Design Sojourn | Strategic Industrial Design Blog

This is really awesome and has to happen. I’m in the market right now for a new cell phone and it’s really really annoying comparing the features and things…and doing so within the confines of your carrier. Technology like this would even the playing field, I would hope.

“In the bygone era, Infrastructure used to be Water, Power, Telecommunications, Sewerage etc (kidding), but on the Internet Google has defined their own”

Have they really?

You’ve heard stories that Google is laying it’s own pipe between North America and Asia, yes? And their interest in purchasing access to a big chunk of the UHF spectrum in the U.S. Those are backbone infrastructure and the UHF thing seems particularly tied into their gPhone/Open Handset play.

Thoughts?

And btw, I see parallel between those and where fabrication is headed. “Grey goo” comes from *something*.

Yeah, but I *wish* there was a such a thing as a Google Phone. Maybe they’d make it less ’smudgy’

@csven, Perhaps. While I have not heard of these stories, I would not be surprised. Right now Google makes money running off other people’s infrastructure (fibre optic networks, undersea cables, etc) and a big risk to their business plan if someone like say China decided that their content was unacceptable. Hey that happened! So the reality of it is, if they want their backbone secure they must come back to reality.

If you also recall that has been what I have been saying about people playing in the virtual coming back into real. Perhaps 20 years in the future it would be different, but people wanting authentic experiences, and the disconnect between real and vitrual, is still a strong motivator to come back to real or a strong barrier for virtual worlds coming into the mainstream.

Hi Susan,

I myself am not so sure. I am worried that I will have to either listen to an ad every time I make a call, or have to deal with text ads when I navigate my phones menu!

This is something I not quire ready to do.

I’m surprised you were unaware of Google’s efforts as they’ve been much-discussed (Link to references). And yes, I’m fully aware of the risks you mention. That too has been discussed, both as part of Google’s efforts and as part of the larger “net neutrality” issue.

Only thing, you didn’t answer my question. Have they defined their own “infrastructure” as you’re claiming? And if so, what is it? You’re now saying, “Google makes money running off other people’s infrastructure”? Seems to me they either have a fundamental structure to support their business or they don’t. Remember, I’m the one who brought this back to “reality”.

And yes, I recall your “authentic experiences” position. And I still think it’s incorrect. These are two separate things you’re discussing; two different contexts.

The above is “reality” in the sense of Google’s infrastructure; the real world fibers and electromagnetic spectrum which support the network.

The other is “reality” in terms of experiences which depend on individual perceptions. The kinds of non-quantifiable design issues we talk about when we’re discussing whether someone *likes* a product. Or when we lament the lack of understanding by the left-brain people who discount user experience because they can’t give it a number for their spreadsheets.

So it appears to me as if you’re avoiding my question and raising a red herring.

Be that as it may, here’s a “virtual” experience that certainly seemed authentic to someone: Link. I’d say anyone who commits suicide over a virtual relationship took it pretty seriously. And she’s far from unique. It’s now common for people to fall in love over the internet. And there has been at least one murder of which I’m aware over a virtual item in a videogame.

No surprise to me. I’ve spent enough time using virtual applications to understand. I’ve also read enough stories about soldiers being successfully treated for PTSD using virtual therapy to believe Stanford University professor, Dr. Byron Reeves, when he says humans don’t distinguish between “virtual” and “real”:

The human brain is not specialized to differentiate between virtual and real. Same neurons fire when an avatar smiles at you as when a real person smiles at you.

Oh well. Guess we’ll just continue to disagree on this issue. And if I were to level harsh insults your way on this blog as a result, I *know* they’d not affect you in the slightest. After all, this too is only virtual. ;)

Yes sven don’t forget we always agree to disagree, and I like how we are polite about it.

Ok to answer your question, to me infrastructure is a back bone of something. Via Dictionary.com

1. the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization.
2. the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools.
3. the military installations of a country.

So Google’s Open social and Open handset are all about creating an infrastructure. Both creates a common programming language (the ones and zeros of any webpage), so that it is standardized for all to use and follow. While it is standard markup, the pulled it together and gave it meaning. It just like all unleaded fuel variations or electricity type are essentially the same.

Now with my other point about leveraging other people’s infrastructure to make money, Google makes money via advertising. The Adsense drops into people’s website like mine. They do not, own the webpage code of my site, own the server space which I pay for, nor do they own the optic cables the web runs on. In return the pay me a “percent” for what ever ad that gets clicked on, and nothing if it is not clicked. So in my mind that is making money out of other people’s infrastructure.

Hence, while I missed, Google’s play for physical infrastructure, I am not surprised, as this seems to be as a weak point in their business plan, if you extrapolate my Adsense example above it is a logical move by a business with that much money.

I still hold my position on Authentic Experiences, but I agree with you experiences are by nature intangiable, and yes virtual suicide, virtual marriage and relationships are very real. I am not discounting them.

The main issue I think is where we are at at this point in time. You perhaps reside on a level further down the evolution track. To me at this point in time and not in the near future, Authentic Experiences will still rule, as they can only be created by real experiences such as sky diving, rock climbing or space flight. Only until a virtual environment can replicate these experiences 100%, btw I know it will be able to eventually, will virtual worlds shift into the mainstream.

But I think we are getting off track here on the topic of Google’s infrastructure so I wont say anymore. Perhaps if you like we can continue via email.

You’re missing my point. The “basic, underlying framework” is *not* the Internet, but the hardware which connects it. Without that hardware, Open Social and Open Handset wouldn’t even exist… because the Internet wouldn’t exist.

Thus, your claim - “In the bygone era, Infrastructure used to be Water, Power, Telecommunications, Sewerage etc (kidding), but on the Internet Google has defined their own” - is over-stated, imo. Without actual infrastructure Google is beholden to those who control it. Thus, to gain control, they’re increasingly becoming involved in *real* infrastructure in order to support their Internet efforts (i.e. their business infrastructure).

“It just like all unleaded fuel variations or electricity type are essentially the same.”

Standardization is *not* infrastructure. It’s great business when your standard becomes a widely accepted standard, but that doesn’t make it an infrastructure.

“So in my mind that is making money out of other people’s infrastructure.”

In the limited context of your example, using the term “infrastructure” might sound correct, but *not* in the context you’re using it when comparing their Internet offerings to Water, Power, Telecommunications, aso. It’s apples and oranges. That’s like saying the local copy shop has an infrastructure because they have a bunch of copying machines and I use them. Those copy machines might be their business’ infrastructure because they and I depend on it, but it’s a stretch to compare them to Water, Power, Telecommunications, aso. Google might be a big company and their Adsense *system* might touch more people, but they currently have more in common with that copy shop than they do with the infrastructure with which you’re comparing them. Both the copy shop and Google offer a service which is dependent on *real* infrastructure.

“as this seems to be as a weak point in their business plan”

A weak point because their business “infrastructure” is dependent on *real* infrastructure.

-

“You perhaps reside on a level further down the evolution track.”

Nope. I still scrape my knuckles on occasion.

“To me at this point in time and not in the near future, Authentic Experiences will still rule, as they can only be created by real experiences such as sky diving, rock climbing or space flight.”

Define “authentic”. Is this exchange not authentic? Do you not “experience” reading it and reacting to it?

Did the girl who committed suicide not experience authentic anguish? Was her experience using MySpace not “real”?

Do soldiers with PTSD undergoing physiological changes during virtual therapy not perceive something authentic? and if not, why the real, physical response they experience?

On the one hand you concede Experience is intangible and virtual experiences are “real”, but you discount their authenticity. This makes no sense to me.

Where is the cut-off for defining which experience is or is not “authentic”? Can you prove that what you believe to be “authentic” is demonstrably different from what you say is not (i.e. are you ready to take down Descartes)?

Hi csven,

I sense you are getting a little overly nit-picky here. I have already conceded in my previous comments that as it is a weak point in their business plan, hence I am not surprised that Google is investing in real infrastructure. I’ll even say that it is a good idea.

Perhaps my examples are not the best, but it looks like we are really speaking of the same thing here and I think my readers get the point.

Blog comments are meant to evolve the discussion from the post I originally made, and no point trying to use it to contradict original comments from the post. They will be, especially if I am conceding a point.

Finally this is getting off topic therefore I am closing comments. No hard feelings I hope, and your comments are always welcomed.