My group of friends is undeniably tech-oriented but that doesn’t mean all of us share the same views on how technology should be used, especially in social situations. If you were to see us out at a restaurant it’s pretty much guaranteed that at least one of us is on our phone, probably Googling an answer to something or sifting through our social networking platform of choice. For most of us this is par for the course being with all of us being members of Gen Y however some of my friends absolutely abhor the intrusion that smartphones have made on normal social situations and if the direction of technology is anything to go by that intrusion is only going to get worse, not better.
Late last year I came across the Memento Kickstarter project, a novel device that takes 1 picture every 30 seconds and even tags it with your GPS location. It’s designed to be worn all the time so that you end up with a visual log of your life, something that’s obviously of interest to a lot of people as they ended up getting funded 11 times over. Indeed just as a device it’s pretty intriguing and I had caught them early enough that I could have got one at a hefty discount. However something that I didn’t expect to happen changed my mind on it completely: my technically inclined friends’ reactions to this device.
Upon linking my friends to the Kickstarter page I wasn’t met with the usual reactions. Now we’re not rabid privacy advocates, indeed many of us engage in multiple social networks and many of us lead relatively open online lives, but the Memento was met with a great deal of concern over it’s present in everyone’s private lives. It wasn’t a universal reaction but it was enough to give me pause about the idea and in the end I didn’t back it because of it. With Google Glass gearing up to increase its presence in the world these same privacy questions are starting to crop up again and the social implications of Google’s flagship augmented reality device are starting to become apparent.
Google Glass is a next step up from Memento as whilst it has the same capability to take photos (without the express knowledge or consent from people in it) its ability to run applications and communicate directly with the Internet poses even more privacy issues. Sure the capability isn’t too much different than what’s available now with your garden variety smartphone however it is ever-present, attached the side of someone’s head and can be commanded at will of the user. That small step of taking your phone out of your pocket is enough of a social cue to let people know what your intentions are and make their concerns known well before hand.
What I feel is really happening here is that the notion of societal norms are being challenged by technology. Realistically such devices are simply better versions of things we have natively as humans (I.E. imaging devices with attached storage) but their potential for disseminating their contents is much greater. Just like social norms developed around ubiquitous smartphones so too they must develop around the use of augmented reality devices like Google Glass. What these norms will end up being however is something that we can’t really predict until they reach critical mass which, from what I can tell, is at least a couple years off in the future, possibly even longer.
For my close knit circle of tech friends however I can predict a few things. Most of them wouldn’t have any issues with me wearing and using it whilst we were doing things together but I can see them wanting me to take them off if we were sitting down to dinner or at someone’s private residence. It could conceivably be seen as somewhat rude to wear it if you’re deep in conversation although I feel that might change over time as people realise it’s not something that’s being used 100% of the time. Things will start to get murky as Glass like devices start to become smaller and less obtrusive although the current generations of battery technology put Glass on the slimmest end of the spectrum possible so I doubt they’ll be getting smaller any time soon.
Essentially I see these kinds of augment reality devices being an organic progression of smartphones, extending our innate human abilities with that of the Internet. The groundwork has already been laid for a future that is ever-increasingly intertwined with technology and whilst this next transition poses its own set of challenges I have no doubt that we’ll rapidly adapt, just like we have done in the past. What these adaptations are and how they function in the real world will be an incredibly interesting thing to bear witness to and I, for one, can’t wait to see it.
I’ve been using my Nokia Lumia 900 for some time now and whilst it’s a solid handset Windows Phone 7 is starting to feel pretty old hat at this point, especially with the Windows Phone 8 successor out in the Lumia 920. However I had made the decision to go back to Android due to the application ecosystem on there. Don’t get me wrong for most people Windows Phone has pretty much everything you need but for someone like me who revels in doing all sorts of esoteric things with his phone (like replicating iCloud levels of functionality, but better) Android is just the platform for me. With that in mind I had been searching for a handset that would suit me and I, like many others, found it in the Nexus 4.
Spec wise its a pretty comparable phone to everything else out there with the only glaring technical fault being the lack of a proper 4G modem. Still its big screen, highly capable processor and above all stock Android experience with updates that come direct from Google make up for that in spades. The price too is pretty amazing as I paid well over 50% more for my Galaxy S2 back in the day. So it was many months ago that I had resigned myself to wait for the eventual release of the Nexus 4 so I could make the transition back the Android platform and all the goodness that would come along with it.
Unfortunately for me the phone went on sale at some ludicrous time for us Australians so I wasn’t awake for the initial run of them and missed my chance at getting in on the first bunch. I wasn’t particularly worried though as they had a mailing list I could join for when stock would be available again and I figured that after the initial rush it wouldn’t be too hard to get my hands on one of them. However the stock they got sold out so quickly that by the time I checked my email and found they were available again they had sold out, leaving me without the opportunity to purchase one yet again. Thinking that there’s no way that Google would be out of stock for long (they never were for previous Nexus phones) I resigned myself to wait until it became available again, or at least a pre-order system came up.
Despite stories I hear of handsets being available for some times and tales of people being able to order one at various times I have not once seen a screen that differs from the one shown above. Nearly every day for the past 2 months I’ve been checking the Nexus site in the hopes that they’d become available but not once have I had the chance to purchase one. Now Google and LG have been pointing fingers in both directions as to who is to blame for this but in the end that doesn’t matter because both of them are losing more and more customers the longer these supply issues continue. It doesn’t help when they announce that AT&T will start stocking them this month which has to mean a good portion of inventory was diverted from web sales to go them instead. That doesn’t build any good will for Google in my mind especially when I’ve been wanting to give them my money for well over 2 months now.
And with that in mind I think I’m done waiting for it.
For the price the Nexus 4 looked like a great device but time hasn’t made the specifications look any better, especially considering the bevy of super powerful smartphones that debuted at CES not too long ago. I, along with many other potential Nexus 4 buyers, would have gladly snapped up one of their handsets long ago if it was available to us and the next generation wouldn’t have got much of a look in. However due to the major delays I’m now no longer considering the Nexus 4 viable when I might only be a month or two away from owning something like the ZTE Grand S which boasts better specifications all round and is probably the thinnest handset you’ll find. Sure I’ll lose the completely stock experience and direct updates from Google but after waiting for so long the damage has been done and I need to find myself a better suitor.
You don’t have to read far on this blog to know that the relationship I have with Apple swings from wild amounts of hate to begrudging acceptance that they do make some impressive products. Indeed I’ve been called everything from an Apple fan boy to an Apple hater based on the opinions I’ve put forth on here so I think that means I’m doing the right thing when it comes to being a technology critic. Of course that means taking them, and their fans, to task whenever they start getting out of line and it appears that the latest instalment of Apple fans going wild comes care of the iOS 6 Maps application which I’ve abstained from covering here previously.
For the uninitiated Apple decided to give Google Maps the boot as the default mapping application on their handsets and tablets. The move was done primarily because their negotiated agreement with Google was scheduled to come to an end soon and Apple, for whatever reasons that I won’t bother speculating about, decided that instead of renewing it they’d go ahead and build their own maps application, including the massive back end cartography database. Now they’re no stranger to building a maps application, indeed whilst it used to say “Google Maps” it was in fact an Apple developed application that used the Google APIs, but the application was an unmitigated disaster. In fact it was so bad Apple even got Tim Cook do one of those “we’re admitting there’s a problem without admitting it” open letters pointing to alternatives that were available.
I held off on commenting on the whole issue because since I don’t use an iPhone any more I didn’t want to start trashing the app without knowing what the reality was. Plus I’m not one to bandwagon (unless I’m really struggling for good material) and it felt like everything that needed to be said had been said. I almost caved when I started reading apologist garbage like this from MG Siegler but others had done that work for me so re-iterating those points wouldn’t provide much value. However one bit of unabashed fanboyism caught my eye recently and it really needs to be taken to task over what they’re saying:
Situation: Apple cannot get Google to update its maps app on iOS. It was ok, but Google refused to update it to include turn-by-turn directions or voice guidance even though Android had these features forever. Apple says, “Enough” and boots Gmaps from iOS and replaces it with an admittedly half-baked replacement. The world groans. Apple has egg on its face. Google steps up it’s game and rolls out a new, free new maps app in iOS today that is totally amazing, I’m sure to stick it in Apple’s face… Ooops
Bottom line: Apple took one for the team (ate some shit) and fooled Google into doing exactly what Apple has been asking for years. Users win.
Time to get some facts on the table here. For starters way back in the day when Apple first wanted to bring maps to their platform they approached Google to do it however the terms that Google wanted (better access to user data was their primary concern) meant that an in house developed app was never to be. They could agree on good terms for the API however and so Apple developed their own application on the public Google API. This meant, of course, that they were limited to the functionality provided by said API which doesn’t include the fun things like turn by turn navigation (voice commands however are on Apple’s head to implement).
Instead of capitulating Apple decides to build their own replacement product which isn’t completely surprising given that they’ve done this kind of thing before with services like iTunes and the App Store. Claiming that it was done to fool Google into developing a better app however is total bollocks as if they were doing that they wouldn’t have spent so much money on in-sourcing so much of the infrastructure. Indeed the argument can be made that they could’ve bought/licensed one of the top map apps for a fraction of the cost in order to accomplish the same task. So no Apple didn’t do it to get Google to develop an application for them, they did it because they wanted to bring more applications into their ecosystem.
Google’s revamped map app proved to be extremely popular rocketing to the number 1 spot for free applications after just 7 hours of being available. I (in a slightly rhetorical/trolling way) put the feelers out on Twitter to see what Apple fans would have to say about that particular feat and was surprised when I got a reply within minutes. Whilst their arguments didn’t hold up to mild scrutiny (and I didn’t change their opinion on the matter) I was honestly surprised just how defensive some people can be of a product that even the company who developed it has admitted was bad. Especially when the replacement has been, by all accounts, pretty spectacular.
Apple’s trademark secrecy about its plans and intentions is what feeds into these kinds of wild theories about their overall strategy for their products and their highly dedicated fan base too often falls prey to them without giving them some routine fact checking. I don’t blame them in particular however, it’s hard to see fault with a company you admire so much, but this kind of wide-eyed speculation doesn’t do any good for them. Indeed give it a couple weeks and no one will care that there’s yet another map application on iOS and this whole thing will get filed alongside antennagate (remember that?).
As someone who’s been deep in high technology for the better part of 2 decades it’s been interesting to watch the dissemination of technology from the annals of my brethren down to the level of the every day consumer. For the most part its a slow process as many of the technological revolutions that are unleashed onto the mass markets have usually been available for quite some time for those with the inclination to live on the cutting edge. Companies like Apple are prime examples of this, releasing products that are often technically inferior but offer that technology in such a way as to be accessible to anyone. Undoubtedly the best example of this is their iPhone which arguably spawned the smart phone revolution that is still thundering along.
When it was first released the iPhone wasn’t really anything special. It didn’t support third party applications, couldn’t send or receive MMS and even lacked some of the most critical functionality of a smart phone like cut and paste. For those brandishing their Windows Mobile 6.5 devices the idea of switching to it was laughable but they weren’t the target consumer. No Apple had their eye on the same market that Nintendo did when they released the Wii console: the people who traditionally didn’t buy their product. This transformed the product into a mass market success and was the first steps for Apple in developing their iOS ecosystem.
With the beachhead firmly established this paved the way for other players like Google to branch out into the smart phone world. Whilst they played catch up to Apple for a good 3 years or so Google was finally crowned the king early last year and hasn’t showed any signs of slowing down since then. Of course in that same time Apple created an entirely new market in the form of tablet computers, a market which Android has yet to make any significant in roads too. However whilst Google might be making a token appearance in the market currently I don’t they’re that interested in trying to follow Apple’s lead on this one.
Their sights are set firmly on the idea of creating another market all of their own.
For products that really bring something new to the table you really can’t beat Project Glass. Back when I first posted about Google’s augmented reality device it seemed like a cool piece of technology that the technical elite would love but if I honest I didn’t really know how the wider world would react to it. As more and more people got to use Glass the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive to the point where comparisons to the early revisions of the iPhone seem apt, even though Glass is technically cutting edge all by its own. The question then is whether Google can ride Glass to iPhone level success in creating another market in the world of augmented reality devices.
There are few companies in the world that can create a new market that have high potential for profitability but Google is one of the few that has a track record in doing so. Whilst the initial reviews are positive for Glass it’s still far from being a mass market device with the scarce few being made available are only for the technical elite, and only those who went to Google I/O and pony up the requisite $1500 for a prototype device. No doubt this will help in creating a positive image of the device prior to its retail release but getting tech heads to buy cutting edge tech is like shooting fish in a barrel. The real test will be when Joe Public gets his hands on the device and how they integrate into our everyday activities.
There are some 250+ top level domains available for use on the Internet today and most of them can be had through your local friendly domain registrar. The list has grown steadily over the past couple decades as more and more countries look to cement their presence on the Internet with their very own TLD. The registry responsible for all this is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) who looks after all the domain names as well as handing out the IP blocks to ISPs and corporations that request them. Whilst it seemed that the TLD space was forever going to be the place of countries and specific industries ICANN recently decided that it would allow anyone who could pony up the requisite $200,000 could have their own TLD effectively opening the market up to custom domain suffixes.
For an individual such a price seems ludicrous so it’s unlikely you’ll see .johndoe type domain names popping up all over the place. For most companies though securing this new form of brand identity is worth far more than the asking price and so many have signed up to do so. ICANN has since released a list of all the requested gTLDs and having a look through it has lead me, and everyone else it seems, to make some interesting conclusions about the big players in this custom TLD space (I made an excel spreadsheet of it for easy sleuthing).
The biggest player, although it’s not terribly obvious unless you sort by applicant name, is the newly founded donuts.co registry which has snagged some 300+ new gTLDs in order to start up its business. Donuts has $100 million in seed capital with which to play with which about 60% will be tied up solely in these domain suffix acquisitions. They all seem like your run of the mill SEO-y type words, being a large grab bag of words that the general public is likely to be interested in but are of no value for specific companies. Every domain also has its own associated LLC which isn’t a requirement of the application process so I’m wondering why they’ve done it. Likely it’s for isolating losses in the less than successful domains but it seems like an awful lot of work to do when that could be done in other ways.
They’re not the only ones doing that either. A quick search of other companies who’ve bought multiple domains although none of them have bought the same number that Donuts has. There also seems to be a few companies that are handling the gTLD for other big name companies ostensibly because they have no interest in actually running the gTLD but are just doing it for their brand identity. The biggest player in this space seems to be CSC Global who strangely enough did all their applications from another domain under their control, CSCInfo. It’s probably nothing significant but for a company that apparently specializes in brand identity you’d wonder why they’d apply with a different domain than their own.
What’s really got everyone going though is the domains that Amazon and Google have gone after. Whilst their war chests of gTLDs aren’t anything compared to Donut’s they’re still quite sizable with Amazon grabbing about 80 and Google grabbing just over 100. Some are taking this as being indicative of their future plans as Amazon has put in for gTLDs like mobile but realistically I can just most of them being augments to their current services (got an app on AWS? Get your .mobile domain today!). There’s also a bit of overlap for most of the popular domains that both these companies have gone after as well and I’m not sure what the resolution process for that is going to be.
While the 2000 odd applications seems to show that there’s some interest in these top level domains the real question of their value, at least for us web oriented folks, is whether the search engines will like them as much as other TLDs. There’s been a lot of heavy investment in current sites that reside on the regular TLDs and apart from marketing campaigns and new websites that are looking for a good name (http://this.movie.sucks seems like it’ll be created in no time) I question how much value these TLDs will bring. Sure there will be the initial gold rush of people looking to secure all the domains they can on these new TLDs but after that will there really be anything in them? Will businesses actually migrate to these gTLDs as their primary or will they simply just redirect them to their current sites? I don’t have answers to these questions but I’m very interested to see how these gTLDs get used.
I’m always surprised at how many people I know use Dropbox. It’s not just because I have a lot of tech minded friends either, no a whole bunch of regular people I know use it for backup and to share large files that would be cumbersome otherwise. I personally use it (well used to) to back up my phone’s apps and configuration using Titanium Backup Pro. I don’t have as much use for it now since the integrated sync options from Google do 90% of the work without me having to think about it. Still every so often I’ll find myself needing use of some accessible-from-anywhere type storage and I’ll always come back to Dropbox.
That might all be about to change, however.
Rumors have been circulating for eons that Google would eventually launch some kind of cloud storage service, going head to head with industry heavyweight Dropbox. In fact I can remember hearing rumors about it not too long after they released Gmail all those years ago after someone figured out how to create a bastardized version of it using said service. After all that time it appears that Google is finally about to pull the trigger on providing such a service, giving all new comers to the service 5GB worth of free cloud storage with the option to purchase more should you need it. It seems even the app has made its way into some of the more enthusiastic tech writer’s hands, taking the GDrive right out of the rumor mill.
Anyone who knows something about Dropbox’s story you’ll probably find this announcement both awesome and completely hilarious. Drew Houston, the man behind Dropbox, said when applying to startup incubator YCombinator that it was a very real possibility that Google would announce GDrive early on in his product’s life and that would basically mean the end of it. However for the past 4 years as Dropbox has gained significant market share and momentum Google has been very mum on the subject, not leaking any details of whether or not they’d pursue the idea. Now Google is launching into a market that has extremely heavy competition as Dropbox isn’t the only cloud storage provider out there.
For what its worth I really think that Google has launched 4 years too late here. Back when Dropbox was just taking off Google had a real chance to either launching a competing product and grabbing the market early or simply attempting to buy out Dropbox and re-branding it as their own service. Rumor has it that Apple tried to do just that some time last year but Dropbox turned down the offer and its very possible that Google attempted the same thing only to get the same response. This could be why we’re now seeing a GDrive product finally coming to fruition as they’ve been left with no choice but to compete with Dropbox on their home turf.
So does this mean that the GDrive is a fool’s gambit? Not entirely as whilst Dropbox is the market leader in this space there’s something to be said for Google services. It’s quite possible that GDrive will now become heavily integrated with all of Google’s other products and that’s where they’ll be able to garner a large user base from. If their current Android integration is anything to go by adding in a cloud storage platform that’s natively integrated with the OS will provide some pretty spectacular benefits, much like the ones Microsoft is touting with Azure and Windows 8. Whether their service will be profitable is something we’ll just have to wait to see, however.
It was just over a decade ago now but I can still vividly remember walking around the streets of Akihabara in Tokyo. It’s a technical wonderland and back then when Internet shopping was something only crazy people did (for fear of losing your credit card details) it was filled with the kind of technology you couldn’t find anywhere else. I was there on a mission looking for a pocket translator similar to the one my Japanese teacher had lent me. While my quest went unfulfilled I did manage to see all sorts of technology there that wouldn’t make it to Australia shores for years to come, and one piece in particular stuck in my mind.
There was a row of these chunky looking head sets, each hooked up to what looked like a portable CD player. I remember picking one up and looking at the headset I saw two tiny displays in it, one for each eye. Putting on the headset I was greeted to a picture that seemed massive in comparison to the actual size of the device playing some kind of demo on a loop. It wasn’t perfect but it was enough to make me fascinated with the concept and I thought it wouldn’t be long before everyone had some kind of wearable display. Here we are just over a decade later and the future I envisioned hasn’t yet come to pass but it seems we’re not far off.
Today Google announced Project Glass, one of their brain childs of the secretive Google[x] lab. There’s been rumours floating around for quite a while now that they were working on something of this nature but no one could give much above the general idea that it would be a head mounted display and Android would be powering it. Looking over what Google’s released today as well as the comments from other news outlets makes it clear that Google is quite serious about this idea and it could be something quite revolutionary.
The initial headset designs I saw back when I heard the original rumours were the kind of of clunky, overly large glasses we’ve come to expect when anyone mentions a wearable display. Google’s current design (pictured above) seems rather elegant in comparison. It’ll still draw a lot of attention thanks to the chunky white bar at the side but it’s a far cry from what we’ve come to expect from wearable displays. What’s even more impressive is the concept demo they included alongside it, showcasing what the headset is capable of:
The possibilities for something like this are huge. Just imagine extending the capabilities to recognise faces of people you’ve met before, neatly side stepping that awkward moment when you forget someone’s name. You could even work a barcode scanner into it, allowing you to scan food to see the nutritional value (and then see if it fits in with your diet) before you purchase it. I could go on forever about the possibilities of a device like the Project Glass but suffice to say it’s quite an exciting prospect.
What will be really interesting to see is how these kind of devices blend in to every day social interactions. The smart phone and tablet managed to work their way into social norms rather quickly but a device like this is a whole other ball game. The sleek and unobtrusive design will help ease its transition in some what but I can still see a long adaptation period where people will wonder why the heck you’re wearing it. That won’t deter me from doing so though as it’s this kind of device that makes me feel like I’m living in the future. That’s all it takes for me to overcome any social anxiety that I might have about wearing one of these
It’s hard to believe that we’re still in the first year of Google+ as it feels like the service has been around for so much longer. This is probably because of the many milestones it managed to pass in such a short period of time, owing the fact that anyone with a Google account can just breeze on into the nascent social network. I personally remained positive about it as the interface and user experience paradigms suited my geeky ways but the lack of integration with other services along with the lack of migration of others onto the service means that it barely sees any use, at least from me.
Still I can’t generalize my experience up to a wider view of Google+ and not just because that’s bad science. Quite often I’ve found myself back on Google+, not for checking my feed or posting new content, but to see conversations that have been linked to by news articles or friends. Indeed Google+ seems to be quite active in these parts with comment threads containing hundreds of users and multitudes of posts. Most often this is when popular bloggers or celebrities start said thread so its very much like Twitter in that regard, although Google+ feels a whole lot more like one big conversation rather than Twitter’s 1 to many or infinitum of 1 to 1 chat sessions. For the most part this still seems to be heavily biased towards the technology scene, but that could just be my bias stepping in again.
Outside that though my feed is still completely barren with time between posts from users now expanding to weeks. Even those who swore off all other social networks in favour of Google+ have had to switch back as only a small percentage of their friends had an active presence on their new platform of choice. This seems to be something of a trend as user interactivity with the site is at an all time low, even below that of struggling social network MySpace. Those figures don’t include mobile usage but suffice to say that the figures are indicative of the larger picture.
Personally I feel one of the biggest problems that Google+ has is lack of integration with other social network services and 3rd party product developers. Twitter’s success is arguably due to their no holds barred approach to integration and platform development. Whilst Google+ was able to get away with not having it in the beginning the lack of integration hurts Google’s long term prospects significantly as people are far less likely to use it as their primary social network. Indeed I can’t syndicate any of the content that I create onto their social network (and vice-versa) due to the lack of integration and this means that Google+ exists as a kind of siloed platform, never getting the same level of treatment as the other social networks do.
Realistically though it’s all about turning the ghost towns that are most people’s timelines into the vibrant source of conversation that many of the other social networks are. Right now Google+ doesn’t see much usage because of the content exclusivity and effort required to manually syndicate content to it. Taking away that barrier would go a long way to at least making Google+ look like its getting more usage and realistically that’s all that would be required for a lot of users to switch over to it as their main platform. Heck I know I would.
I’m probably one of the few geeks that doesn’t try to aggressively block all the ads that come to them via the Internet. I don’t find the majority of them intrusive to my browsing, especially if they’re the typical Google text blocks that sit nonchalantly beside the other wall of text that I’m staring at. Even the video ones, well mostly the ones on video sites like YouTube, are pretty tame and if they’re overly long you’re usually able to skip them after 10 seconds or so. My primary reason though is that I know that these ads support the websites that they’re on and the least I can do is let them show them to me.
I often get asked why I don’t run ads here on The Refined Geek. For the most part it’s laziness as the way I want to show ads isn’t exactly simple to set up. If I was going to show ads now I’d only want to show them to a subset of my readers (people coming here from searches and those who haven’t commented) and there’s no simple solution for that. Additionally right now I’m not really getting enough visitors to justify it as hosting this blog is cheap and I’m not exactly struggling financially. Once I reach a certain threshold of readers though you might see ads that are there to keep the site running, but that’s a little way off for now.
However recently I’ve noticed a trend with the ads that get presented to me. They’re all the damn same.
Now I do a lot of Googling, almost all of it when I’m logged in under my Google account. This means that Google knows quite a lot about me, enough to serve me some pretty targeted ads. In the past they’ve actually been helpful in tracking certain things down, especially if I’m looking to purchase something. However lately I’ve noticed that for certain sites I’m only getting served the exact same ad over and over again. This isn’t a caching issue or anything like that because it follows me between work and home. The most annoying part of it too is that I’m getting products advertised to me that I was already interested in buying or have already bought.
I have 3 examples of this which is what has made me think there’s something more to this than just dumb luck. The first I noticed a couple months back when I did a search for synthetic diamonds, wanting to see how far they’ve come in the past couple years. Now on certain sites all I’ll get is an ad for a particular online diamond store, over and over again. The second was for the GoPro HD Hero 2, a great little camera that I’m looking to take with me when I do Tough Mudder in just over 6 weeks. The third and final one is for Fat Gripz, an exercise accessory that came recommended to me from my brother in-law. I’d say about 50% of the ads I see online are these and they’re getting to the point where I want to block them entirely.
The explanation behind this is mostly likely that these are the highest paying ads that the site can display when I visit the site. The way AdSense works is that advertisers bid for the space by putting up their cost-per-click price and then Google will show the best ad for the slot. The diamond store, GoPro and Fat Gripz likely have high CPCs due to their products having a decent margin in them (Fat Gripz especially) and thus they can afford to pay a lot more than others to get the same advertising space. Still you’d think after I’ve seen the ad 100 times and not clicked on it they’d get the idea and start rotating out other ads, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
This is mostly just me whining about something that’s not much of an issue but as someone who’s trying to be a good netizen I feel like I’d hope my experience wouldn’t be bad enough to turn me to blocking them completely. Reddit et. al. gets this with many of the ads being rotated out for thank you pictures for those of us not running ad block. It’s not much but it does go a long way to help stem the flow of people to using things like AdBlock Plus. For now I’ll probably leave everything as is but if this trend continues I’ll soon be joining the ranks of my ad-block brethren.
Google is one of the biggest proponents of an Internet that’s unencumbered by proprietary standards, patents and non-neutral traffic routes. That’s been a great boon to us Internet users as their advocacy on our behalf means that as long as they stay in business we’re likely to continue to have an Internet that stays true to those ideals. Of course like any company they’re not entirely perfect, at times attempting to forward their own agenda under the guise of openness, but overall their contribution to keeping the Internet free and open has been positive. It seems rather odd then that Google has an obsession with Adobe’s Flash product, to the point where I wonder if there’s something going on that I don’t know about.
Back in March last year Google announced that they were integrating the Flash plugin directly into their Chrome browser. This was at the height of the web standards war that was raging between Apple and Adobe so it was easy to construe Google’s support of Flash as them taking Adobe’s side in the matter. That notion was further reinforced by the fact that Google’s Android platform fully supported Flash as well. This level of support for a proprietary plug-in for a company that prides itself on being a big supporter of open standards seems rather hypocritical, but there are some reasons as to why they’re doing it.
Recently though it appears that Google’s support of Flash was actually leading up to a much more ambitious goal, transitioning the web from Flash to a HTML5 future:
Google is enabling developers who use the Adobe Flash Professional developer tool to convert their animations to HTML5 via an extension based on Google’s Swiffy conversion technology.
“One of our main aims for Swiffy is to let you continue to use Flash as a development environment, even when you’re developing animations for environments that don’t support Flash,” said Esteban de la Canal, Google software engineer, in a blog post. “To speed up the development process, we’ve built the Swiffy Extension for Flash Professional. The extension enables you to convert your animation to HTML5 with one click (or keyboard shortcut).”
Now it’s interesting that Google would go ahead and do something like this when Adobe had already made their play in this field with their Wallaby product. The big difference here is that Wallaby was specifically targeted at Flash Ads only and didn’t support many of the features that made Flash so versatile, like ActionScript. Swiffy on the other hand does support ActionScript and several other features that weren’t present in Wallaby. It would seem then that Google thinks they can do better than Adobe at their own game which they very well could especially when Adobe just recently announced that they weren’t working on mobile Flash any more.
Of course the transition from native Flash to Flash rendered through HTML5 doesn’t necessarily mean we’re looking at a future web that performs better. The main problem with Flash wasn’t so much the platform it was the developers on that platform. The Flash ads were the biggest culprit, often laden with gobs of unnecessary and bloated code that were the source of the performance problems people encountered. Transitioning such ads to HTML5 won’t make that code go away (there is a chance to optimize, but automated tools can only go so far) and the result will more than likely be just as bad as the original Flash it came from. It’s a step in the right direction yes, but it’s not going to be an all roses future like some would have you believe.
It’s quite interesting to see the kind of games that Google plays in order to make the web better for everyone. At times they may seem to be on the wrong side but it’s becoming clear that they’re playing the long game for a better web for everyone. It will be interesting to see how common Swiffy converted Flash files become and whether they’re still the performance hogs that their predecessors are but knowing Google they won’t let it lie until they’ve optimized it to the nth degree. Adobe’s reaction to Swiffy will be telling as well considering they’re now competing directly with Google on their home turf. The end result will be a better, more open Internet for us all something I think we can all agree is a good thing.