• Profile logout login

#gizmodo#gtltimg

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 11:55 AM
Thu Nov 26
41 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email

Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email

Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email

Investigations:
John Cook | Email

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email

Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email

Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of Alaska Miller Alaska Miller
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    It's like telling a city bus to stop only at Burger King instead of McDonald's and expecting everyone to pay extra for free ice cream.
     Reply
    Alaska Miller was starred Alaska Miller was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    What is more interesting than search engines paying for content is that this could ultimately save the news media business. Ignoring the concern to Joe Searchy and having to pick a search engine based on the results being listed for their favorite news, this could potentially allow newspapers to gain income and pay their journalists again. Certainly, there is a potential dark cloud with this concept, but there is a bright and shiny one as well The news media could survive based on search engines having to pay for access to content solving their diminishing revenue stream. Hard to say whether this is a short term or long term solution to that issue, but it certainly has potential and I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Monty: Paying journalists is a good thing and new revenue streams are vital for news organizations to pay for their current overhead. But the problem with the rosy scenario of search engines funding journalism is that the people who go to search engines looking for news are the ones who care the least about news brands. They're more likely to click on rocketnews.com or whatever it is as they are the WSJ.com. Which is exactly what infuriates newspaper owners like Murdoch. The folks who have favorite news sources are the ones who will go straight to those favorite news sources in the first place.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Monty: In this video of Calacanis' original suggestion (or at least the first place, I heard it), he spends a lot of the time proposing sort of a bidding war to get content from the largest media companies, but its success would hinge a great deal on Microsoft's willingness to use exclusivity as a selling point.

    IOW: The content companies would get a revenue stream, but as I hear him, Bing would be the primary beneficiary in the short run.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 6:15 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Magister: Agreed. "Bing: The Only Place to Find the Wall Street Journal" would make a catchy tag line. And Microsoft probably like to lure in some other big-name brands. But I can't see them extending the same offer to smaller, lesser-known news orgs. McClatchy anyone?
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I think we are all in agreement. It is hard to know whether this agreement will ultimately be a winner for the news media or not. Will it even work for News Corp, let alone for small newspapers around the country? Why would Bing pay for content from the Eugene, Oregon Register Guard? Hard to imagine. That said, it is interesting to see this unfold - and I admit that I doubt either the rosy outlook nor the doom and gloom one will come to be. Usually truth falls somewhere in the middle, which in this case means it will not matter much.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I don't know how far down Microsoft would like to go, but McClatchy owns a lot of big local papers. For instance in North Carolina, they own the two largest in the state, so maybe they could do some print trading and a couple of television ads saying something like "Bing: The exclusive index for the Charlotte Observer".

    Murdoch might be the one to pioneer this and he might get some quick income, but if Microsoft is willing to pay and if they're willing to negotiate something with the other players, Google could easily lose market share over the long run.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    What happens when you look for a foreign or local story? I assume the Fox O&Os will be part of the equation, as will their Australian and UK papers.

    Though the biggest difference for the average American Google user will probably be the inability to read WSJ stories without paying a subscription.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 5:45 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of sweetpickles sweetpickles
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Yes. You'll find the same news at other sites by searching through Google. This isn't only about Murdoch walling off his sites, though. This is about Microsoft and News Corp. making a move to bring the internet closer to the cable television model. Search is going to become less about algorhythms and more about marketing dollars. Bing could become a curated search destination, built on the brands of established media companies. You might one day pay for a Bing app. to bring you its content resources. I don't think it's far fetched. The phone company and cable have been doing the same thing for decades: Providing a premium utility. You remember the White Pages, right?
     Reply
    sweetpickles was starred sweetpickles was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    I think this is really audience-specific. I work for a bank, so if I had to choose between Google + no WSJ and some other search engine that is 97% as good as Google + WSJ, I would have to choose the latter. I imagine that old people, conservatives, and many other smaller groups of people might feel the same way. Add all these pieces up, and it could sum to a non-negligible percentage of market share.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of NorwoodIsMyHero NorwoodIsMyHero
    11/24/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I work at a private bank and I completely agree. The problem is you and I and the old fogeys don't really represent a vast majority of Google's search audience.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus promoted this comment Gabriel Snyder approved this comment NorwoodIsMyHero was starred NorwoodIsMyHero was unstarred
    Image of OCEntertainment OCEntertainment
    11/24/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I would be very interested in having a conversation with the (according to the stereotypes) conservative fans of Fox News who are ok with one company strong-arming them into using their product through backroom deals, rather than by improving the quality of their products. Free market!

    Wait, scratch that. What am I talking about? I do not want to have to wade through that conversation.
     Reply
    OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred
    Image of Nick Nick
    11/24/09

    @OCEntertainment: i also work at a bank. i use Google Finance for a lot and hate the Fox Business site. if i need something Fox News related (which i do like) i go straight to them. i also use Bloomberg. i am just typing my opinion because i like the sight of my own words.
     Reply
    Nick was starred Nick was unstarred
    Image of OCEntertainment OCEntertainment
    11/24/09

    @Nick: I'm pretty sure you could include that last sentence with any comment posted in any comment thread on the internet and still be properly poking fun at the commenter/article you're responding to (as well as yourself).

    Thanks for the perspective. I'm logging off early tonight.
     Reply
    OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    @NorwoodIsMyHero: But what % are these people (bankers, business people and old fogeys)? 10%? More? To a casual Google user, that's not much. To Google, that's 10% of their business.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    @Nick: I don't care about Fox News, and I suspect that many people don't really, other than for the entertainment value. I care about the WSJ only, out of News Corp's publications. Unfortunately, the WSJ is a very important publication in finance. Since not missing finance news is part of my livelihood, I might be forced to use Bing if News Corp drops Google.

    I disapprove of these business practices that artificially entice people to use specific search engines. However, this does not make me immune to the effects.
     Reply
    Edited by Hello Mister Walrus at 11/24/09 5:55 PM Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of NorwoodIsMyHero NorwoodIsMyHero
    11/25/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I don't think we'd completely stop using Google though. At work and in news searches, I certainly would be using Bing, but at home I'd probably still use Google by default, and only if I specifically was looking for news would I switch, which when I'm home is basically never as I get plenty of it throughout the workday.
     Reply
    NorwoodIsMyHero was starred NorwoodIsMyHero was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    And notice in that first search that while News Corp. is saying it can live without Google, it's also buying up ad keywords like "lieberman public option" to send people to WSJ.com.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I haven't read the WSJ's affiliate agreement and am too lazy to look for it now, but does it preclude people from buying keywords and coding them with their number?
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 5:54 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Magister: Good point. The ad isn't being served to me any more, so I can't see what the affiliate code was.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: The same, here. I went to look before making the suggestion, but the ads were gone (maybe they're on restricted hours) and Hamilton's post had made it onto the front page.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of manchops manchops
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    but have you tried googling:
    "Andrea Peyser + sex goddess?"

    I mean, hello?
     Reply
    manchops was starred manchops was unstarred
    Image of If_I_Had_a_Poodle If_I_Had_a_Poodle
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Perfect.

    And if they take even one step in the direction of "You can't quote our stories" they will drive themselves so far into irrelevancy ...
     Reply
    If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred If_I_Had_a_Poodle was unstarred
    Image of Helio Helio
    11/24/09

    @If_I_Had_a_Poodle: Let's hope they take that bait.
     Reply
    Helio was starred Helio was unstarred
    Image of MissNormaDesmond MissNormaDesmond
    11/23/09

    In reply to Confessed Teen Killer's Social Networking Hobbies: 'Killing People'
    If I see one more pompous asshole say idiotic things about psychiatric disorders they know nothing about I think I'm going to commit a thrill killing.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond was starred MissNormaDesmond was unstarred
    Image of lobstr lobstr
    11/20/09

    In reply to Confessed Teen Killer's Social Networking Hobbies: 'Killing People'
    [www.truecrimereport.com]

    "Update: Following a two-day search, Elizabeth's body has been found. Police have a juvenile person of interest in custody have haven't released his name. All they'll say is that he knew Elizabeth, lived not far away, and was older than the girl. "

    "His"/"he" .. so sexist and judgmental, the press! :p
     Reply
    lobstr was starred lobstr was unstarred
    Image of lackadaisical lackadaisical
    11/20/09

    @lobstr: Don't tell Jezebel.
     Reply
    raincoaster promoted this comment lackadaisical was starred lackadaisical was unstarred
    Image of Alaska Miller Alaska Miller
    11/20/09

    In reply to Confessed Teen Killer's Social Networking Hobbies: 'Killing People'
    Things just happen in Misery, United States
     Reply
    Alaska Miller was starred Alaska Miller was unstarred
    Image of TheWerewolf - Sotto voce TheWerewolf - Sotto voce
    11/19/09

    In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
    "The Apple Tablet has been something of a holy grail for gadget fiends."

    Seriously though - there's lots of reasons to be suspicious of the Apple Tablet - not the least of which is that it's not going to be a tablet Mac... it's going to be a large iPhone.

    Which means - you're getting an ebook reader for $700. :)
     Reply
    Edited by TheWerewolf - Sotto voce at 11/19/09 1:57 AM TheWerewolf - Sotto voce was starred TheWerewolf - Sotto voce was unstarred
    Image of Alfisted Alfisted
    11/18/09

    In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
    If Apple says the Tabelt doesn't exist, who am I to doubt them?

    Not sure why Conde Nast is staring with Wired, though.
     Reply
    Edited by Alfisted at 11/18/09 8:18 PM Alfisted was starred Alfisted was unstarred
    Image of TyTy27 TyTy27
    11/19/09

    @Alfisted: I'm pretty sure the tablet will exist. If Conde is going to make this move then Wired is the obvious choice. Of all Conde's titles, Wired readers are the most likely to buy the tablet as well as use new technologies in general. I'm not sure if it will work for Conde but starting with Wired makes the most sense. It's what I'd do.
     Reply
    TyTy27 was starred TyTy27 was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
    This is a pet peeve of mine, so please forgive me.

    It's TOE the line, not "tow". It does not refer to hauling a rope, it refers to a bunch of guys standing next to each other with their toes on a line. It's probably got a military origin.
     Reply
    lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of TipsyVonDrinklestein TipsyVonDrinklestein
    11/18/09

    @lostarchitect: Glad I'm not the only one. Also, it's "champing" at the bit, not "chomping".
     Reply
    lostarchitect promoted this comment TipsyVonDrinklestein was starred TipsyVonDrinklestein was unstarred
    Image of mark.hunter.ca mark.hunter.ca
    11/18/09

    @lostarchitect: Before I even checked the comments I was going to write, "Cue long debate about 'tow' vs. 'toe' the line."

    For what it's worth I think your pet peeve is entirely unfounded. Having spent a fair amount of time looking - including consulting with a linguist, there doesn't appear to be a consensus either on the proper form of "tow/toe" or, even, the appropriate metaphor given either form.

    I take the fact that your reply didn't even attempt to forward any support for your position (nor, really, does this) as yet more evidence.
     Reply
    lostarchitect approved this comment mark.hunter.ca was starred mark.hunter.ca was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @lostarchitect: Not a big deal, I could care less.
     Reply
    Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of seriously, saycarramrod seriously, saycarramrod
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: /sarcasm please?
     Reply
    Lizard_King promoted this comment seriously, saycarramrod was starred seriously, saycarramrod was unstarred
    Image of TipsyVonDrinklestein TipsyVonDrinklestein
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: I don't understand, can you flush out this idea for me?
     Reply
    lostarchitect promoted this comment TipsyVonDrinklestein was starred TipsyVonDrinklestein was unstarred
    Image of skierpage skierpage
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: Huh? You don't mind appearing stupid in public? You don't care that the web sites you visit are badly written? You're not offended that Ryan Tate, someone who is paid to write, can't use language correctly?

    By the way, by the way you pair it with "Not a big deal", you should probably have used the outright "I couldn't care less" rather than the sarcastic "I could care less."
     Reply
    skierpage was starred skierpage was unstarred
    Image of justincandescence001 justincandescence001
    11/18/09

    @skierpage: That is one of my pet peeves actually. "Couldn't care less" should be the correct use because if you could care less, it stands to reason that you really do care.

    Although from what I've heard, the two are becoming colloquially synonymous.
     Reply
    Lizard_King approved this comment justincandescence001 was starred justincandescence001 was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    @mark.hunter.ca: Hi Mark. Thanks for your comment. I don't really need support for my position because it is the correct one, and it is almost universally accepted as such. Your linguist is wrong if he says there is no consensus; there is. Google is your friend here, and since you need support:

    [lmgtfy.com]

    [en.wikipedia.org]

    (note that if you search wikipedia for "tow the line" it redirects to "toe")
     Reply
    lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: Don't start with that one!
     Reply
    lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    @TipsyVonDrinklestein: Yes, and a point is "moot", not "mute".
     Reply
    lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of bfarver001 bfarver001
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: Ugh, it is a big deal. If your not good at english, especially when your reader's depend on your use of language to communicate ideas, you risk appearing to be an idiot in there eyes.
     Reply
    Lizard_King approved this comment bfarver001 was starred bfarver001 was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @bfarver001: "your not good at English"....

    Where do I even start?

    It was sarcasm - it was another misquoted, mixed up cliche.

    #tips
     Reply
    Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @lostarchitect: :)

    #tips
     Reply
    Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @seriously, saycarramrod: c'mon, that is so overused. I'd rather bait the hook and sit back and watch.
     Reply
    Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @justincandescence001: kinda like regardless and irregardless (which isn't even a f'ing word!)
     Reply
    Edited by Lizard_King at 11/18/09 10:04 PM Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of SkonOfVulcan SkonOfVulcan
    11/18/09

    @TipsyVonDrinklestein: As a horse owner I happen to know it's "Chomping" at the bit not "champing". Look in a dictionary.
     Reply
    lostarchitect promoted this comment SkonOfVulcan was starred SkonOfVulcan was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    @SkonOfVulcan: In terms of the original phrase you are technically incorrect, but functionally you are *sort of* correct. The original usage is "champing" (perhaps *you* should look in a dictionary?). "Chomp" is a modern variant on "champ", so it also makes sense, but the original is, in fact, "champing".
    [www.word-detective.com]
     Reply
    Edited by lostarchitect at 11/18/09 10:54 PM lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of Baroness Baroness
    11/18/09

    In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
    Why should Jobs be flattered? The Apple tablet sounds perfect for the affluent audience Condè Nast cultivates. It's a good match for both of them.
     Reply
    Baroness was starred Baroness was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.