No not pinocchio, this is Ponoko. What is Ponoko you ask? “…the world’s largest marketplace for product plans. Creators and consumers use these plans to share, buy, sell and make individualized goods.”
So people can make, share, sell and buy…well, stuff. Ponoko has started out making a framework, they have some guidelines (like materials, size restrictions and such) but you design it. When you tell the world via the Ponoko site. The you browse the site and buy stuff.
Now you may buy the plans, you may buy a kit. But it is all about collaboration and open sourced relationships. People can get what they want and others can sell what they have.
It’s like some people are good designers and some have cash in hand, ready to buy. Let’s let the designers do that on an open system and then let the people with money jump in and buy.
I’ve been following the whole Microsoft/Yahoo thing along with everyone and have really kept my opinions to myself - but when I saw this post over at Ajaxia - “Yahoo! BrowserPlus: The rumour is true“
Awhile back I heard a rumour that Yahoo! had a “Gears-like” project that was cancelled. I thought this was a shame, as having Yahoo! pushing the browser would be a great thing, and I wished that we could all join forces and push together.
I just thing it is time for Microsoft to buy Yahoo! - they need to do this before anyone figures out that Yahoo! is hot-hot-hot. I mean seriously - I hear is how great Google is because of Google gears and then Yahoo! pulls out a decent competitor.
We’ve been having fun at e-Me looking at all the different expanding furniture YouTube has shown.
It got me thinking that we need to build software like this. It’s not that everything you write has to be the end all be all for every single application - but we need to be a bit more flexible when we build applications and especially web applications.
Now I’m sure Zuckerberg and the techs over at Facebook were not thinking expanding tables when they build “the facebook, but dang…it does seem to have some hidden expansion built in.
OK, I’ve got to go build a web innovation platform - now where did i put the table saw.
I was very disappointed that Google didn’t try a little harder when it came to going after the 700Mhz by the FCC. (It turns out that Verizon won the opportunity)
Google, the Internet search engine company, released plans on Monday for a new generation of wireless devices to operate on soon-to-be-vacant television airwaves and sought to ease fears that this might interfere with TV broadcasts or wireless microphones.
In comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission, Google outlined plans for low-power devices that use local wireless airwaves to access the “white space” between television channels. A Google executive called the plan “Wi-Fi 2.0 or Wi-Fi on steroids.”
This could be interesting…so they didn’t spend the $9.6 Billion Verizon did, but did they gain a foothold in an area anyone could play?
Google has an API (Application Program Interface - An interface for letting a program/website communicate with another program/website) available in which programmers can leverage people’s Gmail/Google contacts from other applications, called the Google Contacts API.
What does this mean? Many things really, this type of thing opens up a whole world of communication between programs and devices.
For example – Outlook could be made to sync up with Gmail’s contacts and Gmail’s contacts could be used and referenced in Facebook – and most importantly, all of these would synchronize when a change was made in one of them.(This would be based on a program being written to allow the communications – but it is now possible.)
The Google Contacts Data API allows client applications to view and update Contacts content in the form of Google Data API feeds. Your client application can request a list of a user’s contacts, edit or delete content in an existing contact, and query the content in an existing contact.
How cool would it be to have this type of contact synchronization?
Here’s a case where I think everyone else has got it wrong. The media seems to be positioning Microsoft’s hostile takeover of Yahoo as an admission on the part of Microsoft that they’ve lost their competitive edge. And Google, clearly worried, is making anti-trust noises, claiming that the proposed merger would destroy market competition. Both positions are utterly absurd, in my view.
He makes some great points why he feels this deal will fail - but makes it clear that many are not pointing to the things he is.
Could the acquisition of Yahoo! allow Microsoft — despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offenses — to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the Internet? In addition, Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts. And between them, the two companies operate the two most heavily trafficked portals on the Internet. Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors’ email, IM, and web-based services? Policymakers around the world need to ask these questions — and consumers deserve satisfying answers.
It sure seems if Google thinks they could crush them they would encourage the transaction.
The team over at Read-Write-Web posted an article called “The Danger of Free“
Everyone loves to get stuff for free. We line up to get a free drink, we sign up for free checking accounts, and we’re happy to get a free gift with the purchase of our next car. We love free stuff, even though we all know and understand that free is an illusion. After that free drink, we pay for the next three. The bank is making money by investing what we put in that checking account. The car dealer can afford to give away a small gift because the profit on the car is large. But none of this seems to bother us - free things still have a certain allure. But is the concept of free taking us down a dangerous road?
This is a good article, down to breaking down different “free” sites and how they are monetizing different parts of their business.
TechnologyReview has published an interview with Google’s Director of Research, Peter Norvig, where it’s acknowledged that the search giant hires individuals to look at search results pages and provide their judgment about the quality of the results.
Seems like Google has made a living making algorithms do the dirty work. So my question is, is Google thinking that people may be the key…or are they just figuring out people think for the next best algorithm?
The growing confrontation between Google and Microsoft promises to be an epic business battle. It is likely to shape the prosperity and progress of both companies, and also inform how consumers and corporations work, shop, communicate and go about their digital lives.
It is an interesting discussion. I think the tipping point will be when the digital generations get to late college and early career. They will insist on more and more cloud computing which is which Google lives - at this point Microsoft had better have a solution which seamlessly integrates the office experience with the desktop and mobile via the internet - or be gone.
Image by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ via Flickr
