10 posts tagged “google”
After rumors of its demise and resurrection, it looks like WiMax will finally get the push it needs in the U.S. to become a viable contender in the wireless communications space.
Sprint and Clearwire finally rekindled a deal to launch a nationwide service--thanks to a multi-billion-dollar push from investors Comcast, Intel, Time Warner Cable, and Google. The new service will be marketed under the Clearwire brand, and it could offer true wireless broadband Internet access a year or two ahead of Verizon and AT&T's planned offerings.
For those not familiar with WiMax or some of its potential uses (ranging from cars to rural broadband service to virtually free mobile calling), see "WiMax Network's Rollout Abroad" in Popular Mechanics, "Web Surfers Can Take the Internet Along for the Ride" in The New York Times, and "Beyond WiMax" in PC Magazine.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
In the world of mergers and acquisitions, it's never over.
Folks are selling their Yahoo shares after Microsoft abandoned its efforts to take over the company last weekend, but they might want to start buying again in July.
Yes, Yahoo wanted more money than the company is worth (assuming one puts any credence in the valuation of Internet firms when the reality is that a new site can knock out a leading competitor in a couple of months). But it's clear that Yahoo will be worth even less if it follows through on an advertising deal with Mr. Potter, er, Google. That would represent total capitulation in the one promising area of future revenue for the firm. And that's also the one hook that Yahoo had for Microsoft: the potential to combine forces with Microsoft on the Internet ad front to compete with Google.
So, my bet is that Microsoft's Ballmer will launch another takeover bid when Yahoo's shares dip below $20 again. And since M&A kids love to ruin an acquisition target's holidays, send lawyers into double-triple overtime, and look for the bottom price, I fearlessly predict that in August, we'll all be covering this story--again.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
One wonders when Yahoo will wake up and smell the cat food. (Microsoft's cat food, that is, to contort a musical sub-reference into a tech marketing quasi cliche.)
Naturally, Yahoo had to at least nominally (and oh so predictably) reject Microsoft's initial offer, but as the days of speculation drag on, the discussion seems about as serious as considering another Nader run for the presidency (okay, never mind the fact that Ralph is actually taking that idea seriously).
Sitting in the green room at Fox the other day and watching the Yahoo-Microsoft banter (which included the possibility that some of the largest Yahoo shareholders could sue if management doesn't take the deal), I could not help noticing that no one's heart was really in it. What everyone wanted to say but simply couldn't say on the air is that this deal is done. It's logical, obvious, and necessary for both parties. It's even a necessity for Google (they desperately need the competition or they'll die like Woody Allen's shark, and it will blunt the growing anti-trust problems Google faces).
And the idea that has been floated of melding AOL and Yahoo is such a terrifically terrible idea (and the source of endless jokes in New York), it only serves to underscore the fact that the Microhoo deal is all but done. The preposterous AOL idea--let's give Time Warner Yahoo so that it drive it straight into the ground like its other online endeavors (as if that would preserve Time Warner's core businesses)--illustrates in high-contrast colors that Yahoo has no other option than to accept the Microsoft offer. Joining with AOL is almost as crazy an idea as letting Mr. Potter "help" George Bailey (hello, Google?).
The cynics among us, of course, are going to point to the rather half-hearted rejection from Yahoo as being utterly disingenuous. There wasn't even any indignation in the tone, they'll say, which has been standard operating procedure in dealing with Microsoft proposals for over a decade and a half. A lack of indignation means you (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) really want to be acquired.
So, Yahoo's apparent rejection reminds me of those wonderfully subversive Nancy Reagan era "Just Say No" buttons that when tilted said "Yes!" Maybe someone should get a box of the buttons and send then to Yahoo HQ.
Those who want to bet on when Yahoo will officially accept a Microsoft bid can post their bets in the comments section here....
Update: Apparently some major Yahoo shareholders agree that this is all but over. See The Deal's Legg Mason: Yahoo! in a "tough spot."
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
The recent hostile bid by Microsoft for the flagging Yahoo is taking on "It's A Wonderful Life" proportions. Unfortunately for the world's search engine, Google is casting itself in the role of Mr. Potter.
Witness one of the funniest blog postings of the last few hours by Google svp David Drummond, who enumerates dire warnings about a Microsoft--Yahoo marriage. Dripping with irony (dripping? he's soaking in it), Drummond complains that, gee, Microsoft is really big, it once had some like legal problems, and, well, heck, between Yahoo and Microsoft they have a way lot of IM and e-mail users.
In the words of John McEnroe: You cannot be serious.
Of course Drummond didn't say a word about how Google has a worldwide stranglehold on Web advertising, which is what all this is about. And he didn't mention that Google reportedly called poor little Yahoo (Mr. Potter-style) to offer its assistance in fighting off the Microsoft bid. (One can just imagine that conversation and how long it took George Bailey, er, Yahoo to realize it was about to be tricked into shutting down the old building and loan.)
All this hand-wringing, slapstick, and hilarity from Google over the mere possibility that it might, maybe, possibly, finally get some competition and have to hitch up its britches makes Google CEO Eric Schmidt look more paranoid than Dick Cheney. Maybe he's having nightmares about his days back at Novell.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Microsoft has been after Yahoo for a while now, but this week the folks in Redmond made it official: They really, really like Yahoo. But do we really, really like the idea of a $44.6 billion purchase?
For tech veterans, the knee-jerk reaction would be to scream antitrust (remember when Microsoft was about to be broken up, and for good reason, until that journalist went and blabbed). However, if one is concerned about privacy issues, unfettered use of personal data, and an almost complete lack of price competition in the online marketplace, Google is more of threat these days than Microsoft. Just take a look at how Google manages Adsense--or rather doesn't manage it.
A Microsoft-Yahoo merger (er, I mean purchase) would provide some much needed competition for Google. While Google is innovative, it can also be flaky and tends to lack focus (notice how Google Earth, a great idea, crashes systems at the click of a mouse). On the other hand, Microsoft is steady, but it's never been that innovative (e.g., Web-based mail, custom online databases, online blogging software, online mapping software, heck, even its Web browser have all been me-too products). So competition from a Microhoo could force Google to focus and deliver better hands-on service to customers. It might even relieve fears that the online ad world will become a monopoly. And who knows? Microhoo could become a more innovative force in the online world.
Bottom line: "Woo-hoo!, It's a great idea."
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Leading this morning's tech news and rumor mongering is word that at 10:30 EST Verizon Wireless will announce that it's opening its network and allowing any compatible device and any compatible application to run on it.
It should mean that consumers can choose the phone they want and not be locked into a contract that ties the phone and service together. In the face of Google's open source push for its so-called Android software to run on phones next year and calls by handset makers (okay, they've always screamed about the problem) to open up standards so that new features could be offered to consumers, perhaps Verizon has finally seen the light.
Wall Street analysts will doubtless fail to notice, however, that the technology behind Verizon Wireless is inherently less open than that used by AT&T, uh, Cingular (for example, I regularly swap phones between the T-Mobile and AT&T networks simply by switching out SIM cards, something that is not possible with Verizon). So how much good this will do Verizon in the long run remains to be seen.
Maybe now they are finally regretting their decision to turn down the iPhone.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
15 Minutes to Midnight
Despite the fact that according to a Gallop poll only about 23 percent of Americans believe that journalists have high ethical standards (hey, at least we have standards), journalism is a profession that requires training, experience, dedication, dogged research, and skin thicker than a rhino's posterior. But the profession is under attack and continuing diminution. And we don't just mean by Rupert "My Wall Street Journal" Murdoch.
There are sites that post press releases as news (you know the sites), bloggers that get paid to post positive stories, news organizations that use e-mailed photos and video without seeking independent confirmation, search engines that publish photos without applying any standards, and media barrons who consider facts to be somewhat malleable (okay, now we do mean Murdoch).
Hence the countdown clock.
The reason for the current time: Google's decision to test a system whereby corporations, politicians, and even convicted felons can rebut news stories. The rebuttals will be given equal weight alongside stories pulled from original sites and re-posted on Google News. More important, the profession responsible for toiling over the original story will not have a voice in the process. (For the official/unofficial press release/blog/guerilla marketing posting/whatever-the-heck-it-is note from Google, which we think should be entitled, "When Bad Software Engineers Happen to Good People," see "Perspectives about the news from people in the news" here.)
Aside from demonstrating incredible cluelessness on the part of Google's "news" team--the people behind the slowest and most unreliable news aggregation site on the Web--such an experiment also reveals two hidden assumptions about the news:
1) The professional always gets the story wrong and so all interested parties (say, a company that stands to lose money because their toys are revealed to be covered in lead paint) should be given equal status.
2) There's no point in even attempting to be objective. Everybody's spinning, so why shouldn't we just add to the confusion with more spin?
Of course, the real losers are not the underpaid ink-stained wretches. The real losers here are the moms who want to know what toys are safe for their children, the patients who want to know what dangers certain drugs may pose, the voters who want to know what a candidate actually believes, the investors who want know where to put their money, and the rest of us, who just want to know.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
There has been much ado over the past few days about a new Google maps feature. It's called "Street View" and rather than using virtual images of landmarks along the road, it uses actual photographs to give people online a 360-degree view of the environs. Well, not just the environs--people too. And therein lies the problem.
Immediately, desk potatoes posted links to Google Street Views that revealed women sunbathing, apparent burglars, children, men ogling (or should it now be "googling") the posters outside of a strip club, battered women entering shelters, and one very miffed cat. What about our privacy!? screamed many. (What about all we already know about stalking, identity theft, etc., I wondered.)
It's an understandable concern (unless you're as unreflective and lacking in intellectual acumen as Scott McNealy), and one that Google immediately ducked. The company's position is simply, it's legal (these are public places) and if you don't like it, file a complaint and maybe we'll consider taking the photo off line. It's an amateurish response, especially coming from such a large company. It reveals a general lack of expertise and knowledge on Google's part, something the company would do well to address.
There are well understood policies and guidelines for those of us in the broadcast and print media business regarding how, when, and why we use images. On TV, for example, many organizations I work for have a strict policy about showing any images of children (you need parental consent in most cases), and there's a professional ethic about using pictures of people arbitrarily. That's why whenever CNN uses b-roll for the umpteenth story on obesity in America, you only see people's bodies waddling down the street and not their faces. (I could do without the body shots as well, quite frankly.)
Speaking of expansion, as Google moves into areas where it has no previous experience, the company would do well to seek out the council of professionals. It could have, for example, set up basic guidelines about Street Views before it just put it online with about as much deliberation as a teenager uses to post a Facebook entry. (It's a simple matter, for example, to digitally remove identifiable people from images using an automated program.)
Of course, very cynical readers out there will submit that Google dosen't make such mistakes due to teenage brain chemicals. The company does it on purpose to get more press coverage. I certainly hope not. It would be awful to be covering some murder next week just because a crazed man found his ex-wife on Street Views.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
PS: The answer to the question in the caption above is that the photo isn't a violation of the kinds of guidelines professionals use because I was careful not to include any children, exhibitionistic neighbors, or cats in the shot.
This kind of trouble is lots of fun!
Google's plan to purchase online ad clearing house DoubleClick for $3.1 billion is generating lots of news. However, the real story isn't how much money the search engine/advertising/online services behemoth is willing to pay a gaggle of private investors. Nor is the real issue how this effects Microsoft or Yahoo (after all, do people really care?). Granted, Yahoo's efforts in the online search arena have been tepid to date, while Microsoft may end up taking only a small slice out of Google's virtual monopoly in Web ad serving.
No, the real story is how this effects me, Al Franken. In other words, the purchase could have far-reaching implications for regular folks who surf the Internet.
The main issue is how Google tracks people online (see "Google Owns You" below). Not only does it use its search engine to record every single click you make, but it can also correlate this information with Web site visits and visits to sponsored links. With the addition of DoubleClick, Google's tentacles could stretch even further. Specific ads can already be served to you based on your surfing habits, but now there's the potential to track how often you visit specific sites, make purchases, or click on ads across a much greater swath of the Web. (If you're skeptical, just take a look at how many cookies these sites store on your computer.)
Marketers, ever prone to creating high-concept neologisms for simple ideas, call this behaviorial marketing. Other folks call it spying. And the potential for abuse is quite real. Google already can shut down a small busines by denying its ad services without redress. And then there are the advertisers. A DoubleClick-Google monster could easily crowd out any remaining competition...and drive up prices.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Google, whose corporate creed includes the motto "You can make money without doing evil," has announced that it will retain personal data on individual Web surfers' searches for only 2 years. And in an another amazing example of TP (technological prevaricaton--see article below), some reporters actually bought the marketing spin that this would somehow help protect people's privacy.
Quick background: When you use Google to search for, say, "Clinton," "Clap Your Hands," or "Britney naked" (not that anyone I know would do that), the search engine pegs your search to your IP address--and then stores a record of it. Thus, if someone in the future wanted to know what subversive activities JQ had been up to, they wouldn't have to hack into my computers. All they would need to do is look through the Google records. Indeed, they could in theory go further, since Google not only tracks all of your searches, it also looks at cookies on your system, cookies which may tell them what you ordered online, what bank you use, your daughter's name,...well, you get the idea.
Does Google warn you with a pop-up box every time you enter a search term that you are being tracked. No. Does the company tell you that every search you conduct on its site could be used against you in a court of law? No. Does the company say, "This search could be used against you in your upcoming messy divorce/fraud/terrorist legal battle." Uh, no.
Is Google's retention of such information a standard practice in the industry? No. Try Microsoft or AOL searches and you'll find they toss out the data almost immediately.There are also several search engines that explicitly don't track your searches, including one called Scroogle that submits your query anonymously to (you guessed it) Google.
The only reason Google tracks and stores all this personal data is for money. Spying on you is just incidental to the process. However, if Google really cared about people, as it professes, then it would give each of us a cut of the profit it makes from harvesting our personal information--and quit trying to trick us about how it's protecting people's privacy.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
