Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Editorial

No Secret Plan at Google? 223

Posted by CowboyNeal from the what's-he-building-in-there dept.
daltonlp writes "A number of smart folks have speculated that Google might leverage its computational resources to create some kind of massive online application delivery platform. Here's why they are probably wrong." One of more intelligent insights into Google, and it's pleasantly devoid of theories of Google taking over the world.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Secret Plan at Google? More

No Secret Plan at Google?

Comments Filter:

  • NOW I can have my coffee (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:04AM (#11974363)
    Can't do anythign until I have my google news of the day

  • Bandwidth? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bird603568 ( 808629 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:04AM (#11974367)
    They didn't hire Rob and Marc to work on giving you online spreadsheets.
    If they did this or an OS, which they wont as the article says wouldn't it cost them and the used massave amounts of bandwidth?

  • sound like Google is very successful (Score:5, Funny)

    by coolcold ( 805170 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:04AM (#11974370) Homepage
    people started to spreading FUD as to how Google would dominate the world.

    I for one welcome our Google overlord
  • If there was a secret plan you wouldn't know about it anyway so saying "There is no secret plan" is nonsense.

  • Google's usefulness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by episodic ( 791532 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:08AM (#11974386) Homepage Journal
    What amazes me is that google constantly comes out with USEFUL and credible apps.
    Google Search = has long been the standard
    Google Groups = complete usenet archive
    Google Mail = arguably the best free email service now.
    Google Local = returns excellent results even for my small town!
    Google Maps = it is all I use to plan a trip now
    Google Search = it is all I use to search my 1/2 terrabyte of storage.
    Picasa = one heck of an image manipulation/retrieval program.
    I for one welcome an innovative company that provides me with excellent apps. If they wanna design an OS - I'm yelling to GO FOR IT!
    It will take someone with google's clout to do this.

    • Re:Google's usefulness (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:11AM (#11974404) Journal
      There's a world of difference between designing a few good applications and designing a viable alternative to the OSes that we have today.

      Two words for you: driver support. Do you know how much effort is involved in getting just that relatively minor part of an OS right?

      • Re:Google's usefulness (Score:5, Interesting)

        by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:28AM (#11974493) Journal

        designing a viable alternative to the OSes that we have today.

        Two words for you: driver support.

        OK, I know this is all alleged, so this is all moot, but wasn't the idea behind a Google OS that it would be a hosted OS? In other words we access it remotely, and Google decide on the hardware? Why would a hosted OS need driver support (I'm assuming that Google already have drivers to support the hardware they currently have, etc)?

        • So lose your internet connection and your PC becomes just a heavy paperweight? Gee, thanks but no thanks.

          • Re:Google's usefulness (Score:5, Insightful)

            by tdhillman ( 839276 ) * on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:43AM (#11974565)
            That of course is predicated on the idea that losing your internet connection is going to be a part of the picture as the technology grows.

            Given that as recently as fifteeen years ago no one knew what the internet was beyond a select few, it's not out of the question that the coming fifteen will give birth to a ubiquitous internet presence.

            Current technology will die and be replaced by another paradigm- it is just a matter of time. Heck, reasonably usefu GUIs are merely 20 something. There's a lot of change to come and many folks will argue that online app delivery will be the norm in the future- giving Apple and other companies a chance to reap the benefits.
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • Eventually, they'll be so many redundant cables that this won't be an issue. Losing the Internet will eventually be like losing your power, ie, a rare occurance.

                Heck, I'll take that a step further and say it'll be like losing your phone line, ie, a really rare occurance.
            • WARNING: INCOMING GRAMMAR NAZI


              befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig

              Actually... befuddled is an adjective. The -ed suffix transforms a verb into adjective describing the state of being in the action.

          • Re:Google's usefulness (Score:5, Insightful)

            by King Babar ( 19862 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:53AM (#11974620) Homepage
            So lose your internet connection and your PC becomes just a heavy paperweight? Gee, thanks but no thanks.

            And this is so much different than what happens if Google didn't host your files?

            More seriously, I think arguments about how screwed you are when you lose your internet connection sound a bit like arguments That Crazy Old Man used to make about electricity, and why those new-fangled electric gadgets were never going to catch on.

            • If under this plan my hardware is just acting as some glorified dumb terminal then, yes, it is much different.

              Right now, if I lose my internet connection then I can use my PC in hundreds of ways. But if I'm reliant on some remote server to deliver any of my OS, applications or files then not having access to that server is severely going to restrict what I can do.

              Also, as if this needs to be said, it's not exactly the most practical idea for notebook users, is it? Last time I checked, wi-fi wasn't univers
              • What do you do when your power goes out? I have not had my cable internet connection go out in months and when it does it is rarely longer than a few minutes. The power goes out at least as often and I can't use my PC at all. Then again, you can't really build an emergency internet generator can you...?
                • Hey, I don't know about you, but I've lost my broadband connection (normally for a few hours at a time) about half a dozen times in the last year, because of a neighbour accidentally cutting my cable, local outages, etc. In that time, I've never had a power cut.

                  Perhaps if I lived in California or something then power outages would be an issue, but I don't.

                  Losing my internet connection is an inconvenience right now but if my connection meant my OS, apps and files were gone too then it would be a real pain

              • OK, first I'd like to clarify that I'm not that interested in a Google OS in the sense of: something you need to have to boot your machine. What I *am* interested in, however, is something like a remotely mounted Googlefs archive of all my files, lovingly backed up and redundantly kept available and, yes, google-searchable at will. And the irony here is this is *just* because:

                Also, as if this needs to be said, it's not exactly the most practical idea for notebook users, is it? Last time I checked, wi-

          • So lose your internet connection and your PC becomes just a heavy paperweight? Gee, thanks but no thanks.

            Well personally I can't see much advantage either, but I'm guessing you are (and I certainly am) a non-typical user. And for many typical users there are plenty of other things that can occur to turn their PC into a paperweight; I'd guess that the average downtime of an internet connection is probably less (based on my experiences with employers who don't understand the concept of redundancy ;-) tha

        • Re:Google's usefulness (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          OK, I know this is all alleged, so this is all moot, but wasn't the idea behind a Google OS that it would be a hosted OS? In other words we access it remotely, and Google decide on the hardware? Why would a hosted OS need driver support (I'm assuming that Google already have drivers to support the hardware they currently have, etc)?

          What you're describing isn't an OS.

        • In other words we access it remotely, and Google decide on the hardware?

          Google would decide on THEIR hardware, yeah, but YOUR hardware would still be a wildcard.

          Computing terminals can very greatly in features and performance, and therefore need a wide variety of drivers available for them. This is true even of dumb terminals; just check out how many different terminal type definitions a Unix or Linux system ships with.

          • Google would decide on THEIR hardware, yeah, but YOUR hardware would still be a wildcard.

            (First up, I'm not a proponent of this idea, merely someone who clarified what it is alleged Google may be doing).

            I'm not sure I see why it would matter to Google what hardware you have? Google would be providing a filestore, and saving to their hardware. Any local hardware at your end would - presumably - already have drivers installed locally. Re: terminals. A typical *nix system may well need to inter-operate

      • Re:Google's usefulness (Score:2, Informative)

        by mr.newt ( 244023 )
        Driver support is not a "relatively minor part of an OS," driver support is the definition of OS. (OS stands for operating system, remember?)

        Consult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

      • Two words for you: driver support. Do you know how much effort is involved in getting just that relatively minor part of an OS right?

        Then implement GoogleOS over the Linux kernel (or BSD kernel, or whatever). Let the kernel folks worry about drivers and the kernel itself. Let Google pick it up from init and take care of the rest. Perhaps work with the kernel people on adding kernel hooks that will allow to boost the userspace capabilities towards whatever Google wants to obtain.

    • Correction (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Google Groups = complete usenet archive

      This was acquired, not created by Google. And arguably, the old Deja capabilities were better (wild card searching) than what Google currently offers (mainly cosmetic changes and no wildcards). Personally that is what brought me over to Google, not the search engine itself. I was quite happy using Yahoo for targeted categorized searches and metacrawler for more extensive stuff. Google just had that cult of personality thing going and they've been riding the wav
      • Google created Google Groups.

        Google only acquired the archives themselves, ie the data. They developed the storage/search/retrieval/interface-for-the-above system which acts on that data.

        • Google created Google Groups. Google only acquired the archives themselves, ie the data. They developed the storage/search/retrieval/interface-for-the-above system which acts on that data.

          And let's not forget the new beta Google Groups [google.com] , which implement communities and are effectively a direct competitor for Yahoo! Groups [yahoo.com]. It's very nice, I've tried it already. Plus it allows for one time login using your Gmail account. Watch out Yahoo.

      • Re:Correction (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Herbst ( 153199 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @09:25AM (#11974902)
        I really dislike the downplaying of what Google did with the Usenet archives. Yes, they acquired older archives (Google is not around as long as Usenet is...duh). They located and assembeled various pre-Deja archives (1981-1995), they acquired Deja archives (1995-2000 - Deja never hosted anything from before 95) and since the end of 2000 they are the only ones who archive/index/host a fairly complete (text-only) Usenet feed. The addition of the pre-Deja archives was a Big Thing. Nobody managed to assemble such a complete Usenet archive ever before. Many people thought that most of these archives were lost in time, but now we have to ability to browse back to the Stone Age of the internet(!) I find this archive truly fascinating.

        Info about the timeline of this archive here [google.com] and its composition here [google.com].

        Anyways, comparing UI/feature set of Deja (well, before they sold out at least) to Google Groups (as it was) and to the new Google Groups Beta (which I don't like that much either) is a different topic. I'd choose the considerably improved relevance of Google Groups searches (phrase-search, anyone?), over Deja's wildcards anytime.

    • Re:Google's usefulness (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ciderx ( 524837 )
      But...

      Google Groups 2 = complete usenet archive, now horrifically crippled by terrible interface
      Google Desktop Search = the worst of all the desktop search apps
      Picasa 2 = The upgrade that feels like a downgrade
      Google Image Search = nigh on useless search engine that often points to images that don't really exist on the web page, or the web page itself even exists.

      Its not all good, y'know.
      • You know, it really does no good to say all of that here. Send Google an email about it. Their developers are usually pretty kind if you are good mannored, and will at least reply with something like "We're on that" or "Thanks for your concerns".

        Sad to me that nobody else ever does this when they have a problem with their service. I complain at every chance I get, because if they don't hear the complaints, they don't know how to improve.
        • You know, it really does no good to say all of that here. Send Google an email about it. Their developers are usually pretty kind if you are good mannored, and will at least reply with something like "We're on that" or "Thanks for your concerns".

          I've sent several such, polite, not flames, and possibly got back one or two robot acknowledgments and nothing more. So, this is not generally true. At least bitching about it here is therapeutic.

      • Re:Google's usefulness (Score:2, Informative)

        by Wildclaw ( 15718 )
        I agree with most of what you said. I just wanted to give you a small tips about how to get the old Google Groups interface. Since Gougle Groups 2 is still in beta the new interface hasn't been propagated to Google's country domains. This means that you can still use groups.google.ca etc. to get the old interface.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:35AM (#11974525)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'm personally surprised that Hello [hello.com] hasn't gone to the presses yet as being the next big thing.

    • Google Maps = it is all I use to plan a trip now

      Excellent, that makes more space for the rest of us here out in the rest of the world. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's that little area that Google Maps seems to ignore for now. Sometime in the future, perhaps you can use the service to plan a visit. :^)
    • You forgot:

      Orkut - a lot like Friendster or MySpace, except less popular and with a much dumber name

      Also, you forgot Poland.

  • No.. its can't be.. its... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:08AM (#11974391)
    its... SKYNet!!!
    Whats wrong with my computer.. would I like to play a game? Global Themonuclear War?? No! Wait.. whats going on with...

    ~~~~^@^@@##$&@@@))^^^~~~ DISCONNECTED.
  • Of their developers spending 20% of their time on pet projects, I wonder how many of those are open source projects of various kinds.

    • I wonder how many of those are open source projects of various kinds.

      I don't think the employees can decide that, I think (at least that's what I've read on most sources that discuss about this matter) that your "pet projects" that are developed on worktime are owned by google.

      This is for example how orkut got born [pcworld.com]. "In affiliation" with google at the end of the page means in real world "This is google property".

      • The first programming company I worked for done something similar, it was understood that pet projects could be used without license for any purpose by the company, they didn't however say that I couldn't also use project.
        Because we were working small contracts about 10-20% of our time was filled with pet projects.

        I developed an application called 'shite to basic', that performed a number of tasks,
        like formating code, spell checking comments, checking tab order on forms, looking for poorly names variables,

  • A little at a time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hugesmile ( 587771 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:09AM (#11974397)
    Successes are built in small increments: Add 5% functionality here. Grow 10% there. Expand by 15% in this market.

    Failures (and business declines) often happen in big chunks: Lawsuit settlement of tens of millions of dollars. Major market shift away from your technology.

    This is just smart business. Google will continue to move and enhance and grow in manageable increments. If they try to take over the world, it will be suicidal.

    Anyone remember the dot-bomb era? The survivors are those that performed managed growth and bit off pieces that could be chewed. The failures tried to take over the world, and translate eyeballs into unrealistic company valuations. Works for a while, then you get an unemployment check....

  • Bah! Taking over the world. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FooGoo ( 98336 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:11AM (#11974406)
    They are taking over the world. They plan on taking over the world by not taking over the world. "Hey, Google is nice....they aren't taking over the world" Then before you know it you page ranking what to eat, who your friends are, what car to buy, where to live, where to work.

    Then whammo you can't live without Google telling you what to do in nice little browser friendly bites.

    Wait nevermind...I already do that.

    Lets welcome our Page Ranking pverlords.
    • Looks like they've even taken over your username, FooGoo! ;)

    • In that case, Google must have already pwned us.

      They are taking over the world. They plan on taking over the world by not taking over the world. "Hey, Google is nice....they aren't taking over the world" Then before you know it you page ranking what to eat, who your friends are, what car to buy, where to live, where to work.

      Yeah, they're much like one of those nice girls in high school. They're friendly, and mean to do good, but you end up obsessing over them 'cause they're so blatantly hot. They tak

  • Google taking over the world (Score:4, Funny)

    by FecesFlingingRhesus ( 806117 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:13AM (#11974412)


    pleasantly devoid of theories of Google taking over the world

    Damn they have infiltrated Slashdot now. Google I am on to you.

  • Time travel (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:15AM (#11974427)
    In anticipation of the day when Google does become evil and takes over the world and we all wish that we had a time machine so that we could go back to 2005 and stop Google while we still had the chance, I've been doing some searching for plans to build such a contraption.

    It seems those Google bastards have anticipated even this! [google.com]
    • Any one see the ebay ad on the side of that googel search

      "Time Machine For Sale
      Low Priced Time Machine
      Huge Selection! (aff)
      ebay.ca"

      Damit while google might not want to help you with your time traveling mission ebay boody will.
    • In anticipation of the day when Google does become evil and takes over the world and we all wish that we had a time machine so that we could go back to 2005 and stop Google while we still had the chance, I've been doing some searching for plans to build such a contraption.

      It seems those Google bastards have anticipated even this [google.com]!

      Advertising will be the death of them yet, however. If you look to the right, you'll see that ebay has exactly what you're looking for at a low, low price...

  • Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:15AM (#11974428)
    Mods, this isn't flame bait but why the fuck is this news? This hasn't been posted numerous times. "A number of smart folks have speculated..." Which smart folks? Why the fuck can't you link to them? "..Here's why they are probably wrong.." One view of why they're wrong. Oh and from TFA "But this theory could be wrong." You know, I know I'm bitchin' and moaning, but I've been a long time reader of /. but this site is really going down hill. We need to do something to make this site back on top again and it starts with appropriate articles, not loosely written blogger tripe.

  • Until Google charges me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmcmunn ( 307798 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:16AM (#11974432)

    I don't care what they do or how many sites they have that are trying to "control my online experience". Right now, I use their search engine and their email. Their maps look pretty, but it is still easier to use mapquest for me.

    It's nice to read things like this article, because until Google is "selling" me something, and it comes preloaded (or pre-bookmarked) on my computer, I am not concerned in the least bit. Why do we have to hear about why or why not they have a consipracy to take over the world? They write good stuff for the web, and people use their stuff by choice. I've never heard someone outside of Slashdot say "Man, that company Google is taking over my life. I can't do anything online without being forced into using Google."

    I do like the part at the end of the article about MS having to test their new browser against Gmail, Google Maps, and Google itself. It does add a bit of irony that finally MS and IE have to worry about being compatible instead of the other way around.
    • The bit about Microsoft having to test IE7 against Gmail and Google Maps was an entertaining thought but I'd say it's more likely that Microsoft will do what Microsoft does best. IE's not done until Gmail won't run.

      The difference I can see with Google is that because their applications are web based (and thus fairly quickly repaired), the cost of another antitrust suit might outweigh the potential benefits of breaking Google's applications.

  • Contents (Site Appears to Be Slashdotted) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lemurmania ( 846869 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:16AM (#11974434)
    Google has no secret plan - posted March 17,2005
    Hey look. Someone else is predicting that Google will user their super-mega-ultimate-supreme server farm to replace your PC's operating system.

    That sounds familiar.

    I do not buy it. Let's look at some of the arguments:

    "Google has hired OS experts like Rob Pike and Marc Lucovsky! Clearly they are toiling away on the Manhattan project of OS research, which will culminate in some kind of...SOMETHING! Some kind of something which will sweep Microsoft from the face of the earth!"

    A more likely scenario is that Google does indeed perform OS research, but not for you and I. For themselves. Their clusters use a custom filesystem. They run linux, but it's been modified from the original Red Hat. They need (and can attract) smart folks to build and extend these systems. But it's all for the benefit of storage and search. They didn't hire Rob and Marc to work on giving you online spreadsheets. Sorry.

    "Google uses wowie-zowie javascript for Gmail and Google maps! Clearly this is the harbinger of their browser-based OS-like-thingy!"

    I think they use javascript because it works well. It's one step beyond html. Like any other technology-driven company, they'll use the best tools they can, even if those tools aren't mainstream yet. I've looked at the source code for both Gmail and Google maps, and I believe they are two entirely different projects, run by two separate groups. The goal of one is to make a good web-based email service. The goal of the other is to make a good online map service. I find it difficult to fit those pieces together into a master strategy. I think they evolved independently.

    "Google has invested in native clients like Picasa and Keyhole maps and Desktop Search! Clearly this is an aggressive move into the consumer application space!"

    Well, that's partly true. But Google isn't primarily interested in selling consumer apps. I think Picasa and Keyhole were acquired because Google wants to own delivery channels (browsers) for data that doesn't currently have a good delivery channel. Html data is delivered by a web browser, and it's probably a bit late for Google to own that. But Geographic data (the real thing, not road maps) has no browser, except either a full-blown GIS system or a lightweight client like keyhole. Photos on your hard drive have no browser (unless you have a mac).

    I think Google desktop search was kind of a fluke. Something they could do fairly easily (right?) with some market opportunity (because windows default search BLOOOOOOOOOOWS). A low-investment play that incidentally forced MS and Yahoo to play catch-up.

    Let's talk about business strategy. It's fun to imagine that Google has some awesome master plan for controlling all computerdom. But I have a simpler theory that I think fits the evidence:

    A) Google cares first and foremost about web search. Most of their architect-level employees will be working on making search better. I think one of Google's big shots said something similar right out loud. Search is what they do.

    B) Google cares secondly about new kinds of search. Book search. Place search. Image search. Discussion group search. Product search. Email search. Because they have an advertising model that can be targeted to most any type of search. (Google also cares about new kinds of search because web ads may not work forever.)

    C) Google cares thirdly about interesting new things. These come from employees. Depending on which source you believe, Google employees spend either 10% or 20% of their time working on personal projects. (Update: It looks like 20% is the correct number) The really successful projects get publicized via Google labs. Google maps started as one of these. I bet Gmail did too.

    I'm especially interested in (C). 20% is a lot of time. Would your company willingly slash 20% from its developer-hours? Why is this important?

    For one thing, it's the world's best marketing department. Those Google labs pro

  • Anything could be possible (Score:3, Interesting)

    by millwall ( 622730 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:20AM (#11974461)
    The article highlights that Google developers are allowed to spend 20% of their time on what daltonlp calls "lab projects, personal projects, forever-in-beta projects, whatever".

    Google constantly produces revolutionary innovations that noone can foretell. (How many of you thought you would have 1gb of email space for free?)

    Conclusion is, I don't quite buy daltonlp's arguments for why it would be impossible that one of these lab projects is to develop browser based os/applications.

  • 20% of company time to goof off (productively) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:20AM (#11974462)
    From TFA:
    That 20% is also key for attracting talent. Working at Google has a lot of perks (so I hear), but for a developer, the ability to work on personal projects is magic. To my knowledge, no other company offers this.
    3M Does. [excite.com] Just thought I'd mention that.

  • If... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMspamgoeshere.calum.org> on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:24AM (#11974479) Homepage
    But this theory could be wrong. If Google creates some kind of OS of the gods, I'll happily admit my error :)

    They don't need to reinvent the wheel. [kernel.org]

  • World domination? Nah. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mr_Spook ( 458791 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:25AM (#11974480) Homepage
    Despite that Google isn't out to take over the world their impact on the net is quite amazing.

    Google's long standing tech demo that is their search engine has become pretty important. In fact, for the most part, if it doesn't come up on a google search, it doesn't exist.

    There have been so many memes spawned from google as well... Google-whacking, google fights, google bombing, etc.

    Let's not forget the chaos that ensued when GMail opened up either.

    They don't need to take over anything, really, everyone's eating out of the palm of their hand.

  • Theories? (Score:4, Funny)

    by filmmaker ( 850359 ) * on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:26AM (#11974484) Homepage
    ...pleasantly devoid of theories of Google taking over the world.

    Theories? Oh, we're well past that...

  • Google... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wpiman ( 739077 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:29AM (#11974497)
    I read the article by Molly Wood- and I think she may be a little off as well.

    She predicts a world where all the apps are central and we simply connect to them in a server/client mode. This way- things are portable to us. Our PC at home and our PCs are world no longer become unsynched- they are one. Goto your neighbors house- and it is just like your home environment cause it is portable.

    Well- right now many of us carry memory stick key fobs on our keychains. I current carry a gig USB stick. How long time someone puts a bluetooth device inside it? How long until they can add a processor die and some RAM? In ten year- you may be carrying your entire PC on your keychain. Put your keys into your monitor at work- and there is your environment- no network needed. No fees to pay to a central server. If you could carry your PC as you would a keyfob- would you care about having a centralized server?

    • On it's way maybe (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nijika ( 525558 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:34AM (#11974515) Homepage Journal
      Somebody put me on to this;

      Gumstix [gumstix.com]

      With platforms like THIS, what you're thinking can't be too far off. A keychain computer. Wouldn't have to be too powerful, it'd just need a small, projectable display and a virtual keyboard.

    • Re:Google... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 16K Ram Pack ( 690082 )
      I think it's about horses for courses.

      A 1GB USB stick may suit you because it's portable. It carries all your data. You can go to someone else's PC and retrieve your data.

      Now, what about the programs? What about security? What about sharing of data?

      Centralised systems sometimes make a lot more sense.

    • If you've ever used a sunray environment then you'll know how nice this can be.

      My workspace follows me on my badge. I can go to a collegues office with a problem, and by putting my badge in their system i can show them my desktop exactly as i left it.

      A few months ago the power died in my building one weekend, so i just walked across campus to another building and carried on where i left off.

      When i go into a meeting i can start up staroffice with my presentation and have it ready to go before i walk into
  • History has already been written!

    Google and Amazon.com will merge into, the grid will be born, Blog's will rule the news... oh, it's just too sad to go on...
    See it for yourself! [broom.org]

    Blockwars [blockwars.com]: free, multiplayer, head to head game similar to Tetris.

  • If they are not they will perish (Score:3, Insightful)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:40AM (#11974551)
    Come on get real google has the largest looming threat of it's corporate life on the horizon one from which they will not survive unless they take serious action right now. When MS releases longhorn and their new browser I fully expect that MSN search is gonna be wound into everything they can put it in. This will have the same exact effect that it had on netscape certain death. The only way to avoid this and have any chance to compete is to push firefox like mad, push firefox specific features, xul etc... In effect they have
    to push their own version of firefox as a platform if they are to survive.... But it may already be too late..

    I love FF and Google but they are about to fall into the same mistake as others before them by not responding to the threat.

  • Suggested 20% project (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:47AM (#11974591) Journal
    Hey Google people, try this for a personal project...

    Take the same Linux you run in house, customize it so it can boot on a regular PC. It launches into Firefox. There are icons with colorful links to Gmail (for your mail), OpenOffice (for your word processing) and Picassa (for photos). Call it GoogleOS.

  • Argh! No you idiots! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Friday March 18, 2005 @08:57AM (#11974641)
    Geez why would they go the route of a costly infrastructure setup when they already have what they need?

    I'll tell you what they're doing, they are using knowledge of what everyone around the whole world is searching for to tap into all kinds of consumer trend and demand opportunities. You know all those shoppers club cards that track your purchases, and credit cards which track all your spending habits? That data is awfully valuable. And Google has the best knowledge in the world. All they have to do is perfect the way the data is organized and packaged to marketing buyers.

    For a quick glimpse of the possibilities, let's say you play the stock market. Wouldn't it be brilliant to know what potential investors are really interested in this week, what they have been researching online... well Google knows! I'll be they realize this, and are working on a way to capitalize on it.

  • Google's browser! (Score:4, Funny)

    by hedge_death_shootout ( 681628 ) <stalin@li n u x m a i l .org> on Friday March 18, 2005 @09:09AM (#11974745)
    According to one of the comments on that blog, which I read before it finally crumbled under the weight of slashdot, commenter 'Rick' claims that Google Deskbar uses Google's own fab, internally written browser.
    This internally written browser is apparently 'fast and incredibly compatible'.

    Sounds great! Problem is, the browser component in Google Deskbar == Internet Explorer.

    I chuckled.
  • ... was convincing humans, he does not exist.

  • The real reason.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jimbro2k ( 800351 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @09:33AM (#11974986)
    The real reason not to have a plan is that if you have a plan, you risk feeling obligated to follow it even when conditions change and the plan no longer makes sense.
    By being adaptable, and taking advantage of opportunities when they appear, you can take over the world without a "plan".
    Of course, you still need to have done all the preparation so you can sieze the opportunities when they appear, but since you can't know ahead of time what or when, let your people work on their own stuff 20% of the time. By the laws of chance, some of them will be doing what you will need.
    Profit!!

  • questionable insight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by khallow ( 566160 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @09:58AM (#11975250)
    Here's the problems I have with this article. First, the guy who wrote the article and notified slashdot, wasn't able to keep his site up. What insight can he possibly have when he apparently lacked that kind of obvious foresight? Second, he's beating up on the weak. I have less respect for people who can't chose difficult targets.

    Thinking that Google is going to enter the OS business or that if they did, they would have a chance is not the sign of a sound, rational mind. It's like taking candy from babies. And dealing with that conspiracy theory doesn't address the other conspiracy theories.

    Third, he ignores that Google is highly overvalued for a "search" company. Google's market cap is $49 billion. If they are really just a "search" company, then maybe their P/E should be more in line with high growth companies at around 40 instead of 124. Yes, that means dropping the value of the company by a factor of three. I base this on that their search advertising looks relatively saturated to me. I don't see where the huge growth in value is going to come from.

    Fourth, he ignores that this looks exactly like a dotcom moment. Google is making a sizeable profit (which is vastly better than all but a handful of dotcoms past or present), but they aren't exhibiting the kind of growth potential (IMHO, of course) that justifies 124 times P/E.

    Finally, he places way too much emphasis on getting Microsoft to play good doggie. Being able to force Microsoft to make their sites compatible with yours isn't that interesting. The New York Times or Amazon gets that as well. And after all, Microsoft has by far the largest army of programmers in the world. It's not going to have a measurable impact.

  • Me? I'm waiting for singles.google.com [google.com] too go live.

  • As of today, Google's market capitalization is 50 billion dollars. That's 25 times the size of Novell, 20% of the size of MSFT, 3.5 times the size of Sun, a bit bigger than Yahoo, 3 times the size of GM, about the size of Honda, and a tad smaller than Disney (which, remember, owns ABC).

    If you think advertising revenue from search/adwords/etc justifies this stock price, you're crazy. (Same goes for Yahoo.) Of course, the market can always be wrong, but clearly the market *believes* that Google has some


  • Search Results are great, datasets are better.
    Google has been analyzing their own state-of-the-art technology for a relatively very, long time. This is a company that specializes in Categorization. A Library is not an operating system per se, but if you need it and it's top-notch and it's free - which member of a sizeable consumer demographic is not going to click "OK?" Public institutions will.

    Google has lots of the highway exits covered and they are scanning and indexing more and more everyday. The

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close