Well ok not exactly. I was still far off both by time and result, but the thinking is the same. In order for Google to roll out the kind of products they want to work in the way they want, they have to deal with the environment their apps work in, and that means working with the browser - which so far makes varied results. It therefore makes sense they make their own browser given the ever higher level of complexity they want their apps to do.

The average Joe is probably aware we developers hate IE, but may not completely know why. Explaining why is not the point of this post, but let me just tell you - IE sucks seriously big time. Anyone who's ever had to deal with CSS, UTF or language standards, or Java for example, will understand why developers have thinning hair or zero social life as they spend too much time trying to get their apps to work on IE. Firefox helped save them a bit with its standards compliancy, but has so far not been entirely reliable imho, and it still lags behind with approximately 30% market share. I love it and support it, but it's been crashing on me recently, and anyone who knows code knows that a crashing browser is serious stuff.

So where's the Microsoft in all this (other than my disliking IE)?

Now that I see Google creating its own computer based program (as opposed to web-based), I am reminded of MS's age - old strategy of creating its own operating environment. On the surface of course, to promote the stable operation of its applications and predictably advertised as for the benefit of its users, but secondarily and rather disguisedly, to kick out everyone else.

The big difference though is the two companies' reputation.

MS did that so often and so brazenly that no one trusts them anymore. Go to any web board, blog or tech news site and every MS move is met by suspicion and distrust.

Google of course still enjoys the high moral ground. 'Do No Evil' says it all, and people like and enjoy that.

But will they still after this?

Controlling the browser is the next step after controlling the search engine. Having such power is akin to controlling the information we rely on on a daily basis. If for example, something is not listed in Google, to many it may as well not exist at all. A successful implementation of their browser would make them even more powerful, at a position of control even stronger than before.

There's really nothing we can do about it. It's just a company that's doing the right thing every step of the way. As such they are gaining ground more and more. The only thing that bothers me is that you could say exactly the same thing about MS ten years ago. The only difference between then and now is the level of trust, but even that can change.

Anyway I stumbled onto this Ars Technica Article re Google Apps, a thrust by Google to support independent application developers via handholding at the start of their project until they can spread their wings and fly so to speak. App development is a topic very close to my heart, being essentially the core of what I'm trying to do with the Exchanges, and having to do with the fact that I'm using subdomains under a main domain (exchange.ph), which I've always been convinced will eventually come together when time comes. As to how, I'll keep that a secret, but it will one day.

So anyway, Google's guys know this, and also know the considerable technical and cost issues one has to face whilst trying to get things going. I for example am paying a relatively tidy sum for hosting alone, just imagine the cost if I hired developers (I do approximately 90% of the work myself), and / or I wasn't using a popular CMS. The more complicated the project, say it be Facebook, Imeem, or what Amazon Web Services are doing, the higher the cost. So Google pays for it all, along with provision of an authentication service (wow), a free database (although I gather from the article it isn't a 'traditional relational database', what is it I wonder?), and Google's BigTable Project among others.

You have to write it all in Python, though, which is more of a preference issue than a technical one.

But the scary part to me is that after you get your app all good, running and popular, things look like they're designed in a way where you've no choice but to allow Google to own you. The article says:

This sounds great to small developers with small sites, but what happens when your cool idea takes off and you've got thousands or millions of users? You'll be paying a lot of money to Google each month—with no easy way out. No matter how much your user base and technology is worth, almost no company will be willing to purchase your idea because of the high cost of migrating that code out of Google.

Of course I'm not basing everything on one article, well written as it is, but at the same time I realize that hey, maybe that's just the way of the world. Google is Tops A Number 1 right now, with enough influence on the 'net to be the master of it. So is it a natural progression for Google to eventually own it too?

On one hand you can't blame them. First, if you're signing up for Google Apps you owe them the chance to get a crack at owning your service too. I mean, why not, right? You wouldn't even exist if it weren't for them. Besides, they're already in the best position to run and host it, and migration to a new host is gonna cost you megabucks and megaheadaches.

What irks me though is that the last company I know that used exactly that same play to get ahead is the one in Redmond.

Anyway, these are that Comcast had apparently been blocking / delaying some Internet traffic, and that 'Email forwarding' is being looked into by the US' FCC after someone there lost a lot of business when AOL closed her account without warning, cancelling her email account and damaging her business. And the 3rd and final one is that Microsoft has bought into Facebook.

Obviously these issues happened in the States and had affected Americans directly, but being on the Internet, the effect of these things are universal. If Comcast decides to limit Internet traffic on certain protocols, servers, or whatever, anyone on the Internet accessing them is gonna be affected, and yes that includes us here in the bush.

The article that mentions it spends a lot of time explaining what this really means so I won't try and venture to make any explanations myself, essentially because I'm lazy and such a highly techie thing can easily be screwed up by a lousy explanation. The threat however is fairly clear: Some people in Comcast's boardroom is deciding upon themselves which services are best to serve and which they'd rather not. And since Comcast is the largest cable company in the US, not only do their actions affect everyone accessing services via their vast and large network, other cable companies throughout the world might realize that they too can (and because Comcast does it) should do the same.

Why would they? Firstly, it's to save on bandwidth. Bandwidth is still expensive and their customers keep asking more and more of it. So instead of just buying loads and loads more of it, Comcast decided to just limit certain parts of it, so that the rest can be used to serve up the usual stuff people want (in other words, http). It therefore makes sense they chose to do that on file-sharing. Slowing it down is not blatantly obvious, and besides let's admit it: Gnutella and BitTorrent users aren't usually known as the most legit on the 'net, so hey, why not slow them down a bit right?

The second issue has to deal with the possibility that the FCC is gonna require ISPs to allow 'email fowarding' whenever someone loses their account. Now I sympathize with the lady who lost business, but seriously, doing so imho shows a lack of understanding how the internet works and besides her troubles could easily have been avoided in the first place.

Since time imemmorial I've been telling people to never ever use the 'free email' account that comes with signing up to their ISP, in our case for example, the pldtdsl ones and the globe broadband ones. This is for the simple fact that you do not want to be tied up with them if for any reason you need to move away from PLDT or Globe or Pacific Internet or whoever you are using. Remember, if you need to leave the country, are sick of their service, or whatever, and need to close your account, you email address will close with you and you're gonna have to say goodbye to your contacts who know you by that address. So instead, set up a Gmail one, or go even further and buy a domain.

And finally, the 3rd, which is MS has bought into Facebook in a big, $240m way. As of the moment I've no specific thoughts on that matter other than that because I'm a regular Facebooker - which I think has a great Linkedln feel to it but without all the trying - hard - to - be - strictly - work - related crap, the only thing I can say about that, and any other venture MS tries to get into is, well, it can't be good.