The CNN redesign

The CNN redesign is an interesting one. It certainly adds some color and art elements to the page while giving a feeling of organization and simplicity. I think it's a good decision to reduce the number of headlines in the "Latest News" section at the top, while adding more headlines to the boxes labeled by topic lower on the page. I think it makes it easier to find stories in the topics that interest you. Putting a video clip at the top center of the page also makes a lot of sense. CNN is a television news organization; video reports are their bread and butter, they should be prominent on the page.

I got a bit of a chuckle when I listened to CNN's video introduction of their new design. It talks about the "breathtaking photography" that you'll find on the page. Where? The small square picture at the top of the left column? Not much space to showcase anything "breathtaking."

I think the attempts to allow people to individualize the site are convenient, if not anything groundbreaking. One thing the Guardian article points out is that the site "won't focus too much on new social media features." While that might seem a it odd, it makes sense. Connect with people via social media offsite -- at the social media sites. I don't believe people go to news/information sites to sign up for more networks. Go to them and use the networks they already have.

CNN- Design Goals

The design overhaul of the CNN website is obviously an attempt by the news makers to jump in on the bandwagon and embrace the waves of change in media. The new website looks sleek, carries emphasis on infotainment and is more dynamic and interactive than its older version. It also suggests the difference in which traditional newscasters are providing news. New strategies, like active commentary from the Huffington Post are attracting audiences and the CNN website is trying to make use of this.

The design at the outset looks contemporary and organized. First time users would have no trouble finding their way around the site. Navigation scores top points. But I feel the thickness of the top navbar could have been reduced since it serves no purpose. The 3 column grid is put to good use with the subdivision of news. As mentioned in the Guardian article, the website now reflects the focus CNN wishes to place on the TV angle. While the data above is well-organized, it appears boxed out in the sub-sections of health, entertainment etc.

CNN and what to focus on?

I applaud CNN for redesigning and putting more focus on their videos/ photography and hope to see a continue commitment toward journalism. I'm very sad to see them focusing more on "infotainment" as The Guardian article suggests. At a time when we need more journalism and information to help us solve our mounting problems (sagging economy, unemployment, healthcare, world/national issues and the fact that were in two wars) people still seem to need "celebrity" news and gossip to fill their days.

The design is clean and easily accessible and I believe more major news sites will shift the design to showcase visuals as they continue to try and peel viewers away from televison and magazine/newspapers. It will be interesting to watch and see how many hits the video sections get compared to the photo galleries on major news stories. MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post usually get larger hits from still photo gallery than the do with most of their videos but I think that may change as more better internet connections continue and better video options appear. Hopefully, they can find a way to monetize the visual side and get rid of the irritating adds placed before the videos.

CNN: Paving the Way

When I first saw the new CNN.com interface, I thought a couple different things all at once: "Crap, now I have to get used to a whole new layout and navigation system;" "But doesn't it look pretty!" Truth is, navigating the site is as insightful as ever, while undergoing a total upgrade in appearance, as the Guardian.co.uk article touches on. I feel that the new modern design allows viewers to get to where they're going much easier. To explain further, the human eye gravitates toward photographs way before text, or headlines. Therefore, the new site highlights images in such a way as to draw the viewer in, instilling in them a sense of intrigue about the actual news stories.

On another note, I, like Jackie (for those of you who read her post), am a photo major. Therefore, this new layout for CNN holds very special meaning - that which we can only hope catches on with other online news sites. The underlying concept is this: photography as a newsworthy art form is dying. In a world in which media-consolidation is it, how are photographers supposed to make a living if all the world is made to care about is text and possibly video? I think CNN is paving the way for photographers to be held in higher regard and demand. Very, very exciting.

I don't know how I feel...

about CNN's new redesign. For some reason the CNN logo in the middle of the header section makes me feel a little unbalanced. And having the main news image and the featured video and a flashy advertisement all next to each other in a row confuses my brain a bit as I don't know where to look.

However, I do like how the different sections are broken up, I feel it's easier to find something interesting faster. I think the first half of the page, despite all the photo confusion, has a nice diverse look to it where I don't feel like I'm looking at the same thing repeated three times like I did on the old design.

According to the Guardian article CNN wants to put more focus on video and entertainment, which I guess it's achieving by putting some videos front and center. However, I've never really been a fan of the ireporter stuff because I feel cheated somehow knowing the news is coming from some random person and not a journalist. I don't know if I like the idea of those videos being showcased when there are more in-depth, more visually interesting multimedia pieces out there. But that's just me getting nit-picky.

Other than that I guess the site is OK. It was my homepage, but I'm thinking of changing it now to something else.

CNN Upgrade

Honestly, there's nothing wrong with a change every once in a while. Even Beyonce swithces up her weave every now and then. But, I digress. CNN's new home page looks very well balanced. More balanced than the previous design. The different topics are set up with grids, making it easier to follow the news more. The red header and the darker red navbar are slick and they work well together. It just seems to me that there is more substance to this new design. It looks better. It makes me want to get all of my news from CNN for now on.

In regards to the article we were supposed to read, the author hits it on the head with the description of the new page. I think the page does mix entertainment into the political news. There is more emphasis on each section now that each section has its own block. Also, the article mentions how the site will incorporate language feeds to create more of an international feel. It should bring in more international readership with that.

In the end, this new layout will be successful. People should enjoy it more. I think it looks good. It just has more of an enjoyable reading feel to it. I know i'll probably get my news from here from now on. It may even be my homepage. Nope! Can't dismiss ESPN.com.

New Site: The Right Direction

When I first logged on to the CNN homepage I initially did not like what I saw. The header (although a different color) and the navbar bleed together. Although the middle column has a bigger picture, it doesn't seem to make me feel the story is more important. I see two photos slammed next to each other competing for my attention and it creates some visual tension. The right column was complete naked because I did not have personalized log in settings.

However, as I moved from around the site I started to see some interesting web design moves. As the reading described CNN wanted to focus on "story-telling". Once I clicked on an article I got the high points in bullets on the left, the actual story, related topics and the most popular stories of the all. All of these featuers enhance my understanding of the story and I find that very postive. It's an easy to follow layout.

In addition, I have seen a dramatic increase in the graphics. For example, when I click on U.S. News I see four photos on my screen without even scrolling up or down. I think this will help CNN attract more people to its content. The article cites Nick Wrenn from CNN saying there is a "new focus on video that brings the site to life". CNN does have more feature videos and pictures then before which again, will enhance coverage.

Sleek and Informative

Cnn.com is the homepage I have set on my laptop. When I opened it up this weekend I was at first startled and then amused we had replicated the old web site design only a couple weeks ago. The red header was the first thing that jumped out at me. At first I thought it was too bold, but then as I glanced down the page I realized the redesign as a whole was pretty well done.

The website is much more effective now (although it wasn't exactly bad before) that they have streamlined all of the important information. The three columns showcase a lot of the same information that you had to scroll and click around for before. Now the most important information is where it needs to be, allowing the viewer to get to what they want with hardly a click of the mouse.

I like that their Highlights and Editors Choice section include a mix of different types of news and that these sections are easily accessible to the viewer. In the past I clicked around the different sections of CNN and enjoyed all of them. As a user of people.com and Entertainment Weekly, I was aware that CNN had a partnership with them. Highlighting this partnership in a better way works for CNN and People/EW and is a smart business move.

I used to be one of those people that felt news was news and everything else was separate. However, the way things have changed with both technology and culture, its clear that people want different kinds of information presented to them in multiple formats all at once. Incorporating different facets of new media is necessary for news agencies today and I think CNN has taken a great step in doing so.

CNN redesign is much cleaner

The new CNN design works a lot better for their goal of becoming more focused on their unique content, rather than the breaking news. Their use of images works much better than old site, that like the article said, was text driven. The Highlights section is much better than the highlights that we had to replicate for our assignment. I know when I browse the Internet, photos guide me a lot as well as the headlines, so this method of highlighting their content is effective.

I think their sections at the bottom are better organized than the old design as well. First of all, there are more links. CNN used to only have two links per section, but with its new division, they are able to put more content in the div boxes.

The only thing that I'm not crazy about is the navbar. I feel like it gets lost in the header. The header is bright red and the navbar is too similar. Over all, however, I really like the new design.

CNN redesign: B+ grade

On first look, I see what I don't like, of course. The massive red bar hits the visitor in the face. The column layout with photo next to screen capture next to advertisement feels heavy. There is little breathing room between the three columns.

What is working, though, is the way my eye moves around the site. After being hit by the red bar on top of the page, my eye goes straight to the "Click to play" message in the video column. I'm sure CNN would be glad to hear that, since they are putting a new focus on video ("CNN.com relaunch to focus on video," Guardian).

I can get over the fact that the three columns are so close together because if I were coming to visit the site, I would know which column I want to look at. I love how the boxes are not connected anymore. They have some dimension to them, like they are raised from the light gray. Is that a drop shadow behind them? It's working, whatever it is.

It's definitely easier to find what you're looking for now. Top stories from different sections are in their own div boxes at the bottom of the homepage. I just wish the Hot Topics were near the top of the page, though. It's always interesting to see if the stories you are interested in are the ones the rest of America is looking at, and I don't like having to scroll all the way down to see those.

Overall, I give CNN a B+, because while everything else is working, the red bar at the top is just too dominating when you land on the page. And I would love to see some more breathing room between divisions.

New CNN... Hope for my future!

I am actually really excited about the new Wev design. Being a photojournalism major i respect images...and  I've had the constant fear driven into me that photography and established media are deteriorating. We're told that its harder to get a job in the news industry because photography is a dying art. Always optimistic, I like to tell myself that bigger and better things lay down the road for photographers and videographers. CNN's design is a perfect example of this shift. This generation needs immediate gratification. We have minimal patience and want the media to get right to the point. CNN understood this when they refocused their content on visuals, giving page viewers immediate information without having to devote the time to a two-page article.  

Since "far less text driven, with videos and photography as the centrepieces of the home page," CNN will have to invest in skilled photographers rather than relying on stock images or poor quality multimedia pieces. It's a smart move on their part since society IS becoming visually driven and an outcropping of alternative photo-centered news sites are emerging that they are going to need to compete with (like http://www.mediastorm.com). The redesign definitely reflects younger emerging audiences, with videography, a look back to their a TV roots and an emphasis on entertainment. Basically, thank you CNN for making a News site that feels young, not intimidating and visually-driven. It makes me excited for the future. Also.. YES to the customization option on the home page! Just like visual stories, the customization speaks to instant gratification and our developed impatience. 

CNN.com gets a facelift?

I am a frequent visitor of CNN.com; it is where I get most of my news from and when I saw its relaunch I was mostly unimpressed. I say mostly because I do like the new header and everything from “editor’s choice” down, because it is broken up and categorized much better than the original site, but the main content section is annoying. I think this section is too busy and highlights the incorrect things. For example, there is no way that an advertisement (top of right column) should be the same size as the top story (top of left column). CNN better be getting big bucks for those ads because when you first log on to the site, it seems like it should be a story and then you realize it’s just an ad and you try to ignore it, but it’s right there all the time.

I noticed even before the site switched over that CNN has been trying to incorporate more video into their site. This observation of mine is now confirmed by the article. I am torn about this issue. For one, CNN did start on television, and is still very strong in that medium, so it makes sense that video should be a big part of their website. However, one of the reasons more and more people are turning to the web for their daily dose of news is because it is much quicker than television. Personally, I log on, read the headlines, click on the articles that intrigue me and then move on. Occasionally I will watch a video, but only if the story is dependent on this. Also, I hope CNN is collecting good money from the advertisers who get their 30 second commercial played before the video, because it really annoys me that I have to sit through a 30 second commercial to then watch 13 seconds of video (I am not against ads before video I just think the ad shouldn’t be longer than the main video).

I also think it is interesting that the article mentioned CNN’s move toward more entertainment news. Does CNN realize that those who have a real interest in keeping up with celebrity gossip are going to go to places like PerezHilton.com and not CNN.com? CNN is known for its hard breaking news, which is not a bad reputation. They should not be throwing that down the drain so they get a few more visitors on their site who want see Bradgelina’s newest child. Overall, I am interested to see how the site continues to change in the coming weeks as visitors respond to its new look.

CNN's Facelift

I laughed when I saw out assignment because had just noticed CNN's website the day before Jeff sent the assignment. I was confused in the beginning when I first opened the website because it was a big change from what it looked like before. After a few minutes after absorbing and getting used to the new layout, I found that it appealed to me more than the old design. The red header and the interactive videos instantly drew me in. Today's audience wants instant and visual gratification, which is exactly what the new design offers. The old site consisted of basic, simple and, in my opinion, very bland and predicable layout design with limited and hard to find visual interaction. The new site moved the videos to what we would call the "showcase" section, making it the first thing you see. They kept the same color scheme which is very important in order to maintain a constant brand identity.
The article talks about how CNN.com shifted from text heavy content to more video, infotainment and international news due to the most recent trends in online news. Entertainment takes on the spotlight and features such as personalizing your page and incorporating language feeds in Arabic and Spanish. "So the new site will make a step towards the user to be more appealing: new personalisation functionality enables users to customise a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather, and CNN's community-based iReport site will be featured in a curated section on the homepage, as well as in the middle of unfolding stories." The redesign of the site shows how the consumer has shifted its interest from content to visual. The layout is more user friendly, reflecting our modern age and how people want to customize everything to their particular needs and wants.
I think that this change was necessary in order to bring CNN up to date with other competitors such as MSNBC who is also planning on redesigning in order to keep up with the times.

CNN.com Relaunch

CNN.com's new website design is accessible, but not pretty. Entering the new site, the viewer is stunned by a large, bold header featuring four shades of red. Immediately under that, bold black boxes feature current video stories. If you make it past all of this, however, the site features a number of photographs and videos which successfully catch the viewer's attention and the amount of text on the page is easily readable. The website also highlights a wide range of topics. Their goal was to continue to feature breaking news, but also focus more on in-depth stories, entertainment, video commentary and tv material, which I think they've successfully done.

I like the fact that the site is laid out in a grid format though I don't think it was executed as well as it could have been. The layout on the top half of the homepage feels bulky and unbalanced. Similarly, the 3x3 grid on the bottom of the page listing of all of the sections borders on overwhelming, though I can see how it would be useful for navigation purposes. Once you navigate further into the site, the aesthetics improve (ie- return to the original style).

As a side note, I am a big fan of being able to customize the site and feature the information that I care about. I think a lot of people will utilize this option. It was also interesting to read in the article that a lot of redesign was based on user data CNN collected; I would be interested to learn more about how this data was collected and interpreted.

Overall, some good ideas (such as incorporating more visuals), but not great style.

How can Google cut costs?

Google is not going anywhere.

The story in the New Yorker criticized Google for being a company that is not necessarily well-managed. And it said that Google's only revenue comes from their search engine. I don't see a problem with that. Obviously, management is important, but their revenue has nowhere to go but up.

The article also pointed out that Google will never make money with YouTube because of high storage cost. Well, part of that high cost is the energy bill. Here's what Google has to say about that: Google planning on moving some of its data centers to international waters?

The company wants to use the cold ocean water to cool its servers. It will be a high cost to build, but it is a green effort to save energy costs. I only see that helping.

I just can't fathom a mammoth company like Google going away. They will continue to innovate with ideas like Gmail — which only made e-mail better — and the Android phone, which is set to pass the iPhone as the second most popular phone on the market within a few years.

Get used to it. Google is here to stay.

Life without Google?

I can't remember my first time using Google. Not sure why I would've remembered it either. I was probably in middle school, putzing around on the internet and was shown a new search engine by someone. Little did I know how essential this simple, bare-bones search engine would become to me and hundreds of millions of other people.

Google runs my life. Gmail is one of my main forms of communication. Gcal assures I'm where I need to be when I'm supposed to be there. I spend atleast two hours every day using Google in some way or another.
There have been one or two occasions this year where I have not been able to access my Gmail account and was presented with a "Google Error" message. This was a frightening experience to say the least. What would I do without Google? How would I organize my life? Google has become a necessity for me. In turn, I have become an advocate for everything Google. I don't understand why everyone and their sister doesn't have Gmail?!?! I get angry sometimes when I see people using their SU Mail accounts or some Microsoft Outlook bologna. Get with the program buddy.

Auletta's article presented me with a good deal of new and interesting info about Google. I found it interesting to see how far Google's reach expands in terms of its "approximately hundred and fifty products"(52). I feel as though the author presented two views of Google. On one side there is the roots of the company which got started in a garge with the attitude that "if people have better information they will live their lives better"(56). This mission helped shape a company which wanted to keep doing more and more for the user at a cheaper cost . The expansion of Google's services along with the company's exponential growth has brought Google into many different markets where it is competing and often out-competing well-established companies who cannot afford to provide such premium services at minimal costs. Such growth and expansion has lead some to believe that Google is spreading itself too thin and "peanut-buttering everything"(52) and others to accuse the company of becoming greedy and profit driven - the dark side.

I have faith that Google will prevail. The peanut butter may be spread widely, but it is thick with money. I have a feeling Google will one day not too far away take Exxon Mobile's place the most filthy rich coporation in the world. I hope Google lives on past me because I don't want to live a day with out it.

Google will stay afloat!

The word 'Google' was coined as a play on the word googol which referred to the number one followed by one hundred zeros. The naming was probably not without foresight since if the present astronomical growth of Google continues, it might some day surpass that number with the number of searches performed and perhaps even its revenue. The term, was actually chosen with the idea of organizing the infinite amount of information available on the web.

I thought the article in New Yorker was being overly critical of Google. It is true that companies which are once deemed invincible have ended up biting the dust. But I think this need not and will not be the case with Google. Because Google has not only exhibited innovation in technology but it has also displayed brilliant business logistics. Google is not afraid to try anything new and that is its biggest strength. In a phase where conventional strategies of marketing are being challenged by media and technology the only way to survive is to innovate. And Google is up on their game with this.

I believe a comparison of Google with Apple and Microsoft cannot be justified since both the other companies stuck to one particular line of successful ventures and their applications are simply not as diverse or critically acclaimed as Google's services.

The last time I heard about Google in Applied Research class, they were going to build server farms underwater in international waters. So will they ever go down? Only in that sense probably!

Search profits let Google take risks in other areas, but how many will make money?

To most people, Google is a search engine. It's simple. Write what you want to find in the little box and, lo and behold, up pops what you were looking for. It's easy, it works, it's simpler to use than Yahoo's old search was (clicking on a series of categories and sub-categories) -- and it has an odd, catchy name to boot. A recipe for success -- and with the explosion of Web use, especially as broadband connections became the norm rather than the exception, success on a massive scale.

What struck me, though, is exactly how many services Google offers beyond search. We're all discussing this on Blogger -- a free Google service. YouTube, of course, is now part of the Google empire. I love Picasa - a simple and pretty powerful photo-organization-and-editing tool. When I got a Mac a few years back, it was one of the few things I missed from my PC (yes, I like it better than iPhoto); and when I got my laptop PC, it was the first thing I downloaded. Of course, it's a Google product, and it's free.

I knew Google offered lots of services besides search, but I didn't realize exactly how many -- about 150, according to the article. I found this interesting: The only service making a profit for Google right now is search. That's it. Yes, it's a huge, huge profit -- information searches are a cornerstone of the Internet -- and it's easily able to subsidize all those other ventures.

The interesting thing is exactly how many of these ventures will turn around and make money for Google. The huge ad profits from searches have let them absorb losses on their non-search ventures and allowed them to look at long-term potential rather than short-term profit. Why give away a program as good as Picasa? I'm guessing they thought getting the program onto lots of computers would open up other potential revenue streams, such as Picasa Web Albums, an online photo sharing site. Of course, there is a lot of competition in that area right now, most notably Flickr. Will Picasa ever make Google any money? I don't know. Will YouTube or Android make any money for Google? Again, I don't know, but because of that huge revenue stream from searching, Google has been able to afford to take risks.

google & you tube

While I agree with several people about disliking Google becoming a monopoly and the information that it collects, I believe that it has seeped into our culture and will be around for a longtime to come. Its search engine function has hooked a generation of users and has virtually taken over the information industry and has deeply affected older traditional media. I believe that the company has positioned itself well for the long haul. As the digital media revolution continues to change our reading and viewing habits, more and more people will turn to the Web to view movies, television and read stories, books etc., and that's precisely where Google has positioned themselves. There will be competition, but Google continues to find creative ways to put themselves at the front or near the front of the pack in most every area.

As The New Yorker article mentioned, YouTube lost money in 2008 and is projected to do the same in 2009 (in the area of 500 million dollars) but I believe that we are just at the start of a sea change in the way we view movies, news, television, and YouTube is in a prime position to take advantage of this.

We don't search it: We GOOGLE IT

This is very true. When someone asked me where they could find some information about sneakers, I told them to GOOGLE it. Google is controlling my life. I use it for everything. I even have a Google phone, a MyTouch. You know? The phone that Whoopi Goldberg, Phil Jackson and Jesse James do a commercial for? Yea, that one. I was in my content management class yesterday and my professor told us that Google actually makes $11 million a day. Do you how many jr. bacon cheeseburgers that buys? But, the article mentions that YouTube didn't make any money in 2008. That's surprising to me because everyone seems to use it. If it wasn't for YouTube, I would've never seen Kanye bumb-rush Taylor Swift at the VMA's.

The most important thing from this article, at least to me, is seeing how dominant that Google is. The article said that Google comprises of 70% of web searches. But, I think Google will continue to grow. It will never stop getting better. It's just like "new" media. It can't be new if there's changes to it everyday. Google has Flip and Wave. Now, they're trying to release E-Books???? Google is going to control everything, but I have no problem with that. Over the years, Google struggled but they bounced back and found ways to make money and become powerful. I can't picture any other search engine becoming as powerful as Google has become.

Trying too hard

I think Google is pretty awesome. However, I think Google is trying to do too many things. Like Aulleta stated in the article, Google has gotten a little arrogant and thought that they could take over the world.

Kind of like Starbucks when they tried to take over the world by opening up a store on every corner in every city in the world. Then the next logical step for world domination by a coffee shop was obviously a music business. Then if they're releasing music then they might as well make some movies and publish some books. But then times got tough and they realized they tried to be too awesome by doing too many things instead of focusing on what made them popular in the first place, making people feel cool when buying coffee. So they had to close a bunch of stores and try to figure out how to make better coffee instead of figuring out if they should release a Sonic Youth hits compilation.

Google has pretty cool services, but if they really want to make people happy, maybe they should just focus on getting them the best and most useful information instead of figuring out how to make money from You Tube.

Google is Taking Over the World

Reading this article reminded me of this video that the Museum of Media History created in 2015 about the Internet. It is called EPIC 2005 and you should definitely watch it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFGsNtTFRI). Not only does it give the history of the Internet, but it also gives us the future, which is basically Google taking over the world. This sounds dramatic, but after reading this article you should know that while taking over the world is not the proper way of saying it, Google could own a good majority of it. In my media classes, we learn about how there are only seven media corporations that control the entire world’s media from television and film to newspapers and magazines (Time Warner, NBC Universal, Disney, News Corp, Bertelsmann, Viacom, Sony). While everyone thought these companies would continue to merge and become more powerful, what has happened is that Google has entered the arena and is slowly encroaching on the competition. What is scarier about Google opposed to the other “traditional” media companies (as they referred to them in the article) is that Google started on the Internet and what a lot of people do not realize about the Internet is that there are very few laws that protect users because it is so new and huge. One of the reasons that Google is so successful is because of the information that can be obtained about each user. We do not think cookies on your computer are creepy but what is happening is that cookies tracks every website you go to and every search you make. Imagine if someone followed you around all day and made notes about every building you went into and every store you shopped at. Now you are being stalked but online it does not bother anyone.

Now I’ve strayed from the point of the article, but it is interesting to see how Google works and the response from other media corporations. While I enjoy the products Google provides as much as the next person (Google revolutionized the Internet and they should get credit for that), I think the government should keep a close eye on them. Even though the article mentioned their seemingly lack of proper structure, it seems that Google is set up to succeed. They are expectant of future technology trends and will change accordingly to insure their status on top. One day they may be bought out by the new and improved system that somehow makes Google look old and slow but even then, we will continue to “google” everything.

400 weeks of Google

If one needs a good example of creative genius, after reading this example, I am confident that Google is it. Even though the article goes into describing the sour spots in the company, in the end all goes back to the exceptional administration and sheer luck the developers have, especially in this current economy. What blows my mind is how innovation leads to instant gratification. Google went from making 0 dollars to being a 20 billion dollar money machine. What this article say and must be clear to anyone brave enough to venture in this kind of risky business is the fact that everyone is out to get you. Basically its all or nothing. For Google it started with the search engine but with time they branched out to other fields that overlapped with already existing services and companies like 'digitalizing' books and applications for mobile phone companies. By this time even the government has been asked by media companies to monitor Google's moves. With all of the different services Google has to offer, there is no doubt that they have created a monopoly that is only starting.
What is even more interesting is to hear about the lack of organization in a company such as this one. "Last, year, a senior Google executive, who has since left the company, observed that until late that year Google never had a systematic process for developing an annual budget or allocating capital across businesses; insted, budgeting was merely a simple forecast for each of the products."(Auletta 52). I mean, when you have a 20 billion plus company....why even bother with accounting. Google is not just another web browser[although it does "account for almost seventy percent of the world's Internet searches"(Auletta 55)], it is a lifestyle, a verb, a movement that identifies a whole generation and I am pretty sure that it is not going anywhere anytime soon.
I leave you with the most valuable thing I got out of this reading is more of a question that Page and Brin, Google engineers ask themselves: "Why must we do things the way they've always been done?" (Auletta 48).

Case.In.Point.

Reading Ken Auletta's "Searching For Trouble" proved quite an interesting experience for me. Why? Every five minutes, I checked my Gmail, and/or Google Reader accounts (not to mention, YouTube-ing just a few short minutes ago). If my experience doesn't serve as a major lesson in Google's impact in today's web culture, I'm not sure what does!

Besides having a Gmail account, and a Google Reader account (which, by the way, is AMAZING), I also regularly track my Google-Analytics for my photography website. I have a Google.com business profile so it shows up in search engines. And I also have accounts for YouTube and Blogger (owned by Google). I'd venture to say most of us in class are similar in this Googly regard.

Why mention all of these tidbits of information? It's evidence. Pure evidence of the monopoly Google has created over our lives. Maybe that sounds harsh? But I'm not so sure. Whether most people realize it or not, Google has definitely infiltrated a majority of our web-related lives. And as students, it's not surprising that we spend the majority of our days online. Therefore, I'd be interested to see just how much of my day is actually consumed with this Google "product."

To be honest, when I started reading the article, I had no qualms with Google. But as I continued, I became more and more aware of my ignorance of the "arrogance" of Google. I was a bit turned off by the business practices and attitudes Auletta mentioned. However! I've finished the article, and am still in love with the ease of Gmail, Gchat, Reader, etc., etc., etc. Overall, one has to question whether real people really, sincerely care about the Google monopoly. Because, in the end, it serves them.

So what's in store for Google in the future? I'm not sure. But I do think there are many, many more innovations to be made, and much more growth to occur before consumers start noticing in the slightest.

Google keeps its audience's well-being in mind: Jackie Poinier

"It is probably the most visible service concocted by mankind."

This is so true. Before reading this article I didn't realize what a monopoly Google held over the media industry, but I knew what a monopoly it held over people all over the world. One of the country's I visited while studying abroad last Fall was Japan. I did a home-stay in Kobe, where one of my most vivid memories was my home-stay mom asking me for a translation. She wanted a translation of "google." To increase her English vocabulary she kept a journal of words she heard that are outside textbook English. Obviously she had heard this word "google" mentioned enough by American visitors to stick in her head. This to me shows how widespread the company is. It's became a word in our dictionary. Although the founders never made a business plan and are receiving criticism for it, I think they will only continue to excel because they think first of their audience & second about their profits.  

Like the quote says, Google is the most visible service on Earth. The aspect that I think will propel it into the future is being an outlet for all consumer needs. It already provides video access, maps, reading storage, document filing... its looking into data storage and mobile software... basically YES its a monopoly but what will save it is how widespread its uses are for consumers. Maybe its just me but to consumers its products are fragmented and separate. Looking at my mail and watching You Tube seems like completely different industries. If they can keep coming up with more mini-products within Google that help consumers address all their needs from one location they could be a monopoly on information accessing, but no other company is close to reaching all the bases that they cover. 

In order to keep functioning Google needs to start making money off of their sites. I hope they find a way to utilize advertisers that won't change their initial goal of improving "people's lives through information... a future in which knowledge transended the limitations of the marketplace." I never thought of Google as a company designed with individuals in mind, but now that I know their root, it is easy to see why they've become so popular... and why they will remain so.

GOOOOOOGLE

Before reading the article "Searching for Trouble: Why Google is on its guard" by Ken Auletta, I had no opinion on Google other than it is convenient and functional. Like many people, I took it for granted, using it daily but never stopping to consider it. I didn't even know how Google worked; the math of it is genius. After reading the article, I am thinking about Google, though I'm still not sure what I think.

I dislike the monopoly created by Google. I dislike what a powerhouse it has become. It scares me how much information Google is able to collect from its users and what it could do with that information of it divorced its users and married its advertisers (as Auletta mentions, p54).

Yet I found myself respecting Google's values and founders. For instance, I love that Google has succeeded to the utmost degree and yet still pushes its limits and those of the industry in the quest of developing new products and services. I admire the passion of its founders. Auletta, describes Brin and Page as having "restless-we-are-never-satisfied energy;" they are pioneers.

The brief section of the article which speculates about the Obama administration's relationship with Google interested me; it summed up a bit of what I was feeling reading the article. I appreciate the services that Google provides (a lot) yet its size feels menacing. I will be curious to see how the various court decisions rule, including Google's bid to digitize the world's library.

I do not think Google is going anywhere. The business has extended arms in many directions and eventually it might have to start making decisions and narrowing its reach, but everyone Googles and that won't change.

Even the Mighty Will Fall

I found the New Yorker article "Searching for Trouble" by Ken Auletta extremely interesting and the title extremely fitting. Google has undoubtedly revolutioned the world. The site makes finding information easier than ever before. As a user anyone can quickly look up people, places, businesses, directions, etc. This task perviously took a phone book, good spelling skills, a geography minor and a postive attitude. As a reporter I can check facts a lot

Over the next couple years I don't see Google being overtaken. However, nothing lasts forever in this world and especially with regards to business. It is inevitable that something new will come along. The web saw the explosion of MySpace abd YouTube, thinking these were virtually foolproof. However, site such as Hulu, Facebook and Twitter quickly emerged. Google currently has the search engine world monopolized, but I don't think this can last forever. What that will be, now isn't that the million dollar question?

As for a monopoly, this is the hardest part. There are other options but people simply are using Google more. People can you Ask.com, Yahoo.com, Bing.com and others search engine sites. Also, Google has to face the prospective of its competition teaming up. The article mentioned Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos combining forces with the likes of Microsoft. Its a competative world and I think that the monopoly of Google has been created by the users.

One question I was thinking about is what, if anything at all, makes Google so much better than these other search engines?

Even my mom knows how to google

I’m not sure you can say what kind of impact Google has made in today’s web culture. It’s more like, what haven’t they done to impact today’s web culture? They revolutionized the Internet as a search mechanism. Not only do they continue to dominate that aspect of web culture, but they also have extended their reach into other areas of the web, creating a sort of web media empire. The use of algorithms as a problem solving mechanism for any of the projects that they want to implement is an interesting aspect of their development and seemingly one that people either dislike (Mel Karmazian the COO of Viacom) or want to emulate.

From what the article says, they are among the first to consider and implement the idea of advertising online and through other technological outlets like smart phones. The success rate of this project, and others that they have implemented, is not nearly as high as others they have implemented. However, I think it remains a topic to follow. It’s clear that they have other media companies on edge with their technology and tactics, but I think this has more to do with their ability to forecast what people need, want and like. With that said, Google does run the risk of overextending itself (the Peanut Butter Manifesto analogy is spot on in my opinion).

The comparison to IBM and Microsoft also is something to consider. The more Google extends itself as a media empire, the more likely they are to experience backlash (as they are now with some legal cases that are being considered). If there are enough powerful companies protesting their monopolization of the online media market, then they could be in trouble. I hope that’s not the case. I would prefer that Google improve their own product and force other media businesses to consider the change in times. When all of these groups are on the same page in terms of vision and development, we as consumers will reap the benefits. Right now these other companies are too busy trying to prevent Google from further success, rather than come up with their own innovations. That just reeks of laziness to me.

Sample Title

Sample text goes here.

"Let me Google that"

Until I read Ken Auletta's article "Searching for Trouble" (The New Yorker, Oct. 12, 2009), I was unaware of the problems eating at Google's business structure.

Everyone talks about Google in such high regard. I have even been known to call Google the master of all search engines. Because it is. There are others (Ask, Yahoo!, and the Microsoft's new engine, Bing, to name a few). But what other search engine has become a verb? People don't go around saying, "Let me Bing that!" No, we are culture of Googlers.

With that statement, I think it's clear Google does have something that could be considered monopoly. People know it, use it, talk about it and research it. And as Google keeps expanding its horizons like it did with e-mail, maps, news, video and more, the name will be synonymous with the ability to easily find answers.

Like all businesses, though, Google is vulnerable. Chaos management will eventually knock Google off its feet, so they need to get organized. It's not enough to be the smartest group of guys in the world if you can't manage those smarts.