buygoogle  
 Google's prospects from a Google user and independent investor   
 
    
« Home

Add to Google

Web www.buygoogle.com

Posts

Contextual dating and leaked Powerpoint notes
Google's Vulnerabilities, its Cash Hoard, and Amazon
Travel is crap?
Forbes: Google is becoming a marketplace
Microsoft is serious about search
If you can go fast, no one will ever catch up
Why is this news?
The program is not responding
Endangered species cookie recipe
Google promotes GWA
 
     Archives
04/25/04 05/02/04 05/09/04 05/16/04 05/23/04 05/30/04 06/13/04 06/20/04 07/04/04 07/11/04 07/25/04 08/01/04 08/08/04 08/15/04 09/19/04 10/10/04 10/17/04 01/30/05 02/06/05 03/13/05 03/27/05 04/10/05 04/17/05 04/24/05 05/01/05 05/08/05 05/15/05 05/22/05 05/29/05 06/05/05 06/12/05 06/19/05 06/26/05 07/17/05 07/24/05 08/07/05 08/14/05 08/21/05 08/28/05 09/18/05 09/25/05 10/02/05 10/09/05 10/30/05 11/13/05 11/27/05 12/04/05 12/11/05 01/08/06 01/15/06 01/22/06 01/29/06 02/12/06 02/26/06 03/05/06 03/12/06 03/19/06 03/26/06
 
     Links
Chris Anderson, Current TV, Google Blog, Google Investor, Inside Google, John Battelle, MSN Search Blog, PVR Blog, Yahoo! Search Blog


WSJ on Google TV - 6/30/2005 06:50:00 AM

The Wall Street Journal has a 2,200 word article (sub req'd) on the front page this morning about Google TV.

The article concludes that Google will have a tougher time cracking the media and TV markets than it did with web search. There will be more obstacles, more lawsuits, and much more cost involved:
There are growing signs that Google is finished with the easy stuff. Its attempts to search other information -- starting with books, TV and scholarly works -- promise to be more costly and time-consuming than the simple Web searches that propelled its first years of growth....

The farther Google ventures beyond the Web, the tougher the road gets -- as its dealings with some big TV companies show.
TV and video are strategic for Google as it extends beyond web search to achieve its mission to organize the world's information:
Video is perhaps the most important area for Google's future expansion because it's the medium Americans spend the most time on. Consumers spent 1,625 hours each on average viewing TV, home videos and movies in 2004, compared with 176 hours with the Internet and 108 hours reading books....
Google's taking baby steps toward getting into TV by indexing transcripts and showing still-frames and snippets:

Late last year, Google started recording TV programs aired in the San Francisco area without asking permission from program owners. In January Google released a test search service (video.google.com) that lets users search for a keyword -- say, "Michael Jackson" -- and view still images and partial transcripts from TV shows mentioning that keyword.

But big media companies are fighting like hell to retain control:

When television companies found out what Google was up to, some of them hit the roof. Executives at Viacom Inc.'s CBS and Warner Bros. television, a unit of Time Warner Inc., were among those who demanded that Google keep its hands off their content, citing potential copyright violations....

Controversy about "fair use:"

Google says it has the legal right to record the programs and display the search results without permission because in this instance it is only showing still images and text excerpts. But Jennifer Feikin, the director of Google Video, says the company will remove any show from the search service if the content owner asks....

Fight for "respect" translates to demand for vigorish:
Some TV executives who resisted say they may eventually work with Google, if negotiations yield attractive terms. But Google "didn't show proper respect for us as potential partners," says Larry Kramer, president of digital media at CBS. "We're not just going to give this away for free...."

Jeff Zucker, president of the NBC Universal Television Group, believes Google has a lot to prove. "We have yet to see a business proposition that recognizes what content providers bring to the table," he says. "We need to be adequately compensated and we need to be certain our content is protected" from piracy.

Google TV will cost a lot more to achieve than web search:

What Google wants to do will be more labor-intensive. Its Web searches have been mostly automated, keeping staffing down and profit margins fat. Now it may have to undertake the costly conversion of older TV programs and other material into digital form, although new material is increasingly available digitally. It has already begun employing humans to screen content such as video for objectionable material.

It all comes down to a copyright fight:

More problematic is the issue of copyrights. As Google moves onto turf where companies are more protective of their intellectual property, it faces the prospect of getting sued or slogging through negotiations with thousands of rights holders....

A traditional Google search brings up a list of Web sites with roughly 20 words from each site. Those excerpts are generally thought not to violate anyone's intellectual-property rights. Once users click on a link, they have moved to someone else's site and Google isn't responsible for what they're viewing. But with other types of content, some companies are beginning to challenge even Google's display of small snippets. Courts generally permit "fair use" of excerpts such as quotations from a book in a book review, but when it comes to areas such as online video the law remains blurry....
Google's competitors are better positioned to win partnerships with major content rights holders:
Google agrees that it needs copyright holders' permission if it wants to display certain kinds of content, such as the actual video of TV shows. But in attempting to obtain such permission, Google could be at a disadvantage to more experienced rivals both in the Internet world and beyond. Search rivals Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. have years of experience negotiating with major content owners. Yahoo's chief executive, Terry Semel, is a former co-chief executive of Warner Bros. and has filled the Internet company's top ranks with Hollywood veterans. Microsoft co-owns the MSNBC cable channel with NBC.
Internet TV is coming. Can Google dominate TV like it's dominated the web? Google's Larry Page laid down the gauntet when he promised to do for TV what Google's done for the web. That's going to pit Google against some powerful players:

Google's video-search quest is moving it toward possible competition with the cable-TV industry. Comcast Corp., the cable company with the most U.S. subscribers, has invested heavily to develop search technologies for subscribers who use its video-on-demand service as well as its high-speed Internet portal.... Instead of traditional channel-flipping or on-screen guides, TV viewers might use something more similar to Internet search to find the programs they want to watch.
Google's "stunning approach" offended partners:
Google started talking to TV executives about its video plans last year, say Google and the TV companies. Discussions intensified in meetings in December and early January in cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Washington.

Then Google surprised some broadcasters by telling them it was already building a digital database of their programs, including text transcripts gathered via the caption feed for the hearing impaired. Rick Cotton, general counsel at General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, says Google's "stunning approach" brought talks to a halt. "This is not the way one normally does business whether you're an old company or a young one," he says.

Among others, the Warner Bros. studio and the producers of "Dr. Phil," a program owned by Viacom's King World unit, wrote or called Google to demand that it keep their content off the service, people from the companies say. Google's Ms. Feikin says it removed programs at the request of a few TV content owners, but she declines to name them. NBC Universal sent a stern letter that stopped just short of a formal cease-and-desist letter, says a person close to NBC. NBC's letter said it "strongly objected" to the use of its content for the test service, this person says, and reminded Google of NBC's legal rights.

Google released a test version of Google Video on Jan. 25. By that point some content owners, including News Corp.'s Fox News, the Public Broadcasting Service and C-Span, had given Google explicit approval to use their programs for the search function. Others hadn't, but Google used their programs anyway.
Schmidt sheds a little light on the possible use of the new Google payments system. He seems to confirm what I'd speculated last week that Google is opening a new revenue stream -- payments from consumers. This will be critical, since some content isn't supported by an advertising model:
Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, acknowledges that searching video and some other media is more complicated than past search tasks. "It is a fact that we have to negotiate with the rights holder and that's an incremental cost to what we did three or four years ago," he says, adding that "this will be a major story for Google for years." Google could recoup some costs if consumers pay to view video, he says.

The article concludes with more blather from Eric Schmidt:

Google's chief executive, Mr. Schmidt, calls Google's mission a long-term one. "It will take, current estimate, 300 years to organize all of the world's information," he says.



Google market share rising - 6/28/2005 09:18:00 PM

Google is a machine.

All the talk about Google's $300 share price has centered on new products like Video, Earth and Personalized Search.

That's all wonderful. But as an investor I'm looking at a company with unmatched revenue growth, huge profit margins that expand when they should be contracting, all accomplished while stealing marketshare in a hyper-competitive market.

From InformationWeek and Websidestory:
  • Google's market share exceeded 50% for the first time ever in the US, hitting 52%
  • That's more than double Yahoo
  • And more than 4 times MSN
  • Google UK handles 75% of all referrals
  • Google Germany is at an incredible 91%


The next Google - 6/28/2005 08:29:00 PM

In 1998, Google was unknown. Ten years later, in 2008, will some innovative garage-business upstage Google?

Here's one scrappy little player that's making big noises -- Kozoru.

John Battelle and Greg Linden wrote about Kozoru in August last year. Back then, Kozoru started wtih $3M in funding and a goal to introduce natural-language searching and eliminate the need for keywords. The company ran with the headlights off until May, 2005, when they became much more chatty. And now they're making some pretty bold claims:
Everybody wonders when the next generation of search technology will be ushered in, and yet the big players haven’t offered any clear vision for the future.

Gartner Group has had a few predictions about the industry over the past decade. Here are several:

1995 - “The future is for Yahoo!”
1997 - “The ‘search game’ is over, Inktomi wins.”
1999 - “AltaVista has finished off the search market.”
2002 - “Google changes everything.”

What is becoming increasingly apparent is due to the infancy of the market the leader today is not the leader tomorrow.

In this post, Kozoru obliquely hints that they'll be able to answer this question:

What is the maximum upgradeable memory for an IBM ThinkPad X40 model 2371?
With a real answer, not just pages of minimally relevant results:
The maximum memory upgrade available for purchase for this model is one stick of 1GB ram.

Now I must say that Google's approach of delivering products now and talking about them later is much preferred to the FUD of vaporware that's all talk and no product. If Kozoru can deliver what it's promising, at scale, it could change the game on Google, Yahoo, Ask and the others.

But let's stop talking and start delivering.



Google Personalized vs. Findory - 6/28/2005 08:12:00 PM

Greg Linden of Findory (the undisputed king of personalized search) takes a thoughtful look at Google's rollout of personalized search.

The positives:
I am in awe of the boldness of this rollout. Google isn't just sticking their personalized search in a corner of Google Labs. No, as long as you enable Google's My Search History feature (which is off by default), every search you do at google.com is personalized. Wow, very cool, and surprisingly aggressive.

Google just took one giant leap forward. Yahoo, MSN, Ask, and AOL suddenly look to be far, far behind.
The negatives:
[Personalized results] appear to be the same search results in a very slightly different order, items moved up or down by just one or two positions.

Unlike Findory, there is no explanation of why a search result was reranked. It seems confusing. It basically says, "Don't look at what we're doing. Just trust us. We'll make your search better. Don't worry your pretty little head about it."
It's definitely a gutsy move to try to scale personalization to Google's volume. But like Greg, I haven't seen demonstrably improved results in my own usage, either.

Greg pointed out in an earlier post that perhaps Google is using very broad and generalized personalization that (unlike Findory) doesn't provide the fine-grained personalization needed for dramatic improvements in relevance.


The Google Way - 6/28/2005 05:53:00 PM

Google runs their business differently. Larry Page promised in his Letter from the Founders that investors shouldn't expect Google to change just because they were going public:
Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one. Throughout Google’s evolution as a privately held company, we have managed Google differently. We have also emphasized an atmosphere of creativity and challenge, which has helped us provide unbiased, accurate and free access to information for those who rely on us around the world.
Page promised to maintain the company's focus on serving end users and delivering long-term results, despite the pressures of a public company to exceed quarterly earnings goals:
As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same. In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to “make their quarter.” In Warren Buffett’s words, “We won’t ‘smooth’ quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you.”
Time and again, we've seen Google deliver superior products and price them less than the competition. Gmail far surpassed webmail offerings from Yahoo and Microsoft the day it was released (and still has no equal 15 months later), yet Google released it free. Google Maps was (and is) lightyears ahead of the competition, yet Google has not rushed to monetize it with ads or subscription fees.

Today, Google released Google Earth to the world. The original product acquired with Keyhole was unmatched in the market and cost $70 per year for the basic consumer version. The day Keyhole was acquired, Google dropped the price to $30. And despite having no credible competition, Google has continued to invest aggressively in the product, delivering a useful and amazing product today. And they dropped the price again, this time to the unbeatable price of Zero.

But what about me? I paid $30 last November for a subscription and now Google's giving it away free? In true Google fashion, they're taking great care of their end user. Google not only upgraded my subscription to the Plus version (which now costs $20 per year), but have extended the subscription for a full year. From an email today:
As a Keyhole LT/NV subscriber, you receive access to Google Earth Plus, the upgraded version of the software.... We are also happy to announce that we are automatically extending your subscription, set to expire on 11/4/06, for one additional year free of charge.
Can you imagine another major software company treating their end users this way? When's the last time Microsoft or Oracle gave away free software, reduced license costs, or extended subscription periods for free?

That's the difference with Google. That's the Google Way.

As an end user, I love the innovation and free software. And as a Google investor, I expect Google to profit handsomely from their investments and innovation. As both a user and an investor, I welcome the Google Way. Keep it up, Google!


Google innovation velocity - 6/28/2005 05:18:00 AM

As long as Google can keep up the blistering pace of innovation, it will continue to run rings around the competition.
There's been a lot of news on video, some on Earth, but virtually none on Personalized Search (at least since Search History was released in April). (Update 7:44 a.m. - SEW now has good depth on the new Personalized Search.) In short, if you're signed into Google and storing search history, Google will use your history to tailor search results to you.

It's easy and transparent, and it's fully integrated into the Google search we all know and love. You don't need to do anything different, you just get more relevant results.

If your personalized results are different from standard results, Google displays a link ("turn off Personalized Search for these results"). Toggle off and on, or turn off search history completely if you wish. More info in the FAQ.

How much difference does it make? In my usage this morning, not much. My search history has 2415 total searches stored, but I'm not seeing very significant differences between personalized results and standard results.

(Update 8:24 PDT: Findory's Greg Linden speculates that Google's personalization is very broad, "building a high-level subject profile of your interests (e.g. sports, computers) from your history and biasing the search results toward those interests." Greg says Findory is different. Findory "is fine-grained ... [which] should allow the personalization to focus in on much more detailed interests and make more useful and relevant adjustments to the search results.")

The bigger point here is that Google (and Yahoo and Findory) continues to deploy true innovation much faster than competitors like Microsoft, which are burdened by an enormous legacy of bloated code, issues of backward compatibility, and an interest in preserving the status quo of desktop software. Without these limits, Google (and Yahoo and Findory) can roll out amazing and useful new capability several times a month.

The new pioneers are stoking a raging battle of innovation. Just today, Yahoo announced a major overhaul of its mail system in a blatant attempt to leapfrog Google's Gmail. Google will likely counter with more innovation of its own. Great for users and great for the industry, but very bad for the increasingly irrelevant Microsoft.

Google shareholders have front-row seats to the information revolution.



Google's grand vision - 6/27/2005 03:20:00 PM

How serious is Google about organizing the world's information? And what kind of company would adopt this as its mission?

Marissa Mayer, director of consumer Web products at Google, says:
Maybe inside of the next 10 years we'll have all the knowledge that's ever been published in book form available and searchable online.
That is a grand vision. How would they get hold of all those books?
We had all these cockamamie schemes for how we could get content. We thought, well, could we just buy books? But then you don't get the old content. We thought maybe we should just buy one of every book, like from Amazon, and scan them all.
Google's one of the few companies that can back up its grand visions with the ability to execute. What kind of company would have goals like this? What business are they in, exactly? Technology? Search? Media?
Here's one answer from David Edwards, an analyst at American Technology Research in San Francisco:
I think at its heart Google is a technology company. But it gets paid like a media company.
Microsoft's Bill Gates says:
They are a software company. They are more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with.
Geoffrey Moore says:
They're a little like a fetal stem cell. It could be an arm, it could be a head, it could be a leg. With a culture that stresses freedom and innovation, Google's got lots and lots of possibilities and may become a lot of different businesses.
Maybe Google is inventing a new kind of business. A business that unites diverse disciplines under an umbrella of information. And a business that grows faster and generates higher margins by giving its primary products away.


Google tops $300 - 6/27/2005 01:32:00 PM

304.10 +6.85 (2.30%) 27 Jun at 4:00PM ET
Open: 298.90
High: 304.47
Low: 293.86

Volume: 17,769,421
Avg Vol: 15,864,000
Mkt Cap: 84.47B


Google's video genius - 6/27/2005 05:23:00 AM

Until now, Google's "video" has been pretty lame because it didn't really offer any, well, video. I've recently reported signs that Video2 was close, and Battelle says it will release today. Read him for the details, or check out video.google.com.

This is a big deal, and a direct challenge to Microsoft:
  • Google's providing free hosting and bandwidth
  • Google's viewer is free, and the code will be released free to developers as open source
  • The viewer will run on PC, Mac and Linux
  • Video will be searchable
  • Inline viewing, right within search results, without downloading codecs
And the one element that could make Google Video more than just a curiosity is that Google is creating a market for content that will allow content creators to get paid. That in itself could make Google Video an unstoppable force.

Next step: Google TV in your living room where you want to watch it. By releasing the viewer as open-source, Google has just enabled TiVo, Akimbo and even MCE to make this real. Brilliant.

Update June 27, 2005 09:31 PDT: It's live. I installed the video player (very fast, easy and painless). Works well with Firefox and IE. Video search shows screenshots and transcript at 30-second intervals, and allows instant playback starting anywhere in the video stream. Only inline, streaming viewing for now, does not allow the user to download a video file to their harddisk. And the images are uniformly small and low-quality, even if the original was uploaded large and high-quality.

Current implementation looks very limited, with a small selection of test videos that have been uploaded. And commercial TV shows are still shown as screen shots with a snippet of transcript, with no option to play the video. The hyperbole you've read at buygoogle about Google TV is a ways off yet -- but can you see the potential?


 buygoogle.com