Maybe the second time will be a charm for Google
Armstrong said the deal is an improvement economically and declined to disclose specifics of the revenue-sharing split. AOL talked to five or six potential partners before deciding on Google and negotiations intensified in July, he said.
In 2006, Google beat out advances from Microsoft Corp. and renewed a search agreement with AOL originally signed in 2002. To seal that deal four years ago, Google bought a 5 percent stake in AOL for $1 billion. Google wrote down the investment by $726 million in 2008 and last year Time Warner bought back the stake for $283 million. Armstrong has said that 2006 pact… Continue reading: AOL, Google expand partnership – The Boston Globe
Check the link below for more reality checks on Apple’s unsubtle Google comments yesterday
Updated: A Google Spokesperson told me: "The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services." –meaning that Jobs’ assertions were wrong.
Google responds to Steve Jobs’ activation counting accusations – Google 24/7 – Fortune Tech
Continue reading: Google responds to Steve Jobs’ activation counting accusations – Google 24/7 – Fortune Tech
Check the link below for more context-setting
So let’s handicap the two, based on what we’ve seen so far:
Google has a very small chance of totally taking over the TV business — which would be a massive coup — and a huge chance of completely failing. (Sort of like its Nexus One phone was a big bet to disrupt the mobile phone industry, which wound up flopping.)
Apple TV, meanwhile, has a good chance of continuing as an obscure, niche device. But if enough people take a flier on the $99 Apple TV, Apple also has a solid chance of teaching people about the idea… Continue reading: Here’s The Difference Between Apple TV And Google TV (San Francisco Chronicle)
An excerpt from the second part of the series referenced earlier today
How did we get here? Partly it’s because too many editors and reporters waited too long to learn Web basics, and many of the more enthusiastic early adopters fled the newsroom and took their expertise with them. Partly the problem is generational, and thus gradually being solved.
But a big part of it is Google’s responsibility. Google is a great tool because it draws meaning from links. And it is a profitable company because it has placed a tiny but real financial value on many links. But by making links a business, Google also made it harder for editors and writers… Continue reading: In Defense of Links, Part Two: Money changes everything — Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard
