And the iPad blinders are still in place

Intel CEO says ‘simplistic’ Apple TV is more for ‘mom,’ sees Google TV devices coming this month
[Via MacDailyNews]

“Intel chief Paul Otellini in an interview today confirmed that the first Google TV devices should start shipping in September.

“He also tried to downplay the significance of losing the new Apple TV as a possible device now that it uses an ARM-based chip rather than Intel’s Pentium M,” Electronista reports. “Otellini felt that Jobs took a ‘step backward’ by making the device less of a computer-like device. Google TV would be better since it was the ‘full Internet’ melded with traditional TV.”

[More]

This is so similar to what we heard about the iPad – too simple, can’t match a netbook, who would want one. Seems to me there are a lot of ‘moms’ buying them. There are estimates that over 28 million iPads will be sold next year, cutting into the low end PC market substantially.

Now we have a guy saying that moms will like the AppleTV but people rally interested in more – men?– would get the Google TV.

I think people are going to be surprised how many ‘moms’ there are. For $99, this device will provide an avenue to see video that will be just too simple to accomplish to ignore.

Besides, Apple has about 4 years of understanding of the needs and capabilities of this market. THey took that information and provided something that will sell – not another computer to hook up, no storage, etc.

How much practical research does Google have on this? The fact that Google admits that they did no research to see what effect to the bottom line completely changing their search pages does not bode well.

$15 billion ain’t chicken feed

by hagwall

How Apple helped create a brand-new $15 billion business with AirPlay
[Via MacDailyNews]

“Perhaps you didn’t see it, but Apple last week helped create a brand-new $15 billion business when it introduced its new AirPlay music streaming system, which it is licensing to third party developers,” Jonny Evans reports for Computerworld.

[More]

How many companies create a brand new $15 billion industry for others to use? Think of having car audio/video that is streamed wirelessly from your device instead of attaching wires to the dashboard. (While I do this now by using a small radio transmitter but it is a kluge and I have to change the FM channel all the time to move off of powerful stations.)

So, you will be able to carry your content anywhere and play it there. How about hotel rooms which will have devices that play your music or videos for you? How about video glasses that stream the video from your iPhone? Each kid can have their own music being played for them anywhere they go. Or speakers around the house that stream music as you move between then?

Lots of potential here to make it all seamless.

Google Instant: an example of when servicing the customer could hurt the company

Analysis: Google Sets Major Relaunch Of Search Yet Doesn’t Measure Effect On Advertising
[Via Xeni @ Blogging.la]

The launch of “Google Instant” represents the single largest change to Google’s search services in its history. “For the first time search is interactive,” said Othar Hansson, a senior Google engineer.

The company said it performed extensive studies of users and how they interact with Google Instant plus extensive eye-tracking studies. They all showed a much improved user experience and a lot less time spent searching for the right page.

Google says it now has 1 billion users per week and that the time saved by users worldwide from using Google Instant is 11 hours per second. That’s the equivalent of 350 million hours of user time per year, said Marissa Mayer, VP of Search Products and User Experience.

During the question and answer part of the launch, the Google team could offer no data on how the change would impact its advertising business beyond saying that what’s best for the user is usually best for the advertiser.

This is shocking. Google makes a major change to the search service and the user experience — yet has no measurement on how that impacts click rates on its adverts!

Let me say this again: Google makes a major change to the search service and the user experience — yet has no measurement on how that impacts click rates on its adverts!

[More]

It may save customers time for searching but that is less time that people see Google’s ads and click on them. Google’s whole business model is based on ad clicks yet it has no way of knowing what this really basic change in its service will do to its revenues?

That is a big Wow but also shows that Google’s revenue model is really at cross purposes to what its users want. They want to find the right page as quickly as possible. But Google wants them to click on ads, which means the users must be slowed down somewhat.

As Xeni states:

It seems that the company is divided between those working on improving the search experience and the rest of the company that is trying to sell advertising. And there appears to be no communication between the two sides.

If I were a GOOG shareholder I’d be very concerned that the effectiveness of Google’s advertising has been compromised. At the very least, as a shareholder, I would want to know that Google’s advertising business has not been compromised by this major change in serving search results.

When it comes down to the shareholders or the customers, the shareholders have to win, it is the law. Any public company has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders not to the customers.

It’ll be interesting to see this played out. But how can they have no idea how this would effect ad revenues. Perhaps they will just dump it if there is any effect, claiming some other reason for dumping it of course.

Frankly, I hate it because, as far as I can tell, it only shows 10 results at a time. I like to see many more results than that. I hate clicking through more and more pages. Perhaps that is their goal. If I have to click through 5 more pages I see 4 more ads than if I simply have 50 results posted per page.