Breaking News

Billionaire investor Carl Icahn plans to seek the ouster CEO Jerry Yang of Yahoo, should the Sea of dissident directors win control of Yahoo in the Governing Council, on the basis of a report in the Wall Street Journal.

Icahn is centered his comments on the Elimination of Yahoo in the Board of Directors, of which Ian is one of nine members who are elected for a one-year term, the next annual meeting is held.

Icahn obviously irate over the recently released details of the shareholders lawsuit unsealed Monday, according to the Journal. In the amended lawsuit by two Detroit pension funds, Jan is portrayed as an architect of controversial labour officer program, which will happen if Yahoo undergoes a change in control.

The change in control applies not only buyout, like Microsoft is one of the table before it withdrew its 33 U.S. dollars bid for Yahoo share on May 3, but also a change in control of a majority of Yahoo in the management board, as noted in CNET News.com blog.

"It is no longer secret to me why Microsoft's offer is not super," Icahn said in his interview Journal. "How can Yahoo say they willing to negotiate and sell the company on the one hand, while they are completely sabotaging the process without anyone."

Icahn believes he noted in the lawsuit unsealed shareholders will support his efforts to win a proxy fight to unseat Yahoo on board, especially given their belief that investors will fear Microsoft will not return to the buyout proposal to Jan and current board have passed.




Read more...

Is Microsoft's vision to compete in the search and reinvent itself as an advertising company no more than an attempt to get back in his familiar position as Top Gun? Should Microsoft, Google and all the others just give up on the search and outsource to Google? This is what Tim O'Reilly argues in a blog post today, and I do not think he could be more wrong.

O'Reilly says Microsoft lost its way after the completion of its long-time goal to see "a computer on every desk and in every home." They are drifting now, he says, and "their only goal seems to be on top of the heap." Attempts to "eat Google's lunch" in the search wars is a symptom of this problem, he argues. Google already claimed a mission to "organize all the world's information," and he says they have already won on the search, "or close enough to make any difference." Microsoft should move on to something new, that it can win.

So his advice to Microsoft: Outsource search to Google, and go solve another problem - building out Internet Operating System.

I will not argue with Tim on whether it is a good idea or not for Microsoft to put more resources into the web services infrastructure and software world. I think it is a good idea. But what I do not understand is why he believes Microsoft must give up their efforts to seek to do so. And I also think that what he suggests - an absolute monopoly on the search - would be a disaster for the Internet.

Innovation in the search has just begun

I simply can not believe that only a little over a decade in the commercial Internet, Tim O'Reilly is willing to say that the search war is over. Has he not read his good friend John Battelle's book, The Search? He is not the only expert out there who think the war is over - Danny Sullivan argued as much on the Gillmor Gang last week. But I simply can not believe that this is all we can expect in terms of search innovation.

There are so many areas of the search, which remain to be conquered. Semantic search. Real language / AI search. The deep web. Media search. Today, looking basically returns web documents. What I want is for search to perform tasks for me. We are no where near the day.

We are just getting started in the search. To believe that the search has reached its pinnacle today is like saying air was perfected before World War I. And if only one company had to operate in aircraft innovation at this point, I doubt we will have jet whisking us around the world today.

Innovation does not occur at a rapid pace without competition. If Google or any company was to search only, we would expect to see little done in search technology or business models, even in the medium and long term.

Sure, the odd start or two will still come together and try to shake things up. But the search is intensive infrastructure - the cost and difficulty of indexing the Internet and building a business in an established market requires resources that most new start-ups can not realistically access. And if the market consolidated further, competing, it will be much harder. There is reason monopolies have broken up by the governments - the market can not generally undo them.

Search Matador and a healthy Internet mutually exclusive

Search is important because it is the starting point for most commercial intentions on the Internet. As I wrote earlier this week, 68% of online purchases begin on a search engine or shopping comparison site. The drive revenue, and a lot of it. Approximately 40%, or $ 16 billion, of $ 40 billion collected in online advertising comes from search. And 80% of the $ 16 billion comes from trade-related searches.

The online advertising space is still growing rapidly and there are estimates that it will increase to $ 80 billion in 2010. If Google continues its dominance of search, they can surpass Microsoft in revenue, and at least in profitability in the next few years. The fact that Microsoft will not be able to count on fat desktop software surpluses forever only makes the problem worse.

Search and advertising is effective mirrors of each other. To say that it is OK for there to be a player in the search is to say that it is ok, if there is a monopoly in advertising.

We have already seen what happens if there is a dominant player in search - little effort put into innovation, and not enough revenue flows to enterprises that add value to the system. The risk of the entire ecosystem is endangered.

For example, the CPC (cost per click) model is wrong, but in Google's advantage because it enables fraud risk ineffective on the advertisers who have no way to verify the level of the search engine. CPA (cost per action) model works much better, but Google has done much more than test them. The current system is great for Google and bad for advertisers. But advertisers have nowhere else to go, since Google has 60 +% of the search market (and perhaps as much as 90% of search revenue), so they can live with it. Microsoft's latest Live Search Cashback initiative shows that competition can and will create more efficient systems.

On the publisher side things are even worse. Google does not share enough revenue with content sites to display their ads. The only thing keeping them even close to honest is the fact that Yahoo and Microsoft will occasionally compete for these partners. Take it away, and Google will go back to keep most of the advertising revenue generated by these sites (their only competition will be other forms of advertising, which generates far less revenue). It is a terrible result, when you look at it from the perspective of the health of the Internet.

Microsoft can not ignore the online advertising market, it's just too big and important. And we have to be behind them in this effort, because if Microsoft and Yahoo lose interest, we will be in a monopoly, and the Internet will suffer. Competition-driven innovation. Competition drives prices down. To wish this away is irresponsible.

Read more...

Keeping up with your friends, social networks have been hard work (enough so that many of us spend hours on it every week). Is it not you want to make a few bucks for your problems?

Meet UrTurn, a new startup that hopes to be able to create a virtual single currency in all major social networks. The site is a root launched a public beta, and it is at this time is made available to Facebook app (MySpace expected shortly). The first 250 TechCrunch readers who sign the code, using ERAS4 here will receive 500 bonus points.

In some respects, UrTurn acts, such as a virtual pyramid scheme - users can get points by inviting their friends (and even more points, if these friends will increase the application). But users can also get points by running the day-to-day activities. They earn less points, but they add up - in the case were to add two friends, the five pictures, and two in the role of Facebook messages on a daily basis a year, you'll have enough points for the iPod Touch.

Users are points UrTurn's virtual warehouse, where they will they be able to buy GIFT CARDS or digital gadgets (we can expect the stock to grow as the site expands). Alternatively, users will be able to make points, that is the market and sell them for money. You are not going to get rich this way, but getting paid to surf the Facebook is certainly an attractive idea. The strategy aims to reduce the gaming of the system, the site requires users to tie their accounts to an active PayPal account

At the moment, UrTurn will examine a number of ways to earn money for their application. In addition, standard advertising, UrTurn is considering placing a tax on each transaction in the market. The site also plans to release the API, which can help them integrate and is a REV-share with other applications so that they can share their points based on the use of third-party applications (site to launch a pilot program five appssavvy apps, next month).

Virtual currency has been a long history of failure - the late 90-Beenz.com unsuccessfully tried to create a global currency that could rival the dollar and the pound (that the company closed its doors in 2001). UrTurn is, therefore, to combat many users are trying to abuse the system, and they may have a hard time monetizing their app, when so little work is required the user's part. That said, the social networks are in need of an effective Micropayment system, and a virtual currency may be the answer. Acebucks, which covered the period from last autumn, is another company that will seek to consolidate its position as the single currency of social networks.

Read more...

This policy is valid from 19 May 2008

This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. For questions about this blog, please contact interizzti@yahoo.com.

This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation.

The compensation received will never influence the content, topics or posts made in this blog. All advertising is in the form of advertisements generated by a third party ad network. Those advertisements will be identified as paid advertisements.

The owner(s) of this blog is compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. Even though the owner(s) of this blog receives compensation for our posts or advertisements, we always give our honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the bloggers' own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question.

This blog does not contain any content which might present a conflict of interest.




Read more...