news: open document xml will be unversal, yahoo turning from shows..

Phone video from netscape..

http://www.officepirates.com/officepirates/video/0,25038,1152108,00.html

This has a lot of office stuff and video to go with it.. funny..

Google:

Mr. Schmidt defined Google’s opportunity as increasing its share of the worldwide markets for advertising of all types, not just online, which he estimated to be $600 billion to $800 billion..

The company’s advertisers “don’t want to be just on text ads and just on Google, “ he said. “They want to be everywhere on all sorts of media.”

Google has started selling advertisements in print publications and has bought a company that sells radio ads. And it said that it hoped to find a way to sell television ads as well.

Mr. Shmidt teased the audience with what might be an audacious goal. “building they systems and infrastructure of a global $100 billion company.”

Then he added, “Ill give you the choice of whether that is $100 billion in market cap or revenue.

Since Google’s market capitalization is already $111 billion, Mark Stahlman, and analyst with Caris & Company, said he took that to mean $100 billion in revenue. That is perhaps a bit of a stretch for a company that had revenue of $6 billion last year. (Mr.Stahlman, who is especially bullish on Google’s stock, predicts that it could reach that level in five years.)

Alan Eustace, the vice president for research and systems engineering, asserted that Google’s worldwide computer network was much more powerful and efficient than any other internet company’s.

“We don’t think our competitors can deploy systems cheaper, faster or at scale,” he said. “That will give us a two-, three-, five-year lead.”

Mr.reyes tried to assure investors that Google was more than a bunch of unsupervised engineers playing volleyball and riding around on scooters. He detailed a strategic planning process that the company follows and listed financial measurements it monitors, like the average revenue it receives fro each search. But he wanred the analyst not to ask for specifics on any of those figures..

“We do follow and closely monitor these metrics,” he said, “but we are not prepared to shar them with you at this point in time.”

When asked aobut the Google’s biggest single opportunity, Mr.Stahlman said Mr.schmidt cited advertising on Cellphones.

“They had much more meat than they ever offered before, “ he said of the meeting.

Toy story winds up leaving Amazon grim

By Monica Soto Ouchi

Seattle Times retail reporter

PREV of NEXT STUART RAMSON / AP, 2000 Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, left, addresses a news conference in August 2000 as John Eyler, then CEO of Toys R Us, looks on. The men had just announced a partnership to sell toys online. Thursday, the toy retailer won the right to sever the pact.

In April 2003, Jeff Bezos and John Eyler met in New York to discuss the landmark deal their companies reached only three years earlier.

Amazon.com and Toys R Us had combined forces in August 2000 following a dismal Christmas season online. Together, the retailers envisioned developing the world's best Internet toy store.

If the partnership brought the companies early accolades and underscored the strengths of both, the relationship began to sour by the time Amazon's Bezos and Eyler, the toy retailer's CEO, met in Times Square.

Toysrus.com, the online arm of Toys R Us, began to notice toys products for sale from other companies on Amazon's site. Amazon believed its customers weren't receiving the breadth of inventory and selection originally promised.

Whatever was communicated or understood between the heads of the world's pre-eminent toy and online retailers on that day, this much is true — this conversation marked the beginning of the end.

Toysrus.com on Thursday won the right to sever its 10-year agreement with Amazon following a nearly two-year legal battle.

A doomed partnership


SELLING TOYS: Over five years, a onetime landmark alliance between Amazon.com and Toys R Us unraveled into a legal battle.

January 2000: Toys R Us approaches Amazon about creating an alliance.

May 2000: Executives from both companies meet at a toy-industry conference.

August 2000: Both parties sign a 10-year agreement.

September 2000: Toys migrate to Amazon Web site. Users visiting Toys R Us online are directed to Amazon, which adds "Toys and Games" tab.

May 2004: Toys R Us files suit against Amazon in New Jersey court, contending the online retailer violated an exclusivity agreement..

September 2004: Amazon enters into an agreement to sell products from eToys.com Web site.

September 2005: After mediation fails, trial begins in Toys R Us suit.

March 2006: Judge rules Amazon breached the agreement.

In a strongly-worded 133-page judgment, New Jersey Chancery Court Judge Margaret Mary McVeigh ruled Amazon had breached the agreement and damaged its partner's unique position and ability to plan or craft strategies.

Amazon strongly disagrees and is reviewing its options, spokeswoman Patty Smith said.

The ruling put into motion a 90-day separation agreement between the companies, one that will strip Toysrus.com's selection from Amazon's site.

Amazon, which has partnerships with eToys, Discovery Channel and other toy retailers, said it would continue to sell toys on its site.

Thursday's ruling brings an end to an agreement widely credited for helping both retailers remain viable toy sellers online, one that marked Amazon's shift from a retailer that tried to sell everything itself to one that expanded its selection through partnerships.

The original deal, struck in time for the 2000 holiday season, came after both companies suffered widely publicized missteps the season before.

While Toysrus.com raked in sales, it struggled with poor fulfillment, causing many orders to hit doorsteps after Christmas.

Amazon fared well in its first attempt to sell toys: It sold $65 million worth during the last three months of the year and delivered the majority on time.

But what it boasted in operational excellence and customer reach, it lacked in toy expertise. Amazon miscalculated inventory, forcing the company to write off $34 million in toys it couldn't sell.

Toys R Us — which helped to pioneer "category killer" retail by using its size, selection and pricing to undercut smaller toy sellers — approached Amazon in January 2000 about an alliance.

Corey Phelps, who teaches competitive strategy at the University of Washington Business School, said companies form alliances for many reasons: to preempt a competitor from encroaching on their territory or to better challenge larger rivals.

Tense alliances

The challenge, however, is to make it work. "You often see this tension between cooperation and competition in almost all alliances," Phelps said.

Toysrus.com and Amazon "moved at tremendous speed to put together a deal that was to take two giant companies into a partnership that was designed to last 10 years and make them the pre-eminent force in e-commerce," McVeigh wrote in her ruling.

Under the contract, signed in August 2000, Toysrus.com agreed to select, buy and manage inventory, while Amazon would develop the site, fulfill orders and handle customer service.

If the partnership was at its best between 2001 and 2003, the sides could no longer agree on what each side promised.

After several meetings, Toysrus.com sued Amazon in May 2004, charging it with violating its exclusivity agreement by allowing other retailers to sell toys, a right it had paid $50 million annually to own.

Amazon denied the claim and countersued, citing what it called its partner's "chronic failure" to meet toy demand during the 2003 holiday season.

In the countersuit, Amazon claimed that more than 20 percent of the toy store's best-selling items were unavailable on the site during the peak of the season.

Both parties sought to end the partnership and to collect damages.

The companies went into mediation with prominent mediator Randall Wulff, principal of Wulff, Quinby & Sochynsky.

Wulff, who mediated the $1.1 billion antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the state of California, couldn't bring both sides together. The companies met last September in court.

Judge displeased

In her ruling, McVeigh communicated overall displeasure with Amazon's testimony.

McVeigh wrote that, in a case where credibility was so crucial to the court's decision, Amazon didn't help itself by having so many witnesses testify by video depositions.

She wrote that one former Amazon executive, Jorrit Van der Meulen, appeared "rather cold and arrogant" in his videotaped testimony. But in subsequent testimony in person, he was "articulate, gracious and personable."

In another part, she said all of the Amazon employees were "condescending" when they spoke of Toys R Us.

The judge even pointed out Bezos' testimony, calling his declaration that he was unaware of problems between the parties "child-like in fashion."

Broader repercussions

Phelps, the UW professor, said the court's ruling might have ramifications far beyond the disagreement between Amazon and Toys R Us.

"It could make other companies, whether they're toy companies or other manufacturers, be concerned about forming relationships with Amazon, specifically because how it behaved in the past," he said.

Toys R Us spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said the court's decision letting her company out of the contract would allow the retailer to provide more services for customers long term, such as enabling them to order online and pick toys up in stores.

Waugh said the company has several options, including operating its own site or working with another company to provide the same services Amazon did until now.

Meanwhile, Amazon has continued to expand its selection through third-party relationships.

The big question is who could replace the void Toysrus.com leaves behind.

Jim Silver, editor and chief of Toy Wishes magazine, said Amazon doesn't have a brand name for toys and might fare well partnering with another toy company, such as KB Toys.

"To me, it's really about the consumer," Silver said. "Where is the consumer going to go?"

Monica Soto Ouchi: 206-515-5632 or msoto@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

Fxm: Good stuff on video..

http://youtube.com/browse?s=r&f=b&page=5&t=t

Google Goes Mini Again
Dan Frommer, 03.02.06, 2:22 PM ET

Google Tear Sheet Chart News Most Popular Videos Getting Enron Apple Sweetens Product Line The Sun Still Rises SportsMoney: Catching On Unpopular Is Your Friend Most Popular Stories Top Earning Actors/Actresses I'd Like Not To Thank The Academy Most Dangerous Destinations 2006 Rules Of The Oscar Game The Economics Of Prostitution

Google's latest push to put its search tool on every corporate network is its smallest and cheapest yet.

The number-one Internet search provider announced another, smaller-capacity version of its Google Mini search appliance today. The latest is the fourth addition to the line and features its lowest retail price -- for $1,995, buyers can add Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ) search capabilities to their web site or internal network that indexes 50,000 web pages and documents.

The newest Mini shows Google's further focus on small- and medium-sized businesses. "The vision for the Mini is just that -- to get mini -- and to get Google search everywhere," says Rajen Sheth, product manager for Google's enterprise division.

While the company won't release specific revenue figures, a spokesperson says Google has more than 3,000 enterprise customers and that enterprise revenue doubled last fiscal year.

In January, marking the Mini's one-year anniversary, the company released two larger Mini devices, bridging the gap between the Mini and the higher-capacity -- and more expensive -- Google Search Appliance, which can track 500,000 pages and starts at $30,000.

Google's move comes as it finds growing competition in the enterprise search market. On Wednesday, Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people ) announced a new push into corporate search with a product called Secure Enterprise Search. Google has not yet faced much enterprise pressure from Internet search rivals Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ) or Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ).

Push to Create Standards for Documents

• 
  

E-Mail This

• Printer-Friendly

• Reprints
• Save Article

By STEVE LOHR

Published: March 3, 2006

With government records, reports and documents increasingly being created and stored in digital form, there is a software threat to electronic access to government information and archives. The problem is that public information can be locked in proprietary software whose document formats become obsolete or cannot be read by people using software from another company.

To cope with the problem, 30 companies, trade groups, academic institutions and professional organizations are announcing today the formation of the OpenDocument Format Alliance, which will promote the adoption of open technology standards by governments.

"The goal is to ensure that the largest number of people possible are able to find, retrieve and meaningfully use government information," said Patrice McDermott, deputy director of government relations for the American Library Association, a member of the alliance.

The problem, she said, is bad and getting worse. She noted that the National Archives and Records Administration was engaged in a costly project so the electronic documents it saves from federal agencies can be opened and read.

The alliance supports a particular solution, called the OpenDocument Format, for standard office word processing, presentation and spreadsheet documents. Today, the formats used by most people for creating documents are those in Microsoft Office — over 90 percent of the market.

The alliance includes professional groups like the library association and universities like the Indian Institute of Technology. Its membership also includes many rivals to Microsoft in the software business, including I.B.M. and Sun Microsystems, which offer office software that uses the OpenDocument Format.

"This is not a partisan, anti-Microsoft group," said Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems.

But Microsoft supports another open standard for documents, called OpenXML Document Format. In Office 2007, which Microsoft will ship in the second half of the year, OpenXML will be the default format for saving documents instead of Microsoft's proprietary formats, said Alan Yates of the company's Office division.

The OpenXML format is supported by Intel, Apple, Toshiba, BP and the British Library, among others, Mr. Yates said. Microsoft submitted OpenXML to Ecma International, a standards body in Geneva, last year.