Google is essentially taking on the Windows Mobile approach, where software will run on various phone manufacturer's hardware. This is in contrast to Apple, which makes both software and also the hardware. This is interesting, and is highly anticipated as the alternative to the iPhone... more soon!
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Google android phone
I read on the iToday app on my iPod touch that the first Google Android phone will debut on September 23. The open source phone OS will run on a HTC phone. I took a screenshot of the article:

Google is essentially taking on the Windows Mobile approach, where software will run on various phone manufacturer's hardware. This is in contrast to Apple, which makes both software and also the hardware. This is interesting, and is highly anticipated as the alternative to the iPhone... more soon!
Google is essentially taking on the Windows Mobile approach, where software will run on various phone manufacturer's hardware. This is in contrast to Apple, which makes both software and also the hardware. This is interesting, and is highly anticipated as the alternative to the iPhone... more soon!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Google Chrome - the third major web browser
This piece of news is very sudden to me. Yes, rumours did circulate before that Google was working on some kick-ass web browser, but I didn't anticipate such an early release.
So Google announced on Monday that it will be shipping a public beta of its first web browser, Chrome. This is big big news, because this implies not only that there will be more competition facing Mozilla and Microsoft, but we as users who depend so greatly on the web browser will also have to evaluate this product and determine if it's better than Firefox or IE. So there will soon be 3 major web browsers... cool!

For more information, check out this comic on Chrome, released by Google themselves.
Basically this product is based upon the open source Web browser engine, WebKit. FYI, WebKit is also the engine powering Safari, but no immature comparisons should be made with Safari (and how horrible it is) until we really test it out.
Google being Google, the Internet company that it is renowned for, has created Chrome to be centered around web applications. And because we spend so much time on these web apps (like Blogger, Facebook, Gmail etc.), the browser is arguably the most important software on many people's computers. One of the main emphasis Chrome places is on stability of the browser, such that when it crashes, it doesn't bring down the entire program, but just the tab that is causing the problem. This is done through creating isolated processes for each tab and "sand-boxing" each tab. Curiously, this is what Microsoft is doing for IE 8 too. ^.^
Other areas where Chrome promises to do better than the competition is in security, performance, and simplicity without being feature-bland.
It is too early to say whether Chrome will dominate over IE or FireFox, but this is definitely an interesting product which everyone should consider installing once out of beta.
So Google announced on Monday that it will be shipping a public beta of its first web browser, Chrome. This is big big news, because this implies not only that there will be more competition facing Mozilla and Microsoft, but we as users who depend so greatly on the web browser will also have to evaluate this product and determine if it's better than Firefox or IE. So there will soon be 3 major web browsers... cool!

For more information, check out this comic on Chrome, released by Google themselves.
Basically this product is based upon the open source Web browser engine, WebKit. FYI, WebKit is also the engine powering Safari, but no immature comparisons should be made with Safari (and how horrible it is) until we really test it out.
Google being Google, the Internet company that it is renowned for, has created Chrome to be centered around web applications. And because we spend so much time on these web apps (like Blogger, Facebook, Gmail etc.), the browser is arguably the most important software on many people's computers. One of the main emphasis Chrome places is on stability of the browser, such that when it crashes, it doesn't bring down the entire program, but just the tab that is causing the problem. This is done through creating isolated processes for each tab and "sand-boxing" each tab. Curiously, this is what Microsoft is doing for IE 8 too. ^.^
Other areas where Chrome promises to do better than the competition is in security, performance, and simplicity without being feature-bland.
It is too early to say whether Chrome will dominate over IE or FireFox, but this is definitely an interesting product which everyone should consider installing once out of beta.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Microsoft's big bid to buy Yahoo
This story is just too overwhelmingly big to ignore. Whether you are interested in tech or not, I believe you should have heard about computer software giant Microsoft's bid to buy over Yahoo for $44.6B.
News articles about what this means, whether Yahoo should take the offer or not and Google's response etc. are popping up everywhere, both in print and online media. It's hard for me to be ignorant of what's happening, so I decided I should say something, though I must qualify that I'm not in the most knowledgeable position to offer a compelling argument. Much of this is related to business tactics, which I know little of.
First, one must know that this isn't the first time Microsoft is doing this... Yahoo has rejected a previous offer a year ago, 'confident about the "potential upside" presented by the reorganisation and operational activities that were being put in place then.'
Obviously, Microsoft won't give up, and this move is unexpected and aggressive too. Why? Because now that former CEO Bill Gates has stepped down, and Steve Ballmer is now in charge, he is starting to show his true colours as 'a fighter, willing to do what it takes to win' (in the words of Paul Thurrott). I can tell that Microsoft, or at least Ballmer, so badly wants to outdo search giant Google in areas of search-based text advertising, cloud computing and internet search, which are currently churning millions for Google. This time round, he's clearly being hostile.
In fact, a report mentioned that he 'vowed to "kill" internet search leader Google Inc. in an obscenity-laced tirade, and Google chased a prized Microsoft executive "like wolves," according to documents filed in an increasingly bitter legal battle between the rivals.' He was even quoted saying "I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again... I'm going to fucking kill Google."
So how will the merger help Microsoft win the battle against Google, and hence gain dominance on the internet? Paul Thurrott (yup him again) provides a logical (and lengthy) explanation which I shall not try to paraphrase:
To quote: 'So if Microsoft isn't interested in Yahoo's technology, why merge? Even though a combined Microsoft and Yahoo would not equal the market share and search ad revenues of Google, it does provide Microsoft will a much-needed market share boost that will make its online platform more credible to advertisers and thus will raise ad revenues, which, by the way, is how all these companies make money on this stuff in the first place. Yahoo also brings its ingrained vision for cloud computing, a business model Microsoft has not fully embraced because of the success of its traditional PC products. So even if what we're left with is a familiar-sounding set of Windows Live services, those services will hopefully be influenced and improved by the ranks of Yahoo employees that will flood Microsoft's online business. And for whatever its worth, Microsoft may trash cloud computing in public, but the scope of this deal--which seems specifically designed to ensure that Yahoo can't say no--suggests that Microsoft takes the Google cloud computing threat very, very seriously. Put another way, Microsoft's actions speak louder than its words.'
Make no mistake that this is a huge offer, that if accepted, is going to affect every single user who uses the web, in one way or another. It could affect Yahoo Mail/Windows Live Mail, or even Yahoo Messenger/Live Messanger... But ideally, both parties should aim for a win-win situation, and this offer should not be simply dismissed as another futile acquisition like the previous attempt, but consider the possibilities when Windows Live merges with Yahoo's services. Then, there would be much more competition for Google, and as we all know, a monopoly isn't good and at times, a healthy dose of competition would keep companies on their feet to constantly improve their services and offer the best for consumers.
Google responds:
This being said, all that every company cares about, at the end of the day, are profits. Hence, it is natural that Google disapproves of the merger to protect its hefty share of the online search-advertising market. Forbes reports that on Sunday, Google accused Microsoft of its unfair tactics in dominating the internet. David Drummond, chief legal counsel for Google wrote in a blog entry: "Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies--and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets."
This report also wrote that 'soon after Google lobbed its shot at Microsoft, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant issued a rebuttal. "The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising," Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said in a statement. "The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet. Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals."'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there's so much more to discuss about, you can read and find out, but I shall stop here for now, this is cheem stuff... tell me what you think!
News articles about what this means, whether Yahoo should take the offer or not and Google's response etc. are popping up everywhere, both in print and online media. It's hard for me to be ignorant of what's happening, so I decided I should say something, though I must qualify that I'm not in the most knowledgeable position to offer a compelling argument. Much of this is related to business tactics, which I know little of.
First, one must know that this isn't the first time Microsoft is doing this... Yahoo has rejected a previous offer a year ago, 'confident about the "potential upside" presented by the reorganisation and operational activities that were being put in place then.'
Obviously, Microsoft won't give up, and this move is unexpected and aggressive too. Why? Because now that former CEO Bill Gates has stepped down, and Steve Ballmer is now in charge, he is starting to show his true colours as 'a fighter, willing to do what it takes to win' (in the words of Paul Thurrott). I can tell that Microsoft, or at least Ballmer, so badly wants to outdo search giant Google in areas of search-based text advertising, cloud computing and internet search, which are currently churning millions for Google. This time round, he's clearly being hostile.
In fact, a report mentioned that he 'vowed to "kill" internet search leader Google Inc. in an obscenity-laced tirade, and Google chased a prized Microsoft executive "like wolves," according to documents filed in an increasingly bitter legal battle between the rivals.' He was even quoted saying "I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again... I'm going to fucking kill Google."
So how will the merger help Microsoft win the battle against Google, and hence gain dominance on the internet? Paul Thurrott (yup him again) provides a logical (and lengthy) explanation which I shall not try to paraphrase:
To quote: 'So if Microsoft isn't interested in Yahoo's technology, why merge? Even though a combined Microsoft and Yahoo would not equal the market share and search ad revenues of Google, it does provide Microsoft will a much-needed market share boost that will make its online platform more credible to advertisers and thus will raise ad revenues, which, by the way, is how all these companies make money on this stuff in the first place. Yahoo also brings its ingrained vision for cloud computing, a business model Microsoft has not fully embraced because of the success of its traditional PC products. So even if what we're left with is a familiar-sounding set of Windows Live services, those services will hopefully be influenced and improved by the ranks of Yahoo employees that will flood Microsoft's online business. And for whatever its worth, Microsoft may trash cloud computing in public, but the scope of this deal--which seems specifically designed to ensure that Yahoo can't say no--suggests that Microsoft takes the Google cloud computing threat very, very seriously. Put another way, Microsoft's actions speak louder than its words.'
Make no mistake that this is a huge offer, that if accepted, is going to affect every single user who uses the web, in one way or another. It could affect Yahoo Mail/Windows Live Mail, or even Yahoo Messenger/Live Messanger... But ideally, both parties should aim for a win-win situation, and this offer should not be simply dismissed as another futile acquisition like the previous attempt, but consider the possibilities when Windows Live merges with Yahoo's services. Then, there would be much more competition for Google, and as we all know, a monopoly isn't good and at times, a healthy dose of competition would keep companies on their feet to constantly improve their services and offer the best for consumers.
Google responds:
This being said, all that every company cares about, at the end of the day, are profits. Hence, it is natural that Google disapproves of the merger to protect its hefty share of the online search-advertising market. Forbes reports that on Sunday, Google accused Microsoft of its unfair tactics in dominating the internet. David Drummond, chief legal counsel for Google wrote in a blog entry: "Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies--and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets."
This report also wrote that 'soon after Google lobbed its shot at Microsoft, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant issued a rebuttal. "The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising," Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said in a statement. "The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet. Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals."'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there's so much more to discuss about, you can read and find out, but I shall stop here for now, this is cheem stuff... tell me what you think!
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Monopoly is not a game
Random thought: Google, Microsoft and Apple are all monopolies in their own rights.
Google, the fast-becoming monopoly of the internet. They dominate over internet searches, ads, gmail, gears (online apps), and soon over desktop search too, now that Microsoft has caved in to Google's harsh request to make Vista's Instant Search accept third party search software. With Vista now, if you install Google Desktop Search, this will run together with Instant Search, meaning decreased system performance as two indexers are running simultaneously.
Microsoft - need I say more? The market share of Windows says it all. Complete monopoly. That's why the EU is always after them, and they are almost always entangled with anti-trust lawsuits.
Apple, the lethal combination of iTunes and iPod has locked away any other form of competition in the music player market. If not for iTunes on Windows, the iPod wouldn't have made it big. In the music player market now (US), iPod ranks first, then the Zune, then all other music players by other companies.
Monopoly, its more than a game. It's being infused into our everyday culture.
Google, the fast-becoming monopoly of the internet. They dominate over internet searches, ads, gmail, gears (online apps), and soon over desktop search too, now that Microsoft has caved in to Google's harsh request to make Vista's Instant Search accept third party search software. With Vista now, if you install Google Desktop Search, this will run together with Instant Search, meaning decreased system performance as two indexers are running simultaneously.
Microsoft - need I say more? The market share of Windows says it all. Complete monopoly. That's why the EU is always after them, and they are almost always entangled with anti-trust lawsuits.
Apple, the lethal combination of iTunes and iPod has locked away any other form of competition in the music player market. If not for iTunes on Windows, the iPod wouldn't have made it big. In the music player market now (US), iPod ranks first, then the Zune, then all other music players by other companies.
Monopoly, its more than a game. It's being infused into our everyday culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)