Entrepreneur Watch

Google, Dolly Parton fight over white space

10-30-08

Business Week has a nice roundup of the battle between Hollywood and wi-fi advocates over the use of "white space," the unused pieces of spectrum between TV broadcast signals.

On the "Don't butt into my broadcast" side are the National Association of Broadcasters, Qualcomm, LG Electronics, Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren, Guns N' Roses, Dolly Parton, and Sen. Hillary Clinton (who probably wants lots of TV air time before the next presidential election.)

On the "There are no interference problems, honest" side are Google, Microsoft, Dell, Motorola, and Phillips Electronics.

The spectrum is very valuable, because it can walk through walls.

Will there be interference? 

One FCC test says there can be, says NAB. 

Larry Page says the FCC test was rigged.

CNET reports mixed results from different tests.

Motorola says its geolocation devices to detect broadcast signals worked just fine in the FCC test, thank you very much.

The Wireless Future blog says the broadcasters are crying wolf, much as they did in 1974 when those nasty old cable services were being proposed.

I'm on the side of the wi-fi folks. The TV folks are just paranoid because the white space was reserved as a buffer between TV broadcast signals, and now that buffer will be gone.

But the proposal to open up the white space asks for it once the broadcast TV signals go digital. In the first place, digital signals are much easier to control and can be designed to avoid interference. Hell, we run DSL lines with digital broadband signals running alongside phone signals on the same wire. This is a technology issue that can certainly be solved.

And besides, how much longer is broadcast TV going to last anyway?

Of course, cellular providers like T-Mobile are worried that it will interfere with their 3G networks. But they're biased, because great broadband might compete with 3G phones.

The decision was supposed to arrive on Nov. 4, when everybody will be out voting for Barak Obama. It is likely to be delayed now.

So do some more testing on more modern geolocation devices and settle the question. Don't let bias, politics, bad science and lobbyists get in the way.

Motorola to use Google's Andriod smart phone OS

10-30-08

The G1 phone from HTC

As Business Week reported last week, Motorola is commiting itself to Android.

It looks like the work of Motorola co-CEO Sanjay Jha, who joined the company three months ago from Qualcomm, where he may have worked with Google's Android team.

The Mercury News reports that this is a very big deal:

"If Sanjay decides to go Android in a big way, that's a tremendous, tremendous boost,'' said Shiv Bakhshi, a Seattle-based analyst with researcher IDC. Android may garner a bigger share of the market for phone operating software because of Motorola's popularity, helping those devices outsell the iPhone, he said.

More competition in the smart phone market is terrific news.

I wonder if Microsoft is working on a new phone OS.

Google/Yahoo deal in serious trouble

Posted October 29, 2008

cartoon by Clay Bennett

The Google ad deal with Yahoo is in serious trouble.

The Deal reports that the proposal is, effectively, dead.

The Justice Department's Assistant Attorney General Tom Barnett met on Oct. 17 with lawyers for the parties for the second time in two weeks. The outcome of the meeting, which took place just ahead of an expected DOJ challenge to the agreement, was grim, saida lawyer who asked not to be identified.

"Nothing good came from it," he said.

Google is denying the rumors of the deal's death. Reuters reports that CEO Eric Schmidt says the talks are ongoing.

Now we see that J.P Morgan, Sen. Joe Barton and the U.S. Public Interest Group have issued new statements against the deal.

What people seem to be forgetting is that the ad deal was designed to save Yahoo, which is in serious trouble. Yahoo desperately needs this deal. Without it, it may end up being acquired, or selling its search engine, to Microsoft, which Morgan analyst Imran Khan thinks is OK. But then there will then be one less search competitor in the market. That's a lousy outcome, in my book.

Google is not trying to buy Yahoo or its search engine. It's offering a deal to boost Yahoo revenues by placing some of its own, more effective, ads with Yahoo.

Generally, the Justice Department wouldn't even get involved unless this were a merger. Google voluntarily presented the deal to DOJ in order to fend off criticism. And keep in mind that a monopoly is not illegal. It's only illegal to obtain a monopoly through illegal means, or to abuse the monopoly through such tactics as tying the sale of one product to another.

But Google is a lousy lobbyist. And guess who is doing the most effective lobbying?

It's very likely that Microsoft backed off its original offer, realizing that Yahoo would just get cheaper. The folks at Microsoft are very smart.

Wired blogs reports that Microsoft has even gotten the National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association to come out against the deal.

Huh?

According to the New York Times, Microsoft paid lobbying firm the Raben Group $30,000this spring to work against the deal.

The Latino Farmers listen to organizations like that. Reports Meghan Keane in the Wired blog:

“Obviously, we can’t cover all the issues, so we rely on our allies to keep us informed,” said Rudy Arredondo, the chief executive of the Latino Farmers and Ranchers.

But Google also has itself to blame. Through a combination of self-righteousness and arrogance, it has failed to lobby Washington effectively. Again from Wired:

“(Google is) renowned in this town for not returning phone calls and not showing up to political events,” said one lobbyist.

Google seems to feel that because it's on the right side, in law and in intent, Washington will fall in line. That's not the way Washington works.

The big complaint, that the deal will raise ad prices at Yahoo, is nonsense. Ad prices are set by auction. But nobody believes Google on this point, because it won't release its proprietary information about how the bidding process sets prices. 

Reports Andrew Ross Sorkin at the New York Times:

“Google and Yahoo claim these are auctions,” Robert D. Liodice, chief executive of the Association of National Advertisers, told The Times. “Many of our marketers don’t necessarily believe that these are real auctions.”

The process was designed, to a significant extent, by economist Hal Varian, who now works at Google. If it works -- and advertisers can measure whether it does or not -- why give away their secret formula? The big complaint is that Google sets minimum bids on some ads, so it pollutes the auction.

This isn't as insidious as it might sound. Google sets minimum bids (now "first page bid estimates") in order to  keep advertisers whose ads are notoriously irrelevant from getting to the first page so easily. You can bid lower and still have the ad show up if it is relevant. Google explains this in its ad blog. But not very clearly.

This does make it harder for first time advertisers, because they have no history to prove relevance. But the deal does not prevent them from placing ads with Yahoo at a lower price.

The lesson here is that, even if you're certain you're doing something good, you need to know how to lobby and explain yourself clearly.

Google is learning that the hard way. Microsoft learned it long ago.

Google reaches settlement with book publishers

Robotic book scanner by Kirtas Technologies used by Google

UPDATE: Juan Carlos Perez has a great article at PCWorld with a different view: By giving in to publishers, Google sold out its ideals in a lawsuit it might have won. It could have set a precedent for fair use on the Internet. Reasonably argued.

Perhaps Google is getting a little smarter about what it can't get away with in the digital age.

It has reached a $125 million preliminary settlement with the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers over its BookSearch project.

Google and the book publishers still disagree about what should be allowed under copyright law. Google sees it as a digital library. After all, it's scanning library books, expanding the availability of those books from a few thousand visitors to several million.

Also, Google isn't just offering free books online. Who wants to read an entire book that way? The plan was to "digitize, search and show snippets" of books.

I'm pretty naive, but how is that different from what Amazon.com does? The answer: Amazon is selling books, Google is not. But don't "snippets" of books fall under "fair use" clauses of copyright clauses?

That issue is not resolved by the settlement, and Google still disagrees with the publishers over this. 

A couple years ago at Google's annual shareholders meeting, Google corporate lawyer David Drummond said, in response to a question, "We do run into a lot of areas where our innovation bumps up against laws that were not designed for the world we now live in... Trademark and copyright laws are two areas where we have legitimate disagreements." 

Google has a tendency to believe in the idealism of its vision, to study and interpret the laws that apply, and assume that others will fall in line.

Now, management is acknowledging that, even if they think they're in the right, it's sometimes better to reach a settlement and get rid of the public perception that its tactics are evil.

The settlement will distribute money to copyright holders whose books are scanned. It includes:

Compensation to authors and publishers and control over access to their works—distributing payments earned from online access provided by Google and, prospectively, from similar programs that may be established by other providers, through a newly created independent, not-for-profit Book Rights Registry that will also locate rightsholders, collect and maintain accurate rightsholder information, and provide a way for rightsholders to request inclusion in or exclusion from the project

--Marketwatch

As a book author myself, I have to say that sounds great. But to be honest, it gives us more than we ever had before. The dispute was over out-of-print books where copyright holders can be hard to track down. Those books don't make money for their authors anyway, and BookSearch is a way to make them available again. In fact, most books have made all the money they're ever going to make for the authors before they're ever published. It's called an "advance."

But Google can afford to make the gesture, and end the controversy. It's acknowledging that, even if you're in the right (or sincerely believe you are), sometimes it's better to just give in.

BTW, here's Google's take on the settlement.

Google G1 Android phone review: The bad and the ugly

We've done the (mostly) Good reviews (here and here), now for a little of the Bad and the Ugly

CNET reviewers Bonnie Cha and Nicole Lee say:

"we fell more into the "That's it?" camp"

The problems:

. No stereo Bluetooth, Microsoft Exchange or video recording

. Limited to 35 apps right now

. "doesn't quite offer the mass appeal and ease of use of an iPhone, so the G1 isn't a good fit for anyone making the jump from a regular cell phone to their first smartphone."

. "its overall interface just isn't as intuitive."

. "definitely not the sleekest device, and we certainly wouldn't call it sexy."

. "the words "interesting" and "weird" come to mind." (bottom section "juts out at a right angle")

. "In a battle of pure looks, the iPhone would win hands down."

. "after a few days of use, we started to notice a creaking sound whenever we nudged the screen--not good."

. "provides haptic feedback, but only for certain actions and not with every touch." (doesn't always give confirmation that you successfully pressed a button)

There's more, including several things they did like.

Read the full review

BTW, there's a hokey set of video demos of how to use the phone at T-Mobile

YAGPR: Yet another Google phone review

The Boston Globe offers YAGPR, this time by Boston-based VC Bijan Sabet. He seems to really like it.

Highlights: 

. The software is stable, doesn't crash like his iPhone. (Who says Google can't create an OS?)

. Android is "really fast." (see above)

. Connect to Mac or PC and just drag and drop files as though the G1 is just another USB drive. With the iPhone you have to go through iTunes. (Steve Jobs trying to make sure we download iTunes?)

. Supports Amazon MP3 store (see above.)

. He really likes the Android Apps store, very similar to the iPhone Apps store. And some good apps:

There is a great app that [Google executive] Rich Miner showed me where you take a picture of a bar code on an item. It looks up the item online and returns all sorts of useful info. And there is Pac Man. And Google isn't going to block any apps that may compete with their business. Smart.

Can internet ad sellers like Google and Yahoo buck the recession?

Pandia Search Engine News (see below) also asks the musically tone deaf question, The world is heading into a global recession. Will search companies like Google and Yahoo! come out as winners or losers?

Like Google AND Yahoo?

Maybe they should just look at the recent quarterly revenues of Google (up 34% to $4.04 billion) and Yahoo (up 3% to $1.33 billion) themselves.

Did Microsoft fall for a Fast one when it bought Fast?

I just came across this piece from Pandia Search Engine News.

Norwegian-based Fast Search & Transfer, which Microsoft bought earlier this year, has been raided by the Norwegian police for allegedly pulling a fast one.

Pandia, it seems, may have inflated its books by claiming revenue for a deal that never happened. It claimed 90 million Norwegian Kroners -- about $12 million U.S. -- for a deal with Australian telecom firm Telstra, a deal that never existed. And there may be other questionable deals, designed to increase the value of the company before Microsoft bought it.

Also, according to the article:

At the same time as some 30 million NOK was apparently paid out to Fast directors as bonuses via straw companies.

And Microsoft used to be such a good negotiator. Is it trying too hard to speed up its success in search? Maybe it should slow down and think a little.

Still, that's chump change to Microsoft. I just hope it wasn't buying the company for the talent.

OMG! Yahoo attacks employees!

I picked up my copy of the San Francisco Chronicle this morning and was mortified to read the following headline:

"Yahoo to slash 10% of emloyees."

That seems a bit harsh. Sure earnings are down, Microsoft is on a Yahoo hunt, and management must be feeling cornered like a cat in a dog kennel, but there's no call for violence!

Has it some to this, where top management, not just content with earning 400 times the average employee's salary, is now executing them as though they're serfs that have disappointed their lords?Is this the start of a trend? What is this, the Middle Ages? Can't you just hand them pink slips?

I'd better check out the online version of the article, since I couldn't bring myself to read the paper version .... Oh.

Never mind.

The Google Android phone -- from Motorola

Businessweek.com reports that Motorola is working on an "Android Social Smartphone." 

Social?

Apparently sources told the reporter, Olga Kharif, that the Moto version will include a "host of social-network-friendly features." That means it'll be easy to connect to MySpace and Facebook. No word on LinkedIn.

Desperation move?

Motorola has been showing spec sheets and images of the phone to carriers around the world in the past two months and is likely to introduce the handset in the U.S. sometime in the second quarter of 2009, according to people familiar with Motorola's plans. Building a phone based on the highly anticipated Android operating system is part of Motorola's effort to revive a loss-making handset division that has forfeited market share amid a drought of bestselling phones. Motorola stock, which on Oct. 17 rose a penny to 5.62, is hovering near a 16-year low.

Moto isn't denying it, anyway.

Motorola declined to elaborate on its plans, but said in a statement: "We're excited about the innovation possibilities on Android and look forward to delivering great products in partnership with Google" and the community of developers known as the Open Handset Alliance that are working on the Android operating system.

And Moto wants to up the ante.

People who've seen the pictures and spec sheets for the device say it looks like a higher-end version of the HTC phone

I'm still waiting on Verizon, which is instead focused on the new Blackberry Storm.

Verizon still thinks it can control what apps and features its customers get. I want to choose my own apps. I will bail on Verizon if it doesn't get its act together soon.