musings from here to there
Posts tagged google
Computing.Next: Google IO and WWDC
1I’ve refrained from posting my thoughts on Google IO, which took place last month, because I felt it would be better to wait and see what came out of Apple WWDC. The two companies have been fierce competitors in the past and my bet was that this year would further strengthen the competition. Well, the WWDC keynote wrapped up this week and sure enough–Apple’s production brought some very interesting new products and services to the table that seek to challenge Google’s counterparts.
Desktop OS
I won’t say much regarding the traditional desktop-class OS market. Apple has OS X Lion hitting digital shelves in July while Google Chromebooks are shipping right about now. Yes, they’re competitors, but Google’s cloud OS is such a new player in the market it’s unclear how it might affect Windows and OS X. Chrome could take off for consumer and enterprise users that don’t currently need access to traditional applications like Photoshop, AutoCAD, standalone collaboration tools, and so on. For now though, OS X and Windows will continue to hold their place in the market.
Mobile
Next up is the mobile device space. On one side you’ve got iOS. On the other: Android. This “battle” is a bit less exciting this year than it has been in years past because both platforms are near parity. Features on one generally match features on the other, and both have proven to be quite usable for just about any type of user. Notably absent from this year’s WWDC keynote were snarky remarks about Android from Steve Jobs. It’s doubtful that he’s gotten over his grudge against Android; however, Steve demonstrated that copying features straight out of other systems was no problem! New iOS notifications are practically a direct copy from Android, while iMessages takes quite a few queues from Blackberry Messenger.
An age-old issue is that of copying features from one OS to another. Apple and Microsoft copied from Xerox, after all. So, while Android fans are making fun of iOS playing catch-up, Android has been required to do some of the same in times past.
One issue I must take with iOS 5 is that of iMessages. Apple has created yet another proprietary messaging platform. While this is not terribly surprising–Apple has a sordid history of building their own proprietary systems when excellent open protocols were available–it’s pretty disturbing. In addition to iMessages, we previously had proprietary services like Blackberry Messenger, Kik, LiveProfile, Beluga, and several others. That’s in addition to old standbys AIM and MSN Messenger. But what I really would’ve liked to see is Apple integrating directly into the existing open messaging protocols like Google Talk and Facebook Chat. Both of those are based on something called XMPP and are insanely powerful for text, rich media, audio, and video.
I’m sure Apple made this decision because they are more interested in consumer lock-in and bringing as many users as possible to their platform than they are at furthering innovation and the industry at large. While corporations certainly have the right to make money and the responsibility to be good stewards to their stockholders, proprietary technologies are not required to do so. Google and IBM are prime examples of companies that make tons of money by using and supporting open source. Apple made the wrong call here and will hurt the industry as a whole if this catches on.
All that said, I am 100% ready to kill off expensive text messaging plans and move to data-driven messaging. But I want that to happen via open protocols used across any device on any carrier. This is the age of the Internet, after all.
Cloud
The main area I want to focus on is that of Internet-based products and services.
Google has been a huge provider of these services for some time now and continues to expand its offerings. Web apps such as: Gmail, Calendar, Books, Picasa Web, Talk, Voice, and the recently released Music service are notable in their lineup. Many other lesser known services are also available that integrate directly into Search. All in all, Google is almost 100% “cloud-based.” They tend to only offer native app solutions when it supplements an existing web offering, a la Android and Chrome OS.
Apple, on the other hand, has traditionally focused more on native solutions than web. Their first foray into the web space came as MobileMe (and its individual ancestors), but most people (Jobs included) would agree that it failed in quite a few areas. iCloud is Apple’s complete rewrite of the platform and huge tie-in to existing iProducts and infrastructure. It features things like data backup from Apple’s mobile products, wireless syncing for documents/photos/books, mail, calendar, music, and photos.
On the surface, Apple’s offerings have become almost identical to Google’s. They both provide multi-device syncing, backup, productivity apps, and more. Both store your a copy of your data in the cloud. But there is one extremely huge difference. With Google services, everything can be accessed from a web browser practically anywhere in the world. Just hit the Google app URL of your choice, log-in with your username and password, and access your stuff. It’s easy and ubiquitous. In many cases these web services are supplemented with a mobile app on Android (and often on iOS as well). This is especially relevant with Gmail, Music, Docs, and Talk.
iCloud still stores all of your data in the cloud, but at present, you can’t get to it with a web browser. (Perhaps email and calendar are an exception, but it’s unclear from Apple’s website.) Instead, you’ll need an iPhone, iPad, or Mac in order to access most of your data. Photos are also available to Windows machines. But you won’t just need an Apple device. You’ll need your Apple device. iCloud is designed to pair with a specific device and connect it to your cloud account. But if your battery is dead or you’ve left something at home, it sounds like you’ll be stuck. Good luck getting that Excel document for the big meeting. Your cloud extends only as far as your battery. This seems like a huge downside to a set of services that otherwise has a lot of value. Within the next decade, web apps will become as powerful if not more so than native apps. Apple will have to evolve their offerings to keep up. Google has some shortcomings when it comes to things like editing documents, but they’re way ahead on the web front. iCloud does have some public APIs, so we’ll see what 3rd party developers can do with those.
Another significant difference between the competitors lies in the music services. Google is currently unable to sell music and match existing downloaded and ripped songs to a huge online library, so full uploads of your music is required. This usually doesn’t take weeks as Apple claims, but it can take a significant amount of time–certainly a few days–to get a large library uploaded. The upload process also slows down other Internet-based activities due to limited upload bandwidth.
On the upside though, once the music is loaded, any modern web browser can stream it from any machine. It’s literally music on the go from anywhere. The Android mobile app also supports this stream-anywhere philosophy and is available on any Android 2.2+ device. In addition to streaming, songs can be downloaded to the device as desired.
iTunes on iCloud works a bit differently. Initial setup is faster since you’ll have immediate access to iTunes-purchased music past and present. For a nominal yearly fee, you can quickly match all ripped music to anything in the master iTunes library. Anything that can’t be found there is uploaded the manual way just like Google. The music is available on up to ten devices.
That’s where the fun stops, though. First, users are still required to use iTunes (whether on desktop or mobile) to purchase music. There’s no web interface. This means that Apple failed to address the glaring issue of iTunes being incredibly bloated. I run across more and more users each day that are looking for a way out of the garden. Unless you’ve got a high-end machine, iTunes will be a pain in your side and Apple just expects you to deal with it. It runs far worse on Windows than Macs to boot.
The other issue relates to music storage. While you can download anything you’ve purchased or uploaded as many times as desired, the fact remains that the music must still be stored on a device. There’s no streaming whatsoever, so downloads are required. If a device’s space gets low, you’ll have to manually delete content in order to make room for new songs. Additionally, unless you keep your entire music library downloaded to every iDevice you own, there’s no guarantee that songs from one will be on the other. A manual search and download will be required. If you’ve got a lot of music, this could prove unwieldy. In the music store arena, Apple obviously has the lead, but in the convenience and tech department of the actual service…Google takes the cake.
One final caveat related to the iTunes cloud service is that their privacy policy states that they’ll willingly hand over information regarding your iTunes Match data to record labels if threatened with a lawsuit. In so many cases its going to be hard to determine if certain music files are legit or not. Nobody keeps all of their receipts, people lose original discs, and yes of course, there are pirates out there too. But what’s going to stop legitimate users from getting sued by RIAA and the like? I suspect TechDirt may have some insights here, but it’s a little disturbing to say the least.
All-in-all, I think parts of iCloud will be a very hard sell to users. Yes, everyone will benefit from app and data backups, OTA updates, and so on, but many users are already tied in to existing 3rd party services like Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, and so on. The ubiquity of those services (read: doesn’t require an Apple product in hand) makes them extremely lucrative. Switching to iCloud might not be worth the trouble–easy or not. Also, while details are still forthcoming, I wonder if certain data can be excluded from the cloud sync. Some documents, photos, and so on might not be appropriate for global cloud transference…especially to a family Apple TV or some such. Privacy conscious users may also balk at just shoving everything into the cloud. What security, integrity, and such are provided or guaranteed for uploaded data?? And finally, with capped data plans in vogue and no clear way of switching away from iCloud if desired, Apple will need to provide tools in order to track data usage and export content into industry-supported formats. Something they might not be willing to do.
Apple definitely has provided a huge upgrade from the MobileMe of the past few years, but it remains to be seen if they’ve really hit something good yet. It’ll be hard to beat Google at it’s own game. And with Google releasing the next major Android version this Winter, it may bring to significant upgrades and UI adjustments that trump iOS 5 in some important ways. It remains to be seen what’s up their sleeve. There’s even room for a Google Music refresh, so don’t count the music store out yet.
At any rate, the Google/Apple competition is definitely turning out to be a fierce one. The remainder of 2011 promises to be quite interesting indeed.
NFC: The Wave of the Future (hopefully)
0257 days
Credit cards are passe. Magnetic strips are prone to de-magnetization, get messed up and destroyed with age, and can cause general frustration in the checkout line at your local supermarket–especially when the cashier has to swipe it a dozen times before it registers. Did I just pay for my groceries multiple times? you ask yourself on the way out. Hopefully not…
The concept of credit is a great one, and it makes life a great deal easier. I, for one, hate carrying cash and much rather using my card as much as possible. But at the same time, I hate carrying multiple cards, pulling them out of my wallet, losing them, and so on. I’m much more conscientious in keeping track of my mobile phone, so what better device to use when I need to pay for stuff? It has security to prevent unauthorized users from gaining access and I can even remotely wipe it if I do lose it. That would be nice since I wouldn’t have to call one or more banks and have them change my account numbers, re-issue new cards, and so on.
Well, turns out the technology and implementation of such a device and system is already here, and it’s called Near Field Communication. It’s similar to RFID in the sense that it’s used to wirelessly transmit information over a pretty short distance, but instead of using a hardcoded tag like RFID, a device employing NFC can transmit any data it wants to a compatible reader. So essentially, your phone could act as 5 different credit cards at once if you so chose. All you’d need to do is pick the one you want to use from the phone’s software, move the phone near the reader, and the transaction would commence. Pretty slick, huh?
That all sounds great, of course, but for this to really work, it has to be standardized in much the same manner as the current credit card system. Any credit card can be used on any credit card reader. They’re all compatible with each other. The only issue that arises is whether a merchant has a contract with your card issuer. For instance, some retailers don’t process American Express cards, but other than issues like that, the credit card system is ubiquitous.
Google has been a big mover in this arena in the past 12 months and beginning later this year, NFC equipped Android phones will be able to take advantage of a new service named “Google Wallet.” They’ve partnered with banks like Citibank and MasterCard, in addition to retailers such as American Eagle and Macy’s. As more and more phones are enabled with this service and new retailers come on board, this serves to be a great boon to consumers! I, for one, can’t wait!
There’s one potentially looming problem though.
Apple is reportedly working on a similar NFC system for the next slew of iOS devices. Nobody’s sure how far along this thing may be, or if we might even see it in the iPhone 5, but it’s still a bit worrisome. If Apple couldn’t even be persuaded to make their Facetime protocol compatible with existing video chat services (many of which have been established for quite some time), can anyone really expect them to play nice in an arena where money might be made directly off of consumer purchases? Something tells me the answer is a resounding “no!”
Certainly competition is good in driving down prices, but this argument is not about that. It’s about making things incredibly easy for consumers to use, not to mention compatible across brands, service corporations, and country borders. If Apple is indeed working to bring this technology to future devices, my hope is that they’ll partner with Google in order to tie into existing infrastructure. Failing to do so will only serve to hurt both consumers and retailers as they’re faced with the difficulty of supporting both systems or the choice of supporting only one.
Ultimately, things will become standardized and either one side will win or compromises will be made between competitors; however, Apple’s choice in this area could determine whether the technology becomes ubiquitous within 12 months or takes many years to saturate the marketplace.
Make the right choice, Apple.
Google and h.264. Hypocrisy? Hardly.
0For all of the people out there claiming that Google just wanted to make a “big announcement” on “Verizon iPhone day,” it sure has created quite the buzz. I sincerely doubt that was their mission, but if somehow it was, I’d say they succeeded. Big time.
But for all of the absurd tech pundits who seem to think that removal of h.264 is a bad thing, you’d think the world was coming to an end. But this really is a good thing! Especially for consumers!!
I mean, look at the facts…
- h.264
- Almost half (like 47%) of PC browsers in use on the web don’t support h.264. (Firefox, Chrome, Opera…the former two which are still climbing the market share charts)
- The two browsers that do support h.264 are IE 9 and Safari. IE 9 isn’t even really showing up on the usage charts at this point, and Safari barely holds 5% market share–doesn’t seem to be going much of anywhere.
- The MPEG LA strictly controls h.264 licensing. It’s currently able to be used “royalty free” to end users, but that clause doesn’t apply if the content encoded in h.264 is produced commercially. Encoders and decoders (hardware and software alike) are required to pay patent licensing fees. (One reason BluRay movies cost so much more than traditional DVDs)
- h.264 is a well supported codec among consumer electronic devices, and is a “standard” in terms of wide digital media and film studio use. Beyond the ITU group though (which really isn’t a standards body), the codec is not truly a standard–especially in the realm of the web, where there is no native support except via a Flash layer.
- h.264 is not an open standard or an open source project. In any way. Whatsoever. Period. Anyone declaring otherwise is either mistaken or lying.
- webm
- All of the aforementioned browsers (excepting Safari, of course) will fully support the webm codec.
- webm is an open source project, completely unencumbered by license fees
- It is fully supported by Google and too many other hardware and software manufacturers to list.
- While not a true web standard (yet), it is in line with the w3c’s philosophy and is backed by every major open-source browser vendor.
- It easily matches h.264 in both quality, speed, and efficiency (i.e. neither codec is superior to the other).
As I stated before, the above list is not my personal opinion, it is supportable fact.
Anyway, Google moving away from h.264 is great news for those of us who want an open, unbiased, unencumbered, and generally “free” web! Naturally, the people who support h.264 as a web standard are probably fans of communism and socialism too–just sayin’. It’s not that I’m against the format, just the philosophy behind it. If h.264 could shake the shackles of the MPEG LA and be completely open sourced, I wouldn’t have a problem supporting it whatsoever. But corporations are greedy, so I don’t see this happening anytime soon.
What about Flash, though? I’ve seen many articles and tweets criticizing Google for being huge hypocrites for not removing Flash support from Chrome as well. Unfortunately, most of these folks are mindless drones who have listened to the lies told to them by those with agendas…like, oh…a certain CEO of a major Fruit company. The fact is (and I’ve definitely addressed this in previous posts) that Flash is a web standard, is open-source, and isn’t a video codec. It’s a rich media file format that just so happens to support video in addition to a ton of other stuff. The part of Flash that isn’t open source, is Adobe’s content creation and playback tools. There’s not much stopping any other developer from writing their own open source Flash production tools. I suspect that they’d just have trouble selling it against Adobe’s gold standard products. Google is not being hypocritical at all! Especially since Flash will support webm as well as a plethora of other formats.
Here’s the thing about Flash. The main reason most content publishers are still using it (other than its ubiquity) is the fact that it supports content protection (read: DRM). I’m not a fan of DRM by any means whatsoever. In fact, that was my main complaint with the whole iTunes model earlier this decade. But DRM aside, if Google quit supporting Flash on Chrome, they’d be significantly limiting users’ web experience. There’s not much by way of native h.264 video on the web, so this point is moot. Examine Mozilla’s stand on the issue as well and a similar pattern emerges. They won’t support the majorly encumbered h.264, yet they built better support and security for Flash directly into the browser.
Bottom line: I won’t be supporting h.264 or any browser that does include native support. webm will become the dominant web video standard over the next decade and any who do not provide support for it in their hardware or software will be left in the 2000s. Face it: an open web is better for everyone.
Confirmed: Official Starbucks Android app in the works!
4636 days
by matt
in smartphones
With the report Monday showing that Android-powered devices have taken over the iPhone as the #2 smartphone in the United States, you’d think most major companies that initially developed applications for the iPhone would have completed Android-compatible apps as well! Starbucks’s mobile apps have been some of the mysteriously missing major apps from the Android Market.
Not for long.
This evening, a tweet was posted by the Starbucks twitter account noting that the iPhone app had just been updated. Several people then responded by asking why there was no similar application for other platforms (one of which is Android). Well, in response to that question, Starbucks responded “We’re working on apps for all platforms.” in this tweet. So, while there’s no official release date, we can rest assured that an official Starbucks app is coming for the platform of your liking!
Which app are you waiting for on your favorite platform?
