f13.net

http://www.google.com/talk/

It's based on the Jabber protocol, so you can supposedly connect using Trillian/GAIM/whatever if you wish.

Clean little program, which makes me wonder how they plan on supporting it financially. I'm suspecting they plan on expanding the VoIP offerings, because I don't know if targeted ads based on chat content would work all that well considering the guttural form of English people use when chatting.

Yea, downloaded that a couple weeks ago. It's uhm....easy to send files over.

If it was all-protocol-encompassing, in addition to having it's own features, then I'd be using it.

And you're full of shit too. I don't think it has been out that long.

Wait, no, I downloaded something else. i don't know what it is. Never install things before moving. They disappear.

Edit: Your damn post appeared before I could make the correction. You bastard. Oh, and I was talking about Hello.

Bah.  With Google's recent track record with nice web interfaces (Gmail and Google Maps), I was hoping this'd be a web-based chat client I could use from work.  No such luck.   :cry:

Downloaded, played with, looked at display settings. Sticking with Trillian for another 6 months.

Aim works fine for me, and I hardly use it.

I love iChat. Very clean and simple. Basically you can chat. Or if you want talk with a mic, and thats it. No stupid random matching by intrests or any shit like that. Just quick and easy chat.

Oh yeah, and you can have a little picture too. Its the small things in life...

/agree

Clean interface = good.

You can use it with any other IM client that features Jabber protocol. Here's how to setup iChat to use Google Talk:
http://www.google.com/support/talk/bin/answer.py?answer=24076
http://www.google.com/talk/otherclients.html

The problem is that I don't have such a thing (an IM client that doesn't require installation of any actual software).  The closest I've seen to it is AIM Express, which I finally stopped using because it (to put it delicately) sucks donkey balls.

With at least four other major instant messenger services already out, that are doing the same thing, Google Talk has become the fifth ass on the five-assed monkey.  The only upside, is I can finally get rid of those 50 damn Gmail invites as everyone wants to try it out right now.

If they're not going to add in support for other protocols, then I'll start using it once they move from 5th ass to 2nd or 3rd. Or if they eventually make the others obsolete, that's fine with me too. Google is to internet services as Kleenex is to tissue. I really wouldn't mind a Googlfied computer world. Right now though, I really don't feel like inviting 50 people to Gmail.

All well and good, until we find out that Google's secret parent company is SkyNet.

I think google sucks honestly. All they do is take relatively trivial technologies and remove all the random ads and cruft from the UI.

It's funny, because everyone talks about the Google brain-drain and the incredible engineering talent there - but most of the talent is really UI and the offerings are quite boring and mundane from a technical perspective. Basically Google is like Blizzard - lots of polish. None of the problems they are addressing are even remotely difficult.

Which is why I think in the long term google will fail. Zero barrier to entry on any of their services.

The barrier of entry to compete with Google is critical mass. They have critical mass in search and so they are able to bring new services up to critical mass at lightning speed while spending $0 on advertising for the new service.

I don't particularly care for Google's hypocracy concerning the data they scrape. They scrape all the news data off other peoples sites for commercial use and then in their own terms and conditions they forbid you doing the same to them for commercial use.

Google's entire search engine is built on top of copyright infringement but major copyright holders (the biggest hypocrites of all) for the most part ignore that fact because it drives traffic to their websites. Google keeps cached pages around long after they no longer exist and calls them a "supplimental result".

The Google self serve advertising EULA's are non-disclosure agreements.

And lastly I have no desire for Google to have access to all of my unencrypted internet communications (IM/email/search/www) in one place either.

[edit] Fuck it. It's out of my scope anyways.

JOIN US

ONE OF US

ONE OF US

If google was a person it would be a man and he would be a dumbass.

I could write google maps, by myself, in a couple of weeks. That's why I have no respect for Google. What are they doing with all the talent they have? It's like hiring Einstein as a janitor.

An IM client would just be another example of this. You don't need a bunch of Mensa geniuses to write an IM client. That's the kind of project you give to college kids in an intermediate CS course.

I use Trillian and prefer to support small companies (http://www.ceruleanstudios.com/)


Edit:  and yes Google is very derivative.  Their indexing is the only semi-unique thing out there. 

I'll be impressed once they have IP->PSTN, or PSTN->IP working for chat.  Otherwise, everyone is doing this already.

If you'd done that a few years ago and then sold it to Microsoft, I imagine you'd be a very rich man right now.

Have you tried Google Earth?  It's bitchen.

Maybe. The hard part is getting the actual map graphics. There are a lot of services type things on the web that could be improved, but I have no desire to go about improving them. (Weather, movie listings, whatever)

I'm also not sure how much you could really sell something like that for, considering MS could develop in themselves in a few months.

You'd be surprised.  MS is more than happy to give people large amounts of money for the source and rights to stuff that they didn't think of themselves first.  They have lots of money.

MS has already come out with their own version of Google Maps, but it's too late now because Google beat them to the punch.  If they had released it a few years ago, back when the only game in town was Mapquest (with its shitty click-and-wait-for-the-entire-page-to-reload interface), Mapquest would be dead and we'd all be going to msn.com to get our maps and driving directions.

I think the whole Google Maps thing has been good for both MapQuest and MapPoint. Hell, even Yahoo! has to consider it.

The thing is, since MapQuest (and to a lesser extend, MapPoint) were/are the top dogs with no one around even trying to compete, they had no reason at all to look at their interface and see if there was a better way to do things. The best innovation MapQuest has come up with (before Google) was map only refresh when you use the interface buttons. It works, but they still keep the map really small. Big maps are better!

Now, I work for MapQuest, but I don't harbor any ill feelings for Google Maps. If it makes our product managers wake up and take a little notice then that's a good thing. We still have the advantage over them for a number of reasons: already established business relationships, already established B2B products, and relationships from mapping providers for all over (not just US) to name a few. Not to mention the only thing we do is make online mapping solutions. The biggest hurdle to things like this is getting AOL to allow us the resources needed to respond. (Every year we have to explain what we need and why - we don't fall into the ad-only generated revenue model that all other AOL properties do).

The nice thing about Google is simply this: It shows everyone else that "how it should be done" can also work as the "the way to make money". Simple is good. Non-obtrusive ads are good. Money is good.

I think you overestimate what mindshare and brand loyalty mean for online businesses. I would posit that brand loyalty basically doesn't exist online.

Mapping services will soon become commodity services. Whichever is slightly better, from a user standpoint or advertiser standpoint, will when. Being first doesn't really matter. Because it's so easy to switch- just type in a new url.

That's what happened to all the online CD stores. There was no brand loyalty, people just went to whatever URL happened to be cheapest, and so a huge price war erupted and now they are all out of business. They didn't offer anything unique like their own music, and the customer service was basically the same everywhere. (You don't need a ton of customer service on a music selling or map website)

Switching to new websites is so painless for the end user, that end-user penetration really doesn't matter. Not for a simple app like maps, CD shopping, etc. It takes literally 2 seconds to start using a different search engine or map provider.

If someone built a search engine or map service that was strictly better for the end user than Google, people would switch very quickly. Why not?

A relatively small fraction of the Internet monitors Slashdot obsessively and clicks on every link they find.   :wink:  There are people still using AOL, for God's sake.  You think that as soon as a marginally better version of a web page comes out, everyone's going to flock to it instantly?  Most people probably won't even hear of it.  Of those that hear of it, most won't check it out.  Of those that check it out, most will say "eh, that's nice, but I like what I'm using already."    "Slightly better" doesn't really cut it.

Of course, if it were "slightly cheaper" that'd be a different story, but these are all free services anyway.

Yeah, my neighbor has AOL, gets his work done on Illustrator 6 and some old ass version of Mac Word, and still living in the past where AltaVista is "the" search engine. He's even admitted to Google coming up with better results, but he soon forgets about it anyways.

Perspective is important.  Most of us on this board are probably very far to the "early adopter" end of the spectrum (I'm running the Vista beta, which puts me on the lunatic fringe), but there's a gigantic mass of humanity that prefers familiar to newer/shinier/better.

Your avatar is gigantic.

I would point out that google itself became popular fairly quickly, and it wasn't anything radically different, just better.

Yes, but Google was also radically better.  It was the first search engine with the claim of indexing 100% of the Web, and it was both faster and simpler than any other offerings (Yahoo, Altavista, etc).  You could do a search on Altavista and come up with nothing, and go do the same search on Google and find what you were looking for in half a second.  I did exactly that a couple of times, and never went back to Altavista.

Similarly, when Google Maps launched, it was radically better than the offerings at that time from MapQuest and its various spinoffs.  Sit your grandma in front of MapQuest and Google Maps, and even if she's been using MapQuest for a while, she'll probably like Google Maps better, because it's a huge improvement (as Viin pointed out, even the simple change of making the map bigger is a very noticeable improvement).

For something to draw people away from Google as a search engine, or Google Maps as a mapping application, it would have to be a similarly radical improvement.  Microsoft is pushing out some Google-Maps-esque thing, but I have no interest in it whatsoever because a couple of minutes of using it didn't make me say "wow, this is much better than what I'm using now!"  Maybe in another couple of years I'll take another look at it, maybe I won't.  If the positions were reversed and Microsoft's thing had come out first, I probably wouldn't give Google Maps a second look now, simply because there would be no incentive to change.  And again, I'm an "early adopter" personality - imagine how likely Joe Sixpack is to go rearrange his AOL Bookmarks or whatever every time a marginally different clone of the thing he's already using clambers out of the vats.

Oh look, it's the happy fun land of copyright infringement lawsuits. (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Adult_site_publisher_takes_action_against_Google/0,2000061733,39208888,00.htm) Apparently Perfect 10 doesn't like Google indexing their images.

Google is also filtering filetype:mp3 now. You use to be able to find MP3s with it but they must have received a stealth letter from the RIAA because they hardly list any at all now. Same with Yahoo.

Because, you know, it's not trivial to prevent Google's spiders from indexing your site, or anything.
If you've got the skill to build a website, you should be able to figure out the format for a robots.txt or the robots meta tag, or both.

Alkiera

I think Google is becoming ripe for a new kid on the block to usurp them, at least in the realm of search engine functionality, as Google branches out to be jack of all deals. Their superior indexing algorithms, which powered them into dominance have receded a bit  in recent times. I've noted that a lot of web pages have fallen off their index listings, and a few years ago they were quick to spider new sites, whereas today it can take weeks to months.

Wasn't Teoma (http://www.teoma.com) supposed to be The Next Big Thing a few years ago?

I am a firm believer that Google is US Government funded.  I have no proof, but I believe.   :hello_kitty:

Better them than EA.

/rimshot

I think you are misreading the issue. Google isn't linking images from Perfect 10. They are linking images from XXX spam sites that are ripping off Perfect 10's images. So the question comes - is Google responsible for linking to a site that has copyright infringing content?

I don't think linking is the issue.  The issue is that Google hosts any content that it indexes - in the case of images, it makes a thumbnail copy of each indexed image and hosts it on its servers so you can browse results faster.

Is Google the right target to sue?  I'm going to say no, because you can easily block them from indexing the images on your site, so for them to end up indexing them anyway the images would have to have been ganked by some other site to begin with, in which case they're the ones you should be suing.

So what do people think about the wayback machine?

http://www.archive.org/

I love it, sometimes I go look at dead sites like markeedragonsucks and giggle inside.  And outside.

I was just thinking about that.  I can only imagine that nobody's sued them because they're not a household name and there probably wouldn't be any money in it.

I find that google results now are far worse than they were a few years ago. That seems to happen with every site, and I have no idea why. It seems that when a new site matches the quality of the links returned just continually degrade over time.

One thing that is ripe for the picking is organizing results by relatedness. The classic example of this is if you do a seach for "jaguar", you'll get some for the animal, some for the car, some for the old atari system, etc.

There are search engines out there that do this categorization but a lot of them have interface issues. If someone can get it working well with a nice interface it would be very helpful.

http://www.clusty.com

Headquarted in the city where I was brought into this earthly realm…

Yeah, that's totally what I'm talking about. That site is a bit busy, the yellow and blue color scheme is pretty horrid along with the logo, but it seems to work pretty well. One nice thing about sites like that is it allows you to easily refine your search, and it's gold for looking for terms/names/etc that are pretty common.

On an unrelated note, my bad typing idicates that lusty.com is a MUD site...weird.

I used to play LustyMud.   :-D

I've lusted after a mud wrestler... does that count?

Yes.

Don't forget about Google's AdSense stuff. That's where the money is.

Hell, mapquest.com put google ads on the page and went from making almost nothing to making millions. Advertisers love targetted ads, especially in the travel/entertainment sector.

Anything Google comes out with is to drive those ads (thus Google Maps, Google Local, etc). As someone else said, I don't see how the Google IM client ties into that, but I'm sure we'll find out.