backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 31 comment(s) - last by Beno.. on Nov 25 at 6:41 PM

Rumor has Microsoft talking to large web publishers and offering to pay them to ban Google

A battle is being fought amongst traditional print newspapers, online publications, and search engines. The print journalism world is used to being paid by users to read the news and the online world is used to free content that is ad supported for the most part.

The fight is raging most notably between Rupert Murdoch with his News Corp publishing empire and Google. Murdoch wants to charge for access to all of its online content. News Corp-owned publication The Wall Street Journal is one of the few online news sites that is successful in getting users to pay for reading content.

The Financial Times reports that Microsoft is now rumored to be in discussions with News Corp to pay the publishing giant to delist its content from Google. The talks are reportedly in very early stages according to someone close to the negotiations.

According to the report, Microsoft is approaching other large web publishers in an attempt to get them to delist content from Google as well. One publisher familiar with the plan said, "This is all about Microsoft hurting Google’s margins."

Google maintains that newspaper stories are not a big part of its revenues and that if the content is delisted it will not pose a big impact on the search giant. No solid details are available on the negotiations at this time, but if this attempt by Microsoft proves successful print newspapers could find a new stream of revenue to help cover the costs of generating news.

One publisher approached by Microsoft said, "[This plan] puts enormous value on content if search engines are prepared to pay us to index with them."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

They only hurt themselves.
By DarkElfa on 11/24/2009 9:45:58 AM , Rating: 5
If they succeed in this endeavor, its only going to cause more people to get their news from bloggers rather than actual news companies which is already an ever growing concern for groups like Newscorp. This, I'm afraid would be a major nail in the coffin. Wall Street weasels may be willing to pay for news like the Journal but Ma & Pa Yokel sure as hell won't.




RE: They only hurt themselves.
By amanojaku on 11/24/2009 9:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
The Internet screwed a lot of people. Namely, the middle men. The MPAA, RIAA, magazines, newspapers, hell, even news stations are largely obsolete. So many people have eyes and ways of recording events, and the Internet makes distribution that much simpler.

Companies like News Corp. can't compete in the free arena, so the only direction is up. Higher prices means a smaller clientele, but it also means a tighter community of people with similar interests and the will to preserve each other. News Corp. doesn't want to preach to the masses. It wants loyal followers, and those people won't blink at an online subscription.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By Hotdogah on 11/24/2009 10:04:44 AM , Rating: 3
So I guess this means that they will pay Microsoft to block News Corp News and then people can use their service MSNBC? not to bright Rupert.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By Ammohunt on 11/24/2009 2:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
The horror... the horror."


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By mcnabney on 11/24/2009 10:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
News Corp viewers are the cheapest people out there. The only product that Murdoch sells which can/will continue to successfully demand a fee online is the WSJ. Most of what NewsCorp sells is opinion, which makes it a huge blog.

Now I don't think Microsoft has thought this through. They are trying to use their size to lock-out an opponent. This is the type of behavior that monopolies wield.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By mydogfarted on 11/24/2009 10:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of person with half a brain actually watches Faux News anyway?


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By AlexWade on 11/24/2009 10:37:16 AM , Rating: 5
Lets expand that.

What kind of person with half a brain actually watches ANY AND ALL cable news channels?

You would be better off getting objective news from a blog than from cable news channels. I hate them all, because their bias is clear and overt.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By Aloonatic on 11/24/2009 11:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't a biassed news feed a pretty good description of a blog?

There's no such thing as an unbiased source. Unless you actually see it yourself, there will always be some editorial decision that skews things one way or another.

What you need is balance, and more than one source I guess.

If only there was some way of watching the conservative/right-wing Fox News at the same time as watching the liberal/left-wing/socialist BBC news at the same time.

They would probably just cancel each-other out and make white noise tho :-D


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By PrinceGaz on 11/24/2009 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 1
The BBC is as unbiased as is possible, being funded by licence-payers (viewers) rather than relying on advertising, government support, or a private individual or group with its own agenda. The BBC is neither left- or right-wing or certainly tries its best not to be.

The only people who could consider the BBC to be liberal/left-wing/socialist are those people who are themselves right-wing to some extent without realising it.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By Keeir on 11/24/2009 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
mmmm...

The BBC may repersent the "middle" ground of Britian, which is most likely profoundly different than the "middle" ground in many other parts of the world.

I do think the BBC at least attempts to be objective, but its hard to escape its surroundings entirely (nor would this be acceptable to its own viewers).


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By Ammohunt on 11/24/2009 6:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
ROFLMAO and MSNBC is mainstream thought; you crack me up!


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By AlexWade on 11/24/2009 2:05:50 PM , Rating: 1
I was making a point. My point was that biased blogs are more objected than cable news. Which is to say, cable news is entertainment disguised as news.

Even the BBC isn't balanced, though it does a better job than most. The problem with the BBC is that believe every stupid scare tactic by the global warming mafia no matter how absurd and no matter what proof contrary there is. And if that wasn't enough, the BBC actively suppresses any anti-AGW ideas with extreme prejudice.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2009 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You would be better off getting objective news from a blog


lol really ?

Most blogs I have visited are comprised of the most radical members or whatever side the blog is affiliated with. Especially blogs on the left. Those people are certifiable. Certainly not objective.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By Murloc on 11/24/2009 1:34:53 PM , Rating: 1
blogs are often just utter crap.

there are news sites that are free, and created with that in the mind. They have some ads and the quality of written text isn't high (often there are errors), and some articles look like bullshit.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By PrinceGaz on 11/24/2009 1:46:19 PM , Rating: 5
I wonder where I could find such a site? Are there any sites like that which specialise in tech news, preferably on a daily basis? :)


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By Aloonatic on 11/24/2009 11:45:01 AM , Rating: 3
I used to love watching Fox news.

Why a non stop entertainment show is listed in the "News & Documentaries" section of my satellite TV, TV guide is beyond me however :-D

The gulf war was amazing on Fox News.


RE: They only hurt themselves.
By NA1NSXR on 11/24/2009 9:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
Get an education please.


robots.txt
By crimson117 on 11/24/2009 9:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_stan...

They can easily block Google from accessing their sites.




RE: robots.txt
By VaultDweller on 11/24/2009 9:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
So long as Google is nice, anyway.


RE: robots.txt
By amanojaku on 11/24/2009 9:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
A better idea is to block it at the edge router. Keep the traffic off the network period. Sure, you'll need statefull firewalls running at line speed and a list of spider IPs, but the result is less load on the servers and intermediate network devices. We've been doing this for years, and it's part of the network's security. Two birds, one stone.


RE: robots.txt
By drebo on 11/24/2009 11:13:48 AM , Rating: 1
Except that all of their servers are not in one place. Besides, Fox News, at least, uses Akamai for content distribution. Fox News has no control over what's blocked "at the edge router".


Good for MS bad for Newscorp
By nafhan on 11/24/2009 10:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
Exclusive content would be a good thing for MS as they will get traffic from those specifically looking for Newscorp content. Conversely, exclusivity will be bad for Newscorp, because they will lose all the traffic from people not using MS's services.
Similar to a paywall, the fewer people who see their content, the less relavent they become, and the less relavent they become, the fewer people will be interested in their content.
Milk 'em dry MS, I'm not to worried about it.




RE: Good for MS bad for Newscorp
By mmntech on 11/24/2009 10:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering how the FTC will treat this. Poor management in the news industry is largely to blame for the problems it's facing, not the services providing them.


RE: Good for MS bad for Newscorp
By DopeFishhh on 11/24/2009 11:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me to be anti competitive in a manner not unlike intel paying resellers to limit their AMD stock.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16930

Are there extra penalties for repeat offences in anti competitive law?


By Dorz on 11/24/2009 11:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
I did write a lengthy post but Jeff Jarvis explains things a little better :

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/11/23/murdoch-madn...

and

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/11/15/nose-face-cu...




By kattanna on 11/24/2009 11:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
News Corp. leaving Google would be a mosquito bite on an elephant’s ass


ok, that quote from the top article, now thats damn funny and accurate.

thanks for my morning chuckle


By Aloonatic on 11/24/2009 12:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
thanks for my morning chuckle
Anyone else watch 30 Rock and now feel a little ill after reading that? :-D


How does this help?
By HighWing on 11/24/2009 4:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
ok so maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to see how blocking access from search sites can do anything other then hurt a news site?

The only way this works is if you assume the user will go directly to your site, and then search through your cumbersome site to find articles they want to read. And lets face it, most of these news sites do not have easy to use search systems that actually return what you are looking for.

And when a user doesn't find what they want on a specific news site, they will eventually go to a search site and look there. And if there are no real news sites indexed in the search site, then they will start getting their news from other sources that are indexed.

At some point in time most users will search Bing/Google/etc. for news because it's just easier and familiar. By blocking your news site from them, you've just lost that user as a potential customer forever. How will new users ever find out about "your" news site if it never shows up on a search provider for something they are looking for?

The WSJ is a bad working example because they are a niche paper to begin with, and often are the only source for news in that area. Hence people are willing to pay for access. But when you are not the only source for news, how does blocking a users ability to find you in the dark, help you make money at all?

If any non-niche news source adopts this model, and sticks to it, I can only see it leading to a slow death. In reality, no one person gets their news from only one source. Users will eventually drop at some point, and there is no means for new users to find them, let alone know the quality of their news.

The only way I can see this working at all is if there is at least one search engine that is allowed to index and search articles on the paid sites.




RE: How does this help?
By magneticfield on 11/25/2009 5:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft wants to pay them to delist from Google. I'm sure that you could still find the site with Bing, though...


Shooting themselves in the foot?
By randomb0y on 11/25/2009 6:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Most companies would pay a fortune to get good ranking in google searches.

They think everyone's just gonna switch over to Bing? Good luck with that, Microsoft!




hard?
By Beno on 11/25/2009 6:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
is it really hard for wsj to change the system?
how come i cant see my friends on facebook when i google them without logging in?

im not a web developer, but is there something i dont understand here?




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki