> Is that their problem? Has Google become a bunch of technology spammers? Is their strategy to simply flood the world with as many ideas as possible in the hopes that one or two percent of them will become hits without any further work? > > At one end of the Innovation Spectrum, there are the companies that make little novelty lights and fans that plug into your USB port. At the other end are the truly important companies that are willing to eat it for years because they’re certain of two things: that the technology they’ve developed will inevitably redefine its product category or even define a brand new one, and that neither of those things can happen unless a large company is persistent, vocal, and consistent. > > It’s a sloppily-defined spectrum and there’s no numerical grading. But with Wednesday’s announcement, I think Google nudged itself closer to the novelty-fan group. As usual, Andy Ihnatko nails it. Google really is throwing everything at the wall and hoping at least a few things stick. Which is a terribly inefficient way to innovate.

The bigger issue I have with this approach is that it’s the really good ideas— the ones that are hard to push forward but that could really change the world if done right—that end up getting lost in this methodology. Wave was a huge gamble; it was trying to replace deeply entrenched technologies with something better, which is brave. When Apple does a product like that (the Mac, the iPhone) it succeeds, because it believes and SUPPORTS the product with everything it has. And the engineers and designers at Apple know that they always have that support once a product is launched.

I have a feeling that pretty soon, the really talented thinkers at Google are going to start resenting the lack of support from the powers that be, and they’ll move on to better things somewhere else. And then Google will be left with copycat technologies like Android. A cheap imitator that makes money through volume and cut-throat prices. In essence, another Microsoft.

> Ahead of the event, some observers speculated that RIM would announce a new smartphone that includes support for Flash. In an April [interview with Fox News](http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4148785/adobe-ceo-on-creative-suite-5-and-apple), Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen said RIM would bring Flash support to its devices in the second half of this year. > > At the event Tuesday, RIM executives declined to provide a specific date for when BlackBerry devices would include Flash support. A spokesman however said that work was under way with Adobe to optimize the multimedia platform for RIM’s devices. > > The companies are trying to optimize Flash 10.1 for BlackBerry hardware so devices provide good battery life, performance and efficiency on wireless data transfers, said Tyler Lessard, vice president of global alliances and developer relations at RIM. > > “What’s really important… is to get it right. Flash and Flash video have very specific hardware, CPU and memory requirements,” Lessard said Yes. Flash and Flash video DO have specific hardware, CPU, and Memory requirements. And they’re all too high for any current mobile device to handle. Which is why Flash is dead as a platform.

So let’s remind ourselves again: Flash STILL doesn’t exist on any mobile platform. There’s a beta for Android that doesn’t work well, and that’s it. No shipping product anywhere, on any mobile device, more than three years after the original iPhone.

So, then, why was Apple supposed to allow Flash on the iPhone again?

> Google intended the messaging program, launched in 2009, to be a near-replacement for e-mail, which it said had grown tired. > > But on Wednesday, the company announced that it is shuttering the project by the end of the year because it didn’t have traction with consumers. Again, I’ll ask the obvious: If Apple were to dump a brand new product in less than a year after it had shipped, how different would the press reaction be? Where would Apple’s stock be the next morning?

This is the second official FAIL for Google in the past few months. Nexus One and now Wave. What’s next? How’s Buzz doing? Where are all those Android tablets that were talked about at CES this past January?

Google is starting to look more and more like Microsoft every day. One or two hit products, and a whole lot of stuff that goes nowhere.

For the record, I thought Wave was a great idea. It was taking on a challenge that was probably far greater in scope than most people realize. So success for Wave would have been a MAJOR accomplishment. It’s not every day you change the way people communicate, after all. But after a few sessions with Wave, it became apparent that it was suffering from the same issues that most Google products suffer from; that is, they are designed by people who don’t understand normal people. Wave would only be useful if other people started using it, too. So the UI was essential. If Google wanted Wave to succeed, it needed to FOCUS on getting the user adoption moving, first by nailing the UI, and second by promoting the crap out of it. But focus is the one thing Google desperately lacks right now.

GMail succeeded because it had Google’s full attention. Wave got nothing but an initial press event.

And, for god sakes, stop making me use the browser for everything.

> The ability to perform multitouch gestures on my desktop Mac is welcome. The less precise nature of using a trackpad instead of a mouse is not so fun sometimes—it’s tolerable, but annoying. Apple’s design is, of course, sleek and well-done, so at least the device is large enough to be useable without being *too* large. At least half of my childhood complaints about a trackpad on a desktop were addressed with the Magic Trackpad, though the addition of multitouch gestures do push it over into favorable territory for me. > > The only other issue is price: for $70, is it worth replacing your mouse over? For many users, the answer is no, and it’s hard to argue. After all, you probably already have an input device that you like, and it’s likely more precise than the Magic Trackpad. Nobody *needs* to spend $70 on this, and to be totally honest, if I was buying it for myself, I probably wouldn’t either. I like it, but I like having $70 more. (I would happily accept one as a gift, though.) > > If you have $70 burning a hole in your pocket, you love Apple’s aesthetic designs, and you can’t live without multitouch gestures on your Mac desktop, however, it could be a nice thing to have—kind of like the treadmill in your living room that is destined for a life as a clothes hanger, or the ivory dog in your foyer. Wow. So the reviewer starts the review by clearly stating that she doesn’t like trackpads, but then makes no attempt to compensate for that bias in her review. Do you think it would have been better for Ars to find someone who DOESN’T hate all trackpads to review a new trackpad?

The question this review needs to answer is not “does this particular person find a trackpad to be a better pointing device than a mouse?” That’s a personal decision, and an opinion about which I don’t particularly care. The question should be “Does this new Magic Trackpad work as well or better than other trackpads, and is it a good purchase for people who like trackpads?” Ms. Cheng sort of alludes to that in her conclusion, but I’m left with little or no definitive answer to that question.

It is possible for someone who doesn’t like a particular kind of device to review a device in that category objectively. That doesn’t seem to have happened here, though.

Imagine a movie reviewer starting out a review of a horror film by saying “I really don’t like Horror movies.” And then going on and on for several paragraphs about how Westerns and Dramas are so much better. “And yeah, I guess if you like horror movies, this one is fine, but I don’t like that kind of thing.” Would you consider that a valuable review? Would you walk away with any sense of whether or not YOU, a fan of horror films, were likely to enjoy this one?