Can Google Stay In China And Still Save Face?
Ever since Google’s bold statement early this year that it would be withdrawing from the Chinese search market if it couldn’t find a way to operate without censorship, Mountain View has found itself in a bit of a no-win situation. Google CEO Eric Schmidt has expressed several times that the company would like to remain [...]
*** Read the full post by clicking on the headline above or, in Facebook, by clicking on the “View Original Post” link below. ***
Google: Developments in China Coming “Soon”
Last week, Chinese officials reported that Google was in talks about their threats to leave the country (or only partially) if they’re forced to continue censoring search results. Also, Chinese officials reported that Google was not in talks with the government.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt declined to comment on the state of negotiations a conference in the United Arab Emirates today. However, he did say that “we’re in active negotiations with the Chinese government, and there is no specific timetable,” although he promised “Something will happen soon.”
Google announced a hacking attempt targeted at the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists in January. They suspected that the attack may have originated in the Chinese government on some level, and announced they would no longer agree to censor search results. However, nothing has changed—yet.
Soon after Google’s statement, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented on the matter, urging China to review the breach as well. This prompted suspicion that Google’s withdrawal threats were directed by the US government. Schmidt denied that today:
“The Google action was not in any way advanced or coordinated with the U.S. government except post-facto,” he said in response to questions. “Google’s discussions are with the Chinese government, and they do not involve the U.S. government. The U.S. government’s doing its thing unrelated to Google.”
Schmidt’s statement is pretty open-ended: “something” and “soon.” What kind of timeline do you think we’re looking at—and what do you think the end result will be?
Apple and Microsoft Teaming Up?
Once up on a time, it seemed that Google and Apple were natural partners, as inseparable as . . . well, two boards of directors with the same guy on them. And then last August, Google CEO Eric Schmidt left the Apple board, citing “core business conflicts.” Those conflicts have become more apparent over the intervening six months as Google has unveiled a smartphone/superphone set to compete against the iPhone.
And Apple may be set to fight back. Last month, they were apparently thinking about making Bing the default search engine on the iPhone, and now people are speculating that Apple is contemplating Bing for the iPad. You know what they say about the enemy of my enemy, but . . . isn’t this going a bit far?
Naturally, with a month until the iPad’s launch, nothing is set in stone—at least not to public knowledge. This speculation comes from Global Equities Research based on usability evidence about Bing, including the fact that instead of Google’s inverted triangle heat map, Bing has a rectangular heat map. Bing also uses layouts including several panes that are well-suited to rectangular screen.
Rectangular? Layout? Remind you of anyone? (The iPad. Also has a rectangular screen. But then, so does my computer and I still use Google.)
If this happens, the move may help Bing a little, but I doubt it’ll hurt Google in the long run—and since it has nothing to do with the Nexus One, it’s hard to imagine it’s going to hurt the competition in that arena.
What do you think? Will Apple really team up with Microsoft to spite Google, and if so, is it because of Bing’s usability results?
Facebook Offers More Control Over Information Shared Through Apps
It’s been just recently that Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Eric Schmidt of Google both gave their own versions of how the idea of privacy on the Internet was so 20th century. Facebook has faced the music of some serious backlash to their “everything is public stance and just in the past week there has been a considerable amount of controversy surrounding Google Buzz and its own privacy concerns. Google got the official word that they pushed the envelope just far enough to generate the first class action lawsuit about the service by some circling buzzard or a lawyer (Get it? Buzz-ard.)
Since Facebook has been under the microscope longer they are getting more advanced in their “return to privacy”. The Facebook blog announced yesterday that there are new controls that are much more granular as it relates to how you share information through Facebook applications.
There are now granular privacy options that enable you to personalize the audience for each piece of content you share through applications. Simply select the group of people you want to share with from the drop-down menu near the lock icon on the Publisher on your home page or profile, or the prompts that appear when you share from applications or Facebook Connect websites.
Got something that might make your friends laugh but would appall those annoying family members you are connected to on Facebook? Below is a look at how you can keep the information “regionalized’ by sharing only with those that would laugh rather than faint at your exploits.
This is definitely a step in a better direction as it applies to controlling your information that you share on Facebook. Of course, the vast majority of Facebook users never read the Facebook blog, pay little attention to notifications and are likely to not even know that this option exists.
Don’t think that the Facebook crew isn’t banking on this. They want everything to be as shared as possible. It makes their service more marketable to advertisers and the like. This looks like a classic case of Facebook doing a little CYA so they can say that they offer these privacy options but they can’t control if a user actually uses them. Of course, if that user is just oblivious to the options that’s all the better for Facebook. It’s the “Hey, we warned them!” defense and it’ll probably work.
The blog continues
These new controls give you the power to determine who sees the content you post to Facebook through any third-party application, whether it is on Facebook.com, your desktop, mobile phone, or from a Facebook Connect website or service. Seesmic, a desktop application from which you can view and update your News Feed, will soon offer extended privacy options so you can specify audiences for each update you make from the application, such as uploaded photos and status updates.
The one line in the post that really was interesting was the following in which the word “may” plays a prominent role.
You may also start to see additional prompts in applications asking if you’d like to set privacy for certain pieces of content that differ from your default setting. Whether you choose to keep your default setting on everything you share or change the audience for different pieces of content, the choice is yours.
I wonder how long it takes the Facebook employees to get these posts through legal? I know I am a skeptic on these issues but I think it is the safe way to go. The more that is public for Facebook and Google the better so they need to ride the fine line of making sure options exist but not much more. These are going to be fine print matters in T&C’s and know how much everyone pays attention to those in this day and age.
These privacy matters aren’t going to go away and the cat and mouse game between these social networks and their users has a long way to go to be sorted out. Since, in many cases, the two sides are diametrically opposed this will be an interesting battle.
Google Working On Translator Phone
Holy language gap, Batman! Google looks to be creating some pretty cool futuristic gadgets for its utility belt. Now, when Eric Schmidt puts out the Goog signal he can feel confident that ex-Google employees in all parts of the world will understand the signal without have to spend time changing out the filter on his light signal. (I had to use this picture again after all the trouble Andy went through to make it). This will all be made possible by Google’s translation tools that are moving toward translating voice on the fly.
Now, this technology is a few years away but The Times of London is bringing the project to our attention.
By building on existing technologies in voice recognition and automatic translation, Google hopes to have a basic system ready within a couple of years. If it works, it could eventually transform communication among speakers of the world’s 6,000-plus languages.
The folks at Google seem to feel that this is very doable. There are many naysayers, however, which are quoted in the article but also let themselves be heard in the comment string. First the confident Google version
“We think speech-to-speech translation should be possible and work reasonably well in a few years’ time,” said Franz Och, Google’s head of translation services.
Now from the other camp.
However, some experts believe the hurdles to live translation remain high. David Crystal, honorary professor of linguistics at Bangor University, said: “The problem with speech recognition is the variability in accents. No system at the moment can handle that properly.
“Maybe Google will be able to get there faster than everyone else, but I think it’s unlikely we’ll have a speech device in the next few years that could handle high-speed Glaswegian slang.
Whether this capability is ready in a few years or in 10 years it could be something that would be very interesting but in the same breath could be disturbing like it apparently was in the movie “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. In the movie, the Babel Fish device that could translate any language for users ended up creating some serious issues (a war) because everyone knew what everyone else was saying!
I’m not saying that life would imitate art but maybe what we don’t know won’t hurt us after all.
Google Display Ad Business Poised for $1 B in 2010
Well, since Google’s Super Bowl ad has signaled that it is in trouble by sending some kind of message that there is fear in the air (c’mon people relax it’s not the big deal you may think it is), what does a company that is obviously reeling on its heels look to do? Find other ways to make money of course.
Now I do not believe that Google is reeling at all. I don’t think that their Super Bowl ad is evidence of anything other than the fact that they could use an already created and packaged message to reach a large audience when their competition wasn’t. Nothing more and nothing less. Do you really think that the cost of that ad is of any consequence to Google’s bottom line? I suspect they figured they could smoke the crappy ads for chips and beer with a simple message and create buzz worth more than $ 3 mil. Mission accomplished.
Google does, however, need to figure out other ways to generate cash and display seems to be the next big thing. Business Week reports
Google CEO Eric Schmidt hinted in July that display advertising would probably be the next of his company’s businesses to generate $1 billion in sales. Analysts say 2010 is the year he’ll deliver on that prediction.
Display ads are likely to contribute a little more than $1 billion, or about 4% of Google’s (GOOG) total sales this year—an increase of as much 40% over last year—say analysts, including Doug Anmuth at Barclays Capital. That marks an important threshold for Mountain View (Calif.)-based Google, which makes most of its sales from ads placed alongside search results and which has been criticized for not getting more revenue from other businesses. Demand for display ads, which include marketing messages in videos and banner ads adorning Web pages, may rise faster this year than for search-related ads, according to eMarketer.
About $700 million of that number should come from YouTube while the remaining will come out of the DoubleClick operations that are gaining momentum. There seems to be a new surge in display ad money that is coming over to the web from TV advertisers. I guess they hadn’t heard about the effectiveness concerns regarding the ads but hey if you have blown a lot on TV ads already it shows you don’t pay real close attention to things 
. Google has rolled out its Google Insight offering, though, to help understand everything
Google is trying to help advertisers better measure the effectiveness of display ads. “One of the challenges we put to ourselves was: ‘What are the ways a brand advertiser would look to measure [ad impact]?’,” Neal Mohan, the executive in charge of Google’s display business says. The result: Campaign Insights, a tool developed over a year by dozens of Google engineering teams around the world before it was released in December.
Hair-care company Regis was one of the first to test Campaign Insights. It ran banner ads for Hair Club For Men across hundreds of Google’s partner sites while Campaign Insights tracked the number of people who had seen the ads and then performed related Web searches. “Display [advertising] drives searches and Web site visits,” says Luke Hubbard, vice-president of Beverly Hills (Calif.)-based Integrated Media Solutions, the ad agency that coordinated the campaign for Regis. “We knew that effect was there before, but now we are able to quantify it.” Impressed by the results, Regis increased spending on display ads for the brand in 2010, and Integrated Media Solutions has signed up seven other clients eager to tap the analytics.
Ahh, analytics. You mean the ability to actually track whether what you are doing is truly working or not? Those crazy kids over in Mountain View think they should provide something that measures the effectiveness of display ads and now they are going to try to sell more because of their innovation. Wow.
Is Google serious about this? Apparently serious enough to actually have real Google employees venture out and talk to live human beings. In other words they are recognizing that this type of sale requires service and not automation. I had to chuckle a little at this last quote regarding the idea of Google employees venturing out and soiling their good name with the general population.
To succeed in display, Google has also had to hone its ability to market products through a people-friendly sales force. In search, Google has tended to rely more on the technical effectiveness of its products, analysts say. “Advertising is a lot of hand-holding and schmoozing,” says analyst Greg Sterling. “Historically, Google has not been good on managing the people side.”
That’s changing, says Amy Curtis-McIntyre, senior vice-president of brand communications for hotel chain Hyatt. She says Google has begun regularly sending sales reps to her Chicago offices. “When they develop new search tools or new advertising tools, they bring them to us and present them in a usable way,” says Curtis-McIntyre.
Now, when Google understands that people also like to be visited when there isn’t something to sell then we can say that they get it. You know…..the R word. No, not Revenue! They get that one real good! It’s the other R word……Relationship. When they understand relationships then they will have something.
Google Airs TV Ad During Super Bowl – But Why?
Perhaps yesterday’s tweet by Google CEO Eric Schmidt put it best. Hell has indeed frozen over. Google has run its first major television ad, during the Super Bowl, no less. Below, the ad, how it has been received, how it compares to other search engine commercials from rivals and some questions about why market leader [...]
….
Hell Freezes Over: Google Airs TV Ad During Super Bowl
Perhaps yesterday’s tweet by Google CEO Eric Schmidt put it best. Hell has indeed frozen over. Google has run its first major television ad, during the Super Bowl, no less.
The rumor that Google would run a commercial during today’s Super Bowl 2010 proved true. Google aired a spot from its online video Search Stories series, [...]
….
A Google Super Bowl Ad? Eric Schmidt Hints At It
Google CEO Eric Schmidt is causing quite a stir with this tweet from about an hour ago that suggests Google will run its first major broadcast television commercial during tomorrow’s Super Bowl:
For those who can’t see the image above for some reason, Schmidt said:
Can’t wait to watch the Superbowl tomorrow. Be sure to watch the [...]
….
Google Gets the Department of Justice’s Seal of Non-Approval
I can hear it now. We normal folks won’t be able to hear this signal (kind like a dog whistle) but this is being sounded across the US to Washington, DC from Mountain View, CA as we speak.
“Calling all ex-Google employees in DC! Calling all ex-Google employees in DC! (Especially if you still have stock) I repeat – Calling all ex-Google employees in DC! This is your real leader, Eric Schmidt, and we need you to ‘talk’ to some people about this ‘problem’ that the US government has with our book deal. Remember where your allegiance is and who is more powerful. Go and do your duty for the Goog immediately. Thanks and have a great day!”
OK, so it really is a ridiculous thought but I bet the folks at Google wish that could happen when a road block like this happens to a deal that seems quite important to one of the most powerful companies in the world. Sfgate.com tells us
The Department of Justice said in a filing late Thursday that revisions to the proposed legal settlement allowing Google Inc. to publish millions of books online didn’t do enough to allay antitrust, copyright and other legal concerns.
The landmark deal would allow the Mountain View search titan to move ahead with its ambitious project while establishing a system for identifying and paying appropriate rights holders.
The government acknowledged “substantial progress” on several issues, but said in a statement filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that core concerns remain unresolved, including the amount of power granted to Google.
There is quite a bit at stake with this book deal for sure and there are those who are both for and against. Those against include library groups, academics and competitors who have privacy and anti-competitive concerns. Those for the deal include student, minorities and the disabled because the service would provide the ability to access more information than ever.
Google is doing an “act as if” and not really publicly recognizing this decision that could influence whether this gets past the government’s scrutiny or not. This whole drama has been two years in the making and Google has had a similar battle in Europe. Whether this will ever reach the point of an agreement that allows Google to do what is proposed for many out of print volumes is a major TBD (to be determined).
Google keeps running precariously close to the line that reads “If crossed people will yell monopoly!” I suspect they would like just one victory but whether that will happen in this case may be more out of their control than usual.
How do you feel about this book agreement? Have you followed it? Do you care? If Google gets the green light is it truly giving them to much power? If they can’t do it will any of these books ever be seen again by anyone?
