At this point Yahoo! (YHOO) is dead man walking. Let's see - a $31 per share sword of Damocles hanging over their head, losing top employees amidst a sea of disappointment and uncertainty (see Horwitz, Brad) and no real plan except to say "Go away." Not a formula for success. Microsoft (MSFT) itself has opened itself up to a Pandora's Box of uncertainty, from both the perspective of "What are you doing spending $40 billion on Yahoo!" and "Sheesh, what is this going to mean for our culture and my job?" It seems to me that the Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google (GOOG) dynamic can best be characterized by the following metaphor: three brothers, one which is 5-years old, one which is 10 and the oldest that is 15. 5, 10, 15. Yahoo! Microsoft. Google.
Yahoo! is 5. Hippy dippy, Silicon Valley circa 1999 culture, never having made the transition to economic powerhouse like its older brothers. And this free-loving eco-chamber is now coming crashing down in the face of harsh market realities. Advertising share down. Search share down. Transition to a de-facto media company a failure. Now what? A plunging share price has made both employee retention difficult and rendered it a sitting duck for a potential buyer. And now its older brother, the big meanie Microsoft, is beating on it yet again. But this time it is an all-out scrap. The 5-year old is swinging but the long, powerful arms of the 10-year old are keeping it at bay. And this beating is causing a bunch of collateral damage - like losing friends, losing respect and losing its future. The 5-year old has and will continue to suffer badly from this encounter, no matter what happens from this point forward. His only hope for survival is by begging for protection and support from its tormentor, Microsoft.
Microsoft is 10. Graduated to middle school, feeling important, feeling like using some new tricks to impress the older kids. But still somewhat rooted to the past, in this case the heavy, software-based desktop franchise that is still the lifeblood of the company. And while Microsoft is picking on Yahoo! it is getting trounced in the most rapidly-growing markets by its older brother, Google. And it isn't pretty. MSN and Microsoft Live are just shadows of the Google search and advertising empire, and it appears that Microsoft has concluded that to make a run at its mighty brother it needs to impose a reign of terror on its younger brother. But this fight has left the 10-year old weakened as well. Looking desperate - why beat up on someone half your age? Clearly not a fair fight. Can't you go it alone with all those resources? Looking stodgy - do you really need those Yahoo! hipsters to breathe some life into that software-heavy culture? Looking financially irresponsible - just because you have $40 billion to spend is this really the best way to enhance shareholder value? All good questions. But in this case 5+10 doesn't equal 15, because this fight has taken years off both of their lives and the big brother remains above the fray, thinking about love, college and the future. What his younger brothers do is of little consequence, except insofar as their might be some good toys and friends to pick up after the fighting is over.
Google is 15. He is laughing - hard. "Boy, are my kid brothers dopes! I'm looking forward, living large, walking tall. I'm in high school but college is around the corner. I'm going to start my own company. And if my idiot brothers lose some of their friends because of the fight, they can come work with me on my company. And if my younger brother falls ill, very ill, I'll come and visit him and send my best but there is little I can do to help." Google must be thinking "Does Microsoft really want Yahoo! or are they simply trying to kill Yahoo! Either way, I win." Google will pick up top pros from both Microsoft and Yahoo!, who no longer want to deal with uncertainty and questionable business strategy, and for this Google will pay precisely nothing. Microsoft may end up spending $40 billion for something that has precious little value, as top human capital which is the real engine of growth will simply walk. Is the advertising engine and the other Yahoo! assets really worth buying the company, much less paying the control premium? And this doesn't even take into account the disruption and value destruction arising from the integration process, which is at any time and always a hairball.
And the end of the day those at Google must be shaking their heads. I think Larry, Sergey and Eric should send Steve a really expensive bouquet of flowers. He has simply made their year.
Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts
Feb 14, 2008
Feb 5, 2008
Microsoft’s Acquisition Of Yahoo: Not As Bad As Some Think
Microsoft’s Acquisition Of Yahoo: Not As Bad As Some Think: "Microsoft’s Acquisition Of Yahoo: Not As Bad As Some Think
The Microsoft is evil meme is alive and well this week as many digest Microsoft’s $44.6 billion takeover offer for Yahoo. There’s Flickr users protesting, talk of Yahoo teaming up with Google to block Microsoft’s bid, and general Microsoft is bad sentiment everywhere, even from Google itself. While Microsoft acquiring Yahoo may not provide the ultimate in happy endings to many, it’s really not as bad as some would have you believe.
Google’s response to the acquisition over the weekend was amazing in its veracity. Google and Microsoft have never been friends, but for Google to come out and attack the acquisition as it did can only mean one thing: Google is afraid, and that’s a very good thing. Internally Google believes that a combined Microsoft/ Yahoo will provide real competition to its dominant market position in search and text advertising, the very same position it has depended on to build its until recently huge share price and market cap. Google can preach about open access and open markets all it wants, but Google’s idea of open is only where users access it from one of its many web properties.
The Microsoft is evil meme is alive and well this week as many digest Microsoft’s $44.6 billion takeover offer for Yahoo. There’s Flickr users protesting, talk of Yahoo teaming up with Google to block Microsoft’s bid, and general Microsoft is bad sentiment everywhere, even from Google itself. While Microsoft acquiring Yahoo may not provide the ultimate in happy endings to many, it’s really not as bad as some would have you believe.
Google’s response to the acquisition over the weekend was amazing in its veracity. Google and Microsoft have never been friends, but for Google to come out and attack the acquisition as it did can only mean one thing: Google is afraid, and that’s a very good thing. Internally Google believes that a combined Microsoft/ Yahoo will provide real competition to its dominant market position in search and text advertising, the very same position it has depended on to build its until recently huge share price and market cap. Google can preach about open access and open markets all it wants, but Google’s idea of open is only where users access it from one of its many web properties.
Nov 20, 2007
Gmail.Microsoft.com
Read this interesting post by Lenssen......again I am pasting it as it is and stealing some page rank from him ..... :)
What If Gmail Had Been Designed by Microsoft?
Today I want to ponder the question: what if Microsoft, not Google, had created Gmail? What would be the differences in that web mail client for users today? What if we apply some of the same design rules that brought us Hotmail, for instance?
To start, here’s the current Gmail homepage after you log-in:
First of all, we need to rebrand the application name to something longer. Let’s call this Windows Live Gmail, and add some of the visual elements connected with Windows. Also, as in Hotmail, there needs to be less space for the email subjects to make place for a reading pane, which is full of verbose explanatory help text*:
*Not shown in the screenshot, we’ll also throw in a security measurement that will prevent you from clicking on links in emails, unless you discovered the switch to mark a mail as safe. Another security measurement we’ll add is that you won’t be able to log-in with just username anymore but are required to enter the full username@gmail.com. Furthermore, we will change the browser URL from http://gmail.microsoft.com to the more professional looking http://by114w.bay114.gmail.live.com/mail/mail.aspx?rru=home.
For another design iteration in our inbox, we will need to camouflage the checkboxes next to the messages by putting a mail icon on top of them. Also, we need to break up messages from conversation threads into their individual parts. Furthermore, this version of Gmail needs to change from context-aware text ads to context-unaware graphic banners, which we’ll require to carry at least one clip art. Gmail currently has a chat box which I don’t use and thus find annoying, so I think we can build on that and expand it to a more full-featured chat widget, replacing the labels box. We’ll also adjust the spam filter slightly to show a couple of more bulk mails in the inbox:
There’s still not enough banner space available though, so let’s add a top row for ads and move the rest a bit more down. Also, to go back to the real Microsoft spirit, the inbox will now carry a maximum of 2 MB of messages – that was the amount Hotmail offered when Gmail was released with 1 GB in April 2004. Also, Microsoft-style, the actual start page of this service will not be the inbox, but a “welcome” splash screen. Please imagine the ads blinking at this point:
Somehow, this still misses part of the Microsoft feeling – the current design is just too bright & light, and it doesn’t have enough glamor. I’ll darken the colors a bit and add some smooth shades. Also, admittedly, Hotmail is a bit slower than Google’s competing service, so we’ll add some “loading” messages. Usually there’s less focus on unclutteredness with the Redmond guys, so we’ll add some MSN news bits and “special offers” where space is left. Plus, to increase user lock-in, let’s get rid of the “sign out” link. I’m also putting less emphasis on search, moving the box to the bottom right and replacing it with a dog:
Voila, we’re done... that was easy! Your potential, their passion. Coming up tomorrow: “What if Microsoft had designed Windows Vista.” Stay tuned!
[By Philipp Lenssen | Original post | Comments]
Blogged with Flock
Nov 17, 2007
Enclosing in a Google Circle
I was thinking about how much time I spent on Google products in a day and I was just stunned by finding that this Logo keep showing in my browser about 30% of the tabs opened and about 80% of the time. And nobody is forcing me to do so. No penny spent. Also in all the workflows that Google provided has no hassles, they are straight, do only they designed to do and nothing else, have cleanlier user interface. I think we are all are using Google too much and its just starting. as per John Bettelle an average searcher searches about 5-10 queries per day in a search engine and expert may be around 20-35. In that way we software engineers are way ahead as we on an average searches more then 50 queries per day. I uses google search not only for finding information but also as a calculator and dictionary for checking spelling.
Stumble upon good link on the same http://www.redherring.com/Home/23165
Blogged with Flock
Oct 25, 2007
Modest billion dollor Idea by Alex Linhares
I was reading through the blogs and just stumble upon this nice proposal for Adobe, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others who are interested. This guy (Alex Linhares ) has done lots of research and also has good understanding g if the what is going on the web currently and what can impact the future. Any one out there in biggies to grab this oppotunity!!!
A Modest (billion-dollar) proposal
Imagine the following scenario. A secretive meeting, years ago, when Apple´s Steve Jobs, the benevolent dictator, put in place a strategy to get into the music business. It included not only a gadget, but also an online store, iTunes. I have no idea how that meeting went, but one thing is for sure: many people afterwards must have been back-stabbing Jobs, and mentioning "the music business? We´re going to sell music? This guy has totally lost it."
Fact of the matter was, technology had forever changed the economics of the music business, and Jobs could see it.
Having said that, I´d like to make a modest, billion-dollar, proposal, to the likes of Adobe, Yahoo, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, and whomever else might be up to the task.
Cui Bono?
Think about science publishing. I publish papers for a living. My first paper came out in Biological Cybernetics, a journal which cost, in 1998, over US$2000 for a one year subscription. I live scared to death of Profa. Deborah, who reviews my scientific output. And there are others like me in this world. Oh yes, many others.
The economics of science publishing is completely crazy for this day and age. Authors give enormous effort to bring their work to light, editors and journal and conference referees also put in enormous effort. All of that is unpaid, of course (or at least indirectly paid, in the hopes of tenure and/or prestige). But then, our masterpieces go to a journal, which obliges me to transfer copyright to the likes of Elsevier, or Springer, or someone else. Then some money starts to show up! According to wikipedia, Springer had sales exceeding €900 million in 2006, while Elsevier upped the ante to a pre-tax profit (in the REED annual report) to a staggering €1 billion (on €7.9 Billion turnover). But for those who brought out the scientific results, for those that bring the content, and the fact checking by referees and editors, all that work goes unpaid. The money goes to those who typeset it, then store it in a server, then print it out and mail it to libraries worldwide. And let´s not forget those which actually pay for the research, the public, as most research is government-financed. In the words of Michael Geist, a law professor:
Cancer patients seeking information on new treatments or parents searching for the latest on childhood development issues were often denied access to the research they indirectly fund through their taxes
How did we get here? A better question is how could it have been otherwise? In the last decades, how could a different industrial organization appear? Cui Bono?
Lowly (and busy) professors or universities were obviously not up to the risky and costly task of printing and mailing thousands of journals worldwide, every month. A few societies emerged, and, mostly funded by their membership, they were up to the task. So, in time, the business of science publishing emerged and eventually consolidated in the hands of a few players. And these few players could focus on typesetting, printing, mailing much better than the equation-loving professors or the prestige & money-seeking universities.
The other day I tried to download my own paper published in the journal " Artificial Intelligence", and I was asked to pay USD30.00 for it. That´s the price of a book, and I was the author of the thing in the first place!
Now, if you ask me, technology has forever changed the economics of the scientific publishing business, and it´s high time for someone like Jobs to step forward.
Adobe Buzzword is specially suited to do this. Most scientific publishers (Elsevier, Springer) and societies (IEEE, ACM, APA, APS, INFORMS) have just one or two typesetting styles for papers. I imagine a version of Buzzword which carries only the particular typesetting style(s) of the final published document, and researchers would already prepare those manuscripts ready for publication (there are glitches today, of course, like high-quality images and tables and equations--but hey, we´re talking about Adobe here!). A submit button would submit the papers for evaluation, either to a journal or a conference. Referees could make comments and annotation on the electronic manuscript itself, or even suggest minor rewritings of a part here and there. The process would be much smoother than even the most modern of online submission processes. And, since Adobe has flash, this means that they´re especially positioned to bring up future papers with movies, sounds, screencasts and whole simulations embedded. Wouldn´t that be rich? Doesn´t that beautifully fit with what´s stated in their page?
Adobe revolutionizes how the world engages with ideas and information .
But Buzzword is just my favorite option (because it enables beautiful typesetting, is backed by a large, credible, player, works on any platform, and enables worldwide collaboration between authors, editors, referees). Other options could be desktop processors (MsWord, Pages, OpenOffice, etc). There would be a productivity gain by using something the likes of Buzzword, but using desktop processors wouldn´t affect the overall idea.
Now, why would the people in Adobe, Yahoo, SUN, IBM, Microsoft, Google, or others actually want to do a thing like that?
There are two reasons. The first one is goodwill, the second one is money.
Goodwill
I recently had a paper outright rejected in the IBM Systems Journal. In retrospect, I now see that it was a very bad call to submit there. I had mentioned that choice to the editor of a very prestigious scientific journal, and he responded by saying: "They´re going to hate it. They´re not in the business of publishing great original science for a long time now. That´s just a marketing thing; they´re in the business of trying to impress customers." I responded that I thought that they´d be open-minded; that the journal had had some great contributions in the past and I thought it was just great. I was, of course, wrong. They didn´t even look at the thing; they didn´t even bother to send back a message. After a quick check, I felt enormously stupid: all papers, or maybe not all but something way above 90%, come from IBM authors. The IBM Systems Journal, it seems to me, is now a branch of IBM´s marketing department. And while it may impress less sophisticated customers, it´s definitely a huge loss for IBM.
The Systems Journal (and their R&D journal) used to be a fountain of goodwill for IBM. Scientists took pride in publishing there, and hordes of researchers (not customers) browsed it and studied it carefully. It was a fountain of goodwill--with a direct route to IBM´s bottom line: it attracted the best scientists to IBM. Now that it´s in the hands of marketing, you can hardly find any serious scientist considering it as a potential outlet. If I were in IBM, I´d be fighting to change things around. But I´m not there, I can speak the truth as I see it, and I can just submit somewhere else. The BELL LABS Technical Journal also seems to be meeting the same "marketing department" fate. Don´t expect to see nobel prizes coming from these journals any time soon.
When these journals didn´t belong to marketing, they brought, at least to this observer, a huge amount of goodwill and good publicity for their respective companies. The HR department must have loved choosing among the best PhDs dying to get into IBM. Sad to mention, I doubt that the best PhDs are now begging to work on these companies anymore.
Yet, IBM could change things around. As could Adobe, SUN, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and many others. What I feel they should do is establish a platform for online paper submission, review, and publication. This platform should be made openly available for all scientific societies, for free. From the prestigious journal "Cognitive Science" to the Asia-Pacific Medical Education Conference, this platform should be free (to societies, journals, and conferences) and the papers published online should be freely accessible to all, no login, no paywall, nothing in the way. Copyright should remain in the hands of authors. Gradually, one after another, journals and conferences would jump ship, as the platform gained credibility and respectability.
Now here´s the kicker. It´s not only about goodwill. There´s money to be made.
Money
One crucial point is for the platform to be freely accessible to all. But you can do that, and still block the googlebot, the yahoobot, and all others "bots", but your own. Let´s say, for instance, that Microsoft does something of the sort. In some years time, not only it gets the goodwill of graduate students who are studying papers published by science.microsoft.org (as opposed to hey-sucker-pay-thirty-bucks-for-your-own-paper-Elsevier), but also the way to search for such information would be only through that website. As we all know, advertising is moving online: according to a recent study, the last year saw "$24 billion spent on internet advertising and $450 billion spent on all advertising ". Soon we´ll reach US$100 Billion/year in advertising on the web. And imagine having a privileged position in the eyeballs of graduate-educated people, from medicine to science to economics to business to engineering to history.
I hope someone will pull something like this off. Maybe for the goodwill. Or maybe for the money.
Many companies could pull it off, but some seem specially suited to the task. My favorite would be Adobe--with buzzword and AIR and flash and pdfs, that´s definitely my choice. Google might want to do it just to preempt some other company from blocking the googlebot to get its hands on valuable scientific research. Microsoft, the Dracula of the day, certainly needs the goodwill, and it could help it to hang on to the MS-Word lock in. Maybe Amazon would find this interesting--fits nicely with their web storage and search dreams. Yahoo would have the same reason as Google.
I don´t see Apple doing it. I think it could actually hurt their market value, as investors might think that they would be over-stretching, ever expanding into new markets.
I don´t see IBM or SUN doing it either; in fact, if anyone in a board meeting ever proposed this, I can only see the exact same back-stabbing that must have gone through, years ago, in Apple: "Science-publishing? This guy has totally lost it. This is IBM, and that´s not the business we´re in." They´re to busy handling their own internal office politics, who´s getting promotion and pay packages. Innovation is hardly coming in from there (though both have been embracing open-source to a certain degree).
One thing is for sure. The open-access to research movement is getting momentum everyday. It´s time to sell that Elsevier stock.
Just a final note. If any player is willing to do this, use an org domain name. Don´t name it "Microsoft Science". That won´t work with intelligent, independent scientists. Use a domain name such as science.yahoo.org, science.adobe.org, and name it as "Open science", "World of Science", anything... but please don´t try to push your name too far. Let it grow slowly.
And just in case someone wants to pull this off, and is actually wondering... I´m right here.
A Modest (billion-dollar) proposal
Imagine the following scenario. A secretive meeting, years ago, when Apple´s Steve Jobs, the benevolent dictator, put in place a strategy to get into the music business. It included not only a gadget, but also an online store, iTunes. I have no idea how that meeting went, but one thing is for sure: many people afterwards must have been back-stabbing Jobs, and mentioning "the music business? We´re going to sell music? This guy has totally lost it."
Fact of the matter was, technology had forever changed the economics of the music business, and Jobs could see it.
Having said that, I´d like to make a modest, billion-dollar, proposal, to the likes of Adobe, Yahoo, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, and whomever else might be up to the task.
Cui Bono?
Think about science publishing. I publish papers for a living. My first paper came out in Biological Cybernetics, a journal which cost, in 1998, over US$2000 for a one year subscription. I live scared to death of Profa. Deborah, who reviews my scientific output. And there are others like me in this world. Oh yes, many others.
The economics of science publishing is completely crazy for this day and age. Authors give enormous effort to bring their work to light, editors and journal and conference referees also put in enormous effort. All of that is unpaid, of course (or at least indirectly paid, in the hopes of tenure and/or prestige). But then, our masterpieces go to a journal, which obliges me to transfer copyright to the likes of Elsevier, or Springer, or someone else. Then some money starts to show up! According to wikipedia, Springer had sales exceeding €900 million in 2006, while Elsevier upped the ante to a pre-tax profit (in the REED annual report) to a staggering €1 billion (on €7.9 Billion turnover). But for those who brought out the scientific results, for those that bring the content, and the fact checking by referees and editors, all that work goes unpaid. The money goes to those who typeset it, then store it in a server, then print it out and mail it to libraries worldwide. And let´s not forget those which actually pay for the research, the public, as most research is government-financed. In the words of Michael Geist, a law professor:
Cancer patients seeking information on new treatments or parents searching for the latest on childhood development issues were often denied access to the research they indirectly fund through their taxes
How did we get here? A better question is how could it have been otherwise? In the last decades, how could a different industrial organization appear? Cui Bono?
Lowly (and busy) professors or universities were obviously not up to the risky and costly task of printing and mailing thousands of journals worldwide, every month. A few societies emerged, and, mostly funded by their membership, they were up to the task. So, in time, the business of science publishing emerged and eventually consolidated in the hands of a few players. And these few players could focus on typesetting, printing, mailing much better than the equation-loving professors or the prestige & money-seeking universities.
The other day I tried to download my own paper published in the journal " Artificial Intelligence", and I was asked to pay USD30.00 for it. That´s the price of a book, and I was the author of the thing in the first place!
Now, if you ask me, technology has forever changed the economics of the scientific publishing business, and it´s high time for someone like Jobs to step forward.
Adobe Buzzword is specially suited to do this. Most scientific publishers (Elsevier, Springer) and societies (IEEE, ACM, APA, APS, INFORMS) have just one or two typesetting styles for papers. I imagine a version of Buzzword which carries only the particular typesetting style(s) of the final published document, and researchers would already prepare those manuscripts ready for publication (there are glitches today, of course, like high-quality images and tables and equations--but hey, we´re talking about Adobe here!). A submit button would submit the papers for evaluation, either to a journal or a conference. Referees could make comments and annotation on the electronic manuscript itself, or even suggest minor rewritings of a part here and there. The process would be much smoother than even the most modern of online submission processes. And, since Adobe has flash, this means that they´re especially positioned to bring up future papers with movies, sounds, screencasts and whole simulations embedded. Wouldn´t that be rich? Doesn´t that beautifully fit with what´s stated in their page?
Adobe revolutionizes how the world engages with ideas and information .
But Buzzword is just my favorite option (because it enables beautiful typesetting, is backed by a large, credible, player, works on any platform, and enables worldwide collaboration between authors, editors, referees). Other options could be desktop processors (MsWord, Pages, OpenOffice, etc). There would be a productivity gain by using something the likes of Buzzword, but using desktop processors wouldn´t affect the overall idea.
Now, why would the people in Adobe, Yahoo, SUN, IBM, Microsoft, Google, or others actually want to do a thing like that?
There are two reasons. The first one is goodwill, the second one is money.
Goodwill
I recently had a paper outright rejected in the IBM Systems Journal. In retrospect, I now see that it was a very bad call to submit there. I had mentioned that choice to the editor of a very prestigious scientific journal, and he responded by saying: "They´re going to hate it. They´re not in the business of publishing great original science for a long time now. That´s just a marketing thing; they´re in the business of trying to impress customers." I responded that I thought that they´d be open-minded; that the journal had had some great contributions in the past and I thought it was just great. I was, of course, wrong. They didn´t even look at the thing; they didn´t even bother to send back a message. After a quick check, I felt enormously stupid: all papers, or maybe not all but something way above 90%, come from IBM authors. The IBM Systems Journal, it seems to me, is now a branch of IBM´s marketing department. And while it may impress less sophisticated customers, it´s definitely a huge loss for IBM.
The Systems Journal (and their R&D journal) used to be a fountain of goodwill for IBM. Scientists took pride in publishing there, and hordes of researchers (not customers) browsed it and studied it carefully. It was a fountain of goodwill--with a direct route to IBM´s bottom line: it attracted the best scientists to IBM. Now that it´s in the hands of marketing, you can hardly find any serious scientist considering it as a potential outlet. If I were in IBM, I´d be fighting to change things around. But I´m not there, I can speak the truth as I see it, and I can just submit somewhere else. The BELL LABS Technical Journal also seems to be meeting the same "marketing department" fate. Don´t expect to see nobel prizes coming from these journals any time soon.
When these journals didn´t belong to marketing, they brought, at least to this observer, a huge amount of goodwill and good publicity for their respective companies. The HR department must have loved choosing among the best PhDs dying to get into IBM. Sad to mention, I doubt that the best PhDs are now begging to work on these companies anymore.
Yet, IBM could change things around. As could Adobe, SUN, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and many others. What I feel they should do is establish a platform for online paper submission, review, and publication. This platform should be made openly available for all scientific societies, for free. From the prestigious journal "Cognitive Science" to the Asia-Pacific Medical Education Conference, this platform should be free (to societies, journals, and conferences) and the papers published online should be freely accessible to all, no login, no paywall, nothing in the way. Copyright should remain in the hands of authors. Gradually, one after another, journals and conferences would jump ship, as the platform gained credibility and respectability.
Now here´s the kicker. It´s not only about goodwill. There´s money to be made.
Money
One crucial point is for the platform to be freely accessible to all. But you can do that, and still block the googlebot, the yahoobot, and all others "bots", but your own. Let´s say, for instance, that Microsoft does something of the sort. In some years time, not only it gets the goodwill of graduate students who are studying papers published by science.microsoft.org (as opposed to hey-sucker-pay-thirty-bucks-for-your-own-paper-Elsevier), but also the way to search for such information would be only through that website. As we all know, advertising is moving online: according to a recent study, the last year saw "$24 billion spent on internet advertising and $450 billion spent on all advertising ". Soon we´ll reach US$100 Billion/year in advertising on the web. And imagine having a privileged position in the eyeballs of graduate-educated people, from medicine to science to economics to business to engineering to history.
I hope someone will pull something like this off. Maybe for the goodwill. Or maybe for the money.
Many companies could pull it off, but some seem specially suited to the task. My favorite would be Adobe--with buzzword and AIR and flash and pdfs, that´s definitely my choice. Google might want to do it just to preempt some other company from blocking the googlebot to get its hands on valuable scientific research. Microsoft, the Dracula of the day, certainly needs the goodwill, and it could help it to hang on to the MS-Word lock in. Maybe Amazon would find this interesting--fits nicely with their web storage and search dreams. Yahoo would have the same reason as Google.
I don´t see Apple doing it. I think it could actually hurt their market value, as investors might think that they would be over-stretching, ever expanding into new markets.
I don´t see IBM or SUN doing it either; in fact, if anyone in a board meeting ever proposed this, I can only see the exact same back-stabbing that must have gone through, years ago, in Apple: "Science-publishing? This guy has totally lost it. This is IBM, and that´s not the business we´re in." They´re to busy handling their own internal office politics, who´s getting promotion and pay packages. Innovation is hardly coming in from there (though both have been embracing open-source to a certain degree).
One thing is for sure. The open-access to research movement is getting momentum everyday. It´s time to sell that Elsevier stock.
Just a final note. If any player is willing to do this, use an org domain name. Don´t name it "Microsoft Science". That won´t work with intelligent, independent scientists. Use a domain name such as science.yahoo.org, science.adobe.org, and name it as "Open science", "World of Science", anything... but please don´t try to push your name too far. Let it grow slowly.
And just in case someone wants to pull this off, and is actually wondering... I´m right here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
