- Broadcast publicly. By checking “Enable Hangouts On Air,” you can broadcast your live hangout—-from the Google+ stream, your YouTube channel or your website—-|to the entire world.
- See how many viewers you’ve got. During your broadcast, you can look inside the hangout to see how many people are watching live.
- Record and re-share. Once you’re off the air, we’ll upload a public recording to your YouTube channel, and to your original Google+ post. This way it’s easy to share and discuss your broadcast after it’s over.
- Keep your account active
- Keep payment information in Google Wallet accurate and up-to-date
- Don’t cancel or upgrade your current plan
Transitioning from Google Reader to feedly
Transitioning from Google Reader to feedly
From the Feedly blog:
We have been working on a project called Normandy which is a feedly clone of the Google Reader API – running on Google App Engine. When Google Reader shuts down, feedly will seamlessly transition to the Normandy back end. So if you are a Google Reader user and using feedly, you are covered: the transition will be seamless.
Feedly is my top contender for a Reader replacement right now: multi-platform, ready to clone my Reader feeds, and prepared to essentially take over much of Reader’s core subscribe-and-sync functionality when Google pulls the plug.
Also, I can’t help but assume that they’re calling it Normandy because there are tens of thousands of Google Reader users suddenly storming their shores.
Powering Down Google Reader
I don’t even know what to say about this. Reader is an integral part of my workflow and I need to figure something else out. If you have any alternatives to suggest, please let me know.
ECPA amendment would require warrant even for email older than 6 months
ECPA amendment would require warrant even for email older than 6 months
Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ted Poe (R-Texas), and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) are pushing an amendment to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that would require a warrant for authorities to obtain any email, instead of allowing free access to messages older than six months.
I wrote in January about Google’s decision to require a warrant even where the law does not, so the ECPA’s shortcomings in the digital age (the law is more than twenty years old) are sometimes mitigated by responsible corporate policies.
But a legitimate amendment like Lofgren’s would apply Google’s common sense approach to 4th Amendment rights to all such service providers. There’s simply no excuse not to get this done.
At Google, Constitution trumps statute
At Google, Constitution trumps statute
David Kravets quotes a Googler:
“Google requires an ECPA search warrant for contents of Gmail and other services based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents unreasonable search and seizure,” Chris Gaither, a Google spokesman, said.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act isn’t always as demanding as Google, and their assertion that the policy is based on Constitutional requirements implies that the ECPA does not comport with the same requirements. That’s a bold legal position to take, but as Mr. Kravets explains at Wired, Google isn’t necessarily alone.
Nilay Patel on what we agree to when we use cloud services
Nilay Patel on what we agree to when we use cloud services
Nilay Patel at The Verge reads some Terms of Service and drops some knowledge bombs. It’s definitely a must-read if you’re a Google, Dropbox, iCloud, or Skydrive user. So, if you’re on the internet at all, basically.
UPDATED: Google Acquires Wi-Fi Provider ICOA for $400 Million
UPDATED: Google Acquires Wi-Fi Provider ICOA for $400 Million
Updated: This is not true.
Angela Moscaritolo of PCMag.com reports:
In a statement, Google said it made the acquisition to “further diversify its already impressive portfolio of companies.” The Web giant did not elaborate about its motivation for the deal.
You don’t spent $400 million on something that isn’t strategically important to your business. I predict that Google WiFi will launch in 2013.
$22.5M FTC fine against Google for Safari tracking
$22.5M FTC fine against Google for Safari tracking
Michael Liedtke, writing for Associated Press:
In the Safari case, Consumer Watchdog argued that the fine amounts to loose change for a company like Google, which generates about $22.5 million in revenue every four hours.
It’s a very good deal for Google, especially because they don’t need to admit liability. It’s a decent deal from the FTC’s perspective, as well, because it’s (sadly) the largest fine they’ve ever levied in this context. I’m not sure how effective it’s going to be, but if you’re unnerved by Google’s privacy issues, there’s always DuckDuckGo.
Google integrating AMBER alerts
Google integrating AMBER alerts
Richard Dunlop-Walters’ The Brief is a must-read for those interested in news about how technology affects our lives every day.
Mr. Dunlop-Walters said of Google’s AMBER Alert integration:
whenever you perform a Google search related to an area where a child has been abducted and an alert was issued you’ll see an AMBER Alert on the results page.
This is a great example of how a company can make money and help society, and do both using its core technology (in this case, search targeting). The best part? Google is working on expanding the integration internationally in cooperation with foreign missing children’s advocates.
Sloppy SSL implementation begets Android app vulnerabilities
Sloppy SSL implementation begets Android app vulnerabilities
Dan Goodin at Ars Technica explains how researchers found that 8% of apps in a 13,500-app sample were susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks. Hopefully developers will revisit their SSL implementations or, better yet, Google will update future versions of the Android SDK to disallow some of the poor coding decisions that cause these vulnerabilities.
Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse
Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse
Carlos Fernando Lindenberg Neto, president of Brazil’s National Association of Newspapers, on his association’s withdraw from Google News:
Google News’ presence in the Brazilian market is small. We believe (the loss of traffic) is an acceptable price to protect our content and brands.
The linked article, by Isabela Fraga at the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas blog, offers good background on the issue.
I never go to Google News without clicking on at least three stories I wouldn’t have otherwise encountered. Maybe I’m the exception and not the rule. But if Google News’ presence is really that small, isn’t the potential or actual harm they claim necessarily small as well?
This decision looks petty and short-sighted, particularly in light of Newsweek's recent announcement.
New $249 Samsung Chromebook
This is certainly interesting. And at half the price of an entry-level Microsoft Surface, it even comes with a keyboard!
Microsoft To Make Same Privacy Change Google Was Attacked For; No One Seems To Care
Microsoft To Make Same Privacy Change Google Was Attacked For; No One Seems To Care
This is a good piece by Danny Sullivan of Marketing Land about the lack of coverage Microsoft’s privacy policy consolidation got this week compared to what Google got on a similar move earlier this year.
Mr. Sullivan’s analysis is thorough and worth a look, but I noticed a broader issue here for Microsoft:
Google matters and Microsoft doesn’t.
I’ll elaborate. Google got hammered by voluminous coverage because, in the minds of the tech press and many consumers, what they do with data matters. Microsoft, on the other hand, is not seen as an important player in the consumer data space. That perception may be inaccurate, particularly with the generally positive reaction to, if not widespread adoption of, SkyDrive and the new Outlook.
But it’s there: when it comes to privacy, Google is search and email and Android. Microsoft is, well, not much. Windows 8 and Surface may change that, but no one is holding their breath. In short, this looks like a case in which Microsoft got let less critical press coverage than they may have wanted: people complain about the things that are important to them. The unimportant things get ignored.
Apathy and ecstasy for the iPhone 5
Mat Honan, writing at Wired’s Gadget Lab blog:
It is an amazing triumph of technology that gets better and better, year after year, and yet somehow is every bit as exciting as a 25 mph drive through a sensible neighborhood at a reasonable time of day.
I am still waiting for Verizon to push Jelly Bean to my Galaxy Nexus. Meanwhile, the damn thing throws a force-close dialogue every couple of hours, stutters whenever I try to switch between apps, and occasionally reboots itself just for fun.
My fiancée has had an iPhone 4 for a little over a year, so I’ve had a lot of time to sit on the couch late at night and compare the two phones (like the unashamed geek one has to be to do such things…). The verdict is clear, quick, and simple: go Android for customization and Gmail (a far bigger point in Android’s favor than non-Gmail users might imagine…) but go iPhone for stability and app availability.
That has been the state of things for some time, and it’s no different with the introduction of the iPhone 5, iOS 6, or Android Jelly Bean.
Maybe it’s because I’m 29 this year, but my desire to customize the hell out of my phone is fading fast, especially at the high cost of stability. I’ll always keep an Android phone or two around for playing with custom ROMs, but I need something more refined for my primary phone.
Also, I’ve found on other Android devices that the four-inch display is my preference. The older iPhone displays were too small, and the Galaxy Nexus, at 4.6 inches, is a bit too large. Some people are complaining that iPhone 5 looks the same, just as the 4S looked the same. But it doesn’t: it has a bigger display and a thinner depth, without sacrificing anything in the spec department. That’s change enough for me.
Honan nailed it: iPhone 5 is great and it’s whatever. But it’s stable, app-rich, uniformly-updated whatever. And unless my first experience with it in a store or from a friend’s unit is surprisingly negative, it’s what I’m getting the next time I need a new phone.
Apple's Comfortable Middle
Hamish McKenzie, writing at PandoDaily :
With two product launches in a row that show Apple is merely keeping pace with innovation rather than leading it, the world’s most valuable company will start to seem mortal.
I disagree.
For the record, I’m usually on board with Mr. McKenzie’s analyses, and I think he’s right that the iPhone 5 doesn’t restore the staggering lead Apple once had in smartphone innovation. I just don’t agree that there is any probable circumstance in which the iPhone 5 marks the beginning of the end of Apple’s dominance. I want him to be right, but I believe it will take action on the part of Apple’s competitors, rather than mere inaction from Cupertino, to catalyze that descent from the pinnacle.
I want to see something truly threaten Apple’s dominance: it would be good for consumers and even good for Apple, potentially motivating just the sort of next-generation innovation everyone wishes we saw with the iPhone 5. But Android is peddled in an ever-changing array of hardware of wildly varying quality, its interface often marred by manufacturer “improvements” and carrier-mandated bloatware, with no cohesive or remotely predictable software upgrade schedule.
Yes, it’s customizable, “open” (depending on how you define the term), and a provider of competitive pressure. In fact, Android, the OS, in its pristine Jelly Bean state on glorious hardware, is functional and gorgeous. But Android, the experience and, for lack of a better word, the brand, is truly a mess.
Then, there is the iPhone.
Apple tried for years to make things people loved. They succeeded. Now they are in the business of making improvements on the things they make that people love. And they’re succeeding there, too.
Whether or not they revolutionize TV next, and whether or not they drastically refresh iOS in the next couple of years, I think they’re still comfortably in the middle of their dominance, and at the top of their game.
Analysis over revision: Kara Swisher's mysterious edits to Marissa Mayer's Yahoo! memo (Updated)
Updated 12:00 p.m: Kara Swisher reached out to me on Twitter after I published this post (her tweets and my replies here, here, here, here, and here).
She said she only made minor edits to things like commas and contractions, and that she thought people would assume that she didn’t rewrite the substance. She is right; I should have focused on wanting her take on what I describe below as the interesting bits and not on her revision. She also told me I should have asked her. She is right about that, too. I stand by my wanting some analysis of the areas I mention below where Mayer’s memo departs from PR speak, but to the extent that my post appeared to question Ms. Swisher’s integrity, I am sorry._
Kara Swisher, writing at All Things D about new Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer’s recent memo to employees:
I took that to heart in tracking down this do-not-forward (oops) memo —- which I changed around > a bit to thwart those who try to stop me from getting these emails via tricky computer programs […]
“Changed around a bit” to what extent? Does that diminish or eliminate the value, if any, of the memo to readers? Was there any value to readers to begin with? My answers are probably “yes” and “no” respectively.
I’m not the only one thinking these things, some commenters asked the same questions. I think Ms. Swisher should have analyzed the interesting parts of the memo, posting little or none of the actual text. It would have been better use of her knowledge and skills, and would have been more valuable to readers.
The memo itself is nothing special. I can summarize it as “I’m happy to be here, I think Yahoo! is great, I have big plans, but don’t stop doing what you’re doing (unless you hear otherwise) until I learn more about the company’s management culture and direction.”
But Ms. Swisher’s casual mention that she edited it gives me pause. It’s not exactly a sensitive diplomatic report, but mysterious edits by a journalist to a document originally written by the subject of the article make me uneasy.
Ms. Swisher is laudably dogged about disclosing her spouse’s role as an executive at Google. There is a link to her disclosure and ethics policy at the bottom of all her articles. That’s why this offhand mention of memo-revision reads as out of place to me.
Ms. Swisher could have published the unedited version of the memo as an image, likely thwarting any “tricky computer programs” aimed at preventing her future access to such internal emails in the future. Alternatively, she could have simnply written about the bits that weren’t cliche corporate-speak.
For example, Ms. Mayer said in the memo that “While I have some ideas, I need to develop a more informed perspective before making strategy or direction changes.” That suggests the pace of change at Yahoo! under her leadership may initially be slower than observers would like, but will likely accelerate as she soaks up institutional knowledge about how the company functions.
Another interesting bit says “Please don’t stop. If you have questions or concerns about whether to continue or not, please ask. However, with the exception of a few things that might heavily constrain us in the future, the answer is most likely: Yes, keep moving.” What is going on at Yahoo! right now that “might heavily constrain” them in the future if employees don’t pull the plug?
Finally, Ms. Mayer said “We will continue to invest in talent, so we can produce the most compelling and exciting user experiences anywhere.” That tracks with the Flickr team’s response to dearmarissamayer.com, asking people to apply for jobs there.
But does Ms. Mayer’s comment suggest that Yahoo! will be ramping up compensation and benefits, going on a hiring and expansion spree to bet the company on a new army of innovators, or just building out the kind of infrastructure and marketing that will make current employees proud to work there again?
Ms. Swisher is a journalist and I am not a journalist. She is talented and successful, and no doubt has a better editorial sensibility (or at least a more refined one) than I do. But I can’t help thinking that a breakdown of the memo’s telling points would have been more worthy of her efforts and our reading time than posting it in its entirety with some unknown edits.
Google's live 'Hangouts On Air' rolling out to everyone everywhere, and why it matters
I originally posted this to The Verge's Web & Social forum. Read the original forum post here.
Google recently announced that, over the next several weeks, they’re rolling out the ability to livestream and record Hangouts to everyone.
Shameless copy/paste of features:
Now none of this is really new. Sites like Justin.tv and Ustream, among many others, have been doing this stuff for a long time. But those sites built their communities on top of their streaming services. What interests me about Hangouts On Air is that Google is building their streaming service on top of their community.
Previously, one typically had to know about Ustream and similar services in order to seek them out and take advantage of what they offer. Google, on the other hand, is making the same technology available to myriad people who otherwise would never have considered whether or not they want to do a live video meeting/chat/interview/podcast. And if the functionality is baked into the Google+ apps for Android, users of that mobile OS won’t even need to download an additional app.
I think that’s awesome. But I also know it comes with dangers. It’s an opportunity for, at best, loads more noise in Google+ and other social networking feeds as people experiment with this stuff. At worst, for users, it’s a great way to produce and disseminate spam, hate, and other assorted creepiness. At worst, for Google, it won’t get any traction at all outside the Google+ fan club. Maybe it will live and die inside Google+, only coming to the attention of non-Plussers when Google decides to shove the Plus platform in peoples’ faces. But Hangouts is built with YouTube technology, and no one should doubt the potential for anything with that kind of foundation.
In addition, there is an interesting tension here between Google and Hangouts On Air and Microsoft’s Skype. Right now, podcasting heavyweights like the TWiT Network rely heavily on Skype for much of their production. The video-calling software, however, is notoriously prone to dropped calls and “Cyloning”—breakdowns in audio and video quality. If Hangouts On Air can avoid those issues, it may become a viable alternative to Skype for those kinds of use cases.
More broadly, Hangouts On Air puts Google on par with Ustream and others in the world of livestreaming news. Google can now function as a platform not only for the uploading and sharing of live video of political speeches, riots, and dispatches from convention floors, but for the distribution of that video content as it happens.
I’m sure I can’t predict all the implications Hangouts On Air will have down the road. But even if it doesn’t become wildly popular, it signals that Google is not content to make life searchable after the fact. They want to make it watchable, and interactive, as conversations happen.
Already paying for extra Docs/Gmail space? You’re payment plan isgrandfathered into Google Drive.
Google storage plans have changed, but you can stay on your current plan as long as you:
This is good news. I can keep paying $5 per year for 20 GB instead of the $2.50 per month ($30 per year) for 25 GB that new Google Drive users will pay.