Lovely cartoon by Steve Bell. Meanwhile the Pope is still dragging his feet over accepting the resignations of the bishops implicated in the scandal. What an outfit.
The gospel according to Orlowski
From Spiked-Online.
Google has two business strategies. One strategy is to ensure that the internet’s pipelines, both wired and wireless, can’t make money. It has lobbied for a ‘neutral’ internet, and sought to write the first technical regulations ever imposed on the internet – the first rulebook for operators. Robbing the retail networks (in the jargon, ‘access networks’, or ISPs) of the ability to generate value allows Google to concentrate the value instead in its vast data centres. It’s a peculiarly inefficient way of distributing bits, and precludes all kind of clever network innovation – but it’s the one that Google prefers. It’s where it has placed its bets.
The other strategy, more noticeable, helps ensure the destruction of the value of copyright. This permits Google to become, by default, the world’s royalty collection society, the only aggregator of digital value. As with internet advertising today, Google would set the royalty rates, weakening the ability of creators to negotiate collectively for better rates, as they do today. Newspapers, publishers and other media companies have only belatedly begun to come to terms with Google’s take-no-prisoners approach. For example, it took EMI Publishing six months to realise that Google had digitised its valuable sheet music collection, as part of its Google Books settlement, without asking. There are entire industries that don’t realise they’re in Google’s crossfire, until they’ve been shot, and the body carried from the battlefield.
Is Google Wave getting Buzzed?
That’s the question being asked by by Tom Krazit.
If Google Wave eventually fails to live up to the promise and hype that accompanied its launch at Google I/O in May 2009, consider its demise an inside job.
Arguably one of Google’s biggest announcements of last year, Google Wave appears to be an afterthought among the tech trendsetters after the launch of Google Buzz in early February. Privacy concerns mostly laid to rest, Google Buzz is actually doing much of what Google Wave promised: collaborative discussion, media sharing, and social networking within an e-mail-like framework.
So what are Google customers and users to do with two Web communication platforms? Is Google Buzz simply a stepping stone to Google Wave, as TechCrunch suggested at its launch? Or is it something more, something designed to bypass its more powerful yet complicated corporate sibling?
Don’t expect a direct answer from Google. In all fairness, that’s because it simply doesn’t know: with Wave and Buzz, Google is essentially willing to let the best idea win.
“At the end of the day, we’ll find out what users want,” said Lars Rasmussen, engineering manager for the Wave project. “If we required every product we launched not to have any overlapping functionality, that would dramatically slow down our innovation.”
So: we’ll find out in due course. Personally I’m not convinced that users have a need for either Wave or Buzz.
Google discovers that phones are hard-ware
From Good Morning Silicon Valley:
This morning, analytics outfit Flurry, which gets a good handle on handset use through app stats, delivered its estimate of Nexus One sales in the phone’s first 74 days, and the news was not good. The 74-day milestone was used because that’s how long it took the first model of Apple’s iPhone to sell one million units. Flurry’s calculation of Nexus One sales over a similar stretch — 135,000 units. The sorry showing has nothing to do with overall enthusiasm for Google’s Android mobile OS; in its first 74 days, Motorola’s Droid sales hit 1.05 million units, a tad better than the original iPhone. Because of assorted market variables, the numbers aren’t directly comparable, but they do provide a general sense of things. And what the numbers would seem to be telling Google is that without the marketing muscle and consumer convenience that come with selling a phone through a major carrier, even a technically impressive piece of hardware is going to have a rough go of it. Google will have to hope things turn around once the Nexus One becomes available on the Verizon network this spring.
And, to add insult to injury, Google’s discovered that its application to trademark ‘Nexus’ has been rejected. Someone else got there first. Google will appeal. Lots of lucrative work for m’learned friends ahead.
What now?
The Pew Research Center’s annual State of the News Media 2010 report is out. And it makes pretty gloomy reading, at least for print journalists.
Inside news companies, the most immediate concern is how much revenue lost in the recession the industry will regain as the economy improves.
Whatever the answers, the future of news ultimately rests on more long-term concerns: What are the prospects for alternative journalism organizations that are forming around the country? Will traditional media adapt and innovate amid continuing pressures to thin their ranks?
And with growing evidence that conventional advertising online will never sustain the industry, what progress is being made to find new revenue for financing the gathering and reporting of news?
The numbers for 2009 reveal just how urgent these questions are becoming. Newspapers, including online, saw ad revenue fall 26% during the year, which brings the total loss over the last three years to 43%.
Local television ad revenue fell 22% in 2009; triple the decline the year before. Radio also was off 22%. Magazine ad revenue dropped 17%, network TV 8% (and news alone probably more). Online ad revenue overall fell about 5%, and revenue to news sites most likely also fared much worse.
Only cable news among the commercial news sectors did not suffer declining revenue last year.
The estimates for what happens after the economy rebounds vary and even then are only guesses. The market research and investment banking firm Veronis Suhler Stevenson projects that by 2013, after the economic recovery, three elements of old media — newspapers, radio and magazines — will take in 41% less in ad revenues than they did in 2006.
For newspapers, which still provide the largest share of reportorial journalism in the United States, the metaphor that comes to mind is sand in an hourglass. The shrinking money left in print, which still provides 90% of the industry’s funds, is the amount of time left to invent new revenue models online. The industry must find a new model before that money runs out.
Guess who went to the Oscars
Tim Bray: Now A No-Evil Zone
Tim Bray has jumped ship — from Oracle to Google. And he’s there to work on Android and compete with Apple.
The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger.
I hate it.
I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great, because freedom’s not just another word for anything, nor is it an optional ingredient.
The big thing about the Web isn’t the technology, it’s that it’s the first-ever platform without a vendor (credit for first pointing this out goes to Dave Winer). From that follows almost everything that matters, and it matters a lot now, to a huge number of people. It’s the only kind of platform I want to help build.
Apple apparently thinks you can have the benefits of the Internet while at the same time controlling what programs can be run and what parts of the stack can be accessed and what developers can say to each other.
I think they’re wrong and see this job as a chance to help prove it.
Hooray! Interesting times ahead. And he’s a photographer too.
The blight of ‘public’ schools
One of the most revealing things about Britain’s private schools is their reluctance to describe themselves as such. With the same mastery of metaphor that characterises the American right they call themselves ‘independent’, as if somehow they were in fact ideologically neutral or detached from narrow sectional interest. This opening speech by Francis Wheen in a debate organised by Intelligence Squared is an entertainingly concise attack on these strange institutions.
Thanks to Lorcan Dempsey for spotting the video series.
Microsofties use iPhones at their own risk
Lovely WSJ story.
REDMOND, Wash.—Microsoft Corp. employees are passionate users of the latest tech toys. But there is one gadget love that many at the company dare not name: the iPhone.
The iPhone is made, of course, by Microsoft’s longtime rival, Apple Inc. The device’s success is a nagging reminder for Microsoft executives of how the company’s own efforts to compete in the mobile business have fallen short in recent years. What is especially painful is that many of Microsoft’s own employees are nuts for the device.
In a discussion about employee iPhone use, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer once told executives that when his father worked at Ford, his family drove Fords.
The perils of being an iPhone user at Microsoft were on display last September. At an all- company meeting in a Seattle sports stadium, one hapless employee used his iPhone to snap photos of Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer. Mr. Ballmer snatched the iPhone out of the employee’s hands, placed it on the ground and pretended to stomp on it in front of thousands of Microsoft workers, according to people present. Mr. Ballmer uses phones from different manufacturers that run on Microsoft’s mobile phone software.
A Microsoft spokeswoman declined to comment and declined to make executives available for this story.
Behind the Valukas report into Lehman Brothers
The 2,200-page report into the collapse of Lehman Brothers carried out by Anton Vulakas at the request of the New York Southern District Bankruptcy Court will, no doubt, make interesting reading, but what caught my eye was this sentence in the Financial Times‘s report:
“The crux of the report, which is based on the review of 34 million pages of documents out of the 350 billion pages obtained by Mr Valukas, is its portrayal of Lehman’s insatiable risk appetite and its alleged efforts to cover up the extent of its financial woes.”
How on earth, I wondered, does anyone ‘review’ 34 million pages? And how are those pages selected from 350 billion? Not surprisingly, I wasn’t the only one asking these questions. Writing in The Posse List, Gregory Bufithis provided some of the answers. “The most intriguing part of the report”, he writes,
“concerns the sheer size of the data and the search methodology/software used in examining the documents. Valukus’s report was a mammoth task involving e-mails, reports, data sets and interviews. Answering the questions required an extensive investigation and review of Lehman’s operating, trading, valuation, financial, accounting and other data systems. Interrogating those systems proved particularly challenging, first because the vast majority of the systems had been transferred and were under the control of Barclays (who took over a large part of Lehman operating units); by the time of the Valukas’ appointment, Barclays had integrated its own proprietary and confidential data into some of the systems, so Barclays had legitimate concerns about granting access to those systems.
The second challenge was more daunting. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, Lehman maintained a patchwork of over 2,600 software systems and applications. It was decided early on that it would not be cost effective to undertake the enormous effort and expense that would be required to learn and access each of these 2,600 systems. Rather, Valukas directed his financial advisors to identify and acquire an in‐depth understanding of the most promising of the systems.”
Mr Bufithis then goes on to outline how this mammoth task was tackled:
1. The available universe of Lehman e‐mail and other electronically stored documents is estimated at three petabytes of data — roughly the equivalent of 350 billion pages.
2. Valukus carefully selected a group of document custodians and search terms designed to cull out the most promising subset of Lehman electronic materials for review. In addition, Valukus requested and received hard copy documents from Lehman and both electronic and hard copy documents from numerous third parties and government agencies.
3. In total, the Examiner collected in excess of five million documents, estimated to comprise more than 40,000,000 pages. All of these documents have been converted to electronic form and are maintained on two computerized databases, Stratify and CaseLogistix.
4. Documents were reviewed on at least two levels. First level review was conducted by lawyers trained to identify documents of possible interest and to code the substantive areas to which the documents pertained; those so identified were subjected to further and more careful review by lawyers or financial advisors especially immersed in the earmarked subjects. In order to reduce the cost of review, the Valukus sought and obtained the court’s approval to retain contract attorneys. A group of more than 70 contract attorneys, supplemented by Jenner & Block [Valukas’s Chicago law firm] attorneys, conducted first level reviews.
5. All second level (and beyond) reviews were performed by Jenner & Block attorneys or Duff & Phelps professionals. Valukus estimates that he has reviewed approximately 34,000,000 pages of documents in the course of his investigation.
6. The entire body of e-mail in the Stratify database — 4,439,924 documents, approximately 26 million pages— has been reviewed. Approximately 340,000 of the CaseLogistix documents — roughly eight million pages — have been reviewed.
7. Although a large number of the CaseLogistix documents were not reviewed, that database is fully searchable, and Valukus is reasonably confident that the repeated and focused searches applied against that database have discovered most if not all of the most relevant documents.
8. In most cases, documents were produced to Valukus under stipulated protective orders, which are described in Appendix 5 of the report. Subject to those orders, the document databases created remain a resource for the bankruptcy estate and the parties. The database includes computerized tagging which will allow persons interested in making their own searches to narrow and focus search requests.
And the cost of all this? A snip at $38 million. Wonder who pays the bill?