skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Finally, after all the rumour, all the speculation, the 'Ipad' is here! And it's exactly what all the rumour and speculation speculated that it would be...which ruined it a bit really, much like taking a peek at your Christmas present before the big day. One qualm here though - Steve Jobs, if this really is the most important thing you've ever done for crying out loud put a suit on to present it! I've been reliably informed by someone who is far more knowledgeable than I that that's Steve Job's 'thing' but come on, it doesn't take a lot of effort to strap a tie round your neck does it?Back to the main point though, and that's the new Ipad. I have to be honest, at the moment I'm failing to see how it'll become the 'game changer' it was being hyped as. Sure, it looks great and probably performs great but will it replace a laptop? No. Will it replace the Iphone? Not unless you have bigger pockets than Bill Gates. The only advantage I can see so far is the benefit it'll have to online video and game content on the go. Which is surprising seeing as deals with major publishers seem to suggest creating a revolution in the e-reader field. But as yet, I just can't see this happening. What's easier, carrying around a big chunky screen or grabbing a paper or book to read on the train? Having suffered the London commute for one too many years I can safely say the Ipad could well spark scenes not to dissimilar to a Royal Rumble with constant head bangs and unconscious passengers. As ever, I look forward to being proved massively wrong.
I really don't understand publishers sometimes. Surely, and correct me if I'm missing something here, it is a good thing for people to link to your content? Find me a company that doesn't enjoy free publicity and I'll show you a company that is about to have 'closing down' written in large, bold letters outside it's building.Could someone explain the logic then as to why The Daily Mirror amongst others have blocked NewsNow from aggregating content from their site? The only possible explanation I can find is those shocking people at NewsNow have found a clever way of making some profit out of service that people want...Shocking, shocking behaviour.When the Daily Mirror finds a way of satisfying the user's needs by all means kick up a fuss about people 'stealing' content. But as it stands they don't have the answer and therefore NewsNow are actually doing them a favour! The service the Daily Mirror offer is reporting the news. NewsNow's service is finding it. Two very different things. Do you see small towns revolting against satnavs? No, and the reason is, small towns, in the main, understand how this whole 'helping in the right direction' thing works.
Having seen at least 2,340,211 articles this morning about how the Apple Tablet release is set for tomorrow (if you didn't know that my guess would be you still see the VHS as a thing of the future) I thought I'd talk about something else. After all, what can I possibly add to all the rumour and speculation surrounding the announcement, other than 'it's out tomorrow' and possibly 'it's bright pink'. Let's see if that spreads. Instead I was interested to read an interview with Bill Gates and his position on Google amongst other things. In what seemed a very laid back, honest interview with the New York Times Gates responded to the question "Is Google a monopolist?" by saying "If governments don’t care, that’s a bad sign."It was particularly interesting to hear his take on the search engine battle claiming that "gaining ground against Google, not catching it, is the current goal" and that a gain of 1% market share is at this stage a big achievement. It certainly made it seem a determined chase, and one which only the financial muscle of Microsoft could continue to pursue. Here's the full interview anyway, really good read actually: New York Times
(data from searchengineland)Eric Schmidt's quote on future deals with China was great today. As Google's positive q4 results were somewhat blighted by the fact they've kicked off World War 3 Schmidt was quick to try and defuse the situation claiming that Google "wants to stay in China but 'under somewhat different terms'”...So basically theirs. And not getting hacked every five minutes would be much appreciated too.The ongoing dispute shouldn't hide Google's positive quarter though. In tough conditions they keep on building and with more advertising budget set to move from TV to online this year the figures should only rise for the time being.Schmidt must be worried about the American government getting involved in his affairs though. There is going to be a lot of very careful strategy between the US and China in the coming months, and Google are standing right in the middle of the battlefield frantically looking for an escape route.
Some PR guru, somewhere (most likely Barbados) is currently sitting with their feet up, a cigar in mouth and feeling very very smug about themselves. See this PR guru has realized that the general public haven't taken much to the phrase 'charging for online content'.So how this legend of the field must have groaned when Youtube came to him and said 'we're thinking about charging for online content, can you let everybody know?'But fear not, our valiant hero found a way around this. Because Youtube, although obviously trialing the ability to charge for online content, are apparently not. No, no, they're going into the 'movie rental' business. Every press release I've seen has worded it the same way. Everyone likes renting a movie! Pizza, beer, a cosy sofa. The wool is so far over the eyes it's actually making eating difficult!Utter genius, enjoy your beach pad sir, you've earnt it...
A couple of weeks ago I blogged about Bing becoming the default web browser on all HP machines. If I remember rightly (and to be honest I probably don't - yesterday is often a struggle) the piece concluded that Bing signing deals such as this would slowly but surely eat away at Google's dominance.If that move didn't frighten the metaphorical pants off of Google then perhaps today's rumours of a deal between Apple's I phone and the Microsoft search engine might. Talks are apparently ongoing to make Bing the default search engine across the board on I phones, a move which, considering the mobile usage trends, would most certainly be a big deal.A search report from Comscore for December showed Bing gained the most search share in the month (+0.4) which, although small still shows it is heading in the right direction. If the trend continues at the same rate for the next year Bing will replace Yahoo as number two leaving only one giant obstacle standing in the way of poll position. Although Google may not be quaking in their boots just yet, the progress must be causing a little bit of tension at head office.
It seems the New York Times weren't the only ones striking up a deal to coincide with the Apple Tablet lauch. Just a day after those rumours began it now seems publisher Harper Collins is ready to pen an agreement with Apple to shake on a very similar deal. With the launch of the Tablet set for the 27th January, expect to see this kind of headline cropping up again and again over the coming weeks. Now wait a minute, Harper Collins. Is that the same Harper Collins currently under the wing of News Corp? I've heard somehwere those guys would quite like to make some money off of this whole e-reading thing. Let rumour commence!
The New York Times looks set to be the latest to announce charges for online content but interestingly their decision comes with a bit of a twist. Rumour has it, chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is ready to form a partnership with the new Apple tablet to strike a deal for consumers. To my knowledge, this is the first sign of the new e-reader technology forming alliances with specific media corporations (please inundate me with abusive emails if I'm wrong here.)If this is a trend likely to continue, then the newspaper industry could very much be entering into a mobile phone style market, with perks and advantages to each specific brand of e-reader. A game of musical chairs could well now take place, with different publications leaping to jump on board with individual technology brands. That will likely see many publications fall into the water but the ones that survive could finally have found their monetized model. Receiving payments from the technology brands to bring something extra to their prodcuts, and giving customers the choice of 'free' content can only compliment the pay meter format, leaving the press (finally) in a win win situation.
Great to see Yahoo once again playing catch up and saying to Google 'anything you can get hacked, we can get hacked.' Yahoo have been very quick to try and get involved in the hacking scandal (because they're important too) but ultimately have ended up looking like a spectator trying to break up a fight between two heavyweights. They are however closing in on a deal with the Associated Press - something Google look incapable of doing - which would give them a little bit more authority in the world of search.I find it strange that Google don't want to renew contracts with the AP. It seems, with all the Newscorp fiasco as well, they are determined to have no news on their search results whatsoever. Still, they have Twitter updates now, so who needs the press?
Google's threat to pull out of China after reports of cyber attacks aimed at the accounts of Chinese human rights activists is commendable make no mistake about that, but it is perhaps not as risky for business as some are suggesting. With Chinese market leader Baidu claiming 60% of the power it would perhaps be a blessing in disguise for Google to get out of the losing battle (Baidu is heavily connected with the Chinese government so chances of defeating it appear slim). What the whole thing does again raise though is the issue of censorship and why search engines are fast becoming a thing of the past. People do not want 'higher powers' deciding what they can and can't view and Google's deal in 2006 to agree to the Chinese government strict rules has always been uncomfortable. But even Google themselves are accused of censoring their own search results. The web is a free source and shouldn't be controlled by dictators. This is why, to me the semantic web is so appealing. Software doesn't censor, it simply finds what you're looking for, as requested, with no ulterior motive. That is the future, and I'm sure Google know it.
The Skiff "designed to make nervous publishers less nervous". That's good enough to be the the tag line for the product. Alas, it's actually just a quote taken from an article I read this morning. And it's pretty much spot on. With all the controversy surrounding newspapers of late, no one has really taken notice of how the digital era is killing the magazine industry. But it most certainly is. Why spend precious money on expensive prints and distribution when everything that needs to be seen can be seen online? Journals, industry specific magazines and general consumer reads are all realizing that the old model is no longer viable. The industry has been slow to embrace online, now they really have no choice. As the article claims, the Skiff is really the first acceptance of the ereader. How it'll differ from products like the Kindle time will tell, but one thing's for sure, print magazines are going the way of the Dodo with alarming speed.
If you believe recent reports then RSS feeds are a thing of the past. The claim is that social networking and live feeds such as twitter have made them obsolete but call me old fashioned (it doesn't seem to take much anymore) but I still find them incredibly useful. I judge websites that don't have RSS feeds, consider them inferior because gaining information from them is just so much simpler than anywhere else. Especially working with semantic technology, some websites can be such a pain for systems to understand. You'd be amazed how many top name sites actually have horrific page mapping issues (luckily for me I just get to pass on the problem to our developers, not actually solve it myself :) ). An RSS is designed to be read easily and in my mind, they are still very valuable in everyday life... This is a plea I suppose. Don't kill off the RSS, it'll be like when they discontinued Wispa's, we'll all regret it!
Saw a fairly damning piece on Bing the other day claiming that despite the search engine gaining ground this year it was still destined to forever be distant second to Google. I'd have to agree that currently Google still enjoys a very healthy pole position on it's rival but saying that it'll remain the same forever is a risky statement. Bing aren't giving up the relentless pursuit of Google and the announcement today that it'll now be the default search tool on all HP computers worldwide shouldn't be passed over as small fry. That is one good deal right there. Yes, it feels a little like they're forcing themselves on us (has anyone else noticed how determined the MSN homepage is to not let you do anything you want to do unless you go through Bing first?) but force is probably not a bad policy when you hold as much power as Microsoft does. The branding certainly seems to be working, and I'm gradually hearing about more and more people preferring the Bing option. So a distant second currently? Yes. But saying Google will forever win a one horse race is as foolish as a jockey celebrating victory before he's crossed the finish line.
It almost seems rude not to talk about the Nexus today, I'm worried I'll be disowned by the web if I don't. Two things are sweeping the country today; snow and Nexus discussion. Will it topple the I Phone? Sorry I can't answer that question but just type in Nexus to Google and around 7 million other volunteers will help you out with your answer.From the perspective I cover in this blog, it doesn't really matter who wins that battle in this particular case. What does strike me is the overall theme of trying to become 'a one stop shop' for everything.The banks have been heavily criticised for the same thing, as have the supermarkets, but no one seems to be bothered by the superpowers battling it out for technical supremacy. I think the reason being that in this scenario, the consumer is benefiting. The war is driving rapid progression and people are enjoying the results.Of course, this is currently a very good thing. But the same power that drives progression can very quickly form a stale, monopoly market and this fine balancing act needs to be addressed if the web is to continue to be the free and vast source of information it currently is.
Yet another sign that things are very much going mobile with the announcement that Apple have bought Quattro Wireless for $275 million. Google raised more than a few eyebrows at the end of last year when they splashed out on $750 million rated Admob and this move by Apple is a direct response, grabbing hold of their hat and catching up with the train. Now would be a great time to say you specialise in mobile advertising, you might just find someone starts throwing millions of pounds at you. For those (myself included) who merely comment on those having money thrown at them, it's another signifier that the giants have well and truly made their minds up where the future is. This adds further fuel to the fire that search as we know it is dying. Mobile apps are not designed to aid the search process, they're designed to find quick answers. The term 'search results' is fast being shortened to just 'results'.
Happy new year one and all, the Artesian Blog is back, shaking off the holiday weight and up for what is sure to be a truly interesting year in the world of search. I would say what better way to kick off the new year than with a list of predictions but having read John Batelle's blog this morning I see I have already been beaten to it :(But give his a read, and just think of me instead. I was most intrigued by point 7 which reads:"7. Traditional search results will deteriorate to the point that folks begin to question search's validity as a service. This does not mean people will stop using search - habits do not die that quickly and search will continue to have significant utility. But we are in the midst of a significant transition in search - as I've recently written, we are asking far more complicated questions of search, ones that search is simply not set up to answer. This incongruence is not really fair to blame on search, but so it goes. Add to this the problem of an entire ecosystem set up to game AdWords, and the table is set. Google will take most of the brand blame, but also do the most to address the issue in 2010."This is a very big year in the way people use info on the web. We're getting very close to a revolution and it'll be fascinating to see the progress throughout the next 365 days. By 2011 we could be talking about very different things and I'll be sure to jump in early with my predictions next time round...noted.
