Tag Archive: featured


This past weekend, I wrote a post wondering if Android was surging in the U.S. market because Apple was letting it? The main thought was that by remaining exclusively tied to AT&T, Apple was driving some users to choose Android, which is available on all the U.S. carriers. In the post, I posed a question: if it’s not the iPhone/AT&T deal, why do you choose Android? Nearly 1,000 people responded, and a large percentage focused on the same idea: the idea of “openness.”

You’ll forgive me, but I have to say it: what a load of crap.

In theory, I’m right there with you. The thought of a truly open mobile operating system is very appealing. The problem is that in practice, that’s just simply not the reality of the situation. Maybe if Google had their way, the system would be truly open. But they don’t. Sadly, they have to deal with a very big roadblock: the carriers.

The result of this unfortunate situation is that the so-called open system is quickly revealing itself to be anything but. Further, we’re starting to see that in some cases the carriers may actually be able to exploit this “openness” to create a closed system that may leave you crying for Apple’s closed system — at least their’s looks good and behaves as expected.

Case in point: the last couple of Android phones I’ve gotten as demo units from Google: the EVO 4G and the Droid 2, have been loaded up with crapware installed by the carriers (Sprint and Verizon, respectively). Apple would never let this fly on the iPhone, but the openness of Android means Google has basically no say in the matter. Consumers will get the crapware and they’ll like it. Not only that, plenty of this junk can’t even be uninstalled. How’s that for “open”?

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Earlier this year, Verizon rolled out its own V Cast app store on some BlackBerry devices. This occurred despite that fact that BlackBerry devices have their own app store (App World). From what we’re hearing, Verizon is also planning to launch this store on their Android phones as well in the future. Obviously, this store would be pre-installed, and it would likely be more prominently displayed than Android’s own Market for apps.

Does V Cast have some good content? Probably. But most of it is undoubtedly crap that Verizon is trying to sell you for a high fee. But who cares whether it’s great or it’s crap — isn’t the point of “open” supposed to be that the consumer can choose what they want on their own devices? Instead, open is proving to mean that the carriers can choose what they want to do with Android.

It’s too bad, but there is now a very real risk that the carriers are going to exploit the open system Google set up in order to create a new version of the bullshit proprietary ecosystems that they had before the iPhone came along and turned the market on its side.

And it’s not just Verizon, it’s all the carriers. One of the great features of Android is that you can install apps without going through an app store, right? Well, not if you have an a Motorola Backflip or a HTC Aria running on AT&T — they’ve locked this feature down. How? Thanks to the open Android OS.

Oh, and how about tethering? It’s one of the truly great features of Android 2.2, right? Well, not if you have a carrier that doesn’t want to support it. Google has to defer to them to enable their own native OS feature. It’s such an awesome feature — in the hands of Google. Once the carriers get their hands on it — not so much.

Speaking of Android 2.2, you know it’s out there right? You’ll be forgiven if you don’t because a whopping 4.5 percent of you Android users are currently running it, according to Google’s dashboard. And again, that’s not Google’s fault, that’s all the carriers. Incredibly, over 35 percent of you still aren’t even running any version of Android 2.x. It’s pathetic.

Apple gets crap for not supporting phones that are three years old with OS updates — the open Android system can’t even upgrade phones that are only a few months old in some cases — again, all thanks to the carriers.

The excuses for why this is run rampant. They need to tweak their custom skins, they need to test the new software, etc. It’s all a bunch of garbage. This is an open platform and yet you’re more restricted than on Apple’s supposedly closed one.

What happens when Verizon won’t update your phone to the latest greatest Android software — not because they can’t, but because they want you to upgrade to a new piece of hardware and sign the new two-year agreement that comes along with it? The game remains the same.

My point is not to bash Google — what they’ve created is an excellent mobile operating system. My point is that the same “openness” that Android users are touting as a key selling point of the OS could very well end up being its weak point. If you don’t think Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint are going to try to commandeer the OS in an attempt to return to their glory days where we were all slaves to their towers, you’re being naive.

“Open” is great until you have to define it or defend it. I’m not sure Google can continue to do either in this situation.

And before all of you pros storm the comments with how great it is to root your Android phones, consider the average consumers here. They are the ones being screwed by this exploitation of “open.” Anyone with the desire to do so can fairly easily hack an iPhone too. Open is not a reason to choose Android + carrier vs. iPhone + AT&T.

Update: Oh, and one more great example Michael Prassel reminded me of in the comments — do you want Skype on your Android phone? Well, I hope you have Verizon because otherwise you won’t be able to install it. “Open.” We’re only going to see more of this, not less.

[photo: AP]



Popularity: unranked [?]

Over time, we’ve scooped things ranging from Facebook Places to various Chrome OS features simply by digging through code put out there in public. What’s great about doing this is that it negates the inevitable non-denial denials from companies when you ask about these features. Code doesn’t lie. Neither do images. And the latter may reveal two upcoming features destined for Google Search.

Check out this image. It’s a file Google uses in conjunction with CSS to style their web results pages. On it, you’ll notice all the major navigational elements currently found on google.com are there — but there are also two extra ones: the question mark and the people icon.

Now, it’s certainly possible that these are simply icons that Google is no longer using in their search navigation but has tested out in the past (they do so many little tests). But I can’t recall ever seeing them, and neither can anyone else I’ve asked. Further, you’ll note that the name of the file is nav_log16.png — Google actually iterates these file names when they make nav changes, so this one is pretty new. If you want to go back in time in the way Google search looked, check out nav_logo7, for example. Or nav_logo3.

So what are the question mark and people icons? Judging from their position, they seem to be destined for the left side bar navigation on Google Search results. Could it be that Google is thinking about re-starting their (since-retired) Google Answers product? Remember, Google bought Q&A service Aardvark earlier this year for $50 million. Might they use it to populate a new Google Questions product?

Between Facebook Questions, Quora, Formspring and others, Q&A is a very hot space right now — and Google’s search box is still undoubtedly the most-used question submission form in the world. It’s a question (see what I did there?) of “when,” not “if” for such a product.

And what about the people icon (which shows two humanoid figures standing next to each other)? Yes, it looks like the MySpace logo, but that probably isn’t what they’re going for. Could this be the first signs of the mythical “Google Me” social reboot project being led by Vic Gundotra?

Or is it just a better way to showcase social circle searches? Currently, those reside at the bottom of search result pages, while status updates from Twitter are found in the “Updates” area (which is the blue chat box logo).

We’ve reached out to Google to get their non-denial denial. But following the launch of Google Instant today, these may be the next things we see from the search giant.

[thanks Sean]



Popularity: unranked [?]

As we wrote yesterday, it appeared that Chris Sacca’s newly launched fund, Lowercase Capital, has raised over $20 million in funding over the course of the summer. But today, it looks like Sacca has filed another Form D under the name Lowercase RT, LP for another $20 million. Similar to the filings from yesterday, it’s unclear who the investors are from the SEC filing.

This brings the total amount raised over the past 6 months to nearly $50 million. It’s important to note that Sacca operates a number of other funds, so this recent $20 million and the previous raises could be used in his other investment vehicles. As Lowercase’s account cryptically Tweeted yesterday, #4: closed.

As GigaOm’s Liz Gannes wrote earlier this summer, Sacca operates a fund that makes investments in early-stage startups, and one that buys secondary market shares of companies such as Twitter and Facebook. Another two funds are jointly run with New York-based investors, and are focused on taking large public companies private in Hollywood, transportation and wireless. A fifth fund buys founder shares of early stage companies under the Lowercase brand.

Lowercase’s previous investments include SimpleGeo, Fanbridge, DailyBooth, Posterous and Stickybits. And Lowercase has been on an funding tear, participating in a number of recent rounds in hot startups, including Embed.ly, Chartbeat, and Backupify.



Popularity: unranked [?]

Google really did just change the game in search today with the introduction of Google Instant. While Google execs at today’s event emphasized how much faster it makes search, Google Instant is really about showing you more search results. And this will have very interesting implications for consumers expectations of what they want from search, search market share, and how sites try to game search through SEO tactics.

Google Instant turns search into a realtime stream of results which flow onto your screen as you type your query. With each letter you type, a whole new set of results flash by. This is important for several reasons. First and foremost, you will now see many more search results than you would have otherwise. Most people never click through to the second page of search results. If it is not in the first ten blue links (or really the first five or six), it might as well not exist for most people. With Google Instant search, instead of people seeing only ten results, they may now see 50 or 100 (depending on how many letters they type and how far they get through each search query). They also potentially get to see more ads, as those change along with the results.

Google just found a way to jack up the number of search results you see by doing nothing more than type in a word or two like you always do. Most people can scan results visually and can absorb a lot more information if it is streamed to them in this fashion rather than having to manually click through to see more results. If people get used to this, it will put pressure on Bing and other search engines to quickly follow suit. People go to the search engines whether they can find things more quickly. (Google Instant is already turned on for some people and will roll out throughout the day. If you go to Google’s main search page you can see how it works.)

Which brings us to the whole issue of search market share. Currently, market research firms such as comScore count search market share by the number of queries and search results each engine delivers. Search engines like Yahoo and Bing have been juicing these numbers recently by adding search results to other parts of their sites such as slideshows and news. But now how do you count a query when each letter brings up different results. Google dominates search market share as it is currently measured, and now it just changed the game. Counting queries is now completely outdated.

SEO (Search engine optimization) will change as well. Sites will need to optimize for particular letter combinations, not just entire keywords. It will be interesting to see whether results get spammed or if Google will gain the upperhand in this constant cat and mouse game.



Popularity: unranked [?]

In part three of our Super Angel v. VC SMACKDOWN Dave McClure says “I am all about the flip. GREED IS GOOD. I am Gordon Gekko in Silicon Valley.” But is he? Wouldn’t greed be going after the big win not the tiny flip?

In this clip we come to one of the core distinctions between Super Angels and VCs: Are sub-$50 million exits the desired goal in Silicon Valley or are small acquisitions what you settle for when your company doesn’t hit it big?

McClure argues that small flips are more sustainable for the Valley, despite the fact that small flips don’t create the next Googles and Facebooks to acquire future generations of Super Angels’ companies. McClure says he’s counting on non-technology companies to start buying hundreds of technology companies, but do entrepreneurs want to sell to someone even stodgier than a Microsoft or a Yahoo?

David Hornik counters that Sand Hill Road is about changing the world and that’s the business he wants to be in. (For the record, that’s the business I moved to Silicon Valley ten years ago to cover.)

For part one of our series, “Why the Hate?” go here; for part two “Are Super Angels Just a Phase?” go here. And to catch the live debate at Orrick’s offices this Friday go here.



Popularity: unranked [?]

Copyright Agrssor 2010 | Powered by WordPress