About Google not locking users

I've written about this a few times but haven't bumped into a solid reference. Well, here's one: Eric Schmidt, Google’s chairman, when asked in a New York Times interview (on Google's aquisition of YouTube) about the difference between Microsoft and Google ...

... insisted that the company would not follow a similar strategy, in part because it had established a principle of not trying to control or lock up user-owned information — like calendar or spreadsheet data — that could be moved to an alternative service.

“We at Google will never trap user data,” he said.

Ok. It's "just" a promise. But such a clear promise from a company's chairman is not "just a promise". And it's well in line with Google's actions, too. Let's hope it's in line with Google's actions in the future, too.

A Comment on Pondering about Google's Evilness

Some time ago Tom Foremski pondered over the ethics of Google's pouring free services and software to the market. His column is sliced into three parts
Part 1: The limits of Google's limitless business model
Part 2: Will Google's limitless business plan test the limits of its ethics code?, and
Part 3: Could nationalism limit Google's ambitions?

Even though this isn't anymore new in the blogosphere I wanted to write out my thoughts about his article because I think it's good to thoroughly think what the emergence of Google as well at the general convergence of the web and different services means. So, I think Foremski's questioning is good. But:

I'm somewhat disturbed about some of these anti-Google comments like this. I'm left wondering if people are forgetting that the users use these services because they get great value from using them? Isn't THAT what is important? And what difference does it make if Google doesn't capitalize the added value in a way other businesses typically do or not (something that particularily seems to bother Foremski)? I really don't understand. And Tom Foremski doesn't even try to explain.

Just the fact that Google's products make it difficult or impossible for some (not all) smaller players to compete in the sector is a lousy explanation. It's really too bad for the smaller ones, but I have huge difficulties seeing it as evil or unethical from Google's side per se. Just the fact that freeware has made it more difficult for some players in some sectors doesn't make it evil!

Saying that Google locks people to their services doesn't have a very solid ground either. Let's be honest here!

Gmail is the first larger free email service that lets you both download your email and change your email service provider for free (forwarding for free). I'd say this is _un_locking peoples' emails.

And the problem in downloading 2.5GB of email? What is this?!?

I pop my email every once in a while to my computer to have an archive locally, too. Other than it being very useful for situations when I don't have a network connection but need to check out something or reply it's also common sense! No provider, especially a free one, can give you a 100% guarantee that they don't lose your data.

But even if I wouldn't download my emails incrementally it wouldn't take that long to download 2.5GB. What kind of connections do you guys have, anyways?

It's good to be wary about the privacy issues and keep an eye on how Google handles the data it collects (having said that I know that you can't really know for sure). But it's not as if MS, AOL, or other big players were any better!

This brings me back to the claim that Google is locking people. Gmail is not the only service where Google let's people keep their content. Google Reader has OPML import, and Export, too. Google Notebook let's you print your notes in a stylish less-is-more way (I keep a back-up of my notes printed as PDF). And so on.

Besides Gmail the other best example - and also the latest case for Google not locking users unlike many other services do - is Picasa Web Albums. It allows users to very easily download all of their photos back to their computers. And allow their friends/family to do that, too. This has been a huge annoyance in just about all of the photo services on the market for a long time. Many of the services still are at worst case billing you for your own photos if you want them back (ie. not allowing you to download your photos but allowing you to buy them burned on a DVD). Now, that's evil.

All this doesn't mean that Google is perfect. Far from it. It surely doesn't make all the information that users type into their systems easily available for them to download or transfer to other systems. At least Bookmarks and Blogger are service that don't have a solid, easy-to-use export system (as far as I know). But again, the other big players aren't any better - some are surely worse, though.

It's very important that people understand what they're getting into. And there are many who don't. I think that's a real and a big problem.

Why there's no iPhone and why Nokia hasn't succeeded in US

David Pogue writes in his New York Times blog about why he thinks there will never be an iPhone.
His point is that the carriers (aka. operators) have so much power and want to influence every step in the product development of mobile phones. And that Apple doesn't want to give "veto power to ANYONE over its software design". He tells about his friends' - who've worked in the Treo development - experiences: "the carriers (Verizon, Cingular, etc.) have veto power over EVERY move you make. You have to fight, -- refine, -- repeat…all in hopes that -- (they will) -- stock your phone."

I think David has a very good point. It seems to me that Apple and Nokia have had the same approach to making their devices in at least one way. They've both wanted to keep control in their product development. This might be partially the reason that Nokia has such a lousy market share in the US compared to other market areas.

This might even partially explain the 'design problem' that Nokia has had especially in the US. The carriers' influence is quite monopolistic in practice and they can influence the trends and what people 'want' very strongly.

I'm pretty sure that if the carries didn't have such a strong influence, ie. if there weren't subsidies for buying phones, Nokia - whose phones are just so much better than Motorola's - would have a larger market share - and, who knows, maybe there'd be an iPhone on the market, too.

Blogger Beta ROCKS! - includes category support

I gotta say just briefly that the Blogger Beta has finally made up my mind about my preferred blogging platform. The little thing that made me make up my mind (for now) was the introduction of categories or tags - or Lables, as Google calls them. And the other things are that it's free, convenient (the new layout tools are very nice), supports email posting, to mention a few.

The only nuissance comes to my mind after playing around with it for a while is that you can't batch edit the categories. That will hopefully be fixed in the future.

A related note for those who haven't found a good feed reader (for blogs and all aggregated stuff): I warmly recommend Google Reader.

EDIT: Google Reader just launhced a new UI. Among other things the sharing feature seems to have developed very nicely. Very nice.

Suuri menetys suomalaisessa politiikassa

Nyt se on varmaa.

Soininvaara kertoi Vihreassa langassa jattavansa eduskunnan. HS valottaa taustaa kertomalla Soininvaaran tympaytymisesta suomalaisen politiikan tilaan. Ja nainhan se taitaa olla. HS oli sattumoisin juuri raportoinut Tuomo Martikaisen ja Sami Fredrikssonin uudesta tutkimuksesta. "Martikaisen mukaan tulevaisuudessa poliittiset valinnat tehdään akselilla, jonka ääripäissä ovat vihreät uusvasemmistolaiset arvot ja toisaalla kovat oikeistopopulistiset arvot."

Ei hyvalta nayta.

Alla ajatuksiani Soininvaaran erosta (kommentti HS:n keskustelufoorumille)

"Kuten niin monet muutkin ovat todenneet tassa poikkeuksellisen fiksussa HS:n foorumien keskustelussa on suuri menetys, etta Soininvaara jattaa eduskunnan ja siten mita todennakoisemmin myos kaytannossa Vihreiden paivanpolitiikkassa vaikuttamisen.

Soininvaara on kiistamatta yksi alykkaimpia ajattelijoita, joka ei kuitenkaan ole jumissa historian formaateissa.

Kuten joku totesi sini-vihreille jaa kokoomus, mutta mita jaa liberaareille vihreille, jotka kannattavat markkinamekanismien ja uusien teknologian hyodyntamista vailla vanhaa kapitalistista painolastia ja jotka nakevat myos reguloinnin merkityksen seka yleisemmin arvostavat ihan oikeastikin myos humaania suhtautumista politiikassa? Naille vaihtoehdot ovat entista vahemmassa, vaikka naita ihmisia on oman kokemuksen perusteella iso liuta.

Pahasti nayttaa silta, etta vihreat ovat tosiaan radikalisoitumassa tai ainakin yha selvemmin kallistumassa puna-vihreaan suuntaan. Suuntaus on toki ollut nahtavissa jo pidempaa ja on monessa mielessa ollut Vihreiden pohja aina. Kovin harmillista kuitenkin."

Toivon syvasti, etta luuloni vihreiden radikalisoitumisesta tai pysyvammasta kallistumisesta selvasti vasemmalle osoittautuvat vaariksi. Toivottavasti puolueen ohjelmasta loytyy jatkossakin alykasta ajattelua, ymmarrysta markkinamekanismien tuomista terveista kannustimista ja uusien teknologioiden luomista mahdollisuuksista seka erityisesti riittavasti pragmaattista otetta. Idealismi ja realismi on taysin mahdollista sovittaa yhteen, vaikka se olisikin vahan kivuliasta.