courtesy: David Pogue, New York Times
Google, the most popular website on earth, is worried about the second most popular site. That, of course, would be Facebook. Why else would Google keep trying, over and over again, to create a social network of the same type?
Orkut, Jaiku, Wave, Buzz -- Google has lobbed forth one fizzled flop after another. And now there's Google+. It's the latest Google "we wanna be Facebook" project.
The difference is, this one's got a real shot. Instead of throwing open its doors with a big splash, as it did with the hopelessly confusing Wave and the privacy-challenged Buzz, Google is letting Google+ seep into the world virally.
You can't yet just go sign up; you have to be invited by someone who's already a member. Even so, Google+ already has millions of members. That's not quite 750 million (Facebook's current tally), but watch out for the network effect.
At first, Google+ looks like a shameless Facebook duplicate. There's a place for you to make Posts (your thoughts and news, like Facebook's Wall); there's a Stream (an endless scrolling page of your friends' posts, like Facebook's News Feed); and even a little +1 button (a clone of Facebook's Like button), which may be where Google+ gets its peculiar name. But there's one towering, brilliant difference: Circles.
On Google+, you put the people of your life's different social circles into -- well, into Circles. That is, groups. Categories. Google starts you off with empty circles called Friends, Acquaintances, Family and Following (people you don't know, but want to follow, as you would on Twitter). It's a piece of cake to add new ones. They can be tiny circles ("Granny and Gramps") or big ones ("Family Tree "), organisation-based ("Fantasy League Buddies") or arbitrary ("Annoying People").
Creating them is a blast: an array of tiles represents your online acquaintances, which it assembles from Gmail and other accounts. You drag each into an on-screen circle, where they tumble into place. You can drag a person into more than one circle. The lucky encircled friend will know that you've added him or her to a circle, but not which one, thank heaven. From now on, every time you share something - a news item, a thought, a photo, a chat invitation -you can specify exactly which Circles receive it.
In one fell swoop, Google has solved the layers-of-privacy problem that has dogged Facebook for years. Senators embarrassed by their children's drunken party photos. Potential employers reading about your crazy nightlife. Girlfriends learning accidentally about their beaus' proposal plans. All of it goes away with Circles.
You share each item with only the people who deserve to know. And simultaneously, you spare the masses from seeing news of no interest to them; why should the whole world be in on your discussion of this Friday's bowling outing? You're spared, too. You can click a Circle's name to filter the scrolling blurbs. You can view only the work-related posts or only your college buddies' posts with one click apiece.
Facebook has something similar, called Lists. But compared with Circles, it's buried and a lot more effort to use. In Google+, you have to specify who gets each post or each photo (although it remembers your last selections). That's actually a little annoying -- you can't just type an update and hit Enter -- but over all, the benefits outweigh the hassle.
Google+ has a few more attractions, though, besides this clever privacy control feature. There's Sparks, which is like a personal press-clipping service (and akin to Google Alerts). You browse for, or type in, a topic you're interested in, like "Electric Cars," or "Bundt Cakes."
Google+ fills the screen with matching articles, news and videos from all over the Web. It may be the easiest, least threatening news reader in history. The most mind-blowing "Facebook can't do this" feature, though, is Hangouts. Technically, it's videoconferencing. It lets up to 10 people join a chat simultaneously, using their Web cams or laptop cameras.
A row of one-inch tiles, each displaying one participant's video feed, appears below the big screen. Google+ does its best to switch cameras for the big screen automatically, based on whoever's talking at the moment. (You can also click tiles manually.)
A skinny chat window appears on one side for typed remarks, and a YouTube button lets everyone watch YouTube videos simultaneously on the big screen. Slick. It may sound like Skype or iChat (or Facebook's comparatively lame, justannounced, one-person-at-a-time video chat feature). But its integration with the rest of Google+ makes it much better. You can see when one of your buddies is in a video hangout, so you can "drop by." Similarly, when you're feeling social, you can click Start a Hangout, announce its availability to a particular Circle of friends , and let them drop in to visit you.
A video chat doesn't have to be a scheduled, formal deal. It's always on the Web, so you don't have to install a program. It's available to your Circles, so you can whip together a quick chat to organize a party or a tennis match. And it could do just fine for many business meetings (or even business trips). You can share Photos easily by dragging them from your computer right into the box where you'd type your latest news. And you view other people's photos in a beautiful, black-background gallery, with comments off to the right.
If you have an Android phone, even more fun awaits. There are Huddles (instant phone-to-phone group chats with your Circles). And when you take a picture with your phone, it's auto-uploaded to a private holding area on your Google+ page.
Later, you can share them with the appropriate social circles. Now, there are, of course, a few minuses to Google+. Perhaps because of its newness, Google+ feels uncluttered and calm, especially compared to the frenetic, commercial Times Square of Facebook. But Google+ still is, in its way, just as confusing. You keep wondering: What if people in that circle share my private post with their circles?
And what happens if I remove a couple of people from a circle? Can they still see things I've shared in the past? You'll spend a good deal of time fumbling around. No other services (like Twitter or, of course, Facebook) are tied in yet. No games or applications yet.
The members so far are mostly geeks. There are bugs and glitches, although it would be unfair to mention them; the service isn't even public yet. And we can probably look past Google's bizarre promotional/tutorial videos, whose narrators seem to have been hired from the Society for the Advancement of the Inarticulate. (Actual transcript: "And, the friends you have are, kind of the ones you have that, allow you to, like, geek out about the things that you were absolutely passionate about.
And that's the reason you stay friends with them, is not because you're talking about things with them to talk about things that interest them, it's because it interests you and you're absolutely passionate about it and they have enough of a commonality to let you explore it.") But Google calls Google+ a project, and that's just what it is, an unapologetic beginning.
It's online, so Google can and will constantly fine-tune it, add features and beef up the help mechanisms. Until now, Facebook and Twitter have been the Dominant Duo of social networking. But Google's less sprawling, more video-centric, better-controlled new service is already too good to ignore. Now it's the Dominant Duo ...+1.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
A Facebook warning call: NYT says Google+ gets privacy right
courtesy : Sam Diaz (zdnet.com)
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a complete revamping of Facebook’s privacy settings fairly soon - especially now that the New York Times has given Google+ a one-up over Facebook when it comes to privacy settings.
Privacy still matters - or maybe it’s just control over what gets shared that really matters. That’s something that Facebookers have told founder Mark Zuckerberg time and time again, usually in a revolt when a new feature will come to Facebook and the privacy settings get tweaked in favor of more sharing. Users squawk, Facebook readjusts the settings and issues an apology and all is forgiven. After all, it’s not like there was another Facebook-like place where people could hang out and socialize on the Internet.
Until now.
In less than a month, Google+ has skyrocketed, now at 10 million strong and growing. There’s been quite a bit of chatter on Facebook among the people in my networks. And many of them are starting to show up in Google+, adding me to their circles. Even my wife, who spends a fair amount of time connecting with friends and family on FB, asked about Google+ on Saturday. We set up an account and, by the time Monday morning came around, she was already pushing the 100-person mark in her circles.
My wife, who tends to take her Facebook privacy settings - as well as her friend list - very seriously, was initially hesitant about Google+. She certainly didn’t like the idea of not having to request a friend or approve a friend, nor was she comfortable with just anyone seeing her photos, status updates and other postings.
But then, as she got deeper into Google+, she started to recognize that sharing with specific circles was actually a “better way” (her words, not mine) of posting things. She’s the one who recognized that this Google+ way of sharing was better than having to go in and mess with all of those settings in Facebook.
Now, none of this is to say that Facebook will be heading down a MySpace path anytime soon. My wife has built a strong network of folks in FB and even she commented that, without a few of her core Facebook friends, Google+ was kind of boring. Certainly, she won’t stop logging in to Facebook on a regular basis.
Still, this should serve as yet another warning call to Facebook. Google is sending a strong and loud message that Facebook is no longer the only game in town. And taking time to address the pain points that have long existed in Facebook - such as privacy - will only make Google+ look that much more attractive.
Which brings me back to my prediction that, in the case of privacy settings, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see Facebook come up with some sort of simplification of those settings. Sure, that means the leader would be following in the footsteps of the new guy on the block.
But, it’s got to be better than following in the footsteps of MySpace.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a complete revamping of Facebook’s privacy settings fairly soon - especially now that the New York Times has given Google+ a one-up over Facebook when it comes to privacy settings.
Privacy still matters - or maybe it’s just control over what gets shared that really matters. That’s something that Facebookers have told founder Mark Zuckerberg time and time again, usually in a revolt when a new feature will come to Facebook and the privacy settings get tweaked in favor of more sharing. Users squawk, Facebook readjusts the settings and issues an apology and all is forgiven. After all, it’s not like there was another Facebook-like place where people could hang out and socialize on the Internet.
Until now.
In less than a month, Google+ has skyrocketed, now at 10 million strong and growing. There’s been quite a bit of chatter on Facebook among the people in my networks. And many of them are starting to show up in Google+, adding me to their circles. Even my wife, who spends a fair amount of time connecting with friends and family on FB, asked about Google+ on Saturday. We set up an account and, by the time Monday morning came around, she was already pushing the 100-person mark in her circles.
My wife, who tends to take her Facebook privacy settings - as well as her friend list - very seriously, was initially hesitant about Google+. She certainly didn’t like the idea of not having to request a friend or approve a friend, nor was she comfortable with just anyone seeing her photos, status updates and other postings.
But then, as she got deeper into Google+, she started to recognize that sharing with specific circles was actually a “better way” (her words, not mine) of posting things. She’s the one who recognized that this Google+ way of sharing was better than having to go in and mess with all of those settings in Facebook.
Now, none of this is to say that Facebook will be heading down a MySpace path anytime soon. My wife has built a strong network of folks in FB and even she commented that, without a few of her core Facebook friends, Google+ was kind of boring. Certainly, she won’t stop logging in to Facebook on a regular basis.
Still, this should serve as yet another warning call to Facebook. Google is sending a strong and loud message that Facebook is no longer the only game in town. And taking time to address the pain points that have long existed in Facebook - such as privacy - will only make Google+ look that much more attractive.
Which brings me back to my prediction that, in the case of privacy settings, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see Facebook come up with some sort of simplification of those settings. Sure, that means the leader would be following in the footsteps of the new guy on the block.
But, it’s got to be better than following in the footsteps of MySpace.
Apple Loss in ITC Case Against Kodak Will Stand, Panel Rules
courtesy : Susan Decker (bloomberg.com)
A ruling that Eastman Kodak Co. (EK)’s digital-camera technology doesn’t violate Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s patent rights will stand, the U.S. International Trade Commission said.
Kodak rose as much as 15 percent in late trading after notice of the decision was posted on the Washington-based trade agency’s website. ITC Judge Robert Rogers found on May 12 that the two Apple patents in the case weren’t infringed, and one of the patents was invalid.
Apple went after Kodak in April 2010, about three months after the Rochester, New York-based camera maker accused Apple and Research In Motion Ltd. (RIMM) of infringing a patent related to ways of previewing images. The commission in the Kodak complaint is reviewing a judge’s finding in January that Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s BlackBerry don’t violate the patent.
Kodak Chief Executive Officer Antonio Perez has been seeking to force Cupertino, California-based Apple and Waterloo, Ontario-based RIM to pay patent royalties. Perez has said a licensing deal with the two companies may generate as much as $1 billion in new revenue. A victory for Apple today could have made it harder for Kodak to demand that much in negotiations.
“We are pleased that the commission has confirmed the ALJ’s finding that there is no violation by Kodak,” David Lanzillo, a Kodak spokesman, said in an e-mail.
Kodak rose to $2.89 at 5:01 p.m., after falling 22 cents to $2.52 at the 4 p.m. close of regular New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
Apple Patents
One of the Apple patents covers a way a camera can process several images at the same time and the other invention is for a way to handle multiple processes at once, such as adjustments in balance, color, sharpness and resolution. The complaint targeted the Kodak Z series, M series, C series, and Slice cameras, as well as video cameras including the Playsport.
The case is In the Matter of Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, 337-717, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington). The Kodak case against Apple and RIM is is In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof, 337-703, USITC.
A ruling that Eastman Kodak Co. (EK)’s digital-camera technology doesn’t violate Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s patent rights will stand, the U.S. International Trade Commission said.
Kodak rose as much as 15 percent in late trading after notice of the decision was posted on the Washington-based trade agency’s website. ITC Judge Robert Rogers found on May 12 that the two Apple patents in the case weren’t infringed, and one of the patents was invalid.
Apple went after Kodak in April 2010, about three months after the Rochester, New York-based camera maker accused Apple and Research In Motion Ltd. (RIMM) of infringing a patent related to ways of previewing images. The commission in the Kodak complaint is reviewing a judge’s finding in January that Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s BlackBerry don’t violate the patent.
Kodak Chief Executive Officer Antonio Perez has been seeking to force Cupertino, California-based Apple and Waterloo, Ontario-based RIM to pay patent royalties. Perez has said a licensing deal with the two companies may generate as much as $1 billion in new revenue. A victory for Apple today could have made it harder for Kodak to demand that much in negotiations.
“We are pleased that the commission has confirmed the ALJ’s finding that there is no violation by Kodak,” David Lanzillo, a Kodak spokesman, said in an e-mail.
Kodak rose to $2.89 at 5:01 p.m., after falling 22 cents to $2.52 at the 4 p.m. close of regular New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
Apple Patents
One of the Apple patents covers a way a camera can process several images at the same time and the other invention is for a way to handle multiple processes at once, such as adjustments in balance, color, sharpness and resolution. The complaint targeted the Kodak Z series, M series, C series, and Slice cameras, as well as video cameras including the Playsport.
The case is In the Matter of Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, 337-717, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington). The Kodak case against Apple and RIM is is In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof, 337-703, USITC.
To contact the reporter on this story: Susan Decker in Washington at sdecker1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Allan Holmes at aholmes25@bloomberg.net
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)