Entrepreneur Watch

Netbook makers get closer to using Chrome

Some Dell engineers have been trying Google's Chrome OS on a Dell Mini 10v with a network connection. Just to check it out, you understand. Apparently they saw that Engadget had tried it out on a Vostra A860 netbook and didn't want to be left behind. Dell's "Doug A" wrote about it on a Dell blog. 

Here's the most surprising comment: "It will take more than 5-10 *minutes* for the ChromiumOS network connection manager to "see" the access points and allow you to select and connect - be patient."

Wow.

Information Week, which notes that Acer, Adobe, ASUS, Freescale, H-P, Lenovo, Qualcomm, TI and Toshiba are already announced Chromium partners (Dell is not), gives an overview of the status of the PC makers and Chrome.

Meanwhile, CIO Today reports that Apple is getting close to adding the Chrome browser (not to be confused with the Chrome OS) to a Mac.

Google Wave -- not completely baked yet

    OK, it's not surprising for a "pre-release release," But Google wave still needs some time in the oven.

    Google released the results of its online survey from its limited customer base, and listed a few things people did like (able to integrate messages and documents and add widgets) and did not like (integration with things like email and speed.)

    The 'likes' are a bit weak, since they are what Google advertised the thing would do in the first place. The dislikes are primarily things that Google needs to fix before serving.

    Here are a few comments from other prominent techies:

    Robert Scoble: 

    He first complained on Oct. 1 that it's confusing and a productivity sink. Since things are not added linearly -- the new stuff doesn't appear at the top -- you can't keep track of the conversation.

    On Nov 27 he got into a little more detail. The interface is crappy, it's hard to find the good stuff among the junk, and there are no permalinks to send the good stuff to others.

    Louis Gray took a snapshot to show how confusing the interface is:

    

    On Nov. 26, Paul Bucheit, the creator of gmail (no longer with Google) wrote a piece for TechCrunch about the complaints:

    No revisioning system to roll back to a previous version, can't permanently hide replies so screen gets too confusing, no notification on gmail or anywhere else that new comments have come it, the urls are complex and impossible to read.

    Then, on Nov. 28, Bucheit got around to actually trying it and added more comments on his blog.

    He says comparisons to Facebook and Twitter are "nonsensical" because it's not a social network, but more of "Google Docs meets Gmail." Thinks it's promising but needs refinement, and thinks some features will be eliminated. Like Scoble, he thinks the conversations need to be more linear. Then, when it's ready, Google should integrate it into Gmail.

    The main takeaway seems to be that you should be glad you don't have it yet, unless you like to play with a rough system and help work out bugs. When it gets to a real beta (Google's term for a product actually being released) you can try it out and give Google advice on how to fix any bugs that remain.

Corn infects beef with e-coli. Do we really need to subsidize it?

    Corn farm subsidies are a relic of the Great Depression. They are an inefficient use of taxpayer money, giving the crop an unnatural advantage over other, more useful, food crops. But political pressure from farm states keep them alive.

    I sympathize with all farmers. It's a tough way to make a living. But why should corn farmers feel they have a government-given right to continue their business? Why do they have more rights than auto workers -- or journalists -- who have seen their industries change and resort to massive layoffs? (As a journalist, I would make a biased but persuasive argument that maintaining a professional press force is more important to the country.)

    Let's add another argument to the list of why corn subsidies are bad. Never mind all the high-fructose corn syrup that has invaded the country, corn's unnatural use in cattle farming is probably causing its own problems. Corn has become the staple diet of cattle used for food. 

    Remember all the e-coli outbreaks that occasionally crop up? Beef is by far the biggest source of these outbreaks. 

    In a recent Charlie Rose interview, Michael Pollan at UC Berkeley and author of books about our food supply, offers a possible explanation for this. Corn.

	The other issue I think though that`s important to touch on is look at 
the system. And there is -- you know, E. Coli 0157H7 is a relatively new 
bug. It was first identified around 1980, `82. 

	And there`s research suggesting that it is one of these bugs that 
evolved on a feed lot, and that it is connected to the way we raise cattle 
at every stage, especially the way we feed them. 

	We give what is for them is a very unnatural diet of lots of corn. 
They are evolved to eat grass. Grass-fed meat at least didn`t used to get 
this kind of bug, and indeed there`s research suggesting that if you change 
their diet to what they`re meant to eat, they shed a lot of this E. Coli 
0157. 

	So it`s if whole system that creates a kind of Petri dish in which 
these new microbes can evolve and then bring this risk into our lives. 

	Industrialized farming and food production is not sustainable. We have to get back to more natural techniques. It will be tough to do without pesticides and other "efficiencies," and political pressure will be enormous. 

    But non-sustainable practices are just that -- unsustainable. They will by necessity end on their own as soil is depleted and land and water is polluted. We would be better off stopping before things get that bad. We should work on ways to make the transition now.

Disagreeing with Ken Auletta's opinions

              Ken Auletta's new book, “Googled: The End of the World As We Know It,” is out. I'm just starting to read it, and I'm sure it's very good. 

              But I'm going to jump ahead and address some opinions Auletta has expressed outside the book, based on what he learned from writing it. It's just my humble opinion, but I disagree with some of his conclusions. Patrick Phillips at iwantmedia.com got him to explain in an interview some of his views.

  

              Auletta claims that Google is now a media company. As evidence, he points out that Google has made production deals for others to create content for YouTube. And because of that, "tensions between remaining the Switzerland of search and pushing its own content will only grow."

Wrong and wrong. A media company creates media. Google is a media distributor. Yes, it owns companies that publish media, like YouTube and Knoll. But the content is still produced by others. Google may pay some people to create content, because we need more good content, not just videos of cute cats. 

 

              As for "pushing its own content," most other companies would do that, but Google does not. Before Google, all the "portals" did it -- and were then destroyed by Google's unbiased searches. Do a comparison between the hugely successful Wikipedia and Google's own lukecold Knol. Google searches put Wikipedia articles at the top of the search results, with Knol nowhere to be found. So where's the tension?

Google executives have a tendency to put the users' interests first, not their own. As long as they keep playing fair, there is no conflict here. Even Auletta points out that Google "is not obsessed with killing competitors; they're obsessed with eliminating inefficiencies." Knol didn't catch on because Wikipedia isn't inefficient -- a strategic error from Larry and Sergey that violates their own criterion. 

 

              Perhaps Google will someday try to buy Wikipedia. When it created its own unsuccessful video site, it couldn't compete with YouTube so it bought the company. I doubt that plan would work with Wikipedia, though. Too many people want it to remain an independent non-profit. Rightly or wrongly, they don't trust Google because it makes money.

  

              Auletta points out one step Google considered that would have put it at the center of the media business: "Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt told me that they had discussed buying the New York Times,” Auletta says, “but in the end decided that if they succeeded it would sabotage their identity as a neutral search engine." Doesn't that show that Google is trying to avoid conflict with the content providers it depends on?

 

              So why even consider such a step? CEO Schmidt has told me that he has grave concerns about what the Internet is doing to newspapers and other media. He'd like to figure out how to help, which probably led to the consideration of buying the Times. Google could probably figure out how to make money from online advertising linked to NYT content. 

           However, keep in mind that it's the Internet itself, not Google, that's destroying news outlets. If Google didn't collect and link to articles, someone else would, including bloggers. And nobody has demonstrated that those links, which drive traffic to the original sites, has done one iota of damage to publications' revenues.

 

             Auletta himself points this out, citing the "conundrum" for media companies. If they really don't like Google News, why don't they just opt out? Auletta explains, "Opt out of search and reduce the number of people exposed to your newspapers,” he says. “Opt in and risk becoming a commodity." That's why Rupert Murdoch is simultaneously claiming that Google is turning news into a commodity, while at the same time refusing to opt out of Google News. He's contradicting himself, betting that Google's search engine actually adds value to media sites. He cannot have it both ways. The media conundrum is self-inflicted.

 

              Here's an argument I strongly disagree with: Auletta asserts social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter are a threat to Google's search engine. In these sites, your friends point you to interesting items on the Internet. "That's a more trustworthy search result than a flood of anonymous search results," Auletta claims.

 

              Nonsense. Yes, friends can point out things of interest to you. But they won't replace search engines. Several search engines have tried to out-search Google by relying on “industry experts” to point to sites, on the theory that the results will be better than "a flood of anonymous search results." None of them have succeeded.

 

              Google has a different model, complementary to that of the social networks: Google masses together the interests of millions of people to find the most relevant sites. It's a different method, relying on the “wisdom of crowds,” and it often produces better results. I wouldn't be surprised to see Goolge buy Twitter or Facebook, though.

 

              One interesting observation from Auletta: the Google founders are often naïve. When Sergey told him that all books should be free online, Auletta asked him who was going to pay for the writers, editors, indexers, marketing and legal folks. Sergey changed the subject.

 

              I'm more optimistic than Auletta. He says he will never offer his books free online. "Writing is how I earn a living. For me 'free' would send me to the poor house." He seems stuck in the same mode of 'don't mess with my paradigm' as Murdoch and the other old-line business executives.

 

              Larry and Sergey may not have the answer – I'm not sure anyone does – but I am sure there is one. There always is. There's a demand for good writing, and where there's demand there is profit to be made. Somewhere out there, some clever person will come up with a new revenue model. Advertising seems the most likely to me.

            It may even benefit publishers. Right now they have to take a huge risk on what books to bet on, and if they don't sell, the bookstores get to send them back. If books are online (or sold through e-readers), the costs of bookstore returns, paper, ink and shipping are eliminated. They may be able to take more risks and give opportunities to lesser-known writers.

 

              And don't forget Google's controversial book search efforts. Whatever you think of it, Google is trying to make “orphan” books available again. Putting them online might provide more revenues by reviving sales if the book is re-published for the kindle. It's the only way to give orphan books a chance.

 

              Auletta, like executives running older and obsolescent businesses, just seems afraid to take that leap of faith to maintain relevance. That in itself is the best commentary on the conflict between the old world and the new.

Confession: I haven't taken the jump either, because I don't see the revenue model yet. But if I really want to write a certain book, and can't convince a publisher to give me an advance, I'll try an online model.

              I'm less pessimistic in general than Auletta, who seems very concerned about the companies Google is killing. True, the world will be different, and companies will die. But the industries will not. We're in a transition time, as is always the case when new technology changes the world. Existing companies always have an incredibly difficult time switching to new models, especially when it calls for cutting prices. They're used to making money one way, and understand how to make money from that approach. So they resist while new companies come along to exploit the new paradigm.

 

              Microsoft and Intel killed off old computer companies, but not the industry, which is bigger than ever. Google is now one of the companies killing off the old, like Microsoft. Think about the change required at Microsoft: In order to compete with the new “cloud computing” companies, it will have to stop selling $300 software programs and figure out how to offer them at greatly reduced prices (or for free and supported with advertising.) Would you like to be in charge of that transition?

 

              I'll write more when I've finished Auletta's book.

Why Hulu is doomed

Hulu is a great service, and CEO Jason Kilar is a very smart guy, the Jeff Bezos of television. But he's got a problem. While Amazon.com is independent and Bezos could always screw with publishers and book sellers as much as he wanted, Kilar has limited freedom of choice, and it's likely to become more limited in the near future. Hulu is owned by Fox, NBC and Disney.

It's doing very well, second to YouTube, but WSJ's All Things D has stats showing it has a long way to go. It's owners are probably not patient enough.

There has been a lot of speculation that it will start charging for some shows. Business Week magazine, that poor, dying victim of a takeover by Bloomberg, posted an article on Nov. 24 titled Hulu's Tough Choices: Viewers love the site's free shows, but it's losing a bundle and may soon have to start charging. (Losses are supposedly $33 million a year.)

The most likely dig is that it will start charging for things you have to pay for on TV now, or limiting access to pay-TV shows to people who can prove they're already paying for them through their cable service. The corporate owners face the age-old dilemma of old companies entering into a new business: Fear of cannibalizing their current, obsolescent business model. BW says that the cable-subscribers-only service is inspired by the fact that the cable shows are worried that Web access would "prompt people to drop their cable subscriptions." 

In other words, they don't think they can offer a better experience than you can get online. Have they heard of HDTV and wide screens?

BW quotes Mark Cuban as saying Hulu was a good start, "But it has run its course." Cuban's always such an optimist.

Another BW comment:

The betting among analysts is that sooner or later Hulu will ditch its open model in favor of a closed one. Most likely, they say, the site will be made available only to paying cable and satellite subscribers under a model the industry has dubbed TV Everywhere. 

Paid TV Everywhere, you mean.

The reason Hulu has succeeded so far is because Kilar has been able to run the show. Give credit to the network owners who realized they hadn't a clue as to how to start the service. Fast Company has a revealing Kilar/Hulu profile "Can Hulu Save Traditional TV?" It says:

Initially, [Viacom, NBC and Fox] stuck to the corporate playbook, assigning teams from various departments at both networks to strategize. A few months in, more than 100 staffers met at the W Hotel in midtown Manhattan. It did not go well. What Mike Lang, a News Corp. executive vice president and NewCo board member, saw was a pileup of competing visions designed to protect existing turf. We're dead, he thought to himself.

So they came up with Kilar, who initially turned them down, worried he would not get enough independence. But he got it -- at least at first. He got rid of most of the 45 consultants the owners had put on the job and insisted that Hulu should also be able to take viewers to shows on non-owner sites, like CBS. They thought he was crazy, but went along.

But the owners are getting impatient, unlike Bezos, who was willing to build up traffic without profits for five years. The owners are now hedging. According to FC:

"He always thinks about the customer and the customer experience," Zucker says of Kilar. "That's his singular focus." Pause. "I wish he were as focused on the monetization."

Zucker grins, backing off. "Which he is." It's another joke. Sort of.

Zucker says flatly that the amount of advertising and the ad rates on Hulu must increase.

Networks and cable companies fear that if people can watch Hulu streams of their shows on TV with fewer ads, they won't tolerate the ads on TV. "I want to be very careful here," [NBC Universal CEO Jeff] Zucker says when I ask about convergence. He bridges his fingers, thinking. A moment later: "In some form, that's clearly going to happen. It's a question of how we navigate that migration."

Hedge, hedge, hedge.

They're all worried about cannibalization, although FC says NBC and Fox have not yet seen any, and, in fact, may have seen some programs boost ratings because of Hulu. Who wants to watch "Fast Forward" or "24" if they forgot to Tivo past episodes? And yet, many of the networks give Hulu the rights to just the most recent five episodes.

The networks also pressured Hulu into banning Boxee. Kilar said to FT, "Boxee had no right to do what it was doing." but on his blog he admitted when announcing the change: "This has weighed heavily on the Hulu team."

The best thing the network executives could do would be to let Kilar run his business the best way he knows how, and to run their businesses the best way they know how, constantly offering a better TV experience than you can get online.

But I wouldn't count on it.

Is Google changing its advertising philosophy?

I was looking through the New York Times online this morning, when I noticed something unusual. Off to the right there was a large box with an animated slide show. 

First it shows the Google logo, then a search box with blinking cursor. Then the words "Now Playing," which switches to "Search Stories" To that last frame, the Google logo is added, then the "Play" arrow.

 Is Google, the company that refuses to show big, animated ads on its own site, creating such ads itself to muck up other sites?

Yes. I clicked on the play button, which took me to a YouTube video -- an animated ad for Google's search engine. It looks like a response to Microsoft's ads mocking Google as giving too many search results, claiming Bing is a "Decision engine."

And this is from the company that has always said text-only ads are the most effective. It has prided itself in rarely running ads itself, relying on word-of-mouth to make its reputation.

Does this mean we'll start seeing Google TV ads soon? Or, if the ad is effective, start seeing animated ads on Google sites? 

This looks like the start of a change in Google's ad philosophy to me.

Google holiday gift: Free wi-fi in airports

Google just loves shaking up any industry that that screws up the process of getting people online. It tried to kick-start free municipal wi-fi a few years ago by setting one up for the city of Mountain View and TRYING to do the same in San Francisco (greedy SF supervisors managed to kill the plan by trying to get Google to up its offer to pay SF $1 million for the privilege of giving SF free Internet access. Supervisor John Daly opposed the plan just because mayor Gavin Newsom was in favor of it.)

Now it's trying to demonstrate to airports that they should offer free wi-fi. According to an article in PC World:

"Hoping to bring holiday cheer to harried travelers, Google is footing the bill for Wi-Fi access at 47 U.S. airports through mid-January, so that people can connect free to the Internet while they wait at airline gates and other areas."

Now isn't that a nice idea? Maybe people will get used to the service and start demanding it. Come on, airports often keep us waiting for hours, especially during the holidays. Wouldn't that be a good thing to do for customers at minimal expense?

But then, most businesses would rather save money by punishing their customers. No wonder they get bad reps.

Does the Google Android phone suck up too much power?

When did the Google Android phone become the Droid? Guess I'm not cool enough to keep up with the lingo.

Whatever. PCWorld ran an article by Tony Bradley on the battery life of the new Droid from Motorola running on the Verizon network. He says that PC World senior editor Robert Strohmeyer braved the lines at the Verizon store, took one home, charged it up and went to work. It died before he got home. He says it never keeps a charge past 7PM.

The problem seems to be for heavy users who tap so many of those neat apps available. With some people using smartphones instead of PCs, this could be a problem.

However, Rob Jackson at the fan site Phandroid put it through his own test, using a lot of power:

"I turned the phone on 100% brightness, set the screen to “Never Sleep”, loading a bundle of MP3s on my SD Card and opened the media player to “Play All” with “Repeat All Songs”. I also used Google Navigation for an hour… WHILE the music was still playing and phone was on full brightness."

It lasted 7 hours and one minute. He says that's really good. I'm not a power-sucking user, so I don't know. I guess it depends on what you're used to.

Google doesn't always win: Buying AdMob

    Google has decided buy mobile phone advertising company AdMob for $750 million in stock. It's a reminder that Google does not automatically take over every market it enters. Sometimes it buys its way into a market. Remember Google Video vs. YouTube?

    I wonder how successful Google has been with its mobile advertising. It's difficult to find statistics. According to eMarketer, the mobile ad business will reach $416 million in 2009. Pretty small compared to the $16.4 billion in ad revenues Google took in just through Q3 this year. But everyone (including Google) says mobile advertising is The Future. Assuming they figure out how to offer ads on a tiny screen without getting in the way of what you're really trying to do, and people actually click on some of them.

    No stats on respective market share of Google and AdMob in this market. Google is big in mobile search ads, AdMob in ads for mobile apps. Just as Google bought its way into display ads when it took in AdSense last year, it's doing the same with AdMob and mobile.

    Interestingly, CNET shows a chart of the mobile ad market from eMarketer, which indicates that neither company is a player in the biggest segment of mobile advertising: text messaging ads, with 55% of the market.

    So we can now look forward to two events: Anti-trust complaints about Google dominating another advertising market, and an announcement of Google buying up a text messaging advertiser. Anyone for 4INFO?

    Tom Krazit at CNET has a nice summary of the purchase and how it fits in at Google.