Insider Chatter by Donna Bogatin

Microsoft expands in the cloud. 

The Google brand was built off of free lunches. Nevertheless, contrary to conventional blogosphere wisdom, Google is NOT “eating Microsoft’s lunch” in the enterprise cloud.

Google Apps is, literally, a joke in the enterprise, as I reported first hand from the Enterprise Search Summit one year ago and reiterate with each and every not so shock and awe Googley move that responds to serious, proprietary, secure enterprise computing needs with sophmoric, entry-level, shared software devoid of serious functionality and mocking of enterprise-class security and privacy.

Google Sites is but the latest laughable attempt at a Googley consumerization of the enterprise. While geeks gone wild was the tech early adopter blogosphere embrace of a cutesy, template-driven free, Google online Web site service, I underscored how any enterprise foolish enough to use Google Sites, would end up getting what it paid for: NOTHING!

SEE: Why Google Sites Is BAD Business: ‘Til Death Do Us Part’?

Microsoft announces today:

the company will offer Microsoft Online Services to businesses of all sizes. This announcement marks a significant step for Microsoft toward expanding its software plus services strategy.

Geeks are NOT going wild, however, egging Microsoft on for a (food) fight mano a mano with Google solely in the cloud. Will a day ever come that software WILL solely be delivered in the cloud? Unlikley. Microsoft is laying a foundation for a rational, online-offline, complementary enterprise exploitation of software assets. 

The stand alone, free Google cloud is NOT enterprise friendly. The stark reality of Google Terms Of Service:

You agree that Google has no responsibility or liability for the deletion or failure to store any Content and other communications maintained or transmitted by Google services. You acknowledge that Google may have set no fixed upper limit on the number of transmissions you may send or receive through Google services or the amount of storage space used; however, we retain the right, at our sole discretion, to create limits at any time with or without notice.

Google reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, Google services (or any part thereof) with or without notice. You agree that Google shall not be liable to you or to any third party for any modification, suspension or discontinuance of Google services.

The Microsoft BETA Terms Of Service acknowledge the offline reality of serious business: 

You are responsible for maintaining and backing up your data that you create, use and store with the service. You are responsible for ensuring that you maintain your primary means of business.

If a business relies on the free Google cloud to maintain its primary means of business, it risks being out of business!

MORE ON THE VERY RISKY GOOGLE “ENTERPRISE”:

There Is NO Google Apps Love in the Enterprise and
Postini: Will Google REALLY Mean Enterprise Apps Business? and
Google Chokes with Postini: Billion Dollar Office Apps Giveaway and
TINY Google Web Services Lag BIG Microsoft Business and
Google Confirms: Enterprise Apps is NO Microsoft Office Killer and
Schmidt to Ballmer: Stop Stealing MY Office Collaboration Lines! and
Microsoft Office Thunder to Blast Google Apps Cloud and
IBM Confirms: Google Poses NO Enterprise Threat

PLUS: PAY PER BLOG? WHAT KILLER BUSINESS MODEL 

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Poor CNET? The latest woe of the vintage online property: A staff writer ”reports” being jilted at a cross-country media altar by Google CEO Eric Schmidt, even while acknowledging the “absurdity of flying 2,500 miles to interview a guy who works about 40 miles from” her office.

Nevertheless, CNET Editor-In-Chief, newly bumped up Dan Farber, jumps on Elinor Mill’s personal bandwagon, even while acknowledging the CNET approved “dispatch” of a CNET writer to “Mickey Mouse” land, apparently with little more than naive dreams of Google headline glory for backup.

Farber likens Schmidt to Putin for ”stonewalling,” echoing Mill’s protestations that she was unexpectedly “stunted” by the Google CEO, despite ardently having ”always wanted to interview Google CEO Eric Schmidt one-on-one.”

Mills admits she got her chance, and, incredulously, offers up a public play-by-play on how she blew it!

Contrary to the CNET double-team against Schmidt, the Google CEO “one-on-one” accorded the CNET staffer was not a fiasco because of what Farber suggests is Google arrogance. It is CNET’s Mills who dropped the ball on her shot at Googley glory by being unable to pose any in-depth, significant questions about the known purpose of the supposed CNET “exclusive”: A discussion of Google Health.

Mills claims she ”dove in with several probing questions about Google Health.” CNET’s version of “probing questions,” however, present as softball opportunites for Eric Schmidt to talk standard Google Health speak. What’s more, Mills neglected to pursue follow-up question opportunities to gain real, new, hard data and information.

The first (not so) hard hitting Google Health question Mills asked of Schmidt: “Was it difficult for Google to get health industry players like Aetna, Quest Diagnostics, and Walgreens onboard?”

Mills reports of Schmidt’s response:

“It took a while,” he said, adding that Google lined up health experts to be on an advisory health council and they are integrating their systems to work with Google’s GData. “It was OK. It wasn’t that hard.”

IT WAS OK. IT WASN’T THAT HARD are non-answers, not deserving of publication. Mills ought to have continued on: Why did it take a while? Were obstacles encountered? What objections were raised? Has any organization declined to collaborate? If yes, why?

Also, GDATA: What about it? How will the “integration” work? How will privacy and security be protected by Google? Mills ought to have really probed.

The CNET-Google problem is NOT that Eric Schmidt only had 12 minutes to only discuss Google Health with a CNET staffer. The Google-CNET problem is that Elinor Mills failed to take professional advantage of the opportunity she had to contribute to enhancing public knowledge about the real workings of Google’s Health initiative.

CEO Eric Schmidt himself alluded to Mill’s less than insightful queries:

I don’t think you have highlighted sufficiently the platform characteristic of this. Everyone is assuming it is personal health record…I think of it as a platform upon which many services can be built and it is through that platform that the real innovation occurs.

Here at Insider Chatter, I have indeed been investigating the platform wars that consumer-facing online health applications are engendering. For example, I scooped Microsoft’s Health Vault solicitation to Google to collaborate with the Microsoft platform!

SEE:  Health Vault: Hey, Google, Get With the Microsoft Medical Program! and Microsoft Seeks Healthy Relationship with Google: Health Vault INTERVIEW

Is Google open to Microsoft HealthVault’s openness though? Not likely. On the very day of Eric Schmidt’s keynote at HMSS in Florida, the Microsoft Health Vault team confirmed to me:  There’s been no formal conversations to-date between Google Health and Microsoft.

MORE:  Why Google Sites Is BAD Business: ‘Til Death Do Us Part’? and Microsoft Flexes Enterprise Muscle: What Google Apps Revolution? and Spot Runner Ad Agency: Google Sans $139 billion Search Engine? and Facebook: Why Sheryl Sandberg is a Perfect Googley Fit

PLUS: PAY PER BLOG? WHAT KILLER BUSINESS MODEL?

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN 

“The Microsoft HealthVault partner team is handling hundreds of projects representing every corner of the healthcare ecosystem.” Who says? Sean Nolan, chief architect.

I asked the HealthVault team last month: Is Microsoft bracing for a Google Health frontal assualt? NO! Was the resounding response! And rightly so, apparently.

It is no wonder that the Googley man who had visions of changing the entire U.S. healthcare system under the Google brand is long gone from Google: Adam Bosworth engaged in Barack Obama worthy style rhetoric, but like the Democratic presidential frontrunner, was short on concrete ”programs.”

“Google ventures into health records biz,” the Associated Press optimistically headlines today. What really is going on in Google’s Health world is decidedly less ambitious,  though. Over a short term period, and with a small number of users, it is testing an apparently rudimentary application allowing Google to directly import a few fields of patient data into its own seemingly rudimentary Google.com consumer medical data collection form, thanks to the cooperation of some adventuresome patients at the Cleveland Clinic.

Direct competitor Microsoft, on the other hand, is making decidely concrete progress in its HealthVault initiative. I asked Microsoft: Has Health Vault achieved a meaningful head start over Google? “This isn’t a race with Google, it’s about Microsoft delivering on its vision and working with partners,” was the cordial Microsoft response.

Moreover, Microsoft even welcomes Google as a partner! The HealthVault team told me last month:

Transforming healthcare is an incredibly complex challenge – one which no single organization can solve alone. As Microsoft tackles the challenge of merging healthcare with the internet, we are working with dozens of other innovative organizations. We are excited about Google and others joining this space and making their offerings Health Vault compatible.

Microsoft is now announcing concrete programs enabling all to “join this space,” via HealthVault compatible offerings: 

• Microsoft will make the complete HealthVault XML interface protocol specification public.
• With this information, developers will be able to reimplement the HealthVault service and run their own versions of the system.
• Microsoft will irrevocably promise that we will not make patent claims against you for implementing the specification, subject to the terms of the OSP.

What are the expectations of Microsoft HealthVault?:

Will others take us up on this promise? We hope so, we are working hard to help partners build HealthVault applications, and it just makes sense for others who want to offer consumer-controlled health records to start from an established, accepted starting point and leverage all that functionality. For those that take a different path, we will do our best to make sure that consumers can move data back and forth.

This is about putting consumers in control and making a real difference in healthcare. We believe strongly that we will all benefit as consumer-centric healthcare becomes a reality. Someday I’m sure we’ll be competing for market share with other players, but for the next few years anything that solidifies the space is great for everybody.

Will Google be open to Microsoft HealthVault’s openness? Unlikely.  

MORE: Microsoft Seeks Healthy Relationship with Google: Health Vault INTERVIEW and Google vs. Microsoft: The REAL Health Platform War Story

ALSO: MySpace To Google (Round 2): Text Clicks Do NOT Rule! VideoEgg Report

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

The GOOG fuel remains stubbornly 99% pure–online AdWords and AdSense–as the Googleplex has been ubable to extend the Google magic profitably offline. What about mobile? Is Eric Schmidt’s grand mobile ambition destined to fade away just as his dreams of personalized, GPS fueled, in-car radio “targeted” ads have?

(SEE: Google CEO In-Car Radio Ad Vision Fading)

Moreover, will a “seismic” consumer shift to smartphones provoke a reciprocal marketer “wave of change” towards mobile advertising? The Internet “titans” are gearing up for such a projected user and advertiser bonanza, according to views presented yesterday at the OMMA Mobile conference in New York City.

Google has been preaching that an “open” mobile world is the future of wireless. Nevertheless, while competitive peers Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL took to the open stage in midtown Manhattan, not a sole Googler showed up from the NYC Googleplex to join in an open wireless OMMA conversation. No surprise, the Googler in Chief’s feel good PR slogans rarely match what the (once) $200 billion market cap corporation does in the for-profit field, Android included.

The AOL spokesperson offered the most refreshing, real world “big guys” assessment yesterday of the mobile opportunity, circa today: Don’t expect any game-changing, exotic breakthroughs in the coming months, Jason Gruber indicated. While the mobile opportunity is not as “sexy” as it is made out ot be, it is nevertheless very real, he underscored.

“The reach is not there” now, though, Gruber said, noting that 35 million daily mobile Web users in the U.S. is not sufficient “scale.” Will hoped for increases in 3G handset penetration seal the mobile advertising deal? Not necessarily.

Speaking on the ”giant killers” panel, Barry Chu, of whilte label mobile search provider Medio Systems, shared that the futures of each of the entrepreneurial mobile ventures represented is dependent upon projected mobile “hockey stick” growth manifesting by no later than next year.

An eventual consumer uptake in mobile Web use will not immediately translate into advertising success, however. The Weather Channel sells integrated, cross-platform media buys, but is challenged by a lack of mobile-centric measurements, Louis Gump conveyed.

Gump made a personal plea for the industry to move “beyond the click” as a basis for valuing the worth of mobile advertising campaigns. Gump is optimistic that mobile marketers will be shown value through:

Raising awareness,
Increasing message association,
Enhancing brand favorability,
Building purchase consideration.

What about CPMs? I asked. The industry has not standardized around anything, including rate cards.

In preparing for the OMMA Mobile conference, Media Post’s Steve Smith underscored that he sought to address “head-on” the “questions and myths that continue to retard mobile marketing growth”:

Is there really not enough scale here?
Are CPMs really outlandish?
Is it really just a youth medium?
Is it just too hard to put together a mobile campaign and navigate the technology?

Unfortunately for the immediate future of the mobile industry, all of Smith’s supposed myths were upheld, intelligently, as real-world obstacles for the near term.

ALSO:  Google Killer Cuill? Ex-Googler Startups Pose NO Threat: FriendFeed, Howcast, Zillow and Why Silicon Alley VCs Should Do Blogging Due Diligence, Too and NYC Braces for Subway Cell Phone Rage: 5 million Yakkers Daily

PLUS: Google Apps Meets Les Miserables: Enterprise IT Team DREAMS Big and Yahoo: Beware Google AND Embrace Microsoft! and Google Execs Silent On NYC Print, Radio, TV Promises 

MORE: How Web 2.0 Meetups Displaced the New York Software Industry and Yahoos Rally: Beware Sticky Peanut Butter Tales

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Will the enterprise IT world arrive today on the job bracing for an employee revolution, facing inexorable worker demands for corporate happiness via Google Apps Team Edition?

So goes the Google Enterprise spiel, obligingly presented by pre-briefed media, both old and new:

Ben Worthen, The Wall Street Journal, wears his NOT-SO hard news objectivity on his headline sleeve: “Google marginalizes tech departments even more” How can the WSJ be so sure? Google PR told Worthen so:

Google is bottoms up, appealing directly to individuals, encouraging them to bring the tools they use in their personal lives into the workplace. To that end, Google built a feature into Team Edition that lets IT departments upgrade to the full corporate version of Google Apps if it realizes that a large number of its workers are using it.

Elinor Mills, CNET, leads with the Google PR talking point: ”Just like rogue employees in the 1990s forced instant messaging into corporations, the new Google Apps Team Edition being launched on Thursday offers a way for workers to slip a hosted apps service into the enterprise,” reinforcing the Google Enterprise marketing pitch: 

“People are already using the consumer (hosted Google) apps in the workplace, like they did IM a decade ago,” said Jeremy Milo, senior marketing manager for Google Apps. “We’re trying to bring more security by introducing the notion of domain awareness.”

BUT, who is really forcing what where? Google may have dreams of a Les Miserables like “bottoms-up” employee cry of “We want our Google Apps,” but the enterprise IT world is having the last laugh, at Google Enterprise’s ongoing expense.

READ ALL ABOUT HOW There Is NO Google Apps Love in the Enterprise:

Postini: Will Google REALLY Mean Enterprise Apps Business? and
Google Chokes with Postini: Billion Dollar Office Apps Giveaway and
TINY Google Web Services Lag BIG Microsoft Business and
Google Confirms: Enterprise Apps is NO Microsoft Office Killer and
Schmidt to Ballmer: Stop Stealing MY Office Collaboration Lines! and
Microsoft Office Thunder to Blast Google Apps Cloud and
IBM Confirms: Google Poses NO Enterprise Threat

PLUS: LinkedIn To Mine User Data For Corporate Espionage and Poynt IM Local Search: Will Yellow Pages on BlackBerry Crack the Code? and Why Silicon Alley VCs Should Do Blogging Due Diligence, Too and Cuill? Google Vet Startups Pose NO Threat: FriendFeed, Howcast, Zillow

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Google to the Yahoo rescue? Hardly. I have long underscored that Barry Diller sells IAC shareholders short by selling out Ask.com’s search advertising to Google.

In announcing the IAC plan to spin-off HSN, Ticketmaster, Interval and Lending Tress as four distinct publicly traded companies, Diller said his online advertising focused “Internet conglomerate,” of which Ask.com is a trophy property, will benefit from “standing on its own.” YES, but so would the competitive operations of Ask.com, far from competitor Google’s monopoly seeking hands.

Google is Ask’s prime competitor. While Google is a cheery proponent of coopetition, the only chance for an underdog to become the big dog is to rely on itself for its independent, proprietary future, rather than piggybacking on the success of the single, biggest, arch competitive rival. Yahoo has long understood the need to remain independent of Google and ought to continue to maintain the integrity of its core product offering, come what may.

My question for Diller last year was:

You indicated this morning that starting as the number five search engine is not a bad thing. Yesterday, you inferred that being the number four search advertising network may not be a good thing.  Why are you willing to share Ask’s monetization with competitor Google when you believe “if there is no other ad network than Google, then we are all in trouble.”

Diller told Wall Street:

As far as doing it ourselves, we thought originally and we continue to do work in this area. We do do it ourselves; we do all sorts of ad products inside Ask.com for ourselves, for our own account. But as far as the ad network business, there are, as you know, three players in it currently. I think there probably won’t be a fourth. At some point, I can’t say what will happen out of the growth of advertising in this area, but right now, I would much, much, much prefer to rent it. I think that we will be well-served by that, certainly for a period of time.

Diller’s short-term sell out to his search enemy weakens Ask.com long term and strengthens Google’s winning position, at the expense of contendor Ask.com.

Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo changes the market landscape, but does not render a Yahoo capitulation and amputation at the hands of Google a worthy option. Microsoft is being straightforward about its intentions towards Yahoo, buy and control. Google, as is its fashion, offers a friendly carrot to Yahoo, while seeking its Googley end goal of usurping search advertising share to eliminate a strong competitor and using Yahoo to hurt Microsoft, Eric Schmidt’s despised foe.

Yahoo seemingly has no shareholder value option at this time other than to succumb to new Microsoft ownership. Yahoo owned by Microsoft is NOT the end of the Yahoo brand world though. Microsoft wants Yahoo and needs it as a full partner in a mutually beneficial attack against Google. Google, on the other number one hand, only wants to use Yahoo to further consolidate its search monopoly grip on the Web, for its sole Google shareholder advantage.

Microsoft is NOT a Yahoo enemy, Google is.

MORE: Is Union Square Ventures Changing Exit Strategies? and Microsoft’s Yahoo Bid a Winner: Google Running Scared! and Yahoo Shareholder on Microsoft Bid: AOL, Time Warner All Over Again? and Google Execs Silent On NYC Print, Radio, TV Promises 

PLUS: LinkedIn To Mine User Data For Corporate Espionage

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN