sorted by: recent | see : popular

Content Tagged with Microsoft + Web2.0

So the tech and geek crowd is a little underwhelmed by the new $300 million Microsoft advertising campaign featuring Jerry Seinfeld that kicked off tonight. It’s mostly content free, with just one mention of Microsoft near the end. It’s a far cry from the brilliant Microsoft v. mac ads that Apple has run over the years.

So what’s the deal? In an email we’ve obtained from Microsoft SVP Bill Veghte to all employees, he talks about the goals of the campaign. The overall goal is to inspire consumers and “tell the story of how Windows enables a billion people around the globe to do more with their lives today.” This first phase, he says, “is designed to engage consumers and spark a new conversation about Windows – a conversation that will evolve as the campaign progresses, but will always be marked by humor and humanity.”

The ads are just an icebreaker, he ads, to reintroduce Microsoft to consumers. Later this month they’ll do a deeper dive, which I assume means talking about features.

One thing’s for sure - the ads have sparked conversation. Full text of email is below:

From: Bill Veghte
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:37 PM
To: Microsoft - All Employees (QBDG)
Subject: Telling the story of Windows

Since it first launched nearly 25 years ago, Windows has been one of the most successful products in the history of the high tech industry. As we set our sights on the next 25 years, it is essential that we deliver incredible offerings on a great platform. We must also tell the story of how Windows enables a billion people around the globe to do more with their lives today. We must inspire consumers with the promise of what Windows uniquely makes possible across the PC, phone and web.

Telling our story means making significant investments to improve the way consumers experience Windows. To that end, we are focused on making improvements at practically every consumer touch point, from the moment they hear about the Windows brand in our advertising to how they learn more about Windows products online; from how they view Windows and try it at retail to how they use the entire range of Windows offerings – Windows Vista, Windows Mobile and Windows Live – across their whole life.

Today, we are kicking off a highly visible advertising campaign. The first phase of this campaign is designed to engage consumers and spark a new conversation about Windows – a conversation that will evolve as the campaign progresses, but will always be marked by humor and humanity. The first in this series of television ads airs initially in the U.S., and it aims to re-ignite consumer excitement about the broader value of Windows. The first television spot aired on NBC during the opening game of the NFL season and will be seen throughout the evening on various primetime programs. Worldwide, you can view this first TV spot at http://msw.

This first set of ads features Bill Gates and comedian Jerry Seinfeld. Think of these ads as an icebreaker to reintroduce Microsoft to viewers in a consumer context. Later this month, as the campaign moves into its next phase, we’ll go much deeper in telling the Windows story and celebrating what it can do for consumers at work, at play and on-the-go. At that time, I’ll be back to share more information about our plans to further strengthen the bond between consumers and Windows – one of the most amazing products, businesses and brands of all time, and, with the right tenacity, passion and agility from all of us, a story that has many great chapters to come.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Even though the drama surrounding Microsoft’s Yahoo acquisition has subsided, it looks like there’s still some bad blood.

A tipster yesterday sent us a screen shot of Yahoo’s front page running on Internet Explorer with a Firefox recommendation sitting atop the page. “Yahoo recommends upgrading to the NEW safer, faster Firefox 3,” the ad says.

Yahoo still offers its version of Internet Explorer on its Downloads page, but if it isn’t safe or fast when compared to Firefox 3, why is the link still active?

Maybe it’s just some sour grapes.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

MultiTouch, a company specializing in, you guessed it, multi-touch technology, today launched the world’s first modular multi-touch LCD screen, which will allow owners to create screen tables and walls to their desired size.

Dubbed the MultiTouch Cell, each LCD screen unit is available in both 32- and 46-inch sizes and offers Full HD capability. The Cells can be positioned in portrait or landscape modes and can be turned into huge multi-touch screens or a multi-touch coffee table for those who don’t need something so grandiose.

The MultiTouch Cell is the company’s response to Microsoft’s Touchwall, which we wrote about earlier this year. Touchwall uses three infrared lasers that scan a surface, and a camera, which feeds information back to Microsoft’s Plex software after something breaks through the laser line. In contrast, the MultiTouch Cell uses an LCD display and according to the company, bests current projector-based systems by improving durability — MultiTouch claims users will get 50,000 hours of use compared to 3,000 hours for projector-based offerings — as well as improved image resolution, contrast, and color quality.

Depending on their needs, MultiTouch customers can buy dozens of LCD modules and arrange them in any way they wish without worrying about connectivity. Each LCD module features HDMI, FireWire, and USB ports and can be connected to a Mac, Linux or Windows computer, meaning each screen in the setup can display one large image or something different.

Although MultiTouch uses LCDs instead of projector technology, owners won’t save any money buying a MultiTouch system. The company’s 46-inch offering costs almost $16,000 with a fully-configured Linux PC to run the software, while a 46-inch display without the PC will cost about $14,700 per unit. 32-inch displays with Full HD capability cost about $8,300 with the Linux PC and almost $7,200 without it.

Ever since Microsoft announced its Surface computer, which currently retails for about $10,000 and can be found in some AT&T stores, more companies have jumped on the multi-touch bandwagon. But so far, development costs are extremely high and companies haven’t been able to bring prices down to an affordable level for consumers. For its part, Microsoft claims the Surface will be available to consumers in 2011, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Remember TouchWall, the experimental Microsoft touch interface operating system we wrote about in May (here’s me playing with it)?

We’ve been trying to get Microsoft to send us a copy of the operating system so that we could build a touch interface computer the size of a wall, but they have yet to agree. Today they say the technology is still years off in terms of development. But the overall idea has inspired a new product which is being released today by Microsoft Office Labs - pptPlex.

Despite the horrible product name, some people will find this very useful. it turns PowerPoint into a more dynamic presentation tool that breaks away from the slide mentality to allow the presenter to zoom in and out of areas. No more worrying about whether or not a bit of text will be large enough to read when projected on a wall. You can simply zoom in on it.

A video overview is below:

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

AppleInsider has posted details about a patent recently filed by Apple that describes technology for playing iTunes content from a desktop computer remotely on an iPhone or iPod touch.

The new software would load only meta data about songs, videos, and other media onto a handheld device. It would then allow users to stream this media from their desktop computers on demand and even let them organize their iTunes libraries remotely (by adding, deleting, and moving files around). The main benefits come from saving space on your handheld device, where disk storage is scarce, as well as saving the time it takes to synchronize.

There’s been no official word from Apple on when or whether it plans to release this technology (it files patents all the time that go nowhere). But such a development could be seen as one step towards a streaming music service like Rhapsody or Napster, which have operated in stark contrast to Apple’s download model. However, the patent does not suggest that Apple plans to stream data from its own servers - just consumers’ own desktop computers, where they keep the music they have downloaded.

Apple could also be understood to be taking on at least one facet of Microsoft Mesh, which promises to make consumers’ personal files available to them on whichever device they use. Of course, MobileMe already goes to show that Apple has data synchronization on its mind - but perhaps there’s a broader trend here as well.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Time Warner is moving forward with its plans to sell off AOL in pieces, and is finally ready to formally separate the AOL portal and advertising business from its legacy dial-up access business. But how much can it hope to get for these parts? When Google invested $1 billion in AOL a few years ago for a 5 percent stake, that valued AOL at $20 billion (which some people thought was an inflated figure even back then). Today, even after breaking it up, Time Warner will be lucky to get more than $7 billion for the whole lot.

Although it wants $10 billion for just the advertising and content business, there are only two serious potential buyers: Yahoo and Microsoft. And Time Warner is not making any friends at Yahoo by interfering with the selection of one of its new board members. If Microsoft turns out to be the only bidder, it would have no reason to offer much more than the $4 billion that the market is valuing the business at today. And, of course, all bets are off if Microsoft ends up buying Yahoo instead. (The dial-up business also only has one serious buyer: Earthlink).

According the WSJ (subscription required):

The Yahoo discussions have valued AOL at around $10 billion, excluding the dial-up business. In contrast, Time Warner’s current stock price — around $14 — suggests a value of no more than $3 billion to $4 billion for the ad-sales and content businesses, some analysts say.

Analysts value the [dial-up] business at only $2 billion to $3 billion, but Time Warner is expected to seek more than that in any sale discussion, according to people familiar with the situation. Despite having been in decline for several years, the business is still profitable and generates a predictable stream of cash. It serves 8.7 million subscribers, while EarthLink, the second-biggest dial-up service, serves 3.3 million, including broadband and Web-hosting subscribers

If Time Warner can convince Yahoo it still needs AOL, it might get closer to that $10 billion valuation for the online ad and content business. (Except that transaction would likely be structured so that Time Warner gives Yahoo cash in return for a large minority stake in the new combined AOL-Yahoo). According to comScore, AOL’s Platform-A is the largest online advertising network in the U.S. in terms of its reach, with 170 million individuals seeing its ads in June. Although Yahoo is probably bigger if you add together the reach of its advertising network with that of its own sites, depending on how much overlap there is. And many of those Platform-A ads, especially those from Advertising.com, are remnant ads sold at less than $1 CPMs (so volume is key).

(Disclosure: I own Time Warner shares).

How Much Is All Of AOL Worth?
( polls)

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer dropped the ax today, and it landed on Kevin Johnson’s neck.

Johnson, Microsoft’s soon-to-be ex-President of Platforms & Services, has been with Microsoft since 1992. He was in the unfortunate position of leading the recent Vista effort through its very troubled launch, and running Microsoft’s online efforts while watching their lunch be eaten by Google. He takes a consolation prize: He will become the CEO of Juniper Networks, a $12 billion network hardware manufacturer.

So what’s next for Microsoft? The Windows and Windows Live products now report directly to Ballmer. All the online stuff, including search, advertising and most MSN/Live.com services will be headed by a new executive. Ballmer says they’ll look for the person to lead their Google-killing efforts both internally and externally.

Putting Johnson aside for a moment, It’s damn well time Microsoft put someone in charge of its online efforts. Johnson had to split his time with the Windows cash machine and the results have been somewhat predictable. A half time executive running a product that doesn’t even have a brand (Live? MSN? Microsoft?) can’t win against Google.

The truth is that the next guy (or gal) isn’t going to make any fast gains on Google, either, no matter how awesome Mesh and Silverlight are. Ballmer seems willing to spend as long as it takes, though, noting that the war with Google is over the long term, not the short: “In the coming years, we’ll make progress against Google in search first by upping the ante in R&D through organic innovation and strategic acquisitions. Second, we will out-innovate Google in key areas…”

That sounds like Microsoft will channel yet more Windows and Office profits into their Internet startup. There’s no question that they intend to compete in search and advertising any more. The only question is whether they have any chance of winning.

Even if Microsoft concedes that they have a years (decades?) long war on their hands, they have to face the fact that Google’s commanding lead in search, and the network-effect driven advertising wealth that comes with it, will be hard to beat. And all those client software profits won’t last forever, particularly since Google is eating away at that via their suite of free Office products.

The first thing Microsoft needs to do is buy Yahoo - all of it. That brings them to half of Google’s market share in search, and at least they’re in the game.

Another thing Microsoft needs to do is simply pick a brand name for the Internet side of things, and stick with it. Microsoft. MSN. Live. Whatever, just name it something a little catchier than “Online Services.”

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

This isn’t enough data to declare Microsoft’s much derided Live Cashback search product a winner, but the first full month after it launched (June) shows a 15% gain in search volume v. the previous month, according to Comscore. This erases the previous month’s losses, bringing Microsoft up to 9.2% overall search share.

Live Search CashBack gives advertisers the option of offering users a direct rebate for purchases made after searching on Microsoft. The product shifts search advertising from cost-per-click (CPC) to cost-per-action (CPA) and give a lot of the revenue back to users.

Live Search Cashback isn’t designed to grab a ton of market share away from Google and Yahoo, but Microsoft is hopeful that more users will come to them when doing searches around buying goods online. And those queries tend to bring in the lion’s share of advertising dollars. This won’t affect Microsoft’s bottom line much, of course, since they are passing most of the money from purchases right back to consumers.

This is far from a definitive statement of Live Search Cashback’s success as an ongoing product, but the jump is an early sign that consumers may be intrigued. Let the debates continue.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees are holding separate hearings today on the antitrust issues raised by the proposed Google-Yahoo search advertising deal. (More details on the deal here). Microsoft’s general counsel Brad Smith, whose fought his own share of antitrust battles on behalf of Bill Gates, will be wagging the antitrust finger at Google. In his prepared testimony, he will claim that the deal potentially gives Google control of 90 percent of search ads, will lead to fewer choices and higher prices for advertisers, and raise serious privacy concerns for consumers. He will say:

If search is the gateway to the Internet, and most believe that it is, this deal will put Google in a position to own that gateway and the information that flows through it. Never before in the history of advertising has one company been in the position to control prices on up to 90 percent of advertising in a single medium. Not in television, not in radio, not in publishing. It should not happen on the Internet.

Google’s chief legal officer David Drummond will respond that the deal is good for consumers because they will see better ads, and good for advertisers and Web publishers because more people will click on those ads. He will maintain that Google will not control all of Yahoo’s search advertising, and will point out that Yahoo will compete in that arena, continuing to sell its own ads. It will also continue to compete in regular search. And as for privacy, Google and Yahoo will not exchange “personally identifiable information” about each user.

Here are Drummond’s talking points, which are summarized on the Google Policy Blog (where you can also find his full testimony):

* This agreement will be good for Internet users (who will see ads that are better targeted to their interests); advertisers (whose ads will be better matched to users’ interests, allowing them to reach potential customers more efficiently), and website publishers (who will see increased revenue from better-matched ads on their websites).

* Google and Yahoo! will remain vigorous competitors, and that competition will help fuel innovation that is good for users and the economy. As we’ve said before, commercial arrangements between competitors are commonplace in many industries. Antitrust regulators in the US have recognized that consumers can benefit form these arrangements, especially when one company has technical expertise that enables another company to improve the quality of its products.

* Our agreement will not increase Google’s share of search traffic, because Yahoo will continue to run its own search engine and compete in online search.

* We’re particularly excited that as part of the agreement, Yahoo! will make its instant messaging network interoperable with Google’s. This will mean easier and broader communication among a growing number of IM users, and enable users to choose among competing IM providers based on the merits and features of the services.

* We have taken a number of steps in the Yahoo! agreement to protect user privacy. As Google supplies ads to Yahoo! and its partners, personally identifiable information of individual Internet users will not be shared between the companies. Yahoo! will anonymize the IP address of a searcher’s computer before passing a search request to Google.

That last point about Yahoo anonymizing user IP addresses could set an interesting precedent. Advertisers would rather see those IP addresses freely shared across ad networks and Websites so that consumers can be targeted no matter where they go on the Web. But Yahoo and Google obviously felt it could have been a big enough issue to squirrel the deal with the government. As Congress looks at behavioral targeting in general further down the road, that could pop its head up again (even n a non-antitrust context).

These particular antitrust hearings have been brewing for a while. Google and Yahoo have tried to protect themselves against Microsoft’s criticisms by structuring the deal as a straightforward arms-length commercial agreement. And the fact that Microsoft has a lot at stake in seeing the deal squashed doesn’t make it the strongest witness at these hearings. It is not exactly a disinterested third party, since it is still trying to wrangle the search business from Yahoo itself.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Yahoo rejected a new Microsoft offer to acquire Yahoo’s search business earlier this evening. The offer, which apparently was made on Friday in cooperation with Yahoo investor Carl Icahn, was a variation on Microsoft’s previous offer to acquire Yahoo’s search business in exchange for cash, a partial stock buyout and revenue guarantees, required the complete replacement of the Yahoo board and executive management team, had a 24 hour expiration period and stated that there was no room for negotiation.

Yahoo rejected it, saying that the Google search deal they’ve signed is a better deal and adding that the requirement to replace the board and executive team is “absurd and irresponsible given the complexity of the deal.” We, by the way, agree with both points.

Yahoo formally offered to sell itself whole to Microsoft in the release as well, saying “the Board believes a whole company transaction could be negotiated and executed prior to August 1st,” and suggesting Microsoft’s original $33 offer will work just fine for them right now.

Full text of release:

Yahoo! Rejects Microsoft/Icahn Search and Restructuring Proposal
Yahoo! Suggests Microsoft Make A Proposal To Acquire Whole Company

SUNNYVALE, Calif., Jul 12, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO), a leading global Internet company, confirmed today that it has rejected a joint proposal from Microsoft Corporation and Carl Icahn for a complex restructuring of Yahoo! that would include the acquisition of Yahoo!’s search business by Microsoft.

The proposal was made on Friday evening and Yahoo! was given less than 24 hours to accept the proposal, the fundamental terms of which Microsoft and Mr. Icahn made clear they were unwilling to negotiate. After reviewing the proposal with its legal and financial advisers, Yahoo!’s Board of Directors determined that accepting the proposal is not in the best interests of its stockholders.

The Board’s rejection of the proposal was based on a number of factors, including the following:

1. Yahoo!’s existing business plus its recently signed commercial agreement with Google has superior financial value and less complexity and risk than the Microsoft/Icahn proposal.

2. The Microsoft/Icahn proposal would preclude a potential sale of all of Yahoo! for a full and fair price, including a control premium.

3. The major component of the overall value per share asserted by Microsoft/Icahn would be in Yahoo!’s remaining non-search businesses which would be overseen by Mr. Icahn’s slate of directors, which has virtually no working knowledg