Google Incorporated has recently announced a new application called Google PowerMeter, a feature that aims at helping users with their electric bill by tracking their home electricity usage.

The app, which is a a widget on iGoogle, communicates with the 40 million smart meters all throughout the United States and afterwards shows consumers their home energy information on their computer screens, and all this in almost real time.

In a blog post, Ed Lu of Google's engineering team stated that the detailed information concerning personal energy use should be made available in an open standard, non-proprietary format, adding that users should get to decide who can see their data.

Moreover, Lu said that consumers should have the opportunity to choose from a wide range of services capable of helping them understand and benefit from the data.

For the time being, Google PowerMeter is still undergoing testing, but the company said that it planned to expand the app’s user-base and make it more widely available in the near future.

Lu asked federal and state governments, utilities, device manufacturers, and software engineers to join Google’s efforts, saying that consumers would be urged to use electricity more wisely by virtue of the fact that they would be provided access to their energy information.

This week-end, Google filed comments with the California Public Utility Commission urging it to update its smart grid policy so as to include principles enabling free, standardized and direct access to real-time electricity usage information.

Visit:Makai Studio

t's been a busy 24 hours in the online space. First, Amazon.com announced it was buying Audible. And now Microsoft has made a $44 billion bid to acquire Yahoo! Such aggressive takeovers generally occur either close to a top-when buyers are really optimistic-or after a bust, when survivors pounce on opportunities to pick up companies on the cheap. But coupled with yesterday's disappointing earnings report from Google, the deal-making points to a new phenomenon: the first economic slowdown of the Web 2.0 era. After a few quarters of defying the broader economic decline, even the best-of-breed technology companies are showing themselves to be subject to the business cycle. The slowdown is gutting margins, causing executives to revise their Power Point presentations on growth, and depressing stocks. As a result, the hot young singles of the NASDAQ are seeking to cut costs and ride out the storm by shacking up together.

Audible is a new media company that old-media types like to root for. Its founder and chief executive officer is the excellent magazine journalist and author Donald Katz, and its services provided a potential new revenue stream for long-form journalists. Audible survived the dotcom meltdown in 2000, and quietly built a significant business. (Projected 2007 revenues: $106-$108 million). But as shown by its third quarter earnings, impressive revenue growth of about 30 percent has been unable to overcome persistent spending on technology, marketing, and operations. The upshot: Audible is still losing money.

Enter Amazon.com, which, though it continues to put up excellent numbers, remains a retail stock. And when the end of a business cycle approaches, retail growth frequently comes at the expense of margins. Amazon.com's fourth quarter earnings release, which came out on Wednesday, showed sales rose an impressive 42 percent from the 2006 fourth quarter, to $5.67 billion (with an assist from foreign exchange translations). But operating income grew only 38 percent, and operating margins fell in the core North American market. (Translation: Amazon had to discount, or throw in free shipping, more than it did last year to help goose sales.) For 2008, Amazon is expecting revenue growth to slow to between 26 and 33 percent. So why get hitched? Amazon's huge infrastructure investments and distribution capabilities may make it possible for it to run Audible profitably, even if sales growth is muted. And Audible represents a significant revenue stream that it can acquire without spending too much. The agreed-upon price is $11.50 a share. While that's a small premium to Audible's January 30 closing price $9.33, it's below where Audible traded for much of the past year. At the end of October, Audible's stock traded at about $13.75.

Economic slowdowns are also bad news for media companies, as marketers cut back on advertising spending. And it stands to reason that while online advertising is still growing at a much more rapid pace than overall ad spending, reduced budgets may take a bite out of interactive marketing. The darkening outlook for online advertising and e-commerce, as well as the continuing challenge of competing against Google, is likely behind Microsoft's bold bid for Yahoo.

Both Yahoo and Microsoft are struggling online. Yahoo's fourth quarter earnings, released earlier this week, showed that in the 2007 fourth quarter, revenues rose a meager 8 percent from 2006, while operating income fell 38 percent. In Microsoft's bright quarterly earnings report, the one dark spot was the online division, which lost money, despite rising revenues. In the six months ended December 2007, losses increased from $236 million to $510 million over the same period in 2006, even as revenues rose from $1.16 billion to $1.53 billion. Google has been eating their lunch competitively, and the overall market isn't growing rapidly enough to allow all the major players to prosper. The stock of Yahoo, which is in the midst of a long-running (and so far, unsuccessful) turnaround plan, closed yesterday at $20, its lowest level since the fall of 2003. That has given Microsoft, which has invested billions in its own efforts to compete against Google in search and advertising, the opportunity to acquire Yahoo for a decent price. Yahoo said it would evaluate the offer. (So did the Justice Department.) By sharing development and infrastructure costs, Microsoft and Yahoo will likely have a better shot of going head to head against Google.

But even Google is showing signs of challenge. The company announced its fourth quarter results yesterday (Thursday). Revenues grew 50 percent from the year-before quarter. That's an impressive gain off a large base, but Google's rate of year-over-year revenue growth is slumping, from 57 percent in the third quarter. Operating income as  percentage of revenues fell from about 33 percent to about 30 percent. The stock fell sharply on the news and is off by nearly 30 percent since its peak in November.
Visit:Makai Studio

 

http://www.google.com/help/knol_screenshot.html

 

There's a new kid on the online block named Knol and even this early in the development stage, some people are already
predicting that it could bring about yet another significant change to the way we share information on the Internet.

For the past year, Chief Wikipedian Jimmy Wales has been doing a lot of trash-talking about taking on Google in the search business. Now Google’s striking back.
Whether it will be successful or not remains to be seen.

Knol is a new Web service being developed by Google that is meant to serve as a virtual storehouse of knowledge on the
Internet. With content being contributed by various experts on different topics, it will behave much in the same way that
Wikipedia does currently. In fact many industry experts have made the suggestion that Knol is set to become a direct
competitor to Wikipedia and other similar types of web sites.

Google is of course the go to web site as far as search engines go, being the most popular search engine web site today by far.
If Knol is as successful in drawing a widespread following as the developers hope, it could bring about the Google's
transition from a search engine into a company that creates and publishes Web content.

Some industry observers warn that one problem that could potentially arise is that Google's objectivity in presenting
search results could be compromised.

Knol – the name of which is derived from the word "knowledge" – is being developed to allow people to create Web pages on
virtually any topic. When completed, it will include several features that will allow its users the ability to perform a
number of tasks, such as submitting comments, rating individual web pages and suggesting changes.

We mentioned earlier in this article that Knol has been compared to Wikipedia by many industry analysts. While there are
in fact many similarities between the two web services, the main difference is that Wikipedia allows virtually anyone to edit an
entry while Knol only allows the author of each particular "knol," – which is what the individual pages in the service will
be called – to do so. This means that the same topics could have many different authors with sometimes contrasting – or even
competing – points of view.

Google has stated that the main thrust of the Knol project was to focus attention on authors who have sufficient expertise on
particular topics. As vice president for engineering at Google Udi Manber wrote in the Google corporate blog recently, the
Internet has evolved largely without the benefit of a standardized means to highlight the author's name on each web
article. He goes on to say that the company believes that knowing who wrote a particular web article will considerably
aid users make better use of the Internet and its various content.

Manber also stated that another important goal of Knol was to cover a wide range of topics, from the various sciences to
health concerns to history. Eventually they hope to have Knol become the first stop for research on any topic. Today it is
Wikipedia that provides that function and its web pages show up at the top of the results page of Google and many other search
engines more often than not.

Some in the industry have suggested that this latest move of Google is driven by the unprecedented growth of web sites that
combine knowledge resources such as Wikipedia, and that Google feels the need to have a strong presence in that particular
area.

Wikipedia is by no means the only web site that offers that type of service. Many other companies have taken slightly
different approaches in functioning as knowledge repositories on various topics on the Internet. These services include Squidoo,
Yahoo Answers, About.com and Mahalo.

In spite of the widespread popularity of these services – as well as the existence of many free tools that allow experts and
regular people the means by which they can share their knowledge online – Manber said that Google feels that it is still not easy
enough for the average user to do those things.

Interestingly, considering all the hype and excitement that is currently surrounding the news of Knol's existence, Google has
refrained from discussing the project any further than these initial details, and have even said that it is still an
experimental project at this time. This means that just like many other Google tests that never saw the light of day, Knol
could end up never even being released publicly at all.

As for Wikipedia, site founder Jimmy Wales has downplayed his site's comparison with Knol, saying that while Wikipedia's goal
is utmost objectivity in its content, with each individual article being the sum total of the collective knowledge of its
various authors, Knol's model will likely result in highly opinionated and possible even contradictory articles on even
the simplest of topics.

Another important distinction is that Wikipedia is a strictly non-profit web site that does not carry any type of advertising,
while Knol is a decidedly more commercial venture, with its content authors earning revenue from any Google ads on their
site.

Now if you think about it, the knol, despite its fancy name, is nothing but a classic move by a quasi-monopolist that wants to ensure it keeps getting the raw material (in this case, content on knols) for free, so that it can keep selling it at a premium. I stopped believing in Google’s “do no evil” ethos a long time ago, so that is why I am worried by comments this like from Manber:
Our job in Search Quality will be to rank the knols appropriately when they appear in Google search results.

Which is to say that they won’t start making knols appear higher in the search results. Maybe it is the jet lag, but I don’t see knols as revolutionary as others are making them out to be. After all, you can set up a blog, make an expert page, maintain it and even put Google Ad Sense to monetize it. So how does this make knols special?
Sure there are APIs that allow knols to be shared with others, and Google maintains that it won’t give special weight to the knols, but who’s to know what they do inside their four walls. Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan, who has the single best post on this subject, is a bit disconcerted by knols, it seems.

Google using its page rank system to its own benefit. Think of it this way: Google’s mysterious Page Rank system is what Internet Explorer was to Microsoft in the late 1990s: a way to control the destiny of others.


Editor's Note: Currently, Knol is accessible by Google invitation only. Some additional information on Knol can be found at:

http://www.google.com/help/knol_screenshot.html
http://mashable.com/2007/12/13/google-introduces-the-knol/
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-12-14-n19.html
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html

 

Visit:Makai Studio

Sometime Technology is like Rap music. You hear this new song on the radio with a great beat and you are like whoa! nice how did they come up with this beat? what great creativity! Then the next week you are at your parent's house and you hear the same beat that was created 20 years ago and which everybody forgot about. Oh I see they sampled the song.... 

LG Electronics has claimed the IPhone 's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”^[4][5]

LG later claimed that Apple stole both the ideas and concept of the Prada phone. A lawsuit by LG had been rumored prior to this announcement; ^[4] however, LG has remained silent on whether or not they will file a lawsuit.

Now of course the Prada does not have all the IPhone features, but that is because it came before!

 

 
Visit:Makai Studio

Make no mistake, Google dropped a bombshell all over the mobile industry today with today's Android announcement. Since the dawn of the handset we've seen little more than one proprietary device, system, and application environment after the next; when we're lucky, maybe some of those systems deigned 3rd parties worthy of developing something more than Java code for 'em. Even despite the endless promise of Linux and years of tilting towards open source cellphones has resulted in effectively nothing for mainstream wireless customers -- but all that changes today with the announcement of the first free, open, standard (and standards-based) mobile OS.

It's no surprise that Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM were absent participating in Android and the OHA; each of those power-players has built its mobile business around its own separate mobile platform: OS X, Windows Mobile, Symbian, and BlackBerry, respectively. But the cellphone company we expected to be first in line for Android and the Open Handset Alliance, the one manufacturer that is truly desperate for a powerful, pre-developed, open Linux mobile OS, is nowhere to be found. We are, of course, talking about Palm.

Let's break this down: in 2005 Google acquires startup Android (founded by Andy Rubin of Danger / Sidekick fame), and decides to spearhead a consortium of wireless companies -- handset manufacturers, carriers, chipset makers, developers, etc. -- to rally around a completely free, open, customizable mobile OS based on Linux. Why? Well, besides being possibly the biggest corporate user of Linux and open source software that we know of, the mobile space obviously holds incredible value for Google.

Getting their apps and services on the largely crappy, disparate mobile platforms that exist today has proven to be a huge pain; rich mobile application standards are scarce in the wireless software world, and Google's business is in serving information anytime, anywhere, on any device. It's easy for Google to guarantee their services will work on just about any computer purchased in the last decade, but the same is totally untrue of cellphones -- so they set out to change that, and it seems as though they will do just that. So yeah, a mobile play it's really a no-branier.

Now let's think about Palm, which has been struggling for years through countless setbacks to introduce its own Linux-based mobile OS, in the mean time using a continuously cobbled-together version of Palm OS 5 (originally introduced in 2002) throughout. Palm's first attempt at a next-gen mobile OS, dubbed Cobalt, is announced in 2004 and quickly becomes the stuff of vaporware legend, delayed over and over until ACCESS eventually buys the flagging PalmSource ; ACCESS pledges to finish development of Palm's misplaced next-gen mobile OS, and then license it back to Palm (among other companies).

But Palm's had enough, so earlier this year it announces its intentions to release its own Linux-based OS -- again -- but this time without the help of its spin-off sister company Palm Source (which, of course, is now a part of ACCESS). And that new OS is quickly hyped and lauded -- and then delayed. Yet again. Pushed back into late 2008 at the earliest (although we won't be surprised if Palm revises and makes that 2009 or even later). And so we ask, Palm, where the hell were you when Google was rallying its Open Handset Alliance?

We find it hard to believe Google didn't approach Palm; it's not some secret that Palm has long intended make Linux the OS at the core of its flagship products for the foreseeable future. So why did Palm, badly in need of a leg up in getting its new mobile OS off the ground, shun this opportunity? Here Google is presumably offering up Palm a completely open and customizable mobile OS that's built to run on devices exactly like the ones Palm is developing to run its forthcoming platform. With Android, Palm no longer has to worry about mounting R&D costs, developing its own Linux variant, creating an application layer and SDK.

Suddenly all Palm has to do is develop its own UI for Android, give the system the old Palm fit n' finish, maybe whip up an emulator layer for previous Palm OS apps, and they instantly reap the all benefits they've been after chasing the Palm OS-unicorn. Palm's most desperate hour could be over; suddenly there's a light at the end of Palm's tunnel. In fact, if we didn't know any better, we'd even fancy Android was created by Andy Rubin and Google to help Palm out -- it's just too perfect a coincidence. So why didn't Palm join up?

We can think of lots of reasons they might have shied away. Maybe Palm didn't think Android was ready yet -- a company's got to have standards, you know. Of course, that's bunk because it's fairly clear that 30+ other huge industry names didn't feel the same way about Android's maturity. And even if it wasn't 100% there, Palm stands to benefit from the resources those dozens of other players are pouring into Android. This is a platform that stands to get really amazing really quickly because so many companies are putting so much behind it.

Then again, maybe Palm felt its own OS was further along or more technologically superior than Android -- but we doubt that. Palm just announced another delay for its new OS, so obviously things aren't chugging along quite as planned. We saw the same thing happen with Cobalt; it doesn't matter how advanced Palm's OS is, if it's not ready and available to use on a device, it may as well not exist. Meanwhile, companies like HTC -- which used to do all of Palm's Treo hardware -- are planning to release their first Android devices in 2008, which means they probably started working on those devices six months ago. You think a market leader like HTC is going to dive in with no technologically sound reason?

Perhaps Palm was worried about its developer community abandoning it for this new platform, and decided to provide their own alternative to stave away the barbarians at the gate. But it doesn't take an analyst to tell you that logic is absurd; the barbarians at the gate have become Palm's own disenfranchised development community. Palm's new OS will undoubtedly break compatibility with Palm OS 5, and developers, who've been without a decent platform upgrade in over five years, will likely jump at developing for Android. And they have every reason to. It's probable that in the next couple of years there will be vastly more Android-based devices from dozens of handset manufacturers and carriers worldwide than there will be Palm devices -- even when the new Palm OS is released. Even those who stick around to develop for the new Palm OS aren't going to do so exclusively -- there's just absolutely no reason not to at least port to Android.

So what's our takeaway here? Well, obviously we're extremely excited for what Google intends to do for the mobile industry. From where we sit, assuming it can deliver (and really, when doesn't Google deliver?), everyone seems to benefit from openness and standards: handset manufacturers, carriers, component makers, developers, and most of all, consumers. But of the companies we didn't hear from today, it's pretty clear Palm, with its wayward direction and flailing advances, has the most to gain from Google's path of the righteous. It's time Palm cut its losses, gave up on its Quixotic quest to do its own OS, and apply laser-like focus on the things that made Palm Palm: innovative hardware with masterful interfaces, and amazing applications. The choice is clear, Palm, assimilate with the rest of the Androids, or die alone.

P.S. -Palm issued the following statement to us: "Palm has always been committed to open platforms for developers. And Palm has the added differentiation of being able to tightly integrate the software platform with our hardware design, which we believe gives us an advantage in delivering a great user experience.

Palm customers have benefited from the availability of Google services on Palm's platform, such as Google Maps for mobile on Palm OS. And we look forward to further collaboration with Google to offer great user experiences on Palm products."

http://www.makaistudio.com

Visit:Makai Studio

 

Google will be holding a conference call at noon eastern to unveil the details of its long-rumored Android mobile operating system. Joining CEO Eric Schmidt will be other members of the 34-member Open Handset Alliance, including the chief executives of Deutche Telekom, HTC, Qualcomm, and Motorola. According to the press release, the "Android platform will be made available under one of the most progressive, developer-friendly open-source licenses," and will be composed of a "fully integrated mobile 'software stack' that consists of an operating system, middleware, user-friendly interface and applications." More details to follow.

 
Visit:Makai Studio

I surfaced from the blogoshpere for a while and started asking IT people and other pundits about Google's flaws. Customer service was a big one, as well as (of course) Google's secrecy. Close behind was its neglect of existing products.

I had previously assumed that Google would be diligently upgrading its products until they worked well. After all, it can afford to, and it releases them early and collects a lot of feedback from online beta testers. But I may be wrong. I think about Froogle, which for some reason has never worked very well. I get better results just using a standard Google search.

That's where Microsoft comes in. One thing it has is tenacity. It may not innovate very well, but whenever it goes after a category it bangs away at it until it gets it (mostly) right. That's how Microsoft has taken over market after market in the past.

Now, Microsoft is not likely to take over search from Google. Google's too experienced. But there is increasing buzz about excellent alternatives to Google Search. Microsoft could either emulate the best or buy them.

The real problem is Google's other products. The mediocrity of Froogle leaves a big hole in that area. Gmail has been improved, but it seems slower to add new features than it should. Google purchased Blogger, which seems like a second-rate system, and it hasn't gotten much better.

As Google moves into desktop applications, Microsoft's home turf, can it really carve out a strong position? Microsoft's Ray Ozzie is a very smart guy, and Microsoft is fighting for its life here. I can envision a perfectly plausible scenario in which Microsoft moves ahead of Google in Inernet-based applications out of sheer tenacity.

Google started out as very innovative, but it's now mostly reproducing online products that others have pioneered. It has a spectacular team of computer scientists, but this kind of person wants to create new stuff, not upgrade the old ones. Microsoft will not make that mistake.

Of course, Google's real advantage is AdSense. As Microsoft moves its apps online, will it figure out how to make money from them? It has always been lousy at the advertising business. Of course, if Google doesn't figure out how to get its new apps powerful and broadly accepted, people may be willing to buy subscriptions to Microsoft's online products.

That would stifle Google's ability to create more markets for its ads through new products. And it might give Microsoft a boost in developing advertising models for its own products.

There is still a long way to go in perfecting search engines, and if Google stays ahead there, it will provide plenty of revenues for years to come. But it could be leaving a hole. Future scenario--Search: Google. Most other online apps: Microsoft. Then it becomes a much tougher fight.

http://www.makaistudio.com

 
Visit:Makai Studio

Taiwanese handset maker HTC is expected to ship about 50,000 cell phones by the end of this year that use a mobile operating system from Google, according to a Fortune article that cites a report from a UBS analyst.

The phones won't be for sale until next year; the initial shipment will go to developers, says analyst Benjamin Schachter. Google is likely talking to other handset manufacturers, he says.

Google has declined to comment on rumors of its phone plans. Google is hosting an analyst day on October 24, and Schachter expects the company to talk about its phone strategy then.

The Google phone rumor is starting to really take shape. Information gathered from Digitimes, GigaOm, CrunchGear, and more, hints at Google perhaps closely working with Taiwanese handset manufacturer HTC to produce a phone with a Google-approved OS. This dovetails nicely with the overall sentiment that Google wouldn't actually develop its own hardware, but would instead work with a third-party manufacturer and then supply its own OS and applications. The OS, according to GigaOm, would be based on a mobile variant of Linux, and will support Java apps. There will supposedly be a search browser with pan-and-browse features similar to the one on the iPhone. Digitimes even goes so far as to confirm the existence of the phone, citing interviews with Taiwanese handset makers, but details on the OS and its features still remain hazy. Speculations abound that the mythical phone will support all of Google's applications, like Google Maps, GMail, and even Google Docs. There's no way for us to confirm these rumors right now.

Visit:Makai Studio