New Google Tool Builds Hype

...or leaks from the Google office, were left to industry expert speculation to predict what the new offering will deliver.

The general consensus is that the new tool will be battling in the highly competitive microblogging arena. Think Twitter and Facebook Status Updates.

Heres what the industrys heavyweights have to say on the impending release:

• Wall Street Journal:

"Google Inc. is taking a swipe at Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. with a new feature that makes it easier for users of Gmail to view media and status updates shared online by their friends."

• Techcrunch:

"Google is planning to unveil a broad new social product on Tuesday that will integrate with at least two existing Google products. Some details emerged earlier today on the Wall Street Journal (a new feature that makes it easier and faster for users of Gmail to view media and status updates), but our understanding is that the product goes well beyond a Gmail integration."

• Cnet:

"Gmail users can already set their status within the service, but Google plans to expand that into a stream of status updates found in services like Facebook and Twitter,"

• Mashable:

" the new features could be thought of more like a TweetDeck or Seesmic , looking to provide an aggregate view of your friends social media activities along with the ability to push status updates to the services you use from inside of Gmail. If not, it could be thought of as a major competitor to Twitter andFacebook as Gmail looks to covert its millions of e-mail users into adherents to a whole new breed of social media service."

So I guess well find out in a few hours whether the speculation and rumors deliver or whether Google have actually got something different in store.

I really like the concept of aggregating all your streams into one tool. Given my already heavy dependency on Gmail " it could be quite useful to bring all social streams into Gmail too.

The important question is how its executed. The last thing any Gmail user wants is more noise and distraction in their inboxes.

What do you think?

Comments

Tag: Google Tool

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

Google Super Bowl Ad

...was a smart move and one that was done in typical Google fashion: low cost, no fanfare (except for jittery industry types) and strong impact.

The "ad" has been on YouTube for several months so its not like Google ran out and threw together a Super Bowl ad and spent gazillions on it. It was essentially already out there. On Googles official blog, Eric Schmidt posted the following

" If you watched the Super Bowl this evening youll have seen a video from Google called Parisian Love. In fact you might have watched it before, because its been on YouTube for over three months. We didnt set out to do a Super Bowl ad, or even a TV ad for search. Our goal was simply to create a series of short online videos about our products and our users, and how they interact. But we liked this video so much, and its had such a positive reaction on YouTube, that we decided to share it with a wider audience."

If you like it too, we hope youll watch the others. Enjoy.

Heres the ad in case you missed it:



Now that was the entire post and quite honestly, I dont get the surprise or the issue. Considering Googles advertising budget can probably take a $3 million hit pretty easily (do they even budget for marketing ?). Couple that with no other search ads and you have a simple opportunity to win kudos for an ad that tells just what people use the search engine for: their life.

Hats off to Google. I hope they advertise more because maybe people can take the hint that simple is better, demeaning any mans capability to think is lame and the whole idea of seeing regular people in their underwear will not sell product (who did those stupid ads anyway?). Thank God the game was a good one because the rest of the show wasnt anything to really talk about.

Comments

Tag: Google Super Bowl Ad

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

]]> searchnewz Daily Wrap-up http://www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/sn-2-20100205GoogleCouldBeHijackingYourTraffic.html Google has long been an advocate of "build great content"; however, in reality, it's turning into "build great content and if we like it we'll take it from you, put it on our pages, and deprive you of that traffic. Without compensation." Strong accusations, sure, but I'm willing to step up to the plate, put my money where my mouth is, and show you how it's being done.

Google Could Be Hijacking You

Lets say you live in the Miami area or are thinking of taking a vacation there. You might want to bring your family to the Miami Seaquarium, and it might be a good idea to find out exactly where they are and what hours they are open. So what do you do? Fire up your browser, head on over to Google, and search for -seaquarium miami-. You should get a result thats something like this:

So whats the problem? First of all, Google gives away the hours right in the SERP. Theres no need for the people to visit the website. While I dont know for a fact that traffic growth is a success metric for the Miami Seaquarium, I think its a safe assumption. By denying the Miami Seaquarium that traffic they deny them the opportunity to upsell visitors to the upcoming aquarium programs. Now Googlers might counter by saying that its all about providing a better user experience. Maybe at the next conference Ill improve the movie going experience of some Googlers by telling them the surprise ending of the latest movie before they see it. I mean, I saved them money and two hours of their time, right? Thats gotta be a better user experience.

See that review and link to more information? Click either of those and, instead of being taken to the Miami Seaqurium website, youre taken to the Google map listing page. Google stole the information they wanted from the Miami Seaqurium, hijacked the traffic for themselves, and put them on a page with contextual advertising that puts more money in Google s pockets. The only person that gets a better user experience out of that is someone whose paycheck directly results from that advertising. Really this is nothing more than a scraper adsense website designed to hijack traffic away from place it should be going. Because Google controls the SERPs they make sure they are at the top, guaranteeing clicks, traffic, and revenue from that page.

This is almost the exact behavior I described in my debate with Danny Sullivan a few weeks ago on Sphinn. I stand by my position that giving Google the copyright to the information for free right out of the gate is the same as giving them permission to steal and develop a money making operation based on your labors without giving you any of the action.

Want another example of Google stealing? Sure, here we go

Lets say I decide I want to go to nice steakhouse for dinner. I know theres a Bryant & Cooper here on Long Island. I wonder if its still any good, so I type in -bryant & cooper steakhouse long island reviews-. Heres what I get:

Comments

Tag: Google stealing traffic

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

]]> searchnewz Daily Wrap-up http://www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/sn-2-20100204HackersUsingRealTimeandTraditionalSearch.html ...to Spread Malicious Content. As an SEO expert it can be difficult trying to keep up with and overtake competition, and that's just factoring in legitimate rival sites. According to a new report from Websense, hackers are improving SEO tactics and relying on greater real time search to spread their content to victims.

Hack the Planet

...Websense refers to this problem as: SEO Poisoning Attacks. The gist of the tactic is hackers manipulate search engine results to allow their 'poisoned' links to appear higher on result pages. Hackers are able to manipulate the results by trending up on hot keywords; Websense referenced these three in particular from 2009: MTV VMA awards, Google Wave invites, and Labor Day sales.

According to Websense's data, 13.7% of the sites/links on Google's hot/trending topics were of malicious intent. The future isn't looking any brighter, as they're projecting the problem to increase going into 2010.

An even greater problem than traditional search is the newly popular, 'real time results'. Gathered from social media platforms, these sites are a hotbed for malicious content. Twitter has been especially susceptible to spam tweets, and some even containing malware. This leads to problems in real time search, as there's no way to decide what's malware and what isn't. With Bing, Yahoo, and Google all jumping onto the real time search bandwagon, this is a problem which could pick up steam in 2010.

Even for reputable sites, malware is a problem. According to Websense, 71% of the malicious code out on the web was attached to already existing, well known sites. Hackers have also blended various forms of attack, to fool people easier. Malicious 'Free PC Scans' caught on during the second half of 2009. These programs would offer free scans, and allow you to purchase solutions for cleanup. What was really happening is the users were being linked to malicious sites where they were provided hackers credit card information. One of the most popular blended attacks occurred with 'Britney Murphy death' searches, that provided links to these fake scanning services.

I know all the SEO experts reading this are cringing at the idea of their craft being used to spread malware garbage across the internet. What we can learn from the situation is to continually be on our toes. Continued maintenance of websites, along with keyword upkeep can still go along way in combating these SEO poison attacks.

Good luck out there in 2010.

Tag: hackers, SEO

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

Social Search SERPS

... any websites associated with your profile, when you are logged into that profile, your SERPs may be affected by this new change. Google opted everyone in by default, so theres no way to turn it off (other than by signing out or using anonymous browsing). Google has decided to ignore the &pws=0 parameter flag that they ignore for personalized search, a decision I really hope they consider changing.

Google is looking at the profiles associated with you and crawling who you are friends or associated with. Google uses that information combined with XFN tagging to decide what other results to show with your results. IMHO this is what the caffeine update is really all about. Its about associating social information and real time social activity with your searches and incorporating this information to hopefully produce a better result.

To show you how different the results can be, here are three different sample keywords from two different people:

-Michael Gray-

-Las Vegas-

-las Vegas Hotels-

Depending on how much overlap there is between your social graph (ie the people you friend on social websites) you may have similar or completely different results. Its highly unlikely that two people will have identical results, unless they work at the same company and have similar social graph (an unintended consequence that will flummox search agencies to be sure).

Ive said this many times in the past: Google considers personalized search part of their POD, and its a strategic goal for them from the top down. Like it or no,t its something youre going to have to come to terms with. People are getting different personalized results and now they have the possibility of getting two additional personalized results based upon what their friends are doing/saying online.

In my opinion if you arent involved in social media at this point you are putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage. Youre missing out on the opportunity to get yourself a SERP listing at the lower part of the page. To be honest I havent seen enough searches to know whether, if you have an organic listing above, you might be locked out of a second listing below. However if you get a lot of social engagements that get talked about, shared, or retweeted by other people, that will definitely show up, giving you a second slot.

If youve been sitting on the fence waiting to get involved in social media now is the time. However this sword has a double edged aspect. To get the most out of your efforts youll need to get involved and stay involved. Making a few half-hearted attempts isnt going to bring you any results. Getting involved in social media may not be easy, but neither is balancing one one leg when youre 8 months pregnant while performing wudang double sword maneuvers. But both can be done if you make it a priority and commit to making it work for you.

Comments

Tag: Google Social Search, SERPS

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

]]> searchnewz Daily Wrap-up http://www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/sn-2-20100202GoogleWarswithAppleandFacebook.html I've now heard from three separate Google employees that Google will release a news feed that will compete with Facebook and Twitter. I expect to see a demo at Google's IO conference in April. For hints at what's coming you MUST look at two foundation-level services: 1. Google Profiles. Google is asking you to voluntarily add all sorts...

Google Wars with Apple and Facebook

... of information about yourself. So far Ive told it more than Ive told Facebook or Twitter, heres my Google Profile. Why? Because its available to all of you and this data gets added all sorts of places in the Google ecosystem. It shows up on searches for my name at the bottom of the page, for instance.

2. Googles Social Circles Connections. This just turned on last week but most people in the industry have missed the importance of whats here. First, now you can see that Google is crawling not just its own profile info, but the networks were building in Twitter, FriendFeed, Digg, Flickr, LinkedIn, Last.fm, and other social networks. You cant see it, but the list its showing me is yards long. If youve filled in your Google Profile info, like I have, it knows a TON about you. If youve followed me on Google Chat (Im at scobleizer@gmail.com if you want to follow me) or Twitter or FriendFeed youll see my entry show up there.

What is next? Well, that Google Profile page is looking pretty lame, isnt it? What if Google added a news feed? What if they made an even better rolodex than the ones available anywhere else? Remember what happened when I got the Google Nexus One phone? I entered my email address and all my contacts instantly appeared. Oh, yeah, you didnt realize that Google was keeping all your contacts, did you?

You can see the battle being drawn right in front of you. This is why I believe FriendFeed decided to sell to Facebook. They knew this war was coming and they didnt stand a chance against this epic decade-long battle that is just beginning between Google and Facebook.

But thats just one front. Whats the other front?

Look at Techmeme right now. Whats the top story? One where Techcrunch is saying that Apple has another tablet coming. I love that everyone is giving Techcrunch heck for that, but Ive heard these rumors too. But look further and youll find this article where Techcrunch is pointing to a Google site that has a first taste of Google Chrome OS-based Tablet PCs.

Ive been hearing these rumors from friends in Asia who are working on a variety of machines for Googles new OS. Both netbook-style machines, which Steve Jobs says are crappy, but also slates that compete head on with the iPad.

Google is arrogant enough to take on Apple and Facebook in the same year.

So, who will come out ahead in this war? Believe it or not, Apple and Facebook will actually get stronger during this fight.

Already look at the PR weve been hearing the past month. Its been nothing but Apple and Google. Apple and Google. Apple and Google.

Wheres Microsoft? Wheres Nokia? Wheres RIM? Wheres Twitter? Wheres LinkedIn? These are the losers if the battle keeps being framed by Apple and Google and Google and Facebook.

But who else wins? Developers, developers, developers, developers. Why? Because Im hearing rumors that Twitter is trying to charge developers for access to its full-firehose feed. How much? I cant yet say because I havent confirmed the figures with Twitter but lets just say that the figures Im hearing are BIG. Six to eight figures big depending on the size of the company.

Now, what if Google turns on a microblogging/status message system like Facebook or Twitter have (already done on Google Chat, but I was thinking more like what Facebook looks like)? What happens if they also open up an application store (oh, already done on Android, or as they announced yesterday for business apps)? What happens if they give away access to these APIs for free instead of trying to charge developers tons of money?

Boom, boom, boom. Developers love having these kinds of platforms in competition to keep access up and pricing down.

How can Microsoft get noticed enough to be considered part of this war?

Steve Ballmer has to call in the Master Chief. You know, the guy in Halo. A new Halo is coming later this year (I saw a preview at CES and its pretty cool). Im hearing rumblings that Microsoft will use its Xbox Live service to get into both battlefields later this year (Microsoft has moved many top executives and engineers over to a new team designed to compete more effectively with Apples iPhone). One by bringing out a Zune phone. If it has Xbox Live and an Xbox gaming platform on it, look out. That would be HUGE. The other one by opening up its Xbox Live service to be more like Facebook. Xbox Live already has a marketplace and already has a social network thats very good and that most of us tech bloggers dont pay enough attention to. One problem: Im hearing from employees who work inside these teams that the political will to really develop a good Xbox-playing smartphone isnt there. If thats true, look for Microsoft to remain shut out of the battlefield and to remain a loser in the mobile space.

What can Nokia do?

I think the best shot Nokia has is its Maemo platform, but it alone isnt enough. It needs more. Id almost say that it needs to buy something like Twitter AND buy Palm. But both of those ideas are so ludicrous (or will be received that way inside Nokia) that they wont happen. Look for Nokia to continue to sell lots of stuff to the rest of the world but be locked out of the most profitable markets.

Research in Motion?

First RIM has to realize it has a problem. The minute some Chinese company develops a great Android-based phone with a great keyboard they will start to see lots of people shift away. But for now, because RIM has the best keyboards in the business, they dont need to really innovate too much. That said, Im starting to hear rumors that they are working on a dramatically different OS to compete with iPhone/iPad so itll be interesting to watch their moves. I still see them as losers, though, because Apple and Google are clearly taking away mindshare at minimum.

Anyway, its clear that Google is the most arrogant player on the field. They feel they can actually carry out a war with both Apple and Facebook and they feel they can win.

Personally Im cheering for Google. Why? Because between Apple, Facebook, and Google, Google is the most open, least controlling, and transparent company of the three.

Of course, tomorrow night Im going to an event at Facebook where they are showing off some new developer-focused stuff for PHP developers, so itll be interesting to watch all three of these companies battle over developers and mindshare. Its fun to be a tech blogger again!

Comments

Tag: Google, Apple, Facebook

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

]]> searchnewz Daily Wrap-up http://www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/sn-2-20100201JobsCallsBullonGoogle.html I hope it doesnt get much worse but the war of devices between Apple and Google is quickly deteriorating into a war of words. This type of war never ends well when it is played out in the public forum. Steve Jobs has set a very low bar with regard to standards by some of his words following the iPad announcement. Considering how he sounded...

Apple vs. Google

...after the announcement one wonders if the naming of the device explains his 'moodiness'. Wired magazine reports

" After a big public announcement of the sort Apple had this week for the iPad CEO Steve Jobs often takes time in the day or two afterwards to have a Town Hall at One Infinite Loop, making himself available for questions from employees bold enough to stand up and take one right between the eyes.

On Google: We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We wont let them, he says. Someone else asks something on a different topic, but theres no getting Jobs off this rant. I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing, he says. This dont be evil mantra: Its bullshit. Audience roars."

It doesnt take much for things to get worse from this point and it is likely that they will. In fact, over at the Business Insider we get the report on just what Google is thinking with regard to Apple from Apples former board member and Google CEO, Eric Schmidt.

"Today, a reporter asked Eric what he thinks of Apples new iPad. His answer: You might want to tell me the difference between a large phone and a tablet.

So is now time for the CEOs to start tossing insults at each other as they become direct competitors? Lets hope not. Wouldnt it be real interesting if they would each just keep their mouths closed about each other, talk about their own products and innovations and then let the buying public decide? I think it would but I suspect that considering the size of the companies involved, the amount of money at stake and the Mt. Everest like egos at the helms we have yet to hear the end of this schoolyard name-calling and back-stabbing. Jobs even went on to call Adobe lazy with regard to its approach to business and how Flash will be replaced by HTML5. While the latter may be true is it really necessary for the insults? Looks like Steve wants to yell at everyone. Oh brother.

So get ready everyone for the new way to compete in the new media world. Shout the loudest and then throw a hissy fit and best of all, use a curse word or two to sound tough. If this is where this is heading this will get real old, real fast.

Comments

Tag: Google, Steve Jobs

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

Bing's Search Puzzle

...parse the ambiguity out of our language; stitch together disparate fragments of content into a whole that's useful to the user; and present all this in a results format that informs and assists without requiring extensive tweaking on the part of the user.

We all love to hate the evil empire, but let's be fair. Microsoft has humbled itself dramatically, and the company is sincerely trying to do a good job with Bing. The team at Redmond is getting used to their unexpected position as the underdog and, based on my conversation with Weitz, they're beginning to relish the challenge that comes from playing David to Google's Goliath.

My quibble, however -- and it's not an insignificant one -- is that Bing needs to step up its differentiation. Weitz said in the interview that Bing first wanted to at least match Google at its own game: algorithmic search. I understand this logic, but there are some other things to consider here.

To Break a Habit, You have to Break the Pattern

For Bing to gain market share against Google, it has to break a habit. And to break a habit, you have to force someone out of his or her rut. There are two ways to do that. One, you change the route they have to take so they have to consciously steer back into the rut. Secondly, you give them an alternative that's so much better than the rut, they're willing to do the heavy mental lifting required to consciously shut down their "autopilot"-driven, rut-seeking routines when they start to play out.

Make no mistake; habits are notoriously tough things to break. Our brain has a box-load of nasty little tricks it will employ to keep habits in place, because habits require less work from the brain than actually thinking our way through things. Our brains are inherently lazy (or, if you prefer, efficient). There's no such thing as breaking a habit a "little bit" or breaking a habit "now and then." You either break a habit or you don't.

So what does this mean for Bing? The Bing philosophy right now is that for the vast majority of searches, it delivers what is basically a Bing-ized version of Google. And then, for some select searches, it delivers a more differentiated search result. For example, search for "Bristol England" on Bing and Google. On Bing, you'll get what's called a Task Page, tailored to be more useful for those trying to accomplish things related to Bristol: the current weather, favorite attractions and the official tourism site. This is Bing's flavor of a decision-based guide. This, theoretically, is what makes Bing a "decision engine" rather than a "search engine."

But now go to the Google results page. While it may be hidden in a more traditional presentation of results, still, most of the same information is there. I'd give Bing the edge from a usefulness perspective, but it's not a knock-out. It's more of a 12 round split decision.

Lets try another example:  the much-cited Farecast search. True, the latest airfares from Farecast are useful, but real interactivity is still one click away at Bing Travel. Bing is dipping a rather tentative toe in the waters of usefulness. Right now, Google isn't matching the Farecast functionality, but even with its standard search results, the perceivable difference to the user is not all that great.

I feel Bing is still trying to match Google rather than draw away from it. And to break a habit, you have to put a lot of distance between yourself and the habitual choice. You don't abandon one rut for a similar rut headed to the same basic destination. What's the point of that?

Search One-Up-Manship

There is some good news in all this. From the user perspective, I've seen more helpful features unveiled on both Google and Bing than I've seen in a long, long time. As Bing starts to experiment with more useful features, Google has been consistently matching it. And this brings up another fatal flaw in Bing's strategy. It's pretty easy for Google to keep a watchful eye on Bing for useful innovations. As long as those innovations are incremental in nature, Google can quickly match them. Bing will never build up the degree of differentiation needed to break a habit. But the byproduct is pretty compelling for the user. No matter whether you're using Google or Bing, the pace of innovation has picked up dramatically.

In the Bing-Google battle, the user seems to be the big winner so far.

Comments

Tag: Bing

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

]]> searchnewz Daily Wrap-up http://www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/sn-2-20100128FromLabtoBetaGooglesSocialSearchForAll.html Its rare that Google gets trumped on news but with all the Apple iPad (insert your favorite disgusting nickname here) hoopla from yesterday the announcement that Googles social search is now in beta for all to use kinda slipped by. After a little reading on the subject there may be a good reason for this. In other words...

Googles Social Search

...Google maybe didnt want to make a big deal on this one. Read on to find out why.

The Official Google Blog announced the move with this

"We think theres tremendous potential for social information to improve search, and were just beginning to scratch the surface. Were leaving a beta label on social results because we know theres a lot more we can do. If you want to get the most out of Social Search right away, get started by creating a Google profile, where you can add links to your other public online social services."

They then give one of their nifty little videos to explain just what they are up to.

But the real concern is raised by John Batelle at his blog

"Forget the iPad, today Google is taking another step toward its stated goal of making search more social. Theres a lot of goodness in here, in terms of features and approach, but its just silly to pretend you can do any of this without directly addressing the 400 million-person elephant in the room called Facebook. Put simply: I cant figure out if this new service uses my Facebook social graph. And to my mind, thats a problem."

Batelle then takes you through his attempts to see if, in fact, the Facebook social graph is incorporated in some fashion. You can follow his humorous attempts to see what he might be missing. He even digs around to find out what is truly going on with the social search for Google as it relates to Facebook and Google sent this to him:

If someone links to his Facebook account from his Google profile, Social Search may surface that users public profile page. These are the same public profile pages already available on a search of Google.com and other search engines today. While were interested to continue expanding the comprehensiveness of Social Search, we do not currently use your Facebook connections as part of Google Social Search.

This begs the question of just how social is social search for Google. Maybe Googles announcement of this service yesterday wasnt a coincidence with regard to the timing of the iPad introduction to the world. Not including Facebook connections is a huge gap in this offering that makes one wonder just what is going on behind the scenes. Expect this beta tag to hang around for a while until this one is hashed out. Stay tuned.

Comments

Tag: Google Social Search

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -

]]> searchnewz Daily Wrap-up http://www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/sn-2-20100127Google0vsChina1.html Google has a new approach to China as David Drummond, the companys chief legal officer put it on January 12 on Googles official blog. The post quite directly points a finger at China as the source of a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China.

China Wins Round

The primary goal of this attack is believed to have been to attain access to Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Why did Google share this information? To cite the post: this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech"

Dont be Evil Now?
Four years ago when Google entered the Chinese market, a post on the companys official blog implored to us to understand that Googles continued engagement with China is the best (perhaps only) way for Google to help bring the tremendous benefits of universal information access to all our users there.

Then it was all about working alongside the mighty Chinese dragon for the greater good of Googles mission to organize the worlds information and make it universally useful and accessible. Perhaps it is worth noting that when Google entered the Chinese market in January 2006, world economic growth forecasts were looking rosy on the back of world growth rate of 4 percent in 2005.

In 2010, after trudging through a miserable 2009, growth is expected to be sluggish at best while the world economy continues to dig itself out of what the IMF has called the most severe recession since World War II. Perhaps Google has found a convenient excuse to exit a market in which the costs have been rather significant and the return lower than expected.

Perhaps upon entering the heavily censored Chinese Internet market in 2006, Google had not quite anticipated the resolute strength of a Communist run power. History has taught us that Western charm alone cannot bring down the Iron Curtain.

Then there are market realities such as Baidu, the Beijing based, locally run search engine in China that dominates the Internet market. As at Q2 2009, Baidu held 61.6% of the market, followed by Google China with a share of 29.1%. The other engines were but a blip on the radar with Yahoo China holding 5.6%.

Certainly, one cannot discount the challenges of operating in such a controlled and censored environment particularly in the online market, which thrives upon speed, openness and freedom of expression. China doesnt make it easy for foreign companies to operate on its turf, but it was never was going to make it easy. China did not create any misconceptions, perhaps it was gallant Google that spoke too soon when they said: Were in this for the long haul.

Comments

Tag: Google, China

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Have a bookmark! -