Google's Main Focus Will Be Mobile, Not Desktop Search

[exfileme]

Google now considers itself as a "mobile first" company.

Google's Main Focus Will Be Mobile, Not Desktop Search : Read more

 

[Guest]

Rich Miner. Lol.

 

[bllue]

Seems like every company is going mobile first now

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]bllue[/nom]Seems like every company is going mobile first now[/citation]
My thoughts exactly...

 

[rocknrollz]

And for good reason, mobile is the future. A computer (smartphone) almost as powerful as desktop's that are 20 inches tall and taller in some cases, packed in a package a couple of inches big. Company's would be dumb not to start investing their time into the future.

 

[chewy1963]

[citation][nom]rocknrollz[/nom]And for good reason, mobile is the future. A computer (smartphone) almost as powerful as desktop's[/citation]

And where is this mythical smartphone that is almost as powerful as a desktop? Ever try to write a document of work on a spreadsheet on a smartphone? How about playing an immersive 3d video game on a smartphone? Smartphones have their place, but so do desktops and PC's in general.

 

[enzed]

[citation][nom]rocknrollz[/nom]A computer (smartphone) almost as powerful as desktop's that are 20 inches tall and taller in some cases, packed in a package a couple of inches big.[/citation]
As advanced as mobile technology is getting, desktops will always be more powerful and several steps ahead. Of course, the average customer who browses the web and sends e-mails doesn't need something as powerful as a high-end desktop. Hence why Google is focusing on mainstream users who only require a smartphone or tablet for their daily uses. But as much as mobile is the future, so are desktops. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[rocknrollz]

[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]And where is this mythical smartphone that is almost as powerful as a desktop? Ever try to write a document of work on a spreadsheet on a smartphone? How about playing an immersive 3d video game on a smartphone? Smartphones have their place, but so do desktops and PC's in general.[/citation]

I am not talking about thousand dollar computers, I am talking about the average computer you see the average person using. For facebook, twitter, web browsing. Smartphones have reached that, and are continuing to grow. And to answer your question, yes smartphones can write a document, and they can play 3D games. But it doesn't mean it is practical to write business documents on a phone. And you used "immersive". You are talking about your own opinions about whether a game is "immersive". I have met many people who believe angry birds is immersive, so it really isn't in your place to judge what others call a good game. There are 3D games that people find fun and playable.

My point being is, smartphones have really developed to the point where company's need to start thinking about what their main goal as a company is Which is usually money, and if they want that money they need to maintain their position on where the consumers lead them. And as we are seeing, smartphones are it. Whether you like it or not.

 

[jnffarrell1]

A 64bit Android with two or more desktops and separate sandboxes/desktop, multi-windows and reliable voice commands will make 90% of PC activities doable by tablet. Tablet Plus phone via telco or internet will be available from screens 5, 8 and 13 inch sizes. Smart monitors will be the new PC/TV with or without keyboard inputs. Nowhere is there a requirement for user to be tied to a desk or a couch.

Apple started the revolution against feeding data to the computer in dehumanizing ways. Google AI for man/machine interfaces will finish the job.

 

[mstngs351]

[citation][nom]rocknrollz[/nom]I am not talking about thousand dollar computers, I am talking about the average computer you see the average person using. For facebook, twitter, web browsing. Smartphones have reached that, and are continuing to grow. And to answer your question, yes smartphones can write a document, and they can play 3D games. But it doesn't mean it is practical to write business documents on a phone. And you used "immersive". You are talking about your own opinions about whether a game is "immersive". I have met many people who believe angry birds is immersive, so it really isn't in your place to judge what others call a good game. There are 3D games that people find fun and playable.My point being is, smartphones have really developed to the point where company's need to start thinking about what their main goal as a company is Which is usually money, and if they want that money they need to maintain their position on where the consumers lead them. And as we are seeing, smartphones are it. Whether you like it or not.[/citation]

I can spend a few hundred dollars and buy a PC that will have more processing power than a smartphone. Your analogy only holds water if you're not talking about a new PC or a bottom dollar turd monkey.

You decided to pick on his use of the word "immersive" despite the fact that you knew darn well what he meant. A game that has a broad scope and depth with graphics to match. The small form factors are limited by being a small form factor. The graphics they are capable of today was surpassed by PC's some 5-7 years ago. It's also about controls that are available and most people don't use with a portable.

I do agree that companies do need to position themselves. However things like this are about the company positioning you. Considering they don't have a real stake in PC's Google stands to make more money by pushing people away from the PC to the Android dominated market with tactics like this.

 

[Solandri]

[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]And where is this mythical smartphone that is almost as powerful as a desktop? Ever try to write a document of work on a spreadsheet on a smartphone? How about playing an immersive 3d video game on a smartphone? Smartphones have their place, but so do desktops and PC's in general.[/citation]
It's pretty obvious smartphones are where we're headed. 15 years ago I could have just as easy written "And where is this mythical laptop that is almost as powerful as a desktop?" Yet laptop sales have long since surpassed desktop sales, and most people now use a laptop as their only computer.

The CPUs in the latest smartphones today are about as fast as laptop CPUs from 8 years ago. About 3 years ago we hit a point where low-end laptop CPUs were "fast enough" for most people's purposes, and Intel found themselves increasingly competing based on power efficiency rather than pure performance. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that in a few years smartphone CPUs are going to be "fast enough" for most people's purposes. Current smartphones are already 50x faster than the Cray 1 supercomputer which was the benchmark back when I was in jr. high.

The only thing holding smartphones back as the next personal computer is input and display size. Between bluetooth keyboards/mice and WiDi wireless displays, I don't see this as a long-term obstacle. Your smartphone is going to be the guts of your "personal computer." Your tablet and laptop will just be a display and keyboard/mouse you can bring along to interface with your phone if you want a bigger screen or non-touch input.

 

[deksman]

Creating a phone more powerful than the most powerful desktop (close to a contemporary supercomputer actually, and not to mention as thin as a paper) is possible.

Have the industry stop using outdated/inefficient materials that cannot be synthesized in abundance, and instead use superior synthetic materials that CAN be made in abundance (carbon nanotubes were patented for usage in electronics along with means of integration/production in 1992, same thing happened with synthetic diamonds in 1996, graphene's band-gap issue was solved in 2009 and it was patented for industrial scale manufacturing by then).

Companies should also create the BEST of what a material is capable of at the very start, with highest technological efficiency possible (all of which should be in line with our latest scientific knowledge), and NOT the worst possible thing with minor revisions being given out once every 12 to 24 months (using inefficient materials and outdated means of production).

Ah but wait... that would go AGAINST Capitalism and ruin most long-term based profits.
Its more profitable to put out advances in a way that is 'cost effective' (which has nothing to do with our ability to do something from a resource/technological point of view - in a fully automated capacity, with sustainability in mind, and in abundance for industry and every person on the planet - several times over).

Capitalism is inefficient and will NEVER do that kind of a thing - because it's simply not profitable or cost efficient from a $$$ point of view.

 

[mstngs351]

[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]Creating a phone more powerful than the most powerful desktop (close to a contemporary supercomputer actually, and not to mention as thin as a paper) is possible.Have the industry stop using outdated/inefficient materials that cannot be synthesized in abundance, and instead use superior synthetic materials that CAN be made in abundance (carbon nanotubes were patented for usage in electronics along with means of integration/production in 1992, same thing happened with synthetic diamonds in 1996, graphene's band-gap issue was solved in 2009 and it was patented for industrial scale manufacturing by then).Companies should also create the BEST of what a material is capable of at the very start, with highest technological efficiency possible (all of which should be in line with our latest scientific knowledge), and NOT the worst possible thing with minor revisions being given out once every 12 to 24 months (using inefficient materials and outdated means of production).Ah but wait... that would go AGAINST Capitalism and ruin most long-term based profits.Its more profitable to put out advances in a way that is 'cost effective' (which has nothing to do with our ability to do something from a resource/technological point of view - in a fully automated capacity, with sustainability in mind, and in abundance for industry and every person on the planet - several times over).Capitalism is inefficient and will NEVER do that kind of a thing - because it's simply not profitable or cost efficient from a $$$ point of view.[/citation]

One big problem with your theory is that they could make the same improvements on a PC. Which will have far more space for larger better components. Far less issues with heat and no need for ultra low power use.

As far as your theory about why everything isn't ramped up to -what you believe- is the best possible solutions. Keep in mind that most large complicated products are put together from supplies from many companies. There needs to be enough demand/consensus to make big changes. If companies just jumped on every possible new improvement right away we wouldn't be able to afford their products.

Yes, some of it can be boiled down to releasing incremental new products to increase profits but a lot of it is simply a staggering amount of logistics.

 

[enzed]

[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]Creating a phone more powerful than the most powerful desktop (close to a contemporary supercomputer actually, and not to mention as thin as a paper) is possible.[/citation]
The main point against your argument, as mstngs351 has already mentioned, is that no matter how advanced mobile technology becomes in the future, desktop computing will always be more powerful. I'm not an engineer so I won't pretend that I know absolutely everything about hardware development, but physics dictates that simply due to the factor of size, any "supercomputer" technology used in smartphones can be implemented several times over in a desktop, just because there's more physical space.

Of course you're right in saying that Capitalism is a large component of the rate and manner in which technology progresses (i.e. Apple waiting to put Retina display on next year's iPad Mini to squeeze out more money from customers - just the first example to come to mind.) But such is the nature of our society. Being cost-effective and profitable is what investors expect of these companies.

Will there be advanced "supercomputer" smartphones in the future? Of course, I have no doubt there will be. But there will always be desktops that are even more powerful and efficient.

 

[killerclick]

"Mobile first" as strategy is simply acknowledging the fact that mobile devices are less capable than laptops and desktops, so the best approach is to first make sure it works great on mobiles, knowing that it's going to work well on desktops as well even if you don't optimize for desktop later.

At least that's what's meant by "mobile first" in web development and it's considered good practice even if only 10% of your visitors will use mobile devices.

 

[nebun]

...and this is how the downfall of GOOGLE will start....they should stick with what they do best, desktop search

 

[deksman]

[citation][nom]enzed[/nom]The main point against your argument, as mstngs351 has already mentioned, is that no matter how advanced mobile technology becomes in the future, desktop computing will always be more powerful. I'm not an engineer so I won't pretend that I know absolutely everything about hardware development, but physics dictates that simply due to the factor of size, any "supercomputer" technology used in smartphones can be implemented several times over in a desktop, just because there's more physical space.Of course you're right in saying that Capitalism is a large component of the rate and manner in which technology progresses (i.e. Apple waiting to put Retina display on next year's iPad Mini to squeeze out more money from customers - just the first example to come to mind.) But such is the nature of our society. Being cost-effective and profitable is what investors expect of these companies.Will there be advanced "supercomputer" smartphones in the future? Of course, I have no doubt there will be. But there will always be desktops that are even more powerful and efficient.[/citation]
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]"Mobile first" as strategy is simply acknowledging the fact that mobile devices are less capable than laptops and desktops, so the best approach is to first make sure it works great on mobiles, knowing that it's going to work well on desktops as well even if you don't optimize for desktop later.At least that's what's meant by "mobile first" in web development and it's considered good practice even if only 10% of your visitors will use mobile devices.[/citation]

See, the thing with mobile electronics is that, the lower you go, lines between desktop and mobile begin to blur... and at some point, Capitalism will meet that point (even though we have the ability/technology and resources to pull it off today in abundance).
Logistics aside, from a pure resource/technology point of view, it can be done.
Actually, a lot of things could have been done like that since 100 years ago... ignoring money opens up various options for people to ponder because you start realizing just how... artificially limiting currency is.

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]rocknrollz[/nom]A computer (smartphone) almost as powerful as desktop's that are 20 inches tall and taller in some cases, packed in a package a couple of inches big.[/citation]
Yeah, but can it play Crysis? :lol:

 

[Guest]

Moving the computing experience to a handheld device is a profit maximizing decision. When a billion people use a handheld computer, the economies of scale for larger devices will disappear, making them skyrocket in price, and thus disappear. Microcomputers eliminated minicomputers, and handhelds will eliminate desktops. Whether you like it or not. What you will be able to get is a kit to plug a handheld into a larger keyboard, monitor and speaker setup. The computing power will pale in comparison to enterprise processing, forcing consumers to pay for premium cloud services. That profits the decision makers.

 

[anxiousinfusion]

[citation][nom]bllue[/nom]Seems like every company is going mobile first now[/citation]

I just wish it would be: "mobile AS WELL AS immobile focus". Why does everything have to be mobile-only all of a sudden?

 

[wcnighthawk]

[citation][nom]Solandri[/nom]It's pretty obvious smartphones are where we're headed. 15 years ago I could have just as easy written "And where is this mythical laptop that is almost as powerful as a desktop?" Yet laptop sales have long since surpassed desktop sales, and most people now use a laptop as their only computer.The CPUs in the latest smartphones today are about as fast as laptop CPUs from 8 years ago. About 3 years ago we hit a point where low-end laptop CPUs were "fast enough" for most people's purposes, and Intel found themselves increasingly competing based on power efficiency rather than pure performance. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that in a few years smartphone CPUs are going to be "fast enough" for most people's purposes. Current smartphones are already 50x faster than the Cray 1 supercomputer which was the benchmark back when I was in jr. high.The only thing holding smartphones back as the next personal computer is input and display size. Between bluetooth keyboards/mice and WiDi wireless displays, I don't see this as a long-term obstacle. Your smartphone is going to be the guts of your "personal computer." Your tablet and laptop will just be a display and keyboard/mouse you can bring along to interface with your phone if you want a bigger screen or non-touch input.[/citation]

Two problems with your analogy. One, the "faster" they become, the more power they will consume, hence draining power faster. Which means you are going to be carrying around a lot of extra power on you or ways to get power (yea, I can see that being real popular).

And two. You are assuming a person, such as myself, is going to use my smartphone as my main gaming device with a 13 inch tablet monitor, thereby downgrading myself from a nice 42 inch monitor. I'm not saying you are crazy, but I'm just saying in my case, that shit ain't happening.

 

[army_ant7]

Hm... If that's the case, Google might lose to Bing (MS) on the desktop. Have you guys noticed Bing's marketing lately? I for one won't jump ship to Bing so easily. I used to be a Yahoo! Search person but then decided to go Google for some reason (maybe better search results generally). If Bing does well, then I may in the future...

 

[bigdog44]

This article is overstating the obvious...