Have you really tried shitty voice dialling in a busy, noisy place? Or even in the comfort of your home? I wonder how many calls you make using your stylus or address book compared to voice? And BTW, how many buttons do you press, before the phone;s toy voice dialling brings up voice recognition?
2) No IM clients.
This I hope would be available in iPhone in an update soon. It already has IM like interface for SMS...
3) No Outlook syncing.
It does synch Contacts etc from Outlook. Maybe more would be available soon. Thats the beauty of having a software enabled device and is more prominently applicable in *A Software Enabled Interface*.
4) No easily swappable battery.
At 6-8 hours a charge and 400-500 charges, that would be at least 3-4 years before my battery runs out.
And considering that I can carry my charger wherever I go, Do I even care?
1. I don't have $600 spare change let alone $500 + $60 / month * 24 month (s) = $2040 spare change.
2. I have extensively seen and reviewed the phone features and how they work. I will wait for a 3rd or 4th gen. (with a better camera and GPS I hope, and any basic software bugs fixed) before putting down non spare change, hard earned money.
(Pressing the shift key with no visual indication seems like one such bug.)
3. I like to choose my own mobile phone provider, and need more features like swappable battery, memory etc. to condone marrying with a unfavoured provider like Cingular/AT&T.
4. Even if I don't program, like my computer, I like programmable devices. I would rather choose a device provider who would allow some programming like Nokia, Samsung or Sony Ericcson etc. Imagine if someone gave you a computer and said you can't do any programming or scripting on it.
5. iTunes is good, but is set in the number of interfaces that it supports. Why no Firefox or Thunderbird support is provided in it for iphones? At the very least a plugin architecture and support can let developers provide for this themselves. I don't like to be told what I can use and cannot use. I want to decide whats best for me from a wide range of possibilities.
Despite all these, I might plunk for an iPhone in 3rd or 4th iteration, if there are no other phones around with similar capability at the time.
I have been looking for the console everywhere in my neighbourhood but could not get a single one at any of the stores. I can't book it either, the sarcastic store owners, sure do like to see my face in their stores every weekend.
Maybe some day people will be able to run their own centralized server as cheaply... Will you re-evaluate your stand if they are able to? Centralized servers do have some utility after all.... ?
a slightly faster back button that people rarely use to begin with What are you talking about? I use the history back and forward all the time. It is especially nice when the back button takes you exactly to the place in the, page you moved forwards from.
Also all this memory related gripe, will be more irrelevant by the day. A Giga-Byte of Flash RAM is available for a few tens of bucks. How long can it be before a PC comes with many GBs of RAM?
the situation is not comparable; if your high street store is selling a copy of my television, and I still have the fully functional original, then I'm probably not going to get too bent out of shape over it. Doubly so if they're selling tiny low qality copies of my television. Hey, the television owner here is not the person who buys songs for personal use for a buck on iTunes. It is the artist who puts his life long effort at getting good at what he does and bringing it to you for your personal use *only*.
And the theft (or what you want to euphemise as only *copyright infringement*, which is just another name for theft of copyright) does affect the rights of the artist to publish the content himself in whatever manner he pleases. For instace, refer the case of small pictures on Google News that Google *lost*.
And fair use is a sensible thing, but in real fair use, the owner of the copyright is often attributed with a due reference. It stops where entire songs or clips or movies are available for 100 million users, and only removed if the owner actually runs through 100 hoops to raise a flag about his content being pirated.
You know I'm trying to imagine someone saying "Dude! No way am I buying the next season of CSI on DVD. Not when YouTube has five minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its grainy, compressed, low-res glory". I can't see it happening, somehow. Yes, but those five *interesting* minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its whatever form are not Googles property to publish. And is it fair use? I think not, because those collection of 5 minutes of clips can be marketed and made for profit, which is not Google's for free keeps.
As a corrollary, do you think Google or anybody else can fill their site with such 5 minutes for all the movies in the world and get away with it? Just because the users upload the copyright infringing content on GOogle's site, does not mean that Google is not liable for hosting it for 100 million people to use it.
Are you advocating a system where if you get sold something YOU have to contact anyone who may of had it stolen before you do anything about iy. When we buy music, movies and other media, what we are sold is the right to use it for personal use. Not republish it on you tube for Google to please 100 million users a day and make big bucks on rising profits and stock prices.
Nice trick with the misleading "stealing cars" analogy. The problem is, nothing is stolen by Youtube. You might want to think about things a little bit before you make up analogies that have nothing to do with anything. The analogy is only a little misfit, but very leading. Here is a better one for you to wrap your head around with:
"Imagine if I started up a car dealership and instead of paying for my own cars to stock my dealership, I let my clients (some or conveniently many, of whom who may be thieves) sell me stolen content from the rich dealer down the street. Then I polish and sell those at dirt cheap prices and, once I had sold enough of these stolen cars, I have enough customers and money and attention that I could afford to go legit."
Does this ring enough alarm bells in your ears, or do you prefer to buy cars cheaper, even if they might be stolen?
Imagine if I own a parking garage. I'm an innocent small business owner with no knowledge of investigative police work. Yet I am being sued because some moron parked a stolen car in my garage (which according to good business practices has an open-door policy). Dude, your analogy is all broken here. When people park their Lexus in the parking lot, the garage owner better not let 100 million other parkers drive away their car as and when they please.
Not that I disagree that a billion dollars is huge money, but I beg to differ about indicative damage.
Let me tell you a story. Imagine a store selling stolen televisions for dirt cheap on the high street. Millions of them. Even if they claim to have bought it in the first place from their clients before reselling it to their other clients, are they lawfully doing legal business?
Before we take this analogy to the digital "UGC", first I want to add my doubts that *most* of the so called "User Generated" content derived from media, has anything useful done by the user on it. And secondly, if you create a new Porsche, from stolen parts of other Porsches, does that make your Porsche legal? No? What about if you rent Porsches and then chop yourself a new Porsche from its parts? Is that one at least legally okay?
Now lets take this analogy to the User Generated content. Lets leave the fact that 99% of all main stream media derived "UG" content is actually just copyright theft by the "User". If an artist (or his agent) sells his art (or music, movie...) to the masses, we as a society grant the artist copyright, to encourage them to publish and distribute their art. This right enables them to make a living out of creating (or managing the creation) of their art, and benefits the society as a whole, in being able to enjoy the artists' creation without requiring his presence.
Do the 1% (or less) of the masses, have a right to deny the artist (or their agent) their means of livelihood, by using their content, and/or depriving them an opportunity of publish or license their content for similar usage, just because they bought their song on iTunes for a buck? I don't think so.
Now, lets put aside all this DCMA protection, and copyright related spin http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-725609124 7456149593 that people like Dr. Lawrence Lessig want to (or are paid to) spread. Would you want to have high street stores selling dirt cheap stolen televisions on a mass scale and get away with it? Would any sane person buy their argument that the store only bought these televisions from their clients, who did not want it anymore. And that if they are proven to be stolen, then they would remove them from sale. And that the onus of checking that the television is stolen is not on the store, but the poor chap who was mugged? Just imagine if you were mugged like this, then how many such stores you will have to visit and scan to find your old TV.
Now someone please tell me why the hell should Google (however cool their products may be) get away with copyright infringement, conveniently done for them by their "users", supposedly under the pretext of a DCMA?
I say, slap them with a billion here, and many more billions to come. (Then I can buy those bloody GOOG shares in peace:-), and for cheap. Or maybe not...)
I don't own a Mac, but I swear that my next laptop will be a Leopard tera-core sexy machine. And one of the reason for that is beautiful apps like Quick Silver.
If Apple had allowed unfettered access to the system, and permitted development of third-party apps in xcode, then yes, it would be a fabulous platform. Boy that would really be something. And I would be willing to pay twice the amount of $500 for such a platform with the iPhone.
Unix time runs out in 2038, we gotta see what that's like!
Actually 32 bit UNIX time runs out in 2038 (1970 + 2 ** 32 / 60 / 60 / 24 / 365 / 2 = 2038.09625976662)
In a couple of decades, I am kind of hoping that everyone and their dog would be running 64-bit or higher UNICES.
Not a single one of those people made there money on things that save peoples lives, or anything close.
All of them are good at making money.
If you restrict life saving to literally saving some ones life in an accident or something, then, yes it is not there. But, if you consider that a lot of time in your life is saved,
when someone invents a new gadget that cuts your computing time in half,
or when someone mass-markets it so you get it for half the price,
or when someone writes a software to get you do things 10 times as faster because of the faster processor,
or when someone brings along great people together who can write such software
or when someone who enables other people to buy such things cheaply from their neighbourhood stores
or when someone who does his homework on companies who are doing things right, makes a profit on it, inspiring an army of others
or when someone who entertains you for your money earned from using some or all of above,
1. Bill Gates There is no doubt that personal computers have brought a revolution to mankind. And Bill Gates, has been instrumental in building a machine (http://www.microsoft.com) which has been instrumental in this market. (And I don't want to talk about his philanthropic efforts, because even without that his contribution has been more than anyone else I respect)
2. Warren Buffet Investing in and cherry picking companies and industries which are worthy is an important element in market economy. It helps weed out the bad apples, and introduces an efficiency into the system. Buffet has created a legendary record in this field, and inspired a whole army of market players. This may not seem like contributing anything to the way a common man lives his life, but like the Sun is helping blossoming fruit bearing plants.
3. Sheldon Adelson A self made man, who provides what other men need to entertain themselves. No, may not save life, but certainly makes it worthwhile.
4. Larry Ellison What would I be using if there weren't an Oracle database (probably mysql or postgresql or even sqlite), some high cost product from IBM? Information age is based on the data flow life blood. Commoditization of databases, gives everyone cheaper infrastructure. (It also gives developers hierarchical queries:-))
5. Paul Allen A key partner who founded Microsoft. (But living off selling Microsoft shares since?)
6. Jim Walton Eats the fruits of his fathers efforts. But I am sure walmart has made everyones shopping affordable now?
7. Christy Walton Hey what are these Walton kids eating so much for? I wonder how much did the frickin' government of USA eat on Walton's death?
8. Robson Walton Three is a strike. I propose raising estate taxes to 70% excluding one decent home for the kids.
9. Michael Dell Fourth chap in this list from the Information age. I love cheaper p.c.'s and rhyming with Hell figured out how to get them to me. Sadly I prefer AMD chips, which he never used to sell before... But still lots of lives are saved here.
10. Alice Walton Did Old man Walton give anything to charity at all?
So, about half the people on the list deservedly need to be respected for the way they came from humble beginnings to contribute so much. And other half are due to Sam old man Walton who might have unceremoniously departed before he could have thought about charity or some other social contribution. But hey all the bucks that even he accumulated and left for his bounty litter, must be spent and given back to the society, or invested in it to make more of it, right?
1. Favourites. Why on earth did they not add this to Google Video? Of course people can book mark favourites on their browser, but not everybody carries Google Firefox Extension to synchronize bookmarks everywhere. And this could have given clearer picture about popularity of video contents too.
2. Hide Stuff, instead of view fullscreen. People do like to keep their desktops uncluttered. A button of keyboard shortcut or anything suitable to hide away the narrow right margin, instead of popping up a full screen would have been much more desirable.
3. Comments and labels were added very late.
4. No features to allow user to view history (Not even a frickin link to the GOogle Search history page), or organize use of Google Video content and features were provided. You tube has for instance, playlists (manipulatable, Gooogle Video only has automatic search playlist).
5. Search in Google Video was terrible. Most of the time I get totally unrelated video. Whereas, more often than not, viewing one item on YouTube, would almost in 80% of the cases, get you handy links to related content. You could be hooked on the site for almost entire browsing session.
6. Communities were better provided for in You Tube. Google Video does not have any community feel in Google Video.
Although the minimalistic interface worked fine for Google Search Site, it does not work for Video content sites. The main reason is, one would spend about few minutes searching for stuff, but substantially much more viewing (or reading) content which they have searched. And that is something which needs more usable features.
It misses out on some important features.
1. Favourites. Why on earth did they not add this to Google Video? Of course people can book mark favourites on their browser, but not everybody carries Google Firefox Extension to synchronize bookmarks everywhere. And this could have given clearer picture about popularity of video contents too.
2. Hide Stuff, instead of view fullscreen. People do like to keep their desktops uncluttered. A button of keyboard shortcut or anything suitable to hide away the narrow right margin, instead of popping up a full screen would have been much more desirable.
3. Comments and labels were added very late.
4. No features to allow user to view history (Not even a frickin link to the GOogle Search history page), or organize use of Google Video content and features were provided. You tube has for instance, playlists (manipulatable, Gooogle Video only has automatic search playlist).
5. Search in Google Video was terrible. Most of the time I get totally unrelated video. Whereas, more often than not, viewing one item on YouTube, would almost in 80% of the cases, get you handy links to related content. You could be hooked on the site for almost entire browsing session.
6. Communities were better provided for in You Tube. Google Video does not have any community feel in Google Video.
Although the minimalistic interface worked fine for Google Search Site, it does not work for Video content sites. The main reason is, one would spend about few minutes searching for stuff, but substantially much more viewing (or reading) content which they have searched. And that is something which needs more usable features.
Those are good points. Heres more to why e-books are better:-
I can search
I can annotate easily
I can carry more books than in my library, in my pocket!
I can make notes on the book, and yet leave it without a single scribble mark
I can use the new apple iPhone's rubber banding software on the multi touch version of iReader to flip through pages effortlessly, and without all that gooey licking for moist fingers thank you.
I can download all newspapers on a single device, and have all the news related to my set keywords highlighted ready for my attention
I can borrow my friends and colleagues notes without having to deprive them of it for the time I borrow them.
I can get Harry Potter, the minute who ever decides that it is a good time to rake in millions of viewers, and yes, without having to wait in a queue for a whole night or whatever
I can hear from a friend about nanotechnology, and get the treatise by 10 best experts in the field in a few seconds
I, oh yes, I can do this anywhere, at anytime and on one single device.
The possibilities are endless, embrace the future.
Google Finance - barely in the Top 50 finance sitesog
I quite like Google Finance, especially the ability to compare news with ups and downs for a ticker. But Yahoo charts is even better, but for this feature. Take a look at the two.
Google on Yahoo ChartsYahoo on Google Finance
Ultra lightweight notebooks based on flash memory with instant on/off will start coming out in large numbers.
When I read this, I immediately thought of cool Linux based laptops from the One Laptop Per Child initiaitive. Seriously, I would consider buying one for my children, even at $200. And I hope that they setup some free content web site for it too, like itunes and ipod;-) but without any price to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
And considering that I can carry my charger wherever I go, Do I even care?
And heres mine:
1. I don't have $600 spare change let alone $500 + $60 / month * 24 month (s) = $2040 spare change.
2. I have extensively seen and reviewed the phone features and how they work. I will wait for a 3rd or 4th gen. (with a better camera and GPS I hope, and any basic software bugs fixed) before putting down non spare change, hard earned money.
(Pressing the shift key with no visual indication seems like one such bug.)
3. I like to choose my own mobile phone provider, and need more features like swappable battery, memory etc. to condone marrying with a unfavoured provider like Cingular/AT&T.
4. Even if I don't program, like my computer, I like programmable devices. I would rather choose a device provider who would allow some programming like Nokia, Samsung or Sony Ericcson etc. Imagine if someone gave you a computer and said you can't do any programming or scripting on it.
5. iTunes is good, but is set in the number of interfaces that it supports. Why no Firefox or Thunderbird support is provided in it for iphones? At the very least a plugin architecture and support can let developers provide for this themselves. I don't like to be told what I can use and cannot use. I want to decide whats best for me from a wide range of possibilities.
Despite all these, I might plunk for an iPhone in 3rd or 4th iteration, if there are no other phones around with similar capability at the time.
I have been looking for the console everywhere in my neighbourhood but could not get a single one at any of the stores. I can't book it either, the sarcastic store owners, sure do like to see my face in their stores every weekend.
Maybe some day people will be able to run their own centralized server as cheaply ... Will you re-evaluate your stand if they are able to? Centralized servers do have some utility after all .... ?
And the theft (or what you want to euphemise as only *copyright infringement*, which is just another name for theft of copyright) does affect the rights of the artist to publish the content himself in whatever manner he pleases. For instace, refer the case of small pictures on Google News that Google *lost*. And fair use is a sensible thing, but in real fair use, the owner of the copyright is often attributed with a due reference. It stops where entire songs or clips or movies are available for 100 million users, and only removed if the owner actually runs through 100 hoops to raise a flag about his content being pirated. You know I'm trying to imagine someone saying "Dude! No way am I buying the next season of CSI on DVD. Not when YouTube has five minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its grainy, compressed, low-res glory". I can't see it happening, somehow. Yes, but those five *interesting* minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its whatever form are not Googles property to publish. And is it fair use? I think not, because those collection of 5 minutes of clips can be marketed and made for profit, which is not Google's for free keeps.
As a corrollary, do you think Google or anybody else can fill their site with such 5 minutes for all the movies in the world and get away with it? Just because the users upload the copyright infringing content on GOogle's site, does not mean that Google is not liable for hosting it for 100 million people to use it.
"Imagine if I started up a car dealership and instead of paying for my own cars to stock my dealership, I let my clients (some or conveniently many, of whom who may be thieves) sell me stolen content from the rich dealer down the street. Then I polish and sell those at dirt cheap prices and, once I had sold enough of these stolen cars, I have enough customers and money and attention that I could afford to go legit."
Does this ring enough alarm bells in your ears, or do you prefer to buy cars cheaper, even if they might be stolen?
Not that I disagree that a billion dollars is huge money, but I beg to differ about indicative damage.
...) to the masses, we as a society grant the artist copyright, to encourage them to publish and distribute their art. This right enables them to make a living out of creating (or managing the creation) of their art, and benefits the society as a whole, in being able to enjoy the artists' creation without requiring his presence.
4 7456149593 that people like Dr. Lawrence Lessig want to (or are paid to) spread. Would you want to have high street stores selling dirt cheap stolen televisions on a mass scale and get away with it? Would any sane person buy their argument that the store only bought these televisions from their clients, who did not want it anymore. And that if they are proven to be stolen, then they would remove them from sale. And that the onus of checking that the television is stolen is not on the store, but the poor chap who was mugged? Just imagine if you were mugged like this, then how many such stores you will have to visit and scan to find your old TV.
:-), and for cheap. Or maybe not ...)
Let me tell you a story. Imagine a store selling stolen televisions for dirt cheap on the high street. Millions of them. Even if they claim to have bought it in the first place from their clients before reselling it to their other clients, are they lawfully doing legal business?
Before we take this analogy to the digital "UGC", first I want to add my doubts that *most* of the so called "User Generated" content derived from media, has anything useful done by the user on it. And secondly, if you create a new Porsche, from stolen parts of other Porsches, does that make your Porsche legal? No? What about if you rent Porsches and then chop yourself a new Porsche from its parts? Is that one at least legally okay?
Now lets take this analogy to the User Generated content. Lets leave the fact that 99% of all main stream media derived "UG" content is actually just copyright theft by the "User". If an artist (or his agent) sells his art (or music, movie
Do the 1% (or less) of the masses, have a right to deny the artist (or their agent) their means of livelihood, by using their content, and/or depriving them an opportunity of publish or license their content for similar usage, just because they bought their song on iTunes for a buck? I don't think so.
Now, lets put aside all this DCMA protection, and copyright related spin http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-72560912
Now someone please tell me why the hell should Google (however cool their products may be) get away with copyright infringement, conveniently done for them by their "users", supposedly under the pretext of a DCMA?
I say, slap them with a billion here, and many more billions to come. (Then I can buy those bloody GOOG shares in peace
Watch the Google's stock price slide here
I don't own a Mac, but I swear that my next laptop will be a Leopard tera-core sexy machine. And one of the reason for that is beautiful apps like Quick Silver.
Anybody else notice something strange about the number 100,000 here? Like here
Actually 32 bit UNIX time runs out in 2038 (1970 + 2 ** 32 / 60 / 60 / 24 / 365 / 2 = 2038.09625976662)
In a couple of decades, I am kind of hoping that everyone and their dog would be running 64-bit or higher UNICES.
when someone invents a new gadget that cuts your computing time in half,
or when someone mass-markets it so you get it for half the price,
or when someone writes a software to get you do things 10 times as faster because of the faster processor,
or when someone brings along great people together who can write such software
or when someone who enables other people to buy such things cheaply from their neighbourhood stores
or when someone who does his homework on companies who are doing things right, makes a profit on it, inspiring an army of others
or when someone who entertains you for your money earned from using some or all of above,
then consider how much life is saved!
Such anti-capitalist rant is pissing me off. So to argue against the parent's point, I'm going to actually counter him right here.
_ The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html)
:-))
... But still lots of lives are saved here.
10 Richest people in (US according to Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400
1. Bill Gates
There is no doubt that personal computers have brought a revolution to mankind. And Bill Gates, has been instrumental in building a machine (http://www.microsoft.com) which has been instrumental in this market. (And I don't want to talk about his philanthropic efforts, because even without that his contribution has been more than anyone else I respect)
2. Warren Buffet
Investing in and cherry picking companies and industries which are worthy is an important element in market economy. It helps weed out the bad apples, and introduces an efficiency into the system. Buffet has created a legendary record in this field, and inspired a whole army of market players. This may not seem like contributing anything to the way a common man lives his life, but like the Sun is helping blossoming fruit bearing plants.
3. Sheldon Adelson
A self made man, who provides what other men need to entertain themselves. No, may not save life, but certainly makes it worthwhile.
4. Larry Ellison
What would I be using if there weren't an Oracle database (probably mysql or postgresql or even sqlite), some high cost product from IBM? Information age is based on the data flow life blood. Commoditization of databases, gives everyone cheaper infrastructure. (It also gives developers hierarchical queries
5. Paul Allen
A key partner who founded Microsoft. (But living off selling Microsoft shares since?)
6. Jim Walton
Eats the fruits of his fathers efforts. But I am sure walmart has made everyones shopping affordable now?
7. Christy Walton
Hey what are these Walton kids eating so much for? I wonder how much did the frickin' government of USA eat on Walton's death?
8. Robson Walton
Three is a strike. I propose raising estate taxes to 70% excluding one decent home for the kids.
9. Michael Dell
Fourth chap in this list from the Information age. I love cheaper p.c.'s and rhyming with Hell figured out how to get them to me. Sadly I prefer AMD chips, which he never used to sell before
10. Alice Walton
Did Old man Walton give anything to charity at all?
So, about half the people on the list deservedly need to be respected for the way they came from humble beginnings to contribute so much. And other half are due to Sam old man Walton who might have unceremoniously departed before he could have thought about charity or some other social contribution. But hey all the bucks that even he accumulated and left for his bounty litter, must be spent and given back to the society, or invested in it to make more of it, right?
Mucked up the format here
It misses out on some important features.
1. Favourites. Why on earth did they not add this to Google Video? Of course people can book mark favourites on their browser, but not everybody carries Google Firefox Extension to synchronize bookmarks everywhere. And this could have given clearer picture about popularity of video contents too.
2. Hide Stuff, instead of view fullscreen. People do like to keep their desktops uncluttered. A button of keyboard shortcut or anything suitable to hide away the narrow right margin, instead of popping up a full screen would have been much more desirable.
3. Comments and labels were added very late.
4. No features to allow user to view history (Not even a frickin link to the GOogle Search history page), or organize use of Google Video content and features were provided. You tube has for instance, playlists (manipulatable, Gooogle Video only has automatic search playlist).
5. Search in Google Video was terrible. Most of the time I get totally unrelated video. Whereas, more often than not, viewing one item on YouTube, would almost in 80% of the cases, get you handy links to related content. You could be hooked on the site for almost entire browsing session.
6. Communities were better provided for in You Tube. Google Video does not have any community feel in Google Video.
Although the minimalistic interface worked fine for Google Search Site, it does not work for Video content sites. The main reason is, one would spend about few minutes searching for stuff, but substantially much more viewing (or reading) content which they have searched. And that is something which needs more usable features.
It misses out on some important features. 1. Favourites. Why on earth did they not add this to Google Video? Of course people can book mark favourites on their browser, but not everybody carries Google Firefox Extension to synchronize bookmarks everywhere. And this could have given clearer picture about popularity of video contents too. 2. Hide Stuff, instead of view fullscreen. People do like to keep their desktops uncluttered. A button of keyboard shortcut or anything suitable to hide away the narrow right margin, instead of popping up a full screen would have been much more desirable. 3. Comments and labels were added very late. 4. No features to allow user to view history (Not even a frickin link to the GOogle Search history page), or organize use of Google Video content and features were provided. You tube has for instance, playlists (manipulatable, Gooogle Video only has automatic search playlist). 5. Search in Google Video was terrible. Most of the time I get totally unrelated video. Whereas, more often than not, viewing one item on YouTube, would almost in 80% of the cases, get you handy links to related content. You could be hooked on the site for almost entire browsing session. 6. Communities were better provided for in You Tube. Google Video does not have any community feel in Google Video. Although the minimalistic interface worked fine for Google Search Site, it does not work for Video content sites. The main reason is, one would spend about few minutes searching for stuff, but substantially much more viewing (or reading) content which they have searched. And that is something which needs more usable features.
Wow, if they take away downloads from Google Videos then I will have to really find a flash stream recorder. Any one recommend a good one for Firefox?
The possibilities are endless, embrace the future.
I quite like Google Finance, especially the ability to compare news with ups and downs for a ticker. But Yahoo charts is even better, but for this feature. Take a look at the two. Google on Yahoo Charts Yahoo on Google Finance
When I read this, I immediately thought of cool Linux based laptops from the One Laptop Per Child initiaitive. Seriously, I would consider buying one for my children, even at $200. And I hope that they setup some free content web site for it too, like itunes and ipod
Whoever the heck is kdawson, he certainly does not sound like he is from the many-eyeballs dept.