John Battelle's Searchblog

Watch this space, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, aw hell, everyone:

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Privacy advocates are expected to propose the creation of a do-not-track list, a sort of internet version of the Do Not Call Registry, at a news conference tomorrow.

In addition to the list, the proposal calls for a requirement that advertisers, as part of their online ads, instantaneously disclose details of what they intend to track. According to a media alert announcing the news conference, the groups behind the proposal include the Center for Democracy and Technology, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others.

Get a clue, Purple Dude.

The pop star wanted YouTube to remove a clip of an infant boy dancing to his 1984 hit song "Let's Go Crazy." When the clip got scrubbed, the baby's mother cried foul and filed suit asking for damages. The woman's lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) say the dancing-baby clip is the poster child for fair use.

And Google will be the largest company in the US.

Release below. I will comment after kids go to bed, or Weds...

But here's the big question: Will Facebook and Myspace play?

---------

Google Launches OpenSocial to Spread Social Applications Across the Web

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA -- November 1, 2007 – Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) today announced the release of OpenSocial -- a set of common APIs for building social applications across the web -- for developers of social applications and websites that want to add social features. OpenSocial will unleash more powerful and pervasive social capabilities for the web, empowering developers to build far-reaching applications that users can enjoy regardless of the websites, web applications, or social networks they use. The release of OpenSocial marks the first time that multiple social networks have been made accessible under a common API to make development and distribution easier and more efficient for developers.

The proliferation of unique APIs across dozens of social websites is forcing developers to choose which ones to write applications for – and then spend their time writing separately for each. OpenSocial gives developers of social applications a single set of APIs to learn for their application to run on any OpenSocial-enabled website. By providing these simple, standards-based technologies, OpenSocial will speed innovation and bring more social features to more places across the web. Users win too: they get more interesting, engaging, or useful features faster.

"The web is fundamentally better when it's social, and we're only just starting to see what's possible when you bring social information into different contexts on the web," said XXXX. "There's a lot of innovation that will be spurred simply by creating a standard way for developers to run social applications in more places. With the input and iteration of the community, we hope OpenSocial will become a standard set of technologies for making the web social."

Learn Once, Reach Across the Web

One of the most important benefits of OpenSocial is the vast distribution network that developers will have for their applications. The sites that have already committed to supporting OpenSocial -- Website Partner A, Website Partner B, Website Partner C, etc. –- represent an audience of well over 100 million users globally. Critical for time- and resource-strapped developers is being able to "learn once, write anywhere" -- learn the OpenSocial APIs once and then build applications that work with any OpenSocial-enabled websites.

Several developers, including Gadget Partner Z, Gadget Partner Y, Gadget Partner X, etc., have already built applications that use the OpenSocial APIs. Starting today, a developer sandbox is available at http://sandbox.orkut.com so developers can go in and start testing the OpenSocial APIs. The goal is to have developers build applications in the sandbox so they can deploy on Orkut and ultimately other OpenSocial sites.

More Social In More Places

The existence of this single programming model also helps websites who are eager to satisfy their users' interest in social features. More developers building social applications more easily translates directly into more features more quickly for websites.

"Orkut has tens of millions of passionate users who are constantly clamoring for new ways to have fun with their friends and express themselves through Orkut," said Amar Gandhi, group product manager for Orkut, Google's social networking service. "By using OpenSocial to open up Orkut as a platform for any developer, we can tap into the vast creativity of the community and make new features available to our users frequently."

The common method that OpenSocial provides for hosting social applications means that websites can engage a much larger pool of third party developers than they could otherwise. They can direct resources that might have gone to maintaining a proprietary API and supporting its developer community to other projects.

Because OpenSocial removes the hassle from developing for individual websites, developers can unleash their creativity anywhere that catches their interest. This will translate into a wave of social features in contexts outside of the personal entertainment and games that are traditionally thought of as the social web.

Three APIs available now

The OpenSocial APIs give developers access to the data needed to build social applications: access to a user's profile, their friends, and the ability to let their friends know that activities have taken place. OpenSocial resources for developers and websites are available now at code.google.com/apis/opensocial.

Developers will have access to:
- Three JavaScript and Gdata APIs to access social functions
- A live developer sandbox on Orkut at sandbox.orkut.com

Websites will have access to:
- A tool to help OpenSocial-enable their websites
- A support forum for communicating with Google and other websites

All of these resources and the live developer sandbox are available now.

Developers already at work

Dozens of developers have helped test early iterations of the OpenSocial APIs and Google is grateful for the extensive feedback they have provided.

[List of all gadget developers]

Links to these gadgets are available at http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial.

From the Journal:

Google Inc. is close to unveiling its long-planned strategy to shake up the wireless market, people familiar with the matter say. The Web giant's ambitious goal: to make applications and services as accessible on cellphones as they are on the Internet.

In a move likely to kick off an intense debate about the future shape of the cellphone industry, Google wants to make it easier for cellphone customers to get a variety of extra services on their phones -- from maps to social-networking features to video-sharing. To get its way, however, the search giant will have to overcome resistance from wireless carriers and deal with potentially thorny security and privacy issues.

What I want to know is this: Will I be locked into certain software apps on my Google phone - or can I treat it with the same indifference I do with the PC Internet? In other words, will I be able to wipe the Google apps off, and use other apps if I choose to? Or is this going to be a distribution play for Google's apps?

A clue is here in the article:

The Google-powered phones are expected to wrap together several Google applications -- among them, its search engine, Google Maps, YouTube and Gmail email -- that have already made their way onto some mobile devices. The most radical element of the plan, though, is Google's push to make the phones' software "open" right down to the operating system, the layer that controls applications and interacts with the hardware. That means independent software developers would get access to the tools they need to build additional phone features.

But that still doesn't tell me if I can use the phone as a blank slate, so to speak, or if I have to use Google software.

You go away for a few days, and what happens.

- A Facebook privacy kerfuffle (I asked folks at Facebook about this, the response: Facebook respects user privacy and access to site usage and profile information is restricted at the company. Any Facebook employees found to be engaged in improper access to user data will be disciplined or terminated).

- More rumors of an impending Google counterstrike, code named Maka Maka.

- Yet more rumors that two hedge funds have matched Microsoft's $15bb valuation and tossed another $500mm into Facebook's coffers.

What to make of all this?

Well, first, the privacy issues is a very real one for Facebook, because, well, it's the heart of how the company intends to make good on that $15bb valuation. Knowing a lot about its users is key to the Facebook answer to AdWords. For more insight on what I'm on about, read about how Facebook chooses newsfeed items. It's quite revealing (right down to the idea of News Feed Optimization). In short, Facebook can't afford to have the privacy issue go sideways right now.

And speaking of affording, all that new money will come in handy for M&A. It has to, because now that the bar is set at $15bb, I'm guessing entreprenuers who might have otherwise been interested in selling to Facebook for stock might reconsider the upside given such a lofty pre-IPO valuation. Facebook still has a lot to prove, and cash is still king.

Off to a very quick trip to NYC in the very early morning, then a fast trip to Vegooooooose. Vacation, baby.

So it has happened (WSJ paid). What to make of it?

I was in a meeting in the Valley when this went down, so I'm late to the analysis party. I have no idea if anyone has said this yet, I am sure someone has. But - if there is not insight/boxing out/exclusivity into the new Facebook Social Ads platform as part of this deal, I don't get it.

If there is, it's a slam dunk. Or maybe for Microsoft, it's worth the valuation just to keep Google from having the remnant ad deal in Europe. But I doubt it.

I want to know what the terms are, and by that, I don't mean the financial terms. I mean the stuff that is not being announced - the agreements to work together on the upcoming Facebook platform, the ability for Microsoft to sell into the Facebook domain proper, etc. At the very least, some guarantee that Google can't work with Facebook on any future ad platforms that might be developed. And of course, search distribution, which was not confirmed in the conference call, from coverage I could find.

Maybe it comes down to this: Microsoft won, Google lost. If that's the case, OK, but...the real winner here is Facebook. At least, until it has to earn into a $15 billion valution. Good luck with that if social ads doesn't pan out. On the other hand, well, congratulations for getting money so cheap.

The long and short of it for me is, the more insight into Facebook's core business this buys Microsoft, the better it is for Microsoft. How much did they buy with this? No idea. But to think that Microsoft isn't prototyping exactly what Facebook is already building (social advertising) is to not be thinking - it'd be criminal to not be in this game if you are Microsoft, or Yahoo, or Google. You have to be. So how do those two things square - an investment in Facebook, and a commitment to develop an advertising platform that competes with Facebook?

The Journal's point of view on this is .... instructive. I think no one in the mainstream press has truly grokked what Facebook has a shot at doing - Adsense driven not by search queries, but by personal profile. It could be a major, major new platform, if we, as a culture, take to it. It's not a given, but it's a very compelling vision.

The high valuation for Facebook is the latest sign of a renewed exuberance in Silicon Valley over Internet companies with lots of users -- even if those users haven't yet translated into a lot of revenue -- and is reminiscent of the Internet bubble that ended in 2000. Microsoft and Facebook say the valuation is justified and that Facebook is starting to find ways to monetize its rapidly growing user base.

Well, sure they are. The big question is this: will Microsoft get to see what they are doing, and work with them, or are they going to be relegated to selling secondary banner inventory? I have no idea. Do you?

The hints of Facebook's next move continue.

"You are invited to a discussion with Mark Zuckerberg and the Facebook executive team as we unveil a new way of advertising online."

I have to say, I do not see why MSFT or Google are competing to get a chunk of Facebook, given what this announcement is most likely to be.

What is it likely to be? Er, a competitor to AdCenter and AdSense, of course. A syndicated play, without a doubt. Has to be. Unless that chunk comes with some serious intel, I'd save the money and plow it into competing.

The video is not up yet, but honestly, I found John's message utterly compelling. A good review of it here.

Not sure exactly which practices, and the reporter on this Bloomberg piece apparently does not care to find out, any ideas?

``In response to third-party concerns, Google has committed to the European Commission that we will keep certain DoubleClick business practices unchanged,'' Julia Holtz, Google's London- based competition lawyer, said in an e-mailed statement. The acquisition is ``a good deal'' for publishers, advertisers and users, she said.

This one was also a lot of fun, it's always nice to relax after dinner and get a little loose. The conversation had plenty of news, as well - Chris and Rupert announced a new contract (two more years for Chris and partner Tom), and discussed how the platform would open up as well.

Click To Play

Some coverage of this conversation claim I was too hard on Mark. I don't think so, and I think he was pretty savvy in his response. His first answer left me a bit speechless, I'll admit - I am used to folks saying no comment when I ask about on going negotiations....

Probably my favorite, at least, the most fun. Check out what happens when I ask Steve about search (about 21 minutes in). Just amazing.

I posed the first question of the Web 2 Summit\ to Mark Zuckerberg (video). "How's the funding going," I asked him. "We're nearly done," he replied.

Owen has a scoop: An all hands has reportedly been called for Tuesday for all Facebook employees. As someone who has called all hands meetings for hundreds of employees (at the Standard and at Wired), this does not happen without a very significant reason.

Perhaps Mark is now done...

Web 2 was amazing, exhausting, and exhilarating. Thanks for all the kind words from readers, pals, and colleagues. The video is starting to trickle out, check the home page for all the links. It was really, really fun to interview Zuckerberg, Murdoch, DeWolfe, Ballmer, Stephenson, Doerr, and more. Wow. What a privilege. And so much fun! The Web Bowl was hilarious, LaunchPad was awesome....four years in, it just keeps getting better.

Now, to sleep.

We're rounding the corner and into the home stretch at Web 2, today we hear from J. Craig Venter, Randall Stephenson of AT&T, the Google Alumni Club (folks who left Google recently) and John Doerr (who is on Google's board).

Speaking of the company, it killed earnings again yesterday...

From ars:

The Free Flow of Information Act has just cleared the House by a vote of 398-21, but that doesn't mean President Bush has any interest in signing it. The bill would offer protection of sources and documents to journalists (including professional bloggers) caught up in federal investigations, and could put an end to images of reporters led from court in handcuffs after refusing to testify. The Bush administration sees it as carte blanche to leak government information without penalty, though.

<rant on>Sorry Bush administration, this one is your bad. IF we can't shield sources, the terrorists win, to turn your language around. Because democracy depends on folks standing up to overreaching powers that be. Including Presidents.

I for one hope that Bush vetoes it, and then is overridden. It'd be a very sweet victory.

Silicon Valley Start-Ups Awash in Dollars, Again

No kidding?!

Mediapost:

NOW THAT GOOGLE HAS UNVEILED technology to prevent the illicit access of copyrighted video on YouTube, what impact will it have on the Viacom copyright infringement lawsuit? 'None at all,' Viacom said this week.

"It doesn't have any impact," said Viacom spokesman Jeremy Zweig. "Or at least it's very premature to try and figure out the impact it could have on the litigation."

Don't count Yahoo out. They have tons of engaged users/readers/audience members, and a Valley ethos. From a report on their generally well recieved earnings, which came out today:

"Our goal is to create a motivated community of developers all building uniquely compelling applications that reach hundreds of millions of Yahoo users by plugging into the most popular properties or services," Yang told analysts. Sounds familiar? Yahoo hopes to use its own big brand to create an ecosystem, a term tech companies love to use meaning a whole world unto itself, like Facebook.

I knew this whole Web as platform thing wasn't a fad...

This is funny. I saw a number of folks from Google at various parties tonight (Web 2 is about to start) and they were buzzing about this...
But if Google designed for Google, then, who would be Google?
I think I'll have to ask Steve Ballmer and Mark Zuckerberg that question. Maybe Randall Stephenson, of AT&T....

Google is actively recruiting third-party developers with applications on Facebook to run Adsense ads within applications pages, VentureBeat has learned.

Link.
What I want to know, is what happens to fair use?

The WaPo reports: Verizon gives up its customers' database of intentions to the government on request, sometimes without proper legal construct. The same is most likely true for other telcos, but Verizon went furthest in providing details when asked by a Congressional oversight committee. The question then becomes: Do you trust the government to use this data properly?

The disclosures, in a letter from Verizon to three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigating the carriers' participation in government surveillance programs, demonstrated the willingness of telecom companies to comply with government requests for data, even, at times, without traditional legal supporting documents. The committee members also got letters from AT&T and Qwest Communications International, but those letters did not provide details on customer data given to the government. None of the three carriers gave details on any classified government surveillance program.

From January 2005 to September 2007, Verizon provided data to federal authorities on an emergency basis 720 times, it said in the letter. The records included Internet protocol addresses as well as phone data. In that period, Verizon turned over information a total of 94,000 times to federal authorities armed with a subpoena or court order, the letter said. The information was used for a range of criminal investigations, including kidnapping and child-predator cases and counter-terrorism investigations.

Verizon and AT&T said it was not their role to second-guess the legitimacy of emergency government requests.

The Google Hits Vanity Ring via Matt

Check this out.

Hey guys, the initial lineup for NewTeeVee Live is up. This conference, from pal and partner Om Malik, is happening mid November and promises to be the place to go if you have any interest in the future of video online. Check out the speakers for yourself.

Om has graciously offered a 15% discount off the early bird registration for readers of Searchblog, if you want to use it, head here!

...just to put that on the record. I think there is a system of advertising that leverages what Mark has popularized as the "social graph". It's as big or bigger as AdWords/AdSense was. But I'm not convinced Facebook is going to nail this, any more than early search companies nailed AdWords. Why?

Because:

1. The social contract is not yet baked. By that, I mean the mainstream of society has not yet come to terms with the power/responsibility of our clickstream/digital social capital.This cannot be underestimated. AdWords came at the right time, in the right circumstances. It's not like Bill Gross didn't have it mostly right...
2. The entirely reasonable possibility that Facebook is entirely right, but not at the right time. In other words, as Alta Vista was to search, Facebook may be to social networking. What, then, was Friendster? Er...World Wide Web Wanderer?
3. The technology is hard, but not that hard. What might prove harder is getting the marketing supply chain to come along for the ride in time...

OK, there is SO much more to write. But soon, soon. I have a conference to produce first.

God, it felt like I was watching the fifth installment of a familiar action flick when I read this:

(Facebook) execs are also trying to nail down a big funding that will potentially give the hotsy-totsy social network a giant slug of cash, as well as a lofty $15 billion valuation.

No deal as yet, but sources close to Facebook said it was now a horse race between Microsoft, which already serves Facebook’s ads in the U.S., and Google. Yahoo, sources said, is a long-shot dark horse in the bidding.

One year ago, it was the same horse race, but for AOL's search and remnant business. And before that, it was the bidding for Facebook's IAB ad units. Or Myspace's search/remnant. Or ... or... or....

Well. It should be quite an interesting Web 2 this week, no?

One of the more freewheeling, I hope, and fun sessions at Web 2 this year will be "The Google Alumni Club".

This idea for this panel came from the observation that 1. Google is getting very big, 2. Folks are vesting out, and 3. Startups are often more fun/lucrative/stimulating/free than big companies.

That means interesting folks are leaving Google and doing new things. I've got four of them on the panel

Franck Poisson, CEO and Founder, Webwag (ran Google France)
David Friedberg, CEO, WeatherBill (ran a chunk of AdWords, and was a key Biz Dev dude)
Patrick Keane, Executive Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, CBS Interactive (was a key ad strategy man)
Bret Taylor, Entrepreneur in Residence, Benchmark Capital (key developer guy, and also launched Local, Maps, etc.)

Each of these folks had senior positions at Google, but left. What would YOU ask them?

What would we do without Gary and Resourceshelf? Well, we'd be dumb about domains, for one. He's got new domains registered by Google and Microsoft. Runes, they are, runes.

Perhaps most interesting is Google’s registration of the domain, p6058.com, last Tuesday. Nothing is online at this domain the the last time we checked. ...Once again, Microsoft shows no signs of slowing down registering domains. Here’s a web page that lists what’s been registered in the past week.

Something is clearly going on around the word "hyper" in Microsoft land. I like microsofthyper-vsucks.com the best, personally.
Or...maybe it's just Steve covering his brand image as hyper about developers...

Sorry, Google, but ....More Google Brass Head for the Exits

My pal Kevin Kelly loves to pull on a string. Here's him wondering out loud: What's the value of a Google search, and then, what's the cost?

And where he goes is great Kelly-esque musings...

I have made a clumsy attempt to estimate the full value of search by using the market cap of the largest search provider. This is unorthodox to say the least. Some folks would say you have to value a service on its revenue or its price on the street. My logic goes like this. What is the value of a car? You can say it is whatever someone will pay for it. But a car is not only valuable to the person driving it. It is valuable to employers to have mobile employees. It is of value to real estate developers to have mobile residents who can drive to your subdivision. There is societal-wide economic value to the product that are not caught by its price tag on the window. (And there are societal-wide costs to automobiles -- death and pollution -- that are also not captured by the price tag.) I was attempting to use a company's market value for that service as a surrogate for the value of that service in the marketplace. In some ways, this market cap does incorporate the product's liabilities, risks, and downsides since those are concerns to investors, if not to its buyers. This number is crude, it's flawed, it's not kosher, but in the absence of another I'm using it...

...According to the same ComScore research, people around the world searched the web -- using all search engines -- some 67 billion times in one month (August 2007). Taking this for a rough monthly average, humans now make 804 billion searches in one year. If each search increases the efficiency and serendipity of our lives by 26 cents worth (assuming Google is a guide and it may not be), then the total yearly worth of web search is $209 billion. That's not web search investment, that's the increase in intangible wealth to society yielded by the collective searching of humans in one year.

..Perhaps we will reach the time when we share our thinking with this answer machine, so that "search" becomes synonymous with "think." Cognitively, "think" is just search for a solution in a high-dimension of variables, so we can consider all thought as a type of search. I have often wondered what we would do with petahertz/petabyte computers. Or exahertz/exabyte computers after them. YouTube won't max it out. Even with mashing hi-definition 3D virtual reality 24 hours a day, there may be a lot of spare cycles. I think we are going to fill that extra room with thinking-like search. Our 444 billion searches per year will happen in a few seconds.

...I asked Google how many seconds in a year and it instantly told me: 31.5 million. That means that today 14,000 searches are performed on the web every second. Considering the web as its own global machine, search is running at 14 kilohertz. If we could audibly hear each click of the mouse as everyone searched, the resulting sound -- vibrating at 14 kilohertz -- would be a high pitch hum right at the edge of human hearing. Hear it, hmmmmmm?

Update: Insights from KK and an unnamed Googler in this new post.

Interesting report from Ballmer's speech at the ANA (advertising) confernce:

"In world search and advertising, Google is the leader; we're an aspirant," Ballmer said. "We have a lot of work to do in search and advertising."

This coming week at Web 2 I am leading a discussion on the wireless market. This is not my area of expertise, but I am fascinated by the ongoing fight between Google and its allies, on the one side, and the telecommunication companies on the other. (Background here and here).

To that end, I've got a very interesting panel of experts gracing the Edge: Wireless session. On the side of Google and an more open approach to the 700 Mhz spectrum is Ram Shriram, an early Google investor and board member, and also a Board member at Frontline Wireless, a holding company of sorts which exists to leverage the 700Mhz spectrum should it be able to acquire licenses. (Reed Hundt, former FCC chair, is Vice Chair of Frontline).

On the other side of the issue is Thomas Tauke, Executive Vice President of Public Affairs at Verizon Communications. Tauke is a former Iowan congressman and member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. He has the rather unenviable job of defending his industry in front of what will most likely be a skeptical audience.

To add another element to the conversation, I've also asked Martin Varsavsky, CEO of FON, to join the panel. FON represents a novel approach to blanketing the world in wireless spectrum - leveraging WiFi as a grass roots platform, the goal being bypassing the telcos through mass adoption. FON has some good stories to tell in parts of Europe, but not a lot of traction in the US, so far.

Now, with a panel such as this, there's sure a lot to discuss, but I fear my own ignorance will stunt the conversation. What would you like to hear? I could really use your help. Thanks!

WaPo Via Digg:

A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

...Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.

I can only say, Hallelujah.

After more than two years of promises and delays, Comcast Corp. has finally begun rolling out its first set-top boxes that run TiVo's digital video recording technology.

The backstory here.

Google announced today the integration of YouTube videos into Google Earth. From the release:

The integration of YouTube functionality into Google Earth offers a
new way to experience destinations as seen through the eyes of YouTube
users who have visited them, enabling people to watch, hear and feel
what's happening in locations they may never have otherwise visited.

Recall my riff on how I think Google will dominate in the world of Second Life, version 2.0:

Second Life is all about play, and fantasy, and alternative realities. I'm going to guess that Google's version is going to be all about reality, and mashing up AdWords, Google Earth, Sketchup, and the Yellow Pages/Google Local. The two will live quite nicely one next to the other, and most folks who use one will probably not see using the other as even vaguely competitive.

Posting is going to be spotty for the next week or so. I am traveling, then Web 2 starts....

Google acquires Twitter-like company Jaiku...(paidcontent)

TC: Google has 40% of online ad biz

IAB: Lotsa Online ads, that's for sure

SEL: How we navigate

Steve Ballmer has been much in the news this year, taking potshots at Google (remember the one trick pony quote?), calling Facebook a fad (but considering another investment, reportedly), projecting massive growth in Microsoft's advertising business, you name it. It seems Steve knows one thing for sure - if you are going to win in these markets, you must to be in front of them. Literally.

That's good for us, because on the morning of Day Two of Web 2, we'll wake up to a conversation with Steve Ballmer. This will be his first appearance at the event, and I think it marks a new era at Microsoft, an era of engaging with the Web industry more directly. In the past few years of visiting and doing business with Microsoft, I've found folks at the company welcoming, willing to admit mistakes, and eager to learn.

And as I have done with Mark Zuckerberg and Chris DeWolfe/Rupert Murdoch, I'd love your help on what to ask him.

A few things come to mind:

- Microsoft and Facebook, happy partnership or headed for trouble? Do you plan to invest more, or is Facebook a fad? How is the ad deal you did with them working out?
- The question I will also ask Brian McAndrews: You declared recently that 25% of MSFT’s revenues would be advertising in the future. That’d make Microsoft a media giant, one of the largest in the world. But is being a media company, well, in your DNA? If you are serious about this, how do you do it? Is a major acquisition (AOL? Yahoo?) in the works?
- Office Live: How does it win against Google Apps, Yahoo Zimbra, Sun OpenOffice, etc?
- Google: Is it still a one trick pony? What do you make of the company?
- Silverlight vs Flash vs…

- Search: You talk it up and have come a long way, but...why keep tilting at it? Why not just work with Yahoo and call it a
- Who do you wish you owned that you don’t? Was aQuantive the last big acquisition for a while?
- What do you make of Apple's recent surge?
- The rap on Microsoft is often that the company is a bit sclerotic - slow to move, stuck in its ways. True?
- In the past five years, your stock has vacillated in a narrow range of 22 to 28 or so, but it's on the rise lately (to 30). How do you get your stock out of what seems to be a permanent flatline?
- What technology are you stoked about?

I'd also love to do the one word game with Steve. He strikes me as a guy who has a quick wit and a very good sense of humor, and he's not afraid to say whatever is on his mind. Words I'd toss out include:

o Google
o Facebook

o Privacy
o MySpace

o eBay

o Zimbra

o ATT
o Net Neutrality
o Halo
o Nintendo
o Department of justice
o Doubleclick
o AOL

o Steve Jobs

Microsoft is so vast, so important, I know I've missed a ton of stuff. So help me out here - what would you ask Steve Ballmer?

(Image from NYT.com)
As I expected, The Times reports that Google plans to build a software suite/platform for a new class of phones. I thought so. (My post called "Google Phone-y" is here.)

From the Times piece:

“The essential point is that Google’s strategy is to lead the creation of an open-source competitor to Windows Mobile,” said one industry executive, who did not want his name used because his company has had contacts with Google. “They will put it in the open-source world and take the economics out of the Windows Mobile business.”

Key to the success of this plan? Developers. And undercutting the economics by running Adsense, of course:

“The essential point is that Google’s strategy is to lead the creation of an open-source competitor to Windows Mobile,” said one industry executive, who did not want his name used because his company has had contacts with Google. “They will put it in the open-source world and take the economics out of the Windows Mobile business.”

Google's vast Adsense network has become, as expected, a video content distribution network. Comcast, knock knock, are you paying attention?

More here.

Steve Ballmer recently got a lot of ink for declaring that Microsoft has the advertising business squarely in its sights. Microsoft would see at least 25% of its revenues from advertising within a few years, he declared.

Let's put that one in perspective. Microsoft is currently a $51 billion business. Twenty five percent of that is nearly $13 billion. Given that he's talking about a few years out, with current annual revenue growth rates, one can safely assume that'd be 25% of around $65 billion, or more like $16 billion. That's two and a half times Yahoo's current size, and north of where Google will probably end up this year.

The big question is: How? Ads on Office Live? Acquiring new inventory? Developing AdSense 2.0? These are the questions I plan to ask Brian McAndrews, the newly minted chief of Microsoft's advertising business, at Web 2 next week. Joining him on stage will be James Bilefiled, of OpenAds, Curt Viebranz, the Tacoda chief who was recently named head of AOL's advertising business, and David Karnstedt, SVP of sales at Yahoo. Each of these leaders see the same opportunity as Ballmer - the half trillion dollar advertising business is going digital - and each are charged with delivering on it.

It promises to be a robust discussion.

So what would you all ask the panel?

(link)

I first spoke to Brian Reid when I was reporting the book, he was clearly not happy about his former employer, Google. He filed an age discrimination lawsuit a few years back, it was dismissed, but it's back, News.com reports.

...sort of, of Health (Adam was the man behind Google Health, which is now in the domain of the restless Marissa Mayer), Microsoft has let loose with more details on its play, HealthVault. More at ars...

Adam Bosworth has started blogging again, now that he's left Google. He's staring a new company, but won't say what. Watch this space!

Call me hopelessly conflicted, but I love when the Grey Lady loves work that I love.

The "sohbet" spam is back, somehow penetrating our defenses and wasting half my morning fighting brush fires. I may turn comments off for a while, sorry. Back at it soon. Does anyone know anything about this sohbet spam?

Then hit this conference. Dave is great, and this is sure to be stimulating.

Lots of interesting stuff today. Spent the afternoon with Chris DeWolfe of MySpace and others there, it was enlightening. Also, the morning with Terra Networks at a client event, where I preached conversational media. Back at posting as soon as I can.

BAM! The words ain't minced in this post about the 700Mhz spectrum, which as I have covered in the past, is turning into a major fight between Google and the telcos. Check this post on Google's public policy blog:

Just three weeks ago, Verizon filed a lawsuit against the FCC, seeking to overturn the FCC's attempt to bring Internet-style consumer choice via the 700 MHz auction. In a recent court filing, the company has also threatened to have next January's auction itself halted unless the consumer choice provisions are eliminated. Now come various news reports suggesting that Verizon is lobbying behind the scenes (and in apparent violation of FCC rules) to once again convince the FCC to water down key aspects of the pro-consumer rule provisions.

In the usually bloated legalese of lobbying and politics, this is a major calling out.

You know the drill....

Three posts ago, this blog crossed 4000 entries. It makes sense it'd happen this week, four years after this site launched nearly to the date. It seems my average has been about 1000 posts a year. Wow.

It's been quite a trip so far. Four years ago, I had no idea what I was doing with my life. The Standard was two years dead, I was working on a book that terrified me, and I had some ideas - for a new conference, and for a business that might support full time independent media guys like myself.

Four years later, I hear rumbling the Standard is going to relaunch, The Search is in 26 languages (and still a bestseller, two years after, in a couple categories on Barnes and Noble!), Web 2 is in its fourth year with six conferences in three countries, and my dream of supporting independent authors has turned into FM, which turns profitable this month on a eight figure revenue run rate with 140 amazing authors and more than 41 million worldwide uniques.

I honestly can't comprehend how this all happened - save that I and several teams of amazing people have worked very, very hard these past four years. But I am sure it never would have without this site, and you as supporters, critics, and sounding boards. It's an honor to be here still, hacking away.

And if I have one goal for the next four years, it's that I can get back to writing out loud here, and feeding this site and the conversation it sparks more thoughtfully than I have been recently.

I hope you'll continue to come along for the journey.

Thank you.

Congrats to FM partners Boing Boing, who just launched their first ever video venture: Boing Boing tv!

My buddy and business partner Om Malik is doing his first conference, on the future of television and the web. It's Nov. 14th in SF, it's called NewTeeVee Live, and it's got a killer speaker lineup, and I am sure the conference will be a hit. It's also a steal, $399 if you register now.

AT&T has responded to the recent blogstorm about its TOS, interesting to see that the policies they promulgate came in part from their deal with Yahoo. But it's good to see the company respond quickly and clearly.

The company has sent me this statement:

AT&T respects its subscribers’ rights to voice their opinions and concerns over any matter they wish. However, we retain the right to disassociate ourselves from websites and messages explicitly advocating violence, or any message that poses a threat to children (e.g. child pornography or exploitation). We do not terminate customer service solely because a customer speaks negatively about AT&T. (my emphasis)

This policy is not new and it’s not unique to AT&T.

As a result of our recent mergers, we have simply incorporated language from the AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet Terms of Service into the Terms of Service for our legacy Worldnet and BellSouth customers. The language is consistent with that of previous documents for those companies, and is equally consistent with former AT&T and its legacy companies’ policies.

Yahoo has launched a new search interface that more deeply integrates its core properties (Local, Sports, Music, etc.) and implements key new features like a new search assist based on concepts, not just query suggestions. I will have a deeper look soon, but my damn home wifi is down, and I can't post pictures. I'm working off a Verizon card at the moment... Link.

At Web 2 this year we plan to have a bit of fun, not that the conference isn't fun. But we thought we'd put a number of well known web veterans up on stage after dinner and see how much they know about our industry. This format is familiar to any of you who've been to D in the past or have seen early versions of the Computer History Bowl, which has been around in various incarnations for a very long time. The twist is that we're focusing just on web history, which, until recently, was something of a oxymoron. Now that the web is more than a decade old, however, we figured it was about time we had some fun with it.

We'll be grilling folks like Martin Nisenholtz, who has been in this industry for as long at the New York Times has had a .com (actually, longer), Steve Case, who started AOL, Jay Adelson, CEO of Digg, and Scott Kurnit, founder of About.com.

But I need your help. We've set up a form where you can suggest questions we should ask them. Don't worry if you don't know the answer, we'll figure it out. But if you do, so much the better. Stuff like "What was on the cover of the first Industry Standard" or "How much revenue did The Globe have when it went public?". If we use your question, I'll thank you from stage.

It should be a fun time, and we'll make sure to get it up on the web as soon as we can, so no matter if you can make the conference or not, you can check it out!

Adobe is getting more aggressive in its expansion of web based applications outside its core, Microsoft is finally taking the next step, (but TC is not impressed) and the space is really heating up. What a fall!

Kara has a great write up of the revival meeting run by Jerry Yang and Co. last week, featuring a pep talk from Steve Jobs.

Data is the Intel Inside, Tim O'Reilly likes to say, and his favorite example is NavTeq, which powers a ton of mapping applications, including Google's. Now Nokia owns NavTeq. Ars coverage.