You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-10-27 13:25
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-10-22 10:56
Microsoft publicly announced it has already launched a beta of bing Twitter that incorporates Twitter tweets into Microsoft's search results, while Google also announced an agreement with Twitter, but said in an announcement blog post that: "we look forward to having a product that showcases how tweets can make search better in the coming months."
The glaring question is why Google, which prides itself on speed and innovation, and which routinely launches new products and services in beta, will not offer a Twitter product for "months."
The most logical conclusion is what I blogged and tweeted about on October 9th: "Will Google seek DOJ approval of any Twitter agreement?"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-10-19 20:53
In stark contrast to their opposition to the Google-Yahoo ad agreement, the American Association of Advertising Agencies (the 4As) is now urging the DOJ to quickly approve the Microsoft-Yahoo search agreement because they "believe that Yahoo! and Microsoft's proposal to combine their technologies and search platforms is good for advertisers, marketing services agencies, web publishers, and consumers."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-10-09 18:43
Reuters reports that Twitter is in talks with Google and Microsoft about "licensing its data feed to the companies search engines."
If a Google-Twitter agreement materializes, surely the DOJ will want to review any proposed Google-Twitter agreement for antitrust issues.
FCC's concluding market power in the wrong place; See great ACI analysis: Broadband vs Internet profitsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-10-08 13:01
Given that the apparent justification for new formal net neutrality rules is that fifteen-year policy has failed and that the market is unable to ensure consumer choice, the FCC will need to justify with facts that broadband providers indeed have market power to exercise anti-competitively.
Kudos to Larry Darby of the American Consumer Institute for his excellent and illuminating comparative financial analysis of the market power and profits of broadband companies vs. Internet companies. From his post:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-08-14 18:24
Why is Google's "bogus" claim bogus?
First, does Google think for a minute that antitrust enforcers' investigations have not assembled substantial evidence/quotes from Google itself about the importance of scale in search?
Where else will a viable competitive alternative to Google come from, if not from a Yahoo-Microsoft deal?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-07-29 12:29
The core question at the heart of the DOJ's review of the proposed Yahoo-Microsoft search partnership is where else will competition to Google's increasing dominance come from, if not from the proposed Yahoo-Microsoft search partnership?
The DOJ has deep and current expertise in this market given their investigation of the Google-Yahoo ad partnership last fall and DOJ's current investigation of the Google Book Settlement. The DOJ also appreciates the facts that:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-07-21 20:53
It is relevant, interesting, and instructive to analyze what has happened since the DOJ's 11-05-09 action, and since the economic downturn, given that the DOJ concluded Google and Yahoo commanded 90% and 95% market shares at that time.
This relative revenue share transfer analysis is straight-forward.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-07-02 20:37
An unusual and notable pattern appears to be developing with Google and DOJ antitrust enforcers.
This is the second formal agreement in less than a year that Google has negotiated and drafted that has "crossed the line" prompting DOJ antitrust officials to have to formally and publicly investigate.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-07-02 17:03
The new industry-proposed "Self-Regulatory Principles for Behavioral Advertising" which Google publicly patted themselves on the back for today, conveniently do not apply to most all of Google's current advertising business.
As a big proponent of responsible self-regulation, I am disappointed when self-regulation is given a bad name when industry leaders badly game the system by conveniently self-defining themselves, for the most part, from being subject to much of the new self-regulatory guidelines.
Why am I pointing out this arbitrage of privacy laws?