Google in France: Are Wine and Cheese Included in the Deal?
February 19, 2021
Google News aggregates news content from various media outlets, but it does not pay the outlets for the content. Some content on Google News requires subscriptions to specific outlets, but overall the information is free. Media outlets are upset that Google does not pay them for their content, although Google could argue that they are driving traffic to their Web site and offer free exposure. Traffic and exposure are not enough for French publishers, says the Seattle PI in, “Google, French Publishers Sign Copyright News Payment Deal.”
Google France negotiated with the Alliance de la Presse d’Information Generale for months to agree upon a framework where Google would pay licensing fees to French publishers. Google needed this deal after France was the first country to adopt the European Union’s new copyright rules.
The new rules were made, because of money and lack of quality news:
“Under the framework agreement, payments will be based on criteria such as the amount published daily and monthly internet traffic. Google did not spell out how much money would be paid to the group’s members. News companies had pushed for the EU copyright reform amid worries that quality journalism is declining as ad revenue gets siphoned off by the digital giants.”
It makes sense, especially when big tech companies created the technology that enables misinformation bad actors to spread conspiracy theories. The technology itself is not bad, but can cause harm. Google is benefiting from journalists’ hard work, but also dumbing down the medium as well as stealing its’ power. Journalists, like other professionals, should be paid for their work, especially if they focus on telling quality stories.
Whitney Grace, February 19, 2021
The Unthinkable: Will Google News and Facebook Pay Publishers for Content?
February 15, 2021
Regulators are beginning to agree with publishers that platforms like Google News should pay for the content they post. News Showcase is Google’s answer to this trend, and The Verge reveals it is operating in two new countries in, “Google Now Pays 450 Sites to Bring You Free News, Including Some Paywalled Stories.” In the UK, 120 publishers have enlisted in alongside 40 in Argentina. Those nations join Germany and Brazil, where News Showcase launched last year, and Australia, which joined in just last week. The last example is in interesting study in regulatory pressure and corporate acquiescence. Writer Jon Porter explains:
“Last week, Google News Showcase launched in Australia, a country where the company is currently locking horns with lawmakers over new rules that could force it to pay news publishers for their content. Google recently threatened to pull its search engine from the country if the News Media Bargaining Code goes into effect. Last week, Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he’d held ‘constructive’ talks with Google CEO Sundar Pichai over the new rules. The situation means that although seven Australian publishers have joined the program, covering over 25 publications, The Guardian reports that one outlet, Nine, chose not to negotiate with Google until the new code is brought in. In an FAQ, Google says it believes News Showcase should be compatible with the new rules, since publishers are free to enter into arbitration if they don’t like Google’s News Showcase deal.”
Google plans to soon add France, Canada, and Japan to its News Showcase roster. Meanwhile, Facebook has a similar plan. It is phasing content for which it is actually paying publishers into its News tab, which serves up both curated and personalized content. The initiative started in the US and recently began operation in the UK. Now we know the big tech companies are not completely impervious to regulatory pressure. What is next?
Cynthia Murrell, February 15, 2021
Why Use an Open Source Database? Brilliant Inadvertent Explanation
February 15, 2021
I thought, “Why bother to read ‘Everything You Should Know about the Oracle Database.’” I am delighted that I did. I read the article in The Tech Block twice! The information attempts to explain some of Oracle’s licensing guidelines. The author does a workmanlike job of explaining number of users; for example:
If you create an account for five hundred individuals, and only fifty individuals use it, you still need about five hundred licenses. This means that you’ve got to pay utmost attention to who is accessing the software. In addition, you may require a separate license not only for people but also for devices that directly or indirectly access the database. It’s also essential that you constantly check who needs access and who doesn’t. This will help you not only reduce your risk of exposure but also save you money. Being found contravening Oracle licensing agreements can be very costly. In some extreme cases, organizations have been fined millions of dollars.
The point is Oracle charges for people who don’t use the database. On one hand, this makes sense. Oracle has to do “work” to configure a database to handle users. (Remember the good old days of having to allocate more memory to a table. Ho ho ho. Wait. The good old days are today’s days.)
The write up contains eight more missteps an Oracle customer can trip and break the bean counter’s financial ankles.
Net net: The explanation makes it quite clear why some organizations use open source databases. Perhaps the author did not intend to anti-market Oracle’s database? From my point of view, that is exactly what the information in “Everything You Should Know…” delivers.
Stephen E Arnold, February 16, 2021
Amazon AWS EC2 Pricing
February 11, 2021
Amazon AWS makes many things simple: Off the shelf machine learning models, buying cables, and spending money. If you want to get a sense for the complexity of pricing at AWS, take a look at “EC2 Instances.Info: Easy Amazon ED2 Instance Comparison.” The effort required to compile the table was significant. In addition to the data structured by EC service, region, and other tags — there’s the splash page table itself. Impressive. For those with some financial and technical expertise, a new job category now exists: Figuring out AWS pricing for a project and then determining how to minimize costs over time. From the Amazon one click patent to this pricing inventory. How far has Amazon driven the Bezos bulldozer? A long way.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2021
Google and Broad Match
February 11, 2021
I read “Google Is Moving on From Broad Match Modifier.” The essay’s angle is search engine optimization; that is, spoofing Google’s now diluted relevance methods. The write up says:
Google says it has been getting better at learning the intent behind a query, and is therefore more confident it can correctly map advertisements to queries. As that ability improves, the differences between Phrase Match and Broad Match Modified diminishes. Moving forward, there will be three match types, each with specific benefits:
- Exact match: for precision
- Broad match: for reach
- Phrase match: in Google’s words, to combine the best of both.
Let’s assume that these are the reasons. Exact match delivers precision. Broad match casts a wide net. No thumbtypers wants a null set. Obviously there is zero information in a null set in the mind of the GenXers and Millennials, right? The phrase match is supposed to combine precision and recall. Oh, my goodness, precision and recall. What happened to cause the Google to reach into the deep history of STAIRS III and RECON for this notion.
Google hasn’t and won’t.
The missing factor in the write up’s analysis is answering the question, “When will each of the three approaches be used, under what conditions, and what happens if the bus drives to the wrong city?” (This bus analogy is my happy way of expressing the idea that Google search results often have little to do with either the words in the user’s query or the “intent” of the user (allegedly determined by Google’s knowledge of each user and the magic of more than 100 “factors” for determining what to present).
The key is the word “reach.” Changes to Google’s methods are, from my point of view, are designed to accomplish one thing: Burn through ad inventory.
By killing off functioning Boolean, deprecating search operators, ignoring meaningful time indexing, and tossing disambiguation into the wind blowing a Google volleyball into Shoreline traffic — the company’s core search methods have been shaped to produce money.
SEO experts don’t like this viewpoint. Google doesn’t care as long as the money keeps flowing. With Google investing less in infrastructure and facing significant pressure from government investigators and outfits like Amazon and Facebook, re-explaining search boils down to showing content which transports ads.
Where’s that leave the SEO experts? Answer: Ad sales reps for the Google. Traffic comes to advertisers. But the big bucks are the big advertisers’ campaigns which expose a message to as many eyeballs as possible. That’s why “broad reach” is the fox in the relevance hen house.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2021
Terrorized Publishers Try a New Poison Dart on the Google
February 10, 2021
Google has reduced its investment in plumbing. It’s mostly waffled and fumbled its push into online games. The company has failed to keep Loon balloons aloft. And, more disappointingly, the Google has not solved death. Amazon and Facebook, despite protestations to the contrary, are making progress in online advertising. And the Bezos bulldozer’s new driver knows that product searches are Amazon’s personal turf.
Another group, however, wants to pour poison in Googzilla’s ear. The publishers, aided by their advisors, and assorted governments may have found a way. The write up “EU Ready to Follow Australia’s Lead on Making Big Tech Pay for News” reports:
EU lawmakers overseeing new digital regulation in Europe want to force Big Tech companies to pay for news, echoing a similar move in Australia and strengthening the hand of publishers against Google and Facebook.
Note that this article is behind a paywall, and in order to access it, you have to snag a wonky orange copy or fork over some cash. Very European, eh?
What happens if countries require Google to pay for news? What happens if the millennials holding elected and appointed positions don’t buy the threat of blocking search or killing access to Android apps (hopefully those which distribute malware via the Google Play service)? What if the bold push by Google Australia’s wizardly manager is recognized as a company acting like a country, maybe like the nation state in “The Mouse That Roared”?
Let’s see. Google has been involved in doing its brand of “not evil” for information for about 20 years and change. It takes a long time to develop an economic poison. Too bad the governments were not into the “warp speed” approach to innovation.
And France and its Googley tie up? Ah, France.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2021
Stock Market Trigger Trading for Everyone!
February 10, 2021
Stock brokers have long since tapped into AI to help them make big bucks at high speeds. Now F.X.A. Technologies offers an AI tool for the amateurs. We learn of the new trading algorithm directed at retail traders working with MT4 trading accounts in, “The Revolutionary Automated Algorithmic Technology that Is Making Mass-Trading a Breeze” at GetNews. The write-up specifies:
“The purpose of developing this automatic algorithmic technology is to help retail traders by giving them free access to an automated algorithmic-based copy trading software platform. This is where FXA Technologies has stepped in with one-of-its-kind copy trading software that is set to take the industry by storm. Retail traders can start the proceeding by connecting their MT4 trading account to the platform by creating an account and signing up for free. Once they sign up, they can use the multi-strategy algorithm to place trades – which is automatically copied onto the users’ account via copy trading software. All the process takes place automatically and without intrusion. The company claims to have no access or control on the user’s data. This is being considered as a fresh breath of air in the industry as the user is always in control and in command of their data. That means their personal information and funds are absolutely safe.”
Yes, the software is free—if one does not make any money. F.X.A. makes its profits from its monthly 20% “performance fee” collected via PayPal. The company points to its performance record as generated by Myfxbook to demonstrate its algorithm’s effectiveness. Who is ready to put their savings in the hands of this AI?
Cynthia Murrell, February 10, 2021
Google and Microsoft in Australia: Ripping the Fabric of Some of the Internet?
February 8, 2021
Australia wants Google to pay for news. Microsoft wants more traffic and advertising revenue. Australia? The front lines of the battle for the Internet? “Microsoft Offers To Break The Web In A Desperate Attempt To Get Somebody To Use Its Widely-Ignored Bing Search Engine” and learned:
The worsening situation over upload filters has obscured the other bad idea of the EU Copyright Directive: the so-called “link tax”, which would require large Internet companies like Google to pay when they use even small amounts of news material. One worrying development in this area is that the idea has spread beyond the EU. As Techdirt reported, Australia is bringing in what amounts to a tax on Google and Facebook for daring to send traffic to legacy news organizations — notably those of Rupert Murdoch.
Yep, from the European Union to Australia the fabric of the Internet is under pressure. Google is concerned, upset even. But Microsoft:
in a desperate attempt to get someone to use its still largely-ignored search engine Bing, Microsoft is apparently willing to throw the Web under the bus. It’s an incredibly short-sighted and selfish move. Sure, it’s legitimate to want to take advantage of a rival’s problems. But not to the extent of causing serious harm to the very fabric of the Web, the hyperlink.
Links under assault? A push to investigate technology monopolies in the US? The SolarWinds’ misstep which reminds one that security is a misty concept? Political turmoil? Covid?
Now links.
Who knew that monetizing links would do “harm to the fabric of the Web”? Quick questions? What’s happening in China and Russia? Whose Internet? Perhaps the Internet has already morphed and the skirmish in Australia may be less than it seems? The tension seems to be removed from the growth sectors for online services? In fact, the dust up seems almost quaint.
Threats, saber rattling, and the effort to preserve the online past are not easily TikTok-able. That could be a problem for the firms and publishers not in the big growth game.
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2021
McKinsey: MBAs Are a Fascinating Group to Observe
February 5, 2021
Watching blue chip consulting firms is more enjoyable than visiting a zoo. Here’s a good example of the entertainment value of individuals who strive to apply logic to business. Logic is definitely good, right?
“AP Source: McKinsey to Pay $573M for Role in Opioid Crisis” explains that the McKinsey wizards somehow became involved in the “opioid crisis.” Crisis is self explanatory because most people have been ensnared in the Covid Rona thing. But opioid is difficult to appreciate. Think of addiction, crime, prostitution, trashed families, abandoned children, etc. You get the idea.
How could a blue chip consulting firm become involved in crimes which do not appear in the McKinsey collateral, on its Web site, or in its presentations to potential and current clients?
The write up says in the manner of “real” news outfits:
The global business consulting firm McKinsey & Company has agreed to a $573 million settlement over its role in advising companies on how to “supercharge” opioid sales amid an overdose crisis…
I interpret this to mean that the MBAs used their expertise to incentivize those in the legal pharma chain to move product. “Moving product” is a phrase used by narcotics dealers and MBAs alike, I believe.
The “real” news item reports:
McKinsey provided documents used in legal proceedings regarding OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, including some that describe its efforts to help the company try to “supercharge” opioid sales in 2013, as reaction to the overdose crisis was taking a toll on prescribing. Documents made public in Purdue proceedings last year include include emails among McKinsey.
A wonderful engagement until it wasn’t. Blue chip consulting firms like to write checks to those who generate billable hours. My understanding is that writing checks for unbillable work irritates partners who expect bonuses and adulation for their business acumen.
An allegation of “supercharging” addictive products and producing the secondary effects itemize by me in paragraph two of this post is a bit of a negative. Even worse, the desired secondary effect like a zippy new Porsche conjured up on the Porsche Car Configurator, a position in a new investment fund, or a nice house and land in New Zealand does not arrive.
No word on jail time, but there’s a new administration now. The prostitution, child abandonment, and crime issues may become more consequential now.
Will this become a Harvard case? Who am I kidding? McKinsey in numero uno. Do los narcotraficantes operate with McKinsey’s acumen, logic, and efficiency. Good question.
Stephen E Arnold, February 5, 2021
Subscriptions Are Dead: Bad News for Substack and Its Truck Load of Competitors
February 3, 2021
I know. I know. I know that “Subscription-Based Pricing Is Dead: Smart SaaS Companies Are Shifting to Usage-Based Models” is talking about cloud service providers. These are the small, emotionally sensitive firms like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others who struggle to make ends meet each month. The basic idea is that the taxi meter approach to pricing is the future. Hop in the cab, tell the head in the clouds driver your destination, and pay what the meter shows upon arrival. Did your driver crash? Did your driver take you to Sonic Drive In before reversing course and delivering you near your destination? Did your driver like some gig workers driving vehicles for money pull a gun and rob you? No? Lucky you.
The write up states:
Some fear that investors will hate usage-based pricing because customers aren’t locked into a subscription. But, investors actually see it as a sign that customers are seeing value from a product and there’s no shelf-ware. In fact, investors are increasingly rewarding usage-based companies in the market. Usage-based companies are trading at a 50% revenue multiple premium over their peers. Investors especially love how the usage-based pricing model pairs with the land-and-expand business model. And of the IPOs over the last three years, seven of the nine that had the best net dollar retention all have a usage-based model.
To read this article, guess what? You have to pay a subscription fee. I know. I know. Silicon Valley “real” news outfits just emit parental and oracular, consult like statements.
A couple of observations may be warranted:
First, many customers dislike usage based pricing because of surprises when the bill is presented. And, believe me, when the bill is submitted, getting a sensitive firm to alter it can be a time sink hole.
Second, the usage based model was one that was popular among some timesharing companies. Example: The much loved Dialcom or the European Space Agency’s operation decades ago. Why? Surprise fees.
Third, usage based pricing demands convoluted price lists. I assume that you, gentle reader, remember the wonderful days of IBM’s J1, J2, and J3 fee schedules. AT&T had some excellent methods as well. After Judge Green’s break up of Ma Bell, even Baby Bells howled when Bellcore fired off an invoice. Those were the days.
Now, if the write up is correct, the good old days have returned, except at the “real” news outfit making this profound statement.
Stephen E Arnold, February 3, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
