Why Google Seems Desperate

It has zero to do with anything it has or hasn’t done in China, notwithstanding the protestations of those naive souls who believe Google can force political change merely by denying itself access to billions of Chinese who’d rather have some Google than no Google. The China thing is a PR problem for Google, nothing more.

It’s because Google and, more importantly the perception of Google, is slowly but surely moving from the backbone of the internet to a spam enabling pox on the internet. From a one-stop shop to a semi-glorified ad network. Mix in a little (or a lot, actually) of insider stock sales and you end up with one very big question mark.

Seth Jayson over at the pop-up ad loving Motley Fool has a very thoughtful article about the challenges that face Google as it tries to justify its valuation- both stock price wise and perception wise.

Google’s problems all originate from one fact: Google became the best in the world at something no one will pay for- search. It’s like being the world’s greatest aeroball player, except without the benefit of the ESPNs.

Once it became necessary to actually make a little money, all Google had to work with was a ton of eyeballs. It’s understandable that Google would become an ad network by necessity, though it’s also a little sad to watch it toss out one free thing after another in an effort to acquire and retain eyeballs. Microsoft, for all of its internet-related failures, has a ton of actual products that people buy. The fact that Microsoft, with its half-hearted efforts, is still in the internet game with all the young upstarts tells you all you need to know to separate the real businesses from the disguised ones.

Meanwhile, all the Google stuff that is free to us is costing Google a fortune. It takes a lot of clicking on a lot of ads to pay for all that stuff.

Google has keyword sales that it can combine with the traffic generated by its search dominance, so it is not without advantages. But it’s still a short play in a long game.

And that’s why Google is struggling.

An Expensive Game of Risk: Google’s Roll

As I expected, Henry Blodget has a interesting and on the money take on the new Google Spreadsheet. Along with Gmail and Writely, Google Spreadsheet makes the core of a free, online alternative to Microsoft Office. It’s a high profile and expensive game of Risk, where the game board is comprised of groups of computer users.

Henry begins with the potentially good part of Google’s play:

“First, if Google’s long-term ambition is to bring Microsoft down, this is, in fact, the way to do it. Google Spreadsheet and Google Word, as described, resemble classic disruptive technologies: cheaper, more convenient, no-frills solutions aimed at products with fat product margins whose complexity and usefulness have overshot the mainstream.”

He then expresses two very good concerns. First, he says, and I heartily agree, that power users who use Excel for their businesses (and their job security) are not going to dump Excel in favor of a stripped down, online alternative. Second, he wonders, as I did back during the Writely acquisition, what is the business plan here? A million users times free is still free.

It’s likely all about the almighty ad dollar, but Henry and I agree on that strategy as well:

“[N]o serious spreadsheet and word-processing user I know of is ever going to stop working on documents to click nearby ads (The “PPC ads in apps” concept is absurd).”

Microsoft is camped out on the side of the game board with all of the business and corporate users. It is heavily fortified and will be virtually impossible to displace. That was my strategy back in my Risk playing days: fortify a strategic area and let the other players fight it out for the less valuable real estate.

The reason this game is unwinnable for Google comes down to two things: the free part and the online part.

When something is free, people ask themselves two questions:

How do I know this free thing will always be available?

How do I know they won’t start charging me once I go to all the trouble to adopt and use it?

These are good questions.

When something is partially or fully online, people also have two questions:

How do I know my data is safe and won’t get lost, thereby causing me to lose my job?

How do I know all the hackers I read about in the paper won’t intercept my data and give or sell it to my competitors?

For these reasons, corporate America will not, in our lifetime, adopt online word processing or spreadsheet applications to any significant degree.

All of this means that Google is making a play for what Henry calls the “casual Microsoft Office user.” I would say it’s more accurately the casual Microsoft Works user. There are a lot of people who will adopt these free applications for personal use, but big business will not. Never. Ever.

So my specific question is how does Google think this is going to make, as opposed to cost, money?

And my general question is when and why did spending a fortune trying to hurt Microsoft by giving away free stuff become Google’s strategic business plan?

The Anti Microsoft Eat Google Rule?

Google wants to tell the teacher on Microsoft for making its search engine the default search engine in the new version of Internet Explorer.

From the New York Times article:

The move, Google claims, limits consumer choice and is reminiscent of the tactics that got Microsoft into antitrust trouble in the late 1990’s.

Oh please. If this is the best thing Google can think of to tattle about, Google needs to cowboy up.

Ed Bott demonstrates exactly how oppressive it is to poor little Google to have to convince someone to select Google from the already-provided list of other search engines one can select as their alternative default search engine. Basically, a user clicks the box and selects Google. It takes maybe 10 seconds.

Meanwhile in Firefox (which I use as my default browser and which is very chummy with Google), Google is the default search engine. The process to make Microsoft your default search engine is substantially identical to the one used to do the reverse in Internet Explorer.

See Ed’s post for more details and screenshots.

I hope whatever authority figures Google runs to to tell this sad tale of woe laugh Google out of the building and suggest that Google stop crying over nothing.

Somewhere along the way someone decided that since Microsoft was so successful it had to stop trying to be successful. All of this jargon about default search engines and whatnot is merely a poorly disguised campaign to let a bunch of other companies leverage off of Microsoft’s prior successes. Somehow the argument has evolved from “don’t prevent my trains from running” to “I am entitled to sell tickets on your train.”

Even Nick Carr took a break from thinking about how smart he is and how dumb the rest of us are to actually make a very good point that us idjits can actually understand:

If Google wants to fully live up to its ideals – to really give primacy to the goal of user choice in search – it should open up its home page to other search engines. That would be easy to do without mucking up the page or the “user experience.” You could just add a simple drop down menu that would allow users to choose whether to do a search with Google’s engine, or Microsoft’s, or Yahoo’s, or one of the other, less-well-known engines that now exist.

Even us numbskulls can mostly grasp the goose and gander rule.

Anyway, I am no Microsoft apologist (DISCLAIMER: though I am a shareholder). I don’t even use Internet Explorer. But I know the sound of a crying baby, and that’s what I hear coming from Google’s crib.

Google Finance: Stumbling Out of the Gate

I didn’t have a chance earlier today to test the newly released Google Finance service. Om, whose judgment I trust (even if I do have to beg him for the link love smallicon-793225 ), says it’s disappointing.

First a word about the finance sites I currently use and then let’s dive into Google Finance.

A Little Background

I am not really an active stock trader these days, but I was back in the mid to late nineties. I told the quick version of my story in an excerpt from my podcast the other day. The bottom line is that I have made a lot of money and lost a lot of money in the stock market. Along the way, I have tried a lot of different financial sites. Some were free, some were made available to me by media companies I provided content for and some I paid for.

Presently, I use two and only two (not counting the brokerage sites where I do my trading, but which I use only lightly for research). My Yahoo, where I track the market and my stocks in my left column, and Morningstar, where I do a lot of my research (Disclosure: I have owned Morningstar stock since the IPO).

So lets take a look, in real time, at Google Finance.

Initial Impressions

The front page looks desolate. What is appealing about Google’s search page doesn’t work here. I see a link to add stocks to your portfolio, but unless it’s well hidden I see no way to add stocks other than one at a time.

Some sort of import feature is a must in future releases.

I added a few stocks, all but one (Google) of which I actually own. The Ajaxy entry screen is fast, but there needs to be a way to import portfolios. Once more- there has to be an easier way to add your portfolio.

Oddly enough, your portfolio doesn’t show up on the front page. There is a list of recent quotes you have looked up, but I see no way to personalize the front page. Surely I’m missing something?

What About the Quotes?

OK, so let’s look up a quote. I own AT&T and have been thinking about selling it for a while.

Here’s where Google Finance gets a little more impressive.

The quote info and chart are pretty neat. I love the way the times of the news stories are reflected on the chart. The news story links are logically placed and easy to access. I like the blog post links at the bottom, but I don’t read blogs for stock buying ideas.

Message Board into Chaos

There are message boards (called discussions) that you can join or start, and I can imagine a horde of pumpers and dumpers lining up outside the walls. There do seem to be some safeguards in place and one of the current pump and dump favorites did not have a link to join or create a discussion.

But I can tell you from vast experience that these message boards will rapidly descend into chaos and will become useless in short order. I predict they’ll kill them all off within a year.

At first I didn’t see links to major holders, insider sales and SEC filings, all of which are available at Yahoo, but there they are at the bottom left of the screen. I wish there was a Morningstar link down there.

Conclusions

My initial conclusion is that Google Finance is underwhelming as far as customization goes, but that the data returned when you lookup a quote is reasonably impressive.

Om’s right, however, when he says “[I]t will be a long time, and I mean long time in Internet years that is, before Google Finance really catches up to Yahoo Finance, which in fact is the gold standard.”

Dell and Google in Bloatware Venture

bloatware

I know it’s hard to believe after my spit take on the new Google internets and my resounding yawn in the face of Gmail chatting, but in general I really like Google. Or at least I did until it started spending billions on stupid ideas.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let me tell you the other reason why I think this new Dell/Google deal to get Google software pre-installed on new Dell computers is bad news. Henry Blodget has already covered the financial side of things.

It’s bad news because the very last thing in the world- and I mean the very last thing- Dell needs to do is pre-install more bloatware on its computers. There are far too many trial versions and thinly disguised ads on new Dells now. Dell has been criticized for this before. In fact, excessive bloatware is one of the reasons I stopped buying Dells (and other brands) and started building my own computers.

Here are a couple of rules that should be mandatory for every computer manufacturer:

1) Except for a very few major things like anti-virus and anti-spyware programs, don’t pre-install any trial versions or other disguised ads on new computers. Either give us a the full, non-crippled, non-expiring version of something or don’t give us anything. No one believes this is anything other than a disguised ad.

2) Other than an internet browser, don’t pre-install anything that we can download for free off the internet. I probably don’t want that stuff and it’s easier to add what I want than to remove a ton of bloatware. This applies to the Google software that will be stuffed down our throats under this new arrangement.

I use and love the Google Toolbar. But I prefer X-1 (even though I have to pay for it) over Google’s desktop search. And just because Google will pay Dell to pre-install a bunch of junk that third party vendors pay Google to include in the bloatware package doesn’t mean it should be stuffed onto my new computer.

Everybody gets paid in this caper except for the person who pays for the computer. He or she has to either spend hours removing or pay some computer geek to remove all the stuff he or she doesn’t want. It’s an entire industry designed to screw over computer buyers in the name of a few dollars. Anyone who thinks this is about helping the consumer is living in Google fantasy land.

And don’t even get me started about the Google Pack. If I want that stuff (most of which I most definitely don’t), I’ll go get it. Do not pre-install any of that stuff on my computer. None of it.

The Dell/Google deal is a bad idea for Google (too expensive) and for consumers (even more bloatware). Dell, of course, makes out like a bandit, but at the expense of its customers.

Technorati Tags:
dell, google, bloatware

‘Tis But a Firewall

google

Google, taking a break from trying to build some more internets, has announced that it will combine its instant messaging service with Gmail, its web based email service. No word yet whether there would be one joint service for all internets or a separate service for each of the internets (can you tell I am irritated by the prospect of Google’s new internets?).

Anyhow, the idea seems to be that you’ll be able to chat directly from your Gmail account, without having to log into a separate chat program. Google figures that saving those 5 seconds will cause a cyber-stampede of users to drop their AIM and Yahoo IM accounts and thunder on over to Google. Somebody needs to tell Google that most companies not owned by Google block chat and web based email programs so their employees will actually do some work.

The good (by good I mean only mildly ludicrous) news is that the chat application will be able to communicate with other chat programs, including Earthlink’s chat program. It will be handy to be able to chat with the nine people who use it. Still no interconnectivity with AOL, Yahoo or MSN for all the reasons I talked about back in August.

I’m starting to think that Google took all that money it should have used to buy Flickr, Delicious and Technorati and bought some lost episodes of Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

Google to Acquire World

buytheworld At least according to this article in the Times of London (which presumably is read by the Werewolves of London).

I don’t even know where to start, so let’s take this story paragraph by paragraph.

Google is working on a project to create its own global internet protocol (IP) network…

I was thinking just the other day that I wanted another internet. If one is good, two or three would be better. I was going to call my old jogging buddy Al Gore and ask him to invent another one. Now I don’t have to, because Google already did it.

Last month, Google placed job advertisements in America and the British national press for “Strategic Negotiator candidates…

Strategic Negotiator must be a negotiator who uses more strategy. I bet the frugal ones drive Pre-Owned Cars. I don’t know what dark fibre is (the re must mean that it’s not a thread), but this all sounds too James Bond to be real. I think Google is messing with us.

Dark fibre is the remnants of late 1990s internet boom where American web companies laid down fibre optic cables in preparation for high speed internet delivery…

OK, now I get it. Sort of like what 360Networks was going to do back in the nineties when I bought all that stock that later became worthless. Maybe Google can get into alchemy too while they’re trying all these old get rich quick schemes.

Late last year, Google purchased a 270,000 sq ft telecom interconnection facilities in New York. It is believed that from here, Google plans to link up and power the dark fibre system and turn it into a working internet network of its own.

This paragraph pretty much speaks for itself. Shoot, everyone should have their own internet. Maybe Google can mass produce internets at some of the abandoned automobile plants that Michael Moore likes to talk about. I think I see a movie possibility here.

It was also reported in November that Google was buying shipping containers and building data centres within them, possibly with the aim of using them at significant nodes within the worldwide cable network…

I actually know a guy who wants to buy cargo containers and turn them into housing for retirees. When he told us about it the other day on the way to Galveston, I laughed so hard I almost wrecked the car. I hope he doesn’t care that I’m talking about it on this internet, or that Google is going to corner the market on cargo containers the way the Hunt brothers did with silver back in the day.

Google has long been rumoured to be planning to launch a PC to retail for less than $100…

Well, that was sort of a left turn, but someone has to use all these new internets and what better way to ensure that happens than to give a bunch of really crappy computers to poor people and make them watch Google Ads over one of the Google Internets while using a Google Computer. I predict a line of cars will be the next step in Google world dominance. After they abandon the mass production of internets, they’ll have to find something to do with all those automobile/internet factories.

[[[I’m going to skip a few paragraphs because they aren’t ludicrous enough to warrant comment.]]]

However, industry insiders fear that the development of a network of Google Cubes powered over a Google-owned internet network will greatly increase the power that Google wields over online publishers and internet users.

Really? Ya think?

Should Google successfully launch an alternative network, it is theoretically possible for them to block out competitor websites and only allow users to access websites that have paid Google to be shown to their users.

Nobody will be upset about that, particularly after all the hell raising Google and others have done about the telecos trying to toll the pipes on the existing internet. Assuming this isn’t a joke (and I believe it is either a joke or a tragically funny misunderstanding), this is just Google thumbing its nose at the telecos. PR by satire.

However, the moves towards providing equipment for as little as £60 will prove popular with home users and even governments, who will welcome the spread of the internet to homes that could not previously afford the intital costs of purchasing PCs.

Well isn’t that heart warming. We’re going to build a bunch of internets and give you some near-computers so you can stare at our ads and use our internet(s) all day long. I’m surprised the Red Cross hasn’t already done this.

Contacted by Times Online today, a spokesperson for Google denied that it had any such plans…

Let’s hope not, because if it’s true, we’re all living in a Monty Python movie.

Technorati Tags:
google, humor

Will Google Buy a Seat at the Music Table?

googlemusic After tossing up its Google Video store to less than rousing reviews, the latest rumor is that Google is about to enter the online music fray. I suggested the other day that Google buy Pandora, my favorite online listening spot.

But the perceived money is in downloadable songs. And while I am on record that I won’t buy any DRM infested music, a lot of people will. So unlike selling downloadable videos, which I think is a supply in search of a demand, I think there is something to be said for selling downloadable songs.

There are two ways to build an online music store. From the ground up, which may result in a better, more innovative product, but takes longer to develop and much longer to generate any meaningful market share. The other way is to buy and incorporate an existing store. Yahoo got music by acquisition when it bought Launchcast and then MusicMatch.

So the word on the web is that Google is thinking about buying Napster, the popular, but DRM-infested namesake of the once innovative and much maligned by the RIAA peer to peer music service. Or maybe not. Once again, we’re all talking about something that might be a creation of the blogosphere.

I think buying Napster is probably Google’s best avenue to enter the online music business. For one thing, Google can’t afford the fallout from another blown opening. Additionally, while I don’t use Napster, I’ve read pretty good stuff about it. Napster gives Google instant market share and music credibility. Plus we know what Napster looks like already, so there won’t be hundreds of “are you kidding” posts the day Google goes live with it.

I’d love to see Google change the world again by bringing forth a new, innovative online music store. But the legal restrictions, the RIAA-gone-wild problem and the somewhat mature market make that unlikely. Plus, if Google thought Google Video was going to rock the house, then I’m not sure I want it to try to reinvent too many wheels.

So buying entry might be the way to go. But Google must recognize and remember that online music is quickly becoming a commodity. Online music stores are no longer destinations. They are online gas stations, dispensing song files they squeeze out of the record label cartel.

As such, brand building is almost an exercise in futility and the online music stores will always be at the mercy of the record labels. Exxon just proved that you can make money in commodities, but to do so you must have an inherent advantage or learn to operate cheaply and quickly. One of the best advantages in a commodity game is the ability to predict where the market is going next. Predicting the actions of the granny hating, catless bag holding, all-in-a panic record industry sounds like a tough order to fill. So I don’t see much chance for an advantage.

Without an inherent advantage and with what most believe to be very thin margins that don’t leave much room for competing on price, Google has to compete on service and name alone. That’s harder to do. There’s a lot of demand for online music, but it is, at the end of the day, a commodity. Since people care less about where they buy a commodity, it makes sense to enter the game by acquiring someone who has market share. But the price has to be right.

All in all, it’s a good move for Google. If the price is right.

Technorati Tags:
google, napster, digital music

Google Video and the Swaggartization of Tech Titans

Google is now admitting that it screwed up the much ballyhooed launch of Google Video by not adequately promoting all the great free TV shows that could be bought, downloaded and watched in a tiny box on your iPod or computer. Somehow things would have been different if all those free shows for sale had been pasted all over the Google Video homepage.

Well, friends, now there are links to Brady Bunch and I Love Lucy episodes right there on the homepage. Buy as many as you want for $1.99 a piece. Or you can tune into TV Land any night of the week and watch them on your TV for free.

There’s also a link to the CSI-Name any City show that anyone who cares has already seen. You can buy it and watch it for a whole day for $1.99. That’s right, a whole day.

But it’s just cooler to watch them on your computer. Right.

Steve Rubel points out that this is the week for tech titans to fall all over themselves admitting their mistakes and promising to do better. He also says that smart people knew all along that Google was blowing it. He cites an article from January 10 questioning the announcement and content of Google video. Steve must have missed my post of January 6 where I asked if anyone was going to line up to pay to watch repeats of boring NBA games and otherwise free TV shows on their computers.

I don’t think the homepage has all that much to do with it. I just don’t think anyone wants to buy much of what they’re selling. For this to get legs, there will have to be a lot of stuff there ain’t right now. Fat, cheap pipe; better hardware on the receiving end to manage; and enough content providers to let you cut the cable. Among other things.

I can see a modest market for downloadable, DRM-infested video courtesy of frequent travelers who need something to watch while on planes and in airports. I use Movielink for just that purpose. So while people might want to download something to watch on the plane or train, how many people will do that regularly? My guess: very few.

For one thing, it’s a little hard to watch a video on a laptop or iPod, even on a long flight. I know, because I sometimes watch movies on my Tablet PC on long flights. But more often than not, I end up turning off the movie and reading a book or sleeping. Plus, people don’t like to pay twice and all of us already have access to these shows via our TVs and TIVOs. Finally, how many long distance commuters (a) prefer watching I Love Lucy to sleeping, talking or staring out the window and (b) have the means and methods to find, download and play I Love Lucy on their iPods or laptops?

I’ll say it again: Other than the occasional lottery scam video, I just don’t get the whole downloadable video thing. Maybe one day, but not today.

I think someone’s trying to create a market for a demand that doesn’t exist.