Google IO 2012: Project Glass

Let's say I was developing a product with huge potential for privacy concerns and that my company was already under constant scrutiny for privacy issues, in part because the success of my business is dependent on stripping as much personal information from my users as possible. Maybe I would be worried about releasing that product and possible repercussions.

I think I might try doing a soft launch, call it a beta. I would do it to a small number of people, preferably fans of my company, who are highly enthusiastic, dedicated and talented. I would give those people the tools to play with it and come up with their own ideas for its use.

If bad things happen, if anyone takes issue with the product or the uses it's put to, I can take some cover behind its beta status. I can also claim that any privacy intrusive uses or life threatening results were not the fault of my company, rather it was the tragic result of a few rogue beta testers and developers. I can gauge overall public reaction by watching how many issues arise, how often the product is banned from use in certain venues, what percentage of people complain when they see the product used in their vicinity. I can prepare for issues before they arise in a full product launch.

"No senator, it was never our intention that this product would be used in that manner."

I might even model my entire approach to the beta after Google's Project Glass introduction at Google IO 2012.

Adobe: Mobile Flash Out to Pasture August 15th

Adobe has announced that they will no longer provide Flash for Android devices after August 15th. Devices that already have it installed will still be able to use it, but it will not be available for new users.

Essentially, after Android 4.1 Jelly Bean, no more Flash installs or updates will be provided, and the old versions that users already have will likely become increasingly unstable as Android updates are installed over top of the old Flash versions.

Coincidentally, before I noticed this announcement, I was reading an old (several months) thread on the release of the iPad 3 and chuckling at the bile and venom from posters about the lack of Flash on Apple devices. The fact that Adobe had already announced a discontinuation of Flash for mobile browsers didn't phase them one bit. The end is nigh, accept it.

Google IO 2012: Nexus Q

Prediction: DOA.

One of the selling points they focused on was the ability to let a friend who is visiting your home share their Google Play library to your stereo/TV via your Nexus Q.

OK, so, I'm going to buy this little device so that if my friend comes over to visit and if they have an Android device and if they use Google Play to get music/videos then we can use their content at my house. That's a dead on arrival selling point. It's something that I might take advantage of if I already have the Nexus Q for some other reason, but I wouldn't buy with that use case specifically in mind. Especially for $299. No way.

Then what is the selling point for Nexus Q? It looks to be a way to stream your music/videos throughout your home, like Apple's AirTunes or Airplay. Like a number of other systems that are available for tapping into a library on your PC and streaming content to your stereo/TV. Like Microsoft's media center technology.

I don't see the Nexus Q going anywhere today, but if Google sticks with it like Apple has stuck with Apple TV as a hobby, maybe someday.

Google IO 2012: Google Now

Google spoke about their Google Now tech and it's capabilities in Android 4.1 Jelly Bean at the day 1 Google IO 2012 keynote today.

It sounds awesome in its ability to tap into everything Google knows about you to present you information about your schedule and surroundings before you even ask for it. However... its strength is also the largest point of concern. It leverages all the info Google has collected about you. It works best if Google knows more about you than you do. Its effectiveness depends on centralized, privacy intrusive knowledge.

Many users are going to be oblivious to the amount of privacy they surrender to Google in order to power these services. If they knew, I don't think they'd be happy about it. Depending on the ignorance of users as a business plan is a questionable practice and will eventually come back to bite them -- think, Congressional inquiries.

Ideally, I would prefer a decentralized approach to a service like Google Now. My personal information should be distributed across services that vend that information to client apps I give permission to. So, one company may have my calendar information, another my travel plans, a third my social info, etc. An aggregating client app can do what Google Now does by pulling my info from those various sources to create an aggregate view that no single data service can provide alone. Distributing my information across many sources makes my information more private (through the prevention of aggregation) but still allows that information to be aggregated locally by special purpose software. The key is that aggregation happens locally, under my control, not without my knowledge on the servers of a company that looks to profit off that information whether I allow it or not.

Linux Hosting Popular Because It's Open Source?

Regarding a couple of statements from this article.

People have a variety of reasons but most of them pick Linux hosting because it is open source.

No.

Another reason why customers opt for Linux is that it allows them to employ other technologies that are open source as well.

No.

The vast majority use Linux as a server OS and technologies such as PHP, HTML5, Javascript and various other scripting languages when building websites because they are free to use and there are a variety of resources available to learn and leverage these technologies. Of course there are open source advocates that support these technologies in part because they are open source. But these users are a minority overall. Open source users who actually change the source code for these open source projects for their own purposes also exist, but are an even smaller contingent overall. Open source advocates would like to believe that anyone using open source software is a rabid advocate of open source as a philosophy, but the truth is much more pragmatic. Good, free tools attract users regardless of the philosophy behind them.

Note, the linked article is an even handed explanation of Linux vs. Windows hosting and I don't think the author intended the quoted statements above to indicate a slanted view toward open source advocacy. But the quotes are representative of a false cause and effect relationship - if popular software is open source, it doesn't follow that it is popular because it is open source.