Google has also thrown its support behind the ChannelID open standard, which aims to secure the cookie on the device that certifies the user has signed in to a service.  The concept puts up a barrier for man in the browser attacks that attempt to sniff and steal cookies as they’re passed to the browser. This tighter connection between cookies and encryption keys as proposed in the standard and currently in place in the Chrome browser is another priority initiative for Google going forward.

“In essence, the browser self-provisions an anonymous public-private key pair for each web domain it needs to talk to via SSL. The web domain can use the consistent SSL public key Channel ID  presented by the client device to tie into cookies that it issues to the client device,” Sachs said. “But once the cookies are ‘tied’ in this manner, they are no longer reusable bearer tokens.  The web server will only accept them as part of a connection that has been digitally signed with the same ChannelID.  ChannelID significantly reduces the risk associated with leaked reusable bearer tokens.”

via Google Strong Authentication Strategy Eliminates Passwords | Threatpost.

Image from achievedstrategies.com

Most who follow the tech industry know that Google and Facebook are in the throes of mutual combat, but few seem to see the strategic reason that Google is so deathly afraid of Facebook.

Google is Google, right? They’re invincible! Who could possibly threaten them in search, right? Well, that’s missing the point. Google’s problem is that better search just isn’t enough anymore.

Remember what they’re fighting for

Recall that an Internet company’s currency is its number of active users. As that goes up a company becomes more powerful, and as it goes down it feels it–especially if they left for a competitor.

Well, Google is doing just fine there–everyone uses it constantly. It’s basically Internet infrastructure at this point. But many of those same people also use Facebook, and the key is that they’re being used in different ways. The nature of that difference is what has Google panicking.

In short, people use Google to find something and then return to what they were doing online. It’s a tool to help you achieve your Internet goal. Facebook, on the other hand, IS what they’re doing online. It’s not a tool, it’s a destination.

So–and here’s the crux of it–what happens when you can search the Internet from Facebook? Think about that. It’s Google’s absolute nightmare scenario.

Facebook as the center of the Internet ecosystem

Google’s problem is that people get online to go to Facebook anyway. Their friends and family are the core of their life, so it’s natural that it would be the center of their digital life as well.

So, why not have a big search bar at the top of Facebook? Want to buy something? Looking to go to a movie? Want to know who to vote for? Need a recipe? Whatever you need you will be able to get from Facebook soon–but with a difference: Facebook’s results will be customized for you with up to date information about your social circle as a context layer on the results.

When you search for books, you may get Amazon results, but included will be a list of your friends who also read the book, or are currently reading it. Want to chat with them real quick about it? Well it turns out Facebook is good at that.

Now apply that to everything–from going to a movie where you can see Rotten Tomatoes scores vs. what your friends rated it, to picking a car, or deciding where to live. You basically won’t have to leave Facebook, and you won’t want to because when you do the results you get back will be sterile in comparison.

Google becomes a one-trick search pony

In this future (which Facebook is working tirelessly to make a reality) it becomes annoying to use Google because you have to leave Facebook and then come back to it. Google becomes a necessary aggravation–a standalone, one-off search utility that sits completely out of band from your regular Internet experience.

That scares Google, and it should. This is the exact reason they came up with and forced Google+ upon us with such ferocity: they’re trying to build their own version of a place where people go just to hang out, where all your friends are…where you never want to leave. They tried to build themselves a Facebook, and they failed.

One way to think about this is to say that Facebook has the social/Internet destination and needs some search technology to top it off, while Google has great search technology but lacks the actual place people would want to spend extended periods of time. Stated more directly, Google is more or less screwed as soon as Facebook can achieve even 70% of Google’s search quality within Facebook itself.

So the next time you see Facebook add some new kind of “social search” functionality, and someone asks, “What the heck are they doing with that thing?”, you’ll know the answer:

Facebook is working to make Google completely irrelevant.

It wasn’t an easy decision to leave Google. During my time there I became fairly passionate about the company. I keynoted four Google Developer Day events, two Google Test Automation Conferences and was a prolific contributor to the Google testing blog. Recruiters often asked me to help sell high priority candidates on the company. No one had to ask me twice to promote Google and no one was more surprised than me when I could no longer do so. In fact, my last three months working for Google was a whirlwind of desperation, trying in vain to get my passion back.

The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus.

via MSDN Blogs.

The iOS/Apple vs. Android/Google debate has been explored for years by thousands of people. We know the arguments and they’re rather boring at this point. Preference is preference, and if you like something and it works for you, that’s pretty much all that matters.

But there’s one point in the conversation that seems obvious once you hear it that most people don’t talk about: the point of primary economic purpose. Basically, there’s a fundamental difference between Apple and Google when it comes to incentives to produce a quality experience:

Apple’s main purpose is to provide the best possible user experience, while Google’s main purpose is to sell advertisements.

Now, to be clear, these are actually the companies’ second most important priority–the first for any company is always to make money.

But if your business model is to sell ads using any method possible–one of which being making a mobile platform–then I simply can’t embrace that philosophy to the same extent that I can a company who takes it as their mission in life to impress me with design and quality.

This is not a minor difference to me: it’s a crucial one. And because of that difference I choose to stick with Apple for now.

Google is like a math prodigy that is unhappy because no matter what he tries he’s unable to write poetry or make people laugh.

Link.