Google today announced that it acquired mobile streaming service SimplifyMedia two months ago, and will be leveraging its technology to let Android users to stream music directly from their home PCs.

Simplify Media had previously made a very popular iPhone app with the same streaming capabilities, but announced in March that it was discontinuing its iPhone app and moving the company in a "new direction." It turns out that direction was being bought by Google. During a keynote presentation today, Google vice president of engineering Vic Gundotra revealed the company's plans to build Simplify Media's technology into Android.

SimplifyMedia's server application runs on both Windows and Mac computers, and can stream music from apps like iTunes, WinAmp, and Windows Media Player. It can also stream photos from apps like iPhoto. Music and photos can then be streamed from a home computer to a remote one, or to an iPhone or iPod touch using the Simplify Media iPhone app.

According to Gundotra's comments, Google will focus on enabling music streaming from home PCs to Android-based mobile devices. This is in contrast to services like Pandora, Spotify, or the soon-to-be defunct Lala, which streams music to mobile devices from the cloud.

Read the comments on this post

The heat is being turned up on Google over its recent WiFi data collection incident. Two members of Congress have now sent a letter to the FTC asking a series of questions about how Google's actions might be covered by federal law and what actions the FTC might take. The letter is short and sweet, but it shows that there is growing concern in Congress over Google's "mistake."

The letter, signed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), first asks if the FTC has begun investigating the issue and what the Commission's understanding is of the type of data collected. Who had access to the data? Did Google collect people's passwords? Did the company violate the public's expectation of privacy? Were Google's actions illegal?

These are all questions that the two congressmen want the FTC to answer by June 2. Of course, they're not the only ones asking the FTC to take a look into Google's gaffe—earlier this week, public interest group Consumer Watchdog also called on the agency to investigate Google's "flagrant intrusion into consumers' privacy." German authorities have also demanded that Google hand over the hard drives it used to store the data.

Google's voluntary admission definitely touched a sensitive nerve with lawmakers and the public alike, and the company is now paying the price—at least in terms of increased scrutiny. The search giant has arguably been walking on thin ice when it comes to perceptions of how it protects its users' privacy, but in this case, it may have softened the blow (slightly) by coming out about the "mistake" before anyone else noticed.

Update: Google's data collection mistake is now also the subject of a class action lawsuit out of Oregon. The plaintiffs alleged that "hundreds if not thousands of Google employees throughout the United States and the world have access to data maintained on Google's servers." EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding has also accused the company of flouting EU privacy regulations.

Read the comments on this post

Google unveiled new APIs for its Buzz social networking service on Wednesday during a presentation at the company's I/O developer conference. The new APIs will make it possible for third-party developers to write software—such as desktop and mobile client applications—that can read and post content on Buzz. The Buzz APIs are built on top of open standards to enable broad compatibility with other services.

Google's Chris Chabot started the session by describing Google's vision for social networking. The Web is becoming increasingly social, he explained, but social networking is heavily fragmented due to the multitude of disparate services that are popular among users. Google hopes to unify social networking and make it a pervasive part of the Internet experience, but not at the cost of diversity and rich competition in the marketplace. The solution, said Chabot, is to facilitate interoperability through open standards. He said that Google wants Buzz to be part of a bigger ecosystem, one that includes a healthy quantity of good third-party software.

Facebook has found itself facing some tough choices when it comes to the direction of the company, specifically revolving around user privacy. As most Netizens know, Facebook has faced harsh criticism in recent months—which may be coming to a head after having built up slowly over the years—regarding how it handles user information. Now, the company is left deciding whether it wants to revert to its old principles and go against founder Mark Zuckerberg's policy of forging ahead, privacy be damned.

Facebook public policy head Tim Sparapani said in a radio interview Tuesday that the company was working on simplifying its privacy controls because of user complaints about their complexity. "I think we are going to work on that. We are going to be providing options for users who want simplistic bands of privacy that they can choose from and I think we will see that in the next couple of weeks," he said.

During the opening keynote at the Google I/O conference this morning in San Francisco, the search giant unveiled new Web technologies and reaffirmed its commitment to open standards.

Vic Gundotra, Google's VP of engineering, started the keynote by highlighting the waning relevance of desktop applications and discussing the significance of software's ascent into the cloud. The most important applications today are Web apps, he said. Although the Web has transformed the way that software is developed, deployed, and consumed, it has introduced new challenges that have to be overcome before it can fulfill its potential. The Web is growing up, Gundotra remarked, but the diverse ecosystem of Internet stakeholders must work together to ensure that it continues to advance.

With the profusion of information available on the Web, search engines have become a key mediator by directing people to the information they're interested in. But that has also turned the search engines into gatekeepers; both by ranking the results and by offering suggested search terms, the sites can subtly (and, in some cases, not so subtly) influence the sorts of information that a significant fraction of the public will encounter. A new survey of Google search terms looks into how this is playing out when it comes to information on nanotechnology. The researchers found that both suggested queries and search results may be pushing that field down a path that is similar to the one that was traveled by genetically modified foods, where an initial focus on technology and applications has been replaced by worries about health and ethical issues.

Nanotechnology is a sprawling field that is based on a simple observation: the properties of many familiar materials are completely different when they are structured at the nanometer scale. So, for example, differences between bulk gold and gold nanoparticles include color, melting point, and electronic properties. Our ability to control the bulk production of nanostructured materials is a relatively recent development, and it holds both promises and risks.

Movies, TV shows, software, games, porn, and music are the usual topics of conversation when it comes to any discussion about online piracy. After all, those types of media make up the lion's share of content found via P2P. Still, the online world has opened the doors to sharing all manner of ideas and intellectual property besides these obvious examples, and there are a few unexpected types of content that get ripped off pretty often, thanks to the Internet.

Everybody is wondering who is in charge at Wikipedia ever since Fox News reported that founder Jimmy Wales has relinquished some control over the site's material. The story claimed that, following Wales' alleged attempt to delete a slew of pornographic images from the site, he has been denied the right "to delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit any content."

That's something Wales supposedly started doing following a Wikipedia cofounder's letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation claiming that Wikimedia Commons "may be knowingly distributing child pornography."