Erick Schonfeld submits:

The recent court order directing Google (GOOG) to hand over data to Viacom (VIA) about every YouTube video ever watched strikes many people as an absurd overreach of the law into the privacy of anyone who has ever used YouTube (i.e., almost everyone on the Internet). Google should definitely keep fighting the ruling if it can.

But if it can’t, perhaps it should comply with it in a creative way. The data in question are data logs containing the records of every video watched on YouTube, by whom, and at what times. The court is also ordering that Google hand over all videos that have ever been taken down for any reason. The logs alone take up 12 terabytes. Google should print them out and deliver them on paper.

Complete Story »

Filed under: Products and services, Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), Dell (DELL), Circuit City Stores (CC)

Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) wants to expand the reach of its vital Office suite of products. The software giant wants to utilize a subscription model for the collection of programs. The initiative will commence later this month at Circuit City (NYSE: CC) and it will eventually reach other retail stores. People will also eventually have the option of accessing the subscription product via computers such as ones made by Dell (NASDAQ: DELL). The cost is reported to be $70 for twelve months of Office access.

This is an interesting scheme. As the article points out, businesses might not bat an eye at subscribing to software applications, but for consumers, this is a different ballgame. Many of us, myself included, are so used to going down to a Best Buy (NYSE: BBY) to purchase a software package for a flat fee that paying yearly dues just seems like an alien concept. And I'd say this goes double for something as large and complex as the Office program. Microsoft believes that $70 on an annual basis will be perceived as cheap and will expose consumers who might normally either seek upgrades on a pirated basis or who would simply continue using older versions to regular approved updates. It is a large investment, after all, to upgrade to a new iteration of Office.

Microsoft would be wise to market the heck out of the subscription model for Office, taking full advantage of the inflationary environment we are currently in. If potential users can be convinced of the value proposition, then they could eventually become hooked on the promise of upgrades over time for the relatively economical price indicated. Checking around on the net, I notice that a lot of the negative comments about this idea center on the fact that there are already free alternatives out there to Office, such as applications offered by Google (NASDAQ: GOOG).

The thing is, though, many mainstream users of software applications probably are susceptible to the brand equity of Microsoft and Office. I am. Quite honestly, I'd rather use something used by the majority of people I know and work with as opposed to a free suite on Google or elsewhere. Sure, savvy software users will make fun of me for holding such an opinion and will point out a perceived lack of sophistication on my part, but my point is that, from a business standpoint, Microsoft does have a ton of equity to leverage in the form of the Office name, and it's a worthwhile goal to invest a little capital toward converting some of the mindshare out there who don't currently engage Office upgrades into subscribing users. Incremental revenues may result over time if an effective marketing campaign is drawn up. I don't think I'd subscribe, but I have a feeling others might...

Disclosure: I don't own any company mentioned; positions can change at any time.

 

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Eric Savitz (Barron's) submits:

The problem Google (GOOG) is having monetizing its inventory of News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace pages may have more to do with faulty algorithms for ad serving than it does inherent issues with social networking sites.

That’s the conclusion Pali Research analyst Richard Greenfield reached in a research piece Thursday on News Corp. “While everyone is blaming social networking as the culprit for Google’s MySpace monetization problems, the real problem is Google itself and its search algorithms for social networking, ” he asserts.

Complete Story »

John Biggs submits:

 

Complete Story »

John Gilliam submits:

It has long been assumed by many investors that acquiring Valueclick (VCLK) would be the first step in "plan B" for Microsoft (MSFT) if its bid to take over Yahoo  (YHOO) was unsuccessful. When MSFT's Steve Ballmer recently ruled out a slew of acquisitions of smaller internet players after pulling its bid for Yahoo, ValueClick's stock seemed to lose some of its "takeover bait" premium over the next couple of trading sessions. Since that time, the sell off in ValueClick shares has intensified and the stock has set new 52 week lows three times over the last week as rumors swirl that it is now hunting for some strategic acquisitions of its own. As might be expected, investors appear to be pricing in 1) concerns over dilution that might accompany any acquisition 2) typical "sell the buyer, buy the seller" arbitrage or 3) that an acquisition is signaling the switch of management efforts to acquiring instead of being acquired.

Much of the chatter regarding ValueClick acquisitions has focused on the possibility of their acquiring a company that would gain them entrance to the "Pay Per Click" [PPC] advertising space, the very high margin business that the Google empire was built upon where advertisers bid for placement in search results that are offered when consumers seek information on specific keyword search terms. This business was invented by Goto.com, which became Overture.com and was acquired by Yahoo and is now Yahoo Search Marketing. This space has been dominated by Yahoo and Google (GOOG), with Microsoft making a late run to gain a foothold in this space and round out "the big three" in the PPC space. While there has always been a "second tier" of companies trying to gain traction in the pay per click space, none have been able to come close to challenging "the big three" for various reasons.

Complete Story »

Filed under: Before the bell, Google (GOOG), Apple Inc (AAPL), Viacom (VIA), AMR Corp (AMR)

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Products and services, Launches, Google (GOOG)

When Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) purchased wireless software development company Android years ago, its founder asked Google's co-founder Larry Page, "Is this interesting to Google?" It sure turned out to be, although the mobile phone operating system environment was announced almost a year ago and nothing concrete has shipped in a customer device yet. My bet is that Google isn't delaying development to fine-tune its software -- it's had years to do that and the money to boot.

The problem is the wireless environment in the U.S., for starters. The competitive landscape is so tightly controlled that Google's mantra of "open access" just won't sit well with wireless carriers used to telling customers what they can and cannot do with their phones. If you think U.S. consumers have control over their wireless lifestyles, a quick trip to Europe will dispel that notion pretty fast.

If Google really wants to make Android the ubiquitous, free and open mobile operating system it wants it to be, what are the alternatives to having partnerships with mobile carriers who will, of course, be afraid of Google? Google has bid on wireless airwaves before (only to have the goal of allowing open devices accessible to closed networks), but this time, I see it going down the mobile virtual network operator route, plain and simple. Although the MVNO model has largely failed in the U.S., Google doesn't have a national wireless network to operate. But with its large pockets, it sure can buy wholesale from the existing carriers and place its Android customers with service -- and then, give them anything they want. Like, mobile search results with ads next to them.

 

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Google (GOOG), Amazon.com (AMZN), Small business

Over the past couple years, major players like Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) and Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN) have invested in the so-called "cloud." Basically, they are leveraging their huge infrastructures to provision services - like web hosting, storage and so on - to other companies. Actually, I know many startups that have such deals (helping to cut costs and get to market faster).

But what if you don't want to outsource this? Well, there is an alternative: Parascale. The company sells cloud software that you can install on your own servers.

As an indication of its power, Parascale has raised $11.37 million in a Series A round. The investors include Charles River Ventures and Menlo Ventures (both firms have extensive backgrounds in the storage area).

Parascale got its start four years ago. Interestingly enough, it hasn't been an easy journey. The original team had to get second mortgages and lines of credit to support operations.

But now, it looks like the timing is right. "With the explosion of digital content," said Sajai Krishnan, who is the CEO of Parascale CEO, "there is a need for more efficient storage systems."

The Parascale Cloud Storage (PCS) is built on widely followed standards as well as Linux servers. This makes it easier for customers to adapt the technology to their needs (which is not an easy thing to do with Google and Amazon.com).

No doubt, the storage marketplace has gone through several major shifts over the past twenty years. So, with cloud storage, it looks like we may be seeing another shift - and Parascale will now have the resources to become a leader in the space.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Edgar Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements. He also operates MergerBook.com.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments