Google

Google Wave preview needs clear explanation of platform’s versatility

Google launched its wider Wave initiative, and it seems clear from early reaction that a lot of people are still trying to get a handle on just what Wave is. The classic question is, “Why can’t I do the same thing with XYX?” where the variable is anything from email or IM to telepresence.

As we see it, this isn’t the right question for a bunch of reasons. First, you can hammer a nail with a crescent wrench (we, like many others, have done that a couple times ourselves), but it’s not the right tool. The first step toward a relevant question to generate an appropriate appreciation of Wave would be to ask whether any of the alternatives could be an optimal tool. Second, we believe that even this optimality story falls short of the mark. Wave is a platform that could support a model of collaboration that we do not envision today because we have no reasonable mechanism to support it.

Wave is a flexible tool that we could build practices around. Many of the things we do with computers today (like writing blogs) are natural extensions of the typewriter process, and so a computer word processor can be conceptualized by applying it to typing tasks. But spread sheets? Some say they’re extensions of accounting sheets, but anyone who’s ever taken accounting knows how thin that analogy is. Other tools like GPS are further off the wall.

But many articles are grasping one truth — Google needs to make the value of Wave clear. A use case alone won’t do that because it doesn’t show the versatility. A host of use cases might, and a hierarchy would be best of all. Can Google produce this, or will it open the door to a new collaboration model only to have someone else walk through it? That’s the question we’d like to see answered, and we think Google would also like that.

AT&T swipes at Google in net neutrality debate

AT&T is punching back at Google’s long advocacy of net neutrality, accusing the company of violating its own principles with Google Voice. The primary issue is that Google blocks calls to rural exchanges that charge high termination fees per call. Google says that’s because Voice is a free service, and that in any event, it’s not a telco and isn’t bound by net neutrality principles.

The free voice argument is a weak one because Google doesn’t admit telcos could reject net neutrality principles for lack of profit, and the net neutrality argument is a weak public position at a time when the FCC is considering broader net neutrality scope.

We think the play will raise some essential questions about whether net neutrality needs to be carefully structured to avoid creating what in effect is market-by-avoidance.

Does Gmail outage open the door for Operations as a Service?

Google’s Gmail suffered yet another publicized outage, which is raising concerns not only about whether the Google system is really ready for serious use, but whether SaaS and cloud computing overall might be exposing enterprises to more risk than they bargained for.

Data on the paid version of the service isn’t available so we can’t be sure whether the paid traffic is doing better in terms of reliability, but certainly many users would try the free version first to decide whether to commit to a paid equivalent.

We believe Google is on the horns of a major dilemma, in that it needs to start creating a for-pay model in application, computing and even video streaming services, and to do that, it needs something more than best efforts. That not only means its own platforms have to be very reliable. It means its network connections need to be good, too.

This may be the issue that will spawn more constructive dialog with network operators on premium handling, but rumor says the last talks were stymied by the question of who supports the customer. Operators need to think about making their own operations/support process highly efficient so they can not only boost their own net profit but sell operations as a service too Google.

Google Voice, Apple, AT&T and the FCC: The flap continues

Google has released some information that suggests that Apple’s statements to the FCC in July about blocking Google Voice were not correct, and the rumor is that even more damning information is available at Google for release should Apple not reconsider its position.

Apple claimed that its “rejection” of the Google Voice application was for look-and-feel reasons, but the Google release suggests it was explicitly because Google Voice competed with basic Apple/AT&T functionality, something the FCC would likely rule on.

This issue could bite both Apple and AT&T because an actual false statement to the FCC would be bad politics, at the minimum. We say this because it’s not clear whether the FCC really has authority over Apple and handsets. The FCC would have to contend that Apple was simply a stalking horse for AT&T interests in this case, and AT&T is within the FCC’s jurisdictional web.

Motorola’s Android phone: good but compelling enough?

Motorola has launched the Cliq smartphone, its first Android operating system model and one that offers users a kind of “mashup” launch page called Blur (not much marketing zip) that consolidates social network, email, and IM into a single page.

Motorola has been a major laggard in the smartphone space, and it’s now teaming with T-Mobile for the Cliq launch, since T-Mobile has the longest history with Android phones. There are also some international prospects for Cliq, but the problem is that the gadget doesn’t have any really compelling benefit and thus may not be enough to pull through a lot of additional sales for Motorola.

We think the Android choice is smart. Nobody but Apple, Blackberry and Palm can hope to sustain a developer program on their own these days. The problem is that Motorola has waited so long that it’s going to be incredibly hard to differentiate its announcements from the pack.

Smartphones drive wireless, Android updates in pipeline

Whether smartphones clog cellular networks or not, they’re in demand as flagship elements of engagement with the consumer. They also help reduce a provider’s churn and let the provider churn opponents instead.

No wonder, therefore, that Sprint will be launching the HTC Hero smartphone in October. Sprint already has an exclusive on the Palm Pre, but the HTC Hero is the first Android device Sprint has deployed and only the third deployed in the U.S. (the other two are offered by T-Mobile).

Google is also rushing upgrades to Android. There are three in the pipe, and we hear the first is imminent. We’re told by two providers that discussions are underway to do away with voice-only pricing and standard handsets for new customers and instead move to an integrated plan.

Both Verizon and AT&T already require data plans for smartphones, and smartphone pricing is likely to sink to the point where making them the only customer option becomes practical. When? It won’t happen till 2011 in our view.

Google and wireless regulation in the U.S.

There’s more debate on the smartphone VoIP front as both Google and T-Mobile deny there were any deliberate restrictions placed on Skype for the T-Mobile Android handsets. Google said there was no full-feature Skype implementation offered as yet for Android, and T-Mobile said it had put no pressure on Google to restrict VoIP applications.

All of this stems from the fact that Apple limited iPhone Skype to WiFi connections and blocked Google Voice (for, said Apple, reasons of lack of support for the iPhone’s distinctive GUI). We think these issues may combine with the Comcast net neutrality appeal to create some momentum for legislative intervention, though the FCC may also look into the matter. If the FCC takes action, it may help uncover just what basis the FCC will claim for regulation of net neutrality issues; the net neutrality principles published by the FCC were not part of an order and thus have no direct legal status.

Paid content trends indicate deals are in order

News Corp is planning to charge for viewing at least some of its key news sites to access stories, and likely all four major publications including The Financial Times and The Sunday Times. The shift isn’t unique—The Wall Street Journal charges for its online content, and other publications are looking at the concept.

But the growing interest in charging for online viewing, and the fact that this undermines aggregator ability to post news gained from normal newspaper sites, could impact both users and portal players. Also at risk is the notion of the “free everything” on the Internet, a notion that giants like Google depend on.

The problem is that the downturn has made many realize that online revenues are in many cases obtained by leveraging the property of others. Those “others” are now looking to get their share, and that would likely hurt profits of online players if some deal can’t be struck

SaaS impact felt on software market

Showing that oversimplification isn’t unique to network reporting, there’s recent discussion that SaaS will have a major impact on the software market by making it harder to justify incremental functionality in “resident” versions of software to promote upgrades. In fact, Novell was the original poster child for the notion of “function value slip”; its network operating system could not create valuable new features beyond file/printer sharing and thus failed to generate upgrades, eventually pushing Novell to a second-tier player.

Productivity software is already showing a similar problem; fewer companies upgrade to each new version of Office, and it’s not that they’re adopting a competing product; they’re simply continuing to use what they have. The impact of SaaS is really the same as the impact of open source or freeware products: A lower-function version of a tool is fine if the area where functions are being lowered isn’t one a given user depends on.

One truth about the impact of SaaS is that the TCO for desktop software is increasingly the cost of supporting it, not the cost of the software, and that cheaper hosted models may be the way of the future. Whether enterprises would elect to host their software on somebody like Google, however, is another matter. Right now, enterprises believe they would be three times as likely to use their own private cloud for centralized application hosting. Google’s Chrome OS and Microsoft’s Gazelle project may be aimed at supporting these users.

New Google OS: Solidifying the cloud/SaaS partnership

Google is said to be announcing a new PC/netbook operating system today, a move that would make Google’s competition with Microsoft a very real thing and not just media hype. Rumors about the new OS are that it will be based on Google Chrome, the browser Google has already released, and in fact will be called Google Chrome OS.

We’re hearing that this is really a lightweight version of Android with a Chrome front-end, designed to be tightly coupled to online applications like Google Docs, Wave, Voice, etc. Chrome, the browser, is not a complete OS and would require some embedded background OS to work with and to adapt to various hardware designs; thus, the Android connection.

Our sources say that the big thrust of the new OS is to codify the SaaS/cloud partnership that Google wants to establish. In other words, it’s not about being a direct Windows competitor; it’s about extending the online paradigm where Google is already successful to the desktop via notebooks. The new OS will be available next year, though, and we expect that in the meantime, a lot of companies (including Palm) will be looking at porting their own smartphone OSS to netbooks.