Sunday, May 4, 2008
Google Sets Expiration on Cookies
Google announced today on its blog that it will expire cookies for visitors who have been more than 2 years from their last search. Instead of the permanent expiration date of 2038, they will now auto expire after 2 years of non-usage.
Google sets aside YouTube fund, may need more if Howard Stern calls
Google has set aside $200 million, or 12.5 percent of the shares issued to pay for YouTube, to cover "certain indemnification obligations" that may hit the video sharing site. The big question: Will that be enough? These obligations, also known as copyright lawsuits, mean a healthy chunk of the equity Google used to pay for YouTube will be held in escrow for a year.
The message: Google is a little more worried about lawsuits than it initially disclosed. Lawyers, rev your engines.
Despite Google's deals with CBS, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group, the big guys are the least of Google's worries. Google is going to be swarmed by a bunch of gnats looking for payouts–especially since Google has posted a "$200 million, Come and Get It" sign when it closed the YouTube deal.
Should Google be worried? You bet. After all, some of those gnats are pretty big. Howard Stern has said at least three times on his Sirius Satellite Radio show that Google's purchase of YouTube makes him more likely to send off a cease or desist letter or two. When YouTube was young and broke it wasn't worth Howard's time. The market cap of YouTube's new parent changes that. Do you pay Howard or deal with the bad press? It's not like Howard doesn't have a point. See here. All of those clips are from Howard's on-demand TV channel. Howard's sidekick Artie Lange has his whole career posted on YouTube.
Sure, you can argue it's good promotion, but what happens when every artist wants some change. Google's best option is to pay the dough. Again, it's a question of how much dough Google has to pay out. On the bright side, Google could issue shares and broaden its shareholder base.
This potential invasion of the copyright gnats isn't an issue today, but could become one quickly. As Mark Cuban notes the next year is going to be interesting. For now, Wall Street doesn't seem too concerned.
In a research note restarting coverage of Google, Credit Suisse analyst Heath Terry said:
The YouTube acquisition is certainly not without its own risks. The most significant issue facing Google following this acquisition is the potential for a deluge of litigation concerning copyrighted content on YouTube. A protracted legal battle in the courts could result in millions of dollars of legal expenses and settlement outside the courts is also a possibility. The worst case scenario can be seen in the fates of companies like Napster and MP3.com. Our analysis of the top 100 most viewed videos so far in November indicate that under 35% of these videos (by total views and number of videos) potentially contain contentious copyrighted material. This means that the majority of videos on the site are truly user-generated content. As a result, we believe the impact of Google/YouTube removing copyrighted content may be less than feared. However, it is unclear how much of YouTube’s traffic comes to site primarily for copyrighted content rather than user-generated videos.
Terry's bet: The monetization of YouTube will outrun the copyright gnats. His price target for Google: $600.
The message: Google is a little more worried about lawsuits than it initially disclosed. Lawyers, rev your engines.
Despite Google's deals with CBS, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group, the big guys are the least of Google's worries. Google is going to be swarmed by a bunch of gnats looking for payouts–especially since Google has posted a "$200 million, Come and Get It" sign when it closed the YouTube deal.
Should Google be worried? You bet. After all, some of those gnats are pretty big. Howard Stern has said at least three times on his Sirius Satellite Radio show that Google's purchase of YouTube makes him more likely to send off a cease or desist letter or two. When YouTube was young and broke it wasn't worth Howard's time. The market cap of YouTube's new parent changes that. Do you pay Howard or deal with the bad press? It's not like Howard doesn't have a point. See here. All of those clips are from Howard's on-demand TV channel. Howard's sidekick Artie Lange has his whole career posted on YouTube.
Sure, you can argue it's good promotion, but what happens when every artist wants some change. Google's best option is to pay the dough. Again, it's a question of how much dough Google has to pay out. On the bright side, Google could issue shares and broaden its shareholder base.
This potential invasion of the copyright gnats isn't an issue today, but could become one quickly. As Mark Cuban notes the next year is going to be interesting. For now, Wall Street doesn't seem too concerned.
In a research note restarting coverage of Google, Credit Suisse analyst Heath Terry said:
The YouTube acquisition is certainly not without its own risks. The most significant issue facing Google following this acquisition is the potential for a deluge of litigation concerning copyrighted content on YouTube. A protracted legal battle in the courts could result in millions of dollars of legal expenses and settlement outside the courts is also a possibility. The worst case scenario can be seen in the fates of companies like Napster and MP3.com. Our analysis of the top 100 most viewed videos so far in November indicate that under 35% of these videos (by total views and number of videos) potentially contain contentious copyrighted material. This means that the majority of videos on the site are truly user-generated content. As a result, we believe the impact of Google/YouTube removing copyrighted content may be less than feared. However, it is unclear how much of YouTube’s traffic comes to site primarily for copyrighted content rather than user-generated videos.
Terry's bet: The monetization of YouTube will outrun the copyright gnats. His price target for Google: $600.
Google Sets are Actually Pretty Cool
Peter Norvig,, Director of Search Quality for Google, stopped by the Emerging Technology Group in November. He gave a talk that rambled a little bit, but could fairly be described as “Google’s point of view on various programming language related things.”
Good talk. He said a lot of interesting things.
One of the things he talked about was Google sets. From his point of view, the important thing was was this:
Every now and then someone will stand up and say “We need to have large scale, established and standardized ontologies in order to make sense of the information on the web.”
But such a categorization is already encoded in the structure of the web, and Google is already using it.
In fact, the added benefit from such resource-intensive ontology development and characerization is not readily apparent.
Which leads us to Google sets. Google sets is a way to browse the web’s implicit ontology. What you do is simple: you enter some terms which you already think of as instances of some class. Google then returns you what it thinks are the other instances of that class.
Keep in mind that some of the instances it returns are, well, bizarre. Enter the terms “narwhale” and “rhino” and the response list includes, in addition to animals and record companies, the entry “Mailing Lists” (no doubt there’s a reason for this. I just don’t know what it is).
Playing around with google sets is inherently fun. But it’s also a great way to mine the web. For example, here’s a great use. Enter the name of the company you work for. Enter the name of one of its main competitors. Click “small set.”
Voila! There’s how the web classifies your company.
Tell me another great use for google sets.
Good talk. He said a lot of interesting things.
One of the things he talked about was Google sets. From his point of view, the important thing was was this:
Every now and then someone will stand up and say “We need to have large scale, established and standardized ontologies in order to make sense of the information on the web.”
But such a categorization is already encoded in the structure of the web, and Google is already using it.
In fact, the added benefit from such resource-intensive ontology development and characerization is not readily apparent.
Which leads us to Google sets. Google sets is a way to browse the web’s implicit ontology. What you do is simple: you enter some terms which you already think of as instances of some class. Google then returns you what it thinks are the other instances of that class.
Keep in mind that some of the instances it returns are, well, bizarre. Enter the terms “narwhale” and “rhino” and the response list includes, in addition to animals and record companies, the entry “Mailing Lists” (no doubt there’s a reason for this. I just don’t know what it is).
Playing around with google sets is inherently fun. But it’s also a great way to mine the web. For example, here’s a great use. Enter the name of the company you work for. Enter the name of one of its main competitors. Click “small set.”
Voila! There’s how the web classifies your company.
Tell me another great use for google sets.
Google sets JotSpot free as Google Sites
Just a few days after opening up GrandCentral again, Google has now released a new version of the wiki-based group collaboration service JotSpot which is fully integrated with Google Sites. If you use Google for Domains, you can add this app to your services now.
Much to the chagrin of TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington, BusinessWeek broke the embargo and published the story first.
I think the real interest here for Google is to get these collaborative tools into the commercial and educational organizations that are using Google Apps already. It’s interesting to note that there are a number of companies out there that are working on similar, wiki-style collaborative software products right now (such as Portland’s Jive). In some ways, too, as the Bits blog notes, this is a direct attack on Microsoft’s SharePoint as well.
My thoughts:
After playing with Google Sites for a little while now, I have come away quite impressed with it. I didn’t use the old JotSpot, but looking at this version, I can see how I could use this for various projects.
Some of the actual integration between the different Google apps is a bit hidden behind the “Dashboard” template, where you can add Calendars, slideshows from Picasaweb, and Google Documents.
However, that integration still leaves a lot to be desired. Why, for example, do I have to copy and paste the URL for my calendar into the Calendar widget instead of just choosing a calendar I have set up in Google Docs already? And the same it true for all the other Google Apps - you always have to copy and paste a URL, which is just cumbersome. Once it is imported into the site though, the document and the site are completely in synch, as VentureBeat points out.
So overall, I think this is a very interesting product, I just wish it would be more tightly integrated with the rest of the Google Apps suite.
Update: for a different perspective, see Dennis Howlett’s review on ZDNet, who thinks Google Sites is substandard:
After 16 months at Google developer’s hands, the outcome is ubstandard. This is such a pity. In its JotSpot incarnation, it was far from perfect but that didn’t matter because JotSpot was shedding light on a new way of collaborating. Since passing into Google’s hands, the guts have been ripped out and then re-assembled with as much Google ’stuff’ as they could cram in but rushed to completion.
Much to the chagrin of TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington, BusinessWeek broke the embargo and published the story first.
I think the real interest here for Google is to get these collaborative tools into the commercial and educational organizations that are using Google Apps already. It’s interesting to note that there are a number of companies out there that are working on similar, wiki-style collaborative software products right now (such as Portland’s Jive). In some ways, too, as the Bits blog notes, this is a direct attack on Microsoft’s SharePoint as well.
My thoughts:
After playing with Google Sites for a little while now, I have come away quite impressed with it. I didn’t use the old JotSpot, but looking at this version, I can see how I could use this for various projects.
Some of the actual integration between the different Google apps is a bit hidden behind the “Dashboard” template, where you can add Calendars, slideshows from Picasaweb, and Google Documents.
However, that integration still leaves a lot to be desired. Why, for example, do I have to copy and paste the URL for my calendar into the Calendar widget instead of just choosing a calendar I have set up in Google Docs already? And the same it true for all the other Google Apps - you always have to copy and paste a URL, which is just cumbersome. Once it is imported into the site though, the document and the site are completely in synch, as VentureBeat points out.
So overall, I think this is a very interesting product, I just wish it would be more tightly integrated with the rest of the Google Apps suite.
Update: for a different perspective, see Dennis Howlett’s review on ZDNet, who thinks Google Sites is substandard:
After 16 months at Google developer’s hands, the outcome is ubstandard. This is such a pity. In its JotSpot incarnation, it was far from perfect but that didn’t matter because JotSpot was shedding light on a new way of collaborating. Since passing into Google’s hands, the guts have been ripped out and then re-assembled with as much Google ’stuff’ as they could cram in but rushed to completion.
Google sets legal attack dogs on Dutch cybersquatter
Google UK is threatening to sue Dutch cybersquatter who has used the name Google cunningly in several domains, including Googledatingsite.nl, Googleonlineshop.com, Googlecommunity.nl and Googlestore.nl. Marcel van der Werf ran these sites from the UK.
"To my knowledge a brand is related to a product, not to the alphabet," Van der Werf complained to the Dutch news site Webwereld. He has moved Googledatingsite.nl to Russia, "where Americans won't get in the way."
Googledatingsite - initally promoted as "powered by Google" - claims more thanone million members who paid €100 each for the service. However, since the UK site was closed by the hosting provider, Van der Werf says he can't access the database, leaving thousands of members in limbo. "We do not have a backup of the database", he said.
Despite the legal threat, several of Van der Werf's Google sites are still up and running.
Google is robust in defending its trademarks. In 2005 it sued Froogles.com, charging the rival shopping search engine with trademark infringement.
The search engine has also fought to consolidate its Gmail trademark globally, but faces obstacles. In Europe Google failed to win the right to register the term "Gmail" as a wide-ranging European trademark. In Poland, Google sued a group of poets who used the gmail.pl domain. And in China Gmail.cn, run by Beijing-based ISM Technologies, the largest wholesale Internet domain registrar, refused to sell its Internet address to the U.S. giant. ®
"To my knowledge a brand is related to a product, not to the alphabet," Van der Werf complained to the Dutch news site Webwereld. He has moved Googledatingsite.nl to Russia, "where Americans won't get in the way."
Googledatingsite - initally promoted as "powered by Google" - claims more thanone million members who paid €100 each for the service. However, since the UK site was closed by the hosting provider, Van der Werf says he can't access the database, leaving thousands of members in limbo. "We do not have a backup of the database", he said.
Despite the legal threat, several of Van der Werf's Google sites are still up and running.
Google is robust in defending its trademarks. In 2005 it sued Froogles.com, charging the rival shopping search engine with trademark infringement.
The search engine has also fought to consolidate its Gmail trademark globally, but faces obstacles. In Europe Google failed to win the right to register the term "Gmail" as a wide-ranging European trademark. In Poland, Google sued a group of poets who used the gmail.pl domain. And in China Gmail.cn, run by Beijing-based ISM Technologies, the largest wholesale Internet domain registrar, refused to sell its Internet address to the U.S. giant. ®
Google sets its Sites on Microsoft
GOOGLE SITES, which launched today, is basically an online Intranet, for creating team collaborations.
Google reckons its new launch will help to "collectivize" information in the from of documents, videos, photos, calendars, task lists and attachments.
Its focus as a business tool sets it up as a major competitor to Microsoft's Sharepoint, which is the subject of a Microsoft conference in Seattle in a just a few of days and through which the shockwaves from this announcement are designed to reverberate.
Dave Girouard, vice president and general manager of Google Enterprise, described the new addition to Google Apps as, "adding an edit button to the web ".
As far as features are concerned, Google Sites allows users to plug into applications like Picassa images and enables embedding relevant (presumably work related) videos from YouTube onto a shared dashboard. Users can search Google using the Google search tool and groups can be restricted by personal invitation or by email domain. It's free, doesn't require any installation, and therefore doesn't require maintenance or any upgrades.
Microsoft's chief financial officer, Christopher Liddell, recently told the New York Times that SharePoint had become a $1 billion a year product, which, considering that Microsoft's business division brought in $4.8 billion in the last quarter, is not entirely insignificant either.
Google Sites is based on technology developed by the start-up JotSpot, co-founded by Joe Kraus, who also co-founded the now obsolete web portal, Excite. Google acquired Jotspot, which had developed a set of "wiki" tools, and had customers which included Intel, Symantec and eBay, in October 2006.
This seems to be where most of the criticism leveled at Google Sites stems from, with people like Alastair Mitchell, CEO of online collaboration and project management site Huddle.net, asking why the world needs yet another W iki.
Google Sites hasn't got him and his pals "peeing their pants yet," he said. ยต
Google reckons its new launch will help to "collectivize" information in the from of documents, videos, photos, calendars, task lists and attachments.
Its focus as a business tool sets it up as a major competitor to Microsoft's Sharepoint, which is the subject of a Microsoft conference in Seattle in a just a few of days and through which the shockwaves from this announcement are designed to reverberate.
Dave Girouard, vice president and general manager of Google Enterprise, described the new addition to Google Apps as, "adding an edit button to the web ".
As far as features are concerned, Google Sites allows users to plug into applications like Picassa images and enables embedding relevant (presumably work related) videos from YouTube onto a shared dashboard. Users can search Google using the Google search tool and groups can be restricted by personal invitation or by email domain. It's free, doesn't require any installation, and therefore doesn't require maintenance or any upgrades.
Microsoft's chief financial officer, Christopher Liddell, recently told the New York Times that SharePoint had become a $1 billion a year product, which, considering that Microsoft's business division brought in $4.8 billion in the last quarter, is not entirely insignificant either.
Google Sites is based on technology developed by the start-up JotSpot, co-founded by Joe Kraus, who also co-founded the now obsolete web portal, Excite. Google acquired Jotspot, which had developed a set of "wiki" tools, and had customers which included Intel, Symantec and eBay, in October 2006.
This seems to be where most of the criticism leveled at Google Sites stems from, with people like Alastair Mitchell, CEO of online collaboration and project management site Huddle.net, asking why the world needs yet another W iki.
Google Sites hasn't got him and his pals "peeing their pants yet," he said. ยต
Google Sets, the Search Engine for Lists
SEO by the Sea points to an interesting patent that describes how Google Sets works. Google Sets is one of the first services that were added to Google Labs and it's a cool way to find list of related terms. Google Sets is a tool that generates lists from a small number of examples by using the web as a big pool of data. You enter some items and Google Sets finds other items that tend to co-occur frequently with your examples. For example, you could enter Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and get a list of US presidential candidates.
One particular type of information often present on the web includes lists, such as lists of restaurants, lists of automobiles, lists of names, etc. Lists may be identified in a number of different ways. For example, a list may include an ordered list or unordered list. Special tags in a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) document identify the presence of ordered and unordered lists. An ordered list commences with an
- tag; whereas an unordered list commences with an
- tag.Another type of list may include a definition list. A special tag in a HTML document identifies the presence of a definition list. A definition list commences with a
- tag. Each item in a definition list is preceded by a
- tag. Yet another type of list may include document headers. Special tags in a HTML document identifies headers using
through
tags. Other types of lists may be presented in yet other ways. For example, a list may be presented as items in a table or as items separated by commas or tabs.After identifying lists on the web, Google generates a probabilistic model from the examples provided by users and classifies the lists according to the model. The items are assigned weights based on the classified lists and the weights are added to form a list based on the total weights.
- tag. Yet another type of list may include document headers. Special tags in a HTML document identifies headers using
- tag. Each item in an ordered or unordered list is preceded by an
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)