Tag: google

Hardware, platforms and corporate strategies

I just purchased a Google Nexus 7. I bought the 8 gig version because my prepurchase investigations had convinced me that it would be all I would require for my personal needs and because I have multiple devices in the same “space”. The following image displays several of my options (iPad, Nexus 7, Galaxy Nexus). I do not really need all of these devices. Perhaps owning all of this stuff is a bad thing, but I write about the applications of technology and I prefer to really use the devices and services I write about rather than parrot what others say. I have been an Apple advocate since the beginning. However I also believe healthy competition is key to innovation and fair treatment of consumers. I wanted to understand for myself if a $200 device can get the job done even if I can afford the iPad. I need to spend more time and I realize it depends on what “the job” is, but so far the Nexus 7 satisfies my needs for browsing, email, reading, etc. Early on the knock on the iPad was that it was a consumption device. This was a short sighted view, but if most of your activity is about consumption or if you have another device for production, my first reaction is that a $200 device works.

One of the activities I tried on the iPad, the Nexus 7 and the Galaxy Nexus was reading a Kindle book. Ironically given the focus of this post, the book was Age of the Platform. It is an interesting read examining company strategies (Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google) to compete for our attention and dollars. My take on the book (after a couple of chapters) is that it explores the distinctions between and interdependencies among hardware, platform, and content. Perhaps it might be claimed that Apple has created a great platform to sell hardware. Google has explored hardware to encourage various companies to develop similar hardware products and encourage access to the Google platform. Amazon offers content, needs a platform to do so, and puts just enough into hardware to keep customer options open. Facebook is pretty much all platform.

More and more as a content creator, I am a fan of companies that prioritize the platform without attempting to control it. I do not want a given company to control hardware, content, and platform. We are finishing a book (actually a book and other stuff) and while creating a content product for the Apple platform (an ibook) would have been a relatively easy translation of our content, such a product would leave out those with other hardware. This is why I am pleased to have had the experience with the Nexus 7 that I have had. I see tablets as a big deal in education, but I hope the Amazon/Google model of flexibility in the hardware that can be used to experience content (Kindle reader) will emerge as the hardware, platform, corporate strategy of choice.

I have nothing to say about Facebook.

Loading

iGoogle

The Official Google blog just offered a post within which it was announced that several services would eventually be discontinued. Among these services was one I use daily – iGoogle.

Google describes IGoogle as a personal home page. I think “start page” or “launch page” would be a more appropriate description. Perhaps my amazement as to why this service would be discontinued is somehow related to some difference in perspective as to how we choose to describe the service. iGoogle was my home page when I launched my browser. It was customized for my needs – hence it was “personal.” Mine was built from widgets and RSS feeds. See the following image if you are unfamiliar with this service. I can obtain a quick look at information sources and then move on to the other services I use frequently. The opportunity to set a default start page seems to be going away in most browsers and it already seems this is not possible in mobile browsers.

Google made mention of Chrome and Android as justification for the decision. I wish the post would have provided more of an explanation. I use chrome as a browser and OS – the connection with the shutdown (16 more months) is not exactly obvious to me.

20120705-225916.jpg

I went to iGoogle from NetVibes and my old page still works. I can always update that site. I suppose I could put something together in Google Sites, but I see that service as more appropriate to a public web site. I guess I assumed most folks had an Internet routine like I do and the opportunity to create a customized personal portal appropriate to personal interests would be popular. With the data Google collects, it would seem Google would know.

With so many startups looking for the next big thing, perhaps several will take a shot at improving an old thing.

P.S. It appears many have had a similar reaction. A similar sentiment from a MacWorld blogger.

Loading

Docs Research Tool

Google has added an interesting new feature to Google Docs. Under the Tools heading you will find “Research“. Select text and then select the research tool. A pane will open with the results from a search on the selected text. You can preview individual hits from the search. You can then use the tool to insert a link or cite a source for information you might decide to include in your document.

Google blog post on the new feature

Loading

Takeout

I do my professional writing in Google docs. Using a cloud service allows me the flexibility of working from any location using pretty much whatever equipment I have available. I also trust Google storage more than I trust my own storage. I am betting my equipment and backup behavior is less reliable than the equivalent Google equipment and conscientiousness.

Google wants to make certain I have options. Actually, I think the concern is more that I could be able to leave Google and move on to other services if I want, but the access opportunities work out the same no matter what the motivation. There have been several options, but I just encountered a new approach that seems built in (Google TakeOut). I just made a backup of several hundred doc files and moved them to a local backup drive.

Easy peasy (or whatever the expression for it is not difficult is).

 

 

Loading

Policy change for Google +

TechCrunch reports that Google + will now be available to anyone eligible for an account – anyone 13 and over. Google has added some new features which are age dependent. It reminds teens when they are posting to “public” and automatically removes them from a video hangout when an adult enters. This sounds like a nice feature but it would also limit tool value in an educational setting. Google could certainly modify this feature if Google + was used as part of Apps for Education.

We have created Google + tutorials for educators.

Loading

Need a way to test

I have been listening to Eli Pariser’s “The Filter Bubble”. I became interested in the book after listening to Pariser’s TED talk. I have become fascinated with the claims made in the talk and book.

Here is my take on a core claim of both. The claim might be described as a complaint about either how we use Google search or the system Google uses in proposing links we might explore. The original system, as I understand it, was based on the links among web sites. Linking to another site was thought to represent a vote of confidence in the content appearing on that site and those sites that are the target of many incoming links are regarding as more important in voting for sites they link to. As Google has sought to improve the links we ask for, Google has added data from our click histories. When possible, Google keeps track of what we like and adds our preferences to the criteria used in selecting and ordering the returns to our queries.

It is our personal preferences that seems to concern Pariser. The concern is that the system returns what we want to learn rather than what we need to know. In other words, our existing biases are maintained because we are likely to encounter new information consistent with these biases.

The book explains the basis for this concern which I would describe as a combination of social psychology and cognitive psychology (at least as I interpret the arguments). The cognitive psych component argues we use what we know to interpret new information and we prefer what fits easily (you may remember Piaget’s concepts of assimilation and accommodation from a developmental psychology course). There are important educational implications that describe the challenge of changing flawed ideas. The model is often argued as relevant to science education and is applied to situations in which we have developed faulty ideas based on our observation and misinterpretation of the world around us. The model proposes that we tend to protect our flawed existing models of the world and to create change, the educational system must find an effective way to activate and show the faults of existing ideas. Both activation and perceived inadequacy are important or the flawed ideas will be retained.

So, translated into the argument Pairser makes – if we have flawed ideas, we are likely to also have prioritized information sources that support these views and the history of the clicks then continues to feed these flawed ideas rather than present information that will lead to change.

Anyway, I have trying to evaluate the flawed search argument without much luck. Pariser describes a recent situation in which two acquaintances of his received different links when searching for Egypt (following the uprising). The claim was that these two individuals had different interests which may have resulted in different sites being prioritized. So, I have been trying to create my own method for generating different link lists.

My strategy to generate an equivalent demonstration has taken the following approach:
1) I use Google for many activities and log in (so it knows who I am and could connect this with my email content, my docs content, my musical preferences, and my searches). I assume that my content is heavily tech oriented and this could be considered a bias.
2) I have tried searches focused on the words “apple” and “chrome”. These are terms with multiple associates one of which involved technology.
3) I have tried signing in before search and comparing these results with the results generated when I do not sign in.
4) I have tried comparing the results from my Mac (used a lot) with results from a Windows machine (used very little).
5) I have tried comparing the results that can be identified with my local ISP with results through my mifi (not associated with my local ISP).

So, the strategies above are intended to include or not include data that can be linked to me.

None of the searches for either term seems to generate different results. All results are tech dominated. Nothing about apple pie or embellishments for hot rods.

This approach seems sound, but I need different search terms. I think I need terms for which my meaning would be in the minority when contrasted with what most people would be looking for. I am looking for suggestions.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Loading

Patent Trolls

Educators may have limited awareness of the patent battles that now plague technology industries. Everyone seems to be suing everyone. Educators are more likely to be aware of copyright. They tend to understand that the whole sale duplication of content generated by someone else (music, text, video, images) is prohibited. What you may also recognize is what you can do. Perhaps you have heard this described as you cannot copyright an idea. Hence, you cannot copy and distribute what I have written, but you can identify key ideas in what I write and express them in your own words.

The problem with patents appears that you can protect an idea and the idea can be expressed in vague terms. A great piece on this problem has been generated by This American Life (listen or read). The concern is that common functionality of most Internet and phone functionality is described in these general patents even though a general function can be accomplished in many different concrete ways (kind of the opposite of copyright). Supposed to be a breakthrough and not necessarily a common sense good idea. Supposed to be. In other words, an invention and a patent are not necessarily the same thing. For example you might be surprised to learn that a 2000 patent for thermal refreshing of a bread product could also be described as “toasting” or perhaps “microwaving” (an example provided the This American Life). Clearly, multiple ways for refreshing a bread product predated the patent.

That battles among major companies further complicate the patent problem in a different way. They did not necessarily contest a given patent but purchase a huge collection of patents themselves in order to attack any company willing to challenge what they are doing by claiming the complaining company violates a different patent that they hold. It is not even about attempting to get to the point of understanding true ownership, but a threatened battle of attrition that mostly benefits lawyers and mostly fought based on the patent portfolios of the various companies. This situation is sometimes referred to as “mutually assured destruction”.  So, with many ambiguous patents that can be picked up by the thousands if you have billions, you can basically keep the other big companies at arm’s length, but threaten or force any small company out of business.

It is pretty difficult to interpret this situation as protecting the rights of inventors, bettering the economy, or assuring that consumers have access to the best products and services possible. Like the lack of regulation that led to the recent stock market and banking crisis, this seems to be a failure of oversight that would seem best placed under the control of the government. There appear to be secondary businesses that built on the need to protect the legitimate rights of inventors but rather function primarily to take advantage of broad patents to make money for the companies rather than the inventors. 

Example of technology patent battles

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loading