You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-03-04 16:28
Winston Churchill prophetically said: "history is written by the victors." This truism is timely now given Eric Auchard's great column "How the web devours history," that I built upon in my latest post: "Will history be the casualty of an 'ecommony?' If info is free who will pay to archive it for posterity?"
Given the Internet's natural first-mover dynamic, global scale and scope efficiencies and powerful reinforcing network effects, which I have written extensively on, could the Internet's 'victor' effectively write history by deciding what information ultimately gets archived and found?
To answer that question requires establishing some important baseline points.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-02-18 19:37
If net neutrality/open Internet proponents believe that non-dominant, competitive broadband providers should be not be allowed to advantage their own content, products or services over competitors', why do they tolerate monopoly application providers disadvantaging their competitors' content, products or services?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-02-16 20:03
The FTC staff's revised behavioral advertising principles make it clear that the FTC understands the Internet’s growing privacy-publicacy fault-line. The FTC’s new guidelines are all about tackling the growing problem of unauthorized publicacy – meaning the tracking, collecting and “mashing-up” of information consumers reasonably expected to be kept private. (“Publicacy” is the opposite of privacy.)
Why are the FTC’s new guidelines a much bigger deal than most appreciate?
First, the new guidelines put a new and brighter privacy regulatory spotlight on Google, the world’s dominant behavioral-advertiser, and to a lesser extent, Yahoo, Google’s distant #2 competitor.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-01-22 22:51
Google’s earnings remind us of the core competitive dynamic of the Internet content economy – the increasing market dominance of Google.
As strong as Google’s revenue growth was, the most interesting earnings development to me was the big peek Google gave us behind its infamous secrecy curtain – in disclosing it was re-pricing most of its employee stock options.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-12-23 16:24
The content and applications industries have yet to connect-the-dots of the U.S. Department of Justice concluding search advertising is a monopoly and that Google has pro-actively sought to further its monopoly in search advertising and search advertising syndication.
Simply, if the DOJ believes Google is a monopoly, then it follows that DOJ would believe it is illegal under antitrust law for Google to proactively disadvantage its competitors’ content/applications by favoring Google-owned content/applications over competitors’ content/applications on Google’s search advertising monopoly platform.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-12-16 14:20
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-12-08 16:56
Tribune's bankruptcy is fresh evidence that the recession is accelerating the demise of journalism precipitated in large part by the advent of the Internet. And where is the Internet taking the journalism profession and business? Not towards the utopian citizen journalism of conventional wisdom, but inexorably towards the gravitational pull of the black hole of the Internet -- scale.
So why can't the journalism profession/business compete long-term with The Black Hole of Internet Scale?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-12-03 19:12
Sandy Litvack, the DOJ's outside counsel on Google-Yahoo told AmLawDaily that the case the DOJ was prepared to file against Google-Yahoo was far more serious and sweeping than previously thought or known.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-12-03 12:49
"On Nov. 17, Google began running ads on Google Finance, a financial-news site, and said it would soon start showing ads to some users of its Google News service as well." That was the big news in the Wall Street Journal's front page story "Google gears down for tougher times."
Is Google, which owns the world's largest Internet audience, with over 700 million users, a direct competitor to all media? You bet!
The anticompetitive significance and conflicts of interest in what Google is now doing are very large.
To date Google lulled its competitors into a false sense of security in building an audience for Google News and Google Finance but not directly competing with Google's supposed media partners for online ads.
The problem for media companies is that Google is a non-transparent black box, which represents itself to be an honest broker of ads -- when it is not. It obviously has a huge financial conflict of interest in serving ads.
What Google is proposing to do is the conflict of interest equivalent of auditing their own books, or grading their own papers.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-12-02 18:56