You are here
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
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2008-11-30 23:18
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-11-24 12:29
Google's CEO Eric Schmidt met with the New York Times Editorial Board last week, most likely on a charm offensive in response to the Rosenkranz Foundation oxford-style debate about whether or not "Google violates its 'Don't be evil' motto."
Once again, Google is truly its own worst enemy.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-11-21 18:06
There are reports that the IRS is investigating whether tax exempt Mozilla, the foundation behind the popular Firefox browser, can legitimately claim tax exempt status when 88% of the Foundation's revenues come from Google in payments for being the default search engine for Firefox downloads.
I believe the DOJ should also consider investigating the Google-Mozilla relationship to see if Google anticompetitively gained an advantage -- given the facts, timing and circumstances.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-11-21 16:06
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-11-20 17:12
Google effectively lost its first formal debate over whether "Google violates its own 'Don't Be Evil" motto" at the Rosenkranz Foundation's Oxford-style debate in New York City, November 18. (Transcript here).
What does this mean?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-11-19 12:10
Most are missing the lasting implications and legacy of Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang's signature "Open" strategy, in all the media chatter about his demise and his successor.
Yang set Yahoo on a new and different strategic trajectory philosophically and culturally -- i.e. that of the open source movement -- which is strategically Google-aligned and Microsoft-opposed.
This means the cultural momentum and trajectory at Yahoo is to remain close to its "open source" philosophical ally Google regardless of the DOJ decision to oppose the Google-Yahoo ad partnership and despite its investor-correct public statements to the contrary about Microsoft.
Jerry Yang's legacy will not only be opposing shareholder interests in scuttling the Microsoft offer, but also the under-appreciated 'open strategy' he implemented that is designed to continue to thwart a Microsoft bid going forward.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-11-18 11:21
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-11-18 09:20
Google CEO Schmidt apparently is representing that he is speaking for the President-Elect's Transition today in Washington given the attached press release, which twice mentions Mr. Schmidt's membership on the "Transition Economic Advisory Board" in an otherwise very brief release.
Perception of Conflicts with the Transition Ethics Code: