Rebooting Web Publishing Design

Let’s start by reviewing the basic ingredients of a successful online publishing operation:

1 / Quick load.
2 / Ease of operation and update
3 / Consistent visual identity
4 / Platform independence
5 / Open to the rest of the web
6 / Geared for transactions
7 / CRM and marketing-friendly

Why am I scrutinizing this? Because we are not there yet. But stay tuned: the future looks bright, it’s called HyperText Markup Language version 5, in short HTML5. (No worries, no program code in this column, just a few ruminations).

Back to our list:

1 / Quickly loading contents. So much work to do! I’m currently working on an evaluation of the loading speed of major news websites. Compared to e-commerce websites their performance is just appalling. Most of the news sites I measured are painfully slow to load, especially the ones with ads-saturated home pages. (We will publish the results sometimes next year, once we’ve validated our data).
Speed matters of applications as well. I have 100+ apps in my iPhone 4; about 40 are news-related, including many subscription-based ones. There, too, speed varies — with consequences. Over time, I saw my usage becoming directly related to the app’s swiftness: start-up time, fluid updates and content navigation. Intense competition for user time on the smartphone scene makes speed a key success factor.

2 / Smooth Operation. Only Rupert Murdoch can plan a digital newspaper updated once a day. I bet this feature won’t last. Way too un-internet. Except for the online magazine business, there is no way to think of digital news other than as being permanently updated. The medium demands it. If a production system is too complicated to be fed with fresh content (text, pictures, video), to link to other components (archives, related stories) that will generate page views, or to generate news alerts, that pig won’t fly.

3 / Visual ID. News brands are largely built on strong graphic designs. Right away, everyone is able to spot the cover of a magazine or a newspaper, even if its reduced to a thumbnail. Smartphones/tablets applications are good at displaying sophisticated graphics. On the traditional web, designers were — until now –  limited by HTML fonts and other display constraints.

4 / Platform independence. Ten days ago, I was in Boston at an INMA gathering where Filipe Fortes’ presentation gave me the idea for this column. Filipe is the CTO of Treesaver, a web design startup involving the renowned designer Roger Black. In his presentation, Filipe Fortes sums up the issue in two slides:

Combine all of the above, multiply the number of versions — either functional upgrades or bugs fixes — divide by market reach, apply monetization parameters and you get an idea of e-publishing’s hurdles.

5 / Openness. Social features, Facebook, Twitter, bookmarking etc., will keep growing as contributors to reading habits as well as to audience traffic. As far as we can see today, most of news related apps ignore this trend and are closed to the rest of the web (even sometimes to their own archives)

6/ The transaction issue. In this field, apps remain vastly superior by allowing many forms of friction-free payments. And even if Apple’s business model is open to questions (see previous Monday Note Key Success Factors for a tablet-only “paper”), it allows publishers — for subscriptions — to bypass their closed system and call the shots on pricing and customer relationship. It’s unclear how long this bypass will last, but this toleration is good news: the publishers destined to succeed in the online news business will be the ones able to convert most of their customers into subscribers (unlike with the physical kiosk model which with fluctuating one-at-a-time purchases).

7/ CRM. (For a complete definition of Customer Relationship Management, see here.) In the e-news business, CRM is another key success factor. Using “all means necessary”, publishers must retain and nurture the relationship with their customer. Big internet players such as Google or Apple, armed with their ability to manage large datasets, are very well positioned to profit from CRM. Fortunately, CRM vendors are many and competitive, able to serve businesses of all sizes, ranging from Open Source solutions such as SugarCRM, to SaaS offerings such as Salesforce.com, and more traditional products such as Oracle’s.

For most of the requirements in our list, HTML5 looks promising. In short, HTML5, is the latest iteration of the web language invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1994. The new version of the language makes wider use of JavaScript, a well-regarded scripting system that enables a world of features that, until now, were exclusive to Flash. I can’t add much to the debate between the respective merits Flash and HTML5, I’ll just suggest a visit to  this site, and a run through the demos in order to get an idea of newly advanced HTML5 capabilities. (A great story on the MIT Technology Review sums it up: The Web Is Reborn. The article is subscription-based, but it’s worth it. Previous free articles on the same topic here and here.)

To get a glimpse of HTML5’s potential for digital publishing, point your browser to Nomad Editions. It’s a small, e-publishing company that is also a Treesaver launch partner (story in Wired and in the NY Times). You’ll see a set of magazines, that load fast and display in crisp graphics, pictures and typefaces. And they works quite well on an iPad. Big media companies are showing interest: the Associated Press is getting a stunning prototype which merges the advantages of the richest news content with a magazine look and feel.

In Friday’s conversation, Treesaver’s CTO Filipe Fortes explained the advantages of HMTL 5 and his startup’s goal: “The main idea is to lower the cost of producing content and to display it in a attractive fashion. If you take applications such as Time, Wired, or The New Yorker, they are all done by hand in Adobe InDesign:  they do one version for portrait orientation, one version for landscape (like here for Time)…”:

“… They might have the internal resources to make two versions of their magazine, but what if they want to go to the upcoming Blackberry tablet or the rumored 7” iPad? Therefore, the idea is to retain branded design elements but make sure they’ll run in a low cost fashion on any platform”. Filipe Fortes mentioned apps for magazines where, today, costs range between $100,000 and $600,000, like the one developed by WonderFactory.

The spread of HTML5 depends on the creation of powerful Software Development Kits (SDKs). Unlike Apple’s controlled environment, development tools for HTML5 are still immature and barely organized. This scattered sector provides an opportunity for young companies such as SproutCore, Sencha or jQuery Mobile to build frameworks that could lead to a real ecosystem. But they’re still quite behind the sophistication of Apple’s proprietary development tools. On another hand, the emerging HTML5 playing field will lead to the creation of a new layer: pre-built graphic design components. Today, layouts are hand-coded, tomorrow they’ll be assembled using existing blocks. It will change the way apps are produced. That’s TreeSaver’s pitch.

Creating web sites or apps, or websites encapsulated in an app will soon be done for a fraction of the cost of developing an app today; the result will work across platforms and be easier to handle. In enabling such new development methods, HTML5 could combine advantages from both worlds: the Web’s ubiquity and openness and the performance of applications.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

CES: The Missing Protocol

We’re done with 2010 and off to 2011 with CES, the Consumer Electronics Show. Still hungover from New Year festivities, hordes of exhibitors, store owners, and civilians brave one another and the refined Las Vegas culture in order to show off and ogle the latest gotta-have-it gadgetry.

Once upon a time, the computer industry’s signal event was the NCC, which then morphed into the now-deceased Comdex. Las Vegas cab drivers made no secret of their low regard for us dull computer types: We didn’t know how to have fun. Ah, car dealer conventions… Those guys knew how to enjoy Vegas.

Sympathetic barkers tried to lift our mood. As we streamed out of the exhibition halls at the end of a Comdex day, they plied us with cards advertising choice local businesses and practitioners: ‘Boom boom in the ROM!’ Others were magicians who offered to ‘Change your software into hardware’.

Today, computers, the old kind, are out. Consumer Electronics are in. Actually, computers still reign. They’ve taken over, infiltrated, become the soul of Consumer Electronics. Why do you think Apple dropped the ‘Computer‘ from its name? And why do Microsoft bosses, first Gates and now Ballmer, give the opening Sunday night keynote address? Obligingly, the other Wintel half follows. Intels’ CEO (Paul Otellini after years of co-founder Andy Grove in the role) treats us to nice slides chockfull of nanometers, gigahertz, and everything converged, obediently toeing the MS line.

Computers still rule, but things have changed. We now have these mobile and really personal computers, smartphones and tablets. In that arena, Microsoft and Intel no longer have the power to tell us what to think and what to do, although it won’t stop them from trying. Ballmer will show more tablets…just like last year, only better! And, just like last year, Intel will insist that they now have the right x86 processors for mobile applications.

But minds and wallets have moved on. ARM and Android are everywhere, from GPS devices to home theaters, smartphones, tablets, Internet TVs, and set-top boxes. Even Microsoft-powered Windows Phone devices aren’t using Intel processors: HTC, Samsung and others aren’t suicidal.

So it’s BS as usual, but with a twist: This is The Year of The Tablet. No self-respecting manufacturer will dare show up without a tablet. Pardon, a tableau of tablets, a full Kama Sutra of hardware and software configurations: keyboard or not, touch, pen, Android, mobile Linux derivatives, WebOS, Windows 7 adapted for tablets, ARM or Intel processors.

And, of course, Apple will be absent, preferring to run its own course unencumbered by a trade show organizer and a mess of noisy exhibitors. Results support their consistent “Think Different” mantra. [Update: the cheeky Apple event schedulers have chosen January 6th, the opening day of CES, to launch their Mac App Store.]

All well and good…but one protocol will be missing.

This being the Consumer Electronics Show, we’ll see a flood of new and improved entertainment devices, TVs, home theaters systems, security cameras and other home control products. All of which have a terrible time talking to one another and being centrally controlled, or even simply controlled. Why do you think they make baskets for remotes?

Controlling these devices from one remote is too complicated and expensive. I know a learned high-tech exec with unimpeachable command-line credentials who gave up trying to program a single remote for his home theater. He says he’d rather learn how to use each remote to turn the proper device on and off, set the channel, select the right source or program the PVR.

If you’re geeky—and lucky and take rejection well—you might be able to program a “unified” gadget, a “meta-remote”, one that will learn the right code sequences for all your devices. My suggestion is to get a Logitech Harmony device. (Disclosure: Although I used to be a Logitech director, I left the board about ten years ago and don’t own stock in the company, or in any other while we’re on the topic of possible financial interests.)

The Harmony product line comes in (too) many flavors—ironic, given the stated purpose of simplification. Stick with the Harmony One, it abandons the old ways in which the boss remote “learns” from each individual remote or, worse, where you have to pore through cryptic manuals and manually enter codes for each command. With the Harmony One, you use a Windows/Mac application connected to a Logitech server to describe your devices (make and model) and then you set up activities: Watch TV, Watch a DVD, Listen to Music, use your Apple TV (which Logitech quaintly categorizes as a Media Center PC). The server knows (almost) every device code and talks to the local application which programs the remote for you.

I’m not crazy about Harmony’s desktop app UI nor about the fact that the remote apparently needs to reboot its own little embedded computer after each programming session. Why not just update a configuration file and go? So it’s not perfect, but it works better than anything else…unless you’re prepared to move into a different league and get a professional installation—and a service contract.

Skipping through this klutz’s errors and tribulations, and assuming we now have correct setup, everything works smoothly, right?

Not quite.

You tap the Watch TV activity on the remote’s little touch screen. No TV. Tap the Help button and it takes you through a sequence of questions: Is the PVR on? No. The remote attempts to turn it on. Did this solve the problem? No. Is the TV input switched to HDMI 1? No, it was left on HDMI 2 by the previous activity. The remote attempts to cycle through the sequence of HDMI inputs because this particular TV doesn’t have a command to go directly to HDMI 1.

In other words, the remote flies blind. It has no way to determine the state of the devices it’s attempting to control. Commands are one-way messages, no dialog, no feedback. Some commands, such as On/Off, are toggles: There aren’t separate On and Off commands, just one to switch states. That’s what the TV or receiver knows and that’s what the remote has to work with. If someone had the primitive impulse to turn the TV on manually, the remote turns it off when you ask it to turn it on. Hence the clever but pained process in the Harmony’s error recovery checklist.

In an alternate universe, you take your remote, approach the device you want to control and press the Talk To Me button. The TV answers with a bitstream describing its make, model, commands, and current status. The remote then talks to your computer, or smartphone, or directly to the Net and gets the right programming code for the device. When you tap Watch TV, each concerned device, the set-top box, the TV, the receiver for better sound, acknowledges receipt and execution of the command, or else provides an error message.

Why can’t TVs, receivers and DVD players answer questions? Some devices have Ethernet or even WiFi connections and they all contain one or more micro-controllers, but they still resist interrogation. How hard would it be to program a device to provide some feedback? I’d be happy with simpler Infrared or RF (radio) exchanges.

That’s the missing protocol. Today’s consumer devices aren’t deaf, but they’re dumb. They need to talk back.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Video will be the online advertising engine

Last week, Akamai quietly rerouted loads of its client’s traffic to deflect Wikileaks related attacks. The company, based in Cambridge (Massachusetts), had a surfeit of busy days fighting massive DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks. These raids were directed at companies seen as too complacent with the US government (the so-called “Wikichickens”, as coined by the financial site Breaking Views). Akamai’s countermeasures involved quickly moving data from one server to another or, when the origin of a DDoS was detected, rerouting the flood of aggressive requests to decoy URLs.

Akamai Technologies Inc. is specialized in providing distributed computing platforms called CDN (Content Distribution Networks). Its business is mainly to reduce internet latency and to offload its customers’ servers. As its president David Kenny told me last week, Akamai runs on three main business drivers: Cloud Computing, e-commerce, and video delivery (with the associated advertising).
The first driver is very straightforward: as applications move away from the desktop, users need to feel they get about the same response time from the cloud as they do from their hard drive. The same is true for infrastructure-as-a service. All is built around the idea of elasticity: servers, storage capacity and networks dynamically adjusting to demand.
The second component of Akamai’s business stems from the need for e-commerce sites’ availability. On Thanksgiving, Akamai said it saved about $50m in sales for its e-commerce clients who came under a series of cyber attacks. On a routine basis, the technology company stores thousands of videos and other bandwidth intensive items on its servers.
The third pillar is the biggest, and the more challenging, not just for Akamai but for the commercial internet as a whole: the growth of video, and of its monetization, will become more bandwidth hungry as advertising migrates from contextual to behavioral.

A couple of weeks ago, David Kenny was in Paris at a gathering hosted by Weborama, the European specialist of behavioral targeting (described on a previous Monday Note How the Web talks to us). He presented stunning projections for the growth of internet video.
Here are the key numbers :
- Global IP traffic will quadruple between 2009 to 2014 as the number of internet users will grow from 1.7 billion today to 4 billion in 2020.
In 2014, the Internet will be four times larger than it was in 2009. By year-end 2014, the equivalent of 12 billion DVDs will cross the Internet each month.
- It would take over two years to watch the amount of video that will cross global IP networks every second in 2014.

Traffic evolution goes like this :

Let’s pause for a moment and look at the technical side. Akamai relies on a distributed infrastructure as opposed to a centralized one. It operates 77,000 servers, which is comparatively small to Google’s infrastructure (between 1m and 1.5m servers on 30 data centers). The difference is that Akamai’s strategy is to get as close as possible to the user thanks to agreements with local Internet Service Providers. There are 12,000 ISPs in the world, and Akamai says it has deals with the top 1,000. This results in multiple storage and caching capabilities in more the 700 biggest cities in the world.

This works for a page of the New York Times or for a popular iPhone application (Apple, like Facebook are big Akamai clients). In Paris, Cairo or Manilla, the first customer who requests an item gets it from the company — whether it is from NY Times or Apple’s servers — and also causes the page or the app to be “cached” by the ISP. This ISP could rely on storage leased from a university or a third party hosting facility. From there, the next user gets its content in a blink without triggering a much slower transcontinental request. That’s how distributed infrastructure works. Of course, companies such as Akamai have developed powerful algorithms to determine which pages, services, applications or video streams are the most likely to be much in demand at a given moment, and to adjust storage and network capacities accordingly.

Now, let’s look at the money side. What does advertising have to do with bandwidth issues? The answer is: behavioral vs. contextualization. Ads will shift from a delivery based on context (I’m watching a home improvement video, I’m getting Ikea ads), to targeted ads (regardless of what I’m watching, I’ve been spotted as a potential motorcycle buyer and I’m getting Harley Davidson ads). Such ads could be in the usual pre-roll format (15 sec before the start of the video) or inserted into the video or the stream, like in this example provided by Akamai.

As online advertising spending doubles over the next ten years, video is likely to capture a large chunk of it. It will require a increasing amount of technology, both to refine the behavioral / targeting component, and to deliver it in real-time to each individually targeted customer. This is quite a challenge for news media company. On one hand, they are well-placed to produce high value contents, on the other, they will have to learn how to pick up the right partner to address the new monetization complexities.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

LimpingMe: Apple’s Cloudy Service.

by Jean-Louis Gassée

Friday morning, I stop at Il Fornaio to get my last caffeine fix of the morning. Once arrived at the office across the street, I realize I “lost” my iPad. Not to worry, I’ve done this before. Find My iPhone will tell me where it is. It worked a couple of months ago when I left an earlier 3G iPad at a California Street burger joint. When I came back, 10 mins later, the iPad was gone. I fired up the iPhone app and saw the lost puppy still was in neighborhood. I got in my car as I saw the iPad move South on El Camino Real, ending up around a Hobee’s restaurant. Going there and asking around got me nothing. I remotely locked the iPad, displayed a message asking to call me. No joy. I then wiped it, that is erased its contents from my iPhone. Only a consolation, but an important one.
Still, thanks to the presence of mind of an IT consultant who was asked to unlock an iPad “found in a bus”, I was reunited with my tablet a few weeks later.
Interestingly, Apple recently made Find My iPhone a free service. Before, you had to be a $99/year MobileMe subscriber. This is another confirmation of Apple’s business model focus, anything and everything in the service of the real margins engine: hardware.
Still on the positive side, Back to My Mac, another MobileMe service, was recently and discreetly improved: it now works through (most of) aggressively firewalled corporate networks. This makes Screen Sharing (an Apple VNC implementation) even more useful.

So, MobileMe works, right?

Let’s see, I must have forgotten this iPad on the counter as I picked up my latte. It’ll be just a minute, I’ll log on MobileMe and confirm its location. No such luck, the system doesn’t know me anymore. Breathe three times, slow down, this is just a typo. Nope.
Same on my iPhone. Foraging around, I notice the App Store update tells me something like my password is locked because of a security problem.
Sigh. I go back to my computer and click on the Lost Password link. I land on a page offering to email a link to a password update page to my alternate email address. Done. I answer questions, set up a new password, log out and back in to my Apple ID account. No problem, I’m recognized again.
But back to MobileMe, no joy. I’m still locked out.
Another path to the Apple ID password restoration page, answering more questions. Success. New password. Out and back in. Success.
But no, I’m still locked out of MobileMe and can’t locate my iPad.
I still get MobileMe mail. But not for long. When I try and change the password to the latest one, I’m out. And reverting to the old one doesn’t work either.

One could see this as a banal security incident. Perhaps someone tried to log into my account and tripped the alarm system. I ended up on the phone and on email with a competent and pleasant support person and, around dinner time, I was back in business with a fresh temp password, changed to a new one of mine and a new secret question this morning. What’s to complain about?

Unfortunately, many things.

Let’s start with iDisk. A great idea if you want to share and synchronize files between machines. In practice, things can turn mystifying as some but not all files stubbornly refuse to synch between computers. I went to Apple’s support pages on the matter for guidance and to related discussion forums for empathy and reassurance about my mental state. Those dives weren’t entirely comforting. I tried progressively aggressive remedies and ended up having to nuke the entire set up — after careful backups — and rebuild the connections. Today, things work nicely, but I no longer try to sync “the most recent version” of a file, the burns still hurt. I just store and retrieve as I move from one machine to another as I write pieces like this one.
Unnamed Apple friends roll their eyes and tell me to go Dropbox myself. Not the Drop Box in my Public folder but the very successful backup and syncing service. The company is well-financed, supported by noted philanthropists such as Accel and Sequoia.
Still on Cloud services, we have iWork.com, not to be confused with the iWork suite for Macs and iPads. Not even a hobby. Contrary to the likes of Google Docs, Office Live and other Zohos, iWork.com won’t let you edit documents online.

MobileMe other offerings involve photo galleries. They work nicely but expensively. For $200/year one gets MobileMe and 60Gb of storage. For $100/year, Google will get you 400Gb and the free Picasa/PicasaWeb combo, which also works nicely. Actually nicer as it accepts bigger uploads than MobileMe.
For Web sites, MobileMe can be combined with the free iWeb desktop application, they work really well. But iWeb was left behind in the latest iLife iteration, no update. And, contrary to Google, MobileMe won’t host your domain name.

iTunes is a terrific product. Without iTunes there would be no iPhone, no App Store, no Ratatouille on my iPhone. And yet, it gives us a glimpse of how disjointed Apple’s Cloud services are. From time to time, for no stated reason, I’m asked to reenter the security code on my credit card. A security precaution or a bug? Amazon asks once and my credentials are valid in the US as well as on Amazon.fr, for example.
Not with MobileMe. This morning, after a full update of my Apple ID account, including the credit card security code, I’m asked again for it on iTunes when I re-synced my Apple TV which started by declaring my Mac wasn’t authorized. This got me a “This Mac is already authorized” message when I asked iTunes for the connection. Same trouble on my iPad when I updated an application. The new and improved password was accepted, but I had to state credit card security number again, for a free update, mind you.

Continuing to iCal. In the Mac, there is a Preference panel for MobileMe. You state your Apple ID, a mac.com or me.com adress and your password. (It used to be you didn’t need the suffix, just the first part, luser rather than luser@me.com, but that was too simple, let’s leave it to Google to accept spj for spj@gmail.com.) OK, you might think you’re done, you’re authorized. But no, if you have a MobileMe account in iCal, it doesn’t work. Hello iCal account, it’s me@me.com again and my password is moimême.

In the process of working with the Apple support person, I got another peek at how disjointed things appear to be in MobileMe. This individual explained that the new password validation process didn’t do anything. Yes my Apple ID account appear to work with the new password but, for unexplained reasons, the update didn’t propagate. I got a couple of emails to verify my information and was (no longer) surprised to see that the screen snapshot the support tech emailed me had obsolete information. I also fell into a Secret Question trap: Yes, you can design the question and the answer. But better make sure you remember everything down to the last detail. In particular, the answer recognition is case-sensitive: “boarding school” will get you locked out if the correct answer is “Boarding school”. Making progress in the obstacle course, I now have a simpler one word answer with an unforgettable capitalization.

MobileMe was launched in 2008, with a little bit of grandiosity: the new service was offered as Exchange For The Rest Of Us. That proclamation was quickly withdrawn. In August 2008, I wrote a less than laudatory Monday Note piece on the new service’s difficult beginnings. Sacrebleu! I shouldn’t have done that, such an infraction got me a robust personal attack from a Guardian of the Apple Faith who frequently posts on one of the dedicated Apple blogs. The individual, who otherwise produces very good, thoroughly researched pieces, applied his skills to a long litany of my misdeeds. That was good for my soul but didn’t do anything for the disquisition. So it goes: slam the man if you can’t take the argument apart.
In this vein, as an experiment, David Pogue, the NY Times tech expert, once wrote a two-part review of an Apple product, one laudatory, the other critical. You can guess what happened: rabid Apple fans latched on the negative half and labeled him anti-Apple; others, who object to Apple’s products or ways, focused on the positive half and accused him of having sold his soul to Apple. (See David’s piece here. A little tip of the hat to the NYT geeks, and to their bosses who didn’t get in the way: when you hit the Shift key twice on a NYT page, you see paragraph signs, like this ¶. A right click will get you the URL to that paragraph, as the relevant one on Pogue’s piece. Neat. Well… It doesn’t always work.)
Back to the MobileMe early days, Steve Jobs apologized to MobileMe users a bit later and extended their subscriptions.

Two and half years later, things are better, but MobileMe still looks disjointed, half-hearted, not very competitive. And certainly devoid of the flair and finish of most other Apple offerings.
When Steve returned to Apple, the difference between Mac 1.0 and Mac 2.0 was the team of computer scientists Jobs brought with him from Carnegie Mellon, Xerox Parc and Inria. They successfully remade the Mac OS into a modern operating system. Today, much engineering effort seems to go into securing the lead Apple got with iOS. Think hardware margins.
It would be a shame for Apple to leave its Cloud flank unguarded by not enforcing the high standards of OS X and iOS in its Cloud services.
Steve secured Apple’s independence from carriers for iTunes, the App Store and installed apps on its devices. A similar independence or preeminence in Cloud services is equally strategic.
Put another way, it’s a great opportunity.

We’ll review Google’s array, or disarray, of such products in a future Monday Note once the dust from this past week’s three announcements (books, Chrom Web Apps and Chrome OS) settles.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Measuring the Nomads

The more diverse and ubiquitous the internet gets, the harder it becomes to measure. Especially with the mobile version’s rapid growth. A few weeks ago, my friends from the International Newsmedia Marketing Association (INMA) asked for a presentation discussing audience measurements for smartphones and tablets. The target was a conference held last Friday in Boston. Since I didn’t have a clue, I assumed I could work on the presentation in a journalistic way, by reaching out to people in the trade and by doing my own research. Only to realize the mobile internet is well ahead of any of today’s usage measurement tools.

Audience measurement is much more complex on mobile devices than it is on PCs. The world of personal computers is relatively simple. PCs surf through a well-documented set of browsers: Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome and Safari (see their respective market shares here). The connection happens either through an ISP wire or via wifi. On the server side, each request is compiled into a log for further analysis.

In the mobile world, there are many more variations. The first dimension is the diversity of devices and operating systems. The real mobile ecosystem extends well beyond the pristine simplicity of the Apple world with its two main devices — the iPhone and the iPad, only one screen size for each — powered by iOS.

Android, the ultra fast growing mobile OS made by Google, is found on 95 170 (!) different devices. Each comes with its (almost) unique combination of screen size and hardware/software features; “small” differences translate into a nightmare for applications developers. There is more: the mobile ecosystem also comprises platforms such as Windows Phone devices, the well-controlled Blackberry, Palm’s WebOS (now in HP’s hands), Samsung’s Bada and the multiple flavors of Symbian, to be followed by Meego. Each platform sprouts many devices and browsing variants.

Then, we have applications. Apps are fantastic at taking advantage of the senses of smartphones and tablets. An app can see (though the device’s camera), hear (with the microphone), understand language, talk back; it can search — the Yellow Pages for a location or the web for an explanation; it can feel motion thanks to the smartphone motion detectors and gyroscopes ; it can navigate through GPS or cell tower/wifi triangulation; and of course, it can connect to a world of other devices. This results in an unprecedented canvas for the creativity of app developers. According to recents studies, apps account for about half of the internet connections coming from smartphones. It is therefore critical to analyze such traffic. But, to say the least, we are not there yet.

One example of the measurement challenge: a news related application. The first measure of an app’s success is its downloads count. In theory, pretty simple. Each time an app is downloaded, the store (Apple’s or any other) records the transaction. Then, things gets fuzzier as the application lives on and gets regular updates. Sometimes, updates are upgrades, with new features. At which point should the app be considered new — especially when it’s free, like most of the news-related ones? Second difficulty: a growing number of apps will be preloaded into smartphones and tablets. Rightly or wrongly, Apple nixes such meddling with its devices. But, outside of the iOS world, cellphone carriers do strike deals with content providers and preload apps on Android devices. That’s another hard to get number.

We might believe the app’s activation provides a measurable event that settles the issue. It doesn’t. Let’s continue with the news app example. When launched from a smartphone or a tablet, the app sends a burst of “http” requests to the web server. How many? It depends on the app’s design and default settings. There could be 20, 30, or more streams loading in the background. The purpose is instant gratification: when the user requests the most likely item, such as “hottest news”, the content shows instantly for having been preloaded. This results in several uncertainties in the counting process.
From the server standpoint, the pages have been served. But how many of those have been actually read and for how long? What if I tweak my app’s setting, selecting some items and removing others? In an ideal world, a tracking task running inside the application would provide the accurate, up-to-date information. Each time the app runs, the tracker records every finger stroke (or swipe) and, whenever possible, feeds everything back to the publisher.  But the OS gamut and other technical permutations makes this difficult. As for Apple, tracker code inside its apps is a no-no (although there are signs of an upcoming flexibility in that matter).

Even a well-implemented tracker module isn’t the perfect solution, though. For example, it doesn’t solve the issue of apps running in the background and downloading streams of data, unbeknownst to the user. Such requests are recorded as page views by the server, but the content is not necessarily seen by the user.

The French company Mediamétrie Net Ratings (in partnership with Nielsen), came up with a solution that might pave the way to useable hybrid measurements. Nielsen Net Ratings, NNR, is known for its technology built around panelsof users (details here) who agree to have trackers running on their PCs. To improve mobile measurement, NNR recently teamed up with the three French cellular carriers and built a new massive log analysis system. The structure looks like this:

The (simplified) sequence follows:

1 / Cell carriers. They compile millions of logs, i.e. requests coming from their 3G/Edge networks to websites (no distinction between a request coming from an Android web browser or an iPhone application). Basically the log ticket says: P. Smith, number ###, sent this http://www… request on Dec 3rd at 22:34:55.

2/ The third party aggregator. Its main job is to anonymize data thanks to an encryption key it gets form the carriers. France’s privacy authority is very serious about data protection. Neither the cell carrier, nor the measurement company can have a full view on what people do on the internet.

3/ The audience analysis company. Here, Nielsen Net Rating France. In our example, along with cell numbers for its 10,000 others panelists, NNR sends the third party aggregator John Doe’s number.

4/ The aggregator encrypts the John Doe’s number in a “fdsg4…” sequence and sends it back to NNR.

5/ The carriers then send huge log files to NNR.

6/ NNR’s job is to retrieve its encrypted panelist from within the logs haystack. When it does spot the “fdsg4…” sequence, it can tell that John Doe, whom NNR knows everything about, has gone to xyz websites via its cell phone at such and such dates, times and, perhaps, locations.The rest of the log remains encrypted, therefore useless.

This system has only been in operation for a few months. And it is not perfect either. For instance, it tracks only requests going through cell phone networks; it ignores web requests sent through wifi — that account for 30% of total usage! The new system also ignores Blackberry users using RIM’s proprietary network. And the NNR algorithms need help from a huge database of URLs provided by the sites publishers. These URLs will be used to differentiate web browser requests from the ones generated by an app; we are talking of millions of URLs here, growing by the thousands every single day. A daunting task. In addition to this complication, large amounts of data still reside in the publishers servers. Hence a certification issue, as for all site centric measurements.

So much work ahead. The future lies in a deeper merger of site centric (log analysis) and user centric (panel) techniques. And also in a wider deployment of HTML 5 apps. We’ll explore the new web Lingua Franca’s potential in an upcoming Monday Note.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Mac App Store: Soon But Controversial

by Jean-Louis Gassée

This year, three wishes were on top of my list: A smaller, lighter MacBook, an app store for the Mac, and a curated iOS app store. I got two out of three. The 11” MacBook Air works quite well when the passenger in front of me fully reclines his seat; and Apple, following its own iOS example, did indeed launch a Mac App store. We’ll have to wait for curated help finding our way through the hundreds of thousands of apps for iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches, but there’s always next year.

The Mac App Store, announced October 20th, is still in the Coming Soon state, likely to open its ports mid-to-late January 2011. Mac developers have been able to bring their offerings to Apple’s altar since the beginning of November and, last week, we got a new set of Mac App Store Review Guidelines (see the PDF here). No real surprise, and a nice conclusion I’ll quote in full:

Thank you for developing for Mac OS X. Even though this document is a formidable list of what not to do, please also keep in mind the much shorter list of what you must do. Above all else, join us in trying to surprise and delight users. Show them their world in innovative ways, and let them interact with it like never before. In our experience, users really respond to polish, both in functionality and user interface. Go the extra mile. Give them more than they expect. And take them places where they have never been before. We are ready to help.

Except for the tired “surprise and delight” marketing BS, it’s a crisp envoi, a sendoff to a fresh set of tasks and opportunities. And, as befits anything Apple does, the Mac App Store kicks up a new and improved set of arguments.

Unavoidably, we have the C-word heat: ‘Steve Jobs is a Control freak. After Closing the iPhone ecosystem, he wants to exert the same dictatorial control over the Mac. Yet another Walled Garden’. The following Fair and Balanced extract from the Wikipedia Mac App Store article lays it out:

The centralization of downloads in the Mac App Store have caused controversy among apple developers in the blogosphere. It has been criticized for creating a monopoly since users are encouraged to get their applications from one specific place. This creates a hard situation for programmers that might feel like they can’t afford to stay outside apple store. Apple also charges a fee for programmers to publish their applications in the store. In order to host an application a user need to give 30% of the applications sales price. This is way more than the 8% that software providers like Kagi, eSellerate, or FastSpring charges. The developers doesn’t only have to pay for selling their apps but also to develop them. Special tools are needed that can only be licensed from Apple. Developers have also criticized Apple for cutting their connections with the customers when App store is being used, since they have to follow Apples rules it’s impossible to use for example Shareware versions and control how updates are done.

This hasty, one-sided—and badly written—piece is a good illustration of Wikipedia’s limits. As a counter, I’ll hasten to point you to the much more complete App Store article. The latter exemplifies Wikipedia at its best: Wide, deep, accurate, filled with numbers and links to other sources.

The main beef against the Mac App store seems to be that it will hurt developers. In an extension of the iOS App Store authoritarian regime, developers will lose the freedom to sell their software as they please.

That’s simply unfounded, and counterproductive paranoia: Mac software will continue to be sold (and sellable) on shelves and on Web sites. But who gets to approach these venues? Small, independent app developers have a terrible time getting shelf space in retail stores. Making money by selling one’s wares on the Web isn’t an easy task either. See here a 1995 Dilbert strip that depicts the hard life of an application developer trying to raise VC money. Fifteen years later, having moved to The Dark Side, I can assure you VCs haven’t gotten more generous…unless you write code for the Apple or Google app stores. In 2008, Kleiner Perkins, the famed Sand Hill Road VC firm, launched a special $100M iFund dedicated to iPhone apps. Two years later, the iFund has doubled in size. Knowing we VCs aren’t non-profit charities, one has to assume we see the victims of app store monopolies making lots of money, of which we’ll get our customarily modest share.

When the Wikipedia piece professes to lament Apple’s 30% take, it shows a deep misunderstanding of the money one needs to sell application software on the Web. You must build and run a commercial site, and, if you’re too small to get a commercial Visa or PayPal account, you also pay a commission to Kagi and similar agents. Then you have to attract customers by spending advertising dollars and buying Google AdWords. That’s why Google’s rich and you’re not.

Microsoft can afford to get shelf and Web space for Office, but a small developer who’s written a neat text editor, or a Website design tool, or a small $10 UI-tweaking utility has a hard time making a living.

At least for today.

Tomorrow, just like with Android and Apple smartphones, the most expensive process will be writing the app, and the occasionally irritating part will be the review process.

Yes, there will be a loss of “freedom.” Today on Macs (and PCs) you can sell code that modifies the machine at any level. It can yield very useful results, or it can wreak havoc, there are (almost) no limits. Tomorrow, the Mac App Store will impose restrictions. Some will irritate, some will be acceptable. We’ve seen Apple back down from some of the more aggressive interpreter restrictions for iOS apps, for example. But your neat $10 utility will find customers, updates will be managed, payment processing won’t be a problem.

And there will be other beneficial effects. Most Mac applications install with a simple drag and drop to the Application folder or icon on the Dock. Uninstalling is equally simple: Drag the app to the Trash and you’re done…most of the time. I won’t name the apps that are, in my experience, the worst offenders but suffice it to say that they sprinkle my system with bits that are very hard to cleanly uninstall. And, just like in Windows, removing one application might maim another program from the same vendor because they both rely on the same module. This is likely to disappear over time as Mac users contrast and compare app installation and updating behaviors inside and outside the walled garden.

It’ll be interesting to watch how prices evolve, if they do. The iPad version of Pages, Apple’s Word processor, sells for a mere $9.99. On the Macintosh, Pages is part of the iWork suite which includes Numbers (a spreadsheet) and Keynote (Steve Jobs’ own presentation software) and sells for $79, or a Family Pack (5 licenses) for $99. Will those prices stand? Perhaps, especially if Apple wants to make room for Scrivener or DevonThink, to name but two examples.

And what about Microsoft? Today, Microsoft Office for Mac 2011 retail prices ranges from $149 to $279, depending upon the version and number of licenses (two for the priciest).

Do we think Microsoft gives less than 30% margin to the total wholesaler + retailer food chain? Of course not, the distribution network’s take is traditionally much higher, sometimes exceeding 50%. Which is to say even Microsoft will like the Mac App Store “strictures”. We’ll have to see how they whine if they’re rejected for infringing some arcane guideline…

This is a good moment to remind ourselves of Apple’s true nature and goals: Apple is a hardware company. For all the beautiful noises they make about software, they don’t care much about making money from it. Software is a means to an end: Hardware margins.

Microsoft puts a code on the Windows disk to protect its OS revenue. Have you seen a license number on an OS X disk? No, you can install it on as many machines as you like…Apple machines, that is. A multiple install from a “single” disk might be in breach of the formal licensing agreement, but unless you’re manufacturing Mac clones, I doubt Apple’s attorneys will be looking for you. (They seem to be very busy fighting patent wars.)

The “blogosphere controversy” blithely ignores the only source of money that matters: The paying customer. Does the new Mac App Store benefit the user? Easier everything: buying, installing, updating. On the iOS platform, there have been more than 7 billion downloads from a library of more than 300,000 apps. We’re probably not going to see such numbers on the Mac version. There are far fewer applications, a smaller installed base (in approximate quarterly numbers, think 3 million Macs versus 15 million iPhones), and alternate venues for selling applications. Nonetheless, even if the new app store has a more modest debut and subsequent growth, it’ll be a good vehicle for smaller developers who struggle with the inconvenience and cost of today’s channels. It might even have the effect of attracting new developers to the OS X platform.

A controversial idea indeed.

And as for Steve Jobs’ controlling manners, who’s complaining? Customers, shareholders?
Oppressed employees? See the Stockholm Syndrome at work below:

JLG@mondaynote.com

Key Success Factors for a tablet-only “paper”

Can it fly? Last week, Rupert Murdoch announced he was plotting a tablet-only newspaper. Or rather, an iPad-only paper — at first; other tablets would follow. The Daily, as it is to be called (how modest and innovative) is to be blessed by Steve Jobs Himself at a media event introducing the new venture. Initially, rumors pointed to a December 9th date; the latest gossip now says the unveiling could be delayed over “issues”. In any case, this is big news: a major media group, crossing the Rubicon to get rid of both paper and web, riding the Apple promotional machine (details and speculations in this story from The Guardian).

Well before the iPad was introduced last Spring, many of us had dreamed of a news product encapsulated inside a self-sustaining iPhone application. The advent of the iPad, with its gorgeous screen, only made the dream more vivid. Then, reality interfered. Even with the combined installed bases of the iPhone and the iPad’s, numbers didn’t add up, the dream news product wouldn’t make real money. Could it work this time under Rupert Murdoch’s rule?

Let’s return to Earth and tally the project’s pluses and minuses.

On the plus side

1 /  Let’s make quick work of the staffing issue. Media pundits contend you can’t run a serious daily with a staff of hundred as envisioned by Murdoch. Of course, you can have a roaring newsroom with 100 people! As long as such staff is focused on the paper’s core journalistic beats; in an ideal world, a newsroom should be staffed by a relatively small number of dedicated, well-paid, hard-working reporters and editors, managed by a flat hierarchy. This compact crew only needs to be supplemented by a carefully outsourced network of specialized people whose expertise, while highly valued, isn’t used often enough to justify full time employment. Exactly the opposite of our dying print dinosaurs.

2 / The tablet immersive experience. Like no other device before, the iPad has the ability to capture the reader’s attention: iPad “sessions” last much longer than browsing expeditions on the internet. According to TigerSpike, the very design company that built apps for News Corp, the average iPad session lasts 30 to 40 minutes (see story in PaidContent).

3/ The market. Rupert Murdoch is convinced that, soon, an iPad, or a competing tablet, will find its way in almost every household. And he is said to have been impressed by projections of 40 million iPads in circulation by the end of 2011. Spreadsheet magic! Millions of customers… On the revenue side, numbers can work. A 100 persons newsroom should cost no more than $12-15m a year to operate. Assuming $99/year pricing, netting $66 per user after Apple’s fee, plus $10 per user per year of premium advertising (after all, it is a qualified audience), the ARPU can land at around $80, which translate into 150,000 subscribers required to break-even. Sounds appealing.

On the minus side

1 / Closed environment, no links. That is the side effect of the “cognitive container”: an application such as the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian or the Economist, is by definition autistic to the rest of the web. No links to the outside world (except if it has an embedded browser like Dow Jones’ All Things D), and no relation to the social/sharing whirlwind. Some will appreciate the coziness of a newspaper without parasitic external stimuli, other won’t accept to be cut-off from the social Babel. It could be a matter of generations.

2 / The Apple business model sucks (for media). At first, Apple’s 30% cut of the retail price sounds great compared to the physical world where production and distribution costs devour 40% to 50%. Not so simple. First, you need at least five times more readers in the to offset the advertising revenue depletion associated with the move to the digital world.
Second, the tax issue. In many countries, in spite of intense lobbying by media  companies, digital products carry standard VAT. In France, where the VAT is set at 19.6%, internal analysis made by publishers showed that a high volume daily will net less in the AppStore than in a physical kiosk.
Third, Apple’s terms of use. They deprive publishers of two things : first, the ability to set prices outside of Apple-dictated levels (usually too high or too low) and, second, access to customer data, which make any CRM monetization impossible. The latter is, in itself a major deterrent to dealing with Apple. Of course, if Steve endorses Rupert’s project, the conditions could be quite different.

Mandatory

1 /  Exclusive and proprietary content. If Murdoch’s paper — or any tablet-only publication for that matter — is unable to produce truly original content, it is doomed. The internet is flooded by reverberating newsflows of all kinds, and free. Value will inevitably follow uniqueness.

2 / Pricing: simple and adjustable. No one knows what readers will ultimately: the iTunes model (multiple 99 cents transactions) or the cable-TV or Netflix flat-but-fat fees? To find out, the only way is to offer multiple pricing options. Problem is: it goes against simplicity and readability.

3 / Beyond Apple and perhaps beyond the app. For all of its advantages, betting only on the AppStore could be risky. The market will be overflowed by other vendors and operating systems. Hedging one’s bets will be key.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to look beyond the application concept. Instead of an autistic app, why not build adaptative web sites that will adjust automagically to the device used (tanks to the user agent technique)? As screen sizes differ from an iPad, for a Samsung Galaxy Tab, or for the  upcoming Blackberry Playbook (see this video), the tablet-dedicated site could adjust and optimize its rendering. In doing so, the service would remain part of the web, connected to its social features; it could operate on a much better business model than Apple’s, and there would be no hassle with the app store application process, upgrades, inexplicable rejections, etc.

4 / Speedy and simple. On both my iPhone and my iPad, the applications I no longer use happen to be the most complicated and the slowest. One such example is the New York Times app: it needs more time to load than it takes to flip trough several pages of the paper’s web site. On the contrary, the just released Economist applications are great. Two buttons on the main page : Download (10 seconds for the entire magazine) and Read. That’s all. And if I want to change the font size, it is intuitive: I pinch in or out, and the whole layout resizes. Interestingly enough, The Economist gives its subscribers the choice between a great website experience and the magazine look and feed of its sleek application (I’m curious to see which one will prevail, audience-wise). The beauty of this app resides in what that has been removed from it.

Meditate on this: this is at the very core of Apple’ design genius.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Channel Checks: Smart or Illegal?

by Jean-Louis Gassée

Insider trading isn’t new but it’s still exciting, especially if you don’t play the stock market. For spectators, the cops and robbers game mixes ingenuity, mischief, furtiveness and confederacies. And the unavoidable dunces who talk or do too much and get the miscreants in serious trouble with the Law.

The latest episode of the insider trading, as revealed here by the Wall Street Journal, appears to be of epic proportions: ‘[It] could eclipse the impact on the financial industry of any previous such investigation…’

Among the specifics described in the WSJ article and in other pieces such as this one, I note a new and intriguing reference to Channel Checks. In layperson’s terms, the practice sounds more than reasonable. To get an idea of a company’s business, you can listen to their officials, or you can go around and check their distribution channels. Walk into a store, feel the pulse, ask employees how business is doing. Or if you have the time and inclination, stay around a little bit and count customers walking in, and those walking out with a purchase. Rinse and repeat. Do this on a representative sample and you do get very useable data. That’s what I did 31 years ago in Paris: I was interested in buying a franchise of a US business and wanted to have my own set of data before meeting company execs and their glowing projections. I stood in and out of their Champs Elysées store and counted the take. It helped: I stayed in the computer business.

No less an authority than Peter Lynch, the famed Magellan Fund investor, recommended doing precisely that type of legwork and homework. His investing motto was ‘Buy What You Know’. By which he meant studying the business you considered investing in, the product, the books, management, suppliers, distributors, everything. (See his very good books, One Up On Wall Street and Beating the Street for more. Regrettably not available in electronic form.)

What Peter Lynch recommended a couple of decades ago is alive and well, still recommended by pros. But the originally healthy practice appears to have undergone a malignant mutation. Critics and cops allege the pros went deeper and deeper into “channels”, mostly upstream into suppliers. If you manage to know how many processors or screens of a particular spec Motorola ordered, you gain a very precise estimate of their projections. Especially in an age of Just-in-time inventory management. Add information gained from shippers, ship or air, containers or palettes, and you’re on top of things.

Or, as the FBI and SEC allege: inside. You’re now trading on information not available to the investing public, you’re guilty of insider trading.

Quoting from a related WSJ piece:

“Insider trading basically comes down to where you know or ought to know that the person from whom you’re getting this information has a duty to someone else to keep it confidential,” said former Securities and Exchange Commissioner Paul Atkins in a video interview with The Wall Street Journal. “If you go in and pay the mail clerk to give you special information, that’s not proper.”

Channel Checks now becomes an underhanded, criminal activity. For amateurs of sweet ironies, above, this note’s third link takes you to a site titled… Wall Street Cheat Sheet.

We’ll have to see what skilled attorneys on both sides do with the accusations. Insider trading isn’t always easy to prove and provokes an abundance of academic discussions: see this Wharton overview. Some libertarians even contend insider trading ought to be legal… Others allege insider trading by members of Congress, their staffs and government officials is facilitated by loopholes.

This doesn’t help the mood on the street — not the Street.

The Channel Checks evolution must be viewed through four filters. Common sense, legal logic, policy and politics.

Common sense, visceral, emotional, clamors insider trading is unfair. It tilts the playing field against You and Me investors. Trading ought to take place on the proverbial Level Playing Field, meaning everyone having the same information for their trading decisions. Nice sentiment but delusional: What about intellect and homework, the legal kind? Now, everyone has access to satellite pictures of parking lots on heavy shopping days.

Legal logic is a complicated, tortuous, ever changing matter. Case law evolves, Supreme Court interpretations zig and zag. In theory, above the rabble’s emotions but, in practice, tainted by politics.

Speaking of which, politics, our government’s latest bout of against insider trading seems driven by the need to deal with the post-bailout outcry against Wall Street. I’m not saying the outcry isn’t justified, au contraire. From here, it looks like We The People have been stiffed: Wall Street, the cause of the 2008 catastrophe, has been saved at our expense. Yes, it was for our own good. But the obscenity of today’s bonuses and CEO compensation hurts. Good politicians — attorneys general are elected in our country — can’t let the opportunity to run to our defense go unexploited. This isn’t to say some good won’t come out of it. But we have the Sarbox example to the contrary: there, the outcry following scandals such as the Enron affair led to regulations hurting businesses, especially smaller ones, only benefiting accountants and attorneys, not investors as the 2008 crash proved.

Lastly, policy: how we run ourselves. Insider trading lowers confidence in markets, it makes people distrust Wall Street, it limits amount of money available to finance businesses and thus hurts the economy, that is all of us. Based on past examples, one has to worry about politics overrunning policy, about posturing leading to bad law. Still, let’s hope pragma wins over drama…

For myself, I don’t play the stock market. Across the table, I see PhDs, the famous quants, with brains bigger than mine, computers bigger and faster than mine, and wallets fatter than mine. Even if they don’t cheat, how can I win?

JLG@mondaynote.com

Fighting Unlicensed Content With Algorithms

It’s high time to fight the theft of news-related contents, really. A couple of weeks ago, Attributor, a US company, released the conclusions of a five-month study covering the use of unauthorized contents on the internet. The project was called Graduated Response Trial for News and relied on one strong core idea: once a significant breach is established, instead of an all-out legal offensive, a “friendly email”, in Attributor’s parlance, kindly asks the perpetrator to remove the illegal content. Without a response within 14 days, a second email arrives. As a second step, Attributor warns it will contact search engines and advertising networks. The first will be asked to suppress links and indexation for the offending pages; the second will be requested to remove ads, thus killing the monetization of illegal content. After another 14 days, the misbehaving site receives a “cease and desist” notice and faces full-blown legal action (see details on the Fair Syndication Consortium Blog). Attributor and the FSC pride themselves with achieving a 75% compliance rate from negligent web sites taking action after step 2. In other words, once kindly warned, looters change their mind and behave nicely. Cool.

To put numbers on this, the Graduated Response Trial for News spotted 400,000 unlicensed cloned items on 45,000 sites. That is a stunning 900 illegal uses per site. As reported in a February 2010 Monday Note (see Cashing in on stolen contents), a previous analysis conducted by Attributor pointed to 112,000 unlicensed copies of US newspapers articles found on 75,000 sites; this is a rate of of 1.5 stolen articles per site. Granted, we can’t jump to the conclusion of a 900x increase; the two studies were not designed to be comparable, the tracking power of Attributor is growing fast, the perimeter was different, etc. Still. When, last Friday, I asked Attributor’s CEO Jim Pitkow how he felt about those numbers, he acknowledged that the use of stolen content on the internet is indeed on the rise.

No doubt: the technology and the deals organized by Attributor with content providers and search engines are steps in the right direction. But let’s face it: so far, this is a drop the ocean.
First, the nice “Graduated Response” tested by the San Mateo company and its partners needs time to produce its effects. A duo of 14 day-notices before rolling out the legal howitzer doesn’t make much sense considering the news cycle’s duration: the value of a news item decays by 80% in about 48 hours. The 14-days spacing of the two warning shots isn’t exactly a deterrent for those who do business stealing content.
Second, the tactics described above rely too much on manual operations: assessing the scope of the infringement, determining the response, notifying, monitoring, re-notifying, etc. A bit counter, to say the least, to the nature of the internet with its 23 billion pages.

You get my point. The problem requires a much more decisive and scalable response involving all the players: content providers, aggregators, search engines, advertising networks and sales houses. Here is a possible outline:

1/ Attributor needs to be acquired. The company is simply too small for the scope of the work. A few days of Google’s revenue ($68m per 24 hrs) or less than a month for Bing would do the job. Even smarter, a group of American newspapers and book publishers gathered in an ad hoc consortium could be a perfect fit.

2 / Let’s say Google or Bing buy Attributor’s core engineering know-how. It then becomes feasible to adapt and expand its crawling algorithm so it runs against the entire world wide web — in real time. Two hours after a piece of news is “borrowed” from a publisher, it is flagged, the site receives an pointed notification. This could be email, or an automatically generated comment below the article, re-posted every few hours. Or, even better, a well-placed sponsored link like the fictitious one below:

Inevitably, ads dry up. First, ad networks affiliated to the system stop serving display ads. And second, since the search engine severed hyperlinks, ads on orphan pages become irrelevant. Every step is automated. More

Google Apps: The Future or Yesterday’s War?

by Jean-Louis Gassée

One must be at least a little skeptical of product reviews, and, even more so, product reviewers. They usually don’t spend their own money on the product and they’re under constant pressure to produce more newspaper columns, or blog post after blog post.
There are exceptions: I trust Consumer Reports (they buy the products they test); Walt Mossberg and David Pogue provide consistent, intelligent reviews. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their intellect and ethics.

I’m not a “professional” reviewer; I buy the gadgets that I read about (just ask my wife, Brigitte, who claims there’s “one of each” in various rats nests around the house). And I don’t test them; instead, I do my best to use them in a real project.

This brings us to Google Apps. (For a look Under The Hood, see the May 24th 2010 Monday Note here.)

For Google Apps, the real project was (and still is) a French newsletter and blog imaginatively named Note du Lundi. I buy a domain name and the paid-for Premiere version, the one where they answer your tech support questions. If you do it right—that is, if you buy your domain with your Google Checkout account and register it through godaddy.com—the process is easy, the domain registrar offers hosting services, and the on-phone tech support is competent and pleasant.

I fire up the Google Docs app that comes with my newly-purchased domain and start writing a newsletter article. Wanting to make a point by using a graphic, I drag and drop a picture from my Pictures folder. No dice. Instead of this:

I get this:

Google Docs knows where the image lives, and it also knows its type (PDF)—but it can’t insert it into the document I’m creating. An “antique” desktop word processor would have no trouble with the task.

I try another path: There’s an Insert Image icon in Docs that lets you browse to an image file on your hard drive. You click on the file and it’s uploaded to the Cloud and into your Docs repository. More