K

So, what kind of revolutionary technology is a tech company, web 2.0, deep-pocketed and with a headcount approaching 10 000 people, up to? Reinventing wikipedia, that is... Google announced knol. 

What is revolutionary here? Nothing.

What is knol? A knol is one unit of knowledge. A webpage dealing with one specific subject. A Wikipedia-like entry:

Earlier this week, we started inviting a selected group of people to try a new, free tool that we are calling "knol", which stands for a unit of knowledge. Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it.

Unlike wikipedia, a knol is owned by an author who, while setting his reputation on the line, moderates the content. The justification is:

The key idea behind the knol project is to highlight authors. Books have authors' names right on the cover, news articles have bylines, scientific articles always have authors -- but somehow the web evolved without a strong standard to keep authors names highlighted.

And it is false. The web is all about authors. There are about 100 million blog authors out there. All of them have a reputation to maintain. Many of those publish under their own domain. A significant group have enough reputation to live off blogging.  Is Google stopping trying to "organize the world information" and moving to "own the world information"? Nah, I think the explanation is both simpler and less dark-overlord-like.

What Google really means is: "Wikipedia evolved without a strong focus on the author". The target is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has been establishing itself as a regular high-ranker in Google results, and is an obvious target for an ad-oriented business, always hungry for web traffic. Even the focus on advertisement is obvious from the description.

What Google should have done, in order to "do no evil", was to get the search engine team to develop, interpret and properly support Microformats. Further, their strong position in the Wikipedia foundation would guarantee that an encyclopedia-like article microformat would be born with a large pool of content.

Microformat support, however, would not bring any additional revenue. Despite the "no evil" clause, Google is a profit-searching company. And it shows...

So, I'm back from a technology-free weekend, and completely missed the hype over OpenSocial. I had a quick read of the API last night. What stands out? The closed approach:

"So, here's an OPEN API, which we've closedly developed with a few SELECTED partners. Come and develop for us. It's built upon Google Gadgets, so you can do anything. Did I say anything? I have the nagging feeling we forgot something."

There's no developer documentation for the OpenSocial backend. No social networks other than the selected partners can join the fray.

OpenSocial is not open. It's as closed as Facebook's API.[1]

[1] The documentation page refers to an SPI (Service Provider Interface), and an SDK. No release dates. The developers group page yesterday returned lots of results for "SPI" queries, with people complaining about the non-release of OpenSocial (it's incomplete to say the least). Today, these results have disappeared.

Um post incontornável no blog oficial do Google: Why we're buying DoubleClick. É de mim ou, das quatro razões avançadas para a compra, duas são treta? Vejamos:

1. DoubleClick's products and technology are complementary to our search and and content-based text advertising business, and give us new opportunities to improve online advertising for consumers, advertisers and publishers.

Beh. São medianamente complementares. O serviço prestado pelo Dart é similar ao do Adsense/Adwords, apenas orientado para grandes contas onde o adsense/adwords tinham como alvo primário a long tail. Vejo mais o Google a copiar funcionalidades do dart para o adsense/adwords do que a integrar directamente o dart no software google. Podiam fazer isso sem queimar dinheiro em público.

2. Historically, we've not allowed third parties to serve into Google's AdSense network, which has made it hard for advertisers to get performance metrics. Together, Google and DoubleClick can deliver a more open platform for advertisers, and provide the metrics they need to manage marketing campaigns.

O Google sofre de facto de falta de transparência nos dados fornecidos aos anunciantes e aos editores, mas esta falha tem mais aspecto de ter um fundamento político do que técnico. As funcionalidades de reporting do dart são de facto fabulosas, mas não estão fora do alcance de uma boa equipa e de seis meses de trabalho no Google. Não justifica a aquisição.

3. By combining Google's infrastructure with DoubleClick's knowledge of agencies and publishers, we can create the next generation of more innovative ad serving technology, one that significantly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of online advertising.

Hmm, estamos mais perto da verdade. O Google está a ameaçar fortemente as agências de publicidade. Com o predomínio do Google na publicidade online somado com o desvio crescente de orçamento para a web, é mais ou menos claro que são competidores directos. A estratégia do Google é acabar com os intermediários, por isso as agências já sentem a pressão. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

4. To manage ad inventory, some of the largest publishers use DoubleClick DART for Publishers – but a good portion of it goes unsold. It's our view that the combination of DoubleClick and Google will help these publishers succeed by monetizing their unsold inventory.

E cá está. Uma opção estratégica -- aproximar as agências -- junto com uma opção rentável. De facto, deve haver muito inventário por usar em grandes portais, e se o Google consegue rentabilizar, então acrescenta mais uns zeros à conta. A minha única questão é esta: Será que há assim tantos portais a deixar passar inventário não vendido pelo dart? Já não me recordo direito dos modelos de custo, mas creio que aquilo se pagava à impressão fazendo com que não fosse boa ideia imprimir no dart inventário não vendido.

As Google Tips foram-se. Um milhão de formigas em blogs conseguem empurrar um elefante.

Google is slowly falling for the lures of the Dark Side. What do you expect as the first result on a query restricted to the blog.com domain? If you said anything else than blogger.com, you failed. Do No Evil.

Olha, o Google começou a por as garras de fora :-) Era de esperar que uma empresa tão grande finalmente fizesse uma destas: Some Intimate Details on the Google/Youtube Deal. Isto explica a enorme quantidade de dinheiro movimentada no negócio: 500 milhões em escrow para antever futuros problemas com a justiça, e 50 milhões para cada editora, para "olear" a máquina das editoras de forma a que o Youtube não seja processado já. Como bónus, ainda conseguiram que a atenção seja voltada para os competidores do Youtube, como o Bolt.com e o Grouper.com, ás voltas com processos da Universal.

É uma interpretação interessante de "Do No Evil": 50 milhões para ti, 50 para ti, 50 para ti... Agora vão processar os outros caramelos e deixem-nos em paz. Ah, e até fazemos o jeito de não dizer que isto é para pagar royalties; é escusado estar a dar dinheiro aos músicos...