Alliance Blog Reviews

If you’ve always dreamed of being published, but just didn’t have the time to finish a novel/novella/short story, Twitter may be your big chance at fame, fortune, and a spot on Oprah. Okay, okay, only fame. And only a little. For writers who like a challenge, there are a number of Twitter-based ezines that publish short (and I do mean short) stories. Some call them “Twisters,” others micro- or nano-fiction, and others simply “one heck of a challenge.” You’ve only got 140 characters to tell a complete story that leaves your readers nodding their heads with a sense of fulfillment. If this sounds like your cup of java, there are several venues where you can submit your tales for consideration. Some even pay big bucks (up to $1.50), so what are you waiting for? Twitter-fiction markets: Thaumatrope – @Thaumatrope If you can write a science fiction, fantasy, or horror story that fits in a Twitter box, send your submissions to these folks. Pays $1.20. Tweet the Meat – @TweetTheMeat This publisher of horror/weird/speculative fiction wants “fear in 140 characters or less.” Thanks to their weekly themes, there’s plenty to inspire you. Pays $1. Nanoism – @Nanoism Submit your thoughtful, literary nano-fiction to these folks. They’ll accept all genres but particularly want “stories that move us with their writing, stories that stay with us longer than the few seconds it takes to read them.” Pays $1 for one-tweet stories and up to $5 for serials. @Microcosms This publisher’s first “issue” isn’t scheduled to appear until April, but you can send in your submissions of science fiction, fantasy, and horror now. Pays $1. Know of other markets for Twitter stories? Share them in the comments! © 2008 TwiTip Twitter Tips . Flex Your Literary Fast-Twitch Muscles Writing Twitter-Sized Stories

Read the original:
Flex Your Literary Fast-Twitch Muscles Writing Twitter-Sized Stories

It’s been more than two years since Google’s last big big to enter a government-regulated offline business. They offered some $4.6B for wireless spectrum in an auction in 2008, but it seemed that the multi-billion bid was merely a ploy to get some of their demands for the spectrum met. But that’s not quite the case with Google’s recent application to buy and sell power “much like utility companies do,” according to the New York Times . Google told the Federal Energy Regulation Commission that they need this capability to support their power-hungry facilities with more renewable energy sources. Google created a subsidiary last month, Google Energy, to handle this. As the NYT points out, this isn’t Google’s first look at energy: This is hardly Google’s first foray into the energy world. Over the years, Google has invested in renewable energy projects through its philanthropic and venture capital units. It has also embarked on a number of engineering projects and partnerships to, for example, advance plug-in hybrids and offer tools to measure home electricity usage. And it has an ambitious goal to help develop renewable energy that is cheaper than coal. Bill Weihl, Google’s green energy czar, discussed many of those initiatives and goals in a lengthy interview with The New York Times published on Thursday. Google insists that they’re not getting into the market to trade energy, but if their application is approved, they could sell any surplus energy they own. What do you think? Is this just Google’s carbon-neutrality quest, or a back-door entry into another market?

Go here to see the original:
Google Applies to Enter Energy Market

In all the hubbub of the Nexus One premiere this week, another Google milestone has gone largely unnoticed. (Even I saw the headline earlier this week, but opted to cover a Nexus story instead.) While we’ve all anticipated Google coming out with a smartphone to end all smartphones (and start calling them “superphones” ), they’re beating Apple in another area: the browser wars . According to one measure, Google’s Chrome browser is now the #3 most popular browser, behind IE and Firefox. And why is that so important? Because the guy they just beat out, #4, is Apple’s default browser, Safari. Metrics firm Net Applications reports that Chrome has cornered 4.63% of the browser market, enough to edge out Safari’s 4.46% of the market. PCWorld points out that the 0.7 percentage point bump for Chrome in December may have been fueled by the release of the browser for Mac and Linux . Safari gained 0.1 percentage point in December, so it doesn’t appear that Google directly stole a lot of their marketshare. IE continues to dominate, with 62.7% of the market, although it lost nearly a percentage point in December (continuing a six month trend of around 0.9 point losses). Firefox also lost ground in December, falling 0.1 point to 24.6%. With such a narrow margin of victory, Chrome and Safari will probably continue to vie neck and neck for that third-place spot for some time. Chrome was officially released for Windows in December 2008—pretty quick to take over that spot in the first place. What do you want to bet Google would be happy to repeat that victory in other areas? What do you think? Is this a turning point for Google and/or Chrome, or for Apple? Or is this just another battle in the Google-Apple war ?

More here:
Google’s Beating Apple—But Not Where You’d Expect

Yesterday’s rumors have proven true: dominant Chinese search engine Baidu has officially announced their entry into the online video market in China . In fact, they’ve confirmed almost all of the rumors floating around yesterday: Baidu is involved, it’s a partnership, they’ll be soliciting content licensing agreements from professional content producers, it will be free with ad support (like Hulu), and Yu Gong, former China Mobile exec, will head up the site. Only Providence Equity Partners’ participation wasn’t confirmed. As mentioned yesterday, the Chinese video market is lucrative—worth 162 million yuan ($23.73 million) in Q308, according to Analysys International. It’s little wonder that Baidu is eyeing the market (even though the Chinese search market is valued at 2B yuan [$293M], with Baidu controlling around two thirds of the market). China also faces piracy problems that seems more serious than those in the US, where a site with a similar model has enjoyed unexpected success at Hulu. With all these concerns, the Chinese video market looks even less appealing in light of another point from Reuters : “J.P. Morgan analyst Dick Wei said most video sites in China were still making losses but Baidu had the added advantage of being able to offer more targeted advertisements given its search technology.” Baidu didn’t say whether the new venture would feature UGC, with the additional content and IP problems it can pose, but even without that, they could face not only competition but content theft from video pirates. The Chinese video market is highly fragmented online, so there’s a definite possibility that Baidu could emerge as the leader (and winner) in this arena—but will they? What do you think? Can Baidu succeed in two areas? Will China receive a Hulu of their own?

See the article here:
It’s Official: Baidu into Video

paidContent reports today that private equity company Providence Equity Partners, one of the backers of Hulu, is rumored to be joining up with Baidu for a Chinese equivalent of the popular professional video content site. While China is the largest Internet population (350M) and a huge market for ad dollars in just about every online arena, it’s little wonder both the Chinese search giant and the American investment firm are interested. While Providence declined comment, other sources told PC the deal was already closed. Reuters reports that the new video site would launch in the first quarter of this year. Providence will back it with $60M, while Baidu is fronting $10M. A recently-departed China Mobile executive is rumored to be the CEO of the new site. Analysys International reports that the Chinese online video market was worth 162 million yuan ($23.73 million) in the third quarter of last year—again, little wonder these two companies are interested in the market. On the other hand, this is considerably less than the well-established US video advertising market, of which Hulu controlled some 10% (and commanded similar ad rates to TV). Could a Chinese Hulu take over the same proportion of the Chinese ad market (to the tune of $9.5M)? Hard to say, of course. Before Hulu came along, it seemed doubtful that a site with such a model could succeed—but now it does appear to be successful, as well as a major source for online video content. Naturally, Providence and Baidu would need Chinese television stations and studios to sign on to create the professional content. And while the US isn’t the best counterexample here, China has a reputation for rampant online video piracy that may diminish the appeal (and the restrictions) of a site like Hulu. What do you think? Can Baidu expand its empire successfully with this? Or is China just not the market for another Hulu? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Excerpt from:
Baidu Getting into Video?

Google must know something that we don’t. Why else would they be SO open in their new move toward transparency as to allow for extensions on Chrome that, gulp, block the very lifeblood of their money printing operation? Well, considering the market share that Chrome currently has (around 40 million users) and the mindset of someone likely to use (or even know about) this extension the thought of this kind of ‘allowance’ is probably bigger than the reality. The New York Times reports In a manifesto-like e-mail message sent last month to all Google employees, Jonathan Rosenberg, a senior vice president for product management, told them to commit to greater transparency and open industry standards. Rather than hoard knowledge to exploit it, he wrote in “ The Meaning of Open ,” share it and watch Google and the entire Internet prosper. The resulting openness is allowing for ad blockers as extensions but this decision did not happen without a Mountain View trip to the revenue mountaintop for advice. Speaking at a conference on Dec. 11 in Mountain View, Calif., Linus Upson, engineering director at Google, said there were many discussions before allowing ad-blocking programs “because Google makes all of its money from advertising.” But he explained that the prevailing thinking was that “it’s unlikely ad blockers are going to get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying.” “So I think the market will sort this out,” he said. “At least that is the bet we made when we opened the extension gallery and didn’t have any policy against ad-blockers.” That was a long quote but it’s the last sentence that was uttered by a company that is both loved and scorned at the same time. This is uttered by a company that some would think anti-trust is in their future in the same way it was for Microsoft and IBM. Letting the market sort it out is the only way to go in the long run. Sure there will be hiccups but the alternative (some form of regulation that reads real well but in practical use is just plain stupid) is not going to work. I think that there is enough evidence from 2009 for that one. Similar extensions are currently available on Firefox, which has a much larger market share but has not exactly stopped Google in its tracks so that may be the evidence needed. Oh and if you want to gain access to these blockers here’s their stories and a link or two for you. As it happens, two 28-year-olds, Michael Gundlach, an independent programmer from outside Athens, Ga., and Tom Joseph, an M.D.-Ph.D. student at Mount Sinai Medical School, separately went through the exact same experience. In telephone interviews, each told of excitedly looking to see if he could install a Chrome extension of his favorite Firefox add-on, Adblock Plus, which prevents ads from appearing on Web sites, whether bright flashing animation or the text ads that Google serves up after a search. They did not find one. So, naturally, each spent a day or so creating a rough version of such an extension, with much more work to come. AdThwart from Mr. Joseph is now No. 2 in popularity among the more than 1,200 Chrome extensions; AdBlock from Mr. Gundlach is No. 8. Together, they already have more than 120,000 users. Happy ad blocking!

Read the rest here:
Chrome Extensions Include Ad Blockers

New data from Chitika indicate that Microsoft users—both browser and operating system— click on online advertisements more often than other users. And considering what a significant portion of the market those segments constitute, that’s pretty dang good news. From a sample of over 130 million impressions, Chitika saw a click-through rate of 1.05% from Internet Explorer users, versus 0.66% from Firefox users, 0.50% from Safari users and 0.21% from Chrome users. Similarly, Windows users outclick their Mac and Linux counterparts, 0.92% to 0.52% to 0.46%, respectively. According to TechCrunch, even Bing has higher click-through rates than other search engines. So why is this large audience clicking so much? Are they “gullible,” as TechCrunch asks, not savvy enough to switch browsers or recognize an ad, or simply more engaged? For whatever reason, this large group of the market certainly constitutes a valuable segment for marketers. What do you think? Why do Microsoft users click more?

Read more:
There’s Something about Microsoft Users?