On local search

Google finally gets into mobile, a move that they had no choice but to make but in this case their only inbuilt advantage is a huge pile of cash because mobile search is a fundamentally different creature to web search.

When someone is on the move the most useful information is what is in their immediate vicinity. I went to lunch today at a fantastic Thai restaurant. The food was good and the service was great, we were in and out in 25 mins for £13. This place is two minutes walk from St Paul’s yet the chances of a tourist finding it are close to zero and they will be stuck with the expensive chains with terrible food which can afford to rent across the road from the Cathedral. Everyone who goes into my place is a local, I found out about it from a colleague and I have since told others. Across the road from there is a great independent takeaway but again only locals really know about it.

For local search to really work we need a way to get this local intelligence from the people who have it to the people who are looking for it. The great advantage Google had over its original competitors was that it took the knowledge of the people who knew the web, its creators, and made it accesible to everyone. To make local search work they need a way to tap the knowledge of the local people and make it available to anyone in the vicinity.

Currently no such service exists. With the iPhone Store and now the Android Market there’s a massive opportunity out there for someone and it’s something we will be looking at once we get Zoiads off the ground.

Pic: Trig’s

Related articles by Zemanta

• Android & iPhone, Same Thing Only Different
• Is Google Spreading Itself Too Thin?
• Google Android is about advertising, not the enterprise

On HP

The dam starts to crack. Rumours around HP suggest they are building their own OS. Perosnally I wouldn’t bother doing it myself if I was HP. On occasions like these you go to the specialists and in that case it means Canonical. They have years of experience building a consumer friendly version of Linux. In fact I don’t think hardware manufacturers building operating systems is a good idea.

At this stage everyone cites the example of Apple but the fact is their refusal to license any Mac OS contributed to Microsoft’s dominance in the first place. Hardware and software are two different things and I think having companies focused on one or the other is the best way. Some may argue that this is not the case with mobile and give Android’s difficulties as the prime example. The counterargument is Symbian and it’s a pretty good one.

Apple seem to have set their stall out as a niche manufacturer come what may. This is not a criticism, someone has to be the Mercedes of the tech world and someone else the Toyota. I am always skeptikal about one company trying to control all aspects of a system and I think it is better for the consumers when different companies establish common standards and promote competition between application developers. This also allows companies building operating systems to focus on what they are good at.

Microsoft is getting in to trouble now because it is too cumbersome to lead in any of the emerging markets. It is compounding the problem by trying to add even more weight when it should be trying to shed it and trying to get into markets it has no hope of cracking like search.

Pic: fattytuna

On Chrome

Another bloody browser, this time from Google. It’s a crowded field and Google’s efforts outside search have a mixed track record. Gmail is excellent but Knol is terrible. I installed Chrome and it’s nothing special. On the plus side it has a nice simple UI, on the minus side it’s not very intuitive. For my money Opera is still the best and I won’t be switching any time soon.

What’s more interesting is where Google is going with this. I think Arrington is right. Google is preparing to enter the OS market and Chrome is the first shot. Microsoft have foolishly left this avenue open first by allowing Linux to creep up on them in the UMPC market and then by not addressing the sector properly and leaving it to XP. Now I have nothing against XP, it’s a good OS. I’m just surprised MS hasn’t put out a purpose built UMPC operating system. W7 may have something along these lines but I don’t think MS can afford to hang around here. They may wake up in 2010 with their core business gone if they are not more careful.

Back to Goog. To keep denying they are working on an OS when they have already begun the Android project is clearly ridiculous. They basically admit as much in the Chrome announcement:

At Google, we spend much of our time working inside a browser. Like all of you, we search, shop, bank, read news and keep in touch with friends – all using a browser. People are spending an increasing amount of time online, and they’re doing things never imagined when the web first appeared about 15 years ago.

They are right here. These days all I use my OS for is to drive my browser. This minimises the importance of the operating system if all it has to do is run a browser and the associated plugins. My next machine will probably be a Dell E running Linux. This will be plenty to browse the web and send emails which is all I really need. The days of everyone having heavy operating systems are gone. Some people will still need dedicated desktop apps but I expect this small market to be dominated by Apple and high end macs.

The era of MS dominance is at an end. So on the Google browser I say no thanks but on the OS yes please. The more competition the better.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Chrome is Not a Windows-Killer
• Google opens up new front in browser wars with Chrome
• Google Enters The Browser Battle

On Goobuntu

Writing the post about a greener Linux got me thinking about what Microsoft should fear the most. As I was looking around I came across the answer: Goobuntu.

One of the enduring problems Linux has is its lack of brand awareness. Most people stick with Windows because they have heard of Microsoft. I guess the best known Linux distro is Ubuntu and I’d guess less than 2% of people have heard of it. I think this is why MS shows little apparent concern about it’s core OS business. However a Google backed OS would be a different prospect. Google has a consumer brand people know and generally trust. So long as they delivered a clean Linux OS and didn’t do anything daft like invading privacy they would be onto a winrar.

Netscape’s ghost

Google’s reticence may be explained by a residual fear of Microsoft. They claim not to be concerned with MS at all and, in reality, they should not be. That said I think any fears are emotional not rational. As Google was growing up MS was taking Netscape to the cleaners. Netscape famously invited the attack by proclaiming the death of MS and ended up getting rather more than they bargained for. Whilst Google is clearly not vulnerable in the same way Netscape was they still may be reticent about making such a clear attack on MS. Eric Schmidt is also a Novell refugee, another company bruised by MS which may add to the caution over the OS game. Ironically if they did release Goobuntu they would be doing to MS what they did to Netscape – cross subsidising a free product to disrupt the core business of a competitor. Perhaps it is regulators and not fear of MS which is preventing them making the move.

They have no such reticence when it comes to mobile as the release of Android attests. This may actually boil down to the fact that Google sees the future of search as mobile and are preparing to shift their business in that direction rather than any fear of MS. Their recent spectrum bid points in this direction and it would be the simpler explanation. In a way this is worse news for MS, Google showing no interest in the computer OS market indicates they think there is no future in that business. Maybe the only thing more scary for MS than Google releasing an OS is Google not releasing an OS.

Read more:
On Linux
On Ubuntu
On breaking up Microsoft