I posted previously about how I saw the web unfolding in 2010. One of my pointers was about on-site search and how bad it is in general. I recommended that the big players team up with the search engines to get it right.
Well, Google beat me to the deadline and launched its Google Commerce search offering toward the end of 2009, not 2010. I’ll be really interested to see who takes this on and how the technology (and partnership) affects their sites.
At $50,000+, it costs more than most SMEs would have in their site development budgets and I’m not sure the M&Ss or Nexts of the world would ever really incorporate it, but what a great plug in.
On the right - Prevent search engines from indexing news content and have readers pay through a variety of subscriptions to recoup lost earnings from physical news sales. People have no right to free journalism and aggregator sites (especially Google News) are to news, what Pirate Bay is to music.
On the left –
If you build it they will come. The internet is an unparalleled open space where the common good is freedom of information without class divides. If providers open their content equally the market will ensure the winners are the cream of crop. Revenue will be made through increased attention and trust.
Further right against ‘Don’t be evil’ - Stop the Google vampire by embracing its largest competitor instead – Microsoft’s Bing.
If Bing courted enough content providers to bed exclusively with them (by paying, say, the world’s top 50 newspapers and top 1,000 magazines) that would be a huge boon. Would it be enough to grab 10 or 15 percent of market share?
Of course it’s all about money for Murdoch, not attention and that’s where he and the digerati are looking at same issue from different ends.
A lot has been made of Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple’s board. The short version: he’s also CEO of Google and these two tech giants are really starting to cross swords.
While Google are undoubtedly an increasing ‘problem’ for Apple, I think most reports are in danger of missing the elephant in the room: Nokia. They have a 40% market share of the world’s mobile handset market. They produce a phone every 13 seconds, with around 1.1 billion customers today, and they are well and truly on a charge.
Nokia are unquestionably number one – larger than their top three rivals combined – yet they were accused of being asleep at the wheel when it came to the iPhone. Enter the Nokia N900 Smartbook, launched this week with, “Computer-grade performance in a handset” and Flash support (not yet available on the iPhone).
Microsoft’s mobile version of the Office suite, currently only available on Windows mobile devices, is soon to be available on Nokia handsets. And Microsoft and Nokia plan on developing several mobile apps together.
Apple fans have consumed rumours about Mr Jobs producing a tablet computer for several years but it’s yet to materialise. Enter Nokia’s booklet. Add to this momentum the fact they appear to be teaming up with music rather than dictate to the industry. Dave Stewart (50% of the Eurythmics group) is a change agent and big fettler in the Nokia world of the future.
Nokia are a capable chameleon. They’ve reinvented themselves from a paper and rubber manufacturer to an electronic giant turning over $70 billion. So when they say, “we will quickly be the world’s biggest entertainment media network.” we should really pay attention.
Their aptitude, coupled with some audacious strategic alliances may yet see CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo pull off a Finnish coup d’état.
Well, that’s my prediction. They’ll stop burning dollars acquiring paper mills and fork out $750+ million for Twitter.
Twitter is the most popular and certainly the most talked about social media tool of the moment, yet there’s no clear indication on how they’ll monetise the whole shebang. They raised another $35 million in venture capital last month but to what end?
If you concede that Google want to know far more about you and your digital habits along with the world at large, this source would make an obvious acquisition. The speed at which trends and news appear on Twitter is unmatched elsewhere on the web. Google could leverage this into their algorithm and gain much more real-time searching (certainly opposed to Google News).
Of course, we’re not privy to the magic that’s being created right now in Mountain View where Google’s rocket scientists wave their wands over the web with reckless talent. Have they got a Twitter-killer waiting in the wings? Personally I doubt it. And if they have, will it be another Google Video which was always the poor cousin to YouTube – remember Google later bought YouTube purely to get that online video foothold?
They’re into harvesting strategies and don’t need to monetise everything immediately. Again, YouTube teaches us that. So the lack of income at Twitter won’t be such a problem; the data is the treasure worth the capital outlay. Although, Twitter wont keep its monopoly forever – when you show the market what’s it’s capable of, it rarely stands and applauds for long. Immitation is immenant.
Then again, others might get to the buy-out first. Facebook is reported to have offered $500 million and Carol Bartz could do with creating some buzz about Yahoo other than dismal reports of staff exoduses. Either of these firms would be salivating at the thought of gaining those 6 million Twitterers and all that live data.
What do you reckon? Do you think Google will crush Twitter, buy Twitter or just look at it like a play-thing in the corner?
Google launched some really innovative services in November. Here’s a quick video round up:
1. Search Wiki:
I’m not sure I’m ‘feeling this’ but its going to be interesting to see how the long tail affects results. What if 1,000 people voted your site to #1 when searching ‘4 star restaurant London’? Equally, what happens when gaming shysters bin your site? Google are saying it wont affect ‘normal’ results one bit, but you can already hear Google’s algorithms working overtime on extra servers with this 100% fresh, user generated (therefore true?) data.
Regardless, Google is getting to know you better (because you’re signed in). The big question is what will it create now it has that knowledge?
2. Voice activated search:
Only on the iPhone at present and it’s said to prefer a Californian accent, so be warned. All very Star Trek though, eh?
3. (and my favourite) Gmail video chat:
This coverage could really give Skype a run for its money.
Jason Calacanis shares a number of attributes, along with the initials, of Jeremy Clarkson. Both are tall, gregarious and outrageously outspoken in their quest for PR. (According to .net magazine, Calacanis called SEO ‘bullshit’ and a ‘wasted industry’ while speaking at a search engine conference, and said anyone from PayPerPost should kill themselves.)
But, unlike Clarkson, Calacanis is more than a one-dimensional critic: he’s a creator. This is the chap who started Silicon Alley Reporter and brought us Weblogs, Inc before selling up to AOL. His latest project is the human powered search engine, Mahalo.
Paid humans review the Wikipedia pages Mahalo includes (opposed to volunteers) and humans also scrutinise the Google results to reduce the risk of gaming. The two results are mashed up to provide what Calacanis reckons is the ultimate in search accuracy with a massive dose of trust thrown in.
It’s just out of beta having reached 100,000 search terms and attracted 4.6 million uniques in August – no alternative search engine has broken the 1 million barrier. But like so many ‘new’ web projects (think Twitter) they aren’t even trying to make money yet as Calacanis’ profile has secured the project five years of funding.
It’s about building a useful service that people want, but Calacanis is also very ambitious. He wants to create the next Wikipedia or Yahoo and carve a 10% market share out of search. It’s early days but keep an eye on this guy; he’s far more that just a mouth.
Web 2.0 and the new media aren’t about spamming the system to promote your goods and services. Okay, it’s exactly that for too many shysters out there. But I’d argue that if your clients are online, surely it’s logical for you to consider engaging them there. This is where authentic use of Web 2.0 tools comes into play.
If that use is inappropriate (read Seth Godin’s Meatball Sundae), or too much of a step-change then at the very least you should be looking and listening. What’s being said about that widget you produce, or that resort you sell by the week, or that club you promote as exclusive, or that new restaurant you’ve opened? And, just as important, what are they saying about your competitors and the wider industry?
For not too much money and a little time you can use a pretty fine looking glass and get the low-down, the inside line and the gossip straight from the horse’s mouth. Chris Brogan points to several tools to help us in our quest for the truth: Technorati, Google Blogsearch, Twitter Search and Radian6.
I’m sure there are dozens of others worthy of inclusion but I’d add BrandsEye, BlogPulse and BuzzLogic to that stable. Finally, a very simple freebie not worth ignoring is Google Alerts (there are some technical limitations but I’ll save that for a longer post). Just plug in your keywords e.g. BMW, Audi, Mercedes and watch the emails arrive (weekly, daily or live) as the Google spiders pick up sites mentioning those keywords online.
Of course, the looking and listening are the easy parts. What you do with that new info is a whole other ball game.
Think back to your old TV and of the static between TV channels. Well, three-quarters of those radio airwaves, or ‘white space’ spectrum, are completely unused. With the US switching off the analogue TV signal in Feb 2009 Google wants to blow open that wireless spectrum, effectively for a new and more powerful generation of WiFi. Other A-list backers with a dollar or two to spend with lobbyists include Intel, Microsoft and Motorola.
It would be free to air (and unlicensed), like WiFi is now. Needless to say TV execs and wireless services providers are hell-bent on stopping the FCC from ruling in favour of such a free-spirited act.
Take 90 seconds for the pros:
The cons:
- Interference. That’s certainly what some cell phone companies argue.
- So far, the devices that supposedly work over white spaces keep failing [US] government tests.
This is a US only movement but I can’t help but cheer them on in the hope that a successful American model gets put into play in Europe. Unfortunately the FCC vote may well be delayed further than next month.
If you believe in the cause you can sign the petition here.
Michael Arrington says Google launching their Chrome web browser is yet further indication that our favourite search engine is going after Microsoft’s lunch.
If Mr A is right (I wouldn’t ever bet against he with the knowledge) in predicting Google’s strategy then it’s more than ironic that Microsoft themselves had a similar browser project called Chrome! Scoble says Google must have a sense of humour. I’m not sure they’re the ones who need it in order to laugh – Microsoft must be livid. How hardball can you get? Execs all over Redmond must be dusting off their copies of The Art of War.
But Microsoft have at least entered a fighter into this boxing tournament with their latest version of Internet Explorer, IE8.
Reality check: that’s a gross exaggeration. It’s worth remembering that IE has a 73% market share according to Net Applications. Three quarters of users touch websites via Microsoft! Then again, no one believes ‘the cloud’ won’t revolutionise the way operating systems are used/needed/bought. That means ousting not just IE but Microsoft from newly built machines. (And I’ll never forget the Netscape browser had a 90% market share in the 1990s, proving total implosion is always possible.)
Mozilla’s Firefox remains the popular outsider – certainly until Chrome is available for the Mac – with 19% of the market. Its got loads of plug ins that tech users love, is the de facto browser for the discerning user and has just released a new version. Apple’s Safari has a respectable 6%.
Most early adopters seem to be giving Chrome the thumbs up, but can the Google brand pull it off? Will they just be seen as the new Microsoft? Firefox is the poor cousin everyone loves to love. Google don’t have the cards to play it in quite the same way.
We all know history shows us nothing lasts. The Roman Empire, the Warsaw Pact, the telegram, the Two Ronnies… whatever. You name it and time will show itself to have moved swiftly on. Google had another record month in June performing 7.1 billion searches, but I predict, with a prize-fighter’s confidence, that Google cannot remain the de facto search engine. There, easily said wasn’t it.
Perhaps it’ll be a hostile take over or a merger. Perhaps implosion (though a lack of funds seems very unlikely today). Perhaps huge customer revolt over privacy issues or ‘evil’ infringements. Whatever, but the inventor of the mass-market car couldn’t create a lasting success of things and history will show Sergey and Larry to be no different. However, the guys at Yahoo! aren’t waiting for me to be proven right in 2090. They know they can’t beat Google at their own game so a month ago they started letting others do it for them. Well, that’s one of their strategies to stop the game, set and match scenario they’re staring at today. They’re opening up their search to allow developers to code the final pieces, thus avoiding all the colossal development costs. The Yahoo! blog says:
“our goal with BOSS is to remove as many of the barriers as possible to creating new search products. By providing deep access to Yahoo! Search’s investment in engineering, sciences and core search infrastructure and removing key usage restrictions, we are encouraging a whole new level of innovation in search experiences.”
The more the merrier, eh? Kind of like getting all your friends to help you stand up to the bully in school, but it appears a viable strategy as long as several really do something different from Yahoo! and gain critical mass. I suspect the promotion techniques to come will be far more interesting than the resulting algorithms.
Then there’s Cuil, surely the first of many serious search contenders to come. Serious because its frontline folks are ex-Google, but also serious because it promises different results, not Google regurgitations. They’ve indexed three times more pages than any other engine but “stay on that page and analyze the rest of its content, its concepts, their inter-relationships and the page’s coherency”. Many Google critics cite their heavy reliance on linking as relatively easy to spam (or ‘game’ as it’s known). In a nutshell, Cuil is promising to favour authority over popularity. What will the others promise and will they nibble away enough at Google to actually hurt that dominance? Could it be a death by a thousand engines…?
On the left –
Well, that’s my prediction. They’ll stop burning dollars 
