It seems to have been a very costly move to turn down Microfot's advances. Yahoo!'s share price tanked this morning following the news that Microsoft was officially withdrawing its offer.
Rumours now persist that shareholders are agitating for the removal of Yahoo! board members.
What does this mean in the long run? Will Yahoo! now find a way out of its predicament?
Not likely. Microsoft has decided to play hardball knowing that Yahoo! has very little room for manoeuvre. It is only a matter of time before Micorosoft gets it prey, even if for now it has said that it won't pursue its strategy of a hostile takeover.
Microhoo! will still happen, it might just take a little longer than people thought.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Le BBC
It’s no surprise that the socially-minded French want to create a French BBC, but interesting that President Sarkozy would seek to replace the lost advertising revenue (£600m that will transfer to private stations – many of these run by Sarkozy’s mates) partly through a tax on internet access.
It will be interesting to see if this is adopted as there has been a similar argument in the UK for many years covering public service internet content and application provision.
It will no doubt be unpopular with the masses who will be asked to pay extra for something that they are already getting, but if it works it could be an interesting model to track for governments around the world.
It will be interesting to see if this is adopted as there has been a similar argument in the UK for many years covering public service internet content and application provision.
It will no doubt be unpopular with the masses who will be asked to pay extra for something that they are already getting, but if it works it could be an interesting model to track for governments around the world.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Google Phone Gets Closer
Not wanting to always blog about Google, but today it announced that it will apply to participate in the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming auction of wireless spectrum in the 700 megahertz (MHz) band in the US.
This brings the Google Phone one step closer following the company's Open Handset Alliance announcement earlier this month.
The spectrum announcement also says:
Advocacy by public interest groups and Google earlier this year helped ensure that regardless of which bidders win a key portion of the spectrum up for auction (the so-called "C Block"), they will be required to allow their users to download any software application they want on their mobile device, and to use any mobile devices they would like on that wireless network.
So at a cost of $4.6bn - the reserve price at the auction - Google will become a network operator and a such provide a Google phone, on a Google network, with a Google platform (Android).
It will be interesting to see how the Search company makes the leap to becoming a network operator if its plans come to fruition. It will also be interesting to see what impact the introduction of any Google Phone and / or Google mobile network would have on mobile advertising.
However, everyone will have to wait, with the auction not expected to finish until at least March 2008.
This brings the Google Phone one step closer following the company's Open Handset Alliance announcement earlier this month.
The spectrum announcement also says:
Advocacy by public interest groups and Google earlier this year helped ensure that regardless of which bidders win a key portion of the spectrum up for auction (the so-called "C Block"), they will be required to allow their users to download any software application they want on their mobile device, and to use any mobile devices they would like on that wireless network.
So at a cost of $4.6bn - the reserve price at the auction - Google will become a network operator and a such provide a Google phone, on a Google network, with a Google platform (Android).
It will be interesting to see how the Search company makes the leap to becoming a network operator if its plans come to fruition. It will also be interesting to see what impact the introduction of any Google Phone and / or Google mobile network would have on mobile advertising.
However, everyone will have to wait, with the auction not expected to finish until at least March 2008.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Google Domination
I see in the news today that Google has overtaken another media institution, this time ITV1, in terms of advertising revenues.
Google overtook Channel 4 last year and has been beating mediums including cinema and press rapidly in its short life.
Michael Grade is quoted in the story about the amount of regulation that ITV has enforced upon it compared to the lax environment that Google operates in. It reminded me of a number of conversations I have had recently about Google and ITV.
If Google were a TV company then there would be no way that it would have been able to grow so big and powerful so quickly. The 'M' word, monopoly, is rarely used in the press alongside Google but it is the elephant in the room. Look how quickly the forces of regulation moved when Murdoch took a stake in ITV. Now it looks like they will be forced to backtrack and possibly sell the stake they took. But has the horse bolted when it comes to Google? Its market share in the UK according to Hitwise is a shade over 85%, if that isn't a Monopoly I don't know what is and to say that it doesn't skew the market would be madness. Yet there is still no sign of intervention from regulators.
I have asked many people recently if Google can be caught and more than one person has come back with an ITV / Google analogy. It goes like this:
ITV were the dominant player in the UK terrestrial TV advertising market and nobody could see them ever being caught, then along came Channel 4 and they didn't have it all their own way all of a sudden.
The propensity for a new killer service to take out Google is probably even more likely than it was for another advertising based TV service to be launched - look at the meteoric rise of Facebook as an example when we were all MySpace mad and the next generation of social networks are already being developed - Twine. (although obviously Google do have Orkut)
The moral is things change and in digital they change twice as fast. The days of Google's dominance are not endless; they just seem that way at the moment.....
Google overtook Channel 4 last year and has been beating mediums including cinema and press rapidly in its short life.
Michael Grade is quoted in the story about the amount of regulation that ITV has enforced upon it compared to the lax environment that Google operates in. It reminded me of a number of conversations I have had recently about Google and ITV.
If Google were a TV company then there would be no way that it would have been able to grow so big and powerful so quickly. The 'M' word, monopoly, is rarely used in the press alongside Google but it is the elephant in the room. Look how quickly the forces of regulation moved when Murdoch took a stake in ITV. Now it looks like they will be forced to backtrack and possibly sell the stake they took. But has the horse bolted when it comes to Google? Its market share in the UK according to Hitwise is a shade over 85%, if that isn't a Monopoly I don't know what is and to say that it doesn't skew the market would be madness. Yet there is still no sign of intervention from regulators.
I have asked many people recently if Google can be caught and more than one person has come back with an ITV / Google analogy. It goes like this:
ITV were the dominant player in the UK terrestrial TV advertising market and nobody could see them ever being caught, then along came Channel 4 and they didn't have it all their own way all of a sudden.
The propensity for a new killer service to take out Google is probably even more likely than it was for another advertising based TV service to be launched - look at the meteoric rise of Facebook as an example when we were all MySpace mad and the next generation of social networks are already being developed - Twine. (although obviously Google do have Orkut)
The moral is things change and in digital they change twice as fast. The days of Google's dominance are not endless; they just seem that way at the moment.....
Friday, July 13, 2007
Old Problems and New Lawsuits
On first glance the story in The Times today about Google facing yet another lawsuit seems frivolous at best.
Australia’s competition watchdog - The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - is seeking an injunction to stop Google from displaying search results that did not “expressly distinguish” advertisements.
Seems a bit odd as Google does highlight advertisements as 'sponsored links' at the top and down the right hand side of the page.
So what is it all about?
Well, yet again it is dredging up the issue of who owns brand trademarks on the search service.
The Commission claims that Google has engaged in deceptive or misleading conduct in relation to the use of its paid links, but is also seeking an injunction to prevent Google from displaying the paid links of advertisers that claimed an association with other businesses or competitors where no such association existed - such as a newspaper site advertising on a car brand term to get people to go to its classifieds section.
Google's own trademark investigation procedure - outside the US - is as follows:
'When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, our review is limited to ensuring that the advertisements at issue are not using a term corresponding to the trademarked term in the ad text or as a keyword trigger. If they are, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademarked term from the ad text or keyword list and will prevent the advertiser from using the trademarked term in the future.'
Seems pretty clear, but again focus is being placed on the fact that the advertiser has to notify Google, rather than Google preventing it from happening in the first place.
It is an old debate, but keeps resurfacing in different territories around the world as different interactive markets become more mature and sooner or later Google will have to face up to the issue and solve it, otherwise it will keep bubbling until a court decision will come that may seriously dent its AdWords revenue stream.
Australia’s competition watchdog - The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - is seeking an injunction to stop Google from displaying search results that did not “expressly distinguish” advertisements.
Seems a bit odd as Google does highlight advertisements as 'sponsored links' at the top and down the right hand side of the page.
So what is it all about?
Well, yet again it is dredging up the issue of who owns brand trademarks on the search service.
The Commission claims that Google has engaged in deceptive or misleading conduct in relation to the use of its paid links, but is also seeking an injunction to prevent Google from displaying the paid links of advertisers that claimed an association with other businesses or competitors where no such association existed - such as a newspaper site advertising on a car brand term to get people to go to its classifieds section.
Google's own trademark investigation procedure - outside the US - is as follows:
'When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, our review is limited to ensuring that the advertisements at issue are not using a term corresponding to the trademarked term in the ad text or as a keyword trigger. If they are, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademarked term from the ad text or keyword list and will prevent the advertiser from using the trademarked term in the future.'
Seems pretty clear, but again focus is being placed on the fact that the advertiser has to notify Google, rather than Google preventing it from happening in the first place.
It is an old debate, but keeps resurfacing in different territories around the world as different interactive markets become more mature and sooner or later Google will have to face up to the issue and solve it, otherwise it will keep bubbling until a court decision will come that may seriously dent its AdWords revenue stream.
Monday, April 30, 2007
D-Day (Digital Days)
The next couple of days will tell us a lot about the ambitions and strategies of two of the major broadcasters in the UK.
The BBC Trust is set to give its verdict on the iPlayer today and ITV will relaunch ITV.com with on-demand content on Tuesday; Both events follow the decision from the BBC Trust to give the green light to the much delayed Freesat project last week.
Hauling both corporations into the digital age should give a boost to the programming of both as a wider audience will be able to access programming on their own terms and in their own time.
How quickly this will spell the end of mainstream linear broadcast remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to watch what impact the moves have on viewing habits and in ITV’s case advertising revenues.
The BBC Trust is set to give its verdict on the iPlayer today and ITV will relaunch ITV.com with on-demand content on Tuesday; Both events follow the decision from the BBC Trust to give the green light to the much delayed Freesat project last week.
Hauling both corporations into the digital age should give a boost to the programming of both as a wider audience will be able to access programming on their own terms and in their own time.
How quickly this will spell the end of mainstream linear broadcast remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to watch what impact the moves have on viewing habits and in ITV’s case advertising revenues.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Do You Value Free Speech?
The UK government, through Education Secretary Alan Johnson, said today that sites have a "moral obligation" to tackle bullies who post clips showing abuse of teachers and pupils and are urging site operators to do more to remove videos taken by pupils on mobile phones which humiliate or mock staff.
The argument over bullying on sites such as YouTube cuts to the very heart of UGC and the question of whether it should be moderated.
In the traditional media world there are checks and balances - to an extent - to ensure that any damaging content appearing has consequences, but in a world where everyone is a broadcaster those checks have been removed.
The question now is do we want to materially modify what UGC is by introducing checks to ‘free speech’? And will those who use these sites willingly submit to these or move on to sites that give them a more free hand?
I can remember when teachers were fair game for a bit of ribbing, but the dispersal of content has become so efficient through social networks and upload sites that real damage can now be done.
The moderation of these sites will undoubtedly bring in more advertising revenue as brands will feel more comfortable in a controlled media environment, but the edgier brands and users will be looking for the next YouTube and it is the users who make the environment.
Which side of the argument do you pin your colours on?
The argument over bullying on sites such as YouTube cuts to the very heart of UGC and the question of whether it should be moderated.
In the traditional media world there are checks and balances - to an extent - to ensure that any damaging content appearing has consequences, but in a world where everyone is a broadcaster those checks have been removed.
The question now is do we want to materially modify what UGC is by introducing checks to ‘free speech’? And will those who use these sites willingly submit to these or move on to sites that give them a more free hand?
I can remember when teachers were fair game for a bit of ribbing, but the dispersal of content has become so efficient through social networks and upload sites that real damage can now be done.
The moderation of these sites will undoubtedly bring in more advertising revenue as brands will feel more comfortable in a controlled media environment, but the edgier brands and users will be looking for the next YouTube and it is the users who make the environment.
Which side of the argument do you pin your colours on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)