10 Şubat 2013 Pazar
5 Ağustos 2011 Cuma
Google's complete lack of account flexibility is really starting to irritate me
By David Gewirtz
I use a lot of Google services and I respect the company and its products. Last month, for example, I ran a very long series of how-tos for getting the most out of Google Voice. That said, I do not use Gmail as my primary email account and have been regularly snafu’d when trying to manage my various Google accounts.
It’s really starting to irritate me.
Today, I tried to set up a new YouTube account. I gave YouTube my email address, only to be told the email address in question had been previously tied to another YouTube account — one I’d created last year for my book, How To Save Jobs. Because the YouTube account HowToSaveJobs was tied to my email address, I can’t use that email address with any other account, including a YouTube channel of just my own videos.
The thing is, the HowToSaveJobs YouTube channel is meant to be operated by the nonprofit the book is associated with. I’d like to let someone else in the organization be able to upload videos and maintain the account. But because the HowToSaveJobs account is tied permanently to my personal email address, I can’t make that change.
I’d have to give a nonprofit volunteer the email address and password of my personal email account, just so they could upload videos. And that ain’t ever going to happen!
This sort of thing has happened in other areas of Google Accounts.
I once created a simple mail tracking account, but — prudently — Google asked for a backup email address in case I couldn’t log in. So I gave Google my personal email address for that, as well. Now, my email address is associated with that barely used (and weirdly named) Gmail account and I can’t reassign it.
Now, it’s entirely possible I’m missing a trick or Google changed its procedures and there is a way to reassign email addresses and consolidate accounts. I haven’t found a way, and from the many discussion board postings I’ve read, it doesn’t look like Google offers any form of account management.
I can’t begin to tell you how many random Google accounts I have for various things that I’d like to consolidate, normalize, and make sane.
While it’s always possible to just open up yet another Google account, that’s not a best practice approach. More to the point, this may be holding back some migrations to Google services.
I currently have my main email account on a hosted Exchange server and I’d love to move to Gmail. But until I can be sure I can control my accounts, manage them, and not have them tied to historical detritus, I’m not making that move.
I am not alone with this problem.
I got an email recently from a colleague, a woman who registered all her accounts with her married name, went though an acrimonious divorce, and still has to use her ex-husband’s last name on her Google accounts because she can’t change them back to her own last name. It makes her crazy and since she’s now doing professional business under her own name, it confuses everyone she works with.
She tells me that although she’d prefer to forget the tougher times in her life, because her email last name doesn’t match her real last name, she’s forced to recount her divorce story to almost anyone she gives her email address to. Apparently, now that she’s active on Google Plus, it’s even more annoying.
So here’s what I’d like to see Google do.
I’d like to be able to assign and reassign email addresses to various account names. I’d like to be able change account names. I’d like to be able to consolidate accounts, so if I have three of a similar account, I can combine them into one. In short, I’d like to have comprehensive account management for my Google accounts.
I don’t have any insight into why Google doesn’t make account management easy and account renaming possible. One reason might be that it has indexed all transactions based on the account name string. If that’s the case, well, that’s not exactly a best programming practice.
I certainly don’t know if that’s why Google is restrictive about renaming accounts, but if that is the reason, something will almost undoubtedly break in the future because name-based indexing often breaks.
In any case, consider this an open plea to the wizards of the Googleplex. C’mon guys, make it possible for us to manage our accounts better. Please? Pretty please, with sugar on top?
Article Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/googles-complete-lack-of-account-flexibility-is-really-starting-to-irritate-me/10678
I use a lot of Google services and I respect the company and its products. Last month, for example, I ran a very long series of how-tos for getting the most out of Google Voice. That said, I do not use Gmail as my primary email account and have been regularly snafu’d when trying to manage my various Google accounts.
It’s really starting to irritate me.
Today, I tried to set up a new YouTube account. I gave YouTube my email address, only to be told the email address in question had been previously tied to another YouTube account — one I’d created last year for my book, How To Save Jobs. Because the YouTube account HowToSaveJobs was tied to my email address, I can’t use that email address with any other account, including a YouTube channel of just my own videos.
The thing is, the HowToSaveJobs YouTube channel is meant to be operated by the nonprofit the book is associated with. I’d like to let someone else in the organization be able to upload videos and maintain the account. But because the HowToSaveJobs account is tied permanently to my personal email address, I can’t make that change.
I’d have to give a nonprofit volunteer the email address and password of my personal email account, just so they could upload videos. And that ain’t ever going to happen!
This sort of thing has happened in other areas of Google Accounts.
I once created a simple mail tracking account, but — prudently — Google asked for a backup email address in case I couldn’t log in. So I gave Google my personal email address for that, as well. Now, my email address is associated with that barely used (and weirdly named) Gmail account and I can’t reassign it.
Now, it’s entirely possible I’m missing a trick or Google changed its procedures and there is a way to reassign email addresses and consolidate accounts. I haven’t found a way, and from the many discussion board postings I’ve read, it doesn’t look like Google offers any form of account management.
I can’t begin to tell you how many random Google accounts I have for various things that I’d like to consolidate, normalize, and make sane.
While it’s always possible to just open up yet another Google account, that’s not a best practice approach. More to the point, this may be holding back some migrations to Google services.
I currently have my main email account on a hosted Exchange server and I’d love to move to Gmail. But until I can be sure I can control my accounts, manage them, and not have them tied to historical detritus, I’m not making that move.
I am not alone with this problem.
I got an email recently from a colleague, a woman who registered all her accounts with her married name, went though an acrimonious divorce, and still has to use her ex-husband’s last name on her Google accounts because she can’t change them back to her own last name. It makes her crazy and since she’s now doing professional business under her own name, it confuses everyone she works with.
She tells me that although she’d prefer to forget the tougher times in her life, because her email last name doesn’t match her real last name, she’s forced to recount her divorce story to almost anyone she gives her email address to. Apparently, now that she’s active on Google Plus, it’s even more annoying.
So here’s what I’d like to see Google do.
I’d like to be able to assign and reassign email addresses to various account names. I’d like to be able change account names. I’d like to be able to consolidate accounts, so if I have three of a similar account, I can combine them into one. In short, I’d like to have comprehensive account management for my Google accounts.
I don’t have any insight into why Google doesn’t make account management easy and account renaming possible. One reason might be that it has indexed all transactions based on the account name string. If that’s the case, well, that’s not exactly a best programming practice.
I certainly don’t know if that’s why Google is restrictive about renaming accounts, but if that is the reason, something will almost undoubtedly break in the future because name-based indexing often breaks.
In any case, consider this an open plea to the wizards of the Googleplex. C’mon guys, make it possible for us to manage our accounts better. Please? Pretty please, with sugar on top?
Article Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/googles-complete-lack-of-account-flexibility-is-really-starting-to-irritate-me/10678
Google vs Microsoft patent ding dong gets stuck on repeat
Microsoft and Google are still engaged in a war of words over what Mountain View has claimed is a "conspiracy" against its Android platform.
We at Vulture Central recommend you take ringside seats and bring a huge bucket of popcorn for this row, as it shows little sign of slowing down.
"A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a licence would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners," said Drummond.
"Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android – and having us pay for the privilege – must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it."
Microsoft's top counsel Brad Smith had earlier claimed that the company had approached Google: "We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no," he tweeted.
Following Drummond's update to his 3 August post on Google's corporate blog, Shaw once again took to Twitter to publicly unload his latest opinion about the brouhaha.
"Hello again David Drummond. This is going to take a few tweets, so here we go. Let’s look at what Google does not dispute in their reply," he wrote.
"We offered Google the opportunity to bid with us to buy the Novell patents; they said no.
"Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something that they could use to assert against someone else.
"SO partnering with others & reducing patent liability across industry is not something they wanted to help do."
In other words, the two companies are getting stuck on repeat with their arguments about who did what when.
Arguably, Google is on the ropes at the moment, given Smith's comment about inviting the Chocolate Factory to join hands with MS and bid jointly for the patents.
The world's largest ad broker has been silent on the issue for about 12 hours now. But it's unlikely this verbal, manbag-whacking fight is over yet.
Article Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/05/microsoft_google_patent_war_round_100655967856894095/
We at Vulture Central recommend you take ringside seats and bring a huge bucket of popcorn for this row, as it shows little sign of slowing down.
In the latest round, Microsoft's top flack Frank Shaw wrote a series of tweets addressing the most recent catty comments from Google general counsel David Drummond, who said the software giant had tried to divert attention from the real issue behind the spat with a "false 'gotcha'".
The Googler claimed MS had defensively been herding patents away from Google and Android device-makers by waging a "hostile, organised campaign" against its platform with "bogus patents". He offered purported evidence that Google's three rivals in the game – MS, Apple and Oracle – were behind a consortium that purchased hundreds of patents from the Linux-loaded Novell."A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a licence would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners," said Drummond.
"Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android – and having us pay for the privilege – must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it."
Microsoft's top counsel Brad Smith had earlier claimed that the company had approached Google: "We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no," he tweeted.
Following Drummond's update to his 3 August post on Google's corporate blog, Shaw once again took to Twitter to publicly unload his latest opinion about the brouhaha.
"Hello again David Drummond. This is going to take a few tweets, so here we go. Let’s look at what Google does not dispute in their reply," he wrote.
"We offered Google the opportunity to bid with us to buy the Novell patents; they said no.
"Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something that they could use to assert against someone else.
"SO partnering with others & reducing patent liability across industry is not something they wanted to help do."
In other words, the two companies are getting stuck on repeat with their arguments about who did what when.
Arguably, Google is on the ropes at the moment, given Smith's comment about inviting the Chocolate Factory to join hands with MS and bid jointly for the patents.
The world's largest ad broker has been silent on the issue for about 12 hours now. But it's unlikely this verbal, manbag-whacking fight is over yet.
Article Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/05/microsoft_google_patent_war_round_100655967856894095/
Ofcom bows to Google lobby
The rubber-stamping of Ian Hargreaves "IP Review" and other news yesterday represents a lobbying triumph for Google, and shows the creative industries they need to learn some lessons.
Yesterday Ofcom pleased its political masters by repealing laws passed by Parliament. It may have repealed a dodgy law, but that's beside the point: it's not how our system is supposed to work. No matter how dodgy a law may be, it is not a quango's job to repeal it. It's the job of legislators. And a powerful regulator should be independent, and not heel to its political masters – although anyone who followed the history of the regulator will permit themselves a hollow cackle at that principle.
Ofcom repealed Sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act by expressing no more than an opinion: the justification to support that opinion is absent from its report. Ofcom could have set out its case in terms of explaining the legal framework, for example, but it didn't. It could have argued the costs and benefits of each approach to web-blocking – but it didn't, it hadn't even attempted to do that kind of empirical research.
Instead, on page 43, we learn that: "It is our current belief that the blocking of discrete URLs, or web addresses, is not practical or desirable as a primary approach." What's practical is not defined, what's "desirable" is well beyond Ofcom's remit.Now, I'm on the record as being opposed to web-blocking – for a variety of reasons. In a healthy market, with bags of choice, nobody needs to go to http://dodgysite.wz. And in a healthy market, if you were a serial user of http://dodgysite.wz, you'd eventually expect to get dinged – just as you'd get dinged for driving up and down the motorways at 150mph. A healthy market has some kind of backstop of enforcement for the few determined piss-takers or joy-riders.
And poll after poll shows this is the rational, popular view. There are plenty of people who feel uncomfortable about it all, which is understandable. The focus on enforcement first makes the copyright industries look lazy and backward-looking. But when you peel back all the arguments, only a tiny handful of cranks and obsessive nutters openly state that a creator's rights should not be enforced online. Saying you support creators' rights in principle but then recoiling in horror when they are exercised in practice is not a supportable, long-term position. It's like saying you "support gay marriage" but want to forbid gay couples from ever getting married. So in short, I believe the copyright-holders are entitled to have some tools for enforcement, as a backstop, and these must include something far, far smarter than website-blocking.
But back to Ofcom. Imagine the uproar if a quango had interposed itself to block significant primary legislation: Britain's entry into the Common Market for example, or the minimum wage. All are quite complicated issues, after all. The blame isn't entirely Ofcom's; the regulator was permitted to do this because ministers wanted to find a way to bury the Sections without Parliament formally repealing them. Again, this is dishonest, and not the way laws are made or unmade. Ed Vaizey has been trying to get industry to agree to self-regulation which would allow him to announce their imminent repeal (most likely in the next Communications Act).
But Ofcom has embarrassed everyone by producing a report in which the rationale plainly has no supporting evidence – and this has exposed some quite ugly backroom politics, and lack of accountability. Not wishing to pour oil onto burning water, at all, we must note that Ofcom derives its revenues from Big Telco. So we can be sure this isn't the last you'll hear of the story. Google's open door into government will now be under greater scrutiny than ever.
But Ofcom is only part of a bigger picture.
Quite ironically, the Hargreaves review had a few things to say about lobbying.
"Lobbying is a feature of all political systems and as a way of informing and organising debate it brings many benefits. In the case of IP policy and specifically copyright policy, however, there is no doubt that the persuasive powers of celebrities and important UK creative companies have distorted policy outcomes," it states.
The prejudices are clear, here. When creative industries knock on Minister's door to make their case, they are "lobbying". When Google does it, it's bringing rainbows, freedom, and bottles of unicorn's tears. Ministers seem oblivious to accusations that it's too cosy to the American giant. They were oblivious to ties to Murdoch, too, I recall, for quite a long time.
What the "Google Review" has achieved is to highlight the prejudices of our permanent bureaucracy, which like academia, detests creators' rights. It's a standing joke that the intellectual property part of the civil service is a bit like the Church of England, where it's a handicap to believe in a supreme deity, and quite a help if you're an atheist. To get on in the IP establishment, you have to loathe the creative industries, and seek to weaken creators' rights at every opportunity. You must insist they are oppressive, anachronistic, stifling... in fact, nothing at all to do with Britain's really quite successful IP businesses, which range from games to music to TV formats. One of our most senior civil servants has privately stated that copyright is like taxation: the more you do away with them, the more economic benefits you get. But this is a complete inversion of reality.
Hargreaves delivered an intellectually sloppy piece of work, which boils down to a collection of lobbyist's whinges and an angry academic's mad rant. The passages on parody and collection societies came straight from the Chocolate Factory. Many of the figures touted as economic benefits have simply been plucked out of thin air. (The main one was chosen because it is one half of 1 percent of GDP – that's scientific).
Elsewhere, Hargreaves makes recommendations that fail to acknowledge well-known potential problems. (I highlighted one here) A competent IP review would have proposed format shifting – everyone wants it, and it's long overdue – and also the various methods of complying with EU law to ensure it's legal – and compensation is paid. It is instead going to pretend it doesn't have to pay compensation, which the European Court of Justice is quite clear about. So the government will either wake up in time and do nothing, or get mown down in an expensive European court defeat. All this is known about. The previous government looked at format-shifting, and parody, three years ago. If a simpleton like me can see this looming, why weren't ministers warned? Because their civil servants didn't warn them, perhaps? Now, why would that be?
Answers on a postcard, please: along with bottles of joy and unicorn's tears. Perhaps you can also riddle me this:
The Conservatives came to power vowing to abolish Ofcom, and declaring war on what they saw as Leftish academic poseurs, and business-hostile bureaucrats. They now seem to be at the mercy of all three. How on Earth did that happen?
Article Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/05/hargreaves_review_trouble_ahead/
4 Ağustos 2011 Perşembe
Gmail calling now in 38 languages, lowered rates
Google has started offering Gmail calling outside the US in 38 new languages. You can now buy calling credit in your choice of four currencies (Euros, British pounds, Canadian dollars, or US dollars). Furthermore, there are no connection fees: you only pay for the time you talk. Google is also lowering its calling rates to over 150 destinations around the world; see the International calling rates for specifics.
Over the next few days, Google is rolling out the new feature. If it's available in your country, you'll see a little green phone icon show up at the top of your chat list (to start making calls, you'll need to install the voice and video plug-in if you haven't already). If you're a Google Apps user, your domain administrator must have Google Voice and Google Checkout enabled in the administrator control panel in order to be able to use this feature.
The search giant launched Gmail calling back in August 2010, making it possible for Americans to call any mobile phone or landline directly from Gmail. Now the feature is finally available outside of the US. As of five months ago, the company made phone numbers clickable in Gmail, thus advertising the new feature to all users who haven't tried it yet. You can start using Gmail calling on Windows, Mac, or Linux by navigating to Google.com/Chat/Voice.
Before 2010 was over, Google extended free calling to all of the US and Canada until December 31, 11:59PM 2011. We recommend you take advantage before Google starts charging you next year.
Article Source: http://www.techspot.com/news/44931-gmail-calling-now-in-38-languages-lowered-rates.html
Over the next few days, Google is rolling out the new feature. If it's available in your country, you'll see a little green phone icon show up at the top of your chat list (to start making calls, you'll need to install the voice and video plug-in if you haven't already). If you're a Google Apps user, your domain administrator must have Google Voice and Google Checkout enabled in the administrator control panel in order to be able to use this feature.
Before 2010 was over, Google extended free calling to all of the US and Canada until December 31, 11:59PM 2011. We recommend you take advantage before Google starts charging you next year.
Article Source: http://www.techspot.com/news/44931-gmail-calling-now-in-38-languages-lowered-rates.html
Black Ops gets fourth, all zombie map pack 'Rezurrection'
Call of Duty: Black Ops fans have yet another map pack to look forward to before Modern Warfare 3 launches later this year. Called ‘Rezurrection’, Activision says this DLC is different than the previous three releases as there are no dedicated multiplayer maps but rather only zombie maps.
Black Ops map packs have traditionally featured four new regular multiplayer map packs and only a single zombie map. ‘Rezurrection’ will feature five zombie maps and almost all of these new maps are remakes of maps from Call of Duty: World at War. Only one all-new map is being released, called Moon.
Furthermore, those that bought the Hardened or Prestige editions of Black Ops already have the four World at War maps. A new zombie soundtrack and a Moon Xbox 360 theme will also accompany the 360 release.
Currently there are five zombie maps available for standard Black Ops owners: Five, Kino der Toten, Ascension, Call of the Dead and Shangri-La. The last three were bundled with previous map packs First Strike, Escalation and Annihilation, respectively.
The new map pack is scheduled for release exclusively on Xbox 360 on August 23 and for PS3 and PC sometime in September. The Xbox DLC will sell for the usual 1200 Microsoft points ($15) but is available free of charge to Hardened and Prestige edition owners.
Modern Warfare 3 is the next title release in the Call of Duty series and is due November 8.
Article Source: http://www.techspot.com/news/44962-black-ops-gets-fourth-all-zombie-map-pack-rezurrection.html
Black Ops map packs have traditionally featured four new regular multiplayer map packs and only a single zombie map. ‘Rezurrection’ will feature five zombie maps and almost all of these new maps are remakes of maps from Call of Duty: World at War. Only one all-new map is being released, called Moon.
Furthermore, those that bought the Hardened or Prestige editions of Black Ops already have the four World at War maps. A new zombie soundtrack and a Moon Xbox 360 theme will also accompany the 360 release.
The new map pack is scheduled for release exclusively on Xbox 360 on August 23 and for PS3 and PC sometime in September. The Xbox DLC will sell for the usual 1200 Microsoft points ($15) but is available free of charge to Hardened and Prestige edition owners.
Modern Warfare 3 is the next title release in the Call of Duty series and is due November 8.
Article Source: http://www.techspot.com/news/44962-black-ops-gets-fourth-all-zombie-map-pack-rezurrection.html
Google Realtime Search Without Twitter?
From devastating disasters to celebrity slips, a single mention on Twitter can turn into a trend in a matter of minutes. That’s why the micro-blogging site has been credited as the source for major breaking news stories and hundreds of high-profile rumors. Like it or love it, Twitter is a force to be reckoned with, so how is Google going to provide real-time news without it?
Last month, Google removed their Realtime search option after failing to come to an agreement with Twitter. They were still able to pull in posts from Facebook, but let’s be frank and say that Facebook isn’t exactly a bastion of breaking news.
Now, Mashable is reporting that Google is “actively working” on bringing Realtime back, only with Google+ as the main source of data. As the article reads, Google’s Amit Singhal didn’t say they wouldn’t be courting Twitter, but it doesn’t sound like it’s a high priority, which is understandable when you have your own micro-blogging source in-house.
The hitch is that even once (if) Google+ becomes heavily trafficked, it’s likely that the postings will resemble those you find on Facebook. Google already admitted, that Facebook wasn’t very effective as a real-time news source, so how is Google+ going to be any better?
If I give them some benefit of the doubt, there is the fact that Google+ is more business and tech oriented, so it could be a better source than Facebook for industry specific news. Outside of that, I don’t see it.
The real test will happen when the next big news story breaks. I’m not wishing a major disaster on any area of the nation, but it’s going to happen and how the Google+ community responds will be very telling.
In May, Sysomos did an impromptu survey of the rise in Tweets after the death of Bin Laden. Some of the first mentions appeared on Twitter and within 12 hours, there were 2.2 million Tweets about Osama Bin Laden. That’s news in real-time. That’s what’s happening now. I just don’t see how Google can move forward without that kind of speed and clout.
Article Source: http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/08/google-realtime-search-without-twitter.html
Last month, Google removed their Realtime search option after failing to come to an agreement with Twitter. They were still able to pull in posts from Facebook, but let’s be frank and say that Facebook isn’t exactly a bastion of breaking news.
Now, Mashable is reporting that Google is “actively working” on bringing Realtime back, only with Google+ as the main source of data. As the article reads, Google’s Amit Singhal didn’t say they wouldn’t be courting Twitter, but it doesn’t sound like it’s a high priority, which is understandable when you have your own micro-blogging source in-house.
The hitch is that even once (if) Google+ becomes heavily trafficked, it’s likely that the postings will resemble those you find on Facebook. Google already admitted, that Facebook wasn’t very effective as a real-time news source, so how is Google+ going to be any better?
If I give them some benefit of the doubt, there is the fact that Google+ is more business and tech oriented, so it could be a better source than Facebook for industry specific news. Outside of that, I don’t see it.
The real test will happen when the next big news story breaks. I’m not wishing a major disaster on any area of the nation, but it’s going to happen and how the Google+ community responds will be very telling.
In May, Sysomos did an impromptu survey of the rise in Tweets after the death of Bin Laden. Some of the first mentions appeared on Twitter and within 12 hours, there were 2.2 million Tweets about Osama Bin Laden. That’s news in real-time. That’s what’s happening now. I just don’t see how Google can move forward without that kind of speed and clout.
Article Source: http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/08/google-realtime-search-without-twitter.html
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)