Google Viacom Battle Goes Public
March 19, 2010
I had heard that the “real cause” of the dust up between Google and Viacom dated from a meeting at which some Googlers disrespected some Viacom executives. Apparently the Math Club approach to hospitality (arriving late, not wearing a suit, and fiddling with a computing devices whilst “meeting”) was a courtesy and respect problem. After this Emily Post moment, Viacom became less flexible with things Google. One result was a $1.0 billion lawsuit, which the addled goose is happy to say is moving forward without any involvement.
When I read “Google Slams Viacom for Secret YouTube Uploads”, I realized that this spat is escalating. After all, what’s a billion here or there to outfits the size of Google and Viacom. Tossing around undergarments in public is more effective, and, if you are a member of the Math Club, a lot more fun.
For example, the write up said:
While it is still early in the legal battle it was clear that Google was determined to cast Viacom’s legal strategy as hypocritical by claiming several of the company’s own managers and agencies had continued to upload videos to YouTube. “Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users,” said YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine, in a blog post.
The article then pointed out:
Viacom also accused Google and YouTube executives of hypocrisy, saying that they were aware of the extent of illegally uploaded videos to the site and did little to stop it as they sought to build their user base. “Google and YouTube were not just innocent and unwitting accomplices to infringement perpetrated by YouTube users,” Viacom said in the court documents. “Defendants operated YouTube with the unlawful objective of using infringing material to explosively build their user base and become the dominant video website on the Internet.”
Who will prevail? Google’s data carefully marshaled by the Math Club or the Viacom legal eagles’ knowledge of technology and online behaviors? Exciting but not as exciting as the NCAA Tournament for some of those involved in the legal shindig.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2010
No pay writing. I will report this miserable state of affairs to the manager of the White House gym who, alas, does not eat at Cosi’s adjacent the OEB as frequently as President Bush’s gym manager did.
Google, Profile Capturing, and User Intent
March 18, 2010
On March 16, 2010, Google nailed a patent for its invention “Profile Based Capture Component,” US7,680,809. On the surface, maybe not so exciting. Google wizard Steve Lawrence had a hand in this invention filed in early 2004. Don’t you admire the turnaround time? Here’s the abstract:
An indexing system in a computer system may include applications, a capture processor, a queue, a search engine, and a display processor. The indexing system captures events of user interactions with the applications. Events are queued and if indexable, indexed and stored for user access through the search engine. Capture components in the capture processor can include a keyboard capture component that processes user keystrokes to determine events. A display capture component captures event data from windows associated with the applications. Display event data can be captured on a polling schedule or based on state changes of window elements. To determine target applications and window applications of interest application profiles and window profiles can be used.
Google’s predictive methods revealed.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2010
A freebie. I will report non payment to the USPTO which recently rejected a fax because it was “backwards”. The other pages, as I understand the event, were not backwards.
Google Wants Independent Bands
March 18, 2010
Short honk: Ask yourself this question, “Why does Google want independent bands on YouTube?” Read the news story “YouTube Introduces Musicians Wanted for Indie Bands.” One piece of the answer appears in this comment:
To get on to Musicians Wanted, you need to apply through the site’s partner programme. If you are then selected by YouTube, you will have your own dedicated page where you can add gig listings, links to buying your music and your live videos and music. To get money from the site, you will get the ‘majority’ of advertising revenue. And you will also get a share of funds if your music video is embedded on to other sites.
For the full answer, you can read my forthcoming study which will be published by Intellas in mid 2010. In the meantime, watch for other Googley actions in the non text sectors.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2010
Shameless marketing of my new study. I paid myself to write this stellar article.
The Math Club Wants Your TV
March 18, 2010
When I think of my high school math club, I remember comments about the oh-so-cool people on American Bandstand. Then it was dinner, homework, and reading under the watchful eye of mom and dad. TV was not the main event, and to this day, I don’t get too excited about information acquisition that is essentially sedentary and serial. The Google is more hip. I read “YouTube Is Huge: 24 Hours of Video Now Uploaded Every Minute,” and I realized that I am decidedly uncool. The article points out that the Google can suck in this content and “there’s no sign of it stopping.” Great.
Next I read the New York Times somewhat breathless write up “Google and Partners Seek a Television Foothold,” which recycles Google’s interest in pumping digital video from its content delivery network to televisions. For me, the most interesting comment was:
Google’s efforts to break into television advertising date back three years. Through a program called Google TV Ads, the company sells advertising on a small number of satellite and small cable television systems, as well as some cable networks. But interest in the program has been limited and the amount of revenue that Google has been able to generate from it has been small.
So that means that the NYT has determined that Google and TV has been in the works for 36 months. I am not so sure I agree. Perhaps the NYT researchers elected not to examine Google patent documents. The rich media locomotive has been in development for somewhat longer. The purchase of YouTube.com took place in 2006, and some of the technology referenced in the NYT write up dates back beyond that point in time.
What else is in the Google train yard? Lots more.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2010
No one paid me to write this. My reference to a train means that I need to report non payment to Amtrak, a heck of an outfit.
Google and Italy: More Hassles
March 17, 2010
Short honk: “Italy Goes after Google over AdSense Payments” revealed that Google has more hassles in Italy. The story in SEO Roundtable pointed out:
Italy is “going after Google for how they pay Italian AdSense publishers.”
The issue is that Google does not provide much detail about how it figures payments. SEO Roundtable noted that there has not been much coverage of this dust up. Interesting? The addled goose’s has noted that his AdSense payments have traditionally drifted down when a quarter is closing. Now there appears to be other concerns about payment predictability. Could the effectiveness of online ads been decreasing and Google is just a barometer of the economic downturn? Could an algorithm be stumbling? No solid information at this time.
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Since it is an international post, I will report non payment to the Department of State.
Perhaps Facebook Is Real Trouble for Google?
March 17, 2010
A happy quack to the readers who sent me links to the story, which if accurate, is big deal. I read “Facebook Tops Google As Most Visited Site in U.S. Last Week.” For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
We saw hints that this milestone would come. Facebook beat Google for the first time in single day traffic on Christmas, followed by New Year’s, Valentine’s and some recent snow days. The social network also was the top place to go to discuss all thing Winter Olympics. Facebook also saw a 10% increase in search volume query in the month of February, a month when most search engines saw their query volume decline.
From intermittent spikes to a steady climb, Facebook appears to be out Googling Google in the traffic department. Will Google regain its lead? If the Google continues to suffer pecks from legal eagles and self inflicted wounds like the Buzz service, the odds may be getting longer.
Facebook makes finding information easy. Just ask your friends. The search box may be inappropriate for some Web users. Is this a trend? Nope. I want to wait for several months of usage data to accrue. Maybe the math club is losing out to the more popular folks?
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2010
Free. i mention data. I will report non paid writing to the Census Bureau.
More XML Expertise to Google
March 16, 2010
According to ZDNet, Tim Bray, founder of OpenText and collaborator with Ramanathan Guha on things XML, is now a Googler. The story “Ex-Sun Director Bray Joins Google’s Android Team” notes that Mr. Bray will work on the Android. The addled goose wants to point out that there are some big semantic Web guns in the Google arsenal now. Is Google becoming the big gun in the semantic Web or just the semantic Web?
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2010
Nope, a free one. No one paid me to reference semantic weapons. I will report this free write up to the FCC.
Another Google Jibe
March 15, 2010
Poor, poor Google. From top of the world to a punching bag in less than three months. This new decade is proving to be a challenging one for Google. I just read “Six Delusions of Google’s Arrogant Leaders.” I want to disclose that I too have been accused of being arrogant. Now I don’t have any good reason to be arrogant. I just find that approach works for me, but, please, keep in mind that I am an addled goose, live in rural Kentucky, and am wandering slowly toward being 66 years old. I am no sports car in today’s NASCAR ego race.
But Google! According the write up, Google is coming across as “cocky”. I don’t want to run down the six delusions. I inveigh you to go direct and suck up the juiciness yourself. However, I can point to two of the examples and offer a comment.
The first is “users are hungry for Google synergy.” I am not sure what synergy means. I know that the Google platform is one that works like a giant plastic bag wrapped around the earth. The idea is to put everyone in the bag and keep them there. This is mostly complete, but about 25 percent of Web users are outside of the bag and Google wants to get them in one way or another. The notion that users want this is irrelevant. What this delusion makes clear is that Google is retrofitting public relations baloney to match what the company has been working on for about decade. What’s interesting is that it has taken mavens, pundits, and “real” journalists 360 months to figure out the Google game plan. Who’s delusional? Google which has mostly accomplished its mission or the folks just figuring out that Google has been and will continue to push the Google PR line?
The second delusion is that “Google is a worker’s utopia.” Okay, when you take money to do work, by definition, this situation is not utopia for the workers. Companies can make work less onerous or more meaningful, but it is work. I don’t think the Googlers I know are doing much more than drinking the Google Kool-Aid, trying to build their knowledge value, and get some money. Like Apple, Google operates a reality distortion field, and, let’s face it, having Google on one’s résumé is arguably more impressive than a degree in Harry Potter studies from Frostburg College. My view is that Google manipulates its workers as effectively as it manipulates the media. Like the media, Google employees play along. It’s a game with high stakes, but it is a game. Google knows exactly what it is doing.
Now what’s the arrogance? The arrogance is not unique to Google. I call this the Math Club Syndrome. Here’s how it works. A group of folks with specialized interests and skills bond, sort of like a golf foursome from Sigma Chi fraternity. The difference is that no one understands the Math Club and most people understand and envy the Sigma Chi golf foursome. As a method of coping with a world that simply does not understand math, the math club becomes insular. The club’s rules are insider rules and act like a protective barrier. No problem until the math club becomes the first next generation supra-national company jousting on an apparently equal footing with China, the Department of Justice, and giants like Microsoft.
What do we expect from the Math Club? I expect Math Club behavior, complete with the insider jokes about janitors in patent documents. (Oh, janitors is a way of describing Google’s semi autonomous agents which “clean up” statistical anomalies in petascale flows of data. Snort, snort, get it. Janitor equals Dilbert’s garbage collector, the smartest person in the comic strip. Oh, you don’t get it? Well, there you have it. A mismatch between Math Club humor and you, gentle reader.)
My view is that it is time to quit worry about Google’s power and time to start figuring out how to surf on Google. My column for KMWorld and this month’s column for the Smart Business Network address two different ways to surf on Google. I don’t grouse. I accept that over the last decade Google has emerged as a new ecosystem. You can’t kill it because the Googlers who leave the company spawn Google-centric entities. My last count tallied a couple of hundred of these Xoogler ventures. And Facebook is not much more than a “legacy” of Google. Maybe Facebook will become the new Google, but that won’t change the arrogance.
Math Club is congruent with arrogance. Reality. Live within it; don’t deny it.
Stephen E Arnold, March 14, 2010
No one paid me to write this article. Because I have not been paid and I refer to psychological behavior, I will report my writing for no pay to the Surgeon General who understands such esoteric notions as delusions.
Why Bing Is Gaining on Google
March 15, 2010
eWeek ran an interesting story a week or so ago. “10 Reasons Why Microsoft Bing Is Gaining on Google.” I read the article when it became available and I sat on it. I wanted to see what happened to Google. The market share data for Web search is squishy, and my view is that Google is contributing to Bing’s success more than Bing is contributing to Bing’s success. This idea is not the focus on the eWeek article.
The eWeek article points to such factors as integration, partnerships, and social networks plus seven other factors. I think these are indicative of buzzword juggling, not what is actually happening.
My view is:
- Google is in the midst of a one two punch, backlash and fatigue. Microsoft is benefiting.
- Google’s management is becoming increasingly aggressive and causing even the fuzzy wuzzy Google followers to wonder if they should accept a Google mouse pad and write happy things about the company.
- Google is in the news but most of the news is either negative or sort of crazy. One example is that Google is giving China the evil eye. Hey, China is a country. Google is a new type of company but when countries and companies collide, unless the company owns the country, the country will win.
Google has passed a line in the digital sand. Bing, despite its heritage and its weaknesses, looks a lot more appealing to some folks I opine.
Stephen E Arnold, March 15, 2010
Nope, a freebie. Who would pay me to write this type of comment which goes against the straight and true grain of a “real” publishing company. Ah, grain. I must report non payment to the Department of Agriculture.
Google and Its Chinese Options
March 14, 2010
I saw a flurry of news stories which seem to originate in a Reuters item. The gist is that Google is pulling out of China. Sounds good because it is a bold move by a company that is operating as a supra national entity.
Here’s the map of options from my 2006 study, published in 2007 by Infonortics Ltd. in Tetbury, Glos.
See page 246 and following in Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator.
You can see that our research identified four options. So far, Google has applied option 2, opportunism, option 4, embracing China, and now is alleged threatening option 1, abandoning the market.
I am not ready to see this as a “game over” situation. I stand by the work I did in 2006, because Google’s actions have to be put into an appropriate context. Google is playing a game for high stakes but a game nevertheless.
This statement “Google 99.9 Pct Sure to Shut China Search Engine: Report” is a bold statement. But until the Google.cn service goes dead and there is zero access from China to Google for any type of search and retrieval function, I am inclined to wait for the next action.
If you want to read our analysis from 2006, you can still get a copy of Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator. The information is germane to today’s interest in things Google.
Stephen E Arnold, March 14, 2010
No one paid me to write this self serving marketing item. True, I get royalties from my three Google studies, but my publisher is in a far off land relaxing, not marketing my timely analyses. Sigh.
