It’s going to be one of the biggest tech fights we’ve experienced in a long, long time and the winner will be decided by us, the consumer.

It will also change the way the majority of us consume news, music, films, local business info, games and search the web. The fact is, our tv is about to become the central hub of our lives (if it isn’t already), by opening up a portal to the world wide web.

Apple TV and Google TV are the reasons why consumers will be using their TV instead of their laptops to update their status’s one minute then stream a movie the next. But the question is, which one is the best choice for the UK public?

First things first, if you want to get into surfing’n’streaming via your TV now then there is only one option and that’s Apple TV. Apple have stolen the lead in terms of this technology through releasing their Apple TV globally first and here in the UK, although it’s not appeared in many stores yet, you can order one online and it will be with you inside two weeks.
Google on the other hand have not officially released a UK launch date as yet, with the only indication of a launch at all coming from Logitech who is building the boxes for Google in the US. They have said we will see “developments” leading to its roll-out in the UK from next January.

So, if you want one of these in the UK now, it has to be Apple TV.

However, if you are prepared to wait, then which one should you spend your hard earned monies on?

With both offerings you are going to be able to stream HD films from Netflix at the same price of approx £3.50. You’ll also be able to watch everything that’s on YouTube and flick through your holiday snaps on Flickr.
Alongside this both have good music offerings with Apple granting access to iTunes while Google loads up Napster.
Both make use of your mobile phones as remote controls, with Google allowing Androids to control the device as well as share media content to the big screen. The same goes for Apple; the iPhone or iPad can be used in exactly the same way.

Alot is on offer… but what are the differences?

Apple TV… what’s the deal?
It’s Apple. I know that will annoy some people, but in my opinion Apple’s design oozes quality and this small shiny black box will look the part in any home.
Connects to the iPad. I know Google allows their Android phones to connect to Google TV but the iPad is a bit different. You are more likely to have a lot more media content on your iPad just begging to be streamed over to the TV.
iTunes. Apple TV give you access to the proven excellent storefront that is iTunes. This may also get even better soon with the introduction of Ping. Opening up social networking on your TV.
Bound to set up very easily OK, I’m plucking at straws but I bet my bottom doller that Apple TV will be the easiest thing to set up you will ever plug into your TV.

Google TV… What’s the beef?
Open Source – Just like the difference between Apple and Google with regards to smartphones. Google are opening their TV offering up to the community to encourage them to develop apps for their black box. This could open up a whole host of possibilities.
Web browser – Google have included a version of Chrome so you can surf the web from your TV. That’s a biggie. If you want to find a local plumber your TV may now have the answer.
Power House – Googles box is full of power and can offer full 1080p rather than Apples 720p. The Intel chipset used in the Google box will also lend itself to upgrades… or a little tampering with at least! No chance of that with the tiny Apple TV box.
Apps – I really don’t know why Apple TV doesn’t have apps… but it doesn’t. (Steve – a word: It’s what made your iPhone the best selling smartphone of all time!). Yet it is only Google TV that will offer up apps, with the operating system being an Android platform.

And Finally…

It will be very interesting to see which one wins. Googles device is clearly the more powerful and encompasses all media rather than just giving you access to iTunes and a few channels like YouTube and NetFlix.
Google TV has opened itself up to developers, fully specced its device to run 1080p and included a proven web browser (Chrome) running on a proven operating system (Android).

But for all this, who would bet against Apple? They have launched a £99 device first and is the only option here in the UK. It also looks gorgeous when compared to Google lump of a device. iTunes is the comfiest jumper you’ve ever worn and that’s your arena for your content. Finally you can also be certain of a marketing campaign that will push this device like mad in the next few months. This may just steal a lead that Google TV finds too hard to claw back.

Google can acquire any web service they like, create amazing new widgets/gadgets/API’s in its google labs and launch new fantastic online tools such as GMail, Google Maps and Google Docs until it’s lovely logo turns bluer than a royal navy jacket – but If there is anything that divides opinion amongst web professionals more than anything else, it’s Google making changes to its search.

Since 1998 when Google first hit our screens – search has been the most important Google tool. Not just to us the consumer, but due to Google’s seamless neat integration of AdWords, search is the most important tool to Google as well. AdWords netted over $23 Billion in 2009 for Google and is their number one revenue stream.

It’s therefore easy to see why, when Google make a change to their search, it’s no small thing!

With nearly 80 million active websites on the internet, search is vital. In the main, as a user you want results that give you answers to your query, but sometimes you may also want to research around a topic or maybe even stumble across a website you’re interested in by accident.
However – this may all change with the release of Google Instant.

Google instant displays your search results as you type. So enter “F” and up pops Facebook… “A” is for Amazon etc…
It’s actually quite easy to predict what’s going to be top for every letter of the alphabet.
But let’s consider how this is going to change users search habits.
I predict users will now type, delete, re-type, delete, re-type, delete etc… in the search box until a seemingly relevant result appears above the fold (on the screen without scrolling down) in their browser.

This means websites that are not optimised enough for any keyword phrase to appear in the first few results will never be seen.
I can’t help thinking that’s a shame.

OK, the title of this blog may suggest only 26 sites will ever be viewed – which may be a slight exaggeration. But really how far off is this number? Considering there are 80 million sites on the internet I’ll bet my bottom dollar it’s not much more than 1% that will be viewed via organic search.

Website owners have a few options…
1) Ensure top listings by bidding high amounts in Google AdWords (not bad news for Google).
Or
2) Look for alternatives such as Social Networking, Viral Campaigns and offline marketing to promote their website (bad news for Google).

It boils down to what works for the website owner. But it will be interesting if the majority choose option 2. Search could become less influential and that will be down to Google instant.
If that happens and Google switch instant off – it may be too late.

I also suspect websites such as Stumble Upon, which is fantastic for discovering new websites and Digg, which promotes hot websites of the moment will also be waiting with baited breath to see what impact this has on them. I believe it will be positive.

Not every user wants the answer in an instant. When you next go shopping, would you want the first acceptable outfit to be presented to you in the very first shop you enter? Or would you want to walk around for a bit, go in several shops and then make a choice?

We’re all living fast paced lives and have less and less time to spend on the activities we enjoy the most. At some point we’re surly going to think enough is enough and start making the time to do whatever we enjoy… no matter how long it takes.

I’ve used Firefox for years now and have always reverted back to it even when swayed slightly by Google Chrome or the latest IE. Obviously as a developer I always test in as many browsers as I can, but for my own personal browsing Firefox is the one I hover that pointer over and double click on the most.

Although I feel Firefox has always led in terms of new features which is down to the amazing efforts of an open-source community, for me it boils down to speed and put simply I have always found Firefox that bit faster.
That said, Google Chrome does give it a damn good run for its money which is why I do find myself now and again using Chrome.

The one feature that pulled in the punters for Firefox and set it apart was tabbed browsing. When Firefox introduced this feature way-back-when in 2002 it introduced an easy tabbed interface that helped users browse multiple pages quicker. It wasn’t until IE7 in 2006 Microsoft caught up. For me that’s a long time to react to such a good feature. Safari reacted much faster incorporating tabs in 2003.
Google Chrome launched much later in 2008 and has therefore never known a life without tabs.

So what’s the next big feature in terms of web browsing. Well, un-surprisingly it’s based on the feature that made Firefox one of the worlds favourite browsers… tabs.

The feature was code named Tab Candy, but will be incorporated into the official new release of Firefox as Panorama.
Firefox Panorama allows the user to group tabs together. This is done through the thumbnail tab view and by simply dragging one page over another to group them. You can drag just one page or as many as you want into a new group space and then name the group for easy access later.
If the window’s not big enough for all the pages your compiling together, Firefox cleverly stacks them together and you can select the stack to view the page thumbnails.

Being an iPhone owner I can see the process of dragging one thumbnail over another to make a group isn’t a totally new concept. This is after-all how the new “folder” feature in the new ios4 works to allow users to group apps together. I’m not a big fan of lifting ideas off others (see my last blog post) but this is only part of how Panorama works.

Enabling this grouping will mean you can easily have groups of pages for projects you’re working on or interests you have.
A simple concept, but amazingly powerful. For me though, it builds on a feature that meant quicker more efficient web browsing and that’s what makes me choose a particular browser.

This new feature will be available in Firefox 4 and is already in the Beta release if you want to take a look.

The launch of facebook places is not only significant in the fact that it shows as a company facebook is continually developing and looking for ways to expand it’s platform, but it is also significant in the fact it shows they can take any new idea which has been thought up by them or not and integrate it into facebook to open it up to the largest community on the web.

Facebook places is a way for users to “check in” to locations so their “friends” can see where they’ve been. Users can also add notes against places so their friends can see what they thought of it, what deals they may be able to get there etc, etc… just general info.

All in all, a good idea. Yes. But not an idea of some bright young developer within facebook HQ!

This idea happened to be the brainchild of Dennis Crowley who was named one of the “Top 35 Innovators Under 35″ by MIT’s Technology Review and Naveen Selvadurai.
This pair launched foursquare in march 2009 and now has over 3 million users.
Now, 3 million users all of a sudden doesn’t sound like that many. But that is only because of the monster that is facebook. The majority of websites would be more than happy and may even open a bottle of bubbly at the fact they’ve attracted 3 million users to their website.

The point here is that facebook can take any new idea, such as foursquare, integrate it into facebook and instantly expose it to an audience far greater than anyone else can imagine.

Therefore facebook faces no competition.

Although foursquare’s user base has apparently risen since the launch of facebook places, this will surely not continue. I can only guess this is due to the fact people are now more aware of the concept of “checking in” and are therefore searching for this and discovering foursquare.

Apparently facebook have been developing this for 8 months, so it took them only 9 months to track foursquare’s growth and decide to copy it’s idea.

It’s a shame, but I really feel we won’t see a new successful concept independently run, not integrated into facebook and grow enough to compete with the social giant.
It’s also a shame that more people hadn’t discovered foursquare first. As the 497,000,000 users that are members of facebook and not foursquare will think – cracking idea facebook… Well done.

May 27, 2009 at the Google I/O conference a new development was announced that I felt may cause a decent stir among web users. Something that might not only establish Google as a serious social media player but also change the way we use the web to communicate. Google Wave was described as “a new web application for real-time communication and collaboration”.

The idea was essentially to combine e-mail, instant messaging, wikis, and social networking into one real-time environment. It also allowed for spelling/grammar checking and automatic translations, but in the main a wave was a working real-time collaborative message, therefore it could potentially replace email!

Google Wave had 100,000 users in September 2009, each of which were allowed to invite additional users. But it wasn’t until May 19, 2010, Google Wave was released to the general public. This is why it seems strange Google are ditching the development of Wave only 3 months after the full web community could get their hands on it?
One of the main reasons I’ve heard Google are no longer developing Wave is that it simply hasn’t had the traction Google expected? Well, maybe not, but how much marketing has Google put into Wave since it’s been made widely available? Not a lot!

The other reason Wave has failed so badly is because of the perception it has amongst even those tech-savvy web users that have heard of it. It’s seen as a complex application and one that requires studying before anyone can pick it up and use. In this day and age when time is the most precious commodity of all, people just haven’t got the time to learn how to do something new… Like create a Wave.
The only surprise here is how Google missed the fact they had to make Wave at least appear simple. It’s the very fundamental that made Google search such a success – a logo, large search bar and a couple of buttons on a plain white background – that’s all it took before!

So, was Wave a complete failure? No, not completely. It was maybe a little before its time, maybe had the wrong perception amongst users and maybe had a much better development team than marketing team behind it. But it was also a new fresh approach to communicating, collaborating and socialising online and in that sense it has left behind some great ideas that a company like Google can surely build upon to create something special. Maybe that something is just around the corner and google doesn’t want anything to be stealing any limelight, not even Wave.

“Google Me” anyone?