google - What We're Reading - StockBuz2024-03-28T16:25:58Zhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/feed/tag/googleOut with the Old In with the New: What Chat GPT Means for Youhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new-what-chat-gpt-means-for-you2024-02-19T18:35:34.000Z2024-02-19T18:35:34.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><div class="fusion-fullwidth fullwidth-box fusion-builder-row-5-1 fusion-flex-container nonhundred-percent-fullwidth non-hundred-percent-height-scrolling">
<div class="fusion-builder-row fusion-row fusion-flex-align-items-flex-start fusion-flex-content-wrap" style="max-width:1248px;">
<div class="fusion-layout-column fusion_builder_column fusion-builder-column-10 fusion_builder_column_1_1 1_1 fusion-flex-column fusion-flex-align-self-flex-start">
<div class="fusion-column-wrapper fusion-column-has-shadow fusion-flex-justify-content-flex-start fusion-content-layout-column">
<div class="fusion-text fusion-text-5">
<div class="fusion-fullwidth fullwidth-box fusion-builder-row-5-1 fusion-flex-container nonhundred-percent-fullwidth non-hundred-percent-height-scrolling">
<div class="fusion-builder-row fusion-row fusion-flex-align-items-flex-start fusion-flex-content-wrap" style="max-width:1248px;">
<div class="fusion-layout-column fusion_builder_column fusion-builder-column-10 fusion_builder_column_1_1 1_1 fusion-flex-column fusion-flex-align-self-flex-start">
<div class="fusion-column-wrapper fusion-column-has-shadow fusion-flex-justify-content-flex-start fusion-content-layout-column">
<div class="fusion-text fusion-text-5">
<p><strong>What an Old Idiom & Chat GPT Means for You</strong></p>
<p>Definitions and Generally Accepted Interpretations:</p>
<ol>
<li>Something new is replacing something that is old or out of date<a href="https://englishcomposition.org/out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new-meaning-and-examples-of-this-common-english-phrase/"><sup>[i]</sup></a>,<a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-the-phrase-out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new"><sup>[ii]</sup></a></li>
<li>Life improves by replacing old things with new things.</li>
<li>To discard older, legacy technologies or ideas, with new and improved technologies or ideas<a href="http://idioms.languagesystems.edu/2015/01/out-with-old-in-with-new.html"><sup>[iii]</sup></a></li>
</ol>
<p> </p>
<h2 class="fusion-responsive-typography-calculated" style="line-height:2.5;"><u>Out With Old In With New: Good for You</u></h2>
<p>The history books are quite clear on the matter: over the long arc of human history, life has improved. Generally speaking “out with old, in with new” has helped human beings live longer, healthier and safer lives. As recently as 1900, average life expectancy in the US was barely 48 years. By 2020 the number had jumped to 79 years.<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/"><sup>[iv]</sup></a> Progress.</p>
<p>The folks dedicated to technology deserve a great deal of credit for these improvements. Their achievements are invaluable. What I want to do is make the case we have been making for the last three years: that disruption is the normal state of affairs in technology.</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"> </p>
<p>While good for <strong>you, as a person, </strong>out with the old and in with the new is terrible for technology companies. This is why it is such a brutal space to invest in. Don’t believe us? Look back at our <a href="https://kailashconcepts.com/investing-in-staples-made-simple/">chart comparing Staples to IT</a>. “Disruptors get disrupted” is the law of the land and a critical component of Schumpter’s “creative destruction.”</p>
<p>The bloated weighting of technology in indexes and the rise of funds dedicated to investing in <span style="text-decoration:line-through;">utter rubbish</span> new age tech, that is an anomaly. It is not normal. As we explained in <a href="https://kailashconcepts.com/apple-ii-flashback-the-fantasy-of-predicting-the-future/">Apple II Flashback the Fantasy of Predicting the Future</a>, divining <a href="https://kailashconcepts.com/white-papers/who-is-the-next-amazon-this-post-will-change-your-life/">who is the next Amazon</a> is empirically impossible. All you need to know is that <strong><em>the “next Amazon” is, indeed, coming. </em></strong> In October 2020 we warned that the current crop of purportedly impossible to displace tech juggernauts were little more than a reprise of the <a href="https://kailashconcepts.com/white-papers/the-collision-of-arithmetic-over-optimism-why-todays-larger-cap-growth-is-more-precarious-than-the-nifty-fifty/">Nifty Fifty</a>. As that paper explained, in many ways the firms then were cheaper and perceived to have substantially better moats than today’s winners.</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/msingh_nyc">Mandeep Singh</a>, Bloomberg’s TMT Lead and Senior Equity Research Analyst recently published a fantastic article on some of ChatGPT’s puts and takes. We believe this is but one tiny snapshot of the many disruptions taking place among the much-lauded disruptors.</p>
<p>Titled <em>“ChatGPT Aids AI Accelerator Spend, Search Impact Low” </em>they focused primarily on the potential for the technology to ramp up replacement cycles for devices and the implications for server and cloud infrastructure spend. But the piece did highlight issues that may slow ChatGPT adoption and suggest it is unlikely to alter the search landscape.</p>
<p><img class="aligncenter wp-image-245483 size-full" title="ChatGBT" src="https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=691%2C324&ssl=1" alt="ChatGBT.png?resize=691%2C324&ssl=1" /><a href="https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=300%2C141&ssl=1">https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=300%2C141&ssl=1</a> 300w, <a href="https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=400%2C188&ssl=1">https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=400%2C188&ssl=1</a> 400w, <a href="https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=500%2C234&ssl=1">https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=500%2C234&ssl=1</a> 500w, <a href="https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=600%2C281&ssl=1">https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?resize=600%2C281&ssl=1</a> 600w, <a href="https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?fit=691%2C324&ssl=1">https://i0.wp.com/kailashconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ChatGBT.png?fit=691%2C324&ssl=1</a> 691w" alt="ChatGBT" width="691" height="324" data-recalc-dims="1" /></p>
<p><strong>I’m going to take the <u>over</u> on ChatGPT and suggest it may be an enormous disruptor to ad spend on search: </strong></p>
<p>The authors note that the query costs, at $0.07 per question, were far higher for ChatGPT than typical search which is paid for by <span style="text-decoration:line-through;">ruthlessly exploiting users’ personal information</span> advertising. The authors suggest, very understandably, that this could slow adoption.</p>
<p><strong>If you told me that, to get access to the $0.07 cost query in ChatGPT, I had to watch a 5 second ad, <em>I would watch that ad without blinking. </em>People do this to watch idiotic garbage on YouTube already. </strong></p>
<p><strong>What would an advertiser pay to have a user, wanting very specific information from ChatGPT, be worth?</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Here’s what we would do: halt 100% of our SEO spending and put it all into ads for ChatGPT users</li>
<li>Allowing us to send someone asking a question about portfolio management or investment styles a 5 second snippet about KCR ?<strong> No brainer. </strong></li>
<li>At $1 per ad, with hyper-targeting like that, the margin is 93% on that $0.07 cost, and I guarantee the results are better than spending for “placement” in Google search</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>There simply is no comparison.</strong> <strong>Here’s why:</strong></p>
<p>ChatGPT offers a more conversational and interactive user experience compared to traditional Google search. With traditional search, it’s a game of trying to find the specific keywords and phrases to get results relevant to me. With ChatGPT, users can ask questions and have a back-and-forth conversation with the model, allowing for more natural language inputs and a more intuitive way of finding information. Additionally, ChatGPT can generate human-like responses, which can make the experience feel more personal and engaging, allowing me to learn about the topics at the speed, depth and rate most useful to me. <strong>Put our ad in front of a user having a conversation about best financial newsletters or behavioral finance and it is the right audience having a great experience relative to banging about Google. </strong></p>
<p><strong>We want to find that user. </strong></p>
<p><strong>In contrast, </strong>Google has used their monopoly power to <span style="text-decoration:line-through;">extort</span> force customers to hand them money for “ad placements” that have to be one of the worst experiences in advertising history. <strong>Here are my 5 key gripes: </strong></p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Cost:</strong> Google Ads can be expensive, especially for competitive keywords or industries like finance. Advertisers must be prepared to bid high for their ads to be seen by their target audience <u>without knowing if they are actually even reaching the promised target audience</u>.</li>
<li><strong>Quality Score:</strong> Google Ads uses an arbitrary “Quality Score” to determine the relevance and quality of an ad. Low-quality ads may be penalized with lower ad rankings and higher costs per click without telling the ad buyer what is going on.</li>
<li><strong>Limited control over ad placement:</strong> Advertisers do not have full control over where their ads appear on the Google network, and in our limited trials we found the stuff showing up in comically wrong places.</li>
<li><strong>Limited control over ad format:</strong> Google has full control over the format of the ads and the way they are displayed on the search engine and other sites in the Google network.</li>
<li><strong>Click fraud:</strong> Advertisers are exposed to the risk of click fraud which is an intentional or unintentional click on an ad by a person that is not interested in the product or service being advertised and drives an entire industry of click-farmers.</li>
</ol>
<p><strong><em>Now you all know that most of the “pro ChatGPT” part and the section on why Google ad spend is a waste of money were written by ChatGPT. While not perfect or all-encompassing, the “pros” and 5 cons are 100% spot on in my experience. </em></strong></p>
<p>The disruption of disruptors is well underway in my view. Aside from the bipartisan support for <a href="https://www.barrons.com/articles/buy-most-profitable-companies-stocks-simple-strategy-right-margins-return-on-equity-51602529870">antitrust </a>laws that move away from Bork’s “<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3469063-competition-is-not-a-click-away-the-consumer-welfare-standard-is-failing-consumers/">consumer welfare</a>” standard to one that favors labor and actual firm competition, there is advertising. The key to much of the big-tech profit pool.</p>
<p>Already, Apple is making monetizing advertising a top priority. Netflix and numerous other streaming TV content is back from the “innovation” of subscriptions and looking for ad dollars. Amazon is also aggressively inhaling ad dollars.</p>
<p>Cloud storage and compute? Same story. Many of these companies are also diving headfirst into vertically integrating chip design – hardly an industry known for low costs and stable economic moats. The monopoly power of big tech is under siege as they all turn to each other’s core competencies to try and grow.</p>
<p>Remember: Amazon didn’t get into groceries because it was a great business with high margins. They did it because their stock responded to sales growth and groceries are a big chunk of the consumer wallet. <strong>Now, with tech under pressure to earn profits to justify exorbitant valuations predicated on actual cash profits (ex </strong><a href="https://kailashconcepts.com/sbc-finance-an-update-on-the-absurd/"><strong>SBC</strong></a><strong>), they are all racing into each-others’ core competencies. </strong></p>
<p><strong>Capitalism. Crops up when you least expect it…. </strong></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>Courtesy of <a href="https://kailashconcepts.com/out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new/" target="_blank">kailashconcepts</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="fusion-fullwidth fullwidth-box fusion-builder-row-5-2 fusion-flex-container nonhundred-percent-fullwidth non-hundred-percent-height-scrolling"> </div></div>Google's investment arm has quietly invested in Snapchathttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/google-s-investment-arm-has-quietly-invested-in-snapchat2016-11-04T20:52:57.000Z2016-11-04T20:52:57.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p><a href="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/56b9754b2e52651d008b5e0b-2400/ap187914845154-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/56b9754b2e52651d008b5e0b-2400/ap187914845154-1.jpg?width=400" class="align-left" width="340" height="255" /></a>Alphabet's investment arm, Google Capital, has quietly made an investment in Snapchat parent company, Snap Inc. </p>
<p>The investment was only revealed after Google Capital rebranded itself to CapitalG on Friday and added the Snapchat logo to <a href="http://www.capitalg.com/companies/">its portfolio page</a>. Business Insider confirmed that it is a portfolio company of the growth equity arm of Alphabet. Snap Inc did not immediately respond to comment. </p>
<p>The two companies have had a cozy relationship. In 2013, it <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/15/5106950/google-snapchat-4-billion-buyout-rumor">was rumored that Google</a> once tried to buy Snapchat for $4 billion after it turned down a Facebook acquisition. To this day, Snapchat <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/Why-Google-s-Cloud-Needs-Snapchat">remains one of the largest users</a> of Google's cloud infrastructure, although <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/snap-jerry-hunter-amazon-data-centers-2016-10">it's recently brought a data center specialist in house</a>. </p>
<p>Before it renamed itself to Snap Inc in September, Snapchat had most recently raised $1.81 billion in a May 2016 round of funding. That funding round valued the company around $20 billion. </p>
<p>Courtesy of <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-capitalg-invested-in-snapchat-snap-inc-2016-11" target="_blank">BusinessInsider</a></p>
</div>No Worries. Googles Search Predetermines US Presidential Winnerhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/no-worries-googles-search-predetermines-us-presidential-winner2016-02-26T18:32:51.000Z2016-02-26T18:32:51.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1291252?profile=original"><img class="align-right" style="padding: 10px;" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1291252?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="359"></a>Robert Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California and the former editor-in-chief of <em>Psychology Today,</em> warns us of a insidious and pervasive new form of mind control: search results.</p>
<p>That’s right, search results. And not just any search results: Google search results. Since 2013 Epstein and colleagues have conducted a number of experiments in the US and India to determine whether search results can impact people’s political opinions<em>.</em></p>
<p>Epstein points out that about 50 percent of our clicks go to the top two items on the first page of results, and more than 90 percent of our clicks go to the 10 items listed. And of course Google, which dominates the search business, decides which of the billions of web pages to include in our search results, and it decides how to rank them.</p>
<p>But surely, Epstein thought, a top search result would have only a small impact on a person’s political choices. Not so! To Epstein’s surprise, in his initial experiment he found that the proportion of people favouring the (bogus, skewed) search engine’s top-ranked candidate increased by more than 48 percent! Also, 75 percent of the subjects in the study were completely unaware that they were viewing biased search rankings.</p>
<p>He conducted several more experiments, including one that involved more than 2,000 people from all 50 US states. In that experiment, the shift in voting preferences induced by the researchers was 37 percent, and as high as 80 percent in some demographic groups.</p>
<p>Epstein was still skeptical. He asked,</p>
<p style="margin-left: .5in;">Could voting preferences be shifted with real voters in the middle of a real campaign? … In real elections, people are bombarded with multiple sources of information, and they also know a lot about the candidates. It seemed unlikely that a single experience on a search engine would have much impact on their voting preferences.</p>
<p>So off his team went to India. They arrived just before voting began in the largest democratic election in the world, to select the nation’s prime minister. They recruited 2,150 people from 27 of India’s 35 states and territories to participate in their experiment. (To take part, they had to be registered voters who had not yet voted and who were still undecided about how they would vote.)</p>
<p>Again, Epstein predicted that their manipulation of search results would produce only a very small effect, if any – but that’s not what happened. On average, the researchers were able to shift the proportion of people favoring any given candidate by more than 20 percent overall and by more than 60 percent in some demographic groups. In addition, 99.5 percent of participants showed no awareness that they were viewing biased search rankings.</p>
<p>So this was all quite surprising. Says Epstein:</p>
<p style="margin-left: .5in;">We published a detailed <a target="_blank" href="http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi0IkGNwQN9Xn68pCtG0oPhPDvVMjJ6j0FxzuHKnGGeyx-2BGK1ugxHeJGCNp43NMJRqSggH7FRvPr1cHBfGuMakeI-3D_JKLR1FBU0q0IqxJGrTtbPy0jh07eeWdb9hfaEUCFT-2BKVedXgnfEp-2FYkiSPDhNdmgFNuezvoOxD4Pq4ZxPvD868GX3CiP637Cj9U6uijyJdOrOEdn-2BCxRQPU8vpU4JssvjCz69VhSN-2BONDIYzX3zo5aRdBNkWLHgU-2FedkKyVjYOJ2vpbqZ85j9OtP-2By-2BxU0pS-2Bxmf1NonRQ4G1znz64sqJRwpcKkiym0-2BHkDBiNaNFiiqA7NxjKsKFCq9k6tt9YP0Y8EWQkodJ8m-2BvIzfgbHm-2FA-3D-3D">report</a> about our first five experiments … in the prestigious <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em> (PNAS) in August 2015. We had indeed found something important, especially given Google’s dominance over search. Google has a near-monopoly on internet searches in the US, with 83 per cent of Americans specifying Google as the search engine they use most often, according to the Pew Research Center. So if Google favours one candidate in an election, its impact on undecided voters could easily decide the election’s outcome.</p>
<p>But that’s a big “could.” I was skeptical, too. Would Google ever act so nefariously? Aren’t those Silicon Valley guys all live-and-let-die free-market Libertarians? And then I thought again. The presidency of the United States is a <em>big deal.</em> The president may not be all-powerful, but he (or maybe, in the near future, she) is about as close as it comes on this planet. And national elections – whether in this country or any other – have never exactly been squeaky clean. They have always been about big money, and in recent decades they have been about big media. Now, says Epstein, they are also about big data.</p>
<p>So let’s say Google decided that it was in the best interests of all concerned to do whatever it could to help us select our next president. How might it go about it? Says Epstein,</p>
<p style="margin-left: .5in;">(I)f Google set about to fix an election, it could first dip into its massive database of personal information to identify just those voters who are undecided. Then it could, day after day, send customised rankings favouring one candidate to <em>just those people</em>. One advantage of this approach is that it would make Google’s manipulation extremely difficult for investigators to detect.</p>
<p>But it gets scarier – and a lot more real – when we remember that in the 2012 presidential election, Google and its top execs contributed more than $800,000 to Barack Obama and just $37,000 to Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, have you heard of The Groundwork? That would be the outfit that Quartz <a target="_blank" href="http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=YHITX156cKgQ2PsNawtUrQJkvDWKYA5ZY5mOkuoTivNQZMIcAc3YnhRTc25gh-2FNkFNiqeJz10BombYjEMyIqXNmiKK4QjRyWdQkTCcIjLgh59y6L2fTX4mMw91cYEquC0j7ZHMVqbbRlGPSDx17pSw-3D-3D_JKLR1FBU0q0IqxJGrTtbPy0jh07eeWdb9hfaEUCFT-2BKVedXgnfEp-2FYkiSPDhNdmgnSf-2BV2UwJNOdXE7rRTpM-2BKwDms77G-2FJEGlIz4OuDbzBHRnK4EDzMlUVrq7J2AeUa9azpB6uWrL2-2FCz3lOZzbgbAQekYpAz43x1ZPLpYiBPvzUWoWi8Fm9oClam1tJ740syjyNIM3xxrTfmvWZjolvwz-2FWC9Atv-2BQW1QJ8VDeMAKbmVfWyQ0bkPEVjVgorplGyySe0ZuMd87WDbGfxngPKQ-3D-3D">describes</a> as “The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that’s working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House” – Eric Schmidt being the executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet.</p>
<p>(Amusing sidebar: Google “the groundwork” and then click on the No. 1 result. That’s right, you get this:</p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 296px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_1_20160226_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p>Just one page. No links. Sinister? You betcha.)</p>
<p>There’s more – a lot more – to Epstein’s cautionary tale, so I’ll get out of the way and let him tell it. See entire <a href="http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=GoKyo837vf7SS31qySxLAlJcHCMrNby5-2BUqtSr75zakSe-2B8UDglx91JOdF-2FDbVOlNA42FGeGfhLHNYpmdgHI2wT689GrrW1sGJ-2BJMa4CZ-2Bzc50oRaYmhpjKJm0IR9Tji_JKLR1FBU0q0IqxJGrTtbPy0jh07eeWdb9hfaEUCFT-2BKVedXgnfEp-2FYkiSPDhNdmg6GqoEaUvQ3WJVr0Hf39rHK2EAANl3vni-2FaE-2FQeOzOx1IldJ19YFOdgtJHCJ-2Fayvl9sSKHBVV-2BS7i87kStNv0GNE3gi3l3FIM5FN6jHF4k5LdnoeVpecUqHD50FNpz02tPEyeJJGlnI4wU6-2Fsjv84RGbqGfF2xYVxAYgGbMMCIxWkVZY1r-2ByNOWIEksQuHgpoPmMlx9CzBdeK4CHZwOSFkw-3D-3D" target="_blank">PDF format.</a></p></div>How Much Wealth Accumulated In Ten Secondshttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/how-much-wealth-accumulated-in-ten-seconds2016-02-19T18:08:45.000Z2016-02-19T18:08:45.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p><a target="_blank" href="http://pennystocks.la/battle-of-internet-giants/"><img class="align-left" src="http://pennystocks.la/battle-of-internet-giants/images/social/battle600.gif?width=600" width="600" /></a>The numbers are astounding, and hopefully help to create perspective on the scale of technology and business.  In just 10 seconds, close to 225,000 GB of data is transferred, with over 500,000 posts on Facebook, 57,000 tweets, 46,000 searches on Google, and 2 million messages sent on WhatsApp. </p>
<p>There is no question that the most profound factor affecting modern life is the ability to replicate and store data at almost no cost. This revolution in information has provided us with a wealth of benefits and possibilities for an incredibly low marginal price.</p>
<p>At zero cost, we can connect to a global store of all human knowledge. New apps with impressive features can cost less than a dollar, and our monthly Netflix subscriptions hardly register on our credit card statements. Meanwhile, we share our thoughts about the world with our friends and family at no cost through social networks, email, or other means of communications. This hasn’t been possible throughout human existence, and it is only feasible now because of the incredible scale of the internet.</p>
<p>While we all make the connection that these individual activities help to bring in revenue to the world’s tech giants, the ultimate size and scale of the numbers in aggregate are almost incomprehensible to the human brain.</p>
<p>How many Google searches do you make each day? What about your neighborhood, city, or country? How about the world?</p>
<p>Today’s two visualizations look at the sheer amounts of data processed every 10 seconds by the world’s tech giants, as well as the amount of impressive profit yielded.</p>
<p><br />
<span style="font-size: 12px;">Click above to view the full version [h/t <a href="http://pennystocks.la/">Penny Stocks</a>].</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12px;">Click above to view the interactive version [h/t <a href="http://pennystocks.la/">pennystocks</a>].</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12px;">Courtesy of <a href="http://www.visualcapitalist.com/tech-giants-visualizing-profits-for-every-10-seconds/" target="_blank">VisualCapitalist</a></span></p>
</div>Top Mobile Appshttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/top-mobile-apps2014-08-29T19:47:43.000Z2014-08-29T19:47:43.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p>Google certainly looks to be dominating the mobile playing field.  Good for Google or does this just open the door to fresh startups and current disruptors to look to take market share?  (more below)</p>
<p><img src="http://www.comscore.com/var/comscore/storage/images/media/images/datamine2/top-25-mobile-apps-by-unique-visitor/1349733-1-eng-US/top-25-mobile-apps-by-unique-visitor_reference.png" class="floatLeftPaddingBorder addthis_shareable" alt="Top 25 Mobile Apps by Unique Visitors" title="Top 25 Mobile Apps by Unique Visitors" border="0" /></p>
<p><b>Some key questions to be answered in this area include:</b></p>
<ul>
<li>How fast has mobile app usage been growing?</li>
<li>How often are people using apps on each device?</li>
<li>What percentage of time are consumers spending on their top apps?</li>
<li>How do iOS users differ from Android users demographically and behaviorally?</li>
<li>Which mobile app content categories are we spending most of our time consuming?</li>
<li>How do the top apps compare in different age segments?</li>
</ul>
<p>Download the full report at <a href="http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2014/The-US-Mobile-App-Report?&elqCampaignId=631" target="_blank">Comscore</a></p>
</div>Facebook Goes After Advertisers (and YouTube)http://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/facebook-goes-after-advertisers-and-youtube2013-12-19T01:22:49.000Z2013-12-19T01:22:49.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p>Other than Google, few digital companies have the ability to reach an entire populace, which classically could only be found on TV. If Facebook’s plan works, it could lure in tons of ad revenue as marketers shift their focus from television to digital.</p>
<p>“Avoid saying anything negative about YouTube – leave the impression of the user experience up to them” Facebook tells its adtech partners in a leaked, confidential deck that teaches them to sell Facebook’s video ads. The 32-page document details Facebook’s plan to beat television with reach and YouTube with targeting, and spills the beans about an overhaul to video insights slated for Q1 2014.</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1290271?profile=original"><img class="align-left" style="padding: 5px;" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1290271?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320"></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Facebook slams other digital properties, stating ”A lot of time is spent by people on mobile with Google properties, YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN, AOL, Twitter and Pinterest…And more total time is spent on mobile on Facebook and Instagram than all of those combined.” It’s that scale, the ability to reach hundreds of millions of people quickly, that Facebook hopes will attract the world’s biggest advertisers.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Facebook’s pitch for video ads breaks down to three things, as explained in this excerpt from the presentation:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
1.You want to be where people are. Changing consumer behavior should shape where you spend your marketing dollars.
</div>
<div>
2.You want to reach all of the people who matter to you. Facebook has unparalleled targeted reach.
</div>
<div>
3.You want to be in the most engaging digital real estate, which, as you just saw, is Facebook’s News Feed.
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p>One of the social network’s greatest assets is its trove of ad-fueling personal data. Users pour demographic and interest data into their profiles to share with friends and be found, but Facebook also leverages that data to be able to pinpoint them with relevant ads. Taking a dig at YouTube where a lot of demographic data is inferred indirectly and not always accurately, Facebook writes “In narrowly targeted campaigns, the average online reach is 38% accurate, but on Facebook, our average reach is 89% accurate.”</p>
<p>Facebook also touts that users volunteer to watch video ads on its platform instead of being required to watch on YouTube, so the impressions should be valued higher. “When you use video on Facebook, these are chosen views – the consumers clicks to play or scrolls through to watch the video as compared to an ad on YouTube interrupting the user experience and feeling forced.”</p>
<p>It may not be the platform with the biggest reach, targeting, or engagement that captures the ad dollars fleeing television in print, but the one that can best prove its ads actually work.</p>
<p>See full article at <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/13/facebook-vs-tv-and-youtube/" target="_blank">TechCrunch</a></p>
<p>Full Disclosure: no position</p>
</div></div>