C is for Cookie
You remember Cookie Monster, right? You know, that blue guy from Sesame Street, the one who single-handedly cemented our nascent association between affection and fattening, sugar-laden snacks? I could write pages about the corresponding rise in childhood obesity, inevitably leading to hyperglycemia, rising health care costs, ballooning budget deficits and - eventually - the abject collapse of western civilization. But this would probably be a bit unfair to Frank Oz and the gang. After all, “Tofu Monster” just doesn’t have the same ring to it. Plus the Cookiemeister does have some rocking tunes to make up for his dietary transgressions.
Nonetheless, I do have a few choice words to say about cookies. There’s been a minor hype frenzy over the last couple of days over rumors that Google is planning to develop its own web browser. All this is based on the flimsiest of evidence, mainly the fact that they recently hired a couple of former IE developers. Hardly shocking considering the number of new programmers they are doubtless hiring with their newfound IPO wealth. But let’s play along for a moment and assume it’s the case.
In a way, this would be surprising because Google currently represents one extreme of the centralized vs. distributed conundrum, the 21st century geek-friendly version of Bud Lite’s classic 1980’s head-scratcher: “Less filling? No, tastes great!” Newish ventures such as Blogger and Gmail carry the clear message that Google feels their centralized server farm can manage your data for you better than you can by yourself. Part of this vision is the ubiquity of the web browser. Who wants to lug around a laptop when you can access your blog and email remotely? So why spoil things by developing your own browser, clearly a move towards distributing data and processing power?
Perhaps the answer is that Google realizes that despite their laudable achievements, they can’t do it all by themselves. The biggest successes in information technology have been platforms that let third parties, particularly nimble young startups, add value in a virtuous circle of innovation. The problem is that the only way to remember someone on a web platform today is through the use of browser cookies. And cookies are tied by their very nature to a specific website, due to very sensible privacy concerns. So no one except google.com is ever going to know about your Google cookies, nixing any possibility of using them for integration purposes.
All this changes with the mooted Google browser. They can still use their formidable server park for heavy data lifting, but integration can occur on the client, where they have free rein to store volumes of profile information and share it with partner services. With Microsoft totally dedicated to migrating large dollops of the web experience onto the desktop, where they can better control it, this might be nothing more than a preemptive move on Google’s part, particularly since the rumors are centered on their use of the multiplatform Mozilla browser as the basis for their own offering.
So is it true? Maybe not in the details, but it would certainly be surprising if Google didn’t come out with an increasingly robust desktop offering as time goes by. Food for thought, in any case. Make mine chocolate chip.
No Comments »
No comments yet.
Trackback URL RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
