IT Projects: Expert Witness, CIO, In-House Counsel & Litigation Forum

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo as Ford, GM and Chrysler

Previously Posted December 22nd, 2008

by Larry Dignan

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11314

Could Google, Microsoft and Yahoo be the equivalent of Ford, GM and Chrysler more than 60 years ago?

That thought provoking question was raised by Bernstein analyst Jeffrey Lindsay, who cooks up weekend missives designed to make you go hmmm. The argument is an interesting one. Lindsay notes that the downturn of 2001 to 2003 in Web advertising–AOL imploded and Yahoo fumbled–allowed Google to emerge.

Instead of buying Google, the future search giant went public and owned the sector. Fast forward a bit and MySpace, YouTube and Facebook had no shot at going public. Facebook had its IPO shot, but blew it. Lindsay says: Will the current downturn provide the condition for the next Google to emerge – and if so where will it come from? The problem today is that today’s internet players have formidable cash piles which they can use to buy up almost anything. The venture capital players that brought the internet sector into being have generally less cash to hand and are becoming increasingly interested in other sectors.

The parallel with the auto industry? Buick, Oldsmobile and Chevrolet were the high tech startups industry of the 1940s. They were gobbled up to become GM. I thought Lindsay was stretching a bit when I read through his research note. But then I pondered Yahoo, which has Flickr, Delicious, Rivals.com, Zimbra and a bunch of other properties in its collection. Are these properties really any different than the nameplates and brands that GM and Ford have?

Future Bits: Google’s Machiavellianism

Remember my "Executive Musical Chairs" comments in previous comments to articles presented here (e.g.Whose on Google, What's on Microsoft, and Nobody's on Yahoo?).  Did you know there was going to be a test?  Make a list of all the top tech execs moves in 2008, and for extra credit, make some predictions for the next round of "chair grabbing"  ahead in 2009.

Previously posted on December 24, 2008

By Saul Hansell 

The New York Times Bits

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/future-bits-googles-machiavellianism/#more-2127

Defining Moment of 2008: Google’s offer to help Yahoo fend off Microsoft’s hostile takeover bid.

Google’s response to Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo may represent one of the most brilliant acts of corporate Machiavellianism in recent history. Two days after the hostile offer was announced, David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote a post on Google’s blog opposing the deal and aligning itself with Jerry Yang, Yahoo’s co-founder and chief executive, who wanted to keep the company independent.

Google’s support helped embolden Mr. Yang and encouraged him to play hard-to-get with Microsoft until the software giant withdrew its offer. Google then agreed to help bolster Yahoo’s profits by selling some search advertising for it — a deal that was ultimately scuttled in the face of scrutiny by the Justice Department.

The upshot of all this is that Google continues to gain share in the search market and Internet audience, and all its competitors remain in disarray. Yahoo has lost two tiers of top management. Microsoft just hired one former Yahoo executive to develop yet another Internet strategy. And AOL, which has been negotiating possible combinations with both Microsoft and Yahoo, remains in play, reportedly unloved by Time Warner, its corporate parent.

While Microsoft’s dream of mounting a true challenge to Google’s search dominance is elusive, the market for display advertising remains divided and up for grabs. But it is display advertising that has been hardest hit by the recession.

Defining Question for 2009: Can Google get its act together in display advertising before its rivals do?

Keeping the competition divided has bought Google more time, but it hasn’t won the battle. It is still trying to integrate DoubleClick, the advertising technology firm it bought, and it has yet to explain to the market the advantage of the combination.

Google called off Yahoo deal as DOJ closed in

For what reason might Google and Yahoo have waited right up to the last minute?  Was someone holding out for better terms, which would have made it worthwhile to go ahead, even faced with a long, drawn out legal wrangle with the government?  Will the whole story ever surface?    Let us know if you have any ideas about how this played out.                          Marlene

Previously appeared on Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Posted by Heather Havenstein 

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9122498&intsrc=hm_list

(Computerworld)  Google Inc. called off its proposed search advertising deal with Yahoo Inc. just three hours before the U.S. Department of Justice was to file an antitrust complaint on Nov. 5 aimed at blocking it, according to the lawyer that the government hired to pursue the case.

In an interview with the legal blog AMLaw Daily published Dec. 2, Sandford Litvack -- the attorney who would have been the lead counsel on the antitrust case -- said that Google and Yahoo decided to abandon the proposed deal shortly after DOJ officials informed them of the agency's plans to file the antitrust complaint.

Shortly after the deal -- which would have had Yahoo running Google advertisements alongside its own search results -- was announced in June, Google and Yahoo came under fire from large advertiser groups, which charged that the arrangement would diminish competition and raise online advertising prices.

And an antitrust think tank said the partnership could end up as a "black hole that swallows up Yahoo," thus justifying an antitrust investigation.

Google's Invisibility Cloak

Surprise, surprise!  Google has secrets, and tricks up its sleeve, and is plying them with the intention to obfuscate and protect their business and insider information, keeping it hidden away from the competition.  To coin an old, well worn comment -----  DUH!                    Marlene

Previously appeared on 12.05.08

http://www.forbes.com/enterprisetech/2008/12/05/google-operating-system-tech-enter-cx_ew_1205google.html?partner=contextstory

Forbes.com Posted by Elizabeth Woyke

A percentage of Google traffic is stripped of identifying information. Why? Google likes to portray itself as a company that does everything in the open. But it appears that at least some of its employees are harboring a secret.

Web researcher Net Applications recently discovered that between 11% to 30% of traffic streaming out of Google's Mountain View, Calif., office is stripped clean of the usual identifying information that accompanies such traffic. That begs the question: What secret is it that Google doesn't want the rest of the Web to know?

The finding, first reported in InternetNews.com, quickly sparked online chatter about a Windows challenger in the works. "I'd be shocked if Google wasn't developing its own operating system," says Vince Vizzacarro, Net Applications' executive vice president of marketing. "They clearly want to ride online services without using Microsoft."

The Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based firm made the discovery after adding a new feature to its analytics software that pinpoints the source of Internet traffic down to a specific company. The technology, which tracks various trends in Internet usage by analyzing traffic to more than 40,000 Web sites around the world, can also detect a computer's browser, IP address, referring search engine or search term, default language and screen resolution.

The new data showed that a percentage of Internet users in Google's offices (principally based in the company's Mountain View headquarters) are using an operating system that essentially shields itself from detection by stripping traffic of identifying information.

Microsoft signs major deal with Dell for Live Search

Wonder which came first - the chicken or the Qu Li?  Methinks that Dell felt they would be in good hands if Microsoft informed them during negotiations that former Yahoo Search guru would be heading up the Search deal.  If the execs at Dell had the inside word on Microsoft's hiring of Qu Li, they kept it close to the vest - no leaks from their camp.  Wonder who else is on Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer's 2008 Xmas shopping list????          Marlene

Previously appeared December 5th, 2008
Posted by Mary Jo Foley
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1753

Microsoft and Dell have signed a deal via which Dell will be shipping new PCs with the Live Search toolbar preinstalled, according to sources familiar with the arrangement between the two companies.

Microsoft officials declined to comment on the alleged deal, as did Dell officials. Officials with both companies said they would not comment on “rumors and speculation.”

I wouldn’t put this in the speculation category, myself. My sources say that Microsoft has offered Dell sweet enough terms to entice the PC maker to replace its search-preload deal with Google with a comparable offering from Microsoft.

Well, the tech world has re-invented the game of "musical chairs" --- and in this case, the chair as a symbol does not come close to describing what's at stake here.  Any predictions about other moves that might be in the near future?               Marlene

Boomtown/D: All Things Digital

Posted by Kara Swisher

Previously appeared December 4, 2008

http://kara.allthingsd.com/20081204/microsoft-confirms-qi-lu-hired-as-digital-chief-mcandrews-out/

Former Yahoo tech star Qi Lu (pictured here)  is poised to take on the big job of being Microsoft’s top digital executive, according to several sources inside and outside the company.

The appointment could be announced by Microsoft as early as next Monday. A variety of details is still being ironed out, though, including whether the well-regarded techie Lu will be “paired” with another executive at Microsoft (MSFT) with more general business experience. While Lu has managed large teams while at Yahoo (YHOO) and also huge projects, he does not have advertising sales and media experience that will be a big part of his purview at Microsoft.

In that job, he will be the boss of three strong digital execs at the software giant: Satya Nadella, the SVP who heads engineering for Microsoft’s search, portal and advertising platform group; Yusuf Mehdi, whose online services portfolio includes marketing, online audience business development and product management for MSN and the search properties; and Brian McAndrews, the SVP for the advertiser and publisher solutions group.

That executive partner could be some higher-ranking Microsoft exec or even CEO Steve Ballmer himself.

Elevating McAndrews is also a possibility, as he has also wanted the digital chief job and could decide to leave after not getting it. (He also would not be a bad choice for Yahoo’s new CEO.) McAndrews was the CEO of aQuantive, an ad company bought by Microsoft for $6 billion last year.

With Jerry Yang Gone, What Yahoo Should Do Next

It seems like only yesterday when the Yahoo "step down" CEO was Terry Semel (it was June 2007, actually) to be succeeded by founder Jerry Yang, and Sue Decker as his second in command.  Predictions for new direction at the time included those of Jerry Caplan, in an Internet article for TIME/Business and Tech, speculating that after Yahoo's failure to acquire Facebook, the company might look to a deal with Microsoft.

The Tuesday, November 17th announcement of Jerry Yang's "step down" as CEO has followed the failure of Yahoo, and Yang, to secure a deal with Microsoft.   The following piece has some interesting do's and don'ts to offer towards the search for a new CEO.                                                  Marlene

Previously appeared on Monday, November 17, 2008

Posted by Om Malik - GigaOm

hthttp://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/gigaom/search2008_11_17_after_yang_what_should_yahoo_do.html?eref=time_tech

Jerry Yang, after a tumultuous reign as the chief executive officer of Yahoo, the company he co-founded with David Filo, announced today that he is stepping down from the top slot. The news was first reported by Kara Swisher and later confirmed by Yahoo in a press release. He is going to make way for someone else, but will stay on the board of Yahoo and will be known as Chief Yahoo. More important, however, is the question of what Yahoo needs to do in order for Jerry to hang on to the title of Chief Yahoo!

Yang’s decision to move on isn’t a surprise – it was clear from his talk at a recent industry conference that he was tired and perhaps a little out of his depth. His choice to head the company that was looking down a deep abyss a while back was an ineffectual one, and a total and absolute failure on the part of Yahoo’s board of directors. In June 2008, I wrote about the systematic rot inside the company.  

What hasn’t been discussed is that the company isn’t really facing up to the fact that its layers of management have resulted in a state of masterful inactivity, masked perhaps as a culture of consensus. This starts at the top - from the company’s board and senior management down to VP level where people are prone to organizing and attending twenty meetings before deciding the fate of a project. Some senior managers including the ones who are deserting the company are skillful players in this game of hiding ennui behind grandiose plans and a great future that never happens.

10 tech leaders who could become Obama’s CTO

Previously appeared on November 10th, 2008 posted by Jason Hiner http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=850&tag=nl.e019

As a presidential candidate, part of Barack Obama’s technology policy platform included hiring the U.S. government’s first chief technology officer (CTO). If Obama follows through on this, who is likely to get the job? Here are 10 top candidates.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama used technology to organize, communicate, and raise funds in innovative ways that gave him an advantage over opponents in both the primaries and the general election. It’s clear that Obama views tech as a powerful catalyst, and with the U.S. facing an unprecedented array of economic challenges, Obama will need to use technology to drive efficiency and institutional transformation.

A part of his policy platform, Obama has stated that he plans to hire the nation’s first chief technology officer (CTO) to play quarterback in driving these changes. A CTO is typically an organization’s top engineer and focuses on outward-facing technologies (see What’s the difference between CIO and CTO) but based on Obama’s policy statements he wants to use the national CTO position to:

• Build a 21st centrury technology infrastructure

• Unite and lead the CIOs and CTOs of various federal agencies

• Architect innovative tech solutions to help solve big problems.  

As a result, Obama is going to need a visionary tech leader who can rally both technologists and standard Washngton bureacrats around a common purpose. It also wouldn’t hurt to bring in a big name — someone who already has a strong reputation that will translate into political capital.

Here are top 10 candidates.

10. Shai Agassi

This former technology head of SAP has the business experience and the interest in larger societal issues to do well as America ’s CTO. However, he’s recently founded his own company,Better Place, to create an entirely new business model and power system to run the electric cars of the future. Because of his passion for that project, it’s doubtful he would want the U.S. CTO gig.

Yahoo, Google Revise Deal in Hopes of Approval

Back in September, we posted several articles that followed the Google/Yahooo advertising deal in the making.  Looks like the dust kicked up by the Advertising Groups and the involvement of the Dept of Justice with their hiring of super lawyer Sandy Litvack have changed the game for the two Internet companies.           Marlene

This originally appeared in a posting By Reuters  
2008-11-04

http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Search/Yahoo-Google-Revise-Deal-in-Hopes-of-Approval/1/

The two Internet companies have submitted a reworked proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice that shortens their partnership to just two years from 10 years, the source said. The revised deal also caps the percentage of search revenue that Yahoo can collect from Google at no more than 25 percent, and lets Google advertisers opt out of being placed on Yahoo, the source said.

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Yahoo Inc and Google Inc have drastically scaled back the scope of their search advertising deal, a person close to the discussions said on Monday, in a last-ditch effort to win U.S. antitrust approval.

The move comes after Google appeared to be on the verge of walking away from the partnership, which was announced in June to foil Microsoft Corp's takeover attempt of Yahoo. The deal has since drawn scrutiny from U.S. regulators amid a growing chorus of criticism from advertisers.

The two Internet companies have submitted a reworked proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice that shortens their partnership to just two years from 10 years, the source said.

The revised deal also caps the percentage of search revenue that Yahoo can collect from Google at no more than 25 percent, and lets Google advertisers opt out of being placed on Yahoo, the source said.

Yahoo spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in an emailed statement the company continues to work with the Justice Department and discussions are ongoing.

Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich declined to discuss the details of the process.

Analysts said the new terms could help the deal get past regulators, but questioned whether such a limited partnership would be financially lucrative to Yahoo, which is a distant No. 2 to Google in the web search market.

Mukul Krishna, digital media global director at consulting firm Frost and Sullivan, described the revised terms as "more of a Band-Aid than the extensive surgery that is needed" for Yahoo.

"This sweetens the deal to go through antitrust red flags and gives (Yahoo CEO) Jerry (Yang) some breathing space, but how much money it would add to Yahoo's top line would be very crucial," Krishna said. "And it doesn't answer the question, what after two years?"

Mark May, an analyst with Needham & Co, said Yahoo's willingness to limit the scope of the deal "tells us that other alternatives are either not available or not attractive at all."

The Next Huge Security Threat: Web Applications

After reading this posting by Ms. Millard in Baseline, I realize it would have been a good pick for last Friday's post - on Halloween, since it sounds a lot scarier than ghost and goblins. 

What - "...no adherence to security software development practices".  Egads, "unpatched Browsers" ...!  Oh no, not "The Rise of the Botnets"...!  Suzy - don't go in there - don't open that----there is malicious code behind that Web page!  

So - how about sharing some of your scary Web Application stories with us?          Marlene

Originally appeared on 2008-10-29 by Elizabeth Millard

http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Security/The-Next-Huge-Security-Threat-Web-Applications/ 

 

The Next Huge Security Threat: Web Applications

Software as a service may be on the rise, but so are security threats targeted at loopholes in application code. Here are some application security strategies from industry experts, with a closer look at one area not generally associated with security and information technology management--insurance.

As companies flock to software-as-a-service (SaaS) and design their own Web-based applications to take advantage of an always-on and always-accessible enterprise, they're also opening themselves to a formidable security threat, many experts believe.

Web app security is already a major concern, notes Ivan Arce, CTO of Core Security Technologies. Most enterprises have already adopted the Web paradigm for many of their internal applications as well as almost all of their external Internet presence, he states, creating an environment where Web applications are a major technological component in enterprise business processes.

"Unfortunately, most of the Web applications already in deployment were developed with no consideration or adherence to security software development practices," he says. "The result is that for many years, Web applications have been plagued by design and implementation bugs and became the low-hanging fruit for attackers."

Adding to the problem is the large amount of unpatched browsers, which create an additional layer of insecurity that can be exploited.

FAQ: Clickjacking -- should you be worried?

Well, what won't they think up next?   Any takers on comments on this one? Anybody familiar with this at all?          Marlene

Nearly all browsers are vulnerable to this new attack class, but details are scarce

 

Gregg Keizer

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Security&articleId=9115818&taxonomyId=17&pageNumber=1

September 29, 2008 (Computerworld) Last week, a pair of security researchers spread the news that a new class of vulnerabilities, called "clickjacking," puts users of every major browser at risk from possible attack.

Robert Hansen, founder and chief executive of SecTheory LLC, and Jeremiah Grossman, chief technology officer at WhiteHat Security Inc., spilled some beans last week after they gave a semi-closed presentation at OWASP AppSec 2008 in New York.

Maybe because of the catchy name, or perhaps because it's actually serious stuff, clickjacking got some press. But that still leaves open the question: Just how spooky is it? Are we talking run-for-the-hills scary, or is this just another theoretical attack vector? And what should you do to protect yourself?

We have questions, as usual, and fewer straight answers than we'd like.

What is clickjacking? Good question. Getting to an answer, though, is a little tough, since Hansen and Grossman are keeping virtually all details confidential, at least for now. Here's how Grossman put it to Computerworld last Friday:

"Think of any button on any Web site that you can get to appear between the browser walls. Wire transfers on banks, Digg buttons, CPC advertising banners, Netflix queue.... The list is virtually endless, and these are relatively harmless examples. Next, consider that an attack can invisibly hover these buttons below the users' mouse, so that when they click on something they visually see, they actually are clicking on something the attacker wants them to."

In plain English, clickjacking lets hackers and scammers hide malicious stuff under the cover of the content on a legitimate site. You know what happens when a carjacker takes a car? Well, clickjacking is like that, except that the click is the car.

Cloud computing is a trap, warns GNU founder Richard Stallman

Hey! You! Get off of my cloud  Hey! You! Get off of my cloud  Don't hang around 'cause two's a crowd  On my cloud, baby.  So say the Rolling Stones back in 1965.  What say all of you out there about the following statements by Stallman and Larry Ellison?               Marlene

Web-based programs like Google's Gmail will force people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that will cost more and more over time, according to the free software campaigner

Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent guardian.co.uk,

Monday September 29 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman

The concept of using web-based programs like Google's Gmail is "worse than stupidity", according to a leading advocate of free software.

Cloud computing – where IT power is delivered over the internet as you need it, rather than drawn from a desktop computer – has gained currency in recent years. Large internet and technology companies including Google, Microsoft and Amazon are pushing forward their plans to deliver information and software over the net.

But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time.

"It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign," he told The Guardian.

"Somebody is saying this is inevitable – and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true."

The 55-year-old New Yorker said that computer users should be keen to keep their information in their own hands, rather than hand it over to a third party.

Why Google needs better antitrust advice

After reading this blog, Google Ads setup doesn't sound like an even playing field to me. As a matter of fact, it reminds me of Joseph Heller's Catch 22 - particularly the Major Major bit with Yosserian:  Here is an excerpt from  Wikepedia  referencing  the concept:

"...Major Major creates a Catch-22 when he instructs his sergeant that no-one may come in and see him, unless he is not in. If he is in, people must be told to wait — until he has left." 

Even though you spend time and effort on creating appealing ad formats, follow Google's recommendations, according to the basic information provided by Google "Help",  if some Google-hired "rater" does not take a fancy to what you have presented, the "real" potential buyer does not even get a look-see at what you are offering - because Google people are waving their magic wand and "poof" you're gone. 

Anybody out there with Google Ad experiences they would like to share?           Marlene                     

By Fred Vogelstein September 21, 2008

http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/09/why-google-need.html

This is a big week for Google. Its new mobile phone software called Android is debuting, and there will be much debate about whether this much hyped project is going to get any traction. But that discussion may get drowned out by another. It seems as if everywhere you turn in the past two weeks, someone is wringing their hands about Google, the monopolist.

Google is trying to get a mega advertising deal with Yahoo approved by the Justice Department. Advertising agencies, a bunch of big and small advertisers and - big surprise -  Microsoft, are all crying that Google is hell bent on world domination and want the deal blocked. Google says the accusations are ridiculous and has stepped up its defense in recent days to press that point. It says Microsoft isn't really credible on antitrust matters, after all. Moreover, it's hard to be a monopolist when you don't have any pricing power. Google ads are auctioned to the highest bidder, not sold in the conventional sense.

Sanity check: Is Microsoft for grown-ups and Google for kids?

Anyone out there familiar with Zoho or Force.com?  Do you feel that Jason Hiner is correct in his evaluation of these startups - that they are outpacing the "Big Dogs"?  Let us hear your thoughts and comments.            Marlene

Tech Sanity Check

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=763&tag=nl.e101

by Jason Hiner, Editor in Chief : September 15th, 2008

While Google continues to grow in prestige and profit, there are signs that its halo is slipping. As a software and services provider to the enterprise, quality control and staffing issues are big problems for Google, and it’s driving some developers and businesses to Microsoft.

Google has been on a tear for the past decade. It has risen from a scrappy little Internet search engine built on a cluster of cheap Linux machines to one of the world’s most powerful and profitable companies and, arguably, the most well-regarded brand on the planet.

During this same decade, Microsoft has seen its star fall nearly as far as Google’s has risen. Although never a wildly popular brand, by the late 1990’s Microsoft was to computing as Kleenex was to tissue — at least for the masses.

However, its anti-trust defeats in the U.S. and Europe and have painted Microsoft as an ugly, petty bully, and its own product development and public relations failures with its flagship Windows Vista product has become one of the most infamous blunders in the annals of American commerce.

The two companies are now, of course, arch-rivals and are competing fiercely in Internet search, advertising, and software. Google is winning big in search, while Microsoft still holds a huge lead in software. But, these two spheres are colliding as the Internet evolves into a front-end software platform that will eventually relegate the operating system to back-end plumbing.

This process will transform the traditional business model for software and will expand the Internet into a more targetable and lucrative advertising platform. That’s why Google wants into the software business and that’s why Microsoft is trying to turn itself into an Internet company.

We’re now at an early crossroads in Internet applications, and honestly both Google and Microsoft are floundering and getting soundly outpaced by startups like Zoho and Force.com. Google Apps are simplistic, lack sophistication and standardization, and do not have as good of an online/offline sync as Zoho, for example. Meanwhile, Microsoft’s “software + services” strategy is barely recognizable since the “plus services” part has so far been half-hearted because Microsoft fears cannibalizing its cash-cow business, Microsoft Office.

Ballmer's Biggest Flop to Date!

Well??  Agree? Disagree? What do you think??   Let us know!    Warren

June 16, 2008 - 11:30 A.M. from:

http://cwflyris.computerworld.com/t/3295272/150510368/120372/2/

by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols Cyber Cynic

No, I'm not going to say Vista. I see Vista as an organizational failure. Ballmer gets his share of the blame, but there's plenty of blame to go around. Now, Microhoo, the failed attempt to buy out Yahoo -- that heaping pile lands directly on Ballmer's doorstep.

Let me walk you through it. First, as we all know, Microsoft has been obsessed by Google. Ballmer is convinced that Google is The Enemy.

I've never quite understood this. Yes, in general terms, Google is the one technology company that Microsoft hasn't been able to beat into the ground. So what? Microsoft makes its billions from selling software. Google makes it mint from online advertising and the search engine that powers it.

Certainly, as the years have rolled by, Microsoft has tried to storm into Google's search stronghold. They've failed. It won't be the first or last time that Microsoft moved out of its comfort zone and into the twilight zone.

Google, in its turn, has advanced into Microsoft territory with Google Apps. That's a more serious threat. I think online office suites will never completely break office suites that live on PCs. After all do you really want your important report's very creation to depend entirely on your Starbucks Wi-Fi connection? I don't. Google Apps is no Microsoft Office killer.

The 100 Best Websites List

From 100bestwebsites.com :The best sites on the Web, all in one place!

This list is based on the rigorous reviews and opinions of our staff who subject each website to an exhaustive examination based on 21 criteria of excellence before inclusion. We hope you will enjoy this portal to the finest sites the Web has to offer!

While we can certainly disagree with what "best" means, I believe this is a good listing of some very good websites, especially in the literary arena.  I'm sure though that you have some favorites that are not listed here -- and some that are that you believe should not be on this list!!  Please post a comment so each reader can review it, and then decide to update his or her own list as they see fit!   

Warren

#	Website	Summary
1	Yahoo!	Yahoo is your Online Free Treasure Room! An outstanding search engine (especially for "official" websites), it also provides a cornucopia of free services: free email, maps, Yellow Pages, games, shopping, news, finance, sports, live chat -- the list just goes on and on and on! By far (in our opinion), Yahoo is the best site on the Web!
2	Google	We believe Google is simply the best tool on the Web for finding just about anything (except possibly "official" websites). It is screamingly fast, sleek, streamlined, and as comprehensive as a search tool can be.
3	Amazon.com	Amazon is nothing less than a revolution in how the world shops. It is a huge step forward in the achievement of an ideal competitive market. It is user-friendly, vast, and reliable.
4	About.com	About.com breaks up the Web into major subject areas with a volunteer human host for each of them. It helps you sift out the wheat from the chaff on an enormous range of subjects.
5	Bartleby.com	Much of the greatest literature in the history of humankind will be found in full text form (and free of charge) at this amazing site. In addition, many useful reference tools are here (also free!)
6	Google Groups	Formerly "DejaNews", Google Groups is a glorious experiment in free speech! This oceanic database of over 800 million posted "Usenet" messages from people all over the globe constitutes the largest bulletin board in the history of the world! It's fully searchable, and you can post your own messages free of charge. (Tip: don't use your primary email address in your posts! To avoid spam, use a temporary email address.)
7	Google News	A bold endeavor in online journalism, Google News provides you hundreds of news sources (typically) for each of the major stories of the day. Just find the story that interests you on the main page, and you will see something like "227 related" or "535 related" just beneath it. Click this to see the extensive range of news sources available for the story you are after! (Its database of past news is also searchable.)
8	CNN	For fast-breaking news and responsible journalism, it's hard to beat CNN. And the text content at this site is mostly free!
9	EBay	Ebay is the world's biggest, longest-running garage sale, as well as its most extensive auction house. Buy, sell, browse, bid, and be amazed at what you find at this wonderful site!
10	Download.com	If you love software treasure-hunting, Download.com is the site for you! This massive and well-rounded collection of shareware (try-before-you-buy) and freeware (totally free software) is fully searchable and sortable. And there's no wait for a package in the mail: download it NOW, install it, and take it for a test drive!

Sharing Information and Ourselves: Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg

Here's another fun interview (highlights) from the 2008 D6 conference. Enjoy!  Warren

Wednesday, May 28, 2008 by John Paczkowski. See John's original post at:   http://d6.allthingsd.com/20080528/zuckerberg_sandberg/#more-64

Because Mark Zuckerberg is barely in his mid-20s, his résumé is a bit thinner than others here. Well, except for his first job as founder and CEO of Facebook, perhaps the most explosively popular social-networking company ever and the most high-profile Web 2.0 start-up. Mr. Zuckerberg created Facebook in 2004, while still an undergraduate at Harvard University, where he studied computer science. He brought the company to Silicon Valley before he had a chance to graduate from college, but managed to get a $15 billion valuation for the company anyway.