Last week we told you about Tim O'Reilly's concern about the impending Web wars fought by giant industry players looking to replace one another. The news today about a potential deal between Microsoft and News Corp. to delist the latter's content from Google suggests these wars are really heating up.
News Corp. has not been shy about its distaste for Google. At the recent Web 2.0 Summit, an editor from The Wall Street Journal, Robert Thompson, said that "Google wants to be a home page and a front page," and that Google's VP of search, Marissa Mayer, "unintentionally promotes promiscuity." Shortly thereafter, Rupert Murdoch said he planned to de-index his sites' content from Google once News Corp. implements pay models.
In the midst of it all, Jason Calacanis, founder of Mahalo, made some noise with a suggestion that if Microsoft wants to kill Google, it should make exclusive deals with publishers. Plenty of bloggers said Calacanis's idea held no water. In addition to rattling off a series of reasons why such a deal wouldn't hurt Google, Danny Sullivan from SearchEngineLand wrote:
It's an extremely odd move to me for Microsoft to be trying to strike exclusive deals like this. It's one thing to license content. It's another to try and suggest that a competitor be locked out. Microsoft has a terrible anti-competitive reputation... You can expect that Google will use an anti-competitive partnership with News Corp. as a sign of arguing that Microsoft is 'back to its old tricks' to pressure against [the Yahoo deal].
But today The Financial Times reports that Microsoft and News Corp. have entered early discussions about a deal whereby the company would de-index its content from Google but keep it on Bing. FT says Microsoft has been in touch with other publishers as well.
This tactic isn't all that shocking: Recall that Steve Ballmer has said he's willing to spend whatever it takes for Bing to become a real competitor to Google. But will it work? Is this the answer to defeating Google?
Proobbbbably nottttt. Well, not this alone, at least.
OK, let's assume Microsoft gets away with this, despite its seeming uber-anti-competitive. But let's say Google rolls its eyes and the Department of Justice falls asleep and misses the whole thing. A potential deal whereby Microsoft pays News Corp. to index its content exclusively with Bing could be a big deal... for News Corp. and any other publisher wanting a long-sought payday from the search engines that index their content.
But as far as this turning Bing into a surefire Google killer? Considering that the majority of people doing searches on Google are seeking plenty of information beyond news headlines, I'm not sure acquiring News Corp. content will raise the little green line quite that high.
However, at the very least, if this somewhat unlikely situation pans out, it might give the search-engine landscape the interesting makeover it's been lacking since Google became omnipotent. Alleged Google competitors have come and gone, but none have been successful at offering something that Google can't. But with enough steam from the publishing world -- and a chunk of Microsoft's money -- Bing may be able to do just that.
And in that case, if Bing succeeds at stealing some of Google's thunder by making exclusive deals with publishers and thereby banning their content from Google's index, one might start to legitimately consider that "evil" is a contagious ailment in the search-o-spehere.
What started as random threat from an old-media Mogul seems to be having a revolutionary impact as even the mighty Google has suddenly make 180 degrees U-turn. How times have change!!
I agree that content providers deserve to be paid for their work, and the iTunes model might work for journalism, too, despite the disparities between news and music. (Here, I will avoid cynical references to infotainment and the de-evolution of journalism, besides this one, of course). And in a free market, businesses should be able to profit in any way that does not harm others. My problem with this model is that it does not contribute to the pursuit of excellence. What will drive News Corp to improve (online, anyway) if their only paying customer is Microsoft? They (News Corp) becomes subject to the tryanny of an exclusive agreement. They make a little money, Microsoft makes a little money, the public is not served.
The other side of this (drum and fife, please) is that an informed citizenry is hte basis of a free society, and this, to me, is the true value of the internet. Restricting access, at least to the awareness that particular information exists, is contrary to that value. Who is served by creating arcane pathways to find this content? Feel free to charge me for content (let me decide its value), but don't force me to aggregated search engine results in order to find it.
What is wrong for companies want to be paid for their content. I agree, citizen journalism will fill certain gap, example - a riot happening at times square, anyone with a mobile phone can broadcast that information, but not all of us can have obama's interview or angelina jolie's interview. Only Jay Lenos of the media world can do it. Obviously to create a mass following and reputation they need to spend money and ofcourse needs money to their bills. Even if federal government makes internet freely accessible for all of us, still content generation is someone else's property. We are happy to pay 99c for a song at itunes, so why we would not consider paying money for news source.
Ofcourse, MS interest in search industry is obvious. I believe it is not Microsoft's goal to become search leader (they would be surprisingly happy if they did), but their hidden goal is to distract Google so Big G will leave MS alone and they attain an understanding that both are going to accept each other's existence much like IBM and MS.
I'm sure the net nuetrality folks will have a lot to say about this. Microsoft will surely look like the spoiler in this, and since users have largely rejected the notion of paying for content directly, I'm not sure this business model works for anyone, save to create inefficiencies that lead to profit by exclusivity.
But I think users won't miss what they don't see. Bye bye, News Corp. Information longs to be free.
Great points, David, and I think a lot of us have been predicting the "end of free" for quite awhile. Microsoft has the resources, and established publishers are looking to get their payday back. So something like this could certainly stir things up. However, do you see any conflicts here with regard to this being anti-competitive? I don't think it's a problem if Microsoft is willing to pay for content and Google isn't, but if the deal is that News Corp. gets paid if and only if it removes its content from Google, I think that could be a big problem.
On an article by The Guardian, the ask if the Bing deal could dent Google. According to a report by a German agency that wonder what would happen if most of the country's publishers (~1,000 domains) removed their content from the search engine.
They used 1M keywords and showed that on average 5% of the top 10 results came from German news organizations. So... maybe it's not really a big deal.
Google (and the other lesser search engines) have succeeded by directing people to content - often free content. Google makes all the money and the sites with the free content than struggle to upsell products or get ad-based revenues.
If Bing is willing to pay for content that "could" open the door up to the concept that the search engines have to pay for the content they direct to. That could dramatically redistribute the wealth to many other content players.
Microsoft is walking a fine line as where do you draw the line - when does a search sit have to pay to direct traffic to cetain content versus not paying. One that payment genie is out fo the bottle - it will be hard to get back in.
It's an interesting strategy for Microsoft. On the one hand it could limit the potential revenue/profit for the entire search industry, but it might still mean more revenues/growth for Bing versus Google.
With the Bing cashback to buyers, Microsoft has already shown that it is willing to pay for traffic.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Neal Stephenson is best known as the author of science fiction novels such as SnowCrash and Anathem. But he does other things as well. Among them: He's assembled a team of scientists and engineers to figure out how to build a 20-kilometer-tall tower to use as a platform for launching rockets into space.
While interstellar travel presents huge challenges, it's "almost inevitable," according to a speaker at the Starship Century symposium here in San Diego.
Catch up on the week with one simple serving of Friday File. We've pieced together 10 interesting news bites you may have missed and put them together in bite-size morsels.
Based on reactions in Nicole's Newsfeed, everyone hates this version of Facebook. This should matter to Facebook now that there's a real competitor on the scene named Google+.
While the publishing industry reels from the pressure of digital books and freely available content on the Web, one branch of the industry, the publishers of academic books and journals, remains above the fray. How is this possible and how long will it last?
Google's replacement of CEO Schmidt by founder Page has a lot of Valley types agog with expectations of a renewed 'startup' mindset. But the Google of today can't be a startup, and it may well be that chasing the next Internet fad is the wrong approach for the company.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority is conducting a pilot test of digital kiosks to guide subway users to where they want to go more efficiently and at lower cost.
The whole Amazon.reader debate is a double-stupid. It's stupid to think that there's any e-book buyer who doesn't know Amazon's URL, and it was stupider to let ICANN launch the whole free-form TLD initiative to start with.
While NFC's original goal was to enhance mobile commerce applications, it is finding its way into a number of other uses, which is creating both opportunity as well as challenges for IT departments.
Enterprises would like to move to cloud computing but are hesitant because they are concerned about providers’ ability to secure company data. Here are some tips that help to ensure that if breaches occur, the business is not left holding the bag.
Edmunds separates customers into segments based on the info it collects on its site and from partners, and uses that to push out custom content, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
The automotive website uses propensity modeling to target ads and customer registration forms, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
Ushering in a new era of cognitive computing systems, IBM announced today the IBM Watson Engagement Advisor, a technology breakthrough that allows brands to crunch big data in record time to transform the way they engage clients in key functions such as customer service, marketing, and sales.
Expert Integrated Systems: Changing the Experience & Economics of IT In this e-book, we take an in-depth look at these expert integrated systems -- what they are, how they work, and how they have the potential to help CIOs achieve dramatic savings while restoring IT's role as business innovator. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
Email This
