60-second Makeover

Suddenly, the internet is full of the fact that Google’s mail has had a makeover. And about time too.

Over 30 different themes are now available, accessed immediately through the Themes tab under the Settings control in your Inbox.

Play around, there’s some cool stuff.

Drunk-Mail

Treat drunk-mail as junk-mail? Google have cleverly come up with an application to stop people from sending stupid emails after they’ve had a few drinks.

Link to this amazing piece of technology here.

I intend on testing how well this works, so I’m off down the pub… It’s all in the name of technology!

Twitter = Terrorism

In case anyone missed it, the US intelligence agencies – CIA, FBI, IBM – announced that Twitter means terror.

A rough report that somehow (as usual) found its way onto the internet gives a fun list of online and mobile apps – including MySpace, Facebook and Twitter – that apparently terrorists could be using. (As an aside, if I worked for a security agency, I’d be more worried about how a report like that got out onto the internet).

I won’t deny that social media has been – and still is – used by people to post extremist ideology, racism and the like, but when this happened, it’s totally unacceptable and is more often than not removed very quickly, with often nasty reprocussions for whoever posted it.

I think though, what they’re panicking about is that certain media is practically in realtime, therefore seemingly a great tool for the tech-savvy terrorist. Which, to be honest, is possibly pushing any boundary of common sense; I personally doubt such people would be operating openly on social platforms – and what about all the other technological advances since the carrier pidgeon? Email, SMS – even a phone call – seem more likely to be used by the social-conscious terrorist.

I suppose, for arguments sake, that social platforms could be used for grooming and recruiting into that kind of thing, but I’m fairly sure we’d all notice if al-Qaeda was on Bebo.

Now our wonderful Government seems to be calling for the likes of GCHQ and Mi5 to be able to monitor mobile and internet-based systems, storing details of ALL phone calls made and websites visited for up to two years in some kind of storage-super-computer. The wonderful Jacqui Smith seems to suggested this, but even top anti-terror experts are saying it’s nuts.

At least makes Google’s ideas on data storage look like a nice option, for once.

Lazy-Mail

Google launches new lazy-mail:

Official Google Blog here

Fun times. I’ll have a play and see what’s going on.

Apocalyptical Confusion

Ok, there seems to have been some confusion over my opinion that the digital industry will flourish as the economy takes a down-turn.

My original comments related to online marketing.

Alongside my otimistic agency views, I’m also of the opinion that other internet-functioning businesses could be hit pretty hard. Examples:

E-Bay issued a stark warning that profits could be down this christmas – this last quarter saw revenue rise by 12% ($2.12bn) which was lower than analyst predictions. A quick recalculation later and the number-monkeys expect total 2008 revenue to be between $8.53 – $8.68bn (still more money than most people will ever see). 

To be more competitive, Amazon has slashed it’s free delivery qualification costs from £15 to £5. This means that over 90% of their products will be delivered for free. I personally think this is just common sense – leading industry experts have long-advised companies to play around more with free delivery.

Google’s market-share has dipped a teeny-tiny bit. My cynical side says that this explains why they’ve suddenly backtracked on their long-standing policy not to allow gambling advertisements. Now, potentially generating £millions more with this hypocritical move, as we have already seen a quarterly increase on profit this year. I’m sure we’ll see Google beginning to strangle the competition again.

Social networks are struggling to generate viable income. Which is no big secret. Sadly though, this is directly affecting people working in the industry, as they become statistics in the economic downturn. The most recent victim is Hi5, the third largest global network, where it was announced this week that around 10-15% of the workforce would be laid off. Other companies being affected include start-ups and software; again, the most recent casualty being Jive.

When the whole world is suffering economic crisis, it’s obviously going to affect the world-wide-web. But to reiterate my original point; some parts of the digital industry will do well from the misfortune of others. Yes, it will get increasingly competitive, but with decent strategy and user-confidence, those who succeed will be very apparent. Whilst we’re seeing companies collapse every day, I hardly think this is the end of the internet.

Ask And Ye Shall Find

Once again, I return to an issue I’ve already mentioned before… The importance of websites realising that in order to be competitive, they have to move forward with user’s needs.

So, it’s with no great surprise that Ask, an old-school search engine, has opted for a total facelift and new approach to dealing with user searches. If you happen to be as old as me, you’ll remember that they did this before, back in 2006, when they gave their butler-image the sack. Now, after alread intoducing new applications, they’re going to be focusing upon being the search engine of choice for users who are asking direct questons. (eg. Is there no end to the talents of DigitalGeekUK? Will he ever be the next Bill Gates? Why have I read this far?!) Recent data from ComScore support this, as they found that Ask is more often used by people searching for specific answers to questions… (The clue is in the name)… Search Queries that use questions make up around 5% of searches on Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Live, but accounts for 15% of Ask’s searches. Sounds like a lot, but remember that Ask only has a 2% market share in online search!

So, it seems that Ask will be restructuring themselves around this as we well know that rivals are increasingly looking at ways to set themselves apart from Google in the competitive world of search. The new Ask site will be launched in the UK on October 20th, but is already live in the US. Sneak preview here, guys.

It looks a lot like Google, and doesn’t try to hide this fact, openly claiming to have “borrowed” design ideas from the mighty search leader. Ask also claim that the re-designed site will be faster, improve search results and produce more relevant results for the user.

Whilst they undoubtably have a challenging task ahead, it’s not all bad news. Even with such a small UK marketshare, the lastest figures from Neilson show that during August, 46m searches were conducted on Ask, which is roughly one in five of all people using a search engine. Maybe the figures will be even better this time next year?

Second Questioning

Right, well, it’s not often I get confused online – being a total geek, I can practically see binary code as a oil painting. However, I’m not fully understanding the concept behind The Second Web.

It says it will be launching in November and seems to be, at it’s most basic, a web-browser within a web-browser. Fundamentally, not a bad idea – especially considering it’s apparently been dreamed up and built by a 16-year old – but huge problems come with it. Second Web has been built with the intention to find a new way of selling advertising space online, and already it’s become a nice little earner: With the option to buy .com-domain names (that already are being used in the REAL internet) for only $5, more than $25,000 has been made before Second Web is even online. This causes a real headache legally, as it can easily break copyright laws and potentially damage brands. For example, if you put www.google.com in the Second Web browser, you’re faced with a page that says nothing but “REMOVED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT”. What I can see here relates to an earlier post on this blog, where I commented about the ludricous amounts of money domain names can bring to their owners if they ever sell them on. It’s very likely that users have been snapping up big internet brands the (Myspace’s, Ebay’s and MSN’s of the digital world) in the hope that they can sell them back to these companies at an inflated rate.

I might have this totally wrong – maybe companies are happily buy up their domains for a second time in order to re-serve them on this second-level internet browser. In my opinion, it seems unlikely, as all sorts of issues arise; the fact that I doubt the sites will be indexed very well by search engines; the fact that to access this second-level, you need to have the browser-in-a-browser open; the fact that you could possibly be hounded by commerical lawyers for using someone else’s legally owned name. 

I’m also failing to see any solid advertising opportunity, due similar reasons that relate to what I’ve already mentioned – How would paid-search ads for a second-level-site be displayed in the top-level internet?! How (if at all) would top-level sites be advertised, second-level?! It seems to suddenly have a lot of issues and get very confusing when we start to talk about advertising. I’m also worried, it seems to have no relationship to any of the relevent monitoring bodies – eg. the IAB – nor does it appear to be a registered online business.

I might have this totally incorrect (can anyone enlighten me?) and I’m categorically NOT stating solid facts or making accusations. I honestly admire the thought and effort behind this project; there’s no denying it’s in the entrepreneurial spirit, but I can just see so many potential problems and pitfalls with the idea. It seems quite likely to me that established internet users, companies and advertisers will want to protect themselves as much as possible – probably through legal means and actively avoiding the site, but I’m happy to say that I could be totally wrong. All I can really say at this point is, let’s see what happens?

Don’t Be Evil

In case it’s escaped anybody’s attention – possibly those without a computer or any form of intelligence – Google are celebrating their tenth birthday.

So, from humble beginnings a decade ago, Google turns double-digits and simultaneously is recognised as the worlds most powerful global brand, as charted by research-consultancy firm, Millward Brown. Interestingly, out of the top-ten brands on this list, four are computing-based: Alongside Google (1), there sits Microsoft (3), IBM (6) and Apple (7). Furthermore, China Mobile (5) and Nokia (9) bulk up this techno-team. Unquestionably, this is a reflection on the importance of technology in modern everyday life, but perhaps any questions should be directed towards Google and the massive monopoly they’re building for themselves?

There are hundreds of articles and blogs floating around surrounding the ethics of Google, particularly in their data-collecting/retaining methods. Whilst I’m totally for companies being allowed to make profits, no matter how big the amounts involved, I like to try and understand the motivation behind the cash. When Google bought DoubleClick, I was worried – and partly, I still am – that the biggest search engine on earth was buying one of the biggest measurers of ad-trafficking and measurement. Not only does this possibly stamp out competition, but the issues raised surrounding data and the fact that Google will soon be Big-Brother-esque in their knowledge of users. (Therefore able to increase revenue even further). It just seemed to be a bit bullying when it happened, and a far cry from the informal Google “Don’t be evil” slogan. Other stuff happened this year, such as Brand-protection no longer being allowed on PPC-ads, so competitors could appear on each other’s terms; another money-maker for the company.

Whilst Google undeniably do a great deal of good, both online and off, (from free source coding and decent email through to setting up a $1bn charity fund and uniting knowledge-sharing), it nevertheless remains that some of it’s business practices can be viewed to sway slightly away from what the company preaches.

Changing.com

In an effort to improve it’s advertising revenue, Yahoo has decided to get a new image…
And about time too.

I’m actually quite a big fan of Yahoo – possibly because they seem to be an underdog, caught between the world domination battle of Google and Microsoft – but their fussy, over-cluttered homepage has always irritated me slightly. As web 2.0 continues it’s development, and with 3.0 already arguably upon us, site design is all about simplicity, with the user’s personal needs in mind. A great example large corporations realising this, and actually doing anything productive about it, is the BBC, where, to mark the beginning of 2008, they gave their retro 90’s site a complete (and long overdue) makeover. Worryingly, although the BBC has great digital content, it’s traditional core is hardly based online, so why is it often ahead of equally as huge, solely digital-based companies? For me, that’s not really a can of worms I want to open just yet; I merely wanted to share my genuine enthusiasm that Yahoo has finally decided to embrace the concepts surrounding usability.

It seems the basic idea is that Yahoo will “choose” random users, who will provide instrumental feedback, which will then be used for redesigning the site that allegedly 300m unique people visit each month. With their last foray into design change going back to mid 2006, Yahoo seem to have finally grasped the concept that to try and rival the likes of iGoogle, they need to step up the mark. Actually, I made that last sentence up – it’s what I want to believe. In reality, it seems that following the fiasco the world witnessed when Microsoft tried to unsuccessfully buy Yahoo for $44.6bn, Yahoo is going down the path of belief that by making their site and services more user-friendly, they will both capture more users and more prominently/directly be able to advertise. Therefore new site design = greater chance of increasing ad revenue. Logically, this will probably work, and although I’m happy that change is happening, I’m disappointed it’s mainly for revenue purposes, rather than aesthetic reasons.