Thursday, July 24, 2008

Five tech blogs you should have on your list

A while back Mark Cuban, tech entrepreneur and owner of the
Dallas Mavericks basketball team, blogged about his two favourite
technology magazines - one was about the broadband marketplace while
the other was the title Communications Technology .

The thing I like most about this blog entry was that I'd never
heard of either site, and given that the recommendation came from Cuban,
who blogs at http://www.blogmaverick.com, and is himself a compelling
read, I (rightly) figured they'd be worth adding to my reading list.

Not that I needed any more reading sources - my RSS reader
(if a blog/web site doesn't offer an RSS feed these days, I simply don't
read it) has over 100 feeds and normally a backlog of articles in the
thousands. As such, I'm in the process of culling my reading list to
something of more manageable proportions. Before I do that, however, I
thought I'd offer my own recommendations. Herewith, then, are five of my
favourite tech blogs and information sources, in no particular order.

Techdirt

There are a whole bunch of players that churn out scores of
stories per day via a team of reporters, the online equivalent of the
quickly-fading IT trade press. They all tend to cover the same stories,
all reasonably well, so you really only need one of these on your list.
Some of the sites in this category include Om Malik's GigaOM, The
Register, Ars Technica and Tech Crunch. However, the one that I tend to
use most is Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com), mainly because I find it
provides more analysis and context to its stories. The Register would be
a candidate, especially as it's not US-centric like the others, but it's
not at all friendly towards RSS readers so doesn't make the list.

O'Reilly radar.

The telco 2.0 blog.

Susan Crawford's blog.

Henry Blodget's www.alleyinsider.com.

O'Reilly radar

Many will have heard of O'Reilly through its books and
conferences and may also be aware that founder Tim O'Reilly is credited
with coining the term "Web 2.0". As you'd expect, the publishing company
has a great online presence and practices what it preaches when it comes
to social networking and blogging. While there are numerous blogs
available on its site, the one I turn to most is its Radar blog (found
at radar.oreilly.com), which has a range of contributors and is
especially strong on its coverage of Web 2.0, social networking themes
and emerging technologies. In their own words, "we draw from the wisdom
of the alpha geeks in our midst, paying attention to what's interesting
to them, amplifying these weak signals, and seeing where they fit into
the innovation ecology."

Telco 2.0

If you want insights into future telco business models, then
go no further than the Telco 2.0 blog (http://www.telco2.net/blog),
which is produced by research and analysis firm STL Partners. Their
Telco 2.0 initiative aims to look at how the telecom industry can make
money in an IP world and includes regular brainstorming sessions and
conferences around the same theme. While there are some obvious plugs
for the conferences and research products, there's also a lot of good
information and tidbits from their research results as well as
commentary on telco news. Incidentally, I came across this site thanks
to the Telepocalypse.net blog of Martin Geddes, who is now part of STL
Partners. While Telepocalypse is not updated as often as it was in the
past, it's still worth a read.

Scrawford.net

If policy and regulatory matters matter, then try Susan
Crawford's blog at scrawford.net. Crawford is on the ICANN board of
directors and also teaches Internet and communications law at Yale Law
School. Typical topics on the Crawford beat include an in-depth look at
the 700MHz spectrum auctions in the US; discussions around network
neutrality; goings-on at ICANN and the implications of
filtering/blocking. It's telecom regulatory issues through the rigorous
mind of a legal practitioner.

Silicon Alley Insider Remember Henry Blodget? He was the
high-flying securities analyst at Merrill Lynch during the heady days
before the dot-com crash who later was charged with securities fraud
when things went pair-shaped. Whatever you think of the guy, he's
certainly abreast of what's happening in the digital world and you can
now catch up with his regular analysis at Silicon Alley Insider. Blodget
is one of the three founders of the site/blog, which was started last
year and seems to be expanding rapidly, with commentators from the likes
of Forbes and Variety added to the roster. It's a site that goes well
beyond straight news and a must-have on any high-tech reading list.
-GEOF LONG

Yahoo! succumbs to the power of Google

The firm's advertising tie-up wounds Microsoft but hurts its
own future too, says John Naughton

Truly, you couldn't make it up - unless perhaps you were a
script consultant for a soap opera. Here's the plot line so far:
Microsoft, a successful but ageing computer company with a vast deposit
account, decides it needs an attractive acquisition to enable it to keep
up with the younger - Web 2.0 - generation. So it makes a generous offer
to Yahoo!, a fashionable but faltering younger company. But Yahoo!
doesn't want to be ravaged by an older corporation and embarks on all
kinds of crazy schemes to repulse its offer, including making overtures
to Google, the new boy on the block.

Microsoft is initially incredulous, then mad as hell, then
conciliatory. But Yahoo! is implacably hostile, so Microsoft retreats to
bide its time. This looks like a smart strategy, because Carl Icahn,
American capitalism's most awkward billionaire, spots an opportunity and
starts buying up Yahoo! shares with the intention of unseating the
board, installing his own stooges and selling the company to Microsoft.

Since Icahn has eaten other corporate boards for breakfast, it
would be foolish to underestimate him. Especially as he's claiming that
Yahoo!'s standoffishness has destroyed 'shareholder value'. Yahoo!'s
leadership then looks for ways to undermine his campaign and ensure a
Microsoft-free future. Since the date with Google seemed to go okay,
they reason, why not ask them for a live-in partnership? Not a
conventional marriage, you understand, but still the kind of
relationship that makes you feel good at the end of a long day in the
markets. Google may be awkward in an adolescent way, but it's fabulously
rich and successful. And it scares Microsoft to death.

Last week's episode involved Yahoo! and Google signing their
prenuptials. This allows Yahoo! to run ads supplied by Google alongside
Yahoo!'s search results and on some of its web properties in the United
States and Canada. The agreement is non-exclusive, giving Yahoo! the
ability to display paid search results from Google, other companies, and
Yahoo!'s own Panama system. The two companies also declared their
intentions to make their instant messaging systems' inter-operable', or
capable of communicating with one another.

Google went to some pains to emphasise the non-exclusive
nature of the arrangement. 'We are proud of the advertising technologies
we have built,' its blog declared, 'which show users a relevant ad
whether they are searching for a specific item or browsing the internet.
This arrangement extends those benefits to Yahoo! and its many users,
advertisers and publisher partners. We currently provide similar
services to sites like AOL and Ask.com, as well as many other partners.'

This verbiage about non-exclusivity is clearly aimed at
anti-trust regulators in Washington, who may now take a much closer
interest in Google. Thus the two partners went to great lengths to point
out that the arrangement was not a merger; that Yahoo! would continue to
operate a search engine; that Yahoo! was free to enter into
relationships with others; that the deal would neither increase Google's
share of web searches nor allow it to raise search prices for advertisers.

But this is really a smokescreen. The fact is that Yahoo! has
played groupie to Google's Mick Jagger. The extent of its desperation
was revealed in its SEC filing, which revealed that the deal included an
$83m escape clause for Google. It has a guarantee of placing at least
$83m worth of ads through Yahoo on a rolling four-month basis, or it can
walk away. As one commentator put it, 'that's a pretty tiny threshold,
considering that Yahoo's quarterly US revenues are $1.3bn. The amount
comes to about 1 per cent of Yahoo's total projected revenues for 2008.'

The SEC filing also contains this mysterious clause: 'If the
services agreement is terminated by either party within 24 months of the
effective date as a result of a change in control of Yahoo! (other than
a change in control triggered only by Microsoft), Yahoo! is required to
pay to Google the sum of $250,000,000.'

What does it all mean? The most plausible conclusion is that
Yahoo! has basically handed the search-based advertising business to
Google. Or, as TechCrunch's Michael Arrington put it: 'Yahoo!'s hatred
of Microsoft runs so deep that they were actually, in the end, willing
to destroy the future of their company just to keep it independent for a
short while longer. They've ignored the wishes of their shareholders,
employees and many now former key employees in killing that deal.'

The deal is dismal news for Microsoft, whose bid for Yahoo!
triggered this chain of events and whose chances of taking on Google in
search-based advertising are now dimmer than ever. There was no
guarantee that a Microsoft-owned Yahoo! would have become a serious
competitor for Google, but at least it would have stood a fighting
chance. Now Microsoft's best bet is to make a case to the Feds about the
dangers of a Google monopoly. Who said irony was dead?