by Jason Wilk on August 31, 2009

- With Google’s Chrome OS peeking its hear around the corner for next year’s launch, everyone wants to know what this thing is going to look like. Here are two submitted screenshots posted today claiming to be the new OS. These are clearly fake, but I figured I’d pick out why this is a poor interpretation. .
1. The browser. Just because the Chrome OS is going to be a web-based operating system, does not mean Google is going to make us feel as if we are looking at our Chrome Browser 24/7 to get everything done. They will make the browser experience feel as much like a native desktop environment as possible, especially with products like Google Docs, Music Player, etc.
2. The doc. First thing to point out is the media player. Google wouldn’t go so far as to mimic the iTunes doc logo for their operating system. An image of a CD is outdated as it is, not to mention Google isn’t directly trying to step on Apple’s toes with this product launch. I highly doubt that Google will use any kind of Doc at all that reminds consumers of any kind of Mac product.
3. That massive Chrome logo underneath the browser. Microsoft or Apple have never plastered such a large permanent logo on the homescreen of any generation OS. From the looks of these screenshots, the Chrome logo will be burned into my eyes by the time I’ve finished my work day. Not.going.to.happen.
4. Dimensions, image blemishes. Besides the obvious, these images still contain some imperfections such as the magnifying glass in the search bar.
by Jason Wilk on August 14, 2009

- This article goes over the fraud filled insutry of domains and the two loopholes that companies have been using to make hundreds of millions of dollars.
- Do you want to know why every domain you are looking for is taken and parked with a bunch of PPC ads? Yes, maybe because someone thought of it before you and legitimately wants to build something out of it. But, most likely it was purchased by a mass-domain buying application that some of the top domain squatting/monetization companies in the country have been using for the last decade. I personally know one of these companies, and they have been making a killing on the first loophole that just ended today. What’s the loophole? It’s called the Add Grace Period (aka Domain Tasting), which lets registrars return the name they just bought within 5 days for a full refund. This one company in particular I am close to disclosed to me they have been consistently buying 250,000 domains a day for the past 5 years, holding onto whatever seems like it could be worth something or sounds legitimate and returning anything else that doesn’t fit (they keep about 0.5-1%). The return policy was originally Designed by ICANN to help registrars who made errors in their domain names. Convieniently, the grace period refund was not monitored for bulk buyers, which led to the unavailability of popular names.
- Yesterday, ICANN won a major battle over the abusive tactic of domain tasting. In its report, ICANN used the following example to illustrate the policy change: Someone registers 1,000 domain names and gets rid of 300 of them during the grace period. Under the policy, the registrar is allowed up to 70 deletions. The remaining 230 cost 20 cents each for a total of $46. Plus, each excessive deletion costs the registrar at least $6.75. Dumping 230 domain names rings up a bill of $1,552.50 for a grand total of $1,598.50. ICANN said the new policy resulted in a 99.7 percent decrease in domain deletions from June 2008 to April 2009.
- So big deal, some companies are out there owning a ton of useless domain names and possibly some popular ones, right? Well, there are two huge problems here. One, because of ICANN’s stupidity, any worthwhile domain is definitely gone and the market for domain buying/selling is only going to get crazier in the future (Toys.com was recently sold for $5.1M). That is inevitable. But, the companies who took advantage of this loophole are pulling in obsene profits off of the bank of domains they have built up in the last decade. Not only have they bought and sold many of them, but there is another scam out there that has yet to surface, making them godly amounts. It’s called Mass Domain Monetization. Either these bulk domain buyers have their own domain monetization company (which sells and displays ads across a network of inactive domains), or they are in bed with one of the other major ones such as Parked.com, DomainSponsor.com, Google (as of recent) and many more. This ‘company’ I keep referring to that I am close to says that they are profitable on EVERY domain they have in their database. This is the same company I said was buying 250,000 domains a day for 5 years and keeping 0.5-1% every day (lets be liberal and say they maintain between 1.5-2 million domain names that are parked with ads). How can you be profitable on every domain with just PPC ads and nothing else on the site? Well, they are using a really smart tactic, which is to take advantage of the fact that domain monetization companies such as Google will not pay attention to a few ad clicks a day by a unique IP address as long as it looks legitimate and the site is making a very small amount of money. This ‘company’ told me they run bots they have perfected to go through each domain they own with a unique IP and generate between 2-4 clicks a day on the ads. “Google themselves have said they can’t monitor such minor click fraud and they have acknowledged they know it’s going on” says this particular company.
- Now let’s do the math. If the bots click 1-2 ads a day, that’s generating around on average $0.12 per domain a day. Multiply that by the 2 million domains being monetized in their catalog. That’s $240,000 per day. Is someone going to stop this? Google or other parked domain monetizers won’t. Who’s going to take the time to ban sites that are generating $0.12 cents a day or less in ad revenue, especially when there isn’t a repeat IP address to recognize in the first place? The cost associated with sorting through hundreds of millions of domains making a little ad revenue would take forever, and wouldn’t be worth their time. Not to mention, if they turn their backs on it, it makes them a nice chunk of change too.
by Jason Wilk on August 3, 2009

- Microsoft and Google are at eachother’s throats more than ever these days. First, Google announced Chrome OS, the company’s first operating system. Then Microsoft announced the new version of Office with major cloud app support. Then Microsoft announced its deal to take over Yahoo’s search business. Today, Google begins a major promotional campaign to get the word out about organizations switching to Google apps.

- The campaign, called “Going Google,” will predominately be made up of billboards on four major U.S. highways that will give a new message about Google apps everyday for a month. The billboards will be placed on the 101 in San Francisco, the West Side Hwy in New York, the Ike in Chicago, and Mass Pike in Boston. They will also use #gonegoogle as a potential trending hash tag on Twitter to get the word out. Does Google really need to do this?

*Google says that the vinyl being used to create these new messages each day will be recycled or reused into either computer bags or shopping bags.
by Jason Wilk on August 3, 2009

- CUPERTINO, California—August 3, 2009—Apple® today announced that Dr. Eric Schmidt, chief executive officer of Google, is resigning from Apple’s Board of Directors, a position he has held since August 2006.
“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”
by Jason Wilk on July 28, 2009

- Long story short, Apple banned Google Voice from the App Store yesterday, triggering the App Store team to remove all apps that call on any Google Voice API. Reasoning? They duplicate features already found on the iPhone such as the dialer and SMS. Apparently these apps didn’t duplicate the aforementioned features when they were first approved months ago… But they do now. Just like Google launching its mobile social network in the browser (Latitude), Google will be forced to bring Google Voice features to the iPhone browser experience.

- Many have pointed their finger at AT&T (seems like the cool thing to do these days..meh), but as my pal Om Malik puts it, if it were truly AT&T, then Google Voice would be banned on BlackBerry devices that use AT&T as well. As of this morning, everything is working fine on AT&T-connected devices. He also points out that people are forgetting that you need AT&T’s voice network to send and receive Google Voice calls. Meaning? AT&T makes money on Google Voice calls and SMS. This is Apple’s problem people, but it’s not that big of a deal when it comes down to it. Google Voice truly does mimick the features of the standard iPhone call/sms features. Apple should have voiced their concerns with it before they approved it months ago and let developers waste precious time building their apps around its open features.