Search is basically an automated function with an algorithm and a bunch of servers, and Google made its name on the simplicity of the search page.
True but search does not equal search advertising (key words, and the bidding system for clients). Search is a free service, and search advertising is where they make their money. Two very different beasts, and it is search advertising that generates their revenue. Search brings the eyes, auctioning keywords sells those eyes through.
Search advertising takes quite a bit of maintenance, much more so than search. It is no easy algorithm. Google does do a pretty good job at keeping this up, and this core piece of their business is doing just fine.
Investors could care less how many hits a service might get if those hits are not monetized (things work a little differently now than they did in the 90's).
All I'm saying is Google would do well to ignore Bartz assessment and prudently engage other enterprises, if at all.
Google's perceived weakness right now is the number of acquired business units in their corporate portfolio which have negative profit margins.
Google is not weak at this point in time. Do not get me wrong. But also, it would not do well for Google to ignore Econ 101 either.
Google may be overextending, and some of their experiments fail, some fail miserably, but they don't sacrifice their core features to help their failing experiments as much as Yahoo did.
Agreed Google has taken better care of their core business, search advertising, than Yahoo ever did.
However, even with the greater resources Google has to work with, the fiscal impact of over-extension (i.e. throwing good money after the bad) cannot be ignored in the long run.
My entry for analogy Friday: Even the largest, best-equipped army in the world can over-extend itself, get cut off from its supplies, flanked and laid to waste.
"It is only half our business; it's 99.9% of their business. They've got to find other things to do.
Translation: 50% of yahoo makes (made) money after acquiring Overture in 2003. The other 50% spends money developing emoticons.
It's pretty much Jerry's fault, with his chronic hasbeenitis clouding upper management with a perverse sense of corporate "culture" (perverse for corporations) that is best described as cool before profitable.
That being said, Mike, why are you beating down the beaten for whimpering while lying on the ground? Shouldn't Googlites have an unshakable sense of pride at this point?
Or, deep down, are you thinking, like many investors, that there just a slight possibility Google is in the process of over-extending themselves just as Yahoo did?
Even Economic blogs don't talk about econ 101 type stuff, over and over and over.
I think the point Techdirt is trying to get across is that when it comes to using the Internet as a medium for business, people should stop ignoring what they learned in Econ 101.
There is no big mystery to the information age, other than all of the clamor from traditional industries to gain artificial control over "goods" (in the archaic sense) by attempting to inhibit the natural flow of information. To attempt to make scarcities where none exist, in this case.
Inhibiting the flow of information runs counter to the ideal purpose of a public information network. In the not too distant future, the concept of paywalls and copyright enforcement may very well lead to mechanisms being put in place which could directly be used to censor and prohibit content based on political motives.
For me, that last point is why I am concerned, and interested, in all of these alleged business moguls talking like they never graduated high school.
Can't they just make it clear to people: if they want themselves and their work to stay out of the public forum (and all the perfectly legal vitriol that comes along with), they should not accept public funding.
That's the way it is, and no need to attack or question another's opinion on this subject.
Granted, in retrospect my comment was slightly more acerbic than necessary.
Still, even for the least AV sensitive, I challenge anyone with a tiny HD set replete with crappy speakers to the "2001 BD vs. DVD Comparison". Several Kubrick movies use crazy color filters and audio which simply could not be conveyed using DVD coding. The difference is striking, as is the movie (on BD).
There is only marginal quality difference. I did a test with a BluRay and a regular DVD which was upscaled and COULD NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
Are you just color blind, fully blind or are you using a std def TV?
The sound, definition and color spectrum on Blu is in a completely different league from DVD. If you need a connect-the-dots illustration watch 2001 on blu ray, then just *try to watch 2001 on DVD (or vhs, honestly.. the DVD was so bad). (Oh, and use a BD player or at least a high-quality BT for your comparison.)
That being said, this case is just another great illustration of why DRM is useless crap and unforgivably stupid, as are unskippable ads on a purchased, sorry "licensed", product.
Not if somebody writes a program to tweet and then untweet files this way...
This could certainly be done. But unless all infringing tweeters agree on a standard for special tags within the tweet (i.e. Paragraph), the material would still look like... well I guess it would like like some comments I've read on certain message boards (no not yours).
If I were to publish the entire contents of the first Harry Potter book by tweeting it 140 characters at a time, I'd clearly be infringing copyright with the stream as a whole,
I suppose you are right, but what an awful format in which to consume infringing material.
Much to the IP lawyer's chagrin, whistling tunes and singing songs while walking around in public went out of style long ago.
It would take exactly approximately 0.015 sec for the first "PI" take-down to be issued... by a corporation, for a site with negative reviews and contact information.
Corporations are treated with "rights" like individuals more and more. This can only be an attempt to make them irreproachable.
The beef in supermarkets is usually quite sad. I had a "real" steak the other night and I could taste BEEF through a diane-like sauce before I even chewed. With the commercial stuff I can't even get real beef flavor if I juice it.
Real beef comes from well-cared-for cattle. I am not sure exactly what they are selling in supermarkets these days.
On the post: Hollywood Gets Injunction Against Pirate Bay Bandwidth Provider?
Face / Palm
On the post: Is Yahoo's CEO Really In A Position To Tell Google What It Needs To Do?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Profit Averse Culture
True but search does not equal search advertising (key words, and the bidding system for clients). Search is a free service, and search advertising is where they make their money. Two very different beasts, and it is search advertising that generates their revenue. Search brings the eyes, auctioning keywords sells those eyes through.
Search advertising takes quite a bit of maintenance, much more so than search. It is no easy algorithm. Google does do a pretty good job at keeping this up, and this core piece of their business is doing just fine.
Investors could care less how many hits a service might get if those hits are not monetized (things work a little differently now than they did in the 90's).
All I'm saying is Google would do well to ignore Bartz assessment and prudently engage other enterprises, if at all.
Google's perceived weakness right now is the number of acquired business units in their corporate portfolio which have negative profit margins.
Google is not weak at this point in time. Do not get me wrong. But also, it would not do well for Google to ignore Econ 101 either.
On the post: Is Yahoo's CEO Really In A Position To Tell Google What It Needs To Do?
Re: Re: Profit Averse Culture
Agreed Google has taken better care of their core business, search advertising, than Yahoo ever did.
However, even with the greater resources Google has to work with, the fiscal impact of over-extension (i.e. throwing good money after the bad) cannot be ignored in the long run.
My entry for analogy Friday: Even the largest, best-equipped army in the world can over-extend itself, get cut off from its supplies, flanked and laid to waste.
On the post: Is Yahoo's CEO Really In A Position To Tell Google What It Needs To Do?
Profit Averse Culture
Translation: 50% of yahoo makes (made) money after acquiring Overture in 2003. The other 50% spends money developing emoticons.
It's pretty much Jerry's fault, with his chronic hasbeenitis clouding upper management with a perverse sense of corporate "culture" (perverse for corporations) that is best described as cool before profitable.
That being said, Mike, why are you beating down the beaten for whimpering while lying on the ground? Shouldn't Googlites have an unshakable sense of pride at this point?
Or, deep down, are you thinking, like many investors, that there just a slight possibility Google is in the process of over-extending themselves just as Yahoo did?
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: You'd think they'd get the wording right
Wow. That actually works on so many levels. Someone needs to teach this to the copyright nuts too.
On the post: NYTimes' Boss Pretends That A Paywall Creates A Stronger Emotional Bond
Re: Re: Re: Something about Techdirt
I think the point Techdirt is trying to get across is that when it comes to using the Internet as a medium for business, people should stop ignoring what they learned in Econ 101.
There is no big mystery to the information age, other than all of the clamor from traditional industries to gain artificial control over "goods" (in the archaic sense) by attempting to inhibit the natural flow of information. To attempt to make scarcities where none exist, in this case.
Inhibiting the flow of information runs counter to the ideal purpose of a public information network. In the not too distant future, the concept of paywalls and copyright enforcement may very well lead to mechanisms being put in place which could directly be used to censor and prohibit content based on political motives.
For me, that last point is why I am concerned, and interested, in all of these alleged business moguls talking like they never graduated high school.
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Environmentally Unsound
I hope he enjoys the ride.
On the post: Avatar Blu-Ray Customers Not Enjoying Their DRM-Crippled Discs
Re: Re: Re: You Guys Know About Chapter Skip Right?...
On the post: Avatar Blu-Ray Customers Not Enjoying Their DRM-Crippled Discs
Re: Re: Re: Blu-Death-Ray
Granted, in retrospect my comment was slightly more acerbic than necessary.
Still, even for the least AV sensitive, I challenge anyone with a tiny HD set replete with crappy speakers to the "2001 BD vs. DVD Comparison". Several Kubrick movies use crazy color filters and audio which simply could not be conveyed using DVD coding. The difference is striking, as is the movie (on BD).
OK I'm done writing like a Bluray evangelist.
DRM sucks.
On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling That Blog Commenter Was Not A Journalist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Careful there... Mike might just designate you as his personal Van der Lube. And, wow, I would NOT want to be in that position.
On the post: Avatar Blu-Ray Customers Not Enjoying Their DRM-Crippled Discs
Re: Blu-Death-Ray
Are you just color blind, fully blind or are you using a std def TV?
The sound, definition and color spectrum on Blu is in a completely different league from DVD. If you need a connect-the-dots illustration watch 2001 on blu ray, then just *try to watch 2001 on DVD (or vhs, honestly.. the DVD was so bad). (Oh, and use a BD player or at least a high-quality BT for your comparison.)
That being said, this case is just another great illustration of why DRM is useless crap and unforgivably stupid, as are unskippable ads on a purchased, sorry "licensed", product.
On the post: Twitter Taking Down Tweets Over Bogus DMCA Claims
Re: Re: Re: A(n) Interesting Red Herring
This could certainly be done. But unless all infringing tweeters agree on a standard for special tags within the tweet (i.e. Paragraph), the material would still look like... well I guess it would like like some comments I've read on certain message boards (no not yours).
On the post: Avatar Sees Theater Attendance Bump After DVD Release
Re: Question:
No, not a chance.
Yes, without a doubt. :)
On the post: Twitter Taking Down Tweets Over Bogus DMCA Claims
Re: A(n) Interesting Red Herring
I suppose you are right, but what an awful format in which to consume infringing material.
Much to the IP lawyer's chagrin, whistling tunes and singing songs while walking around in public went out of style long ago.
On the post: Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'
Personal and Corporate
Corporations are treated with "rights" like individuals more and more. This can only be an attempt to make them irreproachable.
On the post: Missing From ACTA Release: What Each Country Is Pushing For
Re: Re: Re: RE:RE:RE: CHICKENS
On the post: Missing From ACTA Release: What Each Country Is Pushing For
Re: Re: RE:RE:RE: CHICKENS
He forgot to include the localization tag.
On the post: Now, Apparently It's Not Just Content Providers That Are Getting A Free Ride On Broadband Networks, But Consumers Too
Re:
Have you checked AT&T's yearly earnings report for 09?
I call shenanigans on the claim that they are undercharging.. both on the mobile and wired networks.
If they want more money from me out of pity, it would be a good start to stop having "best profit ever!" year after year during an economic downturn.
On the post: Now, Apparently It's Not Just Content Providers That Are Getting A Free Ride On Broadband Networks, But Consumers Too
Re: Re: Wow
Haha
At least you didn't use the 'D' word... 'It's his stomach, OK??!?!'
p2pp (extra p for added effect) is killing the every-industry! stop updating your WoW client already!
On the post: McDonald's Laughs Off Criticism Embedded In April Fool's Joke
Re: Re: Re:
Real beef comes from well-cared-for cattle. I am not sure exactly what they are selling in supermarkets these days.
Next >>