Every time a new search engine, with functionality different than The Google, comes to market people instantly declare “This is a Google Killer!”  Somehow a new, unknown, technology outfit is going to overtake the search giant simply because they do something in a different manner. Possible. Not likely.

The first time the “Google Killer” mantra was waved about came with the launch of Cuil.  Who?  Exactly.  This company claimed their technology would allow specific search results, in turn providing less clutter for the user. It didn’t. Forget even obtaining a 2rd tier search engine status – like Snap or Gigablast – Cuil has faded into history as a sub-standard search engine that happened to ride a quick marketing wave.

Fast-forward a few years and enter Wolfram Alpha.

Here we have a new technology, a new search engine that is “computational”.  This search engine does not go out and spider the web looking for result, instead Wolfram Alpha uses an internal knowledge base to generate results (and does so impressively, I may add).

When Google first started, one of the main user groups seemed to be developers/geeks/scientists as the service the engine provided directed one to results with no crap.  You needed to understand how a specific function python worked, Google found the answer – back then, there was usually only one or two – and you could be on your way.  This is exactly what I see Wolfram Alpha as.  A tool/application for “hardcore” users.

I suspect the casual, everyday user will find little use in Wolfram Alpha at first glance.  Spend some time playing around, understanding the technology, and the value becomes apparent almost immediately.

Let’s be realistic, the next “it” application doesn’t simply appear over night. It’s in the wild for some time before the masses even realize. In no way is this new service a Google Killer but, in due time, this has the potential to be a significant Google competitor.

My use of Twitter has dropped significantly, practically to nothing. I enjoyed communicating with my friends and family, even though the topics centered on daily fluff. I could easily know what was going on in the world simply by check the latest tweets. I also gained some amount of pleasure from following totally random people. From news to humor, I was able to pick up a lot of useful information. One day that changed.

It was roughly a month ago when I woke up to find myself disheartened with the whole Twitter phenomenon. What was acting as a source of pleasure and enjoyment literally turned into a bother overnight. I don’t know exactly why. Gone was the intrigue of following random thoughts, the humor seemed to be less and less, and the overall useful information appeared to be diminishing.

My perception of twitter followed this evolution:

Novelty -> Communication Tool -> Information Intake Point -> Static and Noise -> Bother

Maybe this is the natural order of product development and delivery in a social networking, on demand, world. I don’t know. I feel, in many ways, Twitter lost me in the Information Intake stage. It was in this state when I felt the quality information I had once depended on twitter for was gone. Maybe this is due to the rapid growth the company is experiencing or maybe it is also due to the people I follow. All I know is the single to noise ratio became so great the service no longer provided a value for me.

I will still use Twitter; however, the usage will be on a limited basis. I am going to experiment with ways I can return to the communication tool/information intake point stages in hopes of removing the sensation of “wow, this is a bother” that I seem to have now because, as of right now, it feels like the love is gone.

You knew it, I knew it… but now wired.com is coming out and providing information to remind us of the truth – text costs the carriers next nothing to send.  Actually, the main article is based off of a piece in the New York Times.

The lucrative nature of that revenue increase cannot be appreciated without doing something that T-Mobile chose not to do, which is to talk about whether its costs rose as the industry’s messaging volume grew tenfold. Mr. Kohl’s letter of inquiry noted that “text messaging files are very small, as the size of text messages are generally limited to 160 characters per message, and therefore cost carriers very little to transmit.”

 

A better description might be “cost carriers very, very, very little to transmit.”

 

A text message initially travels wirelessly from a handset to the closest base-station tower and is then transferred through wired links to the digital pipes of the telephone network, and then, near its destination, converted back into a wireless signal to traverse the final leg, from tower to handset. In the wired portion of its journey, a file of such infinitesimal size is inconsequential. Srinivasan Keshav, a professor of computer science at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, said: “Messages are small. Even though a trillion seems like a lot to carry, it isn’t.”

And why is the text limited to 160 characters?  

Perhaps the costs for the wireless portion at either end are high — spectrum is finite, after all, and carriers pay dearly for the rights to use it. But text messages are not just tiny; they are also free riders, tucked into what’s called a control channel, space reserved for operation of the wireless network.

 

That’s why a message is so limited in length: it must not exceed the length of the message used for internal communication between tower and handset to set up a call. The channel uses space whether or not a text message is inserted.

 

So, the providers have little to no cost for sending texts because they limit the size yet they charge roughly .10 to .20 per text for the average person.  

Hey, it’s capitalism and we pay for it….I’m not complaining, just point out that we are totally getting ripped.

UPDATE – Arstechnica also talks about this topic

A new Nielsen Mobile survey shows that cell phone users send off text messages more than they are making phone calls. Is this a good thing, bad thing and does it promote antisocial behavior?

The allure of texting is both simplicity and near-instant gratification. Why have a conversation to say “see you in 10″ when a quick message could be sent? Recipients tend to reply quickly, giving the sender a feeling of instant satisfaction (one apparently not available when talking or leaving a voice mail) but does texting – and the use of technology – lead to antisocial behavior?

Antisocial can be defined as: (shunning contact with others) “standoffish and antisocial”; “

If find that technology has allowed me to keep in contact with friends more frequently than ever before. I send a quick text, I send an email, I get a Twitter… The conversation as to the point and meaningful, not simply wasting time. I enjoy the contact I have, and I try to have as much as possible. Actually, with the schedules my friends keep technology has allowed us to keep in contact where as actually talking – face to face or phone – would be difficult due to family or work. So, is the use of technology antisocial or simply efficient?

Will teenagers lose the art of conversation, will they not know how to act, and will the art of writing be lost to “lolz”? Will the lack of human contact, actually human interaction, lead to a generation that is unable to fit into society?

I could see a case being made in either direction, now it’s time for some psychologists to get cracking on the research aspect of this!