Bring on the hardware for the Google Labs

Devin Coldewey is a Seattle-based writer and photographer. He wrote for the TechCrunch network since 2007. Some posts, it would like you to read: the perils of externalization of knowledge | Generation I | Surveillant society | Select two | Frame war | User manifesto | Our great sin his personal site — coldewey. cc. ? Read More

In his statement on the acquisition of Motorola mobility Google says that they will run Motorola mobility as a business. "I understand it, this means that they are not simply devouring them, firing surplus staff and Borging all functionality of the Moto in Google the name and brand. On the other hand they will not only let it ride and skimmed profits (and patents).

Their business plans are still subject to debate, but what I am really excited about something completely different: the new playground Google for equipment.

The potential for creating real objects Motorola is of paramount importance. Google produces almost no real objects at all. Motorola designs and produces the things have to be raised and put in pockets. Google designs and produces the things, which are inviolable, unpocketable. With some points of view, this terrible match as Archie and Veronica. But what Google has, as I doubt they are Motorola and almost certainly not lacking in Microsoft and Apple, up the idea of mobility. Google Labs hardware, anyone?

Look at the "free time" policy of the company Google, where employees spend a significant portion of their working day, handicrafts or collaborating on independent projects. There has been some disagreement about how manufacturing or expensive it may be, but I definitely think it's strength. It could not create many millions of users, but it creates a large number of services viable and interesting niche. I think it's a perfect match for engineers boring equipment.

I wrote some time ago about how Microsoft must turn himself upside down. Google is not a utopia, some people may think that this is an ideal approach, but more than the competition. I always stumble inter-project microscopic Google to improve the study of physics, or solar panels or image compression. Things that don't serve millions of impressions, but act as an Ambassador between Google and consumer communities as a medical institution, circuit Benders, and various random industries. He speaks with certain indulgence within the company and an eye for quality, which selects the projects is to improve.

Microsoft has a smart people, but their wealth and territorial network managers play "mother may I" with the pet projects of stifling growth. It is a miracle that something like Kinect ever floated upwards, although phone Windows 7 and Windows 8 appear to reveal a more open, the focus of the company. Apple probably has a large number of works engineers Scoones and a Research Department. But compared with Google and Microsoft, they are almost completely hidden from prying eyes. Engineers at Microsoft Research collaborates with universities and put together a fascinating showcase at SIGGRAPH, while fruit Apple research disclosed only in patents and finished products. Both approaches have their advantages — I just wanted to show the two types. The Motorola School of Apple, but less creative and Google is Microsoft schools but less diverse.

If Motorola engineers have little room to breathe (think: fewer PCB samples phone functions), they can create some very interesting work. This is not a guarantee, as Google is not guaranteed to create something worth in their 20% time. However Google can combine a clear eye for potential (even — perhaps especially — niche capabilities) and willingness to take risks going public fast track some of the projects and produce some very interesting devices.

Google loves equipment. They just never get a chance to confess it. The closest we can see when they Cherry pick design for their G-series phones, or produce something like Cr-48, soaking in understatement and Google function the first form. And Open Toolkit accessory, as Valentine's day for hardware hackers.

They could have bought a Design Studio or two, of course. They probably have several already. But with Motorola, acting as the Department of rapid prototyping, Google has free rein to try all sorts of things. Not that we should expect Google refrigerators or something. But imagine things as Courier, rather than buried, simply because he was a cool idea. Google simply shelling to picture a limited run of these things, to see what people are not with them to create something really cool to be able to say that they did it?

I portray something along the lines of Google Labs, open to some extent (as chrome) and with basic "emissions" getting small run production. This is probably pie in the sky, but one can dream, can't I? And indeed it's ridiculous to think that Google can sometimes cause a mil or two for budding project equipment, they way they did with software projects? Use your imagination. Why not:

Google Maps and navigation devices, selected specifically for carsa courier as the tablet device for dual screen functionalitya slate focuses on handwriting, sketching, and hand collaborationan Android-powered audio processor box with apps, physical disks and I t/oa Google camera is all about sharing and geolocation

Do you think that Google is not the guys come up with this kind of stuff all the time? They probably have a backlog of deep random interesting hardware devices and spaces, they want to explore the hundreds. Google loves to tinker. And they love to put things that is not even close to finished products. This is not always positive, but it shows that, unlike Apple and Motorola, they are willing to release something wild to see how it works.

Now the recent closure of Google Labs (enter "more wood for a smaller number of arrows") can disrupt sleep. But my thinking Labs occupied a sort of an awkward position, halfway between internal projects too buggy or specific measures to be applied, but not large enough to have a blog or in app update. Obviously they are cutting down on the levels of granularity can be — but that doesn't mean they eliminate experiments, and in any case, the draft equipment is large enough to avoid this particular overclocking.

With the taste they seem to be in your hardware design (and sometimes the design interface) and the interest they show in the technological society of dilettanti, I believe the purchase of proven hardware vector is unabashed good thing, although this is not the sole or main reason Google did it. Whether they were acquired by engineers and designers prepare material on their own volition, or implementing projects for Google's fancy, the result will have a new toy. And may even be something useful.

View the original article here