It was the slash heard round the world. Suddenly, every page on the Internet was popping up with a big red warning: THIS SITE MAY HARM YOUR COMPUTER. You couldn’t access anything. It was as if the Internet was broken.

Google VP Marissa Mayer, who is awesome, on the day she accidentally broke Google. (Oops.)

NEWSWEEK: Marissa Mayer’s Favorite Mistake

utnereader:

If Think Quarterly is a free, niched magazine—but it’s bankrolled by one of the largest companies on Earth—is it still considered “alternative press”?

It will be fascinating to see how this evolves. The mag is currently aimed just at Google’s partners and advertisers—but, let’s be honest, how long do we really think that’ll be the case? Here’s how managing director Matt Brittin introduced the publication: “At Google, we often think that speed is the forgotten ‘killer application’ - the ingredient that can differentiate winners from the rest. But in a world of accelerating change, we all need time to reflect. Think Quarterly is a breathing space in a busy world. It’s a place to take time out and consider what’s happening and why it matters.”

shortformblog:

Huffington Post uses word “Google” 103 times in single article

The article of the moment on HuffPo: Personally, we prefer to Bing Google on Bing. What an obvious grab for SEO! The article says Google 103 times (by our count)! But seriously, folks, we Lycos this article and think it’s pretty Cuil. source

Follow ShortFormBlog

We prefer the “Heidi Montag” SEO model. Also: PORN PORN PORN PORN.

(Source: shortformblog)

Actually, I did the easiest thing, which was writing. At the end of the day, it was about the power of the people.

Google Executive Wael Ghonim, in his first international interview, admitting he was behind the Facebook page that sparked Egypt’s revolt. (via cheatsheet)

The most telling thing to me was Google’s tone toward Apple at the event. Instead of pretending to still be an Apple ally, Google today basically threw down the gantlet and admitted that it’s engaged in total war with Apple.

And unlike other Apple rivals, like Adobe, Google execs weren’t huffing and puffing and wringing their hands about Apple’s bad behavior. No, instead, Google was mocking Apple. Making fun of it. Laughing at it.

The Android OS is already outselling iPhone OS in the United States. Now it’s blowing past Apple in terms of the technology it’s delivering.

Yes, Apple still has a larger installed base. I was a little shocked recently when an Apple spokesbot responded to the news of Android’s outselling iPhone OS by reciting the old chestnut about Apple’s having more phones out there.

I was shocked because it’s a familiar line, one that I’ve heard countless times in my 20-plus years covering technology. But I’ve only ever heard it from companies that are doomed, and in total denial about it.

Lyons, on why he’s switching to Android

Google and Facebook’s entire business model is based on the notion of “monetizing” our privacy. To succeed they must slowly change the notion of privacy itself—the “social norm,” as Facebook puts it—so that what we’re giving up doesn’t seem so valuable. Then they must gain our trust. Thus each new erosion of privacy comes delivered, paradoxically, with rhetoric about how Company X really cares about privacy. I’m not sure whether Orwell would be appalled or impressed. And who knew Big Brother would be not a big government agency, but a bunch of kids in Silicon Valley?

The problem with buying things with your privacy is you really don’t know how much you’re paying. With money, five bucks is five bucks. But what is the value of your list of friends? If it’s not worth much, your membership on Facebook may be the deal of a lifetime. If it’s incredibly valuable, you’re getting massively ripped off. Only the techies know how much your info is worth, and they’re not telling. But the fact that they’d rather get your data than your dollars tells you all you need to know.

Lyons, on Buzz, etc.

His take:

Why, Google? Why take a perfectly wonderful email system and pollute it by adding a zillion new things to it? I’m not looking for more clutter in my life. I’m looking for less. At the launch event some Google exec claimed Buzz is a way to “find the signal in the social neworking noise,” but to me it just looks like Google is adding to the noise.

Why does Buzz even exist? Is it because Google wants to make my life better in some way? No. Buzz exists because Google feels threatened by Twitter and Facebook, and wants to kill them. Google has become what Microsoft used to be – the Borg, the company that gobbles up ideas from smaller rivals and cranks out lame imitations in an attempt to put the little guys out of business.



That is the biggest problem with Buzz — it was invented not for us, but for Google. So now, because Google feels threatened, we have yet another thing to learn, which won’t be easy because Google is basically a world where nerd engineers get turned loose in a Montessori preschool and they have no idea about user interface design and frankly, they don’t care.

Maybe Google had this planned all along. Maybe it went along with the China deal back in 2006 figuring that it would either (a) make loads of money in China, and if so, keep quiet about the censorship; or (b) fail to create a thriving business in China, but create an opportunity to generate some positive publicity by sparking a debate about the Internet and censorship. My guess: even the smarty-pants Google geniuses probably don’t think that far ahead. But anyway, the debate is one we need to have.

Lyons, on Google v. China