Google has launched a new service dubbed Google Dashboard, no doubt intended to serve CEO Eric Schmidt’s promise of trying to avoid the “creepy line.”

The Google Blog says that the Dashboard is designed to provide users with “greater transparency and control over their own data.” The company is seeking to reward users who have placed a great deal of trust and data in Google’s hands over the years. The Dashboard gives users information from more than 20 products and services, including Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Web History, Orkut, YouTube, Picasa, Talk, Reader, Alerts, Latitude and more.

Google’s announcement that the upcoming Android 2.0 update will offer free turn-by-turn GPS has sent stocks for major GPS manufacturers reeling.

The web was abuzz yesterday with news that Android 2.0, set to debut with the hotly anticipated Motorola Droid, will offer free turn-by-turn GPS. The feature is called Google Maps Navigation, and it will provide all the trimmings of a dedicated GPS unit, including: Free lifetime map updates, text and speech direction input, traffic reports and audible directions. A persistent cellular connection also gives Navigation-equipped mobiles access to Google’s Street View and PC-free updates–features not offered by traditional GPS units.

(more…)

A couple of years ago, we switched mail for our domains to Google instead of hosting it ourselves. Using Google Mail for Domains, we were able to easily manage email for over 25 users scattered all over the world, without having to deal with POP3 servers, and explaining to people how to configure their mail clients. Everyone is familiar with Gmail, and the web interface is second to none.

We switched several of our domains over. The configuration was a bit tricky, as Google provides several alternate servers, and offers different MX priorities for each server.

Back in 2007, when we migrated, the official Google server configuration looked like this:

icrontic.com. MX (10) aspmx.l.google.com.
icrontic.com. MX (20) alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
icrontic.com. MX (20) alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.
icrontic.com. MX (30) aspmx2.googlemail.com.
icrontic.com. MX (30) aspmx3.googlemail.com.
icrontic.com. MX (30) aspmx4.googlemail.com.
icrontic.com. MX (30) aspmx5.googlemail.com.

And that was that. Then, a few months back, there was a problem…
(more…)

Potentially upsetting the mobile phone status quo, it’s rumored that Google could be releasing their own android phone, according to Northeast Securities analyst Ashok Kumar, who has talked to Google’s design partners about the plan. The phone, which will be available this year, is going to be released through retailers and not through a cell phone carrier.

Bypassing carriers will allow Google to give consumers an open-standard mobile device, something they have pledged to accomplish. Having an unlocked phone will give users far more control over the capabilities of their phones than if bought through a carrier.

The Android phone and the upcoming Chrome netbook will use Qualcomm chips, specifically the Qualcomm Snapdragon platform. Analysts are speculating that HTC will manufacture the Android phone, and the Linux based Chrome netbook will be released next summer by computer maker Quanta.

Depending on the price of Google’s phone, it could have widespread impact upon the sales of existing Android phones.  Many companies are currently releasing Android phones, banking upon the OS as being a major selling point. Motorola/Verizon, for example, are releasing a razor thin Android phone named “Droid” in the near future, which they are expecting to be a serious competitor with the iPhone.

Skeptics doubt that Google’s phone will be ready in time for the holiday season, but it could be making its way into lots of lovely presents if it is.

The L.A. Times released information today regarding a loophole for protected Twitter accounts. While other Twitter users cannot view protected Twitter accounts without asking for permission, Google appears to bypass that entirely. In fact, a Google search can even reveal some of the protected tweets of deleted accounts.

The Google searches can’t reveal the entirety of tweets unless they are short, but information can still be revealed in the small snippets. Just put “site:twitter.com/username” into Google, replacing the word “username” with that of someone with protected tweets, and view away. For example, everyone has been delighted to see what kind of mood Bill Clinton is in.

Fake Bill Clinton is probably sad you can see his tweets.

Reality check: While the “breach” sent tweeps scrambling and ranting, there appears to be nothing to fear. It seems so far that Google is only showing tweets that were public before the account was later privatized. As for final word on whether or not our protected tweets are safe, we’ll just have to wait to hear from Twitter.

Google announced recently that in the beginning of 2010 it will be launching “Google Editions,” an online e-book store.

Google Editions will enable customers to purchase and download books through a web browser to any e-reader. Readers can make purchases either directly through Google, or other online stores like Amazon. The new service will also be accessible through any device that can reach Gmail, which will provide Editions access directly to the device.

The firm plans to launch the service with access to some 500,000 titles, and the library is expected to expand rapidly throughout the year.

Google’s world domination inches closer, accounting for 6% of all Internet traffic.

A malware network has been discovered siphoning profits from Google, Yahoo, and Bing by spoofing the search engines and their DNS addresses.

Dubbed the “Bahama Botnet,” it hijacks search engine results with doctored links that run a user through a chain of sponsored ad sites. After clicking his or her way through the ads, the user eventually ends up on the requested page.

A traceroute of the connection shows that although the DNS name of the server appears to be legitimate, users are actually connected to 64.86.17.56, an unknown IP address in Canada.

It will be interesting to see how the major search engine corporations respond to this threat.

Back up over 80%, that is.

Remember the days of Bing’s launch? Microsoft retooled Windows Live Search and unveiled it as a challenger to Google. It was further enhanced by the well-timed acquisition of Yahoo!, which combined to make a formidable competitor.

In the month following Bing’s launch, things were looking bright, according to the boys in Redmond.

We’re gratified to report that there has been some great interest in trying out Bing and that those experiences are yielding positive results!   We saw 8 percent growth in unique users to Bing.com in June, which is an important indicator that you are trying Bing and the word is spreading. Based on our own polling, we have also seen the number of people “likely to recommend” Bing double in our debut month.

TechCrunch also did a comparison between Bing and Wolfram Alpha, noting a promising trend:

Searches for “Wolfram Alpha” began to build up the weekend that it soft launched on May 15, peaking the following Monday… Interest in Bing, on the other hand, started out just as strong [as Wolfram's peak] with its unveiling last week. Then when it actually launched, interest shot up even higher. The positive experience many people had with their first search certainly helped.

By all measures, a great success!

Then the hype died down, and everything returned to normal. September’s analytics indicate that Google once again owns more than 80% of the search market. And the flip side?

Bing’s usage share in the US descended by 1.13% to 8.51% for the month of September, while Yahoo’s dove 1.1% to 9.4%. Google’s share among the top three has now climbed above where it stood in May (78.72%), when Microsoft changed the name of Windows Live Search.

Well, it was fun while it lasted, fellas. Better luck next time?

Ed note: Did someone say Bing Bang?

Computerworld is reporting that Microsoft has an unlikely ally in the form of Mozilla which yesterday blasted Google for releasing a plugin which replaces Internet Explorer’s renderer with that of Chrome’s.

The former CEO of Mozilla and current Mozilla Foundation chair Mitchell Baker expressed her disagreement in a personal blog update.

“The overall effects of Chrome Frame are undesirable,” she said. “I predict positive results will not be enduring and — and to the extent it is adopted — Chrome Frame will end in growing fragmentation and loss of control for most of us, including Web developers.”

Baker claims that slipping Chrome into Internet Explorer will confuse users by giving them conflicting destinations for browser control.

“Once your browser has fragmented into multiple rendering engines, it’s very hard to manage information across Web sites. Some information will be manageable from the browser you use and some information from Chrome Frame. This defeats one of the most important ways in which a browser can help people manage their [Web] experience.”

Microsoft, meanwhile, complained that adding Chrome to IE would pose an increased security risk. The Redmond firm said that users would now have to patch vulnerabilities for two browsers instead of one. Microsoft also pointed out that the plugin also disabled Internet Explorer features like the private browsing mode which blocks history and cookies from being recorded.

The Mozilla Foundation’s VP of Engineering Mike Shaver also echoed security concerns. “The user’s understanding of the Web’s security model and the behavior of their browser is seriously hindered by delegating the choice of software to the developers of individual sites they visit,” he said.

Google has not yet responded to Mozilla’s criticisms. Users interested in replacing the Internet Explorer rendering engine with the safer, faster, and newer Chrome engine can do so for free.

Google announced on Tuesday the beta release of a plugin which makes major changes to Microsoft’s competing Internet Explorer browser.

Titled Google Frame, it completely replaces IE’s web rendering engine with that of Chrome’s. The result is a faster, more standards-compliant experience even in the antique Internet Explorer 6.

Many web developers are loathe to require that users upgrade their browser (because most simply can’t), but Google theorizes that the low barrier to entry of a plugin might spur IT departments to adopt it as they have with Adobe’s Flash.

Meanwhile, MSNBC Editorial Concepts Producer Jim Ray has written a glowing review which documents the technical details of Google’s work:

The irony here, as I see it, is that an old, insecure feature Microsoft built to try to beat Netscape is now being used by Microsoft’s biggest current rival to patch IE. The upside for developers is that Microsoft is going to have a hard time killing Chrome Frame because it actually does the right thing — it’s not hacking IE via undocumented APIs or unscrupulous haxie-like code injection. They used Microsoft’s own well-documented and fully supported platform to do this. Bravo indeed, Google.

We can’t deny that this news fills us with a bit of smug satisfaction, but we question the utility of requiring all IE users (or merely IE6 users) to install a plugin before using your site. While Flash has made significant inroads in this area over the years, we wonder if there is enough incentive before larger websites pave the way.

Those with good memories may recall the Apple/AT&T/Google fiasco of a couple months ago that stirred the FCC to action, sending formal questionnaires to all three companies regarding their roles in the rejection of official and unofficial Google Voice applications, their companies’ roles in the marketplace, the state of VOIP applications, and more. Today, the FCC and Google released the full text of Google’s response, which contradicts Apple’s stated response.

As many noted at the time, Google’s responses were carefully and curiously redacted as released, in particular the entire section of their response regarding why Google Voice was rejected from the App Store.

Apple’s original statement in response to Question 1:

“Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.”

Google’s original response, given at the same time, states:

“The primary points of contact between the two companies were Alan Eustace, Google Senior Vice President of Engineering and Research, and Phil Schiller, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing. On July 7, Mr. Eustace and Mr. Schiller spoke over the phone.”

“It was during this call that Mr. Schiller informed Mr. Eustace that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application for the reasons described above in 2(a).”

Google’s section 2(a) states:

“Apple’s representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality.”

Interestingly, section 2(b) elaborates (PDF) on why Google Latitude was rejected from the App Store:

“Apple’s representatives informed Google that the Google Latitude application was rejected because Apple believed the application had the potential to: (i) replace the preloaded maps application, (ii) create user confusion since the preloaded maps application on the iPhone is a version of Google Maps, and (iii) offer new features not present on the preloaded maps application (which might also contribute to the user confusion referenced above).”

So not only are you barred from making an app that duplicates functionality, you can’t make an app that enhances functionality. Now that’s an ecosystem developers can rally behind!

While the discrepancies are certainly interesting, we remain without concrete answers until the FCC has completed its ongoing investigation.

At least everybody says AT&T had no say in the application rejection process.