Yes.

The whole location of the Garage Geek party is quirky but that is exactly what makes it so unique. So yes, look closly, Marissa Mayer - VP Search Products & User Experience @ Google is standing on a fork lift while giving a speech.
And if you look a little closer Yossi Vardi is on her left, standing in as stage master, looking concerned…making sure Marissa doesn’t take a tumble ( ’cause in the spirit of Israeli improvisation he is to blame she is up there in the first place )
You might think Marissa could be ticked off at the settings but I got the feeling she ‘connected’ with the garage groove.

      

I’d like to present a different take than proposed by Aner below. When I think of the effectiveness of this new marketing channel I look at the wider perspective of the platform and user habits. To pinpoint the discussion further I’d like to address the action that leads to the ad being served. Google’s definition of a mobile ad is as follows:

“Mobile ads are shorter text-based AdWords ads that appear on mobile websites or when users search Google from a mobile device. When users clicks on your mobile ad, you can send them to your mobile webpage or offer them the option to connect to your business phone.”

The issue that I would like to focus on is the fact that content discovery and search habits are COMPLETELY different when it comes to mobile browsing. As such, I believe ‘copying’ a successful ad model on the ‘pc web’ does not guarantee success in the mobile world.

Mobile web browsing is much more focused. You hardly ever start in one place and ‘wander’ to the next or discover new services and information based on advertising and hyperlinks. Its usually a much more focused action. You are ‘on the go’ you look up ’something’ - news, sports –> these are served via direct links in the Operator’s portal or your own bookmarks - done. There is no (or hardly any) plain search. If there is, its in the context of a use case such as maps, music or video search and that usually happens within a specific service (HooQs ).

In his MEM2007 insights post Aner mentioned (point #9) users tried Google mobile search and didn’t like it. I did too, and didn’t like it. Not because of Google but because content is scarce and the chance of random discovery which is part of the Internet’s main ‘wonders’ doesn’t [yet] exist in the mobile web.

I’m willing to agree Google’s drive is positive. If anyone can start some kind of drive that will motivate mobile content to be created thus leading to an eco-system that is able to sustain ads based on that content…it’s Google. Google’s mobile ads are basically an experiment that will hopefully lead to more mobile content and probably also lead to a change in the ad model.

One of the greatest killer apps for mobile search will be the integration of location based with search. Not on a country level, on the neighborhood level! If I want to buy flowers for my wife - Go to Google, search “Flowers” –> results = near by flower shops, with link to number and a map. That’s effective and thats the kind of “fused” service I am looking when it comes to using my mobile for search.

For now, the level of service is basic. The action is welcomed but execution not focused enough on leveraging mobile use cases.

      

Google’s mobile version of AdSense is finally in beta. After months of second hand rumors, these news now seem substantiated as Google has put together a mobile ad FAQ page. Ads are available in 13 countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, China, Ireland, India, Russia and Australia. Advertisers can choose between 12 and 18 characters per ad.

The pricing and clearance processes are similar to the ones already established on the web with one major exception. In the mobile version, the user can actually place a call to the published business. If this doesn’t drive mobile click through price up then I find it hard to know what will.

Will this work? Absolutely! I believe this is exactly what the industry needs to kick-back. Banners are limited and the collective user patience for them is exhausted. Useful, contextual information on the mobile phone can actually add value to the browsing session.

      

A good friend of mine recently complained to me that there are no good mobile finance solutions. He has a regular consumer mobile (SonyE w800i) “What about Yahoo Finance?“, I asked …”Na..doesn’t work” he quickly dismissed. When I learned about Google Finance for Mobile I quickly ran to compare. Google’s solution includes easy access to financial info on the go through text messaging or mobile browsing - but so does Yahoo so whats the big deal?

The deal is: elegance & simplicity - the atoms of execution. On the surface Yahoo’s solution should even be better. The Finance page is more informative, there is even a cool feature that enables you to send yourself an SMS with the web address instead of typing the address yourself. The problem started when I tried (God forbid) using it - I just couldn’t login. I got the link, tried to add a quote only to get a ‘turn off’ message - “Invalid Yahoo ID or password”. Now remember I got here by sending the SMS, the least you can do for me is let me login…NO. No link to login, “Help” didn’t help and the other roads I tried didn’t lead to Rome (login). So there I was, yet again disappointed of a Yahoo service that beat Google to the mark but missed on execution.

Google’s WAP browsing experience and portfolio management was a breeze to operate, a joy to use and has now become my official on the go stock tool - BAMM…Bookmarked!

Yet again Usability wins the day. I could care less about the tech behind these two platforms - when the execution is seamless and the basics are there, your a step a way from success…or as in Google’s case…swimming in it!

      

Ok, so the hot news are cooliing off and we all had a chance to check out Mobile YouTube by now. It’s time to call the Jury back in and get an interim verdict. My first impression of the service was awesome. It looked good, worked well on my 3G Nokia E61. Sure, the content is handpicked and handicapped, but it’s still a good start. The main issue I had with it was with the fact it’s still not working well on too many operators and devices.

Itay Gissin discussed Mobile YouTube in our HooQs blog this morning and tried to understand whether it’s just a mobile version of the “Internet YouTube” or the other way around - a new “YouTube approach” to mobile media.  His conclusion, with which I agree, is that it’s a bit of both.

Starting with the good news. The most refreshing element of the new service is that it is Internet based and operator independent. In other words, it gives on deck portals a well deserved kick in the butt:

“Good news - No client needed, just come and get it with any Internet 3G phone! That’s exactly what this industry needed for a long time - an Internet giant meaning business & leveraging the Web’s open model on the mobile industry. Most other Internet content players view the operators as the “plug number” in their broken revenue model, trying to sell OPC (Other People’s Content) in traditional content models, overlooking the end-consumer reluctance to pay premium for content mobility.“

These are indeed great news and such that will help drive the industry much faster. After all, everyone looks at Google and YouTube when it comes to taking risks these days. Operators have realized by now they need to channel Internet content and not reinvent it, and such a move from such a significant player definetely helps drive the point. There are a couple of hard core issues though.

The first one is availability. Mobile YouTube is streaming based, a decision that can be probably attributed to legal caution. The video files are transcoded to 3GP format which means no iPhone, Windows Mobile or Blackberry. Streaming video is not a trivial end user feature and is still dependent on operator practices, proper device configuration and overall device support. Sticking to streaming video means that roughly 2 out of 3 potential 3G users are out of the game, without them even understanding why. The 3GP format is less of an issue and I expect YouTube to cover those other formats soon enough.

The second issue is the content itself. On the Internet, YouTube is a key media website, fitting well in the rich user environment. On mobile, users need better reasons to enter, not to say stick to a mobile portal. Mobile video is a different experience than Internet video. It involves more difficult navigation and has a price tag associated with it. The secret sauce of a successful mobile portal is made up of easy access and versatile content - variable sources, credible news, mobile use cases and so forth. YouTube is a part of that, but cannot cover the basic need by itself. As Itay summarizes:

“When I am on my mobile, I normally have a minute. Maybe two. The only way I will choose to go on the internet is if I know I am 2-3 clicks away from something that will Hook me up, and will be unique & forward-worthy. For that to happen, content sources will have to be much more varied than a YouTube. A community system will have to be working for me - Scouring the web, fetching content, filtering it for mobile consumption, connecting me with peers’ content, and more.”

Couldn’t agree more.

      

I spent the week in Monaco at MEM2007. From the personal perspective it was a very exciting show, after all, first time HOOQs was on display. From that perspective we had an excellent show - great feedback and lots of users and leads. We have work cut out for us, but the good news is that the market is HOT! The need for personalized, open, operator independent web to mobile services is all over the place and is welcomed by users, operators, content providers, analysts and bloggers.

MEM2007 is not really a classic exhibition, it’s more of a conference. Participation is nearly exclusive to industry insiders and the tracks, therefore, are very professional. To a start-up-ist, these represent rare opportunities to take a 30,000 feet view and collect some insights that extend beyond the daily challenges. My own personal climax was not a single industry lecture or panel, even though all were very interesting at their own merit. To me, the most insightful session was a focus group with 10 different teenagers. These young adults were gathered from different countries - Australia, England, France, Italy, Finland, Germany - and were all surveyed about their digital lives. Here is some of what they told us:

1. The key elements teenagers look for in their mobile phones is appearance. Then come ability to play music, quality of camera and feature richness. 

2. Nokia is the most popular handset brand. Out of the 10 participants, 5 had Nokias, 2 had Samsungs, 2 had LGs (Chocolate) and 1 had a Sony Ericsson. 7 out of 10 devices were 3G.

3. They don’t do mobile clients - only 1 participant ever downloaded a mobile application. A game. Used it a couple of times and ditched it.

4. Teenagers are smart shoppers. They don’t mind paying for Internet content, but hate buying stuff they can easily find for free. In other words, they will not buy songs for 3 Euros a pop. Contrary to popular belief, they buy a lot of CDs in addition to downloading free music. They know how to manage their music collection and how to get their favorite music on their mobile device.

5. On they other hand, all participants testified they would gladly buy new content if only they could find it easily. All participants agreed that the mobile operator portals are close to impossible to navigate through.

6. On top, the differences between operators and handsets make it impossible for users to share experiences. Not tracks or clips - pure information about where and how to find them!

7. They things they on their handsets are better Internet browsing and memory. They really don’t get why MP3 and Video enabled phones come with such little memory.

8. They don’t mind advertising if it makes content free. They are already used to online ant TV advertising, why object to mobile ads?

9. They all tried Google on their mobile and didn’t like it. The mobile experience does not provide anything close to the internet experience.

10. They don’t do MMS. All of them tried and all of them claim that “it doesn’t work”.

11. If they had to give up their TV, Mobile Phone or PC, 9 out of 10 would give up their TV (the only other answer was PC). None would let go of their mobile phone.

These young adults were not screaming in a vacuum. It was great to hear executives from operators presenting plans to further breakdown their walled gardens and push flat data rates. It seems like it’s only a question of price points now. This is music to the ears of user centric service providers. To me, however, getting the bartenders in front of our booth excited and HooQed was most rewarding than anything!

      

“Obi-Wan: The FORCE can have a strong influence on the weak-minded…”

Replace “Force” with “Money” and this sums up Microsoft’s problems. Its not talent, not creativity, not assets, not brand… Just money. Not because money doesn’t enable you to achieve things but because it blinds you of the talent, creativity and assets that exists within.

I read with interest several blogs / articles (1, 2, 3) that rationalized the pros and cons of a possible Yahoo-Microsoft take-over / merger / strategic partnership. Most of them, of course, vote against or think a partnership first makes the best sense.

Personally I say “Forget Yahoo” - Microsoft’s only way out is Microsoft itself!

But not today’s Microsoft. Tomorrow’s. I believe Microsoft can reinvent itself (OK - Vista isn’t a good start) and become a leader in personal and enterprise digital services.

So with a gross cash reserve of $50bn, why not go on a little shopping spree? Why? Because all that is bad in Microsoft, I believe, starts with that. Father Bill and Co-Father Steve should tell their kids the allowance this year just got cut and they better get creative if they want to stay at home.

The big conglomerate needs to do something TOTALLY different. Something COLOSSAL to break the status quo, something that can bring REAL change and not incremental.

Like what? Like become an umbrella to 10,000 start-ups. All using Live, X-Box, MSN etc. as platforms - INSTEAD of letting these platforms becoming THE company. Convergence has cleared the borders between enterprise and consumer applications, mobile and PC, desktop and online. The old fashioned corporate divisions will not be able to sustain progress, spur innovation.

Create robust R&D centers at the core of the corporate, encircle them with brandless, nameless platforms / services (currently Live, MSN, etc.) and let new mini, independent COMPANIES (not business-units) run new products / services on them. Don’t tie them down ‘Microsoft inside’ only policy - create a loose but synergistic relationship that will benefit both sides.

Let natural selection take its effect and like a mega VC select which companies you keep funding, which you cut off, spin off and or continue to nurture. Drop what become legacy structures and regroup to smaller, fitter units. This eco-system is much more likely to create a rival to Google [in its respective field] than Microsoft in its current form. In fact, this way there is no Microsoft that can be ‘attacked’ face on.

The “loose form” corporation will be a much more formidable (yet friendly) adversary then one giant gorilla. With no anti-trust issues to carry like a hump on its back.

The biggest difference between Google and Microsoft at this point is that Google needs to take-over / merge to grow and Microsoft needs to dismantle. This is why merging with Yahoo is a mistake. Its the opposite of what Microsoft needs to focus on.

Reminds me of the famous “Opposite George” episode in Seinfeld when George comes to the realization that in order to succeed in life he need to do the opposite of what he always thought was right “I’ll tell you this, something is happening in my life! I did this opposite thing last night. Up was down! Black was white! Good was… bad [Seinfeld]… day was night [Elaine]”.

Dwelling into the micro analysis of a Microsoft-Yahoo ’something’ is NOT what needs to be discussed. How Microsoft finds its FORCE back WITHIN - is.

      

Scott Karp wrote a great post last week about video needing discovery more than distribution. In case you’re lazy, here’s the bottom line:

“Whoever figures out a scalable, networked, distributed, Web 2.0-compliant solution to the online video discovery problem may find themselves in the rare position to compete with Google.”

No more, no less. And I totally agree.

SuTree seems to agree with well. Their video based, end user e-learning service is based on discovery. While many video sharing verticals (Aniboom, 5Min.com) create their own stock and while YouTube and MetaCafe manage huge horizontal repositories, SuTree takes a different approach - it searches, filters and aggregates instructional content from across the big web. This way, they believe, true vertical value can be provided to the user without compromising the content itself.

I tried it and it works.  The results are rich, diversified and fetch content from good sources that I would never have known about otherwise. I ended up discovering not only content but great websites (check out VideoJug). it is clear the SuTree team are onto a good formula and that they build a good blend of technology, editorial work and collaborative filtering. I was very impressed with the depth of content I found. Quite a few categories and subcategories filled with plenty of high quality content. I also liked the “random lesson” which is offered on almost every page an that is very sticky in this case.

It’s not the service is free of flaws. The categories are too “serious” for my taste for example. I would appreciate some lightening up with more fun categories, such that would get me to both explore and contribute more often. I also found the site way too crowded with advertising. Finally, I found the free search very limited at this point. The service needs a lot more time and depth before the “long tail” can be effectively addressed with free search.

in the long run, one is tempted to ask the “why not YouTube?” inevitable question. I am a big believer in verticals and this is no exception. Yes, YouTube can ‘do it tomorrow’ but users will not look to e-learn on YouTube. The bigger challenge would come from the independent e-learning repositories which can expand to search. SuTree may develop a unique position of an ultimate search partner when that happens.

      

CTIA fueled some significant mobile news this week as Google, Nokia and Yahoo are about to crash helmets over the next mobile killer app.

Google has made a couple of significant steps this week. The more significant announcement came on Monday, as a strategic deal with LG was announced. Mike Evant reports that Google and LG will preinstall Google Maps, Gmail and Blogger on a wide variety of LG phones, making it a no brainer for carriers to ship and for users to try.

In addition, YouTube will be launching a mobile site as soon as the exclusivity period with Verizon Wireless expires. Unlike the Verizon version which is client based, the mobile YouTube will be WAP based. It will be interesting to see how YouTube deals with video streaming issues across different carriers, networks and devices. All in all a “two punch strategy”, Google for text and YouTube for video, could end up being very effective.

Nokia has not kept quiet. Unwired view is telling us about Nokia’s patent bound semantic visual search engine, screen shots and further explanation of the search process is provided. Katie Fehrenbacher speculates about the natural synergy with Nokia’s camera phones and if half the rumors are true, Google will soon have to go back to protecting home turf, at least when it comes to search innovation.

Yahoo has not kept silent and may very well be making the most concrete steps to date. The introduction of Mobile OneSearch is a promising mass market step, taking search to every internet enabled phone. Yahoo already offers Yahoo Go, the full blown Yahoo experience, to the high end, and together with OneSearch a comprehensive strategy seems to be forming. 

These seemingly little steps are very significant for a number of reasons. Such proactive steps by handset manufacturers and web titans take the carriers further out of the “next killer app” equation. In addition, these provide indication that search, rich content discovery and messaging are the areas where the leading players look for the next killer app. Search has never been carrier territory and carriers have struggled with putting together winning propositions around content. On the other hand carriers do make a lot of money from content and tons of money from messaging. The battle over who owns what asset is definitely not over, but this time, I believe, the space is mature enough to focus on the criteria for splitting the larger pie rather than fighting over who gets to burn it.