Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Price Of Google In China


Google Beijing by pamhuleThe news this past week that Google would cease the censorship of its search results in China, and could well be forced to entirely halt operations in the country as a result, is quite simply one of the most interesting stories to come along in the tech sphere in a long time. The reality is that it's not just a tech story; it spills into the world of international politics and beyond. And it could have wide-reaching ramifications far into the future. Did I mention there was hacking involved and potential espionage?

There are just so many angles to this story, and nearly everyone seems to have an opinion. Two of those we covered earlier in the week included Sarah's take that Google's actions were more about business (or a lack thereof) for the company in China. Paul, meanwhile, was quick to dampen the cheers from Silicon Valley that Google was doing the right thing, arguing they're four years too late for this new stance to have any moral weight. Mike followed this up with a comment on the post, "The problem with un-censoring now is that it further reinforces that the decision was the wrong one from the beginning, and that they knew full well it was wrong even when they made it." All of that rings true. But I disagree.

My position is a simple one that is twofold: it's never too late to do the right thing. And it's never wrong to do the right thing.

The people hooting and hollering immediately following Google's post on the matter may have been being a bit naive about some of the causes behind this move, but that doesn't make their immediate reaction that this is great news, any less true. Should Google have made concessions to China four years ago, veering off from their "don't be evil" philosophy? No. But that's easy to say when you're not trying to run a company that grew from a project in a garage to a multi-billion dollar business with users all over the world and public shareholders looking at the bottom line.

Many accounts have Google's initial China decision boiling down to CEO Eric Schmidt convincing co-founder Sergey Brin that it was the right thing to do for the business. Further, there was apparently talk that with a foothold in China, Google would be in a better position to change things from the outside in. That argument, along with point 8 in Google's "Ten Things Philosophy" (The need for information crosses all borders), may have convinced him to cede points one (Focus on the user and all else will follow.), four (Democracy on the web works.), and six (You can make money without doing evil.) Without making the filtering concessions, Google simply would have never have been allowed to operate in China.

Obviously, the outside in approach to changing things didn't work as well as Google may have hoped, but it may not have been a total disaster either. After all, while Google may not have had a strong foothold in the Chinese search market from an overall perspective, indications are that they did have a very solid hold of the better educated, young elite class in China. Those are the same users that are likely to one day be running some of the most powerful technology companies in the country. And they're apparently not happy about the prospect of losing the ability to use Google. Are they going to overthrown the Communist government? Not likely. But they could add significant pressure in the push to open things up more.

The sad fact of the matter is that while Google may have wrongly bent to China, so too have many companies in the past. And those companies are still doing it. And many more will in the future. Google no longer is, and assuming they stick to their word, no longer will. Again, no matter the reason, and no matter the timing, that means something.

And it especially means something coming from a company as big and as powerful as Google. Rival Yahoo has already come out in support of Google's new stance, and that's despite their substantial ownership in the large Chinese Internet company Alibaba (which criticized Yahoo's praise of Google). And so has no less than the White House. It'd be nice to see Microsoft come out in support as well (especially since their software is apparently to blame for the hacking), but they're not doing that. But thanks to Google's new stance on the matter, they'll be criticized for it more than they would have been in the past. Google's position may not hold the moral high ground, but it is shaking things up, and that matters more.

Also, I don't care who you are or what your current market share is, it takes balls to walk away from China's 1.3 billion potential customers and fast-moving economy.

With technology, and the Internet in particular, becoming more integral in all of our daily lives, this entire situation could be just a sliver of what's to come. One blog post from one Internet company has ignited a debate that's really one we should have never stopped having. And it's now being played out in a type of information warfare ranging from China all the way to the White House (think it's any coincidence that China restored text messaging service in Xinjiang today after some six months of blackouts).

Google did the right thing. And as long as they keep doing the right thing, the "why" will continue to matter less. And hopefully it will send the more important message to other companies: it's never too late to do the right thing.

[photo: flickr/pamhule]


[link to original | source: TechCrunch | published: 1 day ago | shared via feedly]


After Google hack, Microsoft asks users to abandon IE6, XP


Microsoft is using a widely publicized flaw in Internet Explorer as a way to push users to upgrade both their browsers and operating systems. 

On its Security Research & Defense blog, Microsoft explains that while IE7 and IE8 on Windows Vista and Windows 7 both include the flawed code that was exploited in the recent Chinese attacks on Google, the publicly published exploit code only works against IE6 on Windows 2000 and Windows XP. So the company is urging users to think about upgrading their version of IE, or even their OS (which also results in a newer version of IE).

Read the rest of this article...


[link to original | source: Ars Technica - Front page content | published: 14 hours ago | shared via feedly]


HandBrake Abandons DivX As an Output Format


An anonymous reader writes "DivX was the first digital video format to really win mainstream acceptance, doing for movies what MP3 did for music (both good and bad). Eventually even Sony, the king of proprietary formats, caved into pressure and added DivX support to its DVD players and the PlayStation 3. Now HandBrake's developers have made an interesting choice for version 0.9.4 — they ditched support for AVI files using DivX and XviD. Your only option now is to convert DVDs and other media to MKV or MP4 files, with the option to save as Apple-friendly M4V files. So why is HandBrake ditching AVI and XviD support when it's a format that's won such widespread acceptance? In the words of the developers, 'AVI is a rough beast. It is obsolete.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.


[link to original | source: Slashdot | published: 1 day ago | shared via feedly]


Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Cost-benefit analysis: net neutrality makes economic sense


Most arguments in favor of net neutrality regulation focus on fairness to the public. Definitions of "net neutrality" often characterize it as a principle that fosters free speech on the Internet. But a new study contends that barring ISPs from favoring certain content providers is more than a good concept—it's also sound economic policy.

"Without net neutrality rules, new technologies could lead to pricing practices that transfer wealth from content providers to ISPs," warns the Institute for Policy Integrity, "a form of price discrimination that would reduce the return on investment for Internet content—meaning website owners, bloggers, newspapers, and businesses would have less incentive to expand their sites and applications." 

Such a reallocation of resources would hobble investment in the 'Net overall, concludes Free to Invest: The Economic Benefits of Preserving Net Neutrality (cheat sheet version here).

Read the rest of this article...


[link to original | source: Ars Technica - Front page content | published: 3 hours ago | shared via feedly]


This Will Be The Year Adobe’s 2 Million Flash Developers Come To The iPhone


It's no secret that Apple doesn't like Flash. It won't allow Flash apps to run on the iPhone or iPod Touch despite all of Adobe's cajoling and pleading, and despite the fact that it's long been working in the labs. The iPhone's lack of support for Flash is a major inconvenience for both consumers and developers, and is a gaping hole in the iPhone's arsenal.

But all of that is about to change because Adobe is going to bring its 2 million Flash developers to the iPhone, with or without Apple's blessing. As it announced in October, the next version of its Flash developer tools, Creative Suite 5 (currently in private beta), will include a "Packager for iPhone" apps which will automatically convert any Flash app into an iPhone app. So while Flash apps won't run on the iPhone, any Flash app can easily be converted into an iPhone app. (Microsoft is taking a similar approach with Silverlight). This is a bigger deal than many people appreciate.

Much of the focus in the Flash iPhone debate centers around the fact that Flash is the de facto video standard on the Web. For instance, whenever you encounter a Web page in your iPhone browser with a Flash video, instead of seeing it right there in the browser, the phone must open up a separate Quicktime player. Most video on the Web, including everything on YouTube, is displayed through a Flash player, so this gets to be tedious. Apple has always cited technical reasons for why it doesn't support Flash. It's a battery hog, it's too slow for mobile phones, not capable enough, etc. Some of these issues are valid and Adobe has been addressing them to the point that Flash now works fine on Android.

But there is a more strategic reason Apple kept Flash off the iPhone. It wanted a chance to become ingrained with developers. In addition to video, Flash, of course, can be used to create Web apps—the kind of apps that might look good on a phone. Apple had to hold off Flash not so to control the video experience on the iPhone, but because it needed to establish its own Apple-controlled iPhone SDK. The last thing it needed was a competing developer platform getting in the way.

Once Adobe publicly releases CS5, Flash apps and video still won't run on the iPhone. But those 2 million developers will be able to keep working with Adobe tools and simply turn them into iPhone apps automatically. In contrast, there are only an estimated 125,000 or so iPhone developers. This will lower the barriers to making iPhone apps even more than they are today, which may or may not be a good thing. But if you thought there were a lot of iPhone apps now, just wait until the Flash floodgates are open.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it's time for you to find a new Job2.0


[link to original | source: TechCrunch | published: 1 day ago | shared via feedly]