Saturday, August 22, 2009

The Latest from TechCrunch

The Latest from TechCrunch

Link to TechCrunch

For Twitter, Sharing Data With Google Would Be Suicide

Posted: 22 Aug 2009 06:34 AM PDT

Guest author Edo Segal (@edosegal) has launched and sold several companies. In 2000 he founded eNow, a search engine for the Real-time Internet in an age that predated RSS as a popular medium. As such he has had a decade to think about its implications. He ultimately sold the company (renamed Relegence) to AOL in 2006 and today runs his Incubator/Investment vehicle Futurity Ventures. He recently launched a new search engine for wisdom.

In a way we are all virtual stock holders in Twitter. We all have a vested interest in its success. Facebook is soon to monopolize the social stream to the same extent that Google has done with search. That is not good for anyone, including Facebook. I have had many discussions with people in recent weeks about the face-off between twitter and Facebook and also about the high probability of Twitter cutting a deal with Google. When I was asked by Erick Schonfeld at the Real Tiime Stream Crunchup (Video) event about my opinion on Twitter giving Google their firehose feed, I responded that they could do that if they don't plan to sell their company in the future. In other words, it is my humble opinion that if Twitter was a publicly traded stock its value would drop by 75% the second that deal was announced and for good reason.

Twitter is important. How often does a company come along that really changes consumer behavior? That creates a new form of media consumption and connectivity? For all the thousands of startups covered on Techcrunch only a few have a profound impact on the arc of internet history. Twitter has earned its spot in that pantheon and now it remains to be seen if it can play a bigger role in how to monetize the stream and in the process build a real business.

At this moment in time, Twitter has such a stronghold on this new form of real-time consumption that it has the potential to dominate the category. But its window of opportunity is closing fast as Facebook and others hurl themselves at that prize. The experience of real-time communication and search, that sense you get of unfolding streams of relevant information to your interests and queries flowing in a digital river has arrived with Twitter coursing first through the rapids. But now that we have arrived at this new medium, what next? Does Twitter become an example of a utility that is emulated by others that already have a monetization engine, leaving Twitter to ultimately drift to a respected place in Wikipedia like Netscape? Or does it continue to push the boundaries and create a sustainable and growing business that will allow it to continue to ride the whitewater?

If twitter is to confine itself to being a communications medium, or even worse, a news distribution engine, it will surely perish. By analogy, Google as a business is not a search engine but an advertising business that is printing money at unprecedented rates. Google does this by owning the equivalent of distribution in the digital age.  Its just that the meaning of the word "distribution" in the digital age has shifted. Google, as the entry point for such a vast audience, effectively owns the distribution on the Internet as a business leader and brand. Its lead continues to grow as the audience grows.

Google’s economics lay in the economy of intent. The intent of users to purchase a product or service when they use Google’s search is what drives its money presses. The context of the users’ actions and interests map to an intention which advertisers are eager to pay for. The ability to automate the placement of advertising next to relevant content and map consumer queries to useful advertising stands at the heart of Google’s success.

This is something that has been notoriously missing on communication platforms. See AIM as an example. What was once an omnipresent juggernaut of a product is inching towards being a footnote in internet history. One that has always struggled to monetize its vast audience. The same is true for other communications platforms such as Hotmail and Gmail. They have become strategic traffic drivers in companies with a broader monetization engine. Look further into innovative news aggregation platforms such as Digg, Google News, and Techmeme and you see that it’s pretty tough to generate significant revenues in news, certainly not Google-scale revenues.  Even for pillars of the industry such as the New York Times, big online profits are elusive.  So there are not many prospects for building a sustainable multi-billion dollar business for Twitter either as a communications platform or a news discovery engine.

The way to make Twitter into a sustainable business is to tap into the economy of intent. God knows Twitter has that potential, but it has a narrow window of opportunity in which to execute. The business promise is to create a new type of useful advertising for people that is consumed in the context of a new form of discovery—one that for the moment is unique to Twitter but, alas, not for long.  If Twitter doesn’t pick up the pace at this moment in time and take the path leading to building a business, it will begin to destroy its value. By doing a deal that will give Google unfettered access to real-time results from Twitter in Google search, Twitter will effectively be giving up the fight and losing the war. For if consumers can get the same experience that is currently unique to Twitter on Google, why would they need to go to Twitter to search?  If they don't bring their intentions to Twitter search, then Twitter is not participating in the Economy of Intent and as such will diminish its value to the single-digit millions.

At the risk of stating the obvious let me throw out some constructs. There has been much speculation about how Twitter will make money. From #pastryto #diabetes, the world of Twitter is self-organizing in a highly effective folksonomy that is vibrant and useful. Today, Twitter users are left to their own devices when it comes to unearthing these gems in the stream. As Twitter further develops its discovery(taxonomy) and search engine, the valuable content streams will be unearthed. Think of the simple impact of auto-complete in the search box to # tags. This is but one simple move which could start to drive traffic to focused streams of information, which could also map to useful advertising, just like on Google. Start with creating a marketplace for advertisers around the #tags, then search queries, and see how valuable the experience Twitter created really is. Throw in the recent evolution in geo-tagging and you add another layer of usefulness. Typing in “amazing restaurant” when you are in Soho should show a fresh stream of nearby locations, recommendations, and warnings. As Twitter make these changes, users will start focusing more on discovery, and it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Users will alter their behavior to capture the search queries. The notions of surfacing more advanced trends and audience recirculation present further opportunities. There is so much that can be done in this domain once Twitter has the critical mass of audience and data.

Twitter has a unique opportunity to innovate and create new forms of useful advertising that will truly help both users and advertisers. This was the key to Google’s success and is the key to Twitter’s future. It takes time for advertising to become useful as it requires a significant liquidity of ads. Twitter has to start soon to build up that liquidity in time for the face-off competition for the advertisers. They need for buyers to know they are the go-to place for in-stream advertising. Google is at a big disadvantage at this junction in time. One only needs to set a Google alert to see how latent their Twitter discovery is (I have seen alerts come in for tweets that are 3 days old). Google has not made it a secret that the strategic importance of the real-time web registers with them.

For Twitter to give away the farm (its firehose of Tweets) at this stage is tantamount to suicide and can only be defined as a form of creative laziness. Twitter, you got this far don't get too comfortable with all that money in the bank. Get off your asses and push, you owe it to history. There are so many things you could be doing short of giving up and serving yourself up on a silver platter. If you must do it, if you do sell your data or yourself to Google – make 'em pay, they can afford it. If you give away your data to the majors, they wont need to buy you anyway and if you don't create a solid way to make money, you can’t survive on your own.

Make your own path, and you’ve got it made.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Yammer’s Big Night: Launches Threaded Conversations, Push-Enabled iPhone App, And More

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 10:41 PM PDT

It’s been just under a year since Yammer, the ‘Twitter for businesses’, launched at TechCrunch 50 and won the conference’s top prize. Since then the service has seen steady growth, with over 40,000 networks signed up for the service. It’s also become an absolutely essential tool inside the TechCrunch office, which is why I grew alarmed when I noticed that the service is currently down. But a quick visit to the site’s blog reveals that this was planned downtime, and for good reason: when Yammer comes back up, it will feature a host of impressive features in what may be the service’s biggest update since launch. We got in touch with CEO David Sacks, who outlined what we can expect when the service comes back later tonight.

Some of the new features include:

  • Revamped iPhone App — The big new feature here is Push notifications, which will allow you to get updated whenever you get a message without having to burn through SMS messages. The app also integrates a camera mode for taking photos, improved text entry (you can auto-save drafts and type in landscape mode), and improved performance. The app is currently pending approval in the app store, so we may have to wait a few more days to download it.


  • Likes — Yammer is adopting the feature popularized by Friendfeed and later “borrowed” by Facebook. However, Likes in Yammer aren’t just virtual pats on the back — every time you Like something, it will be shared with everyone in your network, which means that Liked messages grow virally.



  • Threads — You’ll now be able to view messages in a threaded view, in a manner that looks very similar to Facebook, or you can revert back to the Twitter-like stream Yammer has used until now. The stream works fine for small groups, but it can become unwieldly when multiple conversations are going on at once, which makes the threaded view a welcome addition. For now this will be limited to the web version, but the desktop client will support it in the next few weeks.



  • Improved Search — Search has been improved to include a number of advanced options, including limiting searches to a specific user or to coworkers in a certain group.

Other improvements include more security options (you can make passwords automatically expire after a certain time period), a ‘broadcast’ mode for network admins that lets them send a message throughout an entire network, and an improved interface.

All in all this is a great update for Yammer, which continues to improve on an already-solid product. Last month Yammer unveiled a rebuilt client for Adobe AIR, which was also a big improvement over the old app. That said, I could do without AIR’s quirks — I wish Yammer offered some native clients.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

The Truth: What’s Really Going On With Apple, Google, AT&T And The FCC

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 08:52 PM PDT

Apple has responded to the FCC’s request for information around its rejection of various Google and third party iPhone applications for the iPhone.

In short, Apple denies that they rejected the Google Voice application, but they go into great detail about how the Google Voice application hurts “the iPhone's distinctive user experience.” All of those statements are either untrue, or misleading, or both.

The first part of Apple’s argument, that they never rejected the application, is “a total lie,” according to many sources with knowledge of the Google Voice application process.

The second part of Apple’s argument, that the Google Voice application hurts the iPhone’s distinctive user experience, is seriously misleading. I know this because I’ve become intimately familiar with the Google Voice service and applications over the last few months. See here, here, here and here, for example. I haven’t used the Google Voice app for the iPhone specifically, because it never launched. But I have been briefed by the Google team on two separate occasions on how the app would work over the last couple of months. Also, I’ve demo’d the Blackberry version of the app, and now use the Android version of the app.

Here’s the key language from Apple’s letter, with my comments:

Apple: “Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.”

Reality: One third party Google Voice app developer disclosed to us in July that Apple SVP Phil Schiller told them that Google’s own app would be or already was rejected. Google also confirmed this to us later. There is overwhelming evidence that Apple did in fact reject the application.

Apple: “The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone.”

Reality: This strongly suggests that the Google Voice app replaces much of the core Apple iPhone OS function. This certainly isn’t accurate, and we believe the statement is misleading. More details below, but in general the iPhone app is a very light touch and doesn’t interfere with any native iPhone apps at all.

Apple: “For example, on an iPhone, the "Phone" icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple's mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple's Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple's Visual Voicemail.”

Reality: Not true and misleading. The Google Voice application has its own voicemail function, which also transcribes messages. But it only works for incoming Google Voice calls, not calls to the iPhone. The Google Voice app in no way “replaces” Apple’s voicemail function.

Apple: “Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone's text messaging feature.”

Reality: Not true and misleading. The Google Voice app doesn’t replace or in any way interfere wtih the iPhone’s text messaging feature. If someone sends a text message to your Google Voice number, the Google Voice app shows it. If it is sent directly to the iPhone phone number, nothing is different.

Apple: “In addition, the iPhone user's entire Contacts database is transferred to Google's servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.”

Reality: Complete fabrication, way beyond misleading. The Google Voice app can access the iPhone’s contacts database, like thousands of other iPhone apps. But the Google Voice app never syncs the contacts database to their own servers. There is no option for users to do this. However, Apple offers the ability to sync iPhone contacts with Google via iTunes. So not only is Apple’s statement untrue, but they also provide this exact feature themselves via their own service.

So how did Google answer the same question in their own separate letter to the FCC, also made publicly available today? We don’t know, because Google requested that the answer be redacted. But my guess is that the answer, which the FCC has and can compare to Apple’s response, tells a significantly different (approximately the exact opposite) story:

Our sources at Google tell us in no uncertain terms that Apple rejected the application. And we have an independent third party app developer who tells us that an Apple Exec also told them back in July that the Google Voice Application was rejected.

In other words, there is strong evidence that Apple is, well, lying.

Which also is the easiest way to explain Apple’s long rambling letter to the FCC. Why go into so much detail about the problems with the Google Voice application, and then say that it was never rejected? If the app does actually replace all of those core apple phone, contact and SMS features, why not reject it out of hand? I don’t believe anyone would say Apple made the wrong decision if that laundry list of nonsense had any truth to it (we have an answer to that, below).

Multiple sources at Google tell us that in informal discussions with Apple over the last few months Apple expressed dismay at the number of core iPhone apps that are powered by Google. Search, maps, YouTube, and other key popular apps are powered by Google. Other than the browser, Apple has little else to call its own other than the core phone, contacts and calendar features. The Google Voice App takes things one step further, by giving users an incentive to abandon their iPhone phone number and use their Google Voice phone number instead (transcription of voicemails is reason enough alone). Apple was afraid, say our sources, that Google was gaining too much power on the iPhone, and that’s why they rejected the application.

Apple seemed to be fine telling Google and others that the real reason they wouldn’t accept the Google Voice app on the iPhone was a fear of being turned into little more than a hardware manufacturer over time as users spent more and more time on Google Voice and less time on the competing native iPhone apps. Or simply letting people believe that AT&T was behind the rejection. Until the FCC got involved, that is. Then Apple denied the rejections and directed the FCCs attention to misleading or simply untrue factual statements about the App.

Of course, now both Google and AT&T are required to tell their side of the story to the FCC, too. And those stories aren’t adding up.

What Happens Next?

Here’s what we believe Apple is preparing to do next. Their statement that they haven’t rejected the app, along with the long laundry list of complaints (none of which are true) tells us that they’re backtracking, and fast. Sometime soon, we guess, Apple will simply accept the Google Voice application. They have to - any serious investigation into the app by the FCC will show that the complaints around the app are unfounded and that it does none of the things Apple accuses it of doing. So Apple will save face by simply asking Google to ensure that the App doesn’t take over native phone, sms and other functions, and doesn’t sync the contacts to Google’s servers. Google will comply (they already have), and Apple will graciously accept the application.

But we’ll all know exactly where Apple stands - jealously guarding control of their users and trying to block Google and other third party developers at every turn from getting their superior applications in front those users.

This isn’t about protecting users, it’s about controlling them. And that’s not what Apple should be about. Put the users first, Steve, and don’t lie to us. We’re not that dumb.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

StopAutoDM: A Movement to Stop Auto DM’s

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 06:42 PM PDT

Most of us are pretty annoyed with auto direct messages over Twitter. Well, Brent Spore took his thoughts in the public eye. He recently launched StopAutoDM, a movement to end the automatic direct messages. The idea and site are simple; you tweet out with the hash tag #stopautodm and it will show up on the site.

When we spoke to Spore, he mention that he just got “fed up” with all the auto DM’s he was getting, and there needed a way to stop it. Just another side project that means well. Just recently, Twitter changed the format of their direct messages with a new design.

For example, when Spymaster, the Twitter-based game, first came out, they used automatic direct messages which caused user revolt. Since then, the direct messages have been removed. There is still no clue on what Twitter will do to stop the automatic direct messages, but all we can do is hope that everyone ends the madness.

picture-135

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Another News Corp. Digital Exec Departure: Colin Digiaro Resigns From Slingshot Labs

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 05:55 PM PDT

Colin Digiaro, who was a cofounder of MySpace and most recently served as co-President of News Corp. Digital’s new technology incubator Slighshot Labs, has resigned from the company, we’ve heard from multiple sources.

Slingshot Labs, which was created in 2007, was in the news recently. The incubator has been working on, among other things, a new business-focused social network for the Wall Street Journal, another News Corp. asset.

We’ve heard quiet rumors that Digiaro may join former MySpace CEO Chris DeWolfe on a new venture DeWolfe is contemplating, but this hasn’t been confirmed. We reported on that possible new company last month.

Slingshot Labs Co-President Josh Berman, also an original MySpace employee, has dropped the “co” from his title and is now simply President of Slingshot, sources say.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Advertising And User-Targeting Network Lookery Heads To The Deadpool

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 05:44 PM PDT

Lookery, a startup that focuses on collecting demographic data about users and sites around the web and then selling this information to ad networks to target users, is heading to the deadpool. In a blog post, Lookery’s CEO Scott Rafer confirmed that the startup will be shutting its doors after launching in 2007.

Lookery initially started as an ad network for social applications on Facebook, and quickly encountered the troubles of making money off ads on social networks. Lookery ran a promotion for advertisers, offering a guarantee of 12.5 cents per thousand ad impressions (CPMs) in January of 2008. Lookery also made a bold play for ads on traffic from European markets, guaranteeing 25 cents per thousand impressions per advert from European traffic. But things clearly weren’t working out — by July, Lookery was downgrading its guarantee offering 7.5 cents per ad impression, cutting its rates nearly in half.

Although the network served around three billion ad impressions per month, Lookery sold its ad serving business to online advertising network Adknowledge in November of 2008. By that time, Lookery had already branched out into collecting anonymous demographic data from websites and providing this info to advertisers, social networks, dating sites, ISPs, and e-commerce sites.

Lookery raised $3.15 million in angel funding over the past two years, from notable investors and VCs including Charles River Ventures and former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. And the startup managed to raise a round of funding last September, during tough economic conditions. But in his blog post, Rafer wrote that one of the startup’s downfalls was its original dependence on the Facebook platform. Rafer also mentioned that Facebook’s Summer 2008 redesign had a negative effect on the ad network going on to say that in retrospect, he should have sold the ad network much earlier than November.

Lookery has been added to the deadpool.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

App Store Exposed: Notes Of Interest From Apple’s Statement To The FCC

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 03:16 PM PDT

59060621_984ef4d84dNow that all of the letters to the FCC have been filed by Apple, AT&T and Google, we’re more carefully reading them over for interesting details. The Apple letter would seem to have the most interesting information, as it controls the App Store, and has given some new information about it. Here are some interesting tidbits.

On general app rejections:

We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer privacy, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Some types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the App Store, while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games may be approved but with an appropriate age rating. Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it.

On the app approval rate:

95% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.

On the Google Voice rejection:

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail.

Apple has a problem with Google Voice’s phone icon, voicemail functionality and SMS functionality:

Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the "Phone" icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple's mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple's Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple's Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone's text messaging feature.

Apple believes Google Contacts may be a security risk:

In addition, the iPhone user's entire Contacts database is transferred to Google's servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

On a Google Voice web app:

Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple's Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its "Google-branded" user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices.

On AT&T’s role in the Google Voice app rejection:

Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple's decision-making process in this matter.

On Apple’s approval process with regards to its partners:

Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.

But, Apple does reject apps on AT&T’s behalf that are VoIP or streaming video apps (like SlingBox):

There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T's customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

But VoIP apps are okay over WiFi:

Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T's 3G network.

A bit more on rejections:

Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone.

On what takes up most of app reviewers time:

Given the volume and variety of technical issues, most of the review process is consumed with quality issues and software bugs, and providing feedback to developers so they can fix applications.

The number of App Store reviewers:

There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly.

Apple now has an App Store executive review board that meets once a week:

Apple also established an App Store executive review board that determines procedures and sets policy for the review process, as well as reviews applications that are escalated to the board because they raise new or complex issues. The review board meets weekly and is comprised of senior management with responsibilities for the App Store.

On the amount of applications that get submitted:

We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.

All of this information sheds some light on the mystery that has been the App Store. As we’ve noted, the approval process has seemed to improve since Senior VP Phil Schiller got personally involved. It seems likely that he’s on or even leading this App Store executive review team, though Apple doesn’t say that.

[photo: flickr/muffet]

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Google’s Response To The FCC

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 02:28 PM PDT

And here’s the third piece of the puzzle: Google’s response to the FCC. The document includes a description of Google Voice, why a native application would be beneficial, and how many other apps Google has pending with Apple (none). There is one section redacted, pertaining to the conversations Google had with Apple over the Google Voice ban. Also see AT&T’s response and Apple’s Response, in which both companies deny any wrongdoing, and AT&T denies any involvement at all.

Google Response to FCC

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Apple’s Response To The FCC: We Didn’t Reject The Google Voice App, We’re Still Looking At It

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 02:25 PM PDT

screen-shot-2009-08-21-at-23158-pmApple has responded to our request for a follow-up on AT&T’s statement to the FCC. Of note, Apple is saying that it hasn’t actually rejected the Google Voice app, but that it didn’t accept the version submitted because it was too similar to the iPhone’s functionality. Here’s the key blurb:

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail.

Here’s another key part:

Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple's decision-making process in this matter.

But the same is not true for streaming TV app or VoIP apps (which Google Voice is not), which Apple does reject on AT&T’s behalf:

There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T's customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

Here’s the full statement, warning, this is long.

Today Apple filed with the FCC the following answers to their questions.

We are pleased to respond to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's inquiry dated July 31, 2009, requesting information regarding Apple's App Store and its application approval process. In order to give the Bureau some context for our responses, we begin with some background information about the iPhone and the App Store.

Apple's goal is to provide our customers with the best possible user experience. We have been able to do this by designing the hardware and software in our products to work together seamlessly. The iPhone is a great example of this. It has established a new standard for what a mobile device can be—an integrated device with a phone, a full web browser, HTML email, an iPod, and more, all delivered with Apple's revolutionary multi-touch user interface.

Apple then introduced something altogether new—the App Store—to give consumers additional functionality and benefits from the iPhone's revolutionary technology. The App Store has been more successful than anyone could have ever imagined. Today, just over a year since opening, the App Store offers over 65,000 iPhone applications, and customers have downloaded over 1.5 billion applications.

The App Store provides a frictionless distribution network that levels the playing field for individual and large developers of mobile applications. We provide every developer with the same software that we use to create our own iPhone applications. The App Store offers an innovative business model that allows developers to set their own price and keep more (far more in most cases) of the revenue than traditional business models. In little more than a year, we have raised the bar for consumers' rich mobile experience beyond what we or anyone else ever imagined in both scale and quality. Apple's innovation has also fostered competition as other companies (e.g., Nokia, Microsoft, RIM, Palm and Verizon) seek to develop their own mobile platforms and launch their own application stores.

Apple works with network providers around the world so that iPhone users have access to a cellular network. In the United States, we struck a groundbreaking deal with AT&T in 2006 that gives Apple the freedom to decide which software to make available for the iPhone. This was an industry first.

We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer privacy, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Some types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the App Store, while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games may be approved but with an appropriate age rating. Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.

We're covering new ground and doing things that had never been done before. Many of the issues we face are difficult and new, and while we may make occasional mistakes, we try to learn from them and continually improve.

In response to your specific questions, we would like to offer the following:

Question 1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the "Phone" icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple's mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple's Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple's Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone's text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user's entire Contacts database is transferred to Google's servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

The following applications also fall into this category.

* Name: GVDialer / GVDialer Lite
Developer: MobileMax
info@mobile-mx.com
* Name: VoiceCentral
Developer: Riverturn, Inc.
4819 Emperor Blvd., Suite 400
Durham, NC 27703
* Name: GV Mobile / GV Mobile Free
Developer: Sean Kovacs
sean@seankovacs.com

We are continuing to study the Google Voice application and its potential impact on the iPhone user experience. Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple's Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its "Google-branded" user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices.

Question 2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple's decision in this matter?
Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple's decision-making process in this matter.

Question 3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?

Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.

There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T's customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T's 3G network?

Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T's 3G network.

Question 5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?

In a little more than a year, the App Store has grown to become the world's largest wireless applications store, with over 65,000 applications. We've rejected applications for a variety of reasons. Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Given the volume and variety of technical issues, most of the review process is consumed with quality issues and software bugs, and providing feedback to developers so they can fix applications. Applications that are fixed and resubmitted are approved.

The following is a list of representative applications that have been rejected as originally submitted and their current status:

* Twittelator, by Stone Design Corp., was initially rejected because it crashed during loading, but the developer subsequently fixed the application and it has been approved;
* iLoveWiFi!, by iCloseBy LLC, was rejected because it used undocumented application protocols (it has not been resubmitted as of the date of this letter);
* SlingPlayer Mobile, by Sling Media, was initially rejected because redirecting a TV signal to an iPhone using AT&T's cellular network is prohibited by AT&T's customer Terms of Service, but the developer subsequently fixed the application to use WiFi only and it has been approved; and
* Lingerie Fantasy Video (Lite), by On The Go Girls, LLC, was initially rejected because it displayed nudity and explicit sexual content, but the developer subsequently fixed the application and it has been approved with the use of a 17+ age rating.

Apple provides explicit language in its agreement with iPhone developers regarding prohibited categories of applications, for example:

* "Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory; and
* Applications must not contain any malware, malicious or harmful code, program, or other internal component (e.g. computer viruses, trojan horses, 'backdoors') which could damage, destroy, or adversely affect other software, firmware, hardware, data, systems, services, or networks."

And we also provide a reference library that can be accessed by members of the iPhone Developer Program that lists helpful information such as Best Practices and How To Get Started.

Question 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

As discussed in the response to Question 5, Apple provides guidelines to developers in our developer agreement as well as on its web site regarding prohibited categories of applications. These materials also contain numerous other provisions regarding technical and legal requirements that applications must comply with, and Apple uses these standards in considering whether or not to approve applications.

Apple developed a comprehensive review process that looks at every iPhone application that is submitted to Apple. Applications and marketing text are submitted through a web interface. Submitted applications undergo a rigorous review process that tests for vulnerabilities such as software bugs, instability on the iPhone platform, and the use of unauthorized protocols. Applications are also reviewed to try to prevent privacy issues, safeguard children from exposure to inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly. Apple also established an App Store executive review board that determines procedures and sets policy for the review process, as well as reviews applications that are escalated to the board because they raise new or complex issues. The review board meets weekly and is comprised of senior management with responsibilities for the App Store. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of being submitted.

If we find that an application has a problem, for example, a software bug that crashes the application, we send the developer a note describing the reason why the application will not be approved as submitted. In many cases we are able to provide specific guidance about how the developer can fix the application. We also let them know they can contact the app review team or technical support, or they can write to us for further guidance.

Apple generally spends most of the review period making sure that the applications function properly, and working with developers to fix quality issues and software bugs in applications. We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.

[photo: flickr/leoncillo sabino]

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

AT&T To FCC: We Did Not Block The Google Voice App On The iPhone

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 02:01 PM PDT

1510724_a3e146557dHere it is, AT&T’s statement on what they sent to the FCC regarding the rejection of the Google Voice app on the iPhone. As you can see, unlike last time where the statement was vague, AT&T is clearly stating here that it had nothing to do with the Google Voice rejection. This wording comes from Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president, external and legislative affairs. Updated with the full AT&T response to the FCC

Below that, find the full document AT&T sent to the FCC responding to its questions.

We’re reaching out to Apple on this right now and will update.

AT&T Statement on Letter to the FCC Regarding Apple App Store

WASHINGTON, DC – On July 31, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued letters to Apple, AT&T and Google with a series of questions about the Google Voice app and Apple's App Store approval process. AT&T today responded to the questions raised in the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau letter. The following statement may be attributed to Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president, external and legislative affairs:

"We appreciate the opportunity to clear up misconceptions related to an application Google submitted to Apple for inclusion in the Apple App Store. We fully support the FCC's goal of getting the facts and data necessary to inform its policymaking.

"To that end, let me state unequivocally, AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store. AT&T was not asked about the matter by Apple at any time, nor did we offer any view one way or the other.

"AT&T does not block consumers from accessing any lawful website on the Internet. Consumers can download or launch a multitude of compatible applications directly from the Internet, including Google Voice, through any web-enabled wireless device. As a result, any AT&T customer may access and use Google Voice on any web-enabled device operating on AT&T's network, including the iPhone, by launching the application through their web browser, without the need to use the Apple App Store."

Here’s the full document:
[photo: flickr/peter kaminski]

ATT Response to FCC iPhone Letter 082109 as Filed

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Google: We Never Blocked Skype From Android

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 02:00 PM PDT

We’re all waiting with bated breath for the results of an FCC inquiry that’s currently investigating why Apple has banned Google Voice from its App Store — each company is due to submit their answers to the FCC today, and Google may well be the only company to emerge without egg on its face.

But this morning USA Todayprinted an article that cast doubt Google’s supposedly benevolent and open approach to mobile software. The article alleges that Google has blocked a full version of Skype from its Android platform, instructing the company to build a new version that didn’t have full VoIP capabilities — a move that sounds ridiculous after the Google Voice/Apple fiasco. But it looks like USA Today’s story may be misleading.

From the USA today piece:

Consumers who use Android, the Google-developed operating system for wireless devices, can’t use Skype, a leading Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. A pioneer in free Internet calling, Skype allows you to talk as long as you want without draining cellphone minutes.

Android users get Skype Lite, a watered-down version of the original that routes calls over traditional phone networks — not the Internet. As a result, long-distance calls are still cheap or free, but cellphone minutes are gobbled up every time a Skype Lite call is made.

Ben Scott, public policy director of Free Press, a consumer advocacy group, says Google “is in an awkward spot. On the one hand, their application is being blocked on the Apple App Store. But on the other hand, they engaged in similar behavior” with Skype.

So did Google really block a VoIP app at a carrier’s request, or perhaps on its own accord? The truth, according to Andy Rubin, Google’s VP of Mobile Platforms, is much less sinister: earlier versions of Android didn’t support Skype because of technological shortcomings, but subsequent software updates have enabled full VoIP solutions. From Rubin’s blog post on Google’s Public Policy Blog:

“Here are the facts, clear and simple: While the first generation of our Android software did not support full-featured VoIP applications due to technology limitations, we have worked through those limitations in subsequent versions of Android, and developers are now able to build and upload VoIP services….

As we told USA Today earlier in the week Google did not reject an application from Skype or from any other company that provides VoIP services. To suggest otherwise is false. At this point no software developer — including Skype — has implemented a complete VoIP application for Android. But we’re excited to see — and use — these applications when they’re submitted, because they often provide more choice and options for users. We also look forward to the day when consumers can access any application, including VoIP apps, from any device, on any network.”

Also worth noting: even if Google did block an application from the Android Marketplace, users could still download apps elsewhere because Android isn’t a closed platform. We’re following up with Skype and Google to get more details.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

The Personas Project From MIT Is All Kinds Of Cool

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 01:17 PM PDT

screen-shot-2009-08-21-at-10318-pm

Go here and put your name in the box. Just do it. It’s awesome.

The project, called Personas, comes from the MIT Media Lab built by Aaron Zinman. Basically, it takes your name and searches the web for some context around it. It then takes the words and sites it finds to build a profile of your presence on the web. Or in MIT-speak using words like “corpus”:

Enter your name, and Personas scours the web for information and attempts to characterize the person - to fit them to a predetermined set of categories that an algorithmic process created from a massive corpus of data. The computational process is visualized with each stage of the analysis, finally resulting in the presentation of a seemingly authoritative personal profile.

Simply put, Personas represents the way the web sees you (or more specifically, your name). Of course, if someone has the same name as you, the results will vary, but for someone with a name like mine, it works very well. Basically, it says that “online” dominates my life, while I’m also associated with sports and books. Not really sure about the books part, but I am really into movies, perhaps it mistook some of my talk about a certain movie for me talking about the corresponding book (but there is a movies section as well).

But the process of it scouring the web for you name is probably actually cooler than the result. Watch it in action in the video below.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Indeed Now Gets The Most Pageviews For Job Searches In The U.S.

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 12:56 PM PDT

With the unemployment rate still above 9 percent, a lot of people are hitting the job boards. One set of companies that are growing under these conditions, at least in terms of Website traffic, are the job search engines. But the one that seems to be growing the fastest is Indeed. In July, Monster’s job search engine was up 33 percent in U.S. pageviews, CareerBuilders’ was up 56 percent, and Indeed’s was up 90 percent (comScore).

Not only is Indeed the fastest growing job search engine it is also now the largest in terms of pageviews. In July, it passed CareerBuilder, with 171 million pageviews in the U.S. versus 159 million for CareerBuilder. Yahoo’s HotJobs had 96 million (which Yahoo is reportedly abandoning), Monster had 73 million, and SimplyHired trailed far behind with 26 million.

In terms of unique visitors, CareerBuilder is still larger with 10.1 million in July versus 8.7 million for Indeed, which is No. 2. But Indeed is growing faster in that metric as well (up 76 percent versus 19 percent for CareerBuilder).

All of these numbers are for the core job search at each site, and do not include other parts of their sites such as resumes, advice, or career tools.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Toobla Takes Over Where Ma.gnolia Left Off

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 12:40 PM PDT

toobla-screenshot2Toobla.

Say it five times fast. Tooblatooblatooblatooblatoobla. There, that was easy wasn’t it. No? It wasn’t easy, you say? Well, repeating the memorable name is the hardest part about using this nifty new visual bookmarking/content sharing web site whose public beta comes to you September 14, straight outta my home town in the heart of “Sili-Corn Valley”—Columbus, OH.

Toobla.com, initially at least, has two main functions: collecting linked content and sharing it with others, visually. In my brief beta test of the site it accomplishes these tasks very well. I know what you are thinking…whoop-dee-doo, there are a million ways to share content these days, right? Probably too many? (YALST—yet another link sharing tool). There most definitely are, but Toobla has a bit of a different paradigm for organizing collected content and it’s worth mentioning it twice—it collects content visually.

Note: Toobla was in the DemoPit of TC50 in 2008

Although somewhat similar to visual book-marker Evernote and visual browser Cooliris, Toobla is simpler conceptually in that there is very little set up required at an account level in order to get started. It is intuitive—you look at the site and just know what to do. I think this is because it uses a familiar “folder” motif for saving thumbnails of web content (whole pages, individual movie clips, links, images). Once collected, you can then share whole folders of content with others, via shortened URL, or by embedding the folder into any website as a widget. The quick, casual nature of this collection method is facilitated through the site’s convenient “bookmarklet” that is a cinch for working quickly and I think that must be Toobla’s main advantage—it really makes it easy to “bookmark first, evaluate later”. That works well for a person like me (who keeps everything of recent importance on the computer desktop).

You can share all sorts of things including little Flash games, widgets, and multimedia. Think of it as an embeddable locker of sorts.

But don’t take my word for it; give it a try! Toobla has made pre-launch accounts available for 1000 lucky CrunchGear/TechCrunch readers. Get signed up by clicking here.

But there is more planned for the public beta launch like implementing Facebook Connect technology and tight integration with Facebook’s activity feed. The service is already integrated with twitter. But there are still even more plans that we will come back to in the near future as I think these guys are really onto something! Stay tuned.

Toobla consists of founder Jake Saxbe, CEO and former Digg VP Brian Link, lead developer Matt Yoho, developer Mike Busch and intern developer Tony Schneider.

By the way, here is a folder of content I have shared as a widget. You can see how a Toobla folder can be a quick snapshot, representing whatever online content you are thinking about at a specific time. In my case it was The Pixies among other things. I noticed a few issues with the widget pop up window (*update - namely that it is not really working right now), but its important to note, this is still in beta. You can see the promise of the technology.

-Jay


CrunchBase Information
Toobla
Information provided by CrunchBase

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Gmail Tasks Become Shareable

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 12:25 PM PDT

The folks at Gmail always seem to be adding new features that help you organize your life. And the innovation seems to be paying off. Gmail is now the third largest Web mail service in the U.S, nudging past AOL Email with 37 million unique visitors compared to 36.4 million for AOL in July, according to comScore estimates. Today, Gmail has added a small, yet useful addition to its Tasks feature: the ability to email your tasks.

“Email Task List” is now being rolled out as an option under the ‘Actions” tab under Tasks. When you click on “Email Task List” it will open compose email window with the contents of your current task list. You can send your current task lasts or completed task lists to anyone.

Though minor in comparison to other features added to Gmail, the ability to email your Task list can be particularly useful to share both work-related and personal to-do list. But really, shouldn’t every Gmail feature have an email feature from the get-go?

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Begun, The Phone Wars Have (soon) (humor)

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 11:46 AM PDT

Readers who follow us regularly know that MG Siegler and I have a difference of opinion when it comes to phones. He’s an iPhone guy, I’m now an Android man.

Our verbal jousts to date have been in good fun, but there is an undertone of seriousness that needs to be resolved, one way or another. Now we have that way.

More to come. Thanks to YouRenew for so generously making these for us. I hope you don’t expect them back.

p.s. - from left to right in the video is intern David Diaz (HTC Hero), research analyst Daniel Levine (iphone, segway) and intern Cameron Christoffers (HTC Magic/G2). Interesting sidenote - Cameron and David are college buddies, and when they hit on girls they introduce themselves as “Cameron Diaz.” Whatever else you say about our interns, they are never dull. Catch them on the CrunchCam, they’re here all summer.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Flickr Shuts Down Forum Discussion On Obama-Joker Image

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 10:51 AM PDT

Oh, this just gets better and better. Or perhaps sadder and sadder.

In a post earlier this morning we discussed Flickr’s questionable decision to remove a photoshopped image of President Obama that makes him look like the Heath Ledger (Joker) character from The Dark Knight. In that post we quoted Flickr's director of community Heather Champ who said "We very much value freedom of speech and creativity” in an explanation about why the image was removed from Flickr. We called B.S.

Now Flickr has shut off further comments on that forum post, which was most definitely not headed in a pro-Flickr direction. In his message shutting off the discussion, Zack Sheppard reiterates how important political discussion is to Flickr:

Political discussions and expression are definitely allowed here on Flickr. We don’t want to squelch political discussion, but if something is in violation of the Community Guidelines or copyright law and it’s reported, it will be taken down whether it’s a kitten, a sunset, or something political.

It looks like this thread has devolved into antics and gone off the rails so I’m shutting it down. The OPs question has been answered here. This image was removed because the Yahoo! Copyright Team received a complete Notice of Infringement.

This is fantastically absurd. Yahoo is quite literally trumpeting that they support political discussion in the very message they are sending to close down a political discussion.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Yelp Launches Bing-Powered Blackberry App

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 10:42 AM PDT

We’ve written about the many iterations of Yelp’s iPhone app and today, Yelp has broadened its mobile horizons by launching the much awaited Blackberry Yelp app. You can download it here.

Similar to the iPhone app, the Blackberry app uses location-aware technology to determine your current location and will then let you search for nearby businesses, read reviews and access a moveable map, which is powered by Bing rather than Google. This is interesting considering the maps feature on the iPhone app is powered by Google Maps. Yelp says that Bing was used because the search engine provided map tile access, which was essential for movable maps on the app.

The app lets you zoom in and out on a location and then change your search based on that geographic area. Yelp says the Blackberry app works in the US, Canada and the UK (which is everywhere Yelp is available).

A spokeswoman for Yelp told us that the Blackberry app doesn’t have as many bells and whistles as the current version of the iPhone app. It appears that this version of the app is most similar to the version 1 of the iPhone app. Yelp says that the Blackberry app will continue to be updated with new features in the future.

As we’ve said in the past, Yelp keeps rolling out new iPhone apps with powerful and noteworthy features. In April, they released Version 2 and added the ability for users to leave reviews on local businesses, giving people the ability to post reviews directly from their iPhone.

Version 3, which we wrote about a few weeks ago, adds a few more compelling features, including a "Sales And Offers Near You" feature which lets users find deals that are physically close to them. You can sort by distance (in blocks), price, whether the business is open right then, or by neighborhood. Businesses can add special offers for free on their business page.

Yelp has made a strong move in the mobile space, and this latest app is representative of its ambitions to broaden its horizons. Perhaps an Android app is next?

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

What Exactly Do 1.6 Billion Retweet Buttons Get You? About 6 Million Actual Retweets.

Posted: 21 Aug 2009 09:32 AM PDT

If you look at the top right hand corner of any blog post on TechCrunch, you will see both the number of comments on it and the number of times it’s been retweeted (linked to and passed around on Twitter). Usually the retweet number is bigger than the number of comments because it is much easier to do. It counts as a vote for that post inasmuch as a passed link can be construed as a reader recommendation. Everyone who retweets a link is in effect recommending it to all of their followers, and it can help to drive traffic back to the original post. At least that is the theory.

But how many retweet buttons are actually out there and how many people click on them? When it comes to the spread of the buttons themselves, TweetMeme offered some stats today showing that its retweet buttons are now getting 1.6 billion impressions a month. That number has quadrupled in the past two months alone. New retweet market entrants have a lot of catching up to do. And Just wait until retweet buttons start appearing on individual comments as well.

What that means, however, is just that the buttons are appearing on blog posts and articles which collectively are viewed 1.6 billion times a month, not that they are clicked on that many times. I asked Tweetmeme founder Nick Halstead how many actual retweets do those buttons produce. He doesn’t have exact numbers for that yet, but his best guesstimate is 200,000 a day, or 6 million a month. That translates into a paltry 0.375 percent click-through rate.

There are a few caveats about this number. It doesn’t count people who click on the retweet button who are not members of Twitter. It only counts the overlap. So the actual number of clicks is no doubt higher. In fact, on the retweet button in RSS feeds and for people who are already logged into Twitter (which TweetMeme can measure), the click-through rate is 1 percent. But the vast majority of impressions are for people who are not logged in. So the real click-through rate is somewhere in between 0.375 percent and 1 percent.

The other thing to remember is that it can take fewer retweets to make an article go viral than, say, Diggs. Depending on how many followers each retweeter has and how many actually click on the link, a few retweets can be all it takes to drive a ton of people to that blog post. Twitter certainly drives a lot of traffic to TechCrunch, but we don’t really know how much of that is due to retweets.

TweetMeme is working on giving Websites who use its retweet button better insight into downstream traffic. Halstead also revealed that it is going to release an analytics service which measures traffic coming from retweets. He’d better hurry up with that before Twitter itself beats him to the punch.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

CrunchyTech

Blog Archive