Google’s vice president of engineering has dismissed the idea that plans to bring out a new computer operating system, Chrome OS, will mean the end of Google’s existing operating system for mobile phones, Android.

As soon as Chrome was announced earlier this week “all the press and speculation started, ‘Oh, the Android is doomed,’” said Andy Rubin at an event with T-Mobile in San Francisco to show off the latest Android iteration, the myTouch 3G phone, manufactured by Taiwan’s HTC.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in Sun Valley yesterday that Chrome OS is a separate product from Android, but the two products are closely related and could eventually “merge even closer.”

Earlier this week, Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at market research firm Interpret, said the introduction of a second operating system to work on netbooks could hurt Google winning hardware partners. “If you’re a vendor you don’t know what to do,” he said.

Rubin argues that there is room for both Chrome and Android, and it doesn’t mean that “one wins and one doesn’t.” Android is specialized and does things that you would not expect from an ordinary operating system, he said.

“In the cellphone space, operating systems may … manage battery life very carefully, they handshake with cell sites as you are in your car or  traveling traveling at high speeds. So there’s different problems that you solve in different categories of consumer products,” he said.

Chrome will have its place outside of the phone. “I really look forward to seeing (Chrome) run on a lot of consumer products,” Rubin said.

At the press conference in San Francisco, two new applications for the phone were introduced — one for voice messaging of text, called Voice Text, and the other to help you find stores and services in the area where you are located, called Sherpa and made by Geodelic.

Even so, Android has only 5,000 apps, one-tenth as many as are available on Apple’s iPhone.

“Five thousand apps is well short of where they need to be but at least it’s accelerating,” said Gartner analyst Van Baker. “They’ve gone from 4,000 to 5,000 in the past 45 days, so it sounds like they’re ramping.”

(Photo: Google handout)

Yahoo might not invent the next killer Web product. But the company wants surfers to be able to use  online applications, or “widgets,” without leaving the Yahoo kingdom.

In a blog post on Friday, Yahoo introduced a variety of new widgets from third-party Web developers that can be fused directly into Yahoo products.

The average person in the United States visits 85 sites a month, said Tapan Bhat, Yahoo’s senior vice president of integrated consumer experience in a blog post. “That just sounds exhausting. So we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how we can ease the pain of site-hopping to help you do more things at once,” he wrote.

There’s a PayPal application that can integrate into a user’s Yahoo mail, as well as apps from personal finance service Mint.com and blogging tool WordPress which can be weaved into a person’s MyYahoo start page. Nearly 20 new widgets are now available for use in various Yahoo products, including a handful of apps for Internet enabled-TVs.

The move to open up Yahoo’s Web properties to widgets was actually begun during the reign of Jerry Yang, Yahoo’s co-founder who was replaced as CEO by Carol Bartz in January.

Friday’s announcement marks the first batch of widgets from marquee companies to be released under Bartz, who has repeatedly stressed that the key to Yahoo’s revival is in improving its diverse family of products.

Of course, Yahoo still has a lot of catching up to do with social network Facebook, which says it has more than 52,000 applications currently available in its Application Directory.

(Photo: Reuters)

The Musk name is famous among techies thanks to high-profile companies like PayPal and Tesla Motors, the electric car maker, which were founded or funded by entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Now another Musk-backed start-up is looking to make a splash. Only this time it’s younger brother Kimball at the helm, as CEO for OneRiot.

OneRiot is launching a real time search engine on Tuesday that combs through the flood of messages and Web links that are shared through services Twitter and Digg, as well as in OneRiot’s existing browser toolbar product, to determine the hottest topics on the Internet.

Real Time search, of course, is all the rage right now, thanks in large part to the success of microblogging service Twitter, which allows users to search the “Tweets” generated on its service and to zoom into what people are saying about a particular topic that very moment.

Musk says that Twitter searches the conversations people are having, while OneRiot cuts through the “noise” and focuses on the content at the center of those conversations.

OneRiot analyzes the links people share to determine which news article or video is getting a lot of buzz; the company’s algorithm ranks the importance of the content according to criteria like the influence of the person sharing the link and the momentum the link has gained through re-Tweets.

Twitter recently said it was developing new features for its search engine that sound somewhat similar, and there’s plenty of other rivals in the nascent field of real time search.

OneRiot has raised roughly $20 million from three VC firms, including Twitter-backer Spark Capital, over the past couple of years, and Elon Musk pitched in as an angel investor.

Keep an eye on:

• Media mogul David Geffen tried to buy a stake in the New York Times Co from hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, but was rejected (Reuters)

• MarketWatch.com is launching a redesigned site aimed at bringing in sophisticated professionals while keeping its news free, even as parent company News Corp explores ways to get people to pay for its journalism online (Reuters)
• Microsoft is on track to release its new Windows 7 operating system in time for the holiday shopping season, confirming talk it is ahead of its own conservative schedule for replacing the unpopular Vista system (Reuters)

(Photo: Reuters)

Does the proliferation of 24 hour news media across the Middle East mean there will be a greater chance of helping to increase democratisation in the region? According to some speakers at We Media that is unlikely and remains one of several great misperceptions that persist in the West about Arab media.

Michael Kraig, director of policy analysis and dialogue at the Stanley Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation in the United States, said the growth of civil society, fuelled by the development of new media providers, could empower nationalism in the Middle East.

“The Western perception that if you have an expanded civil society, free speech and media, you’ll have democratisation that is more friendly to the U.S. position,” he said, speaking at a session on the Middle East. “That’s an unfortunate misconception. The growth of civil society can empower nationalism, not just in regards to national governments but also to external interveners in their own affairs.” 

Rami Khouri, of the Lebanon Daily Star, agreed that there remained a “huge gap” in accurate understanding of Arab media. This, he added, is partly because the message that the media carries is not one that outsiders happen to agree with.

He described three great misperceptions about Arab media - that it incites anti-American feeling, that it is a mouthpiece for Osama bin Laden and other related groups and that it is of poor quality. None of these perceptions were correct, he insisted.

Khouri said:” The first misperception is that Arab media deliberately incite anti-West and anti-American feeling. In fact the Arab media is a reflection of public opinion and sentiments in society. There are ideas coming out of Arab satellite stations that are critical of Arab regimes because that sentiment is reflected in society.

“There is also a perception that Al Jazeera is a mouthpiece for bin Laden and terrorist groups because they put their tapes on air. The fact is, these are newsworthy tapes.”

Questions surrounding the quality of Arab satellite stations are also a myth, he said, adding that he would put his money where his mouth is:”I have spent the last five to six years, every night, watching Arab and Western satellite stations. I watch them all and am prepared to bet a double falafel sandwich with sauce or dinner at Simpson’s in the Strand that al Jazeera’s news coverage of events in the Middle East is more complete and more balanced than any American station, or any Western station. You get both sides.

“There is a comprehensiveness and integrity to Arabic satellite coverage that you don’t get in the West. Sure, they have only been on air for six to seven years, so there are still some things that need to improve.”

Is the Internet a tool that will democratise all who use it? Is the Internet likely to threaten communist rule in China? Is the West’s concern about democratisation of the Internet in China an obsession that hinders analysis of all the other changes going on there? These were some of the issues that opened discussions at the second day of the We Media event, held at Reuters global headquarters in London.

Many Western commentators predicted just a few years ago that the Internet would spell the end of communist rule but there remain no signs of a mass political movement organising itself online to bring this about.

The question raised during a Q&A session at We Media was to what extent censorship, as an obsession of Western media, means that study of the Internet in China is skewed. Does the Wests concern about censorship have a disproportionate effect on the way that the Internet in China is perceived?

Some delegates participating in the Q&A session suggested that it was wrong for Western observers to apply their own standards to the Chinese market and to patronise Internet users there for reluctance to use the medium to circulate political views.

David Schlesinger, Reuters managing editor and a former bureau chief in Beijing, observed that while the Internet has begun to take off as a tool for entertainment and business in China, it has not yet done so for politics.

He said, however, that it was important to put the discussion in some perspective because the number of active internet users is still a small proportion of the population as a whole.

He added: When you talk about the digital divide, it’s there and it’s important but in China you’re talking about a thin layer of the urban elite and within that you’re talking about a very thin layer that wants to talk about politics. The rest of them are not talking about politics.’

Schlesinger suggested that this could be an unstated bargain between the state and individuals. He said:

There is a compact that the Chinese state has made with its people in that you can express yourself through economics or culture but not politics. It is an unstated bargain that most people have accepted. It does affect people but it doesnt effect a movement.

Rebecca MacKinnon, the co-founder of the citizens’ media blogging operation Global Voices, questioned how problematic the censorship problems which exist in China may prove for Western companies. All Chinese companies are expected to monitor their services for political content - how big a problem is this, she wondered.

Marcus Xiang, who launched mobile blogging service provider PDX.CN in 2004, rejected suggestions that this would prove seriously problematic and gave a sense of his own experience as an Internet entrepreneur in the Chinese market. Users are not interested in politics, they are more interested in personal experiences. Im comfortable with the current government, we have a great economy, great opportunities. I can go to the U.S. to develop my business but I dont want to. I want to stay in China to develop my business. The Chinese government wants to take it gradually.

Xiang added that like Chinese companies, Western companies, such as Google, who are moving into the domestic Chinese market, simply have to follow local customs and laws.

My suggestion to the management of Google, is that they should comply with the law. When the law changes, you can change your operation. Right now, as a business, Google complies with the policies and laws in place.

     ”World Have Your Say” from the BBC’s World Service was coming live from the We Media forum, offering a taste of participatory media on a global scale. The programme aims to engage ordinary people with newsmakers by enabling them to discuss current affairs events that have a direct impact on their lives. Topics debated included a day of bloodshed in Iraq, and - because it came from the We Media forum - how people around the world are using new media.
    Many participants said they used blogs as one source of daily information, in addition to mainstream media. But who do they trust - mainstream media, bloggers or citizen journalists? Not just one source is the answer.
    Using more than one source of information thanks to new technology was cited by many as a key development in how they used the media rather than trusting one source, a variety of news and views helps them to form their opinion about what is happening in the world. Reuters Editor Political and General News Paul Holmes said: “No news organisation in the history of the media has had a monopoly on the truth. What is different today is that there are many different voices.”
    An earlier debate about blogging and citizen journalism gave some bloggers in the audience a sense of us (the bloggers) and them (the mainstream media).
    But as one participant pointed out “It’s not just one or the other.”
    “Comparing blogs to mainstream media is completely meaningless,” said another participant in the audience in London. “They can’t be directly compared because they serve a different purpose. With blogs you establish a relationship over time. You never get that with a journalist.”
    The BBC’s director of global news Richard Sambrook told the conference: “We easily get trapped in either/or mindset: Mainstream versus bloggers. Get over it. We live in a remixed, mashed-up world.”
    The forum also debated truth and accuracy in the media.
    George Brock of The Times newspaper said they loved to hear peoples
stories. But they had to be newsworthy and true. At the end of the day, people want reliability and accuracy, he argued.
    The message was echoed by the BBCs director of news Helen Boaden.
    “Witness accounts do not necessarily give you an objective, factual picture. They give you the truth as they see it,” she said. ”The role of journalism is to sift facts and give you a truthful and factual picture.”
    Rachel North was caught up in on the bomb attacks on London’s transport network and started blogging about her experience.She told the audience that her blogging had been driven by an overwhelming desire to tell her story. Citizen journalism, she said, is “telling stories of the people, for the people, by the people”.

    Actor and activist Richard Dreyfuss asked the audience how in a world of instant, non-stop news people have time to think.
    He argued for the need for reason, debate and logic. He spoke about what he called “instantaneous knowledge and the loss of rumination, patience and simply thinking things through.
    The trend towards 24/7 news is being accelerated by technology, Dreyfuss said.
    “I applaud the technology that leads us all here, he said. “But I dont applaud the self-imposed blindness when we overlook the potential damage this technology can do.
    “And this is something everyone in broadcasting should start thinking about. The technology is demanding that we re-think how to think.”

Speakers at We Media differed in their view of who would survive the digital revolution, but all agreed that the transition would be a bumpy ride.

How traditional media companies act will decide whether they manage to survive the transition into the digital economy, key speakers at We Media  said.

According to Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, the move onto the internet was disruptive, but the next shift online will be “very profound and very challenging”. He said:

“We are seeing a second digital wave that’s far more profound and disruptive than the first wave, into a world where the media audience moves effortlessly from device to device. The old idea of broadcasters assuming that the right of the audience is to sit there and take it and be grateful for it is over.”

“There are people working in our industry who still don’t have computers and mobiles and imagine that these are the possessions of a few anoraks in Western society. In fact, you can drive for hours across Africa to get to water yet see many people there with mobile phones.”

Timothy Balding, director-general of the World Association of Newspapers, agreed, and admitted that newspaper proprietors had to step up to the challenge.

He said: “The web revolution has been a salutary kick up the pants for newspaper companies. They have been conservative, complacent and had the market to themselves. They were slow to take up the challenge but it’s well underway now. Newspaper websites are among the most consulted sites in most markets. some have really captured the blogging market too.”

Asha Oberoi, director of multi-media product development at the Telegraph Group, publishers of The Daily Telegraph newspaper, insisted that newspapers were not sitting still. She added: “We’re fighting back, becoming a multi-media organisation. We’re a real threat and can do exciting new forms of content. We are working hard to see how we can build on what we are already doing. I think people should be afraid of print organisations. We have readers’ trust, we have got so much going for us in the opinion stakes. If we can leverage that into the multi-media world we will be very powerful beasts.”

The BBC’s Mark Thompson said that the emergence of citizen journalists, bloggers and other forms of media would require traditional media players to change the way they operate. He said: “The media which used to be conveniently shaped by us into not quite one-size-fits-all in different chunks for lage groups is going to change. It’s going to be shaped in communities by them. To me, the challenge for us is how to play a useful and effective role as enablers.”

Nikesh Arora, vice-president of European operations at Google, questioned whether old media companies can embrace the new without it affecting their core values. He explained: “Today old media stands for certain things. The challenge is whether the BBC or any old media organisation tries to embrace citizen journalism. It is very difficult to do that and ensure your brand is not affected by it. The moment you try to edit it they’ll start screaming that this is an old beast trying to stop what I’m doing.”

Are the opinions presented in newspapers an obstacle to readers’ trust or are readers sophisticated enough to filter what they read and arrive at the truth - or a version of it? The issue emerged during discussions at the We Media forum and opinions were mixed.
David Brain, European president and chief executive officer at the public relations company Edelman, believes that they are not an obstacle. Readers, he believes, are able to filter the information they receive from their favourite paper - and arrive at the “truth” for themselves.
He said: “People buy the Times or the Mirror, which have different perspectives but their readers are still comfortable with that. They can interpret what they are reading and deduce the truth. I don’t think it’s true that people accept at face value the perspective they are given.”
A European Commission representative at the event, however, disputed this view.
Dominic Brett, head of outreach and regional affairs at the European Commission in London, said he strongly disagreed with the view that newspapers or other news consumers are able to filter opinion from news.
“People can’t filter this if they have not got a straight picture to start with. In the UK people do trust organisations like the BBC or Reuters. But I am less convinced than [David Brain] that people can filter news from papers like the Daily Mail. Readers are simply not in a position to do that, they cannot possibly do it unless they have the full picture to start with. If the agenda is so skewed in the media, how can anyone make an informed decision and thereby filter what they hear?”
Brett said that the European Commission found reporting on European issues in the UK press was a “total hindrance” to ensuring that public opinion was informed.
“We are not trying to stifle debate but reporting inaccuracy is a greater hindrance here than anywhere else. The UK is not the most Eurosceptic country in Europe - that honour belongs to Austria - but the constant misreporting of facts has a detrimental effect on a democratic way of life in the UK. The scorn of the media for the EU generally is very damaging, not least because so much of daily life is now decided in Brussels.”
“The fact that decisions in the EU are always endorsed by the UK Government is neatly overlooked. It would do the electorate in this country a big favour if we could have more factual reporting, so people could make their own minds up. A debate would then be possible. Until then, what happens is that everything gets blamed on Brussels and how the UK adopts laws is conveniently forgotten.”

National television is the most trusted news source, ahead of newspapers and public radio, but the Internet is gaining ground, especially among the young, according to a major worldwide survey of trust in the media.

The poll, conducted in 10 countries by GlobeScan on behalf of Reuters, the BBC and the Media Center, found that 82 percent of 10,230 adults questioned rated national television as their most trusted news source overall.

That compared with 75 percent who trusted national or regional newspapers, 67 percent who said they trusted public radio and 56 percent who opted for international satellite television.

Despite the popularity of the Internet in more developed countries and the emergence of “web-logging” or blogging, neither fared well in the survey, according to Globescan President Doug Miller.

“The Internet is gaining ground among the young,” he said. “The jury is still out on ‘blogs’ — just as many people distrust them as trust them,” he told Reuters.

The research found that just 25 percent of respondents said they trusted blogs, while 23 percent said they did not trust them.

Dean Wright, managing editor of consumer media at Reuters, said he believed blogs would eventually come of age, as newspapers themselves once did.

Wright added: “It’s a relatively recent phenomenon that people believe what’s written in a newspaper. One hundred years ago, newspapers were incredibly partisan: they were the blogosphere of their day.

“There are already blogs that people trust and quality will win out once people realise which ones they can trust.”

MARCH OF DEMOGRAPHICS

According to the research, television is still seen as the most “important” news source (56 percent), followed by newspapers (21 percent), Internet (9 percent) and radio (9 percent).

Miller said that although the Internet attracted a lesser score than television or newspapers, it was possible to see a clear change afoot in public attitudes.

He added: “The poll clearly shows that the march of demographics will occur vis-à-vis online sources of news.”

Online sources were, for example, the first choice among 19 percent aged between 18 and 24, compared to just 3 percent in the 55-64 age range.

“But although it is changing, our research perhaps suggests that this change in Internet usage may not be as fast as some who have been investing in it believe,” Miller said.

Rolling news television stations have also come of age, he believes.

Americans who were asked to name their most trusted specific news sources plumped for Fox News (mentioned by 11 percent) and CNN (also 11 percent), with others some way behind. ABC, for example, was chosen by 4 percent, as was NBC.
Miller said the brands chosen did not simply reflect trust. “Trust has a number of elements,” he added. “It is not just about objectivity but about a sense of what people most use, what they like.

“Clearly there is a loyal audience for Fox and CNN but the figures themselves are modest.”

Britain may have a sophisticated media industry but it also has some of the most sceptical consumers, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) believing the media does not report all sides of the story.

A 10-country opinion poll for Reuters, the BBC and the Media Center found British and U.S. consumers out on a limb when it comes to public levels of trust in the media.

Overall trust in the media in Britain has bounced back over the past four years, from a low of 29 percent trusting in 2002 to 47 percent today. But this is still below the 10-country average of 63 percent.

Americans emerged as the most critical of the news media’s balance, with 69 percent disagreeing that the media reports all sides of a story.

A similar proportion, 68 percent, thought the media covered too many “bad news” stories.

Polling company GlobeScan questioned 10,230 adults in the 10 countries — the UK, U.S., Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia and South Korea — and interviewed 1,000 UK residents.

COUNTRIES AT WAR

GlobeScan President Doug Miller told Reuters he was surprised by the poll’s findings in Britain and the U.S, where levels of public trust in the media appear much lower than in developing markets.

“The UK and the U.S. were outlyers across the 10 countries,” he said. “This reflects the fact that these are sophisticated markets and people are clearly attuned to the media.”

“In this research we did not probe exact reasons for the lower levels of trust, but our instincts as researchers tell us that it’s because the U.S. and UK are two countries at war,” he added.

The low levels of trust may, he said, be related to perceptions in the U.S. that the media is too close to the
government on issues relating to the Iraq war.
“It may have something to do with the pulling away from traditional media that we’re seeing — this move towards the Internet where people can get other perspectives on major stories that they’re not getting from the mainstream media.”

GlobeScan found that 28 percent of consumers have stopped using a certain media source in the past year because it lost their trust. Miller said he believed this presented media organisations with an important lesson.

“I think what we can conclude from that is that trust is a key competitive advantage in the market,” he said.

Television remains the most important news source for UK citizens in a typical week, mentioned first by 55 percent of those questioned. Newspapers were second on 19 percent with radio and Internet next on 12 and 8 percent respectively.