"Why exactly doesn't Google take the first steps and remove those sites itself?"
Because Google aren't stupid?
A company with Google's market share needs to be really careful to avoid knowingly damaging someone else's business.
Murdoch knows as well as Google does that they have a symbiotic relationship. Murdoch is just posturing as part of their on going negotiations with Google for a bigger slice of the pie.
I disagree. The same technology they use to identify where you are can be used to localise or globalize the ads: Not in the US, only show ads for global brands; have a sales office in India, show the ads you sold to Indians. Using Canada as an example most US adds that are nationally relevant are going to be relevant there too. You only *think* Canadians are strange, they're actually a lot like you.
It really *is* about the content industry and the way they do distribution.
You see back in the olden days they used to contract with a local distributor in each country to distribute the reels and collect the royalties. It kind of made sense when they had to load all those canisters onto a steamer and ship them across oceans. Everyone was happy and most people wore an onion on their belt (which was the fashion at the time).
As far as the 'content industry' is concerned the olden days never ended and Hulu can only show the content in the country they have licensed it. If they want to show it in Canada they need a license from the Canadian rights holder. They haven't done that (yet) so blockedy block.
I was going to say this is more a reflection of the iPod v any other media player. But if they are charging for the download then you dont even have to look there.
Google haven't paid anyone to move their YouTube traffic (or other traffic) from peering points to the consumer for a long time. But they do spend a lot of money expanding and maintaining their extensive global network that moves traffic between their data centres and from data centres to peering points.
Major Telcos speak only of the former when they talk about Google getting a "free ride"; Google speak only of the latter when responding that the Telcos must maintain net neutrality; Analysts and journalists happily emphasise whichever fits their agenda.
So YouTube wasnt a bad investment because the bandwidth costs didnt turn out to be crippling as some predicted? OK. A little one dimensional but I guess I can live with that.
"I agree that exclusives, when examined in isolation, are anti-competitive. But overall, I'm not clear on how a 2007 new entrant (Apple), with a disruptive device that lit a fire under the incumbent vendors, could be perceived as "anti-competitive" in terms of net results"
If you're only thinking of handset manufacturers, sure, but the problem with exclusive deals is that they also distort competition between carriers. How much harder would ATT need to work without the iPhone exclusive? How much better could overall industry service have been if competition had been more open?
Relevance? I suppose there might be some strange person that keeps their reports and homework assignments on facebook.
Think instead of the first date with your spouse and the photo grabbed on a cell and posted to FB. You might not look at it every day but you'd probably miss it if FB lost it and you didnt have a backup...
If they had recognized and taken the opportunity early enough DRM would have been a way to artificially preserve scarcity at least for at least a while longer.
Is DRM good? Bad? The question was relevant over a decade ago. It's not even worth debating now. The opportunity was missed a long time ago.
The same thing happened to me when I got called up for jury duty here in Hong Kong. The notice included names and dates. I managed to resist the temptation to research the case, but didnt end up getting selected anyway.
I've said this elsewhere: I think that their efforts would be better spent on competition. ISPs can only abuse near monopoly powers if they have a near monopoly.
With sufficient competition in place consumers (not regulators) can dictate what type of service is acceptable.
Of course competition is a much larger problem than network neutrality. Ultimately though without improved competition this is little more than a PR exercise..
You're like a scientist trying to explain that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to some fundamentalist creationist. Logic and reason are never going to convince the true believers. Frustration and exasperation are easily confused with anger.
I don't think that it needs to be 'additional scarce value' it just needs to be additional value. The real problem with the paywall crowd is that they over value their product.
Try selling premium pork sausages in Tel Aviv. No matter how scrumptious the sausage, you've misread the market and this is exactly what the paywall crowd have done. No doubt there is a niche market for pork sausage in Tel Aviv, but expecting your local rabii to chow down on your product - even if it is a really #ucking good sausage is unrealistic and misguided.
Err, No. China's legal system is somewhat different from that of the US. Google does have the ability to oppose court requests in the US - Yahoo's China operation had much more limited options. Same for Google's China JV for that matter.
Not that I agree totally with the A.C. Google should not immediately handover user information without giving the user a chance to respond. Which sounds pretty much like what they are doing anyway.
Paul,
Appreciate the vision of utopia, but when I went to school a DNS client communicating with a DNS server was called "client/server mode". The server is not your clients peer, it is the client's server.
I read this as an IT department concerned about costs and security. Bandwidth costs to/from Antarctica cant be cheep. And IT departments paranoid over security are regrettably common.
I agree. It depends on the work - for your reasonably well paid knowledge worker Mike might have a point, but for low paid jobs, and in particular casual work hourly wages are here to stay.
"The organization that's supposed to make the news clear can't make its own news clear"
I didn't think that the AP did much more than redistribute material provided to them by their customers? I'm not surprised that they fail at communicating their own ideas, they normally just repeat other peoples ideas verbatim.
I expect that the BBC subscribe to the AP service and from the AP's perspective, as long as they get their cut, everything is OK. I dont see anything hypocritical here.
The AP are wrong in thinking that they can own the news, but their real problem is that they don't understand their product. The content itself was never the value proposition: the value was always the convenient collection, organisation and distribution (of content). Their failure is in routed in not realising this and missing the opportunity to enhance their product to maintain a value proposition.
On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google
Re:
Because Google aren't stupid?
A company with Google's market share needs to be really careful to avoid knowingly damaging someone else's business.
Murdoch knows as well as Google does that they have a symbiotic relationship. Murdoch is just posturing as part of their on going negotiations with Google for a bigger slice of the pie.
On the post: Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?
Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal
Re: It's all about the ads
It really *is* about the content industry and the way they do distribution.
You see back in the olden days they used to contract with a local distributor in each country to distribute the reels and collect the royalties. It kind of made sense when they had to load all those canisters onto a steamer and ship them across oceans. Everyone was happy and most people wore an onion on their belt (which was the fashion at the time).
As far as the 'content industry' is concerned the olden days never ended and Hulu can only show the content in the country they have licensed it. If they want to show it in Canada they need a license from the Canadian rights holder. They haven't done that (yet) so blockedy block.
On the post: Nokia Getting Killed In The Smartphone Market... So Of Course It Sues For Patent Infringement
Nokia have been loosing market share, but this isn't why they are going after apple. They are doing it because they can.
On the post: Comes With Music... But No One Cares
Re: It's not "free" music!
On the post: New Estimate: YouTube's Bandwidth Bill Is Zero
Major Telcos speak only of the former when they talk about Google getting a "free ride"; Google speak only of the latter when responding that the Telcos must maintain net neutrality; Analysts and journalists happily emphasise whichever fits their agenda.
So YouTube wasnt a bad investment because the bandwidth costs didnt turn out to be crippling as some predicted? OK. A little one dimensional but I guess I can live with that.
On the post: WWE's Vince McMahon Threatens Wine School For Having A Sommelier Smackdown
Hmm Moron in a hurry?
/joke people, it's a joke
On the post: iPhone To Be Offered From Multiple Carriers, eh
If you're only thinking of handset manufacturers, sure, but the problem with exclusive deals is that they also distort competition between carriers. How much harder would ATT need to work without the iPhone exclusive? How much better could overall industry service have been if competition had been more open?
On the post: Creative Web Destruction: Sites Go Away
Re:
Think instead of the first date with your spouse and the photo grabbed on a cell and posted to FB. You might not look at it every day but you'd probably miss it if FB lost it and you didnt have a backup...
On the post: DRM Doesn't Enable Business Models; Blind Fear Disables Business Models
Is DRM good? Bad? The question was relevant over a decade ago. It's not even worth debating now. The opportunity was missed a long time ago.
On the post: Googling Juror Leads To Verdict Being Overturned
Still it seems a strange thing to do.
On the post: FCC: We Want Net Neutrality
With sufficient competition in place consumers (not regulators) can dictate what type of service is acceptable.
Of course competition is a much larger problem than network neutrality. Ultimately though without improved competition this is little more than a PR exercise..
On the post: Recording Industry Insiders Complain About Musicians Who Argue Against Kicking People Off The Internet
The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion
You're like a scientist trying to explain that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to some fundamentalist creationist. Logic and reason are never going to convince the true believers. Frustration and exasperation are easily confused with anger.
Oh wait, am I commenting on the right post ;-)
On the post: Understanding The Paywall Mindset In 140 Characters
Try selling premium pork sausages in Tel Aviv. No matter how scrumptious the sausage, you've misread the market and this is exactly what the paywall crowd have done. No doubt there is a niche market for pork sausage in Tel Aviv, but expecting your local rabii to chow down on your product - even if it is a really #ucking good sausage is unrealistic and misguided.
On the post: How Far Should Google Go To Protect User Privacy In Lawsuits?
Re: Re:
Not that I agree totally with the A.C. Google should not immediately handover user information without giving the user a chance to respond. Which sounds pretty much like what they are doing anyway.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re:
Appreciate the vision of utopia, but when I went to school a DNS client communicating with a DNS server was called "client/server mode". The server is not your clients peer, it is the client's server.
I read this as an IT department concerned about costs and security. Bandwidth costs to/from Antarctica cant be cheep. And IT departments paranoid over security are regrettably common.
On the post: Do Hourly Employees Even Make Sense Any More?
Re:
On the post: Publishers Succeeding With Free eBooks Driving Sales For Other Books
Re: Free books at Baen
Jim Baen was a legend. Other publishing houses would do well to emulate his model.
On the post: AP Says It's 'Done' Talking About Fair Use And Its DRM
I didn't think that the AP did much more than redistribute material provided to them by their customers? I'm not surprised that they fail at communicating their own ideas, they normally just repeat other peoples ideas verbatim.
On the post: Is The BBC An AP Parasite?
Yeah, but...
The AP are wrong in thinking that they can own the news, but their real problem is that they don't understand their product. The content itself was never the value proposition: the value was always the convenient collection, organisation and distribution (of content). Their failure is in routed in not realising this and missing the opportunity to enhance their product to maintain a value proposition.
Next >>