During the past 24 hours, I’ve been reminded why I like to have programs that operate on my desktop. Granted, if anyone is going to convince me that having all my documents and office-tool software online, in “a cloud,” is going to work for me, it will be Google. Google has the resources to own server farms the size of Wisconsin. So when Google can’t get it done, I begin to wonder if anyone can. During the past 24 hours, I’ve received three different signals from Google that maybe I shouldn’t have faith in anyone’s ability to be up 100% of the time:

The irony of one of those messages is especially choice: “Something bad happened. Don’t worry, though. The Spreadsheets Team has been notified and we’ll get right on it.”

I can imagine being in the midst of a budget presentation and getting that message: “Don’t worry, Google will get right on it.”

And now, for some shadow puppet shows.

As this press release and resulting barrage of blogospheric coverage has pointed to the dead link http://www.google.com/friendconnect all day (the site goes live tonight), it makes me wonder just how many “eyeballs” this “Not Found” message has attracted. Could it be a one-day page-view record for a 404 Error message? They could have at least slapped a few Google ads on it to generate some revenue. I thought I’d post a screen grab here for posterity.

A new feature that will be recognized as a tumblelog by the tiny fraction of the world’s inhabitants who might know what a tumblelog is, has been added to Google Reader. Wisely recognizing that tumblelog is a far-edge concept, Google chose not use such a term in announcing the feature on the Google Reader weblog.

I would spend a sentence or two describing why I think it is odd that Google is getting into tumblelog hosting through its RSS newsreader platform, however, the explanation would be so esoteric that even my eyes are glazing over at the thought of how geeky my reasoning is. It has to do with having a feature as a part of an RSS reader for sharing items one finds via means other than an RSS reader — but like I said, who cares?

Maybe it will be a great feature for someone. But I’m scratching my head at who might use it other than current Google Reader users who already have a “share” feature. Wouldn’t someone who might actually comprehend what’s going on with the tumblelog aspects of this feature prefer to display such sharing gestures at a URL like rex.tumblr.com than, say, http://www.google.com/reader/shared/02167497403971826980?

Or perhaps I’m having difficulty understanding it because I rarely use Google Reader.

Sidenote: If you want to see a tumblelog, RexHammock.com is an example. It’s where I share items I run across that are bigger than a bookmark and smaller than a blog post and less fleeting than a tweet on Twitter. And another thing: if something makes it to my tumblelog, chances are it has nothing to do with business or technology or media or anything remotely related to this weblog. And wisely recognizing that few people I know use the term tumblelog, I don’t refer to it as a tumblelog except in blog posts about the topic of tumblelogs.

Google Maps users (including those who use it via the iPhone) probably know the service provides real-time traffic data for 30 U.S. cities, including my hometown, Nashville, where there appear to be a few fender-benders today. For a view of some nightmare traffic, here is the other city I spend lots of time in, Washington, D.C..

Now, if you click on the “change” link while the Traffic layer is visible, you can view a predictive version of the Map that, as in the example below, suggests what the traffic will be like at 4:30 this afternoon. The predictions are based on historical data.

(via: Google Operating System blog.)

Bonus link: A recent post on Search Engine Land compares traffic data on several mapping services, including some impressive new features on Microsoft Live maps [or Nashville traffic view].

It took them awhile, but the “Street View” gang at Google Maps finally drove around Nashville and, gee, you can now do stuff like embed this panoramic view of the intersection outside my office window. That’s me up in the seventh floor of the building that looks super-thin in this photo (like, say, a MacBuilding Air). While I won’t get too privacy-invasive by displaying or linking to it, I’m happy to note that the Street View vehicle apparently drove by my home (not the location on the embedded shot, but another one) on a beautiful fall afternoon right after the lawn had been cut.

As Google Maps fans know, there are individuals who enjoy going through Street View photos looking for weird happenings that got snapped during the drive-bys. No doubt, there is a strong possibility of some weird sightings among the Nashville shots.

Bonus: Link to Nashville “Street View” Map: After clicking through to this link, click on the camera icon, then click on “zoom in” and then move the little “lego-man-ish” icon to a location to view the panorama from that spot.

Back in mid-2007, I wondered aloud why the Google Personalized Homepage was being re-branded iGoogle as the “i” prefix is so much the franchise of another technology company. Today, Google announced enhanced features for using Google on an iPhone, including better integration of iGoogle into iPhone. So, to clear up the confusion, you DO NOT need an iPhone to use iGoogle, but now iPhone iGoogle users have some special iGoogle features to make using it on your iPhone more iSpecial.

I guess it’s inevitable: whenever Google announces anything — and I mean anything — the response from the blogosphere — and seeping out into the real-world coverage — is that it’s designed to “kill” something. And so it has been during the past 24 hours since Google announced it’s working on a service where people can share “units of knowledge” called “knols.” (I’m going to call the service “Knol” from here on out in this post, but I’m not sure if that’s like calling a blog-post a blog — and if you’re a blogger, you know how irksome that can be. So, the service may be called something and a post on it may be called “a knol” but for this post, at least, I’m calling the whole thing Knol.) Since Knol sorta sounds like what Wikipedia does — allow people to share knowledge — yesterday’s announcement has been greeted with a chorus of bloggers singing, “Ding-Dong, Wikipedia is Dead.” (Later: And now by the ‘msm’ - WSJ and NYT.) Even my friend Steve Rubel, who’s almost always right about things like this (translation: I almost always agree with him) has jumped on the “Wikipedia is dead” meme-wagon and gives several reasons why.

But let’s all get real: Wikipedia won’t be killed by Google. At least not by Knol. Here are several reasons why:

1. Google’s resources and dominance may be massive, but Google hasn’t reached death star status: Can someone remind me what, other than all the early search engines, Google has actually killed online that had anywhere near the brand and market position of something as dominant globally as Wikipedia. I mean, other than Altavista that had a fairly dominant online brand, what has Google head-to-head “killed” as in introduced a clone service that then killed dead — as in put out of business — the service that it was supposed to kill? Did Google kill YouTube with its video-hosting product (Google even had a headstart)? (Google did buy YouTube, but if that’s killing, then please, shoot me.) Has Picasa killed Flickr yet? Has Google Docs killed Microsoft yet? Did Google’s Blogger.com kill WordPress or MovableType? (Again, Blogger had a headstart on WordPress.) Did Google crush Yahoo! Answers with its competitive offering? And Dodgeball — they’re really kicking folks’ ass, aren’t they? I can go on, but you get the idea. Something growing as exponentially as the web does not always support the zero-sum games necessary to allow even those with massive resources to kill others who have big headstarts, marketshare dominance — and who have excessively loyal cult followings.

2. Google may have more resources than anyone else, but it doesn’t have enough resources to fight endless multi-front wars: Sorry to use a war metaphor, but there’s no power on earth that can fight with effectiveness if it spreads its front lines too thinly. It’s not only about resources, it’s about the required focus of a few folks who must actually steer the aircraft carrier (gee, I’m even mixing war metaphors). Sure, it may appear as if Google has endless resources, but in the past few months, they’ve launched products and initiatives that have been described by bloggers as killers of the iPhone, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., etc. So they’re not just out to kill Wikipedia, they’re also engaged in skirmishes with Apple (who has $15 billion in cash) and Microsoft (I’m just going to stop here, you get the picture.)

3. Google may have an army of PhDs, but Wikipedia has a militia of Ph.D candidates: I get to make this observation because I’ve actually attended the Wikipedia cult-fest event called Wikimania where all the magic elves who make Wikipedia work congregate each year. By and large, they are crazy-smart graduate students and they don’t need no stinking Google employee perks to get fired up about defending their turf. So sure, Google may have more money than Wikipedia, but Wikipedia’s global army do one thing and one thing well. And if Google invades their turf, they will fight on the beaches. They will fight on the landing grounds. They will fight in the fields, and in the streets and in the hills. And they will never surrender — oh, wait, I got carried away there. I’ll stop with the war metaphors.

4. Knol is not an encyclopedia — or a wiki — or even kinda like a wiki, so how’s it going to kill something it’s not like? Perhaps it’s because I spend a big chunk of time head-down in a project that runs on Mediawiki (the same platform as Wikipedia), I’ve come to realize an important ingredient in the secret sauce in Wikipedia is elaborate and ever-changing taxonomy of internal links and constantly (and creatively) categorization that connect information found everywhere on the site. From its description on the Google announcement, Knol’s concept seems more like Blogger.com than Wikipedia. I know that might sound shocking to some, but here’s what I mean: It’s a personal webpage creation/publishing platform (a content management system) for one individual to post their knowledge on a topic (something I think is wonderful, by the way). Some people do that all day on a blog, but instead of creating blog pages (posts), if I use Knol to share such knowledge, I can use a content management system that utilizes metaphors and page displays that present articles on different topics about which I’m an expert. Again, that’s not what Wikipedia — or any wiki modeled on it — does. On a wiki, collaboration is exhibited in group-editing and aggressive and collaborative linking and categorization. With Knol, “collaboration” comes from comments and links and reputation management tools. So, unless there is something I’m completely missing after reading the Google explanation of it, one day, when you look up “Insomnia,” you’ll find dozens of experts giving their own slant on the issue. The A-List Insomnia experts will get top ranked. Or, perhaps the people who write the most Knols will become like the Amazon.com reviewers who become “the top” reviewers because they write thousands of reviews.

5. Wikipedia’s business model crushes even Google’s: I’m talking on the operating side, not the revenue side. With spending zero (marketing*) dollars, Wikipedia has one of the most recognized and favored brands in the world. Sure, Google is #1, but how many T-Shirts have they blown through in getting there? (In reality, while Wikipedia’s branding ROI is probably the most staggering in history, Google’s is in the same league — unlike Apple and Coke and others who spend hundreds of millions each year to gain the same level of global awareness.)

6. Knol may finally wake up the hippie fretards who keep Wikipedia from rolling in cash like the Mozilla Foundation: Oops, sorry. I was channeling Fake Steve. I have a hunch that if the true-believes who are the behind-the-scene magic elves who power Wikipedia become convinced that Google is out to crush them, they will suddenly find revenue religion and allow an alliance with Google, Microsoft or Yahoo! that will (think Mozilla’s Firefox and Google) make it rain millions into the Wikipedia Foundation’s coffers.

Summary:

Let’s face it: Google is always going to be labeled -killer no matter what they do. And despite what I’ve observed in this post, I’m not here to bury Google, but to praise it: I hope Knol is a huge success and millions of people share their knowledge using it. I’m all for spreading knowledge anyway we can. My only point here is to argue that Wikipedia is not going to be killed — by Knol, at least.

Hey, but if it does, please feel free to drop by my Orkut page and tell me about it.

Sidenote: How long will it take Knoll’s lawyers to jump onto this?

*I added this clarification word after the original post. See comments below.

Longtime readers of this blog know I’ve always been a fan of 8020 Publishing (and JPG magazine). I started blogging about the founders when they announced their concept three years ago and later when their first issue was available. I also blogged about it when they announced they were going to expand the concept beyond JPG magazine and I lamented the startup challenges they faced when two of the founders left.

So today, I’m happy to see the New York Times has discovered them and has published a glowing profile.

Quote:

(CNet founder and investor in 8020 Halsey) Minor thinks he can also make money from old-fashioned print. Online readers vote on their favorite submissions appearing at JPGmag.com. Then a tiny staff of 10 designs a layout for the winners and about 50,000 high-quality slick-looking magazines are printed six times a year. They are sold through $25 annual subscriptions and on newsstands for $6 each.

Earlier this week, I linked to this TechCrunch item about a Google patent to, in Michael Arrington’s paraphrase of the patent-speak, “give users the ability to search and browse their own content, and receive an electronic or hard copy version of the final product. And that final product will include advertisements highly relevant to the user.” (As I noted at the time, Dear Google: Please sign me up as to beta-test this product.)

So, during this week of eBook reader hype, let’s consider the Google patent, the first-mover efforts of 8020, or, for that matter, the self-publishing services like Lulu.com or (for some Nashville-centric linking) the technology and unique distribution available through Lightning Source, an Ingram Book business unit that serves as the back-end for many on-demand book-publishing services. During this week when many seem obsessed with painting a picture of a future where print is only “replicated” on a digital device, let us remember that some primordial force is similarly pulling us in the opposite direction. Some force that makes bloggers love to see their names in print. Some force that makes people want to write or buy books about using technology, even technology that needs no explanation — need proof? There are multiple titles on how to use Flickr.

So, let’s not get carried away with the whole “print is dead” meme (Isn’t it ironic that such a book is available in hardback, and not eBook only?). Google understands it’s worth patenting something based on the proposition that print is not dying. And others get it, including Apple and Flickr and, obviously, HP does — they even have a wiki devoted to the topic of getting stuff you create digitally into print — using their technology, of course.

Related: Over the years, I’ve softened my stance on the notion that people may want to view a replication of a printed page on a digital device — but I’ve not completely come off the stance. (And a note to those who don’t read this blog: Obviously, I think people want to access damn-near everything digitally — I just don’t think the best “form” for accessing that material is in a way that replicates how the information appears in print.) Also, In February, I made some predictions about the future of magazines, one of which is likely to become a quote I’ll be known for forever in some circles: “As long as there are coffee tables, there will be magazines.”

Bonus points: The NY Times piece today includes the prerequisite Samir Husni quote.

Technorati Tags: 8020, lightningsource

The Google Maps & Google Earth blog (LatLong) has a post about a community-wide effort in McMinnville, Tenn., (about 80 miles southeast of Nashville) to develop a 3D model of the town in Google Earth — the first of its kind in Tennessee.

Quote:

“The project, dubbed 3D Downtown, is being led by a non-profit organization called Main Street McMinnville and includes volunteers from the State Department of Economic and Community Development, the City Planning office, the Chamber of Commerce, the local College and Technology Center, and a host of local businesses.”

The project kicks off with volunteer modelers receiving training on how to use the free modeling tool, Google SketchUp and Google Earth. In addition to being cool, having a 3D model of a historic downtown will help McMinnville residents have a clearer understanding of how future development projects will impact on historic preservation.

View Larger Map

I’ve blogged before (and here) how I believe that online “toys” like Twitter or Google Maps’ MyMaps feature can — after enough people play with them — become powerful platforms for telling stories and sharing information — and can even save lives in an emergency situation. That’s why I play with this stuff.

This morning, NPR ran a story about how the San Diego public radio station, KPBS, despite being temporarily knocked off the air because of the wildfires, used Twitter (remember, it can be subscribed to via text-message) and MyMaps (embedded above) to keep their listeners informed of the life-threatening events surrounding them.

If you are not “playing” with Twitter, Flickr or Google Maps or other forms of easy-to-create and use conversational media, read (or listen to) this story.

Via the Google Docs Blog, news of the new mobile (”m”) version at docs.google.com/m. Currently, you can only view — not edit — documents (the post indicates that’s a feature on its way). I’ll be trying out the “presentation” feature later and will add a video to this post of what that looks like. If it works and there were an output-to-display “jack”/function/device (whatever?) on an iPhone, (update: see comments) I think this could one day be a road-warriors dream. In the meantime, the above shot is what a spreadsheet looks like. It’s a vocabulary list the 17-year-old and I made for SAT prep.

Later: I experimented with Google Docs presentation on my iPhone and discovered a couple of things. At least in my quick experiment, an imported Power Point presentation into Google docs was extremely slow in the mobile version. Discovering that, I tried creating a quick (as in five minutes) presentation natively in Google docs and the presentation zooms. Here’s a two-minute video of my test, using my quick presentation called: “”Six tips for a presenation you want to share via docs. google.com/m”

Not that you’d ever want to, but you can see the Google Docs version of presentation here if you don’t use Safari. You don’t have to log into Google Docs, but you’ll get a screen making you think you do.

Here are the “Six tips for a presenation you want to share via docs. google.com/m” — saving you from having to watch the video or presentation:

1. Think of a better way — like maybe talking instead of presenting.

2. Don’t use background color or fancy text or graphics or graphs. (It’s tiny and you’re doing this over the Internet so don’t add stuff that will slow it down).

3. Use really big type. (On a tiny screen, even 68 point type will be tiny.)

4. Don’t use bullet points (don’t ever use bullet points. Or numbered tips for that matter).

5. Think vertical and top-heavy. (The control pointer covers up the bottom of the screen so your presentation will look better when displayed vertically. All you need to do is leave plenty of room at the bottom of each slide.)

6. Don’t try to be funny. (Don’t ever try to be funny in a presentation unless you’re a trained professional…and then don’t.)

If the news that Microsoft is investing $300-$500 million in Facebook to acquire a 5% stake in the company sounds familiar, it may be because it sounds similar to the 2005 Google investment of $1 billion for a 5% stake in AOL. The investment will secure a boat-load of advertising inventory for Microsoft (or Google, as, according to the Wall Street Journal, Google is also interested in investing in Facebook.) The Google investment in 2005 gave AOL a $20 billion valuation. At $500 million, the rumored MS investment would give Facebook a $10 billion valuation.

The New York Times calls it advertising in mini-sites. However, instead of “mini-site,” “widget” is our buzzword of choice — not to be confused with (or, rather, to be confused with) badges, flare or any of another dozen words related to content chunklets you can run on an Ajaxy home page or display on your website, blog or personal-identity social-networky place. (See more in the “sidenote” below.)

Quote:

“Widgets are a dream for marketers,” Mr. Ioffe said. “They allow them to extend their brand off of their individual sites and allow their brands to live as long as consumers want them to live.”

At last weeks “Conversational Marketing Summit,” someone from a large media planning service described a program in which her client (an athletic shoe company) offered “free” animated items like “spinning shoes” for people to add to their Facebook and MySpace pages. She described the 20-million + views these logo’d items had generated as “free” impressions, as in, the marketer did not pay for any of the page-views these items generated after the “consumer” copied the code and pasted it on their own site.

What you have with today’s announcement from Google is the first step in giving Google (and others) the ability to “monetize” the flare as it flows along the “conversation.”

Obviously, a “dream for marketers.” And, from a few savvy marketers who understand how to create widgets that do something more that “advertise,” it may even work for users, as well.

Sidenote: For clarification purposes, here’s how I use the different buzzwords: “Widgets” go on personal pages (like iGoogle) and Konfabulator and the Apple Dashboard. “Flare” and “Badges” are similar but appear along the side (or in the middle) of people’s websites (see Fred Wilson — who loves flare). For the record, everyday, I hear and see people referring to all of those terms interchangeably. I like such embedded content — several of them power the right-hand column of my blog — and, more importantly, different sections of websites my company has developed or manage. However, I usually try to strip out as much of the graphics as possible so the content blends into this site. I think when you start adding too much “flare,” your site starts looking just like a mini-mall.

Google Earth, as it has since the first time I saw it, still gets my vote for the Best Program Ever. The new version is stunning. Really. Find where you are on the globe, then clilck a button and it converts to a view of the night sky above you. (Oops, I may miss that EVDO afterall, but fortunately, my wifi covers the backyard.) Not quite so significant, but really cool, the new version has a hidden feature, not publicized by Google: An F16 flight simulator, as described by a student in South Africa. It was discovered by someone who — and hats off to you people who do such things — held down the keys, Ctrl+Alt+A (or, if you’re running OS X it’s Command+Option+A). I’m sure, if you’ve grown up playing videogames or coding software, or whatever, you may think to click Ctrl+Alt+A when you’re trying out software, but I’m always impressed when I hear about the games developers play and the users who ask themselves, “I wonder what will happen if I do this…?”

Technorati Tags: google earth