Google Embraces Traditional Business Model for Rich Media
May 21, 2012
Online Media Daily recently reported on YouTube’s desire to attract more content deals with large media companies in the article “Report: YouTube Mulls Content Subscription Service.”
According to the article, the Google company currently has a global audience of over 800 million unique users. While YouTube has no plans to begin charging for its current content offerings, it might add premium offerings that are not already on the video-sharing site. Since it already does movie rentals and sports subscriptions, this would not be all that different.
The article states:
“In adding a new subscription service, the idea is to entice owners of high-demand programming in categories such as live sports, music and entertainment to put their content on YouTube. Much of this content is owned by big media companies, which receive the bulk of their revenues from TV advertising and subscription TV carriage fees. Many of these companies have been unwilling to put their content on YouTube, because of its predominantly advertising-only business model.”
This may not be a new idea, but it will certainly cause some changes in the way YouTube does business and may impact the way that others see the company. Will this solve the big hat, no cattle problem of YouTube?
Jasmine Ashton, May 21, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Can Google Manage Motorola Mobility
May 19, 2012
Google’s on a roll. Oracle seems to be holding a cold cup of Java. The Facebook IPO fizzled. Now China has approved Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Navigate to “China Finally Approves Google’s Motorola Mobility Acquisitions, Deal Likely to Close Next Week.” I learned from the write up:
Google may have announced its $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility last August and gained approval from both EU and US authorities but it’s taken until today for the search giant to gain clearance in China…. Chinese law stipulates that any business which generates revenues in excess of $1.55 billion (10 billion yuan) per year, of which $62 million (400 million yuan) comes from China, must receive government approval before it can be acquired.
Messrs Brin and Page did not suggest China change its laws. The company waited until the Middle Kingdom did its bureaucratic boogie.
Now that the deal between a vendor with a ore competency in software and online advertising and an mobile phone outfit nearly done, the question becomes, “Can Google Manage Motorola Mobility?” My hunch is that Google will do Googley things. For example, Google will behave in an unpredictable way.
There are rumors that Google will create a preferential implementation of Android. There are rumors that Google will sell the Motorola Mobility manufacturing operation. There are rumors that Google will wheel and deal with the Motorola patents.
My view is that Google itself is not sure what it will do. Situational decisions, betas, and mixed signals are likely to be the summer picnic fare. I don’t pay too much attention to Google, but the company is a headline maker. The Motorola deal caught me by surprise. Google’s tie up with Samsung has been great for Samsung, but I think the Google management of Android has been interesting.
According to PCMag:
Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt raised eyebrows when he appeared at the Consumer Electronics Show in January and argued that Android is not fragmented but “differentiated.” Then there was the write up “The Many Faces of a Little Green Robot.” If that write up is correct, there are 681,900 Android devices running different flavors of Android.
Now that’s a form of management that is remarkable.
Stephen E Arnold, May 19, 2012
Sponsored by Polyspot
New Survey Asserts Google+ Has Weak Social Engagement
May 18, 2012
Fast Company recently published a story on some disconcerting results from a new RJ Metrics report on the “social spine” of Google. In the article, entitled “Exclusive: New Google+ Study Reveals Minimal Social Activity, Weak User Engagement,” writer Austin Carr reveals that after surveying 40,000 random Google+ users, surveyors found the search giant’s social network to have minimal social activity and weak user engagement.
According to the article, the report found that the average post on Google+ has less than one +1, less than one reply, and less than one re-share. Also, roughly 30% of users who make a public post never make a second one and even after making five public posts, there is a 15% chance that a user will not post publicly again.
A Google spokesperson countered these results with a statement saying:
“By only tracking engagement on public posts, this study is flawed and not an accurate representation of all the sharing and activity taking place on Google plus. As we’ve said before, more sharing occurs privately to circles and individuals than publicly on Google+. The beauty of Google+ is that it allows you to share privately–you don’t have to publicly share your thoughts, photos or videos with the world.”
Since the survey only looked at user’s public profiles, we can’t be completely sure of the accuracy of its results. However, what we can be sure of is that Google needs to increase its social game because there are some skeptics out there.
Jasmine Ashton, May 18, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Google and Going Beyond Search
May 17, 2012
The idea for this blog began when I worked through selected Ramanathan Guha patent documents. I have analyzed these in my 2007 Google Version 2. If you are not familiar with them, you may want to take a moment, download these items, and read the “background” and “claims” sections of each. Here are several filings I found interesting:
- US2007 003 8600
- US2007 003 8601
- US2007 003 8603
- US2007 003 8614
- US2007 003 8616
The utility of Dr. Guha’s invention is roughly similar to the type of question answering supported by WolframAlpha. However, there are a number of significant differences. I have explored these in the chapter in The Google Legacy “Google and the Programmable Search Engine.”
I read with interest the different explanations of Google’s most recent enhancement to its search results page. I am not too eager to highlight “Introducing the Knowledge Graph: Things, Not Strings” because it introduces terminology which is more poetic and metaphorical than descriptive. Nevertheless, you will want to take a look at how Google explains its “new” approach. Keep in mind that some of the functions appear in patent documents and technical papers which date from 2006 or earlier. The question this begs is, “Why the delay?” Is the roll out strategic in that it will have an impact on Facebook at a critical point in the company’s timeline or is it evidence that Google experiences “big company friction” when it attempts to move from demonstration to production implementation of a mash up variant.
In the various analyses by experts, “real” journalists, and folks who are fascinated with how Google search is evolving, I am concerned that some experts describe the additional content as “junk” and others view the new approach as “firing back at Bing.”
You must reach your own conclusion. However, I want to capture my observations before they slip from my increasingly frail short term memory.
First, Google operates its own way and in a “Google bubble.” Because the engineers and managers are quite intelligent, clever actions and economy are highly prized. Therefore, the roll out of the new interface tackles several issues at one time. I think of the new interface and its timing as a Google multiple war head weapon. The interface takes a swipe at Facebook, Bing, and Wolfram Alpha. And it captures linkage, wordage, and puffage from the experts, pundits, and wizards. So far, all good for Google.
A MIRV deployment. A single delivery method releases a number of explosive payloads. One or more may hit a target.
Second, the action reveals that Google * had * fallen behind in relevancy, inclusion of new content types, and generating outputs which match the “I have no time or patience for research” user community. If someone types Lady Gaga, the new interface delivers Lady Gaga by golly. Even the most attention deprived Web or mobile user can find information about Lady Gage, click, explore, and surf within a Guha walled garden. The new approach, in my view, delivers more time on Google outputs and increases the number of opportunities to display ads. Google needs to pump those ads for many reasons, not the least of which is maintaining revenue growth in the harsh reality of rising costs.
Third, the approach allows Google to weave in or at least make a case to advertisers that it is getting on its social pony, collecting more fine grained user data, and offering a “better search experience.” The sale pitch side of the new interface is part of Google’s effort to win and retain advertisers. I have to remind myself that some advertisers are starting to realize that “old fashioned” advertising still works for some products and concepts; for example, space advertising in certain publications, direct mail, and causing mostly anonymous Web surfers to visit a Web site and spit out a request for more information or, better yet, buy something.
The new interfaces, however, are dense. I point out in the Information Today column which runs next month that the density is a throw back to the portal approaches of the mid 1990s. There are three columns, dozens of links, and many things with which to entice the clueless user.
In short, we are now in the midst of the portalization of search. When I look for information, I want a list of relevant documents. I want to access those documents, read them, and in some cases, summarize or extract factoids from them. I do not want answers generated by someone else, even if that someone is tapping in the formidable intelligence of Ramanathan Guha.
http://www.billdolson.com/SkyGround/reentryseries/reentryseries.htm
So Google has gone beyond search. The problem is that I don’t want to go there via the Google, Bing, or any other intermediary’s intellectual training wheels. I want to read, think, decide, and formulate my view. In short, I like the dirty, painful research process.
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2012
Sponsored by Polyspot
What Is the Ethical Ignorance of Google?
May 17, 2012
A new concept is at hand: ethical ignorance. Ars Technica tackles the subject in “Leave Only Footprints: How Google’s Ethical Ignorance Gets It in Trouble.” At issue (this time) is the company’s ill-conceived wardriving practices. Between May 2007 and May 2010, Google’s Street View cars collected personal data from WiFi networks, including e-mail addresses and passwords. The idea was, most likely, to simply gather data that could be analyzed for insight and profit. However, when the exploit was exposed, regulators and the public were understandably irate. The FCC ultimately judged the practice to be legal.
The engineer responsible for the initiative was Marius Milner, who says he did try to get direction from his higher ups before proceeding. They insist they never read his reports. Writer Casey Johnston points to comments Milner made in 2004 that indicate he was very familiar with the legal and ethical implications of his project. She writes:
“Milner’s prior awareness of the privacy and legal issues in lifting data from open WiFi networks implicates him, in one sense: he created tools to do something that was, at best, an ethically gray area for the community out of which he came. But he did first raise questions and seek out advice from his superiors; when it was not forthcoming, he apparently decided to forge ahead. His decision to raise the issue at least partly exonerates him from Google’s initial suggestion that he acted alone and failed to make his superiors aware of what he was doing. . . .”
“Whether it was a matter of time pressure or miscommunication, the apparent lack of advice and supervision resulted in an alarming misstep for Google.”
Good points, though calling this a “misstep” is generous. We thought the policy was do what you want and just apologize if someone complains. Would a movie star convert ethics into ideological tiger blood or just winning?
Cynthia Murrell, May 17, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Google News Revamped
May 16, 2012
Do you like your news with a side of networking? Me neither, but Google is betting that enough folks do to make their Google News redesign worth the effort. The Telegraph reports, “Google News Refresh Places Google+ at Centre.” Now, Google News incorporates conversations from one’s Google+ circles and “other high profile users” (whatever that means) into the News homepage. Fortunately, the feature can be turned off. Writer Emma Barnett reports:
“In a blog post about the changes, Scott Zuccarino, product manager of Google News, wrote: ‘Many news stories inspire vibrant discussions on Google+, and today we’re starting to add this content to both the News homepage, and the real-time coverage pages.’
“Google has yet to reveal how many active users Google+ has. This latest move to weave the Facebook rival into one of Google’s most powerful products is a bid to boost the popularity of the service.”
She has that right. Google+ has not exactly been a stellar success.
Another Google News addition is, perhaps, a bit more useful for the average news junkie. The new “real-time” button summons the latest articles displayed chronologically, with commentary or more in-depth pieces at the bottom. This feature is probably designed to replace the Twitter feed the site used to get; Google’s deal with Twitter expired last year and has yet to be renewed.
Oh, and images are larger now. That may be the most useful change of all.
Cynthia Murrell, May 16, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Google Fights Search Over-Optimization
May 16, 2012
Google is at it again. NetworkWorld reports, “Google Begins Penalizing Search ‘Over-Optimization’.” (SEOO?) The latest algorithmic adjustment is designed to counter the proliferation of low-quality sites designed just to attract click-throughs. I guess the poor Panda wasn’t trying hard enough. Writer Cameron Scott reports:
“The company emphasizes in Tuesday’s announcement that the algorithm shift will target only those practices, such as ‘keyword stuffing’ and ‘link schemes,’ that violate its guidelines.
“However, the announcement included the caveat that not all content punished by the changes will ‘be easily recognizable as spamming without deep analysis or expertise.’
“The shift to Google’s algorithm is likely to affect, at least initially, some websites that aren’t clearly violating its guidelines, according to a strategy paper for Web marketers released earlier this month by the search-engine marketing firm iProspect.”
The paper goes on to say that such users rankings will probably be restored with “subsequent adjustments and tweaks.” I’m sure that will be of great comfort to companies who thought they were playing by the rules but suddenly find themselves at the bottom of the heap.
Look, Google fostered search engine optimization in its effort to balance “free” placement with paid traffic. Now that the ponies have left the corral, Google wants to round ‘em up. Do you hear the theme from “Rawhide”?
Cynthia Murrell, May 16, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Google Enterprise Push Netting Smaller Fish Than Expected
May 15, 2012
CIO.com recently reported on the results of a survey of Google Apps users in the article “Small Businesses Are the Vast Majority of Google Apps Early Adopters.”
According to the article, 69% of Google Apps early adopters are companies with between one and ten employees. Cloud Alliance, a consortium of the top independent software providers in the Google Apps Marketplace, says this could be due to the fact that small businesses are able to adopt new technology because they have less red tape that they need to navigate through. Large businesses on the other hand, are much more concerned about security and privacy and are therefore more reluctant to adopt new technology light google apps.
Cloud Alliance also found:
“Tech users are more likely to trust new technology and be early adopters than other companies that are more averse to risk. Other industries represented among Google Apps early adopters including advertising and marketing (11%), construction and architecture (6%), and education, non profits and retail, each of which accounted for a 5% slice of Google Apps early adopters.”
Now we know that Google’s enterprise push is netting smaller fish, isn’t the money in the Fortune 1000 accounts?
Jasmine Ashton, May 15, 2012
Sponsored by Ikanow
Forbes: Google and Facebook Will Be Obsolete in Five Years. Really?
May 14, 2012
When researching the impact of web tycoons like Google and Facebook, every once in a while you come across an article that’s so out of left field that it bears mentioning. Forbes contributor, Eric Jackson’s article “Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years,” is an excellent example of one of these stories.
According to the article, with the rate of technological progression, tech companies that have dominated in the web 1.0 and 2.0 eras have historically been unable to adapt to the changes that come with the new generation of social and mobile technology.
Jackson writes:
“[Facebook and Google] will have all the money in the world to try and adapt to the shift to mobile but history suggests they won’t be able to successfully do it. I often hear Google bulls point to the market share of Android or Eric Schmidt’s hypothesis that Google could one day charge all Android subscribers $10 a month for value-added services as proof of future profits. Yet, where are all the great social success stories by Web 1.0 companies? I imagine we’ll see as many great examples of social companies jumping horses mid-race to become great mobile companies.”
While Jackson brings up some excellent points, he forgets the fact that Google and Facebook have already made the leap from social to mobile and are continuing to adapt.
Jasmine Ashton, May 14, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Trial Against Oracle Reveals Googley Woes
May 13, 2012
Rich Google. Poor Google. A couple of recent articles, both based on revelations from the Google/Oracle trial, paint a sad tale that could rival a Charles Dickens‘ novel.
First, Yahoo Finance reveals that “Google Had Big Expectations for Its Music Service.” Writer Matt Rosoff reports that Google’s music project has fallen short. First, the launch data was moved from 2010 to the spring of 2011. Also, though Google hoped to charge $2.99 monthly for the service, it is still free for up to 20,000 songs. Finally, Rosoff suggests revenue has fallen short of the anticipated $908 million to $1.48 billion:
“Google doesn’t report revenue here, but recent reports suggest that record labels are not happy with the store’s performance so far, and the Google Music brand was recently eliminated in favor of the more generic ‘Google Play.’ You don’t do that if a product is a smash hit. Also, Google wasn’t able to get one of the major labels, Warner Brothers, on board for the store, which would presumably hurt sales.”
Meanwhile, The Verge reports that “Google Wanted to Sell 10M Android Tablets a Year in 2011, Have 33 Percent Marketshare.” Google was making these lofty predictions even as Motorola‘s Android-based Xoom tablet was still a prototype colorfully codenamed Stingray. Writer Nilay Patel elaborates:
“It’s also notable that Google used a Morgan Stanley estimate that the entire tablet market would be 46m units in 2012; Apple dominates the tablet market with over 67 million iPads sold thus far. Google also expected Android tablets to contribute up to $110m in search revenue in 2011 and $220m in 2012 — goals almost certainly missed as Android tablets have floundered in the market.”
Interesting factoids about Google’s thwarted expectations. We wonder whether this trial will drop any other informational tidbits.
Cynthia Murrell, May 13, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
