Newsnow Writes to Big Newspaper Bosses
October 21, 2009
I met with executives of Newsnow.co.uk when the company first opened its doors. Since that meeting, I have relied on Newsnow.co.uk as a way to keep track of certain content that is not available to me via other indexes. (Yes, Newsnow.co.uk is an index in my goose pond.) I am not wild about some of the interface but when I am looking for information from Australia, to cite one example, I use Newsnow.co.uk. I don’t think the managers of the index think of the service as a pointer to Australian technology information, but I use the service to tap into that content domain.
The open letter appeared when I did some routine checking about a New Zealand company called Pingar. To be frank, I did not chase down Pingar. I read the “Open Letter to the UK’s National, Regional, and Local Newspapers”. Several points made sense to me. The passage that struck me as quite important was:
The truth is, if anything, it is the growth of the Internet itself — not link aggregation — that has undermined your businesses by destroying the virtual monopoly that you once held over the mass distribution of written news. If you are seeking to blame something for your current predicament, we suggest you start there. It is disingenuous to blame legitimate link aggregation websites like ours for your financial woes and it is misguided to attempt to control linking. This cannot be the way forward. Linking is free, and links (and the sites that provide them) are at the heart of the Web. They are the means by which the Web works. We don’t think linking is something you can, or should be allowed to, control or charge for.
Please, keep in mind that I worked for the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Co., owner of a newspaper that was at one time listed as one of the world’s 25 best. I also worked for Bill Ziff, whose businesses usually had magazines at their core and who funded a daily technology newspaper which, I must point out, failed because the effort was a decade ahead of its time.
I understand the position taken by Newsnow.co.uk. I want to add three points:
- The children of newspaper (and magazine and book publishers) are going to put the nails in the coffin of many publications. The parents have not been able to prevent their children from finding the path that best suits their information acquisition preferences. When the kids of the newspaper bosses are undermining the future of certain traditional information business models, I don’t think there’s much hope for changing the behaviors of individuals who are not living in one’s home and under the direct control of one’s parents.
- The shift to the “digital Gutenberg” is just starting and the changes will be coming more quickly and be more far reaching than most people anticipate. I think Newsnow.co.uk executives will be better prepared than traditional publishing companies, but the changes will be stressful for young-at-heart outfits as well. The difference is that the Newsnow.co.uk type of company can adapt. Ossified publishing companies try to adapt but in the end fall back on the tired excuses that “we don’t have money” or “we have methods to protect” or some other reason. Without the ability to adapt, organisms die. Lawyers cannot change this fact of life… yet.
- The technology of the Internet is not new. What is different is that some countries are forcing their citizens and organizations to shift their business methods to these technologies. Some countries want citizens and businesses to have high speed access. Others drag their feet. At the end of the day, the diffusion of Internet-centric technologies is spreading in multiple dimensions because users are willing to embrace these solutions. The reasons may vary, but the diffusion is quite real.
The sum of these three points is obvious to some people. Others struggle with the “new math” of the Internet. What we have is a new dividing line between those who surf the new waves of technology and those who want, like Venice, to alter the way in which the Mediterranean flows. Sure, Venice may survive as a European Disneyland, but Venice no longer rules the financial world, and Venice is a long shot to regain that title. Venice survives, but it does so at a considerable cost and the anguish of a new business model.
Newspapers are in a tough spot, but Newsnow.co.uk and similar Web sites did not create the problem. A failure to adapt created many of the problems that bedevil newspapers. Maybe a Venice strategy will work? I know I won’t make many trips to Venice. I like to visit every six or seven years. I can envision a time when today’s 12 year old views a printed newspaper in a similar way. Useful but not a frequent or necessary activity.
The Gutenberg era is ending. The digital Gutenberg era is beginning and gaining momentum. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, October 21, 2009
To the DEA, IRS, and DoC or whichever US federal entity is regulating Web logs: No one paid me to write this. I did it for internal mental satisfaction, which for an addled goose is sufficient compensation.
Google Keeps on Moving in the Book Sector
October 18, 2009
Most companies finding themselves buried in vituperation, legal matters, and worldwide pushback would play it cool. Maybe offer an olive branch, hold meet up, or send happy smoke signals. Google is not “most companies.” I emerged from a grueling meeting to learn that Google is jumping into the eBook market in 2010. Why announce this? in my opinion, the Google is reminding anyone who is sentient that the Google is going to move forward in books. The forum for the announcement, according to the AFP news story “Google Editions to Be Up and Running Next Year”, was the annual love in for publishers. Each year in beautiful Frankfurt, the big dogs of publishing gather to celebrate their products, industry, business methods, and all round great business judgment. Google chose this forum to make known:
Google’s online service Google Editions enabling electronic books to be downloaded to mobile telephones and readers will have some half-a-million publications available in the first half of next year.
There you go. In your face forward movement. Unlike Google’s baby step approach to some sectors, the Google laced up its waffle stompers and clomped through the clubby world of publishing. Reaction? My hunch is that it will take publishers and folks like Amazon to figure out exactly what is going to happen. Jeff Bezos, an early investor in Google, is probably wondering what “gratitude” means.
In my opinion, the killer fact in the AFP story was:
According to the Association of American Publishers, e-book in the United States totaled 113 million dollars last year, a leap of 68 percent from the previous year but still tiny compared with an estimated total of 24.3 billion spent on all books.
Any doubt that Google is moving forward in the book market? The intent is clear to the addled goose.
Stephen Arnold, October 18, 2009
Sadly no one provided wampum for this write up.
Government Attic
October 16, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Government Attic. The Web site is a repository of US government documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. The site uses a Google custom search engine, which works quite well. The site says:
Governmentattic.org provides electronic copies of hundreds of interesting Federal Government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Fascinating historical documents, reports on items in the news, oddities and fun stuff and government bloopers, they’re all here. Think of browsing this site as rummaging through the Government’s Attic — hence our name.
Useful.
Stephen Arnold, October 16, 2009
Dust Up between Libraries and Publishers Possible
October 16, 2009
The New York Times reported that some libraries are lending digital books. You will want to read the original article “Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending” yourself. For me the most important statement in the write up was:
Publishers, inevitably, are nervous about allowing too much of their intellectual property to be offered free. Brian Murray, the chief executive of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, said Ms. Smith’s proposal was “not a sustainable model for publishers or authors.”
I am intrigued that Microsoft and Yahoo pulled out of the digital book game. Google faces tough sledding but a compromise seems to be possible. Even government national libraries are slow to the starting line.
The world’s traditional book foundations seem to be under increasing stress. Exciting. The business model of libraries is about to collide with the business model of publishers. After centuries of living in harmony, friction seems to be increasing.
Stephen Arnold, October 17, 2009
Easing Data Transformation Woes
October 15, 2009
Transformation is the Latinate mumbo jumbo that information technology professionals use to flummox chief financial officers. File A is in one format. The enterprise system understands File A only when it is transformed into something that the enterprise software system can * really * process. XML, for example, is not created equal. There are weirdnesses in common file types such as the wonder RTF from Microsoft ages ago and still kicking after all these years. In my work, I have established that transformation can chew up 25 to 35 percent of the information technology unit’s budget. CFOs don’t know where the money is going because “transformation” is not taught in MBA school and CFA online courses.
If you track this type of information processing, you will want to read “Convert PDF to XML and Save Up to 60% Cost”. I found the assertions in the write up interesting. Here’s an example passage:
Outsourcing XML Conversion – A trusted and well known xml conversion outsourcing organization provide PDF to XML conversion services & solution worldwide at lowest possible rates. We offer high quality PDF to XML conversion services with savings up to 60% on PDF to XML conversion cost. You can also try our free PDF to XML conversion services to test our quality of our PDF to XML conversion.
What I have learned is that getting PDFs to yield usable tagged content is a tough problem. The Adobe crowd in the 1980s seemed to be looking for a way to render the printed document on multiple platforms. Somehow the PDF became the “new” PostScript which was wild and crazy too. PDF files make it tough to figure out what content object goes with what content object. Stated another way, PDFs do string searching because the format is clueless when content is rendered in columns. The text is unpredictable when simple copying of a sentence or two from one PDF is required. The text will have more fleas and ticks that my pet goat in Brazil had when I was a “kid”.
I wanted to capture this info because transformation troubles often yield only to a full, complete list of vendors and some hammer dialing.
Y0u can also try Online OCR which cuts out the humans entirely.
Stephen Arnold, October 15, 2009
I wish I knew how to get paid for writing about transformation outfits in far off lands. I will keep trying. No dough for the goose on this write up.
Google Wants to Be a Media Company = Content Delivery Network Rumors
October 15, 2009
Barron’s is one of those business newspapers that blends caution with molecules of nouns to whip investors into a frenzy of uncertainty. Barron’s “Akamai Rallies on Rumor of Google Bid” is an interesting write up. CDNs or content delivery networks are complicated. Akamai has proprietary technology, legions of ISPs on board, and nifty methods for getting popular content to a user quickly. An investor type, who actually bought me lunch at Taco Bell, floated this idea past me. I pointed out:
- Akamai is sophisticated outfit
- Akamai has plumbing in place and on-board ISPs who get financial and bandwidth benefits from their support of the Akamai methods. These involve the injection of smart bits in packets and some other magic
- Video is becoming the method of communication in the emerging semi literate world of the US of A
- Companies with a plan to be a media giant can benefit from owning an Akamai or similar outfit because it generates revenue and provides a convenient way to slash certain operational costs.
Barron’s said:
Briefing.com notes that AKAM calls are seeing buying interest this morning amid “GOOG for AKAM chatter.” I’m not sure that Google really wants to be in the content delivery network business, particularly given a spreading view on the Street that AKAM’s results could be hurt by intensifying pricing pressure in the CDN market. But clearly, somebody believe the rumor.
See fan and back peddle. Fan and back peddle.
With churn the name of one popular game on Wall Street, I sure don’t know if Googzilla is going to gobble up the staff and the technology at Akamai. Google has its own CDN in place, but with the volume of rich media that will be coming down the road in the months ahead, this type of acquisition makes sense to me. Akamai has technology, ISP relationships, plumbing, and people. Did I mention really good people?
Stephen Arnold, October 15, 2009
Sadly no one paid me to write this article. The investor on Friday bought me a chicken thing with a made up name, though.
The Microsoft UX Wins AP Love
October 14, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me the link to Gawker’s “AP’s Betting the Farm Microsoft Will Crush Google”. The story reports that Microsoft’s new interface (user experience or UX) approach is going to allow Microsoft to catch up with Google. If you are a fan of the AP’s view of technology, check out the article. If you think that Google’s 80 percent market share is too large a gap to narrow, you may want to skip the article. For me the most interesting point in the write up was the hint that Google and the AP have not been engaged in productive, frequent discussions. I don’t think the AP is sufficiently Googley to click with the Mountain View crowd.
Stephen Arnold, October 14, 2009
Google Wave as a Publishing Tool
October 12, 2009
Yep, sooner or later someone was going to realize that Google Wave is a component of the “digital Gutenberg”. If you want to read the breathless prose of a professional journalist, navigate to “Exploring Google Wave – How Could It Transform Journalism and Publishing?” My reaction to the write up is that, like most Google analyses, the comparisons are based on what is familiar, comfortable. Google Wave is one component of a larger data management capability. Publishing will not be transformed. The Google platform creates a way to push beyond what’s familiar and comfortable. That’s going to be deeply disturbing and disruptive across a number of information centric business sectors. Wave is a subsystem. The real powerhouse is the Google data management system. We need a new term to describe what this platform makes possible. “Publishing” does not carry the freight of meaning in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, October 12, 2009
Google and Content Processing
October 12, 2009
I find the buzz about Google’s upgrades to its existing services and the chatter about Google Books interesting but not substantive. My interest is hooked when Google provides a glimpse of what its researchers are investigating. I had a conversation last week that pivoted on the question, “Why would anyone care what a researcher or graduate students working with Google do?” The question is a good one and it illustrates how angle of view determines what is or what is not important. The media find Google Books fascinating. The Web log authors focus on incremental jumps in Google’s publicly accessible functions. I look for deeper, tectonic clues about this trans-national, next generation company. I sometimes get lonely out on my frontier of research and analysis, but, as I said, perspective is important.
That’s why I want to highlighting a dense, turgid, and opaque patent application with the fetching title “Method and System for Processing Published Content on the Internet”. The document was published on October 8, 2009, but the ever efficient USPTO. The application was filed on June 9, 2009, but its technology drags like an earthworm through a number of previous Google filings in 2004 and more recent disclosures such as the control panel for a content owner’s administering of a distribution and charge back for content. As an isolated invention, the application is little more than a different charge at the well understood world of RSS feeds. The problem Google’s application resolves is inserting ads into RSS content without creating “unintended alerts”. When one puts the invention is a broader context, the system and method of the invention is more flexible and has a number of interesting applications. These are revealed in the claims section of the patent application.
Keep in mind that I am not a legal eagle. I am an addled goose. Nevertheless, what I found suggestive is that the system and method hooks into my analysis of Google’s semantic functions, its data management systems, and, of course, the guts of the Google computational platform itself for scale, performance, and access to other Google services. In short, this is a nifty little invention. The component that caught my attention is the controls made available to publishers. The idea is that a person with a Web log can “steer” or “control” some of the Google functions. The notion of an “augmented” feed in the context of advertising speaks to me of Google’s willingness to allow a content producer to use the Google system like a giant information facility. Everything is under one roof and the content producer can derive revenue by using this facility like a combination production, distribution, and monetization facility. In short, the invention builds out the “digital Gutenberg” aspect of the Google platform.
Here’s how Google explains this invention:
The invention is a method for processing content published on-line so as to identify each item in a unique manner. The invention includes software that receives and reads an RSS feed from a publisher. The software then identifies each item of content in the feed and creates a unique identifier for each item. Each item then has third party content or advertisements associated with the item based on the unique identifier. The entire feed is then stored and, when appropriate, updated. The publisher then receives the augmented feed which contains permanent associations between the third party advertising content and the items in the feed so that as the feed is modified or extended, the permanent relationships between the third party content and previously existing feed items are retained and readers of the publisher’s feed do not receive a false indication of new content each time the third party advertising content is rotated on an item.
The claims wander into the notion of a unique identifier for content objects, item augmentation, and other administrative operations that have considerable utility when applied at scale within the context of other Google services such as the programmable search engine. This is a lot more interesting than a tweak to an existing Google service. Plumbing is a foundation, but it is important in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, October 12, 2009
The AP Snaps and Snarls
October 11, 2009
Dogs can be surprising. TechCrunch explains that the AP is “yapping again”. Read “You Can Ignore the AP’s Bluster. It Is Just a Negotiating Bluff” and get a good analysis of the 2009 Don Quixote event of the day. I think some content should be free. This Web log, written by an addled goose, is offered without charge. Complain and I refund your money and quack at you. Other information should carry a fee. If people don’t want to pay that fee, well, that’s a form of market research.
I try not to quote the AP in this Web log. I am a goose and terrified of those qualified to practice law. TechCrunch, as I recall, also avoids AP content.
In my opinion, the new types of services that I write about in my column for Information World Review, a Incisive Media property in London, England, present a user with interesting and accessible services. These next generations services, whether Tweetmeme.com or Trendsmap.com, represent what information delivery mechanisms are becoming. The notion that new services will embrace older business models has to be proven.
The AP is about to prove its hypothesis; namely, users will pay for AP content. The outcome of that test will be Googley. Data are going to make obvious what works and what does not work. In my opinion, the AP has a great opportunity to prove that its strategists are able to generate sufficient new revenue to make up for the lost revenue the firm has experienced. Furthermore, the AP will be able to prove or disprove the assertion that profitability will be sufficient to fund research and development, increased salaries, and staff additions.
The stakes are interesting. AP is betting the farm. Most of the poker games on TV hold this type of play to the end of the show. Maybe the AP is in Act III of a three act play. Exciting.
Stephen Arnold, October 11, 2009 No dough
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
