Or Windows 7, let’s hear it for the hardware; looking forward to WinHEC.

This is the only Microsoft Windows Hardware Engineering Conference before Windows 7 ships: unless the next WinHEC returns to its usual May timing that gives Microsoft another year to get it right. I’m expecting to hear positive things from the OEMs who’ve been playing with Windows 7 for much longer than we have; 7 is leaner than Vista and it literally puts devices ‘on stage’ with the Device Stage ‘experience’ (a task-oriented alternative to the AutoPlay dialog). And Ray Ozzie was very careful to frame Microsoft’s cloud play in a way that doesn’t ignore hardware.Google doesn’t give the hardware manufacturers much love, because it doesn’t have to, but for the first time since Paul Maritz left (and he’s now playing ‘who blinks first’ with server manufacturers at VMware over whether virtualisation will sell more servers rather than fewer in the long run) Microsoft has remembered how much the OEMs matter. The lack of drivers when Vista launched and the willingness to ship Linux on netbooks may have refreshed the Microsoft memory here.What’s good about the PC? Copy and paste, as I say whenever anyone asks me why I’m not packing an iPhone. And hardware. “Both Windows and the apps are sitting right next to the hardware, the processor, memory, graphics, and disk.” You can take advantage of a big screen in a browser app, but you’re wasting a lot of the power of the PC by not taking advantage of what Windows can do on the CPU. And storage is still much more efficient in the OS, as Ozzie notes there’s “immense value in the storage on PCs for confidentiality and mobility, for speed of access and local convenience for documents and rich media, photos, videos, music, and more”.  Yes, Google Gears would like to work with USB drives and GPS directly, but as long as the Gears team are saying that “everything in the browser is inherently safe”, I won’t be installing Gears.Cloud, said Ozzie, plays to the strengths of the Internet: remember, this is someone old enough to remember the Internet before the Web and to appreciate the range of services online for communicating with companies and people. Rich Internet Applications? “Yes, the browser as universal run time is cool and it’s really useful” admits Ozzie, “but this is not the core of the Web’s sustainable uniqueness. The Web’s unique value is in its ability to assemble the world’s people, the world’s organizations, its public information, its services and devices, enabling us to connect, to communicate, to transact, and to share. ” And the phone is somewhere in between, says Ozzie. Yes, you can write software that uses the hardware on the phone - in fact, with the slower processor and limited storage you have to.  But what the phone really gives you is context - something Microsoft is trying to add to the PC with the sensor framework in Windows 7 but is unlikely to match. “The truly unique advantage of a phone-based app is that it’s always with you and it’s ready for your spontaneous action. The phone knows where you are, what time it is, so it can tag your location on something. With its camera, you can snap a picture in the context of what you’re doing. You can record a quick idea or use text or ink to jot down a note. There’s no better way than a phone for you to immediately comprehend that something that you care about is suddenly in need of your attention.”We use Microsoft’s Live Mesh service to share documents peer-to-peer on the road. It’s very effective - in fact it’s changed the way we work. It’s handy to have it available through a browser but we’ve never used that because where we need the files is on the PC (or often two, three or four PCs between use) that we’re working on. Live Mesh has just come out for Windows Mobile and the Mac (for a limited number of users while Microsoft ramps up the service). We probably won’t look at many PC files from a phone, but if we need to it’s going to be much more convenient than hauling out a laptop at the hotel front desk or in the rental car agency. And all those to-do lists I jot down on the phone; they’d be a  lot more useful if they showed up on my desktop when I could do something about them.  That’s almost exactly the three scenarios Ozzie defined last week, and they need the balance of hardware and software to work. Last week we saw the new software that’s on the way; this week it’s what the hardware brings to the party and whether the manufacturers are as positive as Microsoft has predicted.  -Mary

For years, we’ve been saying that Google would be mad to build its own operating system. It should leave the thankless task to Microsoft and Apple and Linux distributions; you can debate how good a job they do, turn and turn about, but the scale of what a desktop OS needs to do and the range of devices it needs to support is far broader than what you need to do in a browser or on a smartphone. I still don’t think Google has any plans to create its own OS, but it’s pushing beyond the browser as a development platform with Gears and App Engine and the like. Microsoft has a whole range of platforms in the browser, out of the browser and around the browser, from Windows and WPF to Silverlight to SharePoint to Office to SQL Server – to name just a few of the platforms Bill Gates touched on in his last ever keynote at Microsoft TechEd this morning.

Silverlight is a lot of things, from Microsoft’s answer to Flash to Microsoft’s answer to Web based applications. Leave aside the video plugin side of it; the fact that Silverlight 2 (beta 2 due at the end of this week) runs .NET and programs written in dynamic languages on Mac and Linux as well as Windows is the most interesting part. And it’s not just for consumer Web apps; Facebook and Hotmail users aren’t happy with line of business apps in dreary basic grey when they get to work, and Silverlight is an easy way to spruce those up without slaving over a hot CSS schema for hours.

Adobe’s Air tackles much the same problem; how do you make powerful applications for the Web that work online and off, that look good and that work without installing anything (once you have the initial plugin or runtime). Air builds on Flex, so if you’re already writing Flash, you’ve got a head start. But there are a lot more .NET developers writing business apps, so although Microsoft demos consumer apps like the Crossfader social video sharing tool it talked about today, most Silverlight apps might show up at work, using Workflow Foundation and making data from SQL Server look good.

Silverlight is a subset of .NET and Windows Presentation Foundation, so developers are using familiar skills and Visual Studio plus Expression Blend for designers, who get to work on the live project, not in Photoshop mockups.  The visual development tools also appeal to disenfranchised Visual Basic developers who’ve been wondering what Microsoft has done for them lately….  Microsoft VP Soma Somasegar said Crossfader is being built by six developers and two designers in three months, which is more like Internet time than standard Microsoft time scales.

If Silverlight’s so good, why would anyone be creating Windows applications at all? Bill Gates finished his Q&A trying to balance that question. “Yes, you’ll be able to do amazing things in Silverlight, but there will always be things that you can do in Windows Presentation Framework that you can’t do in Silverlight. Why is that so? Well, it’s so because with WPF we get to assume we have the full power of the PC; we’re not just running in a browser environment. So, take things like 3D type things, virtual world type things, take things like ink recognition or playing video back at arbitrary speeds. WPF will, because it can connect in to all of Windows, expose those services and let people do new things.

“We need to keep the Silverlight download to be fairly modest. So, if you think of what that will be versus the entire Windows environment, we have a much bigger runtime to call on. So, we’re not saying that those get absolutely merged, but we will have exactly the right relationship. And even as you’re in Visual Studio or in the Expression tools, you’ll be able to say I want to author for the Silverlight piece and to let you know that if you’re sticking to the things that work in that world.

“Silverlight will probably have almost everything WPF has today, but WPF will keep getting richer and richer as we go forward.”

That’s the Microsoft dream and it’s one direction things could go. Google is pushing in completely the other direction. Last week at Google IO, Chris Prince and Aaron Boodman (better known as the designer of the Greasemonkey Firefox extension) were explaining why they don’t want you to think of Gears as taking Google applications offline. Yes it does that, but actually Google wants it to give Web apps to have access to all the capabilities of your PC the way desktop apps do. Why shouldn’t the browser get the power of your 2GHz processor and your 300GB hard drive? Why shouldn’t they be able to send you notifications in another window or show a progress bar? Why can’t you access USB drives from inside Gears or use a GPS to tell the Web app where you are?

Google filed its name off Gears so that it has more chance of becoming a standard, either as part of HTML 5 or by becoming ubiquitous as a plugin in its own right. Personally, I’m not going to be installing it on any machine I use.

It’s not just because it has no way to limit the amount of disk space it’s going to take for its local database (used by MySpace to give you search across the whole site without having to take up space on their data centre for those pesky index files). It’s only partly because it’s going to be able to use your GPS or other tools to get your location and there is currently nothing to warn the user and no options for choosing if and when Gears can get your location. Google seems committed to harmonizing with whatever standards HTML 5 includes for the things that Gears does, and I’m not the one who will have to detail with duplicate APIs from Gears and HTML 5 to do the same thing – that’s a problem for Web developers to juggle. And the fact that Web sites like YouSendIt already have real progress bars without needing me to download a plugin is a quibble rather than a complaint.

Mainly, I won’t use it at this point because of how Chris Prince explains why he thinks Web apps are so good in the first place. “Everything in the browser is inherently safe,” he said at Google IO. “There is no cost to install a Web app, you’re not afraid to click a link, and you can navigate away with no fear it will take over your machine.” Compared to the near-paranoia that’s is Microsoft’s attitude to the Web, from the phishing filter to the way IE doesn’t get the same privileges as a desktop app to the security-first attitude that permeates the company, calling the browser ‘inherently safe’ seems a little laissez faire to me.

Adding binary data files to JavaScript will certainly make for more powerful apps. Some of them might be Trojans; if Gears gets everything Google talked about that would be able to scrape files off a USB stick, record you talking with the audio APIs, add in your physical location and do whatever you can think of with it all, good or bad. If I’m not too busy playing with whatever features the Web app disguising the Trojan has I can navigate away from it – but if it’s using Gears to run offline, has it gone away?

The browser sandbox limits the features on my system that Web apps have access to. That’s a pain when you want to build a better app in the browser – but it’s a security measure if you want to build a better way of attacking my system. I asked Chris Wilson of the Internet Explorer dev team if I was being paranoid – he was the one who’d raised the issue about privacy with the GPS location in Gears at the end of the session. Maybe, he suggested - but with the number of security issues it raises, Gears isn’t going to be installed by default with IE any time soon…

Driving from San Diego to Silicon Valley up the 101, we passed an airfield where helicopters were loading up with water and fire retardants. They were helping to control a wildfire in the Santa Cruz mountains, where dry bush had been burning for nearly six days. I knew what they were doing, and why, as I’d just had a crash course in California’s fire problems.

Back in San Diego, at FiRe, I spent some time listening in to a group of CTOs and other tech luminaries trying to come up with an improved IT architecture for fire fighters dealing with wildfires. Inspired by the response to 2007’s disastrous fire season, science fiction author and TV presenter David Brin presented a panel from all sides of the tech industry with a challenge from the local supervisor.

The panel included Larry Smarr, the head of UCSD’s super computuing visualisation lab. He had experience of helping coordinate volunteer imaging specialists during the fires, and of using the university’s IT resources to help disseminate information. The panel was joined by two local subject matter experts - one of whom was a fire chief who’d had to put his own men in the path of the fire to help track the source of the flames.

It turns out that San Diego has a lot of the basic infrastructure needed to build an effective fire detection and warning system - including sensors on mountain tops in risky areas. What’s really needed are a way of increasing sensor coverage at times of maximum risk - and of pinpointing fires directly. Information also needs to be routed to help support decisions that need to be made quickly - and presented in a manner that makes sense. Visualisation tools are important here, as they can bring information from multiple sensors and display it in an easy to understand manner alongside appropriate geographic information.

Two days weren’t enough to solve the problem, but plenty of good ideas made their way into an overall system diagram. FiRe’s brains trust may not have prevented the next round of fires, but some of its ideas will go back to the team at UCSD - as well as to the local fire departments. San Diego may not yet use airships to spot fires, but better image processing and improved sensors could go a long way to saving lives and property.

San Diego’s fires also made it to this week’s Google IO (our San Francisco destination). In a presentation on Google Earth, it tutned out that a local radio station used Google’s tools to create an impromptu early warning system on its web sites. Fire reports were plotted on a map, and used to help predict the likely trajectory of the wildfire.

Imaging and visualisation are critical technologies. We’re visual animals, and a well designed image can compress huge amounts of information into very few lines. Appropriate imaging (if it’s on UCSD’s super computers, or on Google Earth) is a powerful decision support tool - and one that in the face of wildfires most certainly saves lives.

I find it easy to spot most of the phishing messages that hit my inbox, because there’s nearly always an egregious grammatical mistake in there somewhere. Real messages from banks may be full of logical errors (like a regular savings account with a headline rate of 7% that never tells you that actually it averages out nearer 4% because not all of the money gets to earn the high rate for the whole year), but the spelling is spot on.

And spammers are in such a hurry to put up the Web pages they want to earn ad money on, or use for drive-by downloads to increase the size of the botnet they use to spend most of the spam from zombie machines, that they often make stupid mistakes. If you’re checking 100 messages a day in your junk mail filter for anything real that got in there by mistake, I’m not sure if it’s any comfort to remember that spammers are only human. But Google finds it useful.

According to Matt Cutts of Google at Web 2.0, Web spammers often use templates and tools to build their pages. And fairly often they follow the commented-out instruction to ‘type your hidden text in here’ - but never delete that instruction. The tools they use to fill in forms are simplistic too; the captcha you have to complete to leave a comment here is enough to defeat most of them - but so is a box labelled email address with the instruction not to fill it in. When the bot adds whatever email address it’s abusing, you know you can just delete the comment. Simple maths or the instruction to type in a specific word are beyond bots - at least until Jeff Hawkins perfects Hierarchical Temporal Memory.

If you have a site, you need to think of things that raise the blood pressure of the spammers without doing the same to your users. It’s like being chased by any dumb but dangerous pack animal, says Cutts; you only have to run faster than the slowest person you’re willing to sacrifice. If your system is a little different from the default installation of whatever you use, the default attacks are less likely to work and the spammers may move on to slower prey.

Apart from the obvious advice to patch, patch and patch again, Cutts didn’t say much more - because every time you tell spammers how you’re spotting them, they get a chance to stop doing that. A lot of what Google knows about spam comes from the analysis it does of real Web pages, which lets it work out what things go together. If you know that timepiece and chronometer are synonyms for watch, those strangely-worded Rolex spams are easier to stop. You can see this classification in Google Sets and it’s used in Google Spreadsheets. The equivalent of Excel AutoFill does more than days of the week and months of the year, without you having to add the lists by hand; start with red, yellow and blue and Google Sets will add other colours. Start with lion, tiger, bear and you get other animals.

But you might also get wood, tin and cotton. That’s because Google Sets can’t always tell the difference between the list of animal names and the list of animal toys on the Web sites it looks at. It will learn; like spammers it will learn more quickly if someone tells it what it’s got wrong. But at this point, we get into a race between whether the anti-spam tools can learn faster than the spammers…

Well, Tim O’Reilly has an idea, because he came up with the term. And the new O’Reilly Web 2.0 consulting practice ought to know. In fact one of the reasons the company set up the consultancy arm is to get everyone to agree on a definition, because we can’t have a good conversation about the  benefits Web 2.0 can bring business if we mean something different.

Some people think of Web 2.0 as just about social networks or about sharing user-generated content. By other definitions, anything built with Ajax is Web 2.0, but that would make Outlook Web Access the first ever Web 2.0 service. Is it just having a blog? That doesn’t make Dell a Web 2.0 success. O’Reilly’s original definition was coined before Facebook or YouTube and before blogs were popular and it doesn’t depend on a particular programming language or style. He wanted to explain why Amazon was so successful, why eBay dominated online auctions, how Google was beating everyone else at search. His answer was that they were mining what users thought about the books they were buying, the people they were buying from and the Web pages they linked to and turning that into information for other users.

Web 2.0 is a combination of collective intelligence and network effect, taking user-generated content and metadata and using it to add value, creating applications that get better the more people use them. “Every true Web 2.0 company,” says O’Reilly, “is building a database that grows better with the number of participants.”

Social networks and blogs and interactivity on the Web site are all part of that, but the heart of it is much more structured data. So far, the big Web 2.0 success stories have mostly been companies that started online. If Web 2.0 is really that significant it should help companies who’ve been around for decades as well; how does a blog help if you make shoes or run a phone company? Mostly by letting you turning your customers into unpaid consultants.

The O’Reilly consultants have a fund of amusing mistakes by companies that didn’t get the point, from AT&T saying they wanted to reach out to unhappy customers who were ready to move to another provider - but didn’t want to create a community just to listen to people complaining - to a large consulting firm that was horrified at the idea of letting customers talk to each other.

There was the watch company that cancelled plans to send out images of a new watch to key bloggers because they didn’t want to spoil the effect of their million-dollar launch party and had to watch a grainy picture from a cameraphone go round the blogs instead - making the watch look cheap and nasty. One large retailer declares confidently that ‘none of our employees use Facebook’; that means they’re not in the ‘I hate working here” group trying to find out what’s wrong with the company. Another retailer is spending $2 million on research about shoppers that it won’t see for 13 months, when it will be completely out of date.

A blog won’t fix a company that makes bad products or has terrible customer service; but having a way to hear what customers are saying and respond to it can - if the company is actually able to change. “Going Web 2.0″ for the sake of looking up to date is pointless; using technology to build a relationship with customers is valuable. 

Is any of that the same as Web 2.0 for online services? Not really. And the O’Reilly folks actually admit that. When they talk to a company, they use the term ’social Web’ because Web 2.0 is ‘distracting’.

After all the rumours of a hardware Google phone - plausible with the man behind the Sidekick running the project but never likely because of the six months notice required for testing new phones  - Android turns out to be a special version of the same software Google has been making for phones all along - and will continue to make. The Google phone software stack treads a fine line between taking away the hard work of compatibility testing from the operators and taking away their advertising revenue and data business model. But don’t expect free software to mean cheaper phones.

Handset manufacturers don’t pay a lot for the operating system they use - £1 to £2 per phone for Symbian and £4 to £8 per Windows Mobile device. And they make orders of magnitude more money back from you because smartphone users make more calls, send more texts and pay for a data tariff too (although they won’t sniff at a little extra profit on each handset).

What costs the most money in a phone is the radio and the more your phone does the more radios it needs -  GSM for phone calls, GRPS/EDGE and 3G for data plus Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and sometimes GPS. Soon you can add in WiMax or LTE as we get the still faster 4G services, but first 3G phone will get cheaper as they get more popular and economies of scale kick in. Analysts Informa reckon that by 2008 the component costs for a 3G smartphone will be down to around £55. That’s not what you pay for a phone - there’s still the cost of manfacturing, marketing, support and making a profit on the one hand and the subsidy the network operator pays to get phones out cheaply or for free - but it makes the cost of the OS just a small part of the total.

The component bill will drop to £30 by 2012. By then up to a quarter of phones worldwide  will have the fastest variants of 3G or 4G radios- but that adds up as nearly 90% of devices in South Korea, Japan and Western Europe. That’s despite the fact that the radios are more complex to build and test so they’ll stay more expensive, with a £75 price tag for components in 2012.

Another thing that costs money is giving wireless networks the bandwidth they need to make mobile Internet worth using. Mobile broadband is going to see traffic increasing by 30% or 40% every year if Ovum’s figures are right.

That puts the pennies the operators can save by going with Google in context. A fifth of the phones sold already go to China where homegrown search services are more popular so the Google name may not help much.  And if Google is thinking about matching the iPhone figures it should set its sights a little higher. Last year Microsoft sold 11 million Windows Mobile phone - up from 6 million the previous year and 3 million the year before that - and it’s on track to shift 20 million more by July 2008. If that brings anything like the £160 million the figures suggest, Microsoft may not mind how many of those users are searching with Google.

-Mary

Google’s latest version of its Earth mapping tool adds a significant new feature; Sky. It’s a great tool, you can scroll around the heavens, zooming in for detailed Hubble shots of the most beautiful astronomical objects, and all for free…

That’s great for us, but a terrible thing for all the small software houses and software developers who’ve invested their lives in developing planetarium software. Astronomical applications have been a profitable niche for a large number of companies, and sophisticated sky explorers have been developed over a number of years. Now, overnight, that market has been blown away.

Google doesn’t need to worry about how much it costs to create and market software. Flush with billions of advertising dollars it can create tools like Sky, and throw them over the wall for free - a loss leader to attract users to the profitable shores of advertising. There’s no thought to the collateral damage - and no thought to the livelihoods that are being ripped apart. Sky may not be as good as the competition, but it’s good enough, and it’s free.

That’s the big problem. Most people don’t want the best, they just want something that does most of what they want in an easy to use package. The Model T Ford trampled a hundred smaller car companies, and pushed highly efficient steam cars out of the way. If the Stanley Steamer had survived, we’d be in a very different world. The same is true of the IBM PC and the myriad smaller PC companies that vanished, leaving us with the Intel/Microsoft monoculture (a tool that Google is leveraging to spread its influence across the rest of the IT industry).

Like the Spanish in meso-America, the Google behemoth has begun to colonise another continent. Like the Spanish, it’s about to wipe out a flourishing civilisation - and not notice a thing. It’s time to raise a glass to applications like Red Shift. We won’t see their like again.

–Simon