general

David Dayen, writing in a Naked Capitalism fundraising post:

As we’ve seen, the blogosphere isn’t in such good shape these days. Google has undercut the online advertising funding model, and writers are struggling to combine financial security with editorial independence. I can say with experience that the freelance market is, to put it mildly, hazardous. Websites are experimenting with new funding models that actually aren’t all that new; it’s mainly a distributed, populist version of the old concept of patronage. By giving a donation, you announce that this project has value, that it’s worth something to you. The alternative is akin to the patronage archetype of the Middle Ages, considering the billionaire purchases of news outlets, mergers and acquisitions, and the hollowing out of what made the new publishing tools of the Internet, for a brief period, something special. By donating, you consent to opening up the range of debate, to keeping the flickering spirit of alternative media alive...

Since I never relied on advertising I can't say anecdotally how Google "undercut" it. Dayen could be more specific about this claim. Google's adwords created the spam incentives that bedevil small websites, as we've been discussing. But Google is still the largest traffic-driver here, and the main reason for a steady stream of unsolicited email requests to advertise on this site.

The mid-'00s blogosphere declined not so much for lack of funding -- blogs are cheap -- but because (i) most individuals don't have that many posts in them, as demonstrated by Cory Arcangel's joke blog of people's apologies for not posting, and (ii) the corporate blog silos offer a place to put up content sporadically and "have a presence" without cost or the headaches of keeping a site alive in the modern spam- and malware-filled web.
This represents, if not a loss of utopia, at least a loss of biodiversity: to some degree tumblr-ers all share the same genes, aren't hardened by the challenges of independence, and thus are the farm-raised salmon of creativity, ha ha. Same for Facebook, etc.

Feedly seems to have won the bulk of Google Reader refugees but it has some issues:

1. The tendency not to respect image layouts -- two side-by-side, left-to-right image tags in my blog could be switched or mixed with text. Tables seem to prevent that but what a pain, just for a simple blog post.
2. Still having to login with a Google account, despite some poignant pleas in the knowledge base from users not wanting to be involved with that company anymore.
3. "Upgrade to Pro" graphics are becoming more intrusive. How this looks: the seed money is running out and the backers are demanding return.

originally posted by Ryz on dump.fm

A New York Times article yesterday by Claire Cain Miller & Vindu Goel, "Google to Sell Users' Endorsements," doesn't do a good job of clarifying how pervasive these endorsements will be outside of Google Plus, its Facebook imitation:

Still, the biggest Internet companies are pushing in the other direction, toward an expectation that more information is shown publicly. Google’s announcement came in an update to its terms of service that allows the company to include in ads adult users’ profile information and preferences, ratings and posts they have made on Google Plus and other Google services like search and YouTube.

"Other Google services like search?" Doesn't that pretty much make the whole internet fair game for endorsements, since the Googlebot crawls every site?

But not to worry. Eventually you'll be able to wall off your privacy one word or phrase at a time:

Facebook said the best way for users to protect their privacy was to adjust the settings for their profile and each individual post they make.

One way might be to have metadata "watermarks" appended to every word you type, so if you say "excellent" it doesn't end up next to a lawn mower.

My experience with these endorsements was YouTube's short-lived blog trackback feature. YouTubes I linked to were actually getting a little badge that said "As Seen On Tom Moody" with a link to my blog. It didn't last long: I suspected human review uncovered that these badges were (i) going to a non-Google-hosted site and (ii) didn't embed the videos, just linked to them. Or determined that the plug was too damned inauspicious. So we can probably add these upcoming endorsements to the host of minor irritations of the web that come and go: the jock itch of modern communication.

It's funny watching Google struggle to keep its classic search interface pristine. A bar had been gradually growing across the top as new products such as YouTube were added to the dynasty. Then a couple of days ago the slate was wiped in favor of a small discreet grid which took you to all those services. That obviously went over big so now text is creeping back in the form of links to the popular "Images" and the "G+" Facebook imitation. Which will be next to return? Our vote is for "Translate" even though it wasn't there originally.

Speaking of Google, the Wikipedians have some unkind words about Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt's tenure at Novell:

Novell's decline and loss of market share accelerated under Eric Schmidt's leadership, with Novell experiencing industry-wide decline in sales and purchases of NetWare and a drop in share price of $40.00/share to $7.00/share under Eric Schmidt's leadership.

specifically

Analysts commented that the primary reason for Novell's demise was linked to its channel strategy and mismanagement of channel partners under Eric Schmidt's leadership. Under Ray Noorda's leadership, Novell provided upgrades to resellers and customers in the same packaging as a newly purchased copy of NetWare, but at one third the cost, which created a "gray market" that allowed NetWare resellers to sell upgrades as newly purchased NetWare versions at full price periodically which Novell intentionally did not track. Ray Noorda commented to several analysts he devised this strategy to allow front line resellers to "punch through" the distributors like Tech Data and Ingram and acquire NetWare versions at a discounted rate where Novell "looked the other way" then allowed them to sell these versions as newly purchased NetWare versions in order to pay the Novell Field Support Technicians Salaries who for the most part were employees who worked for the front line resellers as Novell CNE (Certified NetWare Engineers).

Noorda commented that this strategy was one he learned as an executive at General Electric when competing against imported home appliances, allow the resellers to "make more money off your product than someone else's". Eric Schmidt embarked on a disastrous strategy to remove the upgrades as whole box products without understanding Novell's channel dynamics, then directed Novell's general counsel to initiate litigation against a large number of Novell resellers who were routinely selling upgrades as newly purchased NetWare versions. Although this move bolstered Novell's revenue numbers for several quarters, Novell's channels subsequently collapsed with the majority of Novell's resellers dropping NetWare for fear of litigation.

Yet, in their article on Schmidt the Wikipedians tell us that

Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin interviewed Schmidt. Impressed by him, they recruited Schmidt to run their company in 2001 under the guidance of venture capitalists John Doerr and Michael Moritz.

This is called failing upwards, right?