Remember the first time you had so much money you didn’t know what to do with it? Yea, me either. I think I was 9 when I came upon my first windfall. It was the result of working all day on a construction site doing things I’m sure were thoroughly against Child Labor laws. I ended up blowing my cash on a lot of stuff I quickly got sick of, highlighted by a shit-ton of Star Wars action figures, including the recently-released Dengar. I think Google is going through exactly this phenomenon.

To append the list of Google’s market-crippling antics, contained within the rant of a great man:

  • Yelp gets popular? Copy their info Buy Zagat, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and shoehorn in put Google Places and reviews at the top.

I’m sure Google used the tens of millions that HTC paid them for their desperation patents.

 

Before today, the legal battle between Apple and HTC was beginning to look more like the few seconds right before Ivan Drago punched Apollo Creed to death in Rocky IV. Apple already had 2 of the patents it filed in 2010 upheld by an International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge. The patents, which appeared to be fundamental not just to HTC’s phones but Android itself, was on track for a final Commission decision by the end of the year. Apple also has other ITC complaints, as well as a couple of Federal lawsuits filed for good measure.

But look who showed up to the party! A month after their Chief Legal Officer bawled about how evil patents are, none other than Google has apparently just sold a number of patents to HTC, patents which are now being leveled in a countersuit against Apple. Are these the patents Google obtained with the creation of Android – through the innovative crafting of a bold new mobile OS? Of course not. They’re patents that have been passed around more than herpes at Burning Man, cobbled together for the express purpose of attempting to bail HTC’s sorry ass out of the fryer for using Google’s iOS knock-off.

I have zero doubt that Google will present this as a counterpunch to Apple’s litigious assault on Android. That would explain why all of Apple’s patents are filed by them, whereas the trail of Google’s relationship to its IP reads like my relationship to George Washington.

Speaking of patchy, hasn’t there been a patent troll threatening the livelihood of Android developers for like a year? Guess the calvary only arrives for the companies with the resources. Developers would do well to remember that the next time they think of porting their next iOS hit app to Android.

 

Challenge: find all 29 ridiculous things about this photo

In what has become one of those “not if but when” events in tech, Yahoo CEO Carol “drop-kick you to fucking Mars” Bartz got axed. I’m not going to dwell on the things she didn’t do, like most people editorializing this story are – people who probably haven’t had 10 people reporting to them let alone more than 10,000. My beef is how she left – via an email to her staff:

To all,

I am very sad to tell you that I’ve just been fired over the phone by Yahoo’s Chairman of the Board. It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward.

Carol

Sent from my iPad

There’s a couple things wrong with this. First of all, while I’m sure Apple appreciates the free product placement, you don’t whip out an email to your staff prior to an official announcement. Second, saying you were “fired over the phone” is a pissy description that only re-enforces the image of you banging this thing out in mid-tantrum. Lastly, the content is as vapid as the leadership critics say you’ve shown during your tenure. “It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward.”? If you’re going to blow decorum and fire off a company-wide email about your leaving, take 20 minutes to say something meaningful. One thing.

It’s a good thing Bartz spiked a $47 million payday in 2009, because I don’t think you’ll be hearing much from her in the future.

 

This wasn’t exactly shocking: now that the Department of Justice sued to block the AT&T-T-Mobile merger, Sprint seized the opportunity to file its own lawsuit, claiming such an unholy union would “entrench the duopoly control” of Verizon and AT&T – while probably destroying Sprint in the process.  This also represents an opportunity for me to use a photoshopped jpg of Archer slapping the shit out of someone who looks like Ralph de la Vega, an opportunity that was missed when the DoJ story broke last week when I was on vacation.

 

Reported in April:

I'm sure it just needs a little spit 'n polish

My favorite is on the top right – “Select none”. Brilliant.

This just in:

OK - maybe just spit

I have to agree with Daniel Eran Dilger on this one: it is a radical departure from OS X. In fact, if you follow the flaming skidmarks about 50 yards from the radical departure, you can see where it radically wraps itself around a telephone pole.

 

I don’t think Apple will release an HDTV, but I’m in the minority. My reasoning, as reductive as I can present it: regarding media, 90% of Apple’s value to consumers is content. This content can currently be accessed through the AppleTV set-top box.

Steve Jobs used the term “bag of hurt” to describe the BluRay format; I think he might use similar language to describe the HDTV television landscape, but to hear “making an Apple-branded TV” spout with certainty from the ballwashers of some analysts, you’d think Apple could just shove the existing AppleTV into a high-end HDTV. But that won’t work, and I’m going to swallow a little vomit to explain why.

The GoogleTV Didn’t Suck

I know, I know: I busted this thing’s balls when it appeared on the market, and in the end it panned out just like I – and a number of other people – knew it would: on a greased rail being shot off the TigerDirect clearance rack. But those who ignore their history are doomed repeat it, so let’s see what it did right, where it went wrong and think about what  the GoogleTV’s failure could mean for an Apple HDTV.

The list of things GoogleTV does that AppleTV doesn’t isn’t long, but there are a couple of ambitious features that, on their face, make it a better TV-integrated device.

An Integrated UI

When you’re watching TV, you can use the GoogleTV remote (the 2-hands Sony version or the “LOL” 2 hands + lap Logitech version) to not only control the TV, but access the GoogleTV options. These options are overlaid in such a way that you can still see what’s playing on current channel. The “type to search” interface allows you to looks for any media content – whether it’s on TV now or available for sale, rental or on the Internet.

Not TOTALLY shitty

Some of GoogleTV’s functions allows you to use picture-in-picture – say to Tweet while you’re watching House. If you’re a DISH Network subscriber, you also get access to your DVR functions. All these functions co-exist with your HDTV without the user having to change inputs (related note: how is it possible for the high-speed HDMI standard to be so fucking slow to change inputs). This “always on” capability is one major way GoogleTV distinguishes itself from Apple’s offering.

The Internet

In my opinion, this feature isn’t as much about capability as it is about scale. The AppleTV does offer access to non-cable content such as Netflix, MLB/NBA TV, YouTube and Vimeo, for example. GoogleTV offers access to any content that isn’t tied down (which ended up being part of its demise, but more on that later). In addition to Apple’s non-iTunes content, GoogleTV offers access to Amazon, Napster, Pandora, not to mention network offerings from HBO, TNT, CNN and Cartoon Network, to name a few. The Chrome browser also comes baked-in to the GoogleTV, so you can surf the web right from your television.

So What the Fuck Happened?

So you have a device that plays nice with your cable box, providing you with access to its content along with a buttload of Internet video and music content and the Internet itself. Why did the GoogleTV faceplant?

Price

The first and biggest obstacle. When introduced, the set-top version of GoogleTV, the Logitech Revue, retailed for $299. Sony’s bundled TVs, which are already at the high-end of the market price-wise, added a premium to the HDTV’s and Blu-Ray players that baked-in GoogleTV’s functionality. $299 is a fair price for a Blu-Ray player/DVR/cable box, but not for something that lays over all of these devices and provides nothing but redundant functionality, a web browser and some connected content.

Access to Content

Definitely the biggest misstep Google made when crowing about the value of the GoogleTV prior to its release. Imagine this: access to all those network and cable stations you could only get on your laptop’s browser before! Imagine ABC, Hulu and Comedy Central on your HDTV: the way it was meant to be viewed! Now imagine the networks and cable companies slamming its doors on the dicks of people (yes, they were all men) thinking they were going to bask in free episodes HDTV – one by one. Far be it from Google to actually secure any of the relationships that would have been required to keep that from happening. Those episodes of Lost that cost millions apiece to produce want to be free!

Google promised me free Hulu, but all I got was this lousy t-shirt

Apple Didn’t Make It   

It pains me to say that the GoogleTV UI/UX didn’t totally suck, but it did suffer from the characteristic lack of polish that comes from having engineers outnumber designers on your campus 400 to 1. It’s basically Android on a TV. Inconsistencies, glitches and some flat-out labyrinthian UI quirks doomed a product that was already crippled on several other fronts.

#FAIL

How Does This Apply to an Apple HDTV?

To ask the question (as I have) another way: what’s the difference between Apple building the AppleTV UI into a high-end HDTV and stamping their logo on it and Apple continuing to produce the  AppleTV the way it does now as a standalone device? To my mind, the only things that could justify such a move would involve at least one of the following:

Integration of the UI

An Apple HDTV could work just like Sony’s GoogleTV. For that to happen would require Apple to mesh its UI with your cable provider’s, on the same plane as Apple’s own iTunes content to make it a “input one device” – the device you turn on to watch TV. It’s not out of the realm of possibility.

A Feature That GoogleTV Didn’t Have

DVR integration, broader access to cable channel and network Internet content or a blow-your-mind UI that ties it all together. Again, not out of the realm of possibility.

A Reasonable Price

This is a little bit fungible, especially if Apple hits it out of the park on the first two items. There aren’t too many things hardware-wise that you can do to really differentiate yourself in the HDTV market, and this is a mature, saturated, commodity-good market as it is. Remember: in relative terms, the AppleTV at $299 was a flop; at $99 it was a success.

If Apple can break new ground with the “iTV”, I could imagine a universe where it makes its own HDTV. But when I break it down to the fundamental question: “What can Apple do with an HDTV that it can’t do with the AppleTV?”, I do not see it happening. Sorry, Gene.

 

I never got into the “Farmville” or “Mafia Wars” social games, mostly because my attention span couldn’t keep a cactus alive, nevermind an agrarian enterprise or a ruthless drug cartel. There are, however, millions of people for whom these games are a big deal. I imagine these people also own lots of cats and have Lifetime and Oxygen on their favorite channel list, but I could be wrong. One thing’s for sure: if you fuck with their time sinks, you’re gonna hear about it.

The latest service to feel the Google axe blade was Slide, a social apps company that was acquired for about $200 million last year. One of Slide’s offerings, a game called SuperPoke! Pets, was…well…Super Poked.  As MG Siegler reports for TechCrunch, the players were none too happy about it:

If you look at our post about the Google killing Slide from Thursday, you’ll find 230+ comments right now. In the Facebook comments era of TechCrunch, this is a ton. In our pre-Facebook comments era this would probably equate to over 1,000 comments. And nearly every single one of these comments is in response to the killing of SuperPoke! Pets.

One of the most contentious aspects of the kill-off was that people paid real money for “gold items” in-game.  It’s very common to use real money in these “cultivation” games to enhance pets or plots of land – or whatever. What isn’t so common is to have the service yanked out from under 2 million+ active players. Then again, this is Google we’re talking about – not exactly the most emotionally available company on the planet.

What Google chooses to do with the millions of pissed-off former SuperPokers remains to be seen, but it underscores how little Google cares about killing off something under its care  - whether that thing be of their own creation or something they’ve acquired. Little wonder no one takes their enterprise offerings seriously.

 

Too bad for Larry, the $500 million didn’t buy silence. From the Wall Street Journal:

Behind Google Inc.’s decision this week to settle a U.S. criminal probe into ads it carried for unlicensed online pharmacies lies a previously undisclosed factor: Justice Department investigators believed company co-founder Larry Page knew of, and allowed, the ads for years.

Sorting through more than four million documents, prosecutors found internal emails and documents that, they say, show Mr. Page was aware of the allegedly illicit ad sales. Under this week’s $500 million settlement, those emails won’t be released, avoiding the possibility of disclosure at trial.

I don’t hear a lot of the “Do No Evil” mantra anymore from Google. Think they know we’re on to them?

 

This is an absolutely stunning endorsement of the team Steve Jobs has built. Conventional wisdom circa 2005 had AAPL falling off a cliff upon Jobs’ departure.

Oh, and Gizmodo: suck it.

 

This being the day after Steve Jobs announced his resignation as CEO of Apple, the deluge of  farewells and remembrances is in full swing. So when Vic Gundotra posted a personal anecdote about Jobs in his Google+ stream, you’d think it would be something about how Steve showed remarkable poise in his decision-making when dealing with mobile carriers, or how he shrewdly negotiated agreements with labels and studios that changed of how people interact with media.

Turns out it was about how Jobs called him on a Sunday to complain about the color of a letter in the Google logo. Cool story, bro.

Of course, Gundotra talks up the moral of the story  as “every CEO should have this level of attention to detail” – like knowing when your company is helping to advertise the sale of illegal prescription drugs – for 6 years.  Everyone knows about Jobs’ fanatical attention to detail. Does this story really flatter Jobs? Maybe I’m still suffering from withdrawl, but to me it comes across as a left-handed at best.

Maybe my problem is with Gundotra’s track record of speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

© 2011 TheMacAdvocate Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
  • RSS
  • Twitter