Recently in Technology Category

Will the mainstream adopt more than one social network?

 
buzz.jpg
Here's my crazy social network setup:
  • I submit status updates to Twitter, which auto-posts to Facebook and LinkedIn (and now Buzz).
  • I submit pictures (mainly of my son Eli) to Posterous, which auto-posts to Facebook (and has eliweinberg.com pointing to it).
  • I write blog posts, which get auto-posted by feedburner to Twitter.
  • I upload videos to YouTube, which I then post to Posterous, and which get auto-posted now to Buzz as well.
  • I upload videos directly to Facebook because they come out better that way (in HD).
  • I submit stories to Hacker News when appropriate.
  • I get auto-emailed comments from basically everything.
  • I check twitter and Facebook (and probably now Buzz) regularly.
I think I'm way out of the mainstream on this behavior because I'm (a) highly technical; (b) want the widest possible audience for my blog; and (c) want anyone who desires to be able to get the latest pictures of my son as easily as possible.

The mainstream is never going to do the above. But will they even ever adopt more than one social network in the long run? 

That is, in a few years, will you see most people on Facebook now also regularly checking and posting to something else, e.g. Twitter or Buzz?

I don't think so. Friendster died. Yahoo 360 died. Myspace is dying. I'm starting to really believe Twitter and Facebook and now Buzz are in a winner-take-all battle for mainstream social network attention.

Yes, they're all a little different, especially Twitter, which can have its special use cases. However, as time passes and the battle matures, I can only imagine that Facebook and Buzz will try to capture some of these use cases.

I don't think the solution is more personal aggregators. Those are for tech people.

Finally, I don't think the UI experience on any of them are particularly good. They succeed in spite of themselves.

Top user-generated comments about the Apple iPad

 
I thought it would be interesting to see what the highest rated/voted reaction comments were about the iPad after its launch. I grabbed the top comments from the top front page stories on digg, reddit, and news.yc


digg-logo.gif
Eight7: "Looks like basically an oversized iPod touch so far..." (788 diggs)

darkchild82: "Anyone else kinda disappointed with its near-square shape as supposed to a more wide-screen format? Edit: Also... anyone else think the name "iPad" is a tad too feminine?" (709 diggs)

madmatter23: "Seriously? The iPad? For anyone living in Boston, there won't be much of a difference between this and the "iPaaahd" (iPod)." (561 diggs)

bigsheldy: "2001 called, they want their tablet PC back." (495 diggs)

Forlack: "iPad = Large iPhone" (415 diggs)


reddit.com.header.png
Frankeh: Just yesterday I was looking at my iPhone thinking "Hmmm, I wish this thing didn't fit in my pocket." Then I looked over to my netbook and couldn't help but feel it would benefit from losing the keyboard and being made of 50% glass. F

nally apple gives me what I wish." (522 points)


Ineedmorelemons: "Anyone else not impressed yet?" (413 points)

rincew1nd: "

"Netbooks are just cheap laptops!" - Steve Jobs; 

The iPad is an EXPENSIVE netbook!" - The internet" (277 points)

junkit33: "

My netbook weighs only 2 pounds, has the same screen size, and gives me a full keyboard. Plus it's a full blown OS that lets me do just about anything I want with it, including such basics as flash. Oh and it cost half the price. All you're getting with the iPad is a neutered computer and you're saving a half pound of weight. I

'm generally a fan of Apple, and I love my iphone, but they screwed the pooch on the iPad badly IMO." (215 points)


doctor_ship: "

What this device does is extraordinary. You can browse the web with it.

That's revolutionary." (201 points)



yc500.gif
coffeemug: My dad, mom, grandma, and grandpa can watch videos, look at photos of their kids/grandkids, send e-mails to their relatives oversees, and read their favorite books on it, all without the need for a "computer-savvy guy" who has to teach them how it works, and fix it when it's broken. In other words, it's a logical conclusion of the personal computer revolution. I understand you need to run your Ruby scripts, but this product was designed for the 99% of the people in this country instead. You're not the target audience." (59 points)

zacharypinter: "Here we have a device that doesn't support USB thumbdrives, doesn't support dropbox (at least system-wide, I assume the dropbox iphone app would work), is unable to run ruby or any of my other dev scripts/tools, cannot install firefox or firefox plugins, etc. I do not want to see computing head this direction." (45 points).

RyanMcGreal: "No keyboard. Less space than a netbook. Lame." (35 points)

vitobcn: "After seeing the iPad, I wonder if the JooJoo (CrunchPad) will even make it to the market." (25 points)

timcederman: "I am surprised that many of the comments so far are the equivalent of 'No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.' I'm excited at the very distinct deviation this is taking from the keyboard/mouse/monitor paradigm in something other than a strictly portable device. I think the OS looks pretty damn good and I can't wait to try using one myself." (20 points)



The point totals are already old of course. Incidentally, I originally envisioned more sites for this post, and less comments per site, but I couldn't find any others! 

I couldn't find a way to get the top comments out of Facebook. Tweetmeme retweets were all links and contests. In Newspaper/blog comments, it was not clear which comments were highest rated. Disqus/IntenseDebate didn't seem to aggregate anywhere. And Mixx/Buzz/other social news sites don't seem to have enough traffic to be useful. Did I miss anything?

Finally, I'm still planning on getting an iPad. My use case has been confirmed.

How-to fix skype video when party can't see the other

 
skype_logo.pngThis post is for anyone trying to use Skype video and having the problem where one party can't see the other. That is, audio works fine and video one-way works fine, but just not two-way. 

I've had this problem a few times with my parents and it is really annoying. We could see them, but they could never see us.

The short answer is this issue has always stemmed from a firewall problem. As such, messing with firewall settings has always fixed it.

It took so long to fix (for us) because I didn't immediately think firewall problem because audio and one video stream worked fine. So I kept looking at Webcam settings and drivers, and things having to do with Skype itself. No help there.

You should have the firewalls on both sides open to Skype. Ideally, you should port forward specific ports for Skype to the relevant computers. Doing so will ensure zero relays and increase your chances of high-quality video working correctly, as I outlined in a previous post.

The quickest solution is to set the Skype computer as the DMZ in your router/firewall. I don't recommend this long term for security reasons, but it's good for testing.

Also, remember to also check any software firewalls, e.g. on your operating system (OSX, Windows, etc.). The problem can also lie there.

Finally, doing these somewhat complex settings on a remote computer like my parents' computer can be tedious. I currently use Crossloop for messing with their computer, which is free and is easy enough to download and use that they can do that part.

Google traffic spikes

 
On a number of sites in the past few years, I've seen this curious search traffic pattern. And I'm not the only one.

spike1.png
Nothing had changed in the recent past before these peaks. There were no internal site changes and no additional external links. 

These spikes did not happen at times where other Webmasters were reporting major Google index changes. (I wouldn't expect such anyway since they returned to normal after a few days.)

The sites get search traffic from a wide swath of keywords that cut across many categories. The traffic is spread pretty evenly across keywords and keyword categories.

When looking at the increase, including when it was happening, it was clear that rankings increased across the board.

From between two to four days (depending on the incident), the traffic jumped up and remained the same for a bit, and then dropped back down.

What is the explanation for this? Here's the latest Webmaster world thread.

The threads give a number of theories:
  • Google was testing some major change and the site benefited during that period.
  • The site was on the edge of some filter and for some reason passed it and then went back down.
  • Google specifically was testing this site to see its impact on user behavior.
There are others as well. Because there were no obvious internal or external site changes, and no related webmaster posts at the time, I'm inclined to believe the latter reason.

Of course, I don't know the real reason, but in any case I wish the traffic would stay at the higher rate :).

My Apple Tablet (iSlate) Use Case: Baby Following

 
apple_tablet.jpg
I'm planning on getting a tablet this year, probably the upcoming Apple iSlate (or whatever it will be called). [1]

My primary use case is compelling and simple, albeit not for everyone: following a baby around the house.

Eli ikes to crawl (almost walk!) around the entire house most of his waking hours. Usually this crawling is accompanied with parental entertainment. Sometimes, however, he entertains himself.

When entertaining himself, he of course still requires watching, but it is more an out-of-one-eye thing. During these times, I routinely catch up on email, RSS, HN, Twitter, and Facebook.

I currently use my Android phone (G2) and sometimes my laptop (HP Envy 13). Each is far from ideal for this use case. 

The phone is too slow and too small. It's a pain to visit sites, and even more of a pain to use to compose an email or comment. It's pretty good at reading things though, especially within a native app.

The laptop is too big. It attracts Eli, who wants to come over and bend it backwards or type on the keys. (I think that may have to do with it doubling as a video phone with his grandparents.) 

You also have to keep taking the laptop off of standby and it too difficult to put down fast, which is sometimes necessary if Eli is about to get in to trouble.

I am hopeful that the tablet form factor will be all of the good and none of the bad. I envision it fast and easy to browse on. I imagine composing with its virtual keyboard will be less effective than a laptop, but still effective enough to not be annoying. And I believe it will be easy to put down quickly. I can't wait!

[1] I'm planning on waiting until it actually goes on sale, i.e. not pre-order. At that point, it's possible that there will be other options. This happened to me with the Macbook Air. By the time I went to purchase it, I instead opted for the Lenovo ideapad U110, which eventually became my wife's laptop when I recently replaced it with the HP Envy 13.

How My Technology Habits Changed in the Last Ten Years

 
I'm still primarily Web programming in Perl and JS using emacs over SSH on servers I sysadmin. Beyond that, a lot has changed:

  • The Mobile Web. I got my first mobile phone in the summer of 2000, so I've been using mobile phones pretty much the whole time. A couple years ago I started browsing the Web on my phone, which made shopping trips with my wife much more bearable. And last year I upgraded to an Android phone, and now my browsing experience is much improved and I use apps too. I get email, weather, etc. pushed to my phone.

  • GPS. I remember writing down personalized directions and printing out Mapquest. Around 2001/2002 I started using MS Streets and Trips almost exclusively. Then in 2006 I got a Garmin nuvi, which I recently upgraded. Now I never think about directions beyond an address. And with the mobile Web I often look up addresses on the road.

  • DVR & Hulu/iTunes. I've always been into TV, but up until 2006 I was tied to the TV schedule. Occasionally we would record to VHS, but usually we'd try to be home on certain dates and times. Now I don't even know when most of my shows air and I hardly ever watch commercials either. When my DVR messes up or when there are three shows to record at once (hah!), I watch on Hulu or buy on iTunes.

  • Digital Music. I was into mp3s before 2000, but I still bought CDs up until about 2005. Now all of my CDs are in a closet--everything is in mp3s and I exclusively buy digital music.

  • Streaming Music. I started streaming my CDs to speakers via an Airport around 2003. In 2007 I bought a Sonos system, which allows me to stream my stuff as well as Pandora/Radio all around my house. At that time, I started using Pandora a lot, though I'm still not quite happy with it.

  • Satellite Music. We got XM maybe a year after came out, I think around 2004. We were heavily into for a while in the house, up until about 2007 when I started using Pandora a lot more through Sonos. Then I got it in a new car in 2007, and I switched to heavy car use. After the merger though my use has waned, mainly because the station I used to listen to most (Ethel 47) has since slightly diverged from my music tastes.

  • Skype Video. I was using IP telephony before 2000, but I only started using Skype Video in 2008. Now I use Skype Video all the time. I call my parents regularly so they can communicate with our son. I do my Traction interviews via Skype. And I've done various business meetings through it as well.

  • Server OS. I made a quick transition from RedHat to Debian to FreeBSD and I pretty much haven't looked back. I've installed a bunch of others (NetBSD, OpenBSD, Ubuntu, Chrome OS), but the only other one I've really been using lately is Ubuntu because EC2 doesn't yet support FreeBSD.

  • The Cloud. In 2000, all my stuff was local. Now, a lot is in the cloud. I switched to Gmail from Outlook in 2004. I still run my own servers, but I have EC2 backups.

  • Social Networking. Needless to say, I'm on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. I adopted the various social networks pretty much right when they came out.
What about you?

How Twitter Helps Me (Specific Use Cases)

 
The recent surge in twitter press is amazing. A lot of my less technical friends and family have been asking me about it, usually with skeptical tones.  Why would you do that?  You use it--really?

At first, I too was skeptical.  It took me a while to adopt and then even longer to make regular updates.  Even now I've only made 322 of them.  

Recently I had a long discussion over email about the value of this type of technology.  The short version is, upon reflection, I've really come around to its usefulness.  So I thought I'd enumerate the use cases where I've found twitter particularly helpful, both personally and professionally.

  1. It keeps an eye out for me.  The very first day I started using twitter, I was at the right place at the wrong time.  I had showed up 8 hours early for one of our monthly hackathons.  I had twittered where I was and my friend almost immediately informed me of my mistake.

  2. It's an extension of my Facebook status.  If you use the Facebook status update feature, then you might as well use twitter too.  In fact, when I update my twitter feed, it updates my Facebook status automatically (via the Twitter Facebook app).  

    My set of twitter followers and Facebook friends has a decent amount of overlap, but by no means all.  Because they are different sites and different technologies they tend to accumulate slightly different types of associations.  In particular, it's common to get Twitter followers who you've never met.  But you also get friends who for whatever reason aren't your Facebook friends (at least not yet).  By syncing the updates you are reaching more of your friends with your personal updates.  I like that because I suck at keeping in touch on a one-to-one basis.

  3. It keeps me closer to customers.  I monitor twitter search for mentions of Duck Duck Go (my startup).  It is really interesting to see what people say "in the wild" and because of twitter's ease of use you get more (and different) commenting than you find on blogs.

  4. It allows for more (and different) customer communication.  I follow the users I find in #3 using my company's twitter feed.  I also send out updates about things going on with the site.  It turns out that this method of two-way communication generates different feedback than our other methods to connect with customers, e.g. this blog, our feedback page, Facebook, etc.  I've even gotten unsolicited bug reports!

  5. It helps me meet more people (in person).  I'm an INTJ and have historically been terrible at meeting new people.  Twitter really eases that burden for me.  As pointed out by another friend, it gives you great ice-breakers when you meet people for the first time (who you've previously connected with on Twitter). For example, I follow a lot of people in the Philly startup community, but have not yet met all of them in person.  

  6. It makes me feel more connected.  I work from home, by myself.  Twitter helps me get to a semblance of a multi-person office.

  7. It helps me spread news/links.  You need a decent amount of followers for this one.  I don't really have that many, but with the amount I do have it is enough to get benefit when spreading news and links about my company or otherwise.  Often people will re-tweet exciting news (re-send my message to their followers). 

  8. It helps me keep abreast of news/links.  Similar to #7, but from the other side, I often get news/links from people I follow.  These are usually things I would have never seen, e.g. info about other startups, local events, etc.Useful enough for you? 

How I Got Skype High Quality Video Working

 
Ever since Eli was born, we've been skyping with my parents regularly.  My parents supposedly bought a high quality webcam, but we weren't seeing them great.  And I know my built-in laptop cam wasn't up to par, so a few days ago I set out to make it all work.

Skype says this is what you need to make it work: 
I'm not sure if Skype actually checks the drivers to make sure you have one of these webcams, but my parents actually did have one and so I bought one too.  I actually bought this one, which has auto face-tracking that I figure would be good fit when Eli gets a bit older.  However, once I set it all up, neither direction was what you would call high quality. Mine was certainly better than before, but that was mainly due to the lighting adjustments in the software that came with the webcam.

Anyway, after a lot of messing around, I did get it to work as much as I think possible.  Here's how:

  1. Know that Skype "ramps up" to high quality.  This wasn't obvious to me initially and caused a lot of time wasting.  In particular, Skype apparently does a lot of internal calculations to see what it can send over time.  It starts off lower, and then slowly increases the video quality, and in turn, CPU & bandwidth used.  So just know that if you don't see it right away, give it a minute or so and see if it improves.

  2. Turn on "technical info". On windows this is under Tools->Opotions->Advanced->Advanced Settings.  Once you do this, initiate a video call and then mouse over the incoming video window.  A pop-up should appear with all sorts of debugging info that will help you diagnose what is between you and the high quality video.  I'm not sure what it all means, but I think you want to concentrate on a few things.

    First, look on the bottom where it says "problems" and then gives you some codes.  The goal is to get rid of all of these codes.  BW stands for BandWidth, and on mine it was critical, i.e. BW_Critical.  

    The next thing to look for is the video sent and video recv lines.  You want to send and receive at 640x480 at a decent frames per sec (FPS>=15).  It turns out my parents were sending at 320x240 and both of our FPS were low.

    Finally, look for Relays.  You want this to be 0.  When it is not, you do not have a direct connection with your video partner.  Instead, your connection is routed through other computers.  I did not have a direct connection, and this turned out to be causing the BW_Critical.

  3. Force 640x480.  I was sending at 640x480, but as I said, my parents were not.  Turns out while they have a decently fast computer, their processor isn't enough for Skype to trigger the attempt to send video in high quality. After a lot of searching and messing around, I found the solution.  You want to put this in your config.xml file:

    <CaptureHeight>480</CaptureHeight>
    <CaptureWidth>640</CaptureWidth>
    <Fps>30</Fps>

    On Windows XP, this file lives in Documents and Settings/Login Name/Application Data/Skype/Profile Name/. In general on Windows, you want to find your Application Data folder (on Vista I think replace Documents and Settings with Users) and then follow the same skype path.

    After I did this, my parents were sending at 640x480. It turns out their processor was fast enough, and we monitored the CPU usage via the technical call info I talked about above.  (You could also do this with the task manager.)

  4. Open the incoming port on your firewall.  Go back to Tools->Options->Advanced, but this time select Connection.  There is a port # at the top.  I opened this port on my firewall and forwarded it to that machine.  I also unchecked the box "Use port 80 and 443..." to make sure it was working. Also, if you check "Enable uPnP" you might get this port forwarding set up automatically.  Also be aware of any software firewalls you have, and to make exceptions for skype within them.  Once I did all that, Relays were now 0, i.e. we had a direct connection.

  5. Plug the webcam directly into the computer.  I was using a USB hub. Apparently the newer high quality webcams can transfer a lot of stuff and a shared USB hub can become the limiting factor. Similarly, if you have a lot of USB devices in use, even directly connected to the computer, try unconnecting some of them.  You might be being limited by your comptuer's USB bus.

  6. Check your bandwidth speed.  You can do so here.  I have a great connection due to Verizon FIOS.  My parents, less so.  Turns out, after all the above, I started sending awesome video, and it was transferring at about 500Kbits/sec!  My parents increased their quality as well, but their broadband connection caps at about 150Kbits/sec, and so that became the limiting factor.  This showed up in the technical call info problems as BW_Low.  They are now looking to upgrade their connection.  But if you notice quality does get better, but it is still sort of blurry, check your bandwidth.  You can see how much bandwidth skype is currently using by again looking at that technical call info.  Again, mine capped around 500Kbits/sec, so I suspect you should expect something similar.

Well, that's it.  It was definitely worth it.  My parents can now see Eli probably 10 times better, and soon he will be able to see them the same.

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Tips

 
I often get asked about Search Engine Optimization (SEO) because I run a search engine.  The following is currently my best advice with regards to SEO.  Just to be clear, I'm talking about Google here (and by extension Yahoo, Live, etc.) and not Duck Duck Go (my search engine), which has different optimization parameters.

I assume you already know the basics, e.g. don't have duplicate content, have good looking URLs and page titles, etc.  If you don't know the basics, read Google's SEO Starter Guide first.

  1. External link (anchor) text is the most important factor.  Google often repeats that they use more than 200 ranking factors.  I'm not disputing that :).  I think they repeat this, however, so that people won't concentrate on the few factors that really matter more than all the others.  In my experience, external link text matters way more than anything else.  That is, the actual words in the links back to your sites and pages.  

  2. If you get link text right, link back sites' pagerank matter way less.  Usual SEO advice is to contentrate on link backs from high pagerank sources.  If you want to improve your overall rankings I think this is good general advice because pageank is logarithmic, such that a link from a higher pagerank site will have more of an effect than one from a lower pagerank site than you might otherwise think.  

    However, higher pagerank links are much harder to get than lower pagerank links.  And what is often missed is that if you can get even a few lower pageank sites to link back to you using the key phrases you want to rank for, you can rank highly on those search terms even with little or no high pagerank link backs.  

  3. Widgets are great strategies.  As a result of the above, widgets are great strategies because they help you get link-acks from a variety of sites, often on their front pages and often on multiple pages within the sites.  That is, it doesn't matter if they are all low pagerank sites because you can control the link text.  But be careful.  Google is all over so-called "widget bait."  

    If you do a widget, don't forget you need that static link in it.  That is, it can't all be JavaScript.

  4. Don't guess search term volume.  Use Google's Keyword & Trends tools.  

  5. Select terms that convert.  Ideally, don't guess here either.  Use Adwords or another PPC service to test out which terms convert best, and then try to get rankings for them.

  6. Don't bother if you can't get in the top 10.  People usually revise their search terms instead of clicking to page 2.  So if you don't think you can get in the top 10, try something else, ideally something more specific that would convert better anyway.  A good thing to do is to add one more word to the general term, so if you end up ranking well for the specific term you are helping your rankings for the more general one as well.  Then if it turns out the specific one was easy (you quickly become #1), you've already gone part way on the general one.

  7. Don't pay any for any general SEO service.  Not only do you not need to (because it isn't that hard) but you don't really know what you're getting and as a result you will risk getting blacklisted.  The worst is signing up for paid link services.  Note I'm not saying don't pay anyone for SEO, because if you need basic help, a consult from someone in the know might be helpful to, for example, tell you how to re-layout your site and to explain this post to you :).

  8. Beware of nofollow links.  Nofollow links are links with a special attribute that tell search engines to ignore them.  To check a link, view the source of that page in your Web browser and look for rel=nofollow in it.  You don't want to waste time getting links on sites that use this attribute.  The canonical examples are popular blogs and Wikipedia.  Don't waste your time submitting comments and editing Wikipedia articles with your links because it won't help you.

  9. Don't waste your time with Google Sitemaps.  Google encourages you to submit sitemaps of your sites.  In theory this seems great because you can specify site priority and refresh time.  In practice, I've done this repeatedly and seen no change in rankings.

  10. Don't ignore the long-tail. People often concentrate on getting rankings for specific keywords.  But I've been just as successful building lots of pages with unique content that end up ranking high on the most random things.  Often such pages will be the only things that come up.  

    How do you do this? First, make sure you have a static site.  Sometimes startups don't.  Second, look at all the content you can produce or have produced.  Can you combine it in interesting ways that people would find useful?  For example, at Duck Duck Go we have category pages

  11. Make as flat a site hierarchy as possible.  Pagerank seems to flow logarithmicly from a homepage to its internal pages.  So if you have pages you want ranked highly, either you need links back to them directly or have them linked directly from your homepage.  And if you take my long-tail advice and make a lot of pages, make a directory of them as flat as possible.  For example, if you have 10,000 pages, make 100 pages with 100 links and link to those 100 right off your homepage.  Ideally those 100 links would make sense, e.g. categories or alphabetical or something (and not just random).

  12. Use directories instead of subdomains.  For example, domain/blog instead of blog.domain.

  13. Less is more.  Ranking is distributed across your site, so less pages, less links on them, and less text on them will concentrate your ranking potential on what is left.

  14. Don't do anything black hat.  You will get caught, you will not pass go, etc.

Update: additional comments can be found here.

Thoughts on Yahoo! BOSS Monetization Announcement

 
Yesterday Yahoo! announced upcoming usage fees for its BOSS API.  The announcement has caused quite a stir on the official discussion group and elsewhere.  As the founder of a new search engine that uses BOSS, this news clearly effects me.  Here are my initial thoughts on the matter...


  1. It's likely good for me (Duck Duck Go).  General search engines should end up monetizing at $10+ CPM.  At a cost of about $1 CPM, I'd most likely make more profit in this scheme than in a revenue share, which would probably be >10%.


  2. It does feel like bait and switch.  Yahoo! says it isn't because they said monetization was always coming at some point.  And that's true.  However, the expectation from anyone I've ever talked to about it (and mine) was that it would be a revenue share.

    That's not a coincidence.  The BOSS terms previously disallowed any third party ads.  And whenever anyone asked about it, Yahoo! said its ads are currently being tested on some sites, and are coming soon.  My guess is they did try to test it with some sites and either got caught up in cross-group bureaucracy rolling it out or it didn't monetize as well as they had initially hoped (or both...).


  3. It's likely not good for a lot of services.  Developers can get screwed here on both the cost and revenue side.  I use BOSS as an add-on of sorts, and so I generally fall into the cheapest queries in their system.  But others using BOSS are doing things like grabbing the first 1000 results (or 10 results using 10 parallel queries) and then deciding which are the best x to show.  Innovative ideas like these cost a lot more in their scheme and may easily push these services' costs above the break even point.

    On the revenue side, general search may monetize relatively well, but plenty of other things don't.  Facebook gets something like $0.20 CPM.  Not everyone using BOSS is building traditional-looking search engines...


  4. It's short-sighted.  The second sentence on the BOSS Web site is still "The goal of BOSS is simple: to foster innovation in the search industry."  This new scheme is contrary to that goal.  Truly innovative search ideas may take a long time to figure out monetization that works.  And in the mean time their costs may be significantly higher than their revenue in the proposed scheme.

    Fundamentally, as pointed out on the discussion group, this pricing may be completely disconnected from how a particular site makes money, e.g. (from the linked message):

    "The amount of $$ I make from my site is not based on the number of results I request (what you are charging me for), but is instead based upon the number of ads that my users click on."


  5. Yahoo should make money on BOSS.  I don't think anyone is really disputing this goal.  Making money on BOSS would be great for the developers, guaranteeing its longevity and quality of service.


  6. Yahoo should offer revenue sharing as an alternative.  Yahoo should offer developers a choice of how they want to pay for BOSS, either this usage pricing or a revenue share from serving Yahoo! ads.


  7. Yahoo should offer both options to all developers.  People are talking about grandfathering in current BOSS developers (to what exactly, I'm not completely sure but I suppose it is rev share).  I think that would be great, but I think they should offer the rev share alternative to all developers if the true goal is innovation.  This will let truly innovative services (with questionable initial monetization) get started.  If the developers see fit, they could then switch to the usage pricing.


  8. Revenue sharing could be great for Yahoo's overall CPM.  As I said in #1, revenue might make more money in many cases anyway.  But beyond that there is potentially a more important network effect at play.  The proposed Yahoo/Google deal (that fell through) exposed Yahoo's lower CPM rates.  Part of the problem here is they don't have enough advertiser competition on their network, which is a symptom of not enough ads.  

    Yahoo claims BOSS is serving 10M queries a day, and growing steadily.  That's a lot of potential ads, which should improve Yahoo's overall CPM over time.  That effect alone, could end up making up whatever differential Yahoo currently sees between the two pricing schemes.


  9. Marginal costs are certainly way below the proposed prices.  Yes, Yahoo should make money.  And yes, their differential pricing does make sense in the context that those queries they are charging more for do probably cost them more to serve up.  But I'd guess that the marginal cost of serving those API calls are orders of magnitude less than the proposed pricing.  Think about all caching they can do...


  10. Microsoft, where are you?  I've been asking this question in a lot of contexts for years (here's one).  There is a great opportunity for Microsoft (and Ask for that matter) to jump in here at a much lower price point given the marginal costs.

About

   

I'm a solo founder of a new search engine and an angel investor. There is more about me on my home page.
I'm also doing a book on getting traction. Get notified when it's ready:

Online Karma

-
From a new search engine

Online Profiles

-
From a new search engine