Since the proposed deal (outlined here), everyone (including the idiotic Microsoft) has been against it. Newspapers worldwide (minus the US) have done so, as have many tech blogs. There have been some, however, including some bloggers at the NY Times, who have said there’s nothing to fear. This position is more than stupid; it’s uncritical and like many things in the US, completely enslaved to a corporatist mentality that businesses mean well. I’m sorry to say that we only have to look at the current global financial meltdown to know that American corporations are not looking out for anyone. Hence, the Google-Yahoo deal, which was a godsend for Yahoo, which was also flirting with Microsoft for a buyout. This ad deal between them and Google was supposed to be a “better” alternative. But Microsoft was angry and pushed for a Department of Justice anti-trust investigation. That is happening right now, and is holding up the deal.
During this legal limbo, bloggers and others have been going at it about the merits (and lack thereof) of this deal. They have been mostly oversimplified and reductionist but Manjoo’s is quite persuasive because he is not talking about monopolization (aka Googlization) but how this deal would affect other parts of the Web since Google has its hands in EVERYTHING. He argues that this deal would be quite bad for the small websites and blogs:
It’s not only advertisers who ought to worry about Google gobbling up Yahoo: A more powerful Google will also hold greater sway over the millions of Web sites that depend on advertising for their revenue. Many big sites—newspapers and online magazines like Slate, for instance—and millions of small sites (blogs, e-commerce sites, startup firms) run ads provided by Web companies like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. As Michael Arrington—the founder of the tech industry blog TechCrunch, one of the most successful new publishers on the Web—points out, Google doesn’t share much revenue with sites that run its ads. “The only thing keeping them even close to honest is the fact that Yahoo and Microsoft will occasionally compete for those partners,” he argues. Once Yahoo is gone, Google will be able to decrease the revenue given to blogs and other small publishers—a potentially huge blow to a vibrant new medium.
This is why the deal is bad, not because Microsoft is upset that it lost the Yahoo bid.
In A Quarreling Pair, Bill T. Jones explores the dualities
between any two people and the struggle to co-habitate and to live
together against all odds.
The work is in part inspired by A Quarreling Pair, by playwright and
novelist Jane Bowles. The play, written for two puppets, is an absurdist
meditation on the relationship of two middle-aged sisters, Harriet and
Rhoda, who sit in separate rooms and quarrel endlessly about trivial
tasks, the futility of life, and their inextricable bond. Bill T. Jones
chose this work as inspiration because “This short but powerful play has
been on my mind for nearly 20 years as I have ruminated on the idea of
partnering, onstage and off.”
To Mr. Jones the play also suggests the world of entertainment, with its
strange poetry and curious songs. A Quarreling Pair is an opportunity to
go deeper into what makes each of us performers.
I saw Bill T. Jones, a big time dance choreographer and Tony Award winner, at Wesleyan a couple of years ago and it was pretty outstanding. I’m not sold on the concept, but I will withold self-entited snobbery until later and will post crappy Blackberry photos. Until then, here’s the NY Times review.
X-posted at Human Potential.
Sure, the first few years of the best Internet search engine ever were breezy. But now Google has slowly begun to show its true self or selves, to put it more accurately. Not only have they made their search engine dominant, but they have also bought a bunch of other heavily used products of the Web such as Blogger and YouTube. For a while they were the envy of all for good reason. They had reputable labor practices, good food, cool workplace, etc. They were the winners, the cool kids, but didn’t act like it. Unfair. But most of all, they had a lofty self-image, best represented by their mantra: “do no evil.”
In the wake of Google euphoria–the morning-after a night that couldn’t have gone any better–there has been a cadre of media scholars, critics, and Web users who’ve been more than a little unhappy with Google. One of them has been Siva Vaidhyanathan, a media scholar at the Univeristy of Virginia, who has been working on a project called The Googlization of Everything. He has various criticisms of Google but I think they can be best summed up as: Google, while branding itself not as a media company–that is, it does not create content, but, as a story in today’s NY Times on Google’s new project “Knol” suggests, it hasn’t really kept to that.
Knol is Google’s answer to Wikipedia. Here’s a bit of from Knol’s FAQ:
The Knol site has one goal: to help you share what you know.
The Knol project is a site that hosts many knols — units of knowledge — written about various subjects. The authors of the knols can take credit for their writing, provide credentials, and elicit reviews and comments. Users can provide feedback, comments, and related information. So the Knol project is a platform for sharing information, with multiple cues that help you evaluate the quality and veracity of information.
Knols are indexed by the big search engines, of course. And well-written knols become popular the same as regular web pages. The Knol site allows anyone to write and manage knols through a browser on any computer.
But doesn’t everything you type into Google currently give you a Wikipedia link in the first few hits? Exactly what Wikipedia and others are worried about. Will Google privilege its own products in the search? The Times article has various people weigh in and doesn’t really argue one way or another–in favor of something like “journalistic neutrality” which in my book just means the lack of any kind of analytic anything. But it did however bring up a very good point about the growth of Google in this century. Will it go through that critical stage in which its attempt to become what it avowedly stated it was not, will it lose its juice? In other words, as what Microsoft attempted in the 90s which was to make operating systems and applications, will Google’s reach towards content-driven web apps undercut its own empire? Well if Microsoft is an indicator, then, yes, Google has everything to worry about. Although Microsoft still makes a crap load of money, it has fallen out of favor with many. Its programs on the whole are sucky and unreliable. Nevertheless, because of its global dominance of its operating systems and Office bundles, it still turns a pretty good profit. But it’s not hot anymore. Microsoft is like Metallica. They were once good and edgy, but are now basically cranky, old and hate file-sharing. Google, by all accounts, is suffering from a mild case of Microsoftopeia. It’s buzz is waning, albeit slowly.
Will it suffer the same fate? I think it is afraid that it will; and hence its attempt to Googlize everything–Google Docs, Google Maps, Google (insert whatever here)–is the compensatory reaction to its own eventual death. Its desperation is even more clear as it has begun to Googlize itself.
The blogosphere is ablaze with news of a new search engine Cuil, started by a few defectors from Google. Every tech blog has been wondering what to make of it. I gave it a test-trial yesterday when it opened up for business and I have to say that I won’t be making the switch just yet, although I’m quite happy that someone is trying to put a dent in Google.
If you go to the portal, you’ll se that Cuil boasts of a ridiculous amount of websites that it indexes. “Search 121,617,892,992 web pages” according to them. What this means is that it has a lot of pages that it keeps in its databases to search. In other words, it is expansive as a motherf–ker. But the real question is: is it good? But those of us who use the Web all day do not really think about what constitutes a “good” search engine because frankly we’ve been spoiled. Just to think back to the pre-Google days (I know, it’s like seeking the trauma in a therapy session, but it’s good for you, trust me, your techno-analyst). When I first encountered the Internet (I think around 6th grade), AOL’s search was powered (I believe) by WebCrawler. When you entered a search, what I really was looking for was not necessarily predicted very well. Nevertheless, it was the only option. In today’s Googlized world, we have not only been treated like favorite grandchildren when it comes to web search, we’ve also become hardwired to Google, though perhaps for good reason.
Google is just that good. They are killin’ it in the game because they are smart as hell. Listen, I’m not pro- or anti-Google in anyway substantive way, but what I mean by “killin’ it” is their adeptness to the maths(as the British call it). Google’s algorithm is so good at modeling what the searcher is looking for that it has us thinking that Google=the Internet. This is far from true, but nevertheless it is what good algorithms do, especially Google’s PageRank system, which feeds back into Google’s system what searchers actually click on in order to place them higher on the list for specific search terms. All predictive math, including statistics and polling, rely on algorithms. And even with Cuil, the big G’s algorithmic hegemony goes unchallenged, and as far as I can tell, it will be that way for a while. Despite the fact that it is made up of ex-Google employees, Cuil can only say that it has more pages indexed, but not really what you want.
In short, for modulation of desire and magical “open sesame” type of web browsing, stick with Google for now.
If you are from NYC or live here now, you might have met this type of dude or more likely seen him rolling by in a Mazda MPV with a new suspension, unabashedly blasting a female voice singing lyrics about loving some man up, as a lot of early-80s R&B is prone to do. Since it is summer time, you will most likely see them in shades, a monochromatic linen short-sleeve button down and way-too-long shorts set, MANdals, gold jewelry and a certain kind of “old man” swagger. You know who I’m talking about. You’ve seen him when you got off the train on the ride home from work. You’ve scratched your head. What is this guy’s deal? He’s not like the other cats who hang out in front of the bodega. He’s not just a regular corner dude. He’s on some next. He gets out of the car–yes, Patti is still blasting in his system–and the young dudes dap him up like an OG.
I find this to be mad funny especially in light of the very reactionary “no homo”/”pause” game that is still played. It’s clear: there is some pretty effing gayness inherent to the OG status in NYC. How come the Patti Dude doesn’t get “paused”? Regardless, I’m glad Patti Dudes are around, representing the rather tenuous nature of bodega masculinity and the teetering line between OG-status and utter gayness.
The gf, Chip, Steve and a bunch of other cats went to the Kid Cudi/Blaqstarr/Random B-more Bass people/Weird but kind of funny 80s-style vogue dancers/Diplo/DJ A-Trak/Santogold show on Sunday. It was hot as balls and the show was full of way too much time-filling DJing (some of which was good) and talking over the music (all of which was terrible). But, when Santi touched that stage, it was a wrap. She sounded pretty damn good and had the crowd open. Just wish she had played more songs. Whatever though, she did the damn thing.
As part of the collection of renegade photos that Steve has taken that feature various friends “posing” with semi-famous to famous people, we have another addition to the illustrious list which includes David Cross (Arrested Development RIP), Steve Nash (Phoenix Suns) and now DJ/producer extraordinaire Diplo (errr…Mad Decent I guess?):
I can’t write a book that deals with (in part, not the whole shmagagie) blogs and not have one myself. For the record, this is the same excuse I used to get a Blackberry. Will have more things up as I actually get this thing poppin. For now, here is my favorite YouTube clip of late (although it’s mad old). It is of a 7-year old G by the name of Latarian Milton who finds it fun to do “hoodrat stuff with his friends.” Enjoy.
*Full Disclosure: I am swagger jacking from Juan Epstein (the name of the podcast by HOT97’s Cipha Sounds and Peter Rosenberg). They use this as a drop on their show.
Finally, someone who is speaking sensibly about the Google-Yahoo deal. Slate’s 
The blogosphere is ablaze with news of a new search engine 
