Saturday, October 30, 2010

New Microsoft Service - Top Search Result and What Google Did With the Story

Bing Pimps New Microsoft Service As A Top Natural Search Result; Google Buries It
Erick Schonfeld Oct 29, 2010

Search engines like Bing and Google will swear up and down that their natural search results are determined by one thing and one thing only: the all-knowing, all-powerful Algorithm. Sure, paid results might pop up at the top or to the side, but they are always highlighted as such. But sometimes the temptation is too great and the natural search results, which are supposed to be sacrosanct, are used to promote a product or service owned by the same company that operates the search engine.
That certainly appears to be what is happening on Bing right now if you do a search for the term “datamarket.” The top result is for Windows Azure DataMarket, a product which just launched a couple days ago. Don’t get me wrong. It sounds like a cool product. It is a cloud-based service where people can upload and sell data in a consistent way.
But in terms of link juice, you’ve got to wonder whether Datamarket.com, the second result on Bing, is getting a raw deal. The Azure DataMarket result appears as a natural result, not a sponsored link (which both Microsoft and Google do for their own products but highlight them as such, see “Azure”).
If you do the same search for “datamarket” on Google, Datamarket.com is the top result, and the Microsoft site is nowhere to be found on the first page of results, which is also suspiciously convenient. It is pushed all the way to the second page. Are Google and Bing allowing their algorithms to do their magic, or is something else going on here?
And if you think that Google never promotes its own products, just search for any place such as the “Gramercy Park Hotel.” The second result is a module with a map, links, and data from Google’s Places. Google shows these kinds of Onebox results for many types of search, but in this case the most prominent link goes to a Google Places page.

get widgetminimize
Bing image
Company: Microsoft
Website: bing.com
Bing is a decision (search) engine from Microsoft officially announced on May 28, 2009. It combines technology from the Farecast and Powerset acquisitions, as well as new algorithms and… Learn More
Google image
Website: google.com
Location:Mountain View, California, United States
Founded: September 7, 1998
IPO: August 19, 2004
Google provides search and advertising services, which together aim to organize and monetize the world’s information. In addition to its dominant search engine, it offers a plethora of online tools and platforms including:… Learn More

How the iPad and MacBook Sync Up

The Sexy Details of How the iPad and MacBook Will Hook UP
Steve Cheney 6 hours ago
During the “Back to the Mac” event two weeks ago, Steve Jobs made a particularly witty remark as he unveiled the MacBook Air, one that made the audience chuckle in laughter:
“We asked ourselves, what would happen if a MacBook and an iPad hooked up? Well, this is the result, we think it’s the future of notebooks.”
There is always a strategic intent with the things that Apple says at product launches, especially when they come from Steve Jobs. This is because Apple cares deeply about the perception of its products. By intimating that the Air is the future, and that it blends the best of the MacBook Pro and iPad, Apple is signaling a lot. There is no doubt that this first phase in “hooking up” between the MacBook and iPad foretells a deeply converged future on many levels.

iOS and OS X Aren’t Hooking Up


Often when people visualize the convergence of the iPad and MacBook lines, they wonder whether a unified operating system will take over, which somehow blends the best of both the touch and “mouse” metaphors.
This is unrealistic and silly. Though iOS is OS X’s little cousin—both use different APIs and layers, but reside on top of UNIX—merging them makes little sense from an end-user perspective. iOS and OS X serve different use-cases, applications, and markets, and the touch metaphor on a MacBook simply wouldn’t serve a user well in the majority of cases. And running multiple browser tabs and multitasking between 8 open applications requires a much more immersive experience than iOS may ever provide.

But despite the fundamental difference in how we interact with a MacBook and iPad, Jobs made sure to deeply blend how we view the two products at the marketing level, by touting attributes like the Air’s ability to turn on instantly, and last 30 days without a charge.

Why the Hardware is Rapidly Intersecting


One reason why Steve Jobs wants us to think about the MacBook Air as an extension of the iPad, is because there is a hardware convergence happening under the hood. The MacBook Air benchmarks were the most telling sign that this is occurring. Apple was able to double the system performance of the MacBook Air, despite using the same 3 year-old CPU technology from Intel—Intel Core 2 Duo processors running at pokey speeds.

Though profound this isn’t surprising—the Air uses flash instead of spinning disks, and SSD technology dramatically cuts data transfer bottlenecks for applications that are I/O (Input/Output) constrained. And guess what? Most simple computing tasks are memory and IO-constrained. This fact helps the flash-based Air operate on par with Apple’s high end MacBook Pro line, except under taxing CPU-intensive scenarios such as video rendering.

So let’s get this straight: Apple is using several year old technology, and the Air’s system performance screams. This is nothing short of incredible proof that after a certain threshold, CPU advancements are only adding incremental benefit to 90% of what the user cares about today.

Instead, performance is more dependent on graphics processing than ever. This is why Apple designed the Lion OS to heavily focus on OpenCL, which leverages parallel constructs within the GPU to extend its utility to non-graphics tasks. And a big reason why Apple didn’t go with Intel’s newer CPU line is they lack support for OpenCL, and Apple is probably designing new applications like iLife 11 to take advantage of OpenCL’s power.

The fact that Apple’s sexiest new Notebook didn’t go with Intel’s latest technology is damning for Intel and is the best signal yet of how innovation in PCs is getting blown away by what’s happening in the mobile ecosystem. Right now, benchmarks show that the fastest ARM-based smartphone CPUs are only about 25% as fast as the Core 2 Duo that Apple is using in the MacBook Air. But this delta will compress fast.
In about 2-3 years we will be seeing integrated chipsets make their way up the food chain, and potentially fit in notebook-class form factors. Multicore ARM solutions, based on ARM-15, will make this a reality in about 2 cycles of Moore’s Law.

Skeptics will say “no way — never, not with the need for Flash”. I agree that Flash is probably here to stay on desktops. But all the pressure on Adobe to make Flash better is, ever so slowly, improving how rendering and compositing are done in hardware. And even in the midst of their darkest public battle last Spring, Apple and Adobe were cooperating in getting Flash acceleration to work on desktop Macs. In the future, it’s conceivable that Flash could be the only remaining bottleneck that prevents Apple from using an embedded SoC in a MacBook Air. But hardware acceleration for Flash is approaching which can solve this dilemma.
All of this rapid advancement in what’s under the hood has huge ramifications for the future of the MacBook Air and iPad. Anyone want a MacBook Air that is several pounds, Runs OS X, lasts for 30 hours, has a detachable keyboard, and then converts to an iPad running iOS once the screen is removed?

I am not saying that Apple is going to make this device, nor that it’s even in their best interest to pursue one-size-fits-all form factors. But there is no denying that the hardware is converging, and the “Back to the Mac” theme of Apple’s latest event deeply intimated this.

The Mac Store’s Incredible Network Effect 

The remaining puzzle piece in the intersection of the MacBook and iPad is all about the applications—both end-user discovery & distribution and developer support. The iOS storefront was the genius behind the iPhone becoming a low friction distribution warehouse for content.

In much the same way, the Mac Store is Apple’s umbrella strategy to encourage developers of long-tail content to have an easy landing pad on the Mac, developers who are already building apps on top of iOS.
Interestingly, the Mac Store allows Apple to do the reverse of what Microsoft is doing with Windows Mobile 7: whereas Microsoft can leverage .NET familiarity to encourage the desktop dev community to write apps for WM7, Apple will use its iOS franchise to kick-start a vibrant ecosystem of Mac developers.

But there’s also something more magical that this network-effect provides for Apple: by specifying that developers use Apple’s tools, namely Xcode and LLVM, Apple gains a layer of control in how this hardware convergence plays out.

How so? Apple can have developers simply flip a recompile switch and upload universal versions of apps to the Mac App Store, which work on both ARM and x86. In this way, Apple is setting up a distribution mechanism to host and install code which will allow them to transition hardware seamlessly.

This is the ultimate in streamlined distribution, since a developer can focus on one unified environment based around Cocoa Touch and Objective-C, along with a set of UI / UX constraints. Apple then abstracts all this from the user, independent of the hardware.

Apple Hates Control and Loves Optionality 

If it’s not completely clear yet, Apple is setting the stage to be processor and component agnostic. This not only allows them the above-mentioned architecture-neutrality, but also affords them incredible pricing power, and ensures they can tap into consistent component supply, which will be a critical challenge as they lock up an even bigger slice of the supply chain.

Apple can build an A4-variant themselves, or they can partner up with one of many vendors. If Intel starts innovating again, that’s an easy choice for Apple. If nVidia, with its graphics pedigree, emerges as a winner in combining GPUs with ARM-based CPUs, Apple can partner more deeply or buy the company. Or Apple might decide to stick with x86, but use GPU/CPU technology from AMD.

It’s all about optionality. And Apple is building that into its long-term strategy, by combining its rapidly expanding footprint in mobile hardware / software with its iOS developer mind-share to rev its Mac franchise into much higher gear.


Wow Hooking Up Feels Amazing – When’s Our Next Date? 


I believe it’s pretty clear: Apple wants to use OS X, running on an incredibly battery efficient MacBook Air-like form factor, as a bottoms-up strategy to attract loyal iOS fans over to the Mac franchise. After all, there are around 150M users of iOS worldwide. Apple knows that iOS is a secret weapon to bring both consumers and corporate users to higher end Mac products. And the marketing around the Back to the Mac event is just a precursor for Apple’s underlying strategy in mixing these two worlds.

Behind-the-scenes, Steve Jobs is setting up all the pieces for Apple to converge these product lines. But it’s all about optionality for Apple. When and how they choose to get there is up to them. And my guess is Steve Jobs is going to do so in a way that continues to make the Apple experience a superior one for you, its loyal customer.

Check Out the New Macbook Air and More News Update

The Lion, The Cloud, & The MacBook Air


This is a guest editorial by Mark Reschke of Three Guys And A Podcast, a show about all things Apple. It was originally published here.

When Steve Jobs said the MacBook air was the computer of the future he wasn’t just talking about its hardware. Lacking both an optical and hard drive is nice and allows for a slim design, but that’s just the beginning.

If anyone paid close attention to Apple’s October Special Event, the OS X Lion presentation subtly showed us how the future of OS X computing would become largely Finder irrelevant for most tasks. But how exactly will this work? Enter the cloud.


On the heels of Apple’s special event, Google has revealed a sneak peek of their Chrome OS. Chrome is an OS which has its core philosophy based on cloud-only computing (or designed to appear that way as much as possible).

Seeing Chrome and understanding how much time is used on the internet by people isn’t a shock to anyone, let alone Apple. One does not need to stretch too far to see how Lion, the cloud (AKA Apple’s North Carolina data center) and MacBook Air-like products will dominate Apple’s future, and likely gain massive acceptance to an even wider audience.

Users will be keen on having the newfound web/cloud power, but also the access to an advanced and powerful desktop experience. Google sees it as black and white, desktop or cloud, choose. The opportunity for OS X Lion is to deliver the best of both worlds. Different solutions for different use cases, not one or the other.

Today we have IMAP, push notifications, syncing of calendar and address books, but what will the experience hold when your presentation, spreadsheet and video files are just everywhere you need them to be, in the state you left them… or for that matter the state you, your colleague, spouse, son or daughter left them? Virtual files available anywhere, anytime, on any iOS or OS X device.

The MacBook Air wasn’t just designed for today’s current computing paradigm. The new MacBook air sets the stage for the world of Lion, the cloud, and how portable Apple computing will “just work” seamlessly together. And no, Steve Jobs is not Aslan.


I was reading some other news stories about Apple today and its kicking ass is all I can say. I have got to get me one of those new laptops - very cool looking 

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

MacBook Air - Get the Lastest Buzz

It’s A Location Turf War As Google Rolls Out Place Search

It’s A Location Turf War As Google Rolls Out Place Search

MG Siegler 10 hours ago

Back in April, we noted that Google was about to escalate the so-called “location wars” by reworking and rebranding their Locale Business Center as Google Places. They’ve since done a lot of work on improving the area (despite an on-again/off-again war with Yelp over results) and they’re clearly feeling good about it. How do I know? Because starting today, they’re going to add Place results to Google Search in a major way.
Place Search will now reside on Google.com when you’re doing a search that Google believes is attempting to discover a location. And it will also have a home in the left toolbar (you know, where “Images”, “Videos”, “Shopping”, etc reside) as “Places”, which a user can click on to just get location results.
In their blog post, Google notes:
One of the great things about our approach is that it makes it easier to find a comprehensive view of each place. In our new layout you’ll find many more relevant links on a single results page—often 30 or 40. Instead of doing eight or 10 searches, often you’ll get to the sites you’re looking for with just one search. In our testing Place Search saves people an average of two seconds on searches for local information.
While it’s in the process of rolling out, you can use this link to see what it will look like. As you can see, a search for “Chicago museums” will bring up seven or so museums place pages it believes you may be looking for. If you want more of these place suggestions, you can click on the “more results” link at the bottom of the seven. Or you can click on the Places left sidebar item.

The big question, of course, is what this means for all of Google’s competitors also in the location space? You’ll note that Google rather prominently links to results from sources of place information like Yelp and CitySearch, so some of them could actually benefit from this new style of result. Still, many of them will no longer be the number one result for specific place searches. That could hurt.

That said, this new layout should be much easier for people doing the actual searches to parse and find what they’re looking for.

For their part, Google should make a killing on the sponsored links related to place searches. As you can see below, they’re already populating a ton of these right below the all-important map on the right side. Many place results have sponsored links along the top as well.

get widgetminimize
Google Places image
Company: Google
Website: Google.com/places
Launch Date: April 20, 2010
Places was launched last September for more than 50 million places around the world to help people make more informed decisions about where to go, from restaurants and hotels to dry cleaners and bike shops, as well as non-business places like…
______________________________________________________________________________

Internet Marketing Tools and Internet Marketing Tools plus  Internet Marketing Tools

Based on what I have read its definitely going to be interesting to see who ultimately wins this so called turf war in the onlinedigital world. Although the need Google search feature is definitely not my favorite because it seems more annoying than anything else. So if you want to know more, then check out internet marketing tools and more internet marketing tools at my site at this link Here.

Anyways, I will be adding more regular content from a variety of sources that I think are interesting and thought provoking.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Real Privacy Scandal On Social Networks: The Feds Are Spying On Their “Friends”

The Real Privacy Scandal On Social Networks: The Feds Are Spying On Their “Friends
 
Sonia Arrison Oct 23, 2010


All the hoopla over the Wall Street Journal’s so-called Facebook “privacy breach” article, it’s subsequent and curiously-timed MySpace followup, and also the New York Times’ take on the ability of Facebook advertisers to target ads for nursing schools to gay men is unwittingly creating cover for a social networking privacy issue that’s much bigger.  It might be surprising to some, but it turns out that U.S. federal agents have been urged to “friend” people in order to spy on them.

The feds operate such social sting operations aided by the fact that there are very few individuals that actually know every single person in their “friend” list on Facebook.  For instance, it is typical to connect to someone because one thinks they might have met them.  Or, a connection might take place because two people share common interests and want to view each other’s news posts going forward.  But that’s not how the government sees it.

In a memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) discovered that the Feds see Facebook as a psychological crutch for the needy.  Here’s a direct quote from a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memo: “Narcissistic tendencies in many people fuels a need to have a large group of “friends” link to their pages and many of these people accept cyber-friends that they don’t even know.”  And it gets worse.

The memo explains that these “tendencies” provide “an excellent vantage point for FDNS to observe the daily life of beneficiaries and petitioners who are suspected of fraudulent activities.”  Translation: spy on unsuspecting people on Facebook and MySpace in order to catch the bad guys.

Such tactics are decidedly creepy (how many completely innocent people are they spying on), but the argument could be made that if you have nothing to hide, then why worry?  Here’s why: many people post items to their profiles that they forget to update or that are not necessarily true, and which they certainly wouldn’t be saying if they knew they were under investigation.  Indeed, a recent study initiated by UK insurance company Direct Line concluded that “people are more likely to be dishonest when chatting using technology, such as Twitter, than they would be face to face.”

Why is it that people might lie more on social media than in person?  According to Psychologist Glenn Wilson, “we sometimes use these means of communication rather than a face-to-face encounter or a full conversation when we want to be untruthful, as it is easier to fib to someone when we don’t have to deal with their reactions or control our own body language.”  This leads to a few common sense conclusions.
First, government officials need to take note that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet—even if it is generated by a “person of interest.”  Second, as the EFF’s Jennifer Lynch pointed out, “the memo makes no mention of what level of suspicion, if any, an agent must find before conducting such surveillance, leaving every applicant as a potential target.”  In a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, government should not be in the business of creating an atmosphere that could chill expression.
On October 18th, Congressmen Edward Markey (D., Mass.) and Joe Barton (R., Texas) sent Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg a letter in which they expressed their concern about marketing companies that “gathered and transmitted personally identifiable information about Facebook users and those users’ friends.”

To many tech folks, it seems more than a bit hypocritical for government representatives to be going after Silicon Valley companies for using social networking data when the government is doing exactly the same thing itself (and more).  In addition to bureaucrats urging agents to befriend targets, the EFF also discovered that the Department of Homeland Security used “a ‘Social Networking Monitoring Center’ to collect and analyze online public communication during President Obama’s inauguration.”  And, recall how Google Maps has been used to track down hoes with “unpermitted” pools in Long Island, NY.  Those Big Brother moves are much more disconcerting than Facebook applications using referrer URLs to better target ads.

Editor’s note: Guest author Sonia Arrison is a senior fellow in technology studies at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute and has been writing about privacy issues for over a decade. Follow her on Twitter @soniaarrison.
Photo credit: Flickr/nolifebeforecoffee.

Is Google Broken? Sites Big & Small Seeing Indexing Problems

Is Google Broken? Sites Big & Small Seeing Indexing Problems


No one seems to be immune from a Google indexing problem that has many site owners baffled. Blogs and websites, big and small, aren’t being indexed as quickly as they normally are — if they’re being indexed at all.
CNN.com, with its PageRank score of 10, is typically crawled frequently and deeply by Googlebot. But the most recent article added to its home page (under the “Latest news” title) still hasn’t been indexed by Google more than three hours later.
google-cnn
Here on Search Engine Land, the most recent article we’ve published was my piece about the new Chrome extension for reporting spam. That was published an hour ago, and at this moment, Google is only showing a FriendFeed post that links to our article.
google-sel
That FriendFeed post seems to come from an RSS-based mashup that grabs posts from a variety of tech-related sites.
Perhaps related is this situation with Mashable’s post today about the Wikileaks Iraq document release; rather than indexing the actual article URL, Google has indexed the URL with several UTM tracking parameters for Google Analytics. The question mark in the green display URL (below) gives it away.
mashable
When Google Caffeine launched this past summer, faster indexing and a fresher index was Google’s big selling point. As Google’s Matt Cutts explained at the time, Caffeine meant “that all content … can be searchable within seconds after its crawled.”
Except not this week. And the indexing problems are affecting web site owners of all sizes. As Search Engine Roundtable reported this morning, there are active threads in the Google Webmaster Central forums about this, along with various blog posts out there, such as here and here. The reports there appear to be mainly from bloggers using Google’s blogspot.com platform, but as you can see above, the indexing trouble isn’t limited just to Blogger users.
In one of those threads, Google employee John Mueller says Google is following the user reports and “looking at ways to resolve the issues brought up here.” We’ll keep an eye on any new developments or updates.
If you’re seeing or experiencing indexing problems in Google, let us know in the comments.
Postscript by Barry Schwartz: John from Google replied to the thread in the Webmaster forums saying:
I just wanted to provide a short update. This issue should be resolved soon, but it will take a several days for everything to catch up and for these changes to be visible. I’ll provide another update after the weekend.
In the meantime, there’s no need to make any changes on your side. Content from your sites will continue to be indexed during this time (though perhaps at the moment not as quickly as before in some cases).
I’ve been in contact with the indexing and diagnostics teams since your initial reports — we are taking your reports seriously and doing what is necessary to resolve this problem as soon as possible. We love sending users to your sites quickly after you have published something too :-).
Just to be clear, the issues from this thread, which I have reviewed in detail, are not due to changes in our policies or changes in our algorithms; they is due to a technical issue on our side that will be visibly resolved as soon as possible (it may take up to a few days to be visible for all sites though). You do not need to change anything on your side and we will continue to crawl and index your content (perhaps not as quickly at the moment, but we hope that will be resolved for all sites soon). I would not recommend changing anything significantly at this moment (unless you spot obvious problems on your side), as these may result in other issues once this problem is resolved on our side.
As you can see, even the biggest sites are having issues with Google. But why? Is this due to Caffiene and the much hyped feedback from people like Matt Cutts. Lets hope they get this resolved soon.