Jul 23 2008

Would Google destroy Digg or take it to the next level?

Digg commenter Hiji writes, “This is the beginning of the end. In a few years all the major blogs and social-media sites will be owned by large corporations, putting us right back where we started.”

The topic of discussion is, of course, TechCrunch’s rumor that Digg will soon be acquired by Google for somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million. Digg’s users are debating what Google acquiring Digg might mean for their community in this thread on the site. The question is, would being controlled by a big company like Google ruin–or enhance–the community that Digg has worked so hard to build?

Some background on Web 2.0 acquisitions
A few of the major Web 2.0 sites that have been acquired by big companies include YouTube, Flickr, and MySpace. Each of these sites has been greatly affected by being acquired by a larger company.

Once it was acquired by Google, YouTube was forced to take down much of the copyrighted material that had helped it rise to popularity. I would argue that YouTube has benefited from the financial backing and support that Google was able to provide, so the acquisition may have been a necessity at the time.

Flickr has seen little to no improvements in the way of new features, aside from Flickr Video, since being acquired by Yahoo. Despite the lack of innovative new features at Flickr, its photo community is stronger than ever, thanks in no small part, to Yahoo’s ownership.

Although MySpace is still a force to be reckoned with on the Internet, especially in the music scene, it has watched its seemingly insurmountable lead in the social-networking space slip through its fingers and into Facebook’s. Whether this is due to being bought by News Corp. is purely speculation, but the influence of the big media company may not have helped.

Why does Google want Digg?
In the case of Digg, Google would clearly be buying the site to acquire Digg’s community. Digg has one of the strongest communities in the social-media space. Google certainly has the engineering power to build a site similar to Digg, or Yahoo Buzz, if it wanted to. But what it is really after is the people. If we can agree that Google wants the community, it would only make logical sense that the company would do whatever it could to keep that community happy and to get it to stay, post-acquisition.

How Google would change Digg
The other side of the coin that must be considered is the volume of people who would be streaming into Digg if it is acquired by Google. The added promotion of the Internet giant would send lots of newcomers to the site, who could break the delicate dynamic that Digg has right now. Digg suddenly being flooded by gardening tips, for example, might drive away a lot of the core users. Digg would, almost certainly, survive under mainstream attention, even thrive. But it could become a very different place from what we see today. The category structure of Digg submissions was built out for this very reason. If and when the mainstream public turns its attention to Digg, the audience that it has today might be able to find refuge in its own sections of the site–if it decides to stick around.

This acquisition would be a tremendous opportunity for Kevin Rose and company to cash in on some really hard work. They have done a great job building this company and carefully crafting the Digg community into what it is today. Being taken under the wing of a company like Google may be their big shot at really breaking into the mainstream.

Like I already said, the move would absolutely change the dynamic of the site. Some would like it and stay, some would hate it and leave, and many more would discover Digg for the first time. So, what do you think? Would Google destroy Digg or take it to the next level?

CNet News


Jul 12 2008

Facebook Now More Popular Than Sex

A couple weeks ago Facebook surpassed MySpace to become the largest global social network. Aside from becoming the largest website, there are not many other goals that they could strive to achieve when it comes to traffic. Actually, there is one more goal that would be nice to accomplish: become the number one search term on Google. While it hasn’t reached the number one Google search term (”YouTube”), it has surpassed two big giants: “Google” and “sex” and is nearing one other giant: “Yahoo”.

If there were any sign suggesting that Facebook is on track to become the largest global website, the popularity of Facebook in Google searches should surely be an indicator. Facebook continues to grow at a rapid pace and with the continuing launch of new languages, there are no signs of slowing. Later this month Facebook is expected to announce the launch of their payment platform as well as officially launch Facebook connect.

The launch of these two new services will surely help the company continue generating buzz and potentially launch them to be come the most popular site on the web. In the meantime the company will have to be satisfied with being more popular than sex. Thanks to Franz for pointing this out to me!

Facebook versus Sex Chart

AllFacebook


Jun 11 2008

Google’s duty: to help fix ad business

Media companies should see Google not as an enemy but as an ally that’s trying to make advertising work on the Internet, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said Wednesday.

Google has a financial incentive to make sure advertising can support companies that supply high-quality content, Schmidt said during an on-stage interview here with Ken Auletta, The New Yorker’s media reporter. But Schmidt said there’s another dimension to Google’s motivation, too, one not often figuring prominently in business affairs.

“It’s a huge moral imperative to help here,” Schmidt said of publishers’ problems making advertising work on the Internet.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt speaks in San Francisco.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt speaks in San Francisco.

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News.com)

Happily for Google’s moral compass, the company’s effort to make money is pointed the same direction. The company is trying to solve the online ad problem in part with DoubleClick, the display-ad company Google bought earlier this year. Google’s cash cow is selling text advertisements that appear next to search results, but with DoubleClick, Google hopes to tackle the graphical ad side of the market.

DoubleClick will let advertisers tackle the market for both search and display ads with a unified interface, Schmidt said. “By combining DoubleClick with that (search-ad) architecture, we can provide a single platform for publishers that over time will begin to generate significant revenue for publishers,” Schmidt said.

Display ads are a business in flux on the Internet, though. A new study showed that growth slowed for display ads on the Web, hurt by a weakening economy. Revenue increased 8.5 percent annually to $2.9 billion in the first quarter of 2008; the year earlier, the growth rate was 16.7 percent, according to TNS Media.

Viacom has sued Google over copyrighted material on its YouTube site. But, Schmidt argued, media companies attack Google for helping to usher in the digital content era.

“There is a sea change from one model to another. Many of the criticisms I see seem to be merely about the change, and Google happens to be the messenger,” Schmidt said. “Those changes are going to occur independently.”

Google itself is a publisher, at least in one sense: it offers countless videos through YouTube service. So Google has more incentive than just its DoubleClick division to improve display advertising.

People are consuming more and more media on the Internet but paying less and less, Schmidt said. “That’s bad for Google. We are critically dependent on high-quality content,” he said.

A key part of making advertising work is making sure ads are targeted at people who are actually interested, Schmidt said. Searching for a subject on a Web site makes targeting easier, because a search engine can infer people’s interests through their search queries, but for display ads, it’s not so simple. As advertisers figure out how to target ads better, though, they’ll curtail spending on general ads, Schmidt predicted.

“Why does my TV show me ads I couldn’t possibly be interested in?” he asked, saying it’s a waste of advertisers’ money.

Schmidt insisted that profitability is only a useful tool that’s subordinate to Google’s true agenda.

Morality in the driver’s seat
Schmidt touched on the company’s principled agenda several times during the talk.

Ken Auletta of The New Yorker speaks with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Ken Auletta of The New Yorker speaks with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News.com)

For example, he said, “The goal of the company isn’t to monetize everything. The goal is to change the world.” Could you pin that down a little? Sure: “For the better,” he said.

In addition, he said Google’s “don’t be evil” motto is real, though often misunderstood.

“We don’t have an evil meter we can apply,” he said, but it is a real part of company discussions.

“I thought when I joined the company this was crap–companies don’t have these things. I thought it was a joke. It must be a Larry and Sergey thing,” Schmidt said, referring to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. “So I was sitting in a room six months in, and an engineer said, ‘That’s evil.’ It’s like a bomb goes off in the room. Everybody has a moral and ethical discussion that, by the way, stopped the product.”

In addition to trying to better the world, Google has other motivations that don’t necessarily rate highly on Wall Street’s priority list.

Criticism from Wall Street is “not the signal we respond to,” Schmidt said. “We respond to end-user satisfaction.”

But Google can afford to pay less attention to the quarterly earnings imperatives that often drive publicly traded companies, Schmidt added.

“We have enough leverage that we have the luxury of time,” Schmidt said. “Most businesses can’t invest for scale. They have to make money now. That short-term focus does make people sometimes make the wrong trade-off.”

At the same time, money still obviously matters: The company decided to move YouTube into a money-making phase. “In January or February we had a big meeting,” Schmidt said, at which he delivered the “Come on, guys” message, Schmidt said in remarks to reporters after the talk. YouTube has been a “huge success,” but monetization is now the priority

He didn’t elaborate on specific YouTube revenue plans, though. “We have a revenue plan, a usage plan, a scale plan, a bandwidth plan,” he said, but wouldn’t discuss any of the points besides saying YouTube “is now the majority of outbound bandwidth. We had to retool the network.”

CNET News


May 27 2008

Google says Viacom’s suit ‘threatens’ Net

Viacom’s $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube “threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information” over the Web, YouTube parent Google said in a legal response to the suit.

The response, reported by the Associated Press, was filed late Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Google says the threat comes from Viacom’s attempt to make “carriers and hosting providers” liable for what people post. Google, by the way, has said this suit will only be resolved in court

Viacom originally filed its lawsuit last year and filed an amended version last month. In the more recent version, the AP reported, Viacom said video-sharing site YouTube consistently allows popular, copyrighted material to be posted to its site, including from Viacom-owned MTV and Comedy Central. Viacom said that it has identified more than 150,000 unauthorized clips on YouTube and that the site has done “little or nothing” to stop the copyright infringement, the AP reported.

“The availability on the YouTube site of a vast library of the copyrighted works of plaintiffs and others is the cornerstone of defendants’ business plan,” Viacom said, according to the AP.

Google, in its response, said YouTube “goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works.” Google added that YouTube has faithfully followed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and responded to claims of infringement.

CNet


May 27 2008

Google Is Right About This: YouTube Lawsuit Threatens The Net

YouTube Logo

Things are heating up again over Viacom’s one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube. According to the BBC, Google’s lawyers have claimed that it “threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information” over the web. On the other hand, Viacom claims that they’re protecting not only their copyright, but also the interests of every copyright holder out there.

My favorite expert on copyright, Mike Masnick, hits the nail on the head again, saying that the broadcast companies and Google (and pretty much everyone else) see the Internet as two different things. He says:

Media companies still look on the internet as a content platform. That is, they think of it as a new broadcast medium. Most other folks recognize that the internet is a communications medium, and the focus should be on the ease of communication….When it comes to communication,” he argues, “the idea of using copyright to restrict content gets weird in a hurry.

A similar thought came to me as I was listening to some Muxtapes. It’s a beautiful way to share music, but I’m sure that many copyright owners will see it as just another way to steal and pillage. Yes, music gets shared; yes, I may have not bought all the MP3s I’ve listened to on Muxtape yesterday; but it sure as hell didn’t feel like stealing; it felt like fun. People aren’t stealing anything there, they’re making compilations of their favorite music out of love.

Unfortunately for media companies, the Internet enables you to communicate in a technically sophisticated way; you can embed text, music, images and video into the communication, something what only TV, radio and the newspapers could do a couple of decades ago. Now, it can be done by everyone; is it a bad thing? No one can convince me that the Internet is just a medium for a big fat theft; if anything, I’ll believe that the concept of copyright as it is now and the concept of Internet aren’t compatible. Guess which one I’ll discard first.

Mashable