Google Paper and Living Stories
December 17, 2009
Short honk: I don’t want to dig into the Google Living Stories services too deeply. You can use the service and see for yourself that Google partners are using Google like “paper”. This is one of the ideas I express in Google: The Digital Gutenberg. I find the irony quite delightful. Google is working with traditional newspaper companies like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Google’s technology allows these outfits to publish in an innovative way. Will this generate new revenue? Will this allow Google to make a similar service available to other publishers? Will someone like an author ask, “Why can’t I do this an eliminate my publisher?”
Stephen E. Arnold, December 17, 2009
Oyez, oyez, a freebie and I am reporting this fact to the Government Printing Office (GPO) which could use Google as paper too.
Google, Mian Mian, and Revisionism
December 17, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Computerworld Asia’s “Chinese Author Sues Google over Book Scanning.” I visited China once and learned quickly that figuring out who is on first is tough. This write up is clear enough. An author—the popular Mian Mian—asserts that Google scanned Acid Lover without permission. There are several points in the write up that are fuzzy, maybe even fuzzy:
- The aggrieved author wants US$8,770
- The aggrieved author wants a public apology
- Chinese authors want Google to pay them when their books are scanned for Google Books.
The key revisionist passage for me was:
“Google earlier argued that they didn’t violate copyright law as they only displayed a small amount of text of my book, but I think their move has seriously hurt Chinese writers’ rights,” the paper [China Daily] quoted Mian as saying.
Not fuzzy, certainly wuzzy.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 17, 2009
Quick confession. This is a freebie. I wish I could get paid in yuan. I will contact the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to point out this situation..
Record Labels Pivot Point: Saturday Night Fever
December 15, 2009
I don’t know much about the record industry or the music business. I know that certain segments squabble. Once in a while a record mogul gets killed. That’s business is the US of A, I suppose.
I found “Understanding The Decline And Fall Of The Major Record Labels” interesting. The idea that stuck with me after I finished reading the TechDirt article was that
Having reached the peak of the CD boom in 1999, the record industry had become a nearly $15-billion-a-year juggernaut, but under the pressure for more growth they collapsed, and, in the process, a vicious cycle of expectations had been set that strained the artists, the fans, the culture, and their systems to the point of breaking. Since record industry was unable to deliver new music with “consistent tactical excellence,” they began to fray at the edges. Disruptive technologies were released, an epidemic of file-sharing proceeded, and, at this critical juncture, vested interests of music executives struggled and competed to achieve repetitive consumption through obsolescence. But these executives were too late, as the record industry, by externalizing the blame for their decline in sales, had already started to show symptoms of stage three, Denial of Risk and Peril.
This snippet originated in a Hypebot post by Kyle Bylin.
But another interesting comment appeared in the comments to the TechDirt article. I quote a comment from Mr. Panik:
News papers became obsessed with profits at the expense of the “editorial” content. Auto makers put profit ahead of quality. Health care became wealth care. TV, music, movies have all been selling shoddy but charging customers premium prices. Do not get me started on education…. Universities are stealing the students research, hoping to make a profit with out compensating the producer. Flipping houses? Selling broken software? The food we get may be killing us? Just for profit? Lets hope that the “Best Government That Money Can Buy” will step in and save us.
I found the statement intuitively on target, and it applies to other information sectors. In my opinion, the culprit in 2010 will be Eric Schmidt dressed in John Travolta’s costume for the dance competition in Saturday Night Fever. History repeats itself in my opinion.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 15, 2009
I wish to disclose to the American Film Institute that I was not paid to write this article or craft this awful comparison. Eric Schmidt is a better dancer than John Travolta in my opinion.
Governments, Data, Transparency, Threats, and Common Sense
December 14, 2009
A happy quack to the reader (one of two or three sad to say) who sent me a link to The Register’s “Gov Slams Critical Database Report as Opaque, Flawed, Inaccurate”. The idea is that the UK government has a bit of a tussle underway with an outfit called Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. The Trust published a report. The UK government says, according to the Register, that the consultants got its facts wrong. In my experience, this is the pot calling the kettle discolored.
Here are some links provided by my colleague in the Eastern Mediterranean basin:
- http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State.pdf see especially “Developing Effective Systems” pdf
- http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/government-response-rowntree-illegal-databases-report.pdf
I think consultants get stuff wrong and I think governments get stuff wrong as well. This is the norm. The reason is that consultants don’t see government efforts from the government’s point of view. The government, on the other hand, has a tough time seeing consultants as much more than reasons to have another meeting. By definition, citizen facing data will be assembled with intent. By definition, consultants will be able to find fault with almost any data a government entity produces. When consultants produce data for the government and then the government makes those data available to citizens, then other consultants will rise to the occasion. In short, data, transparency, threats to the nation state, and common sense collide. Part of the landscape. Live with it, opines this addled goose.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 14, 2009
I wish to report to the manager of the US government’s Recovery.gov Web site that I was not paid to write this paragraph pointing out what seems obvious to geese living in Harrod’s Creek. Real humans may have another viewpoint. No problemo. I disclosed, didn’t I?
Thomson Reuters Has a Question
December 13, 2009
It is not enough to ask a question. The idea is to know the answer to the question * before * one asks it. Just ask your friendly attorney who will know the answer and bill you to answer your question. Like that business model? You pay to ask someone a question and you don’t know if the answer will be correct. This is information without context. Information in context is worth a heck of a lot more money in my experience.
The article “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” is the text, presumably complete, of the president of media at Thomson Reuters. The speaker / writer is Chris Ahearn. The context is a workshop for the Federal Trade commission’s workshop on how the Internet has affected journalism. I am not sure that Thomson Reuters has the answer to this question. If it did, wouldn’t the firm’s financial performance be stronger. Click here for the recent financials of TRI. The company has its eye on Asia, but the firm continues to experience some executive shifts. All in all, the company has survived the financial shift, but going forward, I think Thomson Reuters will have its work cut out for itself.
Several points jumped out at me:
- Newspapers are a subset of journalism. The broader world of journalism will survive the Internet.
- The bold will survive, which is a Murdochism.
- Mr. Ahearn oversees an “indispensible news agency”.
- Thomson Reuters is building a B2B content network. (B2B means “business to business”.)
- This network is going to be open and Thomson wants to outsource the rest with a nod to college prof and popular media personality Jeff Jarvis, who is an expert on Google with a podcast on the subject of Google.
Now let’s think about this series of statements, keeping in mind that I am an addled goose who many years ago did some projects for the pre-merger Thomson.
First, the notion of the survival of journalism is an interesting one. I suppose if one abstracts at a sufficiently high level, then any communication qualifies as journalism. Thomson Reuters has been getting out of the commodity information business since the firm began dumping its newspaper properties years ago. I think it is interesting that a Thomson Reuters’ executive responsible for media is talking about a business that is like a wooden motor boat with a dead engine in rough seas. I am not sure that high value information, which is Thomson Reuters’ focus in my opinion, is journalism.
Second, the notion of the bold surviving is interesting. When I read the phrase I was waiting for the joke about “old and bold” soldiers. There are not that many because unnecessary risks usually associated with boldness contributes to a high attrition rate. The notion of “bold” and media could become a “bet the farm” strategy for the folks from the antique world colliding with the Las Vegas of digital information. This digital information stuff has been around a long time. Now there’s a rush to figure out digital information? Yep, because the phase change is happening and traditional information companies are likely to be casualties of this shift.
I like the idea of an “indispensable” anything, including a news agency. But is a person, a new items, or a system indispensable today. Sure, there are monopolies and there is convenience. But if something “indispensable” disappears will the stars go out one by one as they do in the science fiction story by Arthur Clarke? Probably not. What will go out are the companies and individuals who perceive themselves as indispensable and learn that indispensable they are not.
Traditional information companies gird themselves for battle with the digital enemy. The enemies include their children with iPods, anyone born after 1994, and companies with greater technical competency. Image source: http://media.timesfreepress.com/pg/2008/20080820%20anachronism/images/001%20anachronism.jpg
The notion of a content network is interesting. I think of content networks and I think of Akamai or Google. I don’t think of traditional information companies. The emergence of social networks which create a clique in an electronic space may provide to be more valuable than a single firm’s information outputs. By definition, companies have an agenda to create information that sells. The B2B angle is interesting, but it may marginalize some opportunities.
I find the notion of openness amusing. Large commercial enterprises, by definition, are not open. These outfits can talk about openness, but the focus is on getting a proprietary and significant competitive advantage. Once in hand, that advantage becomes the core driver of future revenue. I think talk about openness is baloney. Google has some very proprietary technology. It also makes * some * moves to be open. But I don’t think I can buy openness at Google, Thomson Reuters, or any other commercial enterprise. I prefer “selective openness.” Buzzwords help me identify marketing collateral in my opinion.
To conclude, why did I bother to comment on this write up? This article looks like “news” but it is primarily marketing and political positioning in my opinion. Its news value is secondary. Thomson Reuters is advancing its agenda.
I think that companies like Thomson Reuters are at a juncture. The methods of making money are changing. That puts the business systems and procedures under strain. When the revenue growth slows, companies like Thomson Reuters are in pickle. The old ways don’t work the way they did, and the new ways require a different mindset. Ouch!
Technology is not the core competency of a firm like Thomson Reuters. (In my experience, Thomson Reuters perceives itself as a technology adept. In my opinion, I don’t think the company is operating with the correct perception of its competencies.) Why? There are more lawyers, accountants, and business managers than engineers. Thomson Reuters and similar companies have to become more like companies that are making the digital opportunities pay off. A share price in the $30 range is not much different from a Microsoft’s or Yahoo’s share price. Amazon, Apple, and Google are where the action may be.
And without that technical competency, I think the future will be very difficult for traditional information companies trying to adapt to a world distorted by their own children, Google, Apple, and the shift to a digital Gutenberg. At companies like Thomson Reuters, the lawyers and accountants are the driving force behind business decisions. Those groups in my experience are ill-suited to deal with the technical challenges and opportunities in 2010 and beyond.
Just my opinion. Just my opinion, gentle reader.
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Federal Trade Commission that I am offering my opinion without compensation. I think Tyson licked me awake at 5 15 am this morning. That’s either payment or a message that he wanted to go outside.
Google Content Assembly, the Result List Edition
December 12, 2009
I am burned out on the Google publishing angle. I was going to ignore this December 10, 2009, patent application “Displaying Compact and Expanded Data Items.” You can find the document on USPTO’s fabulous Web site at www.uspto.gov. If you are think about result lists, you may want to take a gander at this system and method for creating a shrinkydink result.
Cyrus, dear Cyrus, this is a fine Google patent diagram. (Cyrus thinks I make up these diagrams in Photoshop. Nope, this is a Google-generated screenshot with the nifty Google dotted line annotations.
When the user clicks, the shrinkydink transforms. Clever stuff. Here’s the Google golden prose, lovingly crafted by Google wizards and the legal eagles at Harrity & Harrity:
A system sends a search query to a search engine and receives from the search engine, responsive to the search query, a document comprising a first search result item and a second search result item. The system visually renders a portion that includes less than an entirety of the first search result item and includes the second search result item, where the portion is visually rendered in a region of the document. The system receives a selection of the first search result item from a user and visually expands the region of the document to a size sufficient to render an entirety of the first search result item based on the selection. The system visually renders the entirety of the first search result item within the expanded region of the document.
If on the other hand, you know everything about Google because you have read the Sergey-and-Larry-eat-pizza books, skip this 23 page document. I read these succinct, sizzling sentences from the Google and its advisors. I don’t know enough, which is why I am an addled goose.
Stephen Arnold, December 11, 2009
I am disclosing to the USPTO that I was not paid to use the USPTO system nor write this newsy item. I love working with patent documents. Money is secondary to the thrill I get from these easy-to-read gems of non-fiction.
Editor & Publisher: Trade Publication Goes Dark
December 11, 2009
You have to admire the magazine sector. On one hand, the mainstream magazine folks in the US are creating an iTunes for magazine articles. On the other hand, according to CIO, “108 Year Old Editor and Publisher Going Out of Business.” The subhead is clear:
A going concern since 1901, Editor & Publisher — “America’s Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry” — is going away a time when that industry continues to get smaller by the day.
I wonder if Google could have saved this publication. I wonder if a mainstream magazine publisher could have saved this publication. I wonder if News Corp. could have saved this publication?
The answer must be “no” since the story said:
From a memo issued this morning by the publication’s owner, Nielsen Business Media: “We’ve made the decision to cease operations for Editor & Publisher and Kirkus Reviews. This move will allow us to strengthen investment in our core businesses – those parts of our portfolio that have the greatest potential for growth – and ensure our long-term success.”
The author of the story seemed to speak directly to the addled goose when he wrote:
Those media bashers who gloat over these losses are sadly misinformed, and, in some cases, cruelly oblivious to the pain being suffered by journalists and their families. Those who believe these losses won’t matter are simply wrong.
There are blogging opportunities galore in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, December 11, 2009
I wish to report to the US Forest Service that I was not paid to write this short recycled news item. The trees in my backyard seemed to breathe a sigh of relief. Nah, just my imagination.
Publishers Do the Movie Thing with Staged Releases for eBooks
December 10, 2009
Short honk: The movie folks now release movies in ways to maximize revenue. I have been in a miserable nowhere country where electricity is a hit and miss proposition. In the motion picture facility, the same film playing in Harrod’s Creek was on the screen. In the local video store a copy of the film was for sale, sometimes legal, sometimes not so legal. In “Simon & Schuster Imposing Four-Month Delay on E-book Versions of Major Upcoming Releases” and chuckled. Readers are not the largest group in the US of A’s demographic pool. Making me wait to get an electronic version of a book won’t change my buying habits. I think Kindle is miserable. My Sony reader was more miserable. Nevertheless, I travel with a Kindle in order to minimize the hassle of traveling with books. When i shipped books to myself before I went to Italy, those books never arrived. Why not treat those who read as customers, not as problems. Why not charge those who don’t read lots of books more. Punish them.
Stephen Arnold, December 10, 2009
Oyez, oyez, I want to fess up I was not paid to point out that eBooks weigh less than the real thing. Now to whom do I report? Oh, yes. Fish & Wildlife. That’s what we book readers are—“wildlife”.
Reed Elsevier and Trade Newspaper Paywall
December 10, 2009
Reed Elsevier is trying to deal with the digital avalanche that is sweeping down Mount Information. I read in the Straits Times’s “Variety to Begin Charging.”
We fundamentally believe that the readers should pay one price and get all or any of our content,’ said Neil Stiles, president of Variety Group, a unit of London and Amsterdam-based Reed Elsevier Group PLC. ‘If you don’t pay, you don’t get anything.’ While the 104-year-old newspaper expects to lose many of its roughly 2.5 million monthly online visitors, it values more highly the 25,000 subscribers of its daily printed version and 30,000 subscribers of its weekly printed version.
The question is, “Will there be enough Hollywood hungry folks to make the content generate enough revenue to keep the lights on?” My hunch is that there will be some people who will pay, but the margins of the print publication from 10 years ago are not going to be achievable.
What will happen? I anticipate these events:
- Big splash.
- Lousy numbers
- Regrouping
- Relaunch
- Sale of the property.
Don’t get me wrong. Silobreaker’s consumer service is generating cash. That service uses smart software, not humans. AOL and Yahoo offer entertainment sites. I can create a Hollywood feed on Congoo.com with a few mouse clicks. These competitors are not performing equally well. That’s not the point. There are lots of sites that generate Hollywood content. You can download a podcast from KCRW that delivers “the Business.”
Something more than a paywall will be needed to keep Variety healthy. I have some ideas, but these are not for this free, Web log. Get my drift?
Stephen Arnold, December 10, 2009
I feel compelled by the imperative of a 40 page movie script to report to the custodial contractor for the Old Executive Office Building that I was not paid to write this opinion piece. Wow, confession cleans out the doubt.
Adobe Winning a War or Adobe Trying to Make a Paper Canoe
December 10, 2009
Short honk: You will want to read “Amazon’s Kindle Winning Battle, but Adobe Poised to Win E-book War.” * Then * you will want to do some walk throughs of publishers, assuming you can find one that is giving tours and has staff on site. In today’s world 100 of anything is not exactly a crowd that will fill the River Creek Inn here in Harrods Creek. Libraries face some severe budget pressures. Publishers are late to the online game and generally not exactly the best fishermen at Lake Cumberland, also in Kentucky.
In my experience, Adobe’s software is a standard in photo editing and illustration. I am not to thrilled with Adobe’s handling of Framemaker. I use Version 7.2, which is pretty annoying when it tell me I can’t undo an image import, when I can. Versions 8 and 9, in my opinion, rival Venture in the Corel era. Adobe’s Acrobat software, which I supported when I was at Ziff Communications, has become a bloated boatload of code. After more than a decade of “innovation”, it is still not possible to have a PDF kill itself after a specified number of opens.
The notion that 100 libraries and publishers are going to win a battle strikes me as the type of assertion that gets sold to a buyer who has just stepped off a flight from LAX to Auckland, a flight taken without sleep and moderation in the food and drink department.
With content shifting to new types of platforms and different types of information companies sprouting in the fertile field of those born after 1994, I think Adobe is fighting Harvey the Rabbit. Maybe Adobe can see the rabbit, but I can’t. Furthermore, the rabbit is not much of a competitor. Adobe will have its hands full with customers saying no to meaningless upgrades. Adobe will have its hands full with dear old Googzilla who may change course and drive its nuclear power destroyer up to Adobe and blast away. Adobe will have its hands full with next generation information systems, including some “toys” like blogging software, enterprise publishing systems, and data management systems.
Just my opinion. But if you buy this “war” stuff, just load up on Adobe stock and buy your own ocean going vessel. You can get a heck of a deal on a ghost ship anchored off the west coast of England.
Stephen Arnold, December 10, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Government Printing Office, one of the early supporters of XyWrite III+, that I was not paid by anyone to share my views of Adobe’s technical mastery of publishing systems. I wanted to use the word “boat” with “bloat”, but I was not in the mood for rapping.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
