"New Density settings increase the amount of information on the Reader screen"
[Google Engineer] Morrill said. "The problem is that there is no good UI for it. One of the core Android principles is that you never need a file manager. Ever. We wanted to avoid the obnoxious 'sneeze and a file picker appears' syndrome of basically every other OS. Local data that apps know how to handle should just be magically available within the apps, or stored in the cloud. You shouldn't have to go spelunking on your SD card to find data."
Really?
You're claiming that file managers go against a core Android principal. Yet almost every Android phone produced has one.
The iPhone hasn't had a file manager since day one. It has never had an SD card slot even when users asked for it. They made that choice for a reason, and it led to a simpler phone.
I don't mind if you steal ideas from other companies, but don't pretend that was your intention all along.
Back in January 2010, following Google’s much-hyped Nexus One unveiling, I wrote a post entitled: Apple And Google Just Tag Teamed The U.S. Carriers. In it, I argue that the biggest part of Google’s announcement wasn’t any one device, it was the new model they were putting out there. Google’s ambition to sell devices directly to consumers would build upon the consumer-friendly mobile foundation laid by Apple with the iPhone. Under the new system, consumers would go to a website and click on the phone they want, click on the carrier they want, and boom, they’re done. This was going to change everything. It was going to be beautiful.
Then something happened.
While Apple (some would say stubbornly) clung to their exclusive agreement in order to continue to bend AT&T to their will, Google backed down. When it became clear that the Nexus One was simply not selling, Google seemingly panicked and went running with open arms to the carriers.
Somehow Google's Android inserts itself into the conversation around cell phone innovation and breaking free of carrier control. Yet I fail to see what Android has really done to help.
When the iPhone came out 4 years ago, the entire industry changed. Here's what the iPhone brought us for the first time:
With Android, I struggle to see what Google has done to make the cell phone market better, or to reduce the hold carriers have on us. The few things I can come up with are:
Other than that, it seems Android suffers from the same issues other cell phones do. The carriers control the software and experience that ultimate ends up on the device. The carrier controls upgrades for software and hardware. There is a ton of fragmentation in the space. There is confusion for users.
I see how Google tried to change things. They tried to sell the Nexus One direct and tried to bring consistent hardware and software to multiple carriers. But none of this has played out.
At least today, I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about Google in the same breath as Apple with regards to innovation in the mobile industry. Google promises a lot (free WiFi in San Francisco?) but delivers little.
When Google announced the first Android phone, I was not impressed. The hardware was large and clunky, the software was young and lacked polish. But Android is emerging as a real threat to Apple, because Google's cloud services are well-executed, and free. A user can buy an Android phone, log in with their Google account, and instantly have their contacts, email, and calendar.
Apple needs to follow Google's lead. Why do I need to USB sync my new iPhone or iPad with iTunes before I can use it? I blogged about this before. Mobile Me should be the true hub for all your data, while your laptop should be just another client device with equal rights as your iPhone or iPad. All your devices should sync with the cloud. But for Mobile Me to be this hub, and for Apple to maintain their dominance on the mobile front against Google, they must make Mobile Me free. Until they do this, Google will have better cloud integration with their mobile devices.Rebranding .Mac to Mobile Me already shows a movement away from the Mac. This isn't your "Mac" login, this is the login for your personal cloud.
So picture it: you buy an iPad, iPhone, or a new Macbook Pro. You turn it on and login with your Mobile Me account. You already have one since it's free. Instantly that device has all your media and other data. There's no more USB syncing.
And the next time you're looking for a new phone, there's pressure to stick with Apple products because the hardware, software, and cloud will be perfectly integrated.Apple can continue trying to sell Mobile Me as a standalone product, but they are slowing adoption of their cloud services and hurting their overall mobile platform. Instead they should focus on selling hardware, and give away the best software and services to run on that hardware.
Thanks to Anthony Ha for the editing help.
I definitely ruffled some feathers with my last blog post, "The web sucks".
The hardcore web developers are pretty upset. Those who have never developed for the iPhone, or are strong believers in standards and openness, tend to leave comments like, "you suck!" Really mature. The more intelligent commenters seem to get my point. They do acknowledge that the web platform is innovating very slowly, and has quickly been eclipsed by native mobile apps. I don't know what the solution to the browser problem is. Maybe non-standardization isn't the way to go, it's just one option I propose. I don't think the web will die, but if the web platform loses any market share at all, Google stands to lose the most. That's why I think they will lead innovation. 1. Google should drop support for IE6 across the board, most notably, in GMail. If they did this, imagine how much market share IE6 would lose, overnight! Even the slowest IT departments out there would no choice but to figure out an upgrade plan. 2. Google Chrome should release some non-standard APIs that make Google web apps really standout. You want to use GMail in all its glory? Then you have to use Chrome. Other browsers may or may not implement the APIs that Chrome creates. Developers may or may not use the Chrome only APIs to enhance their apps.But people won't complain about the non standard Chrome SDK because:
And with that, a new era in browser competition and innovation will be born.
Over the weekend I tried to buy a new dishwasher. Being the fine net-friendly fellow that I am, I began Google-ing for information. And Google-ing. and Google-ing. As I tweeted frustratedly at the tend of the failed exercise, "To a first approximation, the entire web is spam when it comes to appliance reviews".This is, of course, merely a personal example of the drive-by damage done by keyword-driven content -- material created to be consumed like info-krill by Google's algorithms. Find some popular keywords that lead to traffic and transactions, wrap some anodyne and regularly-changing content around the keywords so Google doesn't kick you out of search results, and watch the dollars roll in as Google steers you life-support systems connected to wallets, i.e, idiot humans.
The result, however, is awful. Pages and pages of Google results that are just, for practical purposes, advertisements in the loose guise of articles, original or re-purposed. It hearkens back to the dark days of 1999, before Google arrived, when search had become largely useless, with results completely overwhelmed by spam and info-clutter.
As Search Engine Optimization techniques get better and more effective, will a web search revert back to looking like it did in 1999? Remember when search results were full of spammy sites? Whereas now we find sites like Wikipedia, Yelp, and Amazon ranking highest, all sites with great content.
The whole point of Google's search algorithm is to find and return the best content for any given set of search terms. They use a number of factors to figure out what's "best". For example, the more times someone links to an article, the better that article probably is.
Whenever someone asks me about SEO and how they can improve their page rank, I always say one thing: create good content. If you post good stuff, people will talk about it, discuss it, link to it, and Google will eventually see that it's good and present it to people.
Doing anything for SEO outside of just creating good content is just trying to trick Google into thinking your content is better than it is. In fact, if Google is doing their job right, they should make adjustments to counter these SEO tactics.
I was discussing this with a friend and he brought up an interesting point: searching for "dishwashers" brings up a bunch of junk, so why doesn't Google fix their algorithm? Because it's those junkie websites that drive clicks that result in ads sales. Maybe they aren't trying to optimize for the best results, but for making the most money.
If you do believe that Google is in fact optimizing for revenue (I don't necessarily believe that), then won't search results get worse and worse? They will. Until a new player comes along. The next Google. And consumers will switch to this new search engine if they see better results there.
And then the cycle will begin again.
I'm not an SEO expert, but seems like SEO is something spam sites do. If you are trying to create a high quality destination site, just write good content and let Google do its job.
And now the SEO experts are going to slaughter me in the comments, I can feel it.
Note: These opinions are mine alone, and not those of Posterous, Inc.
In general, I'm pretty negative on the movement towards web apps. Most web apps are lacking in functionality compared to desktop alternatives and are still trying to catch up. I really like drag and drop, multiple windows, and offline access. I know Google is working on all these things in the browser, and when it's all working well it will be great.... but for now, I don't want to use something that is web based simply because it's made by Google and free.
My mom was in the town for the past few days. She got a call last night saying her flight was cancelled. I jumped on Google and searched for her flight. It said:
And at the exact same moment, the United website said it was cancelled:
I called United and had her rebooked on another flight out of LGA. I asked the guy for the flight number and looked it up in Google to see the details. It said:
"Wait, that's not where she's going," I told the guy. On the United website, the correct info showed up:
Ok, I know this information isn't owned by Google, it comes from flightstats.com. But by enabling these quick searches, Google is implying that this date is accurate. The information is actually completely wrong and could really mess you up your travel. Beware. Double check the info with the source, not some middle man.
The past few weeks I've been dealing with a lot of corporate paperwork, legal crap, accounting, etc etc. As such, I've been forced to use the tools of the trade, things I wouldn't normally have to touch. A quick summary:
Fax: I can't believe people still use fax. Unbelievable. Thankfully most places are fine with scan+email, but there were times I had to go to Kinkos to fax something. No, I don't own a fax machine. I don't even have a landline phone. Kinkos: What a terrible, terrible place. So mediocre and expensive. Could be so much more. Microsoft Word: Makes me want to pull my hair out. Probably one of the buggiest, bloated products I have used in a very, very long time. I definitely prefer Pages whenever possible. Microsoft Excel: Actually, a really great product. I've been using Excel for years and I love it. Now, if I was trying to do something quick, I would probably use Numbers since it's more lightweight and prettier, but you can't beat Excel for it's power and features. Microsoft PPT: Also makes me want to pull my hair out. Funny this is, I never use it. I just see other presentations made with it and they look so damn ugly. Keynote is gorgeous. Google Docs: Buggy as hell, but the only way to collaborate on documents online. I'm very skeptical of tools becoming web based just for the sake of being web based, but you actually need to collaborate on documents with other people. So Google docs is actually very useful. But seriously Google, hire some more QA and fix that shit. Screen sharing: It's amazing how hard it is to just share your screen with someone else so you can give them a demo. iChat rules here. Video conferencing: Again, products in this area are SOOO bad. We tried using tokbox.com but the quality stinks. Yeah, yeah, it's on the web in flash. That's cool, i guess. I'd rather have higher quality video, and no damn audio feedback. There are all this "pro" products out there for collaboration and video conferencing like Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro. But they are sooooo bad. At the end of the day, iChat offers the best video conferencing and screen sharing solution out there. And it's a consumer IM application! Crazy.