Ever since Facebook came out they always emphasised on the idea of connections, however when Facebook first made their debut in 2005, it was a private space for communication. Today Facebook has transformed in a forum where much of you information is public by default.
In 2006, Facebook's privacy policy stated that "no personal information that you submit to Facebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings." Then as time progressed in 2006, Facebook allowed your personal information to be visible to to your school, your specified local area, and other reasonable community limitations that we tell you about, yet they still allowed their users decent amount of privacy.
However, in 2009 Facebook decided that their default privacy setting should change from "private" to "everyone". Facebook believe that since their were a social networking site -making their users personal information available to everyone, would open more lines of communication.
Finally in April 2010, Facebook's new private policy stated that "When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connection, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. ... The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” ... Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection."
Clearly, we can conclude that Facebook was meant to offer its users complete and effective controls over their personal information. Nonetheless, as Facebook grew larger and became more important, it changed from users control to advertising and businesses purposes. They made available more and more of its users' information, while limiting the users' options to control their own information.
Complete Article at: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Technology and Relationships
Technology has affected my generation in a way no one could've imagined. It has altered our languages and even the process of creating friendships and other kinds of relationships. So being I that grew up in a time where instant messages and texts replace real face-to-face contact, how are the generations that have come after mine being affected?
The average high school kid sends about 50 texts a day, if not more. Psychologists are researching this behavior to see if these kind of relationships can help teens to become social-functioning adults in the real world. While the research is still inconclusive and kind of vague, the worry that they have is that this kind of "connecting" is superficial, and could affect how these children function in the real world. Another big concern is teens engaging in cyber-bullying and "sexting" I'm quoting here from npr.com (and linking the full article for anyone to read) because it explains best what the main concern is:
"One of the concerns is that, unlike their parents — many of whom recall having intense childhood relationships with a bosom buddy with whom they would spend all their time and tell all their secrets — today’s youths may be missing out on experiences that help them develop empathy, understand emotional nuances and read social cues like facial expressions and body language." (Stout,2010)
While people on the other side argue that technology has brought kids closer than ever to one another, there is still some research that needs to be done in order to find out whether this kind of communication is beneficial or not.
The arguments on both sides are valid. Teens who only interact with other people virtually could be missing out on valuable face-time with real people, but what's worse, a kid who only talks to people online or one who talks to no one...at all? It's a conundrum, and probably one that won't be figured out until we are a LOT older...and maybe a little blind from always having our faces on some sort of screen....
Apple’s iPad, a savior comes to rescue?
In my previous blog post, I gave some analysis on the statistics of advertising revenues distributed in old and new media. One creative way the old media can take advantage of the recent release of iPad is to attract advertisers through developing applications compatible with the device where users can download and read its content.
As of now, ABC is the only television network that is offering an iPad application where users can download and watch its episodes for free. ABC network said that in the 10 days since the iPad’s debut, its TV-show app has been downloaded a total of 205,000 times, “giving the Disney network a presence on nearly half the 450,000 devices that Apple says it has sold”. (WSJ.com).
ABC network also says that it will eventually give local advertisers the ability to sell ads that would be seen only by iPad users in their markets, thereby targeting audiences according to their geographical locations.
According to Smith, “the app represents one of the most ambitious attempts to date by a traditional media company to create a new business model on the new Apple device.”(WSJ.com). At times like this, creativity may bring surprising results. As seen from ABC’s initial success with iPad, many other television networks and print media may follow suit.
To view the original article, please click here.
Privacy Concerns Limits Online Ads
A recent study done by The Ponemon Institute discovered that privacy concerns has definitely affected the online ad industry and prompted many marketers to use online behavioral advertising — based on tracking a user’s Web browsing habits — 75 percent less than they would otherwise.
Nonetheless, the 90 companies and organizations surveyed reduced their behavioral advertising, even though they estimated the tracking-based ads were 50 percent more efficient in generating sales than conventional online display ads.
“Privacy fears are definitely having an economic impact,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman of the privacy and security research group. The markets are holding back, Mr. Ponemon says, because of the uncertain legal and regulatory environment. Congress and the Federal Trade Commission are mulling tighter restrictions on online data collection, disclosure and use.
However, the industry has set forth its efforts in the last year to develop a meaningful self-regulatory program in which advertiser can still incorporate targeted ads, while keeping the consumer informed. "The effort includes public education and technology — a click-on icon — to tell consumers what is happening when they see a targeted ad that uses demographics and behavioral data." (NY Times)
It was also suggested that they include limiting the ability of Web sites and ad networks to use behavioral data to 24 hours after it is collected, and requiring consumers’ permission — an opt-in approach — to hold such data beyond 24 hours.
The groups also say individual privacy rights should include being able to find out who is tracking them and know what information is being disseminated about them.“The online ad lobby is spinning a glossy fairy tale about how they want to protect privacy, all so they can continue data collection practices as usual,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
Full article available at: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/privacy-concerns-limit-online-ads-study-says/?ref=technology
Nonetheless, the 90 companies and organizations surveyed reduced their behavioral advertising, even though they estimated the tracking-based ads were 50 percent more efficient in generating sales than conventional online display ads.
“Privacy fears are definitely having an economic impact,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman of the privacy and security research group. The markets are holding back, Mr. Ponemon says, because of the uncertain legal and regulatory environment. Congress and the Federal Trade Commission are mulling tighter restrictions on online data collection, disclosure and use.
However, the industry has set forth its efforts in the last year to develop a meaningful self-regulatory program in which advertiser can still incorporate targeted ads, while keeping the consumer informed. "The effort includes public education and technology — a click-on icon — to tell consumers what is happening when they see a targeted ad that uses demographics and behavioral data." (NY Times)
It was also suggested that they include limiting the ability of Web sites and ad networks to use behavioral data to 24 hours after it is collected, and requiring consumers’ permission — an opt-in approach — to hold such data beyond 24 hours.
The groups also say individual privacy rights should include being able to find out who is tracking them and know what information is being disseminated about them.“The online ad lobby is spinning a glossy fairy tale about how they want to protect privacy, all so they can continue data collection practices as usual,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
Full article available at: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/privacy-concerns-limit-online-ads-study-says/?ref=technology
NJ Principal Tells Parents "Keep Your Kids off of Facebook!"
A NJ principal, Anthony Orsini is telling parents to keep their kids off of social networking sites like Facebook. Orsini is the principal at Benjamin Franklin Middle School and is telling parents that their children have no business spreading personal information on social networking sites. He is quoted on CNN saying:
"It is time for every single member of the [school] Community to take a stand!”
His reasoning behind the mass e-mail to parents is that kids at that age don’t have the intellectual ability to know what to share and what not to share...he has a point. I know that when I was a teenager in high school I wanted the world to know everything about me, and had no idea what danger could come from revealing too much.
I spoke about cyber-bullying in my paper on Friday and this is one of the things Principal Orsini is concerned about. He is worried that students with online profiles will be more susceptible to online predators and bullying from other people at school.
This principal maybe taking some extreme measures to protect his students, but in this technological era it makes sense.
Internet ads revenues continue to rise, old media getting a smaller slice of the pie
From the report of ZenithOptimedia, advertisers are spending more on internet than the magazine in 2009, for the first time in history. With the trend of downsizing in traditional media like newspapers and magazines, the further cut in advertising revenues taken away by new media like video games and internet seems to make it even more worrisome.
ZenithOptimedia reports that “Magazines' share of worldwide ad spending fell to 10.3% in 2009 from 11.6% in 2008 and is expected to fall to 9.6% this year, 9.1% in 2011 and 8.6% in 2012. Radio, which held even at 7.7% last year, is projected to decline to 7.5% this year and 7.3% in 2011 before holding steady again in 2012.” (ZenithOptimedia).
On the contrary, the internet increased its share of global ad spending to 12.6% last year from 10.5% in 2008, and will keep growing—the report predicts that its share will rise up to 13.9% this year, 15.4% next year and 17.1% in 2012. (ZenithOptimedia).
Advertising is considered one crucial revenue sources for print industry, with internet taking a growing share of ads income, the print media would have to think of newer ways to cope. Nevertheless, many print media has already crossed over onto internet by establishing its own news websites, which can provide an additional source of revenue.
To get more information on the statistics of advertising revenues in media, please see here and here.
History in 140 words or less.
Tweet by tweet as people check on status of other, a lot of information is taken for disregard. However, laterly they are likely to be of considerable value to future historians. Many critics believe that they contain more observations, recorded at the same times by more people, than ever preserved in any medium before. Who knew your status would actually make history.
“Twitter is tens of millions of active users. There is no archive with tens of millions of diaries,” said Daniel J. Cohen, an associate professor of history at George Mason University and co-author of a 2006 book, “Digital History.” What’s more, he said, “Twitter is of the moment; it’s where people are the most honest.”
Last month, Twitter acknowledged that would donate its archive of public messages to the Library of Congress with supply it with continuous updates and statuses.
Before transferring it, the company will remove the messages of users who opted to designate their account “protected,” so that only people who obtain their explicit permission can follow them.
"A Twitter user can also elect to use a pseudonym and not share any personally identifying information. Twitter does not add identity tags that match its users to real people.
Each message is accompanied by some tidbits of supplemental information, like the number of followers that the author had at the time and how many users the author was following. While Mr. Cohen said it would be useful for a historian to know who the followers and the followed are, this information is not included in the Tweet itself.
But there’s nothing private about who follows whom among users of Twitter’s unprotected, public accounts. This information is displayed both at Twitter’s own site and in applications developed by third parties whom Twitter welcomes to tap its database". (NY TImes)
The library will embargo messages for six months after their original transmission. If that is not enough to put privacy issues to rest. However, many people on twitter arent aware of their privacy setting. This leaves a lot of room for information that is invalid and as Mr Cohen puts it "useless information"
Nonetheless Mr. Cohen encourages historians to find new tools and methods for mining the “staggeringly large historical record” of Tweets. This will require a different approach, he said, one that lets go of straightforward “anecdotal history.”
However, are we at that age when the quanity of history replace the quality and significance.
“Twitter is tens of millions of active users. There is no archive with tens of millions of diaries,” said Daniel J. Cohen, an associate professor of history at George Mason University and co-author of a 2006 book, “Digital History.” What’s more, he said, “Twitter is of the moment; it’s where people are the most honest.”
Last month, Twitter acknowledged that would donate its archive of public messages to the Library of Congress with supply it with continuous updates and statuses.
Before transferring it, the company will remove the messages of users who opted to designate their account “protected,” so that only people who obtain their explicit permission can follow them.
"A Twitter user can also elect to use a pseudonym and not share any personally identifying information. Twitter does not add identity tags that match its users to real people.
Each message is accompanied by some tidbits of supplemental information, like the number of followers that the author had at the time and how many users the author was following. While Mr. Cohen said it would be useful for a historian to know who the followers and the followed are, this information is not included in the Tweet itself.
But there’s nothing private about who follows whom among users of Twitter’s unprotected, public accounts. This information is displayed both at Twitter’s own site and in applications developed by third parties whom Twitter welcomes to tap its database". (NY TImes)
The library will embargo messages for six months after their original transmission. If that is not enough to put privacy issues to rest. However, many people on twitter arent aware of their privacy setting. This leaves a lot of room for information that is invalid and as Mr Cohen puts it "useless information"
Nonetheless Mr. Cohen encourages historians to find new tools and methods for mining the “staggeringly large historical record” of Tweets. This will require a different approach, he said, one that lets go of straightforward “anecdotal history.”
However, are we at that age when the quanity of history replace the quality and significance.
Court does not approve internet regulation by the FCC
Internet is becoming a major tool of communication channel in contemporary society, but little regulation exists to protect users of the media from potential abuse by network providers.
The F.C.C. was attempting to increase the reach of broadband Internet to all corners of the country and to promote more competition among internet providers through its broadband plan. This month, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced that the Federal Communications Commission “didn’t have the authority to regulate the Internet — and specifically, could not force the cable giant Comcast to stop blocking peer-to-peer sites.” (New York Times page A22, April 19, 2010).
F.C.C. Chairman Julius Genachowski said an appeal to the court decision is not on the commission’s agenda, but it is considering other options. Now, the F.C.C. may have to rely on Congress to give the F.C.C. specific authority to regulate broadband access—or, to ignore the court decision altogether.
There is, however, other ways in which F.C.C. could try to convince the court that it is a legitimate regulator for the industry. New York Times editor wrote:
“Fortunately, the commission has the tools to fix this problem. It can reverse the Bush administration’s predictably antiregulatory decision to define broadband Internet access as an information service, like Google or Amazon, over which it has little regulatory power. Instead, it can define broadband as a communications service, like a phone company, over which the commission has indisputable authority.” (New York Times page A22, April 19, 2010).
Many internet users around the United States may have already noticed that only a small number of broadband access providers (in many areas, there is only one provider) are available, making the F.C.C.’s role to step in as a regulatory authority seem furthermore pressing.
To read the entire editorial, please click here.
Anonymous online book reviews = a weapon in the literary battle?
While it is no new news that internet users often can find book reviews posted by other readers online before purchasing a book, it seems rather shocking that book reviews can be used as a tactic by writers to attack other writers in the same genre.
A British author, Rachel Polonsky, discovered that there is a blatantly negative review on her new book “Molotov’s Magic Tavern” on Amazon online bookstore by a commenter named “Historian”. After tracing the same commenter’s comments on other books in the same genre, Polonsky found that this anonymous reviewer had posted other similar, savaging comments to books by other authors. Interestingly enough, she also discovered that this hypercritical “Historian” is unusually laudable to the works by one writer: Orlando Figes.
The writers than started talking to each other and suspected that Figes is himself the true identity behind the obnoxious commentator. This had Figes hiring an attorney threatening to sue Polonsky and others for libel. The events prompted Polonsky to hire an expert in digital forensics, who eventually concluded that the comments did in fact come from Figes’ household.
Online trashing of other people may assume anonymity, but sometimes they are not without real-life consequences. The filing of eLibel lawsuits has a trend of increasing, but oftentimes the court refuses to pursue a complete disclosure of the identity of the anonymous users who made online defamatory comments, making the plaintiff difficult to sue.
Nevertheless, things as subjective as a book review are really a matter of opinion. But when the real world crosses over to the online world, can online comments remain entirely anonymous?
To read this story in full, please click here.
2nd Cir. Allows RIAA "John Doe" Lawsuits
Ever since a federal appeals court ruled the Recording Industry Association of America did not have the power under the DMCA to force ISPs to turn over the names of users it suspected of copyright infringement, the RIAA has resorted to a less McCarthyan approach: "John Doe" lawsuits. Yesterday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the RIAA's new legal process.
Previously, the RIAA ran a mass-subpoena campaign, using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's new provisions to force ISPs to turn over the names of users whose IP addresses had been identified as copyright violators. The copyright holder did not have to show proof of copyright infringement or file a lawsuit in order to issue a subpoena. When Verizon challenged the legality of the RIAA's strategy, the EFF filed a "friend of the court" brief arguing "that every Internet user’s privacy was at risk if anyone claiming to be a copyright owner could, without ever appearing before a judge, force an ISP to hand over the names and addresses of its customers."
Now, at least, the RIAA has to file a lawsuit before ISPs may be required to turn over users' names. Defendants may challenge the subpoenas and the new ruling "injected judicial oversight into the process."
Still, the EFF estimates the lawsuits, which target individuals and often result in massive out-of-court settlements, have not deterred file-sharers in the United States.
Previously, the RIAA ran a mass-subpoena campaign, using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's new provisions to force ISPs to turn over the names of users whose IP addresses had been identified as copyright violators. The copyright holder did not have to show proof of copyright infringement or file a lawsuit in order to issue a subpoena. When Verizon challenged the legality of the RIAA's strategy, the EFF filed a "friend of the court" brief arguing "that every Internet user’s privacy was at risk if anyone claiming to be a copyright owner could, without ever appearing before a judge, force an ISP to hand over the names and addresses of its customers."
Now, at least, the RIAA has to file a lawsuit before ISPs may be required to turn over users' names. Defendants may challenge the subpoenas and the new ruling "injected judicial oversight into the process."
Still, the EFF estimates the lawsuits, which target individuals and often result in massive out-of-court settlements, have not deterred file-sharers in the United States.
Google involved in a legal battle? Never!
Apple has decided to shut down its music-streaming program Lala, making an announcement yesterday on the homepage that the service would end May 31. Lala has been a factor in the ongoing battle between Apple and Google (yes, Google is involved in another battle), since Lala was a partner with Google Music.
Therefore, shutting down Lala can affect more than just the users, who will be credited the amount they spent on Lala through iTunes. Lala is only one piece of the puzzle, though. Apple and Google have been competing in the new technology market for years. In the field of smartphones, Apple's iPhone hold a lead over Google-based Android, but the HTC brand has been gaining. Similarly, Apple released the iPad as the originator of tablet PCs, but rumor has it that Google will be releasing a model by the end of 2010.
With Apple shutting down Lala, the question that remains is whether Google will replace Lala as a partner or if Apple has reached another agreement with Google to keep providing music for searches through another outlet, such as iTunes. With Google as a player in this case, we may never know. They certainly keep us on our toes.
Therefore, shutting down Lala can affect more than just the users, who will be credited the amount they spent on Lala through iTunes. Lala is only one piece of the puzzle, though. Apple and Google have been competing in the new technology market for years. In the field of smartphones, Apple's iPhone hold a lead over Google-based Android, but the HTC brand has been gaining. Similarly, Apple released the iPad as the originator of tablet PCs, but rumor has it that Google will be releasing a model by the end of 2010.
With Apple shutting down Lala, the question that remains is whether Google will replace Lala as a partner or if Apple has reached another agreement with Google to keep providing music for searches through another outlet, such as iTunes. With Google as a player in this case, we may never know. They certainly keep us on our toes.
Where's my money, Lala?
(Note: What a coincidence! Alex and I both did the same story.)
Apple is shutting down Lala.com, the popular streaming music website, which famously appears at the top of Google search results for most popular music titles. Google users could, until recently, stream just about any song for free via Lala.com's integrated search results. Now, with Lala's closure imminent, many wonder whether Google will find a new music partner or team up with Apple, which is expected to integrate Lala's technology into its iTunes music service. Either way, the rivalry between Apple and Google is heating up.
The use of Lala.com's streaming audio technology brings up a contentious DMCA debate from several years ago over music royalties and online broadcasting. Royalties, which are fees that media outlets pay to artists and copyright holders for use of a particular song, make up a significant portion of artists' and record labels' revnues. When an FM radio station plays a song, the station must pay "publishing royalties" to the song's copyright holders. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, Internet radio stations have to pay publishing royalties and performance royalties. Critics suggested the record labels had persuaded Congress to impose extra royalties in order to discourage smaller, independent streaming music sites from playing their music for little to no cost.
However, online performance royalties, which are now based on broadcasters' revenues, often never actually make it to the artists themselves--I'm still waiting for my checks!
Apple is shutting down Lala.com, the popular streaming music website, which famously appears at the top of Google search results for most popular music titles. Google users could, until recently, stream just about any song for free via Lala.com's integrated search results. Now, with Lala's closure imminent, many wonder whether Google will find a new music partner or team up with Apple, which is expected to integrate Lala's technology into its iTunes music service. Either way, the rivalry between Apple and Google is heating up.
The use of Lala.com's streaming audio technology brings up a contentious DMCA debate from several years ago over music royalties and online broadcasting. Royalties, which are fees that media outlets pay to artists and copyright holders for use of a particular song, make up a significant portion of artists' and record labels' revnues. When an FM radio station plays a song, the station must pay "publishing royalties" to the song's copyright holders. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, Internet radio stations have to pay publishing royalties and performance royalties. Critics suggested the record labels had persuaded Congress to impose extra royalties in order to discourage smaller, independent streaming music sites from playing their music for little to no cost.
However, online performance royalties, which are now based on broadcasters' revenues, often never actually make it to the artists themselves--I'm still waiting for my checks!
Facebook CEO "doesn't believe in privacy"
"Off record chat w/ Facebook employee. Me: How does Zuck feel about privacy? Response: [laughter] He doesn't believe in it."
Nick Bilton, a blogger for The New York Times' "Bits," let this tidbit slip on Twitter Wednesday, and the remark by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is making waves among privacy advocates and average Internet users alike. With Facebook and other social media occupying a greater space online (indeed, Facebook accounts for even more Web traffic than the gargantuan Google search), users are becoming increasingly aware of their rights to information they upload. Facebook, it seems, is manipulating users' personal information with reckless abandon, making data on its users available to corporations, advertisers, and who knows what else, for a tidy profit.
"On Tuesday, four Senators asked the company to only push data to third-parties if users agree to it," WIRED News reported, referring to "a so-called “opt-in” that social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google Buzz eschew since it radically cuts down on participation and thus revenues."
However, in light of Zuckerberg's candid revelation, one can only assume Facebook will continue to become less private, but what are the effects of the commodification of personal information? Only time will tell, though Facebook and the concept of online identity might change the way society views the very idea of identity and the self.
Nick Bilton, a blogger for The New York Times' "Bits," let this tidbit slip on Twitter Wednesday, and the remark by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is making waves among privacy advocates and average Internet users alike. With Facebook and other social media occupying a greater space online (indeed, Facebook accounts for even more Web traffic than the gargantuan Google search), users are becoming increasingly aware of their rights to information they upload. Facebook, it seems, is manipulating users' personal information with reckless abandon, making data on its users available to corporations, advertisers, and who knows what else, for a tidy profit.
"On Tuesday, four Senators asked the company to only push data to third-parties if users agree to it," WIRED News reported, referring to "a so-called “opt-in” that social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google Buzz eschew since it radically cuts down on participation and thus revenues."
However, in light of Zuckerberg's candid revelation, one can only assume Facebook will continue to become less private, but what are the effects of the commodification of personal information? Only time will tell, though Facebook and the concept of online identity might change the way society views the very idea of identity and the self.
Is Google's run over? Yahoo may think so
Carol Bartz, head of Yahoo, reportedly told BBC News that Google would be in trouble if it did not diversify its business. According to Bartz, Google would have to "do a lot more than search" and should "grow a company the size of Yahoo every year" in order to compete in the market.
Yahoo competes with Google in the search engine market, but Yahoo has only 17 percent of the U.S. market while Google has 65 percent. Bartz claimed, however, that Google is going to have a problem because they are only known for search. She said it is only half of Yahoo's business, but it is 99.9 percent of Google's business, and that they would have to break out into other markets to remain successful.
These comments come at an interesting time. If you recall, Google is in the midst of a lawsuit surrounding one of their biggest and most innovative Internet ventures: Google Books. Google has also spawned Gmail, Google Maps and Google News. Google is also the supporter of Blogger blogging service and Picasa photo-sharing service. Google seems to be the definition of a search site branching out into other markets.
With Google having success with so many other ventures, what sparked Bartz's comments? She did say in a press conference that she expected Facebook and Google to surpass Yahoo in the amount of time spent on the site. Perhaps this is a case of fighting fire with fire, or playing dirty.
As for Google, with such major launches like Google Books and the rumored Google TV, I don't believe they'll be struggling to make a name in the market anytime soon.
Yahoo competes with Google in the search engine market, but Yahoo has only 17 percent of the U.S. market while Google has 65 percent. Bartz claimed, however, that Google is going to have a problem because they are only known for search. She said it is only half of Yahoo's business, but it is 99.9 percent of Google's business, and that they would have to break out into other markets to remain successful.
These comments come at an interesting time. If you recall, Google is in the midst of a lawsuit surrounding one of their biggest and most innovative Internet ventures: Google Books. Google has also spawned Gmail, Google Maps and Google News. Google is also the supporter of Blogger blogging service and Picasa photo-sharing service. Google seems to be the definition of a search site branching out into other markets.
With Google having success with so many other ventures, what sparked Bartz's comments? She did say in a press conference that she expected Facebook and Google to surpass Yahoo in the amount of time spent on the site. Perhaps this is a case of fighting fire with fire, or playing dirty.
As for Google, with such major launches like Google Books and the rumored Google TV, I don't believe they'll be struggling to make a name in the market anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)