Should Google Fear Ad Blocker for Chrome?

Firefox users have long enjoyed the option of eliminating a large amount of web advertising, especially banner ads, using an extension called AdBlocker.

Now comes word that Google’s new web browser, Chrome, will also give users the option of an ad-blocking extension but not thanks to Google.  The extension is called AdSweep:

Yes, this extension has been around for a couple of months, but extensions aren’t yet officially supported by Chrome and there’s no easy way to install it. This will change, as Google has recently opened up an API for third party developers, with plans to start officially supporting extensions soon.  LINK

Since Google makes, as far as I can tell, nearly all of it’s money via advertising, should it be a big concern that people will easily be able to block out the most common sorts of ads online?

Well, people can skip through TV commercials with DVR but many still end up watching them anyhow.  While people can block online ads, it is likely most will not do so.  If they do, the change will likely force advertisers on the web to do much more integrated marketing approaches that are tougher to “block.”

Much has been made over the slow failing of banner ads and one has to wonder if the combination of lower click-throughs and more blocking will not only change the way advertisers reach consumers online but force a radical rethink for Google’s business plan.

In Google Versus Bing It Might Come Down to Trust

Everybody loves a good “David and Goliath” style battle, which is why it might seem like fun to root for Bing, a new search engine hoping to take some singificant market-share away from search-giant (TM?) Google.  That is until you realize that Bing is just Microsoft’s refresh of the failed LiveSearch. Then it is more like a Goliath versus Goliath battle in which rooting seems irrelevant.

While Microsoft claims that many people, while almost exclusively using Google for their search needs, are not always satisfied with the results.  This is where they see an opportunity to offer something better.

Early reports say that visually and even thematically Bing might really be on to something but the following comment fom PaidContent might just be the nail in the coffin for Bing:

But if I’m going to use one search engine more than another (i.e. make it the default in my browser), I want to be confident that I’m not missing out on results that I might find via another search engine. And after my week-long trial, I don’t have that confidence with Bing.

And that’s what everyone cares about in the end – not that their search is simple but that it is exhaustive.  Sure, any old search engine will give you movie times and trivia answers but when it comes to using a search engine for genuine research, whether for a school project or a honeymoon getaway, users want to be confident that they are not missing out.

As long as Google returns a more exhaustive set of results than their competitors they will remain securely atop the search standings.

“The Google Bay” Shows Google Just Another Pirate Bay

Following last week’s guilty verdict against the four founders of The Pirate Bay, many have been wondering what makes TPB all that different from any other search engine. Like, say Google?

Well, someone has built a simple site that uses only Google to provide anyone interested with links to torrents ready for download.

I tried it out myself and here are the first few results for a search for “Wolverine”

Not only doesn’t The Pirate Bay come up in the first few hits, but shows just how many sites do exactly what The Pirate Bay does – and Google does it better.

While it is clear that P2P sharing of copyrighted works is a challenge it doesn’t seem like anyone will be successful in suing it out of existence.  Time for a new plan, gang.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pirate Bay Trial Wraps in Sweden (appscout.com)
• Will The Pirate Bay Sink? (sitepoint.com)

Fear of a Google Planet

The New York Times uses a painfully bad metaphore comparing Google’s Book Search program to Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood.”

IN 2002, Google began to drink the milkshakes of the book world.

Back then, according to the company’s official history, it began a “secret ‘books’ project.” Today, that project is known as Google Book Search and, aided by a recent class-action settlement, it promises to transform the way information is collected: who controls the most books; who gets access to those books; how access will be sold and attained. There will be blood, in other words.

The article lays out the fears of some that Google is going to create some sort of evil book monopoly by scanning and indexing the collection of America’s (and maybe the world’s) libraries:

Robert Darnton, the head of the Harvard library system, writes about the Google class-action agreement with the passion of a Progressive Era muckraker.

“Google will enjoy what can only be called a monopoly — a monopoly of a new kind, not of railroads or steel but of access to information,” Mr. Darnton writes. “Google has no serious competitors.”

He adds, “Google alone has the wealth to digitize on a massive scale. And having settled with the authors and publishers, it can exploit its financial power from within a protective legal barrier; for the class action suit covers the entire class of authors and publishers.”

While the article does go on offer a number of solid counter-arguments, it is disturbing that the lead voice is that of, well, a scared Luddite.

Simply because Google is the only company willing and/or able to take on such a massive program is no reason to fear the amazing potential the program will have.  To be able to search and access the collections of any library from anywhere in the world is just not a bad thing.  In fact, it is a glorious thing to spread information and knowledge.

Will Google suddenly control all the information in the world by scanning and indexing it?  I don’t see that happening.  It certainly won’t be harder to access material via Google than it would be to walk in off the street to Harvard’s library and borrow whatever you want.  Try that one and see how far you get.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Link By Link: Millions of Books, but No Card Catalog (nytimes.com)
• What is up with the Google Books settlement? (hermenaut.org)
• The Great Library of Googleplex (roughtype.com)
• Google Reaches Agreement With Book Publishers (mashable.com)
• Harvard opts out of Google Books deal (hyperorg.com)

Cuil Fails At Naming Itself. Preview of their Future Failure.

There is an overwhelming amount of press today about the new search engine cuil.com.

So far, I have learned that is was started by ex-Googlers and that it is pronouced “cool.”

Yes, nearly everyone is saying there is no way they can beat Google or even come close to competing in the search market for all sorts of technical reasons but I have yet to see anyone come right out and tell it like it is:

It will fail because nobody can pronounce it.  And when you finally learn how they would like you to pronouce their madeup word you feel like punching them in the face.

I never liked the whole “drop a vowel” school of web 2.0 site naming (fickr, et. al.) but this whole make up a word and make it sound like a word we already have is truly ridiculous.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Too Cuil for Google’s School
• Cuil search engine: Reinventing the wheel
• Ex-Google engineers launch ‘Cuil’, the first results