iGoogle has recently made clear its intentions to become a social networking site by testing features like chat and activity streaming. Most people use Facebook, MySpace or both to stay connected with their friends or family and the business world has LinkedIn to collaborate with colleges. With all these social networking sites already existing on the internet why do we need another and what can Google bring to the table that hasn't already been fulfilled?

I ask myself whether I am reinventing the wheel before taking on a website project. If you get to the party late and don't have a gimmick you don't stand a chance at standing out from the crowd. The originality is debatable when it comes to iGoogle's new features but their tactics are ingenious. With the introduction of the OpenSocial set of API's Google is planning to gain superiority by means of consolidation. The OpenSocial set of API's were spawned by Google and partner MySpace and are already in use across MySpace's vast network. Google is taking a gamble and hoping people will adopt these open-source API's but if that gamble pays off they quickly become the forerunner in a market basically monopolized by Facebook and MySpace.

I openly have a geek crush on Google. That being said I think they are going to tread down some dangerous territory in the near future. They have started to get too big for their own good. Google's Street View feature on maps.google.com may be a harbinger for the future.

As it was reported by Michael Todd of eFluxMedia Google has recently removed a small Minnesota community from Google's Street View feature. This brings up a lot of interesting issues. Google was contacted by the community of North Oaks in Minnesota and was asked to remove the community from the Street View feature and they complied, seemingly with no questions. Does that mean that anyone can opt in or out of the Street View feature? Or does North Oaks private community standing set them apart from the rest of the general public? My guess is that Google didn't want to see a rash of law suits attempting to remove communities, towns, cities or even states from the Street View feature so they quickly and quietly removed the community of North Oaks, MN.

I am excited to see the practical application of the Street View feature as it evolves to hand held devices, especially those running Google's Android open-source software. The larger question at hand is does Google's Street View feature infringe on people's rights to privacy?

My gut feeling is that the Street View feature does not infringe on my privacy. I have found three instances of my vehicle being listed via the Street View feature. I have yet to see myself in any of the pictures. I do not see the harm right now, but that doesn't mean six months down the line there couldn't be a scenario where the Street View feature impedes my personal freedoms. That same case could be made for just about anything. The next time some run-off from one of the extremely green and well manicured lawns in the community of North Oaks ends up in the surrounding water table I wonder how the community of North Oaks will try to opt out of that responsibility?

Microsoft announced this week that when they release service pack 2 for the Microsoft Office suite the popular Open Document Format (ODF) will be supported. In the same release Microsoft announced that they are not going to include support for Office Open XML (OOXML). It is rumored that Microsoft will support both file formats in their next office suite which currently has the code name "Office 14." Are we supposed to be happy/excited or cautious about Microsoft's new plans? Personally I'm glad that they are going to support ODF because it will just make my life easier. I am also always suspect of any move Microsoft takes.

Microsoft has been in trouble with regulators for a while in the EU due to their open source document support. In light of Microsoft's quick change from OOXML to ODF the EU wants some questions answered. The EU wants to make sure that Microsoft isn't trying to force other products out of the market place. Its easy to see how Microsoft could adopt an open standard like ODF to push popular programs like Open Office out of the market. Honestly I think Microsoft is just buckling to the pressure created by products like Open Office and Google Documents. Microsoft needs to protect their product and their brand by allowing users to bring in and output ODF documents with the Office suite they are probably hoping they will preserve their current market share.

I really wonder what the long-term implications will be from this new move. I understand that people who use Open Office and other ODF based products will now be able to interact with colleagues and clients who work in the Microsoft platform that much easier. I see this move as just making it that much easier for me to work on documents in the Microsoft suite and then taking them to other platforms. What I will really be interested to see is what extra mark-up Microsoft will include when you convert to the ODF via Microsoft. Its all fine and good if I can open up and look at ODF documents in Microsoft Office but I'm not that interested in Microsoft adding tons of their own mark-up so when I go to take my project to a different platform I've got to worry about said mark-up. If Microsoft does add a ton of mark-up then its probably worthless to me.

I understand and agree that every action Microsoft takes needs to be questioned and investigated but isn't this sort of what we've been asking Microsoft to do for some time now? That is just part of the problem with Microsoft's closed approach, whenever they change anything, everyone has to be skeptical. Not just skeptical about Microsoft's motivation but we also have to be skeptical about their execution. Let's hope that Microsoft's intent is genuine and that they delivery a solid product. In the mean time I'm expecting a few bugs and I question their motivation.

Steve Ballmer was pelted with eggs the other day. According to the Guardian this was a protest against a contract Microsoft holds with the Hungarian government. This speaks to more then just this one incident it speaks to the greater field of technology. This isn't just about one Microsoft contract. It is about how Microsoft interacts with its clients. From large countries to individual users.

Business is booming in the technology field and has been for the last twenty plus years. Technology is a foreign entity to so many that it is either difficult to fully understand or hard to trust. There are large powerful technology firms like Microsoft that have contracts and dealings all over the world. There are smaller open-source based companies like Red Hat or Mozilla out in the technology field too. Microsoft, Red Hat and Mozilla are all very large companies but they differ very specifically in how they interact with their clients.

How do we decide who we can trust and who we can build a working relationship with? At our company we strive to build personal relationships with our customers. Knowing one another is key. Obviously Mr. Ballmer did not know his assailant, nor could he know everyone that Microsoft is involved with. That is part of the difference in working with someone you can actually speak to on a personal level as opposed to someone like Microsoft that you have no personal interaction with. I think that technology firms like Microsoft have become too big for their own good. They are not responsive to their customers needs quickly enough. I think this is part of the reason we are seeing such a push towards open-source technology.

In the open source community you can contact developers and you can join the project to have a hand in the living, breathing technology. Whereas with Microsoft I just run down to the big-box computer store down the street and pick-up the latest release and my interaction is limited to a payment for a service. Part of my payment covers Microsoft's claim of support for my product down the line. When I have an issue or a problem with a Microsoft product I have to contact Microsoft for support or a replacement product. Nine out of ten times Microsoft puts me in touch with their tech-support department and I receive a cookie-cutter response. If my issues isn't completely or fully resolved I have to go back through the same process again. Leaving me with a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth. In the open-source model I can work with the development team to clue them into my issue and then help them resolve the issue for myself and for everyone else with the same or similar issues. I have the want for the issue to be resolved so I want to seek ownership and work with the programmers. It creates a truly viable community. The open-source product is only strengthened by my experience.

I don't think throwing eggs at the CEO of the largest technology firm in the world is going to really help influence how that technology firm interacts with its customer base. I am hoping that it creates the space for dialog to happen about how technology firms should interact with their clients.

IE 8 is the next great thing from Microsoft, I get it. I get that its a lot better. Do we need to keep just putting up with better and more? I think its about time that we just finally put IE to bed for good. The numbers are starting to turn in Firefox's favor. I do like having multiple browser options and open source browsers on top of that. Competition makes the overall browser experience better and more complete. From a cost of development standpoint browsers not conforming to a universal standard just plain doesn't make a lot of sense. Does IE cater to the end user's experience enough to justify its continued development? Does anyone expect Microsoft to pump enough resources into IE to bring about new innovations? Microsoft is just barely keeping IE on life-support. There are so many new and innovative browsers out there but Microsoft's borderline illegal bundling practices keep its numbers artificially high; that and the interactivity issues Microsoft creates when you run Outlook in any browser outside of IE.

When I look at the new features bundled into IE8 I'm just not blown away enough to make it my primary internet browsing horse. I use Firefox. I understand the argument that Firefox might not be that strong of a browser on a stand-alone basis. Or more specifically that everyone enjoys' using Firefox due to its add-on capabilities. Even without my add-ons I like Firefox's browsing experience more due to its stability. I rarely have pop-up issues while working in Firefox and I've found that on days when I am using IE 7 or IE 8 as my primary web browser I have five to ten pop-ups. Five to ten pop-ups are five to ten too many for me. For me the less stable and less secure IE 7 or IE 8 compared to Firefox leads to Firefox being my default browser.