Tim Marman's Loosely Coupled

Browse by Tags

• Advertising
• Apple
• Blogging
• Business
• Copyright
• Entrepreneurship
• Gadgets
• Google
• Innovation
• Marketing
• Microsoft
• NextNY
• Rants
• Security
• Software Development
• Technology
• Video
• Web 2.0

• How Microsoft can crush Google

  Dare points to this insightful, if nefarious, post on how Microsoft could crush Google in one easy step . I've long made the argument that Google is not a technology company, but rather an advertising / media company. Clearly, the distinction between technology and media is at least blurring. In fact, it was observed at a recent nextNY event that a lot of startups - particularly those in New York - are less about "technology" and more about employing it intelligently. Though it's unrealistic and unlikely that Microsoft would (or could) ever do this, the post recognizes a simple truth sometimes lost in this discussion: unlike Microsoft (or Apple), Google doesn't really "sell" anything. (Search appliances and Google Premier Apps aren't even on the radar). They are largely dependent on advertising, and most of their products, purchases and partnerships are about securing vehicles for that advertising. As Henry suggests, Google would be disproportionally affected by the loss of a major vehicle... Posted Apr 10 2007, 01:01 PM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Business, Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Advertising, NextNY

• The UAC security flaw in Vista

  User Account Control (UAC) is one of the key security mechanisms introduced in Vista. In the past, the default account as an administrator. Following the principle of least privilege , the default Vista account runs with limited access, and Vista detects when something requires "administrator prompts", as mocked in the most recent Mac ad. All told, this is a good thing. Unfortunately, Microsoft made some poor design decisions in the implementation, sacrificing some of the security for ease of use. Joanna Rutkowska summarizes the issue : One thing that I found particularly annoying though, is that Vista automatically assumes that all setup programs (application installers) should be run with administrator privileges. So, when you try to run such a program, you get a UAC prompt and you have only two choices: either to agree to run this application as administrator or to disallow running it at all. That means that if you downloaded some freeware Tetris game, you will have to run its installer... Posted Mar 03 2007, 03:57 AM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Security, Microsoft, YouTube, Video, Apple, Advertising

• An Anthropologist's Take on Web 2.0

  The Machine is us. ( Link to the video ) Posted Feb 09 2007, 02:35 PM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Software Development, Web 2.0, Innovation, YouTube, Video, Blogging, Entrepreneurship

• Another ironic Mac commercial

  We already know some of the ads in the Get-A-Mac campaign don't exactly make sense . The latest, "Counselor", seems particularly ironic to me. In the ad, the Mac says that the PC "is a wizard with numbers and dresses like a gentleman". The PC is able to say that the Mac is "better with creative stuff", but quickly qualifies such behavior as "completely juvenile and a waste of time". Wait... I thought Apple was the one running the slander campaign? Speaking of which, Apple and Microsoft really do need some counseling. Some of the 5.5G iPods were released with a virus , which Apple blamed on Microsoft because of its insecure OS. Microsoft, of course, said it was simply Apple's lackluster quality control . Let me just come out and say it - Apple wouldn't stoop to releasing a device that intentionally included a Windows-only security exploit to "prove a point", would they? I mean, sure, they'll have some lawsuits, but pretty effective marketing move... Posted Oct 19 2006, 02:33 PM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Rants, Security, Gadgets, Web 2.0, Marketing, YouTube, Apple, Advertising

• Google bought the brand, not the technology

  Scoble says Google bought YouTube because it "realized it couldn’t make its own video service look as cool as YouTube." As I said before, Google was buying YouTube's audience and/or employees, not the technology . After listening to the Google-YouTube conference call, it definitely sounds like Chad and Steve were a big part of the purchase. Eric Schmidt gave them very high praise, comparing them to Larry and Sergey. Though I have to wonder if Larry and Sergey were this giddy when Google went public. (Mind you, I can't fault them too much, because I probably wouldn't act too much differently if I just made that kind of money). Posted Oct 12 2006, 05:23 PM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Rants, Web 2.0, Business, Google, YouTube

• Google has indeed acquired YouTube

  Google has indeed bought YouTube , beating the " $1.5 billion reserve price " with a $1.65 billion stock deal. Jim Cramer ( via Fred ) says he was concerned with the $1.5 billion price - or rather, "concerned that someone else will come in and pay $2 billion." YouTube and Google could be game, set, match for the next generation of viewers. You know that Google basically buys a network with no production costs by buying YouTube. You hit up something you want to learn about on Google, and it could direct you to text and some funky or authoritative video made by a homegamer. Nothing could be as exciting as that. I believe that this combination is lethal for the networks. Of course, Google already had Google Video, so one would argue that it could have done this already. Clearly, Google was buying YouTube's audience and/or employees, not the technology. I guess time will tell, but this still seems like a curiously high price for a company that has a ton of operating costs and has not really... Posted Oct 09 2006, 02:49 PM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Web 2.0, Google, YouTube, Video

• What is YouTube worth?

  YouTube is apparently for sale - that is, if someone is willing to pay at least $1.5 billion. Yahoo! is reportedly the front runner (not sure how I feel about this as a shareholder). Jason Calacanis said on the latest Gillmor Gang that he would quit if AOL bought them. He just feels wrong seeing entrepreneurs get rich off of stolen content and suggested that "70%" of their content is infringing works. I'd like to point out again that while Lazy Sunday may have put them on the map, 86 of their top 100 videos were user generated in July. Mark Cuban, who I don't always agree with but as Jason says is right more often than not, says YouTube is damned . On the copyright side of things, I don't think there are no issues, but I do think they're going to be fine. Grokster gave us a pretty good test that looks at intention , not strictly whether someone profits from a third party’s infringing use. The test considers things such as their encouragement of infringing use, how the service is marketed... Posted Sep 26 2006, 04:30 AM by Tim with | with 4 comment(s) Filed under: Copyright, Web 2.0, YouTube, Video

• YouTube isn't all about copyright infringement

  The conventional wisdom has been that YouTube is the new Napster, a business based on copyright infringement . Back in February, Jason Calacanis said it was not a real business but just a "haven for pirates". Fred disagreed , saying the real issue is user-generated content and that "YouTube has captured the hearts and minds of the people as the place they go to post videos and find videos". Six months later, it turns out Fred was mostly right. The "Lazy Sundays" clip may have put YouTube on the map, but user-generated content is driving the site. Last month, 86 of the top 100 videos were user-generated content ( via Waxy.org ). Now if they can just figure out how to make money (I'll update when the article link is actually available), they'll get rich like that Digg guy . Posted Aug 11 2006, 08:17 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Copyright, Web 2.0, YouTube, Video