Also: As of some day really soon, Gawker Media Web sites will not be supported in Safari. Purely for technology reasons. Same for advertisements sold by Google. They were fine in the PC era. But now they just look ugly.
The Wall Street Journal story on Steve Jobs’ statement on Flash includes some telling quotes:
Dave Wolf, vice president of strategy at Cynergy Systems Inc., a Washington, D.C., design firm, calls Apple’s no-Flash policy “a pain.” Mr. Wolf had planned to build mobile apps for clients using the new Adobe software; the apps cost upwards of $40,000 a piece, meaning that without such a tool most customers can only afford to build apps for one device. They almost always choose the iPhone, said Mr. Wolf.
“If it weren’t for the play against Creative Suite we wouldn’t have to make a choice, we could say you could make it in Flash.”
And that’s the point. You wouldn’t be making iPhone apps: you’d be making Flash apps. There’s a difference.
“You can’t really blame them. A portion of Google’s business depends on the delusion that their “AdSense for Content” ads the ones you see on blogs, not Google’s search results are good most of the time. The rest of the internet knows that they’re usually crap, but at least Google’s employees and leaders need to believe in them.”
And that, in a nutshell, is why Google is actually a lot weaker than many people imagine. It’s business model is founded on a fantasy: That contextual, text advertising is the most effective model. Sure, it owns DoubleClick (and now AdMob) so it’s diversified into other kinds of ad – but contextual is a massive chunk of its revenue.
It’s becoming more and more of an irritation to advertisers. Virtually every company I’ve spoken to of late has spent more time rolling their eyes in frustration over keyword ads than talking of how great it’s been for their business.
Advertising is changing. Not dying – changing. And the big question is whether Google has bet correctly on which way it’s going, or not.