I know what animal you're thinking of.

Hey Rizzn-ites,

Have you ever played 20 Questions with a computer or small orb? If so, you know that computers and technology, are very capable of predicting what we'll say and what we're thinking.

How does it do it?

Greg Blonder, who we interviewed on the show about a month ago, posted on Internet Evolution today not asking how it does it, but noting how it doesn't, and posing a work-a-round for poor predictive technology. I've chatted with Greg a few times, and he's a great guy to talk to, but I don't know him well enough to know exactly how much of an AI fan he is.

I am a fan of AI. I'm an AI nut. One of my big fantasies (given enough cash and computing cycles, one that I think is realistic), is to create a truly sentient (at least by Alan Turing's standards) AI.

Greg gives a couple examples of how current predictive technology falls short:

• Search engines, and their contextual ads: "Search engine companies believe that they can target ads more efficiently based on invading my privacy and analyzing my last hundred search queries and emails -- and thus charge a premium for each ad served. But last week, while I was seeking information on car recalls, I was flooded by ads to buy the very same lemon from the same company I was investigating."
• Piracy: "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) snoops around our computers to see what music files we're posting and trying to guess our intent. Do we own the track we posted, and are we just backing it up to the net?"

It's hard to argue with his examples (and there are others in his list), but I'll try. The bottom line that Greg is getting at is that invading privacy to learn more history is not going to assist a computer in accurately predicting the future. I think that frankly, the opposite is true.

Remember the 20 questions bot I mentioned in the opener? The trick to those AIs is for them first to narrow down the possible responses you could have to a narrow list of nouns, and then, narrow down the possibilities further with a refined tree of questions. Most modern 20 questions AIs can get the answer in less than 17 questions, but rarely more than 26.

What do you need to do when all you have is one question (a search query), and no retries? You need more context. You can either get that by coaching the user to be more specific, or you can use historical context.

Search engines, particularly Google, are going back not just a hundred queries, but years in their history, to determine context and intent. Google is also working to invade our privacy on a number of levels, and I'm not just talking about that silly street view thing they have on the maps system everyone seems to be up in arms about.

Look at Blogger, GMail, Search History, GTalk, Calendaring, and just about every tool that's graduated from Labs into common usage. What's a common thread? Not just organisation and assistance in utilisation of said data - archival! They default to archiving all text chats, give you nigh unlimited space to store email conversations, go back as far as they can in their history of your searches, and give you a free tool to record your thoughts on everything from the mundane to the profound in Blogger. Then they tie it to one nifty little Google Account that has your name and cookie attached to it.

They want to give you a gPhone and a Social Network too, not so that you can do better business with it (although that will be the selling point so that you'll use it) - it's to give better context and idea mapping so that when ads do get served up, it'll know from that bulletin you posted about how much you hate your Honda POS, when you search that term, you aren't necessarily looking to buy a new one.

Read some Kurzweil, if you don't believe me. Even if you do - read some Kurzweil. Age of Spiritual Machines changed the way I think about the future. Kurzweil talks about how for a time, AI's will be almost indistinguishable from unmodified humans in levels of performance and in some cases appearance. And then there will be a period where they excel in every way possible past the unmodified human, especially in matters relating to cognition.

All that having been said, the very things that are driving us toward that solution, that is the ability for Facebook and Google to sell us better, more targeted and predictive ads, are the very same factors that are driving us towards the solution to the problem that Greg proposes.

Greg thinks that we should have a 'transparent internet' - that is an internet where actions have consequences. We are slouching ever towards a social internet - where we log in to an internet based operating system that is focused around our task list and our workgroups. Social networks imply responsibility, as actions are increasingly coming with consequences. It's easier to dig up dirt on a person by looking through their photo albums, but it's also easier to see where information has been forwarded from, as more and more information is moved around by the grease of social tools like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter.

I don't think we'll ever quite have the transparent internet Greg asks for, with modified SMTP and DNS protocols and security aware browsers. There's just no margin in it for anyone. We will, though, see both more accurate predictions from computers as well as more accountability in our online actions due to social networking. Count on it.

/rizzn

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

gPhone: 30 pre-Beta Tests Underway

Hey Rizzn-ites and gPhone Hounds,

Last week I picked up a stray bit from a LiveJournaler about there being 30 rumored pre-beta gPhones wandering around in Mountain View California. Blogger Michael Bazeley recounts an experience he had in an Emeryville Apple store several days ago:

So I’m standing in the Emeryville Apple store today trying to troubleshoot a problem with a sales rep when a young woman bolts up to us saying she wants an iPhone. Like, now. After some back-and-forthing about the particulars, she says she’s a Google employee and she was going to wait for a demo of the gPhone, but it turns out Google’s only letting 30 people test it internally and she’s not one of them. So she’s going with the iPhone instead.

At which point, the Apple rep and I exchange glances and he says “gPhone? So it’s real, huh?” And the Google gal realizes she’s probably said too much and changes the subject.

There you go.

By the way, if you're interested in carrier information, price, and design, check out this post.

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

gPhone: Belaboring the Point on the NYT Article

Hey Rizzn-ites,

I posted a bit yesterday about the NYT piece on the gPhone. The coverage of the NYT analysis has been spun as wrong as it can possibly be, with the grand take-a-way being that there is no gPhone coming. The original article was a bit off in the first place. I actually got an email from Miguel Helft this morning, responding to my analysis of what he said.

I'm puzzled that you call this a hit piece. Really? A story that lays out the facts, as I known them, and strategy behind Google's mobile ambitions and plans. In fact, most readers would probably come away with the notion that loosening carrier control and more competition for are good things. No?

As for quoting Google enemies, the one and only source I quoted who is in that camp is Scott Cleland, and I very clearly disclosed his point of view.

In fact, the one CEO of a carrier I quoted was Vodafone, by some metrics the largest mobile operator in the world, and a Google ally, since they provide easy access to Google services (unlike US carriers).

The problem is, Miguel, that very few facts were reported. The leading items were your unqualified (by any sourcing) analysis, and the quotes from those that would be decidedly out of the Google camp. Karsten Weide? Ex-Yahoo. Dan Olschwang? Potential Google mobile competitor. Arun Sarin? T-Mobile competitor (gPhone carrier).

Throughout the article, Miguel and all the quoted sources seemed mystified by the hype. As I stated yesterday, the gPhone promise is what the iPhone used to be, but without the threat of bricking.

I looked a bit further into Scott Cleland, since I was pretty sure I'd heard the name before, but couldn't place it. He writes Precursors Blog, and talked a bit about the gPhone yesterday. Like Miguel's piece, most of his analysis lacks cited sources, and completely downplays any credence to the hype surrounding it whatsoever. According to Scott, all the hype revolves around "their one-letter sub-branding conventions, their cultures of extreme secrecy about their plans, and their similar "Midas touch" public relations successes."

Again, though, what would you expect from shill for the anti-net neutrality crowd, and someone who argues that "...[t]rue competition best serves consumers, not government-managed competition where the Government pre-determines market outcomes with preemptive open access of net neutrality regulation" when speaking of the nation-wide megalopolies of AT&T and the cable companies. Competition indeed.

Update 9:48 AM CST (10/10/2007): Scoble linked Nicholas Carr's blog post this morning, who drew more or less the exact same conclusion I did.

/rizzn

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

gPhone: In Defense of Google

Hey Rizzn-ites,

Well, if you're like me, you woke up this morning with an inbox full of emails and a Google reader that pointed to mostly links to the New York Times article on the gPhone. Instead of tapping out thirty or forty replies to emails on my comment on the story, I'm simply going to post here, and refer all the bozos who wrote me back to this article.

You can hear me talk about this today on RizWords, daily politics and technology (subscribe for free to listen).

Everyone in the new media seems to be taking the New York Times article as if it were gospel, on not a poorly written re-hashing of everything else Crunchgear, Information Week, DigiTimes and I have written previously. Very little primary source research work was done for the article, and everything mentioned as a 'fact' about the gPhone, I've mentioned previously (to little fanfare) on my blog. The only difference is that the New York Times didn't attribute me as a source, nor did the even bother to contact me and ask me where I got my facts from.

That's right. I'm saying plagiarism. If not from me, then from the blogosphere in general. That they've not checked me out or asked me about anything (or that anyone but the Boston Globe has contacted me from the MSM) to try to get a couple of the rumors they're reporting as fact correct completely floors me.

Here are the first four paragraphs of the NYT article, translated and condensed down to a sentence a piece:

Everyone is saying there's a gPhone coming. The gPhone isn't going to be better than the iPhone. I've figured out all of Google's mobile strategy, magically, and without any help. Here it is: they want to advertise on mobile phones.

The problem here is it's all the way down to paragraph five when the author starts talking to someone who might have a clue as to what technology is, Karsten Weide. Unfortunately, even a cursory glance at his bio shows us that he has very little experience in what it is that Google actually does. He's an ex-Yahoo Germany project manager - the closest he ever came to knowing Google strategy was working at a branch of a competitor of Google.

The article then continues to cite: an anonymous (non-Google) executive, Dan Olschwang of JumpTap (a mobile phone version of Google), Arun Sarin of Vodafone, and Scott Cleland (telecommunications industry analyst who recently testified before the Senate against Google’s proposed acquisition of DoubleClick). All of these folks were either in direct competition with Google or were anti-Google.

Only in the last three sentences are any positive words used (by the article or by quoted sources) in reference to Google.

Essentially, the NYT piece is just a poorly veiled hit piece on Google, essentially stating that the gPhone is extraneous, and that you can already get to Google.com with a mobile phone, so why the hype about a gPhone?

I'll tell you why the hype. The Apple iPhone was this incredible piece of technology released to the largest launch in recent memory for a mobile device. What we had was a device we could develop for and look at as a platform for real forward, user-controlled advancement. And then Apple bricked it.

Now, with the gPhone, we're looking at the same thing, but without an Apple-ish propensity for monopoly, and closed systems. Google and the gPhone is the only device coming out on the horizon that looks like it both has the power to inspire the masses as well as the open and robust platform that developers can use and work on. That's the bottom line, and that's the big picture that the New York Times missed.

For an article that got it right, see TechCrunch today.

For a good chronology, see SearchEngineLand.

I've got more to say, but you'll have to tune into RizWords today to get it.

/rizzn

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

gPhone: Rumored to be in the Wild!

Hey Rizzn-ites and gPhone hounds,

Just a bit of gPhone news for the weekend, it has been reported by Alex Lewis over at Network World that Google may have released some 'pre-beta gPhones into the wild':

Google has reportedly released approximately 30 pre-beta gPhones to current employees for testing. There are a lot of rumors, but if you hang around Mountain View, CA much you may see one in the wild. I was talking to a Googler yesterday but as soon as I asked he quickly shoved the device into his pocket and changed the subject. IF this was one of the fabled Gphones, it appeared similiar in shape to the iPhone, maybe a little thicker, with a bright screen and video.

So there ya go, another tasty gPhone rumor snack for you. Carry on!

/rizzn

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

gPhone: Unsubstantiated Rumor

I haven't spoken with "Deep Throat" in a couple of days, so I'll have to ask him about this, but I just picked up an unsubstantiated rumor from a student at Rochester Institute of Technology:

So apparently Google's Phone really truly for all times for serious is coming, whether one likes it or not. It seems that there are displays at the Googleplex where people (that is, Google employees) can check it out. It also seems that the phone will be partially ad supported, in the sense that walking around town if you get close enough to some restaurant you will receive [...] I've heard of something similar in Korea where instead of getting coupons, you get texts whenever one of your friends is within x miles of you.

Interesting. I'll update you later. Gonna go record a show real quick now.

/rizzn

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

gPhone: ExpansysTV demos the possible HTC/gPhone Platform

As we mentioned yesterday, the new HTC Dual touch has been released. ExpansysTV has released a five minute long YouTube video demonstrating the device. It has been speculated by some that this could be the platform for the new gPhone in development by Google (and my trusted sources at least haven't denied this could be one of the platforms, either).

So, figured you gPhone hounds might be interested in taking a peek. Enjoy.



Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

gPhone: The Final Countdown Starts Here

Update (11:52 AM CST 10/3/2007): You might be interested in this video demo of the HTC Dual Touch, which is rumored to be the hardware platform for the gPhone. I'd also like to re-iterate that the release dates are less trusted than the details in the main post. I mentioned that the dates I've heard have ranged from late Sept to early Oct. I haven't had any two sources say the same date twice, as I mentioned on the show, as well, so I don't trust those dates as much as I trust the rest of the details I've disclosed. Everyone seems keen to discount me using the dates I mentioned as 'proof', so I thought I'd re-iterate the authenticity of specific facts (or lack thereof). In other words, read the entire article in context.

Update (8:38 PM CST 10/1/2007): Several people have written in to me with the caveat that after the $400 gPhone is purchased the carrier connection might be subsidized by ads, thus technically free service. No one has said anything that would indicate this explicitly, but then no one has said anything to directly contradict it either. I wouldn't count on this fact personally, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Trust me, though. I'd love it if it was free.

Update (5:00 PM CST 10/1/2007): Finally heard back from T-Mobile. A spokesperson who preferred not to be named stated: "...regarding the gPhone, T-Mobile does not comment on rumors or speculation." Almost verbatim what Google currently says publicly when asked. In response to my queries about data network specifications, the spokesperson said: "...I have looked into your request and found T-Mobile’s 3G/UMTS network updates are currently in the works. We are targeting the rollout for the first half of 2008. At this time we are not providing details regarding the availability of our network or future advanced data services. "

---

Howdy Rizzn-ites and gPhone hounds,

We're going to talk a lot about this on the show today (Episode 141). Listen in and get the full story!

I'm unloading my payload today. I've been aggregating and sifting through rumors from a number of sources - Deep Throat, NDA'ed entrepreneurs, NDA'ed employees of various related vendors and trusted internet sources. Some of the juicy tidbits that I trust implicitly I've been sitting on for the last month so I could drum up verification by independent sources. All of my sources prefer to remain anonymous, so I suppose this technically remains in the rumor bin, but my first predictions proved to be true regarding the gPhone, so as an independent reader, take that as you will. Thus ends my disclaimer.

On to the juicy tidbits. T-Mobile is going to be the network operator for the gPhone worldwide. I've got a call in to the press department over at T-Mobile in which I expect them to respond with the "we don't comment on rumor" line, but several other sources have corroborated this aspect.

It is going to be a Linux based kernel for the operating system. As of last talks with folks at Google, the GUI is still being finalized. The testing hardware was described as being in pieces spread across a table a couple weeks ago, as they finalized the drivers and the GUI for the device. The phone reference design will be open source, using the Apache license. This reference design will be an unlocked, neutral environment.

HTC is making the hardware - this isn't a new revelation. The rumor that they were involved has been a very widely reported rumor, but not only are trusted sources now reporting renewed confirmations on this, but HTC has released several phone models recently that show capabilities or indications that they could run an advanced GUI, as noted by Andy Beal.

There is going to be a price, and that price is $400. This is the big shocker. I had originally noted that part of the philosophy was that this product would compete in functionality with the OLPC and I inferred that it would be ad subsidized, which then started a spiral of analysis from many many folks that this phone would range in price from $200, then $100, then free.

Keep in mind, though, that this is being rolled out on an existing operator, not the 700 mhz spectrum, and not a satellite network. T-Mobile isn't owned by Google, and neither is HTC. It would be very difficult for the service to be free, but I haven't heard what the monthly pricing plans are going to be like, only that the device is going to cost $400. I have inquiries in at TMobile to find out the details.

Now, on to the facts that I haven't been able to find independent verification for, but sound reasonably congruent to everything else:

• Google has formed a consortium of about 30 companies to create it. The consortium includes chip makers, OEM manufacturers, software providers, and carriers. The phone will in fact not be a product -- it's really a reference design. I've referred throughout this post to the gPhone as a reference design because without anyone from Google explicitly saying this, it more or less sounds like what's happening. Google sent out requests to a whole bunch of vendors, and is putting together the pieces at the Googleplex.
• It'll be GSM everywhere except Japan, where it will be TDMA. I actually am ashamed to admit that I don't know all the specs on what goes on in the backplane of the different American carriers anymore - not like the days when I worked at Nokia where I had spec data ad nauseum memorized. If I had that information back from T-Mobile press relations, I could comment on this tidbit more reliably, but they haven't gotten back to me in time for this article to go out.
• The thrust is that the gPhone is the "the anti-iPhone". It will be an inexpensive, open design, vs. Apple's closed, expensive design. I don't think it's more or less the anti-iPhone, at least not in original intent, although it could very easily be framed that way, especially with Apple's tendency to brick iPhone in sight, these days.
• The Google phone will be announced sometime between 9/27 and 10/5. I don't know this to be a fact, but these dates are ones that have been bandied about by several of my sources. My advice? Buy your Google, HTC, and T-Mobile stock now. You know none of it's gonna go down.
• The gPhone will role out simultaneously in the US, Europe China, and Japan. They have a carrier ready to go in every region. I don't know this to be a fact, but one of my sources said that this is more or less gospel. We know they've been talking a lot to people in Asia, since much of the gPhone rumor seems to be originating in India, and they've been demonstrating it in America. T-Mobile is obviously very strong in Europe (owned by Deutsch Telekom). It's highly possible!
  

That's more or less all I know for now. I'll probably be chiming in on the blog here with some analysis on some of the more interesting posts that will come out of this. I am, for a change, going to refrain from making sweeping predictions in this post (I'll save those for the show), since the predictions I made last time were taken so widely out of context.

See these articles for all the old stuff I've said about the gPhone:

• gPhone: It's Confirmed
• gPhone: Vindicated!
• gPhone: Rumor Control.
• gPhone Hubbub

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

gPhone: Rumor Control.

Hey Rizzn-ites and gPhone hounds...

Several folks, most notably these guys at DigiTimes, are talking about the gPhone again.

I ran some of the theories past 'Deep Throat' over at Google (and remember, you guys named him that, not me). I'm forced to sit on some of the information he gave me for a time being, but I can comment on some of the rumors in broad generalities, as I did on the show last Friday (see episode 135). From the DigiTimes rumors:

Although market rumors previously stated that Google is likely to use an EDGE solution developed by Texas Instruments (TI) for its planned handset, recent developments indicate that Google is also evaluating the possibility of launching a 3G handset initially.

I'm still waiting on confirmation of some information from a certain American carrier regarding their technology platform, but, as I understand it, Google is past the evaluation stage in development for this iteration of the gPhone in terms of which mobile network they'll use.

Google [may] postpone the launch of the so-called Gphone to the first half of 2008 instead of the latter half of this year as expected due to the change of platform and problems related to licensing...

Obviously nothing is set in stone, as the product is still in late-stage development, but it sounds to me that the product will be released sooner, rather than later. Deep Throat didn't give me an exact date, but other sources tell me that it will be publicly released (not just demo'ed behind an NDA-wall) between 9/27 and 10/5, and released simultaneously (more or less) world-wide. I'm not dead certain on these dates (as this informant is a newer source for me, but it sounds plausible given what I do know).

High Tech Computer (HTC), meanwhile, is being marked as the manufacturing contractor for the Gphone due to the company's expertise in ODM and brand business and its mutual cooperation with a number of telecom carriers worldwide, said the sources.

Google may also try to launch a handset running on a self-developed OS, to compete with Windows Mobile and Symbian platforms, the sources speculated.

These things sound congruent with a lot of what I've heard, both from the blogosphere as well as Deep Throat. Again, I can't go into too much detail, but these bits of analysis and rumor seems on the mark. Given the fact that the story and rumors originate from a Taiwanese manufacturer, and HTC is a Taiwan-based company. Just sayin'.

If you like reading about patents, you may wanna check out this article. It's a bit tedious, but Information Week sees a pattern of patents coming out of Google that definitely signal a move towards the mobile world, too.

Of course, we've known about for a while Google's intention to spend in the neighborhood of $4.6 Billion to move to the 700mhz wireless spectrum. Channel 4 UK talks about what looks like a British bid for the mobile market by Google.

...on Thursday the UK communications regulator Ofcom announced a proposal to take some of the airwaves currently used by O2 and Vodafone and make it available to new bidders.

...

This remains a remote possibility at this stage, but the idea of a Google-branded mobile service is now a distinct possibility.

And in news that holds tertiary relevance to this (another story we talked a bit about on the show Friday), Google plans to build its own data network are under the Pacific Ocean. This from Mashable:

The project to lay cable, called “Unity,” would involve several other telecommunications companies who would aim to have it operational by 2009. The move would give Google a leg up on other US companies looking to deliver content to Asia, since they would have their own dedicated cable.

I hope it's becoming clear to those in the network-providing establishment: we will not stand for non-network-neutrality compliance. There are a number of strategic moves contained within all of these moves, but the largest bit of this that can't be ignored is that Google is moving towards an environment where they don't have to worry about network neutrality (as I discussed with Greg Blonder last week).

At any rate, stay tuned to this blog and podcast. As soon as I'm released to talk about the details, you'll definitely want to be here to hear them. They're juicy. Mighty juicy. It's killin' me to sit on 'em.

/rizzn

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.