Answer Guy Central

Search Engine Optimization is one of the most important business changes you can undertake.  Google is all but in control of who finds whom on the Internet, and since the Internet is how people find each other you need to give yourself the very real leg up that SEO provides.

I’ve told that story before. Now I’ll tell you about a big mistake. Yes, mine.

While we’re very good at SEO here at Answer Guy Central, and regularly get great results getting both our clients and ourselves right up to the top of search engine results, like anyone we want . . . more. So a few months ago I tried a little trick on The Computer Answer Guy page. On the page, hidden in the text, I embedded a small graphic about a dozen times. The image was six pixels across by nine pixels high (the exact size of one character of text), so by setting its color to “transparent” and putting it in place where a space character would normally be, the image was completely invisible.

The image was named computersupportcomputercarenewyorkcity.gif, and by naming and pointing to that file a dozen times in the Computer Answer Guy page and also by creating a title that described the picture using those same words, I crammed fully two dozen extra references to what The Computer Answer Guy does into the page.

And it worked. The Computer Answer Guy went to or near the top page in Google’s Rankings for the things I wanted it there for.

Then, Google noticed how.

I don’t know how they noticed. If you understand SEO and think about the logic behind how we set that up there’s no reason for Google to have found it. I could go into a long explanation of page and content construction to back that up, and as I’m writing this I’ve thought of a way that I could have made the trick just a little bit more difficult to uncover. But find it they did. And Google has rules against tricking them.

The technique is called “Black Hat” SEO. And I won’t be doing it again.

By the way: we never do Black Hat for our clients; this was as much an experiment as anything else. I wanted to know just how smart Google is, and I found out. Good thing you injected yourself and not a patient with that serum, doctor!

What was the impact? See for yourself:

In case you aren’t good at reading graphs, I’ll lay it out for you: we were averaging almost 800 search engine impressions per day. Then Google found our little trick and practically overnight we dropped to something just north of zero.

Let’s recap: SEO Good. Computer Answer Guy Good At SEO. But BLACK HAT SEO VERY VERY BAD.

You have been warned.

So now that Verizon and Google have proven themselves to be liars, the FCC is out of the Internet regulation business, and you still have to plan for business change, what should your next move be?

None. It doesn’t matter. Move on.

OK, so it isn’t as simple as that, but it’s close. Last week, when I told you about the Google / Verizon Collusion on Net Neutrality Pact, the most important point I made was this: Verizon and Google, working from a place that the rest of us can only dream about, are essentially making law. Oh sure, the FCC will eventually get around to writing the “official” version of how things work, but by attacking the issue preemptively, Google and Verizon have set up a showdown designed to ensure that the ultimate outcome is in their favor.

Let’s make sure what this means is clear:

Net Neutrality, the tenet under which telecommunications carriers like Verizon don’t decide for users what’s important, is an idea that isn’t really viable unless the laws governing it are so clear and carry such harsh (and easily enforced) penalties that carriers simply stay clear of even the perception of impropriety. This Isn’t Really Possible. In the United States our legal system is designed to allow skirting issues for long periods without fear of immediate enforcement.

Google and Verizon, under the thinly-veiled pretense of “doing the right thing”, are going to start operating in a way that, once established, will be nearly impossible for the FCC or any other governmental agency or lawmaking body to bust up without decades-long litigation.

And that litigation will happen. And millions if not billions of dollars will be spent running that litigation through the system. And when Verizon, Google, and whoever else is involved eventually “give in” and agree to government-mandated rules, those rules will be diluted to within an inch of being completely meaningless.

Big Business wins. Net Neutrality is over.

That said, the reason this doesn’t really “matter” is that

1. Big Business Always Wins
2. Everyone else figures out a way to deal with that

You may need to find ways around filters (yes, The Computer Answer Guy can help). You may need to move certain services to specific places (this is where Google comes in). You may even need to pay a little extra for special, higher-priority Internet service. But ultimately, you’ll be fine, and your business change planning will keep you in the game.

But Net Neutrality sure was a cute idea while it lasted!

I’ve mentioned the idea of Net Neutrality a few times. It’s a simple, yet nuanced idea, and basically means that companies providing Internet access shouldn’t have any say in what traffic is important.

And that ship, as they say, has now sailed.

Yesterday, Google and Verizon announced an agreement under which Verizon won’t control what Internet traffic gets priority over other traffic . . . “unless it’s in the consumer’s best interest”.

Read that again.

Google, a company that can issue edicts based solely on their size and reach, and Verizon, a telecommunications giant that can do the same except when governmental agencies and lawmaking bodies tell them not to, have agreed to prioritize traffic, but only when it’s good for us.

Thank goodness we have Google and Verizon to protect us.

Tongue now removed from cheek, let’s be clear: Neither Google nor Verizon have any interest in protecting consumers. This is about taking control of a situation preemptively; the FCC has threatened to re-regulate data, and when that happens there will be years if not decades of litigation. Rather than wait for that event, Google and Verizon have simply gotten a jump-start.

And once the deals and operating parameters are established, a silly little body like the FCC isn’t going to stand in the way of Google and Verizon continuing to do business “as they have been”.

By the way: the broad parameters of the deal also specify that wireless data is going to be handled differently than data delivered over permanent lines. Which is great awful, because that real-world business change for the consumer isn’t really a business change for Google or Verizon.

But by pretending it is, they can obfuscate this issue even further.

UPDATE: less than a day later, Verizon and Google have both denied this story. Uh-huh. Let’s go back in time about 10 months to when AT&T, a company very much like Verizon, accused Google of being against net neutrality. And with good cause. Now Google’s taking the high road? OK, I believe them !

Oh, and by the way: the FCC has called off Net Neutrality talks because they couldn’t reach consensus with the involved parties. Maybe because the involved parties are doing this?

I’ve expressed concern about the way Google is handling the Android Operation System. I even went so far as to suggest that Google Had Killed The Droid.

Today, Verizon put the nail in that coffin. And it’s about grabbing more of your money. Thanks, guys.

Of course, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when Verizon or any other business tries to make money, and let’s be frank: SmartPhones have a notoriously short shelf life. But with the update to Android 2.2 slated to happen to Verizon’s original Droid this week I find it incredibly short-sighted that Verizon has announced that the update will omit the two most interesting features of the so-called “Froyo” Android update.

It’s likely that Engadget’s analysis is spot on; Verizon doesn’t want last year’s Droid to be able to do everything that the two models being released this summer can do. But they really shouldn’t think us all too dumb to spot their lie on the matter.

I’m not overstating this; Verizon is claiming that the original Droid isn’t capable of doing tethering (using your SmartPhone as a wireless modem for getting data into a computer when there’s no WiFi available) or acting as a WiFi hot spot. I can promise you that the former just isn’t true (look in the Android Market for PDA Net and see how easy it is to get you Droid to act as a tether), and the latter is similar enough a trick that I’m certain it can be done, too.

Considering that Verizon is planning to charge for the ability to to tether the Droid 2 and Droid X, I just can’t understand this incredible short-sightedness. Compound it with the flat-out lie and it leaves me thinking the iPhone 4 might not be such a bad idea, after all.

If you got to this post by reading the description, you’re already nervous about what’s to come. Strap in.

I’ve mentioned before how little Google cares about your data security, and while you could read some of this as a “the sky is falling” rant, it’s nothing of the sort. Fact is, there’s no real security on the Internet, and the issue isn’t that you’re being watched so much as it is that you need to understand how, and have some idea what that means to you so you might protect yourself as best you can.

This week, a new browser plug-in that will keep you up to date on just how often you’re transmitting personal information to Google became available. It’s available here, and works with both Firefox and Chrome.

If you install this software, you’re going to spend an awful lot of time being jarred by flashing and noisy alarms. I suspect that very few people will use it for more than a few hours before they uninstall it, stop browsing the Internet, and hide underneath their beds.

OK, so you’ll just uninstall the software, but you’ll still be horrified. Allow me to repeat: there is no data security on the internet (and) Google is the prime perpetrator of that truth.

So What?

Actually, you can read the “so what?” a couple of different ways:

Say it like a child and it means “this has nothing to do with me; it’s beyond my control, it is what it is“. Fair enough, and ultimately correct; you aren’t going to stop using the Internet, so get used to and accept that information is being gathered about you and your habits.

Or, make a plan. A dear friend recently bought a paper shredder to make sure that her bills and other documents didn’t get used against her when she threw them out, and weeks later she’s still talking about how good using it makes her feel. She happens to be quite old and doesn’t use the Internet, so imagine what she’d think if she read this!

The Computer Answer Guy can help you with your data security. So can PC-VIP and any number of other technology consultants. Or you can do it yourself. But if your meaning for “so what?” isn’t the childish one, you need to do something.

Right Now.

Google thinks your web page is too slow. Maybe the most important business change you can make is convincing everyone’s favorite search engine otherwise.

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is about a lot of things. I could write a book on the subject . . . and . . . actually I’m in the middle of doing just that. But whether you’ve already addressed the other issues that go into SEO or not, you MUST get your page load times down to an acceptable level.

This point goes in two directions.

First: if your website visitors need to . . . wait . . . for . . . pages . . . to . . . load . . . they’ll leave. The easiest way to handle that is to compress your images. if you look at my post from yesterday, you’ll see a picture I took while on vacation last week. It’s about 1/15th of its original size because I made it that way before posting it. Had I used the original image there would have been a VERY noticeable lag while the page loaded.

Second, and perhaps even more important, is this: Google has started penalizing slow-loading web pages. As with most of their formulas, Google isn’t saying just how much weight page-load times carry in their search engine ranking formulas, but they want your pages to be fast.

While you can’t control what Google does, you can control how you respond. And that’s a business change you need to pay attention to right now.

How’s your SEO going?

I’ve written about Search Engine Optimization before. It’s one of the things we do here at Answer Guy Central, and (self-serving statement aside) it’s the single most important thing you can do for your business’ long-tail marketing efforts.

SEO isn’t hard, exactly, but it requires a basic understanding of quite a few things, the ability to write well, some content expertise, and a lot of time.

Nobody understands long-tail marketing and SEO better than Google, and in particular a Google employee named Matt Cutts. Matt does a regular video series for webmasters, and it’s fun to watch because even though you know he’s telling you what Google wants you to hear he does so in a way that’s just plain . . . believable.

Now remember: Search Engine Optimization is as much art as it is science, and even Google admits they don’t quite “get it”. But as you undertake your SEO efforts (or have someone like us do it for you), you have to have some set of rules to go by. And I’ve been tracking one variable that’s so contentious it’s worth talking about:

Will Google Penalize Your SEO Efforts for Creating Duplicate Content?

The “official” answer, direct from Matt Cutts, is no; there’s no duplicate content penalty from Google for putting the same content up in multiple places. But that answer glosses over ignores the real issue: If you put the same thing up over and over again you may draw traffic away from competitors, or you may instead cannibalize your own efforts via dilution.

It’s a fine line to walk, and because (assuming you have the time) so many of the technical and artistic elements of successful Search Engine Optimization are better undertaken by you and your staff than outsiders it’s one of the places where SEO consultants have something to sell.

Yes, I’d like you to use Answer Guy SEO Services. Want proof that we know what we’re doing? Search Google for either 7,669,123 or 7,739,139 and see who’s at the top of the rankings for those patent numbers from Facebook and Amazon. But whether you hire The Answer Guy to do your Search Engine Optimization, hire somebody else, or do it yourself, you must take SEO seriously.

SEO is a business change that will effect your long-tail marketing efforts for years to come. And remember: there is no duplicate content penalty. Unless there is.

On the Internet, where pornography is the single largest business, questions like “what is porn?” take on a whole new meaning. Forget what we’ve learned watching the US Supreme Court try to answer the question, or from that famous lawsuit in Cincinnati against Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt. Porn is what you think it is, and community gatekeepers have de facto powers of censorship because they grant it to themselves.

Apple has famously thrown many apps out of the iTunes Apps Store, because they were “too racy”. Steve Jobs makes no apologies for this, even having gone so far as as to state that he believes “his users want to be protected”.

But there’s no standard being divulged, official or otherwise. If you show women in bikinis in your App you could find it banned, but it might get through. And last I checked, nobody thought women in bikinis were “naughty” . . . at least not in the United States. And oh yeah, that matters too because what you see in the App store differs depending on where you are.

Google’s fallen into this trap, as well. Last month I told you about some advertising that Google had rejected for being “too racy”. I suppose the fact that I’ve seen these commercials on (regulated) broadcast television when (unregulated) Google had rejected them is odd enough, but it’s their own internal lack of standards that’s far more puzzling; Google accepts and runs ads that are way more “racy” then the one CougarLife was trying to get through. Maybe, as I suggested then, Google suffers from some sort of misogyny (and one again, if such circumstances exist I offer big props to über-Googler Marissa Mayer).

So what’s up with this?: The Sun, a UK-based tabloid owned by News Corporation, has published an iPad App. That App is a reproduction of the newspaper. That newspaper regularly includes pictures of bare breasted women. And the App has gone through Apple’s censorship process and made it to the iTunes App Store.

There’s a piece of me that wants to go all conspiracy theory and tell you that News Corp and Apple have a buddy-buddy relationship that made getting this App, one that could just as easily been deemed pornographic under Apple’s previously demonstrated “standards”, approved. And let’s be honest: there probably was a component of business nepotism involved.

But the lesson here is this: business change isn’t something that “is”; business change is something you make happen. In context, The Sun might have gotten their App published even without a close relationship between its parent company and Apple.

And just as perception is reality, context is . . . everything.

What kind of computer do you use? Are your files all stored on a hard drive in that computer, on a network drive, or off in the cloud somewhere? What software do you like?

Do any of these questions matter?

More and more, the answer is no. There was a time when the choices you made in computers and software defined you, because there was no easy way to exchange information with people who had made other choices. It’s the reason Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office became dominant; everyone needed to use the same hardware and software so they could exchange files with each other by passing around floppy disks.

Floppy disks are gone. CDs and DVDs work the same in all computers, and for the most part we don’t uses those anymore either; we just email files around or make them available online.

So you don’t have to worry about your choices; pretty much every computer can read and write .DOC and .XLS files, and we all use .JPG for graphics. Tower of Babble, be gone!

So why has Google mandated that its employees not use Microsoft Windows?

Ostensibly, it’s about security. It’s a fact that there are more viruses written to attack Windows-based computers than all other kinds combined . . . and by a wide margin. From an IT expenses perspective, Google is making a smart internal choice by getting away from Windows-based computers. But here’s the truth:

Google Just Wants Microsoft To Go Away

Google wants to control everything, and government anti-trust regulations notwithstanding, why shouldn’t they? When you can get to it online, Google Docs is a perfectly acceptable replacement for Microsoft Office. Google has their Android and Chrome operating systems to compete with variants of Windows, too, and mandating “no Windows” at home is just one more shot in the “destroy Microsoft” battle that Google is waging.

Apple is proving more difficult. Apple’s iOS (formerly iPhone OS 4.0) is huge and getting bigger, and Apple, as I predicted a couple of months ago when details of iPhone OS 4.0 started to surface, is doing their best to make advertising an Apple-only affair.

What’s the difference? Why is Google curtailing their use of Windows but still allowing Macintosh? BECAUSE MICROSOFT HAS BECOME IRRELEVANT.

Under the old “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” axiom, Google is keeping tabs on Apple because they have to. Microsoft just doesn’t matter anymore. Talk about business change!

Things DO change—even things that look like they’ll stay the same forever. Making the right choices in steering your business change isn’t always easy. If you’re confused, don’t be afraid to ask for help.

Last week, I came across a news story that made me think, and got me talking with a colleague or two. Your probably saw or read it: a woman sued Google when the directions she got from Google Maps put her in the wrong place at the wrong time at she was struck by a moving vehicle.

It made me smile and angry all at the same time and think about how we’ll sue anyone for anything at any time in this country. Remember the woman who sued McDonald’s because her hot coffee was so hot that when she spilled it she burned herself—and the crux of the lawsuit being not that the coffee was too hot but that McDonald’s hadn’t warned her that coffee was hot?

Responsibility, anyone?

It seems that the story about the bad directions was first put on the Internet by a blogger. And not surprisingly, it got huge, and was picked up by media outlets all over the world, including “the big guys”.

And many of them failed to give credit to their original source.

I don’t know the guy who broke the story. I don’t know how real a journalist he is, or whether he has aspirations to work for a newspaper, wire service or some other traditional media outlet and so really could have used the credibility that credit would have given him. But I do know two things:

• If you steal a story from one of the big guys they send their attorneys after you
• The little guy is being pushed farther and farther back down the Internet food chain

I’ve told the story about how the managing editor at C|Net had the nerve to ask me to post comments on their web site but not to take credit. I’ve weighed in on how bad the NoFollow attribute is for the exchange of free ideas.

I’ve even pointed out how difficult it is to get attention even if you write a great blog.

But when big news outlets steal . . . when they ignore their own rules . . . and when they do that to the little guys but not to each other . . .  the little guy has to fight back.

How?

First, ignore how difficult it is to get attention. Whether you’re trying to be an important media source or you’re selling goods and services, you must get serious about your Internet presence. Ignore that business change and you will soon have no business.

Second, if you aren’t quite sure how to “get into social media”, ask for help. Yes, I’d like you to ask us, but if not, ask someone.

Third: recognize that as important as social networking is, you also have to start doing Search Engine Optimization. It’s not hard, by the way; you could do it yourself if you learned just a few things and had the time.

Most important, though: understand that the Internet is not just a place to read and consume; it’s a place to speak. Find your voice. Craft it. And Use it. I promise; this is the most important business change you’ll ever make.

Dealing with me can be a bit like taking a blow from a sledgehammer to the side of your head. I’m going to tell you what I think, and while I go to sometimes ridiculous and unneeded lengths to see every side of a story, once I get to “my place”, I dig in, and invite those around me into my foxhole.

It’s about control. We all want to be in charge of our stuff. The question is, how do you do it?

Sometimes, you rant. But if you’re looking to create business change and you choose the rant route, you’d better have an ultra-clear handle on what you’re ranting about or your business change will fall flat and you’ll look . . . well, foolish.

The position of social networking influencer is looking to me more and more like a pulpit for fools. And even very smart people are falling into the trap. Today, Henry Blodget of Business Insider went off on a rant about the way Gmail works. Notwithstanding the occasional gaffe, Henry’s a smart guy, and I have to admit that his complaint is one I’ve thought about a few times and have heard many people complain about.

But that was before social networking took the position it’s gained in the last couple of years, creating the beast that is Henry Blodget.

Henry’s complaint is about Gmail. Specifically, Henry doesn’t like the fact that that Gmail makes you look at your in-box as one big dumping ground without the ability to create folders to categorize and store your mail.

But Gmail has worked this way since day one. And since that day we’ve seen more and more tools that defy easy organization becomes parts of our every day lives. And you know what? They work better.

I’m about as organized as anyone, and if you were my client in the late eighties and early nineties and I was creating your systems integration environment at a time when almost nobody “got it” I hammered a “treat it like a filing cabinet” approach to computer document storage into your head. But e-mail doesn’t actually work very well when treated that way; you think you’re organizing things, but you’re really just hiding them.

It’s the reason that Google Wave is going to work. E-mail simply isn’t linear enough to treat as though it is. It’s the reason that so many people have now given up on e-mail entirely in favor of always communicating through their Twitter or Facebook social networking accounts. And with respect to the success he enjoyed on Wall Street, it’s the reason Henry Blodget matters to anyone today.

Business Change means accepting that change is . . . change. It means you go outside your comfort zone. Business Change means that you look at what’s changing and decide whether to adopt that change. And if you decide that a particular business change isn’t for you, you find another one.

But the way Gmail is is part of Google’s business strategy; it’s one in which we all use search all the time. It’s one where using search is the business change.

I’m disappointed in Henry Blodget. <<SLEDGEHAMMER BLAST>>

With the weekend upon us, I want to thank Google for getting things off on the right foot. Yes, today our topic is business change as it applies to . . . Cougars.

I don’t mean the medium-sized wildcat kind of cougar. Google has no issue with those. I’m talking about the kind that walks on two high-heeled legs, wears expensive designer clothing, and likes what she likes.

Google has rejected advertising for the Cougarlife.com web site. Their explanation is that they don’t carry ads that aren’t family friendly, and that Cougarlife’s ads cross the line. But there’s a clear conflict between Google’s statement and their practices.

The question is . . . why? Follow this link and you’ll get a run-down of the story complete with video examples illustrating the issue . . . and I just don’t get it. Is Google in the business of policing obscenity? Have they decided that society needs censoring? And if so, why are they being selective about it?

Maybe Google’s become so important in their own minds that the misuse of the word “Cougar” offends them; remember that in context cougar has traditionally referred to middle-aged or older women who “prey” on younger men. Cougarlife was founded by a very young woman and has bent the cougar definition a bit.

Or maybe, with the exception of über-Googler Marissa Mayer, everyone at Google aspires to be a sugar daddy and their sensibilities are offended. Or maybe Ms. Mayer herself had an issue with the idea!

I’d have thought that even at the hugest of companies—and Google certainly qualifies there—by now business change that recognizes sexual equality . . . at least this kind of sexual equality . . . would be a given.

Now if only I was young enough to be a target for the ladies of Cougarlife . . .

Forgive me for lack of speed; I needed to let this one roll around in my head for a few days:

Motorola is enjoying a business resurgence. Owing to their decision to start making SmartPhones based on the Google Android operating system, Motorola has become profitable after many quarters of moving in the wrong direction. Palm, on the other hand, is no more, having been acquired by Hewlett Packard for reasons that HP has thus far kept close to the vest.

This article in the New York Times compares the fate of the two companies, and I wasn’t sure what the real point of the comparison was until I gave it some thought.

Palm all but created the market for Personal Digital Assistants when they released the Palm Pilot back in 1996. Sure, there were other PDAs that came earlier, but the Palm Pilot was the first one to gain any traction. Since then, Palm has floundered, being sold a couple of times and going through a couple of business change cycles when they weren’t sure if they were a hardware company or a software company . . . and even splitting the two.

Nobody says “PDA” any more. The things that PDAs did are now done by SmartPhones.

Motorola was at one time a phone manufacturer. Of course, Motorola makes many other things, too, but they created some of the most important cell phone technologies and were the runaway leader in that market for years. And cell phones need software, which Motorola wrote themselves. And the software was . . . well, who cares? It was phone software.

Now, Motorola has hitched its wagon to the Google Android star. In short, Motorola has enacted business change by acknowledging that they’re better off concentrating on the hardware and using someone else’s (free!) software. The Verizon (Motorola / Google) Droid sold many millions of units. Motorola is back, baby!

Or are they?

I’m not a stock prognosticator, but if I was I wouldn’t be so excited about Motorola’s future chances based on their recent success in the SmartPhone market using Android. Verizon released a second Droid model last November; the HTC (Verizon / Google ) Droid Eris came out at the same time, but Verizon didn’t give it the marketing boost that Motorola’s Droid received. And now, Verizon’s Droid Incredible is on the street. It also uses  Google Android. It’s also made by HTC. And Verizon has moved on; it’s the HTC Droid Incredible that’s now Verizon’s Droid Baby.

Wither, Motorola?

Motorola has all but remade themselves as a software company, but Google Android software is available to anyone who wants it. Companies like Verizon are marketing Android-based hardware from other companies. And Google has already shown that they have no intention of being part of this fight; their foray into the hardware and phone businesses with Nexus One was nothing more than a giant smoke screen to get companies like Motorola and Verizon to adopt Android.

And Verizon, by the way, is at is again; they’re about to release a tablet computer based on Google Android.

Don’t get too excited about the business change at Motorola; it’s going to be a short-lived success. And you do better: when planning your business change, make sure you look long-term.

Remember back when Google launched the Nexus One SmartPhone and told us we should expect to see “their” phone on every major phone network? I commented at the time that the Google Phone looked like way less business change than Google wanted us to believe they were creating, and later told you that Google’s fragmentation of the Android Operating System might kill phones they were less attached to, like the Verizon Droid.

Now it looks like the entire Google Phone movement and creating the Nexus One was nothing more than a red herring to get carriers to develop Android devices.

Last week, Google basically abandoned the Nexus One. This morning, Google told Verizon customers to buy the upcoming Droid Incredible instead of waiting for the Nexus One.

Let’s examine:

Any phone running Android is a “Google Phone”. Google launched the Nexus One amidst much anticipation and with great fanfare, showed us a road map for a time when we’d be able to buy phones and take them to any carrier, telling us they were changing the entire phone business, selling the Nexus One using a business model that made no sense and charging incredibly high Early Termination Fees.

And three months later they want people to buy a non-Google-branded-or-distributed phone that is very much like the Nexus One from the one US carrier that could never use the Nexus One.

But Android is now huge.

Looks like Google never really meant to be in or change the phone business, other than to promote Android.

Google lied. It’s the kind of thing that happens every day in business, and as “don’t be evil” is no longer an official Google slogan there’s not even a joke to append here; Google has become the evil empire.

I’m off to use my Google Docs account now . . .

FOLLOWUP May 14 2010:

It’s official. The Nexus One is dead, and Google is shutting down their phone store

Just yesterday I asked a question: can you really trust Google’s tools enough to run your business in the cloud? And it got me thinking about yet another initiative Google recently announced: printing documents in the cloud.

I’m not talking Google’s often-questionable security on this one. In fact, in a way I think cloud printing makes more sense than many of the other things we’ve all started doing virtually since Google became big brother. But because it’s so simple I pretty much ask “who cares”?

Let’s start with what the cloud is. In simple terms cloud computing means that you’re using resources you don’t actually possess or aren’t physically connected to. In a sense, if you’ve set up a wireless network to access the Internet in your home or at your business you’ve created your own cloud, albeit one with only a single virtual resource: your Internet connection.

So Google Docs, for example, is a cloud resource that exists on the Internet, and you need an Internet connection to get to the documents you store there. And now Google wants to make it so you can print over the Internet to a printer you aren’t physically attached to.

And I ask: so what?

In the late 1990s, I was one of the principals at a company called Planet Computer, which among other things developed software that made this possible way back then. And in its way it’s a cool enough idea, but honestly it was a limited implementation that really gave our clients the ability to send a print command home to their business when on the road so that . . . what? Someone else could pick up the documents and either put them aside or mail them to you? Neat, but not actually all that useful other than in situations where you would have your assistant organize something for you now, rather than when you got back.

I own a printer right now that cost barely $100 and lets me print that way in my home, and share the printer among everyone on my network. Honestly, it does the same thing Google is trying to tell us will be another great “cloud resource”.

Why do I bring this up?

Business Change is an interesting topic, but sometimes the best changes you make are the ones that involve saying “no, thank you” to new and supposedly improved things. So while I think Google Docs can be a great tool for storage, collaboration, and accessibility (assuming you take steps to make sure you can get to your documents when the Internet is “down”), printing through the cloud sounds like an idea that doesn’t really mean all that much, and worse, becomes just another distraction to deal with.

The Computer Answer Guy and PC-VIP are our two flavors of business help to manage your computers, and at both we stress working smart. Speaking as a guy with decades of experience helping businesses manage change, create business process, and save time I implore you: please manage ideas like cloud computing very carefully.