Google Desktop for Apple?

[MacRumors]

Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=6664912&section=news) that Google is planning on released a version of its desktop search tool for the Mac. This comes from Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, on Friday. Schmidt, however, could not provide a timeframe for the release.

Desktop Search tools have recently made headlines (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/10/20041014122941.shtml) with Microsoft, AOL, Google and Apple entering this arena.

Google has already launched a Windows version of the desktop search tool.

[zakee00]

sorry google, its called spotlight ;)

[stoid]

Will it be out before Tiger, and how will is stack up against Spotlight?

I think that this will not be as successful for Mac as it is/was for Windows. I've found searching, even under Panther to be a few magnitudes easier than searching in Windows XP.

[wileypen]

When they do it, it puts Macs in the news, makes people think that the Mac is mainstream... everyone who develops for the Mac is good. Especially those who will get huge press when they do.

[howard]

in the windows desktop search screenshots that i saw the results looked like google.com search results, which is absolutely insanely stupid in my opinion for a desktop search.

[Porchland]

sorry google, its called spotlight ;)

My thoughts exactly. Will anyone who upgrades to Tiger even try this. With Google being the default search engine in Safari, though, I wonder what this development says about Google's relationship with Apple.

[mymemory]

Sorry but I am ignorant on the subject... what is a Google Desktop?

[virus1]

tiger won't be out for a while... but we don't know when this will... as for spotlight, i am sure that it will be much more advanced than this. :)

[swissmann]

Have any of you used this on Windows? Is it any good?

[zakee00]

in the windows desktop search screenshots that i saw the results looked like google.com search results, which is absolutely insanely stupid in my opinion for a desktop search.
i totally agree, i saw screenshots and was like wth...thats werid
the other guy did have a good point though, it makes the mac look more mainstream. so i guess i don't care if they make it for mac, but the question is:
what is google getting out of the deal that makes it WORTH it to make it for mac? :cool:

[abhishekit]

Its actually not even a complete search, the windows version just catalogs emails in outlook, M$ word and excel files, and chat logs, and wep pages you visited. Quicksilver works much better for me.

[Abstract]

tiger won't be out for a while... but we don't know when this will... as for spotlight, i am sure that it will be much more advanced than this. :)

Why so? I don't really care who makes this search thing work. As long as it works, and as long as there are alternatives available, then this can only be a good thing. I don't understand the negative ratings for this news/rumour.

And never doubt Google. There's no reason to right now. After all, they did give you the Geekmail.com accounts that we all love so much. And don't forget the fact that they're experts at "search"....

I hope Spotlight is as good as Google's only because it would be nice to have it built into the OS, although that isn't a big deal if Google's is actually better.

what is google getting out of the deal that makes it WORTH it to make it for mac?

World domination, my friend. World ****ing domination.

[maya]

Google needs to shows to its investors that its keeping busy and is a growing company in many fields. Thus the search on Mac, if they alienate the Mac platform they are insulting some investors since if might be a lost opportunity if they don't sink they claws in now when the time is still right till TIGER is released.

[kshkval]

and people will voluntarily install it. There's got to be something about Google indexing all of your files and reporting on it that makes a Mac user just a tad queasy. Or what's a Lil Snitch for?

[x86isslow]

to the people talking about how it will stack up against tiger, keep in mind that not everyone is willing to pay 130 to get widgets and system search. :rolleyes:

[beefstu01]

A timefram eh?

Yeah, and spotlight will probably be 100x better, seeing that Apple knows all the inner workings of the operating system. But hey, I haven't tried it out yet, so I'm no authority on the subject.

[MrMacMan]

and people will voluntarily install it. There's got to be something about Google indexing all of your files and reporting on it that makes a Mac user just a tad queasy. Or what's a Lil Snitch for?

yay Paranoia! But yeah, you use Litle Snitch for that to block stuff like that happening.


If Google Does Make this software, make it compatible for *ATLEAST* 10.2 and up, not only 10.3+

Spotlight is only 10.4, you want to make sure you have the whole Mac os X audience 10.2 and up atleast.

[evilgEEk]

sorry google, its called spotlight ;)
Soo... I guess once Tiger comes out all Mac users will magically receive it? There will be a lot of people that don't upgrade and Google's desktop search is a great alternative.

in the windows desktop search screenshots that i saw the results looked like google.com search results, which is absolutely insanely stupid in my opinion for a desktop search.
I don't think it's stupid, it's definately odd, but not stupid. Google's search page is Google. It represents google. It's the foundation for the entire company, so I think it makes sense to make the search a web interface since that's what Google is. When I go to google.com on my PC I have all the usual categories to choose from (web, images, news...) as well as "desktop". It works for me.

Its actually not even a complete search, the windows version just catalogs emails in outlook, M$ word and excel files, and chat logs, and wep pages you visited.
That's not true, it indexes all the files on your computer as well, at least it did for me anyway. As of yet it doesn't search folders unfortunately, but it's still beta.

Have any of you used this on Windows? Is it any good?
I use it on my PC and it seems to work fairly well. There's definately room for improvement, like searching folders, but it's worked great for me so far. It's so much better than the native windows search.

I dunno, I doubt I'll download it for my iBook because I've never had a problem with Finder. But it's a wonderful thing for my PC.

[Jaz]

If Google Does Make this software, make it compatible for *ATLEAST* 10.2 and up, not only 10.3+

Excellent point, if you're not on 10.3.x or 10.4 when it's out then a lot of things are starting to become unavailable.

If Google fills the gap then they might have a success. Integrate a Gmail notifier and some other bits and it might a good tool.

[themadchemist]

Let me just say, "no thanks."

[kugino]

will they be putting ads in my dock?

[jusvistin]

in the windows desktop search screenshots that i saw the results looked like google.com search results, which is absolutely insanely stupid in my opinion for a desktop search.

I've used it for XP - it's stupid.

It may be faster than a standard windows search, but the presentation of the results is pretty pathetic. If you don't mind having to page through 20 different screens to find what you're looking for - you may like it.

That is, if you don't need to see minor details like file size and creation date.

[evilgEEk]

I've used it for XP - it's stupid.

It may be faster than a standard windows search, but the presentation of the results is pretty pathetic. If you don't mind having to page through 20 different screens to find what you're looking for - you may like it.

That is, if you don't need to see minor details like file size and creation date.
Yeah, it's definately not for everyone. I like it a lot and made sure and had control over what it was searching. So far I've had a lot of positive results (get it?! results! ha!)...hmmm...

[Trowaman]

choice is good. The problem is that in Spring 2005, a program just like it will be built into OS X, it's called Spotlight. However, for those remaining in Panther or Jaguar, good for them. They will have a desktop search tool.

[altair7]

Quicksilver already does this and has a better, quicker interface. However that doesn't mean I am against google making it. Competition is good. :)

Seriously though if people have not tried Quicksilver go out and do so. You can find it with a google search. :p

[dontmatter]

how is this voted negative? by the majority!?

It's a piece of software, that will be out, and installable, or not, for macs. if you like it, great. If you don't, no harm done. And still, more choices, more 3RD PARTY software that works on windows working on OS X is good. (b/c choice is always appealing, and a reason people are afraid of macs, and also, wouldn't it be nice if you're windows friends could search your computer the same way they do their own?

OK, that's all. End rant.

[dontmatter]

Quicksilver already does this and has a better, quicker interface. However that doesn't mean I am against google making it. Competition is good. :)

Seriously though if people have not tried Quicksilver go out and do so. You can find it with a google search. :p

Not to sure how the google thing works... but it sounds like what butler does. (which, by the way, is the best piece of software, ever). How does this compare to quicksilver?

[GulGnu]

Erm, people - isn't it a bit weird that people rate this negative, etc. when Google, an important player releases a piece of software for the Mac? Given that Google is the search tool of choice for most, it can be pretty convinient to search your desktop from the same tool.

Furthermore, this is Beta people, not final release, so complaining about missing features, etc. is a bit premature.

[AmigoMac]

Nice move but pretty wrong, almost 2 years late for the mac side and 4-5 years early for the windows crowd. Maybe it could get some people like Firefox/Camino did.

In some way I think of it like adobe releasing the photo album software for mac... :rolleyes:, success?

[coolsoldier]

There are other things I'd rather see Google bring to the Mac. Keyhole (Satellite Imagery software recently acquired by Google) and Picassa (Google's remarkably intuitive digital photo organizer) come to mind as things that would be more useful on the Mac than another desktop search utility. After all, there are already quite a few out there (and unlike Google's, they aren't adware), even if you don't bring spotlight into the picture.

But if Google wants to bring a program to the Mac, I won't complain. But as long as they're hiring Mac programmers, this seems like poor prioritizing on their part.

[MacSlut]

Second board for this topic, and I can't believe nobody has "gotten it" yet. I guess many Mac users haven't tried Google Desktop. This isn't something that would compete with Spotlight. More than likely it's something that would utilize, extend or integrate with Spotlight.

I've used the Windows version. It's still Beta. It's not terribly exciting, but it can be a useful feature.

Methinks there's something to this rumor...There's gotta be something going on for Apple to have Google as the sole search engine for the Safari search field...clearly adding others would be as easy as cutting a small check for the creator of Saft.

[munkle]

to the people talking about how it will stack up against tiger, keep in mind that not everyone is willing to pay 130 to get widgets and system search. :rolleyes:

I can only shake my head at this comment.

And people, you cannot compare Google desktop search with Spotlight. It is competing with the likes of Quicksilver, DragThing, Launchbar, Butler etc, etc - all of which incidentally search through more types of files and items and are better integrated with the file system.

Spotlight is truly the next generation. Spotlight kicks sand in the face of Google Desktop Search (I mean you can index your files now and only supporting web pages in IE and no PDF?!! :eek: )!!. Apart from being embedded in the OS, being able to sort through the meta date of all your files, allowing intuitive searches, a far superior interface, Spotlight also allows you to 'save' your search results in the form of 'smart folders' that update themselves in real time. Additionally plug-in archetecture and API support makes it easier for developers to write a plug in allowing Spotlight to index their potentially proprietary file formats.

I don't want to knock Google desktop search, it's nice they threw a bone to Window users after the vapourware that is WinFS :rolleyes: ;) :p but I don't think people realise how amazing Spotlight really is. If they port GDS to Macs - great. It'll give more exposure to the Mac platform and more choice is only a good thing, especially when one of the choices is Spotlight ;)

[munkle]

There are other things I'd rather see Google bring to the Mac. Keyhole (Satellite Imagery software recently acquired by Google) and Picassa (Google's remarkably intuitive digital photo organizer) come to mind as things that would be more useful on the Mac than another desktop search utility.

Google bought Picassa and it was basically a copy of iPhoto. Admittedly I haven't tried it since Google bought it but I don't see it being much better/different than iPhoto.

[macidiot]

Nice to see that Google, unlike Yahoo, is developing for the Mac. Don't know if I'll use it over Spotlight though.

[radhak]

i have been using Google Desktop Search (GDS) for some time, and while its the best among windows file/folder search, it still is cludgy.

it sits on your tray indexing everything, and seems to have a very small footprint on the cpu/memory : good.
it searches thru every sort of file on the hard disk - and even outlook and express : better.
it displays the result on the default browser : so so (takes some getting used to, but the hyperlink is neat).
the hyper-link does not always open the file (browser problem? GDS problem? dunno) : not so good.
it searches thru everything on your disk : watch out! (did you mean to hide those -ahem- special files from your spouse? you better rename it to something more forgettable and put it under the 'Dont search these items' list of GDS preferences, and hope nobody else goes there ;)
did you delete/move any files after the first indexing? tough ***** - it still shows up and when you click it, you get the error msg. i would have thought the constantly-running indexer should take care of that! : atrocious, not at all google standards.

As for Picassa, it is far better than iPhoto : performance-wise. iPhoto gives up on larger volume of pictures far before Picassa does. I have to use iPhoto gingerly, while I can be much more carefree with Picassa.

[AmigoMac]

a new company joining to apple... great, that Picassa gives a good chance to win users to know a better alternative, now, GDS, what's next? the rumored Jabber-based Google messenger... that will take apple to the high-end arena... who needs MSN? Give us the google messenger...

[johnnyjibbs]

This is strange. Why bother? The google desktop thing is only viable on Windows because Windows is so inept at searching. Panther already has a good search - just type into the Finder and you get what you're looking for most of the time. Even Jaguar is leagues ahead of Windows XP.

Did we ever see the Google internet search bar for Mac? No, and this came out long before Safari was released with its own Google search field.

Unless they dramatically change the interface/useability of the Mac version, no-one is going to use it instead of Spotlight. And while this is good for software to be released for Mac (and for those who don't upgrade to Tiger), it will take some of the limelight away from Spotlight. Suddenly, Apple seems behind with Tiger. They need it ASAP. Its major features like meta-data search and RSS feeds already seem old hat, even though Microsoft is even more behind.

[MacDawg]

I agree that getting Macs in the news is a good thing, and perhaps this will boost awareness. It will probably fill a niche at least, though Spotlight will no doubt be far more integrated. Its like anything else, if you can use it... more power to ya! I personally don't have much of a need for it.

[applekid]

Isn't all of these searching tools, how should I say it... Pointless?

Really, do you know of that many Mac and PC users searching their millions of files? Don't they know how they organize their own files? Not to mention, I was more than content with the current searching abilities in OS X. Windows XP's search method was too complicated, yet also too user-friendly that you had to be a really naive user to figure it out, IMHO.

My dad and I said that these search tools are almost a step back. When we saw Steve Jobs type in an application in Spotlight's search field to find the application, it reminded us of how DOS worked. We almost are killing of the graphical user interface!

But, for those of you that feel search tools is what you need, I don't mind having a Google Desktop for the Mac. Some competition would indeed help.

[verces]

To be quite honest, I don't know whats the big deal about this whole "SEARCH" thing. Sure, Apple's bringing out Tiger with possibly the greatest ever search function, which is great, but whats the hype all about? I mean, if you want something from the Internet, just go to Google.com, or even Yahoo, and you'll get you stuff, and if you want something found on your PC, just hit Search and there you have it. It might not find it in an instant second, but if you know what you're looking for, any search function in any OS will do the job. Its not rocket science.

All in all, This whole Google desktop rubbish seems just like another way for Google search domination. Pretty pointless and mindless. You don't need crap on your PC running and eating up resources, you just get on the Internet and search. Easy.

I mean, even if you're not gonna get Tiger upgrade, its pretty simple. Whats the big deal about it anyway? How much **** do you have? How much crap do you need to search for? Most of us know where the important files are, (if you've used a computer before) and probably you'll know where you keep your major files anyway. Even if its some weird system file, any operating system (Windows, OS X, Linux, etc) will do the trick. Kinder stuff.

However, for those who'll be seeing those Orange/Black stripes....different story. Spotlight. ;)

[cube]

We don't want it on Mac unless it is fixed. See here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/20/spying.with.google.ap/).

[mymemory]

Sorry but I am ignorant on the subject... what is a Google Desktop?

Ok, I asked this question and no one answered what give me the impresion that everybody here are talking about something they do not know anything about, am I right?

[mdetry]

I think it´s pretty good the good develops the tool for MAC.
It will put some pressure on the Spotlight development team. I will set up a "Minimum" required.

I have been using the Google Desktop on PC and like very much the following:

- Index Quickly
- Does not take much CPU time. It´s very unnoticeble. That´s Great.
- I do Not like how the results are shown.

I use search mainly to seach through tons on email and I like very much the format of X1 (another search engine for PC) uses to search email but I really like google in the CPU efforless program that they have made.

It´s a good think and just in time for apple to deliver the BEST spotlight they can. I helps to see and analize what other have done...little good ideas always are taken "borrowed" from others.

I agree that Google developing Desktop for MAC is a great help to put the MAC on Mainstream.

I am a future switcher...January is my date, and personally it brings me peace of mind to know that Google mail has been made from the start for MAC (safari) and now that Google Desktop will be available for MAC.

You do not know the Trauma a long PC user goes before switching...fear that many things he is used to will not be available...and seen MAC going to mainstream will help to make the step to many future switchers.

[AlanAudio]

Whether you think that Google is going to do a better job than Spotlight or not, there is one thing you should bear in mind.

This story comes to you via Reuters. A while back, they also broke the story of $100 iPods coming out, when what actually appeared was the iPod mini. There was no hint that their story was speculation, they reported it as fact, even though any Apple watcher knows that Apple never mentions new products to the press the day before an announcement.

They've run quite a few other innacurate Apple-related stories in recent times.

Reuters's reputation isn't what it used to be, so you can't always trust what they say.

[GetSome681]

choice is good.


you hit the nail on the head.

You people don't understand. All you do is sit there and complain about people developing stuff for the mac platform, and then a big company states they are making/porting the software to os x, and you all complain. Jesus, what do you guys really want then? Having choices is a good thing. You don't have to use it, but the fact that it's there gives the mac platform more validation in some people's eyes.

[t300]

No way! I spoke with the guy who oversaw the whole Google Desktop project at Google and I asked him about a Mac version and he gave me so many reasons why there wouldn't be one, the thing he said the most is that the Mac already does it great and, I quote, " with Tiger coming out, it's just going to redefine Mac search to a whole new level." This was about a week ago...So HOW could this happen?

He is also the guy who confirmed to me that a Google Web Browser IS in the works.

[dudemac]

I see this has been said by a few others out there, that Quicksilver does this and a whole lot more. In fact I use it so much that forget were things are actually located on my hard drive. It is so simple and really fast. I my opinion is the best launcher/ desktop search out right now for mac and its still just a beta. So check it out. It even has a customizable interface that makes it look just like spotlight. :)

QuickSilver (http://quicksilver.blacktree.com/)

As for Google search it seems redundant and I don't really like the way the windows versioin works. Mac search right now is about 10 times faster. Seems faster than the desktop google search on my windows box. Just my experience. Still better than the windows search though. :)

dudemac

[Mainyehc]

You do not know the Trauma a long PC user goes before switching...fear that many things he is used to will not be available...and seen MAC going to mainstream will help to make the step to many future switchers.

Hmmm... that's the trauma of the adventurous and desperate Windows users that jump to the Mac platform because Windows has become just unbearable. Preety funny to watch them migrate, if you ask me :D
But no, I don't think your trauma is funny at all, just this (hopefully) massive exodus, LOL. But don't worry, man, everything will be fine. Even if you don't find some specific software title, another freeware/shareware/paid alternative is very likely to be avaliable, and most of the times, it will be even better than the unavaliable Windows application.

I switched 10 months ago, but I did a lot of research. And it may sound preety weird to you, but two or three months before switching, my Windows 98 desktop started to look a lot like Panther's, and I eventually switched ;) (I find it curious because I've read somewhere that most of those guys that emulate OS X's look and feel in Windows don't switch, EVER... :p). I'm already on my second Mac (that's because I'm nuts...), and I don't regret a single minute of my experience with them. The first, an iMac G4 17'' 1,25 Ghz, was a lovely machine, even though it had a dead pixel. The second one, an iMac G5 20'' 1,8GHz, is a gorgeous and preety damn fast machine (even more, now that it has 1,25GB of RAM in it :cool: ) ... It has one of those defective PSU that does an irritating buzzing, but it seems Apple is replacing those, so, cool then. Even with these minor glitches (which I'm preety sure are due only to bad luck, at least the fact that I had glitches with both Macs), my experience with Apple products has been by far the best I've ever had with consumer electronics of any kind (that includes a 20GB 3G iPod, and its (sometimes) malfunctioning remote plug... In comparison, the cord of one of my Sony MD recorder's earbuds just snapped off with normal wear and tear... great, eh?? :eek: ).

Sure, there will be hardware and/or problems... But you just can't compare, everything else looks like junk when compared with Apple stuff ;) (and btw, that will probably include Google Desktop Search :rolleyes: )

[macridah]

spotlight is going to be hard to beat. i have the tiger preview and the google desktop seach for the PC ... apple wins, hands down. But people are right, this google desktop search for the mac could be the spotlight for 10.2 and 10.3.

[Doctor Q]

Will this software help sell more Mac hardware? Will this software cut into Apple's sales of Tiger? I suspect the answers are respectively YES (one less Windows-only application that new Mac buyers might see as a disadvantage) and NO (not a big enough development to make a difference in Tiger sales). Therefore, I vote positive.

[iMeowbot]

No way! I spoke with the guy who oversaw the whole Google Desktop project at Google and I asked him about a Mac version and he gave me so many reasons why there wouldn't be one, the thing he said the most is that the Mac already does it great and, I quote, " with Tiger coming out, it's just going to redefine Mac search to a whole new level." This was about a week ago...So HOW could this happen?
Well. In the article Schmidt says that the thing would be written from the ground up for the Mac, so this isn't simply a port of the thing that was just released for Windows. Perhaps this will be a Tiger add-on, that incorporates Teh Google (that is, external search) into the system?

[SiliconAddict]

in the windows desktop search screenshots that i saw the results looked like google.com search results, which is absolutely insanely stupid in my opinion for a desktop search.

You need to understand the thought process to understand why its formatted like this. With the Google search tool installed lets say I do a search on google.com for iPods. Not only will it search the web but my desktop as well for the word iPod. It may come back with the user manual that I have sitting on my desktop along with the web based results.
Google and others are trying to blur the line between the net and the local computer. Windows Longshot was suppose to do this with WinFS in that when you do a search not only would it search your local computer, but those on your network, along with net results. Then organizing it in a easy to view manner. Obviously since WinFS went bye bye in Longshot it leaves MS open to competitors. (Even though they are working on something from MSN in regards to search tools.) Personally while I think Spotlight is going to be cool its not going far enough. Apple and Google should be partnering up to take searching beyond the desktop. Sherlock by Google anyone?
Just look at Google’s options and you will see a clear path to what they are going to try to accomplish over the next few years: http://www.google.com/options/index.html

This desktop tool is only the start. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next few years they have something like http://www.copernic.com/en/products/agent/ in the next few years that fully integrates into Windows taking the search experience to the next level without needing to purchase Longshot. AS for Google Desktop on OS X. Do you guys actually think this is bad thing? For those who aren’t planning on upgrading past Panther anytime soon this is going to be a solid alternative. Also keep in mind that Google may just surprise us. There are open API’s for spotlight right? Google could do some integration thing with Spotlight. I can’t wait to see what they come up with next. :)

[wdlove]

I don't really see the need for the Google search to be on my desktop. IMHO the best place would be for Google to remain within the Safari window itself. Why change a good thing.

[asphalt-proof]

I have used it on my PC and have to say that it is very fast and thorough. It will be interesting to see how it will stack up to Spotlight. I didn't have any problem with the interface because I am so use to using Google for my internet search.

[johnnyjibbs]

Personally, I wouldn't want Spotlight to search the web as well as my desktop. Why would I want to do that? Searching your computer hard drive is generally to find a file. Searching the internet is generally for information.

If you blur the two together, you end up with a confusing mess. For example, I might want to find all the iPod files on my HD, not web pages about the bloody iPod mixed in with it. Plus, what's so hard with opening Safari and typing iPod into the Google field if you want that anyway?

Likewise, when I'm looking for something on the net, I don't want a hard drive search slowing me down in the process, when I know I have nothing on my hard drive about the problem.

[wrldwzrd89]

Personally, I don't see the point of making a Mac version of Google Desktop (in its current form). Apple has Spotlight coming for us in Tiger, and the built-in search is already pretty good - it just doesn't cross application boundaries yet. Google Desktop fits squarely in the middle between the built-in search and Spotlight, so I suppose it fills a niche right now, but that niche won't exist much longer. Windows, on the other hand, desperately needs an improved search tool. Google Desktop is better than the built-in search, but it'll never fly like Spotlight does unless it becomes expandable.

[iMeowbot]

Okay, now this is just getting silly. I've come to expect that the MacRumors response to any new non-Apple product will be to bash it unseen, but isn't just a wee bit far-fetched to be finding fault in software that hasn't even been written yet?

Google are pretty good at inventing things that people didn't realize they needed, and making them seem obvious and necessary. It wouldn't be the worst idea to reserve judgment until after they have something to show.

[AlanAudio]

I warned you earlier that this was a story originating from Reuters and therefore may not be accurate as they have a history of mis-reporting Apple on many occasions

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041029-4360.html

If I might quote from that link ...
"This is Tim O'Reilly. I'm the one who asked Eric the question at his talk about whether we'd expect a Mac version of Google desktop, and I have to say I didn't read his response at all the way the Reuters reporter did!...."

More details by going to that link.

When it comes to stuff relating to Apple, I'd trust Tim O'Reilly rather than a hack from Reuters.

[gorkonapple]

We don't want it on Mac unless it is fixed. See here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/20/spying.with.google.ap/).

The problem comes from Google just indexing the whole hard drive instead of just the areas you have rights to. I tried it, and it is fast, but it's really stupid. In a web browser? It also happens to open up a weird port. It's stupid. Why open up a port? This is so stupid. Google: Make it a real app first.

Also, Windows will let users write anywhere if you use FAT32 for your C drive and I seem to remember several "STUPID" manufacturers and companies that use FAT32 by default because it's what they know. Thye get scared of NTFS.

[gorkonapple]

Okay, now this is just getting silly. I've come to expect that the MacRumors response to any new non-Apple product will be to bash it unseen, but isn't just a wee bit far-fetched to be finding fault in software that hasn't even been written yet?

Google are pretty good at inventing things that people didn't realize they needed, and making them seem obvious and necessary. It wouldn't be the worst idea to reserve judgment until after they have something to show.

If it's a port, then it will do alot of the smae things the Windows version does. The Windows version is just plain stupid. It's very poorly implemented.

[dubbz]

I don't really see the need for the Google search to be on my desktop. IMHO the best place would be for Google to remain within the Safari window itself. Why change a good thing.

If it's anything like the Windows version, it will remain in Safari (or whatever browser you use/it will support). It's just like a normal Google search, except that it can search your local files too.

[Nermal]

No way! I spoke with the guy who oversaw the whole Google Desktop project at Google and I asked him about a Mac version and he gave me so many reasons why there wouldn't be one, the thing he said the most is that the Mac already does it great and, I quote, " with Tiger coming out, it's just going to redefine Mac search to a whole new level." This was about a week ago...So HOW could this happen?

Misinterpretations (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/30/google_desktop_for_o.html).

[Wonder Boy]

with an ipo close to or over $100, let them waste their money. anyone with tiger wont use it and anyone whos tried it on windows (like me) wouldnt either.

[SiliconAddict]

Personally, I wouldn't want Spotlight to search the web as well as my desktop. Why would I want to do that? Searching your computer hard drive is generally to find a file. Searching the internet is generally for information.


No in both cases you are searching for information. Be it on the net, on your local hard drive, your e-mail, your AIM client logs, your pictures, your well you get the point. If you are looking for information on something it doesn't necessarily mean that it’s always on your desktop or it’s always on the web. As the speed of the web increases, and hard drive sizes explode in size expect that the differentiation between local information and information out "there" will become fuzzier and fuzzier. This is why Google is in a mad dash to get there first. These kind of technologies do have the power to topple Microsoft. It’s the browser wars all over again but this time around it’s through search engines. Google has a major leg-up over MS, yahoo, and even Apple for now. The desktop engine they threw out is beta and a crappy beta at that. It’s incomplete at the moment. But its intention was clear. It was a direct shot off the bow of Microsoft that we are there now.
Don’t get me wrong. Apple’s implementation looks solid but it’s limited in the scope of what it can and will do. (Unless then make changes between now and Tiger’s release.) Apple’s spotlight feature is like fishing on the shore. Googles is still in the bay trawling with one huge *** net that isn’t fully deployed. Once they get out to sea well. One fishing rod vs one big old trawler.

[Xtremehkr]

I'm glad that Google is taking Apple into consideration, but wow, did this story got a negative reception or what.

[SiliconAddict]

The problem comes from Google just indexing the whole hard drive instead of just the areas you have rights to. I tried it, and it is fast, but it's really stupid. In a web browser? It also happens to open up a weird port. It's stupid. Why open up a port? This is so stupid. Google: Make it a real app first.

*sighs* The ignorant speak. Joy. Look the port it opens up is a LOCAL port for the internal web server. (Port 4664) It is NOT reachable from another computer. How do I know? I did some tests. Secondly its BETA. B...E....T....A. Its not release. Its not close to being finished. Its there for people to try out and see what needs fixing (Almost everything.) what needs to be added (A lot.), and what works. (A couple of things.)

But again this is BETA. God people. If Apple was handing out free copies of OS X: Tiger beta and it was crash-tastic you would be giving them a break. But no its not Apple so they suck.

[SiliconAddict]

I'm glad that Google is taking Apple into consideration, but wow, did this story got a negative reception or what.

It’s a tech that Apple has something comparable so it sucks. Right guy? Right? Anyone? Anyone at all? :rolleyes:

[Dan8302]

It's not that it's bad, but... I don't see the point. Safari opens so fast and i usually have it running anyways. It's so easy to just open another tab and seach i guess i don't see the point of being able to search from the desktop, but hey if somone else finds it usefull more power to them

[cyberhill]

This is false, simply a conversation blown out of proportion :)

http://insidegoogle.blogspot.com/2004/10/google-not-working-on-google-desktop.html

[rtdgoldfish]

Downloaded the Windows version of the Google desktop so here is my 2 cents. It works much faster than the search built into Windows but still isn't very helpful. It didn't seem to be able to find any of my e-mail from Outlook 2003. I guess this is due to the fact that it is still in beta. If you need to search for music files, stick with searching in iTunes. In its current version, I can't get it to search for anything other than the filename of a MP3 (typing in an artist or album just seems to confuse it) Overall, its not bad for a free utility. Hopefully the Mac version will be a little more fine-tuned before it is released. Or we can just wait for Spotlight...

[GulGnu]

Couple of points:

1) Google Desktop search does *not* search the web and the local computer at the same time. It can be accessed in the same manner as say, image search, from the main Google page, however.

2) It's Beta, as pointed out by numerous posters here. It's bound to be quirky at times.

3) It's very fast, and provides good results. But yes, file size and creation date should be there, and they are not currently.

[thatwendigo]

Why Google should never be trusted. (http://www.google-watch.org)

If they're up to these kinds of antics without direct access to your system, what possible reason could you have to believe they wouldn't do things when they do have it?

[wrldwzrd89]

No in both cases you are searching for information. Be it on the net, on your local hard drive, your e-mail, your AIM client logs, your pictures, your well you get the point. If you are looking for information on something it doesn't necessarily mean that it’s always on your desktop or it’s always on the web. As the speed of the web increases, and hard drive sizes explode in size expect that the differentiation between local information and information out "there" will become fuzzier and fuzzier. This is why Google is in a mad dash to get there first. These kind of technologies do have the power to topple Microsoft. It’s the browser wars all over again but this time around it’s through search engines. Google has a major leg-up over MS, yahoo, and even Apple for now. The desktop engine they threw out is beta and a crappy beta at that. It’s incomplete at the moment. But its intention was clear. It was a direct shot off the bow of Microsoft that we are there now.
Don’t get me wrong. Apple’s implementation looks solid but it’s limited in the scope of what it can and will do. (Unless then make changes between now and Tiger’s release.) Apple’s spotlight feature is like fishing on the shore. Googles is still in the bay trawling with one huge *** net that isn’t fully deployed. Once they get out to sea well. One fishing rod vs one big old trawler.
You're absolutely right here - Google's search technology does have potential, once Google Desktop gets out of beta. As long as it's in beta, though - everyone cries foul, including me. It's a market that Apple simply cannot compete in directly, since they have no ties to any particular search engine. However, keep in mind that Spotlight is extensible, and could probably have internet search capabilities added to it (for ANY search engine, just like the old Sherlock). If Apple did this, Google Desktop wouldn't stand a chance on the Mac (for Tiger users, at least).

[billyboy]

Google is the internet for most people. The company has even become a verb - to google - so if they are associated with Apple, fair does. Even if the proposed software sucks in the eyes of Mac users and doesnt change the way we search, maybe it will be on a par with the Google software Windows users have access to, so when potential switchers are compiling their list of (ten perceived) apps available on the Mac, they will be able to take solace in one more direct port on their list - no harm done.

Like some people have said, from the point of view of clarity of info, there seems no advantage to mixing a total hard drive search with internet search, but maybe if it stuck to local internet-oriented files lurking in Mail and Safari (bookmarks) that would make more sense and get over the blurry all-encompassing, one size fits nobody mentality which seems to prevail outside the Mac domain.

[ASP272]

Why bother if Spotlight is supposed to be so good?

[~Shard~]

As many others have voiced in this thread already, I'll just wait for Spotlight, thank you very much. That being said, I'm sure there will be some people out there, for whatever reasons, who will prefer Google to Spotlight, similar to people who don't use iChat or don't use Safari - even though they are Apple-produced built-in apps, not everyone always prefers them.

[gorkonapple]

*sighs* The ignorant speak. Joy. Look the port it opens up is a LOCAL port for the internal web server. (Port 4664) It is NOT reachable from another computer. How do I know? I did some tests. Secondly its BETA. B...E....T....A. Its not release. Its not close to being finished. Its there for people to try out and see what needs fixing (Almost everything.) what needs to be added (A lot.), and what works. (A couple of things.)

But again this is BETA. God people. If Apple was handing out free copies of OS X: Tiger beta and it was crash-tastic you would be giving them a break. But no its not Apple so they suck.

You think opening a local port is no big deal? You will until the first exploit comes out. The way the do it...using a browser....ANY browser to access it (you can use Firefox with it....) on the machine is stupid. They could have genned up a little VB app in about a half an hour to accomplish the same thing, faster.

Oh, and Apple HAS handed out copies of tiger to a bunch of people.

[Nermal]

Why bother if Spotlight is supposed to be so good?

They're not bothering. The guy from Google said that making a Mac version would require a complete rewrite. Reuters interpreted that as 'we are going to rewrite it for Mac,' when in reality they have no plans to do so.

[Windowlicker]

They're not bothering. The guy from Google said that making a Mac version would require a complete rewrite. Reuters interpreted that as 'we are going to rewrite it for Mac,' when in reality they have no plans to do so.

indeed. no big loss, except for those not intending to upgrade to tiger.
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/30/google_desktop_for_o.html

[Savage Henry]

indeed. no big loss, except for those not intending to upgrade to tiger.
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/30/google_desktop_for_o.html

Exactly. So the key Mac users the Google search facility will be those on an outdated OS since practically every Tiger user will be on Spotlight.

Google's effort will be token, gaining little more than development experience in return.

[memphismac]

The google desktop thing is only viable on Windows because Windows is so inept at searching.

Bingo.

I've used it on my Dell at work and it comes in quite handy.

[notjustjay]

Seriously though if people have not tried Quicksilver go out and do so. You can find it with a google search. :p

:rolleyes: That reminds me of a tagline I once saw years ago, that said "Microsoft Internet Explorer saved my life! ...I used it to download Netscape"

[bcsmith]

We don't want it on Mac unless it is fixed. See here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/20/spying.with.google.ap/).


How does Google prevent this? Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the person maintaining the public computer, or at the very least, the person using the public terminal?

[Palador]

I think Google developing for Apple would be a huge step in the right direction.

Rumors of a browser, their overnight dominance of the free e-mail market, and their continued dominance in the search market make them a very good company to have on Apple's side. Imagine a company that can actually rival Microsoft in meaningful ways that embraces Mac users.

[brianimator]

Since the Google Desktop uses a browser to produce results, maybe their Mac version will be accessed via a Dashboard Widget... if not, someone will certainly write one. Again, since results are returned in a browser, the results could be returned to the widget too - since widgets are essentially little web pages...

[rdowns]

I think Google developing for Apple would be a huge step in the right direction.

Rumors of a browser, their overnight dominance of the free e-mail market, and their continued dominance in the search market make them a very good company to have on Apple's side. Imagine a company that can actually rival Microsoft in meaningful ways that embraces Mac users.

Google hardly dominates the free email market, in fact, they barely register. I work with 2 email service providers at work (issues of deliverability etc.) and gmail accounts for less than 1% of email (both companies say 0.8%). They have a long way to go and are still in beta.

[m4rc]

Quoted from macuser.co.uk

Mac version of Google desktop not planned - O'Reilly 10:41AM

Reports that Google is planning a Mac version of its Desktop Search tool, recently released in beta for Windows, are not entirely accurate, according to publisher Tim O'Reilly.

Reuters yesterday quoted Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, as saying that a Mac version of the software was planned.

However, O'Reilly - publisher of the O'Reilly series of computer guides - said in a post on the arstechnica.com forums

that it was he had asked Schmidt about the possibility of a Mac versions and that the answer he got was not the one that Reuters reported.

'I have to say I didn't read his response at all the way the Reuters reporter did!,' he wrote. '[Schmidt] was fairly equivocal, saying that it was a hard problem, requiring a whole separate project, not just a port, because of the differences in the operating systems. He made no announcement of actual plans to deliver the product, or even that Google was actively working on it.'

This would appear to add weight to the argument - expressed on this site and elsewhere - that Google would be unlikely to try and compete with Apple's new Spotlight search technology, which will be a key component of OS X 10.4 when it is released next year.

[munkle]

Google clarifies CEO comment on Mac Deskop Search (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/11/04.4.shtml).

[wrldwzrd89]

Google clarifies CEO comment on Mac Deskop Search (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/11/04.4.shtml).
Whew! I'm glad Google didn't make a hasty decision they would later regret making.

[radio893fm]

Whew! I'm glad Google didn't make a hasty decision they would later regret making.

This type of thinking is what, if ever, is going to make the apple platform dissapear... choices are good, you choose not to or to install this or that application...

Stop the moaning and the drama... same thing happened with the Real Audio thing... all I heard was complains and drama... in real life that only help us get better things.

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Isn't all of these searching tools, how should I say it... Pointless?

I couldnt' disagree more. With having larger and larger hard disks on the horizon and greater multitudes of file types from various programs on the horizon, searching is going to be the next big thing.

Really, do you know of that many Mac and PC users searching their millions of files?

The reason... search functionality has been woefully slow and painful on Mac/PC. You have to set your system to index files, or have it run an index in the background that's slow and kludgy. On Windows a file search on a 30 gig drive can take upwards of 10 minutes to complete.

Don't they know how they organize their own files?

For those that live by chaos theory, or are organizationally challenged... the answer is no. Having a search functionality doesn't require them to have to learn to overcome their natural instincts. You could argue it makes us lazier, and perhaps you're right... but it doesn't change the fact that some people aren't organizational types and Apple, Microsoft, and others see the point.

Not to mention, I was more than content with the current searching abilities in OS X.

Adequate, maybe. Spotlight is lightyears ahead of it in terms of speed. Time is money. That's before you get into meta data searching. Hand's down that's one of the more awesome features of the new OS. That and searching PDF files.

Windows XP's search method was too complicated, yet also too user-friendly that you had to be a really naive user to figure it out, IMHO.

I consider it kludgy and unintuitive. It's too limited in the # of options for power users, but too slow and cumbersome. By the time a search can find all of the various files, you could've scoured the drive with a fine tooth comb yourself. Once again, time is money and fast-paced search programs are a tremendous asset for the near instantaneous levels of speed they bring. Consider it the previous Mac search functionality on sterrhoids. It's faster, it's more efficient, it's more extensible, expandable. It won't intrude on your user experience like the previous type, click enter/go, and wait. That's a good thing.

My dad and I said that these search tools are almost a step back. When we saw Steve Jobs type in an application in Spotlight's search field to find the application, it reminded us of how DOS worked. We almost are killing of the graphical user interface!

A strict GUI will never be the answer because as always noted, key-commands are faster. I was once a naive purveyor of GUI = the future but the fact is, it's somewhere in between. Spotlight's blend of speed and expanded search functionality is a MAJOR step ahead. Combine that feature in Tiger along with Core Image's amazing capabilities, Dashboard's "layered" philosophy of keeping your commonly used widgets in a separate easy accessible depository, add in Expose from the previous OS release, and the other 100+ odd features and one's I'm sure "NONE" of us have seen yet... and I think it'll be the best OS X release thus far by a landslide, and it's not like Jaguar and Panther weren't runt kittens themselves.

But, for those of you that feel search tools is what you need, I don't mind having a Google Desktop for the Mac. Some competition would indeed help.

I agree, but I also feel that it will have it's shortcomings too. It requires an index, something Spotlight to my knowledge doesn't require because things are extended in the file system to provide a built in database of sorts. It might be an improvement to the classic search functionality, if you can get past the sponsor ads and non-Applecentric interface, but... it's not the whole 9 yards like Spotlight will be. Consider it like Search 2.0 (I'll say 1.0 was Sherlock from OS 9), before Spotlight defeats Search 1-2 altogether.

Now if Google can bring more to the plate than that, give it an Apple-centric interface, find a different way to generate revenues for the products release, they might be on to something. Maybe instead of Google search, how about a totally unique product? On pre-OS X 10.4 machines, it provides the Google search functionality, on 10.4 machines the feature automatically degrades away (i.e. let's have it so you can shut on/off features of the Search functionality, and add-in SDK developed Google search modules to the mix; it'd only require a system version check to determine whether to shut it off by default, and they could even allow you to decide via a dialog on install if you still want it when you have Spotlight already), but give it additional elements, like a resurgence of Sherlock/Watson functionalities. Froogle integration into the bar/dropdown/menu item/dockling or whatever they choose. How about a high speed internet search with similar instantaneous results to Spotlight on typing (I'm sure Google could work out a technology with their servers using some unique low-bandwidth protocol), along with tabs for yellow/white pages, restaurant search and reviews, built-in Froogle comparison shopping, RSS, ATOM, and XML searches from the OS (not just Safari, might be able to harness the HTML libraries used for Safari for this). Maybe even add Fed Ex, USPS, and UPS tracking to it too. Apple has shown the way with this level of thinking. The iTunes program doesn't open Safari to take you to the iTunes music store. Google's Search functionality (on broadband computers or dial-up machines connected) could do net-based searches from within it's own unique program and then spawn a window within Safari, Firefox, Chimaira, or whatever browser program you choose. If you have multiple browsers installed, hell you might even be able to command-key click to bring up a dialog to choose the browser to send the result to for further research.

Moral of the story... Google Search by itself won't achieve much with Spotlight on the horizon, and it's futile to create a program that dead-ends at 10.4 unless you have more up your sleeve. Yet a Google program devoted to the Mac, as a search tool, doesn't necessarily have to be a clone of the PC version. In fact, if Google wants it to be successful, I'd venture to say it needs to be much more to have a market to work with and some semblance of a future. The Mac Google Search Bar could be the forebearer for where the Google Search Bar goes for Windows as well. One hand often washes the other... and what better of a way than to use the Mac platform to inspire and push/drive search functionality on the PC for a company like Google that's trying to take themselves a step farther. It's not a bad idea, but it requires a much expanded vision.

[Doctor Q]

Here are some guidelines that I think would help in designing the ideal search system:

* We users shouldn't have to choose only between exhaustive serial search and fast pre-indexed searching that requires much upfront overhead. The ideal is a compromise somewhere between.

* Tiered performance provides the best compromise. The most important files should be retrieved the fastest. In particular...

+ Files on my computer are more important than files elsewhere on my network, which are more important than files on the Internet.

+ Recently modified files are more important than recently read files, which are more important than less recently accessed files.

+ File names are more important than file contents.

+ The content at the beginning of a file is more important than the rest of the file.

+ Files belonging to me are more important than files belonging to other users or the operating system.

+ Files I've retrieved before are more important than those I haven't.

+ Files about topics I've searched before are more important than other files.

* This can be extended to rules about the content of structured files, such as headings being more important than body text.

* It is most important to retrieve the most relevant files quickly, and less important to retrieve matching but possibly irrelevant files quickly.

It's a challenge to design a system that keeps searchable information more readily available based on criteria such as the above, balancing the cost and the payoff, but it's a good challenge!