Another Google AI PR Push from a British Googler
November 27, 2024
This write up is the work of a humanoid who admits he is a dinobaby; that is, deadwood too old to employ. By the way, the “dinobaby” lingo allegedly emerged from IBM during its housecleaning event years ago. The art, however, is from MidJourney and definitely AI fakery.
With the US Department of Justice suggesting a haircut for the Google, the company is ramping up its AI PR. As you may recall, a Googler suggested that Google should not be constrained because Google has to be Google to do Google AI. With AI a wonderful benefit to customer service cost reductions and delivering advertising to those who use Google search, Google wants to get the word out.
The “art” was output by OpenAI, and I am not sure if it is quantumly supreme. The reason, “OpenAI is not Google.”
Examples include:
- “Demis Hassabis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry: We Will Need a Handful of Breakthroughs Before We Reach Artificial General Intelligence” in El Pais
- Fast Company’s “The Future According to Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis”
- “Google DeepMind AI Can Expertly Fix Errors in Quantum Computers” in New Scientist
The articles share several themes:
- Google’s AI is great and the company is working hard to make it greater
- Google’s research is pretty darn close to making AI smarter
- Google is doing good and wants to do more to make life even gooder.
From the razzmatazz world quantum computers to the practical applications for Bill and Betty Average, Google is the driving force for smart software.
It has the transformer expertise. It has a Nobel prize winner. It has a building in London’s Knowledge Quarter.
What the write ups do not talk about is the suggestion that the Google needs a haircut, specifically, its Chrome browser has to chopped off. The PR push has another goal in my opinion. Google must be seen as a prime mover in the technology that everyone absolutely must have: Googley AI.
With investors wondering if the money pumped into smart software will pay off, Google is doing what it can from what some might call its monopoly position to advance the agenda of Google’s technology. Microsoft, Amazon, and some Chinese outfits are spending billions to make sure they are part of the next big thing. Meta is chugging along with its open source approach. Apple is letting its AI fruit ripen which takes time.
Copyright hassles, electric power demands, and the alleged diminishing returns from high flier OpenAI mean that someone has to stand up and say, “AI is wonderful. Google is more wonderful.”
What’s interesting is that in each of the cited stories, notes of skepticism are evident; to wit:
El Pais says, “The CEO of Google DeepMind cools expectations about the progress of AGI…” Okay. Not exactly a rah rah statement.
Fast Company says, “That Google has had to apologize for glitches discovered by users underlines the urgency with which it’s been shipping features in the post-ChatGPT age.” Translation: Ooops.
New Scientist says, “That Google has had to apologize for glitches discovered by users underlines the urgency with which it’s been shipping features in the post-ChatGPT age.” Okay. Six percent. One method produces 100 error fixes. Google can fix 106 errors. Progress? Yep. Revolutionary? To some, sure. To others, not so much.
Each of these AI PR waves are little more than marketing. What’s interesting is that Google may be able to prevent significant changes to its operations if it can make Google the pivot point for the next big thing. I wonder if those involved in prosecuting the different cases about Google’s business behavior are convinced.
That chatter about selling Google’s browser is the background radiation against which these PR emissions are output. Will they be heard?
Stephen E Arnold, November 27, 2024
Google Chrome Generating Attention. A Lot of Attention
November 26, 2024
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) took the first step in breaking up Google’s Big Tech monopoly by forcing Alphabet Inc. to sell its popular Web browser, Chrome. Alphabet Inc. is responding like all past companies who had their market dominance broken up by the government: it is throwing a major temper tantrum. The BBC reports on Google’s meltdown in: “Google Reacts Angrily To Report It Will Have To Sell Chrome.”
Google claimed it had a right to retain its monopoly on search because it was the best in the world. Not so, the Judge Amit Mehta of the DOJ replied, especially since the word “Google” is now a verb and there’s no fair competition. Instead of facing their fate with dignity, Google is saying it will harm consumers and businesses if it’s forced to sell Chrome. While that could be interpreted as a threat, Google probably meant it to sound like it was worried about its users. We think it sounds like a disguised threat.
Google doesn’t want to lose its 90% hold on the global search market augmented by Chrome as the world’s most used Web browser at 64.61%. Chrome is the default browser on many PCs and mobile devices. Judge Mehta wants to end that dominance:
Judge Mehta said in his ruling in August that the default search engine was "extremely valuable real estate" for Google.
‘Even if a new entrant were positioned from a quality standpoint to bid for the default when an agreement expires, such a firm could compete only if it were prepared to pay partners upwards of billions of dollars in revenue share’ he wrote.
The DOJ had been expected to provide its final proposed remedies to the court by Wednesday.
It said in an October filing documenting initial proposals it would be considering seeking a break-up of Google.
Potential remedies "that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play [its app store], and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products" were among its considerations, it said then.”
Google replied:
“In response to the DOJ’s filing in October, Google said "splitting off" parts of its business like Chrome or Android would "break them".
‘Breaking them off would change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple’s iPhone and App Store,’ the company said.
It also said it would make it harder to keep Chrome secure.”
Those sounds like inflated arguments, especially when the only thing that will break is Google’s record profits. Investors will also be harmed, but that’s why it’s good to have a diverse portfolio. Wah Wah!
Whitney Grace, November 26, 2024
More Googley Human Resource Goodness
November 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The New York Post reported that a Googler has departed. “Google News Executive Shailesh Prakash Resigns As Tensions with Publishers Mount: Report” states:
Shailesh Prakash had served as a vice president and general manager for Google News. A source confirmed that he is no longer with the company… The circumstances behind Prakash’s resignation were not immediately clear. Google declined to comment.
Google tapped a professional who allegedly rode in the Bezos bulldozer when the world’s second or third richest man in the world acquired the Washington Post. (How has that been going? Yeah.)
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Google has been cheerfully indexing content and selling advertising for decades. After a number of years of talking and allegedly providing some support to outfits collecting, massaging, and making “real” news available, the Google is facing some headwinds.
The article reports:
The Big Tech giant rankled online publishers last May after it introduced a feature called “AI Overviews” – which places an auto-generated summary at the top of its search results while burying links to other sites. News Media Alliance, a nonprofit that represents more than 2,200 publishers, including The Post, said the feature would be “catastrophic to our traffic” and has called on the feds to intervene.
News flash from rural Kentucky: The good old days of newspaper publishing are unlikely to make a comeback. What’s the evidence for this statement? Video and outfits like Telegram and WhatsApp deliver content to cohorts who don’t think too much about a print anything.
The article pointed out:
Last month, The Post exclusively reported on emails that revealed how Google leveraged its access to the Office of the US Trade Representative as it sought to undermine overseas regulations — including Canada’s Online News Act, which required Google to pay for the right to display news content.
You can read that report “Google Emails with US Trade Reps Reveal Cozy Ties As Tech Giant Pushed to Hijack Policy” if you have time.
Let’s think about why a member of Google leadership like Shailesh Prakash would bail out. Among the options are:
- He wanted to spend more time with his family
- Another outfit wanted to hire him to manage something in the world of publishing
- He failed in making publishers happy.
The larger question is, “Why would Google think that one fellow could make a multi-decade problem go away?” The fact that I can ask this question reveals how Google’s consulting infused leaders think about an entire business sector. It also provides some insight into the confidence of a professional like Mr. Prakash.
What flees sinking ships? Certainly not the lawyers that Google will throw at this “problem.” Google has money and that may be enough to buy time and perhaps prevail. If there aren’t any publishers grousing, the problem gets resolved. Efficient.
Stephen E Arnold, November 22, 2024
Europe Wants Its Own Search System: Filtering, Trees, and More
November 20, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am not going to recount the history of search companies and government entities building an alternative to Google. One can toss in Bing, but Google is the Big Dog. Yandex is useful for Russian content. But there is a void even though Swisscows.com is providing anonymity (allegedly) and no tracking (allegedly).
Now a new European solution may become available. If you remember Pertimm, you probably know that Qwant absorbed some of that earlier search system’s goodness. And there is Ecosia, a search system which plants trees. The union of these two systems will be an alternative to Google. I think Exalead.com tried this before, but who remembers European search history in rural Kentucky?
“Two Upstart Search Engines Are Teaming Up to Take on Google” report:
The for-profit joint venture, dubbed European Search Perspective and located in Paris, could allow the small companies and any others that decide to join up to reduce their reliance on Google and Bing and serve results that are better tailored to their companies’ missions and Europeans’ tastes.
A possible name or temporary handle for the new search system is EUSP or European Search Perspective. What’s interesting is that the plumbing will be provided by a service provider named OVH. Four years ago, OVHcloud became a strategic partner of … wait for it … Google. Apparently that deal does not prohibit OVH from providing services to a European alternative to Google.
Also, you may recall that Eric Schmidt, former adult in the room at Google, suggested that Qwant kept him awake at night. Yes, Qwant has been a threat to Google for 13 years. How has that worked out? The original Qwant was interesting with a novel way of showing results from different types of sources. Now Qwant is actually okay. The problem with any search system, including Bing, is that the cost of maintaining an index containing new content and refreshing or updating previously indexed content is a big job. Toss in some AI goodness and cash burning furiously.
“Google” is now the word for search whether it works or does not. Perhaps regulatory actions will alter the fact that in Denmark, 99 percent of user queries flow to Google. Yep, Denmark. But one can’t go wrong with a ballpark figure like 95 percent of search queries outside of China and a handful of other countries are part of the Google market share.
How will the new team tackle the Google? I hope in a way that delivers more progress than Cogito. Remember that? Okay, no problem.
PS. Is a 13-year-old company an upstart? Sigh.
Stephen E Arnold, November 20, 2024
Bring Back Bell Labs…Wait, Google Did…
November 12, 2024
Bell Labs was once a magical, inventing wonderland and it established the foundation for modern communication, including the Internet. Everything was great at Bell Labs until projects got deadlines and creativity was stifled. Hackaday examines the history of the mythical place and discusses if there could ever be a new Bell Labs in, “What Would It Take To Recreate Bell Labs?”
Bell Labs employees were allowed to tinker on their projects for years as long as they focused on something to benefit the larger company. These fields ranges from metallurgy, optics, semiconductors, and more. Bell Labs worked with Western Electric and AT&T. These partnerships resulted in transistor, laser, photovoltaic cell, charge-coupled cell (CCD), Unix operating system, and more.
What made Bell Labs special was that inventors were allowed to let their creativity marinate and explore their ideas. This came to screeching halt in 1982 when the US courts ordered AT&T to breakup. Western Electric became Lucent Technologies and took Bell Labs with it. The creativity and gift of time disappeared too. Could Bell Labs exist today? No, not as it was. It would need to be updated:
The short answer to the original question of whether Bell Labs could be recreated today is thus a likely ‘no’, while the long answer would be ‘No, but we can create a Bell Labs suitable for today’s technology landscape’. Ultimately the idea of giving researchers leeway to tinker is one that is not only likely to get big returns, but passionate researchers will go out of their way to circumvent the system to work on this one thing that they are interested in.”
Google did have a new incarnation of Bell Labs. Did Google invent the Google Glass and billions in revenue from actions explained in the novel 1984?
Whitney Grace, November 12, 2024
Google: The Intellectual Oakland Because There Is No There There, Just Ads
November 7, 2024
The post is the work of a humanoid who happens to be a dinobaby. GenX, Y, and Z, read at your own risk. If art is included, smart software produces these banal images.
I read a clever essay titled “I Attended Google’s Creator Conversation Event, And It Turned Into A Funeral.” Be aware that the text can disappear as a big gray box covers the essay. Just read quickly.
The report explains that a small group of problematic content creators found their sites or other content effectively made invisible in Google search results. Boom. Videos disappear. Boom. Key words no longer retrieve a Web site. So Google did the politically correct thing and got a former conference organizer to round up some of the disaffected and come to a meeting to discuss content getting disappeared. No real reasons are given by Google, but the essay recounts the experience on one intrepid optimist who thought, “This time Google will be different.”
A very professional Googler evades a question. A person in the small group meeting asks it again. She is not happy with Google’s evasiveness. Well, too bad. Thanks, Midjourney. MSFT Copilot is still dead.
Nope.
The write up does a good job of capturing the nothingness of a Google office. If you have not been to one, try to set up a meeting. Good luck.
I want to focus on a couple of points in the essay and then offer a handful of observations.
I noted this statement:
During this small group discussion, I and others tried to get our Googlers to address the biggest problem facing our industry: Google giving big brands special treatment. Each time a site owner brought up the topic, we were quickly steered in another direction.
Google wants or assumes that it is control of everything most of the time. Losing control means one is not a true Googler. The people at this Google event learned that non-Googlers and their questions are simply not relevant. Google goes through certain theatrical events to check off a task.
Also, I circled this comment:
…we then asked the only question that mattered: Why has Google shadow banned our sites? Google’s Chief Search Scientist answered this question using a strategy based around gaslighting and said they hadn’t. Google doesn’t ever derank an entire site, only individual pages, he said. There is no site-wide classifier. He insisted it is only done at the page level.
This statement is accurate. A politically correct answer is one that does not reveal Google’s intent for anything. Individuals in charge of a project or program usually do not know what is going on with that program. Information is shared via the in house communications systems, email or text messages which are viewed as potential problems if released to those outside the Google, and meetings which are often ad hoc or without an agenda. The company sells advertising and reacts to what appear to be threats, legal actions, or ways to make money.
I noted this statement:
someone bluntly asked, since nothing is wrong with our sites, how do we recover? Google’s elderly Chief Search Scientist answered, without an ounce of pity or concern, that there would be updates but he didn’t know when they’d happen or what they’d do. Further questions on the subject were met with indifference as if he didn’t understand why we cared. He’d gotten the information he wanted. The conference was over. I don’t think he even said thanks.
This is accurate. Why should a member of leadership care about a “user”? Clicks produce data. The data and attendant content are processed to make more money. That’s why customer service is limited to big budget advertisers who spend real money on Google advertising.
Several observations:
- Google is big (150,000 or more employees). Google is chaotic. Individuals, groups, and entire divisions are not sure what is going on. How many messaging apps did Google have at one time? Lots. Why? No one knows or knew. The people coming to the meeting about finding themselves invisible in the Google finding systems assumed that a big company was not chaotic. Now the attendees know.
- People who create content have replaced people who used to get paid to create content. Now the “creators” work for the hope of Google advertising money. What’s the percentage paid to a “creator”? Try to find those data, gentle reader. Google does what it does: Individual Googlers or a couple of Googlers set up a system and go to play Foosball. That means 149,998 colleagues have zero idea what’s happening. Content “creators” expect someone to be responsible and to know how systems work. The author of the essay now knows only a couple of people may know the answer to the question. If those people quit, one will never know.
- The people who use Google to find relevant information are irrelevant as individuals. The person who wants to find a pizza in Cleveland may find only the pizza a person working on Google Local for Cleveland may like. If that pizza joint spends a couple of thousand per month on Google ads, that pizza may be findable. Most people do not understand the linkages between search engine optimization, Google advertising sales, and the Google mostly automated Google ad auctioning system. One search engineer working from home can have quite an impact on people who make content and assume that Google will make it findable. The author of the article knows this assumption about Google is a fairy tale.
Google has be labeled a monopoly. Google is suggesting that if the company is held accountable for its behaviors, the US will lose its foothold in artificial intelligence. Brilliant argument. Google has employees who have won a Nobel Prize. People not held accountable often lose sight of many things.
That’s why the big meeting was dumped into the task list of a person who ran search engine optimization conferences. One does not pray for that individual; one does not go to meetings managed by such a professional.
Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2024
Twenty Five Percent of How Much, Google?
November 6, 2024
The post is the work of a humanoid who happens to be a dinobaby. GenX, Y, and Z, read at your own risk. If art is included, smart software produces these banal images.
I read the encomia to Google’s quarterly report. In a nutshell, everything is coming up roses even the hyperbole. One news hook which has snagged some “real” news professionals is that “more than a quarter of new code at Google is generated by AI.” The exclamation point is implicit. Google’s AI PR is different from some other firms; for example, Samsung blames its financial performance disappointments on some AI. Winners and losers in a game in which some think the oligopolies are automatic winners.
An AI believer sees the future which is arriving “soon, real soon.” Thanks, You.com. Good enough because I don’t have the energy to work around your guard rails.
The question is, “How much code and technical debt does Google have after a quarter century of its court-described monopolistic behavior? Oh, that number is unknown. How many current Google engineers fool around with that legacy code? Oh, that number is unknown and probably for very good reasons. The old crowd of wizards has been hit with retirement, cashing in and cashing out, and “leadership” nervous about fiddling with some processes that are “good enough.” But 25 years. No worries.
The big news is that 25 percent of “new” code is written by smart software and then checked by the current and wizardly professionals. How much “new” code is written each year for the last three years? What percentage of the total Google code base is “new” in the years between 2021 and 2024? My hunch is that “new” is relative. I also surmise that smart software doing 25 percent of the work is one of those PR and Wall Street targeted assertions specifically designed to make the Google stock go up. And it worked.
However, I noted this Washington Post article: “Meet the Super Users Who Tap AI to Get Ahead at Work.” Buried in that write up which ran the mostly rah rah AI “real” news article coincident with Google’s AI spinning quarterly reports one interesting comment:
Adoption of AI at work is still relatively nascent. About 67 percent of workers say they never use AI for their jobs compared to 4 percent who say they use it daily, according to a recent survey by Gallup.
One can interpret this as saying, “Imagine the growth that is coming from reduced costs. Get rid of most coders and just use Google’s and other firms’ smart programming tools.
Another interpretation is, “The actual use is much less robust than the AI hyperbole machine suggests.”
Which is it?
Several observations:
- Many people want AI to pump some life into the economic fuel tank. By golly, AI is going to be the next big thing. I agree, but I think the Gallup data indicates that the go go view is like looking at a field of corn from a crop duster zipping along at 1,000 feet. The perspective from the airplane is different from the person walking amidst the stalks.
- The lack of data behind Google-type assertions about how much machine code is in the Google mix sounds good, but where are the data? Google, aren’t you data driven? So, where’s the back up data for the 25 percent assertion.
- Smart software seems to be something that is expensive, requires dreams of small nuclear reactors next to a data center adjacent a hospital. Yeah, maybe once the impact statements, the nuclear waste, and the skilled worker issues have been addressed. Soon as measured in environmental impact statement time which is different from quarterly report time.
Net net: Google desperately wants to be the winner in smart software. The company is suggesting that if it were broken apart by crazed government officials, smart software would die. Insert the exclamation mark. Maybe two or three. That’s unlikely. The blurring of “as is” with “to be” is interesting and misleading.
Stephen E Arnold, November 6, 2024
Google Goes Nuclear For Data Centers
October 31, 2024
From the The Future-Is-Just-Around-the-Corner Department:
Pollution is blamed on consumers who are told to cut their dependency on plastic and drive less, while mega corporations and tech companies are the biggest polluters in the world. Some of the biggest users of energy are data centers and Google decided to go nuclear to help power them says Engadget: “Google Strikes A Deal With A Nuclear Startup To Power Its AI Data Centers.”
Google is teaming up with Kairos Power to build seven small nuclear reactors in the United States. The reactors will power Google’s AI Drive and add 500 megawatts. The first reactor is expected to be built in 2030 with the plan to finish the rest by 2035. The reactors are called small modular reactors or SMRs for short.
Google’s deal with Kairos Power would be the first corporate deal to buy nuclear power from SMRs. The small reactors are build inside a factory, instead of on site so their construction is lower than a full power plant.
“Kairos will need the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve design and construction permits for the plans. The startup has already received approval for a demonstration reactor in Tennessee, with an online date targeted for 2027. The company already builds test units (without nuclear-fuel components) at a development facility in Albuquerque, NM, where it assesses components, systems and its supply chain.
The companies didn’t announce the financial details of the arrangement. Google says the deal’s structure will help to keep costs down and get the energy online sooner.”
These tech companies say they’re green but now they are contributing more to global warming with their AI data centers and potential nuclear waste. At least nuclear energy is more powerful and doesn’t contribute as much as coal or natural gas to pollution, except when the reactors melt down. Amazon is doing one too.
Has Google made the engineering shift from moon shots to environmental impact statements, nuclear waste disposal, document management, assorted personnel challenges? Sure, of course. Oh, and one trivial question: Is there a commercially available and certified miniature nuclear power plant? Russia may be short on cash. Perhaps someone in that country will sell a propulsion unit from those super reliable nuclear submarines? Google can just repurpose it in a suitable data center. Maybe one in Ashburn, Virginia?
Whitney Grace, October 31, 2024
The DoJ Wants to Break Up Google and Maybe Destroy the Future of AI
October 25, 2024
Contrary to popular belief, the United States is an economically frisky operation. The country runs on a fluid system that mixes aspects regulation, the Wild West, monopolies, oligopolies, and stuff operating off the reservation. The government steps in when something needs regulation. The ageing Sherman Anti-Trust Act forbids monopolies. Yahoo Finance says that “Google Is About To Learn How DOJ Wants To Remake Its Empire.”
There have been rumblings about breaking up Big Tech companies like Google for a while. District of Columbia Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google abused its power and that its search and ad businesses violated antitrust law. Nothing is clear about what will happen to Google, but a penalty may emerge in 2025. Judge Mehta could potentially end Google’s business agreements that make it the default search engine of devices and force search data to be available to competition. Google’s products: AdWords, Chrome browser, and the Android OS could be broken up and no longer send users to the search engine.
Judge Mehta must consider how breaking up Google will affect third parties, especially those who rely on Google and associated products to (basically) run society. Mehta has a lot to think about: Judge Mehta, however, may have to consider how remedies to restore competition in the traditional search engine market may impact competition in the emerging market for AI-assisted search.
One concern, legal experts said, is that Google’s search dominance could unfairly entrench its position in the market for next-generation search.
At the same time, these fresh threats may work to Google’s advantage in the remedies trial, allowing it to argue that its overall search dominance is already under threat.”
Nothing is going to happen quickly. The 2024 presidential election results will influence Mehta’s decision. Politicians will definitely have their say and the US government needs to evaluate how they use Google.
What’s Google’s answer to these charges? The company is suggesting that fiddling with Google could end the future of AI. Promise or threat?
Whitney Grace, October 25, 2024
Google Meet: Going in Circles Is Either Brilliant or Evidence of a Management Blind Spot
October 24, 2024
No smart software but we may use image generators to add some modern spice to the dinobaby’s output.
I read an article which seems to be a rhetorical semantic floor routine. “Google Meet (Original) Is Finally, Properly Dead” explains that once there was Google Meet. Actually there was something called Hangouts, which as I recall was not exactly stable on my steam powered system in rural Kentucky. Hangouts morphed into Hangouts Meet. Then Hangouts Meet forked itself (maybe Google forked its users?) and there was Hangouts Meet and Hangouts Chat. Hangouts Chat then became Google Chat.
The write up focuses on Hangouts Meet, which is now dead. But the write up says:
In April 2020, Google rebranded Hangouts Meet to just “Meet.” A couple of years later, in 2022, the company merged Google Duo into Google Meet due to Duo’s larger user base, aiming to streamline its video chat services. However, to avoid confusion between the two Meet apps, Google labeled the former Hangouts Meet as “Meet (Original)” and changed its icon to green. However, having two Google Meet apps didn’t make sense and the company began notifying users of the “Meet (Original)” app to uninstall it and switch to the Duo-rebranded Meet. Now, nearly 18 months later, Google is officially discontinuing the Meet (Original) app, consolidating everything and leaving just one version of Meet on the Play Store.
Got that? The article explains:
Phasing out the original Meet app is a logical move for Google as it continues to focus on developing and enhancing the newer, more widely used version of Meet. The Duo-rebranded Google Meet has over 5 billion downloads on the Play Store and is where Google has been adding new features. Redirecting users to this app aligns with Google’s goal of consolidating its video services into a single, feature-rich platform.
Let’s step back. What does this Meet tell us about Google’s efficiency? Here are my views:
- Without its monopoly money, Google could not afford the type of inefficiency evidenced by the tale of the Meets
- The product management process appears to operate without much, if any, senior management oversight
- Google allows internal developers to whack away, release services, and then flounder until a person decides, “Let’s try again, just with different Googlers.”
So how has that worked out for Google? First, I think Microsoft Teams is a deeply weird product. The Softies want Teams to have more functions than the elephantine Microsoft Word. But lots of companies use Word and they now use Teams. And there is Zoom. Poor Zoom has lost its focus on allowing quick and easy online video conferences. Now I have to hunt for options between a truly peculiar Zoom app and the even more clumsy Zoom Web site.
Then there is Google Meet Duo whatever. Amazing. The services are an example of a very confused dog chasing its tail. Round and round she goes until some adult steps in and says, “Down, girl, before you die.”
PS. Who Google Chats from email?
Stephen E Arnold, October 24, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
