Alert Blog Reviews

And I don’t mean job security for Carol Bartz. Yahoo’s BOSS (Build your Own Search Service) is a popular, free way for developers to access the Yahoo index and to implement Yahoo search for your site. With the pending Microsoft-Yahoo deal outsourcing the search business, there has been some concern over whether BOSS will be discontinued. Never fear, says Yahoo—BOSS is sticking around. Like the main search results, the BOSS results are slated to use Bing’s index as well. But the bad news is that BOSS may not continue to be a free offering. Ashim Chimbra addressed developers’ concerns in the Yahoo Tech Group and alluded to possible pay structures in the future (emphasis added): Under this agreement, Yahoo! is permitted to continue offering the BOSS web service, with search results that would integrate Yahoo! services and content with algorithmic results provided by Microsoft. As always, our intention is to provide a BOSS offering as long as it makes business and economic sense to do so. We are still examining what the BOSS offering will consist of, with some services powered by Microsoft, unique content that Yahoo! currently provides, and the potential for additional Yahoo! content in the future. Prior to the announcement of the Yahoo!-Microsoft search agreement, we’d already shared our intention to explore a fee-based structure for BOSS. We continue to explore an appropriate fee structure or other revenue model as we work through the future of BOSS. As you know, we must receive regulatory clearance before actual implementation of the search deal with Microsoft can occur. Only then can we finalize the future shape of BOSS. Of course, we will provide additional clarity and certainty when we can. So clearly, they’re keeping their options open for pricing. What do you think? Will they be able to keep it free, or is the deal with Microsoft underlying evidence of the need for revenue? via

Follow this link:
Yahoo to Keep BOSS under Microsoft

The last domino has fallen: AT&T has announced that they will offer Android handsets on their network. The last of the major US carriers to sign on with the open-source Google OS devices, AT&T plans five Android-based handsets built by Motorola and HTC this year. Of course, AT&T is the home of the iPhone. Along with the Android, AT&T announced at CES that they’ll also be offering a couple Palm OS devices as well as adding support for the Palm, Android, Windows Mobile and Nokia app stores. Perhaps wisely, AT&T didn’t bring up the iPhone, though they continue to enjoy an exclusive sale agreement—which apparently wasn’t reciprocal. (Will it be renewed?) This move by AT&T may be a precursor to signing on with the agreement to sell plans for Google’s new Nexus One . Like most other smartphones, the Nexus One is pretty cool, and Google selling an unlocked version is pretty cool, too—but the price tag (without carrier subsidies and rebates) will effectively keep all but the most tech-covetous shoppers from the Nexus (with the iPhone running as little as $200 vs. the Nexus’s $530). AT&T will also be adding more cell sites and connections to improve their network, which has been facing a lot of complaints of dropped calls and texts and sluggish download times. (Not to mention the 3G map comparison Verizon’s latest ad campaign harps on.) What do you think? Will this help AT&T or Google more in the long run?

See the original post:
Android Taking over AT&T

Google Street View began its European adventure a while ago—and it’s been met with resistance in more than a few places. Switzerland, like several other countries, was concerned that Street View wasn’t sufficiently blurring people’s faces and cars’ license plates, and that the height of the camera meant they’d see over privacy hedges and fences (which, even in the US, might constitute a breach of privacy). Today, the Swiss government tells Reuters that Google is already ready to accede to its pending ruling. The Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) Hanspeter Thuer brought the case against the street-level panoramic photo mapping service, and though it hasn’t been heard yet, Google is ready to comply. As part of this agreement, Google may continue to photograph Swiss cities, but will not put any photos online until the agreement is approved. They must also give at least a week’s notice in cities they plan to photograph. Although today’s agreement didn’t touch on this problem, Google has previously said they’re not willing to lower their cameras (though they did this in Japan, but that was for photo quality in narrower streets). A source told Reuters that a decision from the Federal Administrative Court was “unlikely” in 2010. Switzerland joins England , Germany , Greece , Japan , Australia and even America as countries with some level of backlash—be it grassroots, individual legal challenges or governmental challenges. What do you think? Will Google also give in to the height restrictions, or will they ultimately win out?

Originally posted here:
Google to Bow to Switzerland’s Street View Wishes

Friday brought Microsoft and Yahoo one step closer to the search deal they announced in July . The terms of the deal received final approval from two very important groups— Microsoft and Yahoo . Although the two were supposed to have the details hammered out by late October, they took a few extra weeks to refine their agreement. This agreement still needs regulatory approval, and such agencies as the US Department of Justice are on the record as saying they will scrutinize the deal closely . Meanwhile, the deal isn’t projected to warrant much concern from the European Commission —but the DOJ is probably the bigger concern. Not only are both companies headquartered in the US, but also scrutiny from the Department of Justice—and threats of anti-trust action—ultimately killed a search ad deal between Yahoo and Google last year—will the Bingahoo deal suffer the same fate? Should the DOJ treat Microsoft and Yahoo differently since they’re not the dominant search engine, or would that be unfair? Is the Yahoo-Microsoft deal the lesser of two evils, and the only chance to unseat Google in the near future? Or does the deal merit more scrutiny from the DoJ? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Visit link:
Microsoft and Yahoo Seal the Deal

For all of the drama and the back and forth of the Microsoft and Yahoo courtship from the summer it’s almost laughable to learn that the two still don’t have all the details ironed out yet. The deal that was originally supposed to be signed off on October 27th isn’t quite ready for the super huge pens that were used in the photo op pictures from July. We are now left to wonder what the heck wasn’t figured out before these two giants said “I do” in the summer. Yahoo tells about the delay in getting the scheduled signing done in an SEC filing that the Business Insider reports In their original July 29 agreement, Yahoo and Microsoft said they would sign finish negotiating the search deal by October 27. “But,” reads the filing, “given the complex nature of the transaction, there remain some details to be finalized.” “The parties are working diligently on finalizing the agreements, have made good progress to date, and have agreed to execute the agreements as expeditiously as possible.” You have to wonder what these details are exactly. What if there is a big “Ooooops!” discovered where something was not ‘ironed out’ in the original negotiations? I can’t imagine such a thing happening but stranger things happen every second of every day so why not? So what did Yahoo have to say on this one? “Microsoft and Yahoo! are committed to this agreement and believe this is a highly competitive deal that is good for consumers, advertisers and publishers. We have made good progress in finalizing the definitive agreements. Given the complex nature of this transaction there remain some issues that need some additional clarity and definitive details. So, the teams at Yahoo! and Microsoft are continuing to work on the remaining details, and we have mutually agreed to extend the period to negotiate and execute the agreement. We plan to do this as expeditiously as possible. Both companies are optimistic that we will be able to close this deal by early 2010.” Early 2010?! That’s not just missing a deadline that’s blowing past it and leaving it for dead. What would have been nice is if there was a definition on what early means. Of course, the longer it takes for the two sides to dot the I’s and cross the T’s the longer and more delayed the start of the regulatory process becomes thus possibly making the actual union even later than originally thought. So don’t get too worried about what will or won’t happen when this deal is finally put in place. Who knows the US may even have some kind of healthcare deal in place before that happens.

Here is the original post:
Bingahoo Delayed a Month or Two (or More)?

First of all, let me define to you what a joint venture is.  Joint venture is collaboration of two or more persons including their assets, knowledge, market shares and, of course, their profits.  For instance, if a company would like to increase its market share without spending millions of dollars, it can join another company having similar products and services.   It has been proven that joint ventures are effective in terms of increasing profits, in downsizing expenses and in market penetration. Here are just some various reasons in forming joint ventures: 1. To increase the company’s capital.  A much bigger capital would mean greater business options, wider market and bigger profits.  More products can be produces and more services can be performed when you have better   resources. 2. To further strengthen the company.  As they always say, two heads are better than one.  Joined ideas, concepts and opinions will mean better possibilities but all of these must be squeezed into just one brilliant idea. 3. To be able to maximize profit.  Having a bigger company may lead to business expansions and it would mean greater income for the company. The success of a partnership relies mainly on its execution rather than in the process itself.  Agreements must be ironed out properly to avoid conflicts and misunderstandings between parties.  The most obvious details to the smallest details must be given importance, such as the assets, its people, profits, expenses and others that concern the partnership.  In this way, there’s no doubt that a joint venture will achieve its goals and objectives.         The failure of joint ventures, on the other hand, is due to disagreements of the parties involved, their lack of knowledge, conflicts of opinions, etc.  Trust should be considered a major foundation in building a partnership.  What brings joint ventures down is having different views, ambiguous visions and imprecise goals.  However, problems may still be resolved with proper negotiation and concessions to avoid the partnership to be dissolved.     It is sometimes risky to have a joint venture with someone or with persons having a different nationality.  Different cultures have different ways in running a business, in dealing with problems and in leading people. This can lead to major problems in the future.  With having divergent goals, it is impossible to merge ideas and concepts making the business chaotic and knotty.  Minds will not be able to meet with this kind of joint venture.    It’s really a challenge to put up a joint, and it takes a lot of guts to make it successful.  A partnership will be effective, successful and profitable if both parties will agree only to a single goal and are geared towards a similar direction. The most important thing in a partnership in not even found in the agreement or papers, it’s the trust that the partners have for each other and nothing can beat that.  Consider trust as the main ingredient in reaching the company’s objectives.  Always bear in mind that having a common goal, mission and vision is the main factor that governs a joint partnership.

Read the original here:
Joint Venture: Success and Failure