Google Previews Social Search, Talks Twitter

More news from the Web 2.0 Summit: Search honcho Marissa Mayer just previewed Social Search, a feature the company plans to launch as a Google Labs experiment. It’ll place user-generated content–blog posts, photos, and the like–at the bottom of search results. And that content will come from your circle of friends, which includes both people you have a direct connection with via services such as Gmail and Twitter and people those people have a direction connection with. (It’s all opt in–folks must agree to participate.)

Conference cochair John Battelle also asked Mayer about Google’s deal to put items from Twitter into its search results. She clarified the company’s plans a bit, saying it sees Tweets as a useful way to get some information on breaking news into search results before the definitive news article or blog post on the subject has been written.

Is Twitter Basically Broken?

Yesterday evening here at the Web 2.0 Summit, Twitter CEO Ev Williams sat onstage and confidently declared “Scalability today isn’t an issue for Twitter.” If so, the Failwhale is a big fat liar:  When he appears, he’s accompanied by a message that “Twitter is over capacity” and that there are “Too many tweets!” And while the Failwhale is no longer the constant companion of Twitter addicts that he was for awhile last year, he’s been rearing his head frequently this week. Ads the Twitter status page explains:

Um, sounds like scalability issues to me, even if they’re temporary!

I understand that 100 percent uptime is an impossible dream, that even the the folks who know more than anyone in the world about providing robust Web surfaces have their periodic issues, and even that there are far more important problems in the world than occasional Failwhale sightings. But I’m still trying to make sense of Ev Williams’ statement. I’m assuming he didn’t mean to suggest that Twitter thinks its current level of reliability is as good as it gets. I’d love to hear Ev Williams or others at the company talk about why Twitter still chokes as often as it does, and what it’s doing about it. (Maybe the status message’s references to changes it’s making for “the future growth of the product” are a good sign.)

This morning at the conference, Facebook VP of Engineering Mike Schroepfer spoke about how how Facebook–which surely ranks among the most reliable major Web services-keeps on keeping on. Facebook’s a far larger company than Twitter, with more resources, more engineers, and more servers. But its predictability still makes for a striking contrast with Twitter. I choose to be an optimist: If Facebook can run like a top, so can Twitter. And maybe it will someday.

For the moment, I lump Twitter in with my cell-phone service–it works most of the time, but I’m not the least bit startled when it doesn’t….

Yup, Google is Getting Twitter Search, Too

Did I just hear another shoe dropping? Shortly after Microsoft’s Bing launched Twitter search, Google’s Marissa Mayer has blogged that Google also has a deal to integrate Tweets into its results. Something will show up “in the coming months,” which could presumably mean either next week or sometime in 2010.

Mayer didn’t have much to say about what Twitter-within-Google might look like, but her post hints that Google may focus on weaving Twitter results into other results rather than isolating them, as Bing is doing:

We believe that our search results and user experience will greatly benefit from the inclusion of this up-to-the-minute data, and we look forward to having a product that showcases how tweets can make search better in the coming months. That way, the next time you search for something that can be aided by a real-time observation, say, snow conditions at your favorite ski resort, you’ll find tweets from other users who are there and sharing the latest and greatest information.

For now, Bing has bragging rights to an interesting feature that Google lacks–but I like the idea that both search giants will get the opportunity to figure out how to make Tweets make sense within the context of traditional search. It’s not instantly obvious what the best way is to do it–but with two fierce competitors working at it in parallel, we’re more likely to get there, and get there reasonably quickly…

Yup, Bing Gets Twitter Search

Back in July, Bing added some not-very-exciting Twitter integration to its search results. Today at the Web 2.0 Summit here in San Francisco, Microsoft confirmed the news that All Things Digital’s Kara Swisher broke (and my colleague Ed Oswald wrote about): Bing has a deal with Twitter to provide a much more sophisticated level of Twitter search within Bing. We just saw a demo of the new features, which are supposed to be live at http://www.bing.com/twitter shortly. (I’m getting that home page, but an error when I try to search.)

(As Kara reported, Bing also has a deal in place to provide results from Facebook, but those tools won’t show up immediately. Given the face that Facebook is so much more private than Twitter, I’m curious to see how Microsoft makes Facebook-within-Bing make sense.)

It’s impossible to judge a search engine from a brief onstage demo, but Microsoft’s goals are worthy, at least. Basically, it sounds like it’s trying to provide the service that Twitter’s own search should be but isn’t: The results weed out duplicate retweets and pointless blather, try to determine the most worthy Twitter users and push their items to the top, and show where short URLs are going. It’s also got features to spotlight Tweets that contain useful links. And the home page you get before you do a search provides Tweets on hot topics grouped by subject matter–a little like what Google News might look like if it pointed to nothing but Tweets.

The service will be especially useful if it’s easier to find old-but-still-useful Tweets than it is at Twitter itself, but it’s not clear how far back its index goes. (Qi Lu, Microsoft’s head online honcho, wasn’t sure.)

If Bing’s Twitter search turns out to be good, one obvious question about it is this: Shouldn’t really good Twitter search be available at Twitter? We don’t know much about Twitter’s plans for its own search, but it’ll be a tad odd if the best way to find stuff on Twitter is to go elsewhere. (Then again, many of us go to Google to search within specific Web sites, since it usually does a better job than the search features within sites themselves.) Did Twitter help Bing with its search feature because it’s working on something even more advanced of its own? Might another shoe drop in the form of Bing’s Twitter search becoming Twitter’s own search feature? Will it let other search companies (no, I’m not thinking of anyone in particular) provide their own Twitter search features?

(Side note: Web 2.0 cohost John Battelle interviewed Twitter’s Ev Williams last night here at the conference. Unless I misheard, Williams said “Scalability today isn’t an issue for Twitter.” Which is an interesting take–I’ve repeatedly seen Mr. Failwhale and his “Too many Tweets!” message while Tweeting about the conference…)

5Words: BlackBerry Bold–Now Even Bolder!

New BlackBerry Bold hits AT&T

…and T-Mobile has it too.

Screenshots of Google’s music service?

Google’s music partners: LaLa, iLike

Windows 7 pre-selling like hotcakes.

Apple to PCs: It’s war!

Bing to get Facebook, Twitter?

Time Warner Cable security hole.

RIM working on Webkit browser.

Why Nook’s a Kindle Killer.

Gizmodo reviews new white MacBook.

________________________

Like 5Words? Subscribe via RSS.

Comcast Launching On Demand Online Shortly

After testing out its latest online offering with about 5,000 customers earlier this summer, Comcast is set to launch On Demand Online with all customers by the end of the year, the company is saying. As we reported earlier, the feature would work much like Hulu does although it would be available only to Comcast subscribers.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Comcast has struck deals with about two dozen cable and movie channels to provide content. There is some bad news here though. You won’t gain access to the entire lineup of online content — only what is included in your package.

Either way, the move signals an effort by the entertainment industry to get a leg up on illicit distribution of programming. By offering the programming itself, and on-demand, the urge to run for BitTorrent and the like may be lessened for some.

Take the music industry for example. It decided to resist the digital movement, and ended up getting burnt badly. Only now is the industry beginning to gain some foothold in the digital world.

Real-Time Tweets Headed to Bing?

Kara Swisher over at Boomtown claims that Microsoft is close to a non-exclusive data mining deal with Twitter that would bring real time tweet results to Bing. According to her sources, an announcement on the deal could come as soon as the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco, which is happening this week. Twitter is negotiating with Google, although sources say the Bing deal is likely to be finished first.

If you think you may have heard this all before, you have (sorta). Back in July,  Hsrry reported that Bing had begun to integrate some tweets into search results. This mainly was just a test, and limited to certain prominent twitterers.

It appears however whatever is going on here might be more extensive. Tweets would be available in real time, and would probably be spread out across any search, rsther than just for searching specifically for the tweets of a certain person.

Google Audio on Its Way?

Google takes its mission of organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful really seriously. But music’s one great big area of information that it hasn’t done much to organize to date. That might be about to change: TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington is reporting that the company is striking deals with the major labels and will soon launch a music service, possibly to be called Google Audio. And that’s about all he has to say–it’s not even clear whether the service would involve streaming, downloading, or both.

I have no guesses what it might involve, but we in the U.S. could sure use something akin to Spotify…

House Republican Asks FCC to Stop Open Internet Vote

If you’re a fan of net neutrality, meet your next enemy. Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who has asked the FCC to stop a planned vote on open Internet rules.

PresidentObama has pushed for the change, and it appears as if it will pass, as Chairman Julius Genachowski apparently has the support of the commission’s two other Democrats, reports the WSJ.

Essentially, what these rules would do is make it illegal for ISPs to selectively slow down or block certain Internet content, while at the same time compelling them to reveal how their networks are managed. Barton sees this as a  problem apparently, and so do the big telcos.

He believes it would be “potentially catastrophic” to the broadband industry, which is a take that’s certainly at complete odds with about two dozen smaller providers who have lauded the imminent vote. To them, it offers a more level playing field and will be an impetus for growth.

Big telcos are complaining that this hampers their investments in the broadband network, and are pulling the Obama card–he’s a big proponent of nationwide broadband.

Wireless Internet is also covered by this proposal, which to date has been unregulated. Barton here believes such regulations would “retard the deployment” of the wireless web.

It’s hard to read here exactly who is right and wrong. In defense of the big telcos, these folks have spent quite a bit on building out broadband. Then again, sticking up for the little guy, a few companies control basically the entire US Internet, effectively shutting others out.

But why would the Republicans want to get on this side of the issue? After all, Obama’s broadband policy is intended to help those who many of these folks claim to represent–our rural citizenry and small business. Ah, politics in Washington these days.

Hey, Nook! Barnes & Noble’s E-Book Reader is Official

The salient details had all leaked out already, but now they’re real: Barnes & Noble has unveiled its e-book reader. It’s called the Nook, it packs both a 6″ e-ink screen and a color touch one below, and comes both 3G and WiFi, 2GB of memory, and an SD slot. The Nook will offer both bestsellers and other new releases (“many” at $9.99) and over a million titles in total, including free public-domain works. It costs $259–the same as Amazon.com’s cheapest Kindle–and is due to ship by the end of November.

Oh, and it syncs with Barnes & Noble’s e-reading software for PCs, Macs, iPhones, and BlackBerries, and has a lending feature that lets you virtually loan an e-book to a friend for two weeks. Let’s op

As with Spring Design’s Alex, the Nook’s two-screen design feels like a kludge to deal with the deficiencies that both e-ink and color LCDs still have. (The color display has an impact on the Nook’s battery life: ten days on a charge, vs. fourteen for the Kindle.) But maybe it’s an elegant kludge–I look forward to getting my hands on a Nook soon.

The single thing about the Nook that I’m most excited about is something kind of mundane: Like Sony’s Readers–but unlike the Kindle–it supports the industry-standard ePub format, and therefore doesn’t render your book purchases worthless if you someday decide to switch to an electronic reader made by someone else. I’m a mostly happy Kindle owner, but the current explosion of interesting alternatives from other companies leaves me hesitating each time I’m about to plunk down money for an e-book. I wonder how long it’ll take until Amazon decides that its proprietary book format is a drag on sales?

(Footnote: I’m still not clear whether the fact that the Nook and Sony Reader both support ePub means that I can just move my books back and forth starting right now. But that’s the direction the whole industry needs to go, and it can’t happen soon enough.)

One True Google Phone? I’m Skeptical, But Hopeful

TheStreet’s Scott Mortiz is reporting that Google plans to sell a phone of its own. The device will supposedly run Android (of course) and will go on sale at retail stores this year (and hey, that means soon–there isn’t very much 2009 left). It would be an unlocked phone that would run on AT&T, T-Mobile, and most carriers around the world, and Google is supposedly undertaking the project to get more control over the integration of the device with its own services.

Moritz based his story on a report by analyst Ashok Kumar, who says he’s spoken with hardware companies involved in bringing the product to market. According to this GigaOM post, Kumar also says that Google will release a netbook (presumably running Chrome OS) next year, and that both the phone and the netbook will use Qualcomm’s Snapdragon CPU.

Despite the confident tone of Mortiz’s piece, my instinct is to be skeptical about the prospect of Google entering the phone business. Android is starting to take off as a platform, thanks to its enthusiastic adoption by a whole bunch of companies, including Verizon, Motorola, HTC, and others. Wouldn’t they rather see Google as a partner rather than a competitor? Even if Google went to extreme lengths to avoid giving preferential treatment to its own device, it would be bound to leave other Android supporters feeling uneasy, and possibly eyeing other options.

Then there’s the notion that the Googlephone would be sold unlocked, not through carriers. I’m a fan of unlocked phones myself, and will happily pay a premium for ‘em. But the market for unlocked phones is tiny–in the U.S., anyhow–because prices are so much higher than the deals you can get by signing up for a contract. Google being Google, it might pull a game-changing move that would result in an affordable unlocked phone, but you gotta think that doing that would make its partners even unhappier.

I may be doubtful, but I hope Google does release its own phone. Aside from the wealth of iPhone apps, the iPhone’s greatest advantage over the competition is the sheer seamlessness of its integration of hardware device and the iTunes-related services. Many companies try to ape Apple’s level of hardware-software-service integration, and very few even come close. But it’s ultimately a noble goal, and I’d like to see what Google would do with Android if its only goal was to make the very best Google phone possible. It would drive other Android supporters bonkers, but it might (A) make consumers very happy, and (B) keep Apple on its toes…

A Bevy of New Macs: More For Less, But No Major Surprises

As expected, Apple has rounded out its computer line with a bunch of new models which follow the traditional Apple pattern: They have better specs, upscale features, and the same prices as the models they replace–and they’re missing some rumored features, too. (Blu-Ray in this case, which is apparently still a bag of hurt.)

The new entry-level MacBook is mostly much what you might guess it would be: A white-plastic model that brings a bunch of features from Apple’s higher-end models, including an LED backlit screen, a multi-touch touchpad with a built-in button, and a Mini DisplayPort connector. It loses the FireWire connector–oh no, not again!–but, strangely, doesn’t seem to gain an SD slot. It’s also got Apple’s sealed “unibody” design (in a curvier-looking form than the old MacBook case) with a built-in battery which Apple says is good for up to seven hours. And it’s 4.7 pounds, down from 5 pounds for its predecessor.

The MacBook didn’t get a price cut: It still starts at $999, which gets you a 2.26GB Core 2 Duo CPU, Nvidia GeForce 9400M graphics, 2GB of RAM, and a 250GB hard drive. The mythical $899 Mac portable remains mythical for now.

The iMac line also got an upgrade, with new 21.5″ and 27″ models (starting at $1199 and $1699), both of which have 16-by-9 widescreen displays with LED lighting, SD slots, and the ability to connect external video sources such as a game console or Blu-Ray player via an adapter. (Some models of HP’s latest TouchSmart have a similar feature.) Processors now go up to a quad-core Intel Core i7.

The new iMacs come with a new wireless mouse called the Magic Mouse (sorry, Little Roquefort) with a multi-touch surface that lets you perform iPhone-like gestures such as swiping and pinching. It’s also available separately for $69.

Apple also beefed up the specs on the Mac Mini, and introduced an intriguing server version with Snow Leopard Server preinstalled, two hard drives, and no optical drive. It’s not a home server like HP’s MediaSmart, but maybe Apple is tippy-toeing in that direction.

The Games Industry’s Redeemer: Halo

Video games sales bounced back modestly last month, snapping a six-month streak of declines from 2008, according to the NPD Group’s monthly sales figures.

Overall, North American game sales were one percent stronger last month than they were in September 2008. But software revenues were stronger than hardware, climbing 5 percent compared to the same month last year.

The reason, of course, is Halo 3: ODST, proving that Microsoft’s cash cow hasn’t dried up. ODST sold 1.52 million units last month, making it far and away the leader in software sales. Wii Sports Resort, a sequel to the pack-in classic Wii Sports that includes an accuracy-boosting MotionPlus peripheral, trailed in second with a mere 442,900 sales.

What’s interesting is that, despite past months of doom and gloom for the industry, gaming had its second-strongest September on record. The only September to top it was in 2007, led by — you guessed it — Halo 3. That month, the franchise’s Xbox 360 debut sold 3 million copies, while the next best-selling game, Wii Play, sold just 282,200 copies. To put it another way, the Master Chief basically carried the games industry on his back, and did so again last month without even starring in ODST.

It’s safe to say that the Halo craze is nowhere near over. ODST, which was originally conceived as an expansion pack, was criticized for being short and showing the series’ age, but it still received favorable reviews and sold phenomenally well. When the next full game, Halo: Reach, arrives next year, I’m guessing that even the people who avoided ODST (myself included) will want to take a look. Clearing the 1.5 million mark should be a breeze, and the games industry will look mighty once again.

Sonos’s All-in-One Connected Speaker System

I’ve been talking to the Sonos folks for years. And everyone I know who owns their connected music system absolutely raves about it. Yet, I’ve never joined in given the steep price of entry (starting at ~$1000) and BYOS (bring your own speakers) requirement. Fortunately, Sonos has been listening and their new all-in-one S5 ($400) begins shipping next week.

In what’s become an annual tradition, I recently met up with Sonos CEO John MacFarlane to take a look at the new product. The S5 is a bit larger than the Bose SoundDock II ($300), weighing in at about 9lbs. But it packs in so much more, including the the components for the Sonos mesh network to stream DRM-free iTunes, Pandora, Rhapsody, etc with sound that John says “crushes” Bose. He went on to tell me that their primary focus with this all-in-one unit was nailing audio quality, going as far as consulting with Skywalker Ranch on performance. While I’m no audiophile, the full-bodied music emanating into a crowded Marriott lounge sounded quite good. And, in terms of volume, I have a feeling Sonos could have overtaken the room had we cranked it. (The S5 houses 5 speakers, including a sub woofer.)

The target audience for the S5 is music-loving iPhone or iPod Touch owners, who would use their handheld (and the free Sonos app) to control their entire Sonos infrastructure. (Although, one could optionally pick up a dedicated Sonos controller, starting at $250.) And John alluded to support for a pair of additional mobile platforms coming next year.

The S5 provides integrated WiFi functionality yet, to maintain high availability audio streaming, Sonos units will only talk to each and hardwired connections. So, for true wireless freedom, many potential S5 owners will need to pick up a Zone Bridge ($99) to take the whole thing airborne. Given current networking reliability and my own experiences streaming video wirelessly (high def, no less), I’m not sure this is necessary. So while Sonos will indeed control the horizontal and vertical to ensure the music never stops, I wonder if this additional hardware requirement does more harm than good in providing another barrier to entry.

Of course, there are many ways to crack the home audio streaming nut. Some have AppleTV connected to a home theater system which is controlled via Apple’s iPhone remote while others cling to their aging Squeezeboxes. Not to mention, there are scores of nice, affordable iPhone/Touch speaker docks and clock “radios” these days. However, for my current minimalist gypsy lifestyle, Internet radio habit, and desire to keep my phone available as a phone, the portable Sonos S5 may be the proper solution to stream audio around my place. I only wish it could speak directly to my wireless router.

(This post republished from Zatz Not Funny.)

1999 Microsoft Store vs. 2009 Microsoft Store

It’s official: the first Microsoft Store will be opening on this Thursday at 10am in Scottsdale, Arizona–logically timed to coincide with the launch of Windows 7. Nearly all articles about the company’s foray into retailing (a) point out that it’s a delayed reaction to the mammoth success of the Apple Stores; and (b) mention the fact that Microsoft’s first mall store was MicrosoftSF, which opened at San Francisco’s Metreon in 1999 and lasted only a little over two years before folding. (It was apparently an early victim of the Metreon curse which has since claimed nearly all of the mall’s merchants except for its movie theater, a bookstore, and some of the restaurants.)

Nobody accused Micorosft of aping Apple with MicrosoftSF–because that first Redmondian storefront opened almost two years before the first Apple Store did, and closed a few months after the Apple Stores got rolling. I visited the store several times, but don’t remember it very well, which might be part of the problem; it didn’t have a lot of personality. (If anything, it was in the mode of Sony’s Sony Style stores–in fact, it was actually operated by Sony, not Microsoft.) We’ll see if the new effort takes off–I’m still trying to figure out whether the world really needs a store devoted to the disparate stuff that Microsoft sells.

Here’s a quick comparison of the Microsoft store of 1999 versus this decade’s version, based on resources such as Microsoft’s original press release and a largely favorable piece Salon published at the time. Microsoft seems to be trying hard to keep what’s inside the Scottsdale store a surprise until Thursday, but I’ve pieced together some information and speculation based on sources such as Gizmodo’s leaked concept presentation for the chain.

Continue reading this story…

The Worst PC in America: Found!

Reynaldo Rivera’s 2007-era MacBook Pro has lost its screen, not to mention a few of its keys. Its trackpad and optical drive don’t work. Its mouse is held together with tape, and he uses a battered copy of Dante’s Inferno as a mousepad. It outputs video to a 13-inch standard-def CRT TV–and must do so by routing it first through an old VCR. Oh yeah, I forgot: It recently stopped running, period.

This, my friends, is no ordinary bad PC–and that’s why it’s the winner of Technologizer’s Worst PC in America contest. Reynaldo gets the nifty HP Envy 13 laptop, courtesy of HP. Thanks to them, thanks to Reynaldo–and thanks to everyone who entered. You guys own some terrible computers!

To wrap things up, I’ve published some visual highlights of selected contenders as a slideshow, and you can also check out all the entries.