Please Kev, next time you reach this point of inspiration just take a few minutes to write your thoughts out. Your delivery adds too little to your thesis too make up for the bother of listening to you deliver it.
yep, that's exactly what i think too. Google needs real time search and the best way to do that is to have the data on their lightning machines.
If it's not on their lightning machines, then the content owner (twitter, facebook, etc) is the king and google has to wait until that content owner makes the data available to google's bots.
I imagine google talked to facebook and twitter, but google is getting a lot of push back from content owners because content owners don't want to let google put servers in their data centers or have quicker access to the data than can be gotten through polling for updates.
And why would they? They all work on advertising meaning they are all competitors. It's the same thing with newspapers, except in this case, the content owners actually have some power to say no to Google, because twitter and facebook users don't go through google first to get there. Google is a gateway for the newspapers, but twitter and facebook are themselves gateways.
Google wants everyone in the world to start their browsers on a page controlled by google.
If we're going to have real-time search, I'd rather it's from Buzz than Twitter if only for the fact that it's not limited to 140 characters and doesn't have to use URL shorteners, you can include pics/maps/videos/etc, and it's easy to see comments made about a post.
Twitter's 140 char limit was cute at first, and it sounds great in concept ("deep thoughts in few words!"), but in practice it's starting to get on my nerves.
OT: Is there a literary term for the situation where something's greatest strength is also that thing's greatest weakness? Like an Achilles heel, except the Achilles heel isn't also a strength.
It applies here, because the 140 char limit is what helped twitter take off, but it could also be twitter's greatest weakness.
"Double-edged sword" is typically used for these scenarios. But the meaning is more metaphysical than practical, suggesting that two blades facing opposite directions can do an equal amount of harm as good ("cuts both ways").
Oddly, the "Midas touch" fits the definition almost perfectly, but the phrase is almost always used to positively describe someone's uncanny success, ignoring the devastating effects it might have on the person's life.
He's basically saying that Google needs the real time info that sites like Twitter produce, but that they don't want to rely on a third party like Twitter (which they probably would have bought if they could).
He notes how Google gives Twitter a prominent space in its search results, and how that it not something they've done often in the past, and probably want to change in the future.
As I was watching this I also thought that Google could be using Buzz to devalue Twitter. If Buzz can get a mass audience Google may be able to acquire Twitter more cheaply. Twitter has way too much of a head start for Buzz to actually rival it.
