The other Google joke

TiSP. See here for a detailed guide.

Google TiSP (BETA) is a fully functional, end-to-end system that provides in-home wireless access by connecting your commode-based TiSP wireless router to one of thousands of TiSP Access Nodes via fiber-optic cable strung through your local municipal sewage lines.

Not anything like as subtle as Gmail Paper. Aimed at the 5- to 9-year-old male market I’d guess.

Remind me — what are ‘storage’ costs?

From Technology Review

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In another reminder of technology’s quantum leaps, Yahoo Inc.’s free e-mail service will provide unlimited storage space to its nearly 250 million users worldwide — a concept that seemed unfathomable just a few years ago.

With the move, Yahoo will trump its two largest rivals in free e-mail, Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc., which currently provide 2 gigabytes and 2.8 gigabytes of free storage, respectively.

Yahoo’s e-mail users currently get 1 gigabyte of storage. Yahoo plans to gradually lift all space constraints in May, but it will take several months before all of Yahoo’s e-mail users have infinite storage space.

Time Warner Inc.’s AOL, the fourth largest e-mail provider, began offering unlimited storage for free last summer…

Note the misuse of ‘quantum leap’. It’s almost as prevalent as misuse of ‘decimate’. Sigh.

Daft lawsuits, no. 33,561

From Reuters

SAN MATEO, California (Reuters) – A U.S. judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging the fairness of how Web search leader Google Inc. calculates the popularity of Web sites in determining search results, court papers show.

In a ruling issued on Friday that came to light on Tuesday, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit against Google by parenting information site KinderStart.

The judge also imposed yet-to-be-determined sanctions on KinderStart legal counsel Gregory Yu for making unsupported allegations against Google.

KinderStart sued Google in March 2006 alleging the Mountain View, California-based Internet company had defamed the site by cutting it from its Web search ranking system.

The Norwalk, Connecticut-based company, which features links to information about raising children, accused Google of violations of antitrust, free speech, unfair competition and defamation and libel laws.

In its suit, the company argued its site’s sudden demotion in March 2005 to a “zero” ranking in Google’s search system had severely harmed its business.

KinderStart had sought class action status on behalf of what is said were many other sites that suffered the same fate as Google fine-tunes Web site rankings in search results…

Nice to see that sometimes the law is not an ass.

Viacom, YouTube and Joost

This morning’s Observer column

Think of it as mud-wrestling, but at a higher level. Viacom is suing Google for a billion dollars because YouTube (which Google purchased a while back for $1.6bn) continues to host clips of Viacom’s video properties. The documents launching the suit express moral outrage wrapped in three coats of prime legal verbiage. The gist, however, is clear: nasty bully Google is getting rich on the back of poor little artists and the companies that support them…

Google Ink

Scott Grieder, Ask.com Group Product Manager, was taking notes on an important conference call when his (free) Google Pen ran out of ink without warning. The lapse in this fundamental Google product/service forced him to switch pens at a critical moment, resulting in considerable inconvenience and loss of data.

“I should have known better than to use a free Google product for business purposes.” Scott told us in a recent interview. “Google Pen is fine for home use, but not when my company’s productivity is on the line. I had to switch pens in the middle of taking notes. There’s no telling how much data I lost.”

But then he received a nice handwritten letter from a Google person. “We note your suboptimal experience with our Google pens”, it said, “and are pleased to send you — at no charge — a replacement set. Fortunately our pen architecture is based on Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Drafting Stuff [warning: embedded geek joke] . If any component fails, a quick recovery is ensured”.

Thanks to James Cridland for spotting it.

Microsoft stakes claim to moral high ground; audience dies laughing

Ho, ho! From today’s New York Times…

SEATTLE, March 5 (Reuters) — The Microsoft Corporation, the software giant, has prepared a blistering attack on rival Google, arguing that the Web search leader takes a cavalier approach to copyright protection.

In remarks prepared for delivery on Tuesday to the Association of American Publishers, the associate general counsel of Microsoft, Thomas Rubin, argues that Google’s move into new media markets has come at the expense of publishers of books, videos and software.

Mr. Rubin’s comments echo arguments at the heart of a 16-month-old copyright lawsuit against Google brought by five book publishers and organized by the Association of American Publishers, an industry trade group.

“Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people’s content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and I.P.O.s,” said Mr. Rubin, who oversees copyright and trade-secret law.

“Google takes the position that everything may be freely copied unless the copyright owner notifies Google and tells it to stop,” Mr.Rubin said. Microsoft, he said, asks the copyright’s owner for permission first…

Danny Sullivan has posted a nice dissection of Microsoft’s high-minded cant.

YouBeeb — or is it BeebTube?

From SplashCast

The BBC announced today that it has singed [sic] a deal with Google in regards to BBC video on YouTube. The agreement raises interesting strategic questions as it represents an important alternative approach to the high profile requests to remove content by other publishers. The BBC has made a series of high-profile announcements regarding new social media – the organization said it was remaking its website in the image of MySpace last April for example. We’ll see how much is hype and how much of this activity is smart use of new media.

The basics of the deal announced today are these:

* The BBC will create two channels on YouTube now and one more by the end of the year.
* The main channel will be advertising free promotional clips of entertainment programming, designed to drive traffic to the BBC’s own site for viewing the full programs.
* The secondary entertainment channel, BBC Worldwide, will include archival footage and some pre-roll ads. UK viewers will be able to see this and that’s a big deal, as the licensing fees every pays are supposed to keep their BBC experience ad-free.
* The third channel, out later this year, will show about 30 news clips per day and will include ads. Those ads, however, won’t be visible to UK users. Fascinating.
* The BBC will not actively hunt down its copyrighted materials in other users’ accounts, but it does reserve the right to swap low quality footage out for high quality versions and make other small changes. That’s very smart.

Hmmm…. We’ll see.

What is Google really up to?

This morning’s Observer column…

So we have two curious facts: Google has acquired fabulous amounts of bandwidth capacity, for which it has no obvious use; and it’s putting local data centres all over the place. Why would it be doing this? What’s the factor that links these two observations?

The answer is…

Read on.

What Google is really up to

Bob Cringely has been asking himself why Google controls more network fibre than any other organisation. And why it’s building thousands of data centres all over the place.

Google is building a LOT of data centers. The company appears to be as attracted to cheap and reliable electric power as it is to population proximity. In Goose Creek they bought those 520 acres from the local state-owned electric utility, … By buying out all the remaining building sites in an industrial park owned by an electric utility, Google guarantees itself a vast and uninterruptible supply of power, much as it has done in Oregon by building a data center next to a hydroelectric dam or back here again in Columbia by building near a nuclear power station.

Of course this doesn’t answer the question why Google needs so much capacity in the first place, but I have a theory on that. I think Google is building for a future they see but most of the rest of us don’t. I’ll go further and guess that Google is planning to build similar data centers in many states and that the two centers they are apparently preparing to build here in South Carolina are probably intended mainly to SERVE South Carolina. That’s perhaps 100,000 servers for four million potential users or 40 users per server. What computing service could possibly require such resources?

The answer is pretty simple. Google intends to take over most of the functions of existing fixed networks in our lives, notably telephone and cable television.

Bob’s theory is that demand for network bandwidth is about to increase very rapidly, as more of us become accustomed to getting video over the Net.

More and more of us will be downloading movies and television shows over the net and with that our usage patterns will change. Instead of using 1-3 gigabytes per month, as most broadband Internet users have in recent years, we’ll go to 1-3 gigabytes per DAY — a 30X increase that will place a huge backbone burden on ISPs. Those ISPs will be faced with the option of increasing their backbone connections by 30X, which would kill all profits, OR they could accept a peering arrangement with the local Google data center.

Seeing Google as their only alternative to bankruptcy, the ISPs will all sign on, and in doing so will transfer most of their subscriber value to Google, which will act as a huge proxy server for the Internet. We won’t know if we’re accessing the Internet or Google and for all practical purposes it won’t matter. Google will become our phone company, our cable company, our stereo system and our digital video recorder. Soon we won’t be able to live without Google, which will have marginalized the ISPs and assumed most of the market capitalization of all the service providers it has undermined — about $1 trillion in all — which places today’s $500 Google share price about eight times too low.

And we thought Microsoft was dangerous. Discuss.

Aside… BTW, Google has gained control of all that fibre by long-term leasing deals, not corporate acquisitions. Why? Because if it started buying up bandwidth providers it would quickly attract the attention of the anti-trust lawyers in the DoJ.

TechBubble 2.0

This morning’s Observer column

Colossally inflated valuations are an infallible indicator of a bubble. In the late 1990s, dotcom start-ups with 50 employees and zero profits were briefly valued at more than the market cap of Fortune 500 companies. In 2005, Rupert Murdoch paid $649m for MySpace and eBay paid $2.6bn for Skype, a VoIP [internet telephony] company. Last year, Google forked out $1.65bn for YouTube. Such valuations provide terrific incentives for ambitious geeks because the new web services require less upfront investment than the original dotcoms. What is YouTube, after all, other than some smart software for converting every uploaded video clip into a Flash movie, plus server capacity and bandwidth? Skype adds 150,000 subscribers a day and buys almost no hardware because it uses its subscribers’ computers to do the heavy lifting…