Google: the new Microsoft

From today’s New York Times

The world’s largest search engine said yesterday that its third-quarter profits nearly doubled from a year ago, as it maintained a torrid growth rate that is highly unusual for a company of its size.

The numbers are all the more significant because Google’s largest rival, Yahoo, has been faltering, as sales have tapered off for both its search and display advertising.

“Forty-eight hours ago we were discussing Yahoo; the contrast is pretty amazing,” said Jordan Rohan, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. “This is an eye-opening and refreshing quarter for Google investors.”

In after-hours trading, Google’s shares surged 7.5 percent. In regular trading, before the results were reported, the shares rose $6.75, or 1.6 percent, to $426.06.

The Rooney problem

Harry Pearson has a wonderfully surreal column about Wayne Rooney. Sample:

These days the top players do not even do their own Little Britain impressions, and they leave the cutting off of the centre-back’s flashy ties to one of their people. This is not because they are lazy. It is because they are focused. The modern player is a specialist. He has little time for anything other than honing the key skills of his profession: shooting, shouting and looking sultry in styling mousse. Nothing distracts him from his job. He has a ghostwriter to write his autobiography and a ghostreader to tell him what is in it.

Some of the biggest names are now so totally devoted to themselves that they even employ a staff of experts to sleep with women for them. “Clearly the players are red-blooded young men who would like nothing better than to chase skirt,” reveals one insider close to the source of a friend, “but as professional athletes they are worried that a night of vigorous heterosexual activity might mess up their aggression, their stamina, or even their hair.”

Some have gone one-step further. A lot of fans and media people have expressed the view that Rooney is experiencing a lack of form. They are quite wrong. Wayne is in the form of his life. Unfortunately his body double is going through a sticky patch, though admittedly not as sticky as the one Frank Lampard’s body double has been experiencing for the past five months.

Some will find the news that Rooney and Lampard actually have body doubles out on the field something of a surprise. It is hard to see why. It has been common practice in Hollywood for years. You wouldn’t expect Angelina Jolie to do her own stunts, or Mel Gibson to show you his own bottom, now would you? Like any movie star Wayne is an incredibly valuable asset. Neither Manchester United nor England can afford to put what we must learn to call “the core of the Rooney brand” at risk by actually allowing him to run around on a slippery surface with a lot of rough blokes. The insurance premiums if they did would be crippling. His beard alone had to be underwritten for £77m…

If (user-generated) content is king, why isn’t it getting paid?

Terrific Guardian column by Vic Keegan.

The creators of YouTube have done a great service in bringing video creation to the masses. But it was not because their technology was superior to others in the field (it wasn’t), but because they were in the right place at the right time when, unpredictably, YouTube suddenly attracted critical mass. This was a huge victory for garage start-ups over the likes of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, which found to their cost that the mighty leverage arising from their big market shares in existing products buttered no parsnips in the new world of web creativity.

As a result YouTube, a company that has been mainstream for barely a year, attracted a price tag of $1.65bn, equivalent to almost $25m per employee (not that they will see much of it) or $123 for each of YouTube’s unique monthly users. The figure for those who actually generate the content would be far higher than $123 because only a small proportion of users actually put their own videos up.

Yet without those content creators, YouTube – and Flickr, and all the others – would be nothing. Imagine what would happen if eBay tried to value itself on the basis of all the inventory it held on behalf of its sellers. It wouldn’t because it knows the inventory doesn’t belong to it.

There’s something deeply comical about TechBubble 2.0 — which is what I’ve decided to call the current round of irrational exhuberance. Just to underscore how difficult it is to build and maintain a big, stable company in this febrile space, along come the reports of Yahoo’s difficulties — profits down 38%.

As far as user-generated content goes, the big question — as Vic Keegan says — is: where’s the value? The answer is that it’s in the stuff that people upload. But if people don’t like what you (the new corporate owner) start to do with the space then they can — and will — go elsewhere. Steve Ballmer implied in his BusinessWeek interview the other day, no rational company would have paid $1.65 billion for YouTube. For once, I agree with him.

How many Iraqi deaths?

Thoughtful piece by Michel Thieren in OpenDemocracy…

Two scientifically audited numbers today constitute the best available and most cited evidence quantifying Iraqi civilian deaths directly associated with the war in that country which began in March 2003. Each is generated by a credible and independent source, though their conclusions vary widely: one gives a running total of 48,783 (as of 18 October 2006), the other gives 654,965 for the period March 2003 to July 2006.

At this stage in the Iraq war, these different orders of magnitude for civilian casualties are too often relayed by a number-loving (and sensation-hungry) media in ways that both reflect and serve the preordained views of those in favour of or against the war. A statistical language about Iraqi casualties that is able to bring numbers and words, tallies and stories, into a coherent relationship requires understanding of what “48,783” and “654,965” are really measuring, how they were respectively computed, and what they reveal.

The nub of it seems to be that the lower figure compiled by Iraq Body Count measures only deaths directly attributable to interactions with Coalition forces, whereas the Johns Hopkins figures take into account the suicide bombing, ethnic cleansing and general mayhem now rife in Iraq (and causing 900 violent casualties aday).

Jobs on iPod

Steven Levy has an interesting interview with Steve Jobs about the iPod (which is going to be five years old soon). Sample:

Levy: Other companies had already tried to make a hard disk drive music player. Why did Apple get it right?

Jobs: We had the hardware expertise, the industrial design expertise and the software expertise, including iTunes. One of the biggest insights we have was that we decided not to try to manage your music library on the iPod, but to manage it in iTunes. Other companies tried to do everything on the device itself and made it so complicated that it was useless.

What the American far right is thinking

A segment about escalating sectarian violence in Iraq on the February 23 edition of Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto featured onscreen captions that read: ” ‘Upside’ To Civil War?” and “All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?”

The segment, guest-hosted by Fox News Live (noon-1:30 pm hour ET) anchor David Asman, featured commentary by Fox News military analyst Lt. Col. Bill Cowan and Center for American Progress senior fellow Col. P.J. Crowley.

I particularly like the idea that an all-out civil war could have an “upside”. For whom, exactly?

[Source]

Telly Eagleton, the Wanderer

Interesting essay on Terry Eagleton in The Chronicle of Higher Education

Literary theorists, and probably other scholars, might be divided into two types: settlers and wanderers. The settlers stay put, “hovering one inch” over a set of issues or topics, as Paul de Man, the most influential theorist of the 1970s, remarked in an interview. Their work, through the course of their careers, claims ownership of a specific intellectual turf. The wanderers are more restless, starting with one approach or field but leaving it behind for the next foray. Their work takes the shape of serial engagements, more oriented toward climatic currents. The distinction is not between expert and generalist, or, in Isaiah Berlin’s distinction, between knowing one thing like a hedgehog and knowing many things like a fox; it is a different application of expertise.

[…]

Terry Eagleton has been a quintessential wanderer. Eagleton is probably the most well-known literary critic in Britain and the most frequently read expositor of literary theory in the world. His greatest influence in the United States has been through his deft surveys, variously on poststructural theory, Marxist criticism, the history of the public sphere, aesthetics, ideology, and postmodernism. His 1983 book, Literary Theory: An Introduction, which made readable and even entertaining the new currents in theory and which has been reprinted nearly 20 times, was a text that almost every literature student thumbed through during the 80s and 90s, and it still holds a spot in the otherwise sparse criticism sections of the local Barnes and Noble. His public position in Britain is such that Prince Charles once deemed him “that dreadful Terry Eagleton.” Not every literary theorist has received such public notice.

Frank Kermode once told me about a lecture tour he did in China at the behest of the British Council. In every university, he was listened to by rapt, serried ranks of Chinese students. In vain did the translator try to elicit questions from these awestruck audiences. Finally, after the final lecture, the head of the host institution begged students to ask at least one question of their very distinguished visitor.

Eventually, a shy student stood up and said to Frank: “Do you know Telly Eagleton?”

Unfinished business

I spent most of last Sunday afternoon laboriously trimming the big beech hedge that is one of the glories of our garden. Then I made some coffee and lit a cigar and sat down to admire my handiwork — and immediately noticed that I had missed not just those straggly bits on the top edge, but also the TV aerial that appears to have grown out of the hedge when I wasn’t looking.

Which just goes to show that it all depends on your point of view.

Schneier on the Facebook Riots

Thoughtful article by Brice Schneier in Wired News

As the Facebook example illustrates, privacy is much more complex. It’s about who you choose to disclose information to, how, and for what purpose. And the key word there is “choose.” People are willing to share all sorts of information, as long as they are in control.

When Facebook unilaterally changed the rules about how personal information was revealed, it reminded people that they weren’t in control. Its 9 million members put their personal information on the site based on a set of rules about how that information would be used. It’s no wonder those members — high school and college kids who traditionally don’t care much about their own privacy — felt violated when Facebook changed the rules.

Unfortunately, Facebook can change the rules whenever it wants. Its Privacy Policy is 2,800 words long, and ends with a notice that it can change at any time. How many members ever read that policy, let alone read it regularly and check for changes?

Not that a Privacy Policy is the same as a contract. Legally, Facebook owns all data that members upload to the site. It can sell the data to advertisers, marketers and data brokers. (Note: There is no evidence that Facebook does any of this.) It can allow the police to search its databases upon request. It can add new features that change who can access what personal data, and how.

But public perception is important. The lesson here for Facebook and other companies — for Google and MySpace and AOL and everyone else who hosts our e-mails and webpages and chat sessions — is that people believe they own their data. Even though the user agreement might technically give companies the right to sell the data, change the access rules to that data or otherwise own that data, we — the users — believe otherwise. And when we who are affected by those actions start expressing our views — watch out.

Hmmm… I’ve been looking at the Facebook privacy statement and it seems to me to be more reasonable that I had expected from reading Schneier’s piece. Also — unusually — it is written in plain English rather than legalese.

Nevertheless, I agree with Schneier’s general conclusion:

The lesson for Facebook members might be even more jarring: If they think they have control over their data, they’re only deluding themselves. They can rebel against Facebook for changing the rules, but the rules have changed, regardless of what the company does.

Whenever you put data on a computer, you lose some control over it. And when you put it on the internet, you lose a lot of control over it. News Feeds brought Facebook members face to face with the full implications of putting their personal information on Facebook.