Tip from Lifehacker.

Image search seems like a logical starting point. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, right? To date, Google’s Image Search has relied on examining the text around an image and then determining what the image is about algorithmically. This works to some extent (I use Google’s Image Search all the time) but what about actually analyzing what’s in the image? There are several companies out there that already do this. Take Toronto based Idée. Give their TinEye Image Search Engine a JPEG and they’ll find other JPEGs that are similar to the original. I tried this out with a photo of the Eiffel Tower and they returned several images that contain the Eiffel Tower but weren’t the same as my original. Pretty cool! Their Visual Search Lab is also worth noting. Select a random photo and they’ll return other photos with the same colors. In both these examples, they’re actually analyzing the contents of the images.

Another image search technology Google should note is what Evernote has built. The service lets users collect links, photos, notes, and other multimedia and then search through it. If you upload a photo, Evernote will automatically add tags to the photo from text it recognizes in the photo, essentially indexing it. For example, uploading a photo of a Canon camera box with the Canon logo on it tags the photo with “Canon” automatically. The technology can read all sorts of fonts (the text doesn’t have to be boring) as well as handwriting unless you write like a doctor. Why isn’t Google investing in technology like this?

Google is even more behind when it comes to video search. Their video search is seriously lacking in sources (they only appear to index a couple of the top video sites) and their approach to video has been similar to how they index images by looking at the text around the image. There are a variety of more robust video search engines such as Truveo and Blinkx. However, none of the major ones appear to be taking advantage of speech to text engines, object recognition, facial recognition and other technologies that actually examine the content of the video. Companies like Everyzing, Viewdle, and Digitalsmiths all offer these technologies.

Maybe Google is waiting for the technology to mature or for another large company to take the first step but if they don’t move beyond just examining text, another company could take their place to dominate a growing multimedia search market.

I’m starting to notice more and more blogs embedding Vimeo videos and it will be interesting to see if Vimeo will start to take a bite out of YouTube’s dominance.

Here’s my favorite Vimeo video that I’ve come across so far:

Sleeping Beauty - City lights / Music video from Benjamin Taft on Vimeo.

Apple has realized that Microsoft’s inability to support the Office suite on the Mac is holding back Mac sales in the enterprise. Even the most recent version of Office 2008 lags behind it’s 2007 Windows counterpart. For example, Entourage lacks server synchronization of tasks and notes (on the Mac, these are stored on the local machine and not the server), a feature that many office workers use since tasks and notes sync with their Blackberries.

Personally, I’ve refused to use Office 2008 on my Mac because of compatibility issues with its Windows counterpart and instead run Office 2007 in Parallels. Setups like this are an ideal scenario for Microsoft since the user pays for both the Windows OS as well as Office whereas on the Mac, the user would only be paying for Office. However, this additional cost and the related complexity has to be hurting Mac sales. In other words, having an inferior product on the Mac has no downside for Microsoft (it actually helps their revenue) but has a large impact on Apple.

Apple’s big response which hasn’t garnered much media attention is in part Snow Leopard, the next version of their OS which will naively support Microsoft Exchange. In theory, users won’t need Entourage anymore since Apple’s Mail, iCal, and Address Book will directly integrate with Exchange (we’ll see about those tasks and notes).

All this sounds well and good but Apple’s going to have to do more than simply support Exchange in their current lineup. Outlook is incredibly powerful, much more so than Mail and enterprises often value power over simplicity. Pages, Apple’s word processing software pales in comparison to Word, as does Numbers, a competitor to Microsoft’s Excel. It’s going to take more than simple Exchange integration to convince enterprises that the Mac has a software lineup that can go head to head with Microsoft’s Office.

Apple’s other enterprise battle will be the iPhone which will have to beat out Blackberry. For that, they’ve taken a similar approach to Snow Leopard: Exchange support.

Long term, Apple and Microsoft will battle it out for the office desktop but don’t expect Microsoft to go anywhere. I think they’ll start focusing more on backend services that power enterprises like Exchange, something Apple probably isn’t interested in; at least not yet.

I’m an Apple fan. I have a MacBook Pro at home with a big Cinema Display and use a MacBook Pro at work with a Cinema Display. And like any good Apple fan, I recommend Apple products to friends and family. However, Apple’s purposeful obfuscation of the new iPhone price is unacceptable. For a company that challenges itself and its consumers to think different, Apple appears to have joined the rest of corporate America by burying their real pricing and instead has put on a dog and pony show with the hope no one notices the reality of the announcement.

The fact more people haven’t realized this doesn’t surprise me. When it comes to Apple, the media and blogosphere seems to be more and more of an echo chamber with the attitude that Apple can do no wrong.

UPDATE [6/10]: I forgot to mention that Exchange support (ActiveSync) will be an additional $15/month and that unlimited text messaging (SMS) is no longer included in the plan (that’s extra as well).

Ouch!

Maybe there is justice in the corporate world. The big question is should the city win, will the subscribers see any money out of all this or will we continue to pay outrageous prices for sub standard service?