Prompt's Blog

Google has been hard at work developing new ways to search for information in the mobile realm. The latest development in the evolution of search is Google Goggles, a search application for mobile phones that interfaces with Google Android cameras in order to visually search the web.

When a user takes a photo of an object, Goggles processes it and looks through Google’s databases for a match. It will also look at information such as a user’s location to find the most relevant results, from images to text and businesses. Currently, it can identify tourist landmarks and images, although it processes images in black and white. It has facial recognition, but that feature hasn’t fully been fleshed out yet, especially because of the privacy ramifications of implementing it.

Google Goggles at the moment is described as “rudimentary.” However, in the near future, it seems likely that smartphone cameras will make the search for information faster than ever. Imagine you’re traveling around a city and see an interesting site, and you wonder what it is. With the click of a button Google will search for you and tell you its history, interesting things about it, and show any communities relating to it. Or if you see an interesting ad for a movie, you can point your camera at it and see the trailer.

When fully fleshed out, a concept like Google Goggles could alter our view of the world. Our mobile phones go with us everywhere, and the cameras on our phones could be used to both send and receive information online. With proper use of crowdsourcing, tremendous amounts of knowledge and views of the world could potentially be uncovered.

Labels: google, Google Goggles, mobile

Continuing our Google-themed week in honor of its anniversary, the site removed the Pirate Bay from its search results today. The popular site for finding BitTorrent files has been unindexed (de-indexed?) by Google, including its homepage and seven other pages. This was the result of a complaint by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). As a result of the complaint, Google chose to take the site off its listings. Bing, on the other hand, continues to list it, either because Microsoft hasn't received the same request or has chosen to keep its search results free from the threat of litigation.

The Register quoted the notice that appears: “In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 8 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.”

Today, not being in search results on Google is almost a death sentence. However, the Pirate Bay has a fanatical user base that won't stop using them. Even if Google doesn't bring them back, I would expect their traffic to decrease a decent amount but they still will be serving torrents and making organizations like RIAA and MPAA worry.

Labels: google, Pirate Bay

Google turned 11 over the weekend! Check out its age proclaiming 'doodle' below.

Labels: age 11, birthday, google

The Kindle, Amazon's flashy e-reader, has divided opinion since it launched. Whether they love it, or hate it, people love to argue about the device. In fact, punch the name into Google, and you'll be greeted with just under 6,000 news hits about it.

I recently got the chance see one with my own two eyes. I can't lie – I was intrigued. I found myself unable to look away. But when I started to think about it, I found myself becoming less and less sure about the Kindle. I had concerns, and like most things, they came down to money.

From the hefty price tag, to the idea of people spending more time with an electronic device, I just don't seem to be able to get on board with the Kindle. There is a satisfaction that comes from physically turning the pages of a book- one that can't be replicated by dragging a scroll bar.

I understand the idea behind the technology and how it could simplify people's lives, but I do find it unsettling to ditch printed books for e-content. Perhaps I'm in the minority on that score, or soon will be.

Recent research from Forrester found that around 14.9 million US households regularly buy books online. Analysts predict that there will soon be competition aplenty for Amazon as other e-readers are developed alongside e-book retailers willing to offer content at increasingly affordable price points.

An announcement from what appears to currently be Amazon's most significant competitor had the Kindle creators quickly falling in line. Since Google announced its move to create a marketplace for e-books, Amazon was driven to unveil the official launch date of the Kindle DX, which is due to hit the market on 10 June for a stomach-curdling $489 per handset.

Should we expect the Kindle to do the same for the publishing industry that the iPod has done for the music industry? I certainly hope not.

Labels: Amazon, google, Kindle

A story based loosely on the findings of a survey conducted by Harvard physicist, Alex Wissner-Gross had Google up in arms this week. The recent bout of negative press stemmed from Harvard research results that claim Web searches emit between 7g and 10g of CO2 with each query and attributed the stats directly to Google.

The hoopla is based around the idea that queries using the all-knowing Google search engine pump each request out to multiple servers, often to several competing against each other with thousands of miles between them, thereby raising energy consumption and the emission of CO2.

Wissner-Gross' findings say that 0.002g of CO2 can be attributed to browsing your average website for every second it is viewed while sites with "complex video" emit even higher levels in the neighbourhood of 0.2g per second.

Google responded with the notion that if the carbon cost of a single Google search counteracts the expense for the reliance on trips in the car, pulp and paper, then we're looking at this from the wrong angle. Additionally, they make a solid case that the study's findings are "many times too high." Even better, TechNewsWorld let Wissner-Gross defend his work and revealed that his study mentioned nothing of Google. He set the record straight stating that his research focuses exclusively on the Web overall and denied having any idea where the kettle statistic came from.

The article implied the study's statistics compared the estimated 7g CO2 emission from a Web search to that of boiling a kettle full of water at 12g. I don't know about you, but I can say confidently that the ROI of my average Web search is much higher than that of making a cup of tea. If I'm made to choose, I'll stick with Google.

Don't believe this? Go ahead. Google it.

Labels: CO2 Emmision, google, Harvard study

Everybody knows how Google started. It was founded by Larry Page, who was then working on his PhD thesis about web search, and Sergey Brin, his Stanford mate. They didn't initially realise what a huge commercial potential their creation had. But everybody knows today.

For those of you who'd like to know more, this video shows why they have gone so far, even if some have not appreciated their unstoppable success. One of the most thrilling things I learned from the video is that Google projects involve biosciences, which could lead to important medical and scientific breakthroughs.



At Google they already know what's in my webmail and what I search for, and what my needs are. And they know what URLs I visit and virtually everything else about me. Of course, the data is gathered to enable the delivery of cut-to-measure, powerful advertising. But it's all quite scary. Nobody knows what is going to happen next.

Before I started writing this post, I spent some time searching for more information about Google to make my post objective and complete. What I found glued me to my screen for more than five minutes: an image on the Undergoogle website called Google masterplan, a hand-drawn plan supposedly made by the Google engineers showing that they are clearly trying to involve themselves in everything, from people's personal lives to their workplaces.

Labels: google, search engines

Aieee! Everyone hide if you value your privacy - Google cars have reached Britain. The camera-equipped black cars have been seen on the streets of London, snapping photos for Google's Street View project.

Google Street View lets users see photos of any street in a surveyed area. Google has been facing down protests and complaints over the photo-mapping tool as of late. The problem is that many people are unsure as to the legality of what Google is doing. The images often contains people or private property and many question if this constitutes an invasion of privacy. A couple in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania sued Google over photographs of their swimming pool, and now the organisation is under fire from UK group Privacy International.

The BBC reports that the surveillance and privacy watchdog is concerned that Street View could breach data protection laws if people's faces are shown. Google assures people that it will use face blurring technology to preserve the identity of individuals captured in the photos. Privacy International is unconvinced that the face-blurring will work and wants Google to reveal details of the technology. If Google does not comply, Privacy International will ask the UK Information Commissioner to get involved. Google has responded by pointing out that the technology has been deployed in the US already, and it works pretty well.

Personally, sarcastic introduction aside, I don't have a problem with Street View. From what I have seen the face blurring seems to work well enough, and so long as all photos are taken in a public space, then its fine with me.

And not everyone is concerned about privacy, as the woman in this revealing Street View image proves.

Labels: google, privacy, Street View

Once your precocious start-up has become a multi-billion dollar global phenomenon, it takes a truly out-of-this world technology partnership to rocket business to a new level and bring the competition crashing back to earth.

If you haven't kept tabs on Google and NASA's mutual wooing over the past year, recent news is excuse enough for a quick refresher.

It all started out seemingly innocently enough last September when the media noticed NASA had let Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Bri share one of its company parking spots. A simple enough agreement you might think, until you read in the Herald Tribune that the parking spot in question was a much coveted federally-managed runway in NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffet Field, California (so very handy for Google HQ in Mountain View) and the company vehicle was a refurbished private wide-body Boeing 767-200...

At the time, Lenny Siegel, director of the Pacific Studies Center, a local non-profit group that has opposed proposed expansions of civilian flights at Moffett Field, had said: "If they are doing science missions, that's OK. If they are doing it just because they are rich and popular, it is not OK."

Anyway, a few months later a deal was inked between NASA and Google that enabled the search giant to access detailed 3D images of the Moon and Mars and use them in their web applications. The two organisations confirmed they would collaborate in a variety of areas including enriching Google Earth and launching Google Mars and Google Moon.

Finally to bring you completely up to date, Google last week signed a 40-year lease to build a 1.2 million square foot high-tech office campus on land owned by NASA, once again at the Ames Research Centre near Mountain View.

The BBC reports that over the last four years, Google has added more than 17,000 employees to boost its payroll to 19,156 workers and now needs the extra space for ever more ambitious expansion plans.

Building work is expected to get under way before 2013 with the final phase of work starting in 2022. After the 40-year lease expires, the agreement could be extended by as much as 50 more years.

The next stage of this friendship is anyone's guess.
Care to share your wildest dreams?

Labels: google, NASA, partnerships, space, valet parking

An article in yesterday's New York Times tracks the development of Google's new "fingerprinting" system for its Youtube videos. In theory, Google's internal developers have created a way to encode videos with a digital fingerprint that can identify uploaded items that violate copyright law.

Google's actions stem from a long list of complaints from media companies, generally claiming that Google's video service, Youtube, makes it far too easy for anyone to upload video and violate copyright laws. Youtube's current user interface makes it possible for anyone to upload content and takes only a few clicks. The current system used to determine if the material is copyrighted requiresthe media companies to review the site and request it to be removed retroactively.

The fingerprint system being tested would require media companies to submit their content to Google, to have it automatically encode the files. If any future attempt to upload a video that matches the fingerprint is made then the content is denied.

The surprising twist to this article is the response from the media companies: they aren't impressed. One legal representative for a media company is quoted: "I think this is a completely inadequate solution, it is too late in coming; it offers too little protection." A Viacom Exec claimed: "We obviously have suffered significant damages in the past", indirectly referring to Youtube's dominance over the online video market.

It seems that when it comes to online video clips the media companies have a bigger problem and they are just using copyright infringement as a scapegoat: they can't seem to win the popularity contest and they know this is costing them money.

Most media companies which are listed as testing this new service (including NBC, CBS, and Viacom) have their own distribution sites for online downloadable content. It's not that NBC doesn't want you searching for Saturday Night Live clips, they just want to make sure you go to their site for them first.

Through Google's robust brand "Youtube" is becoming as colloquial as "iPod". Currently NBC has "NBC 24/7 Video" and CBS has its "Innertube", online portals to download the same type of clips that are being removed from Youtube regularly.

This seems like a case of 'Keeping Up with the Googles', where media companies are doing everything they legally can to keep a hand in the competition. Google beat them all to the digital video punch when it acquired Youtube, and the media companies have been back peddling ever since to pick up online market share.

Maybe the media companies should be a little more appreciative of what Google has done here. Google currently claims that it works within copyright law, by removing any content that is found to be violating copyright law. Media companies have complained that retroactive removal hasn't been enough, so Google has stepped up and found a preemptive way to address this.

If Google is going to offer this service, the media companies should be grateful to have the option, at least until they can come up with a better solution on their own.

I am an employee at Prompt and this post reflects my personal views, and does not necessarily represent those of Prompt Communications or its clients.

Labels: google

The BBC reports that Google has dramatically shortened the life the cookies it issues, from 31 years to 2 years.

Cookies are small text files that websites can put on a user's computer so the user can be identified when he or she looks at different pages on the site or returns to the site later. It's what makes it possible to visit Amazon on different days to tinker with your wishlist without having to log in again, and what enables you to pop in and out of ebay all Saturday without repeatedly logging in to bid.

Privacy advocates have been concerned about how long Google tracks people for, and the data it holds. If you want a mild fright, try logging in to Google and viewing your web history. Unless you've specifically opted out, Google will have kept a record of everything you've searched for and all the sites you've visited while logged in to your Google account.

The cookie potentially enables Google to track your activity across websites that host Google adverts or use Google for visitor tracking, which represents a lot of the internet.

So Google's representing this cut of 31 years in the cookie life as a big deal. But it's not really because if you use a Google service, the counter is reset. The cookie only ever expires if you don't use Google Search, Blogger, Gmail, Adwords, Adsense, Reader or any other Google service for two whole years. And if you have a one-off engagement with Google, it'll reserve the right to track you for two whole years afterwards.

Google says it wants to stop people from having to log in all the time, but most people would consider once a month or once a week to be reasonable. Indeed, ebay users must provide their password once a day.

This announcement appears to do a lot more to improve Google's public relations profile than it does to actually change how it uses personal data.

Labels: google, privacy