Trusting Google…with everything?
So today it came out that both Google and Microsoft are going to be entering the health care business. Offering ways for either the companies or the individuals to keep track of their records and other information that will be useful for mostly the consumer, but also, and obviously the companies revenue.
What it appears from the leaked Google screen shots, is that they will offer a way for you to keep track of your records and based on the records on information that is in the Google Health portal, you will be able to search for the most relevant information. We’ll see how useful or widespread these initiatives will be, but what these articles really got me wondering about was how much information do people trust to Google (or Microsoft for that matter).
I was talking with a friend about if we would each trust Google with our medical records and at this time I am still skeptical that I would, however it may just be a matter of time. People were nervous about online banking when it started, but now, by my generation at least, people don’t even think about using the internet for their banking. I trust Google Checkout because of my bank protecting me, in case information were to be stolen and used. My bank would be able to help solve the problem, but not Google. Yet my banking is done online, so where’s the trust level difference come from?
Now Google is getting into, docs and spreadsheets that entire companies could technically run on if they wanted to save some money. They are trying to buy the wireless spectrum, which I haven’t researched enough, but I would imagine that giving them access to quite a bit of cell phone data and information. And now, health care, yet another thing that people are nervous about sharing with other people. So is it just a matter of time before we accept this and start sharing all of our information with someone like Google, or is it a major hurdle?
If the world really is becoming flat like some people say then I think it will only be a matter of time before we think it was silly for us to be nervous about putting this info online.
Again!?…Why is Apple so affected by rumors?
Again today Apples stock took a huge hit (7%!) when a rumor that turned out not to be true hit the inter-tubes. This time TheStreet.com reported that Apple was cutting back on their production of iPhones, thus causing people to panic and sell their stock.
This is remeniscent of the time that engadget reported a rumor on Apple delaying the iPhone and their new OS when the stocks took a huge hit, but quickly recovered.
Why is Apple such a volatile stock that goes up and down with the rumors so quickly? Is it because it’s so new? Because people love the company, but are always scared of the comeback kid and wondering if they are for real this time around? I don’t know, but it’s crazy that this has happened twice withing the past two and a half months.
Sabermetrics for business? Investing?
I have been a big fan of Sabermetrics for the past few years after reading moneyball. Taking traditional stats turning them upside down and looking for new more useful stats in the game of baseball…that’s my rough explanation of what Sabermetrics is.
I just picked up the Football Prospectus 2007, which does the same thing for football by taking a totally new approach to the stats that really matter in the game of football. I haven’t even opened it up yet, but I can’t wait to see what they have in there about the Seahawks.
Thinking, doesn’t there have to be a way to look at business acquisitions? Investing? Hires? Something big in the business world that has always been viewed a traditional way… I bet if some people take the time to look at things from a different angle, within the next 5 years there will be a totally new system being adapted on how to do some of these key processes.
Any ideas which vertical will be the first to determine a new way of thinking? My guess…VC.
The Naked Truth…
Went to a local meet up for people in the tech industry last night. It was a fun event, with lots of people, conversation, bbq, and a few drinks. Thanks for Redfin and everyone else who put this on…also if you were the person who Michael Arrington gave an Ooma too, he said that if I can connect with you, you owe me one of yours…so if you read this let me know.
It’s to late, and I can’t put together coherent sentences so I will link to a few roundups of the event.
Hopefully there will be another one of these, even if it’s smaller, before the end of the summer.
Social Network Overload?
I was anti social network for a very long time. I finally gave into Facebook a few months ago after realizing they have their stuff together and it looks like they’re going to be around for a long time. They seem to have a plan for connecting people and information and not just throwing up a bunch of crap (ie MySpace, which I think will fade, but it will obviously take awhile to fade as it is HUGE). Today, as I was looking around for something to write about on this site, I kept coming across social networking news. First on Tech Crunch this morning we find out that both Google and Yahoo are working on creating their own social networks. Now it looks like Facebook is quickly approaching an IPO, proving that in fact, they are not for sale. Then Ning secures a HUGE round of funding (Raised $44 million at a $170 million pre-money valuation). Next, SideStep acquires TripUp, which is a travel social network…and to close off the evening Bay Partners launches a Facebook Apps Fund.
I’m not just trying to link to a bunch of sites, but that is five stories on social networks, four of which seem to be very significant (TripUp doesn’t seem like a major move). How are all of these social networks going to function? I think Facebook is great, but there is no way that I will get onto MySpace or any other social network unless it reaches a very large critical mass of my friends or colleagues. Ning, which provides a very easy to use tool for creating your own mini social networks is a great tool (I’ve used it and love it), but how much can a bunch of social networks of only a few hundred people be worth? $214M? I have a hard time believing that they really can bring in that much revenue on what they currently have (although with $44M I’m sure there will be some changes coming down the pipe). Yahoo, I don’t think they’ll be able to provide anything to draw a large group of new users and they’re current users only use them for email, finance, and fantasy sports.
Google could potentially launch a very appealing social network for businesses. By tying together, gmail, gchat, spreadsheets, docs and their new powerpoint killer, it seems they could provide an open network for conducting business across offices or even companies. Ping someone in the network through your hosted email in gmail and setup a live conference demo through gchat and the powerpoint killer program. It sounds very appealing to me and I hope they go down this road. I think it’s the only play left for social networks, because really, how many places do people like to write their favorite songs and activities.
Can all of these companies be worth this much money and become sustainable products? Competition is great, but I think it will come down to Facebook, MySpace, Ning, and if Google goes after the business crowd with their integrated online applications they could take alot of customers away from Facebook and LinkedIn. It will be a fun next 18 months.
[Sorry if I got carried away, but that was 4 big stories on the same subject in the same day]
Gawker’s blind drive for page views.
I don’t know if Gawker is trying to be acquired or if they are just trying to drive up the page views (and ad revnue) on their sites. I read Deadspin, Valleywag, Lifehacker, and Gizmodo regularly and enjoy what they publish on the sites. However, over the past month they have been redesigning all of their sites in what looks to be a desperate attempt to draw page views. They are now requiring you to click on a more button on the majority of the stories.
Here are some sample stats from what I eyeballed today (I could be off by a few posts) and how many of the articles (real ones, not one line blog links) you need to click a “more” button to finish reading the post.
- Deadspin 8/11
- Valleywag 10/10 (one of which you had to view three pages to get the entire story)
- Gizmodo 34/42
- Lifehacker 2/15
Just eyeballing that, it’s about 80% of the stories that you need to view a second page on, meaning that when I went to Deadspin in the past I could view the front page and get all the info I wanted. Now I need to view close to 20 pages to read all the information. On Valleywag, thirty pages rather than one. However, Lifehacker seems to keep the “more” button in check. Why would that be? Because it’s a site that is about being proficient on the web and in your daily life. It’s not very proficient to have to view an exponentially larger number of pages than you have to now is it.
I wrote Will at Deadspin when they first changed the format and he said he didn’t like it and was trying to use the more button less. This changed for a few days, but I guess when Nick Denton finished up at Valleywag last week he decided to make drive the Deadspin pages through the roof. This is also very annoying when I am trying to browse on my EDGE enabled Blackberry, no fun at all.
Nick Denton, please stop driving your page views through the roof for your profit and at your loyal readers expenses. See, I like you stuff and I’m sending page views your way, I just don’t like how you’re going about it now.
About Otis
I live in Seattle, Washington. I am passionate about working with and interacting with others. My work experience includes marketing, account management, and sales.
I am a huge sports fan who on top of cheering for my favorite teams (Go Beavs!) also appreciates coaching strategy, as well as the marketing behind teams, players, and events.
Personally, I enjoys exploring new cities and areas (particularly small towns) and getting outside and playing.