You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-04-28 19:12
Cracks are appearing in the foundation of the Google Book Settlement, which suggests some of it may end up crumbling under the current harsh weather of public scrutiny.
The most recent crack to appear was the Court's quick rejection of Google's preemptory proposal to extend the opt-out notice period for authors for another sixty days, and quick approval of the request by a small coalition of rights holders for four more months until September 4th.
An ITIF forum on the Google Book Settlement at the Library of Congress last week exposed some other big cracks in the foundation of the settlement.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-04-21 19:20
Yahoo's announced earnings confirm that Google continues to take substantial search advertising revenue and profit share in the first full quarter of financial results since the DOJ blocked the Google-Yahoo Ad Partnership as anti-competitive.
Google's dominance of search advertising profit share is even greater than that of revenues because historically the only other publicly-traded search advertising players with significant search advertising revenues: Microsoft, AOL, and IAC/Ask.com all consistently lose money in this search advertising segment.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-04-20 18:29
The crux of the Google Book settlement will be whether the Court effectively sanctions the creation of one de facto world digital book library, or whether it will facilitate the continued proliferation of many libraries of digital books throughout the world.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-04-16 18:43
The main takeaway from Google's earnings is Google continues to take substantial revenue market share -- it is becoming increasingly dominant in search advertising and search syndication despite the economic downturn. While Google's growth has slowed, its market share gains don't appear to have slowed as much -- evidence of Google's many network effects.
In short, the strongest gets stronger, at smaller players' expense.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-03-31 19:26
The proposed seminal book settlement of the publishers/authors class action suit against Google, if ratified by Federal Court this June, has the potential to de facto legislate for the U.S. and much of the world, both the monetization mechanism and competitive trajectory of much of the digital books market -- a highly strategic segment of the world's digital knowledge base.
As an expert analyst on the future of Internet competition, the central question I ponder is whether the mechanism and trajectory that the Google book settlement would entrench -- is competitive or anti-competitive?
First, the core facts suggest antitrust concerns are relevant to the ratification process of the proposed digital book settlement.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-03-18 17:47
How can free have a cost? Well a lot of different things are converging in Washington that could bring much more focus to -- "the costs of free" on the Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-03-16 13:58
NetApplications noted that "Microsoft recently partnered with Verizon to make Live Search the default search engine of all Verizon devices in the next few months."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-03-11 14:33
What are the big forward-looking implications for the broader Internet-related economy of Google's announcement it is launching a new variant of behavioral advertising, called "interest-based advertising."
First, it is probably a major catalyst escalating and accelerating public discussion about behavioral advertising and online privacy.
Context is always important, and this announcement does not occur in a vacuum. It has broad implications because of the pervasive reach of the issue and the market leadership of the announcer. For example:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-03-05 19:08
Who buys Twitter?
Why is this notable?
If Twitter's future is similar to other fast-growing technology first-movers, Twitter will eventually be bought by a large player, sooner rather than later, like NewsCorp bought MySpace, Google bought YouTube, and eBay bought Skype.
While Google may be at the top of most people's minds as the most likely buyer of Twitter, given its value as a fast-growing originator of searches, Google CEO Eric Schmidt's much-reported dissing of Twitter as a "poor man's email" struck me as strange, and prompted me to noodle about why Google is uncharacteristically talking down such a popular first-mover app?
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.