Google & AOL - this changes things: Sorry, but this link to a WSJ story in tomorrow’s paper requires a subscription. It goes “inside” the talks between Google and Time-Warner regarding Google making a minority investment in AOL of up to $5 billion. The article claims that Google is now providing $300 million in annual advertising revenue to AOL (presumably through adsense ads appearing on AOL pages). That speaks to my earlier arguments that Google is not a competitor with media companies, rather it is their partner. (And while it is a media company, Google’s business model in its relationship with other media companies is more akin to sales representation than to publishing.) However, if Google does, indeed, make this significant investment in AOL, it crosses the line and becomes a competitor to many of its partners. This will be intriguing to watch. I’m not at all knowledgable in how financial markets view these sorts of things, but it stands to reason that if Google starts tying up its assets in “content” companies like AOL, then its stock should be valued more like that of a traditional media company. Will AOL be a tar baby for Google like it became for Time-Warner — even though it was supposidly AOL that purchased Time-Warner?

The real iPoop: Some no-spin observations about stuff announced today by Apple today from John Gruber.

(via: kottke.org)

Rafat watches Lost in service to his readers: In his first test of the $1.99 video download on iTunes, Rafat Ali of PaidContent.org finds it takes him two hours rather than 20 minutes to download the program. Also, the video is optimized for the iPod video screen (2.5″), not for the PC or your 17″ powerbook. Duh? Non-starter for me if that’s the case. Why would one want to watch a tiny screen on your laptop or desktop? Oh, wait. I can think (in theory) of some people who may want to look like they’re busy as their computer who would.

The way it will be: To me, the most interesting aspect of the big announcement today is the $1.99 video downloads of TV shows. Significant. Blockbuster? Netflix? Gotta be hearing footsteps.

Also, it may surprise you, but I’m not interested in watching video on a 2 inch screen so the new iPod doesn’t even make it onto my “that would be nice to have” list.

I’ve watched Spiderman II on a PSP so I know for certain I’m not a teeny screen video fan.

Where traditional media fears to tread, there is opportunity: Susan Mernit points to Glam.com’s development of a fashion blogging network as an example of a start-up company going where a big-media company’s risk aversion keeps them from going.

Quote:

As a frequent consultant in magazineland, Glam.com’s development of a fashion blogging network pulling in popular shopping and style blogs BagCrazy, Coquette, SheFinds, PopGadget, InMyBag, FashionTribes and Tia Williams seems like something some bigger media entity might have started 10 months ago, but that hasn’t been the case–this Silicon Valley start-up is the first to get that exposing and promoting fashion bloggers can be lucrative and –yes–fun.

I believe their aversion is not merely related to “risk” or the reluctance to invest, but is tied also to the phenomenon I blogged Monday: Success comes from a company’s leadership’s ability to recognize and tap into (to “get it”) what’s taking place in the world around them (the zeitgeist) and to respond accordingly.

In other words, I don’t think it’s a reluctance to “invest in” or an unwillingness to “risk” that keeps old media companies from doing what Glam.com (and Weblogs, Inc., Gawker and others) are doing.

It’s just a “get it” thing. I should know. For almost 20 years, I’ve been bumping around a niche in the magazine business (custom publishing) that has journeyed from misunderstood outcast to hot, trendy “everyone’s doing it” status. Indeed, it’s taken over a century for big media companies to understand the custom publishing business model — and to covet it.

But that’s okay. That’s the way this should work. Let the folks behind Glam.com prove the concept, gain an audience and then be acquired and take a long vacation in the South Pacific or Italy or wherever.

Frankly, when big media try to take the lead in these things, they almost always attempt to impose their view of the world as it should be, rather than tap into the world as it is. No one should want them taking the lead on determining the shape of participatory media. Believe me. Let it grow from the ground up.

Business (to business) podcasting tips: Shel Holtz’ “Ten guidelines for B2B podcasts.”

(via: BlogSpotting)

If a tree falls in a forest? The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft and Yahoo plan an alliance so that users of their instant-messaging services can communicate directly with each other.

Quote:

The expected linkup of Microsoft’s and Yahoo’s communications services would immediately challenge the leading instant-messaging market share of Time Warner Inc.’s America Online unit. AOL has a 56% market share world-wide, according to research firm Radicati Group Inc. It has long resisted letting users of other instant-messaging services connect with its own. A combined Yahoo and Microsoft could command 44% of the global instant-messaging market, according to Radicati.

A quick survey of some teenagers I know (certainly, not a scientific study) reveals that Yahoo and Microsoft have a combined market share of 0% of that key demographic segment.