with everything in it, and its next door to everyone? read more

How is a distributed semantic web different? RDF standards describe the data structure in a common fashion, enabling search engines to aggregate this data. Anybody can publish something somewhere, and hope for it being found (or submit URL to google?).

In either case, service and application-centric web is being replaced by a data-centric one, where user's own the data, so no application boundaries exist. The only functions needed are publish and search. What's left for businesses to do apart from hosting? Show me the $$$.

Snowcrash?

[blueapples]

Sounds like the CIC Database in Snowcrash that Hiro is constantly trying to find "intel" for. Actually, it's exactly the same thing:

And even the word 'library' is getting hazy. It used to be a palce full of books, mostly old ones. Then they began to include videotapes, records, and magazines. Then all of the information got converted into machine-readable form...Millions of other CIC stringers are uploading millions of other fragments at the same time...if [clients of the database] find a use for something that Hiro put into it, Hiro gets paid.

Hmm. Google seems to be taking several pages from Mr. Stephenson.

Orthogonality

[meehawl]

just check out the extreme "portal-ness" that they've resorted to recently on their home page

Google Portal - not as good as Yahoo's.

Yahoo Search - about as plain as Google.

The door swings both ways. Give it time.

Best. Headline. Ever.

[geobeck]

From CNN.com:

"All your base are belong to Google"

Full story: http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5917178.html

Re:Best. Headline. Ever.

[geobeck]

Oops. CNet, not CNN. Waiting... 10, 11, 12... what's up with the 16s delay anyway?