Live @ Sax.net

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Trade Commission is spending more time investigating Google’s acquisition of Admob. Why on earth is the FTC investigating mobile advertising, one of the fastest growing and most competitive markets in today’s economy?

A few weeks ago I received a subpoena from the FTC to come and testify in Washington DC and share my experience with advertising in mobile applications. I have spent a good bit of time explaining to the FTC why this acquisition isn’t a problem and will actually benefit app publishers.

Many of Sax.net’s iPhone apps are ad-supported, and we’ve been using a variety of ad-networks, including AdMob, Google Adsense, and Quattro Wireless. Using Adwhirl and some in-house technology it’s very easy to monitor the results of different networks and switch in real-time to the one that yields the highest return. Other solutions, like Mobclix, provide similar technology, putting different ad networks in the most direct competition against each other.

How could there be a competitive problem in a market where customers can constantly compare results and completely switch to a different vendor in a matter of minutes? Google’s acquisition of Admob and Apple’s acquisition of Quattro Wireless are signs that the market is heating up. This is the type of competition the FTC should encourage.

To compete beyond price, ad networks are developing innovative new ways to yield higher returns and make their ads more appealing to consumers: Apple iAd focuses on making ads more emotional, Quattro and Admob have built highly interactive ads, and Google Adsense uses keyword targeting to make ads more relevant.

Meanwhile new players, many of them venture-funded, appear in this market on an almost monthly basis. Does this seem like a market that needs help from the Federal Trade Commission right now?

This reminds me of the movie Minority Report, where Washington DC-based law enforcement officers arrest people to stop possible murders before they happen. Is the FTC concerned that some day one of the players involved in mobile advertising might become the leader in serving engaging ads that consumers love? Is the role of the FTC really to prevent future success?

I’ve seen the future and it is murder. Who’s the victim? Your PC.

Let me explain:

Windows 7 Phone Series is clearly awesome.

It’s well designed and easy to develop for. Most importantly, it creates accountability for the user experience: you’ll know exactly which application is culpable if speed or battery life go down. With a tap or two you’ll completely obliterate the guilty app from your device. Both adding and removing apps and content is simple, quick, and risk-free. The UI is simple, modern and consistent.

The iPad is clearly awesome.

An affordable device that feels luxurious and lets you do everything that’s important to you related to words, music, pictures, and video. The iPad will become at least as popular as the iPhone. It’ll be a new platform for apps and content to thrive on.

A Tablet edition of Windows 7 Phone Series is inevitable.

It’s super easy for Microsoft to do this, and OEM partners will be begging for it. Because of the way the OS is designed, all the troubles that plague users of regular Windows will just vanish. The result will be a device that is so much better than any PC in everything that matters: faster, safer, dramatically more battery life, with a beautiful and consistent UI. Also, easier to support for carriers and manufacturers. It will kill the PC.

The new application platform will be something much simpler than a traditional PC. In many ways, the current PC is still a hobby device: you have to become an expert (or hire one) to simply use and maintain it. The iPad and the Windows Phone Series tablets will change that.

This change will have several important implications:

The app is the new website

The iPhone appstore has proven that people love apps if they can trust them. There will be literally millions of apps, they’ll all be free or very cheap. And like websites, lots of them will be terrible, and some will become indispensable.

Apps and content will blend.

Books, magazines, and movies. They’re all coming to life. Books are becoming interactive. Movies become games. Even radio shows (like This American Life) are turning into apps. Newspapers, magazines, and news TV networks are reinventing themselves. This is all happening because apps have become as easy and safe to install (and remove) as content.

A big gatekeeper battle is looming.

iTunes, Amazon Kindle, Windows Store, studios, publishers, and all the phone carriers will be waging an epic battle for a piece of the app/content pie. This is where Microsoft has an edge over Apple. Remember the All Things D interview where Jobs said he admired Microsoft’s ability to partner and wished Apple had that more in their DNA? He was right, and it’s still true. While Apple will continue to have a mostly adversarial relationship with many of its business partners, Microsoft will figure out a way for everyone in their eco-system to make money.

Forget Android and Chromium.

Google will never be dominant as a platform company. Android has many of the problems of desktop Windows and without apps Chromium offers too little. There’s no room for a #3 in a drag race. Google will continue to be enormously successful is its core business as a match maker between people, information, and merchants. RIM/Blackberry is the wild card.

This trend is unstoppable. The era of tinkering will soon be over. Computing is for techies. Personal computing is dead. From now on, it’s purely personal.

Six months ago I shared how less could be more with Google ChromeOS. The exact same ideas apply to Apple’s rumored tablet:

Well, let’s think about this for a second. How could less be more? The five main opportunities for user value that come to mind are battery life, security, robustness, user experience, and cost.

What if you could triple battery life?

The iPhone has excellent battery life because Apple doesn’t allow third party background process, and because the device has built-in hardware decoding components for the most popular audio and video codecs.

If you control the entire OS there’s an opportunity to optimize power consumption to a level that isn’t possible with a more generic OS. In a regular OS, apps simply have too much freedom to hog the system’s resources.

What if security was simply not an issue?

Because apps have very limited powers, there’s very little damage an app can do to your system. When you think about it, the kind of power you give perfect strangers when you install an application on a traditional OS is insane. Unless you use Google Chrome OS Apple’s Mobile OS, you are always one click away from identity total theft or the complete demolition of all your data.

What if nothing could freeze or slow down your computer?

Do you remember the snappy feeling you had when you did a fresh install on your computer? Everyone accepts that systems tend to slow down over time, as you install more software. In a traditional OS, because applications have so much power, they are able to slow down your computer (or drain your battery) at will. While the web still has the possibility of run-away scripts, the ability of a single app to cause damage or bloat is severely limited.

What if everything was as easy to use as Amazon?

People care about their stuff. They don’t care about file systems, shortcuts, installers, upgrades, turning your computer on/off, and other old-fashioned concepts. These concepts don’t add any real value to the user experience, so why not remove a layer of complexity and bring people directly to their data?

What if you could have everything you want for free?

Removing layers of software reduces the cost of the hardware. Being able to use specialized hardware decoding chips lets you use cheaper components that provide a much better user experience. Carriers will love Google Chrome devices the Apple Tablet because they’ll be very easy to support and they’re a perfect match for always-on network services. With over one billion phones being sold every year, a device that does a better job of running web apps and playing web media than any low-cost laptop may prove irresistible if it’s free.

I believe there’s a real opportunity here for Google Apple to build a new platform. If you cut out all the legacy support and you focus solely on what people care about, people will, with absolute certainty, fall in love with what you’ve built. I hope they get it right.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. (The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

The first paragraph in an article from today’s Financial Times:

” Microsoft has had discussions with News Corp over a plan that would involve the media company’s being paid to “de-index” its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry. “

Nobody is paying anyone to de-index anything.

What really happened was that Murdoch said “Hey, Google is making money off our WSJ news content. They better start paying or we’ll block them.” Google doesn’t want to pay because if they start paying the WSJ they have to start paying everyone.

If Microsoft offers the WSJ payment for letting customers search their content, they’re just trying to make Bing a better product. It’s pro-competitive, not anti-competitive. Yet for some reason the Financial Times, a WSJ competitor, is spinning this as if Microsoft is paying the WSJ to exclude Google.

Murdoch is blazing the path to give newspapers a revenue model that may allow them to survive. If Bing and the WSJ make a search deal, Google’s stock will fall because the free party will be over. Newspaper company stocks will start rising because their papers may have a future again.

Interesting Times! (only a little bit of pun intended)

The recent expulsion of Google Voice related apps, as well as Apple’s denial of Google Latitude as a native app reminded me of the Gates/Jobs interview at All Things D last year. Gates and Jobs were asked what they had learned about running their own business that they wished they had thought of sooner or thought of first by watching the other guy. Here’s Steve’s response:

You know, because Woz and I started the company based on doing the whole banana, we weren’t so good at partnering with people. And, you know, actually, the funny thing is, Microsoft’s one of the few companies we were able to partner with that actually worked for both companies. And we weren’t so good at that, where Bill and Microsoft were really good at it because they didn’t make the whole thing in the early days and they learned how to partner with people really well.

And I think if Apple could have had a little more of that in its DNA, it would have served it extremely well. And I don’t think Apple learned that until, you know, a few decades later.

Apple’s recent struggles with Google and AT&T, along with the poor treatment of some of its most valuable smaller partners have made it clear that Steve’s insight is still painfully relevant.

Nearly every opinion I’ve read about Google Chrome OS has been negative. The predominant thinking is that if a perfectly capable light-weight version of Linux is already available for free, why would you want an OS that can’t run any apps?

Well, let’s think about this for a second. How could less be more? The five main opportunities for user value that come to mind are battery life, security, robustness, user experience, and cost.

What if you could triple battery life?

The iPhone has excellent battery life because Apple doesn’t allow third party background process, and because the device has built-in hardware decoding components for the most popular audio and video codecs.

If you control the entire OS there’s an opportunity to optimize power consumption to a level that isn’t possible with a more generic OS. In a regular OS, apps simply have too much freedom to hog the system’s resources.

What if security was simply not an issue?

Because apps have very limited powers, there’s very little damage an app can do to your system. When you think about it, the kind of power you give perfect strangers when you install an application on a traditional OS is insane. Unless you use Google Chrome OS, you are always one click away from identity total theft or the complete demolition of all your data.

What if nothing could freeze or slow down your computer?

Do you remember the snappy feeling you had when you did a fresh install on your computer? Everyone accepts that systems tend to slow down over time, as you install more software. In a traditional OS, because applications have so much power, they are able to slow down your computer (or drain your battery) at will. While the web still has the possibility of run-away scripts, the ability of a single app to cause damage or bloat is severely limited.

What if everything was as easy to use as Amazon?

People care about their stuff. They don’t care about file systems, shortcuts, installers, upgrades, turning your computer on/off, and other old-fashioned concepts. These concepts don’t add any real value to the user experience, so why not remove a layer of complexity and bring people directly to their data?

What if you could have everything you want for free?

Removing layers of software reduces the cost of the hardware. Being able to use specialized hardware decoding chips lets you use cheaper components that provide a much better user experience. Carriers will love Google Chrome devices because they’ll be very easy to support and they’re a perfect match for always-on network services. With over one billion phones being sold every year, a device that does a better job of running web apps and playing web media than any low-cost laptop may prove irresistible if it’s free.

I believe there’s a real opportunity here for Google to build a new platform. If you cut out all the legacy support and you focus solely on what people care about, people will, with absolute certainty, fall in love with what you’ve built. I hope they get it right.