George R

The 2010 Tech IPO Boom

I totally agree with you, Paul. Keep your eyes on Zazzle, as well. John Doerr is no dummy!

George Riddick
Imageline, Inc.

Does Google Have a Weakness Microsoft Can Exploit?

Google has three major weaknesses. Every single one of them could be exploited by Microsoft and would lead to more market share in both search and advertising.

Problem is Microsoft is trying mimick these weaknesses rather than exploit them. Much the same as they used to be able to do with software back in their glory days.

I offered to help Steve and his team with this, as I have been accumulating the evidence of these weaknesses here in my offices for the past two years. I was met with bravado and arrogance. Isn't that what most "outside" people who offer to help Microsoft are met with these days?

It will take someone of Microsoft's stature to bring these Google weakneses into public view. As long as Microsoft, under Steve's leadership, is too confused, or too afraid, to take chances, I'd stay long on Google if I were you.

Watch out if these true stories ever do surface publicly, however. Believe it or not, they have something to do with the disgraceful economic condition this country finds itself in these days.

There is a strong and rapidly growing undercurrent out here who knows these weaknesses, has ben harmed by them, and just cannot wait for this market reality and truth to be told.

Internet users, who now number almost 1.2 billion, deserve to be told the truth. From there, they can decide who should be their king.

Will 2008 Be Google’s End Of Innocence?

Good morning, Michael

In my view, you will see this begin to happen in 2009, not in the middle of an election year. The other issues where Google slipped under the radar screen during the past eight years of the current administration have been unlawful search activities and Intellectual Property violations.

It would be very interesting, indeed, to learn what percentage of Googles's total search and advertsing revenue has been attributed to unlawful activites (child pornography, gambling, and the like) as well as items violating the copyrights of others (songs, articles, poems, recipes, artwork, photos, TV shows, movies, etc.).

The "do no evil" days were a complete sham in my view, and I see this all of this catching up to them starting late this year.

Have you noticed the number of law suits these folks from Mountain View spend their sharholders money on? It's shameful.

They've been chewing on those apples for longer than you think!

What Should Jerry Do? My Advice to Yahoo

This was as good of an article as I have read in months, Tim. Thank you very much. I totally agree with practically everything you said.

I will elaborate on one particular thing you said, however. I firmly believe this "deal" may signal the end of Wall Street as we have known it for the past ten years or so. In my view, that would be wonderful news. Those "fat cats" are simply not able to "fix" technology deals like they used to ... as they do everything else.

They are simply not smart enough these days. People are sick and tired of their greedy ways.

The rocket scientists in the valley and in Redmond blow them away. Where would YOU rather work if given a choice?

Anyway, Yahoo is a "terrific" brand. They are in the top five in Sports, Jobs, Health, News, E-mail, Search, Photos, Small Business, local Newspapers and Directories, and many more areas too varied to mention.

People do not like Microsoft and do not in general see them representing true innovation. That will not get better under Ballmer in my view.

And probably even more important in the long run, people have finally noticed some of the "gray-line" business practices, infringment activities, and corporate ethics out there at Google.

They have preyed on people's apparent ignorance (or at least what
Google perceives as ignorance) for far too many years already.

If the Yahoo folks would simply put their collective heads down and start to work for their shareholders for a change (rather than seeming to be continously in a "scramble"), the results might surprise everyone. Even themselves!

What's wrong with organic growth and profits when you're in so many strong related markets, several of which could become the next Microsoft or Google "killer app"?

Thanks for writing this one, Tim!

George

[e-mail]...

Why Do Time Warner and News Corp Want Yahoo?

Nice article, Julia.

I find all of this fascinating from my position as a small business owner and Internet addict.

I do disagree with one of things you said in your post, however. While I see AOL having lost its identity (and its perceived self confidence) on the global stage, I do not see this with Yahoo. I think you, the media, have been too hard on them. As I see it, they are the premium small to mid-size business and consumer brand in the entire Internet space. And their services in finance, real estate, e-mail, personals, and sports seem to have dominant market positions both here in the U.S., and elsewhere. I have been in branding for 25 years. The Yahoo brand is excellent. To me, it still stands for innovation and leadership in a still infant age industry.

Google, while its brand as a word oriented search product, is substantial, has confused the overall market with its investments in green technologies (wonderful industry, and mission, but why Google?), the cellular airwaves, Aerospace, chicken coops, healthcare, and basically everything else its rocket scientist executives can think of. I see the company VERY vulnerable though the Internet's next phase.

By and large, the Internet world's current power players have grown up not liking Microsoft. Microsoft stands for high prices, elitist attitudes, billionaire owners, software glitches, government influence, and a ton of other things that the masses simply do not care for and cannot relate to. I do not see that attitude changing anytime soon, as Ballmer appears to be somewhat arrogant in both his style and his approach towards partnering. He simply does not have the "presence" that Gates had, and still has, on the global stage. If nothing else, the folks from Redmond could absolutely ruin whatever reputation and/or momentum Yahoo has established in the small business, social networking, and higher end of the consumer channels.

My vote. An independent Yahoo, or a Yahoo combined with AOL, Softbank, Alibaba, or even MySpace, is the best thing for the overall market. As a consumer, and as a potential business partner to all of them, I firmly believe that more choice is better than limited choice, and we will all be better off in the next Internet phase with a third leg on this Microsoft and Google dominated stool.

Thanks for sharing your views with the rest of us.

George
[e-mail]...

Is Google Becoming An Enemy To Open Source?

"Toggling" only works for a very short amount of time, Larry. You are either a Democrat or a Republican (Roos Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Paulson, and the other independent aside) n this country. You don't ge tot wait to see how weveryone is voting asnd then decide.

Google is a hypocrit on this subject matter. Just like it has become a hypocrit on so many other subjects ... and especially when they relate to copyrights and trademarks.

Google steals food from the farmers and gives it to the poor ... problem is .. most of the farmers are poor as well. It's a PR stunt .. pure and simple. Read on and you'll see what I mean.

The Tip of the Iceberg

Google's "do no evil" slogan sucked in millions and millions of people worldwide. People who had become accustomed to the business practices of Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Novel and others and who wanted, and needed, a break. It was an easy audience to buy into the "hype".

It worked ... probably far better, and far faster, than even Google expected. In fact, when Google's CEO moved to Google from Novel (and earlier Cisco, I think) he indicated it would be a pleasant change of pace for him to not have to deal with Microsoft day in and day out anymore. Right Eric ... we hear you!

Google hired some of the smartest people in the world to help them carry the "do no evil" banner to the masses. Like rallying certain religious cultures to become more hostile to those of us in western civilizations, Google's reach for support became a relatively easy mission and spread like wildfire by word of mouth. Their timing was impeccable, as was their implementation.

Soon word of mouth converted to billions and billions of dollars of venture capital, outside investment, and advertising dollars and "Google" quickly became a common household word ... even a verb in many cases .. much like "Xerox" was used for all copying in the last century. Google stood for "innovation", for "anti-Microsoft", for "free and open source" and "free and open applications", for "open and honest discovery", and most of all for "simple and lightning fast search". I don't see too much evil in those causes, do you? ... "DO NO EVIL".

One thing Google forgot to tell us. Much of the content it planned to deliver for free was going to be stolen from others. It's kind of like a business model that sets out to steal crops from thousands and thousands of hard working, and disadvantaged, farmers, while offering the food for free to the world's millions and millions of starving people. As long as you do a good job promoting your good deeds, not one of the small time farmers (not even the largest ones for that matter) are likely to be able to stop you. And billions of dollars provides a ton of legal and public relations support to help spread the word in that direction as well. "Is it fair to cut off the supply of food to these hungry people throughout the world, your honor?"

Maybe I'm old school, but the shenanigans I've witnessed over the past three years since Google went public are the antithesis of "good deeds" from my experience.

And perhaps even worse, the other giant search engine companies, like Microsoft, IAC, and Time Warner, seem to be following Google's lead rather than trying to do what is fair and just. I know this. I have communicated with senior level attorneys and executives at several of these companies about these concerns.

So, who are the farmers? Well, here's just a few of the many I have heard from, or read about:

- book publishers
- book authors
- illustrators
- cartoonists
- poets
- journalists
- songwriters
- animators
- digitizers
- musicians
- television studios
- designers
- photographers
- playwrights
- universities
- producers
- cable operators
- actors and actresses
- professional athletes
- artists
- comedians
- speech writers
- magazine columnists
- models
- writers
- newspaper editors
- comic strip creators
- videographers
- investigative reporters
- movie makers
- programmers

Seems like each of these groups have been involved in lawsuits involving Google over the past five years ... both here and in Europe. Almost always pertaining to intellectual property ... trademarks, copyrights, patents.

In fact, how do you explain this fact: Google knew that YouTube was involved in literally thousands and thousands of unlawful uploading and downloading activities BEFORE giving its two 20-something founders the lion's share of $1.65 billion in late 2006. And the infringement activity seems to have gotten worse rather than better since Google took the helm.

How does any modern, civilized, government or industry explain that to the Chinese?
What signal has Google given the rest of the world regarding intellectual property and copyright infringement?

How about this one. "You probably shouldn't do it, but if you do, please do it in a very big way like we do, so that we can all profit from the advertising exposure, and the giveaways of our "docs" and other "apps" (one of Google's terms for "food") along the way."

I make my living from one of the categories referenced above. I believe in copyright protection and have always been willing to put my money, and my reputation, where my mouth was. Still am. In my view, Google has become the DOMINANT EVIL EMPIRE it claimed to loath. Microsoft is just laying low now and waiting for Google to fall on its own sword so that the original "Evil Empire" (according to Google anyway) can pick its way through the spoils.

"Do Some Evil" and count on the consuming public, industry journalists, and our elected public officials, to be too stupid, or too afraid of technology, to notice what you're really doing doesn't work across the board, Google.

Google's recent 10Q disclosures should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following this story closely over the past few months. We've only seen the "tip of the iceberg" ... believe me.

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]...

Google Continues to Gain Search Traffic Share

Hi Paul,

I got an e-mail this morning that really annoyed me. Reading this post re market share for search engine companies just triggered my emotions.

The e-mail I received read something like this ..."George, the masses don't care whether the content they download from Google et al is stolen property or not ... they just want to get it lightning fast!"

WRONG! I don't believe that for one second. The "masses" simply do not know the risk these giant search engine companies put them in because the media has done a terrible job of getting this word out.

I know ... I have been fighting the battle against Internet piracy for over 15 years now. It is worse today than it has ever been ... by a factor of at least ten fold from what I can see.

Are you aware of the fact that prior knowledge is NOT a prerequisite for a copyright infringement claim in this country? In other words, everyone who downloads an unlicensed video, movie, song, photo or illustrated artwork (whether thye think it is authorized or not) from the Internet and publishes, displays, or performs it in any fashion has the potential of being liable to the copyright holder. And the consequences can be severe. We call it "willful blindness".

So why do the "masses" seem to encourage the access to, and reteival from, obvious piracy web sites through these search engine companies? Copyright infringement through the image search engines is blowing all piracy statistics (and attempts to curtail this epidemic) off the charts.

It is my firm belief that the only reason this is tolerated is a lack of knowledge within the vast majority of Internet users worldwide. Modern day's "silent majority"

Isn't it your job to inform them?

Curious to hear your answer to this question.

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]...

Is Google Reinventing Management?

Hi Larry,

I always enjoy your articles and posts.

Google is one of the most interesting "stories" I've watched unfold in this industry in over thirty years (I started with IBM back in the early 70's ... no dinosaur comments, please).

The engineers, and their technology, at Google are truly remarkable. I use its search engines routinely and just added "News Alerts" last week. Lightning fast ... and VERY comprehensive ... that's all I can say!

However, it appears to me that you, and most other journalists I follow, seem to ignore one huge and important facet of this analysis. Hasn't Google set a completely new standard of operations and legal protocol by completely ignoring our existng copyright laws and running roughshod over anyone who tries to stop them?

This, moreso than management, financial, and marketing talents, will be their ultimate downfall in my opinion ... and I've witnessed quite a few of this industry's "superstars" crash and burn over the years.

Here's a related article I wrote recently. I'd love to hear your comments ... both good and bad.

The Tip of the Iceberg

Google's "do no evil" slogan sucked in millions and millions of people worldwide. People who had become accustomed to the business practices of Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Novel and others and who wanted, and needed a break. It was an easy audience to buy into the "hype".

It worked ... probably far better, and far faster, than even Google expected. In fact, when Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, moved to Google from Novel (and earlier Cisco, I think) he indicated it would be a pleasant change of pace for him to not have to deal with Microsoft day in and day out anymore. Right Eric ... we hear you!

Google hired some of the smartest people in the world to help them carry the "do no evil" banner to the masses. Like rallying certain religious cultures to become more hostile to those of us in western civilizations, Google's reach for support became a relatively easy mission and spread like wildfire by word of mouth. Their timing was impeccable, as was their implementation.

Soon word of mouth converted to billions and billions of dollars of venture capital, investment, and advertising dollars and "Google" quickly became a common household word ... even a verb in many cases ... much like "Xerox" was used for all copying in the last century. Google stood for "innovation", for "anti-Microsoft", for "free and open source" and "free and open applications", for "open and honest discovery", and, most of all, for "simple and lightning fast search". I don't see too much evil in those causes, do you? ... "DO NO EVIL".

One thing Google forgot to tell us. Much of the content it planned to deliver for free was going to be stolen from others. It's kind of like a business model that sets out to steal crops from thousands and thousands of hard working, and disadvantaged, farmers, while offering the food for free to the world's millions and millions of starving people. As long as you do a good job promoting your good deeds not one of the small time farmers (not even the largest ones for that matter) are likely to be able to stop you. And billions of dollars provides a ton of legal and public relations support to spread the word in that direction as well. "Is it fair to cut off the supply of food to these hungry people throughout the world, your honor?"

Maybe I'm old school, but the shenanigans I've witnessed over the past three years since Google went public are the antithesis of "good deeds" from my experience.

And perhaps even worse, the other search companies like Microsoft, IAC, and Time Warner seem to following Google's lead rather than trying to do what is fair and just. I know this. I have communicated with senior level attorneys and executives at several of these companies about these concerns.

So, who are the farmers? Well, here's just a few of the many I have heard from, or read about:

- book publishers
- book authors
- illustrators
- cartoonists
- poets
- journalists
- songwriters
- animators
- digitizers
- musicians
- television studios
- designers
- photographers
- playwrights
- universities
- producers
- cable operators
- actors and actresses
- professional athletes
- artists
- comedians
- speech writers
- magazine columnists
- models
- writers
- newspaper editors
- comic strip creators
- videographers
- investigative reporters
- movie makers
- programmers

Seems like each of these groups have been involved in lawsuits involving Google over the past five years ... both here and in Europe. Almost always pertaining to intellectual property ... trademarks, copyrights, patents.

In fact, how do you explain this fact: Google knew that YouTube was involved in literally thousands and thousands of unlawful uploading and downloading activities BEFORE giving its two 20-something founders the lion's share of $1.65 billion in late 2006. And the infringement activity seems to have gotten worse rather than better since Google took the helm.

How does any modern, civilized government or industry explain that to the Chinese?
What signal has Google given the rest of the world regarding intellectual property and copyright infringement?

How about this one. "You probably shouldn't do it, but if you do, please do it like we do in a very big way, so that we can all profit from the advertising exposure, and the giveaways of our "docs" and other "apps" (one of Google's terms for "food") along the way."

I make my living from one of the categories referenced above. I believe in copyright protection and have always been willing to put my money, and my reputation, where my mouth was. Still am. In my view, Google has become the DOMINANT EVIL EMPIRE it claimed to loath. Microsoft is just laying low now and waiting for Google to fall on its own sword so that the original "Evil Empire" (according to Google anyway) can pick its way through the spoils.

"Do Some Evil" and count on the consuming public, the journalists, and our elected public officials, to be too stupid, or too afraid of technology, to notice what you're you really doing doesn't work across the board, Google.

Google's recent 10Q disclosures teel it all ... should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following this story closely over the past few months. We've only seen the "tip of the iceberg" ... believe me.

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]...

Noteworthy Nuggets From Google’s 10Q

The Tip of the Iceberg

Google's "do no evil" slogan sucked in millions and millions of people worldwide. People who had become accustomed to the business practices of Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Novel and others and who wanted, and needed a break. It was an easy audience to buy into the "hype".

It worked ... probably far better, and far faster, than even Google expected. In fact, when Google's CEO moved to Google from Novel (and earlier Cisco, I think) he indicated it would be a pleasant change of pace for him to not have to deal with Microsoft day in and day out anymore. Right Eric ... we hear you!

Google hired some of the smartest people in the world to help them carry the "do no evil" banner to the masses. Like rallying certain religious cultures to become more hostile to those of us in western civilizations, Google's reach for support became a relatively easy mission and spread like wildfire by word of mouth. Their timing was impeccable, as was their implementation.

Soon word of mouth converted to billions and billions of dollars of Venture Capital and advertising dollars and "Google" quickly became a common household word ... even a verb in many cases .. much like "Xerox" was used for all copying in the last century. Google stood for "innovation", for "anti-Microsoft", for "free and open source" and "free and open applications", for "open and honest discovery", and most of all for "simple and lightning fast search". I don't see too much evil in those causes, do you? ... "DO NO EVIL".

One thing Google forgot to tell us. Much of the content it planned to deliver for free was going to be stolen from others. It's kind of like a business model that sets out to steal crops from thousands and thousands of hard working, and disadvantaged, farmers, while offering the food for free to the world's millions and millions of starving people. As long as you do a good job promoting your good deeds not one of the small time farmers (not even the largest ones for that matter) are likely to be able to stop you. And billions of dollars provides a ton of legal and public relations support to spread the word in that direction as well. "Is is fair to cut off the supply of food to these hungry people throughout the world, your honor?

Maybe I'm old school, but the shenanigans I've witnessed over the past three or four years since Google went public are the antithesis of "good deeds" from my experience.

And perhaps even worse, the companies like Microsoft, IAC, and Time Warner seem to following Google's lead rather than trying to do what is fair and just. I know this. I have communicated with senior level attorneys and executives at several of these companies about these concerns.

So, who are the farmers? Well, here's just a few of the many I have heard from, or read about:

- book publishers
- book authors
- illustrators
- cartoonists
- poets
- journalists
- songwriters
- animators
- digitizers
- musicians
- television studios
- designers
- photographers
- playwrights
- universities
- producers
- cable operators
- actors and actresses
- professional athletes
- artists
- comedians
- speech writers
- magazine columnists
- models
- writers
- newspaper editors
- comic strip creators
- videographers
- investigative reporters
- movie makers
- programmers

Seems like each of these groups have been involved in lawsuits involving Google over the past five years ... both here and in Europe. Almost always pertaining to intellectual property ... trademarks, copyrights, patents.

In fact, how do you explain this fact: Google knew that YouTube was involved in literally thousands and thousands of unlawful uploading and downloading activities BEFORE giving its two 20-something founders the lion's share of $1.65 billion in late 2006. And the infringement activity seems to have gotten worse rather than better since Google took the helm. How does any modern, civilized government or industry explain that to the Chinese?
What signal has Google given the rest of the world regarding intellectual property and copyright infringement?

How about this one. "You probably shouldn't do it, but if you do, please do it in a very big way, so that we can profit from the advertising exposure, and the giveaways of our "docs" and other "apps" (one of Google's terms for "food") along the way."

I make my living from one of the categories referenced above. I believe in copyright protection and have always been willing to put my money, and my reputation, where my mouth was. Still am. In my view, Google has become the DOMINANT EVIL EMPIRE it claimed to loath. Microsoft is just laying low now and waiting for Google to fall on its sword so that the original "Evil Empire" (according to Google anyway) can pick its way through the spoils.

"Do Some Evil" and count on the consuming public, and our elected public officials, to be too stupid, or too afraid of technology, to notice you doesn't work across the board, Google.

Google's 10Q disclosures should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following this story closely over the past few months. We've only seen the "tip of the iceberg" ... believe me.

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]...