Google Video Store

Yesterday, Larry Page announced that a Google Video Store will be available soon. The announcement came at his key note speech in Las Vegas. The store will provide users with the option to by various shows permanently or rent them for a period of time for prices ranging from $0.99 to $3.95. Google continues its trend of angering all other technology companies by taking a step above Apple’s Video Store and offering REAL shows and more variety. The shows you purchase will be linked to your account and you will be able to watch them from any computer. The store is no big news to most Google Video users; it is just the completion of the “put a price on your video” option.
The immobility of the videos prompts me to speculate of a possible wireless device to be manufactured by Google or its partners to move the media to your television. The Google PC announcement never came at Mr. Page’s speech. In question time Larry Page denied that Google is working on a PC and saying they have partners for that. Instead of a Google PC, the Google Video Store and the Google Pack were announced to the public.
I am looking forward to the official unveiling of the Google Video Store. I will be sure to buy myself some old “I Love Lucy” episodes for 99 cents each.

Google PC

Sorry for the long absence of posts, everyone. I have recently been lazy, playing Fallout Tactics and leaving for skiing. However, I am going to try to get back into the swing of things after not posting for around a month. I have three topics I want to post on, and that should make for three days straight of posts. Hopefully I will have more ideas by the end of those three days. Maybe I will even decide that eventually I will have to post about the Canadian elections. For now, I will avoid politics and Canada for that matter and talk about Google.

Introduction
On Friday, many are expecting Google to unveil a barebones PC running a Google OS or some device of the sort. The no-frills PC is expected to be unveiled this Friday by Larry Page during his keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The computer is expected to follow many ideas of the Mac Mini in making itself small and cost-effective. Since the speculated PC would not use Windows or other Microsoft products, it can cost under $200.
The biggest shock of the mainstream speculation about Friday’s announcement is Google’s partnership with Wal-Mart. Google enthusiasts speculate that Google will work with Wal-Mart in getting the hardware to the user. I find the news particularly interesting because only a short while ago, Wal-Mart was said to be finding ways to work against Google, because they were afraid the search engine could divert people form their stores.
Google has not confirmed any of the rumors, simply stating that “we do not comment on rumor and speculation”.

The Computer
I find the Google PC as an interesting way to introduce Google and Google OS to the shopper. However, I am not as optimistic as many speculators on such a drastic release. I am not sure if Google wants to throw itself into the world of low profit margin PCs. Through Google OS they would be able to propagate their adds, search engine and other software, but to who? Most people who would buy up these PCs are most likely Google users already. If Google is unveiling some sort of consumer hardware then I think it is more likely to be of the mobile sort. A device to harness the power of the Wi-Fi network Google has started to build. Google has recently been cooperating with Opera, a web browser company. Opera, on their part, has been working on Opera Mini, a browser made for low end Java-enabled mobile devices. I understand a Google device would most likely not need Opera Mini, but what Opera is doing shows interest towards mobile communication and I believe Google shares that interest.
Personally, I do not think Google is ready to leap into the consumer PC market right now. I think what Google needs to unveil first is a server PC. A cheap PC, running a server version of Google OS that is tailor made to work well with the Google Network. The Server PC would be a way for companies to have cheap servers that are easier to access by anyone using Google search. After setting their groundwork in Google servers, Google could expand out to making computers for the general public and creating that Google sub-internet I dreamed about not only through software but with their own hardware to back it all up.

The Alliance
The possible cooperation with Wal-Mart seemed foolish to me at first but after a bit more thought I realized that it is ingenious. If Wal-Mart is afraid of Google and thinking of measures to work against them, then why not subdue Wal-Mart and not have a threat to worry about? Working with Wal-Mart would be the best way for Google to reduce hostility from the giant. With Google and Wal-Mart cooperating together, the people at Wal-Mart would have much less reason to hatch ideas on combating against Google.
Even with that justification, the deal still seems strange to me.

Conclusion
For now all the Google PC information is not true information, but mere speculation. Google is a rather secretive company, and I guess we will not know what they are unveiling until the speech on Friday. I will keep looking into the matter and post more on the matter if anything materializes in Larry Page’s address.

Microsoft Live Battalion

Introduction
I have been avoiding discussing Microsoft Live for as long as possible, but today I will have to start. Bill Gates has launched Microsoft into the “Live era” as the company likes to say. The company has finally gotten around to copying some established products and establishing its own front in the war between Google, Yahoo and other internet giants. Some experts believe that Microsoft will not get anywhere with its efforts:

And while Microsoft has talked about accelerating its business by offering services, some analysts worry that its race to compete with Google and others could leave Microsoft’s very profitable business model in the dust. (source)

I am however not as optimistic and I am very much afraid that if a behemoth like Microsoft is given a chance to rear its ugly head, the fate of other companies might be very grim.

While the "live" software push is seen mainly as an effort to compete with rivals such as Google and Yahoo, there are a number of smaller companies that suddenly find themselves in Redmond’s competitive crosshairs. (source)

The unveiling of Microsoft’s Live software brings up three major questions: possible damage to Google, possible damage to Microsoft and possible damage to third parties. An internet war is starting to take shape between the giants of the web and the giants of software. Everyone has their own agenda and much collateral damage will be taken among third parties. Hopefully the conflict makes the web a better place for the users and is not destructive. But as we know from experience, wars rarely leave their battle zones unscarred.

In the past several months, some insiders and former employees have said that Microsoft has become too bureaucratic and process-driven to compete with nimbler competitors such as Google. (source)

To get ready for the competition Microsoft has reorganized itself to streamline decision making. The company has been split into three independent branches that answer to Steve Ballmer, the company’s CEO. In my mind this is Microsoft’s mobilization for the oncoming wars. In the words of an insider email sent to Microsoft employees by Steve Ballmer:

Our goal in making these changes is to enable Microsoft to achieve greater agility in managing the incredible growth ahead and executing our software-based services strategy

Possible Damage to Google
For Google the damage comes from direct clash. Windows Live Mail Beta is very much like GMail Beta. Both services are providing around 2GB of storage with similar interfaces and a Java based programming (so you don’t have to wait for every site to load). For Google the treat comes from that Microsoft has a whole lot more people in its Hotmail accounts that Google has in their GMail accounts. For now Google has been able to win over users from Hotmail but mounting competition may stop that trend. Google is already being challenged by increases from Yahoo and providers such as 30Gigs.
Google might carry a good brand name and be very popular with users that spend a good chunk of their lives on the internet and around computers. For the average user though, Microsoft is a better known and more trustable name for software. Over 37% of people might know Google’s great search engine, but Google software’s user base is much smaller. Services such as Blogger are in a fit to compete with “convenience” providers like MSN My Space. Google has a jump start on Microsoft and its worth is soaring, but Microsoft has a lot of weight to throw around. Google has to now play keep-away from Microsoft and try to knock the competitor down from their feet before they get started.

Possible Damage to Microsoft

Analysts say the move is probably necessary to help the company compete with rivals that threaten to offer online equivalents to some of Microsoft's cash cows, like Office. However, depending on how far Microsoft takes the strategy, it could also put the company in competition with its existing--and already lucrative--way of doing business.(source)

The biggest damage to Microsoft is the mishmash between its current model and the model needed to succeed in the internet market. Microsoft has been fueled by high-volume, high-margin software. The web business model requires the company to be fueled by low-margin advertising. Sadly (or maybe Happily), Microsoft can not provide its software at the same rate and make effective internet products. Making advertisement fueled products is bound to cannibalize Microsoft from the inside.

Bittman thinks Microsoft could eventually outflank Google but, ironically, find itself worse off. "I think Microsoft can win, but in the end it means Microsoft loses, unless there is some other magic there we don't see." (source)

Possible Damage to Third Parties
Microsoft’s offers of free calling, free virus scanning and free contact management are putting some companies in a jam. Most small companies are downplaying the risk and saying that Microsoft will never catch up to them. However, everyone knows the speed of Microsoft from experience. Google has no need to stop Microsoft in some of its markets and neither do any other big companies. VoIP providers might get some “help” from Google if it tries to stop Microsoft’s moves into VoIP communication, but Google Talk is not proficient enough as of yet to battle it out with MSN. On the security front, there are some big companies like MacAfee and Symantec to hold their ground against Microsoft, but the have enough quarrels between each other as is. Some markets though, (like the contacts market) have no big companies in place and are Microsoft’s for the taking. I think the companies in those fields are watching a very fine line by downplaying the importance of Microsoft’s infringement into their markets. For their sake, I hope the downplay is on a public one and not present inside the companies.

Conclusion
As of now, the future of Microsoft and Google is still too far away to predict. Google has the agility behind it, but Microsoft is trying to become more agile, again. Google has a wonderful capital value, but Microsoft’s capital value can not be compared to. I think that Google and Microsoft are very much on par right now in the internet software market. Google has a lead and better agility but Microsoft has a lot more money and is know to be quick to catch up. The best strategy for Google I think is to try to undermine Microsoft by cutting off the company’s shrink wrapped, high-margin OS and Office sales. Google has already taken a step forward by allying with Sun Microsystems, but Microsoft is trying to counter that with Office Live. The trick left in Google’s sleeve (if they want to undermine Microsoft) is to release a Google OS. I can not predict exactly what the two internet giants will do and will be watching their activities closely.

Google OS

Introduction

For a while now, I have been talking to people like Kumaran and posting on forums about my ideas for Google OS. I am not a big fan of some of the big ideas out their regarding Google running a supper cluster OS and you having an account on it. Some people such as Skrenta phrase their arguments well:

Google is a company that has built a single very large, custom computer. It's running their own cluster operating system. They make their big computer even bigger and faster each month, while lowering the cost of CPU cycles. It's looking more like a general purpose platform than a cluster optimized for a single application.
While competitors are targeting the individual applications Google has deployed, Google is building a massive, general purpose computing platform for web-scale programming.

However, I still disagree. I believe Google will create a free, single PC based system that is linked to their servers. Centralization does not float my boat, and in my opinion it does not float Google’s boat either. So far everything I have seen from Google has been very much decentralized. They run approximately 0.1 million servers in different parts of the world in small server farms to optimize searching and keep themselves decentralized. I understand the basing for using all the Google servers as one super computer:

The Google server farm constitutes one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world. At 126-316 teraflops, it can perform at over one third the speed of the Blue Gene supercomputer, which is the most powerful computing machine available to humanity. (source)

This does lend itself toward creating some sort of centralized system. But when you think about all the people that would be part of the system and all the process running on the system, such a thing does not seem feasible. In my opinion it is more plausible to have each computer run a Google OS and be connected to the internet and the special Google Network. Each computer will be responsible for its standardized functions, but all the leftover processing power would be given over to Google to with as they please (much like the program Folding@Home). The connection to a single network or Google users would also allow Google to study their surfing patters (as they already do with their net mapping), but since they would control the Google OS network, they would be able to alter the connections to optimize the speed. Google would be able to become a road planner for its own pseudo-net.

Free
Google would have to make its Google OS free because they have to, and because they can.
Have to:
Google would have to provide a free OS in order to compete well on the personal OS market. Right now there are only two major providers of paid-for-OS on the market and only one of them can boast that it makes money from its OS. Both Microsoft and Apple provide their own priced OS, however only Microsoft provides it successfully. Apple OS only exists because that is the only OS available on the computers Apple makes. Microsoft on the other hand, does not manufacture computers and manages to make money on the OS alone. Microsoft’s monopoly over the market, forces other operating systems (such as Linux) to be free or not exist at all. Google OS would need to be much like Linux and MacOS to be successful. However, unlike Linux, Google would have no need to be open source, since they already has a wonderful team of computer scientists working for them. Unlike Apple, Google would have to be non-proprietary and compatible.
Can:
I have no clue how much Microsoft has patent, but Google would have to take as much as possible and function as much like Microsoft as possible. If Google makes an incompatible OS (even if it is a good operating system) they would not be able to hold more success than something like Linux. Instead Google would have to find a way to run on the same computers as Windows, and use the same software as Windows. Like I mentioned, I have no clue how much Google could steal, but I am sure it could design some sort of operating system that could run all the basic 3rd party software for windows.
The reason Google OS can be free is because the company is an advertisement giant, not a software company. Google will be able to benefit from discreet ads it implants in its OS and from the spare processing power it would take from its users. The Google ads would have to be convenient and customizable enough so that the system users would not find it a hassle or bother. The spare CPU usage would have to be efficient enough so that the person using the system does not notice it at all. With a good way or providing ads and linking all that spare processing power, Google could easily make enough money to cover its development, maintenance and upgrading costs for the system, as well as make some extra money to throw elsewhere.

Single PC based
The argument for having each operating system being a single entity is simple. The amount of bandwidth and processing power on Google’s part to keep all the users running would be too great to handle effectively. Even with estimates of 126-316 Teraflops in processing power, the Google super-cluster would not be able to keep everyone satisfied. To show how this works with basic math lets take the upper part of that range 316 Teraflops and do our calculations for that. A standard PC runs in excess of 2 GHz or a few Gigaflops. The PlayStation 3 is rated at 2.005 Teraflops (200th fastest in the world) and the Xbox at half that, due to consoles’ graphics processors, but we only want to deal with CPU speeds. Hence we can say that our average PC runs at about 3.16 Gigaflops (to make our calculations easier). Now we need an estimate for user base. Currently Linux has an estimated 29 million users. Let us say that Google OS does not do as great and only makes 1/3 of what Linux has for a user base, or 10 million people. 3.16*10^14 (316 Teraflops) divided by 1*10^7 (10 million people) comes out to 3.16*10^7 flops. If we compare the 31.6 megaflops we got for an answer to the 3.16 gigaflops that our computers run at, we can see the impossibility of the matter.

Linked to Google servers
The link to the Google servers is to allow Google to access users’ spare resources, to make a pseudo internet and tailor advertisments.
Spare resources:
The spare resource use would work much like Folding@Home or the one that started it: SETI@Home. Most computers run at around 50% power. My computer right now, while running Google Desktop, Mozilla Firefox, MSN, Word, Winamp, XFire and an assortment of other programs, is averaging around 20% of its CPU usage and 41% of my RAM. But we should stick with 50% just to be safe. Now if we come back to the same numbers: 10 million 3.16 gigaflop processors. Lets take half of 3.16*10^9 and multiply that by 1*10^7 and we come out with 1.58*10^16 Flops. That is 15800 teraflops, which is 50 times more than the high end of what Google has already. Of course we can not expect 100% efficiency and have to account for computers not always being on. So let us say the transfer is about 50% effective and that a standard computer is on for 1/5th of the day (less than 5 hours) and that we split each flops across 5 computers. Calculate 1.58*10^16 * 0.5 * 0.2 * 0.2 and we get 3.16^14 or 316 Teraflops. In other words by getting 10 million people to use their OS, Google could double its operating speed.
Pseudo internet:
With complete knowledge of people’s surfing Google would be able to customize its own internet (Let us call it GoogleNet for now). With knowledge of what sites each individual wants to access and with a couple of servers running a server version of Google OS they could devise their own map of how to more effectively link all the Google OS users and all the Google OS servers. If you are trying to contact another person running Google OS directly, or are contacting a Google OS server, instead of going through the internet you would go through the Google sub-network. Since Google can customize how your packets fly around in their sub network they can optimize it for quicker speed. If you are trying to contact a non Google computer, then Google can take you to one of its own computers virtually near the one you are trying to contact and then let your packets fly out onto the internet, thus optimizing speed.
To keep this sort of subnet active and efficient Google would need a lot of power. They would need to devise new software to make fast net mapping and to evaluate peoples surfing. For that task they can use the same PhDs they hired already. The power for the processing would come from the spare resources Google could draw from the users of its system.

Conclusion
In my mind there is no debate as to if Google OS will come out. The only debate is when the operating system will arrive, what features it will have, and how everyone will react. What I am perplexed about is if the alleged Google Grid will come before or after Google operating system. The Grid and OS have wide discussion across the internet but there are no real comments from Google itself. I guess we will all just have to sit around and hope that Google does not get sidetracked or Netscaped.