| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
How a Microsoft and News Corp Deal Could Challenge Google | |
|
||
| Time: 15:50 EST/20:50 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Watch | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Last week, the Internets seemed aflame with rumored talks between News Corp. and Microsoft, wherein Redmond would pay the former to de-list The Wall Street Journal and other sites from Google in exchange for sweet cash. Subsequent articles have suggested that the initial reports were overblown, but the whole thing made me wonder: How well would such de-listing--or rather, exclusive listing on Bing--work out for Rupert Murdoch and Microsoft? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 315 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:12:19 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/2/2009 4:41:44 PM |
|
You know a year ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly with this guy. But ya know I think he may be dead wrong.
I think old media has finally wised up and figured out that Google is a new "media company" selling ads just like they do but with the advantage that they don't have to pay reporters and editors to get copy. Look for the content makers to ban together possibly along with MS to get a piece of the $22 billion dollars that is going to Google and sequester their work from general search engines. This is just the first of most of the major entertainment and news outlets putting their content behind a wall and charging for it. They know the business model probably better than Google. Sell ads. MS will just skim some money off the top and laugh. |
| #2 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 12/2/2009 6:01:14 PM |
|
I am not so sure about it; it might work for the WSJ but not for general news.
If I wanted to read news I can go to BBC, The Financial Times etc. and read all of the news an "average", "casual" reader could be interested to read for free. Granted, if I ran an investment company I would need more but I would have subscriptions to the WSJ, Bloomberg etc because access to these source of news would be instrumental in running my business. |
| #3 By 15406 (99.240.77.173) at 12/2/2009 6:20:01 PM |
| #1: Why would the media companies band together with MS?? Bing, Google, Yahoo!, etc etc all scrape the web. MS would be in the same boat as Google -- having to pay for news content. |
| #4 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 12/3/2009 12:10:30 AM |
|
the objective is that as is now done, ALL content will emerge as paid content.
The owners and the producers of that content are the rightful beneficiaries of that content and as the distribution means moves increasingly to the NET ONLY, the roles and relationships change for all. Where "the web" functioned for content owners as an "additional" point of entry and to a much lesser extent, a source of ad revenue, that is changing and as we do with line ups of channels, still subject to intense advertising, we'll pay for what we see on the web. BING/MS, not Google is in the best position to leverage this change - it only to gain and Google has everything to lose and their earnings, by scraping and controlling references to content owned by others, is going to come to a very rapid end. There will always be FREE content and some of it will be good - but it will never feature the production quality of the large networks, "some" free content will continue to be made available, but unlike as was regulated by the FCC, transmission licensing will have to change to compel content owners to provide "broadcasts" for the public good - e.g., weather, PSAs, etc... This is a normal and expected evolution of the "web" and as predicted long ago, the roles would change the second transmission means could deliver as good an experience via packet, as was available over any form of broadcast signal. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/3/2009 10:37:19 AM |
|
#4: BING/MS, not Google is in the best position to leverage this change
I see Google as the better partner. Both are rich beyond belief with cash, both are huge world brands. Both need content to index and offer. However, Google has the much, much larger market- (and more importantly) mind-share. |
| #6 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 12/3/2009 12:01:48 PM |
|
#5: You are absolutely correct! MS needs to at least double their market Share (at the expense of Google not Yahoo) to compete. This won't happen for at least 5 years if at all.
That said, Bing is a good product. Though I'm still not convinced it's as good as Google, I think it is definately a close second and getting better. BTW, My 15 year old daughter suggested that I "Bing" something the other day. Maybe all the MS ads are paying off. |
| #7 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/3/2009 12:29:41 PM |
|
Latch,
You miss my point. Content companies may band with MS for convenience but MS would just be an intermediary. I think Hulu is a good example here. Hulu is likely dying as content providers wish to provide the services themselves and control all aspects of distribution. TV and particularly movie media companies are very familiar with distribution channels. That is their stock and trade. Hulu was convenient at the time but as providers move on Hulu will loose content. All media wants to avoid the iTunes fiasco. This is a fate worse than death. If you are a music company your business model is controlled by Apple, the intermediary, and there is no obvious means of escape. If print media sides with MS/Bing it will only be for a short time. It would still be in MS's interest to move forward with this plan to gain more market share vis a vis Google. This post was edited by oldog on Thursday, December 03, 2009 at 12:40. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/3/2009 1:18:10 PM |
|
#6: I think it is definitely a close second and getting better.
MS is tenacious in this regard. While their v1.0 offerings are often craptastic, if they stick to it they will eventually get it right. However, MS has a public mindset problem they need to somehow fix. When I think of data or information, I don't associate that with MS. Because of Google's dominant search position, they are much more likely to be associated with data or information than MS by the general public. #7: You miss my point. Content companies may band with MS for convenience but MS would just be an intermediary. I'm not sure I understand you. What convenience do you mean? How would it be more convenient to deal with MS versus Google or Yahoo? If you are a music company your business model is controlled by Apple, the intermediary, and there is no obvious means of escape. That's not quite true. While iTunes is the dominant digital music reseller, it's by no means the only one, and brick & mortar hasn't disappeared just yet. For example, Susan Boyle has moved something like 700,000+ copies of her debut album this week alone, and I doubt much of her sales (if any) came from teenies buying singles off iTunes. |
| #9 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/3/2009 2:39:12 PM |
|
Latch,
Google is a media company! Print media companies are competitors in the only profitable part of Google's business, advertising ($22 billion last year). Print media (with a loss of 45% of revenues last year) would presumably siphon off advertising from Google to their own sites. It would be a loose/loose proposition for Google. Loss of advertising revenue plus the cost of paying for content. MS on the other hand has nothing to loose here. It is where Google was when it got started, looking for market share without a business model and lots of cash in the bank. As far as Yahoo is concerned, it seems they are out of the search business, but I believe they are interested in providing content and may indeed be a player (on MSs dime). Unfortunately, Yahoo doesn't have much muscle. Regarding brick and mortar music sales. Are you aware that last year vinyl album sales were greater than CD sales? This is not a sustainable business model. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/3/2009 3:00:24 PM |
|
#9: Google is a media company!
Interesting. I had never thought of Google as a media company because they don't produce original content. Perhaps my definition of 'media company' needs an overhaul. To me, a classic media company provides information of some kind on or via a physical media of some kind. Newspaper, magazines, books, radio, music, TV, movies all qualify. If you take away the media as with Google, are they still media companies? Or is the media in this case your computer or Internet connection? That's a tricky one. A loose definition would also qualify MS as a media company (among other things). Regarding brick and mortar music sales. Are you aware that last year vinyl album sales were greater than CD sales? This is not a sustainable business model. I find that extremely hard to believe. I know that vinyl is enjoying a resurgence among audiophiles lately, but I just can't believe the vinyl outsold CD. I don't know anyone with a working turntable anymore. Link? Is this global or US only? |
| #11 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/3/2009 6:18:00 PM |
|
Latch,
I'm must truly be getting old. My sales numbers for physical media was wrong. http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/01/music-sales-up-10-in-2008-thanks-to-downloads-and-vinyl.ars Still on-line sales were over a billion songs (and growing) vs. 70 million of physical media (and shrinking) is sobering, is it not. |
| #12 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 12/3/2009 9:41:22 PM |
|
In spite of all the collateral issues (need to be stacked vertical and not one on top of the other, quality of the sound degrading each time the vinyl is played etc.) the warmth of the music coming out of an LP has always been better than the CDs.
On the other hand CDs are more practical, harder to scratch etc. but now with MP3 who needs a disc changer in the car? Finally LPs remind me when I was a kid and dancing at parties..... Wow it seems yesterday and it was fourty years ago. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 315 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:12:19 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
