Google Wave Is Here: But I have no Friends

I am online with the Google Wave beta. It is cool, takes a bit of getting use to. But this is NOT going to replace my normal email account anytime soon - This is no Tsunami. I do however hope it does replace my email account ASAP - Especially on my iPhone!

The most major thing I don't understand about Google Wave is: How can I message people that do not have Google Wave accounts? Wouldn't this be the obvious way to get other people on board (is this merely not happening because this is a VERY early preview version)? Right now I can't so this means I can't use it for much (start playing little violin here).

My main contacts did not jump at the chance to subscribe to the Beta so I am now sitting in an ocean waiting to catch a wave.

Stay tuned for Google Wave invitation give away. I have nominated 20 of my closest digital friends for Google Wave accounts and am waiting for google to lick the stamps.

And so goes the life of a surfer.

Over and Out.

Bing.com is Amazing!

I’ve been using Bing for one week to see if it can replace Google.

I can now say that Bing does 100% replace Google and in many circumstances I’ve found it not only easier to use, but faster, and more relevant.

Try switching your search engine to Bing and give it a test – I’d love to see what other people think!

Feel free to leave hateful comments, it's all part of the game.

Over and Out

Google Street View Coming To Toronto

I had the privilege of witnessing the Google's street view car as it canvassed downtown Toronto yesterday.

Although I have a feeling the Google's street view car was stalking me, I will still grant Google the rights to use my image on their street view.

Here are the precise details of where I should appear in Toronto. Let's keep our fingers crossed for now!


View Larger Map

Let me Google That For You

It drives me crazy when my friends / coworkers ask me to Google something.

How hard is it to type: www.google.com and a couple keywords.

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com is the perfect solution. Try it yourself or allow me To Google That For You.

If you haven't already figured this out this site shows the user an animation explaining exactly how easy it is to Google that keyword on your own.

Over and Out

Google: People will pay for web content, says Google

At WAN 2008 Nikesh Arora, the President of Google Europe, Middle East, Africa and VP of UK operations stated the rise of paid news content on the web.

He even goes as far as to predict the demise of the blogosphere and the continued dependence on internet based commodities (mashable mapping, messaging etc. products).

Y0u can read the article here.

This is especially scary as we move the public internet increasingly over private pipes. Will ISPs start charging tolls to content providers to serve paid content? Will we see a CableTV model deployed here with carriers, broadcasters and content holders?

Google is bold in saying this. If I only have content purchased from Toronto Star, TSN, and ESPN - Why in the world would I need search.

Over and Out

Google Analytics Data Sharing and Benchmarking against Industry Verticals

I do not have much time for a blog today, but thought I'd share this new Google Analytics data sharing feature with you. I am a tiny bit hesitant to believe that it's a good thing Google is trying to take on this vertical - but heck - what can't they get into - Microsoft Max?? I feel this is just another attempt from the giant to capture more information from its users - especially more granular information - and I'm not going to participate. My second question is - they will do something drastic with this info - what is that, and what are these so called New Google Products and Services. Hmmm ...

The below is the announcement email the Google Analytics team sent out this morning, happy reading:

Dear Google Analytics users,

We are writing to let you know about a change in our service offerings. If you have logged into your account recently, you may have noticed that you can now choose to share your Google Analytics data. By providing data sharing options, we hope to provide you with transparency, control, and new services based on your preferences.

To learn more about data sharing settings, visit our FAQs: http://www.google.com/support/googleanalytics/bin/answer.py?answer=87515

We're also happy to announce industry benchmarking as the first new feature available to those who opt to share their data. Benchmarking lets you compare your metrics against industry verticals.

To enable this optional new feature, an administrator on your account will need to make the following selections on the Google Analytics data sharing settings page:

1. Log into your account. You'll see the yellow data sharing settings box on the Analytics Settings page.

2. Click the "More data sharing options" link within the yellow box.

3. Select the second checkbox to specify that you want to share your data "Anonymously with Google products and the benchmarking service". You can also choose to share your data "With Google products only" to take advantage of advanced Google advertising products and services as they become available.

The industry benchmarking feature is currently in beta. Once you have enabled benchmarking, it may take up to two weeks before the categorized, aggregated and anonymized benchmarking data shows up in your reports.

For more information on the benchmarking service, visit our FAQs: http://www.google.com/support/googleanalytics/bin/topic.py?topic=13909

In addition to the new benchmarking service, opting to share your data will also enable you to take advantage of new advanced Google products and services as they become available. We think these services will offer greater insight and sophistication to users who have opted to share their data. However, if you would prefer not to use these services, simply specify on the settings page that you don't want to share your data.


Sincerely,

The Google Analytics Team

Blogger / Blogspot Now Supporting OpenID

I don't know how behind the curve I really am with this one - BUT - Blogger is now supporting OpenID authentication.

I really wish I'd known about this - next question - does that mean Google is now supporting OpenID too? Bloggers? Can I use my Google Account anywhere OpenID is supported.


I am LOVING THIS.

Over and Out

Google Chart API

This is actually pretty neat. A little known Google Service called Google Chart API went live today to the entire world.

Charts may be embedded in any web application by merely updating the src attribute within an image tag (or using an HttpWebRequest to do something funky with it).

Here are some examples:



















Check out the various charts that can be made using this nifty service here.

As an Enterprise Developer, my next question becomes, will my IT department block this service. Unfortunately, because I can't download and install the chart builder component on my server, I'd probably never use it in any big Enterprise.

Over And Out

(Powerset vs. Google) vs. Search Industry

Powerset has positioned itself as the company that is going to bring down Google.

The reason I'm excited isn't because Mark Johnson looks like Bill Gates, or because he has a super high voice, it's because its natural-language technology is being licensed from PARC (the Palo Alto Research Center and susidiary of Xerox Corp.). Renowned for hatching breakthroughs such as the computer mouse and the graphical interface for personal computers, is it possible they are up to their old tricks?

If you haven't seen the somewhat limited promo video you can view it here on YouTube. There is also a demo from the TechCrunch40 conference here (part 1) and here (part 2). I'm not convinced yet but there are tons of other video's talking about it: CNBC, Get Connected, Kron 4.

When Google launched I wasn't much of an Internet Evangelist. But after nearly a decade they are a part of my daily life. I'm not too sure how natural-language search will trump a simple keyword search. Is it really easier to find what you are looking for using natural-language? I'm not too sure that it is. In the 1990s, Ask Jeeves was founded on the premise that Internet search requests should be presented as simple questions. It then frustrated users with too many irrelevant answers. After nearly failing in the dot-com bust, the company embraced the keyword approach to search and abandoned its mascot, a cartoon butler named Jeeves, to distance itself from the days it relied on natural-language algorithms. It is now known simply as Ask.com.

Google was a huge success because they were so simple. They only had one search box and their name on their home page. With more slower connections back then, users like myself found Google the best bet for quick searches. I've never looked back since (although I really do like Yahoo!). But I'm not sure that this is the case anymore. If I can't find something on Google that I can find using Powerset then I'd be happy ... Any how ...

Powerset is gradually opening its testing ground, dubbed Powerlabs, to 16,000 people who signed up to get an early glimpse at the search engine, myself included. During this test phase, Powerlabs is only indexing material from Wikipedia so it will be interesting to see how the natural search term Who is Matt Stark? produces results.

The San Francisco-based startup is so confident that its methods are superior to Google that they will present some answers alongside what its rival returns when asked the same questions. Powerset is requiring its users to vote on which engine produced better results before they are allowed to enter another search request.

There is a site called Hakia that already does natural-language search but I'm not sure it is as fast or comprehensive as Google. Understanding the meaning of many words is difficult without people involved. Unfortunately for Powerset, I'm not sure there is demand for this type of search at this point in time! But nonetheless, good luck Powerset, good luck! Can't wait to see you guys integrate this over voice using integrated GPS on a mobile phone "Where is good Chinese food?".

Over and Out

Google / Yahoo Phone

Just a quick side note on this one:

I think this is a move for both companies to get into Internet Tablet devices. I'd be betting Google and Yahoo are using the term "Phone" to appeal to certain people while the intent is to develop their own Internet PC's.

I wonder if Web OS's will take of in parallel?

Over And Out

Resolved: Google / Blogger no longer violating my privacy

OK so here is the deal. The Show my Email address option does not apply to instant message coordinates. So if you have an email address in your IM Username field Blogger will display that in your profile.

I think this is a bit silly because I clearly have not shared my email address. Further, there is no setting to share / not to share your IM address. Be weary not to include your IM Username.

I guess an email address isn't an email address as far as Google / Blogger are concerned. I'd just as soon not share any email addresses when I specify not to - but I guess this is a loophole.

Check out my new profile!

Over and Out

Google / Blogger Violating My Privacy!!!!

I just did a Google search for my email address. It directed me to my blogger profile. Well I thought that was strange because I clearly have not selected the checkbox that allows Blogger/Google to share my email address.

I would really like to see what Blogger / Google has to say about this. Possibly I shouldn't be using my gmail address, possibly I should be creating a new email account just so I can blog. I already have about ten so what's another one?

Here is the proof (I guess you'll just have to trust me that the trick works):

Google Search for my email:



Blogger Profile View Clearly Shows My Email:



Blogger Privacy Setting Does Not Specify that Blogger / Google can share my email address:




I've put in a support request but still no luck!

Over and Out

Response: By 2010, will Windows 'Seven' (or any desktop OS) really matter?

The following is a discussion between myself and a friend in response to David Berlind's article: By 2010, will Windows 'Seven' (or any desktop OS) really matter?

Assumption: Internet OS implies: Internet, Intranet, and Extranet

"People that are engrossed in technology tend to overestimate the timeliness of the impact that new technology brings to the market. For example, fewer than 40% of the developed world who owns PCs have broadband internet right now and even if they have it they probably don't have it outside of their work or their home - obviously that would have to change dramatically if the world is going to become that dependent on the internet to make their PCs useful. Windows could prove to be the most important OS in a long time because potentially it could become the first OS that makes more use of internet services to improve productivity. People want to be able to use their computers online and offline, on the road and in the office, with and without rich editing capability and many people like the privacy of their own PC - maintaining their own private documents, desktop and settings. I don't really know you have to think that with 6 billion people in the world and only 1 billion on PCs with less than 40% in internet access and even fewer on mobile solutions that the world would have to advance fairly fast in the next two and a half years for Windows to not matter anymore..."

Overestimated timeliness: this is something that started 3 years ago and is here today. Look at the clients Google Premier Apps / SalesForce has built up already. And don't underestimate the headaches involved in managing a hardware infrastructure / licensing agreements in the non-techy enterprise. Enterprise is entrenched in their current technology, but as this tech becomes obsolete, companies will start realizing the cost savings of moving to 100% online. Especially when they can translate reduced licence costs into a competitive advantage against their competition. Basic Economics will play a role in these decisions.

Broadband PC users / Internet Service OS: How is productivity going to get better by introducing Internet Services at the OS level? The only thing I can see is grid computing / shared computing resources (OS Cloud for more processing power for R&D / Science). Internet Services become useful at the Application level. Internet Applications already consume Internet Services and have for 3+ years. If that is the goal for 2010 then MS would be about 6 years behind the rest of the world (10 years before mass adoption). Who knows, possibly Microsoft can't divulge half the info about that anyway.

Online / Offline: One can already build online / offline web applications.

Productivity: I have seen nothing recent from Microsoft that makes me more productive. Everything I've seen / heard about (Office 2007 / Vista) actually decreases productivity because of the learning curve. They totally ditched super users in favour of making it easier for beginners - and that's just stupid in a mature market where loyalty is a two way street. This learning curve is pushing people into the internet application space (Google Premier Apps / Salesforce / Zoho /...). Just keep in mind this P word's biggest limitation is human nature - and technology can't do much about that.

Portability: In the era of the Internet as an OS I don't need to sit at the same desk, office or even be on the same network to be productive nor to collaborate. All I need is access to the internet and I have everything I need. Google doesn't even have assigned seats in their office - they just have floors with computers. They spend their money on other things like hot tubs, sports and 20% time - that leads to employee retention. I bet the cost of each Google employee is about 1/2 the cost of each MS employee should MS actually have to pay licenses for software and infrastructure they consume.

Saturation: People who want PC's / broadband already have it (at least the people that matter EX// not Coboconk). As people better understand WHERE and WHAT they WANT to do on their PC's they will realize they don't need to spend $500 on an OS when everything they do is in a browser (exception: image & video editors, gaming and game programming). The internet is mature and is evolving into the OS that Microsoft predicted when they won the Internet Explorer anti trust case earlier this decade. I'm purchasing a Fedora laptop with the equivalent power as my current laptop for $150 USD brand new. Would cost $650 with Vista. I don't know if Vista is really worth the cost of 4 internet only Linux boxes.

T-1 Adoption: Windows 7 will be adopted in 2015 no earlier. It may be released in 2010 but even after a year you'll only have early adopters and people that were forced to have it because they bought new PC's (as is the case with Vista). Because the enterprise is the only customer that will see value in Windows, they will adopt Vista no earlier than when Windows 7 is released. Hence Windows 7 will actually be 10 years behind when adoption rates are significant, and if history repeats, will only come with another HUGE learning curve that organizations don't want to pay for in productivity losses.

Collaboration: Is the buzz word in the age of internet applications. Our consulting firm could win more bids if we didn't try to push Sharepoint (have still not seen a decent implementation of that beast). Sharepoint is required to link all the MS parts together. It costs $30K to brand and deploy in an organization plus volume licensing of the parts. All of this functionality is included in the $50 per year per user Google Premier Apps package without the need to manage hardware. In an economic era of big boxes vs. bootstrapped startups how can any org compete with costs like that?

Privacy: Is legislation not technology. Is enforceable in a court of law. Any company seeking to house user data will be subject to privacy regulation. In that their systems will be more secure than a basic Windows OS installation or else their business will be shut down by the courts (or repairs will be made and distributed to everyone immediately rather than VIA service updates). I can customize my Social Web OS EX// Facebook to look like I want it to with the privacy that I want. I can specify who to share documents with in my Google Collaboration suite. The company cannot share my data without a court order, and because of this enforceability - their systems are less subject to intrusion than even my own PC. If my home PC was hacked I could do nothing, if my web data account was hacked tI could sue.

Mobile: Is the fastest growing segment of the internet and will drive the Internet as an OS theory. Regardless of what the numbers are today, mobile devices will increasingly consume internet data sources. The single largest factor prohibiting mobile internet usage is platform. These limitations push developers further into the internet space. The iPhone's Safari browser is a key differentiator that other companies are trying to copy and will lead the charge in this arena. AJAX is here to stay, even on mobile phones!

Conclusion:

Unfortunately I don't think that this has anything to do with the rate of technology progression. I say this because it started drizzling about 3 years ago, started to pour in the last 18 months, and we now sit in a very mature Internet Application Space. YouTube is mature, iTunes is mature, Ring Tones are mature, Office Productivity is mature, and VOIP and Social Networking are nearly mature (also adoption rates are much faster for web apps over desktop apps). It's not about reinventing the wheel here - it's about making the wheel easier to produce, use and maintain - all the while keeping it the same. It's about developing a rubber that works as well on ice as it does on asphalt as it does on concrete. It's about giving the driver the same feel of control over his vehicle in every type of driving condition such that they can focus on what is really important: getting to where they are going.

Having said this I do recognize that this is a huge mindset shift for people at the CTO level and directly below, and in this you could turn several of these arguments against me. But as the CFO's start tightening the purse strings as the US goes into recession, technologies largest opponent becomes cost. And in time's like that the Board of Directors are more inclined to listen to the CFO over the CTO, especially when companies like Google are setting up aggressive corporate sales teams who's job it is to make people appreciate just how much cheaper their product really is.

It's nice to think that technology is the savoir of business, but it's actually the other way around. Without a business need, there never would have been a technology developed to fit the hole. It's important to recognize that business dictates this change, not technology companies. It just becomes a bit insulting when status quo is a superior route of action than action it 'self.

P.S., Gaming, Video Editing, Image Editing, and general media consumption are outside the scope of this posting. Should Microsoft decide to include media services in the base Windows 7 install they will face another anti-trust case. It's tough being Microsoft right now - but I'm rooting for them. At least they have Virtual Earth, Silverlight and control over the best darn CLR on the market. Their future is still bright, I just question if they will see continue to see ROI's similar to previous Windows releases after the Vista generation.

Over and Out

Destination Web Sites: Beware of iGoogle Gadgets, Alternative = Netvibes.com Modules

Google is an advertising firm, not a technology company. At this point, all of Google’s technology is subsidized VIA advertising revenue. They state this in their Annual Report (99% of revenue in 2005 was ad revenue) as a risk. Anyone who argues this point doesn’t understand the nature of business.

Google has announced Google Gadget Ventures, a Google pilot program dedicated to helping developers create richer, more useful Google Gadgets. But the catch is they are shelling out cash to developers who want to make their iGoogle site better. It actually makes a lot of sense: pay developers to enhance the functionality of their site. Enhance the functionality of your site, increase user value.

My major tech problem with Google Gadgets is simple: there are plenty of other Gadget platforms out there. Rather than building on the strengths of these competitive platforms and embracing their inherit “open nature”, Google decided to build their own and clutter an already mature technology vertical by bribing developers in order to promote their web properties. This quam takes a back seat to my real world problem with this Google bribe.

I’m a NetVibes.com user and will never use iGoogle ever. And if you see me building an iGoogle gadget it will be because someone is paying me to do so. Did you know you can build a NetVibes.com module and it’s basically the same as an iGoogle gadget? On top of that if you use NetVibes.com as your news reader, Google will not be stashing all your secret reading habits to later apply in pushing more tailored advertisements to you!

Alexa gives NetVibes.com a traffic ranking of 801 of all sites they rank. In comparison iGoogle, is ranked 1,261,393. So it is no shock they are literally paying developers to get them more traffic. They need it to build up their ad revenue as the information you consume does indicate the information you will consume.

Once again Google is trying to create a community effect – similar to Google 3D warehouse where they managed to have users contribute millions of 3D models to their repository. But in the 3D world, they didn’t pay people to provide these contributions – is this because they didn’t know how to monetize the 3D stuff on any large scale? Who knows.

Anyway, this venture is a significant step for Google as they realize that the number of available iGoogle gadgets will directly relate to the popularity of their iGoogle site and greatly enhance the granularity of data they can collect on you VIA the information you consume through their portal. They are trying to become a destination site, and no doubt will be knocking on your ISP’s door to be the default.

They are not doing this to get closer to any desktop – they are doing it to get closer to your pocket book VIA tailored advertising.

This is a direct response to a threat identified in the Google annual report:

“We also compete with destination web sites that seek to increase their search-related traffic. These destination web sites may include those operated by Internet access providers, such as cable and DSL service providers .…. If an access provider or a computer or computing device manufacturer offers online services that compete with ours, the user may find it more convenient to use the services of the access provider or manufacturer. In addition, the access provider or manufacturer may make it hard to access our services by not listing them in the access provider’s or manufacturer’s own menu of offerings, or may charge users to access our websites or the websites of our Google Network members. Also, because the access provider gathers information from the user in connection with the establishment of a billing relationship, the access provider may be more effective than we are in tailoring services and advertisements to the specific tastes of the user.”

iGoogle is bad.

Over and Out

eBay Stares Down Google And Wins

This is a repost from the original TechCrunch article (more information available on the TechCrunch site). Microsoft did it's share of pissing corp's off, but Google as of late seems to be taking the cake. eBay is to internet commerce, as Google is to internet search. Seemingly, the two should be able to play nice (eBay hasn't entered search but possibly they should buy Ask.com):

"Not much commentary is needed on this one. Here’s what happened:

1. eBay doesn’t allow merchants to use Google Checkout to settle eBay transactions. Google invited eBay online sellers attending eBay Live! in Boston this week to a party that they called the Google Checkout Freedom Party.
2. eBay decides to pull all U.S. advertising on Google.

3. Google backs down, cancels the party.

4. Google looks like a complete wimp; eBay looks like a bully.

The party appeared to be nothing more than Google poking a little fun at eBay’s restrictive policies. eBay hit back with the biggest weapon they had, suggesting that tension between the companies goes very deep."

Over and Out

Google Search Appliance Info? Try Windows Live Search!

In it's promotional video, Google boasts that over 4000 corporations around the world are using their Google Search Appliance. I really love how the first half of the presentation I'm watching is a marketing vehicle. I mean, as a developer who is sold on the technology, it only makes sense to market it to me again.

Well, I decided to try searching for infomation. Seems about right, right? Well, to my shock "the Google" isn't indexing information on it's own products very effectively.

As an IT consultant, I find myself using new technologies all the time. I usually dive in fairly late in the game when information is abundant. So why is Google hiding the sweet pictorial big picture slides from me?

Could it be that as the promo video states that 1/4 of our time is actually spent looking for information? Is it possible they want me to keep using Google web search to find information? Are there really more sponsored links I could click on?

I figured after browsing 3 pages of Google search results that I wasn't getting best results, I should try switching search engines.

After a quick Windows Live Search I found all the information I needed on the first page of search results:

Live.com


Google.com


I was quite shocked about this truthiness. Is it possible "the Google" is actually trying to make more money off us poor suckers who have invested in their enterprise technology? I sure hope not.

Over And Out

Google blasted by media execs

Looks like the Googlenet is hard at work pissing more people off:

"The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation," Time Warner Inc. Chief Executive Richard Parsons said, referring to the Civil War American general George Custer who was defeated by Native Americans in a battle dubbed "Custer's Last Stand" [...] "They will lose this war if they go to war," Parsons added, "The notion that the new kids on the block have taken over is a false notion."

Read entire article.

Over and Out

Internet Video Advertising ROI: The Internet as a Magazine

In 2006 over $61 billion dollars were spent on US Television advertising. In comparison, in 2006 the IAB estimates $16.8 billion aggregate dollars were spent on Internet Advertising. That 16.8 billion is only 5% of all advertising dollars spent per year. That $16.8 billion is an aggregate figure, but even so, is only 27% of what advertisers spent in television advertising in the US in 2006.

Aside from search, a vast amount of Google's advertising revenue comes on the back of some very non traditional ad streams. They have basically created a $10 billion dollar fabric that runs through-out the internet (Ad Words / Ad Sense) letting the little guys make money off their sites. But, much of their ad revenue is not a product of the real world's demand, but rather, is a product of the ad industry they have spawned on the net.

Magazines are the big ROI winner for advertising in general. They beat out broadcast television, which is influenced by the law of diminishing returns. They beat out newspapers which are discarded immediately after reading. But the net may slowly be creeping into their territory when it comes to ROI – especially increasing the ROI of video advertising – and potentially unlocking billions more dollars of ad revenue to the IPTV / Internet video markets.

Why? Magazines target efficiently: With a range of titles that appeal to a wide variety of demographics, lifestyles and interests, advertisers can hone in on targets that fit their needs. Magazines provide reach to the most desirable consumers: Across almost every demographic, the top 25 magazines out deliver the top 25 TV shows. In addition, heavy magazine readers are likely to be among the largest spenders across most product categories. Magazine audiences accumulate faster than you think— and with lasting impact: The average magazine accumulates approximately 60% of its audience within a month’s time. In addition, consumers refer to magazines multiple times, even saving them, giving advertisers the opportunity for added exposure.

Dynamic Logic discovered that when comparing magazines, the Internet and TV, magazine advertising was the most powerful medium in increasing purchase intent. Magazines, in a media mix that included online and TV, contributed 64% of the total increase in purchase intent (7.2% of a total 11.1% shift).

So back to the $61 Billion dollar advertising question. What if we, as internet pioneers, can take this Magazine model and apply it to internet television:

1) Magazines target efficiently / Magazine advertising engages: the internet can target niche markets by tracking your usage patterns, then during an IPTV broadcast, advertisers can serve different video ads depending on the users preference and hit that same narrow niche market – not to mention custom video feeds for every viewer, not to mention being able to skip stuff you're not interested in (just like turning the page of a Magazine).

2) Magazine advertising moves readers to action: the internet can link IPTV ads to digital marketing programs, incorporating TV on demand features such that users could explore the advertisers web site (or digital magazine), even make a purchase, and then resume viewing of their IPTV program. It cannot get any better than the net for promoting ad action.

3) Magazines provide reach to the most desirable consumers: the internet provides reach to a very general audience, with the ability to target advertisements to the specific wants of customers; thereby reaching all consumers including the desirable / influential ones in a targeted manner.

4) Magazine audiences accumulate faster than you think — and with lasting impact: the same can be said about the internet, social communities, internet viral marketing. Remember the bride that cut all her hair off – that could be your commercial – and YouTube could have been your “marketing program”. In a couple years, that same funny video will make it's rounds again - you just wait.

5) Magazines supply credibility: with social functions being built into IPTV sites such as NetFlix.com and Joost, user communities rate content – thereby creating the equivalent type of credibility – and even supplementary / complementary cross promotion VIA the community / network effect.

As Bill Gates noted in his 2007 CES Keynote: "We've talked about this as the decade of digital lifestyle, the decade of digital workstyle. It's not just one application that makes it happen. It's the fact that as you adopt these things, they really go together. […] It only catches up to us in the way it changes the way entertainment gets done. TV where we pick the news segments we want. We find the video that wouldn't have been available in a broadcast system. […] TV is a big activity and one where we see software really surprising people with what it can do. ... An individualized video stream ... ads can be target to you ... something that you won't want to skip over. As you get into a news show, the subjects you care about, you can get more info, and skip over others. You might have a ski resort you want to see every time you want to sit down to watch the nightly news whenever you want. […] It completely blows open the limitations that channels used to create. It becomes something easy for you to navigate and find. Not one TV here, and your Internet TV there. Personalization, choice, all these things that weren't possible. Last year we had very successful trials .. AT&T and Verizon are rolling out commercial deployments. This year these will scale up to really large numbers, and people will see it blows away the previous video platform. […] As that video comes into the home it will be viewable on ... every screen in the house.”

There is a huge amount of TV ad revenue that isn’t being spent on the internet. The proportion of ad budgets targeting this medium dwarfs the entire internet advertising ad budget by nearly four times. It only makes sense that as we start to realize the benefits of video distribution over the internet, that some of these traditional broadcast TV advertising dollars will start to be spent on the internet.

Which means, if Google (making $10 Billion in 2006) had made the right moves in internet video, they would have seen substantial revenue grown VIA positive media partnerships. Rather, they face a media backlash. From the magazine ad market - to the video ad market: Companies do not want to work with them because of YouTube / monopoly fears. In fact, it is because of Google’s success, that Microsoft can do certain things without huge antitrust backlash – I mean, has Microsoft lost share in any of their core business markets? They sure kicked Sony’s ass in console’s in North America. Sure they missed out on the Internet concepts – but late adopters don’t face the same challenges as early adopters - the road is somewhat paved already.

What makes me really scared is the fact that Microsoft is in talks with Yahoo! who has been scooping up huge contracts with traditional broadcasters / networks to use their internet ad platform (as these huge media empires rally against Google / YouTube). If this acquisition moves forward, Microsoft will have an enormous advantage in that they control the corporate media ad platform of choice (Panama), and are able to back any ad program with a distribution platform Windows Server + Microsoft Silverlight. And this will truly spur the innovation they need to make Gate’s vision a reality.

I’m sure Microsoft would try to keep media sources distributed over the public internet such that they can sell more Windows licenses / run more advertising programs on other peoples dollar, and promote net neutrality – all the while making huge percentages off the Panama platform. But I would expect these video sources to be consolidated and delivered VIA their private xBox Live network, to your HDTV, without the need for a personal computer (and possibly ad sponsored), to a world audience.

Additionally you can’t discount Microsoft’s history of partnering with device manufactures over the closed shop model of Apple. This may allow device platforms to integrate directly into a Microsoft Live TV platform (think Silverlight + Panama + Device Integration), in a manner that promotes rapid network /content growth (especially if it starts being delivered through xBox Live & LCD HDTV’s are discounted if you sign a Windows Live TV contract for 3 years).

In other news, the most recent complaint against YouTube came on Monday when NBC joined Viacom in their billion dollar suit against YouTube. This followed Friday’s news, when England's most prestigious soccer league and an independent music publisher filed a class action suit against YouTube.

I guess people were right when they said YouTube was a copyright nightmare - not an advertising opportunity – and it looks like Google is now paying the strategy tax.

Over and Out

Viacom Boosts Joost: Say No To YouTube?

I blogged about this the other day when Viacom stiffed Google on an advertising deal pertaining to all of it's digital properties. I thought it was a possible response to Google's inability to curtail copyright content on YouTube which resulted in Viacom's billion dollar lawsuit against the search giant. Further I thought we'd see media firms rally against YouTube. Well folks, it's happening!

In February, Reuters reported that Viacom signed a video deal with Joost to port hundreds of hours of programming to the startup's IP TV on demand platform. As CyberNet is reporting today Viacom Turns on YouTube, now Greets Joost with Open Arms:

"Viacom has made a new deal that involves the licensing of hundreds of hours of programming from networks like MTV, Comedy Central, Spike, and even movies from Paramount. What makes Joost more appealing for Viacom is that users aren’t able to upload content themselves. That may not be very appealing for some users who’d like the option for uploading their content, but what is appealing is that Joost will be running full episodes, and to boot? High-quality resolution, which is something you wouldn’t find from YouTube."

I'm fairly certain this will be a trend for media companies who are looking for more control over their digital content. In Fact, there are rumors on the Joost blog that CBS is jumping into the Joost mix with their premier shows: CSI, CSI Miami, CSI New York, CBS Sportsline, and Survivor.

Advertising innovators have embraced Joost and it shows with some of the big names they have sold spots to. Globally they have such clients as Coca-Cola, HP, Intel and Nike. In the USA they have signed deals with Electronic Arts, Esurance, Garnier Fructis, Kraft, Lionsgate, Microsoft Corp, Motorola Inc, Nestle Purina PetCare, Procter & Gamble, Hugo Boss Fragrances, Sony Electronics, Taco Bell, United Airlines, US Army, Visa, and the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. Further in Europe they have deals with GM, IBM, L'Oreal Paris, Nokia Nseries, Unilever, Virgin Money, Vodafone and Warner Brothers.

"Joost has attracted partners from every major brand category because we offer an advertising platform that is similar to TV, with high-quality programming; and we're providing unparalleled user statistics and insights, as well as an unmatched level of interactivity, targetability and measurability," said David Clark, executive vice president of global advertising, Joost. "Our launch partners and their creative teams are a tremendous asset for Joost, as we work together to create inventive ads that allow them to reach and interact with consumers in new and compelling ways."

I'm sure this is where Google would have liked to take YouTube but unfortunately for them, Joost beat them to the punch. The question is, when Joost launches to the public will YouTube continue to thrive? And how will the sharing features stack up to YouTubes?

One of the huge challenges for YouTube is how to license clips exported from copyright material. These clips are only legal if the original copyright holder has granted permission for them to be uploaded. Further, the law around DMCA states no firm may reap profits (ads) off illegally posted content, and further safe harbours these copyright offenders through something called a take down request. So YouTube allows this illegal content to be posted, knowing they cannot be held liable, and when copyright owners request the content be removed, YouTube must do so ASAP or be taken to court.

There have been rumors in the mix about the big networks collaborating on a clip sharing site which would rival YouTube but have 100% high quality legal content. This is something that Joost is doing now, and it will be interesting to see if the big media companies embrace their idea, or continue to go down their own road.

Unless ALL the networks collaborate on a video application it will be very tough to take on Joost once it gains traction (and increases program availability). And again as CyberNet has reported:

"Joost was started by Niklas Zennstrm and Janus Friis. Recognize those names? They were the two founders of file-sharing service Kazaa, and Skype. They swept up $2.69 billion when Skype was acquired by eBay, so clearly they’re not running into problems financing the Joost deal."

Over and Out!

Google Expands on Mission, Vision wants more Crazy.

A while ago I wondered where Google was going as a business. I wondered, how can a company invest so heavily in building products and services that don’t push up the bottom line? For example when Google acquired JotSpot for an undisclosed sum, JotSpot had about 2,000 users each spending between $5 and $200 on services per month. This puts JotSpot’s revenue at a maximum of about 2000 x 200 x 12 or $4.8 million dollars or as little as $120 K. Given the server and employee costs, JotSpot was probably just scraping by running in the black, they were probably still be paying down some of the original investments in the company, it’s even conceivable they were not yet making a profit.

For a company like Google, and considering JotSpot was earning at most 4.8 million dollars per year in revenue, is this what Google is looking for in an acquisition target? Is this the type of crazy their chief has put a come one come all invitation out for? Initially when Google purchased JotSpot they did so citing "a strong fit" with the Google Groups discussion forum and the Google Apps suite of hosted communication and collaboration applications. Good for Google. After all that is what I look for when I buy my jeans – but then again I’m not making any money of my jeans – or could I if I had the right type of sculpted muscular male body … ahhhhh … I dunno …. I have to admit it is a very strong fit and Google’s enormous muscular body may be able to pull it off.

Building on this Crazy, almost as Crazy as Google’s next move which was to release it’s premier line of Apps attempting to target Micorosoft’s Office Suite in an enterprise productivity environment. Great for Google if they manage to steal even a small percentage of the enormous market. But one thing that must be considered is Microsoft can meet and even beat Google’s price target of $50 per user for it’s office productivity suite. It can do this with a far more feature rich set, it can hedge some of it’s costs against the other Microsoft things that your coroporation is guaranteed to use, and it can do so at a profit. Further, it can probably do nothing to the product for 5 years and watch Google pour money into their product, and still come out with a more robust toolkit.

As Ricky Bobby would say, Google wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence. At least that’s how the internet community seems to see them. How can an advertising giant do any wrong in innovation, and is there really a ceiling you can put on this type of business?

Sure, most firms would probably be happy making $928 Million dollars in ad revenue in 2006. But it seems the company isn’t satisfied. When the director of corporate development Salman Ullah comes out with a statement like ``We look at everything very carefully,'' and follows that with a ``The really crazy ones do really well.'', I really have to think that their growth strategy is totally and completely lunatic – well, OK not lunatic – possibly just bursting at the seams.

I think this is best left up to Mr. Balmer in quote, talking to Google’s other plan to double their employee base in 12 months : "They are trying to double in a year," … "That's insane in my opinion." … but he adds … "it doesn't mean they won't do it well."

I personally would love to work for a company like that.

Over And Out