I see things a bit differently. Google offers a variety of services, many of which can be called apps in their own right. Google wants to integrate these services into a single app, each piece of which integrates into each other. The black toolbar added recently took a major step in this direction. The inclusion of social results from Google+ is yet another step.

My primary problem with social results isn’t that it only offers search results from Google+. My primary problem is that it only offers results from Google+. Google isn’t evil because they are only investing their own social service, but they are choosing to offer me special results from a service that is not high on my list of social tools. My primary social tools are Twitter and Facebook. I would find inclusion of those services to be quite useful, but they fall into the normal search results with no integration to show more focus on those I follow or friend on those services. Google is missing out on opportunity by not integrating more social services within its search.

The goal of the Google+ integration isn’t to improve search results directly. The purpose is to increase the value of the Google+ social network. I personally think that Google+ could use a bit of a value-increase. The proper tools are there to run a social network.  The value, though, is in the people.  Like it or not, the value in social networking is in Twitter and Facebook, and Google+ is still an also-ran.

What is bad about a company integrating various services into a single system? There may be a higher cost incurred by the user if they are required to pay for previously unneeded services.  There could be features that are forced upon the user that they are not comfortable with.  The company may use a dominant market position to force users to “lock-in” to their services, or to drive competitors from the market. I am sure that the list is longer.

Looking at these in turn, the first two do not seem to be at issue. Google is not charging users for access to its search engine, or many of its other services.  Those services that cost a fee still exist, unchanged.  I am not aware of any plans for this to change.  What if Google decided to move to a subscription service, charging $1 per month for access to their now unified application? Many would think of it as a good price for a valuable service, and would pay.  Many would make the opposite decision.  As the price for the service increases the percentage of users who will say and pay the price will drop. At the low price of $1 per month the percentage of takers will be quite high.  Raise the price high enough, though, and users will go elsewhere.

What about unwanted features? Users are used to these. Microsoft’s Ribbon interface replacing normal menus?  Horrible idea.  I don’t want it.  Ubuntu’s Unity interface? Why, oh WHY did someone think that was a good idea? Yahoo? Google putting results from a service you are using in a small area on the search page?  Honestly, I’ve had worse.  If it was a hill I was willing to die on, I’d stop using Google and go elsewhere for the same services they offer.

Google does have some significant dominance in certain areas. In the last half of 2011 Google accounted for just over 80% of all search traffic. Bing and Yahoo shared almost all of the rest. Microsoft has built a good search engine in Bing. The biggest reason it isn’t gaining better market share is inertia.  Similar inertia accounts for why such a large majority of us use Microsoft’s operating systems, Office software, and at one time web browser. Microsoft learned with Internet Explorer that a bad product, or even one perceived as bad, would continue to lose market share until it and its image have improved. With Bing they have a worthy competitor for Google, not only because it’s well-made, but also because it isn’t Yahoo.

What about email?  Google’s Gmail product is huge, right?  Not really.  Google accounts for 4% of email opens in a survey done by Litmus.  Microsoft’s Outlook product in various versions accounts for 37%. Gmail lags behind Hotmail, the iPhone, Apple Mail, Yahoo Mail (a strong point for them), and even the web-based version of Microsoft Outlook.

What other market besides search does Google truly have a dominant market share?  Office software?  No.  Instant Messanging?  No. Social Networking? Most definitely not. Chances are we’re using something other than Google for most everything we do except search. The one major exception is in Adwords Advertising, but this does not cost the user.  In fact, it is what allows the other services to stay free.

This begs the most important question in the argument.  Can Google leverage its dominance in search to gain dominance in other markets in which it chooses to compete? So far the answer to that has been no, except for Adwords. Even the Android operating system for mobile phones hasn’t succeeded in breaking the market dominance of Apple in smartphones. It may yet succeed, or a third party may become competitive in the race.

There’s always someone else in the race.  This isn’t like cable companies, utilities, and Standard Oil.  There’s no law saying we can’t use another service.  If Google upsets enough users, they’ll go to the competitors.  This is how markets correct. The fact that we can go to someone else denies a monopoly.  Google does not have a monopoly on search.  Microsoft has never had a monopoly on operating systems or web browsers, though it has defended itself against accusation on both cases.

In the end, to me, it’s just a little search feature.  I’d like to be able to disable it if I want.  I’d prefer to be able to select and link with services I use along with Google+.  It is not, however, the end of the world.

First, we need to think about why the US auto industry is doing badly, while foreign automakers are performing better with US based plants.  A large reason for this is that the unions have, over time, gained far too much control over the automakers.

When most think about union involvement in the automotive industry, they think of the line-worker.  It isn’t unreasonable that automakers provide decent pay and benefits to those who make the cars. When someone talks about reducing the power of the unions, the automatic assumption is that this would mean lower pay and benefits for the line workers.  While that may be a side-effect of reducing union power, it’s not the area in which the unions need to be broken from the process.

The most cumbersome requirement of the unions is that the automakers rely on unionized vendors.  Let’s take brake pads, for instance.  If Ford has bids from three different manufacturers of brake pads, each capable of producing the same pads to the same standards of quality, they are able to make a decision on price.  Manufacturer #1 can create the brake pads for $20 per car in its North Carolina plant using non-union labor.  Manufacturer #2 can make the brake pads for $30 in Massachusets using some union labor.  Manufacturer #3 can sell their brake pads for $50 per car out of their Ohio plant using nothing but union labor. 

Given identical standards of quality and safety, the choice is easy.  The North Carolina manufacturer gets the contract.  In Detroit, this isn’t allowed.  Union contracts require that the parts that go into the cars be made by union labor.  This means that each part of the car costs more to produce than it should, thus driving up the price

It’s the extraneous requirements on the contracts that have to go.  The best way to do this is the bankrupcy process.  Bankrupcy proceedings could allow the big-three automakers to renegotiate these contracts.  The end result could, and should, be reduced manufacturing costs per car, and therefore a lower cost per car.

Lower prices per car would increase sales, allowing for profitability.

Lower prices aren’t the only answer, though.  In order to be able to sell the cars, the automakers also have to be able to make cars that people want to buy.  That’s easy enough, isn’t it?  A little market research, good design teams, and quality engineering should be able to produce the cars that America wants.

Wait a minute, though.  That isn’t how it works.  Thanks to the US Government, the automakers can’t just produce what America wants.  The greatest impediment to this is called CAFE standards.  CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy.  In short, the CAFE standards say that each automaker must produce CARS with an average mileage defined by the government.

Notice the emphasis on cars in that last sentence.  That’s important, and I’ll get to why in a moment.

My parents love their Mercury Gran Marquis. It’s not a gas hog, but it isn’t going to get any awards for economy, either. The estimated miles per gallon on the highway is 25mpg. This is below the government’s CAFE standard rate of 27.5mpg.  In order to compensate, Ford must produce cars that exceed this standard.  The Ford Focus exceeds this standard.  Unfortunately, the Focus is a tiny car that, quite frankly, wouldn’t meet my parents needs in a car.  By averaging the fuel economy across the full production, the automakers try to keep the number below 27.5mpg.  If they exceed 27.5mpg, they pay civil fines.

Personally, I love my Mustang.  If I change the plugs and wires, and buy a new air filter, it should get more than 27.5mpg.  It is, after all, a six-cylinder model, and I drive conservatively.  I’d really rather have a V8, as I’m sure many other people would.  What happens, though, if  the automakers find that there’s more demand for the V8 model, and other less fuel-efficient automobiles?  They either follow the CAFE standards and make cars that are in less demand, or they pay fines on their cars and pass the costs on to the customers.

There is another answer.  You see, the standards for light trucks are necessarily lower than those for cars.  People in need of more space for their family, more cargo room, more pulling power, or safer cars (CAFE standards kill, but that’s another post and a radio interview I gave several years ago) have to buy a light truck, instead of a car.  The intersection of needs for more car and a family-friendly format created the surge in SUV sales.

The SUV turned out to be the best way you could get a “real car” in the current regulatory environment.  A new format, the crossover, still qualifies as a truck while providing better fuel economy to meet the light truck CAFE standards of 22.2mpg.  They’re lighter, and less safe than the SUV, but still provide more than that little Ford Focus in room and carrying ability.

So, the second thing that should be done is to abolish the CAFE standards, and allow the automakers to create cars based on customer demand, rather than government mandate.  Let’s face it, letting the government decide what you can and cannot buy has never been a good idea.  For the automakers, it’s been a disaster.

Thirdly, the government should reduce taxes on the auto manufacturers.  The fact of corporate taxes is that the companies have to pay the taxes out of money they get from the consumers.  If you buy a car, part of the cost of that car is taxes paid by the company.  Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES.  Their customers pay them in the price of the products consumed.

The government should, therefore, start a 12 year tax reduction plan for the automakers.  For the first two years, corporate income taxes on the big three should be reduced to zero.  That’s right, they should pay no corporate income taxes.  The savings should be taken out of the price of the cars, thus allowing consumers to buy new cars at lower prices.  After the first two years, the taxes can be put back into place in 10% increments.  At the end of 12 years, the corporate tax burden would be back where it was in the beginning.

Of course, reducing or abolishing the corporate income tax isn’t just a good idea for the car companies.  It should be done across the board.  Corporate income taxes should be abolished entirely.  The best way to demonstrate this is to experiment with the auto industry in their time of need.  It would be a great benefit to the manufacturers, the employees, the consumers, and the economy as a whole.

Three simple steps.  Reduce costs by reducing union controls over every aspect of the big three automakers.  Remove the crippling restrictions that government has placed on the industry, and allow the companies to create cars that people want for a change.  Finally, cut the unnecessary cost of government out of the automakers’ bottom line by cutting their taxes to zero for at least a short time.

If, after all this has been done, a loan is needed to get the companies past the short run, then maybe that can be done.  Just don’t add on extra requirements that hurt their business like demanding they make certain types of cars, or disallow dividend payments for stockholders.  That’s just more stupid government micromanagement, and that’s been half the problem the automakers had in the first place.

I prepared for a few days beforehand, browsing apps in the iTunes App Store, and grabbing a collection of apps that looked useful, so I could jump right in when I got the phone.  Finally, the day before Thanksgiving, the wife and I drove down to make our purchase.

We went to the Apple store first, but had to go to an AT&T store to make the actual purchase.  At the AT&T store, the line was almost non-existent, and the service quick.

Before we left the store, I had to have my music playing at least once.  There had been no chance to install my music, since I had just gotten the phone, but my perusal of the app store gave me an option.  I had purchased Simplify Media for $3.99.  With Simplify Media, I have a powerful tool for my music.  Installed on my home PC, the tool indexes my music collection and shares it with me, and up to 30 friends.  With it installed on two PCs, I can listen to music from one PC on the other, anywhere in the world.  The PC software and the service are all free.  The iPhone software is the only part I’ve found that costs anything.

Using Simplify Media, I was able to fire up some Jamiroquai in the store, as I paid for my phones. 

The phone itself is great.  Managing contacts is much better than my old Motorola, and it synchronizes to Microsoft Outlook (which occasionally has a use on my PC).  Call quality is good.  Signal strength in our apartment is at least as good as, and usually better than it was with my old carrier.  The speakerphone is a bit lacking, but there are ways around that.

I’m very happy with some of the apps I’ve chosen.  Last.fm, Simplify Media, and Pandora give me access to my music, and music I might like.  On top of that, I finally realized a dream of listening to my favorite Internet radio station, Radio Paradise, in my car.

Twitterlicious, and Twittelator are vying for position as my app to post to and read my Twitters. The map applet, along with Google Earth give me a nice GPS/Map capability.  Evernote gives me a way to keep important information with me when I’m on the road. There are apps for tracking Woot.com (Don’t know what it is?  Go there every day).  There are multiple apps for IMs, some allowing multiple tools to be used at once like Yahoo, AIM, Jabber, etc.  I have a couple recipe apps, apps for social networking sites, search tools, and much more.

On Sunday, I visited the NC History Museum.  As I walked around, I snapped photos with my phone.  As I was leaving, I loaded PixelPipe, selected the photos I had just taken, and uploaded them.  Before I drove away in my car, I had the photos on my Flickr, Kodak, and Facebook accounts.

Oddly enough, the least-used tool on the iPhone for me is the iPod capability.  I have an 80 Gig iPod Classic for my music already.  Instead, I have 4000 of my photos on the iPhone so that I can keep track of my collection, easily share them, and upload to Flickr if I like. 

I’m learning to make the iPhone work for me.  All in all, I’m extremely happy with my choice, and love having this new tool available to me every day.

When comparing plans, I took into consideration several factors. The major ones were price, access coverage, best access to free calling based on my calling habits, and other features. Plan cost was easy. Most companies gave similar amounts of plan minutes for the same price. The difference was within a couple hundred minutes either way, with Alltel right in the middle.
Access to the system of cell towers was one topic I heard a lot about when I talked to others. US Cellular users complained constantly about having no access, or having to walk outside their house to make a phone call. My best friend, on Sprint, lost signal while on the phone with me more than once. Alltel users, on the other hand, reported coverage almost everywhere they go.
Free minutes turned out to be the kicker. Alltel’s Off Peak minutes run from 9pm to 6am. Two of the three long distance people I would call live two time zones away, meaning I would want to call after 9pm anyway to reach them. Mobile to Mobile minutes gives me, around here, better use among Alltel customers. There are just more of them. In addition, Alltel offers a free calls to home option. This means my wife and I can talk for unlimited minutes each month between the home phone and cellphone for free. That’s cool. Alltel wins.
Saturday, my first bill arrived. I had, for the first few days, 100 minutes of use. The bill said I used 140, and charged me an extra $16. This will not do. I knew I hadn’t used the phone for 140 minutes that cost me money. Careful analysis showed that the calls to home hadn’t gone into effect until the beginning of the second day. I was charged for all calls home for all of the first day I had the phone, and there was a considerable amount of that going on that day. This morning, before the rush of calls began, I called Alltel about the problem. I explained it, and the lady on the phone fixed it, and all is well.
So, if you’re looking for a cellphone, study well first. Find the plan that works best for you. Try to figure out the plan that makes more of your calls fall into the free minutes offerred. Ask around. From my own experience so far, I say choose Alltel.