You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-09-30 06:50
I'm in Tokyo Japan and just got done giving the keynote speech to about 100 Japanese industry representatives at a forum on the negative impact on competition and innovation of the partnership between Yahoo-Japan and Google, which will control over 90% of the Japanese search advertising market.
I explained the three "Ds" of the deal: dependency, decline and disintermediation (see the full speech below.) There was a Google-friendly panel of two professors and a journalist that critiqued my speech and I was afforded full opportunity to rebut all their points.
It is amazing to me that a deal that has such far-reaching negative effects on Japanese industry, Japan's economy, identity and culture, as this, was decided without any consultation or input from industry or other parts of Government affected by the deal.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-09-21 10:53
In another Google fit of no-self-awareness, Google has launched a new web tool that they call the "transparency report" in order to promote transparency as "a deterrent to censorship," per a Google spokeswoman in the NYT's Bits Blog.
While I applaud the tool and Google's effort to promote transparency as a deterrent to censorship, the effort appears disingenuous because of Google's double standard that others must submit to transparency, but not Google.
Google's tool will have "a map that shows every time a government has asked Google to take down or hand over information, and what percentage of the time Google has complied," per the NYT's Bits Blog."
If transparency is good:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-09-21 09:39
Google CEO Eric Schmidt claimed to reporters last week that all the conflict surrounding Google was a good thing because it meant "This is winning. If we were losing, we would not have these problems." Ever the first to try and politically frame whatever Google is doing or experiencing, this particular frame backfires badly for Google.
First, Google's clear implication here is that all the conflict surrounding Google is just losers complaining, and losers are well losers so people should not listen to what a loser says about Google. Apparently, Mr. Schmidt sees himself as the BMOC on the tech campus and everyone that
We know the word conflict can mean contest, but we also know the word conflict mainly means a disagreement, generally over ideas.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-09-20 10:14
In a comical defense of Google, David Balto of the Center for American Progress pleaded for the Government to not regulate Google in his HuffPo Op-ed: "Regulating Google: Searching for a solution without a problem." Let me count the ironies here.
First, Mr. Balto is attempting to shield Google behind the successful defense of the broadband industry against mandated net neutrality regulation that "net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem."
That defense works because it is true. The industry has only one official net neutrality violation that has withstood scrutiny and due process -- Madison River in 2005. Since then, the roughly 2,000 broadband networks in the U.S. have abided by the FCC's 2005 Broadband Principles and remain committed to work constructively to ensure that consumers can neutrally access and use the legal content, applications, and devices of their choice.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-09-15 23:21
(Don't miss the eye-opening numbers at the end of this post.)
I am testifying tomorrow before the House Judiciary Competition Subcommittee hearing on "Competition in the Evolving Digital Marketplace."
The other witnesses I have heard that are testifying are: Ed Black of CCIA, Morgan Reed of ACT, Mark Cooper of Consumer Federation, and Geoff Mannes of Lewis and Clarke Law School.
It is a particularly timely hearing given Google's pending acquisition of ITA Software, which is under review at the DOJ, and which is a quintessential example of how Google exploits the soft underbelly of antitrust enforcement to buy its way to monopoly power in vertical markets like travel. My testimony attachment explains how Google already bought its way to a Internet video monopoly via its acquisitions and integration of YouTube, DoubleClick, and AdMob.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2010-09-12 21:29
The link is here to: "Googleopoly VI -- How Google is Monopolizing Consumer Internet Media and Threatening a Price Deflationary Spiral and Major Job Losses in a Trillion Dollar Sector" -- It is a 41 page PowerPoint presentation with 18 pages of pictorial analysis.
Below is the Executive Summary: (The PDF link is here.)
Googleopoly VI – Seeing the Big Picture: How Google is Monopolizing Consumer Internet Media
And Threatening a Price Deflationary Spiral & Major Job Losses in a $Trillion Sector
By Scott Cleland* President of Precursor LLC, September 13, 2010
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2010-09-12 20:57
For Immediate Release -- September 13, 2010
Contact: Scott Cleland: 703-217-2407
First-Ever Study of Google’s Impact on Internet, Economy, Pricing & Jobs
How Googleopoly Threatens Economic Recovery & Jobs in 20+ Industries
Google Increasingly is the Internet for Most Consumers
MCLEAN, Va. – Today Precursor LLC released a first-of-its-kind research study on the impact of the largest and most powerful Internet company, Google Inc., on the Internet, economy, pricing and jobs. Google Inc. is expanding beyond its search monopoly to dominate other parts of the Internet at such an alarming rate that Google Inc. increasingly is the Internet for most consumers.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-09-09 10:45
Google's claim that presenting search results faster with Google Instant -- does not affect advertising, user search behavior or user-click-throughs -- does not ring true.
First, how is Google Instant not push-advertising?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-08-31 11:06
In one of Google's worst misrepresentations about privacy to date, Google's Head of Product Development for Google Enterprise, Matt Glotzbach, told the FT that Google did not believe that its new gmail feature -- that ranks emails automatically based on what Google's algorithm judges are the most important emails to be read first -- would raise any privacy concerns. "We're not creating any new information, we're leveraging information that is already there."
Unbelievable. This is grossly deceptive and untrue.
By any measure this is what I would call Google's "Deep Tracking Inspection."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-08-25 14:44
The top U.S. spy agency for mapping announced a no-bid digital mapping contract with Google on August 19th. However, after media inquiries, the agency modified the contract's no-bid format, but made clear "the agency's intention to award the contract to Google without entertaining competitive bids" -- per a Fox News story by James Rosen.
Has anyone in a position of authority or oversight even begun to think through the irony and stupidity of contracting out the Nation's most sensitive intelligence gathering and analysis function to a company that has: