A discussion about the software industry and their coders

Google has released version 5 of its desktop search and utility software. Beta version of Google Desktop 5 is available for download. In this post I will cover the top level functionality of Google Desktop and its Privacy related past problems -- in comparison with what Windows/Vista has to offer in Desktop Search.

Google Desktop Versus Windows/Vista Desktop Search 

I am surprised that Google is persisting with Desktop Search given that Vista has focused a lot on integrating Desktop Search in the Windows User Interface. (GD 5 is right now available only on Windows Vista, XP and 2000 SP 3!) So what incentive is Google giving to users to download and install GD5 on Windows *especially * on Vista?

  The advantage that Microsoft has is that indexing will start from day 1 of a user using Vista. While with Google Desktop the indexing will start after a user manually downloads and installs Google's software.

This means if a user has 10 GB of data on a hard disk with Vista and then downloads and installs Google Desktop -- indexing will beging from Scratch for Google's Desktop Search to happen. On the other hand Vista would have indexed the users data from day 1. What are then the incentives for a user to download and install Google Desktop:

• Google Love
• Microsoft Dislike
• Non-Microsoft OS (if Google releases GD beyond Vista, Win XP and Win 2000 SP3+)

Google Gadgets

Would Google's Gadgets be a differentiator? Vista also has Gadgets and Sidebar. Yahoo! Widgets have been around for a longer time. So, the major incentive for downloading Google Desktop would if you are heavy user of Google's GMail and other applications.

New Features in Google Desktop

I like the feature of Google's Sidebar which "samples the color of"...users "wallpaper and fades in the sampled color so that it fits seamlessly onto" users desktop. Other new features in Google Desktop 5 Beta are listed here.

Privacy Concerns

Privacy Concerns have dogged Google Desktop for a long time. In the past Google Desktop's privacy levels were considered unacceptable. Benjamin Turnball & Jill Slay of University of South Australia and Barry Blundell of South Australian Police have published a paper highlighting (download PDF) on the workings of Google Desktop and its value in Digital Evidence for a Forensic Investigator.

Here is another paper published by University of Michigan's IT Security Services people on Security Considerations of Google Desktop. For a previous version of Google Desktop, in Jan 06 Michigan University's IT folks recommended non-installation of Google Desktop.

Increasing its Index size is at the center of Google's strategy. This is an important reason Google would like to host a users index and/or data directly while offerring search accross computers. As I quoted John Battelle in my post Strengths and Weaknesses of Yahoo!, Google & MSN:

Index size is inherent in Google's Business Model. Google needs to Index as much content as possible. The bigger it is the better it is. Google is the borker of information, distributing attention all over the place. When you are the distributor of attention you acquire value for that distribution. That is the cable company model. Same for telephone business. Google is in the same business.

In Google Desktop 5.0, if you choose to install Google Desktop -- Google Identifies you with a specific number and this number cannot be disabled. Just this policy could lead users to stay in their comfort zone and just use the Desktop Search feature in Windows/Vista. Here is some information from Google's Privacy Policy on Desktop Search:

Information we collect

• The Google Desktop application indexes and stores versions of your files and other computer activity, such as email, chats, and web history. These versions may also be mixed with your Web search results to produce results pages for you that integrate relevant content from your computer and information from the Web. Your computer's content is not made accessible through Google Desktop to Google without your explicit permission.
• Your copy of Google Desktop includes a unique application number. When you install Google Desktop, this number and a message indicating whether the installation succeeded are sent back to Google. Also, when Google Desktop automatically checks to see if a new version is available, the current version number and the unique application number are sent to Google. The unique application number is required for Google Desktop to work and cannot be disabled.
• If you choose to enable Advanced Features, Google Desktop may send information about the websites that you visit to provide enhanced Google Desktop functions, such as personalizing news displayed in Sidebar. Enabling Advanced Features also allows Google Desktop to collect a limited amount of non-personal information from your computer and send it to Google. This includes summary information, such as the number of searches you do and the time it takes for you to see your results, and application reports we'll use to make the program better.
• If you choose to enable Search Across Computers, Google will securely transmit copies of your indexed files to Google servers, in order to provide the feature. Google treats the contents of your indexed files as personal information, in accordance with the Google Privacy Policy.

Uses

• We use this information to deliver the best possible service to you, such as improving the Google Desktop user experience and providing automatic updates of new versions of Desktop.

Here is a detailed article by Danny Sullivan (Chief Editor, SearchEngineWatch.com) on Desktop Search and Privacy if you are interested in this subject. I don't know why Google is persisting with a unique identification number system when it is bound to create more concerns.

In any case Google Lovers will have to show copies of Google Desktop do get downloaded eventually. Google has not yet shared either the active user base or installed user base of Google Desktop. Most estimates of active user base, I have heard are in the range of hundreds-of-thousands instead of tens-of-millions.