Google: My new $2B baby

This is not breaking news, just what's going on -- last week, Techcrunch had reported that Google was going to purchase YouTube for approximately $1.6B. Now over the past few weeks, YouTube has come under fire about "copyright" infringement. There have been some big names running to podium (or pushing others off the soap box) to get in their opinion of this issue. And most are saying that YouTube should be shut down, sued, drawn-n-quartered, for allowing copyrighted material to be "shown and or stored" on their site.

Here's my opinion - GET OVER IT!! It doesn't matter. Go talk to anyone below the age of 25 and you'll find out they don't care. The majority don't see material (once broadcast, put in print, pressed to a DVD/CD) as copyrighted. They don't understand the issue and what the big deal is with it. These people have grown up with the internet, open source, copy/paste, etc. -- it's second nature to them.

The question isn't about copyright protection, it's about revenue protection (that's why the laws were enacted in the first place). It's not about getting proper attribution for your work, it's about making money. In my mind, those yelling the loudest are the ones that understand the least about the issue. These companies are tripping over dollars to pick up pennies. Do I believe in intellectual rights (yes I do). Do I believe people should be able to make a living off their creations (yes I do). Do I believe protecting this intellectual property is important (yes I do). Do I believe you can control it by shutting down sites like YouTube (no I don't). Do I have an answer to the problem (not really).

But here's where I diverge from some of the people wanting their pound of flesh from YouTube -- there's a solution, but it's not about shutting down the site, or making YouTube completely responsible for the content. There are plenty of copyrighted videos on YouTube that those copyright owners are happy it's there. It's another channel for new customers.

With all that said, now enter Google (and their stores of cash) - with a big brother like that, YouTube can now get back to provide solutions and not worry so much about spending the next few years in a court of law.

Read More

It's good to have a War Chest

It must be fun to be Google and have money to purchase companies. Their mode right now it to pick up companies that enhance their current (or future) offerings - but sometimes it appears they have a "eye for cool". Now, I don't know anyone at Google, have no idea what their long-term plan is or will be - and there are plenty of pundits that are beginning to march to the "Google and world domination" tune - but I really have no idea.

I'm going to put some of my ideas on my other blog {blurred} Visionary - so this entry is more about who they've purchase recently...

3/06 - @Last software - SketchUp - 3D CAD type design software
3/06 - Writely - Online word processing document / collaboration
2/06 – Measure - Map Blog Analytics
1/06 – dMarc - Broadcasting Automated Advertising Delivery Platform to Radio Stations
1/06 - Android Mobile Software – Mapping and messaging
7/05 - Akwan Information Technologies Software Development – Latin America R&D hub
5/05 - Dodgeball Mobile Software – Communication features
3/05 - Zipdash Mobile Software – Traffic reports with aid of GPS technology
3/05 - Where2 - Mapping Technology
3/05 - Urchin Software Corporation - Web Analytics
10/04 - Keyhole - Corporation 3D Maps and Satellite Imagery
7/04 - Picasa - Digital Photo Management
4/04 - Ignite Logic - Web Design
9/03 - Katlix Corporation - Personalized and Context Sensitive Search Technology
4/03 - Applied Semantics - Advertising/Enterprise/DNS Solutions
2/03 - Pyra Labs - Blogger

Read More

Big is Better (part two)

This may have a several parts - but the concept of Big-is-Better is a true "critical assumption" - AT&T has decided that the only way to compete is to be BIGGER than everyone else - that is merely an assumption, not the truth. Here's another assumption - smaller organizations are more nimble and can react quicker to customer/market demands - is it true, or merely an assumption.

It may be easier for AT&T (or any Meglacorp) to try to use their size as an advatage - in fact, if I'm another meglacorp, I may assume that AT&T will understand me better than a smaller company - or if my phone bill is bigger than the company that is trying to supply my telephone service, that may give me pause.

Big is not better than Small or medium or large, or extra large or extra small or micro or any other definition of size. That is a ME putting VALUE on size. And it is my assumption - it is not necesarrily the truth. Enough for right now... more later.

BTW, I love the fact that I can listen to my most favorite radio station KBCO while I'm sitting her blogging -- and the fact that I no longer live in Denver/Boulder area. It is the single best radio station in the entire world - that is not an assumption, it is the truth - and if I was a inclined to do so, I could probably prove it scientifically (or with mathmatics) - but just like my beliefs, I don't have to prove it, to know it's true.

I'll tell you why it's great, right now, I'm listening to Robert Cray (the thrill is gone), but just a few minutes ago, I was listening to the Verve, and before that Elton John. Now, that's great!!

Read More

Big is Better! (really??)

I've been asleep at the wheel for the last couple days and didn't notice that AT&T (the SBC boys) have decided to buy up another company, BellSouth - coming close to recreating the monopoly of pre-1987. Well once I noticed this event, it was really something of a shocker (not from the standpoint of AT&T wanting to grab more telecom real estate, but from a standpoint of "didn't we already settle this issue??)

So, to be fair, I'll include a quote from an industry analyst that is in favor of this move...

Industry analysts, like Tom Watts, say the deal makes sense. "Big is better. Smaller operators, their costs just aren't competitive and they haven't been able to bring prices down as competition has increased."

Now, Tom is probably a very smart guy, been around telecom all his life and understand all the ins-n-outs of the telecom industry. Me, I just another guy with an opinion. But since this is my blog, I get to share it...

First of all, I don't believe "big is better" - that's a value judgment and there are plenty of small telecom companies in the world (check out how many there actually are in rural America sometime) that provide their customers with local, long distance, wireless, internet access and in many cases wireless. They usually do it for about the same amount as the "big" companies - but on the other hand, they also know your name, your kids go to school with their kids, you probably know someone that works for these companies - big is not necessarily better.

You know what big does, it allows the person sitting on the top of pyramid to make decisions that affect thousands (in many cases 10's of thousands) of employees, and hundreds of thousands of customers - with a single decision. This is a crap merger - the reasons for it is that "big is better", that AT&T can't compete against the cable companies -- well boo hoo. If the merger goes through - AT&T will be bigger than the whole cable industry - and I still don't think they will be able to compete.

Telecos are lumbering giants - and they have never gotten out of the monopoly mindset. If the cable companies are the threat, then AT&T needs to buy Comcast or Cox - not BellSouth. They need to be better at what they do, instead of protecting their aging infrastructure. They need to understand that customers have options and they vote with those options. Change or die it's that simple.

Read More