Tim Wu had a great analysis in Slate.com recently about Google's new Open Handset Alliance and how they're locked in a potentially zero-sum tussle with the vestiges of Ma Bell in the form of AT&T and Verizon. But before reading the excerpt below, have a look at the video explaining what Android is all about.

Here's the excerpt:

In Google's words, its recently unveiled "Android" is the "first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices." But it is a signal of much more. Google is as much an ideology as a firm and can resemble a nation-state in its pursuit of power rather than a mere corporation chasing quarterly numbers. Google and its allies are now trying to make the principles of openness—the commanding ideology of the Internet—the conquering principle of the wireless world, and the Android announcement is just the first step.

(read more)

Many consumers aren't able to afford the luxury of smart phones and high cost service plans, but people wanting those services will be willing to put up with a few advertisements in order to get it - at least Google hopes they will.

As Google builds out a national cellular network, the idea of free, ad-supported mobile phone service threatens both incumbent cell phone service providers and cell phone handset makers alike. If a person needs a Google phone to access Google's free network, every handset maker will want to incorporate the necessary technology to enable it to function over Google's network.

Speculations of Google coming out with a mobile phone service have been around for a while, but when they announced that there were going to bid on the 700 MHz spectrum going up for auction by the FCC, speculations were confirmed and a phone prototype was even spotted, and all that free network access in return for listening to a couple of ads.

As great as free mobile phone service seems, Google's intentions aren't so modest. Their primary source of revenue is Internet advertising, so why not create a network that puts ads in front of users as often as possible and when they're out and about in order to point them directly where to go to find the products and services they need locally?
(read more)

Microsoft's Live Search was the only search provider to gain market share in June, but still trails Google and Yahoo!, with less than a fifth of Google's share. However, according to Microsoft numbers, 60% of Internet searchers use multiple search engines, and 30% of searchers use Live Search from time to time.

Live Search has gained new users by finding new ways to penetrate the Web search market, which strategically positions Google and Yahoo! on the defensivean unusual posture these days for the pioneering Google. Making Live Search a household name by spreading it across the Internet in different channels is the foundation for creating a loyal user base.

Microsoft's senior VP Satya Nadella acknowledged that they were not there in the beginning of this Web search story, we missed it, but we are getting back into the game in a major way. By not being one of the first movers, brand recognition was stunted, but the following excerpt from Intelligent Enterprise analyzes the actions Microsoft is using to intrude the Web search market.

Live Search gaining search share at the expense of Yahoo and Google in June. A recent promotion called Live Search Club that rewards users with ringtones, t-shirts and copies of Windows Vista may have helped bolster Live Search, but one month does not a watershed make.(read more)

Spinning the absence of a software development kit (SDK) for the iPhone, Jobs suggested that AJAX and other open standards UI programming principles for the Web would allow developers to create content that looks and behaves exactly like apps and would further mean users and developers alike wouldn't have to compromise on security, reliability or, for that matter, the ecosystem strategy Apple is grafting onto the iPhone from its hegemonic iTunes/iPod franchise.

(read more)

Well, as my first conference on Prediction Markets this one left me a little puzzled, even with James Suroweicki and Robin Hanson there in person. So here are my thoughts, questions, and reactions to what was presented, talked about, questions asked and examples thrown out to us.

What seemed a way to learn about the concept and applications, successes and failures, ended up being a way for Google, Yahoo and other vendors to tout a process they just happened to have new tools for. The 4 hours seemed to be for the "true believers", and really glossed over PM 101, even though presentations by both Surowiecki and Hanson were meant to address the basics of the concept.

Reps from Microsoft and HP really had the most valuable lesson for me - they have been testing prediction markets in various forms and for various business functions, but neither are using them to make real business decisions at the group, department, business unit or corporate level. Yes, the markets can be very accurate, more so in many cases than internal and external "experts" (PM's are cheaper, too!), but no, they aren't taking over from the more entrenched ways of forecasting and decision making.

I heard a lot about how to get people to trade in the market, pros and cons of real money vs. other forms of "payoffs" (social standing and reputations), how to address the issues of risk attitudes and "quality" of trading over time (people getting it right, or close to it).

One really useful set of thoughts came from Adam Siegal of Inklingmarkets.com - lessons learned as to why PM's will fail within any group:

1. No concept of what a PM is
2. Using software that is too complex and not easy to use, to set up, trade in and run a market
3. Market structure was wrong
4. Asking for an opinion - questions must be quantifiable, even if just yes or no
5. Description or rules of the market not clear/understood by the trading populous
6. Questions posed are biased
7. Time frame of the market is too long - apathy over time and the market becomes static
8. No information is available for the traders to make a reasonable judgement - trades are based on information and knowledge (duh!)

Now this last one really struck me - I thought the whole idea in a PM was to bring out hidden tacit knowledge in an organization in a way to focus it on an issue or challenge to meet a specific business need. It would seem that there is a issue here of simply bad selections of the trading group members. I would also say there is a real issue on selected traders vs. self selected traders?(read more)