Jibédé

Archive for December, 2009|Monthly archive page

Privacy is dead

In Uncategorized on December 10, 2009 at 10:55 am

Google is now indexing in real time.

Tweets are always public.

Facebook is changing the default preferences to public. You have to modify preferences (which is something 80% of people do not do) to have privacy back.

So if you write something to someone publicly (by mistake) on Facebook it will immediately be Googled and even if you delete it afterwards it will still be accessible to Google search. EVEN IF DELETED.

In a statement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said: “These new ‘privacy’ changes are clearly intended to push Facebook users to publicly share even more information than before. “”

Do you get it?

Facebook is more or less a mail system where everybody watch and nothing can be deleted.

Good luck.

The Future of news: Google view

In Uncategorized on December 9, 2009 at 6:05 pm

LeWeb 09: Fireside Chat with Marissa Mayer, Vice President, Search Products and User Experience, Google

Marissa Mayer

watch her here (from 11 mn to 20mn of the video)

From that conference in Paris, I have the impression that Google is VERY CONCERNED about the publishers being angry at Google. They want to move to avoid one terrible thing that could happen to them : the lack of some content if it is removed from their search radar (As Murdoch announced he would do). I think that to them that would dramatically reduce their neutrality and legitimacy withc is the most important thing to them.

They would fell very unconfortable with a “web indexing with black holes”.

So I think that the Publisher have a tremendous window of opportunity to negociate better advertising relationships with Google.

“News Users should be more engaged.

Core journalism is the same. delivery is different

Google is working on a prototype with New York Times and Washington post : The LIVING STORY. updated.

Whenever a Media changes over to a new delivery vehicule it puts pressure on the atomic unit of consumption. Itune from album to song, youtube from entire film to short clip. In

Media the atomic unit is the article. New model.

increasing engagement. personaisation. what do you do next. Nothing at the end of the article wher the what do no next question is.

look amazon youtube facebook : proposals for next thing to vieuw.

streams notion popularised…

increase engagement..

hyper personalised news… stream webiness notions”

they want to evolve

about murdoch

we have to respect the copyright.

paying for content? difficult to say

adsense 5 billions dolls last year for publishers

This man knows the future of Media (and Google)

In Analysis on December 8, 2009 at 9:12 am

Googled: The End of the World As We Know It

The man is Ken Auletta (New Yorker journalist), watch him on Fora TV. His book is here

Googled: The End of the World As We Know It

Among all the interesting things he says about Google and the Media :

He says that Google has an engineering culture and doesn’t understand publishing.

How can the people (journalists) make a living?

Google is making 2/3 of its revenues from adwords. It’s a lot of money. It is equivalent today to the revenues of the entire magazine industry worldwide. ad it’s growing.

“Multitasking” of the young generation is a matter of concern.

New York Times cannot afford a newsroom of 1200 persons anymore. Google has a selfish interest in journalism for providing search accuracy. But Google has not got answer to the newspaper advertising problem. Advertising online is providing publishers no more than 10% of the revenues it used to generates traditionnally. Because the advertising cannot pay for a ad that is not performing enough. that is where the fundamental problem is and should be solved.

Google wants to preserve good journalism for its business purpose because they need trust. Trust is their main asset.

Google now is entering the news phone business and the business model is different from the web.

Murdoch move shows that he wants Google to pay more money. But creating firewalls to contents is risky because other sources will replace the walled sources and hackers will enter the battle.

With the recession the companies realise that they need two sources of income (ad+ subscription).

Even Marc Anderseen (Ning) is almost willing to charge for his social networks.

97% of google revenues comme from ad. 3% come from a pay search for companies (more accurate search)

Anecdote: at the begining when he became CEO ERic Schmidt found a nice office occupied by an engineer . and then he shared the office with the engineer (instead of take the room for himsel). that created a strong thing inside Google.

Google has the belief that they are in a candystore and that they can buy everything.

but their virtue is that they are long term believers. they invest in unprofitable activities (labs)

danger for google : efficiency of search is not sustainable (too many indexed stuff)

Google worry about expert vertical search AND Google is scared by Facebook potential search capabilities. If you ask your friends about a search (for a cam recorder or restaurant) that is frightening for them.

so they tried to buy twitter.

In 1998 Ken visited Bill Gates. He asked what do you worry about, what is your nightmare?

He said (not Netscape, Oracle or Sun or competitor) “I worry about someone in a garage coming with some new technology that I never heard of and that is really going to bite my business.”

who was in the garage in 1998? Google.

What is different nowday that people think that nothing was most importan ever tha internet?
nothing but the speed of change

internet takeover : 9 years

Facebook after 5 years : 300 millions people.

the world can change overnight > insecurity even at Google.

The book “innovator dilemna” shows people stick to their business

Microsft is facing this dilemna. i’ts tough. It is a nowhumble company. It hopes that Google wil make the same mistakes than them

Google creators had the clarituy to create a culture by a time everybody wanted to create portals

25 millions dollars of investment no revenues free food free massage. and it worked.

they have created a miraculous company

BUT

for Google it’s late to think about peope fears about concentration power, copyright privacy issues

as it’s late for traditionnal media to jump on the internet

As you can see the discussion is really getting hotter everyday…

http://www.kenauletta.com/

About his book, Amazon says :

From Publishers Weekly

Two Googles emerge in this savvy profile of the Internet search octopus. The first is the actual company, with its mixture of business acumen and naïve idealism (Don’t Be Evil is the corporate slogan); its brilliant engineering feats and grad-students-at-play company culture; its geek founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, two billionaires who imbibe their antiestablishment rectitude straight from Burning Man; its pseudo-altruistic quest to offer all the world’s information for free while selling all the world’s advertising at a hefty profit. The second Google is a monstrous metaphor for all the creative destruction that the Internet has wrought on the crumbling titans of old media, who find themselves desperately wondering how they will make money off of news, music, video and books now that people can Google up all these things without paying a dime. The first Google makes for a standard-issue tech-industry grunge-to-riches business story, its main entertainment value being Brin’s and Page’s comical lack of social graces. But New Yorker columnist Auletta (World War 3.0: Microsoft and Its Enemies) makes the second Google a starting point for a sharp and probing analysis of the apocalyptic upheavals in the media and entertainment industries. (Nov. 3)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description

A revealing, forward-looking examination of the outsize influence Google has had on the changing media Landscape.There are companies that create waves and those that ride or are drowned by them. As only he can, bestselling author Ken Auletta takes readers for a ride on the Google wave, telling the story of how it formed and crashed into traditional media businesses-from newspapers to books, to television, to movies, to telephones, to advertising, to Microsoft. With unprecedented access to Google’s founders and executives, as well as to those in media who are struggling to keep their heads above water, Auletta reveals how the industry is being disrupted and redefined.

Using Google as a stand-in for the digital revolution, Auletta takes readers inside Google’s closed-door meetings and paints portraits of Google’s notoriously private founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as well as those who work with-and against-them. In his narrative, Auletta provides the fullest account ever told of Google’s rise, shares the “secret sauce” of Google’s success, and shows why the worlds of “new” and “old” media often communicate as if residents of different planets.

Google engineers start from an assumption that the old ways of doing things can be improved and made more efficient, an approach that has yielded remarkable results- Google will generate about $20 billion in advertising revenues this year, or more than the combined prime-time ad revenues of CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. And with its ownership of YouTube and its mobile phone and other initiatives, Google CEO Eric Schmidt tells Auletta his company is poised to become the world’s first $100 billion media company. Yet there are many obstacles that threaten Google’s future, and opposition from media companies and government regulators may be the least of these. Google faces internal threats, from its burgeoning size to losing focus to hubris. In coming years, Google’s faith in mathematical formulas and in slide rule logic will be tested, just as it has been on Wall Street.

Distilling the knowledge accrued from a career of covering the media, Auletta will offer insights into what we know, and don’t know, about what the future holds for the imperiled industry.

“There is nothing a well established Blogger cannot do that a Times journalist can”

In Uncategorized on December 7, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Is this true or false?

Summarizing al the debates about the future of print, the future of journalism is this sentence :

“There is nothing a well established Blogger cannot do that a Times journalist can”…” To correctly translate the quote to cover the Watergate example, the quote would perhaps be “There is nothing a well established collaborative blog cannot do that a Times news team can”

What do you think about that?

What about source protection?

what about costs to produce information?

what about paid vs unpaid writer?

Answering these questions will help answering the big question about future of the News Media industry.

the debate is strong in this fake steve jobs post comments area..

samples of interesting comments

“The truth is, if newspapers want to survive they should go back to doing what they started out doing — muckraking, stirring the shit, calling bullshit.”

The tablet is here ! (fake)

In Uncategorized on December 6, 2009 at 10:54 am

When this will be true, this kind of demo will need no more words.

And the people will be willing to pay for content. period.

Arianna Huffington is unfair

In Analysis on December 3, 2009 at 11:51 am

It started with a Clash of Titans : Arianna Huffington Vs Matthias Dopfner (Springer)

You have to watch this video. It’s the most important video of the year for the people concerned about Newspaper and magazine Publishing.

Afterwards, on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington detailed her views about where the Media industry is going. It’s juste amazing : It is here

I’am stuned.

How could Aggregators and search engines makes Billions (Google 30 Billions revenues this year) out of advertising online located next to pro or user generated content, and in the same time Talented Contributers should be paid none, forever? That is a shame.

To Arianna, Traditional Publishers were “asleep at the wheel”, missing the point that “Citizens Journalists” were willing to provide the (more or less) same quality of production for Free. “why someone would find it rewarding to weigh in on the issues — great and small — that interest them. For free. They don’t understand the people who contribute to Wikipedia for free, who maintain their own blogs for free, who Twitter for free, who constantly refresh and update their Facebook page for free, who want to help tell the stories of what is happening in their lives and in their communities… for free.

We cannot disagree more with that. Talent deserve to be rewarded, not only with ego satisfaction of being published for free on highly profitable platforms.

A talented Blogger, Daniel Lyons, author of the Famous “Fake Steve Jobs” blog never made money out of his huge audience.
his words: “My first epiphany occurred in August 2007, when The New York Times ran a story revealing my identity, which until then I’d kept secret. On that day more than 500,000 people hit my site—by far the biggest day I’d ever had—and through Google’s AdSense program I earned about a hundred bucks. Over the course of that entire month, in which my site was visited by 1.5 million people, I earned a whopping total of $1,039.81. Soon after this I struck an advertising deal that paid better wages. But I never made enough to quit my day job. Eventually I shut down—not for financial reasons, but because Steve Jobs appeared to be in poor health. I walked away feeling burned out and weighing 20 pounds more than when I started. I also came away with a sneaking suspicion that while blogs can do many wonderful things, generating huge amounts of money isn’t one of them.”  “(He earned a whopping .0006 cents a click)”…

Sorry Arianna, we don’t take it. Competent and Popular Contributors have been rewarded by Media companies for centuries and this cannot stop to satisfy anyone. Advertising and users have to pay so that talent can be rewarded to the extent that some can make a living out of it, as usual.

I must also say that bashing the traditionnal media companies is really like spitting on your parents faces because The Web People should realise that the Media industry made the Web industry possible. In the last 30 to 40 years, Media companies have created, pushed, financed and guided technical innovation that enabled the web to exist. One exemple : Digital image compression is an area where media companies have struggled for decades before Jpeg became mainstream. Apple itself has received enormous support from the media industry in the nineties when Desktop Publishing and digital video was started here.

You should be proud of your Old media parents instead of shouting against them.

Be fair. Don’t be Evil.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.