2 years, 6 months ago
What do you think of Rupert Murdoch's comments about NewsCorp blocking Google search's access to their content?
Here's News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch indicating that he'd be willing to ban Google's search spider from crawling websites of the news and information sources he owns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI
Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis essentially predicted this would happen - even citing Murdoch by name - a few weeks ago on his This Week in Startups podcast. (Full disclosure: I'm in this clip as well.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe15DEWp30
Questions:
(1) If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, would that make you more likely to switch over?
(2) If not, what kinds of exclusive content WOULD make you switch over to Bing or another alternative from Google. ''The New York Times''? ''Newsweek''? MSNBC?
(3) How much would such a decision impact Google overall, in your estimation? Is this a serious concern for the company? Could this make a different search engine that was willing to pay for news or other kinds of content into a "Google killer"?
(4) Look ahead a few years. Do you think search engines will start paying for content en masse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI
Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis essentially predicted this would happen - even citing Murdoch by name - a few weeks ago on his This Week in Startups podcast. (Full disclosure: I'm in this clip as well.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe15DEWp30
Questions:
(1) If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, would that make you more likely to switch over?
(2) If not, what kinds of exclusive content WOULD make you switch over to Bing or another alternative from Google. ''The New York Times''? ''Newsweek''? MSNBC?
(3) How much would such a decision impact Google overall, in your estimation? Is this a serious concern for the company? Could this make a different search engine that was willing to pay for news or other kinds of content into a "Google killer"?
(4) Look ahead a few years. Do you think search engines will start paying for content en masse?
Separate topics with commas, or by pressing return. Use the delete or backspace key to edit or remove existing topics.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$14 Answers
I think if Murdoch were serious about it, then it honestly would have been taken care of by the end of that interview. It's very little coding to alter how a site is indexed. But if you go to the Robots.txt file on FoxNews, you can see they specifically allow Google's index. The robots meta-tag on NYPost.com still contains the Index and Follow parameters.
Murdoch had also previously threatened to charge for all online news content from News Corp sites. And before that, he claimed that content from the WSJ would be free. I really think he's a bit of a baby and just confused on how to handle new media during this recession.
To answer the questions though...
1) I would actually stick with whatever search engine did NOT have access to News Corp content. Personally, I would be rather happy if Fox News, the NY Post, The Sun and News of the World were no longer searchable and faded into oblivion. WSJ, the only worthwhile publication, isn't free on its own.
2) I don't think any content could ever sway me from one search engine to another, because content does get reproduced and copied to blogs. Take the WSJ for example. There are blogs that do reproduce the content for free. Not legal, but still convenient for the end-user.
3) Given the examples above, this just seems like another empty threat on Murdoch's part. He's a businessman in a recession and claims to try just about everything in hopes that it will gain he, and his company, respect and profit. I don't think the lack of content will dent Google's profits much. And if Google wanted to play really dirty, they could conveniently index the sites that do rehost WSJ content.
4) Only if the content was particularly valuable. I love Twitter, but I'm not certain that Bing and Google paying to license the content was really worthwhile.
Murdoch had also previously threatened to charge for all online news content from News Corp sites. And before that, he claimed that content from the WSJ would be free. I really think he's a bit of a baby and just confused on how to handle new media during this recession.
To answer the questions though...
1) I would actually stick with whatever search engine did NOT have access to News Corp content. Personally, I would be rather happy if Fox News, the NY Post, The Sun and News of the World were no longer searchable and faded into oblivion. WSJ, the only worthwhile publication, isn't free on its own.
2) I don't think any content could ever sway me from one search engine to another, because content does get reproduced and copied to blogs. Take the WSJ for example. There are blogs that do reproduce the content for free. Not legal, but still convenient for the end-user.
3) Given the examples above, this just seems like another empty threat on Murdoch's part. He's a businessman in a recession and claims to try just about everything in hopes that it will gain he, and his company, respect and profit. I don't think the lack of content will dent Google's profits much. And if Google wanted to play really dirty, they could conveniently index the sites that do rehost WSJ content.
4) Only if the content was particularly valuable. I love Twitter, but I'm not certain that Bing and Google paying to license the content was really worthwhile.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$Report Abuse
1. News Corp. alone and Rupert Murdoch will not force me over to Bing. That's mostly on principle. To me, the sun doesn't rise and set on Rupert Murdoch and his cowboy antics just make me more resolute to keep my Internet habits as is.
2. There isn't one source of content that would make me switch over. It would really have to be a large combination of several media outlets: "The NY Times", MSNBC, and others would all have to walk away cold from Google.
Then, I wouldn't have much choice. Part of my freelance writing efforts, and therefore my meager livelihood, depends on the ability to research thoroughly and conscientiously. Plus, I don't have a particular loyalty to Google, other than how well its served me over the years.
3. Oh, I think the brass over at Google should be sending out for a change of shorts over this one. I agree with what Jason said, in that I didn't think any of the major media outlets had the stones to make the move. Now that Murdoch's opened the floodgates though, this could be a very serious issue. I think others will follow his lead now that the path has been beaten down. This could be the downfall of Google easily, unless Google's willing to pay.
And of course, if Google DOES pay, I have serious trickle-down concerns about how this will affect everyone doing business with Google, right down to the peons like me trying to scrape a few pennies out of AdSense.
4. It looks that way. A few years ago I never would've guessed that any one company would feel secure enough to walk away from a large, built-in traffic generator. But now that Murdoch's done it, I think that Google will have to put down some big bucks for the biggest content outlets. I think the only bright spot for Google is that the group of businesses able to leverage that kind of deal are a very select and prestigious few. But again, this raises some serious concerns for those of us who are suckling at Google's teat right now.
2. There isn't one source of content that would make me switch over. It would really have to be a large combination of several media outlets: "The NY Times", MSNBC, and others would all have to walk away cold from Google.
Then, I wouldn't have much choice. Part of my freelance writing efforts, and therefore my meager livelihood, depends on the ability to research thoroughly and conscientiously. Plus, I don't have a particular loyalty to Google, other than how well its served me over the years.
3. Oh, I think the brass over at Google should be sending out for a change of shorts over this one. I agree with what Jason said, in that I didn't think any of the major media outlets had the stones to make the move. Now that Murdoch's opened the floodgates though, this could be a very serious issue. I think others will follow his lead now that the path has been beaten down. This could be the downfall of Google easily, unless Google's willing to pay.
And of course, if Google DOES pay, I have serious trickle-down concerns about how this will affect everyone doing business with Google, right down to the peons like me trying to scrape a few pennies out of AdSense.
4. It looks that way. A few years ago I never would've guessed that any one company would feel secure enough to walk away from a large, built-in traffic generator. But now that Murdoch's done it, I think that Google will have to put down some big bucks for the biggest content outlets. I think the only bright spot for Google is that the group of businesses able to leverage that kind of deal are a very select and prestigious few. But again, this raises some serious concerns for those of us who are suckling at Google's teat right now.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch does not require any introduction. Having changed the media in both Australia and in the UK, I guess he is now set to do that as well in the US.
As for your questions:
(1) If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, would that make you more likely to switch over?
No. Simply because I do not use Google to find News. I have bookmarked 5 major News websites and that it is enough for me. Ultimately, if there is a real hot one, I am sure the Twitter community will propagate it faster than anyone else.
(2) If not, what kinds of exclusive content WOULD make you switch over to Bing or another alternative from Google. ''The New York Times''? ''Newsweek''? MSNBC?
Originally I had the impression that Bing had an exclusive "deal" of some sort with Twitter when they released their real time search results. Google did not waste time and there they are. I am of the opinion that unless Bing (Microsoft) changes its stance in the future, there is no way they will be able to compete with Google. Google is far from just being a search engine. Look at their whole paraphernalia of products. Search is just one of the tools I use frequently, aside from , groups, gmail, docs, etc... Also, Bing (Microsoft) is lagging way behind giving the online community one thing that makes all the difference in the world...Money. Maybe when they decide to role out their own version of BingSense, maybe, I will shift over..
(3) How much would such a decision impact Google overall, in your estimation? Is this a serious concern for the company? Could this make a different search engine that was willing to pay for news or other kinds of content into a "Google killer"?
I do not know why Google has to pay for news, but on the other hand I can see why the media moguls are not to happy about it. I guess the impact for Google per se is not substantial, unless, everybody decides to follow Murdoch's lead. As I said, then they will also have to tackle Twitter and so on.
(4) Look ahead a few years. Do you think search engines will start paying for content en masse?
Google's business model in a way pays you back for providing content, with their AdSense scheme. maybe they will change their formula on revenue sharing and raise the bar a bit to motivate more content providers. Three years from now, maybe there will be certain type of content that search engines will be paying to have access to them in masse. Actually, they do have access, thinhg is whether or not they can show it on the SERPs
As for your questions:
(1) If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, would that make you more likely to switch over?
No. Simply because I do not use Google to find News. I have bookmarked 5 major News websites and that it is enough for me. Ultimately, if there is a real hot one, I am sure the Twitter community will propagate it faster than anyone else.
(2) If not, what kinds of exclusive content WOULD make you switch over to Bing or another alternative from Google. ''The New York Times''? ''Newsweek''? MSNBC?
Originally I had the impression that Bing had an exclusive "deal" of some sort with Twitter when they released their real time search results. Google did not waste time and there they are. I am of the opinion that unless Bing (Microsoft) changes its stance in the future, there is no way they will be able to compete with Google. Google is far from just being a search engine. Look at their whole paraphernalia of products. Search is just one of the tools I use frequently, aside from , groups, gmail, docs, etc... Also, Bing (Microsoft) is lagging way behind giving the online community one thing that makes all the difference in the world...Money. Maybe when they decide to role out their own version of BingSense, maybe, I will shift over..
(3) How much would such a decision impact Google overall, in your estimation? Is this a serious concern for the company? Could this make a different search engine that was willing to pay for news or other kinds of content into a "Google killer"?
I do not know why Google has to pay for news, but on the other hand I can see why the media moguls are not to happy about it. I guess the impact for Google per se is not substantial, unless, everybody decides to follow Murdoch's lead. As I said, then they will also have to tackle Twitter and so on.
(4) Look ahead a few years. Do you think search engines will start paying for content en masse?
Google's business model in a way pays you back for providing content, with their AdSense scheme. maybe they will change their formula on revenue sharing and raise the bar a bit to motivate more content providers. Three years from now, maybe there will be certain type of content that search engines will be paying to have access to them in masse. Actually, they do have access, thinhg is whether or not they can show it on the SERPs
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Murdoch is a feisty businessman. He changed Australian media, he changed UK media and now he's changing US media - a long and illustrious career and I don't see him stopping just yet. Whether he is successful time will tell but to answer your questions.
1. Yes, it would. I already use about 3 or 4 search engines on a regular basis but my first stop is news and weather. I would be more inclined to stay with a search engine that accesses the latest news from the original source - sure Google can spider places that use the news second-hand but it would change the way I searched. I don't think I'm a normal user though, so my change wouldn't be indicative of others
2. The only other type of content change that would make me want to switch is if I couldn't access teaching and education resources but thankfully I doubt that would happen. I'm sure others would miss financial information and such if they closed it off but I really only need news.
3. The impact might be felt for a quarter or two but Google is a 'megalopolis' on its own, it has already branched out into plenty of other companies, its just bought, or will very soon, another company called AdMod for $750 million that puts ads on mobile phones. Maybe it wont need its traditional money pot after acquiring enough media companies and associated advertising companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/technology/companies/10google.html?hpw
In a way that's where I see Google going - it will make plenty of money regardless of news spiders, it will just change tack.
There are more Chinese internet users than there are people in the US - they have enough market there and I don't think Murdoch or Google are tough enough to change the Chinese, not with the internet they have :)
http://www.articlesnatch.com/blog/2009/07/20/more-chinese-internet-users-than-us-population/
Time will tell but even if Murdoch does get this done, it wont hurt Google for long, if at all.
There's a nice little article about him and this latest move here: http://mashable.com/2009/11/09/rupert-murdoch-google/
1. Yes, it would. I already use about 3 or 4 search engines on a regular basis but my first stop is news and weather. I would be more inclined to stay with a search engine that accesses the latest news from the original source - sure Google can spider places that use the news second-hand but it would change the way I searched. I don't think I'm a normal user though, so my change wouldn't be indicative of others
2. The only other type of content change that would make me want to switch is if I couldn't access teaching and education resources but thankfully I doubt that would happen. I'm sure others would miss financial information and such if they closed it off but I really only need news.
3. The impact might be felt for a quarter or two but Google is a 'megalopolis' on its own, it has already branched out into plenty of other companies, its just bought, or will very soon, another company called AdMod for $750 million that puts ads on mobile phones. Maybe it wont need its traditional money pot after acquiring enough media companies and associated advertising companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/technology/companies/10google.html?hpw
In a way that's where I see Google going - it will make plenty of money regardless of news spiders, it will just change tack.
There are more Chinese internet users than there are people in the US - they have enough market there and I don't think Murdoch or Google are tough enough to change the Chinese, not with the internet they have :)
http://www.articlesnatch.com/blog/2009/07/20/more-chinese-internet-users-than-us-population/
Time will tell but even if Murdoch does get this done, it wont hurt Google for long, if at all.
There's a nice little article about him and this latest move here: http://mashable.com/2009/11/09/rupert-murdoch-google/
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Would I personally switch to another search engine if Google didn't show results from NewsCorp, and another engine did? Not at all.
If one search engine had very few high quality sources, and another had very many, then I might consider changing. But for what to happen it would mean pretty much all of the likes of The New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Financial Times, Time, The Economist and the BBC joining in this move.
It's unlikely this would ever happen, as there are too many sources for the most important and popular stories. While the major newpapers might dream about all boycotting Google together, it's not going to stick, because any one newspaper would have a strong incentive to break ranks, and be the one that gets all the Google traffic the others have turned their backs on.
And some excellent sources like the BBC would probably never join in a move like that anyway.
Having said that, newspapers are worried about their survival and annoyed that Google makes money from their work without paying anything.
I'd see talk like this and moves in that direction more are negotiating tactics to bring Google into a deal rather than a serious long-term plan.
However, I want to see high quality journalism thriving, so if moves like this succeed in getting the likes of Google to share their revenue, I'd be glad to see that. Not that "high quality journalism" and NewsCorp are always one and the same thing.
If one search engine had very few high quality sources, and another had very many, then I might consider changing. But for what to happen it would mean pretty much all of the likes of The New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Financial Times, Time, The Economist and the BBC joining in this move.
It's unlikely this would ever happen, as there are too many sources for the most important and popular stories. While the major newpapers might dream about all boycotting Google together, it's not going to stick, because any one newspaper would have a strong incentive to break ranks, and be the one that gets all the Google traffic the others have turned their backs on.
And some excellent sources like the BBC would probably never join in a move like that anyway.
Having said that, newspapers are worried about their survival and annoyed that Google makes money from their work without paying anything.
I'd see talk like this and moves in that direction more are negotiating tactics to bring Google into a deal rather than a serious long-term plan.
However, I want to see high quality journalism thriving, so if moves like this succeed in getting the likes of Google to share their revenue, I'd be glad to see that. Not that "high quality journalism" and NewsCorp are always one and the same thing.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Murdoch is crazy.
He's cutting off all that potential search traffic. That hurts him.
Google will still have all the other news sites in their index. That hurts him.
The only way it could help him is if his content was somehow unique.
I'm all for creating an economic model that helps the news industry, but this does not help that happen.
Oh, and he's done so well with MySpace, too. Right?
MySpace started going down the tubes when they cut off their eco-system of niche businesses and told them they would not allow them to 'leech' off of their business any more.
Facebook came in a few months later and filled that vacuum, saying "we want you to make money off of Facebook". They created the Facebook API to make it easier, then they let the situation play out.
Within 12 months Facebook had surpassed MySpace in monthly uniques at about 58 million per month in December 2008.
Almost a year later now, as of Sept, 2009, Facebook is almost 125 million uniques, compared to MySpace's 50 million.
Genius!
He's cutting off all that potential search traffic. That hurts him.
Google will still have all the other news sites in their index. That hurts him.
The only way it could help him is if his content was somehow unique.
I'm all for creating an economic model that helps the news industry, but this does not help that happen.
Oh, and he's done so well with MySpace, too. Right?
MySpace started going down the tubes when they cut off their eco-system of niche businesses and told them they would not allow them to 'leech' off of their business any more.
Facebook came in a few months later and filled that vacuum, saying "we want you to make money off of Facebook". They created the Facebook API to make it easier, then they let the situation play out.
Within 12 months Facebook had surpassed MySpace in monthly uniques at about 58 million per month in December 2008.
Almost a year later now, as of Sept, 2009, Facebook is almost 125 million uniques, compared to MySpace's 50 million.
Genius!
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
1) It does not seem to me that Rupert Murdoch plans to let Bing or ANY search engine access the content on news and information sites that he owns. He said he would rather have loyal subscribers coming to his website every day, than have search engines send readers to his site briefly just for a certain bit of information.
I bet Murdoch tries to rely on subscribers, and falls flat on his face.
2) There is no exclusive content that would make me use one search engine over another. I switched to Google because it included Yahoo and Webcrawler and ten other search engines besides.
I would switch to another search engine that offered more content choices, but not fewer.
3) If the Rupert Murdochs (big dogs) of this world withdraw from the search engine community (ie the REAL Internet), it is just going to make independent sources of news (bloggers, local dogs) more prevalent. I welcome that.
In fact, maybe I hope the big dogs get out of the race. Then, maybe the local dogs who really know their own neighborhoods will actually be found in searches.
4) Search engines find first-hand content from all over the planet. Mr. Murdoch is grossly mistaken when he says no one can cover the world like his news companies do. Bloggers ARE the world. Mr. Murdoch has another think coming.
Bill Gates and IBM woke up and smelled the Java that the Internet was brewing -- but barely in time to save their businesses. Mr. Murdoch is burying his head in the sand and pretending the real Internet isn't there. He is being an idiot.
I bet Murdoch tries to rely on subscribers, and falls flat on his face.
2) There is no exclusive content that would make me use one search engine over another. I switched to Google because it included Yahoo and Webcrawler and ten other search engines besides.
I would switch to another search engine that offered more content choices, but not fewer.
3) If the Rupert Murdochs (big dogs) of this world withdraw from the search engine community (ie the REAL Internet), it is just going to make independent sources of news (bloggers, local dogs) more prevalent. I welcome that.
In fact, maybe I hope the big dogs get out of the race. Then, maybe the local dogs who really know their own neighborhoods will actually be found in searches.
4) Search engines find first-hand content from all over the planet. Mr. Murdoch is grossly mistaken when he says no one can cover the world like his news companies do. Bloggers ARE the world. Mr. Murdoch has another think coming.
Bill Gates and IBM woke up and smelled the Java that the Internet was brewing -- but barely in time to save their businesses. Mr. Murdoch is burying his head in the sand and pretending the real Internet isn't there. He is being an idiot.
source(s):
This is an opinion question.
This is an opinion question.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I think Rupert Murdochs being an idiot.
1. Rupert is using flawed logic on excerpts. I don't read excerpts and decide I read enough. I use excerpts to tell me if a link is what I want to read. No excerpt guarantees I won't follow a link.
2. charging for content sounds a lot like the AOL walled garden that is a failed model. It failed for AOL and I don't see newscorp providing any content that can't be gotten elsewhere. at a minimum it can be bit torrented.
1. Rupert is using flawed logic on excerpts. I don't read excerpts and decide I read enough. I use excerpts to tell me if a link is what I want to read. No excerpt guarantees I won't follow a link.
2. charging for content sounds a lot like the AOL walled garden that is a failed model. It failed for AOL and I don't see newscorp providing any content that can't be gotten elsewhere. at a minimum it can be bit torrented.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Essentially, Murdoch's points are my own. I am not a consumer of News Corp content, so for me, the change to remove content from Google would be meaningless. If I search for something, I just want a result - I won't be paying for his products to get an answer.
In that sense, Murdoch makes a good point. The flaw is just that he expects to make money off of converting to this model, which could take a number of years of work.
There are no properties that I can think of that would make me switch search engines either. When I look for information, I'm more likely looking for specialized info or blog results.
Otherwise, I don't see such a thing as a Google killer yet. I honestly don't care though, either. I'll use the most convenient search engine at the time. I also don't see search engines paying for content any time soon - it would be an unmanageable solution. The only alternative would be a search engine that only works with companies that sign up for it, but we appear to be a long way away from a day when that business model makes sense.
In that sense, Murdoch makes a good point. The flaw is just that he expects to make money off of converting to this model, which could take a number of years of work.
There are no properties that I can think of that would make me switch search engines either. When I look for information, I'm more likely looking for specialized info or blog results.
Otherwise, I don't see such a thing as a Google killer yet. I honestly don't care though, either. I'll use the most convenient search engine at the time. I also don't see search engines paying for content any time soon - it would be an unmanageable solution. The only alternative would be a search engine that only works with companies that sign up for it, but we appear to be a long way away from a day when that business model makes sense.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Rupert Murdoch's action to ban Google is counterproductive, he wants us to think that what we read in the net should be charged. By his actuation, he only shows that he has not gained the wisdom of the beauty of surfing the net free of charge despite his old age.
1. If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, I will not switch over because search results and content would still be the same.
2. No exclusive content can make me switch over, because free content contains the same information with exclusive content.
3. In overall sense, I think such decision by Murdoch will not impact much on Google because the company has gone through several competitions including recently the deal between Yahoo and Microsoft. Furthermore, Google is a dynamic company, constantly evolving as the web is evolving.
4. As I look ahead in a few years, I don't think search engine will pay for content en mass because free content is always available and people who use the net will not pay for content which they can find from other sources.
1. If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, I will not switch over because search results and content would still be the same.
2. No exclusive content can make me switch over, because free content contains the same information with exclusive content.
3. In overall sense, I think such decision by Murdoch will not impact much on Google because the company has gone through several competitions including recently the deal between Yahoo and Microsoft. Furthermore, Google is a dynamic company, constantly evolving as the web is evolving.
4. As I look ahead in a few years, I don't think search engine will pay for content en mass because free content is always available and people who use the net will not pay for content which they can find from other sources.
source(s):
Own opinion.
Own opinion.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
haha, lon looks like his mahalo cartoon pic! cool!
Rupert Murdoch should be more concerned about his content surviving at all and not trying to bring down the giant that is Google.
Newspapers (especially) and TV are in trouble. How will taking his content off Google help him when 78% of searches are via Google? Maybe moving to "Bing" will move 1% of the population to Bing, but meanwhile his traffic and revenue would plummet.
It's like when the record companies tried to stop music sharing on the internet... forcing people to pay 20 bucks for a CD with one track they like on it. Now look where these companies are... bankrupt.
Rupert Murdoch should be more concerned about his content surviving at all and not trying to bring down the giant that is Google.
Newspapers (especially) and TV are in trouble. How will taking his content off Google help him when 78% of searches are via Google? Maybe moving to "Bing" will move 1% of the population to Bing, but meanwhile his traffic and revenue would plummet.
It's like when the record companies tried to stop music sharing on the internet... forcing people to pay 20 bucks for a CD with one track they like on it. Now look where these companies are... bankrupt.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I hope that Google is able to tell Murdoch to take his bal and go home without it providing them with a significant problem. Personally, I believe the problem witht he Fourth Estate began when men like Joseph Pulitizer and William Randolph Hearst decided that the news should be big business instead of being about informing the public
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html
The simple truth is that when the news and access to it is denied in the interest of making money, freedom of the press suffers greatly. While I understand that Murdoch is not interest in protecting freedom, and heck neither is Google, I hope that the courts and publoic opinion will strive to protect the free flow of information on the web.
1) If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, would that make you more likely to switch over?
Heck no. While I realize internationally News Corp is more than just Fox News, I can find my biased news from ABC or NBC just as easily as from News Corp. If I could not get any news feed from Google then I might be looking for a new search engine.
(2) If not, what kinds of exclusive content WOULD make you switch over to Bing or another alternative from Google. ''The New York Times''? ''Newsweek''? MSNBC?
I think exclusive content to a search engine completely destroys the usefulness of all search engines and I would be unlikely to support any search engine that promotes the restriction of information. If Bing, for instance, is negotiating contracts to get me exclusive access to News Corp, what other contracts are they negotiating to determine what I can and can't find via the search engine. I alsready find I need to use several seach engines when I want unbiased information. Exclusive content agreements would make me much more suspicious of the content provider.
(3) How much would such a decision impact Google overall, in your estimation? Is this a serious concern for the company? Could this make a different search engine that was willing to pay for news or other kinds of content into a "Google killer"?
Information on the web is so ubiquitous that I'm not certain that Murdoch could enforce his threat. Perhaps he could make his websites not accessible to Google spiders, but what about subsidiaries or clients who link to his site. As an online writer, I've discovered that no matter how diligent you are, sites all over the world will link to your content or steal it wholesale within hours of the time you post it. I'm am certain that for a content giant like News Corp, there is no real way to protect themselves from sites that link to theirs that are indexed by Google. In short, I don't think Murdoch can do it and anyone who pays his ransom for his information is simply costing themselves money.
(4) Look ahead a few years. Do you think search engines will start paying for content en masse?
No, for all the reasons stated above. I don't think individual sites have the technology to lock Google out while still eltting their customers in. So, either people like Murdoch will need to go to totally private systems which cut their own throats or they will be indexed in search engines.
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html
The simple truth is that when the news and access to it is denied in the interest of making money, freedom of the press suffers greatly. While I understand that Murdoch is not interest in protecting freedom, and heck neither is Google, I hope that the courts and publoic opinion will strive to protect the free flow of information on the web.
1) If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, would that make you more likely to switch over?
Heck no. While I realize internationally News Corp is more than just Fox News, I can find my biased news from ABC or NBC just as easily as from News Corp. If I could not get any news feed from Google then I might be looking for a new search engine.
(2) If not, what kinds of exclusive content WOULD make you switch over to Bing or another alternative from Google. ''The New York Times''? ''Newsweek''? MSNBC?
I think exclusive content to a search engine completely destroys the usefulness of all search engines and I would be unlikely to support any search engine that promotes the restriction of information. If Bing, for instance, is negotiating contracts to get me exclusive access to News Corp, what other contracts are they negotiating to determine what I can and can't find via the search engine. I alsready find I need to use several seach engines when I want unbiased information. Exclusive content agreements would make me much more suspicious of the content provider.
(3) How much would such a decision impact Google overall, in your estimation? Is this a serious concern for the company? Could this make a different search engine that was willing to pay for news or other kinds of content into a "Google killer"?
Information on the web is so ubiquitous that I'm not certain that Murdoch could enforce his threat. Perhaps he could make his websites not accessible to Google spiders, but what about subsidiaries or clients who link to his site. As an online writer, I've discovered that no matter how diligent you are, sites all over the world will link to your content or steal it wholesale within hours of the time you post it. I'm am certain that for a content giant like News Corp, there is no real way to protect themselves from sites that link to theirs that are indexed by Google. In short, I don't think Murdoch can do it and anyone who pays his ransom for his information is simply costing themselves money.
(4) Look ahead a few years. Do you think search engines will start paying for content en masse?
No, for all the reasons stated above. I don't think individual sites have the technology to lock Google out while still eltting their customers in. So, either people like Murdoch will need to go to totally private systems which cut their own throats or they will be indexed in search engines.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
(1) If a search engine other than Google (such as Microsoft's Bing) had access to News Corp. content, and Google did not, would that make you more likely to switch over?
Obviously if the search indexes were not available, one would have to use whatever search engine was available. If I were looking for specific information that I knew was contained in their resources, I would use the search engine that had the highest chance of yielding useful results.
(2) If not, what kinds of exclusive content WOULD make you switch over to Bing or another alternative from Google. ''The New York Times''? ''Newsweek''? MSNBC?
Even if 1000 newspapers switched over to using Bing or other alternatives exclusively, I would still use multiple engines and search sources to compile research. Obviously I would need to use the appropriate engine for the appropriate news source.
(3) How much would such a decision impact Google overall, in your estimation? Is this a serious concern for the company? Could this make a different search engine that was willing to pay for news or other kinds of content into a "Google killer"?
I think this is a serious concern for Google in the long run. At some point, this situation could reach critical mass where the majority of the new content creators decide to switch to a single search engine to consolidate their efforts. In that type of market space, Google will need to invest heavily to woo content creators back over to it's side.
(4) Look ahead a few years. Do you think search engines will start paying for content en masse?
I honestly don't think this type of model will work in the long run. The revenue required to pay for extensive content will likely outweigh the expected incoming revenue. In the end it hurts the concept of free information exchange as well as devalues the content itself. The content will end up becoming so cheap to purchase that it's no longer viable to pay to create quality content.
Obviously if the search indexes were not available, one would have to use whatever search engine was available. If I were looking for specific information that I knew was contained in their resources, I would use the search engine that had the highest chance of yielding useful results.
(2) If not, what kinds of exclusive content WOULD make you switch over to Bing or another alternative from Google. ''The New York Times''? ''Newsweek''? MSNBC?
Even if 1000 newspapers switched over to using Bing or other alternatives exclusively, I would still use multiple engines and search sources to compile research. Obviously I would need to use the appropriate engine for the appropriate news source.
(3) How much would such a decision impact Google overall, in your estimation? Is this a serious concern for the company? Could this make a different search engine that was willing to pay for news or other kinds of content into a "Google killer"?
I think this is a serious concern for Google in the long run. At some point, this situation could reach critical mass where the majority of the new content creators decide to switch to a single search engine to consolidate their efforts. In that type of market space, Google will need to invest heavily to woo content creators back over to it's side.
(4) Look ahead a few years. Do you think search engines will start paying for content en masse?
I honestly don't think this type of model will work in the long run. The revenue required to pay for extensive content will likely outweigh the expected incoming revenue. In the end it hurts the concept of free information exchange as well as devalues the content itself. The content will end up becoming so cheap to purchase that it's no longer viable to pay to create quality content.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Competition!
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Thanks for participating and welcome to Mahalo Answers.
I voted unhelpful here because I'd like to hear a bit more of a detailed response. I'm not sure I understand what you mean just by the word "competition!" At Mahalo Answers, we really try to get people to provide the MOST well-sourced and original information possible.
Report Abuse
