Skip to main content

Google Loosing the Charm?

For years we've been so in love with Google. Don't deny it, a part of you smirks or even cringes when you see a colleuge searching with Yahoo or MSN. You feel better than "those hotmail kids" because you are Google is at the forefront of all that is technologically good and righteous, and we just can't get enough.

I think I've had enough.

Why am I using Microsoft's Live Earth instead of Google Maps/Local (they can't seem to draw a good line between the conjoined services)? Live's Image search is enough to make Google Image look like a cheap gallery on a geocities page. YouTube consistantly provides better content than Google Video, whose saving grace is the large video size by default and that you can rent Night of the Living Dead. I'm desperately looking for something to replace Google Reader for my feed consumption, and eagerly awaiting Divmod to reopen Quotent so I can pay them to not have to use GMail anymore. Google recently launched their long-rumored calender service, and I've been using it but am continually frustrated by the interface's inconsistancies.

The various things that lead me to realize more and more that Google isn't so fantastic have also opened my eyes to an interesting revelation: their web-app interfaces are pretty poor. Simple is good, so they seem to drop features just to make it look clean, but end up with a stump of what could have been. And, I'm continually tired of the lack of interconnectiveness with all the Google app's that I use. Blogger, GMail, Reader, Calender, and its like I'm using them all from seperate venders.

Google, what are you paying all those PhD's to spend the 80% of their time on? At the rate Live is improving and companies like 37signals are tossing out great web-apps, you're going to fade away and be lucky if you salvage a place in the world as a mediocre advertisement channel.


Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.

CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…