LIVEdigitally

Tag Archives: google

Expectations and Thoughts for CES 2013

Posted on by

I love the smell of CES in the morning.  Seriously, I *love* CES (here’s my walkthrough the show last year with Robert Scoble – be warned – its 45 minutes long), though I’d love to see them move it back in the year a few weeks.  CES is like SXSW, except people actually get some work done in addition to all the partying.  I love the vaporware demos sandwiched in between the unnecessarily huge screens and the neon. Lots and lots of neon.  LOVE IT – and no, this isn’t a long, drawn out sarcastic rant.  But I’m taking a break from my annual “CES Tips” lists, as there’s nothing substantive to add.  Instead, here’s some thoughts on what I’m expecting next week:

Nothing Revolutionary
That might sound weird, but I’m just not expecting any “big new thing” at this year’s show, instead lots of “mostly better things than last year”.  Bigger screens.  Thinner screens.  Lighter phones.  Longer batteries.  The major keynotes are from Qualcomm, Panasonic, Verizon, and Samsung – not one of these companies has a history of revolutionizing the show.

But yet, lots of cool updates
While nothing should blow us away, I’m expecting tons of improvements to other products.  More smart TVs with more smarterness to them.   Lots of UltraHD/4K TVs (sigh). More well-done AirPlay integrated devices.  It’ll be fun.

Especially OLED
Coolest thing at CES 2012 were the 4MM thick OLED TVs that didn’t ship in 2012, despite promises they would.  Coolest thing at CES 2013 will be the 4MM OLED TVs that might actually ship in 2013.

Meme Prediction: Complaints about the lack of stuff
If there’s one thing that follows the theme of “nothing revolutionary” its listening to everyone, their mother, and their mother’s facebook friends complain about nothing being new at the show. You shouldn’t be expecting something big, and whining about how you could’ve stayed home is just annoying.

Potential sleepers: Verizon & Qualcomm
Interestingly, both have keynotes, and both have large booths (and near each other).  If I had to put money on “doing something unexpectedly big” I’d place on either, or both of these companies.

What I’d love to see, but don’t expect
Flexible displays.  I’ll go so far as saying there’ll be *nothing* exciting in consumer electronics and mobile devices between now and when the first generation of devices with flexible/bendable displays arrive.  So I’ve got a secret hope that even prototype stuff will emerge from someone’s labs at this year’s show.

What I’m already bored of: More Tablets
I still haven’t seen a single product from a single company that defines a “tablet market” and I’m not expecting that to change at CES.  But, I am expecting loads of cheap tablets that might do well overseas, which is all fine and good.  Yawn.

I’m Betting On: Smarterer TVs
Every single TV company will announce new Smart TVs.  And every one of them will continue to make TVs that are harder to use than they were before.  Bummer.

Who Will Be Missing?
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple – the four companies that would make the show dramatically more interesting.

That’s about all I can think of.  Shame is I’ve got so many other commitments at the show this year I have no idea if I’ll even get to walk the floor.  C’est La CES, C’est La Vie!

Is Amazon Building a Kindle Set-Top Box?

Posted on by

I'm awesome at photoshop! I hope it doesn't look like this!

I’m pretty sure the headline here says it all.  Let’s review the facts (it might be worth re-reading my bit on why HBO doesn’t go direct to consumers, as many of those issues are addressed here):

  1. Amazon has a large content library. They are actively increasing it.
  2. Amazon has a content distribution platform already capable of streaming to non-PC devices.
  3. Amazon has a recurring billing relationship with consumers.
  4. Amazon has a (phenomenal) marketing and distribution channel for getting devices into consumers houses.
  5. Amazon has a strong brand in the hardware space.
  6. Amazon has the customer service & support infrastructure needed to deal with service issues.
  7. Amazon has the ability to build hardware and deal with supply chain issues.
  8. The TV services industry is huge, and Amazon wants in.

Even if they don’t plan to decouple content from Amazon Prime, making a box is a very viable, and, in my opinion, a likely move.  In addition to all of the above, it is a strong move versus Apple (and possibly Google and Microsoft too).

A $99 Amazon Kindle TV box would not surprise me this coming holiday season (how about a September launch, right in time for school?).  But then again, I occasionally get Kindle predictions wrong.

Kinda saw this one coming, didn't ya?

Oh, and one more thing.  What if they do it by acquiring Roku?  Let’s review that scenario:

  1. Roku already has something better than a minimum viable product.
  2. Amazon could skip all the work on developing a new UI/UX (regardless of your feelings on the Roku UX, it is well more than functional).
  3. Roku isn’t a sustainable business yet, enabling Amazon to purchase at a reasonable price.
  4. Roku has a team with a strong background and industry knowledge relevant to the TV/Device space.
  5. Amazon can distribute the same hardware at the same price point (which seems to fall in the not-too-profitably category), yet supplement with reliable recurring revenue.
  6. Amazon wouldn’t have to drop the Netflix service, but could slowly chip away at it from within.
  7. It’s cheaper than trying to buy Xbox from Microsoft (though that’d be quite the coup, plus nobody would even need to relocate)

I don’t really think Amazon *needs* to buy Roku, but it would probably let them fast-track a bunch of steps.  And then it could be a $49 Kindle TV, which just sounds so… right.

Path: To Trust or Not to Trust?

Posted on by

privacy fail

In a nutshell: Path, a facebook-like social networking app, recently found themselves in hot water after a programmer discovered they’re uploading your entire address book to their Web servers when you use it.  Mike Arrington’s proposed solution is they should “nuke” all their data (and as disclosure, he’s an investor in the company).  My initial reaction is this is absolutely correct, but doesn’t necessarily address my real concern – moving forward, can I actually decide to trust Path or not?

I am in the “no photos of my kids on Facebook” camp.  Why?  Because Facebook has demonstrated a fairly deliberate motive to not keep my data private.  The company actually believes privacy is “Dead” so why would they even care about this kind of a thing?  They don’t, and that’s their decision, and since I think privacy is alive and well, I make the (easy) choice not to share anything about my children there (for so many reasons, but here’s one if you need it).  Enter Path.

When I first tried Path (and by the way, it’s one of the most beautiful apps I’ve seen for my iPhone), it seemed fairly clear they were pretty dedicated to privacy and your “real” social network.  Initially you were limited to 50 friends, and all sharing happened within the confines of the app itself.

Now, the 50 friends limit is up to 150, the app enables sharing to Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, and, lo and behold, there’s a privacy fail.

One can quickly look back to Facebook and say “privacy fail = no big deal”, unless, of course, your value proposition is around privacy!

As they say, it takes a lifetime to build trust, and mere moments to utterly destroy it.

Path is at a crossroads.  They must decide what they are, and what their stance on privacy is, and they must do it imminently.  If they want to be “the social network you can trust”, they have that opportunity.  But they are on the verge of squandering it.  Which leaves them as “the social network that’s not Facebook or Google+” and in that mode, I can’t imagine them doing more than just eking it out if they continue down this… wait for it… path.

I’d love to see Dave Morin (Path’s CEO) use this moment to step up, make a public statement on what the company’s vision is and what they stand for.  I for one hope they don’t choose… poorly.

Why User 111091089527727420853 Is Wrong About Google+

Posted on by

Scobleizer doesn't have quite a "ring" to it...

Wondering who that is?  Here’s the link, and just for fun, I’ll try to get through the whole post without otherwise identifying him.  Oh who am I kidding, it’s the infamous Scobleizer, Robert Scoble.  He recently wrote a post on why he’s betting on Google+.  Here are some key reasons, and I believe they are represented fairly in context:

What I’m noticing is Google+ gets the best stuff first. And this is “with no one on it.” (That claim cracks me up, a new post shows up every 20 seconds, 24 hours a day, and that’s with following only 5,000 people here)

My videos get more views after a month, due to Google and other search engines, than they do in the first day (which is when you’d see them on social networks).

Google+ items are the best way to get my media into Google search. I’m already seeing that. Now that there’s a search engine here on Google+ it’s even a bigger deal.

How do you best capture the EMOTION of your time? Blogging? Not for me anymore. Tweeting? Not for me anymore (I will continue being there, mostly to let people who won’t leave that system know what I’m doing and where I’m doing it — it has turned into a UI for my Facebook and Google behaviors). Facebooking? Yes. I’m still there and will be for forseeable future at http://facebook.com/robertscoble

But other than that, what is my blog for? Monetization? Nope. My bosses are very willing to pay me even if I give up my blog completely. Branding? Does having a big logo help anyone? Really?

I think I can summarize his arguments into the following statement: Google+ is a great content discovery tool for both content consumers and products, and a personal blog and Twitter don’t capture enough emotion and conversation.  And I think he’s right — for Robert Scoble, and possibly a handful of others — and I can further understand why they have the passion for the site.  I’d argue, strongly, that for the majority of other people, and not just mainstream users but technically sophisticated ones as well, Google+ is utterly lacking the experience consumers want.  It doesn’t have my actual friends in it, nor does it seem to have the features that they will want (and they’ve reinvented the use of the + button, and there aren’t multithreaded conversations, and and and).  But I’ll instead just do the counter to Robert’s key points above.

First, it’s my assertion that most people don’t much care about finding “the best stuff” nor do they care about the speed at which they find it.  To my friend Robert, it’s a very important thing, which is understandable given the nature of his career.  Most people, however, are consuming a trickle of content, and are not living in “real time”.  Most people found out about Michael Jackson dying, Steve Jobs resigning, and the Japanese tsunami many many hours after the events, with only a tiny fraction of us in the few seconds or minutes after it was announced.  Considering the availability of blogs, twitter feeds, and other streams, if the mainstream really wanted to consume more stuff in real-time, we’d already see much higher spikes in traffic to some of these sources.  Google+ being “best” or “fastest” is one of those situations where “good enough” beats great by a long shot, and this isn’t going to send it users.

If I run fast enough, I'll have all the news!

Robert’s next two points have to do with getting his content to a wider audience – I’ll keep this point short and sweet: the vast majority of people rarely create content that they share with the general public.

Next up is creating emotion – I don’t mean to sound too harsh here, but the “emotional fabric” of Google+ is roughly on par to that of a sheet of loose leaf paper, maybe slightly less.  Google+ is about as bland and expressionless an environment as I have seen online, it’s only slightly more “warm” than their search results.  Facebook is unquestionably a better experience from this perspective, and as clever as the Googlers are, incorporating the warmth it’d take to create this kind of environment is simply beyond their DNA.

Let's just put it this way, in the movie version, they get Costner to play Google+

Lastly, on what is a blog for?  It’s about identity.  It’s only because of the “.com” that Robert grew an identity as Scobleizer (like it or not).  If a random person were to hear about Robert Scoble and decide he wanted to learn more about him, read his works, etc, he’s going to end up at his personal identity site.  Which is, at present, his blog.  In the future if it’s a smorgasbord of content distributed across the blog, YouTube, Building43, Google+, Facebook, and the occasional tweet, he’s diluting his brand.  Now luckily for Robert, he already has a brand, and he can really push the limits of sites like G+ and Facebook to accommodate his following behaviors.  But again, none of this ties into the identity of a random individual online, who is, like it or not, probably based on Facebook, with occasional presences on Twitter, Yelp, and other sites.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t question if Robert himself is getting a lot, at present, out of Google+, it’s clear he is.  But I’m shocked he’s betting the future on it.  I feel like we saw this play out once before, back in the FriendFeed days.  At the time, he was warned by Michael Arrington not too invest too heavily in that service. And just because “it’s Google” isn’t enough to be certain of permanence, in fact Google’s killed quite a few products recently.  And if Google+ really becomes a “ghost town” that the founders themselves aren’t interested in participating in, I wonder how long it can survive.

When Will Facebook Fail?

Posted on by

Just like governments, mixing “creativity” with “banking”, taking naked pictures of yourself and hoping they won’t end up on the Internet, and well, this stuff, tech companies have a certain inevitable amount of failure built-into them.  Sure, IBM, Xerox and Motorola have existed for many decades, and both Microsoft and Intel still have dominant positions, but if we really think about the “powerhouses” in technology today (Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple), they are all fairly young (I’m using the argument that Apple effectively reinvented itself in the late 1990s).  And if we look ahead even 10 years, it’s hard to argue those four will hold they same positions they do today.

Little known secret? Sony guts.

Of the four, I’d personally assess Google and Facebook as “most vulnerable” to obsolescence (just a hunch, I’m sure I’ll be ridiculed in the commentary for such a statement), and with the points made on “why Facebook’s the new Yahoo!” by Mike Elgan and Mathew Ingram, I thought I’d write up a little somethin’.

First and foremost, I see Facebook as in no way similar to Yahoo!  Not even a little bit, I’d barely even figure out how to compare the two companies (other than the “.com” at the end of their URLs).  The key thing, beyond whatever “Facebook.com” is all about, is that Facebook is unarguably the most well-distributed and deeply integrated service on the Internet.  According to Nielsen, Facebook users spent 53 billion minutes in May 2011 using the site – and this does not count Facebook-integrated features on other websites.  The Facebook “social graph” is at/near/above 700 million users at this point.  That’s a lot of the Internet.  A lot.

My God. It's Full of Likes!

I don’t see Facebook dying due to “stale technology” – they aren’t about technology (other than scaling, etc).  They aren’t about UI/UX (tip to FB: the “clickable thing” in an update should be the action/verb, not the user nor target/noun).  Most of the typical norms of a website’s laws of gravity simply don’t apply to them, due to the massive inertia they’ve built with their userbase. Further, the inertia of existing social graphs make growth of Google+ and Twitter effectively irrelevant – I think speculation that “Facebooking” will shift to a different social network is extremely hard to substantiate.

I used to take the “cool club in town” position on Facebook, and the moment it wasn’t “new” and instead full of B+T crowds, it’s popularity would sink and people would move on.   But I don’t think this argument holds up anymore, Facebook is too popular in too many demographics and the “cool kids” are “over” the fact that their lame parents are there as well.  It’s like the mall – just because Dad’s shopping at Eddie Bauer isn’t stopping the utes from hanging out in the food court.  I know it too is easily picked apart, but I think the mall argument works really well as a parable for Facebook.

Why does the one in the middle look so. much. older?

When you want to open a Gap, and you want customers, you find a mall.  Orange Julius? Mall.  Crappy replica furniture Bombay Company? Malls.

What’s the online equivalent of that?  Facebook, Likes, Facebook Connect, etc.  Facebook is the way brands are engaging with customers online.  And this is just making them even stickier.

I just hope there's a kiosk with a crazy lady selling mystical gems.

So how might Facebook fall?  A few thoughts…

  1. Massive shift to mobile interactions – Facebook’s weakest point at present is its mobile presence.  If the world continues its mobile/social/web path, I believe Facebook has less to offer that ingrains it so deeply in the traditional browser/web world.  Without the stickiness across mobile apps (especially with the iOS shift to Twitter and Android’s inevitable equivalent with Google+), they could be highly vulnerable.
  2. Massive revolt on social networking – At present, our society is unfortunately radically focused on narcissism and fulfilling ego problems.  This may (please, please, please!) change, in which case folks’ll have much less desire to share every (useless) nuance of their (mundane) lives with their friends/acquaintances/people they kinda met once.  If these patterns ever emerge, you can put Facebook at the top of the chopping block as it’ll become the target of said pushback.
  3. Massive elongated platform failure – Whether its by hackers or internal problems, a significant outage of Facebook and its related services could cause things to unravel in a significant way.  I’d wager that if a Facebook Connect downtime prevents users from logging into websites/apps for more than a few days could cause the digital equivalent of a bank panic by both the web services and the end-users themselves.
  4. Massive rapid shift to post-PC platforms – Similar to (1) above, if the shift from a computer-based world to a tablet iPad, phone, connected TV, and other device world happens, and Facebook can’t provide the same “glue”, they’ll be vulnerable.
  5. Massive privacy breach – When I say massive in this case, I don’t just mean Facebook makes some (typically) poor decision regarding consumer rights/privacy, I mean something really awful happens, and its very public, and its entirely due to Facebook.  Like, huge act of terrorism on highly visible people entirely tied to something that was Facebook’s fault.
  6. Unknown – This would be the deux ex machina of today’s post – something otherwise unpredictable comes along and clobbers them over the head.

It’s hard to predict the end of giants or eras.  But that they will fall and whither away is predictable.  Curious to hear any other people’s thoughts on the topic in the comments below!

Speculating On Motorola + Google TV

Posted on by
Googorola!

Googorola!

Google is planning to acquire Motorola Mobility, which is a deal about patents and Android, but also one to raise questions on quite a few existing product lines.  What will happen with Moto Droids and the Google Nexus line?  Where do Android tablets go from here?  Is MOTOBlur dead?   (my answers: bye bye Nexus, tbd, and yes).  The other interesting area is Google TV, particularly interesting because the Motorola Mobility dept is the one that makes the set-top boxes (which are, next to refrigerators, one of the least likely products to be mobile in my house, but maybe that’s just me).

I’ve seen tons of speculation this week about what the deal means, as it pertains to Google TV, and have batched together some of the perspectives that are floating around.  Most common theme: now that Google owns the STB business, they can just sprinkle Android into all the next-gen cable boxes…

That gives Google an attractive footprint to leverage on a number of different fronts within the digital home, perhaps with a Trojan Horse strategy of pushing Android-based middleware out to shore up its lacklustre connected TV strategy.

Source: With Motorola, Google gains a big TV strategy | News | Rapid TV News http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/2011081514335/with-motorola-google-gains-a-big-tv-strategy.html#ixzz1VEtbiUZe

Also surmised by Apple Insider, Robert Scoble, CNET, Business Insider, NewTeeVee, and Lost Remote (and others).  Here’s the thing, this isn’t even a topic/issue/option in play, at all.  It’s not exactly like Motorola’s been unable to acquire operating systems to power their set tops, and could easily have chosen Google TV prior to now.  Further, there’s simply no such thing as “sneaking” technology into the cable infrastructure, not even a tiny bit.  We’ve seen (and I’ve worked for) many companies try to accomplish some set of these tasks, and not one shred of success.  Why?  Because the cable industry commissions the hardware and features they want, and not the other way around.

Burger King creepy guy

You Can Have it Your Way. aka 7' tall and creepy.

Another widely spread philosophy is that the only reason Google TV hasn’t caught on yet is due to not having had the right chance/opportunity:

“Google TV has not caught on yet,” wrote AOL journalist Saul Hansell on his personal blog. “This could be the wedge to get it in millions of living rooms.”

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20092451-261/motorola-could-help-cure-ailing-google-tv/#ixzz1VExC7Dqg

Shared feelings from Zatz Not Funny, Lost Remote, NewTeeVee, and more, but not by myself (nor my friend Dan Frommer, though he’s much nicer about it than I would’ve been).  Google TV hasn’t caught on with consumers because it’s the wrong value proposition for consumers, period.  In my ten-plus years of building “connected TV” products, the thing I’ve learned is that the more interaction you throw on the screen, the less you engage and benefit your users.  While there are moments for “lean-forward” activities, they are fleeting.  Google TV is built on the opposite premise.

Maxell dude + Venom

This isn't exactly the lean-back experience I was expecting.

One last comment that I’ve seen making the rounds was that Google just gained a bunch of knowhow regarding building boxes.  This doesn’t much pass the sniff test either, as other than Apple, everybody builds boxes the same, and there’s very little secret sauce here.  If anything, they should consider offloading all hardware production that still gets done internally or dive in deep in fully integrated software/hardware solutions.  More on that in a bit.

So that’s enough about everybody else’s theories, time for a few of my own.

  1. The acquisition was entirely about the patent portfolio, the synergy (or not) between Google TV (G-TV) and Motorola’s STB division (M-STB) is positive, but was coincidental.
  2. Google must demonstrate to current M-STB customers that they will not disband nor change the status quo there in the short term (let’s call it 2-5 years).  If this doesn’t happen quickly, we could see an exodus to the numerous viable competitors.
  3. Google would be better off moving G-TV inside M-STB than vice versa.  M-STB has the requisite business practices savvy for dealing with the cable industry, which is significantly more vital to longevity than any software platform.  In fact, gaining this type of business experience is quite a boon for Google, as its an industry they have historically (dating back pre-YouTube days) not well-understood.
  4. The other massive obstacle that seems underreported is the complete lack of fit between M-STB hardware platforms and G-TV software architecture needs.  One of them will need a rewrite, and that’s costly.
  5. Without a major improvement to the platform itself, this acquisition does not change G-TV’s fate.  No cable company on the planet is simply going to allow technology into their boxes (yes, they buy em, they rent em to customers) without a) control and b) a clear path to revenue/profits.  Granted, there are indications those profits could come, but not with the current platform.

Ultimately, I think this is a fascinating topic.  The nuance of industries involved, the hugeness of capital in play, and the clearly disruptive horizon for the TV business is more exciting than virtually anything I can think of.

Chile Volcano Lightning

Well, almost anything.

A Million (free) Angry Birds Downloads Exposes Critical Android Platform Fail

Posted on by

One of the most popular iPhone games has come to Android, it’s called Angry Birds.  While I’m not personally a big fan (no offense, team Rovio, just not my kind of game), the game has well over 11 million downloads on the iPhone worldwide, and as of August had sold 6.5 million copies.  So if my simple math holds up, at 6.5 million copies at $0.99 per sale, that’s a gross of $6,435,000, and after a 30% cut to Apple, it’s a net of $4,505,500.  Today’s accomplishment of 1 million Android downloads (which truly is impressive, congrats Team Rovio!) results in a net of $0.  But they could make some money down the road if the ad revenue shows up.

I’m not saying Rovio won’t make some decent money off the ad platform, after all Google did blow out revenue last quarter, and is apparently making a cool billion dollars a year on mobile ads already.  But the reality here is this is a weak solution for any developer to bank on.  Ad revenue for a platform game is a highly unproven model so far, and while there will certainly be wins for some, the concept that ads are the only way to make money off Android apps is pathetic.

First, it clutters the experience.
There is no possibility that an ad-laden video game is better than one without ads.  None.  And in the mobile space, where screen real estate is precious, it’s even more impactful.

Second, it’s not bankable.
A video game, even a casual one, is generally a pretty engaging activity.  Imagine lining up your purple bird in the slingshot, ready to take down some well-defended pig to clear the level (finally!), and lo and behold, there’s an ad for something.  What’s it for?  Who knows, because you’re never, ever clicking on it, you’re taking down that pig.

Third, it’s a band-aid at best.
I’ve actually purchased an Android app (Robo Tower Defense – pretty fun actually), just to make sure I’ve gone through the experience.  It is unpleasant to say the least (fanboys who are reading this, please click here prior to commenting, thank you very much).  Did you know there are apps in the Android Market whose price points are listed as, wait for it, approximate amounts!?  Now there is a reason behind it – international developers – but it’s just so awkward to see.  Further, the effort it takes to even find half-decent stuff is painful.  I’ve honestly found the best way to find apps is using the barcode scanner app, and simply won’t bother with paid ones.

Fourth, and most importantly, I don’t see it radically changing, ever.
Android comes from Google, who obviously knows how to monetize spam, SEO, and domain squatters advertising, but just doesn’t get user experience at all (SIX years to let us turn off Conversation View? Really? Really?).  So their DNA, their “mode de vie,” is about enabling ads, not making amazing consumer-facing experiences.  This, coupled with the issue that Android is an “open” operating system, means no single serving method of enabling simple transaction systems.  And, because any carrier and manufacturer can bring any product to market, there’s no single source for developers to work with.

In short (too late): the Android platform cannot possibly offer a one-stop-shop approach to developers wishing to monetize application development, other than advertising.

I’ve been musing a lot on the topic of Android having a “missing link” problem recently.  This may just be a hiccup in the path to having the prime mobile operating system, or it may be a fatal flaw in its ability to have serious legs.  Either Google themselves will need to step in and create a core payment infrastructure to enable developers, carriers, and consumers to all work together – which seems radically unlikely – or we’re going to see even more fragmentation of the Android market, and probably in the short-to-medium term at that.

11 Things You Should Never Do Online

Posted on by

Did you know you could lose insurance benefits from putting photos online?  Or that a Tweet can put you in jail?  Or that the FBI might be friending you on Facebook?  Or that even brand-new service Chatroulette isn’t truly anonymous? I’ve blogged recently on my concerns about privacy trends, and it’s quite the hotly debated topic these days.

I see two primary reasons why you shouldn’t do something online:

  • Personal Harm/Loss
  • Future Regret

So without further adieu, here’s 11 Things You Should Never Do Online!

  1. Show your goods. One would think this would be obvious. One would imagine that an individual would not normally choose to show their private parts to the entire world, presuming they are not in the adult entertainment industry. It took me less than a minute on Chatroulettemap to find a picture of a naked guy, and his hometown (pictured here, safely edited by me). Here are some NSFW pictures found on Facebook. Why shouldn’t you do this? How about “decency” or “self-respect”? I wouldn’t even call it prudish to say there is a reason for the phrase “private parts” and some things are simply best left out of the public eye. Leave it to the pro’s, people.  Nobody’s going to be walking around when they are 80 years old saying to themselves “I sure regret not showing my penis to the entire world.”  Unless they have some kind of exceptional penis, that is.
  2. Meet a random stranger in a non-public location. As a child I was taught not to get into cars with strangers.  Of course I was also using public transportation as of age 8, but I don’t think that’s too contradictory.  We’ve heard numerous stories of people meeting strangers via sites like Craigslist, then bad things happen.  I have no problem with online dating services, but use some common sense people.  How about having 2-3 dates in public before you decide to even reveal your home address (assuming you haven’t done so already online – see more below)?  Why shouldn’t you do this? Pretty much goes without saying – and while there will always be creeps and they will always find methods of doing terrible things, but how about not enabling them to occur so easily?
  3. Publicize travel plans. Be it foursquare, brightkite, gowalla, plancast, tripit, dopplr or anything else, the concept that an individual would specifically tell anybody in public that they aren’t at home is something I personally find mind-boggling.  Whether it’s a simple burglary (or much much worse), there’s no greater bait I can think of for a wrong-doer. And to think that all criminals are simply too stupid to figure this out is somewhere between ignorant and elitist. Heck, teenagers in the UK find empty swimming pools with Google Earth, and thieves last year used it to find and steal koi fish from backyards.  Why shouldn’t you do this? It doesn’t take extreme paranoia or a DVD collection of Law and Order to come to the simple conclusion that these activities are asking for trouble.  Combine public records with services like plancast and twitter, and you have the equivalent of a “how-to rob me” service that you are proactively choosing to use – it’s gonna happen.
  4. Share identity-revealing data. Over 9 million Americans have identity theft issues every year. Why on Earth would you make it easier for them?  Further, one of the easiest methods of gaining access to an identity is through simple human error and naivete.  If you put personal information, like say your credit card activities, proactively into the public eye, you are asking for problems.  And unlike physical thieves (per the above point), phishers currently use technology to steal information.  You want to put your phone number in public? Fine! Get a Google Voice account, set up a redirect, and use that.  But don’t put the same number you have to authenticate important personal records! Why shouldn’t you do this? Actually this should be the opposite question – why oh why would you put private data out in public? If I can’t get you to stop buffoonery, fine, but at least be on the watch for things that can impact your finances and credit score!
  5. Ignore privacy requests/needs of others. It’s perfectly legal to take pictures of people in public. It’s also perfectly legal to put those pictures in the public spectrum (so long as you aren’t profiteering from their likeness).  But that doesn’t mean you have to.  Some people prefer to keep their lives completely out of the public eye, and they have the right to do so (despite what many social media bloggers would like to say).  Just because you choose to publicize your life doesn’t mean everyone else has to as well.  Furthermore, and more specifically, parents should rethink what pictures they put online in public or semi-public locations.  Maybe your kids won’t want those pictures to be accessible one day when they are older – and I can guarantee they’ll have a tough time taking them down.  The oh-so-cute moments in the bath might be funny to reveal at a wedding or bar mitzvah (both private events, mind you), but how about during their sophomore year in high school, to the whole class? Not so much. Why shouldn’t you do this? It’s inconsiderate – and that’s enough of a reason.
  6. Reveal vices. My healthcare company is raising our rates 35% this year – despite no claims or major changes of status.  Their business, in a nutshell, is to profit as greatly as possible, which they accomplish by (1) raising rates, and (2) giving out minimal claims/benefits.  I will say the following unbiased and bluntly: it is in their interest to find evidence of you smoking, drinking, and otherwise acting recklessly because it lets them profit more. If I were you, I’d make sure there were no tweets, status updates, or anything else containing “So drunk I almost fell down the stairs” or “Onto my 2nd pack today. Boy these Marlboros are smooth” etc.  Why shouldn’t you do this? If you don’t think insurance companies, healthcare providers, or other “big brother-like” organizations will use social technologies to raise rates or otherwise increase profits, you are just fooling yourself.  Drink, smoke, be merry – and just enjoy it with the people you are actually spending the time with (they’ll probably appreciate it too).
  7. Mock those you may do business with. A famous PR exec once tweeted disparagingly about a magazine his firm had to pitch.  The editor in chief saw the tweet.  An ad agency salesman on his way to pitch a client openly mocked the city in which that client lived. The client saw the tweet.   Disparaging a potential (or existing) client is generally speaking, not the way one gets more business from said client.  The whole concept of doing things in public means anyone might just see them – including the people you are trying to get to spend money on you. Why shouldn’t you do this? How about… “livelihood”?
  8. Sound like a schmuck. Per the above point, you never know who is going to see the words you write. Your “witty banter” with an old high school friend on Facebook might not sound so clever to a potential employer.  I’ll be the first to admit that I am a cynic and an outspoken one, and I am certain this colors peoples’ opinions of me. But I also do my best to sound objective and educated about whatever topics I’m talking about.  While I’m sure I’ve tweeted things I shouldn’t have, or left comments on blogs that could be misconstrued, I generally make a concerted effort to consider my commentary and how it would be interpreted by a complete stranger (though I could still use improvement myself).Why shouldn’t you do this? Your words will come back to haunt you – how about just not saying them in the first place?
  9. Publicize your partying or let your friends put up embarrassing photos/videos of you. The most famous example I’ve found so far involves a swimmer and an arbitrarily-banned substance. Whoever took that picture is, in a word, a jerk. Not as big of a jerk as whomever made this happen, but a pretty big jerk nonetheless. But when you compare it to the amazing amount of inappropriate stuff you can easily find with simple Google searches, you really start to wonder if the entire concept of self-respect has gone out the window.Why shouldn’t you do this? A future employer? A future spouse? Your kids one day? Your grandkids? How about anyone you want to not massively unimpress one day.
  10. Be inconsistent with your real life claims. If you call in sick, stay offline! Let’s face it, lying consistently can be challenging – it’s something you really have to work hard at. So if you are going to call in sick, you probably shouldn’t update your Facebook status or tweet or do anything else that conflicts with your claim. I recall the classic “which tire?” tale from university lore, only dramatically more impactful with public timelines and social presences.  You should also know that when you take pictures and upload them to sites like Picasa or Flickr, the actual day/time is logged in that photo somewhere as well. Why shouldn’t you do this? Hopefully you don’t need me to tell you not to lie or otherwise make false claims in the office space or personal life.  But if you are going to, try to tow the line with your online presence as well.
  11. Assume you are not being recorded. We decided at the office to try playing Chatroulette last month. Every time we used it, we recorded our session (using freely available screen capture tools), just in case something funny/outrageous happened (and it did, and no, I won’t be sharing with the group).  Your web history is recorded by Google (if you are logged in).  Facebook knows everything you’ve done.  Most Web sites store your IP address along with the comment you leave.  The Internet Archive stores copies of just about everything. Your cookies have privacy flaws. When you do something on the Internet, it is there to stay. Don’t forget it!

The funny thing (if there is one) on the above list is if you were to ask your grandparents if you should do any of those things, they’d give you one of those “what’s wrong with you boy?” looks.  But instead here you are reading my blog because it’s actually a topic.  Them kids today…

How Google Can (and Must) Fix the Android Market Experience

Posted on by

The Android Market (droid’s equivalent to the iPhone App Store) is fundamentally broken. It’s a poor experience from start to finish, and exemplifies the grace with which Apple builds hardware and software products.  Unfortunately there’s no easy way to take screenshots directly on the device, so I’ve scraped around the ‘net to find images to reflect the issues I have.

Part 1: Finding Apps

Like most sites/services, finding apps works via Search and Browse.  You can Search for something by word/term, and see apps that match – it works “ok” but not super impressive.  Browse, on the other hand, is weak. The world is divided into Applications and Games.  Games has the following categories: “All”, “Arcade & Action”, “Brain & Puzzle”, “Cards & Casino”, and “Casual” – no sports, racing, music, RPG, strategy, or pretty much anything after the letter C. Once browsing, you must sort, either by Most Popular or Newest. This means that once popular, something will stay popular.  There’s no way to sort, or filter, or even view simple things like “most popular this week”, or “highest rated” or anything else. This dramatically impacts a user’s ability to find new good apps, since there’s just no view for that.  And this is from Google, the uber-kings of data.

Once you find an app that seems interesting, the next step is trying to decide if you want it / it will work.  Every app has a name, publisher, # of ratings, # of downloads, description, and comments.  NO SCREENSHOTS or anything, but a description.  The comments are sometimes useful, but typically not, as you’ll often see “crashed on my droid” or “new version seems unstable” or some other complaint.  The problem with these kinds of complaints is because of all the different Droid configurations, there’s no way to tell if the comments/ratings apply to your own device.

What Should Google do?

  • Explicitly add and require screenshots of all apps
  • Allow sorting by more fields (Recently popular, Highest Rated, Most Downloaded, etc)
  • Create more categories and/or sub-categories
  • Require developers, commentors, and all other data fields to be governed by device type (i.e. allow me to see top-rated apps specifically voted on by Droid Eris users, not all Android users)
  • Clean up the Featured Apps interface, as it is really poorly done
  • Make the Android Market Website have a “send to my Droid” button (as opposed to the current site, which is inherently worthless)

Part 2: Installing & Updating Apps

The installation process itself is fairly straightforward, once you find an app, you click the big Install button, then you are shown a cryptic screen with a bunch of warnings that you rapidly learn to ignore, then click OK.  My big complaint on this process is the aforementioned “car alarm” warnings.  I make the car alarm analogy because, much like the loud annoying car alarms we hear on random streets at random times, we pay them absolutely no attention anymore.  Which is inherently the opposite objective of a warning!  But with phrases like “Your personal information – read contact data” and “Phone calls – modify phone state”, there’s just no sense behind it.  It might as well show “PC Load Letter” and have the same amount of effectiveness.

My other gripe is on updating apps.  Since we’re still in the early stage of Droid application development, a lot of programmers are pushing frequent updates to their apps. This is great from a “shiny new toy” perspective, but getting annoying from a “stop showing me lots of alerts” perspective.  Also, there’s no way to update multiple apps simultaneously, nor auto-update an app.  And, since most developers at present are not displaying changelogs it’s hard to figure out if the update is worthwhile or not.  Further, it’s very unclear as to whether or not the comments/rating on an app are relative to the most current version or not. Lastly, and most dominant in the category of “how I know this is a Droid and not an iPhone experience,” every time I update an app, I see the warnings about that app. Every. Time.

What Should Google Do?

  • Make the warnings less technical sounding and more clear/comprehensible. “Modify phone state” is virtually meaningless to me, whereas “Make a phone call automatically” is pretty clear English.
  • Remove all the warnings that are “commonplace” – I inherently assume an app is capable of doing things like connect to the Internet, prevent my phone from sleeping, etc.
  • Allow users to “skip” an update, or enable auto-update for any given app.  Also allow users to update all apps.
  • Require that all upgrades/new releases of apps have explicit lists of what’s changed since prior version
  • Have ratings/comments be associated with both the “overall app” as well as the “current version”.
  • Only show the warnings screen when the new version of the app does (important) things that the previous version did not do.  In other words, if I’ve already installed Google Voice, which is capable of Making Phone Calls, and there’s an update to it, I don’t need to re-confirm that I want to allow it to Make More Phone Calls.

Part 3: Buying, Rating, and Uninstalling Apps

For the complaints I’d read, I was surprised at the overall seamlessness of purchasing an app through the Android Marketplace/Google Checkout process. Other than some confusing messaging, the step-by-step process worked the first time through it.  That said, I was disappointed it didn’t autofill any of my personal information (not even my name).  Also, there was a lack of clarity with regards to the fact that my credit card was “saved” by Google Checkout, with no clear way as to how to only do a one-time purchase.

Rating applications is easy, but per my aforementioned comments, needs more criteria.  My rating should get tied to the specific version of the app, and the platform I’m using as well.  Overall the rating/comment system is fairly thin, and could use improvement.

Uninstalling applications from an Android device is one of the more awkward experiences of the system.  There’s no “uninstaller”, instead you navigate back into the Market, find the app in My Downloads, then uninstall from there.  This is mostly awkward because everything else in Droid is either a click-and-drag or a long-click – so the navigation/usage paradigm you learn by using the system all of a sudden doesn’t come into play.  Now in reality I’m being a little dramatic, as once you’ve learned it, it’s easy, but it’s just another example of the kluge-like nature of the marketplace. Then again, if it’s so easy why does it take 9 steps on an eHow page (they don’t show the same path I use, but that’s also kind of the point)?

What Should Google Do?

  • Enable one-time payments that do not require saving credit card data!
  • Enable payments directly through mobile carriers (this should go straight to my Verizon bill) and/or third parties who work with carriers (for example BOKU, who is one of Stage Two‘s clients, but if anyone thinks I’d write this long a post just to reference a client in parentheses of another point, you clearly have too much time on your hands).
  • Moderate user interface “cleanup” and optimization for the checkout process
  • Again, fix the rating/comment system.  Include the “this comment was/wasn’t helpful” feature as well
  • Put an Uninstaller “app” inside Android, and let the user click-and-hold an app to invoke a menu (would make more sense than the current method anyway)

Conclusion

To be clear: There are some great apps in the Android market (current fave’s: Amazon, Evernote, Twidroid, wpToGo, Shazam, Robo Defense, Advanced Task Killer, Lookout) .  Droid is not a terrible platform. But there are some major user experience gaps today, and based on the seemingly endless list of new Droid devices slated to ship in 2010, improvement must happen soon.  I’m also not a fan of the numerous versions of Droid and the various enhancements built by Motorola, HTC, etc.

While Apple might get criticism for their closed-system nature, it most certainly allows them to build devices with consistently known experiences. Either Google or their manufacturers will need to do the same if they truly want to compete in the SuperDuperSmartyPantsPhone category.

Technology Predictions for 2010

Posted on by

Every year I predict, every year I get at least one thing right. And many wrong.  But that’s the fun part, right?  This year instead of categorizing based on the technology area, I’m going to organize based on my own scale of how crazy the prediction itself is…

The No-Brainers
Stuff that is almost definitely going to happen. Except the ones that don’t…

  • Twitter growth levels off, though Twitter usage increases. I actually wouldn’t be surprised to see the churn rate equal the signup rate as I believe Twitter still has a massive problem with getting new users enchanted with the service.
  • A new version of the iPhone comes out that is incrementally better than the 3GS.
  • Google launches “Android for Set-Top Boxes” but gains little traction in the foreseeable future. (repeat from ’09).
  • CES 2010 exceeds expectations, either in the form of interesting new gadgets or industry-wide product/technology launches.
  • BlackBerry overhauls their “app store” to make it more iPhone-y.
  • Mac OSX market share continues to rise.
  • Superslim TVs (like the Samsung LEDs – drool!) become the hot category for displays.  Many of them are “connected” to various Internet services.

Sounds Feasible
Predictions that are a little more “out there” but don’t require any major convincing.

  • Zynga files to go public, and the entire “social gaming” category gets even more unbelievably outrageous.
  • Yahoo! begins some kind of realistic turnaround. They have far too much foot traffic and too many good properties to continue to fail for so long.
    • Hint to Yahoo! – reinvest in your Flickrs, Deliciouses, and other “interesting” stuff that you are good at, and stay OFF the television and other places that you are not good at.
  • One PC maker emerges from the trenches with a really well-designed laptop that actually can stand up against a Macbook enough to make people take notice. (repeat from ’09).
  • “Real-time Web” loses steam as a meme. While I’m personally very bullish on the impacts and possibilities, it’s far too niche and far too unimportant to “regular folks” to care about.
    • Probably same for “Cloud Computing”, but since everyone’s just confusing it with “The Internet” it might have more staying power.
  • Apple releases stats on iPhone/iPod/iTunes/app store that are just mind-blowing.
  • 4G/LTE networks spread faster than expected, become viably competitive to the mainstream consumer within the year.
  • The term “Social Media” finally begins to fade across all industries other than Social Media Mavens, Gurus, and Wizards.  The latter reach level 7 and learn how to cast User-Generated Fireball and Community Driven Magic Missile.
  • All non-Apple tablets are craptastic.  Ditto for touchscreen phones.
  • 3DTV gets embedded into lots and lots of TVs, much to the chagrin of consumers who don’t feel the need to look like that goofy guy in Back to the Future, even in the comfort of their own living rooms.
    • Note that in my opinion the only thing that really makes 3D “work” in the home is sports. And even that’s a long shot.

Whatcha Talkin Bout Willis?
Stuff that’s probably not going to happen, but ya never know…

  • Facebook reveals huge revenue numbers, files to go public.
  • Twitter gets acquired by Microsoft.  Yeah, I’m being specific here, but it’s the only logical acquisition, and Microsoft’s got deep enough pockets and have failed at virtually all things Internet.  In a nutshell, Ballmer wants to bring sexy back.
  • The Apple Tablet ships in 2010. Sure all the “in the know” folks are convinced this must happen, but most of them said that about 2009 (and/or that Apple would ship a netbook).
  • Some kind of flexible-display type of device is announced (might even ship).  If I had to hunch (and I of course do), it’d either come from Apple or as a new Kindle.
  • Tru2Way is announced as the new failure of openness from the FCC.
  • All versions of Rock Band and Guitar Hero in 2010 fail to exceed sales stats of 2009 or 2008.
    • Hey guys – remember how that Who Wants to be a Millionaire show was super popular? Then they started running it 4+ nights a week?  Then it moved to daytime?  There’s something called a “saturated market”.  Stop with all the specialty versions and get back to improving the base game, which you can sell add-ons to.
  • Cisco buys a few more gadget makers and technology providers in their attempt to own the Digital Home.  In each case they continue to exhibit poor timing and overpay for slightly outdated platforms.

Can I get a hit of that stuff?
Things that are just plain unrealistic, but I’m saying them anyway.  This way if they happen I can say I was the first to say them.

  • Apple does not ship a tablet. Yes, I contradict the above point, since I do think “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” holds up in general.  However, it is Apple, and this is a terrible device category, and Steve Jobs hates doing things crappily.  BTW, you really should read this piece if you are even remotely following the Apple Tablet news – it’s extremely well written and insightful.
  • Facebook buys Twitter.  It’s not really all that out there as a concept (although I’d wager the personalities behind both companies are big forces against it).  Both companies need to continue rapid growth. Both companies need to create lots of revenue.  Both companies want to be “empires”.  There are many overlapping aspects, but the combined entity could realistically “own” the social network.
  • A new game console launches.  I put this in the long-shot category because nobody is really incented to create a new console right now.  The Xbox 360 is finally hitting it’s strides; the PS3 has way too much cost to recoup, and the Wii is enjoying it’s ride.  If I had to guess, I’d wager on a 4th party entrant (Samsung?).  If one of the big three, I’d pick the next console as a “Wii HD”.
  • A “Lifestreamer” device comes to market.  It’s not quite a phone, but it’s always on, always recording, and has amazing synch with some Web service.  Never takes pictures, only video. Able to “Tag” moments.  Has real-time streaming capabilities.
    • Scoble buys units for himself and entire family. 😉
  • Microsoft (or possibly Yahoo!) goes on a major Internet services acquisition spree, picking up companies like Zoho, bit.ly, Adobe (yes, Adobe), Pandora, Evernote, UserVoice, and more.
  • The TwitterPeek is the #1 hottest selling device of the year!

That’s all folks, see you in 361 days for the results.

Note that I anticipate much snarkiness in the comments.  Have at it.

How I'd Build a Search Engine

Posted on by

Over the past year, we’ve seen no fewer than three major attempts to compete with Google come to market, with mixed results.  Cuil’s disastrous launch last Summer all but killed their chances of success.  Wolfram is in murky waters trying to remain distinctly not a search engine. And Microsoft is presently trying to buy their way onto the scene with Bing. I think there’s little-to-no debate that we should not let our entire worldview and information dissemination be in the hands of a single company (a recent study showed over 70% US market share – that’s just plain dangerous).

But how does one out-Google Google?  I’ll start with the “don’t”s, the things that should be avoided.

  • Bigger ain’t better. Nobody, and I mean nobody, cares that your search index is 17.37835% deeper than Google’s.  Search is at worst a semi-solved problem, which means the average person looking for something online probably perceives Google will have it.
  • Don’t confuse simple with simplistic. If you didn’t know, Google’s design is as simplistic as it is because they didn’t really know HTML when they started!  For some reason, this has caused legions of lookalikes, despite plenty of better examples of usability design.
  • Overhype can be bad. It’s a tricky challenge, but to even play in this space it is essential to set, then meet or exceed expectations.  Wolfram is doing this fairly well, Cuil did it badly.
  • Don’t enable spam. If there’s one evil Google is blatantly doing, it’s enabling spam.  Spam blogs. Spam news sites. Spam landing pages. The sheer ability to create and profit from a hosted domain with nothing but uselessness is a horror Google has unleashed upon us, and is unfortunately financially motivated to continue to enable.  I believe this is the weakest chink in Google’s armor, and there’s at least some opportunity to someone promising “spam-free search results.”  Be the ball.

Now for the “what would I do” part…

  • Launch with a great vanity search. When I read peoples’ experiences with Cuil or Bing, they invariably mention the egosearch they did.  It’s a fairly safe bet that most people will search for their own names within their first few searches, and this experience should rock.  When I google myself, I find my blog, my linkedin profile, my Flickr page, and other things I’d expect to see.  The first day I Cuil’ed myself, I saw nothing, due to a technical error.  A very very costly technical error.  When I Bing myself, I see much of the “correct” results, but 2 entries for FriendFeed, 1 for Ether, and some other seeming obscurities – and I don’t want obscure first.  I genuinely believe a good vanity search experience is a make/break issue for a new search player.notjeremybing
  • Do more than search. Part of what makes Google such a great product is the way it encompasses everything from a calculator to a flight tracker to movie listings and more.  These extra features make it stickier, and make me as a user less likely to leave.  So you have to play a similar game and offer services well beyond search.  Personally, I’d do this through some form of open API that enables third parties to do the work, thus reducing your need to innovate across the board and build a richer community around your product.
  • Enable opt-out of purchasing (and more). Ever try searching for a product to find information, yet find nothing but sales links?  Not only the Google product listings, but the first few pages tend to get dominated by companies who have mastered SEO to the point where they own virtually any search for a product.  How about enabling the user to disable showing anything related to sales, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they just might want to do something other than a transaction?  Now let’s take this further, and create a rich search experience that truly lets the searcher weed out the wrong kinds of results for the search they are conducting.
  • Understand context. Sure, Google’s great at surface-level context filtering. If you type in a stock ticker symbol, you get finance information. Search for a movie, you’ll see local playing times.  But that’s about the end of the depth.  Integrate services like Yahoo! Answers, Wikipedia, Wolfram, and more, and enable much deeper context about search.  The biggest challenge people have with finding information is sifting through the data, so the more they are provided with usable results, the more they’ll like, trust, and rely on your service.
  • Deeply engage with the community. As far as I’ve seen, the forces behind other search engines have built their products, then invited people to come use them, and sometimes provide some feedback.  I’d take a different approach and get the outside world involved in my product at an early stage, and keep it up well after the launch.  Don’t confuse community engagement with a lack of product vision/direction, but take feedback from developers, advertisers, content creators, and other key sectors to help make sure you are building the right services all along the way.  It’s important that any potential stakeholder (i.e. those whose efforts can directly contribute to the product’s success) have a mechanism for involvement.
  • Cross-program. I talk about this concept a lot, but you don’t counter CSI with another crime drama, you counter with a comedy or a medical romance or a quirky soap opera.  Rather than be a different Google, be a different search concept.  Go entirely visual.  Go radically deep into data.  Find information and surface in early results.  Use more smarts.  Provide more customization.  Etc.
  • Oh, and build a good spidering and indexing system, blah blah blah.  It’s probably important too.

So there are the first few steps to get going, mystery super-stealth search company 3.0.  Please get the ball rolling, we need you soon.  No offense to Google or anything, I just feel the world should not be so utterly dependent on a single company for any one thing.  Just pretend it’s a semi-decent Bond flick (100% Lazenby-free), and the bad guy (let’s give him a scar, but no weird accent) really controls the links to all the information we consume.  Okay, that metaphor starts falling apart right about now, but I trust you to see it through to it’s natural end.

50 Common Words with Wacky Google Results

Posted on by

I was trying to figure out how much a bucket cost earlier this week, and googled “bucket” to find out.  I was surprised to discover that anything remotely useful didn’t show up in the first few results.  So, in some bizarre method of either wasting hours of my life or providing complementary services to the SEO folks out there, I went looking for other common, everyday words who had similarly weird results in Google.  This list is not in order of wackiness (but I did consult this list for help).

  1. Bucket.  Some “real” results, but otherwise dominated by Photobucket, a movie, and other miscellaneous non-buckety stuff.  Nothing as cool as the results for spatula either.
  2. Word.  Completely dominated by MS Word, or products that in some way augment MS Word.
  3. Thing. After a comic book, the next few entries Google showed me asked me if I really meant “thong”. Well, I do now!
  4. Seven. The only single-digit number whose top results had nothing to do with numbers.
  5. Live. All MSN, all the time.
  6. Stop. All sorts of goofiness, the highlight being a link to sign up in order to help stop alien abductions. I do not lie.
  7. Run. Nothing super-wrong about the results, but they’re all over the map.
  8. Sea. Instead of a picture of the ocean, the top result is a convenient map showing you where the Seattle-Tacoma Airport is located.  Just in case.
  9. Saw. (get it? sea-saw?) While these aren’t inaccurate results, I most certainly pity the squeamish individual who is innocently looking to pick up a woodworking tool.
  10. City. I’d like to applaud the City of Chicago for being the number one city!
  11. Country. Yeesh, not only isn’t there a country at the top of the list, it’s dominated by country music.
  12. Sad. Nothing out of the ordinary for “happy”, but sad was really sad.
  13. Dirt. Another one dominated by movies & TV.
  14. Table.  Great for people looking for some HTML advice. Awful for the other 99.8% of humans.
  15. Bug. (yeah, I’m cheating here) Top results include the animated film and Bug Labs.  Cool to me, probably would confuse some of my relatives though.  🙂
  16. Apple. Not a fruit-related link in sight.
  17. Orange. While incomparable to the previous entry, it too is at risk for scurvy.
  18. House. Mostly TV shows and a little government to “mix it up” a bit.
  19. Plasma. I only included this one because it was surprising how few of the first results were about plasma TVs. Go fgure.
  20. Lamp. Way out there.  Even the Latin American Microform Project beats out a nice table lamp!
  21. First. Then again, I doubt anyone would be interested in the word first contextually anyway.
  22. Remote.  Results are quite poor for the outdoorsy users.
  23. Well. A couple of entries for a poor place for babies to play, but a bank manages to top the list.
  24. String. Ah, I see that luxury knitting yarns did eke out super string theory, but these were both buried beneath programming terms.
  25. Chip. No silicon or potato references on page one!
  26. Ball. Results show that high society is not very good at SEO.
  27. Angel. Ditto for religion!
  28. Force. In a slight twist, I’d like to applaud the Internet for only 2 of the top 10 results having a Star Wars tie-in.
  29. Falcon. If it weren’t for a Wikipedia entry you’d never even know about the bird.
  30. Owl. Similarly suffering from a lack of ornithology enthusiasts.
  31. Small. The only small thing here is the number of results about small things. Bah-dum, ching!  Don’t forget to tip your waiter!
  32. Big. Insert some Biggie Smalls reference here (it ties the two lines together so nicely).
  33. Wall. Clearly the people in Wall Township were tired of losing traffic to their home page.
  34. Star. Another example where the geeks are just disappointing us all.
  35. Smart. Well, the results aren’t…
  36. Dumb. After losing quite a few minutes to some of these, I figured I’d include it to share the painlove.
  37. Sharp. Lots of consumer electronics, not much about knives.
  38. Girl. Exactly as one would expect, a link to a skateboarding company.
  39. School. A coup for the Montgomery County Public School system. A big fail for anyone not from Rockville, MD.
  40. Robert. Amazingly this no longer goes straight to the Scobleizer himself.
  41. Pop.  I think this effectively ends the pop vs soda debate.
  42. Bowl. Very understandable results, placing lingerie well above ceramics.
  43. Cake. Not terribly abnormal, but I really wasn’t expecting a stock quote that was highly contextual to my interest in a tasty dessert.
  44. Store. A highly arbitrary list of retailers.
  45. Trend. I guess anyone on top of the trends probably isn’t googling this one too often.
  46. Ego. Even paintball products managed to place themselves above any of the “a-list bloggers”… 😉
  47. Past. In a dismal sign for smart people everywhere, google assumed I meant “PSAT” and then provided me with lots of resources to do a better job on the exam.
  48. Bail. Seems to be missing links to rich bankers and/or automakers.
  49. Toe. No links to me or my Dad, whatsoever.
  50. Failure.  I was quite disappointed to find that failure no longer linked to Bush’s bio.  Not to worry, I think we all know it pretty well anyway…

So what’s the point, you might wonder?  I didn’t really have a “deep mission” here to uncover some secrets of the universe, but it was interesting nonetheless (especially since I googled at least another hundred or so “common” words to find the results above).  As we continue down the path of defining our world more and more by what we find with a simple google search, I hope we don’t every end up putting too much faith in the almighty from Mountain View.  Google search, as I’ve discussed before, is not “reality” and it’s cleary not a digital reflection of the world we live in.  If it was, bucket makes, models, vendors, and pricing would’ve been much more prevalent than some mediocre movie.