Last nights shooting leaves us stunned. Picture emerging on Social Media of single shooter arrested. Named as local white american man James Holmes (24). Social Media first with the news, again.

(Normal Friday blog follows directly below and after this mini-post)

It is horrific that 12-14 (toll not finally confrmed) people have lost their lives when watching The Dark Knight Rises film in Aurora, Denver. Tragically, that's about 40 miles only from Columbine. The shooter has been named locally as James Holmes (24) a white american.A San Diego woman, identifying herself as Holmes' mother, tweeted and told ABC News: "You have the right person. I am flying to Colorado". He is not believed to be on any terror watchlist or have a criminal record. Equally, we cannot find a Social Media profile for him.

 
"Michelle and I are shocked and saddened by the horrific and tragic shooting in Colorado. Federal and local law enforcement are still responding, and my administration will do everything that we can to support the people of Aurora in this extraordinarily difficult time," Obama said in a statement.

"As we do when confronted by moments of darkness and challenge, we must now come together as one American family," he added.

Seemingly as the trailers were ending, just after midnight, a masked young man (24) went to the stage, which led peple to believe it was part of the movie, stood in front of the screen and threw tear gas. Then he started shooting indiscriminately with one rifle (described as an AK) and two handguns whilst wearing a bullet-proof vest. He may also have had a shotgun. The reason for multiple weapons is to allow the shooter have constant fire without having to reload.

It's undoubtedly true that most of these victims will be children (a 6 year old is in a critical condition) or teenagers as The Huff Post have already indicated as well as, an elderly "80 year old" man. Probably someone's Grandad taking the kids to see the film. God. 

A baby (6 months old) is being reported as being shot at point blank range but unconfirmed.


It would seem he has been arrested in the cinema parking lot with his weapons, but as time goes on we'll get more information on Twitter and Blogs and YouTube and Social Media. It's events like this, happening in Colorado that Social Media allows me, sitting in Dublin, or you wherever you are, to watch them unfold.

A report just in says that a Hyundai in the Cinema car park is being closely examined and believed to be owned by the shooter, came in on Twitter from an observer at the scene.  

His Apartment on 17th street is being searched gingerly because one police officer tweeted that it was "booby trapped" with "some chemical inside". They broke a window and inserted mini-cams to get a good view of the inside. Surrounding homes had to be evacuated.

Initially there was a view that it was seemingly part of a double attack but that's been discounted - however, always remember that you can't trust every report on Social. People may do it with sincerity but just get it wrong.

However, look how well it works in pushing the news around. And how I'm able to give you the news on a blog.

May God look after them.









emergency crews at the scene in Aurora, Denver, where 14 people have been killed at a Dark Knight Rises screening
 

@CBSDenver
CBSDenver

BREAKING: Explosives found at suspect's home in Aurora. At least 14 people killed in shooting at Batman Premiere at Century 16 tonight.

July 20, 2012 9:26 am via web Reply Retweet Favorite

Google. Going from strength to strength. 50 billion in cash. What's next?

Google is flying. Revenue is up over 12 billion, a growth of 35% in the second quarter. 54,604 employees which now includes those from Motorola Mobility which it acquired last year for 12.5 billion usd.PPC Advertising (pay per click) increased 42% on the year and they have, wait for it, 43 bilion usd in cash.

This is one impressive company.

In particular, a theme from the announcement of the financials was the continued growth in mobile. “The good news is, we’re seeing phenomenal growth in mobile queries across the board,” CEO Arora said. “Mobile is right now where search was in 1999.”

As mobile searches grow however, they are not taking away from desktop searches and are seen as being incremental. Mainly, because you want to search at the office but also on the move and the development of smartphones has allowed you to do that, easily. Again one thinks of the old world 'directory enquiry business' which must now be pushed to one side and again we see a Web business banning them to the dustbin of history.

Google is the biggest site in the world before Facebook in second and YouTube (which google owns) in third and it's a brand we all know so well (except at Techcrunch because when you type 'Google' into the Techcrunch search engine you get a "sorry, no results").


There's no doubt this is a company which is at its peak.

Marissa Meyer's departure this week to head up rival Yahoo! will cause no great problems but it's an indication as to how Google is being perceived that their management is being sought out. She's rumoured to be on 1 million usd basic and up to 16 million including share options. 

Google also announced on Wednesday it will expand its third party API partners to "hundreds" for Google+. Exactly what Twitter is mistakenly not doing. It's also getting behind causes like Gay Rights "Legalize Love" campaign and therefore showing itself to be willing to give something back. Absolutely to be applauded.(How could anyone be against Gay rights anyway?)

Search is still at the core but new formats producing relevance, will take it further.

However, it's hard to see search continuing to drive these types of numbers so I think Google, sitting on all that cash, will start looking at acquistions. At a conference this week, PayPal co-founder Peter Theil said;

“Google also has $50 billion in cash,” Thiel added. “It has no idea how to invest that money in technology effectively … if we’re living in an accelerating technological world, and you have zero percent interest rates, you should be able to invest all of your money in things that will return it many times over. The fact is you’re out of ideas.”

Perhaps but I think they're not out of ideas, just getting ready for the big one.Twitter? Pinterest? But I think it points to an opportunity for Google to really start stirring things up and use that cash. Their business is hugely strong, YouTube is in a great place too, the question is, what next?

Google are in pole position.

Somethings coming.
 

LinkedIn steps up a gear with Forbes number 1 listing and site revamp. Is there something more to this?

 

If you've been on LinkedIn today, you'll have been left in no doubt about their news.

One, they launched in Norway which hardly warranted the excitement it seemed to generate sitting in Dublin. I'm delighted for Norway - just thrilled - but that means they didn't have it until now?

Secondly, LinkedIn made number 1 in the Forbes list of high growth Tech companies and the CEO made the Forbes cover.

And how did you know? because seemingly everyone who works for LinkedIn was basically posting away even on pages where they're not linked (isn't that spamming?). I had about 10 posts this morning and they're gone (taken down) by lunchtime. Did they get a reaction I wonder?

Forbes have chosen LinkedIn as the fastest growing technology company. Ahead of Apple, Qlik, Athena Health and Equinix in the top 5. But it's a bizarre list of what is a "tech company" - no Facebook, Google, Microsoft mentions etc. Or possibly what is "fastest growing".

Following from the Twitter fiasco 
http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/twitters-row-with-linkedin-is-about-ad.html, 
and their June security passwords hack, 
 http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/06/linkedin-passwords-hacked-change-yours.html

So they're trying to get some good news out there. This for example from the normally independent Mashable today too;

LinkedIn isn’t just a digital destination for your resume; it’s a vibrant online hub offering all kinds of useful information, tools and functionality.

If it’s been awhile since you explored the site, check out this list of five things you might not know you can do on LinkedIn. Let us know in the comments below how you find LinkedIn a useful tool.

And then goes on to tell you how you can do 5 new things. Hmmmm. Sounds like PR to me. Unusual to see a Mashable story ending with "let us know in the comments below how you find LinkedIn a useful tool". Kinda' like saying "and tell us how great they are". Surprising.


There's also the Mashable story today again that they've revamped their homepage to make it look "more like Facebook and Google+". In essence a cleaner design with some increased functionality based around giving you the updates you want, instead of the flood you get.

"This simpler and cleaner design makes it easier to navigate the page and quickly find the updates you’re looking for – whether that’s a news article your boss has recently shared or it’s to see who has just started a new job,” writes Caroline Gaffney, a product manager at LinkedIn, in a blog post explaining the move.

LinkedIn launched in 2003 and went public (IPO) mid 2011 achieving about 170 million users as a professional networking site. Shares have leaped 64% this year largely because of the Recruiter usefulness of the site and a 24% surge in mobile traffic. The "bulls eye" as the unfortunately named CEO Jeff Weiner calls it and recruitment is a 27 billion usd industry.

What they're saying is that they're turning your resume, your CV, into cash. Businesspeople have value and LinkedIn makes it easy to reach out to them more than a Facebook ever can.

It would seem that LinkedIn is starting to wake up and moving forward with new design, new features, share growth, new territories and a niche business play. This type of publicity and activity will do their share price no harm.

But it's all happening very quickly - like a PR machine has just got into gear. Is there something afoot?

YouTube. 70% of us have seen it. The 3rd biggest site in the world. New Research shows its news credentials.

April 23 2005 (only 7 years ago), "me at the zoo" was the first video ever uploaded onto YouTube. Last year it celebrated its one trillionth upload and it's the third most visited site after Facebook and Google. 

4 billion of us view YouTube every single day and it was bought by Google for 1.6 billion usd in 2006.


YouTube has in fact become a mixture of television news and citizen journalism. It's one really powerful platform and it's having an impact on traditional news. 


1 out of 15 searches are news related (the Japanese tsunami video being most watched with over 20 million views last year) but the 20 similar tsunami videos had 96 million views. 


And what's interesting, is that news organisations are posting their own videos on YouTube and then linking from their site. About 51% of videos are from such organisations with an average length of 2 minutes and 1 second.


So say, The Telegraph produce a video, they post it on YouTube and link it back. 


They are in effect, feeding their news competitor rather than storing and pushing the videos from their own servers. So if you look at a national daily newspaper online say, in Ireland, you will see them pushing eyeballs onto YouTube by linking videos. And perhaps the answer is so what?


It is unlikely after all, that there's a news site anywhere in the world that doesn't link to YouTube which is in itself, insane.



However, this is a storm that's ripe for the dissemination and the creation and sharing of false, malicious news. It's already happened to CNN and others.
http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/citizen-journalism-is-spreading.html


There simply is no way of checking the credible source issue - although BBC have set up 50 people in their "Hub" to do just that. 


New credible research published this week by 'The Pew Research Center', an American think tank based in Washington (http://pewresearch.org/) shows this frankly bizarre, symbiotic relationship between citizens posting videos and then having it shared by traditional news organisations. 


Which is in itself, news organisations directly adopting and fostering citizen journalism. News organisations are in fact posting videos without any clear source attribution and citizens are posting copyrighted material. 72 hours of video are uploaded every minute so you can see the checking task in that alone.


The Pew Research shows that more than 70% of Adults have used the site and 28% of us visit YouTube or similar sites everyday (one third are USA based). Massive numbers - which shows that this type of citizen journalism is here to stay. It's what people want - clear unbiased news "as it happens". Until, of course, they themselves are featured.


According to The Huffington Post who are about to go live on August 13 with their massive citizen venture, they quote Amy Mitchell, deputy director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism as;


"There's a new form of video journalism on this platform. It's a form in which the relationship between news organizations and citizens is more dynamic and more multiverse than we've seen in most other platforms before."


YouTube says it's not entering the game of news creation but rather, acting as a catalyst, an outlet, for those that do. Although their "partner programme" is aimed at producing content on a revenue share. They have also grant aided content providers.


It would be mad for Google not to utilise the world's biggest news site, in this era of citizen journalism, despite what they say. Expect something like "YouTube News". Simply, it has to come.


According to Pew; "The evolving government and media policies toward YouTube make understanding the nature of what news content is on the site and which is most popular all the more important". 


What's now being considered is that we might have created a monster and perhaps it needs regulation. That's exactly what that quote in red means.

Although mind you, looking at the Search results below for 2011, it doesn't look too political. (Sad personally to see Marco Simoncelli's name appear there ever. The great 250 World Champion and Moto GP rider who was killed racing in Malaysia).

In essence the point is that YouTube is THE serious player regarding news and generating mass traffic. What's now being considered is that we might have created a monster and perhaps it needs regulation. 


What we definitely have, is the world's largest news organisation - ever.
And forgive me - 

Microsoft and NBC divorce from MSNBC. It puts Microsoft in the news. Again.

Microsoft made more news today by pulling out of its 1996 joint venture that was MSNBC.com (Microsoft + NBC News, now owned by Comcast) with NBC buying Microsoft's 50% share.

Whilst both companies have said they want to get on with their own online news agenda, it would seem that Microsoft have its own news agenda and plans.

Up to now, Microsoft for example had to feature the news feed on all of its inventory and it's well believed that NBC's "liberal" (pro-Obama) agenda was not well liked. NBC always sees itself as the opposite viewing choice to pro-Republican Fox News. It also meant that Microsoft couldn't offer other alternative news feeds, or indeed its own, exactly as AOL/Huff Post has done or The CNN/Mashable alliance/acquisition.

It's widely believed that this represents another poor Microsoft online venture (they've lost 10 billion usd online in recent years) having paid 220 million usd into it, it's believed it received 300 million usd back (just about the capital + interest). Equally of course, the corrollary is true - this allows NBC News to supply its content to other non-Microsoft websites and the divorce is being seen as "amicable".

Although to be fair, in 2002, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is credited with saying that they shouldn't have gone ahead with the deal.

According to the NBC site announcement the "focus on hard news and original reporting would remain the same" although we know of Microsoft plans to launch a new news service in the Autumn.

The joint venture was considered one of the most profitable news sites in America by "the trade".

It is being viewed as a move by NBC to take out Microsoft and given that they're the buyers, that seems to make sense.

Given too all of the negative publicity regarding Microsoft (as you'll read plenty regrettably, in this blog alone http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/vanity-fairs-expose-of-microsoft-and.html), the timing is possibly co-incidental or perhaps, commercial.

It could be a simple matter that NBC don't want to bet on a brand that's diminishing and that makes sense.

It also makes sense that NBC News are gearing up for a better news service following The AOL/Huff Post live announcement and when they're facing one hell of a competitor on August 13 and they want to plan for that.

http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/huffington-post-live-worlds-biggest.html

News gathering is the hottest topic of the moment http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/search/label/rupert%20murdoch as of course is the whole role of citizen journalism http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/citizen-journalism-is-spreading.html

It'll be interesting to see how this divorce develops - on both sides - but also how the whole news content online flourishes and how TV particularly suffers. we know the demand for online news has already impacted negatively on traditional TV viewing.

Let's get ready to rumble.

Vanity Fair's expose of Microsoft and CEO Ballmer, is out. Get it and be horrified about their downfall.

                                  

You may have been familiar with my blog of July 5 http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/vanity-fair-august-article-to-add-to.html or indeed you may know of the controversy surrounding Microsoft.

Largely, it's a company that's really under the microscope because it has lost its way after Bill Gates departed the company. Apple's iphone business alone, does more business than the whole of Microsoft.

In particular, the current CEO Steve Ballmer, who is there officially until 2016 anyway, carries a lot of responsibility since the demise of the once great Microsoft, happened squarely on his watch.

Ballmer is a controversial character making ridiculous predictions about the demise of the Iphone and indeed the Ipad (you can see those interview videos on my original blog). Nonsensical predictions that he gets wrong on video and of course, haunts him now every step of the way.

He also carries himself in quite a ridiculous manner and video of him at the launch of a Microsoft conference (also on my original blog) is really cringey. Worse than that in fact.

On July 5, the controversy was furthered by the leaking of a journalistic piece on Microsoft in 'Vanity Fairs' August edition, which seemingly was to expose the cultural reason why Microsoft, under Ballmer, has lost its way.

It was to blame an inter-staff management system called 'stack ranking' - a rating system for employees. Titled "How Microsoft lost its Mojo" it's based on emails, interviews and internal documents, Vanity Fair was to expose this problem at the heart of Microsoft which it argues was mainly responsible for its lack of vision, lack of Microsoft creativity.

We were told in the snippets that we had, that the stack ranking system was corrosive and possibly the single reason for Microsoft's continued downfall. The article was considered to be explosive and one wondered if Ballmer would survive the onslaught - but I hadn't read it then because it hadn't been published. This weekend I now have.

Not only is it explosive (and excellently written) but it makes Steve Ballmer look like a buffoon. A man who gets it wrong time and time again and has now become an embarrassment to the company. "Stack ranking" gets a good mention but its not the focus we thought it was - Ballmer is.



Reporter Kurt Eichenwald says, "Ballmer's key business philosophy for Microsoft was so antiquated as to be irrelevant. The Microsoft CEO used to proclaim that it would not be first to cool, but would be first to profit -- in other words, it would be the first to make money by selling its own version of new technologies."


It includes an interesting quote from Steve Jobs - "The company (Microsoft) starts valuing the great salesmen, because they're the ones who can move the needle on revenues, not the product engineers and designers. So the salespeople end up running the company....it happened at Apple when John Sculley came in and that was my fault and it happened when Ballmer took over at Microsoft. Apple was lucky and it rebounded, but I don't think anything will change at Microsoft as long as Ballmer is running it".

He actually blamed Bill Gates for Ballmer. "Bill likes to portray himself as a man of the product, but he's really not. He's a businessperson. Winning business was more important than making great products".

Indeed.....and The Vanity Fair article blames Gates too with the fact that Microsoft had the lead on ebooks but it was stifled by Gates. They had the lead on itunes, but it was stifled by Gates. Gates appointed Ballmer.

It's really damning stuff and go out and get it.

This is too much public criticism laid squarely at the door of Ballmer and far more than I understood on July 5 for him to laugh this off. More importantly, Microsoft now appears to be a company in crisis and so uncool, it's not true. They are going one way and that's down. Their Skype acquisition is beginning to show no meaning.

I wondered then, based on what I knew, whether Ballmer would survive this very public criticism.

I have absolutely no doubt now.
Except an announcement soon.