New Version of Microsoft Windows Announced
--Comparing 1995 to 2005
This month people in the tech world are looking back 10 years to the Netscape IPO, which marked the arrival of the Web as an unstoppable phenomenon—and began inflating a tech bubble. Not many people are reminiscing about the other big August 1995 story: the splashy introduction of Windows 95. To the riffs of the Rolling Stones' "Start Me Up," Bill Gates unrolled a dramatic operating-system update that promised a quantum leap in utility, simplicity and just plain good looks on the screen (kind of like the Macintosh). As well as its own Web browser to fend off those guys in Silicon Valley.
Where are we 10 years later? A new company, Google, has a Brobdingnagian market cap. And Microsoft has finally released an early Beta version (for developers only) of its long-delayed new version of Windows. It promises a quantum leap in utility, simplicity and just plain good looks on the screen (kind of like the new Macintosh system, Tiger). As well as built-in search to fend off those guys in Silicon Valley.
It's tempting to dust off the old Yogi Berra line about deja vu all over again. But 2005 is not 1995 for Microsoft. Over the last decade, the company has transformed itself to accommodate what its chairman, Bill Gates, identified as the "sea change" of the Internet. But the transition was bloody. Microsoft's aggressiveness in pursuing that goal led to a painful antitrust battle from which it has financially if not psychically recovered. And Windows' near ubiquity in a networked world made it an attractive target for cybervandals and thieves. Despite a huge Microsoft effort to shore up the digital dikes, PC users have been overwhelmed by attacks and incursions, so much so that a recent article in The New York Times documented how frustrated users are literally trashing their corrupted computers.
Into this troubled world will come Vista (official ship date: late 2006), which was until recently known by its code name, Longhorn. According to Microsoft, the new moniker, which sounds like a car model your uncle would drive, is inspired by the system's shimmering graphics and its ability to serve Microsoft's vast and diverse customer base, as well as a nod to the basic concept of what a window is. "We really tried to bring clarity to the world so you can focus on what matters to you," says group product manager Greg Sullivan.
The concept is that while just about everybody has become hopelessly reliant on technology for work, play and just plain existence, we all do it in different ways, with different devices, with different obsessions (IM for teens, BlackBerry for business people, etc.). To make sure their new software addressed the increasingly broad demands of 600 million Windows users, the Softies tested it with more than 50 "personas"—imaginary people with elaborate profiles like Toby the teen-ager, Ichiro the IT professional and other stand-ins for you and me.
Vista's history has been troubled; Microsoft was unable to implement what was once touted as its defining virtue, a revolutionary new way to handle files. It does have powerful search functions, cool features like icons that are thumbnail representations of the documents themselves and support of hot Net technologies like RSS. But the big selling point will be reliability and security. Features that identify bogus phishing sites, fend off spyware, bolster firewalls and encrypt information are designed to create, Sullivan says, "a new level of confidence" in your computer. "If we did just that, this would be a worthwhile release," he adds.
The fact that our confidence (and, maybe, Microsoft's) needs bolstering says a lot about the difference between the bright vistas of 1995 and the beleaguered users of today.
SEO Blog. Organic SEO Blog. Search Marketing News. SEO Done Right examines search engine optimization, the most effective form of internet marketing. Breaking SEO news and emerging developments at Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Leading Organic SEO Consultants Peak Positions debunk the many myths, hype, and spin related to SEO and search marketing.
Monday, August 08, 2005
New Search Engine Penalities Announced.
Search engine penalties are present and pervasive, and are a primary method used by search engines to control webmasters. Unless webmasters understand what they are and what to do about them, their websites could easily trigger a penalty, Black List, Ban, or Get Pulled from the Database.
The search engines will not publicly admit that penalties exist, and in many cases are often vague when esponding to direct questions asked by phone, letter, or email.
Below is a short list of Practices that lead to a Search Engine Penalty:
Hidden Text
Cloaking - serving pages based on IP address (the spider ips are programmed into a server when a request is made to that server from one of the pre-programmed spider IP adresses a one time only optimized page is served, when a traditional user IP makes a page request the pages from the 'true site' are fed. Cloaking is discovered when the search engines engage their anonymous spider IPs.
Duplicates Websites - if multiple sites contaqin the same content and link structure most likely they have been organized in an attempt to improve their odds on a keyword phrase. Duplicate sites typically = SPAM therefore the spideres issue panalties to all aites involved in the duplicate sit network.
Automated Software Submissions: (especially over active programs) that submit the homepage or the top page of the site in an automated and redundant fashion.
If you feel your site has been penalized contact Peak Positions SEO for an expert opinion or send Google or Yahoo an email message stating that all problems have been removed. This should remove the penalty within 5-7 weeks.
---
Apple Computer introduced a new Mighty Mouse recently.
This handy new device is multifunction and works with both PCs and Macs as a powerful point-and-click navigation control. The Mighty Mouse from Apple has a cool design and remains somewhat simple to use.
The new Apple Might Mouse will frustrate wirelss keywboard users as he mouse is not wirelss if you have a wireless keyboard and wireless mouse this new product is a huge step backwards.
Apple also did not update their right-click functions on this new mouse.
Apple missed on the design of their new Mighty Mouse.
Search engine penalties are present and pervasive, and are a primary method used by search engines to control webmasters. Unless webmasters understand what they are and what to do about them, their websites could easily trigger a penalty, Black List, Ban, or Get Pulled from the Database.
The search engines will not publicly admit that penalties exist, and in many cases are often vague when esponding to direct questions asked by phone, letter, or email.
Below is a short list of Practices that lead to a Search Engine Penalty:
Hidden Text
Cloaking - serving pages based on IP address (the spider ips are programmed into a server when a request is made to that server from one of the pre-programmed spider IP adresses a one time only optimized page is served, when a traditional user IP makes a page request the pages from the 'true site' are fed. Cloaking is discovered when the search engines engage their anonymous spider IPs.
Duplicates Websites - if multiple sites contaqin the same content and link structure most likely they have been organized in an attempt to improve their odds on a keyword phrase. Duplicate sites typically = SPAM therefore the spideres issue panalties to all aites involved in the duplicate sit network.
Automated Software Submissions: (especially over active programs) that submit the homepage or the top page of the site in an automated and redundant fashion.
If you feel your site has been penalized contact Peak Positions SEO for an expert opinion or send Google or Yahoo an email message stating that all problems have been removed. This should remove the penalty within 5-7 weeks.
---
Apple Computer introduced a new Mighty Mouse recently.
This handy new device is multifunction and works with both PCs and Macs as a powerful point-and-click navigation control. The Mighty Mouse from Apple has a cool design and remains somewhat simple to use.
The new Apple Might Mouse will frustrate wirelss keywboard users as he mouse is not wirelss if you have a wireless keyboard and wireless mouse this new product is a huge step backwards.
Apple also did not update their right-click functions on this new mouse.
Apple missed on the design of their new Mighty Mouse.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
AOL Loses 900,000 Subscribers YTD in 2005
Time Warner the parent company of America Online AOL reported AOL's second quarter 2005 numbers earlier this week and net revenues are on the decline.
AOL reported that second-quarter 2005 revenue declined to $2.09 billion from $2.17 billion last year, and was impacted by a 10% drop in total subscription revenues. But AOL had no comment about persistent rumors stemming from the banks that handle their subscription revenues that AOL is taking measures that prevent subcribers from canceling their monthly services.
According to rumors that have recently been floated by senior executives at some of the nation's leading banks, ruomors are that AOL has a system and measures in place that prevent cancellations from being enacted and allow AOL to continue billing subscribers that have taken actions to cancel their AOL account.
The company also reported that lower network and marketing costs that have helped to offset the decrease in revenue, so that AOL's adjusted operating income before depreciation and amortization once again to show an increase of 11 percent year-over-year to $53 million.
The fastest growing number appears to be lost subscribers and cancellations. AOL lost 917,000 members in the United States since the first quarter of 2005, AOl still claims total U.S. membership numbers of 20.8 million. In Europe, AOL lost another 100,000 subscribers and their European membership has declined to 6.2 million.
AOL reported advertising increases growth in online advertising revenues however AOL ad revenues are not keeping pace with gains being realized at competitors like Yahoo or Google.
AOL believes their new Free portal will pay off in long-term revenue growth.
Here's a recap of AOL's new free portal
AOL moving to free portal Online firm shifts gears in effort to capture bigger audience as dial-up market shrinks. America Online is hoping that "free" is the remedy to its beleaguered Internet business. Executives are planning to unveil an overhauled AOL.com Web portal that gives visitors free access to features that were previously available only to paid subscribers.
The strategy is a major shift for the once high-flying division of Time Warner, which had considered AOL's walled garden of online content a major selling point. But an erosion in the number of the Internet firm's dial-up subscribers has prompted executives to change course and directly challenge the kings of free Internet content, namely Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and Google.
"This situation we find ourselves in -- people say -- is that the brand is declining and dial-up is falling," said Jim Riesenbach, a senior vice president at AOL. "But I think we're at a great point that we're really bullish about."
Starting Tuesday, a test version of the new portal will be accessible via a link at aol.com. A limited number of features will be available at first, with more added in the coming months.
AOL believes that creating a free portal will expand its audience beyond just subscribers. Online advertising will provide the revenue.
The free Web model has propelled Yahoo, based in Sunnyvale, and Google, based in Mountain View, to great financial success over the past few years. AOL, in contrast, has foundered.
AOL's membership has dropped from a peak of 26.7 million members in 2002 to 21.7 million at the end of the first quarter this year as subscribers switch to high-speed connections offered by other companies. AOL's dial-up service costs $23.90 monthly.
AOL doesn't have a broadband connection business. It offers only an interface for broadband on top of a connection provided by other companies.
In an effort to cater to broadband users, video and music will be emphasized on the new portal. The sources of content will be AOL's sister divisions at Time Warner and other media companies.
Visitors will be able to watch music videos, exclusive concerts and a Web-only reality show in which the participants compete for a recording contract. AOL's Singingfish multimedia search engine will be prominently featured.
Many of the bells and whistles will be based at AOL's Video Hub, which will focus on not only entertainment, but also news. Users will be able to choose the site as their AOL.com home page.
"We know that for broadband users, video is more important than ever," Riesenbach said.
Other home page options include a basic version, much like Yahoo's or MSN's. A My AOL page, where users can compile feeds from news sites and blogs, is expected to premiere in July.
Riesenbach explained that the goal is to make everything available on AOL's proprietary service also available on AOL.com. Some anomalies persist, however. For example, AOL plans to offer 20 channels of FM-quality XM Satellite Radio stations at the free portal. On the proprietary service, subscribers will have access to 70 channels with CD-quality sound.
AOL's new portal helps solves a problem of uniting its disparate Web properties in one place. Although the division is best known for its proprietary service, it also owns such popular free Web sites as Moviefone and MapQuest.
Over the past year, AOL has quietly expanded its reach to the masses. It created the inStore shopping site and the Pinpoint travel search engine in addition to opening up its proprietary music page.
Riesenbach argued that the free portal strategy won't cause an even steeper decline in dial-up subscriptions. Internal studies show that members join for anti-spyware, parental controls and customer support, not exclusive content, he said.
Previously, AOL gave nonsubscribers little reason to visit its AOL.com portal. Other than a search box, the Web site is largely an advertisement for AOL services. AOL members, on the other hand, could log in to the site to access many of AOL's proprietary features -- particularly e-mail -- while at work or traveling.
AOL was one of the Internet's early success stories. Under the leadership of Steve Case, the company merged with Time Warner at the height of the dot-com bubble. But the predicted convergence of the Internet and traditional media was slower than expected. Rather than a boon to business, AOL became a liability that has only recently -- under the management of Chairman and CEO Jonathan Miller -- shown signs of modest improvement.
Analysts and industry executives were cautiously optimistic about AOL's new plans.
"I actually think that there is so much advertising money that is going to be shifted from TV and radio and other forms of media that there are opportunities," said Ellen Siminoff, a former Yahoo executive who is chief executive of Efficient Frontier, a Mountain View company that helps other firms develop search engine marketing company and internet advertising campaigns.
Ben Sawyer, an analyst with K-Town Group, which does market research on the Internet and media industries, called the new portal inevitable for AOL. But he wondered why it's coming so late. "Why not five years ago?" Sawyer asked.
But he stressed that AOL has an advantage in some respects. He pointed to its entertainment content and instant messenger services, AIM and ICQ, which are considered by many to be high quality. Laura Martin, an investment analyst for Soleil/Media Metrics, called AOL the biggest threat to Yahoo, Google and MSN. AOL's existing base of subscribers -- though declining -- are still more formidable than any of its competitors, she pointed out.
No public admission has ever been made to date by AOL executives or Time Warner brass that AOL miscalculated the power, magnitude, and popularity of Keyword Search. It is no small coincidence that AOL's mis-calcualtion and disrespect of keyword search was the foundation of a flawed strategy. AOL's oversight and lack of vision and understanding as to the Internet's second most popular activity; keyword search, continues to plague America Online whose merger with Time Warner resulted in the largest loss in U.S. corporate history.
Time Warner the parent company of America Online AOL reported AOL's second quarter 2005 numbers earlier this week and net revenues are on the decline.
AOL reported that second-quarter 2005 revenue declined to $2.09 billion from $2.17 billion last year, and was impacted by a 10% drop in total subscription revenues. But AOL had no comment about persistent rumors stemming from the banks that handle their subscription revenues that AOL is taking measures that prevent subcribers from canceling their monthly services.
According to rumors that have recently been floated by senior executives at some of the nation's leading banks, ruomors are that AOL has a system and measures in place that prevent cancellations from being enacted and allow AOL to continue billing subscribers that have taken actions to cancel their AOL account.
The company also reported that lower network and marketing costs that have helped to offset the decrease in revenue, so that AOL's adjusted operating income before depreciation and amortization once again to show an increase of 11 percent year-over-year to $53 million.
The fastest growing number appears to be lost subscribers and cancellations. AOL lost 917,000 members in the United States since the first quarter of 2005, AOl still claims total U.S. membership numbers of 20.8 million. In Europe, AOL lost another 100,000 subscribers and their European membership has declined to 6.2 million.
AOL reported advertising increases growth in online advertising revenues however AOL ad revenues are not keeping pace with gains being realized at competitors like Yahoo or Google.
AOL believes their new Free portal will pay off in long-term revenue growth.
Here's a recap of AOL's new free portal
AOL moving to free portal Online firm shifts gears in effort to capture bigger audience as dial-up market shrinks. America Online is hoping that "free" is the remedy to its beleaguered Internet business. Executives are planning to unveil an overhauled AOL.com Web portal that gives visitors free access to features that were previously available only to paid subscribers.
The strategy is a major shift for the once high-flying division of Time Warner, which had considered AOL's walled garden of online content a major selling point. But an erosion in the number of the Internet firm's dial-up subscribers has prompted executives to change course and directly challenge the kings of free Internet content, namely Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and Google.
"This situation we find ourselves in -- people say -- is that the brand is declining and dial-up is falling," said Jim Riesenbach, a senior vice president at AOL. "But I think we're at a great point that we're really bullish about."
Starting Tuesday, a test version of the new portal will be accessible via a link at aol.com. A limited number of features will be available at first, with more added in the coming months.
AOL believes that creating a free portal will expand its audience beyond just subscribers. Online advertising will provide the revenue.
The free Web model has propelled Yahoo, based in Sunnyvale, and Google, based in Mountain View, to great financial success over the past few years. AOL, in contrast, has foundered.
AOL's membership has dropped from a peak of 26.7 million members in 2002 to 21.7 million at the end of the first quarter this year as subscribers switch to high-speed connections offered by other companies. AOL's dial-up service costs $23.90 monthly.
AOL doesn't have a broadband connection business. It offers only an interface for broadband on top of a connection provided by other companies.
In an effort to cater to broadband users, video and music will be emphasized on the new portal. The sources of content will be AOL's sister divisions at Time Warner and other media companies.
Visitors will be able to watch music videos, exclusive concerts and a Web-only reality show in which the participants compete for a recording contract. AOL's Singingfish multimedia search engine will be prominently featured.
Many of the bells and whistles will be based at AOL's Video Hub, which will focus on not only entertainment, but also news. Users will be able to choose the site as their AOL.com home page.
"We know that for broadband users, video is more important than ever," Riesenbach said.
Other home page options include a basic version, much like Yahoo's or MSN's. A My AOL page, where users can compile feeds from news sites and blogs, is expected to premiere in July.
Riesenbach explained that the goal is to make everything available on AOL's proprietary service also available on AOL.com. Some anomalies persist, however. For example, AOL plans to offer 20 channels of FM-quality XM Satellite Radio stations at the free portal. On the proprietary service, subscribers will have access to 70 channels with CD-quality sound.
AOL's new portal helps solves a problem of uniting its disparate Web properties in one place. Although the division is best known for its proprietary service, it also owns such popular free Web sites as Moviefone and MapQuest.
Over the past year, AOL has quietly expanded its reach to the masses. It created the inStore shopping site and the Pinpoint travel search engine in addition to opening up its proprietary music page.
Riesenbach argued that the free portal strategy won't cause an even steeper decline in dial-up subscriptions. Internal studies show that members join for anti-spyware, parental controls and customer support, not exclusive content, he said.
Previously, AOL gave nonsubscribers little reason to visit its AOL.com portal. Other than a search box, the Web site is largely an advertisement for AOL services. AOL members, on the other hand, could log in to the site to access many of AOL's proprietary features -- particularly e-mail -- while at work or traveling.
AOL was one of the Internet's early success stories. Under the leadership of Steve Case, the company merged with Time Warner at the height of the dot-com bubble. But the predicted convergence of the Internet and traditional media was slower than expected. Rather than a boon to business, AOL became a liability that has only recently -- under the management of Chairman and CEO Jonathan Miller -- shown signs of modest improvement.
Analysts and industry executives were cautiously optimistic about AOL's new plans.
"I actually think that there is so much advertising money that is going to be shifted from TV and radio and other forms of media that there are opportunities," said Ellen Siminoff, a former Yahoo executive who is chief executive of Efficient Frontier, a Mountain View company that helps other firms develop search engine marketing company and internet advertising campaigns.
Ben Sawyer, an analyst with K-Town Group, which does market research on the Internet and media industries, called the new portal inevitable for AOL. But he wondered why it's coming so late. "Why not five years ago?" Sawyer asked.
But he stressed that AOL has an advantage in some respects. He pointed to its entertainment content and instant messenger services, AIM and ICQ, which are considered by many to be high quality. Laura Martin, an investment analyst for Soleil/Media Metrics, called AOL the biggest threat to Yahoo, Google and MSN. AOL's existing base of subscribers -- though declining -- are still more formidable than any of its competitors, she pointed out.
No public admission has ever been made to date by AOL executives or Time Warner brass that AOL miscalculated the power, magnitude, and popularity of Keyword Search. It is no small coincidence that AOL's mis-calcualtion and disrespect of keyword search was the foundation of a flawed strategy. AOL's oversight and lack of vision and understanding as to the Internet's second most popular activity; keyword search, continues to plague America Online whose merger with Time Warner resulted in the largest loss in U.S. corporate history.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Mozilla Announces New For Profit Corporate Structure
The Mozilla Foundation announced today that it has created a for-profit subsidiary company to begin profiting from the hugely popular firefox browser and thunderbird email client programs.
Mozilla and Firefox have realigned their company to help better prepare for an upcoming browser war with Microsoft and the Windows browser. Creating a for profit company is Mozilla's best method of obtaining the financial resources required to compete with Microsoft and the 'cash rich' Redmond crowd.
Mozilla executives report that they are gaining new Firefox users at an incredible rate as frustrated virus-conscious Windows users make the switch to Mozilla, seeking stronger protection and tougher shields against the adware, spyware, and cookie-infested web analyitcs user tracking tools, that are plaguing websites and the Internet.
(websites seeking premium keyword positions on google should avoid working with any internet marketing firm seeking to add new cookies or user tacking devices that could impede search engine spiders and prevent the major search engines from listing a website at the top of the keyword search results pages.)
The new Firefox will require marginal service and support fees that help the formerly non-profit Mozilla corporation try and compete with Microsoft.
Mozilla admits they are beginning to move into the center of the Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates competitive hunting scopes, especially after Mozilla's two founders joined Google months ago and are now helping Google in the development of the GBrowser.
Mozilla has no comment about the recent blockbuster development at Apple Computer that calls for Apple to begin making their operating system and their Safari browser using Intel Processors. This opens the door for a new renaissance of technologies and user choices beyond Microsoft and Windows.
This also opens the door for a new type of operating system "Hack Attack Virus" that compromises Mozilla and Apple browsers, software and hardware. The days of Mozilla enjoying immunity form Hack Attacks and the exclusive 'Windows browser alternative status' are about to end.
The Mozilla Foundation announced today that it has created a for-profit subsidiary company to begin profiting from the hugely popular firefox browser and thunderbird email client programs.
Mozilla and Firefox have realigned their company to help better prepare for an upcoming browser war with Microsoft and the Windows browser. Creating a for profit company is Mozilla's best method of obtaining the financial resources required to compete with Microsoft and the 'cash rich' Redmond crowd.
Mozilla executives report that they are gaining new Firefox users at an incredible rate as frustrated virus-conscious Windows users make the switch to Mozilla, seeking stronger protection and tougher shields against the adware, spyware, and cookie-infested web analyitcs user tracking tools, that are plaguing websites and the Internet.
(websites seeking premium keyword positions on google should avoid working with any internet marketing firm seeking to add new cookies or user tacking devices that could impede search engine spiders and prevent the major search engines from listing a website at the top of the keyword search results pages.)
The new Firefox will require marginal service and support fees that help the formerly non-profit Mozilla corporation try and compete with Microsoft.
Mozilla admits they are beginning to move into the center of the Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates competitive hunting scopes, especially after Mozilla's two founders joined Google months ago and are now helping Google in the development of the GBrowser.
Mozilla has no comment about the recent blockbuster development at Apple Computer that calls for Apple to begin making their operating system and their Safari browser using Intel Processors. This opens the door for a new renaissance of technologies and user choices beyond Microsoft and Windows.
This also opens the door for a new type of operating system "Hack Attack Virus" that compromises Mozilla and Apple browsers, software and hardware. The days of Mozilla enjoying immunity form Hack Attacks and the exclusive 'Windows browser alternative status' are about to end.
Mozilla is already beginning to display advertising messages in their once ad free browser.
The war for Office user share between Micorsoft Office and The Linux Open Office is also about to escalate. How will Microsoft react when Microsoft Office begins to lose substantial market share in the coming months?
Does Microsoft with $56 Billion dollars of LIQUID CASH available, still view Mozilla as: "AMATUER HOUR ! "
Microsoft already losing market share at a record pace, facing multiple staff resignations from key software engineers and management personnel on a daily basis, is beginning to reel and spin in numerous directions none of which involve core products or new technical advancemets that move the once powerful "Microsoft Monopoly" further.
The recent developments at Mozilla are soon to cause even more headaches for Microsoft.
Mozilla's new marginal fee structures can help the company rapidly grow becoming more competitive and economically sound as they prepare for the upcoming Browser wars with Microsoft.
Mozilla has a talented senior management team led by Mitchell Baker, a former Netscape executive who will become CEO of the new for-profit Mozilla Corporation. At this time Mozilla will remain a private subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation and is not considering going public in the coming months.
According to some estimates, Firefox is being used by ten percent of all surfers, and according to Mozilla more than 75 million copies have been downloaded. Most of Mozilla's 40 employees will be moved of the Foundation will shift to the corporation, but the operations of the Mozilla project, which develops Firefox, will be unchanged.
Yahoo Search Marketing to Launch Keyword Search Contextual Advertising Network to Rival Google AdSense
Yahoo is set to roll out a keyword search contextual advertising program - using an ad platform quite similar to the Google AdSense program. The new Yahoo search marketing company program oofers small-to-midsize web publishers, including blogs, an opportunity to increase revenues by extending distribution of the Yahoo sponsorsed search results.
Yahoo has been working for months on this contextual search advertising program customized to provide bloggers and other small online web publishers, thus encroaching on what has tradiionally Google's realm.
Yahoo and Google are already head to head rivals in serving major search-advertising partners, with Google nearly holding a monopoly on contextual text advertising for smaller sites, including blogs and forums. We suggest that any party interested in website optimization, or organic search engine optimization visit this new search engine optimization forum debeuted earlier this month.
Yahoo will now include smaller websites in the Yahoo Publisher Network and will roll out the beta program to 2,000 publishers, and plans to expand it by year-end. Yahoo's Content Match contextual listings will allow publishers to place contextually relevant text ads on their web pages and split with Yahoo the revenue generated from the links.
Yahoo Content Match will also allow publishers to distribute their content on Yahoo via RSS to drive traffic back to their sites. Content Match will let publishers customize the ads that appear on their sites as well as display ads that are "consistent with the look and feel of their site," said Yahoo spokesperson Guade Paez.
Yahoo is set to roll out a keyword search contextual advertising program - using an ad platform quite similar to the Google AdSense program. The new Yahoo search marketing company program oofers small-to-midsize web publishers, including blogs, an opportunity to increase revenues by extending distribution of the Yahoo sponsorsed search results.
Yahoo has been working for months on this contextual search advertising program customized to provide bloggers and other small online web publishers, thus encroaching on what has tradiionally Google's realm.
Yahoo and Google are already head to head rivals in serving major search-advertising partners, with Google nearly holding a monopoly on contextual text advertising for smaller sites, including blogs and forums. We suggest that any party interested in website optimization, or organic search engine optimization visit this new search engine optimization forum debeuted earlier this month.
Yahoo will now include smaller websites in the Yahoo Publisher Network and will roll out the beta program to 2,000 publishers, and plans to expand it by year-end. Yahoo's Content Match contextual listings will allow publishers to place contextually relevant text ads on their web pages and split with Yahoo the revenue generated from the links.
Yahoo Content Match will also allow publishers to distribute their content on Yahoo via RSS to drive traffic back to their sites. Content Match will let publishers customize the ads that appear on their sites as well as display ads that are "consistent with the look and feel of their site," said Yahoo spokesperson Guade Paez.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Court Prevents Google from Hiring Microsoft Search Engineer
A Federal judge stopped google from hiring an ex-Microsoft executive late last week.
A state judge temporarily blocked a former Microsoft search vice-president from heading up keyword search rival Google's new research center in China.
The court ruling marked a small victory for MSN in their escalating war with Google as Kai-Fu Lee was not allowedto move over to the Google search engine optimization company.
Microsoft sued Lee and Google, stating that the former head of its Beijing research and development center had violated his employment contract by agreeing to take a job at Google.
Microsoft and Google are directly competing in Web search and also have begun competing for talented people.
Google plans to open a new facility in China later this year to develop new technologies and attract computer science researchers. A final location has not yet been chosen.
The world's largest software maker claimed Lee was privy to propriety information regarding the company's search technologies and business strategies in China.
While at Microsoft, Lee, a former Carnegie Mellon University researcher who previously worked for Apple Computer Inc., managed groups developing speech recognition and other interactive technologies for computers.
In granting a temporary restraining order requested by Microsoft, Gonzalez forbade Lee from working on Google projects or research relating to search technologies, natural language processing or speech technologies, and business strategies that would be "competitive" with fields he studied while at Microsoft.
A trial is scheduled for January of 2006, although Google may contest the temporary restraining order in September 2005. Gonzalez also prohibited Lee from disclosing trade secrets or proprietary information learned while he was employed at Microsoft and it forbade Google from "attempting to induce" Microsoft employees to work for Google.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said his legal team was trying to enforce the terms of Lee's contract rather than stopping his employment at Google altogether. "In our industry, intellectual property rights need to be protected," Smith said after the ruling. Google, which had earlier called Microsoft's lawsuit "a shocking display of hubris," downplayed the importance of the ruling, calling it a "temporary measure to maintain the status quo."
"We're gratified that the judge recognized that all Google and Dr. Lee have to do is avoid having Dr. Lee do anything competitive with what he did at Microsoft," said Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel. "As we have said all along, we have no intention of having him do that."
Google had argued that Microsoft's lawsuit was an intimidation tactic designed to prevent employees from leaving Microsoft. The company separately has countersued Microsoft in California, asking a court to invalidate the Microsoft contract.
In a sworn declaration filed on Wednesday, Lee said that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates told him during a meeting on July 15 that he would be sued, adding that the company needed "to stop Google." A Microsoft spokeswoman said she could not verify Gates' statement but said it would be "not surprising, given the fact that Google is a direct competitor. Dr. Lee is taking his knowledge of our search technology and China business strategies to work for them."
Thae ware between MSN and Google has only just begun.
A Federal judge stopped google from hiring an ex-Microsoft executive late last week.
A state judge temporarily blocked a former Microsoft search vice-president from heading up keyword search rival Google's new research center in China.
The court ruling marked a small victory for MSN in their escalating war with Google as Kai-Fu Lee was not allowedto move over to the Google search engine optimization company.
Microsoft sued Lee and Google, stating that the former head of its Beijing research and development center had violated his employment contract by agreeing to take a job at Google.
Microsoft and Google are directly competing in Web search and also have begun competing for talented people.
Google plans to open a new facility in China later this year to develop new technologies and attract computer science researchers. A final location has not yet been chosen.
The world's largest software maker claimed Lee was privy to propriety information regarding the company's search technologies and business strategies in China.
While at Microsoft, Lee, a former Carnegie Mellon University researcher who previously worked for Apple Computer Inc., managed groups developing speech recognition and other interactive technologies for computers.
In granting a temporary restraining order requested by Microsoft, Gonzalez forbade Lee from working on Google projects or research relating to search technologies, natural language processing or speech technologies, and business strategies that would be "competitive" with fields he studied while at Microsoft.
A trial is scheduled for January of 2006, although Google may contest the temporary restraining order in September 2005. Gonzalez also prohibited Lee from disclosing trade secrets or proprietary information learned while he was employed at Microsoft and it forbade Google from "attempting to induce" Microsoft employees to work for Google.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said his legal team was trying to enforce the terms of Lee's contract rather than stopping his employment at Google altogether. "In our industry, intellectual property rights need to be protected," Smith said after the ruling. Google, which had earlier called Microsoft's lawsuit "a shocking display of hubris," downplayed the importance of the ruling, calling it a "temporary measure to maintain the status quo."
"We're gratified that the judge recognized that all Google and Dr. Lee have to do is avoid having Dr. Lee do anything competitive with what he did at Microsoft," said Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel. "As we have said all along, we have no intention of having him do that."
Google had argued that Microsoft's lawsuit was an intimidation tactic designed to prevent employees from leaving Microsoft. The company separately has countersued Microsoft in California, asking a court to invalidate the Microsoft contract.
In a sworn declaration filed on Wednesday, Lee said that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates told him during a meeting on July 15 that he would be sued, adding that the company needed "to stop Google." A Microsoft spokeswoman said she could not verify Gates' statement but said it would be "not surprising, given the fact that Google is a direct competitor. Dr. Lee is taking his knowledge of our search technology and China business strategies to work for them."
Thae ware between MSN and Google has only just begun.
Super Bowl 2006 - Michigan Internet Marketing Update: Detroit`The MotorCity`Ford Field Prepare For National TV Coverage
Detroit To Place Banner Advertisements on Run Down Abandoned Office buildings to portray Urban Renewal Theme on Fox Network Television Super Bowl Coverage.
What does Super Bowl On-Site Billboard Advertising and Television Coverage Have to Do with Internet Marketing or Organic Search Engine Optimization ?
Everything - Read On !
Detroit and many network TV advertisiers will throw away miillions of dollars in 'one time only' Network TV spots involving huge sums of advertising money that will do very little if anything at all to acutally 'move the needle' and impact market share.
Super Bowl Network TV Advertising Flights are Full of Waste - just ask the founders of godaddy.com that now admit that their one time only super bowl advertising investment of $2.4 million dollars last year led to little real business and had almost no impact on their bottom line.
This year the super bowl is being played in Peak Positions SEO former hometown of Detroit, Michigan and perparations are underway to get Detroit and Ford Field ready.
Also keep this in mind as you consider Detroit and Michigan's long heritage of producing the world's top technology leaders. All of the technology leaders listed below were born and raised in and around the motorcity and the state of Michigan:
Larry Page - Founder, Google
Steve Ballmer - President, Microsoft - (soooo Intense we love his Detroit eat or be eaten...Red Bull mindset!)
Scott McNeely: Chairman & CEO, Sun Microsystems
Peter Karmanos: Chairman & CEO, Compuware Corporation - Owner Carolina Hurricanes
Mark Woodward: Pesident & CEO, Serena Software
Richard Snyder: Former President & CEO, Gateway Computer
Jack Roberts: Vice President, Director of Client Services, Peak Positions SEO
Don Bice: Technology Manager, Peak Positions SEO
Brian Nelson, SEO Project Engineer, Peak Positions SEO
--
Here'a a recap of the super bowl preparations in Detroit Michigan:
Attention Advertisiers: spend your maketing dollars wisely, as it serves companies best to seek out advertising and marketing opportunities that have long-term impact, offering as little waste as possible, enter: organic website optimization the most effective form of advertising.
See ya at Ford Field....
Following the success of huge outside banners at the All-Star game in Detroit, and with Super Bowl XL coming to town in February, a growing chorus of building owners and advertising professionals hopes to loosen Detroit's restrictions on downtown advertising and make out-sized signage permanent, according to the The Detroit Free Press.
One idea, to wrap abandoned buildings with advertising to hide deterioration, was recently considered by the City Council and the debate continues. The City Council has approved the same or greater display of giant banners during the Super Bowl as during the All-Star Game.
All signs must be related to the Super Bowl itself, and each can contain only a small amount of corporate branding. The Host Committee wants to restrict banners to those of its official Super Bowl sponsors, such as Cadillac, Pepsi and Coors, and to bar those of "ambush marketers."
Detroit To Place Banner Advertisements on Run Down Abandoned Office buildings to portray Urban Renewal Theme on Fox Network Television Super Bowl Coverage.
What does Super Bowl On-Site Billboard Advertising and Television Coverage Have to Do with Internet Marketing or Organic Search Engine Optimization ?
Everything - Read On !
Detroit and many network TV advertisiers will throw away miillions of dollars in 'one time only' Network TV spots involving huge sums of advertising money that will do very little if anything at all to acutally 'move the needle' and impact market share.
Super Bowl Network TV Advertising Flights are Full of Waste - just ask the founders of godaddy.com that now admit that their one time only super bowl advertising investment of $2.4 million dollars last year led to little real business and had almost no impact on their bottom line.
This year the super bowl is being played in Peak Positions SEO former hometown of Detroit, Michigan and perparations are underway to get Detroit and Ford Field ready.
Also keep this in mind as you consider Detroit and Michigan's long heritage of producing the world's top technology leaders. All of the technology leaders listed below were born and raised in and around the motorcity and the state of Michigan:
Larry Page - Founder, Google
Steve Ballmer - President, Microsoft - (soooo Intense we love his Detroit eat or be eaten...Red Bull mindset!)
Scott McNeely: Chairman & CEO, Sun Microsystems
Peter Karmanos: Chairman & CEO, Compuware Corporation - Owner Carolina Hurricanes
Mark Woodward: Pesident & CEO, Serena Software
Richard Snyder: Former President & CEO, Gateway Computer
Jack Roberts: Vice President, Director of Client Services, Peak Positions SEO
Don Bice: Technology Manager, Peak Positions SEO
Brian Nelson, SEO Project Engineer, Peak Positions SEO
--
Here'a a recap of the super bowl preparations in Detroit Michigan:
Attention Advertisiers: spend your maketing dollars wisely, as it serves companies best to seek out advertising and marketing opportunities that have long-term impact, offering as little waste as possible, enter: organic website optimization the most effective form of advertising.
See ya at Ford Field....
Following the success of huge outside banners at the All-Star game in Detroit, and with Super Bowl XL coming to town in February, a growing chorus of building owners and advertising professionals hopes to loosen Detroit's restrictions on downtown advertising and make out-sized signage permanent, according to the The Detroit Free Press.
One idea, to wrap abandoned buildings with advertising to hide deterioration, was recently considered by the City Council and the debate continues. The City Council has approved the same or greater display of giant banners during the Super Bowl as during the All-Star Game.
All signs must be related to the Super Bowl itself, and each can contain only a small amount of corporate branding. The Host Committee wants to restrict banners to those of its official Super Bowl sponsors, such as Cadillac, Pepsi and Coors, and to bar those of "ambush marketers."
Google TV debuts
Earlier this week google TV finally made its long awaited debut on some fledging cable TV networks. Here is an overview of the new google video program it's still in beta but will soon become a major cable TV programming breakthrough
--- look out satellite radio your just too slow ---
Here is an overview of the google video program:
Google's mission is to organize the world's information, and that includes the thousands of programs that play on our TVs every day. Google Video enables you to search a growing archive of televised content – everything from sports to dinosaur documentaries to news shows.
Just type in your search term (for instance, ipod or Napa Valley) or do a more advanced video search (for instance, title:nightline) and Google Video will search the closed captioning and text descriptions of all the videos in our archive for relevant results. Click on a video title on your results page and you can view still images from the video and, where a transcript is available, short snippets of transcript text.
Some of the videos will allow you to play the video, and will feature a small triangle "play" icon next to the snippet. Try typing in the following search terms to watch free videos: gamespot, Greenpeace, AdWords, badminton, PS3, cattlemen, Hortus, sarong, breakdancing, capoeira. Check out some additional interesting videos.
Recent contributors to the Google Upload program include UNICEF, Employment & Career Channel, CNET, Greenpeace, P. Allen Smith, Global Village Stock Footage and many more.
For TV programs, visit the "About this show" side panel to learn when this show will air next.
How Google Search Works for programs from a variety of channels including:
ABC (KGO) *
NBC (KNTV) *
CNN
ABC News Now
The Weather Channel
C-SPAN
KQED *
Discovery Channel
C-SPAN2
KQED HD *
Discovery Health
PBS
KQED Encore *
The Learning Channel
HGTV
KQED Life *
Travel Channel
Food Network
KQED Kids *
Animal Planet
DIY
KQED World *
Fox News
Fine Living
KRON *
here!
* San Francisco Bay Area stations
Google's mission is to give viewers complete access to public affairs programming and they are committed to use new technologies to enhance the value of our services. This new video search program further demonstrates how new technologies will expand Google's audience and make it easier to optimize Google search content for information most relevant to Google video searchers.
Google video search coming to televisions screens worldwide - stay tuned as the world's information Library continues to extend their reach.
Earlier this week google TV finally made its long awaited debut on some fledging cable TV networks. Here is an overview of the new google video program it's still in beta but will soon become a major cable TV programming breakthrough
--- look out satellite radio your just too slow ---
Here is an overview of the google video program:
Google's mission is to organize the world's information, and that includes the thousands of programs that play on our TVs every day. Google Video enables you to search a growing archive of televised content – everything from sports to dinosaur documentaries to news shows.
Just type in your search term (for instance, ipod or Napa Valley) or do a more advanced video search (for instance, title:nightline) and Google Video will search the closed captioning and text descriptions of all the videos in our archive for relevant results. Click on a video title on your results page and you can view still images from the video and, where a transcript is available, short snippets of transcript text.
Some of the videos will allow you to play the video, and will feature a small triangle "play" icon next to the snippet. Try typing in the following search terms to watch free videos: gamespot, Greenpeace, AdWords, badminton, PS3, cattlemen, Hortus, sarong, breakdancing, capoeira. Check out some additional interesting videos.
Recent contributors to the Google Upload program include UNICEF, Employment & Career Channel, CNET, Greenpeace, P. Allen Smith, Global Village Stock Footage and many more.
For TV programs, visit the "About this show" side panel to learn when this show will air next.
How Google Search Works for programs from a variety of channels including:
ABC (KGO) *
NBC (KNTV) *
CNN
ABC News Now
The Weather Channel
C-SPAN
KQED *
Discovery Channel
C-SPAN2
KQED HD *
Discovery Health
PBS
KQED Encore *
The Learning Channel
HGTV
KQED Life *
Travel Channel
Food Network
KQED Kids *
Animal Planet
DIY
KQED World *
Fox News
Fine Living
KRON *
here!
* San Francisco Bay Area stations
Google's mission is to give viewers complete access to public affairs programming and they are committed to use new technologies to enhance the value of our services. This new video search program further demonstrates how new technologies will expand Google's audience and make it easier to optimize Google search content for information most relevant to Google video searchers.
Google video search coming to televisions screens worldwide - stay tuned as the world's information Library continues to extend their reach.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Google second quarter profit quadruples
Google's Second-Quarter Profit Quadruples
Google Inc.'s streak of stellar growth has spoiled investors so thoroughly that the online search engine leader may be punished because its second-quarter profit didn't surpass analyst expectations by a wide enough margin.
The Mountain View-based company set the stage for the harsh treatment Thursday with the release of a report that normally would be a cause for celebration. Google's earnings more than quadrupled during the three months ended in June, climbing to $342.8 million, or $1.19 per share, from $79.1 million, or 30 cents per share, at the same time last year.
If not for a slight charge to account for employee stock options issued before Google went public 11 months ago, the earnings would have ranged between $1.29 and $1.35 per share. That topped the mean estimate of $1.21 per share among analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.
Revenue for the period totaled $1.38 billion, nearly doubling from $700.2 million last year. After subtracting the commissions that Google paid to other Web sites in its advertising network, the revenue stood at $890 million, beating the Wall Street estimate of $842 million, according to Thomson Financial.
Reflecting investor anticipation of a big quarter, Google's shares reached a new high of $317.80 on Nasdaq Stock Market Thursday before retreating slightly to finish at $313.94, up $1.94 for the day.
But then the shares dropped $17.95, or 5.7 percent, in extended trading. The negative reaction harkened back to a few years ago when companies routinely expected to deliver quarterly earnings aimed at a "whisper number" circulated among money managers and other elite investors. The whisper number invariably was above the estimates published by securities analysts.
Google's stock also had become overheated in anticipation of a blowout quarter, acording to many analysts. In an interview, Google's chief executive said he remained optimistic about the company's prospects. "Business is going quite well," CEO Eric Schmidt said. "Things aren't falling off a cliff."
In another development that may have troubled investors, Google's second-quarter revenue rose by 10 percent from the previous quarter. The sequential revenue growth had ranged between 15 percent and 28 percent in the previous three quarters that Google had reported as a publicly held company.
But the second quarter typically marks a financial slowdown for many Internet companies that rely on heavy traffic like Google, because more people are spending time away from their computers as the weather becomes warmer and the days grow longer. The same dynamic seemed to affect Google's second quarter results last year, when revenue increased just 7 percent from the preceding quarter.
Industry analysts believe the seasonal shift is one of the reasons that another Internet bellwether, Yahoo Inc., merely matched analysts' expectations in its second quarter, a performance that caused its stock to plummet earlier this week.
In a Thursday conference call with analysts, Google Chief Financial Officer George Reyes told analysts he expected it be even more difficult for the company to maintain its growth pace in the third quarter, and not just because people won't be in front of computers as much during the summer.
Google believes its results during last year's third quarter were boosted by the intense media coverage that surrounded its initial public offering of stock last August. The publicity drew more traffic to Google's Web site, helping the company make more money from the advertising links that it serves up with its search results.
That warning makes it unlikely analysts will raise their third quarter estimates for Google, creating another drag on the stock, Edwards said.
Estimates are that GOOG will move up to $350 a share in coming weeks.
Google is under immense pressure to produce extraordinary earnings growth because of how high its stock has climbed since the company's IPO at $85 per share. Although Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have stressed they aren't interested in meeting short-term expectations, the company still has surpassed analysts' estimates in each quarter since the IPO.
The stellar showing has propelled Google's market value to nearly $90 billion in less than seven years in business, turning hundreds of the company's 4,183 employees into millionaires.
Remember this broker and investment community only one yer ago were negative and bullish on Google's stock. Is Wall Street finally beginning to realize that Keyword Search quite possibly saved the Internet ?
Google's Second-Quarter Profit Quadruples
Google Inc.'s streak of stellar growth has spoiled investors so thoroughly that the online search engine leader may be punished because its second-quarter profit didn't surpass analyst expectations by a wide enough margin.
The Mountain View-based company set the stage for the harsh treatment Thursday with the release of a report that normally would be a cause for celebration. Google's earnings more than quadrupled during the three months ended in June, climbing to $342.8 million, or $1.19 per share, from $79.1 million, or 30 cents per share, at the same time last year.
If not for a slight charge to account for employee stock options issued before Google went public 11 months ago, the earnings would have ranged between $1.29 and $1.35 per share. That topped the mean estimate of $1.21 per share among analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.
Revenue for the period totaled $1.38 billion, nearly doubling from $700.2 million last year. After subtracting the commissions that Google paid to other Web sites in its advertising network, the revenue stood at $890 million, beating the Wall Street estimate of $842 million, according to Thomson Financial.
Reflecting investor anticipation of a big quarter, Google's shares reached a new high of $317.80 on Nasdaq Stock Market Thursday before retreating slightly to finish at $313.94, up $1.94 for the day.
But then the shares dropped $17.95, or 5.7 percent, in extended trading. The negative reaction harkened back to a few years ago when companies routinely expected to deliver quarterly earnings aimed at a "whisper number" circulated among money managers and other elite investors. The whisper number invariably was above the estimates published by securities analysts.
Google's stock also had become overheated in anticipation of a blowout quarter, acording to many analysts. In an interview, Google's chief executive said he remained optimistic about the company's prospects. "Business is going quite well," CEO Eric Schmidt said. "Things aren't falling off a cliff."
In another development that may have troubled investors, Google's second-quarter revenue rose by 10 percent from the previous quarter. The sequential revenue growth had ranged between 15 percent and 28 percent in the previous three quarters that Google had reported as a publicly held company.
But the second quarter typically marks a financial slowdown for many Internet companies that rely on heavy traffic like Google, because more people are spending time away from their computers as the weather becomes warmer and the days grow longer. The same dynamic seemed to affect Google's second quarter results last year, when revenue increased just 7 percent from the preceding quarter.
Industry analysts believe the seasonal shift is one of the reasons that another Internet bellwether, Yahoo Inc., merely matched analysts' expectations in its second quarter, a performance that caused its stock to plummet earlier this week.
In a Thursday conference call with analysts, Google Chief Financial Officer George Reyes told analysts he expected it be even more difficult for the company to maintain its growth pace in the third quarter, and not just because people won't be in front of computers as much during the summer.
Google believes its results during last year's third quarter were boosted by the intense media coverage that surrounded its initial public offering of stock last August. The publicity drew more traffic to Google's Web site, helping the company make more money from the advertising links that it serves up with its search results.
That warning makes it unlikely analysts will raise their third quarter estimates for Google, creating another drag on the stock, Edwards said.
Estimates are that GOOG will move up to $350 a share in coming weeks.
Google is under immense pressure to produce extraordinary earnings growth because of how high its stock has climbed since the company's IPO at $85 per share. Although Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have stressed they aren't interested in meeting short-term expectations, the company still has surpassed analysts' estimates in each quarter since the IPO.
The stellar showing has propelled Google's market value to nearly $90 billion in less than seven years in business, turning hundreds of the company's 4,183 employees into millionaires.
Remember this broker and investment community only one yer ago were negative and bullish on Google's stock. Is Wall Street finally beginning to realize that Keyword Search quite possibly saved the Internet ?
Google seeks to stop Microsoft from suing new hire
Google asked a California judge to invalidate a non-compete agreement central to Microsoft Corp.'s lawsuit against a former vice president hired to head Google's new research center in China.
In a filing to the California Superior Court in Santa Clara County, Google (GOOG) claims that the non-compete emloyment provision signed by Kai-Fu Lee while he worked for Microsoft (MSFT) was "overreaching and unlawful".
Microsoft sued Lee earlier this week in its home state of Washington, alleging he violated his confidentiality and non-compete agreements by agreeing to take the job with Google.
Google, the No. 1 Web search provider, is a growing competitor to Microsoft, the world's biggest software maker.
At the same time, Microsoft is attacking Google in the Internet search arena.
Microsoft tapped Lee in 1998 to establish a research and development center in Beijing. He later moved to Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Washington, to become the company's vice president responsible for developing speech recognition and other interactive technologies for computers.
"It's about intimidation pure and simple. Their actions in trying to prevent Dr. Lee from joining Google is clearly an illegal restraint of trade," Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel told Reuters in a telephone interview.
The state of California, where Google has its headquarters, has a policy against non-compete contracts that seek to restrain employees from choosing where they want to work in California.
The Google vs. Microsoft War is Heating Up Early.
Can you imagine the legal rift awaiting two Direct Competitors when Google release the GBrowser!
Google asked a California judge to invalidate a non-compete agreement central to Microsoft Corp.'s lawsuit against a former vice president hired to head Google's new research center in China.
In a filing to the California Superior Court in Santa Clara County, Google (GOOG) claims that the non-compete emloyment provision signed by Kai-Fu Lee while he worked for Microsoft (MSFT) was "overreaching and unlawful".
Microsoft sued Lee earlier this week in its home state of Washington, alleging he violated his confidentiality and non-compete agreements by agreeing to take the job with Google.
Google, the No. 1 Web search provider, is a growing competitor to Microsoft, the world's biggest software maker.
At the same time, Microsoft is attacking Google in the Internet search arena.
Microsoft tapped Lee in 1998 to establish a research and development center in Beijing. He later moved to Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Washington, to become the company's vice president responsible for developing speech recognition and other interactive technologies for computers.
"It's about intimidation pure and simple. Their actions in trying to prevent Dr. Lee from joining Google is clearly an illegal restraint of trade," Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel told Reuters in a telephone interview.
The state of California, where Google has its headquarters, has a policy against non-compete contracts that seek to restrain employees from choosing where they want to work in California.
The Google vs. Microsoft War is Heating Up Early.
Can you imagine the legal rift awaiting two Direct Competitors when Google release the GBrowser!
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Microsoft sues Google
Micorsoft sues Google as former MSN employee Kai-Fu Lee is hired away to lead Google's research and development drive in China.
Microsoft increased its war with Google earlier this month, when Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer filed a huge lawsuit of their own (does it pay to know the legal system?) against the world's most popular keyword search engine: Google.
Google has hired yet another key Microsoft employee and further infuriated Gates and Ballmer.
Microsoft in a legal complaint filed in Washington, Microsoft claims that Kai-Fu Lee (is not a free man), who hooked up with Goog a couple weeks back to lead an agressive research and development campaign in China. Micorsoft attorneys, looking tired and overworked, say the hiring of Kai-Fu Lee violates a strict noncompete agreement that Lee gleefully signed when he was first hired with an excessive compensation and salary package at Microsoft.
Lee was corporate vice president of Natural Interactive Services at Microsoft.
Microsoft attorneys urged the federal court in he ste of Washington with this request "We ask the Court to require Dr. Lee and Google to honor the confidentiality and non-competition agreements he signed when he began working for Microsoft," the Redmond, Washington-based company said in another litigation fueled press conference.
"Creating intellectual property is the essence of what we do at Microsoft, and we have a responsibility to our employees and our shareholders to protect our intellectual property. As a senior executive, Dr. Lee has direct knowledge of Microsoft’s trade secrets concerning search technologies and China business strategies. He has accepted a position focused on the same set of technologies and strategies for a direct competitor in egregious violation of his explicit contractual obligations."
In other words Dr. Lee packed his briefcase with internal documents and laid them on the conference table n Montain View and requested immediate stock option compensation from Google. The 10 shares of Goog stock transfered to Mr. Lee are projected to represent the value of five years of his former MSN salary.
Microsoft requested that the court prevent Lee and Google from undertaking any actions that are in violation of Lee's non-compete employment agreement with Microsoft. The lawsuit went onto request, as well as prevent Mr. Lee from "disclosing or misappropriating" any of Microsoft's established trade secrets or proprietary information, according to the legal complaint.
Microsoft also requested that the court prohibit Lee or any employee at Google from potentially luring other key Microsoft employees away from MSN, as well as from destroying key documents, in written or electronic format, that relate in any way to Microsoft's or Google's employment of Lee.
In a statement, Google executives said Microsoft's claims are "completely without merit" and that Google plans to fight the Microsoft Lawsuit. A google spokesperson made this comment:
"We're thrilled to have Dr. Lee on board at Google," and also went onto to add "Google will defend vigorously against these meritless claims from Microsoft and will fully support our new Google employee Dr. Lee."
Google and Microsoft have recently entered into a heated rivalry that involves advancements being implementd by Google that involve appilcations and areas long dominated by Microsoft.
Google and Microsoft are lining and drawing battle lines in the sand concerning email, desktop search, and most importantly control of the Browser. Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer (a Michigan native and University of Michigan graduate) has repeatedly expressed his intentions to dethrone Google as the king of keyword search. Google co-founder Larry Page (also a Michigan native and University of Michigan graduate) to date has basically ignored Ballmer's Battle crys.
However in Jnue of 2005 at the Microsoft Research Faculty Summit, Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates inferred that Google is this year's flash in the pan technology vendor.
Microsoft and Google both refuse to acknowledge that any party could create a free operating system (similar to Linux) or a free search engine (similar to Google). Heck weren't both Microsoft and Google simply stolen technology that had been acquired and enhanced to meet Google and Microsoft's needs.
Ask any of these most influential technology leaders over the last (20) years and they will inform the world "that the best things in life are free" and possibly stolen.
Paul Allen (Microsoft cofounder)
Mark Andreessen (Mosaic developer/Netscape founder)
Tim Berners-Lee (founder and creator of the World Wide Web)
Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon.com)
Steve Case (founder and CEO of AOL)
Vint Cert (coauthor of TCP/IP protocol and current chairman of ICANN
John Chambers (CEO of Cisco Systems)
Michael Dell (Dell Computer CEO and Founder)
Don Estridge (PC pioneeer)
Sean Fannings (Napster creator)
Bill Gross (Idealab founder)
Andrew Grove (CEO of Intel)
Jeff Hawkins (Handspring CEO, Palm Pilot Inventor)
Andrew Hejlsberg (Turbo Pascal - Delphi creator)
Steve Jobs (Apple Computer CEO and founder)
Philippe Kahn (Borland founder)
Gordon Moore (Intel cofounder)
Ray Ozzie (Lotus Notes creator and Groove guru)
John Scully (former Apple CEO)
Linus Torvalds (inventor and trademark holder of Linux)
Steve Wozniak (Apple cofounder).
It is apparent that technology companies that require employees to sign noncompete agreements and prevent them from working at any competing company or try to keep them from luring other key employees away from their previous employers are usually not able to get legal backing from the court system.
This is not the first time Microsoft has taken legal action with former Microsoft employees based on non such agreements. One highly publicized case in 2000 involved Microsoft suing former employees for violating non-compete agreements as they left to start CrossGain a new software company.
Microsoft's non-compete lawsuits have in many caes caused former Microsoft employees to stop working at their new companies for a short period of time until the non-compete agrements expired. Several senior technology managers ad developers at Microsoft have left in recent months to join Google.
The Google press release only states that Google views the acquistion of Mr. Lee critical o their artificial intelligence software developments and their agressive research and development causes in rapidly expanding China.
Google is on pace to open their China facility before the close of 2005.
Look for the war between Microsoft and Google to heat up much further in the coming months.
The GBrowser is about to change everything.
Micorsoft sues Google as former MSN employee Kai-Fu Lee is hired away to lead Google's research and development drive in China.
Microsoft increased its war with Google earlier this month, when Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer filed a huge lawsuit of their own (does it pay to know the legal system?) against the world's most popular keyword search engine: Google.
Google has hired yet another key Microsoft employee and further infuriated Gates and Ballmer.
Microsoft in a legal complaint filed in Washington, Microsoft claims that Kai-Fu Lee (is not a free man), who hooked up with Goog a couple weeks back to lead an agressive research and development campaign in China. Micorsoft attorneys, looking tired and overworked, say the hiring of Kai-Fu Lee violates a strict noncompete agreement that Lee gleefully signed when he was first hired with an excessive compensation and salary package at Microsoft.
Lee was corporate vice president of Natural Interactive Services at Microsoft.
Microsoft attorneys urged the federal court in he ste of Washington with this request "We ask the Court to require Dr. Lee and Google to honor the confidentiality and non-competition agreements he signed when he began working for Microsoft," the Redmond, Washington-based company said in another litigation fueled press conference.
"Creating intellectual property is the essence of what we do at Microsoft, and we have a responsibility to our employees and our shareholders to protect our intellectual property. As a senior executive, Dr. Lee has direct knowledge of Microsoft’s trade secrets concerning search technologies and China business strategies. He has accepted a position focused on the same set of technologies and strategies for a direct competitor in egregious violation of his explicit contractual obligations."
In other words Dr. Lee packed his briefcase with internal documents and laid them on the conference table n Montain View and requested immediate stock option compensation from Google. The 10 shares of Goog stock transfered to Mr. Lee are projected to represent the value of five years of his former MSN salary.
Microsoft requested that the court prevent Lee and Google from undertaking any actions that are in violation of Lee's non-compete employment agreement with Microsoft. The lawsuit went onto request, as well as prevent Mr. Lee from "disclosing or misappropriating" any of Microsoft's established trade secrets or proprietary information, according to the legal complaint.
Microsoft also requested that the court prohibit Lee or any employee at Google from potentially luring other key Microsoft employees away from MSN, as well as from destroying key documents, in written or electronic format, that relate in any way to Microsoft's or Google's employment of Lee.
In a statement, Google executives said Microsoft's claims are "completely without merit" and that Google plans to fight the Microsoft Lawsuit. A google spokesperson made this comment:
"We're thrilled to have Dr. Lee on board at Google," and also went onto to add "Google will defend vigorously against these meritless claims from Microsoft and will fully support our new Google employee Dr. Lee."
Google and Microsoft have recently entered into a heated rivalry that involves advancements being implementd by Google that involve appilcations and areas long dominated by Microsoft.
Google and Microsoft are lining and drawing battle lines in the sand concerning email, desktop search, and most importantly control of the Browser. Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer (a Michigan native and University of Michigan graduate) has repeatedly expressed his intentions to dethrone Google as the king of keyword search. Google co-founder Larry Page (also a Michigan native and University of Michigan graduate) to date has basically ignored Ballmer's Battle crys.
However in Jnue of 2005 at the Microsoft Research Faculty Summit, Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates inferred that Google is this year's flash in the pan technology vendor.
Microsoft and Google both refuse to acknowledge that any party could create a free operating system (similar to Linux) or a free search engine (similar to Google). Heck weren't both Microsoft and Google simply stolen technology that had been acquired and enhanced to meet Google and Microsoft's needs.
Ask any of these most influential technology leaders over the last (20) years and they will inform the world "that the best things in life are free" and possibly stolen.
Paul Allen (Microsoft cofounder)
Mark Andreessen (Mosaic developer/Netscape founder)
Tim Berners-Lee (founder and creator of the World Wide Web)
Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon.com)
Steve Case (founder and CEO of AOL)
Vint Cert (coauthor of TCP/IP protocol and current chairman of ICANN
John Chambers (CEO of Cisco Systems)
Michael Dell (Dell Computer CEO and Founder)
Don Estridge (PC pioneeer)
Sean Fannings (Napster creator)
Bill Gross (Idealab founder)
Andrew Grove (CEO of Intel)
Jeff Hawkins (Handspring CEO, Palm Pilot Inventor)
Andrew Hejlsberg (Turbo Pascal - Delphi creator)
Steve Jobs (Apple Computer CEO and founder)
Philippe Kahn (Borland founder)
Gordon Moore (Intel cofounder)
Ray Ozzie (Lotus Notes creator and Groove guru)
John Scully (former Apple CEO)
Linus Torvalds (inventor and trademark holder of Linux)
Steve Wozniak (Apple cofounder).
It is apparent that technology companies that require employees to sign noncompete agreements and prevent them from working at any competing company or try to keep them from luring other key employees away from their previous employers are usually not able to get legal backing from the court system.
This is not the first time Microsoft has taken legal action with former Microsoft employees based on non such agreements. One highly publicized case in 2000 involved Microsoft suing former employees for violating non-compete agreements as they left to start CrossGain a new software company.
Microsoft's non-compete lawsuits have in many caes caused former Microsoft employees to stop working at their new companies for a short period of time until the non-compete agrements expired. Several senior technology managers ad developers at Microsoft have left in recent months to join Google.
The Google press release only states that Google views the acquistion of Mr. Lee critical o their artificial intelligence software developments and their agressive research and development causes in rapidly expanding China.
Google is on pace to open their China facility before the close of 2005.
Look for the war between Microsoft and Google to heat up much further in the coming months.
The GBrowser is about to change everything.
Monday, July 18, 2005
AOL Announces New Advertising Campaign
America Online reeling with market share losses has announced a new online advertising campaign set to launch in August of 2005.
AOL will pour another $50 million into advertising in the hopes of stemming the tide that has been on the decline for months.
AOL.com offering free content and features that were previously available only to subscribers.
The campaign includes paid search advertising, optimizing AOL properties for search engine crawlers (URGENT NEWS FLASH AOL THINKS ABOUT A SPIDER ???? what a concept ????? aol actually thinking about a crawler ?????). Google becomes one of the world's richest companies, AOL loses the most amount of money in corporate history, and 48 months is the first time AOL considers the impact of a crawler.
AOL will spend most of their new advertising budget online as it should as that is where the target lies. ...aol's executive vice president of the AOL Media Networks Kevin Conrol says : "We're really leaning into online because we believe in this medium to ... reach the audience we want to reach," he went onto say that "TV is really the smallest element of this and we'll be very selective about television." (finally)
Paid search will represent the single biggest chunk of media spend, followed by online branding efforts. We find this most interesting as keyword searchers prefer organic results 7 to 1 versus paid but if capturing less than 20% of a given keywor's search traffic is the goal aol looks to be successful with Pay Per Click.
Online impressions are expected to run on more than 200 news, entertainment, sports, and lifestyle sites, such as E! Online, CNN.com, Maxim, Oprah, and WebMD. Again these subscribers also actually use these sites for content and only click on labeled sponsered advertising links 15% of the time.
AOL's branding campaign urges users to experience AOL in real time, Conroy said.
--
Prediction AOL continues to struggle
America Online reeling with market share losses has announced a new online advertising campaign set to launch in August of 2005.
AOL will pour another $50 million into advertising in the hopes of stemming the tide that has been on the decline for months.
AOL.com offering free content and features that were previously available only to subscribers.
The campaign includes paid search advertising, optimizing AOL properties for search engine crawlers (URGENT NEWS FLASH AOL THINKS ABOUT A SPIDER ???? what a concept ????? aol actually thinking about a crawler ?????). Google becomes one of the world's richest companies, AOL loses the most amount of money in corporate history, and 48 months is the first time AOL considers the impact of a crawler.
AOL will spend most of their new advertising budget online as it should as that is where the target lies. ...aol's executive vice president of the AOL Media Networks Kevin Conrol says : "We're really leaning into online because we believe in this medium to ... reach the audience we want to reach," he went onto say that "TV is really the smallest element of this and we'll be very selective about television." (finally)
Paid search will represent the single biggest chunk of media spend, followed by online branding efforts. We find this most interesting as keyword searchers prefer organic results 7 to 1 versus paid but if capturing less than 20% of a given keywor's search traffic is the goal aol looks to be successful with Pay Per Click.
Online impressions are expected to run on more than 200 news, entertainment, sports, and lifestyle sites, such as E! Online, CNN.com, Maxim, Oprah, and WebMD. Again these subscribers also actually use these sites for content and only click on labeled sponsered advertising links 15% of the time.
AOL's branding campaign urges users to experience AOL in real time, Conroy said.
--
Prediction AOL continues to struggle
Friday, July 15, 2005
Cookies Are Spyware
Friday, July 15, 2005
Cookies Are Spyware, According to The Wall Street Journal
This piece was first published by M Naples
A Recent Article By the Wall Street Journal States Cookies Are Spyware
So, be sure to disable your cookies, all you WSJ subscribers. That's clearly what the Wall Street Journal would have all of us do. Seriously? Well, maybe.
Walter Mossberg's essay - which ran on Thursday - contains so many inaccuracies that it reminds me of a ruse from a different industry a couple of decades ago. But, perhaps he has an agenda.
Remember the Bottle Bill? The Bottle Bill was created by urban environmentalists and nurtured by the plastics industry because it necessitated returning beverage containers to retailers. In states that passed Bottle Bills, everyone knew that glass and aluminum containers were going to be replaced by unbreakable, larger, easier to handle plastic ones and that more comprehensive recycling programs would suffer. The nine states that have bottle bills today don't have more comprehensive statewide programs since the whole packaging mix was subverted by the 2-liter plastic container.
Enough detail on that. Here's the connection: Almost every major paper in the United States supported Bottle Bills. Most major publishers lobbied hard for them state by state. Of course, this is because newspapers comprise maybe 30 percent of the waste stream while beverage containers comprise maybe 3 percent. Newspapers just wanted to take the spotlight off their own bad litter and waste story. In nine states, they succeeded. Do you know how much post-consumer content is in that copy of the WSJ you read this morning? Not a lot, especially when compared to those beverage containers.
Well, if you read the WSJ online, recycled content is obviously not a concern. But, subscriber dilution is a concern to its publishers. Newspapers as a whole are terribly worried about online, even those newspapers like The Wall Street Journal that have done great things to make money and protect their brand digitally. Talk to enough newspaper publishers about the relationship between their print and online assets and the word you will hear is "cannibalize," because they feel that online readership's erosion.
That's the first thing I thought of when I read Mossberg's piece. Obviously, The Wall Street Journal depends on the cookies it places on its subscribers' hard drives, just as every reputable media company does. Unfortunately, spyware companies can use cookies and IP targeting to locate and target users' hard drives too; so can companies that track users across multiple sites. While tracking users across sites (with full disclosure and without sharing their PII) is okay with me, these same users deserve to know that they're being tracked across media, just as they do in the non-digital world. The fact that they're afraid of it, is our fault as an industry, not theirs as consumers.
The point here is that what companies do with cookies is what we should be talking about, not the cookies themselves. Mossberg seems woefully misinformed - but it's not his fault. His is not the first anti-cookie piece I've seen in a major newspaper, although it's the worst-informed, and it appeared in the most influential outlet. What may be happening here is that newspapers are perhaps posturing toward a role that is somewhat similar to their role in the Bottle Bill debacle 20-some years ago.
Tired of bleeding money online, newspapers are buying marketing companies and many publishers are doing deals with Google, of all companies, to generate more page views and text links. Do you think that newspapers wouldn't rather be the ones managing their own optimization instead of farming it out to the new monolith, and subordinating their brands both nationally and locally?
Well, of course they would - only they haven't figured out how to do so yet. Mossberg wants cookies to be banned because if cookies are gone, all meaningful online measurement is thrown in the air and newspapers are at less of a disadvantage. Or, maybe he thinks - like many others in the print world - that fomenting fears of online media might bring newspapers readers back to traditional newspapers.
Understand that I'm ascribing to this subversive notion because I'm giving him credit for knowing his business. If this agenda were not his intention, then he's just plain wrong and the Journal's publishers should be embarrassed for editorially shooting themselves (and their advertisers) in the foot. Honestly, if this is not his agenda, then it's akin to a major sports league skipping a full season, essentially telling its consumers and sponsors to stick it. I mean, who would be so...so...dense?
What the Debate Should Properly Be About The Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) will be hosting a major industry retreat near its headquarters in York Harbor, Maine next week. From their invitation: "Since the debate over spyware has created such an urgent need for those of us in the online industry to identify and support best practices for adware and online advertising..." the best and brightest among our privacy officers and some c-level executives will gather for a two-day workshop to hammer out definitions of what is and is not spyware and adware.
As with any properly drafted restrictive regulation, please note that the NAI workshop will focus on best practices. Cookies aren't the villain here any more than the ads that support our salaries (including yours, Mossberg) or the text links in the galleys of our pages. However, what companies do with cookies, with what's lurking behind those text links can be villainous.
Remember, what users give up to cookies online - in terms of information on them or their behavior - is a small fraction of what they give up to credit card companies they do business with or when they subscribe to The Wall Street Journal newspaper.
What matters here is not the technology, but the behavior. It's no more or less true in online media than it is in traditional media. Next time the Journal's parent, Dow Jones, sells a subscriber db-segment to one of its direct mail partners, that behavior must be above-board. It will be enabled by technology not unlike cookies. Traditional media companies sell these records every day. What matters is how they sell them and to whom - the behavior, not the technology.
Let's face the fact that, as an industry, we've failed to make it clear to consumers that cookies are not the problem. Now - it seems - we can add newspapers themselves to our list of opponents, joining marketers of spyware removal products, who started this mess in the first place by identifying all cookies as spyware. I hope I'm wrong. But, as much as I trust the beleaguered cookies on my hard drive, these days I always suspect an agenda from anyone turning cookies into the villain.
The best chance this industry has for combating the sort of uniformed fears that Mossberg's piece will nurture gathers in York Harbor, Maine next week. If you're not familiar with what the NAI is up to, ask the top companies in our industry who participate. More importantly, ask the Congressional committees writing the laws we're all going to be following soon. When it comes to these matters, they look to the NAI too.
Cookies choke search engine spiders !
Friday, July 15, 2005
Cookies Are Spyware, According to The Wall Street Journal
This piece was first published by M Naples
A Recent Article By the Wall Street Journal States Cookies Are Spyware
So, be sure to disable your cookies, all you WSJ subscribers. That's clearly what the Wall Street Journal would have all of us do. Seriously? Well, maybe.
Walter Mossberg's essay - which ran on Thursday - contains so many inaccuracies that it reminds me of a ruse from a different industry a couple of decades ago. But, perhaps he has an agenda.
Remember the Bottle Bill? The Bottle Bill was created by urban environmentalists and nurtured by the plastics industry because it necessitated returning beverage containers to retailers. In states that passed Bottle Bills, everyone knew that glass and aluminum containers were going to be replaced by unbreakable, larger, easier to handle plastic ones and that more comprehensive recycling programs would suffer. The nine states that have bottle bills today don't have more comprehensive statewide programs since the whole packaging mix was subverted by the 2-liter plastic container.
Enough detail on that. Here's the connection: Almost every major paper in the United States supported Bottle Bills. Most major publishers lobbied hard for them state by state. Of course, this is because newspapers comprise maybe 30 percent of the waste stream while beverage containers comprise maybe 3 percent. Newspapers just wanted to take the spotlight off their own bad litter and waste story. In nine states, they succeeded. Do you know how much post-consumer content is in that copy of the WSJ you read this morning? Not a lot, especially when compared to those beverage containers.
Well, if you read the WSJ online, recycled content is obviously not a concern. But, subscriber dilution is a concern to its publishers. Newspapers as a whole are terribly worried about online, even those newspapers like The Wall Street Journal that have done great things to make money and protect their brand digitally. Talk to enough newspaper publishers about the relationship between their print and online assets and the word you will hear is "cannibalize," because they feel that online readership's erosion.
That's the first thing I thought of when I read Mossberg's piece. Obviously, The Wall Street Journal depends on the cookies it places on its subscribers' hard drives, just as every reputable media company does. Unfortunately, spyware companies can use cookies and IP targeting to locate and target users' hard drives too; so can companies that track users across multiple sites. While tracking users across sites (with full disclosure and without sharing their PII) is okay with me, these same users deserve to know that they're being tracked across media, just as they do in the non-digital world. The fact that they're afraid of it, is our fault as an industry, not theirs as consumers.
The point here is that what companies do with cookies is what we should be talking about, not the cookies themselves. Mossberg seems woefully misinformed - but it's not his fault. His is not the first anti-cookie piece I've seen in a major newspaper, although it's the worst-informed, and it appeared in the most influential outlet. What may be happening here is that newspapers are perhaps posturing toward a role that is somewhat similar to their role in the Bottle Bill debacle 20-some years ago.
Tired of bleeding money online, newspapers are buying marketing companies and many publishers are doing deals with Google, of all companies, to generate more page views and text links. Do you think that newspapers wouldn't rather be the ones managing their own optimization instead of farming it out to the new monolith, and subordinating their brands both nationally and locally?
Well, of course they would - only they haven't figured out how to do so yet. Mossberg wants cookies to be banned because if cookies are gone, all meaningful online measurement is thrown in the air and newspapers are at less of a disadvantage. Or, maybe he thinks - like many others in the print world - that fomenting fears of online media might bring newspapers readers back to traditional newspapers.
Understand that I'm ascribing to this subversive notion because I'm giving him credit for knowing his business. If this agenda were not his intention, then he's just plain wrong and the Journal's publishers should be embarrassed for editorially shooting themselves (and their advertisers) in the foot. Honestly, if this is not his agenda, then it's akin to a major sports league skipping a full season, essentially telling its consumers and sponsors to stick it. I mean, who would be so...so...dense?
What the Debate Should Properly Be About The Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) will be hosting a major industry retreat near its headquarters in York Harbor, Maine next week. From their invitation: "Since the debate over spyware has created such an urgent need for those of us in the online industry to identify and support best practices for adware and online advertising..." the best and brightest among our privacy officers and some c-level executives will gather for a two-day workshop to hammer out definitions of what is and is not spyware and adware.
As with any properly drafted restrictive regulation, please note that the NAI workshop will focus on best practices. Cookies aren't the villain here any more than the ads that support our salaries (including yours, Mossberg) or the text links in the galleys of our pages. However, what companies do with cookies, with what's lurking behind those text links can be villainous.
Remember, what users give up to cookies online - in terms of information on them or their behavior - is a small fraction of what they give up to credit card companies they do business with or when they subscribe to The Wall Street Journal newspaper.
What matters here is not the technology, but the behavior. It's no more or less true in online media than it is in traditional media. Next time the Journal's parent, Dow Jones, sells a subscriber db-segment to one of its direct mail partners, that behavior must be above-board. It will be enabled by technology not unlike cookies. Traditional media companies sell these records every day. What matters is how they sell them and to whom - the behavior, not the technology.
Let's face the fact that, as an industry, we've failed to make it clear to consumers that cookies are not the problem. Now - it seems - we can add newspapers themselves to our list of opponents, joining marketers of spyware removal products, who started this mess in the first place by identifying all cookies as spyware. I hope I'm wrong. But, as much as I trust the beleaguered cookies on my hard drive, these days I always suspect an agenda from anyone turning cookies into the villain.
The best chance this industry has for combating the sort of uniformed fears that Mossberg's piece will nurture gathers in York Harbor, Maine next week. If you're not familiar with what the NAI is up to, ask the top companies in our industry who participate. More importantly, ask the Congressional committees writing the laws we're all going to be following soon. When it comes to these matters, they look to the NAI too.
Cookies choke search engine spiders !
Cookies Are Spyware
Friday, July 15, 2005
Cookies Are Spyware, According to The Wall Street Journal
This piece was first published by M Naples
A Recent Article By the Wall Street Journal States Cookies Are Spyware
So, be sure to disable your cookies, all you WSJ subscribers. That's clearly what the Wall Street Journal would have all of us do. Seriously? Well, maybe.
Walter Mossberg's essay - which ran on Thursday - contains so many inaccuracies that it reminds me of a ruse from a different industry a couple of decades ago. But, perhaps he has an agenda.
Remember the Bottle Bill? The Bottle Bill was created by urban environmentalists and nurtured by the plastics industry because it necessitated returning beverage containers to retailers. In states that passed Bottle Bills, everyone knew that glass and aluminum containers were going to be replaced by unbreakable, larger, easier to handle plastic ones and that more comprehensive recycling programs would suffer. The nine states that have bottle bills today don't have more comprehensive statewide programs since the whole packaging mix was subverted by the 2-liter plastic container.
Enough detail on that. Here's the connection: Almost every major paper in the United States supported Bottle Bills. Most major publishers lobbied hard for them state by state. Of course, this is because newspapers comprise maybe 30 percent of the waste stream while beverage containers comprise maybe 3 percent. Newspapers just wanted to take the spotlight off their own bad litter and waste story. In nine states, they succeeded. Do you know how much post-consumer content is in that copy of the WSJ you read this morning? Not a lot, especially when compared to those beverage containers.
Well, if you read the WSJ online, recycled content is obviously not a concern. But, subscriber dilution is a concern to its publishers. Newspapers as a whole are terribly worried about online, even those newspapers like The Wall Street Journal that have done great things to make money and protect their brand digitally. Talk to enough newspaper publishers about the relationship between their print and online assets and the word you will hear is "cannibalize," because they feel that online readership's erosion of their traditional subscriptions is cannibalizing their share of the advertising market.
That's the first thing I thought of when I read Mossberg's piece. Obviously, The Wall Street Journal depends on the cookies it places on its subscribers' hard drives, just as every reputable media company does. Unfortunately, spyware companies can use cookies and IP targeting to locate and target users' hard drives too; so can companies that track users across multiple sites.
While tracking users across sites (with full disclosure and without sharing their PII) is okay with me, these same users deserve to know that they're being tracked across media, just as they do in the non-digital world. The fact that they're afraid of it, is our fault as an industry, not theirs as consumers.
The point here is that what companies do with cookies is what we should be talking about, not the cookies themselves. Mossberg seems woefully misinformed - but it's not his fault. His is not the first anti-cookie piece I've seen in a major newspaper, although it's the worst-informed, and it appeared in the most influential outlet. What may be happening here is that newspapers are perhaps posturing toward a role that is somewhat similar to their role in the Bottle Bill debacle 20-some years ago.
Tired of bleeding money online, newspapers are buying marketing companies and many publishers are doing deals with Google, of all companies, to generate more page views and text links. Do you think that newspapers wouldn't rather be the ones managing their own optimization instead of farming it out to the new monolith, and subordinating their brands both nationally and locally?
Well, of course they would - only they haven't figured out how to do so yet. Mossberg wants cookies to be banned because if cookies are gone, all meaningful online measurement is thrown in the air and newspapers are at less of a disadvantage. Or, maybe he thinks - like many others in the print world - that fomenting fears of online media might bring newspapers readers back to traditional newspapers.
Understand that I'm ascribing to this subversive notion because I'm giving him credit for knowing his business. If this agenda were not his intention, then he's just plain wrong and the Journal's publishers should be embarrassed for editorially shooting themselves (and their advertisers) in the foot. Honestly, if this is not his agenda, then it's akin to a major sports league skipping a full season, essentially telling its consumers and sponsors to stick it. I mean, who would be so...so...dense?
What the Debate Should Properly Be About The Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) will be hosting a major industry retreat near its headquarters in York Harbor, Maine next week. From their invitation: "Since the debate over spyware has created such an urgent need for those of us in the online industry to identify and support best practices for adware and online advertising..." the best and brightest among our privacy officers and some c-level executives will gather for a two-day workshop to hammer out definitions of what is and is not spyware and adware.
As with any properly drafted restrictive regulation, please note that the NAI workshop will focus on best practices. Cookies aren't the villain here any more than the ads that support our salaries (including yours, Mossberg) or the text links in the galleys of our pages. However, what companies do with cookies, with what's lurking behind those text links can be villainous.
Remember, what users give up to cookies online - in terms of information on them or their behavior - is a small fraction of what they give up to credit card companies they do business with or when they subscribe to The Wall Street Journal newspaper.
What matters here is not the technology, but the behavior. It's no more or less true in online media than it is in traditional media. Next time the Journal's parent, Dow Jones, sells a subscriber db-segment to one of its direct mail partners, that behavior must be above-board. It will be enabled by technology not unlike cookies. Traditional media companies sell these records every day. What matters is how they sell them and to whom - the behavior, not the technology.
Let's face the fact that, as an industry, we've failed to make it clear to consumers that cookies are not the problem. Now - it seems - we can add newspapers themselves to our list of opponents, joining marketers of spyware removal products, who started this mess in the first place by identifying all cookies as spyware. I hope I'm wrong. But, as much as I trust the beleaguered cookies on my hard drive, these days I always suspect an agenda from anyone turning cookies into the villain.
The best chance the
Friday, July 15, 2005
Cookies Are Spyware, According to The Wall Street Journal
This piece was first published by M Naples
A Recent Article By the Wall Street Journal States Cookies Are Spyware
So, be sure to disable your cookies, all you WSJ subscribers. That's clearly what the Wall Street Journal would have all of us do. Seriously? Well, maybe.
Walter Mossberg's essay - which ran on Thursday - contains so many inaccuracies that it reminds me of a ruse from a different industry a couple of decades ago. But, perhaps he has an agenda.
Remember the Bottle Bill? The Bottle Bill was created by urban environmentalists and nurtured by the plastics industry because it necessitated returning beverage containers to retailers. In states that passed Bottle Bills, everyone knew that glass and aluminum containers were going to be replaced by unbreakable, larger, easier to handle plastic ones and that more comprehensive recycling programs would suffer. The nine states that have bottle bills today don't have more comprehensive statewide programs since the whole packaging mix was subverted by the 2-liter plastic container.
Enough detail on that. Here's the connection: Almost every major paper in the United States supported Bottle Bills. Most major publishers lobbied hard for them state by state. Of course, this is because newspapers comprise maybe 30 percent of the waste stream while beverage containers comprise maybe 3 percent. Newspapers just wanted to take the spotlight off their own bad litter and waste story. In nine states, they succeeded. Do you know how much post-consumer content is in that copy of the WSJ you read this morning? Not a lot, especially when compared to those beverage containers.
Well, if you read the WSJ online, recycled content is obviously not a concern. But, subscriber dilution is a concern to its publishers. Newspapers as a whole are terribly worried about online, even those newspapers like The Wall Street Journal that have done great things to make money and protect their brand digitally. Talk to enough newspaper publishers about the relationship between their print and online assets and the word you will hear is "cannibalize," because they feel that online readership's erosion of their traditional subscriptions is cannibalizing their share of the advertising market.
That's the first thing I thought of when I read Mossberg's piece. Obviously, The Wall Street Journal depends on the cookies it places on its subscribers' hard drives, just as every reputable media company does. Unfortunately, spyware companies can use cookies and IP targeting to locate and target users' hard drives too; so can companies that track users across multiple sites.
While tracking users across sites (with full disclosure and without sharing their PII) is okay with me, these same users deserve to know that they're being tracked across media, just as they do in the non-digital world. The fact that they're afraid of it, is our fault as an industry, not theirs as consumers.
The point here is that what companies do with cookies is what we should be talking about, not the cookies themselves. Mossberg seems woefully misinformed - but it's not his fault. His is not the first anti-cookie piece I've seen in a major newspaper, although it's the worst-informed, and it appeared in the most influential outlet. What may be happening here is that newspapers are perhaps posturing toward a role that is somewhat similar to their role in the Bottle Bill debacle 20-some years ago.
Tired of bleeding money online, newspapers are buying marketing companies and many publishers are doing deals with Google, of all companies, to generate more page views and text links. Do you think that newspapers wouldn't rather be the ones managing their own optimization instead of farming it out to the new monolith, and subordinating their brands both nationally and locally?
Well, of course they would - only they haven't figured out how to do so yet. Mossberg wants cookies to be banned because if cookies are gone, all meaningful online measurement is thrown in the air and newspapers are at less of a disadvantage. Or, maybe he thinks - like many others in the print world - that fomenting fears of online media might bring newspapers readers back to traditional newspapers.
Understand that I'm ascribing to this subversive notion because I'm giving him credit for knowing his business. If this agenda were not his intention, then he's just plain wrong and the Journal's publishers should be embarrassed for editorially shooting themselves (and their advertisers) in the foot. Honestly, if this is not his agenda, then it's akin to a major sports league skipping a full season, essentially telling its consumers and sponsors to stick it. I mean, who would be so...so...dense?
What the Debate Should Properly Be About The Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) will be hosting a major industry retreat near its headquarters in York Harbor, Maine next week. From their invitation: "Since the debate over spyware has created such an urgent need for those of us in the online industry to identify and support best practices for adware and online advertising..." the best and brightest among our privacy officers and some c-level executives will gather for a two-day workshop to hammer out definitions of what is and is not spyware and adware.
As with any properly drafted restrictive regulation, please note that the NAI workshop will focus on best practices. Cookies aren't the villain here any more than the ads that support our salaries (including yours, Mossberg) or the text links in the galleys of our pages. However, what companies do with cookies, with what's lurking behind those text links can be villainous.
Remember, what users give up to cookies online - in terms of information on them or their behavior - is a small fraction of what they give up to credit card companies they do business with or when they subscribe to The Wall Street Journal newspaper.
What matters here is not the technology, but the behavior. It's no more or less true in online media than it is in traditional media. Next time the Journal's parent, Dow Jones, sells a subscriber db-segment to one of its direct mail partners, that behavior must be above-board. It will be enabled by technology not unlike cookies. Traditional media companies sell these records every day. What matters is how they sell them and to whom - the behavior, not the technology.
Let's face the fact that, as an industry, we've failed to make it clear to consumers that cookies are not the problem. Now - it seems - we can add newspapers themselves to our list of opponents, joining marketers of spyware removal products, who started this mess in the first place by identifying all cookies as spyware. I hope I'm wrong. But, as much as I trust the beleaguered cookies on my hard drive, these days I always suspect an agenda from anyone turning cookies into the villain.
The best chance the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)