This week marks the first year of living with +Google Glass—not one year, but the first. As in there is more to come.
I still remember seeing the +UPS truck downstairs, setting Glass up for the first time and more. The journey since then has been so exciting, surprising and constantly refreshing—we are in uncharted territory and everything is so new.
And, genuinely, for me, Glass continues to bring magic to life. It has positively changed how I interact with technology, whether it is getting directions, searching +Google, sending a message or just taking a photo without missing the moments that matter. This weekend in New York, as with many other situations, I really felt like I got to push technology out of the way most of the time and explore, while also relive the moments exactly as they happened afterwards.
Glass invigorates me with the same energy I felt when arriving in New York for the first time: ever-changing, nonstop innovation and undying optimism and belief in core ideals.
Of course there are a whole list of improvements Glass can undergo. Of course there are situations where Glass is not suitable and where I don't wear Glass, just like regular glasses or smartphones. But, I think most people forget that this is a highly beta project and still a Google moonshot, just like +Project Loon, +Google Fiber, and the +Google Self-Driving Car Project.
Personally, I don't think Glass will ever be a failure for Google however this goes—it will either continue to evolve or be a valuable insight into wearable technology for the future. So, while the haters continue to hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, we, the players, are gonna play, play, play, play, play, as +Taylor Swift eloquently puts it.
The media may write whatever they wish about Google like how +Google+ is going to die, or Glass or even Taylor Swift, but I'd rather spend my energy supporting risk-takers, the future, the ideals they stand for and a better life. All these risk-taking brands and people I support are far more than what the media portrays—just look at Taylor's actual album sales versus what experts projected. Plus, the broad reception I receive from the public about Glass just does not align with how the media usually characterizes it as.
Sharing the magic with various people and seeing their faces light up with joy as they learn about what is true continues to give me goosebumps.
Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, is at it again, complaining about +Google and blaming its dooms on Google's success (http://goo.gl/VMKeJ6 via +ReadWrite). In the past years, Microsoft has gotten so jealous that it has practically forgotten all that's good with itself. And so, a short story...
"A farmer in a village had a goat and a donkey. The farmer used to make the donkey work hard and fed him good food - carrots, radish, corn, etc. The goat was very unhappy since it had to find food on it's own and eat grass. It became very jealous of the donkey.
The goat thought of a plan. The goat thought that if the donkey stopped working, it would get the good food the donkey got from the farmer. So the goat pushed the donkey into a large hole. The donkey was badly hurt and it could not walk.
The farmer became very sad seeing the donkey's bad health condition. He wanted the donkey to recover soon from illness since he had to get work from the donkey. The farmer thought that feeding the donkey with goat's soup might make the donkey recover from illness soon. Hence, the farmer killed the goat and gave the donkey it's soup.
So instead of getting the donkey's food, the goat itself became food for the donkey."
Microsoft is a strong company. With lots of potential. But instead of focusing on how it can fulfill its potential, it has entered an endless cycle, twisting itself into a windsor knot, to try to take out Google. To try and use taxpayer's dollars against a company which individuals choose to use at his or her discretion. To try and get governments to "control" Google, even after the Federal Trade Commission found no wrongdoing.
Ballmer, stop with the fabricated claims Microsoft and +FairSearch.org continually create, especially when Microsoft does the same thing. Stop being a company so jealous of another that you forget all that's good with yourself. Stop getting so hell-bent at destroying Google because you think their success has led to your doom. Stop yourself from deteriorating, caused by your laser focus on Google. Stop being the goat.
Or else one day, Microsoft will vanish into the state of nothing. Don't Scroogle yourself.
Ballmer, you're leaving soon. Stand for something. Leave a legacy of morality at Microsoft. Of instilling values that were lost in the past decade. Of humility. Of innovation. Of truthfulness. Because Microsoft can achieve so much, if it focused on what mattered, itself.
Look at +T-Mobile. Look at +Yahoo! These companies were perceived to be doomed. Yet, in the past months, they have refocused on themselves and they're becoming the underdog that people are starting to take seriously again. T-Mobile, whose focus on innovative plans and programs, and not its CEO's harsh criticisms of other carriers, is now a beacon of hope for many people who are fed up with traditional mobile carriers. Yahoo!, whose focus on recreating a gorgeous experience, has attracted back both users and employees.
Microsoft. You can do it. I want a day when I can't wait to get my hands on a Microsoft product. A day when I am excited about Microsoft's releases. But that will not happen when all you do is steer me in the direction of looking at Google.
Over the past seven years, I have been a member of the +Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest and most well-known youth organizations in the nation, founded in 1910. In 2012, I became an Eagle Scout. Looking back, I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the program, which has given me countless challenges, experiences and opportunities; these have all improved and shaped my life.
The Boy Scouts of America, along with other aspects of my background, has also caused me to become an advocate of the most basic of human rights. That is, every individual should be treated equally and is entitled to his or her own opinions (thoughts, morals, values) and the guarantee of the freedoms of assembly, expression, religion and speech, so far as the resulting actions do not impose physical danger or harm to others within society.
Therefore, not surprisingly, I feel strongly in regards to the controversial Boy Scout policy, a national ban on gay members and leaders.
Since BSA's establishment, it has aimed to "prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." As a result of this mission, the BSA won a Supreme Court case in 2000 which upheld its national ban on gays. BSA simply stated that it excluded such members because "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill."
However, to me, restricting membership access ultimately betrays the BSA's mission altogether, more so than "homosexual conduct," due to BSA's firm ideology of treating everyone equally, a conclusion I came to throughout my years as a Boy Scout.
Duty to my country and being morally straight.
As a Scout, one promises the following, as part of the Scout Oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
One phrase sticks out to me in particular: "To do my duty to God and my country." It is my belief that following the Pledge of Allegiance, also something each Scout must know, is the soundest way to fulfill the duties as a citizen for one's country. That very Pledge says:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In the Scout Handbook, "with liberty and justice for all" is described as "with freedom and fairness for every person in the country - you and every other American." Clearly, doing one's duty to the country involves treating each individual equally and giving each person the same type of access regardless of their individual beliefs, morals and values.
Another phrase is important to me: "morally straight." Think what you may, but the official Scout Handbook states that this means "to be a person of strong character... you should respect and defend the rights of all people." Again, the Scout Handbook alone explicitly states the contrary of the intention of the BSA's anti-gay policy.
The Scout Law.
The Scout Law is "the foundation of Scouting, expressed in just twelve simple points."
A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
Quite obviously, there are a couple traits that should immediately be emphasized when discussing the issue of providing equal membership for gay members and leaders. The following traits and summary definitions are per the Scout Handbook.
Friendly - A Scout "offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own. Accept who you are, too, and celebrate the fact that you don't have to be just like everyone else. Real friends respect the ideas, interests, and talents that make you special.
The Scout Law, as per the Scout Handbook.
Clean - "There's another kind of dirt, though, that can't be scrubbed away. It is the kind that shows up in foul language and harmful thoughts and actions. Swearwords and dirty stories are often used as weapons to ridicule other people and hurt their feelings. The same is true of racial slurs and jokes that make fun of ethnic groups or people with physical or mental limitations. A Scout knows there is no kindness or honor in such tasteless behavior. He avoids it in his own words or deeds."
In these two traits of the Scout Law alone, the Scouting organization (in a perfect world) clearly believes that everyone, regardless of their background, beliefs, origin or race should be fully accepted and treated as an equal. The Scouting organization is violating various parts of the Scout Law by not respecting people of different beliefs and not allowing those people to "accept" themselves.
As a result of the violations of "friendly" and "clean" of the Scout Law, the BSA violates several other traits as well.
Obedience - Obedience must be guided by good judgment. If someone tells you to cheat, steal or do something else you know is wrong, you must say no. Trust your own beliefs and obey your conscience when you know you are right.
Brave - Saving lives is not the only test of bravery. You are brave every time you do what is right in spite of what others might say. You are brave when you speak the truth and when you admit a mistake and apologize for it. And you show true courage when you defend the rights of others.
Personal experience.
Whether it is in my own Troop or at a summer camp, I have had the fortunate opportunity to meet many people, from all walks of life with hundreds of different beliefs on everything. This diversity created a better environment and allowed me to foster and grow. It made me a better person who was more open-minded to the people of this world.
From my personal experience, the ban on gay members and leaders is a policy that is rarely enforced in the lower tiers of Scouting. Not only is it virtually unenforceable, but the majority of the population also realizes the stubbornness of the policy. The world is becoming a more open place, and the BSA should learn to adapt if it wants to survive.
The Boy Scouts of America is an organization that aims to educate youth on values, and making ethical and moral choices based on the values described above. What does this say about the BSA when the organization outlines various values but does not follow through?
It is understandable why the BSA would implement such policies. While it may seem as if it would reduce the amount of unwanted sexual conduct within the BSA, it does not accomplish that at all. On the contrary, it hinders the speed at which the BSA can fulfill their mission. More importantly, the American justice system is proudly known for its "innocent until proven guilty" mantra. Labeling all gay members and leaders automatically as sex offenders is hurtful and immoral.
A good analogy would be travel. Though many terrorist attacks have been associated with people of Middle Eastern descent, those same people do not automatically get banned from traveling, or even restrictions on where they can travel. It is only if they pose a credible threat that they get put on a no-fly list, or arrested at the airport.
Each individual is equal, despite the different beliefs we each have, which ultimately make the world a better place. It is my sincere hope, that in the near future, any boy or man who wants an opportunity to grow and learn in the Boy Scout program will be able to do so without unequal treatment.
What are your thoughts? No matter what your viewpoint, add your voice to the discussion, because it should be heard. Discussion is the best thing possible for progress.
"What the Girls Scouts and the Boy Scouts are trying to teach is important. They're trying to teach kids to be leaders. And the more that we teach people how to accept people for who they are, the more self-confident they'll be and the better leaders they'll become."
Yesterday, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) came to a conclusion regarding the +Google antitrust investigation. To be clear, it was not a win for Google or a loss for Microsoft/+FairSearch.org. Instead, the findings of the FTC were a triumphant win for choice, innovation and justice. In summary, the FTC has closed its investigation on Google after approximately 20 months of thoroughly investigating Google's business and found that Google is not an anticompetitive, monopolistic power that brings harms to consumers.
Of course, not everyone is happy, namely Microsoft, perhaps the most outspoken of technology companies to accuse Google of anticompetitive practices. Dave Heiner, Microsoft's Vice President and Deputy General Counsel took to a long blog post to describe why Microsoft is not content with what the FTC has found. He forgets that Microsoft/Bing does some of the same things it accuses Google of doing, and mentions a few points that lack evidence or are incorrect.
Data Portability
Microsoft's Heiner has this to say about "data portability:"
For years Google has publicly championed the virtues of "data portability" - the idea that customers ought to be able to use their own data in products from various companies. But in practice, Google effectively prohibited its primary paying customers (advertisers) from using data about their own advertising campaigns on any ad platform other than Google's.
That, however, is simply untrue. Yes, Google does have a strong belief on data portability, as its Data Liberation Front has shown. Google states that "Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google's products" and it is one of the only companies to have such a location for easily and quickly exporting data out of Google.
One of the topics in the Data Liberation Front is "AdWords," and shows users how to export any ad campaign. As Google notes, "Advertisers can already export their ad campaigns from Google AdWords." There is even a lovely video to help anyone who does not understand.
Similarly, that is all Microsoft's Bing allows you to do as well, as shown in this help page. There is not even a helpful video to guide the user, or any other option other than CSV. Google also announced yesterday that in response to the FTC, they will voluntarily enable advertisers to "mix and copy ad campaign data within third-party services that use [Google's] AdWords API." So where's the problem here, Microsoft?
Microsoft's Heiner spent two lengthy paragraphs outlining the problem and detailing how Microsoft would have remedied the problem. But wait, Microsoft restricts exports to the same exact thing as Google, and now less than.
Patents
There is also a blurb about "standard essential patents," or those patents that are so essential to standard technological innovations that they should be licensed fairly to everyone. Google, when purchasing Motorola, also continued the ongoing litigation disputes with Microsoft, Apple and others, "seeking to block Microsoft and others from shipping Windows-based PCs and Xboxes that implement the relevant standards," as Heiner notes in the blog.
As we all know, 2012 was the year of patents. The American patent system is severely in need of reform, and Google had to do anything and everything it could to defend itself and the vibrant Android ecosystem. Google has been one of the most outspoken companies regarding patent reform, but what could it do when laws were not changed and the issue not address? Take matters into its own hands and use the patents it did have to the best of its ability.
When Apple can sue Android and other manufacturers on the grounds that pinch-to-zoom uses two fingers or a phone has a rectangular, 4-inch design, Google should be able to do anything and everything it can to protect itself. Microsoft did something similar to Apple, and asked (and continues to ask) manufacturers for extremely high royalties, just because. Google is merely "bleeding out" until the issue is confronted. Yet, the whole story is never disclosed from Microsoft or Apple's perspective. Though those used by Apple and Microsoft may not be "standard essential patents," the relevant patents were basic, and some have even been recalled by the respective patent offices.
YouTube-Windows Phone App
Windows Phone has gotten off to a rough start in the mobile industry dominated by +Android and iOS devices, sheerly because of both platform's robust innovation (and the lack of on Windows Phone). Despite the Microsoft campaigns to criticize Google instead of focusing on the actual Microsoft product, it has continued to use it as an opportunity to out Google as anti-competitive, which is simply not true (and quite obvious).
Windows Phone has one of the lowest market shares in the industry, only in the single-digit area compared to Android and iOS's commanding double-digit lead. For the most up-to-date research, one only needs to enter a simple search query on your preferred search engine. Similarly, the Windows Store of apps only boasts 150,000 applications, compared to Android and iOS's 700,000 count.
As any regular person should know, there are many things that need to get done in life. Each person has to allocate valuable time and resources into the most meaningful activities. Technology companies must do the same thing. That explains why Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter all have no native applications for Windows Phone (except for the Facebook/Twitter apps that Microsoft built).
Yet, Microsoft is painting the absence of the YouTube app as a severe antitrust violation of Google, stating that "Google continues to prevent Microsoft from offering a high-quality YouTube app for Windows Phone." Though a large company, Google still has limited money, resources and time. It must allocate how to build apps and services in a manner that creates a great user experience, allows the most consumers to benefit, while also allowing Google to remain a profitable company (that's how the services continue to operate). Google is not, and should no way be under any obligation to build apps for every single operating system available on the market, or give up its own data so that others can build the app for them - that simply is impossible and unrealistic, as I explain in my Google+ post. Google's goal has always been "to be present on all major platforms and we [Google] want to offer the best possible experience." (Daniel Graf, director of Google Maps for Mobile).
Google also states that YouTube is available on Windows Phone, contrary to Microsoft's statement, via the HTML5-based mobile website, which includes HQ video and all the features that are present in any YouTube app. They also claim they've worked directly with Microsoft to build a great YouTube experience on Windows. In the end, Google does not benefit by excluding users from accessing YouTube anyways, see the linked post.
Search Bias
Heiner also asserts that "Google routinely and systematically heavily promotes its own services in search results." However, the only instances Google does that is when its technology can find a quick answer. As Google states, a "truly great search is all about turning your needs into actions in the blink of an eye." Studies have shown that speed increases satisfaction when it comes to technology, and Google, like any other company, is focused on consumer satisfaction.
Even if that still does not convince you of its effectiveness, Microsoft's Bing and other search engines have implemented what Google has done; they promote their own services, as +Search Engine Land has pointed out in this article (as well as the FTC in their press conference, stating that "Google's search engine rivals engaged in many of the same product design choices that Google did, suggesting that this practice can benefit consumers"). Search Engine Land visualizes what this exactly means.
Search Engine Land continues,
That's [above] a side-by-side comparison I [Search Engine Land] did of how Google (on the left) and Bing (on the right) both 'favor' themselves in various ways... Pick your search, and you can find Bing or Yahoo 'favoring' themselves in all the same ways that Google is accused of.
So Microsoft's point is invalid - it's an industry standard, and is obviously proven to improve the quality of search results for consumers.
But then, Heiner continues his harassment by stating, "Is Google+ really more relevant than Facebook?" Presumably, this is an allusion to Google's inclusion of information from its own properties into its organic search engine, as part of its effort in Universal and social search, also dubbed Search, Plus Your World. That may be a valid point, but really is not valid at all. For one, no one can judge the relevance of a search engine, except for the creator. If the quality of the search engine is poor, users will automatically leave. Any other individual has a biased view on the "relevance" of a search engine. Secondly, the reason Facebook (and Twitter) information are not included in the search results actually links back to Facebook and Twitter themselves. Both (Facebook to a larger degree) are walled gardens and have not given Google explicit permission to be included in the search result, as +Eric Schmidt once explained in this video.
Google commented specifically on Twitter when the microblog criticized Google's "Search, Plus Your World" after their agreement giving Google access to Twitter's public tweets expired. Google stated that they were "a bit surprised by Twitter's comments, because they chose not to renew their agreement with us [Google] last summer... sine then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions." That is code that prevents search engines from following links, as Mashable details in this article.
As Schmidt and Google have expressed, they'd like and be happy to include information from Facebook and other sites in their universal search engine. That is simply not possible at this time. Google's mission is to "organize the world's information," not to organize information on Google only.
Heiner is not done yet. He continues to try and (unsuccessfully) deal a blow to Google by bringing up shopping, asserting that "Google ranks shopping results (the most important category commercially) in part on the basis of how much advertisers pay Google for placement, after very publicly promising that it would never do so. This does not sound like product improvement."
Wait for it. Microsoft does the exact same thing. Once again, Search Engine Land has an article detailing Microsoft's pure anti-Google campaign, ignoring the fact that it has the same practices. The article goes so far as to say "Bing is hardly in a position to be lecturing Google about poor disclosure and charging for listings, when it has the same issues."
In fact, Microsoft is even more deceptive when it comes to this issue, as Search Engine Land notes.
The key difference is that Google's results have a 'Sponsored' disclaimer over it, one that even expands with more information if you hover over the label (though few likely do this). Bing has no such disclaimer, despite the fact that some of its listings come through merchants paying to appear."
All three accusations of Google biasing search results have seen Microsoft and Bing do the exact same thing, even going so far as to outright copy what Google does. Heiner and Co. should work on gathering the right facts to ensure they don't do the same thing it accuses others of doing it. How can Microsoft say it is immoral if they commit to the same things?
The True Intent of Microsoft and FairSearch
As Earl Warren once said, "The focus of our law is on protecting competition, not competitors." Microsoft, and the rest of FairSearch have tried to use regulators to stop Google's success. Google became an integral part of the Internet because consumers chose to use it, and continue to find it valuable, not because they were forced. Competition is a click away, and the Internet remains the ultimate level playing field.
Ironically, at the time of writing this post, the only comments on the blog from Microsoft's Heiner were those negatively directed at Microsoft, not Google.
Ricardo, on the Microsoft blog had this to say.
I actually didn't know about this whole deal with Google and FTC, and as I read more about it, it became quite blatant that the whole thing was schemed by Microsoft... That's a shady move, wasting government money on a dead end investing just to stifle competition... Anyway, now that I'm aware of your practices, I won't take the bait anymore, and in my company, what has windows already, will stay as it is, and will take a look on what the competition has to offer. You lost a customer today, not by the merit of the competition, but by your practices...
Gaurav states something similar.
Microsoft never did anything useful and stole or bought technology from others. Now you are crying fowl when you agree not capable of innovation. In the long run no one ever won with scheming and cheating. Grow up MS and learn to improve your own products else consumers would just leave you in totality...
Donal McIntyre also comes to the defense of Google.
Google didn't have to modify its practices in search because there was nothing to modify. One thing is to use anti-trust law to protect the public from monopolistic practices and another to protect competitors offering worse products and services. Anti trust is not to protect losing rivals its to protect consumers. ONLY anti-trust may be used to favor competitors if that leads to better products at lower prices. For now Google is offering the best search products at the best prices (zero $).
ReadWriteWeb, on its own article, even called Microsoft's failure to convince antitrust regulators to take action against Google as "the biggest disappointment in Microsoft's history."
After a 19-month investigation and despite much prodding from Microsoft, the Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Google that basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.
This is a crushing blow to Microsoft, which has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and phony grassroots groups over the past several years hoping to land Google in hot water.
Indeed, Microsoft's obsession with Google doesn't just border on crazy. It is crazy, and not just a little tiny bit crazy but full-blown, bunny-boiling, Ahab-versus-the-whale nutso.
...here in the States, the whole campaign is starting to look not just evil but also ridiculous and even pathetic, a failed crusade that smacks of revenge and failure and sad psychodrama.
Perhaps the ending to the article is the best.
Microsoft has spent the past 10 years missing out on every big new trend - search, social, mobile. Instead of looking inward and trying to fix its own problems, Microsoft has become ever more obsessed with Google.
The crusade extends to PR as well. Last year Microsoft hired Mark Penn, the pollster and PR guy who led Hillary Clinton's 2008 train wreck of a campaign. Penn's mission is to create smear campaigns about Google. One of his big brainstorms was the "Scroogled" campaign which tried to persuade people that Google's search results are tainted by advertising... it even created a site, scroogled.com, and urged people to complain about Google on Facebook.
Then came the "Droid Rage" ploy, where Microsoft used its Windows Phone account on Twitter to ask Android users to send in Android malware stories to win a prize. The campaign backfired when Android fans used the hashtag to mock Microsoft.
Going negative might work in politics, but when you're selling products it's probably wiser to tout the virtues of your own product. The risk Microsoft is taking is that by howling about Google, Microsoft starts to look like a company that can no longer compete, a desperate dinosaur that has toppled into a tar pit... Keep up the great work, Microsoft.
That article summarized everything so perfectly there really is nothing else to say.
Google's Statement Regarding the FTC's Findings
Larry and Sergey founded Google because they believed that building a great search experience would improve people's lives. And in the decade-plus that's followed, Google has worked hard to make it quicker and easier for users to find what they need. In the early days you would type in a query, we'd return 10 blue links and you'd have to click on them individually to find what you wanted. Today we can save you the hassle by providing direct answers to your questions, as well as links to other sites. So if you type in [weather in san francisco], or [tom hanks movies], we now give you the answer right from the results page - because truly great search is all about turning your needs into actions in the blink of an eye.
The announcement by the FTC is welcomed, and allows Google to re-focus all of its operations back on the user. Microsoft can continue to attempt portraying Google as an evil company, but consumers will be smarter than to just accept that view. Information is available everywhere now for consumers to research, thanks to the power of your preferred search engine.
