Entrepreneur Watch

Google Mobile. Apple iPhone. Chrome. Microsoft Vista. Hidden APIs.

Nov/27/2008

Or forever hold your piece?

Google doesn't like hidden APIs. People are abuzz over its habit of breaking Apple's rules and finding a hidden API to make Google Mobile work better. CNET wrote about it Nov. 20 after researchers from Daring Fireball and Ars Technica discovered that Google was breaking App Store rules by using the API.

And what does this underhanded activity result in? According to CNET:

 -  When you make a phone call on the iPhone, a proximity sensor detects when the phone is right next to your head, and it turns the screen off to prevent you from inadvertently hanging up the phone with your face. ... Google uses it to let you search the Web with your voice, just as if you were making a phone call.

What an evil thing to do.

CNET also confirmed the break-in yesterday.

 - A Google spokesman confirmed Tuesday that Google Mobile uses undocumented APIs (application programming interfaces) in order to use the iPhone's proximity sensor to prompt a verbal search. 

ars technica also talks about the undocumented API use and adds another: 

And it's not the first time Google has taken a chance in using undocumented APIs. Analysis of the code for its open-source Chrome browser shows that it specifically calls undocumented APIs in certain versions of Windows in order to provide greater security against malicious websites.

Again, how evil.

It seems to me that the real question should be -- why are these companies are hiding the APIs from outside developers? Could it be so they can keep all the really cool apps to themselves?

This is particularly troubling with Microsoft. Its consent decree with DOJ specifically states that it must make all Windows APIs available to outside software developers in order to give them a chance to compete with Microsoft.

So who are the bad guys here?

Search. Market share. Advertising. Toy soldiers. Will Microsoft buy Yahoo? Market researchers smoking pot.

11/26/2008

Now that Google has backed out of its deal with Yahoo because of government resistance, the question arises: Who will save Yahoo? Some knight in red, green, blue and yellow armor? 

Live Search

The stats don't look good for anyone but Google right now.

First, Nielsen Online. As ComputerWorld notes in "Google cleans Microsoft's clock in latest search rankings" 

- The number of U.S. searches on Google in October increased 8.1% from last year, to 4.8 billion . 

It now gets 61.2% of U.S. search queries.

- Yahoo decreased 12% from last year, to 1.3 billion searches. 

It has a 16.9% share.  

- Microsoft searches dropped 19.0%, to 886 million. 

It now has 11.4% share.

- AOL (surprise!) increased its number of searches by 14.5%, to 334 million. 

A 4.3% market share.

Here's the chart:

But hold your overly romantic doggy back a second. ComScore wants to weigh in as well. Rather than looking at the change from a year ago, ComScore looked at changes since September. The results are slightly different. In an article titled "Yahoo, Microsoft make gains in search'" CNET trots out the ComScore data:

- Yahoo search queries are up 9%, to 2.6 billion searches. Sure, that matches the numbers from ComScore -- plus or minus 1.3 billion.

- Microsoft gained 8% to 1 billion. 

- Google grew just 7%. Article doesn't say what number of searches, but gives Google a 63.1% market share. Pretty close to Nielsen's percentage.

- AOL declined by 2%.

OK, I think these research firms get together in secret meetings with special handshakes and agree on the market share numbers, then make up the numbers for total number of searches to fit the data. Probably while smoking pot.

Either way, Google is so far ahead, Larry, Sergey and Eric could take a nap until January and they would dream of nothing but sugar plum ads.

The Motley Fool takes a more lighthearted approach to the news in "Google laughs at Yahoo! and Microsoft." Fool Rick Aristotle Munarriz notes notes that Wall Street is predicting Google's revenues will grow 26% in the next quarter, while Yahoo's will decline by 2%, and the latter is a prediction made "with a big painted-on clown smile."

So we get to our question: Whither withering Yahoo? Munariz speculates Microsoft needs Yahoo: "If the software giant has any delusions of taking Google head-on without Yahoo, it's apparently nuts."

Microsoft ways it doesn't want Yahoo, just its search engine. Of course, since search ads account for the majority on revenues, that would kill Yahoo. Dead. Like a toy soldier.

But Microsoft and everyone else with a pulse seems to be looking at the wrong deal. Yahoo's search engine and Microsoft's search engines do fine compared with Google's. Their problem is that they don't show you the money. The search ads do.

I searched on "toy soldiers" on Google and got the 1991 film, songs by martika and Eminem on YouTube, the lyrics to the song, and finally, at number 7, a company selling toy soldiers. I don't know, mayber that's what people want when they search on toy solders.

But the ads, that's where you make the money, and Google seems to think people want the tin kind, not the musical kind. Two top ads and nine side ads from companies selling toy soldiers, with one selling tickets to the Nutcracker.

Same search on Yahoo: all the first page search results AND ads are for actual toy soldiers. Hmmm...

MSN LiveSearch: The movie, Maritka's song (from Wikipedia,) the definition of "toy soldier" on Wikipedia, and a bunch of sites about the kind of toy soldiers you can hold.

Ad results: A top ad for toy soldiers on eBay and one from a company selling toy soldiers, both repeated at the bottom of the search results. On the side, only one ad from somebody selling toy soldiers. The rest are for companies selling toys. No word on whether any of them are holding guns.

So Yahoo wins for most relevant ads and search results (unless, again, most searchers are looking for songs.) But nobody had ads to buy the CDs or download the songs.

What Microsoft needs is Yahoo's ad matching system, the service formerly known as Overture.

That, of course, would kill Yahoo.

So here's the obvious solution: Yahoo should license its search engine and ad system to Microsoft. That would increase ad revenues for both of them by reaching more customers.

Are you listening Mr. Ballmer? You're welcome.

Search. Market share. Advertising. Toy soldiers. Will Microsoft buy Yahoo? Market researchers smoking pot.

11/26/2008

Now that Google has backed out of its deal with Yahoo because of government resistance, the question arises: Who will save Yahoo? Some knight in red, green, blue and yellow armor? 

Live Search

The stats don't look good for anyone but Google right now.

First, Nielsen Online. As ComputerWorld notes in "Google cleans Microsoft's clock in latest search rankings" 

- The number of U.S. searches on Google in October increased 8.1% from last year, to 4.8 billion . 

It now gets 61.2% of U.S. search queries.

- Yahoo decreased 12% from last year, to 1.3 billion searches. 

It has a 16.9% share.  

- Microsoft searches dropped 19.0%, to 886 million. 

It now has 11.4% share.

- AOL (surprise!) increased its number of searches by 14.5%, to 334 million. 

A 4.3% market share.

Here's the chart:

But hold your overly romantic doggy back a second. ComScore wants to weigh in as well. Rather than looking at the change from a year ago, ComScore looked at changes since September. The results are slightly different. In an article titled "Yahoo, Microsoft make gains in search'" CNET trots out the ComScore data:

- Yahoo search queries are up 9%, to 2.6 billion searches. Sure, that matches the numbers from ComScore -- plus or minus 1.3 billion.

- Microsoft gained 8% to 1 billion. 

- Google grew just 7%. Article doesn't say what number of searches, but gives Google a 63.1% market share. Pretty close to Nielsen's percentage.

- AOL declined by 2%.

OK, I think these research firms get together in secret meetings with special handshakes and agree on the market share numbers, then make up the numbers for total number of searches to fit the data. Probably while smoking pot.

Either way, Google is so far ahead, Larry, Sergey and Eric could take a nap until January and they would dream of nothing but sugar plum ads.

The Motley Fool takes a more lighthearted approach to the news in "Google laughs at Yahoo! and Microsoft." Fool Rick Aristotle Munarriz notes notes that Wall Street is predicting Google's revenues will grow 26% in the next quarter, while Yahoo's will decline by 2%, and the latter is a prediction made "with a big painted-on clown smile."

So we get to our question: Whither withering Yahoo? Munariz speculates Microsoft needs Yahoo: "If the software giant has any delusions of taking Google head-on without Yahoo, it's apparently nuts."

Microsoft ways it doesn't want Yahoo, just its search engine. Of course, since search ads account for the majority on revenues, that would kill Yahoo. Dead. Like a toy soldier.

But Microsoft and everyone else with a pulse seems to be looking at the wrong deal. Yahoo's search engine and Microsoft's search engines do fine compared with Google's. Their problem is that they don't show you the money. The search ads do.

I searched on "toy soldiers" on Google and got the 1991 film, songs by martika and Eminem on YouTube, the lyrics to the song, and finally, at number 7, a company selling toy soldiers. I don't know, mayber that's what people want when they search on toy solders.

But the ads, that's where you make the money, and Google seems to think people want the tin kind, not the musical kind. Two top ads and nine side ads from companies selling toy soldiers, with one selling tickets to the Nutcracker.

Same search on Yahoo: all the first page search results AND ads are for actual toy soldiers. Hmmm...

MSN LiveSearch: The movie, Maritka's song (from Wikipedia,) the definition of "toy soldier" on Wikipedia, and a bunch of sites about the kind of toy soldiers you can hold.

Ad results: A top ad for toy soldiers on eBay and one from a company selling toy soldiers, both repeated at the bottom of the search results. On the side, only one ad from somebody selling toy soldiers. The rest are for companies selling toys. No word on whether any of them are holding guns.

So Yahoo wins for most relevant ads and search results (unless, again, most searchers are looking for songs.) But nobody had ads to buy the CDs or download the songs.

What Microsoft needs is Yahoo's ad matching system, the service formerly known as Overture.

That, of course, would kill Yahoo.

So here's the obvious solution: Yahoo should license its search engine and ad system to Microsoft. That would increase ad revenues for both of them by reaching more customers.

Are you listening Mr. Ballmer? You're welcome.

Google. P&G. Advertising. Swapping Googlers and Proctoids.

Nov 20/2008

Google already has people that help companies optimize their search ad returns. But with Proctor & Gamble, it took the service to a new level: bartering employees.

The Wall Street Journal says that P&G has swapped about two dozen Proctoids for Googlers in order to learn each others' business.

WSJ says the companies have "spent weeks dipping into each other's staff training programs and sitting in on meetings where business plans get hammered out."

VNUNet says 3 Googlers were traded for 20 Proctoids. I guess that establishes the exchange rate between Google and P&G.

P&G wants to learn about the youth market and opportunities on the Internet.

VNUNet also says the arrangement gives Google "more insight into the needs of advertisers at a time when its profits are slowing." 

The Motley Fool thinks its surreal but progressive business thinking. I agree. 

Financial Times blogger Adam Jones thinks it sounds like the makings of a lousy sitcom.

What I wonder is, do they get their employees back?

Google Voice Search. iPhone. Reviews.

Nov 18/2008

Google has launched the voice search app for the iPhone. You can get it here.

So what to people think? Some early reviews:

Rafe Needleman at CNET says it's "awesome."

It's "freakishly accurate"

BetaNews says it's getting mixed reviews.

But the only criticism here is that Google confused people over when it was available and how you get it: "So far, reactions among early users appear largely favorable, despite a few miscues from Google."

Technology Review says it's "pretty neat."

Just a few miscues. A request to "find pizza" came up with the Flying Pizza restaurant. An editor with a british accent asked for "pictures of Boston" and received "sketches of Buffy."

Just how was he pronouncing "Boston"?

Venture Capital. Recession. InsideVenture. Direct investments in private companies

Nov 18/08

The IPO market stinks. When stocks are down, you have a tough time taking companies public.

The solution? A new investment firm called InsideVenture. Instead of taking companies public so institutional investors, clients of the investment banks, can invest in the IPO (they always get the best deals) InsideVentures lets them invest in companies that are still private.

According to a WSJ blog:

InsideVenture will create a “direct private market” so that large financial institutions such as mutual-fund companies T. Rowe Price, Fidelity Investments, Wasatch Advisors and others can invest their money into small startups. That also gives venture capital firms an additional source of capital to turn to to fund their young companies.

The VCs pick their best companies and do a private dog-and-pony show for the investors.

So I guess the thing to do is to look at the firms that do NOT get selected and write them off. They couldn't make the cut.

Eric Schmidt. Speech. Summary

we've got to make 

we've got to address the health care issues, the school issues. we've been delaying things. Pople have been locked in partisan politics.

I'm an optimist. unlike many other countries we have the econ foundation, leadership to not only solve but make it an even better place.

in our lifetimes almost all the world's people will have acess to all the world's information. think abt what the arr of acc info will mean to their lives.

ev can publish their ideas. many of them are wackos.

Google. Eric Schmidt. Speech Today. Webcast. Technology and Economic Policy. New America Foundation.

Nov 18/08

Google CEO Eric Schmidt is giving a speech today at the New America Foundation in Washington D.C. 

The topic: What's new for technology and economic policy in 2009.

Time: 1PM Eastern / 10 AM Pacific

You can view the webcast at http://www.newamerica.net/events/2008/eric_schmidt

Some of the prepared topics (which he is not likely to stick to completely)

"there's no doubt that we're not only facing an economic crisis that is unprecedented in scale and sweep - but also a crisis of confidence in government."

We need to focus on "infrastructure, research and development and energy."

"We also need to promote open systems over closed" (Take that, Microsoft.)

On restoring public trust in government:

"Of course very little of what I've proposed here can be accomplished when citizens have lost faith in their government. But here, too, the Internet and other information technologies can play an enormous role in restoring public trust and ushering in a new era of more open and responsive government."

"Fortunately there are steps that the next President and Congress can take to increase the flow of information, improve access to data and help citizens participate in government. While Washington has taken some good steps over the past decade, it's now time to fully embrace the power of the Internet." 

Slashdot reviews "Googling Security" book

Nov 17/2008

Greg Conti's book, "Googling Security: How Much Does Google Know About You?" once again takes on the idea of security among search engines, with Google in the bad guy role.

People like the idea of free apps, but reviewer Ben Rothke (who wrote his own book, "Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know" adds that "the inherent risk is that the services really are not completely free; they come at the cost of the loss of control of one's personal information that they share with Google." 

True enough. The book sounds very detailed. It lists 50 apps that collect info on you, including info about how Google gets the data and what it does with it. No doubt it sounds very scary when compiled in one place, and ought to be an eye-opener on a par with passing a car lying upside down on the freeway while rushing to work. 

Google Maps is supposed to be particularly scary: "By aggregating source IP addresses and destinations searches, Google can easily ascertain confidential data."

But does Google want to? It has nothing to gain and everything to lose by violating the public trust. It just ain't gonna happen.

The real question should be: How secure is the data? The real risk is if Google accidentally releases personal data, or a hacker gets into it, or that governments subpoena Google for the data (at least in the U.S. and Europe, that last threat will require some justification from the government.) But the first two are real threats. It's impossible to say that there will never be a security breach at Google.

The Rothke review doesn't address that question, but apparently Conti's book does. According to the product description on Amazon, "Conti shows how Google’s databases can be used by others with bad intent, even if Google succeeds in its pledge of “don’t be evil.”

That and the fact that Conti gives details on counter-measures to protect yourself, makes it sound worth reading.

I'll get the book and do my own review when I can.

Green Tech. Recession. Obama. Federal Bailouts. Federal Budget.

Nov 13/08

I've been doing a monthly blog for justmeans.com, a site concerned with business and social issues.

I currently have a posting there titled: "We cannot afford green tech initiatives." I wish it weren't so.

Barak Obama promised tax cuts. I wish it were possible.

Given the war in Iraq, a $700 billion bailout with everyone from General Motors to a Hispanic business group representing plumbing and home-heating specialists seeking bailouts.

VCs are cutting back on spending, so current ventures may run into trouble.

Our Federal deficit and debt are ballooning.

With all that, who can afford green tech initiatives right now, even if they pay off down the road?

Not us.