Hulu Could Lead Apple, Google, or Yahoo to Dominance

Each tech giant has their case for obtaining Hulu in leading its company toward dominance on the web.  Apple seeks interest in possibly jumpstarting their Apple TV services.  Google may have a similar case along with solidifying its social networking features on Google+.  For Yahoo, the former premiere search engine website seeks a comeback in both traffic and revenue with Hulu as their missing piece of the puzzle. 

Hulu shines as a highly attractive online property by proving its value with over 1 billion ad impressions a month, according to Comscore, and impressive offerings of video content.  The latest auction for Hulu has left many pondering on the potential combination of services that may birth from current bidders in Apple, Google, and Yahoo. 
Google+ has been rising in popularity with their innovative approaches to content sharing and video chat.  The addition of Hulu could concrete Google's spot as the top online video website as a new flood of content may do wonders for visitors and advertising revenue.  The search giant already owns YouTube, which rakes in nearly 150 million unique visitors a month, and will seek ways to integrate video watching within Google+.  The Hangout feature in Google+ may open the door to online video watching with multiple friends at once.  The platform makes watching video content and commenting on them through mobile devices easy and social.  Content from Hulu combined with Youtube's offerings can lure potential users to join Google's growing social network.  

Apple's case for a potential bid for Hulu comes in the form of Apple TV and content for their upcoming lineup of mobile devices.  Financially, Apple may hold the advantage in terms of having over $76 billion in cash on hand for a purchase.   If Apple were to follow its current business model of renting out shows rather than making revenue on ads, then the Hulu acquisition can potentially transform into another Netflix service.  Apple would then hold great advantages in terms of reach, marketing, and content distribution through iTunes.  As GigaOm pointed out, the deal would definitely provide Apple with additional video content to offer through iTunes and increasing the company's content value. 
In terms of distribution, Hulu's high definition, HD, quality content can be a valuable asset as Apple's new platform of HD capable iPhones and iPads plan to hit the market possibly later this year.  The iPhone 5 and iPad 3 are rumored to have HD display screens that can play 720p and 1080p videos.  With Hulu already reaching out to media devices through it s Hulu Plus subscriptions, the millions of Apple mobile devices will only increase the content reach. 
Of all the players involved with the current bid, Yahoo may appear to be the front runner as it has much to lose without Hulu.  Yahoo would love to see more traffic and utilize its strength in media and content.  . 
In an interview with Adage, EVP of 'Americas' at Yahoo Ross Levinsohn spoke about Yahoo's desired future plan, "to be the premier digital media company. We're No. 1 or 2 in 19 categories. That's insane! That doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. You embrace that. You support that. We're focused on premium content. Some of its original, some of it's curated, some of it's aggregated. And we're focused on premium advertising," said Levinsohn.

The Hulu acquisition would bolster the media aspect in Yahoo's offerings as well as increasing their online advertisement revenue.  Without Hulu, Yahoo may have less footing in their continuous role in playing catch-up with premiere rivals in YouTube or Apple. 
Recent news ruled Microsoft out of the bidding for Hulu saying that the company would not continue with future offers in the second round.  With Microsoft out, the remaining three big players will duke it out for ownership of a highly prized online commodity.  According to reports, Yahoo would be willing to pay $2 billion in a deal that includes an exclusive package for TV shows and movies.  Based on that, the LA Times suggested that Yahoo may be in the lead spot among other bidders.

Read more »

Posted in: internet

Google recognition firm, despite privacy concerns

Even after publicly declaring on several occasions that it had no interest in facial recognition, Google has gone out and bought itself a –yes – facial recognition software company by the name of PittPatt.
Pittsburgh based PittPatt, which emerged from Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute, has all the algorithms needed to identify your little punum, and is even able to track the motion of faces on video.
“At Google, computer vision technology is already at the core of many existing products (such as Image Search, YouTube, Picasa, and Goggles), so it’s a natural fit to join Google and bring the benefits of our research and technology to a wider audience,” said a notice on the PittPatt site.

We will continue to tap the potential of computer vision in applications that range from simple photo organization to complex video and mobile applications,” the statement went on.
Google said it thought PittPatt’s “research and technology can benefit our users in many ways,” though whether those ways invade people’s privacy or not remains to be seen.
It certainly is an about face for the firm whose Chairman, Eric Schmidt, said back in May his firm would be “unlikely to employ facial recognition programs,” owing to privacy concerns.
Google wouldn’t be the first to integrate facial recognition into mobile apps, however. Qualcomm funded Viewdle has been tinkering with facial recognition for quite some time. Which company ultimately gets the most face time, remains to be seen.

Read more »

Posted in: internet

Slowing Down to Savor the Data

DATA beats opinion” has long been a mantra at Google, where evidence-based research tends to rule. But now the company is showing its softer side with Think Quarterly, a business-to-business publication whose first United States issue is to make its debut online this week.
 


Although Google investors remain wary of the spending and long-term intentions of the company’s taciturn new chief executive, and co-founder, Larry Page, Google reassured them in July with financial results that beat Wall Street analysts’ expectations.
Google reported second-quarter net income, excluding the cost of stock options, of $8.74 a share, up from $6.45 a year ago. Net revenue, which excludes payments to advertising partners, was $6.92 billion, up 36 percent from $5.09 billion. Analysts had expected net income of $7.86 a share and net revenue of $6.5 billion.
Google’s stock price, which has fallen 9 percent in 2011 as investors react to uncertainty about Mr. Page, ballooning expenses, challenges from Facebook and stepped-up scrutiny from federal regulators, climbed 12 percent in after-hours trading.
Recent Developments
In June 2011, Google took its biggest leap yet onto Facebook’s turf, introducing a social networking service called the Google+ project— which happens to look very much like Facebook. The service, which was initially available only to a select group of Google users who will soon be able to invite others, will let people share and discuss status updates, photos and links.
But the Google+ project would be different from Facebook in one significant way, which Google hoped would be enough to convince people to use yet another social networking service. It was designed for sharing with small groups — like colleagues, college roommates or hiking friends — instead of with all of a user’s friends or the entire Web. It also offered group text messaging and video chat.
At stake was Google’s status as the most popular entry point to the Web. When people post on Facebook, mostly off-limits to search engines, Google loses valuable information that could benefit its Web search, advertising and other products.
Google has committed $200 million to find the next Google, playing venture capitalist in the hottest market for technology start-up companies in over a decade. Other pedigreed tech companies are doing the same.
To some, it seemed a telltale sign of an overheated industry, symptomatic of a late and ill-advised rush to invest during good times. But Google said it has a weapon to guide it in picking investments — a Google-y secret sauce, which means using data-driven algorithms to analyze the would-be next big thing.
Google Ventures said it has invested as much money in the first half of 2011 as in all of 2010, and Mr. Page, who became chief executive in spring 2011, has promised to keep the coffers wide open.
Background
Founded in 1998, Google runs the world's most popular Internet search engine. It's a position that has earned Google huge profits and given it outsize influence over the online world.
But Google's ambition far exceeds the confines of Internet search and advertising. The company sees its mission as the organization of the world's information, making it universally accessible and useful.
Its unbounded ambition, as well as what many critics say is a cavalier approach to copyrights, has put Google at odds with a growing list of companies in industries ranging from Hollywood to book publishing and from telecommunications to e-commerce. And the company's appetite for collecting vast amounts of data about its users and their online habits has prompted increasing fears that Google could become a threat to consumer privacy.

Read More...

Company Information

Google Inc. (Google) is focused on improving the ways people connect with information. The Company generates revenue primarily by delivering online advertising. The Company focuses on areas, such as search, advertising, operating systems and platforms, and enterprise. The Company maintains an index of Websites and other online content, and make it available through its search engine to anyone with an Internet connection. Businesses use its AdWords program to promote their products and services with targeted advertising. The Google Network use its AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience. In February 2010, the Company acquired Aardvark and On2 Technologies, Inc. In May 2010, The Company acquired of AdMob, Inc. (AdMob). In August 2010, the Company acquired Slide, Inc. (Slide). In December 2010, the Company acquired Widevine Technologies, Inc. (Widevine). In April 2011, the Company acquired PushLife.

Read more »

Posted in: internet

"Google" Places drops outside customer reviews

Google Inc (GOOG.O) has removed excerpts of customer reviews from sites such as Yelp and TripAdvisor from Google Places, its own competing online service aimed at helping consumers search for local businesses.
The move, announced in Google's official blog on Thursday, follows the disclosure of a U.S. antitrust investigation last month.
The federal probe concerns whether Google, which dominates U.S. and global markets for search engine advertising, abuses its market power by favoring its own services over those of rivals in online searches and through other practices.
The blog post made no mention of the investigation.
"Based on careful thought about the future direction of Place pages, and feedback we've heard over the past few months, review snippets from other web sources have now been removed from Place pages," Avni Shah, Google's director of product management, said in the blog post.
Google said it added a function for Google users to write their own reviews at the top of its Place web pages.
It said the search pages' rating and review counts would only include reviews written by Google users, although the company would continue to list links to other review sites.
Google's "Places" offerings of local ratings and reviews, originally called Hotpot, were introduced last fall.

Read more »

Posted in: internet

Judge throws out Oracle's $6.1b suit against Google

San Francisco: Oracle Corp's $6.1-billion (Dh22.38 billion) damage estimate in its patent infringement lawsuit against Google Inc over the use of Java technology in the Android operating system was thrown out by a federal judge.
US District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ruled on Friday that a new damage estimate should start as low as $100 million, a figure Google was offered, and rejected, in 2006 to license Java from Sun Microsystems Inc, before Sun was acquired by Oracle, according to a court filing. The $6.1 billion estimate assumed that all of the seven patents Oracle is suing over were used in Android and the company didn't present sufficient facts to support that, Alsup said.
"The court is strongly of the view that the hypothetical negotiation should take that $100 million offer as the starting point," Alsup said in his written ruling.
Oracle, the largest maker of database software, sued the internet search-engine company last year, claiming Google didn't obtain a licence for the patents infringed by Android. Besides seeking damages, Oracle wants the court to order destruction of all products that violate its copyrights.
Substantial possibility
A trial is scheduled for October 31. Deborah Hellinger, an Oracle spokeswoman, and Aaron Zamost, a Google spokesman, declined to comment on the ruling. Alsup said that if a jury determines that Oracle's patents were infringed, there is "a substantial possibility" Google will be ordered to permanently stop selling any infringing products. A new damage estimate should address assumptions that an injunction may be granted and can be based on a portion of Google's advertising revenue garnered from Android devices, he said.
The $100-million "starting point" can be adjusted upward to assume that all parts of the patents that Oracle cited in its complaint are valid and infringed, Alsup ruled.
Oracle's new damage report is due 35 days before an October 17 pretrial conference, Alsup said.
Google, based in Mountain View, California, denies infringing and asked Alsup at a July 21 hearing to throw out Redwood City, California-based Oracle's damage estimate.
The case Oracle America Inc v Google Inc, is being heard at US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Read more »

Posted in: internet

Facebook's Privacy Changes

Facebook on Wednesday overhauled its privacy controls, in the hopes of making them simpler to use. The company focused on three major changes for Facebook users:"a single control for your content, more powerful controls for your basic information, and an easy control to turn off all applications," according to a blog post by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The new changes should be rolled out to your Facebook account over the next few days.
So, how do Facebook's new privacy controls stack up against recent criticisms about how Facebook handles your personal information? Perhaps the easiest way to measure this is to take a look at PCWorld's recent article, "A Bill of Rights for Facebook Users," and see how Facebook's new settings compare to this ideal.
While I haven't had a chance to use the new controls myself yet, here's my comparison based on Facebook's announcement.
Proposed Right: Facebook must explain both the benefit to me and the benefit to Facebook when introducing services or features that may expose more of my data.
Grade: C The new changes don't do anything to give users more information about the various benefits to Facebook and its users when introducing new services. While I'm not so sure Facebook needs to detail what it gets out of a business deal with sites like Yelp and Pandora, the social network could do a better job of communicating user benefits.
Proposed Right: Tell me what I'm broadcasting to the world.
Grade: B- Facebook allows you to set the privacy level for each piece of content you post on Facebook through the News Feed--including links, status updates, events, videos, and photos. For almost everything else, like your pages, interests, and Web sites, you have to wade through Facebook's privacy settings.
Proposed Right: Let me opt-in, and not have to not opt out, of new features.
Grade: B++ Facebook appears to have learned its lesson from the privacy backlash over Instant Personalization and Facebook Beacon before that. But the real test will come when Facebook unveils its next new feature. Let's see if Facebook can resist the temptation to meddle with your privacy controls next time.
Proposed Right: Make Privacy Settings Simple.
Grade: B Facebook's new privacy controls look a lot better than before, but there are still a lot of Web pages you have to wade through to fully control your privacy. Current Facebook settings require you to go through six pages and their respective sub-pages to get all your settings, while the new controls require you to go through four pages: Basic Directory Information, Sharing on Facebook, Applications and Websites, and Block Lists.
But there's no telling how many sub-settings are underneath these four new simplified sections. I haven't been able to get a close look at these settings yet, but I have to wonder just how effective these new controls will be. Also, there are some privacy controls that aren't filed under your Privacy settings, but instead are stashed in your Account Settings and your Profile page. That gets really confusing.
The new privacy controls may be easier to understand than before, but as Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan notes, "The complexity [of Facebook's new privacy controls] may still leave users feeling there are too many controls to be in control."
Proposed Right: Let me control whether or not someone can tag me in a photo on Facebook.
Grade: F This is not a part of Facebook's new controls. Sure, some people couldn't be bothered to approve a photo tag for every photo they're in, but I bet a lot of people would like this level of control. Besides, why should any of my Facebook friends be able to link to my Facebook profile through a photo tag, and then share that photo with the world? I may not be able to stop that photo from going online, but shouldn't I be able to choose whether or not I want Facebook to directly associate that photo with me?
This would be an excellent control for Facebook to implement, and would go a long way to regaining user trust. Just make sure it's an optional setting, and don't force it on users who can't be bothered.
Proposed Right: Tell me what data I'm sharing with apps.
Grade: F When you sign up to use an application like Farmville, you only get a vague statement telling you the app will be able access your personal data. Instead, Facebook should require each application to present you with a checklist of your personal information. Then you can decide which parts of your profile the application can see.
Proposed Right: Don't let search engines index my content without my permission
Grade: B++ Facebook has allowed you to opt-out of third-party search indexing ever since Facebook opened up your data to Bing, Google, and Yahoo. But new Facebook users are presented with a weird setting where the box that allows third-party search engines to index their profile is automatically checked off. But even though the box is checked, the feature is not turned on until you click "Allow" and then "Confirm." So why is that check box there in the first place if it's essentially meaningless? That's a very confusing way to do things.
Proposed Right: Facebook must notify me when bugs or mishaps come up, and give me advance notice before making changes to Facebook's data management policies.
Grade: B- Facebook has had a few technical mishaps recently such as the recent exposure of user chat sessions, a bug that allowed Facebook data scraping at Yelp, and the automatic app installation bug. Facebook wasn't upfront about any of these issues, but they should have been. On the other hand, the company does have an open governance policy for changes to its Terms of Use, and the company recently posted notices about its privacy changes on its blog. Nevertheless, Facebook could still do a better job of alerting users to potential new changes, especially the recent privacy revisions which went largely unnoticed until the recent privacy flap started.
Proposed Right: Accept responsibility when things go wrong.
Grade: A Even though Facebook didn't own up as well as it should have to recent bugs, the company recently admitted it had made mistakes with user privacy and moved to alleviate those concerns.
Proposed Right: Give me the right to quit and leave nothing behind.
Grade: B This is a tough issue, because you can never really know for sure whether any online service completely eliminates all your data from its servers once you leave. It all comes down to whether or not you believe the company when it says your data is being purged.
Facebook also has a very difficult process for deleting your account that takes 14 days to complete. Plus how ever long it takes to remove all your information from its backup servers. A good step in the right direction would be for Facebook to plainly state on its Facebook account deletion page how long it takes for your data to be removed from its servers once you delete your account.
Facebook's latest privacy overhaul is a step in the right direction, but the company still has a long way to go if it wants to make issues surrounding privacy and privacy control easier to understand.

Read more »

Posted in: internet

hat your e-mail address says about you. Facebook e-mail?

Facebook, as I type, is in the process of unveiling some sort of beyond-e-mail e-mail service.

 

Forget everyone's concerns about safety breaches (Koobface, anyone?) or about spending even more time on this famously time-sucking site.
E-mail has always served two purposes. It allows you to communicate, and it allows you to weed out evolutionary weaklings from the herd.
You know the old saying: Never trust a man with an @yahoo email address.
Learning that your prospective date still has an Earthlink e-mail is the equivalent of discovering his vestigial tail. E-mail says something about you. It says, "I can be reached here," but, like a physical address, it also carries a certain cachet. Gmail? You're probably reliable and tech-savvy. AOL? You are probably someone's grandmother. @mindspring? You probably live in a box under a bridge.
Now even AOL seems to have sensed the stigma its addresses carry, upgrading its e-mail with something called "Project Phoenix." Because nothing says, "I am a reliable e-mail server," like "I am named after a mythical, undead bird that was known to burst into flame without any apparent warning."

What does your e-mail say about you?
Unintentionally bad email addresses are the misguided tattoos of our era. "Oh, it would be funny if I enshrined Robert E. Lee in my e-mail address!" you think to yourself one night. You are 11. You spend the next seven years receiving angry letters from civil rights groups, and one e-mail from the Virginia Historical Society inviting you to a gala. And your friends weren't so lucky.
For those who grew up with AIM and AOL e-mail, innocently selected e-mail addresses were an exercise in rude awakenings. Remember DogLove, SandwichLover, or SwallowsAlways? We loved dogs, sandwiches, and swallows, those majestic birds! We wanted to celebrate them in our screen names! Suddenly, we were getting e-mails from strange men demanding our ASL's. Most people changed them. But there were some who didn't realize how bad they were.
There are some warning signs that you might have a bad e-mail address. First, is it oddly specific, but does it end in a number? You probably need to rethink your life. Anything along the lines of NobodyLovesTheCircusMore5 or ClevelandMortThePirateHunter7 is just a cry for help. The people who own these e-mail addresses clearly felt that they had their lives well in order until they noticed that NobodyLovesTheCircusMore was taken -- four times. At Hotmail.
Second, is it anything along the lines of your first name and a number that might be your zip code but, then again, also might not be? That's unnerving. Bob058892@mac.com makes you sound like a citizen of a frightening dystopia that has run out of last names.
Third, is it a personal statement, and are you a grown person? There was a brief window of time in the 90's before everyone realized you needed to claim your actual name when everyone picked names like JennyAppleseed and CowsComeHome@hotmail.com, but now having something like that implies you're a hippie whose website homepage plays flute music on loop.
And for everyone else, this is the breakdown:
@AOL.com You miss that screaming sound your computer used to make before getting online. Your screen name might be bizarrely personal, like AllenTada@aol.com. You used to pride yourself with being ahead of the curve in the 90's. You use verbs like "twittering" and spend a lot of time worrying about "sexting rampages." Your password probably memorializes your deceased dog. You have a tendency to forward people joke e-mails and you still send e-cards.
@YourWorkEmail You either work somewhere important or don't understand the concept behind e-mail. You have a tendency to forward people joke e-mails with picture attachments.
@YourCableProvider You wish you had an office e-mail address to use. You are going to miss Oprah a lot when it goes off the air.
@Yahoo You're not sure how you got this e-mail address. You might be a fine person, but it is difficult to tell at this point. (Who has a Yahoo e-mail address?)
@Gmail You actually know your way around a computer. You view anyone who doesn't have Gmail in the same way that the caveman who had figured out fire viewed all his non-fire-equipped contemporaries or the way most people nowadays view the Amish. You don't understand how to get in touch with anyone who doesn't have Gchat.
@Hotmail This e-mail address says, "I probably carry my phone in a holster." You keep insisting that this e-mail service has "a lot of good features," but you don't sound entirely convinced.
@Facebook You figured you might as well get one of these, because you were going to be on Facebook, anyway.

Read more »

Posted in: internet