You are here
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.
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