THE GOOGLE INVESTOR: Sorry Google, Android Smartphone Users Prefer The iPad (GOOG)

The Google Investor is a daily report from SAI. Sign up here to receive it by email

---

GOOG Bright Star In A Down Market

Stocks are mixed this morning as investors continue to worry about European debt issues. Shares of GOOG are bucking the trend, coming back from Friday's sell-off on the downgrade by Morgan Stanley. Upcoming catalysts include second calendar quarter results to be released Thursday, July 14 at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time; continued Android momentum in the smartphone and tablet markets; regaining ground in China; updated software, adoption and media partners for Google TV; the roll-out of Google Music; and progress in other newer initiatives (Google+, location-based services, mapping, gaming, Chromebooks, etc.). The stock trades at approximately 12x Enterprise Value / EBIT, inexpensive relative to peers and historical trading levels.

Android Users Prefer The iPad (Boy Genius Report)

Apple's market-leading iOS tablet isn't just the slate of choice for Apple fan boys. According to Canaccord Genuity analysts, Android smartphone users are purchasing the iPad over Android alternatives like the Samsung Galaxy and Motorola XOOM. Early iPad adoption among Android users could pose a problem for Android-based competitors hitting the market (Amazon).

Samsung Loses Its CTO Responsible For The Company's Android Dominance (TechCrunch)

Speaking of Samsung, Omar Khan, the Samsung CTO who was responsible for the rise of the Galaxy Tab and other Android-powered mobile devices, is moving to Citibank to handle that company's global digital banking initiatives (American Express). He is arguably behind Samsung's dominance in Android over the past eighteen months. The comes as a blow to Samsung, which has been facing not only competition from other Android-adopting OEMs like HTC, but an ongoing mobile tech patent infringement lawsuit from Apple.

Apple Goes After HTC Again On Patent Infringement (BGR)

Like it's doing with Samsung, Apple filed a new patent complaint with the International Trade Commission looking to block the sale of several Android-based HTC devices it claims infringe on Apple patents. The complaint is the second Apple has lodged against the phone maker in the past 16 months. A judge is scheduled to issue a decision in that case on Aug. 5.

Google Has Its Own eReader (Various via techDygest)

Back in January, iRiver announced the iRiver Story HD, a promising sounding device that had boasts about being the the world's highest resolution 6-inch eBook reader. The company just launched the first eReader to officially support the Google eBooks platform. Paid titles are also supported through the Google Books storefront, which competes with virtual shelves from Apple, Sony, Amazon, Kobo and Barnes & Noble. The hardware looks suspiciously like the first Kindle.

Google+ Not Just Going After Facebook (Tristan Louis)

After several fizzled attempts at social networking (from Buzz to Wave) Google is getting it more right than wrong this time. Google+ is not even two weeks old yet and is already becoming a social networking favorite among early adopters. Estimates for the Google+ user base run as high as 10 million already. But what's is missing from the commentary? Google does not seem to support those core components of the platform, which makes one wonder if Facebook really is the target.

Google Acquires Digital Loyalties Startup (TechCrunch)

Startup Punchd has been acquired by Google. The company is still very young but it's a smart move. Punchd lets customers accrue digital versions of buy-10-get-1-free cards which would tie in well with Google's payment products, like Google Wallet. On the flip side, the company enables small businesses to run loyalty programs on smartphones.

Daily Trader: Since Google+, Stock Has Added Much Market Cap (TechCrunch)

How much is social worth to Google? Investors added $20 billion to Google's market cap the first week after the launch of Google on June 28. A Morgan Stanley downgraded on Friday brought the total down to $15.8 billion over concerns the search giant could capitalize on new products such as Google.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Bill Gross: Google+ Will Get 100 Million Users Faster Than Any Service In History
• Google Will Not Allow Google+ Profiles With Fake Names
• The Weirdest, Funniest, And Prettiest Stuff We've Seen From Googlers On Google+

THE GOOGLE INVESTOR: Sorry Google, Android Smartphone Users Prefer The iPad (GOOG)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/7uLPhitvIhY/the-google-investor-jul-11-2011-7

Sorry Rupert, Everyone Can Now Read "The Daily" For Free

Yesterday News Corp unveiled The Daily, its new iPad-only daily newspaper. You have to pay $1/week to subscribe to it.

Bad new though: anyone can easily read it for free.

Andy Baio has created The Daily Index on Tumblr, which simply aggregates all the links to each story within the "paper." (You see, there's no front page aggregating, but every individual story has a link, so that other bloggers can link to it.)

So, if you don't have an iPad, or do but don't want to pay, just go there everyday. Voila. (via @fimoculous)

Join the conversation about this story »

Sorry Rupert, Everyone Can Now Read "The Daily" For Free

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/bHC3v1kAmvg/how-to-read-the-daily-for-free-2011-2

Sorry, But LinkedIn Is NOT The First Social Network IPO

LinkedIn's IPO is obviously big news. It's one of the most important social networking sites and venture-backed startups out there.

Many people think/hope that LinkedIn and other huge social startups like Zynga going public could unleash a new wave of IPOs. That would be a very welcome development for the startup ecosystem.

But people are calling it the first "social" or social network IPO on Twitter -- important people like Idealab Founder Bill Gross.

That's not true.

The first IPO of a social network that we know of is XING, which is the biggest professional social network in Germany. XING went public waaaaay back in December 2006 and is still around, with a market cap hovering around $270 million.

Again: this doesn't mean that LinkedIn's IPO isn't a big deal. But calling it the first "social", "social network" or even "professional social network" IPO is just incorrect.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• LinkedIn Looks To Almost Double Headcount In 2010
• LinkedIn Trying To Juice Up Revenue Ahead Of Its IPO?

Sorry, But LinkedIn Is NOT The First Social Network IPO

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/MbCeQnDyftg/linkedin-first-ipo-2011-1

Sorry, MSNBC, You Still Have Some Explaining To Do

Rachel Maddow confirmed on her show last night that the reason Keith Olbermann was suspended was that he did not ask permission from management to make political donations:

“The reason that resulted in Keith’s suspension is that, here at MSNBC, there is an explicit employee rule against hosts making contributions like that. You can do it if you ask in advance and management tells you ‘O.K.’

Maddow also confirmed that MSNBC believes its rules regarding political contributions make MSNBC "better" than FOX News:

Let this incident lay to rest forever the facile, never-true-anyway, bullpucky, lazy conflation of Fox News and what the rest of us do for a living. I know everybody likes to say, “Oh, that’s cable news. It’s all the same. Fox News and MSNBC, mirror images of each other.” Let this lay that to rest forever...

Well, sorry, it's not clear at all that the suspension makes MSNBC "better" than FOX. And MSNBC still has some explaining to do.

First, MSNBC needs to explain what it means that management needs to "approve" political campaign donations.

If MSNBC had a blanket policy that no one at the organization could donate to political campaigns, that might make sense. This would be the network's attempt to avoid the appearance of bias, even when the bias is freely acknowledged (and enjoyed) by everyone who watches the network and several people on the air (including Maddow and Olbermann).

But MSNBC does NOT appear to have this blanket no-donation policy. Instead, it has a "donations only with permission" policy. This raises many new questions, starting with this one:

Which political donations are okay? 

Specifically, what criteria does management use when deciding whether it's okay for Olbermann or Maddow to donate to their favorite candidates?  Do the candidates have to be Democrats? Do they have to be candidates that management personally supports?  From a viewer's perspective, this rule raises more questions than it answers.

Secondly, MSNBC needs to explain what it is trying to accomplish by having this particular bizarre rule.

Rachel Maddow argues that "political donations are okay if approved by management" makes MSNBC obviously better than FOX, where hosts are explicitly allowed to make donations.

But, frankly, as viewers, we'd rather know explicitly that the hosts had made political donations--and what those donations were--than to wonder whether the hosts had made donations that happened to be "approved by management."

So we actually disagree with Maddow here: We have no idea why "political donations are approved by management" makes MSNBC's policy better than FOX's.  Again, if MSNBC's policy were instead "political donations are banned," we might be able to understand that position.  But that's not the policy.

Then, lastly, MSNBC needs to explain why it thinks "political donations are okay if approved by management" is a better strategy than FOX's "go ahead and donate all you want." 

FOX's ratings are crushing MSNBC's.  MSNBC's ratings, meanwhile, are crushing CNN's.  In other words, the MOST PARTISAN network is watched by the most people, and the LEAST PARTISAN network is watched by almost no one.  And now MSNBC seems to be congratulating itself for being more like the least partisan network.  Is that what its viewers really want?

Again, if Keith Olbermann broke a network rule, we have no problem with his being punished (though "indefinite suspension without pay" seems a bit harsh).  But we don't understand the logic behind the rules.   MSNBC needs to explain them.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Here's The Crazy Reason MSNBC Benched Olbermann: To Seem Like It Has Higher Standards Than FOX News
• KEITH OLBERMANN SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY WITHOUT PAY FOR DONATING TO CANDIDATES

Post originale: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/DNiKqV80CGk/msnbc-keith-olbermann-2010-11