Almost four months after Google emerged from the background in social networking with its OpenSocial initiative, there is no shortage of skepticism around the project.

The initiative, which will develop a common set of APIs, has the goal of making life easier for developers by simplifying the porting of applications to different social networks. But some see OpenSocial as an attempt to undercut the momentum of rival Facebook and its successful application development program, launched in May of last year. Others are unimpressed with OpenSocial's technology architecture, saying it's too weak for creating truly sophisticated applications.

Still, while Facebook hasn't supported it yet, other big guns in the social-networking market are backing it, including MySpace, LinkedIn, and Bebo, and even major enterprise application players like Oracle and Salesforce.com.

IDG News Service recently chatted with Google Engineering Director David Glazer about various OpenSocial topics, such as the dangers of partners splintering it with proprietary extensions and Facebook's lack of support. An edited version of the interview follows.

IDGNS: Some key components to OpenSocial are in different stages of readiness. The API itself is in version 0.7, which you feel confident developers can start using to build real applications that can be deployed in production.

Glazer: Yes, when we announced the initial API we said: "Here's a start. Give us feedback." [After two more versions] they said: "Yes, we can build great apps with this. There are a lot more things we might ask you to do someday, but we can build a great app today." So we shipped it.

IDGNS: You also have a server-side REST [Representational State Transfer] component that's still not ready, right?

Glazer: When we announced OpenSocial, we said that we could provide interfaces for building applications with client-side code and also apps that let your servers get information from site servers. We got a lot of interest and traction in the client-side thing. People said they were interested in the server-side option also but that they weren't locked on it, that they didn't need it to build a great application. They said it's something they'll take advantage of when it's available. With that, we put all our energy into what the app developers were telling us were critical [components.]

IDGNS: There are other complementary OpenSocial projects, such as the Caja Javascript sanitizer. What's Caja's status?

Glazer: That's ready for developers to start kicking the tires and giving us feedback on. We want to do a very open and a very carefully timed rollout of it. It's protection technology, and we want to be sure it's appropriately safe.

IDGNS: Could you explain Shindig?

Glazer: That's the open-source reference implementation of the OpenSocial API. It's being done -- governed and run and implemented -- entirely as an Apache Software Foundation project. This means individuals commit code with permission of their companies to open the license on any IP that's contributed.

Shindig's mission is to make it really easy to implement OpenSocial support on your site. The goal is that your development team takes Shindig and has a proof of concept up and running in hours, not months. Shindig is making great strides in that direction. There are big pieces of the spec now that are plug-it-in-and-run, and that'll be ongoing.

There's no requirement that somebody uses Shindig to implement OpenSocial. The API can be implemented in many different ways, and Shindig is one easy way to do so.

IDGNS: How much liberty will Google give the participating Web sites to add extensions to their OpenSocial implementations?

Glazer: The short answer is: no gratuitous differences. That means it's essential that everyone implementing OpenSocial be able to extend it to take advantage of their site's unique capabilities. It's also essential that if I'm a developer building an application that does the same thing on three different sites, I should do it the same way.

So we're working hard with [Web site partners] to say: Where you support something for which there's a standard mechanism, use the standard mechanism. Where you want to support something that isn't part of the standard, please do so, and here's a standard extension mechanism that we built in so you can easily add your unique capabilities in a discoverable and testable way by developers.

IDGNS: Is there an OpenSocial certification, so that if a Web site partner strays too far with its extensions, Google can force them to scale things back or else lose the seal?

Glazer: We've asked ourselves that, but so far, our interests are so aligned that we haven't come close to having to do anything that black-and-white. The people that [such a problem] will hurt first and most are application developers, and they will raise an outcry and we'll say: "Okay, what can we jointly do to bring a little bit of order back to this world?" But so far, that hasn't been a concern.

IDGNS: Some complain OpenSocial aims to be such a baseline standard that it will only allow developers to write simple widgets and gadgets.

Glazer: There is some confusion about what piece of the problem OpenSocial is trying to solve. Also, there's a false reasoning that what I see today is all I will ever see.

First, the word "gadget" has a bunch of connotations, not all accurate. One is that it's something 100-by-200 pixels in a little box on a page. There are implementations of gadgets like that out there, but that's not true for how OpenSocial supports application builders. OpenSocial has built into it the concept of "views," which lets you say: "Here's how my application looks if you give me a little rectangle and if you give me a full page, and here's how I can navigate between different views of my application."

The second thing is OpenSocial isn't trying to boil the ocean. Our overall goal is to help the Web become more social more quickly. There's a whole bunch of things we can do to help the Web become more social, and OpenSocial was the first and biggest place where we saw an opportunity. OpenSocial isn't meant to be a panacea, nor to do everything for everyone. It's meant to move the world forward and to solve a very specific problem: Help developers build an application that can run on any social site that wants to support OpenSocial.

At the same time, the proof is going to be the application, and if it turns out this round of OpenSocial provides good applications and we want to get to stellar applications, we'll enhance it.

IDGNS: There has also been talk of whether OpenSocial should address data portability. What's Google's latest position on that?

Glazer: [Data portability and standard social-application-development APIs] are parallel issues that are both interesting and can both be addressed, but they don't have to be coupled. We thought about where we can help things move forward quickest and decided it best to separate these two things.

IDGNS: How important is it, or not, to have Facebook on board with OpenSocial?

Glazer: That's up to users and developers to answer. The benefit of a standard is it helps people reach more users more quickly, and we welcome anyone who chooses to implement the standard if it makes sense for them. The nature of the Web is a playing field that tilts towards openness and interoperability, and it's great anytime anyone makes a move towards open interoperable applications in the world of social [applications], but everyone should make their own decisions and do what's right for their business.

IDGNS: Yet today, Facebook is probably the most attractive platform for this type of application.

Glazer: Moving from a world in which you have 12 different ways to build an application to a world in which you have six and then two and then one, every one of those steps makes things better.

IDGNS: You recently announced that Orkut's OpenSocial container is ready and that you'll soon begin making OpenSocial applications available for Orkut users. Is that correct?

Glazer: Yes, the Orkut sandbox, which is the developer limited-access site, is running the launch version of the API, and there's a whole community of developers building applications for it right now. We're on the countdown to opening that up to consumers.

IDGNS: What's the next big OpenSocial milestone or announcement we should be looking out for?

Glazer: There's a set of launch milestones. As Orkut, MySpace, Hi5, and others that have announced imminent plans open the doors of their OpenSocial applications to consumers, there'll be a wave of those. The next step will be watching the interaction between users and developers on these different sites: Seeing what kinds of feedback they get from users, seeing developers come up with new creative ideas, and seeing the sites work to enable that. That's what we're looking forward to: Opening the doors and watching the party get started.

Microsoft has seen the future of the datacenter, and oddly enough it's missing a roof.

The company's future datacenter design, which will be its de facto standard in five years, is a cross between an electrical switching station, an RV-park and the closing "warehouse" scene from the 1981 film Raiders of the Lost Ark .

[ Stay ahead of advances in technology with InfoWorld's Ahead of the Curve blog and newsletter. ]

The company envisions a set of prefabricated containers the size of a semi-trailer filled with as many as 2,000 preconfigured servers. The containers can be parked next to and plugged into pre-built mechanical, electrical, cooling and security components. In essence, it is a giant collection of boxes and pluggable components that can grow and shrink based on need.

The container portion of the idea is nothing revolutionary. Microsoft is installing them in its Chicago datacenter. Sun introduced a server container called Project Blackbox in 2006 and Google received a patent in 2007 on its "mobile datacenter" stored in a standard shipping container, which unlike Sun's Blackbox, could be clustered in the same modular fashion that Microsoft is proposing.

The container idea also has its critics who say they are rife with electrical and mechanical concerns, have power management and cooling issues, present a single point of failure, and are susceptible to damage during shipping.

Microsoft, however, is not just talking about containers, but the configuration of the entire datacenter.

The company this week unveiled what it is calling its "Generation 4 Modular Data Center" plan, a blueprint that will define its cloud datacenter infrastructure in the next five years.

The datacenters have four walls and a sophisticated perimeter security system, but are open to the elements as they lack a roof. Trucks wheel the boxes into the enclosure where they are connected to power/cooling stations before being brought online.

It's a bold plan to drive industry thinking about how to construct and operate datacenters in a world of capacity spikes, real-time needs for computing power and expanding green initiatives.

"We believe it is one of the most revolutionary changes to happen to datacenters in the last 30 years," said Michael Manos, general manager of global foundation services for Microsoft, in his blog introducing Microsoft's Generation 4 plan.

BusinessWeek reported last month that Microsoft said it was going to "reinvent the infrastructure of our industry" by building some 20 datacenters that can carry a price tag as much as $1 billion apiece.

"In short, we are striving to bring Henry Ford's Model T factory to the datacenter," Manos said. "In our design process, we questioned everything. You may notice there is no roof and some might be uncomfortable with this. We explored the need of one and throughout our research we got some surprising (positive) results that showed one wasn't needed."

Microsoft says all the pieces needed to construct the datacenter would be built off-site and assembled once they arrived at the datacenter location, much the way planes, cars, and computers are built today. The company says the process would mean less time and money to erect a new datacenter.  

And Microsoft expects efficiencies in power usage that blow away even the best-rated facilities today based on PUE (power usage effectiveness), a metric developed by The Green Grid and used to determine the energy efficiency of a datacenter.

"A key driver is our goal to achieve an average PUE at or below 1.125 by 2012 across our datacenters," Manos said on his blog.

Achieving such a low PUE average would be a breakthrough given that the typical datacenter has an average PUE of 2.5, according to the Uptime Institute. The Institute says that a best-case scenario today could produce a 1.6 PUE average if the datacenter is using the most efficient equipment and best practices.

Manos added: "More than that, we are on a mission to reduce the overall amount of copper and water used in these facilities."

Operationally, the datacenter would offer different classes of service defined to meet the needs of applications and services deployed and to create cost efficiencies. The classes include ala carte options, such as uninterruptible power supplies and backup generators, temperature controls, and redundancy.

Microsoft says the varying configurations will drive engineering innovations that will lower operational costs for applications.

And to show that Microsoft is aiming toward industry interoperability the datacenter's containers would have common interfaces so others can plug their wares into them including computer vendors, UPS vendors, and generator vendors.

Manos admits that a 2005 memo written to Microsoft employees by now chief software architect Ray Ozzie was the trigger for thinking about how Microsoft would evolve deeper into an operations company rather than a provider of packaged software.

What grew out of that were Generation 2 facilities, now operating in Quincy, Wash., and San Antonio, Texas, which took into account sustainability, energy efficiency, and total cost of operations.

Generation 3 facilities, which are represented by Microsoft's mammoth datacenter in Chicago, feature containers and a modular design.

Microsoft has posted a short video to show how its Generation 4 datacenters would be constructed and how they would operate.

Network World is an InfoWorld affiliate

With credit in a tight squeeze and the economy in free fall, the next few years should see the collapse of some small PC makers and a restructuring of the rest of the industry, according to an industry research firm.

Richard Shim , personal computing research manager at IDC, told Computerworld that he expects a consolidation of the market. However, he doesn't think that the big PC players, like Hewlett-Packard , Dell, and Acer , will gobble up smaller hardware vendors. Instead, he said those smaller players will simply fold up shop as the faltering economy keeps companies and individuals from buying new computers.

[ Special report: IT and the financial crisis. ]

"It won't be so much about acquisition, but the smaller players will just go away," said Shim, adding that he thinks the industry could lose fewer than 10 companies. "The big players are feeling the hurt as well. Right now, everybody is beating each other up in price. If some are going to die off anyway, what's the sense in buying them?"

Just yesterday, IDC reported it is projecting that worldwide PC sales will quickly drop off because the sagging economy is causing people to hold onto their savings while credit is unavailable. IDC noted that it expects PC shipments to inch upward by 3.8 percent in all of 2009, but added that the values of those shipments will drop by 5.3 percent. In the U.S., expectations are bleaker as IDC predicts that shipments here will decline by almost 3 percent in 2009 with low single-digit increases in the next few years.

Shim noted that he thinks MPC kicked off the consolidation early in November when the PC maker filed for bankruptcy . In mid 2001, the business was sold by parent company Micron Technology, and later changed its name from Micron Electronics to MPC. A little more than a year ago, MPC bought Gateway's professional business division.

And MPC won't be the only mid- to low-tier PC maker to fall, according to Shim. He said 2009, 2010 and maybe even 2011 will be tough years for the industry.

Just a few weeks ago, iSuppli slashed its 2009 growth forecast for worldwide PC shipments by nearly two-thirds because of the deteriorating economy. The analyst firm is now projecting that worldwide PC shipments will rise by 4.3 percent in 2009, down from its previous forecast of 11.9 percent growth. iSuppli also adjusted its expectations for 2010, dropping its initial prediction of 9.4 percent growth to 7.1 percent.

ISuppli's adjustment to its PC forecast came on the heels of the firm downgrading its estimates for global semiconductor revenue for the year. The researcher projected that 2008 semiconductor sales will decline by 2 percent to $266.6 billion, from about $272 billion in 2007. In October, ISuppli had predicted that 2008 semiconductor sales would grow by 3.5 percent over last year's. The researcher also predicted that the negative momentum will continue into the fourth quarter of this year, with the overall market expected to drop by 10.9 percent compared with the same quarter last year.

Shim noted in an interview on Thursday that the economic crisis likely will reset many vendors' business models.

"If you change selling prices, you need to find new ways to do business, like skimping on quality or coming out with new models," he explained. "A lot depends on how drastic the situation gets."

Computerworld is an InfoWorld affiliate.

Google called off its proposed search advertising deal with Yahoo just three hours before the U.S. Department of Justice was to file an antitrust complaint on Nov. 5 aimed at blocking it, according to the lawyer that the government hired to pursue the case.

In an interview with the legal blog AMLaw Daily published Dec. 2, Sanford Litvack -- the attorney who would have been the lead counsel on the antitrust case -- said that Google and Yahoo decided to abandon the proposed deal shortly after DOJ officials informed them of the agency's plans to file the antitrust complaint.

[ In the aftermath of the failed Google-Yahoo deal, Jerry Yang resigns, and the Microsoft-Yahoo dance continues. | Keep up on the latest tech news headlines at InfoWorld News, or subscribe to the Today's Headlines newsletter. ]

Shortly after the deal -- which would have had Yahoo running Google advertisements alongside its own search results -- was announced in June, Google and Yahoo came under fire from large advertiser groups, which charged that the arrangement would diminish competition and raise online advertising prices.

And an antitrust think tank said the partnership could end up as a "black hole that swallows up Yahoo," thus justifying an antitrust investigation.

In addition, the chairman of the U.S. Senate's antitrust subcommittee in October urged the DOJ to closely examine the proposed partnership, noting that it could lead to higher advertising prices and create unfair market conditions. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) said at the time that the subcommittee's investigation found that many advertisers and competitors were concerned that Google would control a dominant share of the search advertising market. Under the deal, Yahoo would have less incentive to compete against Google and could opt to exit the market altogether, Kohl asserted.

Litvack went on to note that the complaint -- which was never filed -- would have charged that the deal would have violated antitrust regulations that bans agreements that restrain trade and prohibit companies from monopolizing or attempting to monopolize trade.

"It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly," Litvack said in the blog. "The fact that we filed a lawsuit would not by itself have stopped them. We would have had to get an injunction from the court, and we would have sought that."

In the interview, Litvack went on to acknowledge that Microsoft Corp. and other companies lobbied the department to block the proposed deal, but said that the efforts had no influence on his decision to recommend that DOJ block the deal.

"[The department is] making it clear to the parties and to the world that this is how the division viewed these particular aspects of Google's business," Litvack added in the blog. In a statement after the deal was called off the DOJ said that under the agreement, Google and Yahoo would have become collaborators rather than competitors for a significant part of their search advertising business," materially reducing important competitive rivalry between the two companies."

Computerworld is an InfoWorld affiliate.

A new computing fabric to replace today's blade servers and a "pod" approach to building datacenters are two of the most disruptive technologies that will affect the enterprise datacenter in the next few years, Gartner said at its annual datacenter conference on Wednesday.

Datacenters increasingly will be built in separate zones or pods, rather than as one monolithic structure, Gartner analyst Carl Claunch said in a presentation about the Top 10 disruptive technologies affecting the datacenter.

[ For recent news on the modular design approach to datacenters read "Microsoft applies Model T factory methods to datacenters." ]

Those zones or pods will be built in a fashion similar to the modular datacenters sold in large shipping containers equipped with their own cooling systems. But datacenter pods don't have to be built within actual containers. The distinguishing features are that zones are built with different densities, reducing initial costs, and each pod or zone is self-contained with its own power feeds and cooling, Claunch says.

Cooling costs are minimized because chillers are closer to heat sources; and there is additional flexibility because a pod can be upgraded or repaired without necessitating downtime in other zones, Claunch said. (Read more about how to reduce cooling costs in the datacenter.)

"Modularization is a good thing. It gives you the ability to refresh continuously and have higher uptime," Claunch said.

By not treating a datacenter as a homogenous whole, it is easier to separate equipment into high, medium, and low heat densities, and devote expensive cooling only to the areas that really need it, Claunch added.

The move to pods and zones is among what Gartner calls the most disruptive technologies affecting the datacenter. In no particular order, these technologies are storage virtualization; cloud computing; new server architectures; PC virtualization; enterprise mashups; specialized systems (aka hardware appliances); social software, and social networking; unified communications; zones and pods; and green IT. 

Many of these technologies have been covered by Gartner in previous lists (including "Gartner's Top 10 strategic technologies for 2008" and "10 strategic technologies for 2009"). Enterprises won't have to wait long to take advantage of these technologies: All these trends are beginning to happen now or will do so within the next few years, Claunch said.

If Gartner's predictions are correct, the server industry is soon to undergo a significant transformation.

Gartner views today's blade servers as an interim technology that will give way to a new, more flexible type of server that treats memory, processors and I/O cards as shared resources that can be arranged and rearranged to suit a business's needs. Like virtualization technology, this computing fabric of the future will make hardware more adaptable to changing needs.

IT shops will be able to create machines of whatever size they need, and shift resources around as often as necessary, Claunch said. In addition, instead of relying on vendors to decide what proportion of memory, processing and I/O connections are on each blade, enterprises will be able to buy whatever resources they need in any amount, a far more efficient approach.

While rack servers are self-contained units, today's blade approach allows a combination of some components, Gartner notes. (Compare blade servers.) I/O cards don't have to be included in each blade because they are accessed over a shared fabric. Memory and processors are still fixed parts of each blade, however, limiting flexibility. If extra memory is needed, you may have to buy another blade instead of just accessing the memory of another one, Claunch said.

"The next step in this progression is the introduction of technology to allow several blades to be merged operationally over the fabric, operating as a larger, single system image that is the sum of the components from those blades," a Gartner PowerPoint presentation states. "The fabric-based server of the future will treat memory, processors and I/O cards as components in a pool, combining and recombining them into particular arrangements to suit the owner's needs."

For example, an IT shop could combine 32 processors and any number of memory modules to create one large server that appears to an operating system as a single, fixed computing unit. This approach also will increase utilization rates by reducing the resources wasted because blade servers aren't configured optimally for the applications they serve. "This evolution will simplify the provisioning of capacity to meet growing needs," Gartner states.

Network World is an InfoWorld affiliate.

Advocates of net neutrality rules in the U.S. have called on President-elect Barack Obama to act quickly to prevent broadband providers from blocking or impairing access to Internet content of customers' choice.

The Open Internet Coalition on Wednesday called on Obama to follow through with his promises during the presidential campaign to establish net neutrality rules. Members of the coalition also called on Obama to appoint a new chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission who would enforce net neutrality rules and champion broadband competition.

[ For an in-depth look at the battle lines that have been drawn over net neutrality, check out InfoWorld's special report. And for the latest in government IT news and issues: Subscribe to InfoWorld's Government IT newsletter . ]

In addition, Obama should appoint leaders at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice who will promote an open Internet through antitrust and consumer-protection laws, and he should put key staff in place at the new office of U.S. chief technology officer and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to promote open Internet ideals both in the U.S. and overseas, the groups said in their letter to the Obama transition team.

"Net neutrality is certainly one key part of the platform, but it's only one part," said Art Brodsky, communications director for Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group that's part of the coalition. "We want to make certain that these institutions of government are prepared to implement an open Internet agenda and respond appropriately to threats."

Members of the group, asked if they believe Obama will act on net neutrality and broadband competition given priorities such as the U.S. economy, said they expect the new president to move ahead on tech issues. "Providing affordable, accessible, high-speed Internet to all Americans is part of the economic recovery," said Markham Erickson, director of the coalition.

Coalition members said they're encouraged that Obama talked about keeping the Internet open in a tech policy paper released more than a year ago. "When it comes to people lobbying, we're always going to be behind," Brodsky said. "The telephone companies are the biggest, wealthiest, and have the [largest] army of people out there. What we have now that we didn't have before is backing of an administration."

Large broadband providers have questioned the need for new net neutrality laws, saying that the FCC has already acted against carriers that have unreasonably blocked or slowed Internet content. Strict net neutrality rules may discourage investment in broadband networks at a time when Obama is calling for more broadband, they have said.

A representative of Comcast, the nation's largest broadband provider, declined to comment on the coalition's letter. Representatives of Verizon Communications and Hands Off the Internet, a group opposing net neutrality rules, weren't immediately available for comment.