That was a good read - thanks for sharing the insight. I honestly didn't look at the POV of google reducing profit margins on its competitor's services, that it offers, in order to squeeze them out. They get a 2for: more customers and fewer competitors. Smart move really.
I do want to share the fact that I haven't used Wave, you are correct. Based on your description of Wave and what I perceived it to be from reading articles and seeing demos, I am still correct in my analysis. Here is an old writeup of Groove before MS was involved. MS eventually bought it and well, it is what it is. The point being that all that integration and synchronization you described was done, integrated with MS word and Outlook, 7 years ago.
Based on your description of Google's strategy I can't help but notice they're trying to pull people away from, in general, a thick-client model. Even PCs, hell even Notebooks, are too thick for the cloud. I can see Google wanting access to light-weight devices: phones, etc. Perhaps call them "Thin" clients? Maybe the could will one day have a way of allocating(sharing) time among all these light-weight devices, giving each just the amount of resources it needs.
By now you're realized that this time sharing model is a mainframe, just like we had 40 years ago. Please don't misunderstand, I comprehend that things move in waves/cycles - my beef comes from us(the industry) not innovating this time around. When I see people call a design or technology "revolutionary" and I've seen this same feature-set before(I'm only 30) it honest-to-god makes me wonder why there are people that act like this is brand new stuff.
This isn't a coke vs. pepsi thing. I can run MS excel with 20 megs of ram. Google spreedsheet in firefox takes over 100 megs of ram. An ftp socket and script to upload my excel file somewhere for sharing doesn't account for 80 megs worth of space complexity: 400% more resources than the thick client app! Once more, someone could have a macro in excel that does the uploading with one-click, so grandma can do it, and maybe you'll see 21 megs of ram used. I just don't understand why we aren't see new and DIFFERNT types of software instead of office applications, photo editors, audio editors, 3d games, and anything else you've used before appear on the web, but with Social 3.0!
I'm all about the right tool for the right job: I don't care who makes it as long as it works well, is reliable and efficient. Google does a lot of things, none particularly well, sans advertising; Wolfram even has better search then they do and I really to hate to say this, but Bing has decent results. (i still default to google search though)
You missed the point entirely!! REUSE IS A GOOD THING PROVIDED YOU BUILD ON THE FOUNDATION. Google doesn't reuse ideas or technology to create new things, they just repackage and recycle existing technology. Pagerank was the last innovation they had.
If the internet is supposed to be an app platform, why not develop a remote app delivery protocol for running native applications? Why rely on a web browser, which was first developed to view static, magazine-like pages that have links to other pages? That gets you thinking about other things that were supposed to deliver cross-platform remote apps in the past, like Java. But it didn't take over.
Are you saying that if all of those tabs were individual traditional native applications that they wouldn't have the same storage requirements?
Exactly correct. Open firefox into google apps' spreadsheet then open MS excel. I just did and excel took ~21 MB of ram and FF used over 100 MB of ram. Running apps in a browser is adding another layer of work the hardware has to do: you're introducing inefficiencies.
This is the mother of all 'get off my lawn' arguments. Using existing technology is what brings us most innovations. In fact, using existing technology is what every programmer does.
I'm really not flaming you, but you missed my points almost entirely. Google isn't simply "using" existing technology - they are repackaging existing technologies. Outlook with Groove was doing "Google Wave" 7 years ago, albeit in a win32 app. Google is using the web browser as a proxy for software, essentially trying to get the write-once,run-anywhere grail that java had as a goal.
A web browser should never, and I mean NEVER, need half a gig of memory to view my open tabs - but FF 3.5 does frequently because of all the JS that it's running. It's one thing to evolve a technology(Web, html, other 2.0 synonyms), quite another to bastardize it into a swiss army knife.
No. Sharepoint is a marketing term covering a disparate range of collaborative applications from Microsoft. Similar to how the.NET label was a marketing label for a bunch of disparate technologies.
Google Wave is a single innovative new technology on which many collaborative tools are and may be built.
Do you work for google PR? Sharepoint is a portal server and a webapp framework. Disparate huh?
Google is probably one of the most if not the most innovative companies in the world, I wouldn't be surprised if they have just created the next generation of communication!
Are you kidding? Again, Google has cobbled together existing technology and instead of learning the lesson that SMTP taught US 25 years ago Google is content to have something else that will live in beta for years. Why create new technology when you can duct tape existing things together?
While I'm teetering on the brink of ranting, so Google is releasing an OS, while they continue to overload the web browser with javascript and flash in an effort to turn it into an operating system. Again, we've already done this. We have these tools already. It's called a Native Application. Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app. Maybe some QT/OpenGL? Writing all these applications for the browser is putting a square peg in a round hole.
I want my flying cars. I was promised flying cars......
I can't see any legitimate provider capping power usage. We have 20A running to a client rack by default - if they need more circuits we charge them per circuit. The only place I can see people wanting to make an argument for capping power usage is if a provider has oversold their power infrastructure and is starting to feel the pinch because they're not charging enough. Same goes for bandwidth: if you want to price things cheaper and cheaper to attract customer, I believe it';s unethical to then raise rates after-the-fact because of poor planning/forecasting.
Those $0.99 domain registrations? Companies make their money up other places - like selling you addons, making it difficult to move, etc. Try using a smaller domain provider that has their system automated and doesn't pay people to come up with new ways to lock you in. Everything from requiring you to make other purchases after 12 months to only providing the domain registration with another pay service, that was free in the beginning.
It's a shameless plug, but we do domain registration for our clients but it's more for convenience than anything.
The problem is their product is not better. All I hear from the google camp is how they like the simple gmail interface, labels, threading, etc. I have yet to hear of any new features in GMail that haven't existed in another kit for many years.
Just as background: we run everything. Exchange, Zimbra, Linux, OpenBSD, Solaris, IRIX (I know!), etc... The fact is you pick the right tool for the right job. So many people try and tell me how great their iPhones are because they can now copy/paste things. I hear the same about GMail when users got IMAP[revolutionary] access.
Do you want to know why users have trouble switching to another platform? Because they have better things to do. More than likely their job is not related to fiddling with new Kernels or tweaking PHP. Why should they spend more time relearning something(sending email for example) when the new system doesn't do anything more efficiently?
This should have dramatically lower memory requirements than Windows XP, and it will run on non-x86 processors.
I've had version 3.0 of browsers eat up 1.7 Gigs of RAM before crashing. Windows ME never even needed that much, and ME was a POS...... If you think this thing is going to run better than any existing app then I have some waterfront property to sell you. Keep in mind google is once again not innovating, just cobbling together existing design patterns/software/hardware.
No, the fact he obsessed with children, and wanted them to share a bed with him made him bad. Just because you don't know something is wrong, doesn't make it right.
No worse than sleepovers when kids are young. It's not hard to find content about how people described MJ as a "manchild". With all his money he created a bubble from the outside - his own world. He built a private amusement park for chirst sake! IMO, he didn't do anything illicit with those kids, but even doing something like a "sleepover" between an adult and a kid is wrong, but again, he didn't know any better. The fact he didn't realize in the greater context of society that what he did was improper, it allowed people to take advantage for financial benefit.
As I said earlier, if those parents didn't plan to extort money and were truly concerned for their children, they wouldn't have settled.
Probably 75% of the sales go to teenage girls who love overdubbed, synthesized music and guys who look like girls.
The jackson 5 didn't use synth's or much, if any, dubbing.
What I take issue with is that MJ was someone who clearly was never happy with himself - so much so that given his resources he did everything possible to alter his self-image. I think there are many people out there that can relate to what MJ displayed publicly, only most people have the luxury of dealing with most issues privately. Granted MJ was paid well for his life in the spotlight, but what is different about MJ from other celebs is that he lived his entire life in the spotlight - he knew nothing else. MJ is someone that excelled at entertainment but failed at life, and it wasn't his fault - it's all he knew.
That thing with the molestation/extortion? Look at his interview with that reporter - MJ honest to god didn't think there was anything wrong with sleeping in a bed with kid(s). He looked at that reporter like a dear-in-headlights and couldn't figure out why the reporter was making an issue of it. MJ was naive: that doesn't make him bad, it makes him a target.
Slashdot Mirror
great, so it can thrash the disk when GWT needs to dynamically create 20k objects for my spreadsheet....... =)
That was a good read - thanks for sharing the insight. I honestly didn't look at the POV of google reducing profit margins on its competitor's services, that it offers, in order to squeeze them out. They get a 2for: more customers and fewer competitors. Smart move really.
I do want to share the fact that I haven't used Wave, you are correct. Based on your description of Wave and what I perceived it to be from reading articles and seeing demos, I am still correct in my analysis. Here is an old writeup of Groove before MS was involved. MS eventually bought it and well, it is what it is. The point being that all that integration and synchronization you described was done, integrated with MS word and Outlook, 7 years ago.
Based on your description of Google's strategy I can't help but notice they're trying to pull people away from, in general, a thick-client model. Even PCs, hell even Notebooks, are too thick for the cloud. I can see Google wanting access to light-weight devices: phones, etc. Perhaps call them "Thin" clients? Maybe the could will one day have a way of allocating(sharing) time among all these light-weight devices, giving each just the amount of resources it needs.
By now you're realized that this time sharing model is a mainframe, just like we had 40 years ago. Please don't misunderstand, I comprehend that things move in waves/cycles - my beef comes from us(the industry) not innovating this time around. When I see people call a design or technology "revolutionary" and I've seen this same feature-set before(I'm only 30) it honest-to-god makes me wonder why there are people that act like this is brand new stuff.
This isn't a coke vs. pepsi thing. I can run MS excel with 20 megs of ram. Google spreedsheet in firefox takes over 100 megs of ram. An ftp socket and script to upload my excel file somewhere for sharing doesn't account for 80 megs worth of space complexity: 400% more resources than the thick client app! Once more, someone could have a macro in excel that does the uploading with one-click, so grandma can do it, and maybe you'll see 21 megs of ram used. I just don't understand why we aren't see new and DIFFERNT types of software instead of office applications, photo editors, audio editors, 3d games, and anything else you've used before appear on the web, but with Social 3.0!
I'm all about the right tool for the right job: I don't care who makes it as long as it works well, is reliable and efficient. Google does a lot of things, none particularly well, sans advertising; Wolfram even has better search then they do and I really to hate to say this, but Bing has decent results. (i still default to google search though)
You missed the point entirely!! REUSE IS A GOOD THING PROVIDED YOU BUILD ON THE FOUNDATION. Google doesn't reuse ideas or technology to create new things, they just repackage and recycle existing technology. Pagerank was the last innovation they had.
If the internet is supposed to be an app platform, why not develop a remote app delivery protocol for running native applications? Why rely on a web browser, which was first developed to view static, magazine-like pages that have links to other pages? That gets you thinking about other things that were supposed to deliver cross-platform remote apps in the past, like Java. But it didn't take over.
There is one, it's called X11. =)
Are you saying that if all of those tabs were individual traditional native applications that they wouldn't have the same storage requirements?
Exactly correct. Open firefox into google apps' spreadsheet then open MS excel. I just did and excel took ~21 MB of ram and FF used over 100 MB of ram. Running apps in a browser is adding another layer of work the hardware has to do: you're introducing inefficiencies.
The don't need to be perfect - they just need to be substantially different in a productive way.
This is the mother of all 'get off my lawn' arguments. Using existing technology is what brings us most innovations. In fact, using existing technology is what every programmer does.
I'm really not flaming you, but you missed my points almost entirely. Google isn't simply "using" existing technology - they are repackaging existing technologies. Outlook with Groove was doing "Google Wave" 7 years ago, albeit in a win32 app. Google is using the web browser as a proxy for software, essentially trying to get the write-once,run-anywhere grail that java had as a goal.
A web browser should never, and I mean NEVER, need half a gig of memory to view my open tabs - but FF 3.5 does frequently because of all the JS that it's running. It's one thing to evolve a technology(Web, html, other 2.0 synonyms), quite another to bastardize it into a swiss army knife.
> Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app.
How is that going to get them more eyeballs to sell to their advertisers?
well-played sir, well played.
No. Sharepoint is a marketing term covering a disparate range of collaborative applications from Microsoft. Similar to how the .NET label was a marketing label for a bunch of disparate technologies.
Google Wave is a single innovative new technology on which many collaborative tools are and may be built.
Do you work for google PR? Sharepoint is a portal server and a webapp framework. Disparate huh?
Google is probably one of the most if not the most innovative companies in the world, I wouldn't be surprised if they have just created the next generation of communication!
Are you kidding? Again, Google has cobbled together existing technology and instead of learning the lesson that SMTP taught US 25 years ago Google is content to have something else that will live in beta for years. Why create new technology when you can duct tape existing things together?
While I'm teetering on the brink of ranting, so Google is releasing an OS, while they continue to overload the web browser with javascript and flash in an effort to turn it into an operating system. Again, we've already done this. We have these tools already. It's called a Native Application. Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app. Maybe some QT/OpenGL? Writing all these applications for the browser is putting a square peg in a round hole.
I want my flying cars. I was promised flying cars......
I can't see any legitimate provider capping power usage. We have 20A running to a client rack by default - if they need more circuits we charge them per circuit. The only place I can see people wanting to make an argument for capping power usage is if a provider has oversold their power infrastructure and is starting to feel the pinch because they're not charging enough. Same goes for bandwidth: if you want to price things cheaper and cheaper to attract customer, I believe it';s unethical to then raise rates after-the-fact because of poor planning/forecasting.
Those $0.99 domain registrations? Companies make their money up other places - like selling you addons, making it difficult to move, etc. Try using a smaller domain provider that has their system automated and doesn't pay people to come up with new ways to lock you in. Everything from requiring you to make other purchases after 12 months to only providing the domain registration with another pay service, that was free in the beginning. It's a shameless plug, but we do domain registration for our clients but it's more for convenience than anything.
It's every other major OS release that sucks from Microsoft. It's not an accident either.
anyone?? =)
google.
honestly, i dont know whether if he is. he surely sounds like one.
he's as much an MS shill as you are based on your post. Christ, you fanbois are out in force today.....
being popular does not beget a monopoly: it's good business execution.
mod parent up.
The problem is their product is not better. All I hear from the google camp is how they like the simple gmail interface, labels, threading, etc. I have yet to hear of any new features in GMail that haven't existed in another kit for many years.
Just as background: we run everything. Exchange, Zimbra, Linux, OpenBSD, Solaris, IRIX (I know!), etc... The fact is you pick the right tool for the right job. So many people try and tell me how great their iPhones are because they can now copy/paste things. I hear the same about GMail when users got IMAP[revolutionary] access.
Do you want to know why users have trouble switching to another platform? Because they have better things to do. More than likely their job is not related to fiddling with new Kernels or tweaking PHP. Why should they spend more time relearning something(sending email for example) when the new system doesn't do anything more efficiently?
MOD PARENT UP.
This should have dramatically lower memory requirements than Windows XP, and it will run on non-x86 processors.
I've had version 3.0 of browsers eat up 1.7 Gigs of RAM before crashing. Windows ME never even needed that much, and ME was a POS...... If you think this thing is going to run better than any existing app then I have some waterfront property to sell you. Keep in mind google is once again not innovating, just cobbling together existing design patterns/software/hardware.
No, we have blogs. Blogs are not even close to journalism.
NPR is not free - it's paid for by donations. I suggest you make some less you want to lose it.
No, the fact he obsessed with children, and wanted them to share a bed with him made him bad. Just because you don't know something is wrong, doesn't make it right.
No worse than sleepovers when kids are young. It's not hard to find content about how people described MJ as a "manchild". With all his money he created a bubble from the outside - his own world. He built a private amusement park for chirst sake! IMO, he didn't do anything illicit with those kids, but even doing something like a "sleepover" between an adult and a kid is wrong, but again, he didn't know any better. The fact he didn't realize in the greater context of society that what he did was improper, it allowed people to take advantage for financial benefit.
As I said earlier, if those parents didn't plan to extort money and were truly concerned for their children, they wouldn't have settled.
"Michael sold 750+ million albums."
Probably 75% of the sales go to teenage girls who love overdubbed, synthesized music and guys who look like girls.
The jackson 5 didn't use synth's or much, if any, dubbing. What I take issue with is that MJ was someone who clearly was never happy with himself - so much so that given his resources he did everything possible to alter his self-image. I think there are many people out there that can relate to what MJ displayed publicly, only most people have the luxury of dealing with most issues privately. Granted MJ was paid well for his life in the spotlight, but what is different about MJ from other celebs is that he lived his entire life in the spotlight - he knew nothing else. MJ is someone that excelled at entertainment but failed at life, and it wasn't his fault - it's all he knew.
That thing with the molestation/extortion? Look at his interview with that reporter - MJ honest to god didn't think there was anything wrong with sleeping in a bed with kid(s). He looked at that reporter like a dear-in-headlights and couldn't figure out why the reporter was making an issue of it. MJ was naive: that doesn't make him bad, it makes him a target.
RIP MJ. Hope you found happiness.