The updated CNN.com is changed mostly for the better. It seems more becoming of a news site the way the hierarchy is set up, and it embraces the new multimedia craze.
A few people have noticed that there are a lot of videos and that this isn't necessarily a good thing, but it can be useful because the videos still include headlines and can give people an idea of a story without actually having to watch the video.
The matrix near the bottom center of the page is a great new addition, it has way more Important Headlines than the last site had, and has them under categories for easy sorting. The "Hot Topics" menu to the right of this is also an interestign addition; I think it would have been better with more prime placement on the home page, perhaps where the advertisement is alongside the main picture/video.
The new CNN website clearly shows a preoccupation with visuals and multimedia, but does not lose focus of the news, providing many links to all sorts of stories only 1 click from the home page. Overall, a definite upgrade.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
CNNs new site
So CNN decided to design a new web layout, cool I guess. I mean CNN.com was never a site that I went to for the homepage. In fact, usually when I was on CNN.com it would be because someone sent me a link, or I stumbled upon it, or digg.com shoved it in my face. CNN has always been about reporting the news, and it will continue to be that way. But hey I guess there are a couple good things about the new setup.
As the article says there is more of a focus on pictures and video. This is something CNN should have done a long time ago. Visual media attracts the users eyes and keeps them interested. If there isn't anything interesting to look at than people get bored on and move on to a new site. That being said those pretty pictures need to be supported with some great writing. Clicking on many of the pictures/articles it is easy to tell that CNN still has what it takes to keep me reading, but the videos are another story. Now don't get me wrong, CNN knows how to put a package together and each clip has fairly high production value. They provide plenty of great information and are interesting to watch. I only wish there was then a corresponding article that might fill the story in a bit more, or give a different point of view. I might be in the minority here, but I like to have an article accompany a video for a few reasons: 1. I can read a bit of the article to figure out if the video is worth watching 2. If the video has some boring parts I can get a head start on the reading, and 3. I have more information to go through if my interest is still peaked once the video is completed.
Now as for the homepage itself, I like it. There are less ads, which for me is huge, and the "Editor's Choice" block fits perfectly on the bottom of the screen. It shows me some fascinating pictures linking to articles I might not have found otherwise. And if that wasn't enough all the boxes that appear when you scroll down provide a plethora of new links. As I said before, I never really used to homepage of CNN in the past, but maybe now I might start.
As the article says there is more of a focus on pictures and video. This is something CNN should have done a long time ago. Visual media attracts the users eyes and keeps them interested. If there isn't anything interesting to look at than people get bored on and move on to a new site. That being said those pretty pictures need to be supported with some great writing. Clicking on many of the pictures/articles it is easy to tell that CNN still has what it takes to keep me reading, but the videos are another story. Now don't get me wrong, CNN knows how to put a package together and each clip has fairly high production value. They provide plenty of great information and are interesting to watch. I only wish there was then a corresponding article that might fill the story in a bit more, or give a different point of view. I might be in the minority here, but I like to have an article accompany a video for a few reasons: 1. I can read a bit of the article to figure out if the video is worth watching 2. If the video has some boring parts I can get a head start on the reading, and 3. I have more information to go through if my interest is still peaked once the video is completed.
Now as for the homepage itself, I like it. There are less ads, which for me is huge, and the "Editor's Choice" block fits perfectly on the bottom of the screen. It shows me some fascinating pictures linking to articles I might not have found otherwise. And if that wasn't enough all the boxes that appear when you scroll down provide a plethora of new links. As I said before, I never really used to homepage of CNN in the past, but maybe now I might start.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
ConvergenceNN
CNN's newly launched website portrays the inevitable progress of online news and entertainment; fully immersed convergence. The new site boasts greater multimedia access and somewhat comes full circle in its inclusion of TV. CNN seems to be bringing its roots from television into the realm of the internet to offer a heightened quality of news on the web.
This transition truly highlights the steps that are being made towards a "one-stop-shop" accessible via an internet browser. Forget the contemporary design and the simplified user interface, what really makes the new CNN site a hit is its loyalty to what its customers know best mixed with its reverence to the future they must accept; TV via internet. According to the article by The Guardian, " Internal statistics show that 50% of CNN's users both watch the video and read the story." The balance that CNN provides with both textual and multimedia context allows for this harmonious equilibrium, which viewers appear to enjoy.
Furthermore, the new and improved CNN.com has embraced a more friendly outlet for international viewers. Apparently "the new site will spread the focus of CNN.com from Europe, Asia and North America to include Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, and will incorporate language feeds in Spanish and Arabic," according to the article. This opening to international communities is another manner in which CNN.com is taking a step forward to the future of convergence. One major aspect of the internet is that it fosters globalization; a concept that CNN.com seems to have taken to heart.
Nifty CNN
Finally, a news site that isn't cluttered. Am I dreaming? CNN has just recently found a way to make their site more attractive. With a new nav bar and new fancy layout, CNN has transformed to the top of my list for news sites with good layouts. The navbar is clear and bold and directly calls for your attention. Everything about this new layout I liked. It is very spacious and makes it easy to navigate to where you want to get to.\
All the div boxes are nicely separated and equal in size, making it proportional and giving it a nice look to the bottom of the site where a lot of information is being stored. There isn't a million pictures and videos anymore that take up the loading space for the homepage. Instead there are two bold pictures that fit perfectly in the main content. Nicely done by CNN's new graphic designer!
All the div boxes are nicely separated and equal in size, making it proportional and giving it a nice look to the bottom of the site where a lot of information is being stored. There isn't a million pictures and videos anymore that take up the loading space for the homepage. Instead there are two bold pictures that fit perfectly in the main content. Nicely done by CNN's new graphic designer!
CNN.com Makeover
CNN's new website seems to be a lot more modern and entertaining. It seems as if they are trying to target a younger audience and get them excited about world news. It has a lot of pictures and videos whereas the last website did not. "It's a design change that gives us a more contemport look, with a new focus on video the brings the site to life," says Nick Wrenn, CNN International's vice President(1). While this is exciting and contemporary people who formerly relied on CNN.com may no longer like it.
Older users of CNN.com may be confused by this new design. Its harder to just find the news than it was before. There is so much going on, on the homepage that you are confused as to where to go first. The links from the former page are far down on the new page. You can find them at the bottom of the side, when before they were directly to the right of the main story. Now there is more than one main story at a time. Also there is a video in the middle of two vivid photographs which confuses people about where to look. Over all I think the new site will be better for most of CNN's users today however, some of the older users will have a lot of problems with it.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
New CNN Layout
The new CNN layout makes it easier to navigate through. It looks more organized with the navigation bar on top. Newspulse looks interesting and the navigation bar looks better than before. The animation thing when you go to site is a little annoying though but they'll probably take it out later anyways. I like the new layout better than the old one because this one looks more eye catching for some reason. It looks like they're trying to have many different translations of the site in order for people from all over the world to be able to understand the news. I like the videos section because you don't have to click on each video to be able to watch it, it just continues by itself. But then it could be annoying to some people because they might not like how it was formatted.
The "new" cnn
The "new" cnn website looks cleaner and more organized. It uses the 3-column set-up at the top with sub-heading boxes with tons of videos.
"It's a design change that gives us a more comtemporary look, with a new focus on video that brings the site to life," says Nick Wrenn CNN International's, vice-presidents of digital services.
I think the videos add to the handicap accessibility of a website. More videos mean more people can "read" the website and have just as much use out of it as anybody else that does not have cable or cannot read or have the time to sit and read-- they can just listen to the videos on the go. I think the overall design of the site is far more useful than the old one.
"It's a design change that gives us a more comtemporary look, with a new focus on video that brings the site to life," says Nick Wrenn CNN International's, vice-presidents of digital services.
I think the videos add to the handicap accessibility of a website. More videos mean more people can "read" the website and have just as much use out of it as anybody else that does not have cable or cannot read or have the time to sit and read-- they can just listen to the videos on the go. I think the overall design of the site is far more useful than the old one.
A cleaner CNN
The new CNN site definitely looks cleaner and more organized. Breaking the site into sections gives it a highly structured layout. I especially like the sections on the lower half of the page, Politics, Entertainment, Opinion, etc. This gives top news stories by category, allowing users to focus on sections of the most interest to them.
The focus as mentioned in the article is clearly on video. Many of the news stories have a video at the top of the page, with the article following. The format of this is well-structured. I feel like I would watch the video first and read the highlights on the left side. The article itself would be extra information that I probably wouldn't look at too often.
To try keeping the site familiar, they have used a similar color scheme, keeping the majority of the pages white. They also kept the same color, font, and size for the links to the news articles. All of this makes the site stay rather familiar, but with an improved layout.
A couple of things that I don't like too much is the use of advertising space. A whole bar towards the bottom of the page is used for three different advertisements (which are working very well right now), and there is the large square on the top right. I feel like this is too much space dedicated to advertisements. The square on the top right takes up prime real estate, while the bar towards the bottom will not be seen much, yet adds to the overall page length. The other issue is that the main story of the day is in the left column. I would think this should be in the middle section. Without the article mentioning this, I would not have known which story CNN felt was more important.
The focus as mentioned in the article is clearly on video. Many of the news stories have a video at the top of the page, with the article following. The format of this is well-structured. I feel like I would watch the video first and read the highlights on the left side. The article itself would be extra information that I probably wouldn't look at too often.
To try keeping the site familiar, they have used a similar color scheme, keeping the majority of the pages white. They also kept the same color, font, and size for the links to the news articles. All of this makes the site stay rather familiar, but with an improved layout.
A couple of things that I don't like too much is the use of advertising space. A whole bar towards the bottom of the page is used for three different advertisements (which are working very well right now), and there is the large square on the top right. I feel like this is too much space dedicated to advertisements. The square on the top right takes up prime real estate, while the bar towards the bottom will not be seen much, yet adds to the overall page length. The other issue is that the main story of the day is in the left column. I would think this should be in the middle section. Without the article mentioning this, I would not have known which story CNN felt was more important.
CNN: far cry from the old site!!
Pretty neat, better use of screen size, I feel like the old screen may have only used about a 741px. width of the original screen. However, the new site seems to cover atleast 990px. Whats seems to make a big standout over the old site is that there are 2 upfront news stories, showcase stories which are this time running horizontally rathers than vertically like the old site. Yet, a downfall is the last square which could be used as another showcase story as an ad..lol.
Noticed far more videos than the old site, although I am not too fond of watching news videos some people are. I would have gone with just a few. I like the most popular news bargraph, on other news sites I usually read what is listed as the most popular so this is something that would interest me.
Farther on down the page seems to be a little more indexed and has what the old page had at the top. I feel like CNN did it better this time by putting the majority of the "catchy" web designing at the top, makes for a more interesting, attention-getting feel.
Noticed far more videos than the old site, although I am not too fond of watching news videos some people are. I would have gone with just a few. I like the most popular news bargraph, on other news sites I usually read what is listed as the most popular so this is something that would interest me.
Farther on down the page seems to be a little more indexed and has what the old page had at the top. I feel like CNN did it better this time by putting the majority of the "catchy" web designing at the top, makes for a more interesting, attention-getting feel.
C N N
The new design for the CNN webpage is much more modern and appealing to the masses. Just as the article said, it has a "fresher" and "tidier" look, using less text and more photography. The website is making the videos one of its main priorities, as it placed the video section right in the middle, focal point of the page. This is a particularly smart move because many people turn to visuals to communicate. Nowadays, there are videos for everything. An easy and obvious example is YouTube. There are countless "how-to" videos that teach you to do everything such as troubleshooting electronics, makeup tutorials and even how to rip a yellowpage phonebook in half.
The old layout was mostly text and upon the first view, may be a bit burdensome for the reader to go through every single link of news. Also, including the big pictures and captures of videos make the readers more engaged and interested in the news story because there is a visual of the actual news. For example, right now the main picture is a collapsed house due to the devastations of the tsunami in American Samoa last month. This story is certainly more interesting because people can see the actual house that was ruined.
I also really like the right hand navigation where you can customize your own settings to get the news that you want. It is a very interactive function and it personalizes the readers experience with the site.
The old layout was mostly text and upon the first view, may be a bit burdensome for the reader to go through every single link of news. Also, including the big pictures and captures of videos make the readers more engaged and interested in the news story because there is a visual of the actual news. For example, right now the main picture is a collapsed house due to the devastations of the tsunami in American Samoa last month. This story is certainly more interesting because people can see the actual house that was ruined.
I also really like the right hand navigation where you can customize your own settings to get the news that you want. It is a very interactive function and it personalizes the readers experience with the site.
Monday, October 26, 2009
CNN New Site
I think that their new layout helps to show how our society is changing. We are becoming more visually stimulated. In the past we were mostly text driven. This new layout allows CNN to push their new video content so that viewers are able to quickly understand a story without having to read an entire article. The only issue is that the new spacing on the website has a busy feel to it. Also on the right side their is a popularity rating scale for articles so that users are able to see the most popular news on the site. Towards the bottom of the new site they listed top article links for each main topic. This allows users to see the articles for each topic without having to click on the link at the top. The article touches on the fact that the updated site is very entertainment heavy. This is interesting how we have moved from looking to CNN for political news to now looking for entertainment news. I think that overall their new site is a positive improvement from their previous site.
CNN has VIDEO
I think it is about time that cnn.com put more video on the web. I thought it was strange that CNN gained it's fame because of television. The new cnn.com still has the top stories on the left, but adds another showcase section in the center column. The fact that the old cnn.com always put video one click away didn't keep the continuity among all the products under the cnn name.
One aspect guardians website that I didn't like was the mention of more entertainment news. I don't think that entertainment news is worth being center stage, compared to all the other news that cnn reports on. I know that cnn has the affiliates with people magazine and all, but that can stay on later pages.
I do find it refreshing that cnn has decided to showoff their unique international content. The new website has made more content available right away. In the top right corner, where you expect to find home, you find a link to international content. I like the editor's picks right below the main content as well.
One aspect guardians website that I didn't like was the mention of more entertainment news. I don't think that entertainment news is worth being center stage, compared to all the other news that cnn reports on. I know that cnn has the affiliates with people magazine and all, but that can stay on later pages.
I do find it refreshing that cnn has decided to showoff their unique international content. The new website has made more content available right away. In the top right corner, where you expect to find home, you find a link to international content. I like the editor's picks right below the main content as well.
news?
YAY for dividing content into larger, customizable modules for increased navigability, BOO for increased video content! Call me old school, but I would much rather read a story than watch some boring reporter read it. In an age when a majority of people in the U.S. have access to literacy education, our culture is bringing us increasingly away from the written word. It is sad that it is acceptable for kids to spend all their time on their couches in front of the TV, but a kid who actually enjoys picking up a book now and then are considered nerdy (and I know I am revealing myself to be a giant nerd, thanks). But I guess CNN has to aim its content toward its viewers' preferences, and people would rather watch than read.
It's interesting to look at media outlets as businesses in addition to reliable sources of information. CNN is one of the most trusted news sources in the U.S. It has a reputation for being serious and dependable with its information. I wonder how this move toward entertainment news will affect this reputation. After all, Entertainment Weekly is not quite looked at the same way as CNN, but that is where they will get some of their entertainment info. CNN is a business, and they have to give the customers what they want, even if it does take a bite out of their serious, newsworthy reputation. Or will people even notice the lack of hard news past their satisfaction in knowing what crazy capers Lindsay has gotten herself into now?
It's interesting to look at media outlets as businesses in addition to reliable sources of information. CNN is one of the most trusted news sources in the U.S. It has a reputation for being serious and dependable with its information. I wonder how this move toward entertainment news will affect this reputation. After all, Entertainment Weekly is not quite looked at the same way as CNN, but that is where they will get some of their entertainment info. CNN is a business, and they have to give the customers what they want, even if it does take a bite out of their serious, newsworthy reputation. Or will people even notice the lack of hard news past their satisfaction in knowing what crazy capers Lindsay has gotten herself into now?
It still looks better than FOX...
I was going to say something scathing about leaping forward into lockstep, cookie-cutter design with other major, commercial web-presences but looking over the new CNN website again I have to admit I would be wrong. They've maintained their 3 column format and have increased the navigability of their homepage by placing more categorized content "below the fold", allowing for access to a greater variety of content with fewer clicks. What has changed is their color-scheme and top nav and the way that they are including media in their spotlight areas.
The move to increase the amount of video makes sense, the bandwidth capacity of most hand-held devices has increased to the point that distributing more graphic rich content, and in the near future compressed video, makes sense. This has the added benefit of playing to the strengths of what is (or at least started as) a television network and removing them from competition with newspapers like the NYTimes, an outlet that sports a look not to unlike the former layout of the cnn.com site and is traditionally a print publication with the business culture to support more text/photo rich content, even on the web.
I can't say that I like to see a major supplier of information move away from the written word in a nation that seems increasingly willing to do just that but from a business standpoint it seems to make all the sense in the world. If you are a television company, produce some moving, talking material and play to your strengths. The redesign of their website seems geared to allow CNN to do exactly that.
The move to increase the amount of video makes sense, the bandwidth capacity of most hand-held devices has increased to the point that distributing more graphic rich content, and in the near future compressed video, makes sense. This has the added benefit of playing to the strengths of what is (or at least started as) a television network and removing them from competition with newspapers like the NYTimes, an outlet that sports a look not to unlike the former layout of the cnn.com site and is traditionally a print publication with the business culture to support more text/photo rich content, even on the web.
I can't say that I like to see a major supplier of information move away from the written word in a nation that seems increasingly willing to do just that but from a business standpoint it seems to make all the sense in the world. If you are a television company, produce some moving, talking material and play to your strengths. The redesign of their website seems geared to allow CNN to do exactly that.
CNN Redesign
It is very interesting that CNN is now coming out with a new design, even more so after we recreated the old one. However, I totally agree with what I have seen and heard from CNN, their new site seems to implement everything that was missing from the old one and allow for users to better customize to their own personal tastes. The article found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/oct/23/cnn-homepage-relaunch-redesign-2009-video, describes many of the changes that are being made and the reasoning behind it. Everything that they had said I totally agreed with.
The first major focal point seemed to be on the video capabilities that are now available on the homepage of the site. That was one thing that I believed to be a key weakness of their old design. A definite majority of current internet users look for video play as a focal point for their interest. Implementing the videos on their homepage will certainly help to keep more of the visitors there and possibly even tempt them to browse further. Another smart addition to their site was their refocus onto a more entertainment side of the news as well. Previously, CNN stood for a very business-like side of the news which I felt like often turned off the younger viewers. This new format would likely pay off for CNN down the road when the current younger population looks for a website to browse for news as well as the entertainment they focused on in years past. It was very good research that they conducted to find the current population’s interest point and adjust their site to match that.
In comparing the former site that we used for the assignment with this new current one, there are some obvious differing points, all of which were strong decisions in my opinion. The first which is the most obvious is the transfer from the formerly text driven homepage to what now is much more video, image driven. This is for a visual appeal that will draw in the common user rather than the more meticulous and experienced user. The details can still be found, just by digging into the website, while the things that draw your attention stand out on the outside. Another key difference that I found was actually a stronger developed organizational system. CNN’s old organization was very solid, particularly towards the top of their homepage. However, as you began to scroll I found myself a bit more confused. This new design has everything very pinpointed into a direct spot that allows for new users to adjust and comfort themselves with a much greater ease. Overall I agree with everything that CNN has chose to do and actually look forward to adding CNN as a new site I look upon when gathering news information.
The first major focal point seemed to be on the video capabilities that are now available on the homepage of the site. That was one thing that I believed to be a key weakness of their old design. A definite majority of current internet users look for video play as a focal point for their interest. Implementing the videos on their homepage will certainly help to keep more of the visitors there and possibly even tempt them to browse further. Another smart addition to their site was their refocus onto a more entertainment side of the news as well. Previously, CNN stood for a very business-like side of the news which I felt like often turned off the younger viewers. This new format would likely pay off for CNN down the road when the current younger population looks for a website to browse for news as well as the entertainment they focused on in years past. It was very good research that they conducted to find the current population’s interest point and adjust their site to match that.
In comparing the former site that we used for the assignment with this new current one, there are some obvious differing points, all of which were strong decisions in my opinion. The first which is the most obvious is the transfer from the formerly text driven homepage to what now is much more video, image driven. This is for a visual appeal that will draw in the common user rather than the more meticulous and experienced user. The details can still be found, just by digging into the website, while the things that draw your attention stand out on the outside. Another key difference that I found was actually a stronger developed organizational system. CNN’s old organization was very solid, particularly towards the top of their homepage. However, as you began to scroll I found myself a bit more confused. This new design has everything very pinpointed into a direct spot that allows for new users to adjust and comfort themselves with a much greater ease. Overall I agree with everything that CNN has chose to do and actually look forward to adding CNN as a new site I look upon when gathering news information.
CNN's New Design
I like the way the New design looks however the page took a while to load. And its not even like I have an old computer, this desktop is only bought a year ago. Other than that, I think the new design can allow readers to see all the headlines in one page under different sections e.g. justice, health, tech. I think this is a better way for users to navigate to the sections they want to read however it would be nice if those sections are on the left or right side instead of all at the second half the page. Unless a user loves to use CNN as their news source, not many people will scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and then check out eye catching news articles. Therefore I think the old design works a little better (more effective as a news website) than the new design.
CNN Site: Flop or Hit?
Personally, I thought the old layout was straightforward, clear, and easy to navigate. The headlines were distinct and it was easy to chose the story you wanted to read without having to search endlessly for a specific article. With that being said, the changes weren't dramatic, at least not aesthetically wise. The categories were still organized in their own separate boxes such as entertainment, politics and opinion. CNN stills seems to use the same blue Arial bold font that is characterized by the news company. Although, the homepage did seem less convoluted with words than the older site. The older site would have a paragraph of the headline articles on the homepage and would have a "full story" link at the end of paragraph for viewers who wanted to read on. This new site doesn't overwhelm the viewer as much with words. In terms of site content, the new site is much changed in that it focuses more on multimedia content.
The article specifically mentions how the new site is to emphasize video and entertainment. The site manages to do this effectively as with almost every article there is a big picture and live video streaming feed with on-site reports. I like the new emphasis on video as it takes away a lot of text and utilizes computer's ability to display multimedia content. Also, many people's eye can become fatigued after reading a lot of text on a computer screen and can cause vision problems therefore streaming video is a good fill-in for that. Overall, CNN's new site takes a more progressive approach toward changing trends in the technological market and people's overall interests while surfing the web. While I still wouldn't call the approach a hit, it's definitely not a miss. It's solid.
The article specifically mentions how the new site is to emphasize video and entertainment. The site manages to do this effectively as with almost every article there is a big picture and live video streaming feed with on-site reports. I like the new emphasis on video as it takes away a lot of text and utilizes computer's ability to display multimedia content. Also, many people's eye can become fatigued after reading a lot of text on a computer screen and can cause vision problems therefore streaming video is a good fill-in for that. Overall, CNN's new site takes a more progressive approach toward changing trends in the technological market and people's overall interests while surfing the web. While I still wouldn't call the approach a hit, it's definitely not a miss. It's solid.
CNN
Personally i like the new CNN layout, even though i thought the previous one was fine. I like the face that more videos are incorporated into the main content section. It makes it easier to navigate and, at least I think, makes the site more interesting to navigate. It brings up new and interesting content and I also like that fact that there is a live news feed.I also like seeing the individual categories at the bottom of the page. I think it will help open up content and bring more viewers to the site.
CNN
I believe that both layouts of CNN are simple and it is easy for the user to move around. Anyway, the new design is a kind of better in some ways. I like the three column layout. It makes cnn.com even easier for the user to navigate through. The stories are presented in such a clear and organized way, which make it simpler to get the information and faster to access. I like the fact that they used the same colors. I believe that the new design is more focused on videos, which makes the website more attractive.
The Unveiling
CNN.com redesign is a major undertaking since CNN represents one of the most popular U.S. news sites and it is among most trafficked websites on the web. New CNN design accommodates CNN's desire to constantly move forward and help users to see the wealth of the site's content while keeping it easy to use. New design brings a fresh and more contemporary look to a homepage that is now divided into three prominent sections. The site also integrates much more multimedia content, including live video and TED Talks, and web 2.0 social features such as recommendations and user generated content. The major advancement is that video is now embedded in Flash rather than Windows Media slow loading pop-up windows. While most users like the increased amount of video content, some feel that the site lost its main focus and looks more like entertainment rather than a news site. Another nice thing about the new design is that users can access content without reloading pages. I personally don't like the advertisement box in the third column and the logo placed in the middle of the header section.
Multiple Entry Points a Plus
The main way in which CNN has made a significant improvement over its former web presence is in clearly establishing multiple points of access to the stories it is offering. The first way in which this becomes apparent is in the extended navbar, but two other means are actually more interesting and useful. The separation of "latest news" into multiple categories of stories (technology, national and international news, etc.) is a major improvement, in that addition to the list of latest stories, it gives another point of entry based on topical interest. The most exciting difference in my opinion, though, is the NewsPulse, which not only presents recently breaking stories, but allows the user to interactively sort them based on popularity, category, and the time frame in which they happened. This feature gives those using the site a much more significant way in which to use the interface to locate relevant content, rather than simply being attracted to or intrigued by certain stories, whether the information in them is at all related to one's reasons for going to the site. This suggests that while the stories remain curated in a sense, there is more agency being exercised by the searcher in displaying the content in the context of an information-related goal, rather than simply general interest. One rather small criticism I have as a side note is that the way in which the main advertisements on the main page align with the feature stories, drawing your eye to them despite the fact that they are not actually news items. While logical as an advertising approach, it is a little irksome in its deceptiveness.
CNN All Grown Up
I like the relaunch of CNN's page. It has caught up with the rest of the world when it comes to media websites. Not saying that it was bad or inadequate before. It still remained the old CNN to its core, but it has a little twist now.
I like the fact that they have incorporated live news feeds and videos right on the home page. Sometimes you don't want to read a long article, maybe you just want to click the video and finish folding you laundry or something. In a way just like you CNN has learned to multitask, sort of. I think the website is cute, makes you just want to pinch its little cyber cheeks, right?
The website looks more vibrant makes you actually want to explore the site some more. Explore and see what else they have in store for you. They also have incorporated more pictures and has become less text driven as the article mentioned. I think its wonderful, considering I don't visit the website much. Maybe now I will since it has something to hold my attention and has become more convenient.
I like the fact that they have incorporated live news feeds and videos right on the home page. Sometimes you don't want to read a long article, maybe you just want to click the video and finish folding you laundry or something. In a way just like you CNN has learned to multitask, sort of. I think the website is cute, makes you just want to pinch its little cyber cheeks, right?
The website looks more vibrant makes you actually want to explore the site some more. Explore and see what else they have in store for you. They also have incorporated more pictures and has become less text driven as the article mentioned. I think its wonderful, considering I don't visit the website much. Maybe now I will since it has something to hold my attention and has become more convenient.
CNN
Personally, I didn't have a problem with the previous site design of CNN.com. It was easy to navigate, and moderately well organized. This being said, I really like the new design and layout. It is much more organized, user oriented, and 'involving'.
I think the strategy of dividing the latest news into sub categories was a great idea. When you have that much information to display, a good organizational system really benefits the user. In this case the categories are well marked and laid out, and it seems very effective for displaying the information.
I also really like the new personalized section containing 'news pulse', 'local weather and news', etc. It's interactive and could prove to be very helpful to the user. The 'drawer' like interface saves a lot of space without sacrificing information.
Overall, I quite like the new design and layout.
CNN Redesign
Eventually everyone needs to change and I believe that CNN has done a good job taking their site to the next level. Having top stories with pictures as the dead-center, main content is nice and probably entices viewers to read stories they might otherwise pass over. It's good to see that, according to the article, they've re-focused themselves on video stories. After all, CNN got its start on cable TV. By including more video on the site, the news giant has come full circle.
While I think the new site design is nice, I do have a few complaints. The first is load time. My home computer is an older machine and got bogged-down when I was going through CNN's new site. It takes significantly longer to load the new design than the old one. The extra wait time made me want to leave their site and search for a particular story on a simpler site, just so I could get the information quicker. My other complaint is the placement of the list of latest news stories. While I am glad they kept the list, I think it's placed too low on the site. I prefered to have it beone of the first things on the screen when cisiting the site. That way, I could scan through the stories while the rest of the page was loading and see what interested me.
I know both complaints are personal opinion and may change if I had a faster home computer. My experience is a result of being unwilling to sink more money into a computer that I use mainly to manage my music collection and check email. I know I'm more likely to use a different news site than wait of CNN's page to download or spend money on a new computer. I can't help but wonder how many people find themselves in this situation.
While I think the new site design is nice, I do have a few complaints. The first is load time. My home computer is an older machine and got bogged-down when I was going through CNN's new site. It takes significantly longer to load the new design than the old one. The extra wait time made me want to leave their site and search for a particular story on a simpler site, just so I could get the information quicker. My other complaint is the placement of the list of latest news stories. While I am glad they kept the list, I think it's placed too low on the site. I prefered to have it beone of the first things on the screen when cisiting the site. That way, I could scan through the stories while the rest of the page was loading and see what interested me.
I know both complaints are personal opinion and may change if I had a faster home computer. My experience is a result of being unwilling to sink more money into a computer that I use mainly to manage my music collection and check email. I know I'm more likely to use a different news site than wait of CNN's page to download or spend money on a new computer. I can't help but wonder how many people find themselves in this situation.
CNN's new look
I think that CNN’s new website is a step in the right direction. By dividing the breaking news, main content and user section into columns it makes it easier to read. Then they have various other topics separated and clearly labeled with titles also make it more convenient to look for other desired stories. Giving each section borders is also a plus. A website such as CNN.com is one that has tons of stories and information throughout the site, many people only care about a few of those stories at a given time so it is essential that the information is clearly organized and separated by category. It is also important that the website does not overload the homepage with too much content. Too much content can cause confusion and create hidden content the user may miss.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
CNN.com Redesigned!
While CNN.com still ultimately has the same colors and design it has changed the way it is reporting the news. They've done this by adding more videos to appeal to more readers and placing them on the top left and top center so it catches the readers eye. I like how they have also added a section called the News Pulse that shows the most read stories using bar graphs also as a visual way to show which are most read. :)
By widening the international focus to "include Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, and will incorporate language feeds in Spanish and Arabic" CNN.com has really become more inclusive and will appeal to a wider range of ethnic readers.
I think all of the changes have they have made are for the better and will help them move forward and earn more readers and keep the ones they already have. I approve, for what it's worth. :)
By widening the international focus to "include Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, and will incorporate language feeds in Spanish and Arabic" CNN.com has really become more inclusive and will appeal to a wider range of ethnic readers.
I think all of the changes have they have made are for the better and will help them move forward and earn more readers and keep the ones they already have. I approve, for what it's worth. :)
The New CNN.com
The new web design of CNN have created a whole new dimension. The new modern look of CNN is trying to appeal to new users especially to a younger audience. The sections that appealed to me are"Entertainment" and "Sports." In the entertainment section, now there are a variety of features dealing with different entertainment news such as movies, television, music, and people. Also they have a flash player showing the latest news. In the sports section, it kind of looks like ESPN.com with the similar layout. One of the main features that I particular like is that there is a team pages section where you can just find your favorite team easily. I also like the box layout because it creates a sense of freshness.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
New CNN design
The new redesigned CNN layout is much more aesthetically attractive then it used to be. CNN is transitioning from a text based website to a website trying to focus on videos. One of the key reasons for this change is try and attract new readers and viewers. Another big change to the CNN website is a larger emphasis on the entertainment section. One of the main reasons that CNN is putting a larger emphasis on their entertainment section is because "Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post – which mixes entertainment content into its political news and views, and has grown 67% in a year when CNN.com has only grown 3.7%". CNN understands that in order to keep up with their competitors, and gain new followers, they need to establish a solid entertainment section in addition to their already sound international news section.
Some other additions to the CNN website are the opinion section, and plans to use more TV material online. The main goal of the newly designed website is to "be more appealing: new personalisation functionality enables users to customise a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather, and CNN's community-based iReport site will be featured in a curated section on the homepage, as well as in the middle of unfolding stories." With its new design, the CNN website will be more personal, and in return hopefully attract new users.
Some other additions to the CNN website are the opinion section, and plans to use more TV material online. The main goal of the newly designed website is to "be more appealing: new personalisation functionality enables users to customise a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather, and CNN's community-based iReport site will be featured in a curated section on the homepage, as well as in the middle of unfolding stories." With its new design, the CNN website will be more personal, and in return hopefully attract new users.
CNN Steps It Up
Cnn's executive decision to issue a relaunch clearly indicates its commitment and interest in becoming a more state of the art web site. Changing options, and displays to shift them toward more prominent information focuses means they are doing their research and they are capitalizing on trends they've noticed. The fact that they want to make their site more appealing by adding "personalisation functionality" shows that they too are hopping on the web 2.0 bandwaggon.
They now are trying to focus more upon their distinct storytelling rather than fact listing. What is interesting is how they have said that they are going to help feature each item in its best suited medium for viewing. I feel that the more distinctive and niche oriented this website gets the more views it will too recieve because website that tend to throw information into the viewers face, tend to be more useful and practical than those that require more searching and slow reading. Ultimately CNN.com has proved its interest in competing to be a state of the art news medium.
They now are trying to focus more upon their distinct storytelling rather than fact listing. What is interesting is how they have said that they are going to help feature each item in its best suited medium for viewing. I feel that the more distinctive and niche oriented this website gets the more views it will too recieve because website that tend to throw information into the viewers face, tend to be more useful and practical than those that require more searching and slow reading. Ultimately CNN.com has proved its interest in competing to be a state of the art news medium.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
"Don't be evil" true intentions
The article SEARCHING FOR TROUBLE, described how Google became the giant that is today and the hurdles that has to clear in the areas that is on direct competition with other companies. It was nothing out of the ordinary, until I find some similarities between the book SPYCHIPS: How major corporations and government plan to track your every move purchase and watch your every move, by Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre and the book The Big Switch. In which Nicholas Carr describes transparent personalization or the storage of information about each individual that Google uses to customize information presented to that individual with the intent of reducing inefficiencies. Not long ago, when faced with the “Don’t be evil” philosophy or getting out of China, Google’s predicament was a no brainer: Today, they are helping the Chinese government to crack down on dissidents.
There is an anecdote that if you throw boiling water to a frog, it will jump immediately, but if you place the frog in a pot with water and gradually increment the temperature, you can boil the frog to death and it will not jump out, because it became complacent. The same thing happen with people: Big Corporations and Big Government are not planning to use this technology for us, but against us, when the barriers that protect our privacy are erased, soon our rights and freedom will follow, unless we wake up and stop them.
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!
There is an anecdote that if you throw boiling water to a frog, it will jump immediately, but if you place the frog in a pot with water and gradually increment the temperature, you can boil the frog to death and it will not jump out, because it became complacent. The same thing happen with people: Big Corporations and Big Government are not planning to use this technology for us, but against us, when the barriers that protect our privacy are erased, soon our rights and freedom will follow, unless we wake up and stop them.
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Google Wave
Google has quickly become part of the fabric of modern culture, I think they will soon further embed themselves by redefining the way we all compute.
Google Wave is a good example of how google wants to recreate the way we communicate, work and create. I'm not the right person to explain wave so check out this link if you are interested
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&feature=player_embedded#
The thing about Google that impresses me is their apparent intensions, google seems to have a genuine desire to create products that change the way people live their lives, I can't watch any news channel without seeing a google maps credit. Google could have cashed in so long ago but instead of doing what everyone else was doing they came up with a complete new way to incorporate sponsored links without cramming them down their users throats, it's almost like they are looking out for us.
I have witnessed the development of the internet, when I was in college there were 2 kids in my graduating class who had internet access at home and they paid per minute. Google has taken over development of how we use the internet and I think Google Wave is a step in the right direction for google to stay on top for a long time.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Google on roids?
Google has made an unprecedented presence on the World Wide Web. It grew out of founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin's small garage office in the suburb of Menlo Park, California and grew to "20 billion dollars in only a mere month." Even since then, they have grown to be the major go-to search engine. Google however, has made a huge impact on today's web culture by redefining what a search engine does and is capable of. In fact, the article states that Google changed it status as a search company to a media company with its additions of Google maps, Gmail, Google Books, Google T.V. etc. Google has expanded the capability and bounds of a single company to essentially have no bounds. That is at least what Google would want if we lived in a perfect world. Unfortunately, or rather fortunately for other companies, we don't and Google won't be able gain a monopoly in every single market they seem to conquer like let's say, the e-book market. Google has an extensive selection of e-books on Google Books but they will have to combat other big conglomerates such as book giant Amazon who offers unsurpassed customer interaction with their customer reviews feature. Some people just visit Amazon to look at reader's reviews. Google will have to come up with ideas so new and fresh feature before it can conquer this market. Even so, it will be a challenge with tougher government regulations that could be in store for them.
As of now, I would say that Google doesn't have a monopoly despite all of the extensive areas of media that they cover. For most of their services there are alternative. People can use MapQuest for map info, Amazon for e-books, virtually every online media company has an email account system, and Apple has a TV service in one form or another. It's true that Google provides these services in a good way, but there is still a loyal and strong cohort of followers that have their allegiance aligned with these other companies which will, in effect, hamper Google's ability to gain a monopoly in any of the markets they currently serve. Given the services that Google offers and what they have in place now, it seems that they are just improving on already tapped-on ideas such as e-books which have been around since the early 2000's. They would need to come up with some idea that is so radical or strike some revolutionary deal that would enable them to take-over the management of some service. Yet, it seems highly unlikely that they will gain what Microsoft had with being the sole producer of operating systems for PC's prior to Linux. With that being said, Google's most promising technology seems to be Android with its use of open-source software to allow anyone who can think of an application for their mobile device, to add it. They are making dreams become a reality. It seems that Google has found their niche, and that it is to put the control in the hands of the customer. However, could the masses of people with this powerful technology within the grasp of their hands cause this to be a problem for corporations (including Google) in the future?
As of now, I would say that Google doesn't have a monopoly despite all of the extensive areas of media that they cover. For most of their services there are alternative. People can use MapQuest for map info, Amazon for e-books, virtually every online media company has an email account system, and Apple has a TV service in one form or another. It's true that Google provides these services in a good way, but there is still a loyal and strong cohort of followers that have their allegiance aligned with these other companies which will, in effect, hamper Google's ability to gain a monopoly in any of the markets they currently serve. Given the services that Google offers and what they have in place now, it seems that they are just improving on already tapped-on ideas such as e-books which have been around since the early 2000's. They would need to come up with some idea that is so radical or strike some revolutionary deal that would enable them to take-over the management of some service. Yet, it seems highly unlikely that they will gain what Microsoft had with being the sole producer of operating systems for PC's prior to Linux. With that being said, Google's most promising technology seems to be Android with its use of open-source software to allow anyone who can think of an application for their mobile device, to add it. They are making dreams become a reality. It seems that Google has found their niche, and that it is to put the control in the hands of the customer. However, could the masses of people with this powerful technology within the grasp of their hands cause this to be a problem for corporations (including Google) in the future?
Google has made such a huge impact in today's web culture that it's unmeasurable! Nowadays you rarely hear people say let's Yahoo! it, instead you say Google it. Google is such an easy application to use and it has everything you need - web, images, videos, books... No other search engines have books, yes granted that you cannot look at every page of the book but you can see most of it! Other than Google, who does that? Everything is for free, even looking at nearly every page of many books and you dont even need to register!
I believe that in the future Google will incorporate more day-to-day basic need applications such as a Google Operating System. I mean right now they have the Chrome, Android for phone, they are currently making some sort of e-reader by early 2010! So Yes, i believe a Google Operating System is next in line. With this said, I do not think that Google has created a monopoly, Microsoft who is an enemy to Google made a bing.com which i believe is a weak attempt to fight against Google search. Gmail is a great application, it just cannot compete with hotmail/Yahoo mail. Simply because no one can match Google doesnt mean that they have created a Monopoly because companies like Microsoft are simply not smart enough to think like users and make useful products that doesnt require the company to admit failure (Windows Vista..).
I believe that in the future Google will incorporate more day-to-day basic need applications such as a Google Operating System. I mean right now they have the Chrome, Android for phone, they are currently making some sort of e-reader by early 2010! So Yes, i believe a Google Operating System is next in line. With this said, I do not think that Google has created a monopoly, Microsoft who is an enemy to Google made a bing.com which i believe is a weak attempt to fight against Google search. Gmail is a great application, it just cannot compete with hotmail/Yahoo mail. Simply because no one can match Google doesnt mean that they have created a Monopoly because companies like Microsoft are simply not smart enough to think like users and make useful products that doesnt require the company to admit failure (Windows Vista..).
I saw something on television some time ago about Google. They did a survey about which search engine most people used. They went around asking people to look up something on the internet and most people would go to google.com. There was even one person who went to google.com even though the homepage was yahoo.com. I think the impact that Google has made in today's web culture is pretty big because instead of saying look it up, people these days say Google it. Google basically has everything that you might need: the news, e-mail, images, maps, video.
I think Google will grow even bigger than now in the future. They will probably come up with more things to show to the public in the future. I think Google has created a monopoly because in 2008, Google had "about 69.5 percent of Internet searches in the U.S...increasing 8 percent over 2007" (cnet.com). Google's YouTube also monopolizes online video content. Just last month, 39.6% of people watched videos on YouTube while the other competitors had less the 3% of the overall viewers.
I think Google will grow even bigger than now in the future. They will probably come up with more things to show to the public in the future. I think Google has created a monopoly because in 2008, Google had "about 69.5 percent of Internet searches in the U.S...increasing 8 percent over 2007" (cnet.com). Google's YouTube also monopolizes online video content. Just last month, 39.6% of people watched videos on YouTube while the other competitors had less the 3% of the overall viewers.
Google Response
I think google is predominately one of the most influential websites the internet has to offer. Personally, Google is not only my homepage but also earned itself a search bar at the top of my webpage because it is so often used. Everything about Google seems invincible. It will be amazing to see where the company winds up in the next decade. I use everything google has to offer. From Google analytics, to gmail, to docs, to adsense. The company has it all...and it's scary.
Google started as a very relaxed atmosphere and a sort of kid vibe to the company, wit colorful letters surrounding google. It had a some sort of twitter cartoon vibe to it. "Google's other founder, Sergey Brin, who was then twenty-nine years old, arrived late and roller bladed into the room." (Auletta 1) Google seems like the perfect company to me. However, lately they are becoming much more of a company that corporate America likes to see. Google has exploded to the surface of web users, almost to the point where it is too big. "Once you get to a certain size, you have to figure out new ways of growing, and then you start leaking on everyone else's industry. And when you do that you sort of wake up the bears, and the bears come out of the wooods and start beating the shit out of you." (Seidenberg, CEO Verizon).
Clearly google has started to change in numerous ways. They are starting a monopoly over the internet age. Fortunately, they have become extremely successful in doing so. So why does it matter that they've changed? Why does it matter if they haven't stuck to the ideals and plans from the beginning stages? I understand that it's important to stick to what you once believed in and created the company for but if you lost touch with that and your company is more successful than when it started does it really matter? Because in the end the only thing that really matters within big business is success...and that is exactly what google is achieving.
Google started as a very relaxed atmosphere and a sort of kid vibe to the company, wit colorful letters surrounding google. It had a some sort of twitter cartoon vibe to it. "Google's other founder, Sergey Brin, who was then twenty-nine years old, arrived late and roller bladed into the room." (Auletta 1) Google seems like the perfect company to me. However, lately they are becoming much more of a company that corporate America likes to see. Google has exploded to the surface of web users, almost to the point where it is too big. "Once you get to a certain size, you have to figure out new ways of growing, and then you start leaking on everyone else's industry. And when you do that you sort of wake up the bears, and the bears come out of the wooods and start beating the shit out of you." (Seidenberg, CEO Verizon).
Clearly google has started to change in numerous ways. They are starting a monopoly over the internet age. Fortunately, they have become extremely successful in doing so. So why does it matter that they've changed? Why does it matter if they haven't stuck to the ideals and plans from the beginning stages? I understand that it's important to stick to what you once believed in and created the company for but if you lost touch with that and your company is more successful than when it started does it really matter? Because in the end the only thing that really matters within big business is success...and that is exactly what google is achieving.
Google Era
We live in a Google Era in which once a small company started by two enthusiastic students in their friend’s garage has become a main interface of the modern reality.
Google has grown so big over the years, so that it is literally everywhere. The company is present in all areas of our Internet life. "Todays' people great ambition is to be the next Google", Michael Moritz, one of the Google's investors, said (Auletta, 2009).
Google is the leading search engine in the U.S. search marketplace with about 65 percent of all the searches conducted. In addition, it continues to dominate global search market with about 67 percent of shares according to comScore (www.comscore.com), a reliable source for internet data.
As stated in the article: “We no longer search for the information on the Web: we Google it” (Auletta, 2009). We love Google for its simplicity and the power it gives to its users. With just one user name and a password, we can get so many nice and useful things all at once- an email, a blogger account, a reader, a photo album, and many other things. But...Is such a monopoly is a good thing? Is monopoly basically a good thing? Even with all the respect to Google?
Google does have a lot of competition and it shares the market with lots of other companies including Yahoo! with 16 percent of shares, Microsoft Bing’ with about 11 percent of shares, AOL with about 3 percent market share, and many others. In fact, in some countries Google is not as quite popular at all. For example, in Russia the largest search engine is Yandex, with 55 percent of local market share and eighth position in the list of the main world's search engines, growing at the fastest rate (94 percent) among the top ten (comScore.com). Chinese search engine Baidu holds the third position and Korea's NHN Corporation is on the fifth place. Despite these facts, Google, with its unique approach, innovative technologies, aggressive acquisition strategy, and a lack of substitute goods, is still a monopoly which creates trends and dictates rules.
Google - Searching for Trouble
Google has changed the way that the world uses a search engine and is in the process of changing far, far more than that. Google is one of those rare examples that exceeds its boundaries and is known throughout culture. Even the most inexperienced computer users can easily go online and search for their favorite new topic. Google has revolutionized our internet culture to adapt it to everyone. The Internet is quickly becoming a universal product that everyone will need to use to keep up with the current world. In my opinion, Google will have a very interesting future. They have already begun to expand into a full fledged media organization. I am sure that Google will soon try an expansion to a new media environment. There are two main ideas that I could see then going into. The first would be that of the personal computer. Other large media companies have had success in this area such as Sony with the Vaio. A new technically advanced Google laptop would surely garner some serious interest from a large portion of the public. As promising as this seems, I believe my second idea to be an even more enticing prospect.
The video game market has rapidly expanded in the recent years. Even more impressive is the outside companies that have quickly acclimated themselves into the market. Microsoft is the most recent example of this as they are now one of the market leaders in the video game industry. Perhaps a better example is what IBM has chose to do in the industry. Rather than personally make one of the full units, IBM makes several of the processing chips that work on the inside of the full systems. Perhaps Google could move into some kind of system similar to this where they assist in the video game market. Any kind of involvement should certainly be a productive investment. Finally, I do not think that Google has yet created a monopoly. However, in due time it is possible that they could move into that direction. If Google continues in their current exponential streak they may soon move into the position to have a monopoly.
The video game market has rapidly expanded in the recent years. Even more impressive is the outside companies that have quickly acclimated themselves into the market. Microsoft is the most recent example of this as they are now one of the market leaders in the video game industry. Perhaps a better example is what IBM has chose to do in the industry. Rather than personally make one of the full units, IBM makes several of the processing chips that work on the inside of the full systems. Perhaps Google could move into some kind of system similar to this where they assist in the video game market. Any kind of involvement should certainly be a productive investment. Finally, I do not think that Google has yet created a monopoly. However, in due time it is possible that they could move into that direction. If Google continues in their current exponential streak they may soon move into the position to have a monopoly.
Google Article Response
I think that Google's impact on today's web culture is unmeasurable. This is because they have changed so many processes that were set in place. As a company they have revolutionized the way people use and explore the internet. It is impossible to think of a world without Google in today's society. We depend on them for so much and they continue to expand on their already powerful successes. They have found a way to get people to always come back to them for more and to instantly want to at least try every new product they distribute.
I think that Google is gradually becoming more structured as a company. During the early days everything was very relaxed and it was possible to function with this model since they were on a smaller scale. Now that they have taken over companies such as YouTube and Android, they will need to add more structure to their environment. I'm not saying that they will lose the formula for what has made them the unique company today, but I do think this structure is only natural. In other articles I have read lately this structure can be seen. Many middle to low level engineers have noticed that it's harder to voice their opinions on new systems that can be developed or modified. In the past, these ideas would have made their way straight to the founders. So this is causing these employees to leave the company and start their own businesses. My question is do you think that this could lead to many small companies similar to Google in its early days?
I do not think Google has created a monopoly. They may have a broad reach in terms of the industries they are involved with, but they are not close to being the leaders in all of those industries. I think their is a difference between being the market leader and just having a partial interest. Google has spread itself across many industries and it will be interesting to see how other companies respond in terms of product development. How successful do you think Google will be over time in the different industries they have recently entered?
I think that Google is gradually becoming more structured as a company. During the early days everything was very relaxed and it was possible to function with this model since they were on a smaller scale. Now that they have taken over companies such as YouTube and Android, they will need to add more structure to their environment. I'm not saying that they will lose the formula for what has made them the unique company today, but I do think this structure is only natural. In other articles I have read lately this structure can be seen. Many middle to low level engineers have noticed that it's harder to voice their opinions on new systems that can be developed or modified. In the past, these ideas would have made their way straight to the founders. So this is causing these employees to leave the company and start their own businesses. My question is do you think that this could lead to many small companies similar to Google in its early days?
I do not think Google has created a monopoly. They may have a broad reach in terms of the industries they are involved with, but they are not close to being the leaders in all of those industries. I think their is a difference between being the market leader and just having a partial interest. Google has spread itself across many industries and it will be interesting to see how other companies respond in terms of product development. How successful do you think Google will be over time in the different industries they have recently entered?
I think it’s hard to measure the impact that Google has on today’s web culture, but we know for sure that google has an enormous impact not only on the internet but also in our daily lifestyle. This has been shown clearly by using the phrase “google it” for seeking information.
I believe that google changed the face of the search industry. Since the search engine is the main product of google, I would like to take a little time talking about it, which I believe is more than just a search engine. There are many amazing features that we can use. google.com could be used as a calculator. It can solve the basic mathematics, complicated math, conversion, physical constants and units of measure. For example, you can try 8+4*2, 1 meter in feet, and 100 USD in Euros. Also, you can use Google as dictionary by using the word define. For example, (define: cosmology). We can ask Google about a population of any country by using the word population following by the country’s name. Also, we can ask more quotations such as “birthday Barack Obama”, “president Germany”, or “weather Washington DC”. There are more and more features in Google.com which might be very helpful. You can find the all features at http://www.google.com/help/features.html. I believe these features make google even a better search engine. Google takes the advantage of the information and make it very helpful to the user in many different ways. The search engine is just one example of a google product. I think with any other product, google will continue doing the same philosophy and try to take advantages of any technology available.
Other than the search engine, google becomes involved in the media industry as well. With the many products that google offer, people nowadays use google in just everything “email, maps, videos, news, etc”. I can use the internet for hours and still all I do is involved with google products. I think google will continue to grow and I think they will be just fine.
I believe that google changed the face of the search industry. Since the search engine is the main product of google, I would like to take a little time talking about it, which I believe is more than just a search engine. There are many amazing features that we can use. google.com could be used as a calculator. It can solve the basic mathematics, complicated math, conversion, physical constants and units of measure. For example, you can try 8+4*2, 1 meter in feet, and 100 USD in Euros. Also, you can use Google as dictionary by using the word define. For example, (define: cosmology). We can ask Google about a population of any country by using the word population following by the country’s name. Also, we can ask more quotations such as “birthday Barack Obama”, “president Germany”, or “weather Washington DC”. There are more and more features in Google.com which might be very helpful. You can find the all features at http://www.google.com/help/features.html. I believe these features make google even a better search engine. Google takes the advantage of the information and make it very helpful to the user in many different ways. The search engine is just one example of a google product. I think with any other product, google will continue doing the same philosophy and try to take advantages of any technology available.
Other than the search engine, google becomes involved in the media industry as well. With the many products that google offer, people nowadays use google in just everything “email, maps, videos, news, etc”. I can use the internet for hours and still all I do is involved with google products. I think google will continue to grow and I think they will be just fine.
google impact----->
Lets see..where to begin, this article was packed tight with some behind the scenes information I was unaware of ( i thought google was born in 98, not 96)...To start out with the impact it has made on web culture..start out with asking anyone in general what their main search engine is, more than likely they'll say google, although Bing is catching on quite fast!
However, the way people use the term "google it" pretty much sums it up...google has made quite an impact on how we use/search the web.Not to mention how the article states the 3 billiobn searches a day google was accounted (present day).
Yet there are some that do not think of google as quite the success that it is perceived to be. Like when Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker says even though it is a successful company, they are very poorly managed.
The future of google is hard to understand or even predict...with their chrome, google ventures up and coming and the new google phone, they;re future can go no where but up, and fast!!! but it has definetely changed the way american businesses have looked at success...everyone wants to be like google, especially when they went from zero to twenty billion dollars in revenue in 400 weeks...thats crazy!
However, the way people use the term "google it" pretty much sums it up...google has made quite an impact on how we use/search the web.Not to mention how the article states the 3 billiobn searches a day google was accounted (present day).
Yet there are some that do not think of google as quite the success that it is perceived to be. Like when Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker says even though it is a successful company, they are very poorly managed.
The future of google is hard to understand or even predict...with their chrome, google ventures up and coming and the new google phone, they;re future can go no where but up, and fast!!! but it has definetely changed the way american businesses have looked at success...everyone wants to be like google, especially when they went from zero to twenty billion dollars in revenue in 400 weeks...thats crazy!
All in One- Google
The term "Google It" has been around for a while and will continue to be around for a while. I used to have a hotmail email account, and I thought it was awesome that it was free. Then Google came along, offered Gmail that had more features and for me Google had taken off.
Since then I have been a firm believer in Google. Although the company seems to be making money now, I see how there might be a fear of losing some kind of market share. But I think of it as Microsoft verse Apple. Where if you create a huge number of users as your base, sure competitors can come along and have come along. But it takes a lot for your company to even realize that they are present.
Google offers a user friendly website and as long as they keep it this way I don't really see problems in the near future. We will see what happens in the future but as of now I think Google offers the best search engine and applications for their users.
I google! For free?
When it comes to google, there is nothing that they can do wrong. Gmail is my savior, from the labels to the labs everything makes my life easier. Google docs, google reader, chrome...I use and love it all. If I had the money I would get the google android and use it all the time.
It doesn't surprise me that such amazing services have come from a very relaxed environment. "Google's other founder, Sergey Brin, who was then twenty-nine years old, arrived late and roller bladed into the room." (Auletta 1) Google doesn't invade your computer to find out what you are doing, instead they just see what people on their site are doing and make it better. I love google image labeler...Google has made a game out of making their website more accessible.
The only thing that worries me about Google is the amount of information they save about a person. In a New York Times article this summer, Google's iPhone application was denied because apple wanted to know why google wanted to save all that information. Google does offer everything you need, and I enjoy all the free programs google provides me, but I have to wonder at what cost? In the article it mentions that "You become distant from the users. When you get bigger". (4) I think google (as much as I promise you I love it and use it daily) is far away from the ideals it was based on and isn't as focused on the user as they want to seem.
~Sheetal Kotha
It doesn't surprise me that such amazing services have come from a very relaxed environment. "Google's other founder, Sergey Brin, who was then twenty-nine years old, arrived late and roller bladed into the room." (Auletta 1) Google doesn't invade your computer to find out what you are doing, instead they just see what people on their site are doing and make it better. I love google image labeler...Google has made a game out of making their website more accessible.
The only thing that worries me about Google is the amount of information they save about a person. In a New York Times article this summer, Google's iPhone application was denied because apple wanted to know why google wanted to save all that information. Google does offer everything you need, and I enjoy all the free programs google provides me, but I have to wonder at what cost? In the article it mentions that "You become distant from the users. When you get bigger". (4) I think google (as much as I promise you I love it and use it daily) is far away from the ideals it was based on and isn't as focused on the user as they want to seem.
~Sheetal Kotha
Google Netbooks
According to this article google is only making money off of its search engine. Well I think that google has been working on a new way to make money for a long time, and it has been slowly leaking into the public view. I am sure all of you already know about gmail, google docs, and google chrome. If you think about it those are the three things people do the most on their computers: check their email, create text excel and presentation documents, and search the web. Google has its very own applications for each. The article also mentions google's Android, which I believe is the most recent item in Google's plan. At the moment Google Android is technically just a mobile device operating system. What is not so known to the public is that Android has deep within its coding the backbone of a real operating system. It has been hacked to run as a regular operating system, and all Google would have to do to make it happen would be change a few lines of code. The last key ingredient has yet to be released, even though its release has been rumored on a number of occasions: Gdisk or Gdrive. In case it is not obvious enough what this means, google is probably going to release to its users space on their servers which could be used for anything. So why would that be the final ingredient for Google's master plan? Well it is my belief that Google will start selling driveless (well, nearly driveless) barebone netbooks. These netbooks would have an uneditable hard drive running a stript down version of Android. Android would then automatically connect to your Gdrive which would have all of your applications installed on it as well as all your files. These computers could have such a tiny processor and low amount RAM because all of the applications would be running on Google servers. Think of it like a terminal/mainframe model. Your little netbook is the terminal, and Google's seemingly infinite resources would be the mainframe. Hell, any computer with an internet connection could be the terminal at that point, allowing you to run your personal computer and programs on any computer, anywhere, without having to worry about admin restrictions. So how will Google make money on this service? Well, first they will sell the netbooks themselves. Additionally they will probably charge a subscription fee for different sized drives. Or they might just offer it all for free, with the catch being that all of your files be indexed, and then you would have targeted ads somewhere on your system, likely right on your desktop. Some might find the fees or ads annoying or an invasion of privacy (don't put anything on there you wouldn't want others to see), but wouldn't it be worth it to be able to access your desktop anywhere that has an internet connection?
Googlely eyed
I feel that the founders of Google said it best. When Page and Brin’s started Google “There was no business plan” and “They had a vision” (Auletta 2). Both young the two started from a garage, they then took take vision and milked it for all its worth and then “They went from zero to twenty billion dollars in revenue in four hundred weeks” (Auletta 8). The desire to expand comes from the idea of pushing the envelope, and seeing how far they can take it before they are forced to slow down. Until that day comes, if ever, they will continue their pursuit on getting bigger and better. As far as being a monopoly I don’t think Google qualifies because the services they offer are available in various other places. What Google is to the web is just like mP3 players and apple. Apple does not make all mp3 players but has control of a large part of the market because of its name.
Where is Google Going
It’s no secret that over the past 10 years Google has change the way anyone searches for information. The power of this ability has affected all of society especially the new generations that are growing up without out ever know how to use a real library. The information that comes from Google is fast and easy but it’s no reliable and hardly a sound source. The cool thing is that Google is separated by many companies and offers many differnt accessories that allow users to virtually do anything. But where is Google heading and how far are they going to take the web, that can’t be said, but is known, like any other powerhouse there time will come to step down.
Google has met some criticism from its very aggressive manor in handling information. The way it continues to store user information and not deleting emails for an extended amount of time has given the giant a darker side. What are its true plans for the future because it does not seem to hold the same values as when it started? Its current actions seem to reflect more of an industrial money making machine. Wherever it goes, it will for sure influence the internet and its society that is growing as fast as Google.
"Googling with Bing"
As Google has moved from noun to verb it has become synonymous with "searching" and "browsing" when used to define activities on the web. Even the search engine's fiercest competitors must weep when popular media defines their services using the big G's name to describe what they do, no matter how tongue-in-cheek the message might be. This development of Google into "Googling" stems directly from the overwhelming success of the algorithm that they use and the idealistic vision of the companies founders, Brin and Page.
Auletta's article in the New Yorker asks why Google, the megalithic everything-on-the-web monster that it is, has reason to be concerned about its place in the world or what the future holds. A point that in the last year(s) has been hammered home by the inward-folding of the Big Three auto companies, another institution that "appeared impenetrable" despite questionable business practices and a "thinly spread peanut-butter" approach to business.
With its ever-swelling series of web-applications and the acquisitions (YouTube) that prompted the company's re-labeling itself from a "search company" to a "media company" have all, at least in the eyes of many investors and analysts, contributed to a dilution of the key service that the company provides. To be fair to the naysayers, the search tool and the associated monetization tools, AdSense and AdWords, is the only truly profitable arm of the company. The quote in Auletta's article from Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon's CEO, about how a company must seek out new ways of expanding once it gets to a certain size, that "…you start leaking on everyone else's industry." sums up one of the real dangers that Google faces now. Having consumed the search market and now expanding into communications, media and advertising, Google has "woken up the bears" who are now most certainly out to "beat the $#1+" out of the interloper.
I for one think that maintaining competition in markets is very important and that regulating and protecting against a total takeover is in everyone's best interest. However, if Google has discovered a better way, standing in the way of progress simply to protect vested interests with more influential lobbying partners seems abhorrent. We'll have to see how Google responds to those clamoring at its gates for now and remain vigilant for signs of monopoly and stagnation from within the leviathan that it represents.
Auletta's article in the New Yorker asks why Google, the megalithic everything-on-the-web monster that it is, has reason to be concerned about its place in the world or what the future holds. A point that in the last year(s) has been hammered home by the inward-folding of the Big Three auto companies, another institution that "appeared impenetrable" despite questionable business practices and a "thinly spread peanut-butter" approach to business.
With its ever-swelling series of web-applications and the acquisitions (YouTube) that prompted the company's re-labeling itself from a "search company" to a "media company" have all, at least in the eyes of many investors and analysts, contributed to a dilution of the key service that the company provides. To be fair to the naysayers, the search tool and the associated monetization tools, AdSense and AdWords, is the only truly profitable arm of the company. The quote in Auletta's article from Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon's CEO, about how a company must seek out new ways of expanding once it gets to a certain size, that "…you start leaking on everyone else's industry." sums up one of the real dangers that Google faces now. Having consumed the search market and now expanding into communications, media and advertising, Google has "woken up the bears" who are now most certainly out to "beat the $#1+" out of the interloper.
I for one think that maintaining competition in markets is very important and that regulating and protecting against a total takeover is in everyone's best interest. However, if Google has discovered a better way, standing in the way of progress simply to protect vested interests with more influential lobbying partners seems abhorrent. We'll have to see how Google responds to those clamoring at its gates for now and remain vigilant for signs of monopoly and stagnation from within the leviathan that it represents.
Google It!
It was really interesting to read about google's beginings in this article. of course, reading about how its grown was intresting too, however I never learned how exactly it got started. Knowing tha bit of information, really reinforces how huge of an impact google has mad ass its grown. I believe it will be around for a very long time. There is really no way to measure if it will continue to be as big as it is now though.
Over the years many companies tend to call through even the ones that are the most influential at a certain point. With googles own browser it makes them more marketable. I know a lot of people who love usiong Google Chrome because of its many features. I think if anything other engines will continue to follow their example. If google ever fails, there will be another serach engine/browser to come alone that will be essentially the same thing.
There is no telling where google will go , but i see it was not leaving soon. They will probably come up with more ways to influence the internet as well as our culture. I see int eh future more reasone to use the term "google it".
Over the years many companies tend to call through even the ones that are the most influential at a certain point. With googles own browser it makes them more marketable. I know a lot of people who love usiong Google Chrome because of its many features. I think if anything other engines will continue to follow their example. If google ever fails, there will be another serach engine/browser to come alone that will be essentially the same thing.
There is no telling where google will go , but i see it was not leaving soon. They will probably come up with more ways to influence the internet as well as our culture. I see int eh future more reasone to use the term "google it".
The Ultimate Site: GOOGLE
Nowadays Google is no longer just a search engine. It is the ultimate site for searching and exploring all types of resources, entertainment, and information. According to the article, "Google had become the front doors to the world for many people, the place they go for information." Today, you can access email, blog, map, and so much more through Google." You can gain access through a wide range of resources which cause people to rely in Google for their everyday use such as myself. When people are coming to me for information, I just say to them, "you can just Google it." Aside from Google, I hardly use any other sites, such as Yahoo, AOL, and etc.
Google is a key leader in its industry. They deliver its business in a versatile way that it is hard for other competitors to compete with. No other companies can match up with the service that Google provides for its users. Google is truly taking over the internet.
Google is a key leader in its industry. They deliver its business in a versatile way that it is hard for other competitors to compete with. No other companies can match up with the service that Google provides for its users. Google is truly taking over the internet.
As websites evolve and as people get bored with the same old interface, we, as consumers, will want to see a different kind of mold for new websites. For now, this innovation may include just small changes like the placement of navbars (i.e. move the main nav bar to the right and allow content to flow freely from top to bottom) .
For future websites, navigation systems will be completely different. New innovations and ideas in media, animation, and graphic design will bring sites into the next era of web design that I'm sure we all will be waiting for.
For future websites, navigation systems will be completely different. New innovations and ideas in media, animation, and graphic design will bring sites into the next era of web design that I'm sure we all will be waiting for.
I remember when I first used Google.com. I was in 6th grade, and part of a technology club at my school. We had to search for information, and my advisor recommended that we use this new search engine called Google. I've used it ever since.
Google has become a huge part of our culture. As the article states on page 2, "Eleven years after Google's birth, we no longer search for information on the Web: we Google it." In addition to the popular search engine, Google has branched out in recent years to offer maps, email, books, video, news, health, an operating system for mobile devices, a web browser, cloud computing, etc. The article listed businesses that Google is involved in that I never knew about, such as the cloud computing.
I feel that Google has probably expanded too much into other things, which may hurt them in the long run. The company started because of its superior search engine, and probably hasn't done much else to improve it in the years since. So far, they've been okay because they were always the better search engine. However, recently Microsoft has introduced a search engine hoping to compete, Bing. Bing claims to be a smarter search engine that will help you better find what you are looking for. I don't know too much about Bing, but if the claims are true, Google could see a decrease in market share, if it hasn't already.
Google's recent venture into other industries hasn't done much for their bottom line, according to the article, and has only spread our their resources. Depsite all their investments, their search engine is one of the only products to turn a profit (Auletta, p5). If they want to continue to be known for having a great search engine, they should drop some of their other projects and go back to focusing on providing information to people that they want and need.
Google has become a huge part of our culture. As the article states on page 2, "Eleven years after Google's birth, we no longer search for information on the Web: we Google it." In addition to the popular search engine, Google has branched out in recent years to offer maps, email, books, video, news, health, an operating system for mobile devices, a web browser, cloud computing, etc. The article listed businesses that Google is involved in that I never knew about, such as the cloud computing.
I feel that Google has probably expanded too much into other things, which may hurt them in the long run. The company started because of its superior search engine, and probably hasn't done much else to improve it in the years since. So far, they've been okay because they were always the better search engine. However, recently Microsoft has introduced a search engine hoping to compete, Bing. Bing claims to be a smarter search engine that will help you better find what you are looking for. I don't know too much about Bing, but if the claims are true, Google could see a decrease in market share, if it hasn't already.
Google's recent venture into other industries hasn't done much for their bottom line, according to the article, and has only spread our their resources. Depsite all their investments, their search engine is one of the only products to turn a profit (Auletta, p5). If they want to continue to be known for having a great search engine, they should drop some of their other projects and go back to focusing on providing information to people that they want and need.
Google is Now
Google has certainly grown from just a search engine company to a huge conglomerate in Internet-based services. The comparison of Google in the current era to Microsoft is quite appropriate. Google’s search engine has become the main one used by almost everyone. The article mentioned somewhere around seventy percent of all searches are done through Google. I think the only other search engine I use is Yahoo, if I happen to be on one of their sites already. Other services like Gmail have gained on top web-based emails sites such as yahoo and hotmail. Many people are still discovering the over 100 others products offered by Google, but Google seems to be on the cutting edge of online services. Their current popularity makes it easy for users to latch onto their others services without hesitation.
Google has bought into some markets, such as acquiring YouTube, and they have created many services in-house. The article talked about how many Google products have not is profitable, including YouTube. In the near future, I think Google will continue to create new ideas, products, and services. Over time though, they will come and go as Google will need to be a little more effective with the way they manage each division. As far as being a monopoly, I don’t quite think that is the case with Google. When Microsoft was nearly a monopoly, it was because most users did not have a choice. Combined with strategies such as including Internet Explorer with their Windows software, they helped to retain this monopoly. Google has done many things like Microsoft, including snatching up smaller businesses. However, if you compare Google to another top online company, eBay, then I don’t feel Google is as much of a monopoly. eBay has much more of a monopolistic hold on online auctions than Google does in their services. eBay has bought both auction hosting companies and online payment companies like PayPal. This is what has helped them corner the market along with a successful format. I feel that people use Google more out of choice than strictly being a monopoly. We are free to use any search engines, email, etc that we want. However Google just has some sort of attraction.
Chuck
Google has bought into some markets, such as acquiring YouTube, and they have created many services in-house. The article talked about how many Google products have not is profitable, including YouTube. In the near future, I think Google will continue to create new ideas, products, and services. Over time though, they will come and go as Google will need to be a little more effective with the way they manage each division. As far as being a monopoly, I don’t quite think that is the case with Google. When Microsoft was nearly a monopoly, it was because most users did not have a choice. Combined with strategies such as including Internet Explorer with their Windows software, they helped to retain this monopoly. Google has done many things like Microsoft, including snatching up smaller businesses. However, if you compare Google to another top online company, eBay, then I don’t feel Google is as much of a monopoly. eBay has much more of a monopolistic hold on online auctions than Google does in their services. eBay has bought both auction hosting companies and online payment companies like PayPal. This is what has helped them corner the market along with a successful format. I feel that people use Google more out of choice than strictly being a monopoly. We are free to use any search engines, email, etc that we want. However Google just has some sort of attraction.
Chuck
The article from the New Yorker on Google was very interesting this week! I guess I didn't realize that Google consisted of so many other companies. I know that Google totally redefined the way people search for information on the web. All sorts of information is available at your fingertips, so to say. Reading about all of the other services and programs Google offers I would definitely say that they have become a front runner in a lot of information services...I don't know if they have quite taken over the industry though by becoming a Monopoly...
As for all of the layoffs and the closing of the Phoenix location and the decline in revenue I think that came with all the economic problems the whole country has been having. The fact that they are still in the positive is saying something! I don't believe they are a "one trick pony" as the article stated. I think they have definitely grown with technology and will continue to grow and add new programs and services.
As for all of the layoffs and the closing of the Phoenix location and the decline in revenue I think that came with all the economic problems the whole country has been having. The fact that they are still in the positive is saying something! I don't believe they are a "one trick pony" as the article stated. I think they have definitely grown with technology and will continue to grow and add new programs and services.
Danger of conglomeration
Undoubtedly, Google has cornered the market on online search engines. People laugh if you bring up Ask Jeeves these days, Google is the simplest and the best search engine there is. It's built into the Mozilla Firefox browser, as a matter of fact. Google's adWords and search engine advertising has built the company into an economic powerhouse. The problem arises when the guys at Google try to overstep their bounds.
I recently read a book entitled The Origin of Brands by Al Reis. In it, he talks about the danger of spreading a company or a brand too thin. For example, GM had countless lines of cars (Chevy, Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn) and because of this, didn't have the direction it needed to continue to succeed when people stopped buying cars. Since then, they have spun off Hummer, Saturn, and Pontiac.
This overexpansion is the biggest threat to Google, in my mind. E-books is an industry that already has a clear leader (Amazon), which could be a waste of the Google brand. When people begin to forget that Google is the best search engine in favor of their other products, they may begin to have a problem.
I recently read a book entitled The Origin of Brands by Al Reis. In it, he talks about the danger of spreading a company or a brand too thin. For example, GM had countless lines of cars (Chevy, Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn) and because of this, didn't have the direction it needed to continue to succeed when people stopped buying cars. Since then, they have spun off Hummer, Saturn, and Pontiac.
This overexpansion is the biggest threat to Google, in my mind. E-books is an industry that already has a clear leader (Amazon), which could be a waste of the Google brand. When people begin to forget that Google is the best search engine in favor of their other products, they may begin to have a problem.
Google.com Takeover?
Google has become without a doubt the most readily used webiste on the internet. The power it provides a user is beyond that of any other site simply because it leads you to those other sites. The fact that their search technology is far superior to everyone else's is the first reason why Google emerged on top of its cometitors. Secondly, the fact that Google strives for more than just being a search engine, allows it to tackle other areas of potential. Some feel (I know I do) that if there's something you need done out on the internet, and it is provided by Google, why would you NOT go there first. The reliability of their name and brand based on previous experiences with its users makes it a no-brainer.
Since Google began providing other services online, their fight to capitalize on the e-Book market has been outstandingly one-sided. As the article said, even though Amazon.com initially supported Google and its endeavors, Amazon now fears that "Google's effort to digitize the world's library might constitute the basis of and e-Book monopoly". Now offering an optimal email, and map service, a health directory, a mobile wireless device operating system, as well as new applications available with "cloud computing", Google TV, Audio, and Print Ads, Google has successfully implemented outstanding services for a wide variety of media types and personal uses. My question to any one of you is: what other company has done this, but done this anywhere near as well?
Since Google began providing other services online, their fight to capitalize on the e-Book market has been outstandingly one-sided. As the article said, even though Amazon.com initially supported Google and its endeavors, Amazon now fears that "Google's effort to digitize the world's library might constitute the basis of and e-Book monopoly". Now offering an optimal email, and map service, a health directory, a mobile wireless device operating system, as well as new applications available with "cloud computing", Google TV, Audio, and Print Ads, Google has successfully implemented outstanding services for a wide variety of media types and personal uses. My question to any one of you is: what other company has done this, but done this anywhere near as well?
Google and the Beast
One question that has many scratching their heads is this; where exactly is Google going? Sure, we all know where they started back at the turn of the millennium, but the company seems to keep stumbling upon fork after fork in the road of success. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who built the company based on the notion of customer service and great human relations, have seen some of their dream compromised in the name of efficiency and profit.
Page and Brin saw the closing of their Pheonix office, and consequently the termination of two dozen employees, for the sake of efficiency. They created AdWords and AdSense to make a profit, and consequently forfeited their notion of truly advertising free searching. They have traded office toys for specialist research teams, which may either be indicative of growing up or of an ebbing dream. Regardless of how it is changing, Google is indeed doing just that;changing.
Some may perceive it as selling out, and Google's recent activities are reminiscent of just that. For a company that was founded on innovation and fun and freedom, it certainly seems as if it is taking that walk down the aisle towards a marriage to corporate normalcy. On it's way it is discarding the quirks that make it unique, like flower petals to the floor. Two steps forward, toss the live gaming site; a few more, drop those Phoenix employees; just a little further and there go the ideals of the company.
Regardless of what it is losing, however, it is impossible to overlook what it is gaining. Google holds a viable and seemingly indelible foothold in the realm of eBooks. Sure, they are no Amazon, but that does not mean they will not be a major competitor. With their resources and market research, it is evident that Google will give Amazon a run for their money. And the sheer vastness of the compmany is inarguably Goliath; Google takes in four out of every ten advertising. One company accounts for 40% of advertising revenue. That alone speaks verses about the relevance and power of this company.
Regardless of whether it is selling out, growing up, or remaining the same, the fact of the matter is that Google is relevant and is here to stay. It has avoided the fizzling out typical of many internet based entities, and in my opinion, will bypass the train wreck that happens to the rest.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Google is no longer just a search engine. The company is on the cutting edge of every type of internet technology, and everything that they do ends up effecting the entire field. Not only do they push the boundaries of internet technologies, much of the population relies on Google in one way or another in everyday life and work.
Yes, Google is has and will hold the number one spot as a search engine. I personally don't think they will stop growing. They have some of the best programmers in the field (including UNIX developer, Kenneth Thompson), and they have more momentum than any other competing company. They have the edge in terms of popularity (you never hear of someone 'Yahooing' themselves do you?).
The article refers to google as not only just a search engine, but now a 'big company' and a 'media conglomerate'. They have expanded their expertise from just a search engine, and now have their foot in almost everything innovative on the internet. But, google is not done expanding. In fact, Google's biggest new project, Wave, could prove to be a huge new technology in collaborating and working together with friends and colleagues. Also, Google has proved to be huge in mobile computing with their open source OS entitled 'Android'.
my g - rant
When it comes to the internet, my parents are like dinosaurs. They stumble around with awkwardly short limbs, and it seems like their brains have shrunken to the size of walnuts. Simply said, they are internet-clueless. Yet, when my father, who doesn't know how to check his own email, is asked a question he doesn't know the answer to, he will reply, "I don't know; Google it?"
Google has become the answer to all of our needs. Seriously, count how many times you use Google or Google's products per day. I can tell you already that I've Google searched at least five different terms today, and a couple of Google images. Jeff's email telling me to write this post? Through Gmail. This blog itself? Blogger, a Google product. I've opened school documents in Google docs, read some blogs in Google reader, and watched a music video on YouTube. Just today. And I haven't even been online that long. (Well, maybe that's a lie.)
And that's not it. Google's network includes hundreds of other websites that people use every day. Food Network website? A Google partner. Ever notice that if you search something on the New York Times' website, you get that cute little "Sponsored Links" box that looks eerily similar to some other search site...what is that search engine called...wait, I'll Google it.
Google is so widely used because its technologies are the first of their kind, reliable, and usable. Monopoly? Well, it's the best. It can't help that. What, do you want it to stop being the best, so other companies can have a shot? I think they'll pass. Future? With such an adaptive outlook and innovative technology, they'd better be around for awhile.
For advertisers, Google is a dream come true. Let's think about it. 74% of the U.S. population is on the internet. Google's AdWords, with the content network, reaches 80% of the people on the internet. The internet is becoming the second highest media source for information and news purposes (after TV), and for a huge number of people, Google is the place where they start their info search. Using the keywords they type in, Google can match its advertisers to potential target members by demographics, time of day, season... and it's CHEAP. Advertisers can pay by cost-per-click or cost-per-impression, and the constant advertising space auction means that the little guys have just as much of a chance as the big players to get a good ad spot.
In the U.K., internet advertising spending just passed TV commercial spending to become the number one media source for ad spending. Search advertising is 60% of internet advertising, and Google dominates search advertising. In other words: this is where the ad money is going. Google's future looks pretty safe there.
Google's impact on the internet? What do you mean? Google IS the internet. And they rock at it. Will they end up turning us into those creepy ranting insular people on the Bing commercials? Maybe. But at least they will do it in style.
(Erm...sorry about the little rant. I am currently representing Google for an advertising media pitch. So thanks for giving me an easy topic, Jeff.)
Google has become the answer to all of our needs. Seriously, count how many times you use Google or Google's products per day. I can tell you already that I've Google searched at least five different terms today, and a couple of Google images. Jeff's email telling me to write this post? Through Gmail. This blog itself? Blogger, a Google product. I've opened school documents in Google docs, read some blogs in Google reader, and watched a music video on YouTube. Just today. And I haven't even been online that long. (Well, maybe that's a lie.)
And that's not it. Google's network includes hundreds of other websites that people use every day. Food Network website? A Google partner. Ever notice that if you search something on the New York Times' website, you get that cute little "Sponsored Links" box that looks eerily similar to some other search site...what is that search engine called...wait, I'll Google it.
Google is so widely used because its technologies are the first of their kind, reliable, and usable. Monopoly? Well, it's the best. It can't help that. What, do you want it to stop being the best, so other companies can have a shot? I think they'll pass. Future? With such an adaptive outlook and innovative technology, they'd better be around for awhile.
For advertisers, Google is a dream come true. Let's think about it. 74% of the U.S. population is on the internet. Google's AdWords, with the content network, reaches 80% of the people on the internet. The internet is becoming the second highest media source for information and news purposes (after TV), and for a huge number of people, Google is the place where they start their info search. Using the keywords they type in, Google can match its advertisers to potential target members by demographics, time of day, season... and it's CHEAP. Advertisers can pay by cost-per-click or cost-per-impression, and the constant advertising space auction means that the little guys have just as much of a chance as the big players to get a good ad spot.
In the U.K., internet advertising spending just passed TV commercial spending to become the number one media source for ad spending. Search advertising is 60% of internet advertising, and Google dominates search advertising. In other words: this is where the ad money is going. Google's future looks pretty safe there.
Google's impact on the internet? What do you mean? Google IS the internet. And they rock at it. Will they end up turning us into those creepy ranting insular people on the Bing commercials? Maybe. But at least they will do it in style.
(Erm...sorry about the little rant. I am currently representing Google for an advertising media pitch. So thanks for giving me an easy topic, Jeff.)
G O O G L E
Google's impact on today's web culture is a tremendous one. Why else would the word "Google" become a verb that we use in our everyday language? Google is such a familiar term now- it pops up in various types of media: the movies, books, songs, etc. Just as the article stated, Google is now not only a search engine but it offers so many other different and useful services that are widely used nowadays. Whenever I'm in the iSchool labs, I always see at least a few people on their gmails, not only checking their emails but also using the gmail chat feature. Whenever there is group work, a lot of times the group members utilize Google docs to share and edit information. Google map, Googly analytics, Google news, etc etc etc.
So yes, maybe Google does hold a monopoly in the search engine world. Like the article stated, it is now not only a search engine company, it is a big media conglomerate competing with other big media companies today. The article talks about Google's success but at the same time, had a wary and precautionary tone about its future. I think Google is set. I think Google will continue to grow and will continue to be the number 1 search engine. The article worried about how Google will handle it's growth, coining the time period as it's "adolescence period." But i think the company will keep developing and innovating the services as it goes. When a company has the ability to change the meaning of a word (i think google is a very large number originally), you know that people won't stop using it for a long time to come.
I may be misinformed but I do think that Google lacks some features that other search engines have, such as Yahoo. I know my friends rely on Yahoo for their sports and fantasy information. I rely on Yahoo for movie show times. I don't know if Google has those things. Maybe it does but it's not very widely known. Do you think Google should add those things as well?
So yes, maybe Google does hold a monopoly in the search engine world. Like the article stated, it is now not only a search engine company, it is a big media conglomerate competing with other big media companies today. The article talks about Google's success but at the same time, had a wary and precautionary tone about its future. I think Google is set. I think Google will continue to grow and will continue to be the number 1 search engine. The article worried about how Google will handle it's growth, coining the time period as it's "adolescence period." But i think the company will keep developing and innovating the services as it goes. When a company has the ability to change the meaning of a word (i think google is a very large number originally), you know that people won't stop using it for a long time to come.
I may be misinformed but I do think that Google lacks some features that other search engines have, such as Yahoo. I know my friends rely on Yahoo for their sports and fantasy information. I rely on Yahoo for movie show times. I don't know if Google has those things. Maybe it does but it's not very widely known. Do you think Google should add those things as well?
Google, Web, and Beyond
It's one of the most used search engines on the web right now. Google has made it easy for customers or user to find what they are looking for. Sometimes it may take a while, but you find something. The use of it is getting more and more profound as new generation venture through the technology age. Google has made it easier for people to communicate with each other or other companies. It has made research and going to school much easier. You don't have to go to libraries or look through mounds of books and articles to find what you are looking for. But on the other hand their are some cons that come along with it. With all the information out there some have used this search engine as a means of destruction. There's identity thief and information about how to make bombs and what not. How much more information do we need? Why does google want to expand so desperately? With that said when is enough, enough? Don't get me wrong google is one of the best things since sliced bread. Now I don't think google is a monopoly yet, but it's well on it's way if it accomplishes what it sets out to do as far as ebooks, advertisements, and Gmail go. The founders see it as limitless. I guess their main goal is advertisements. Good luck with that one google, especially if your prices are outrageous. All long as there is room for advertisements and there are companies that are willing to pay, why not advertise? Maybe I'm babbling, what are some of you ideas?
Google it
Google has changed the face of the internet. "Eleven years after Google's birth, we no longer search for information on the Web: we Google it." (Auletta, p 48) The company has become such a staple to the internet community, it's become commonly used terminology. While I do not believe Google has developed a monopoly on anything yet, if left unchallenged, it may happen...most likely with its digital library.
I don't think that Google will be able to continue its success for much longer. Regardless of industry type, something new always comes along to knock top-competitors out of their ivory towers. There's only so long Google can go before someone comes out with a better or more effective way to link ads to searches. Not to mention, if Google doesn't narrow its focus a bit, it runs the risk of tripping over itself. It's not unheard of...
I don't think that Google will be able to continue its success for much longer. Regardless of industry type, something new always comes along to knock top-competitors out of their ivory towers. There's only so long Google can go before someone comes out with a better or more effective way to link ads to searches. Not to mention, if Google doesn't narrow its focus a bit, it runs the risk of tripping over itself. It's not unheard of...
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Google Post
I think that it is hard to measure the impact that Google has in today's web culture. Google is ubiquitous, and it is hard to find someone who does not know what Google is, or does not use Google as their primary search engine. "Eleven years after Google's birth, we no longer search for information on the Web: we Google it." I think that Google will continue to innovate and expand for a long time because of how unique Larry Page and Sergey Brin are. Although I think Google will continue to have success, I think that it is inevitable for them eventually collapse just like many other companies who have dominated their respective markets. An example that was given in the article was of the three major car companies, no one ever thought that they would be on the brink of having to close, but people were wrong.
I do not think that Google has established themselves as a monopoly just yet because there are still other search engines that are quite large and popular, such as Yahoo, and Microsoft's new Bing. One of the thing that makes Google more unique then many other search engines is that searching the web is not Google's only feature. "Google launched a blizzard of new products: Google Maps, to offer directions; gmail, to send and store e-mail Google Books, to digitize twenty million books and make them available for search or sale;..."
Webpage layouts
I don't think there is too much you can do to change the layout of a webpage to make it new and exciting. They all basically have to include the same things, navbar, links, and content. You can make it blink or put them in different places but they all have to be on the same page no matter what you do to them...I have visited many webpages and they all basically do the same thing, I don't see much room for improvement or changes.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Interface Design
I see a lot of talk about taking web design to the "next level". I visit many web sites every day, some are very well designed and others look like they were put together in a half hour but the basic layout principles remain the same, a navigation bar across the top with secondary links in a column on the left side and contact information and a few more navigation options on the bottom. This layout WORKS but as avid internet users evolve I think they are going to start to demand something different, there's nothing worse than a company putting up a website that says something like they "deliver excellence in a unique way" on their painfully typical website. If you are a company who truly tries to break the mold then I think your website should reflect that. I personally don't know the best way to do that, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to set the world on fire, but with every project I work on I try to do something new, it always takes way too much time but is so much more satisfying to achieve something instead of just getting the job done.
Here is a link for the website of a design firm right here in Syracuse, they have a unique design sense and great ability to incorporate technology and style.
http://www.2ndnaturestudio.com/v02.5/
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Advancement of Web Design
Over time I think that websites will increase in size. This is because the older resolution monitors will be phased out and the majority of people will have newer monitors capable of higher resolution. In the future, the small amount of people that still have old computers with small monitors will be forced to either upgrade or constantly scroll. Websites in general have advanced tremendously over the last ten years. If someone has an older computer, they will have difficulty viewing the websites of today and scrolling for a long time will be the least of their worries. In terms of mobile devices, a program similar to the iPhone will become necessary. Hopefully in the future all mobile devices capable of viewing the internet will have a similar program so the internet is in its true form. This will allow users to see the pages they wish to view but not need to worry about scrolling forever. I think that if websites were larger we would be able to include more content and include more interesting material. This would open doors for websites and allow designers to have more space to work with. Even though the new bigger websites will include more or have a better spaced out setup, they will still be just as easy to navigate. I definitely see this as a possibility for the future.
Who said smaller was better?
As monitors grow, it seems logical that websites will too. It wouldn't make much sense to have large monitors and small websites which amounts to a lot of white space. A little white space is okay, but at a certain point it seems to suggest that the developer got a little lazy with his design. It's true that larger monitors can be used primarily for viewing movies and other forms of entertainment but the reality is that if monitors inevitably grow in size, then a market niche for a new breed of wide-screen compatible websites will open up. Web developers will want to exploit this niche.
Simply adding more navbars and the like is better for navigation but it doesn't satisfy the screen resolution of the larger monitors. In my opinion websites look more aesthetically pleasing if they take up a good amount of monitor space. To address the navigation problem it all comes down to how the site is organized. If links and information are grouped in a logical way, then websites can continue to grow without facing a navigation crisis.
Simply adding more navbars and the like is better for navigation but it doesn't satisfy the screen resolution of the larger monitors. In my opinion websites look more aesthetically pleasing if they take up a good amount of monitor space. To address the navigation problem it all comes down to how the site is organized. If links and information are grouped in a logical way, then websites can continue to grow without facing a navigation crisis.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Website Size
I don't think websites would change much in size in the near future. The contents of the website might change but I don't think that size of the website would be any different than they are now. Sites like eBay and YouTube havent changed much in the past few years except for the contents in the website. There may be improvements done to the site but the size of the website stayed the same. As a designer/developer/manager of a Web site, I would include a search engine because as content increases on a web site, it gets much harder to find a specific thing that you are looking for. Since mobile technology has advanced, I would think of ways to fit a web page that can be viewed without the viewer having the move the page left and right just to read the contents of the page.
Shifting Scales
It seems like the future of web design depends on being able to shift scales. If there are users who are going to be employing a variety of screen types and sizes, then the real challenge is to design the ways in which content will adapt intelligently to the context of each different device. The mobile web user of particular sites is probably interested in different types of information than those that are accessing the same site from a desktop computer. While to some degree for desktops it makes sense to stick with formatting the site for the least common denominator, I can also envision that a similar logic to that being applied to mobile screens could work in reverse, offering different format and content choices for those with higher resolution through increased interaction with more flexible web layouts. Accesibility will always be a desirable quality for all web sites, but shouldn't necessarily limit the kinds of content that can be accessed by users with more abundant screen resources. As someone with fairly high screen resolution and, as an architecture student, someone interested in the possibility of accessing higher quality images online, I would certainly appreciate if web designers offered me the option of maximizing the screen real estate that I have on hand in situations where it would make a substantial difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)