Iphone 5 quality control costs
Analyst Shaw Wu expects “vintage conservative” guidance from Apple ahead of their quarterly earnings report this Thursday. While he still expects Apple to have a big holiday quarter, he believes that Apple will partially absorb quality control costs associated with the iPhone 5.
This news follows Foxconn‘s own claims that the iPhone 5 is such a hard device to assemble.
Beyond the iPhone 5, Wu believes that Apple’s margins will also be pushed lower by the anticipated launch of a smaller 7.85-inch iPad. He expects Apple will sell its so-called “iPad mini” at lower margins than the full-size iPad, at least initially, allowing the company to achieve a lower price point and take on competitors like the Amazon Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7
Wu expects Apple to sell 25-26 million iPhones, 16.5 million iPads, and 4.8 million Macs. Wu believes Apple’s near-term gross margins will be between 40.5 percent and 41.5 percent, slightly lower than Wallstreet’s estimate.
via AppleInsider
Viewed 62557 times by 3922 viewers
Categories: Apple Tags: Apple, AppleInsider, Foxconn, Google, Gross margin, IPad, iPhone, iPhone 5
Google Starts Punishing “Pirate” Sites In Search Results
Google announced today that it will lower the search engine rankings of websites that receive a high number of DMCA takedown requests, independent of whether the linked content is lawful or not. The algorithm change is the result of extensive lobbying efforts by Hollywood and the major music labels, and could severely degrade the rankings of websites such as The Pirate Bay, FilesTube, and even YouTube.
For years entertainment industry groups have lobbied search engines to penalize sites that link to a high number of copyrighted files, and today Google has given in to their demands.
The search engine will soon take into consideration the number of DMCA takedown notices it receives against sites to determine the ranking of those websites in its search results.
“Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results,” Google’s Amit Singhal writes in a blog post.
Earlier this year Google decided to publish all takedown requests online as part of their transparency report, and they will now use this data as part of their search algorithm. This means that websites for which Google receives a high number of valid takedown requests will be penalized.
The top receivers of these notices over the past year were filestube.com, extratorrent.com, torrenthound.com, bitsnoop.com and isohunt.com. They can expect to appear lower in future search results and will therefore receive less traffic through Google searches. Whether Google will downgrade YouTube, where (tens of) thousands of videos are routinely disabled because of alleged infringements, is unknown at this point.
Google stresses that it doesn’t know whether content is authorized or not, so removal of pages from its search results will only take place following a valid DMCA takedown notice.
“Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law,” Singhal writes.
“So while this new signal will influence the ranking of some search results, we won’t be removing any pages from search results unless we receive a valid copyright removal notice from the rights owner.”
One of the main problems with Google’s new ranking is that perfectly legitimate content on sites with a high number of takedown requests will be degraded as well. Taking YouTube as an example, millions of relevant and legal search results will be degraded simply because there are a high number of “unauthorized” videos posted to the site.
Adding the high number of bogus DMCA notices which Google sees as valid, many sites may also be punished for the faulty takedown requests that copyright holders send. That’s worrying to say the least.
For Hollywood and the major music labels Google’s announcement is a clear win. In fact, it was one of the three demands they handed out to Google, Bing and Yahoo last year during a behind-closed-doors meeting.
The other two demands were “prioritize websites that obtain certification as a licensed site under a recognized scheme” and “stop indexing websites that are subject to court orders while establishing suitable procedures to de-index substantially infringing sites.”
Whether Google will also adopt these suggestions remains to be seen.
Viewed 9656 times by 1561 viewers
Google, Motorola Ordered to Provide Apple With Android Data
Google and Motorola have been ordered to provide Apple with data about the development of the Android operating system by a U.S. judge, reports Bloomberg.
The two companies are also ordered to provide Apple with information about the pending acquisition of Motorola by Google.
U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner in Chicago made the ruling as part of a patent lawsuit filed in 2010 by Apple against Motorola.
“Motorola shall be expected to obtain full and immediate compliance by Google with Apple’s liability discovery demands,” the judge said
Motorola argued that “Google’s employees and documents are not within the ‘possession, custody, or control’ of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google’s objections.” However, Apple maintained that “the Android/Motorola acquisition discovery is highly relevant to Apple’s claims and defenses.”
Read More
Viewed 29414 times by 2348 viewers
Next Xbox To Arrive in 2013 With Six Times As Much Power As Xbox 360 [REPORT
It’s certainly no secret that Microsoft is hard at work developing a successor to its Xbox 360 games console. With Sony’s PlayStation 3 still in the middle of its life cycle and Nintendo already having announced its upcoming Wii-U, Microsoft is planning its next move deep in a bunker in Redmond.
We’ve heard rumors of what the next Xbox could be for some time now, with various suggestions for names and features being bandied around, but there are precious few hard facts known about what Microsoft will do with the third generation Xbox.
The latest news coming out of IGN’s sources is that the new machine will go into production during October or November of this year, with developers getting machines to work with some time in August. The timescale fits, with developers not needing finished hardware but rather just a PC with the same specs and a development kit.
IGN’s sources also suggest that the machine could go on sale towards the end of next year, 2013, which does tie in with some other reports that have been floating around the internet over the last six months.
Hardware-wise the new machine is expected to pack a punch that will see it being six times more powerful with regards to graphics performance, thanks mainly to a Radeon HD6000 graphics chip. The extra horsepower will also see the next Xbox be 20% more powerful than Nintendo’s already announced Wii-U machine. Which is definitely a lot when it comes to graphics performance.
No sources have yet come forward with an expected retail price, or in fact any other hard facts. Will the new Xbox be backward compatible with existing 360 games, and will it use Xbox LIVE as we know it? Just as importantly, will all our Gamertags and Achievements carry over to the new machine?
We’re equally as interested to see what method of content delivery will be used by the new machine. We wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Microsoft move away from a disc-based system and use Xbox LIVE as a method of offering games, though the lack of fast broadband may hinder that approach.
That said, it hasn’t stopped Valve’s Steam from taking over the PC gaming world, has it?
You can follow us on Twitter, add us to your circle on Google+ or like our Facebook page to keep yourself updated on all the latest from Microsoft, Google, Apple and the web.
Viewed 10966 times by 1700 viewers
MIT Genius Stuffs 100 Processors Into Single Chip
WESTBOROUGH, Massachusetts — Call Anant Agarwal’s work crazy, and you’ve made him a happy man.
Agarwal directs the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s vaunted Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, or CSAIL. The lab is housed in the university’s Stata Center, a Dr. Seussian hodgepodge of forms and angles that nicely reflects the unhindered-by-reality visionary research that goes on inside.
Agarwal and his colleagues are figuring out how to build the computer chips of the future, looking a decade or two down the road. The aim is to do research that most people think is nuts. “If people say you’re not crazy,” Agarwal tells Wired, “that means you’re not thinking far out enough.”
Agarwal has been at this a while, and periodically, when some of his pie-in-the-sky research becomes merely cutting-edge, he dons his serial entrepreneur hat and launches the technology into the world. His latest commercial venture is Tilera. The company’s specialty is squeezing cores onto chips — lots of cores. A core is a processor, the part of a computer chip that runs software and crunches data. Today’s high-end computer chips have as many as 16 cores. But Tilera’s top-of-the-line chip has 100.
The idea is to make servers more efficient. If you pack lots of simple cores onto a single chip, you’re not only saving power. You’re shortening the distance between cores.
Today, Tilera sells chips with 16, 32, and 64 cores, and it’s scheduled to ship that 100-core monster later this year. Tilera provides these chips to Quanta, the huge Taiwanese original design manufacturer (ODM) that supplies servers to Facebook and — according to reports, Google. Quanta servers sold to the big web companies don’t yet include Tilera chips, as far as anyone is admitting. But the chips are on some of the companies’ radar screens.
Agarwal’s outfit is part of an ever growing movement to reinvent the server for the internet age. Facebook and Google are now designing their own servers for their sweeping online operations. Startups such as SeaMicro are cramming hundreds of mobile processors into servers in an effort to save power in the web data center. And Tilera is tackling this same task from different angle, cramming the processors into a single chip.
Tilera grew out of a DARPA- and NSF-funded MIT project called RAW, which produced a prototype 16-core chip in 2002. The key idea was to combine a processor with a communications switch. Agarwal calls this creation a tile, and he’s able to build these many tiles into a piece of silicon, creating what’s known as a “mesh network.”
“Before that you had the concept of a bunch of processors hanging off of a bus, and a bus tends to be a real bottleneck,” Agarwal says. “With a mesh, every processor gets a switch and they all talk to each other…. You can think of it as a peer-to-peer network.”
What’s more, Tilera made a critical improvement to the cache memory that’s part of each core. Agarwal and company made the cache dynamic, so that every core has a consistent copy of the chip’s data. This Dynamic Distributed Cache makes the cores act like a single chip so they can run standard software. The processors run the Linux operating system and programs written in C++, and a large chunk of Tilera’s commercialization effort focused on programming tools, including compilers that let programmers recompile existing programs to run on Tilera processors.
The end result is a 64-core chip that handles more transactions and consumes less power than an equivalent batch of x86 chips. A 400-watt Tilera server can replace eight x86 servers that together draw 2,000 watts. Facebook’s engineers have given the chip a thorough tire-kicking, and Tilera says it has a growing business selling its chips to networking and videoconferencing equipment makers. Tilera isn’t naming names, but claims one of the top two videoconferencing companies and one of the top two firewall companies.
An Army of Wimps
There’s a running debate in the server world over what are called wimpy nodes. Startups SeaMicro and Calxeda are carving out a niche for low-power servers based on processors originally built for cellphones and tablets. Carnegie Mellon professor Dave Andersen calls these chips “wimpy.” The idea is that building servers with more but lower-power processors yields better performance for each watt of power. But some have downplayed the idea, pointing out that it only works for certain types of applications.
Tilera takes the position that wimpy cores are okay, but wimpy nodes — aka wimpy chips — are not.
Keeping the individual cores wimpy is a plus because a wimpy core is low power. But if your cores are spread across hundreds of chips, Agarwal says, you run into problems: inter-chip communications are less efficient than on-chip communications. Tilera gets the best of both worlds by using wimpy cores but putting many cores on a chip. But it still has a ways to go.
There’s also a limit to how wimpy your cores can be. Google’s infrastructure guru, Urs Hölzle, published an influential paper on the subject in 2010. He argued that in most cases brawny cores beat wimpy cores. To be effective, he argued, wimpy cores need to be no less than half the power of higher-end x86 cores.
Tilera is boosting the performance of its cores. The company’s most recent generation of data center server chips, released in June, are 64-bit processors that run at 1.2 to 1.5 GHz. The company also doubled DRAM speed and quadrupled the amount of cache per core. “It’s clear that cores have to get beefier,” Agarwal says.
The whole debate, however, is somewhat academic. “At the end of the day, the customer doesn’t care whether you’re a wimpy core or a big core,” Agarwal says. “They care about performance, and they care about performance per watt, and they care about total cost of ownership, TCO.”
Tilera’s performance per watt claims were validated by a paper published by Facebook engineers in July. The paper compared Tilera’s second generation 64-core processor to Intel’s Xeon and AMD’s Opteron high end server processors. Facebook put the processors through their paces on Memcached, a high-performance database memory system for web applications.
According to the Facebook engineers, a tuned version of Memcached on the 64-core Tilera TILEPro64 yielded at least 67 percent higher throughput than low-power x86 servers. Taking power and node integration into account as well, a TILEPro64-based S2Q server with 8 processors handled at least three times as many transactions per second per Watt as the x86-based servers.
Despite the glowing words, Facebook hasn’t thrown its arms around Tilera. The stumbling block, cited in the paper, is the limited amount of memory the Tilera processors support. Thirty-two-bit cores can only address about 4GB of memory. “A 32-bit architecture is a nonstarter for the cloud space,” Agarwal says.
Tilera’s 64-bit processors change the picture. These chips support as much as a terabyte of memory. Whether the improvement is enough to seal the deal with Facebook, Agarwal wouldn’t say. “We have a good relationship,” he says with a smile.
While Intel Lurks
Intel is also working on many-core chips, and it expects to ship a specialized 50-core processor, dubbed Knights Corner, in the next year or so as an accelerator for supercomputers. Unlike the Tilera processors, Knights Corner is optimized for floating point operations, which means it’s designed to crunch the large numbers typical of high-performance computing applications.
In 2009, Intel announced an experimental 48-core processor code-named Rock Creek and officially labeled the Single-chip Cloud Computer (SCC). The chip giant has since backed off of some of the loftier claims it was making for many-core processors, and it focused its many-core efforts on high-performance computing. For now, Intel is sticking with the Xeon processor for high-end data center server products.
Dave Hill, who handles server product marketing for Intel, takes exception to the Facebook paper. “Really what they compared was a very optimized set of software running on Tilera versus the standard image that you get from the open source running on the x86 platforms,” he says.
The Facebook engineers ran over a hundred different permutations in terms of the number of cores allocated to the Linux stack, the networking stack and the Memcached stack, Hill says. “They really kinda fine tuned it. If you optimize the x86 version, then the paper probably would have been more apples to apples.”
Tilera’s roadmap calls for its next generation of processors, code-named Stratton, to be released in 2013. The product line will expand the number of processors in both directions, down to as few as four and up to as many as 200 cores. The company is going from a 40-nm to a 28-nm process, meaning they’re able to cram more circuits in a given area. The chip will have improvements to interfaces, memory, I/O and instruction set, and will have more cache memory.
But Agarwal isn’t stopping there. As Tilera churns out the 100-core chip, he’s leading a new MIT effort dubbed the Angstrom project. It’s one of four DARPA-funded efforts aimed at building exascale supercomputers. In short, it’s aiming for a chip with 1,000 cores.
Viewed 9197 times by 1890 viewers
Categories: Gadget Tags: Advanced Micro Devices, Anant Agarwal, Facebook, Google, Hertz, SeaMicro, Tilera, Urs Hölzle
SOPA V. Soapy: In 2012 Government and Big Business Will Understand How Powerless They Are In The Face Of Human Ingenuity
SOPA. The Stop Online Piracy Act.
If you have a web browser open for most of the day, or you just happened to have badly misspelled soap in a Google search, you’ve come across SOPA.
The entertainment industry and, I suspect, some folks along the Republican side of the aisle, want the ability to block any website from view that could have possibly, maybe once, but we’re not really sure, hosted copyrighted content illegally. In principle, I get it. The entertainment companies would very much like to stop dumping millions of dollars into projects that have to actually be good in order to recoup their cost. The current state of affairs seems to be; “I create a crappy but mildly entertaining product, people get wind of the fact that it’s probably not going to be very good and therefore not worthy of their hard-earned money and they either download it illegally, or wait for it to arrive on DVD, OnDemand, or Netflix.
The simple solution, of course would be for content producers to stop churning out endless acres of crap. But that’s never going to happen. So we get SOPA; a nuclear option to stop the money from bleeding out.
But is the money bleeding out in enough quantities to warrant a nuclear option?
I really don’t think so.
The vast majority of consumers fall into what I call the baseline user class. They own at least one full computer (desktop/laptop) likely a smartphone and maybe (a very slim percentage so far but growing) a tablet of some sort.Maybe they do a bit of gaming but mostly they surf the internet, watch cat videos on YouTube, get a bit of work done and post embarrassing pictures of themselves and others on Facebook. That is the vast, vast majority of users. I’ve tried to explain to those of my friends that fall into this category how to use tools like Bittorrent to acquire free (or stolen, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction you happen to live in) content, but it mostly falls on incapable ears. Gone are the halcyon days of piracy through simple channels like Napster and Kazaa. Pirating in the modern era is much more efficient but also requires a bit more specialized knowledge and effort, two things that the baselines lack when it comes to entertainment.
When the average user thinks about digital content, it usually comes in convenient but paid for and licensed forms like iTunes, Pandora, Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon. The vast, vast majority of consumers pay for every single piece of digital content they consume. Sure, the way they’ve chosen to consume it means scaled down profits for content producer but, as Republicans and Tea Baggers love to remind everyone, the market determines value, not whatever you think something should be worth.
So why SOPA?
Power, control, censorship and a deep misunderstanding of the technological proficiency of the people who actually understand how the internet in general and piracy in particular work.
Congress believes, by virtue of the authority granted to them by those who’ve elected them, that they have power. The entertainment industry believes, by virtue of its billions of dollars in revenue, that they have power. The supporters of SOPA who aren’t tied to either of those spheres believe, by virtue of their influence over daily life on the internet (see GoDaddy) that they have power.
And they are all correct. But it is not true power, because it is utterly dependent on a combination of our tolerance and apathy, two traits which are mercifully shrinking within the populace at large.
Congress, for example, is filled with people who care not a bit for the desires of those who voted them into power. They care, almost exclusively, about pushing the agenda of their political party. They care about winning. But they can only do so if they are allowed to continue holding office, so they have to walk a tightrope between their own desires and not doing anything that the lowest common denominator of their electorate will find undesirable. Their power is derived from us and they can only exercise control over us to the extent that we allow it. At least in four year blocks.
Large service and content providers like those within the entertainment industry are subject to the same limitations. Yes, their money equates directly to power and influence. But they can only continue to exercise those advantages if we continue to give them money. Which is why the passage of SOPA is so important to them. They are trying to force us to pay for their schlock whether we care to or not and, really, it’s hard not to foresee a scenario where one of the major content providers decides that something hosted on Netflix somehow violates a copyright agreement and uses the broad powers of SOPA to blockade the legitimate services we choose to use in lieu of more expensive options. They want to dictate terms to the market. The reason that they’re being so brazen in their measures this time is, ironically, that the very same limitation that should make them think twice about so joyously biting the hands that feed them (our ability to effect a boycott of their services and thus drain them of all of their resources) is exactly the thing that we won’t exercise. Time and again (with the exception of the recent GoDaddy mass exodus) we’ve shown that when principle clashes with convenience, convenience wins. It is a frustrating flaw of the human condition.
However….
What both governments and corporations fail to understand is that individual mastery of technology within our culture has become such that, within the relatively small percentage of the population that doesn’t fall into the baseline category of users, there exist large pockets of individuals who have the power, from a keyboard, to thwart the concerted efforts of Big Business and Big Government with relative ease, especially when it comes to the field of internet censorship.
Case in point:
This morning I read this article that talks about a browser extension for Firefox called Soapy. Soapy is a tiny little script that can be downloaded and installed by anybody, into Firefox on any computer, by means of simply dragging the script file to your browser window. And its sole purpose is to change the way your browser looks up websites that have been blocked by SOPA and instantly navigate around ISP enabled blocks to allow you access to your content.
Before SOPA has even been passed, someone has found a way to render it moot. And this is just the first blow; this is just one guy, typing away from the comfort of his home office. Others will follow. It will become easier and easier for the baseline user to access tools that free them from the oppression of corporate and government interests, and that is a very good thing.
But why is it so easy?
Because the people who seek to control and censor online content don’t understand that the internet isn’t a thing that they can contain within the laws of the land. It isn’t something that you can control. The internet is more than cables and connections and websites. It is, like Soylent Green, people.
And people, whether en masse or as individuals, will always find a way to remain free.
Even from the clutches of Sony Entertainment and the Tea Party.
Viewed 6321 times by 1462 viewers
Categories: Censorship Tags: Big Government, Firefox, Go Daddy, Google, iTunes, Netflix, SOPA, YouTube
Google Hopes to Make Friends with a More Social Search
Appearing atop Google’s search results used to be the exclusive right of Web celebrities and Fortune 500 companies. Starting this week, your mom is just as likely to show up at the top of those results—providing she uses Google’s still fledgling social network, Google+.
The change represents a fundamental shift, as Google’s algorithm-driven search is going through a social overhaul as it attempts to head off the threat of disruption from socially focused companies, such as Facebook and LinkedIn. The new Google service, called “Search, plus Your World,” is part of that effort.
Over the next few days, Google will start adding information that has been shared publicly and privately on Google+ to its search results.
This means you might see a picture of a friend’s dog when searching for Pomeranians, or a restaurant recommended by a friend when you search for nearby eateries. Even if you aren’t a Google+ user, Google search results will show content posted publicly on the social network that it judges to be relevant—profile pages and pages dedicated to particular topics.
Categories: Google Tags: Cornell University, Facebook, Google, Google Search, Jon Kleinberg, LinkedIn, Search, Social network, Web page, Web search engine
With Search+, Google Fires Another Shot At Facebook
LAS VEGAS — If last year’s launch of Google+ was the search giant’s first shot in the social wars, consider the new Search+ product its Blitzkrieg.
Launched Tuesday, Google’s new Search+ initiative integrates results culled from your Google+ social network connections into Google search queries, a major step into providing relevant social content into the company’s namesake product.
When you search for a term — say, “Netflix,” for example — the new product will serve up private and public instances of “Netflix” pulled from people you’re connected with on Google+, including photos, links and status updates. In addition, relevant Google+ profiles, personalities and brand pages will also be folded into results.
So a search for Netflix could yield the official site, a news story about the company, a link to a friend from Google+ talking about Netflx, and the like. Further, all of these results are tailored specifically to those friends in your network, so each person’s results will be personalized and completely different.
See also: ‘Has Google Popped the Filter Bubble?‘ By Steven Levy
It’s a huge move for Google, a company which made its bilions indexing web pages with its advanced algorithms. The company’s origins are rooted in text-based search, using Larry Page’s now-famous “Page Rank” system to create a hierarchy of relevancy for when users entered search queries. Over the years, search progressed: Google added video, images, its Instant product, and the like. The early Oughts gave rise to an age of search, so much so that “Googling” was deemed a verb in our official English lexicon.
But as the decade progressed, another phenomenon began to take over — social. Facebook grew from a small site created in Mark Zuckerberg’s Harvard dorm room to a global presence, now boasting over 800 million users. Twitter sees millions of tweets pass through its pipes monthly. Social network LinkedIn is one of the most watched companies in the Valley. And social gaming giant Zynga just filed a multi-billion dollar IPO in December.
And as users flocked to the platform, a different kind of search evolved. It was a search based on items which users didn’t even know they wanted. Facebook begat “likes,” a way of notifying others that you like (or are at the very least interested in) something. ‘Likes’ spread fast, and liking became another way to find new and relevant content from friends.
And as Facebook widened its reach over time, Google fell further and further behind.
“One of the signals that we haven’t take as much advantage of as we should have is that all of [our search results] were written by people,” said Jack Menzel, director of search product management, in an interview at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES). “And you, the searcher, are a unique person, looking for info specifically relevant to you.”
So the introduction of Google’s new Search+ additions ultimately serve a twofold purpose: First, Google is using the strength of its insanely popular search product to bolster its fledgling social network. As of today, Google+ has a user base somewhere in the tens of millions — far behind that of Facebook. Considering the millions upon millions of search queries entered every single day, and the implications of folding Google+ information into those results, it’s a easy way to leverage the power of Google’s existing properties into beefing up its young one.
Second, it provides Google with an entire cache of new information relevance. Google and Facebook made headlines last year after Google alluded to issues with indexing Facebook users’ individual profile data for Google’s search results. In vague terms, Google search seemed limited in how much Facebook data it was privy to. And in an age where social sharing has grown far more relevant than ever before, that’s a huge chunk of pertinent information.
So Google has decided to go within for that data. User posts and data can now be searched for relevant content, and served up to individuals. While it’s nowhere near as extensive as Facebook’s treasure trove of personal data, it’s a fine start for Google’s push into social.
The new products could, however, yield a number of problems for Google. For instance, if a user searches for a recent New York Times article using Google and search results yield both the article itself and a post from a Google+ friend who shared the article, the user may click on the friend’s shared result, possibly read the headline and not end up going to the publisher’s site, instead sticking inside of the Google+ environment. That means fewer clicks for The New York Times, and few ad dollars in the long run.
Further, Google has never had much luck in the realm of privacy, and adding personal results to search queries could cause user upheaval. Privacy scares and Google aren’t strangers.
But Google insists these features aren’t going to be invasive. “With your permission, and knowing about who your friends are, we can provide more tailored recommendations, and search quality will be better for consumers,” Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told reporters last fall.
The company has built a number of safeguards into the product itself to appease privacy wonks as well. First, by default all searches will be secured by SSL encryption, protecting from others trying to peep your queries. Second, it’s all opt-in. There’s a little Search+ toggle button available on the page, so you can turn it on or off depending on if you want the personal results to appear. And finally, you can completely turn it off if you don’t want the new features integrated into your existing Google searches.
In all, it’s Google’s answer to recent developments in Facebook’s expanding universe. As Facebook opened up its graph to integrate better with application developers last year, huge services and publishers have flocked to the platform, and sharing has grown exponentially. If Google has classically wielded ‘search’ as its weapon, Facebook’s ‘sharing’ was its own tool of destruction.
But with Google’s new products, social search aims to become a stronger tool, integrating Google’s past strengths with what looks to be a very social future
Viewed 4791 times by 1257 viewers
Categories: Google Tags: Consumer Electronics Show, Eric Schmidt, Facebook, Google, Larry Page, LinkedIn, Netflix, New York Times












