Google ponders risky Android solo act

As a company that has built a business model atop trust, Google is in a sticky position as it prepares to formally introduce the Nexus One phone.

Google's Nexus One phone could be a sea change in how Google works with Android partners who might turn into competitors.

Google employees were given free Nexus One phones at a company party Friday night, and the Internet went into a tizzy. Reports surfaced later in the weekend that this device was the long-awaited Google phone, the company's answer to Apple's strategy of controlling the hardware, software, and distribution model with the iPhone, rather than the partner-oriented strategy of developing the guts of the operating system and letting partners each put their own stamp on the finished product.

Just two months ago, Google's Andy Rubin rolled his eyeswhen asked about an analyst report picked up by TheStreet.com that said Google planned to pursue this exact strategy. He said Google had no plans to make its own hardware--which is one thing since smartphones are almost exclusively manufactured by contractors in China and Taiwan--but he took a further step in spending about 10 minutes arguing why it would be a bad idea for Google to design its own phone and sell it outside of carrier channels.

That line of thinking resonated with many who follow Google and the mobile industry. After all, Google's stated goal for Android ever since the project was revealed in November 2007 was to create an "ecosystem" of multiple phones that would help improve access to the mobile Internet. And Google seemed to finally reach that goal this year, with over a dozen phones in the wild and more promised from some of the world's leading phone makers and wireless carriers.

But if the reports are correct, Google is about to make a radical departure from that strategy. And Google's new course would take it down a path that could sow distrust among the company's Open Handset Alliance partners, who must now be wondering if they're about to get into a marketing war with one of the tech industry's richest companies.

Katie Watson, a Google representative, said on Sunday that the company has confirmed nothing about its plans for the Nexus One, described as a "dogfooding" experiment for internal testing by the company in a blog post Saturday.

In the rush to anoint the Nexus One as the Google Phone, it's quite possible that the tech industry glossed over the fact that Google already sells Android phones, albeit on a limited basis. For quite some time, registered Android developers have been able to buy completely unlocked versions of the G1 and the T-Mobile MyTouch3G (also known as the Google Ion) for $399.

Google does sell some phones, such as the Google Ion, but only to developers for Android testing purposes.

So there is a solid chance that the Nexus One is merely the Android Dev Phone 3, following the Dev Phone 1 (G1) and Dev Phone 2 (MyTouch or Ion). Just this year, Google handed out Dev Phone 2 models branded as the Google Ion to attendees at Google I/O 2009, but if regular people want to buy that particular phone they have to get the MyTouch3G from T-Mobile with a two-year contract.

It does seem clear that Google has played the premier role in designing the software for the Nexus One. In the company's blog post over the weekend, it said "we recently came up with the concept of a mobile lab, which is a device that combines innovative hardware from a partner with software that runs on Android to experiment with new mobile features and capabilities, and we shared this device with Google employees across the globe."

But the key unconfirmed detail is how Google plans to sell this phone. According to The Wall Street Journal, Google plans to sell this phone unsubsidized on its own, with consumers able to choose a wireless service provider after the fact. However, according to corporate sibling Peter Kafka at All Things D's MediaMemo and Reuters, Google has plans to hook up with longtime mobile partner T-Mobile to help sell the Nexus One through Google's Web site for $199.

How will Google market this phone? Anyone with a television set has likely seen an ad over the last month for the Motorola Droid, an Android phone sold for Verizon's network that has been billed as one of the best Android phones to date. It was also the launch pad for a long-term pact between Google and Verizon that will supposedly produce a family of devices based on Android.

If Google plans to sell the Nexus One directly to consumers, will it insist upon using its brand as the lead brand, rather than the "With Google" branding found on the back of many Android phones? Will it blast the airwaves during the NFL playoffs in January to trumpet the arrival of the Nexus One, perhaps just in time for the Super Bowl? And how will that affect partners such as Motorola and Verizon that have sunk so much money into promoting the Droid, only to see rumors of a Google Phone leak out at the worst possible time: the height of the holiday shopping season?

This could be a very telling moment in Google's history. At the moment, Google's mobile division does not seem to be completely in control of the message it wants to send consumers, partners, and competitors.

If Google really does plan to sell the Nexus One directly to consumers and compete with its customers, it has chosen an interesting way to announce it to the world, keeping the Google Phone rumor mill alive for months while publicly denying such plans. Apple has employed such a marketing strategy for years, insisting on near-silence regarding future product plans but benefiting enormously from the frenzy of interest in every little morsel that mysteriously pops up regarding those plans.

However, Google is not Apple. Google public-relations representatives will sheepishly admit that they have little control over how Google rolls out its products: Google is a company run by engineers, and engineers push the button when the product is ready to ship.

But when you're working in an environment with multiple partners that have competing interests, any confusion over your future plans--especially plans that would appear to yank the floor away--can breed distrust among those partners. One of Google's largest problems right now is that it has built a business model geared around the notion that it can be trusted with almost unprecedented control over the flow of information across the globe, andany cracks in that wall of trust will be exploited by its enemies.

With the way details have trickled out about the Nexus One, Google has either alienated current and future Android partners by muscling in on their turf, or set up thousands of eager smartphone consumers looking for an open alternative to the iPhone for disappointment when they realize Google merely plans to sell an expensive unlocked phone to a limited audience, if at all.

After all, Google essentially declared in its blog post that employees are testing a product with "new mobile features and capabilities" that presumably can't be found on the current crop of phones. It's almost the same language Google used to introduce Chrome OS ("our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be") while insisting that it had no competitive reasons for introducing that Netbook operating system.

Few believed that line with Chrome OS, and fewer still will believe that Google is creating Android for the betterment of humanity if it really plans to sell its own phone.

Adobe investigating Reader, Acrobat exploit reports

Adobe warned of reports of an attack exploiting a hole in Reader and Acrobat on Monday.

"This afternoon, Adobe received reports of a vulnerability in Adobe Reader and Acrobat 9.2 and earlier versions being exploited in the wild," the company said in an advisory on its Security Incident Response Team blog. "We are currently investigating this issue and assessing the risk to our customers. We will provide an update as soon as we have more information."

Three different security vendor partners reported the alleged exploit to the company on Monday afternoon, said Adobe spokeswoman Wiebke Lips. She said she could not provide more details.

Last week, Adobe released a critical update affecting Flash Player and Adobe AIR.

Meanwhile, some Macintosh users were reporting on the Adobe Forums site that they were having problems installing an update from October that resolved a critical vulnerability in Adobe Reader and Acrobat 9.1.3 that had reportedly been exploited in the wild.

Google gets into the URL-shrinking biz with Goo.gl

Google ventured into new territory on Monday with the launch of a new URL-shortening service it's calling Goo.gl.

Unlike some existing and high-profile shorteners such as TinyURL and Bit.ly, Goo.gl is not a general-purpose link shrinker that users can access by going to a standalone site. Instead, it's been built into Google products, beginning withGoogle's browser toolbar and its Feedburner RSS service. Both of those services can now create shortened Goo.gl URLs that link to the source content while using fewer characters. This is especially important for sharing on places like Twitter, where there are size limits.

The feature goes hand in hand with the launch of a share button for the Google toolbar that lets users share whatever page they're on with a number of social services. As for its integration with FeedBurner, Google now provides feed owners with a way to automatically publish certain posts directly to Twitter, which will again help keep the number of characters to a minimum.

Google says the shortening service is both fast and stable. The company has also placed the same security measures that go into its search index to block pages that may contain malware or phishing schemes.

In an introductory post on its official blog, Google said that it may eventually roll out the service as a standalone site, but that for now it's being built into Google products. Such a feature would likely allow third party sites to build Goo.gl link shortening into their own products. In the meantime, other Google properties that could certainly benefit from having link shortening built-in include YouTube, Maps, Reader, and Blogger--many of which have integrated sharing features.

Update 2 p.m. PST: As we should have mentioned before, .gl is the top-level domain for Greenland. Also, Google's launch comes on the heels of Facebook having quietly launched its own URL-shortening service calledFB.me. Heading there in your browser simply takes you to Facebook's home page, whereas sharing links through Facebook's mobile site will shorten them for you using a shortened FB.me URL. More on that as soon as Facebook publicly acknowledges its existence.

Visitors of Goo.gl get this page, which tells them what the service does, although will not let just anyone create shortened URLs. Instead, Google is allowing use of its service through its own products.

Oracle pledges to play well with MySQL

The chill between Oracle and the European Commission may finally be thawing.

European antitrust regulators have been playing a wary bouncer to Oracle's planned takeover of Sun Microsystems, and they've been especially attentive to the software maker's intentions regarding Sun's MySQL operations. In November, their concerns about the future of the open-source MySQL database software led to a formal thumbs-down to the acquisition.

But recent discussions between Oracle and the EC have apparently been fruitful, as Oracle on Monday pledged 10 "commitments to customers, developers and users of MySQL."

Among other things, the company pledged to spend more cash than Sun did on MySQL development and to set up advisory boards to include MySQL customers. Oracle also said it would not require paid support to get a commercial MySQL license and that it would offer flexible support contracts to customers.

in addition, it addressed licensing and copyright issues relevant to third-party developers of MySQL storage engines, promising to maintain the openness and flexibility of MySQL's Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture and not require commercial licenses to use the storage engine APIs.

In response, the European Commission on Monday issued a statement suggesting that it's warming up to the idea of a Sun-Oracle combination.

"Today's announcement by Oracle of a series of undertakings to customers, developers and users of MySQL is an important new element to be taken into account in the ongoing proceedings," said the EC in its statement. "In particular, Oracle's binding contractual undertakings to storage engine vendors regarding copyright non-assertion and the extension over a period of up to 5 years of the terms and conditions of existing commercial licenses are significant new facts."

EC Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes expressed optimism for a satisfactory outcome, one that won't hurt the competition in the European database market.

But according to the Reuters news agency, critics of Oracle aren't impressed with Oracle's latest promises.

"This is purely cosmetic, totally ineffectual. Neither storage engine vendors nor 'forkers'--developers of derived versions--nor enterprise users would have a basis on which to invest in MySQL-related innovation," said Florian Mueller, a spokesman for MySQL co-founder Michael "Monty" Widenius, who has been one of the loudest voices in opposition to the deal.

Fearing that Oracle will try to weaken MySQL to strengthen its own database products, Widenius has been intent on drumming up support among the faithful, asking them to urge the EC to stop the merger for good.

The battle for Sun began in April when Oracle's $7.4 billion bid won over Sun's board. Subsequent approval by shareholders and the U.S. Justice Department seemed to solidify the deal.

Summarized below, Oracle's 10 commitments outline how the company intends to keep MySQL alive as a competitive database product.

1. Continued Availability of Storage Engine APIs. Oracle promises to maintain and enhance MySQL'sPluggable Storage Engine Architecture, which gives users the ability to select from a variety of different storage engines that can plug into a MySQL database server.
2. Non-assertion. As copyright holder, Oracle will change Sun's current policy and will not assert against anyone that a third-party vendor's implementations of a storage engine must be released under the GPL (GNU General Public License) because they used the APIs that are part of the Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture. Further, Oracle will not require a commercial license from third-party storage engine vendors to implement the Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture's APIs.
3. License commitment. When current MySQL OEM agreements with storage vendors end, Oracle will offer an extension up to December 10, 2014, with the same terms and conditions.
4. Commitment to enhance MySQL in the future under the GPL. Oracle promises to enhance MySQL, including version 6, under the GPL. Oracle won't update MySQL Enterprise Edition without also updating MySQL Community Edition and will make the source code of Community Edition available to the public at no charge.
5. Support not mandatory. Customers won't be required to buy support services from Oracle to get a commercial license for MySQL.
6. Increase spending on MySQL research and development. Oracle promises to spend more money than Sun did to continue to further develop MySQL, both the commercial and GPL editions.
7. MySQL Customer Advisory Board. No later than six months after the anniversary of the closing, Oracle will create a customer advisory board to offer guidance and feedback on MySQL development. The board will include end users and embedded customers.
8. MySQL Storage Engine Vendor Advisory Board. No later than six months after the anniversary of the closing, Oracle will create and fund a storage engine vendor advisory board for guidance on issues important to MySQL storage engine vendors.
9. MySQL Reference Manual. Oracle will continue to update and provide a free download to a MySQL Reference Manual similar to the one currently available from Sun.
10. Preserve Customer Choice for Support. Oracle will make sure that end-user and embedded customers paying for MySQL support can renew that support each year or every few years, depending on the customer's preference.

Does Tiger Woods prove Google CEO right?

Tiger Woods, this week's Icarus, grew up with the Web.

Indeed, when he seemed to be flying most closely to the sun, Woods insisted that instead of talking to the police, he would only communicate through his own blog, TigerWoods.com.

News of his striking an iron fire hydrant and a wooden tree with his Cadillac Escalade was generated not by conventional media, but by Web media, principally led by TMZ.com.

While the more conventional media were still telling the story of how Woods' wife had supposedly saved him from a terrible fate, TMZ, RadarOnline, and others (the one conventional medium on TMZ's side was the more traditional Enquirer, but traditional media have always despised this under-rated institution) approached the matter with a cynic's eye, a skeptic's nose, and perhaps even a spy's technology.

Together, they produced many alleged lovers and tales of Tiger's conversations with close friends in which he allegedly confided that only a Kobe Special (the evocatively phrased "house on a ring") might remedy the situation.

And now that, according to numerous online sources, we have rumors of sexted photos of the inside of Tiger's trousers, I can think of nothing other than Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

(Credit: Cliff 1066/Flickr)

Is it mere coincidence that on the day that Woods' most hallowed reputation was assaulted by rumors not only of smutty cell phone photos, but of an affair with a fascinating porn star, Google's CEO spoke to the world from on high?

In an interview with CNBC, Schmidt declared in what some might feel was his softest, most touchingly moralistic tone: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

His statement was meticulously constructed in response to a question about the trustworthiness of the world's most enveloping search engine. However, surely his answer applies to technology in general.

The problem with technology isn't so much that it immediately reveals, but that it immediately records. That is how Google makes much of its money, by recording the preferences of those who use it.

That is also how photographs, opinions, flings, even drunken nights come back to haunt those who may not wish nor deserve anyone's criticism.

In days gone by, sportspeople, movie stars, even, perish their memory, congressmen could keep their less socially acceptable behavior on the down low because proof was somewhat hard to clutch. Of course, people may have talked. But there was no physical evidence.

Now, the minute Playgirl decides that photographs of Tiger's private life and parts are genuine, all will be revealed in its less than salubrious glory. And Woods' interesting faith in the power of his blog to bring the unquestionable truth to those who admire him will seem like faintly naive bluster.

However, as we watch this whole sad, real, painful and even slightly amusing affair (or, as it seems, affairs) unfold upon our Macs, PCs and smartphones, shouldn't it make us wonder what it is to be free?

In order to live a life of freedom, shouldn't we fly in the other direction from Facebook, put some space between ourselves and MySpace, smash our cell phones and invest in landlines, let go of our laptops and most definitely never imagine that our personal blogs will persuade people that we are who we really think we are?

Shouldn't we attempt to live in a way that no one can observe and no one, especially Google, can record?

Tiger Woods might have gone the old media route--an interview with Diane Sawyer or Oprah. Even a Roger Clemens-like session on "60 Minutes." Perhaps one of those might have garnered him a little sympathy, might have earned him a few points in a game now largely driven by a 24-hour news cycle.

But Woods believed in new technology. And it is new technology that might end up doing him the most damage of all.