Love the data, hate the graphic

One of the key themes we're focused on at the moment is the multilateral asymmetric contest amongst major platform players (Apple, Google, Microsoft and Nokia in particular), device vendors (Apple, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, LG, Motorola, HTC in particular), service providers (Google, Apple, Amazon in particular) and network operators (Verizon, Vodafone, FT Orange and so on). There's some interesting data from Silicon Alley Insider illustrating the size of the stakes...

The cash resources of some of the major players

While the numbers are interesting, I have to confess I hate the graphic... It looks like an area chart, but it's actually a line chart. Tufte's head would explode...

And I'd love to see the analysis extended to include Nokia, RIM, Samsung and so on. And in this context, who cares about Intel, other than ARM and Qualcomm?

Facebook vs Google (2)

My colleague, Moe, posted a fascinating chart from Alexa.com comparing page views for Google and Facebook. I dug a little deeper and made three observations:

Users look at more pages on Facebook (data from Alexa.com)

People spend more time on Facebook (data from Alexa.com)

It's Facebook that has the link

Facebook's and Google's weekly battle for supremacy

About 18 months ago I was at a wedding on the West Coast with some folks from Google.  An interesting topic of conversation was about "Who could unseat Google?" and, generally, the importance of search.  A major theme of this discussion was about how as technology and user behavior changes, the leaders in one era rarely make effective transitions to become winners in the next era.

Google bested Webcrawler, Northern Lights, and other online search companies, but - more importantly - search beat out directories such as Yahoo! and AOL as the preferred way to find and access information on the Internet.  Our little group agreed that none of the search contenders (Ask.com, etc. - there was no Bing yet) had a chance.

I argued that social networking in general and Facebook in particular were the biggest threats.  Hours and hours of online activity are occurring on Facebook where Google has no sway, no advertising opportunities, and no information about what users are doing.  More importantly, Facebook is becoming an important mode of content discovery:  People recommend books, sneakers, music, and movies to their friends.  It is also becoming an important method for spreading breaking news.  Facebook is, for example, how I found out about the Ft. Hood shootings.

Today, I saw some extremely intereresting data on Alexa.com that shows how this battle is playing out.  The following chart shows how each week Facebook and Google flip-flop as the Internet leader in total pageviews.  Facebook rules on the weekend; Google rules during the week:

Each weekend Facebook passes Google in pageviews; during the week Google reclaims the lead (data from Alexa.com)

This has been going on since Facebook caught up to Google back in August:

This pattern has been repeating since August of 2009 (data from Alexa.com)

Let me know what you think.  Will social networking displace search as the default approach to discovery on the Internet?  What are the implications for Facebook and Google if this occurs?

(By the way, this is the second time that Facebook caught Google in share of total pageviews.  The first time was during the 2008 Presidential Election.  After the election, Facebook's pageview share dropped precipitously and took about six months to recover to their prior level.)

Murdoch in denial about decline and demise of mass media

One of the key themes of the way the web is changing is the decline and demise of mass media. One facet of that is a battle over access to content, and some recent work has led us to the conclusion that the current business models are doomed.

Perhaps the scariest presentation from a great recent event on the West Coast was the guys from First Paper, who came across as dinosaurs from another era. What does that make Rupert Murdoch?

This interview on Sky News, reported through mUmBRELLA, definitely goes in my "didn't you get the memo?" file (along with Microsoft being late on the UI work for WinMo 6.5 and Palm being late with the SDK for the Pre and WebOS):

Rupert Murdoch has suggested that News Corporation is likely to make its content unfindable to users on Google when it launches its paid content strategy

Murdoch claimed that readers who randomly reach a  page via search have little value to advertisers.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

Wrong! We're actually going in the opposite direction: the advertising apocalypse involves adspend inexorably migrating to channels that are targeted (such as by a search term - duh!) and which provide feedback to the advertiser.

Android(s) are coming...

There's a great (albeit lengthy) post on Gizmodo about Android, although the title may be a little overstated:

[Android] 2.0 is more than that: it's proof that Android is finally going to take over the world

As a digression, it's fascinating to see how a technological innovation can re-shape language: the former meaning of android is now relegated off the first page of search results on Google, which led me to try 'androids' as an alternative:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biBHJvGx3s8&hl=en&fs=1&]

The article from Scientific American about this date with a robot can be downloaded here; I find it intriguing partly because I began my career as a roboticist and cyberneticist.

Although it may overstate the case, because we are just in the earliest stages of a fierce contest amongst at least five credible competing app phone platforms, the post from Gizmodo does summarize well much of what provides the impetus for Android and why Android 2.0 is so important:

it's "the first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices."

Android 2.0 means the handsets aren't just interesting anymore; they're truly buyable

In addition to everything else Android has going on, timing is on its side. Windows Mobile is limping along with two broken legs...

...as far as most consumers are concerned, anything Windows Mobile can do, Android can do better

The Palm Pre, polished and beautiful as it is, can't keep up with Android's exploding app inventory, multiplying hardware partners and rock-star ability to draw talent

Android 2.0, along with Palm's WebOS and Apple's iPhone OS, are the main reasons the BlackBerry OS feels so clunky and old

Let's take a quick look at each of the other major contenders:

• the iPhone is the current leader, and critically works well across not just app phones, but through iTunes across other platforms such as personal computers and TV


• although RIM's BlackBerry has been the long-time leader in the enterprise, it is not doing as well in the consumer marketplace, particularly outside North America, and its software platform (RTE, APIs and SDK) looks increasingly clunky in comparison to iPhone and Android


• Nokia is investing heavily in the transition to Qt and Maemo - the big question is really can it get there fast enough


• Microsoft's most recent release of 6.5 was late and lacked usability, and despite some good things being said about it 7 is still some way off, eroding support for it


• while WebOS is technically elegant, the Pre's implementation is slow, Palm lacks distribution and was really late with its SDK - it will be extraordinarily difficult for Palm to overcome these handicaps and establish itself as a credible competitor in the face of the likes of Apple, Google, Nokia, Microsoft and RIM

Android's a strong contender, but it's by no means yet certain that it will rule the world. In fact, one of the real possibilities is that rather than reaching a tipping point, a few of these will co-exist over the medium- or even long-term.