Got this error trying to open Google Reader in Google Chrome.
Categories
Archives
Link Love
Would you pay for a search engine?
Would you pay to use a search engine? Here are some ideas as why you might and why someone might try it as a business model.
Let’s say, hypothetically, you have a search engine that is capable of producing results at near-Google quality. For the sake of my thoughts here, I’ll just say it’s Bing (since it’s generally accepted as a solid alternative to Google) and because for all intent and purposes, Yahoo is now Bing anyway.
Google Knows Too Much
In order for Google to be as effective as it is, it needs to know as much about you as possible. And they know an absolutely frightening amount of information about each of us. They currently keep nine months of data about every user (it used to be two year’s worth). That’s a lot of personal data.
And it doesn’t matter that it’s Google. If you went to Yahoo they keep the same information (although they only keep it for three months). They just haven’t figured out how to use it as effectively yet.
Bing and other search engines can’t compete against Google when it comes to search results and advertising. Sorry, but Google has that pretty much tied up. So why not attack something Google can’t (or, most likely, won’t) change? The advertising model.
Hello, Big Brother
It wouldn’t be hard at all for, say, Microsoft, to tactfully-yet-pointedly educate (read: scare the ever-loving snot out of) the public with regard to how much information Google collects about each of them and then offer an alternative:
Search with Bing and absolutely no information about you will be saved. That, plus 25 GB of online storage and email for $1 per month or $10 per year (or whatever the nominal cost would be).
Searches would be completely anonymous and there would be no advertising. It wouldn’t have bots reading your email and putting messages next to it. It wouldn’t track where you click, how long you’re on a page or what you’ve purchased.
Pure, unadulterated search. No strings, records, logs or ads attached. Plus 25 GB online storage and email. $1 per month.
The Price of Privacy
According to Mashable Bing had nearly 50 million uniques during its first month. Let’s pretend they stick around and are willing to pay for privacy (or, if they aren’t, that a comparable number of people come from Google and Yahoo to replace them). That’s $500,000,000 in annual revenue without having to worry about a sales force, paying insanely bright people insanely high salaries to figure out/tweak advertising algorithms, maintain ad networks, or deal with EU and FCC investigations. Just take the search engine they have and get rid of the ads.
Half a billion dollars doesn’t sound too bad when you consider at the end of 2008, Microsoft was losing about a half a billion dollars a year in their search efforts.
And the more information Google collects, the more attractive Bing’s offer would be.
Supply the Real Demand
Instead of spending a lot of time and money trying to 1. effectively put ads next to search results, 2. convince businesses they need to advertise with Bing when Google does it better and 3. try to show average everyday people why they should Bing instead of Google, maybe Microsoft should buck the trend, charge for a service and give people something that’s truly unique and absent from the web: privacy.
Microsoft isn’t in the business of organizing the world’s information. Nor is it in the advertising business. Yet it spends billions of dollars trying to out-Google Google. Perhaps the most innovative thing for it to do is do what it’s been doing all along: create software and sell it.
What do you think? Are you concerned about the amount of info Google and others have about you? Would you pay for privacy online? Sound off in the comments.
Posted in Uncategorized Comments closed
I hate it when companies do that
I really, really hate it when companies try to make it sound like they’re doing you some big favor when they aren’t.
“Hey, you seem like a nice guy. So here’s what I’m going to do for you…” I detest it. Two recent examples come to mind.
Apple
When the agency laptop battery exploded our IT guy took it to the Apple Genius Bar. The “Genius”, after treating our IT guy with 16+ years experience like a 6th grader, said, “Well, these are normally $179 but I’ll replace it for free.” Gee, YA THINK? The conversation should have gone more like this: “Hi. This happened to my laptop. I was…” “Oh, wow. I am so sorry. Yeah, we’ve had problems with these batteries and I’m so sorry this happened. Would you mind waiting a minute while I go to get you a replacement battery?” [After returning with the battery.] “There. This one shouldn’t give you any more trouble. Let’s turn on the laptop and make sure there wasn’t any damage. Working? OK, good. Again, I’m really sorry for this happening. I know it’s not much, but I’d be happy to offer you a $5 iTunes gift card for your trouble.” Instead of acting like some self-righteous, faux-benevolent retail cog he should have been apologizing profusely. THE PRODUCT EXPLODED after all.
Comcast
When I got out of the shower and walked into my bedroom to get dressed last week I saw the shadows of two guys against the blinds. Creepy. I got dressed in the bathroom. A few minutes later at about 8:30 there was a phony-sounding “tap-tap-tuh-tap-tap…tap-tap” at my front door. It was the guy who’d been lurking outside my bedroom window! Just who I wanted to see as I was walking out the door to go to work! He explained that I was getting more channels than I was paying for. I was aware of this as we had called Comcast and told them but it apparently took them three years to get around to checking it out. The short version (yes, there is a longer version which I will most likely write about later) is after lurking outside my bedroom window unannounced, knocking on my door at 8:30 in the morning and then trying to do a high-pressure upsell he had the nerve to say, “You’ve been really nice about this. [Note: I've said about four words the entire time.] I can give you the premium (or standard, or whatever it was) service for $29.99 for six months.” Don’t BS me, jerk. Comcast advertises their “$X for Y months” promotions all the time. Don’t act like you’re being all nice to me and making some giant concession on my behalf when you’re really just trying to score some kind of commission for yourself. I’ll end here. But, like I said, more later on the Comcast bit. Image courtesy of here.Wired magazine on the iPad
Check it:
Looks pretty good to me. Expected, but good. Give them some time to mess around a bit and get really comfortable with the platform and I think it’ll be even better.
While this video demonstration alone doesn’t make me want to run out and buy an iPad right away, I’d definitely pay extra for a digital subscription along side the standard print version.
On a separate note, digital print publications (I may have just coined a new term) will have the ability to track effectiveness of advertising in a way never before possible. Think about it: instant A/B testing in a print publication. Push out the new edition, give it a week, then replace the lower performing of the two ads. Never before possible in “print” media. Plus, you can get data on exactly who sees your ad, for how long and whether or not they interact with it.
What did you think of the video? Did it get you excited for the iPad?Exploded Macbook Pro battery – while the computer was off [UPDATED]
Exploding batteries in Apple products aren’t exactly a new phenomenon (see even more coverage here, here and here) not to mention fraying cables and chargers.
However, I think we may have an exploding battery first here at my place of employment: This beaut (pictured above) was 1. turned off and 2. not being charged when it blew. Even worse, it was being stored in a super-cooled server room. Stellar. Thanks Apple. Thankfully, nobody was hurt and there wasn’t any damage done to anything but the battery and the laptop. Our IT guy has an appointment at the Apple Genius bar this morning. I’ll keep you apprised as to what transpires.UPDATE:
They replaced the battery for free. They were kind of jerks about it, from what I hear, but they replaced it nonetheless.
Warming up to the idea of the iPad. Kinda.
It’s weird. Since the iPad was announced I find myself thinking about different things I do and if I’d prefer to do them with an iPad (theoretically since, you know, I’ve never actually used one).
For example, I’m currently reading the Ensign, Wired, a book for work (which I think I’ll write about later), and of course the scriptures and dozens of blogs and websites. I usually have a notebook or my iPhone (with Evernote) nearby whenever I’m reading just in case I want to make a note or jot down an idea, so having an iPad where I could semi-easily flip over to my notes and back is appealing. Here are my thoughts on each. Ensign/Wired I would absolutely love to read the Ensign on an iPad, mostly because it would mean I’d have the latest edition with me. I honestly think I’d read more of the magazine if I had an iPad version. Wired is a toss-up. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s a brilliantly designed and laid-out publication right down to the paper choices and the different kinds of ink. (Seriously. Look at the covers from last year. Awesome.) Even if an iPad version of Wired were mind-blowingly good (better than this prototype) I don’t think I’d ever cancel my subscription to the physical version. Verdict? I want it. Ensign goes digital, but I’ll keep my physical subscription to Wired in addition to the digital version. Book – The Element
I just started this book for work and I can honestly say that I wouldn’t care at all if I was reading it on the iPad. While the cover has a nice feel to it the pages feel thin and cheap. I’d much rather load it up and read it.
However, if I was reading a book I was really into (What Would Google Do?) or something I wanted to have an experience with (Harry Potter series) I’d still want a physical copy. Plus, if it’s a book that gets my brain going I like to scribble things in the margins, underline parts that stand out and make notes. Call me old fashioned, but I love the feel of a book, the cover, seeing all the pages as they slowly move from one side to the other, and, yes, the smell. There’s something very satisfying about having completed a book which I’m doubtful you’d feel if you had a digital copy. Plus, someday I want to have a library/reading room in my house that I don’t yet own. Verdict? Meh. Maybe. Depends on the title. Blogs/Websites
Considering how much time I spend reading content online, the more I think about it, I think it could make a world of difference to read it all on something like an iPad. Especially longer posts/articles. Take this one for example. Great content that I think would be less intimidating/more easily digestible on something other than a horizontally-oriented browser.
Be honest: wouldn’t you rather be reading this on your couch with an iPad? That’s what I thought. However, consuming web content on the iPad has some limitations. While I read I like to be able to bookmark, share and save clips of things I’m reading. So unless they allow browser plugins for mobile Safari (ha!) the experience, in that respect, is going to be limited due to lack of a real browser. Verdict? Despite the browser’s shortcomings I think it would be awesome to read web content from an iPad. Gimme.Movies/Games
I rarely watch videos or play games on my iPhone. I’ve probably launched the YouTube app a grand total of six times since I’ve had my new phone. I don’t picture myself abandoning my new HDTV and watching stuff from my couch on a 4:3, 10″ screen.
Verdict? I don’t need yet another way to watch video. It’s a no-brainer to include it in the iPad, but I won’t be using it.
Lingering Doubts
A lot of what I do on the web has to do with content creation. I am a blogger after all. And while the iPad is designed to help you consume Thanksgiving-levels of content, I hope Apple (or, more likely, developers) imagine new and innovative ways for me to create, explore and share what’s in my head as well as gems I find while I engorge the gluttonous mass that is my daily information intake. Reading Room image courtesy of here – #12.
Dove for Men vs. Old Spice
Perhaps you saw the bold move by Dove (traditionally a brand with a strong female target audience) to branch into men’s products with this ad:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjswv8UCR2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Old Spice responded with this:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0]
Point to Old Spice.
I almost never read the first paragraph
I almost always skip the first paragraph of blog posts/articles. It's usually background information that has already been communicated by the headline, so why bother?
Image of Mashable.Posted in Uncategorized Comments closed
I hate Budweiser clydesdales
Seriously. Hate them. The one they showed tonight with the benevolent clydesdale training the little calf I started getting nauseous.
Then my brother in-law said, “They should shoot the cow.”
My hopes soared. That would be brilliant! Shoot the calf ala Napoleon Dynamite! Nobody would ever see it coming. Even better, use the old guy from the movie to do it. Alas, I remain disappointed. Another stupid beer commercial. Oh, well. Image courtesy of here.Posted in Uncategorized Comments closed
Would you pay for search?
Let’s say, hypothetically, you have a search engine that is capable of producing results at near-Google quality. For the sake of my thoughts here, I’ll just say it’s Bing (since it’s generally accepted as a solid alternative to Google) and because for all intent and purposes, Yahoo is now Bing anyway.
Hello, Big Brother
Searches would be completely anonymous and there would be no advertising. It wouldn’t have bots reading your email and putting messages next to it. It wouldn’t track where you click, how long you’re on a page or what you’ve purchased.
According to Mashable Bing had nearly 50 million uniques during its first month. Let’s pretend they stick around and are willing to pay for privacy (or, if they aren’t, that a comparable number of people come from Google and Yahoo to replace them). That’s $500,000,000 in annual revenue
Half a billion dollars doesn’t sound too bad when you consider at the end of 2008, Microsoft was losing about a half a billion dollars a year in their search efforts.
And the more information Google collects, the more attractive Bing’s offer would be.
Supply the Real Demand
Instead of spending a lot of time and money trying to 1. effectively put ads next to search results, 2. convince businesses they need to advertise with Bing when Google does it better and 3. try to show average everyday people why they should Bing instead of Google, maybe Microsoft should buck the trend, charge for a service and give people something that’s truly unique and absent from the web: privacy.
Microsoft isn’t in the business of organizing the world’s information. Nor is it in the advertising business. Yet it spends billions of dollars trying to out-Google Google. Perhaps the most innovative thing for it to do is do what it’s been doing all along: create software and sell it.
What do you think? Are you concerned about the amount of info Google and others have about you? Would you pay for privacy online? Sound off in the comments.