To the fat, lazy and slumbering Microsoft these are all unmonetizable services which Ballmer claims his board would never allow him to let loose on the market. It’s apparently easier to convert a desktop app, slap a “Live” label on it and shove it online to connect the dots to the bank. Is it any wonder why Microsoft hasn’t made any dent in Google’s online dominance?DEC 03, 2008 READ »
Google apps
During its growth period, Microsoft entered into one risky bet after another, from cable TV to office equipment automation to Dick Tracy watches. It saw threats to its core revenue base from every new development, every new player to come along. And expand and spend it did. It did, mostly because its management thought it could.DEC 15, 2009 READ »
So the Android crusaders will be circling us in 2011, swinging their $85 smartswords to demand our capitulation in a rapture of inevitability. Inevitable like Knoll, Orkut, Froogle, Lively, Health, NoteBook, SideWiki, Answers, Wave, Buzz, Nexus…like an army of 41 shades of blue. No matter. Resistance is futile.DEC 28, 2010 READ »
Project Glass
Two years ago Eric Schmidt foretold this clearly: “It’s a future where you don’t forget anything…In this new future you’re never lost…We will know your position down to the foot and down to the inch over time…you’re never lonely…”MAY 31, 2012 READ »
Google Buzz
In its urgency to offer a me-too product, Buzz confuses the read/unread email paradigm with real-time messaging stream like Twitter. It adds insult to injury by co-mingling various cognitive spheres like blogs, photos, videos, status, etc into thin soup delivered through an unceasing firehose. The final blow is the embarrassingly unfocused layout: the complete absence of visual hierarchy and progressive disclosure, overabundance of visual cues/links for action, and clumsiness in using white space to strip away meaningful information density.FEB 15, 2010 READ »
Google Buzz
Now imagine if Microsoft or Apple did this. The blogosphere would have exploded with self-righteous indignation. But we already know Microsoft and Apple are evil. Google, the “Don’t be evil” company, obviously, is not…Magic acts are entertaining only if you can’t spot the misdirection.FEB 12, 2010 READ »
Vic Gundotra
We’ve come full circle: Google positions itself as the champion of “open web” (because it’s good for its own business), promotes HTML5 (because it’s the vehicle to get there) but comes across a formidable competitor in Apple and finds itself at a disadvantage. What to do? Why, let’s promote the very un-open and proprietary Flash, as a purely cynical competitive bludgeon against Apple.APR 22, 2010 READ »
When designers do test, they do so because they themselves are not sure what works best in a given context. Testing informs designers, it doesn’t magically produce judgement. If Google needs to be taught in 2010 by testing on actual users without prior consent that the core tenet of a private/secure system design must not require opt-out, then shame on them.FEB 19, 2010 READ »
Mine isn’t anthropomorphized corporate enmity. It’s simply exposing deliberate, pervasive and sustained hypocrisy. An example of a search and ad monopolist trying to misdirect public attention away from its own proprietary and opaque cashcows by an obsessive use of the “open” mantra. If Bray dismisses that as “hating” Google, so be it.MAY 31, 2010 READ »

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s