Bear with me. I'm just trying to hash out the ad tech ecosystem in my mind, stream of consciousness, because I'm bored.
Ok, if I'm understanding this correctly, Google's maybe coming out with this AdID product which can track user behavior like a 3rd party cookie. They'll offer this to other web and mobile properties so that they can own all user tracking across all devices. Question 1: who owns web tracking today? Is it a compilation of a bunch of different 3rd party cookies? To clarify, whose cookies does a company like Rocket Fuel use?
Apple's already been doing the same thing on iPhones, insisting that all app developers use their IDFA to track user behavior and feed data back to advertisers as opposed to installing cookies. As of iOS 7, they don't accept apps into their app store that use 3rd party cookies. So, why would they accept apps with Google AdID rolled in. Especially given the feud that erupted between the two companies when Google got into mobile OS's.
If Apple doesn't accept apps with Google AdID rolled in, how will Google track people on iPhones when those people are in apps other than Gmail, Google Maps, or whatever other product that Google owns? Statistical modeling?
OOOOooohhh...never mind.
Google's going for all apps to use G+ as the standard login so anytime someone logs into an app on iOS, Google will be able to see that? So, it's not going to act like a cookie that gets downloaded when someone visits a site, they're going to have users activate it every time they use an app. Dude, smart. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Wow, they're going to have a hell of a hill to climb. Facebook is winning the login battle pretty solidly right now. I guess that's why Fbook hired all the Google people back in the day. They get it.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Google May Make Cookies Obsolete (Mind = Blown)
Ok, don't worry. Not the delicious kind of cookies. Chips Ahoy will still be 1,000 chips delicious. Depression eaters and fat kids everywhere rejoice! Everyone else, you can be as moderately happy as your well-balanced diet will allow.
No, the cookies that I'm talking about are the fundamental layer to all web advertising. They get installed in your web browser pretty much every time you visit any site on this thing called the internet. Maybe you've heard of it. Those cookies either tell only that site (1st party cookies) or many other sites (3rd party cookies) where else you go on the web. That informs the ads that you're served on any given site. When you clear your cookies, the ad servers have no knowledge of what to give you - this is when I get hella ads for Viactiv...
These cookies aren't very good on mobile platforms because a lot of behavior is in app and not in browser. That means that all these ad-tech companies that are going public (click here for a sample) and otherwise raising a lot of money these days are running into monumental problems getting a complete picture of the person receiving their ads as user behavior shifts rapidly into mobile over desktop.
So Google, whose mission it is to collect and catalogue the entire world's information (Josh Gad's character in "The Internship" taught me that), might be taking a stab at replacing cookies. Given that it operates the OS and app store of choice for ~50% of the world's mobile community, it's got a pretty good platform from which to do so. They're also still trying to make G+ happen, but as a universal login as opposed to the destination site they initially tried with. Given the data I saw at numberFire, the G+ login is pretty compelling to users. Maybe even more so than Facebook Connect, which is used in 50+% of mobile apps. Granted, we had an 18-50 American male demo and not these tweens that are defining how tech will be used going forward, so I can't tell you definitively that all users prefer to login with G+ over Facebook Connect.
As this article says, if Google's able to replace cookies, they're not just going to be the biggest player at the ad buying poker table, they're going to be the casino which all other ad buyers depend on. In raising venture capital, you realize pretty quickly that investors want to be sold on this idea of how you become the platform for greater things. That's what F8 is for Facebook, same with Connect. Everyone wants to be electricity and not the light bulb because everyone needs electricity regardless of which brand of bulb, blender, computer, phone... they choose.
So, Google, in a precedented move of genius, can consolidate power and become the entire digital marketing ecosystem, allowing other companies to get some nutrients, but only enough to survive. So much more to say here from a privacy perspective, but later.
For now, let's realize that what Facebook was trying to do with Home is get all users' mobile behavior info. They failed. Apple might try too, but they're not nearly the competent software company that Google is - let's pour one out for our Apple Maps homie. So, Apple + Facebook partnership? Could make sense.
Finally, if the big 5 in tech include Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Twitter, where are Microsoft and Twitter in all of this? Because this is a big freaking deal.
No, the cookies that I'm talking about are the fundamental layer to all web advertising. They get installed in your web browser pretty much every time you visit any site on this thing called the internet. Maybe you've heard of it. Those cookies either tell only that site (1st party cookies) or many other sites (3rd party cookies) where else you go on the web. That informs the ads that you're served on any given site. When you clear your cookies, the ad servers have no knowledge of what to give you - this is when I get hella ads for Viactiv...
These cookies aren't very good on mobile platforms because a lot of behavior is in app and not in browser. That means that all these ad-tech companies that are going public (click here for a sample) and otherwise raising a lot of money these days are running into monumental problems getting a complete picture of the person receiving their ads as user behavior shifts rapidly into mobile over desktop.
So Google, whose mission it is to collect and catalogue the entire world's information (Josh Gad's character in "The Internship" taught me that), might be taking a stab at replacing cookies. Given that it operates the OS and app store of choice for ~50% of the world's mobile community, it's got a pretty good platform from which to do so. They're also still trying to make G+ happen, but as a universal login as opposed to the destination site they initially tried with. Given the data I saw at numberFire, the G+ login is pretty compelling to users. Maybe even more so than Facebook Connect, which is used in 50+% of mobile apps. Granted, we had an 18-50 American male demo and not these tweens that are defining how tech will be used going forward, so I can't tell you definitively that all users prefer to login with G+ over Facebook Connect.
As this article says, if Google's able to replace cookies, they're not just going to be the biggest player at the ad buying poker table, they're going to be the casino which all other ad buyers depend on. In raising venture capital, you realize pretty quickly that investors want to be sold on this idea of how you become the platform for greater things. That's what F8 is for Facebook, same with Connect. Everyone wants to be electricity and not the light bulb because everyone needs electricity regardless of which brand of bulb, blender, computer, phone... they choose.
So, Google, in a precedented move of genius, can consolidate power and become the entire digital marketing ecosystem, allowing other companies to get some nutrients, but only enough to survive. So much more to say here from a privacy perspective, but later.
For now, let's realize that what Facebook was trying to do with Home is get all users' mobile behavior info. They failed. Apple might try too, but they're not nearly the competent software company that Google is - let's pour one out for our Apple Maps homie. So, Apple + Facebook partnership? Could make sense.
Finally, if the big 5 in tech include Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Twitter, where are Microsoft and Twitter in all of this? Because this is a big freaking deal.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Laws in the New Economy
Start here: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/20/4751516/ballmer-calls-google-a-monopoly
Ok, so, I never took anti-trust in law school. But hey! I'm going to say something anyways for two reasons. First, it relates to a broader theory I have about the law and the effects that internet companies are having across different areas within the law - corporate, IP, etc. Second, a renowned legal scholar once told my class to simply keep talking if we wanted to get anywhere with our opinions.
Here's my theory: laws were created in a time long ago, in a galaxy far away when the things that we're occupying ourselves with today were completely unimaginable. There are no built in re-evaluation protocols, so we're forced to fight things out according to outdated precedent that might not apply philosophically but governs nevertheless. This is proving to be a problem today and will only become more of a problem going forward as things change more rapidly because of technological advances across a broader array of subject areas. There are additional systemic problems (read: indefinite Congressional terms) that allow rich (i.e. war weary) 90+ year old white dudes to sit in the House or Senate without a real clue for how anything works or even a fighting chance to understand - 'old dog, new tricks'.
Here's the definition of a monopoly according to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ (definitely not the authoritative source on all things law, but good enough to inform my thinking in studying for exams, and good enough for our purposes here): An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market.
Let's dissect a little:
1) According to this definition of a monopoly, what's Google's business/trade? Search? Advertising? If it's search, which is what it seems like Ballmer is saying, maybe there's a case. Although, they have less than 70% market share. Microsoft wasn't touched until they owned ~90% of the OS business. Moreover, they don't charge anyone to search, so, is it a "business or a trade"? If we're trying to make a case on Advertising, they're selling web real estate for people to put up signs. Doesn't seem like they hold anywhere near exclusive power over all web real estate. There are likely more wrinkles to this, but none that really add up, under current law (as I understand it), to suggest that Google has a monopoly.
According to the same source, a trade is defined as: trade 1) n. a business or occupation for profit, particularly in retail or wholesale sales or requiring special mechanical skill.
What have the courts previously defined retail to be? What kinds of cases qualify under special mechanical skill? I don't know. But, basically, lawyers will make arguments going both ways on these definitions, and they'll use various cases from the past that indicate what the court should take as acceptable definitions of these terms.
2) Anti-trust laws were created in response to the railroads and Standard Oil. Sure, they've been refined over the years and stretched in different directions, but the internet and Google are things that were far beyond the scope of thinking. Google doesn't necessarily make money in what were clearly two distinct ways in which people made money - directly selling the good or service for which the primary demand occurs. They're much more like a publisher in that regard. However, unlike publishers, courts have found that they're not responsible for the content that the search brings up, so they're not publishers. Additionally, unlike a railroad, Google's real estate extends outside of the physical constraints of this country and can be accessed from anywhere on the globe at any time of day, so do we have Google submitting to separate standards in each country? Looks like that's what China's demanded, but that's a whole other ball game.
Anyways, complicated issue. Ballmer's going to have to come with a hell of a lot more game than that though. How does he propose the authorities get involved here? I generally agree that it's a net negative to have one view of the world prevail, not necessarily because I disagree with that view today but because that view or I might change at some point in the future. And, make no mistake, Google has a point of view that is expressed in search. At a fundamental level, that point of view is that our individual search streams should be curated according to the types of information we've previously consumed, the people we engage with and the types of information they consume, thereby rendering search results pretty different for different people, but that takes for granted that new, different information might change the way we behave. There are more arguments here, but I'll leave you with that.
Ok, so, I never took anti-trust in law school. But hey! I'm going to say something anyways for two reasons. First, it relates to a broader theory I have about the law and the effects that internet companies are having across different areas within the law - corporate, IP, etc. Second, a renowned legal scholar once told my class to simply keep talking if we wanted to get anywhere with our opinions.
Here's my theory: laws were created in a time long ago, in a galaxy far away when the things that we're occupying ourselves with today were completely unimaginable. There are no built in re-evaluation protocols, so we're forced to fight things out according to outdated precedent that might not apply philosophically but governs nevertheless. This is proving to be a problem today and will only become more of a problem going forward as things change more rapidly because of technological advances across a broader array of subject areas. There are additional systemic problems (read: indefinite Congressional terms) that allow rich (i.e. war weary) 90+ year old white dudes to sit in the House or Senate without a real clue for how anything works or even a fighting chance to understand - 'old dog, new tricks'.
Here's the definition of a monopoly according to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ (definitely not the authoritative source on all things law, but good enough to inform my thinking in studying for exams, and good enough for our purposes here): An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market.
Let's dissect a little:
1) According to this definition of a monopoly, what's Google's business/trade? Search? Advertising? If it's search, which is what it seems like Ballmer is saying, maybe there's a case. Although, they have less than 70% market share. Microsoft wasn't touched until they owned ~90% of the OS business. Moreover, they don't charge anyone to search, so, is it a "business or a trade"? If we're trying to make a case on Advertising, they're selling web real estate for people to put up signs. Doesn't seem like they hold anywhere near exclusive power over all web real estate. There are likely more wrinkles to this, but none that really add up, under current law (as I understand it), to suggest that Google has a monopoly.
According to the same source, a trade is defined as: trade 1) n. a business or occupation for profit, particularly in retail or wholesale sales or requiring special mechanical skill.
What have the courts previously defined retail to be? What kinds of cases qualify under special mechanical skill? I don't know. But, basically, lawyers will make arguments going both ways on these definitions, and they'll use various cases from the past that indicate what the court should take as acceptable definitions of these terms.
2) Anti-trust laws were created in response to the railroads and Standard Oil. Sure, they've been refined over the years and stretched in different directions, but the internet and Google are things that were far beyond the scope of thinking. Google doesn't necessarily make money in what were clearly two distinct ways in which people made money - directly selling the good or service for which the primary demand occurs. They're much more like a publisher in that regard. However, unlike publishers, courts have found that they're not responsible for the content that the search brings up, so they're not publishers. Additionally, unlike a railroad, Google's real estate extends outside of the physical constraints of this country and can be accessed from anywhere on the globe at any time of day, so do we have Google submitting to separate standards in each country? Looks like that's what China's demanded, but that's a whole other ball game.
Anyways, complicated issue. Ballmer's going to have to come with a hell of a lot more game than that though. How does he propose the authorities get involved here? I generally agree that it's a net negative to have one view of the world prevail, not necessarily because I disagree with that view today but because that view or I might change at some point in the future. And, make no mistake, Google has a point of view that is expressed in search. At a fundamental level, that point of view is that our individual search streams should be curated according to the types of information we've previously consumed, the people we engage with and the types of information they consume, thereby rendering search results pretty different for different people, but that takes for granted that new, different information might change the way we behave. There are more arguments here, but I'll leave you with that.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Thinking Out Loud About the Future
Today, when we're walking around cities and emailing/Tweeting/phoning, our cell phones have to connect to cell towers which talk back and forth to satellites to get us the information we need. Beaming phone and data signals into the sky and receiving instantaneous reception back is pretty amazing, but it seems totally bandwidth constrained at 2 points. The first point is the device <--> cell tower. The more traffic there is, the weaker the signal gets (why AT&T sucks massively in NYC). A solution is to put in more towers or stronger towers. The problem with that is NIMBYism created and furthered by the idea that cell towers cause cancer. The second constraint is cell tower <--> satellite information quantity and speed. Similar problems. Similar solutions. Similar concerns.
Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon, and Google all provide phone and internet service in our homes and offices. All of them are laying fiber optic cables underground in various parts of the country. Some have laid this fiber optic cable to local nodes (FTTN) that then distribute phone and data signals through existing cable or copper infrastructure. Cable and copper can't handle the same speeds that fiber can, so our download and upload speeds are capped at pretty low rates. Google has decided to jump ahead of everyone, laying fiber directly to the premises (FTTP) in whichever city the company decides to do so - so far, Kansas City, Provo, and Austin. It's great technology that offers download speeds about 100x faster than what we're used to. It's super expensive to put down and will take time to build out.
The real question is why do we need that fast of speeds connecting to the premises? I get that it would be awesome to download an HD movie in 7 seconds, but, honestly, current speeds are good enough (20 mins for an HD movie). In my view, that's not the rub. Imagine what a sophisticated network of super fast hotspots would do for mobile communications. Instead of having to go through cell towers and satellites, in major metro areas with a density of WiFi routers, you could have everyone always on super fast WiFi. I'm probably not visionary enough here, but how does instantly streaming high def video captured by cell phones sound? How else does this change things? I'll have some hypotheses later.
Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon, and Google all provide phone and internet service in our homes and offices. All of them are laying fiber optic cables underground in various parts of the country. Some have laid this fiber optic cable to local nodes (FTTN) that then distribute phone and data signals through existing cable or copper infrastructure. Cable and copper can't handle the same speeds that fiber can, so our download and upload speeds are capped at pretty low rates. Google has decided to jump ahead of everyone, laying fiber directly to the premises (FTTP) in whichever city the company decides to do so - so far, Kansas City, Provo, and Austin. It's great technology that offers download speeds about 100x faster than what we're used to. It's super expensive to put down and will take time to build out.
The real question is why do we need that fast of speeds connecting to the premises? I get that it would be awesome to download an HD movie in 7 seconds, but, honestly, current speeds are good enough (20 mins for an HD movie). In my view, that's not the rub. Imagine what a sophisticated network of super fast hotspots would do for mobile communications. Instead of having to go through cell towers and satellites, in major metro areas with a density of WiFi routers, you could have everyone always on super fast WiFi. I'm probably not visionary enough here, but how does instantly streaming high def video captured by cell phones sound? How else does this change things? I'll have some hypotheses later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)