Family Learning Center

Posts Tagged ‘Charlie Rose’

Sprint features iPhone in 4G ad

Filed under: iPhone

Sprint has released an ad that features the iPhone with its Overdrive 3G/4G Hotspot mobile router. The Overdrive allows you to use Sprint’s 4G network with any WiFi capable device.

The ad features “Matt” and the appropriately-named iPhone-owner “Steve.”

“My friend Steve’s iPhone is cool, but it’s limited to AT&T’s 3G speeds,” Matt says. “So I’m going to use the Overdrive 4G mobile hotspot to make it up to ten times faster. And while that’s happening, I’m going to enjoy this tasty snack,” at which point Matt pulls out an apple and takes a bite. Steve connects to the Sprint 4G WiFi network on his iPhone and quickly begins streaming a music video which leads him to exclaim, “Whoa. Done.” The ad ends with Matt asking, “What can you do with 4G?” before the narrator chimes in, “Whatever you do, do it up to ten times faster than 3G with 4G from Sprint.”

Sprint was one of the first to attack the iPhone but now, like most wireless providers, wants to be an official iPhone carrier. Last September Charlie Rose asked Sprint CEO Dan Hesse how the Pre was stacking up against the iPhone, to which he replied, “It’s… it’s doing well, but you can almost put the iPhone, to be fair, in a separate category. The Apple brand and that device have done so well, it’s almost not… it’s like comparing someone to Michael Jordan.”

Well, if you can’t beat the star, why not make some sweet accessories to go along with those Air Jordans?

TUAWSprint features iPhone in 4G ad originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Read the whole story…

Charlie Rose hosts Mossberg, Arrington, David Carr on iPad (video)

TechCrunch editor Mike Arrington has become a regular on the Charlie Rose. In his sixth appearance on the show, he joins Wall Street Journal gadget overlord Walt Mossberg and The New York Times’ lyric poet of media reporting, David Carr.

The three-way interview is nearly 25 minutes long. If this were a weekday, I’d tell you which thirty seconds to skip to. But it’s the weekend. Kick back with your non-tablet computer and watch the whole thing.

p.s. If you’re wondering what happened to Arrington’s CrunchPad tablet computer, VentureBeat reported that Fusion Garage, the company he partnered with and now accuses of stealing the business from him, has inked a partnership with Malaysian cellphone company CSL Group. The CrunchPad, renamed the JooJoo and boosted from Mike’s $200 price target to $499, supposedly reaches the hands of people who pre-ordered one later in February.

Read the whole story…

Clicker Media launches a programming guide for Internet TV

Video web site Clicker Media is formally launching its service today which gives online users a real TV Guide-style search engine for television content online. The goal is to give users access to a massive playlist of TV to watch on the web.

The Los Angeles-based company indexes all available video online, from Netflix movies TV shows to Amazon film downloads. There are more than 400,000 episodes indexed online, all available as legal content. It lets you discover what’s available to watch and where to view it on the web. The site draws from 1,200 sources and categorizes shows into 1,200 areas.

There are 30,000 movies available fro Netflix’s Instant Streaming service and Amazon’s Video on Demand service. It also catalogs more than 50,000 songs from 20,000 artists. If you want to share film lists or other info, you can do so via the site’s integration with Facebook Connect.

Users can use it much like Tivo for the Internet. They can queue shows to watch, get season passes, and get alerts when new episodes show up online. The company is headed by Jim Lanzone, former chief executive of Ask. He says that the idea is that there is so much available on the web now, you have to have an easy way to search it.

The service has been in private beta testing since mid-September. Fans can make their own comments and upload their own content. You can search for topics within a specific program. For instance, you can look for “Bill Gates” appearances on the Charlie Rose show. The index will also suggest shows based on what you’ve watched.

The company was founded in January and it raised $8 million in a first round from Benchmark Capital and Redpoint Ventures. Blake Krikorian, founder of Sling Media, has joined the company’s board of directors. Rivals include Hulu.com and Blinkx.

Read the whole story…

Sprint’s Dan Hesse talks Android, Pre, iPhone, 4G on Charlie Rose

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse recently sat down for an interview with the master of one-on-ones and black backdrops, Charlie Rose, and while much of the talk was spent traveling down memory lane and revisiting Hesse’s two-decade rise through the ranks at AT&T before fleeing in 2000, there were some great quotes that came out of it:

• “We’re getting ready to launch a couple of new Android devices.” We know one’s the Hero, and the other — if we were the betting types — is the Samsung InstinctQ.
• Rose: “The merger with Nextel was a bad idea?” Hesse: “In 20 / 20 hindsight, it was, yes… the premium that Sprint paid for Nextel was too much.” Sprint’s gone back and forth on the idea of spinning off Nextel over the past couple years, so it’s not a surprising thing for him to think — but to hear Sprint’s CEO actually say out loud that he thinks a very active part of its network shouldn’t have become part of the company is a little bombastic.
• “Our prepaid brand is Boost.” Nothing wild and crazy about that statement, though it does reaffirm that Virgin Mobile is destined for assimilation. The whole thing’s kinda funny considering that Boost dabbled in CDMA before reversing course, and once again, Sprint will be dealing with large installed bases of both iDEN and CDMA prepaid customers.
• On touchscreen smartphones: “Those are the most expensive phones for us to sell, and those are the ones where we need to make sure that the customer stays with us [and] doesn’t churn, because we’re out a lot of money… those are expensive devices.” Theoretically, an aggressively-priced subsidized smartphone could still end up leaving a carrier in the red if you broke your contract early on and paid the ETF, but we doubt that’s a huge problem — especially for a CDMA carrier like Sprint. He goes on to say “I’m already looking at 4G versions of smartphones,” so that’s really encouraging to hear, particularly if you’re into WiMAX.
• “Customer will pay premium for simplicity. Simplicity is everything… Digital One Rate which we launched back at AT&T, that was all about simplicity… people paid more. It wasn’t a price cut.” Translation: “Unlimited makes you feel like you’re getting a deal, but rest assured, we’re banking.”
• In response to Rose asking how Sprint uses the Palm Pre to take on Apple and RIM: “It was really kind of Palm’s decision to take on Apple. And Palm has had [a] long standing relationship with Sprint.” It’s interesting to hear Hesse seemingly back away from a fight with Apple and chalk up the situation to happenstance — RIM not as much, considering that Sprint carries a number of BlackBerrys in its lineup and will certainly continue to do so. Talking more about pitting the Pre against the iPhone, he goes on to say that Palm’s handset is “doing well. But you’ve got to almost put the iPhone, to be fair, in a separate category. The Apple brand and that device has done so well. It’s like comparing someone to Michael Jordan.” If that’s not a tactful acknowledgment that the iPhone is a bona fide wireless superstar, we don’t know what is. Hesse’s giving the iPhone the respect it’s rightfully earned — as any strategically-minded executive would.
• “The biggest impediment to mobile growth is you got processors are getting a lot faster, screens are getting sharper, they use more and more power, and battery technology is not moving very fast… That’s the one breakthrough that the industry needs. It needs battery breakthroughs.” It’s good to hear that Hesse understands as well as everyone else that the wireless industry needs to be focused on making power draw a non-issue, but he sounds less convinced of the solution: “I don’t know. Solar we hope, and renewable energy sources.” When Sprint gets some cash socked away, it might consider throwing some R&D money at the problem — it’ll be first to market with something resembling a “national” 4G network, after all, and the situation’s only going to get worse.

Who knew you’d find out so much about the inner workings of the States’ third-largest carrier from watching PBS?

[Via Gizmodo]

Filed under: Cellphones, Handhelds

Sprint’s Dan Hesse talks Android, Pre, iPhone, 4G on Charlie Rose originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:44:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Read the whole story…

Wired takes on Craigslist founder, who promptly walks into a door

Wired writer Gary Wolf has done the best job ever of capturing the enigmatic, inspiring, yet clumsy personality of Craigslist founder Craig Newmark. If you’ve ever met Craig at a party and found it hard to hold a conversation with him, don’t feel bad. Charlie Rose had the same problem on national TV.

Wolf’s assessment of Newmark’s business is that Craigslist has refused to evolve, in part because Newmark is happier replying to customer support email than managing product development. ”Aside from his communication problems and an aversion to exerting authority,” Wolf writes, “he care[s] nothing for entrepreneurship.” As a result, Craigslist blooms with a thousand kinds of flowers, but also a lot of weeds:

“Sometimes entire categories of craigslist are rendered nearly unusable by spam. Con artists prowl the listings, paying sellers with fake cashier’s checks and luring buyers to share their credit card numbers. Other evils are more subtle. Business owners whose judgment is distorted by self-interest fail to understand the rules and put the same item in multiple categories or repost it many times a day to insure it stays prominent, crowding out other sellers. A woman listing a car forgets to tell buyers about problems with the title until they’ve made a long trip out to see it. In all transactions there is a possibility of misunderstanding as well as abuse, and at 99.99 percent perfection there would still be thousands of angry people every month.”

Craig is different from most Internet startup founders. He’s an introvert. He’s not much interested in wealth or in being treated as a VIP. He doesn’t care to follow the latest fads in site designs and features. Craigslist has no Ajax interface, no big happy pastel text, nearly no graphics or images other than those placed in posts by customers. The site doesn’t try to get users to become members of a social network, sign up their friends, or tag, rate, and comment on content created by others. Craigslist hasn’t built an iPhone app. Yet its reach keeps on growing, in part because of Newmark’s dogged ability to contentedly perform the same tasks over and over. He reads and answers a huge chunk of the company’s customer mail:

“Last year Newmark got about 195000 email messages. He estimates that roughly 60 percent were spam. He read all the rest and replied to many. He has a boss now, a customer service manager named Clint Powell, who was hired about six years ago. But he maintains his habits for reasons that have little to do with the normal logic of work. They are part of his identity, an unconventional mode of self-realization through which he took hold of a barrier that always separated him from the world and made it into a kind of performance. Athletes compete. Artists create. Newmark answers email. He knows that this will seem absurd from the outside, but he is blessed not to care. In fact, he likes to treat people to a laugh when he can. It’s sometimes impossible to discern his intention exactly, and this is essential to the effect. On our way out of the cafè, I step aside to let Newmark go ahead, and he walks face-first into the plate glass door.”

Customers seem to sense that Craig and his team are on their side, rather than trying to monetize them. That feeling has built an astonishing level of customer loyalty and fondness for the site. No one remembers MetroVox, the much more aggressively commercial site built in 1999 by Newmark’s former business partner. Customers who found themselves redirected from secondary Craigslist URLs to the slicker-looking MetroVox back-buttoned their way to Newmark’s site.

VC Fred Wilson culled these stats on Craigslist:

For a lot of tech entrepreneurs and the journalists who cover them, Newmark’s way of doing business is somewhere between bewildering and ridiculous. Yet there are plenty of people of a different type who are reading this post and wondering: Are they hiring? Don’t ask me, ask Craig.

[Photos: Wired]

Read the whole story…

Video: Erick Talks Microsoft/Yahoo On Charlie Rose

TechCrunch co-editor Erick Schonfeld appeared on Charlie Rose last night to discuss the Microsoft/Yahoo search deal alongside Steven Levy of Wired and Nick Wingfield of The Wall Street Journal.

The group talked about the initial deal Microsoft offered Yahoo last year to buy Yahoo outright, the complicated nature of this new deal, Microsoft Bing, Yahoo walking away from the search fight rather than engaging, how this was the worst of the deals that Microsoft had offered so far, the Bartz/Ballmer reaction, what this means for Microsoft versus Google now, and the possible antitrust implications of all of this.

Watch the part of the show that featured the discussion below.

And here’s the transcript:

CHARLIE ROSE: Microsoft and Yahoo! announced yesterday a partnership in the search and advertising business. Under the deal, Yahoo!`s websites will be powered by Microsoft new search engine, Bing. Yahoo! will get 88 percent of the ad revenue from searches on its sites for the first five years. With the partnership, the two hope to take on Google, which currently commands about 65 percent share of the U.S. market. The agreement follows Microsoft`s failed takeover bid for Yahoo! and shows the continuing importance it is placing on search.

Joining me now from Redmond, Washington, is Nick Wingfield of the “Wall Street Journal.” Here in New York with me, Steven Levy of “Wired” magazine and Erick Schonfeld, co-editor of TechCrunch blog. I am pleased to have all of them here.

Nick, tell me how this deal happened, first.

NICK WINGFIELD: It started last year with the CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, making an unsolicited bid for close to $48 billion to acquire Yahoo!. Never happened, Yahoo! resisted the offer. It fell apart.

Fast forward to about January. Yahoo! has a new CEO, Carol Bartz, and Microsoft and Yahoo! start talking about a more limited deal, not a full-blown acquisition, in which Microsoft basically take over the search operations, handle the search operations on Yahoo! in exchange for some value. And the deal went through all sorts of fits and starts, and finally arrived at the deal you described a moment ago.

All of this being designed to improve Microsoft`s fairly poor position in search right now, which is a highly lucrative market, the online advertising market that accompanies search, and one that Microsoft really has not had much success in on its own.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is this a good deal for just Microsoft or good deal for Microsoft and Yahoo!?

NICK WINGFIELD: Well, the shareholders of both companies seem to think it`s a better deal for Microsoft than it is for Yahoo! The stock of Microsoft went up a bit yesterday and up a bit today. Yahoo! is down.

One of the problems Yahoo! has is that they had sort of almost set expectation that they were going to get a big check, a multi-billion dollar check from Microsoft in exchange for a deal of this sort. And that didn`t end up happening. Instead, what Yahoo! is getting is very high percentage of the ad revenue from advertising sold on searches that Microsoft delivers. So, both parties argue that it`s better for Yahoo! to get this, because they`re getting more — a bigger chunk of the share of ad revenue on an ongoing basis, but there is no big upfront check, and that seems to disappoint people.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, what`s the judgment of people who are looking at it in terms of whether Yahoo! would have been better to take the original deal that Ballmer offered or take the deal they have now?

NICK WINGFIELD: Well, I don`t think there`s any question that Yahoo! shareholders would be better off if they had accepted the original $48 billion deal. I don`t know what Yahoo!`s latest market capitalization is, but they`re down a lot.

So, I don`t think Microsoft, though, regrets not acquiring all of Yahoo! I think they`re fairly happy with the position that they`re in. They also have managed to improve their own home-grown search engine, which is now called Bing, and have started to inch up a little bit in market share. So I think Microsoft probably comes out a little bit ahead here, but still, both parties argue that Yahoo! is going to thrive as well because they no longer have to invest in search, so they can be a lot more profitable.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is this going to work?

STEVEN LEVY: It has a lot of hurdles. I think the upfront money really isn`t the key to Yahoo! The key is, Yahoo! is disbanding their search team, their engineering, and disbanding the team which built their advertising engine to sell ads on search. Now, these happen to be some of the most important aspects of engineering at a company there. And really, if Yahoo! wants to be a top Internet company, it has to have the engineering chops to keep doing that.

So, it`s going to miss out on that. And it will save money by not hiring — having those people to pay, but those are the people you want in your company.

Also, this deal is a little complicated. Yahoo! actually is going to sell some of these ads to the premium customers. A lot of customers, those in the long tail, they just go on the website and buy the ads just straight there like you buy something from Amazon. But a big customer needs someone to work with them and tell them what words to buy. It`s very complicated in how much to bid, because these things are all done by bids. And Yahoo! is doing that part, and Microsoft has the technology, which means those people who work for Yahoo! are really going to have to go back and forth to Redmond and talk to a lot of people to be familiar with how that works there. So there`s a little complication in how they`re going to be able to do that, which is going to make it a little more difficult for Microsoft`s big task, which is to take on Google and build up its ad share to something beyond even what it has combined with Yahoo!

CHARLIE ROSE: Did Bing make a difference here at all, the fact that Bing has gotten — the Microsoft search engine has gotten good reviews?

ERICK SCHONFELD: I think Bing made a big difference, because Yahoo! was in a tough position. It was seeing market share eroding from the top, from Google, and now the prospect of market share erosion from the bottom, from Bing. Bing has only been out for two months, but it`s made a little bit of a gain in share, .4 percent. Is that going to last over time? Who knows. But Yahoo! didn`t want to find out. Right?

And the big problem here is that Yahoo! really — they kind of walked away from the most interesting fight on the Internet right now, which is search. And they handed it over to Microsoft for less than any of the previous deals that were on the table. The four real deals that were on the table going back to the $45 or $48 billion offer in February of 2008, the revised search deal that Microsoft offered, which included $8 billion to buy 16 percent of Yahoo! and $1 billion payment for the search part of the business. The Google deal that got squashed, that guaranteed $800 million in revenues.

This deal was the worst of all the deals. And as Steve mentions, the deal introduces a lot of complexity, right? So now you`re going to have Yahoo! sales people selling Microsoft`s search product. So Yahoo! sales people already have enough problem talking to Yahoo! engineers. Now they have to talk to Microsoft engineers. And what if something goes wrong? Who are they going to yell at? Are the Microsoft engineers going to like that, being yelled at by Yahoo! sales people?

CHARLIE ROSE: Nick, you`re in Redmond. What does this do for Steve Ballmer?

NICK WINGFIELD: Well, it gives him a real fighting chance in a market that he said is strategic to the company. They have about 8.4 percent market share on their own with Bing. With Yahoo!`s market share, they could go to 30 percent of shares — 30 percent of searches in the U.S., and that`s significant.

Now the question is, does it decline from there? Can they increase it? If they do that, you know, how much money do they make off of it? Because of course, Microsoft is losing money in its Internet search business right now. But they just want to gain the share. They argue once they gain the share, they get eyeballs. Search is a scale business, that they will start to improve the quality of the search, because they can do all sorts of things, make ads more relevant. And if they do that, they think they can have a flywheel effect and start really eating into Google`s share.

The other thing that this lets them do is, Google is not only strong in search with 65 percent plus share, but Google is also moving into these other areas that are quite threatening to Microsoft. They`re using their profits in search to get into operating systems, into online applications that are free, that threaten these cash-cow businesses like Office and Word and Excel. And they just recently announced that they`re going to be doing an operating system for laptops. They already have one for mobile phones. And I think Microsoft wants to gain share in search in part to help alleviate that threat.

CHARLIE ROSE: And what about the leadership of Yahoo!? Carol Bartz?

STEVEN LEVY: Well, she felt she had to do something. But I think in this case, by targeting the search team and taking it away, some people wonder whether that`s going to really take the glue, which keeps her portal together there.

The search that Yahoo! did had, you know, about three times the size of what Microsoft search, mainly because so many people come to Yahoo! and they search there. So it really was an opportunity for Yahoo! to grow out there and do more.

She says this is going to enable them to concentrate on the other things that they do. But having a very strong search team and engineering that comes with that search, and with the really complicated engineering you have to do to be able to sell ads on searches, that`s very complex. And you know, for reasons we can get into, it really helps if your share grows. Not having that, those engineers aren`t going to be able to filter through the rest of the company to help you do these other things there. If you look at the team now, gee, what are they going to do? It`s going to take well over a year for this to come to fruition with this deal there. So if I`m working as an engineer for Yahoo! now, what`s my future?

CHARLIE ROSE: That`s — and losing talent is the big issue so much, because they`re creating the new software and building on the old.

STEVEN LEVY: And who is one of the most talented people at Microsoft, the one they all talk about there, is Qi Lu, the guy who came from Yahoo!, and went to Microsoft. He`s now the big technology leader, the bright guy who is leading Microsoft search.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. What about AOL? What`s going to happen to AOL?

ERICK SCHONFELD: So, I think AOL is a great example here, because you`ve got Tim Armstrong, who came from Google, who is now the new CEO of AOL, and he took what was really a hobbled company, and is taking it in a new direction, away from the sweet spot that Google or Yahoo! or Microsoft already dominate in. He`s hiring hundreds of journalists, which as you know from your Politico piece, that you know, they are very, very valuable assets. And is kind of creating — that`s just one part of his business — is creating this sort of new newsstand online. And is doing a lot of interesting things.

And so why didn`t Carol Bartz do that? Why didn`t she double down? You can make the argument that you know, ultimately she had to do something, because she doesn`t have Microsoft`s Windows money and she doesn`t have Google`s search money. So ultimately search is an expensive game and maybe she has to get out of that business, ultimately.

But Microsoft needs her search volume. Why not double down, invest in search, and get a better deal down the line? Or merge with AOL when they become public?

CHARLIE ROSE: Speaking of one final issue, anti-trust, Nick. Is Google worried about anti-trust ramifications of its market share? Will this deal be subject to anti-trust implications, questions?

NICK WINGFIELD: Well, Google is I think worried, yes, about their future in anti-trust. In this particular case of Microsoft and Yahoo!, they argue that together they have 30 percent of the market, compared to Google`s 65 percent. And so they think they are going to have a pretty strong case with the anti-trust regulators. They are definitely going to face some tough scrutiny. They`re prepared, I think, to really fight with Google, but it`s unclear what Google is going to do. There was some talk today at this Microsoft meeting I was at of Google employing sort of third-party advocacy groups to fight the deal. But Google really is the big gorilla here. So it`s a little challenging for them to make an argument that this is going to be anti-competitive. Google has…

(CROSSTALK)

STEVEN LEVY: There`s a really delicious irony here, because last year, when there was the threat of Microsoft buying Yahoo!, Google wanted to make a deal with Yahoo! for the search. It was not on the scale of this, and Microsoft complained about it, and said to the Justice Department, successfully argued that, hey, we can`t do this, because Yahoo! would end its search team. There would be less competition in there. Guess what?

CHARLIE ROSE: They`ll take over their search team. Yes.

Is there a feeling with the search — Bing getting good marks and now this deal, that Microsoft is back and that Microsoft can deliver a lot more than people, or may be much stronger than people assumed it was, say six months ago, when the effort to buy Yahoo! came to nothing?

NICK WINGFIELD: Well, there definitely is a feeling that they are on an upswing in terms of the quality of their products. Windows 7 is coming out, which they hope will erase the sort of disdain of Windows Vista, which was a very troubled operating system for them with some technical problems. Bing is doing well. They have done some innovative stuff in games. But they`ve also got some real challenges. For example, some people think that they have placed too much emphasis on search and neglected mobile phones. They have a pretty poor offering there. And Apple`s got the iPhone and others are doing very well in that category. So they`ve got some big challenges in other areas as well.

ERICK SCHONFELD: Microsoft no doubt is better off today in search than it was before. But we shouldn`t overestimate what their advantage is. Even if they have 30 percent of the search market share, they don`t have 30 percent of the revenues, because they`re giving 88 percent of that back to Yahoo!

CHARLIE ROSE: Exactly. Nick Wingfield, “Wall Street Journal” here. Erick Schonfeld from TechCrunch and Steve Levy from “Wired,” thank you all.

END

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

Read the whole story…

What If: The New New York Times

Like everyone else I’ve watched the print media world fall apart over the last few years. The poster child for that industry is the New York Times, of course, and their many missteps in recent memory have been well chronicled. In early 2008 Marc Andreessen started a New York Times Deathwatch, and the company’s financial performance has degraded since then.

I keep wondering what would happen if the top 10% of the writers at the NYTimes just…walked out. I know it’s crazy, but let’s just explore this a bit for the heck of it.

Today the company is worth just a little over $1 billion. As recently as five years ago it was worth nearly 5x that much. You have to go back to the early 1980s to see a lower stock price.

I certainly don’t think the NYTimes is going to be shutting down any time soon. The company still pulls in nearly $3 billion a year in revenue, down just 10% or so from 2005. But massive overhead, and more than 9,300 employees, make profitability an increasingly difficult goal for The Gray Lady. Her age is showing.

Journalism Isn’t Dead. Just The Old Business Part Of It.

A couple of weeks ago I met the Politico guys just before they taped their Charlie Rose segment. I watched them live from the green room at the show, and read Michael Wolff’s excellent Vanity Fair article on the young company. Their news room is 100 strong and they have more people in the White House Bureau than any other brand. They have roughly the same traffic as we do – 7 million monthly visitors – but they’ve been around just half the time. How did they do it? The site was founded by well known political journalists who bailed to start their own company. They took their personal brands and credentials with them, and the readers followed. Today they are profitable – largely because they launched a three-day-a-week print version of the site. Amazing. Print isn’t dead (yet). Just the overhead is.

And earlier today I got a glimpse at what AOL is up to – they are hiring all the journalists being fired and laid off by the newspapers and magazines. And they now have a news room 1,500 journalists and editors strong. Amazingly, failing old media is throwing away their most valuable assets. And AOL is eagerly picking those assets up for a song. Before anyone knows it, AOL may be the most powerful news outlet in the world.

Journalists still matter. A lot. Especially the good ones.

What if…

So that got me thinking about the NYTimes. $3 billion in revenue. 16 million monthly unique visitors and 124 million page views (Comscore worldwide, May 2009). 9,000+ employees. 1,200 news staff, and just 400 or so writers, critics, correspondents and columnists. I’m still waiting to hear how many editors the paper has on top of those 400, but it’s probably a total full time news staff of no more than 450 people.

I don’t really read the NYTImes beyond the technology section. But I’m guessing that the top performers in the news room, say the best 5%-10% of the writers and editors, produce 50% or more of the real value of the newspaper. The hungriest reporters. The best writers. The most competitive and aggressive editors.

What if that group, the most valuable assets that the NYTimes controls, simply walked out of the building and started their own company? What would that look like?

The New New York Times

The New New York TImes, or NNYT, would have a writing staff of say 50 people. These are among the best journalists in the world, and lets say they wanted to pay themselves $200,000/year, a top salary for a reporter of that stature. That’s just $10 million a year in payroll expenses. Call it $12 million with benefits. Plus, they all have stock options in the new comapny

If TechCrunch is any indication, the amount of support staff (developers, office staff, sales people, admin) needed to run the company is at most 20%, or another ten people, particularly if they outsource a lot of that. Put everyone in the cheapest office possible, and you’re looking at additional payroll, benefits and office expenses of another $3-4 million per year.

Now lets just add another 50% on top of that for other expenses and a safety net, and round it up to $25 million per year in total expenses.

That’s $25 million/year to have a well paid staff of the best journalists on the planet. How long before they outstrip those 16 million monthly visitors and 124 million page views? 5 years? Less?

How many private equity funds would kill to put $100 million behind the NNYT to make sure the company had plenty of money until it reached profitability?

My guess is plenty. And Marc Andreeseen, who has already backed two blogs, may be the first in line to invest. And I know a couple of hedge funds that would be right there, too. I know this because they’ve pitched me on a vision not much different than this one.

Of course, none of this is going to happen. Those 50 top journalists aren’t going to be able to self select and organize themselves even if they had the inclination to do something like this. But the interesting thing is that I think something like this would work, really work, if anyone tried it. And the guys at Politico and AOL seem to be doing just that.

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

Read the whole story…

Arrington On Charlie Rose: Talks Twittergate, CrunchPad, and Competition

TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington recently visited Charlie Rose for a chat about the latest news and events in technology. Michael gave his take on the Google vs. Microsoft rivalry, saying that each tech giant is going after the other’s core businesses. Michael also touched upon the latest news around the CrunchPad and Apple’s much hyped and potentially similar product, the large form iPod Touch, which is reported to hit the market in early 2010.

Of course, Rose unsurprisingly delved into the whole Twittergate fiasco, which Michael gave a lot more insight into, including the discussions with Twitter and the ethical decisions he faced in his decision and why he published the documents. Michael also weighed in on mobile social mapping startup Loopt, the iPhone, the Palm Pre (which he says is a “great phone”) Facebook’s viability as a money-making enterprise and more. Read below for the full transcript of the interview. You can see Arrington’s other Charlie Rose appearances on Crunchbase.

Full Transcript:

Michael Arrington is here. He’s the founder and editor of TechCrunch,
one of the most widely read blogs in Silicon Valley. TechCrunch was
founded in 2005, and now has separate sites covering specific countries and
technologies. Arrington has also formed a company to develop a tablet
computer primarily to use the Web. It is called the Crunchpad. I’m
pleased to have him back on this program. Welcome, sir.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Hello, Charlie.

CHARLIE ROSE: Google versus Microsoft. We now have Bing, their
search engine at Microsoft, and Chrome, which is going to be an operating
system, a browser and an operating system.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Yes, it’s fascinating, because you think of Google
as a search engine company, which most of the revenue is derived from
search marketing, and Microsoft as a sort of software company. Windows and
Office, that’s where they get a lot of their revenue. And yet these two
companies are competing head on, viciously, because Microsoft wants search
share. There’s so much money in it. So they’ve got Bing and they’re
trying to do things with Yahoo! And Google, I don’t know if they want —
if they want sort of revenue from Office and the operating system, but they
certainly want to take that revenue from Microsoft. So you have them with
Chrome OS and Google Docs competing directly with Windows and Office. And
they’re going at each other’s core businesses, and it’s fascinating to
watch.

CHARLIE ROSE: But do they really look to have great success in that?
Do they expect to take away a lot of Microsoft’s operating system?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: If you listen to Eric Schmidt at Google, he seems
pretty serious, that they want — they want to do innovative things in the
operating systems space.

I don’t know what their projections are around that, but…

CHARLIE ROSE: There was a story that Eric was the one resisting going
ahead with Chrome as an operating system.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Oh, I don’t know if he resisted or not, but he’s
certainly behind it now that it’s public. And they also have Android, of
course, the mobile phone operating system that is also based on Linux.

CHARLIE ROSE: There’s also Bing. So, Bing got very good notices.
People in the business, the Walt Mossbergs of the world.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Yes. Bing is a great search engine. They
launched it, what, two months ago now. And it’s a little too early to tell
what kind of market share gains they’ll have, if any, but it’s definitely a
great search engine.

One of the problems with search — and all the guys who do search
testing will tell you this– it doesn’t matter what the results look like
if you have a testing group sort of blind sampling. If you put the Google
logo on top and ask them what they think of the search results, they like
it more than they like it otherwise. And so Google just has the brand in
search, and it’s going to take a lot of time and a lot of money.

CHARLIE ROSE: And a lot of people have to say Bing was better.
Someone said to me this interesting point, that what Google sometimes
worries about if somehow Microsoft computers, PCs, wouldn’t take Google.
Does that make sense to you?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: I think that Microsoft in the past has made
changes to Internet Explorer that stopped the gathering of information by
the browser — by Web sites. The browser sort of puts up not a firewall,
but you can imagine something like that. I think that’s part of the reason
why Google decided to back Firefox so heavily and also to create their own
browser, to stop that from happening. But I think with Google…

CHARLIE ROSE: So, it wouldn’t be Explorer?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Yes. Right. And Explorer’s market share is
dropping.

But I think Google wants to get Microsoft out of the PC entirely. And
they’re offering alternatives across the board to Microsoft software, which
makes that battle so fascinating.

CHARLIE ROSE: Speak to me about mobile phones and mobile technology
and where are we?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: We’re in an awesome place. I mean, think back. I
know you talk about the iPhone quite a bit. The iPhone changed —
absolutely changed the mobile landscape. And people said, you know, some
people said that Apple couldn’t do this, they won’t do it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because they began to see it as a computer in itself?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Well, yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s what…

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Although not just that.

CHARLIE ROSE: And it looked good and everybody wanted to have one
because they thought it was so cool.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: They also figured out Web surfing on a phone with
a small screen that’s a touch screen, but it’s small, but they figured out
the gestures to zoom in and out, and it’s actually an adequate Web surfing
experience that they figured out. No one else had done that before.

CHARLIE ROSE: And what about the Palm Pre?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: It’s a great phone.

CHARLIE ROSE: It’s a great phone. Why is it a great phone?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: The operating system I think is as good or in some
cases better than the iPhone. The operating system is quick, you can have
lots of apps open, it’s a great operating system.

The hardware on the phone I think was a little rushed and feels a
little cheap, so for me I’m sticking with the iPhone, but I came close to
choosing the Palm Pre, partially because of the physical keyboard. I think
it’s really nice, and also because I feel like I’m getting a little bit too
tied to Apple.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. Tell me what Crunchpad is.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: About a year ago — and I really like where the
industry is going with this — about a year ago, I realized I just want a
big iPhone. I want a computer that I can sit on the couch and surf the Web
without having a weird keyboard stuck to it that doesn’t really work when
you’re not sitting at a desk. And so we started this project on TechCrunch
just talking about it, saying we want to build this and we want help from
the community, and great things happened over the course of a year. We’ve
hired a team. We’ve had lots of people, partners come on board and
contribute their time, their resources, suggest partnerships.

CHARLIE ROSE: Did you go get venture money?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Well, you know, I’m not going to answer that
question.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why not?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Because I haven’t — I don’t want to answer the
question.

(LAUGHTER)

CHARLIE ROSE: We have our ways, sir.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: But I’ll say this. I think that Apple — so
there’s rumors — forgetting the Crunchpad and the fact that I want to
build that — Apple is talking about coming out with a tablet computer,
which is going to be a large-screen iPod, or iPhone or iPod Touch. I think
that’s a good thing. I think they’ll sell a lot of them.

Google’s new operating system, Chrome OS, is a Linux-based operating
system with a browser on top, and the idea is you never see the operating
system. You never go to the desktop on the computer. It goes right to the
browser, which is what we’ve been talking about for a year. They’ve been
working on it for a long time. I’m not suggesting we had the idea first.
I have no idea. But the point is, it’s coming to market as a free
operating system. I think that’s really good, and we’re going to see
netbooks without keyboards. We’re going to see computers with other input
mechanisms besides keyboards, or alternative input mechanisms that I think
are going to — really exciting stuff.

CHARLIE ROSE: Facebook versus Google. Is that a big competition?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: You know, last time we talked, it was Facebook
versus MySpace. And the funny thing is, that’s not the question anyone
asks anymore.

CHARLIE ROSE: It’s what is Facebook becoming?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Right. And what is Google becoming. I think it’s
almost like everybody is chasing Twitter right now, and Facebook clearly
is. But when it comes down to it, the social aspect of Facebook, where
your friends are recommending things to you, which could be products or
news items, and it’s the constant sort of logging into the site 25 times a
day is something that Google needs to address. And right now they…

CHARLIE ROSE: So that’s Zuckerberg’s argument. Look, I mean, who
better to go for a search than your friends? If you know and trust.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Exactly. Exactly. Yes. Why not?

CHARLIE ROSE: Because they will know who you are and what you like.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Some of the startups that buy traffic on Google
search are talking about the conversion rates from those — conversion
rates meaning a purchase or a signup that they get from that purchase
traffic from Google is good, but not nearly as good as the conversion rates
they are seeing from Facebook and Twitter. So if I just send out a link
saying, wow, I just saw this movie and it sure is good, and you click on
that, you’re more likely to go see the movie than you are if you do a
search for it and click on a paid ad from Google.

Google is very aware of that. The free stuff on Twitter and Facebook
is better than the paid ads on Google. And that has to be freaking them
out a little bit.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, what did you do? You published some internal
financial documents from Twitter?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: There’s this hacker…

CHARLIE ROSE: I know that.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: This French guy that got these documents from
Twitter because of these guest books (ph)…

CHARLIE ROSE: Right, and so what did you do?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: I’ll get to it. He — so what he did was, he
wanted to warn Twitter that, you know, your security is awful. And also he
wanted to get credit for doing this as hackers and crackers do. So, he
went to the French media, and a French journalist — he was told about it,
this French journalist went to Twitter and said what happened, Twitter
wouldn’t respond. So he dropped it, came to us and said…

CHARLIE ROSE: Who came to you?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: This hacker, anonymously, and said, here are all
the documents and sent us all these documents. Started this fascinating
discussion about…

CHARLIE ROSE: What was in the documents?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: It was hundreds of documents taken from Twitter’s
employees’ attachments to e-mail accounts. And it included interview
schedules, people they interviewed in Silicon Valley, prominent people that
work in other companies that didn’t end up at Twitter. So very
embarrassing stuff. Credit card information for many of the employees. E-
mails, inbox screen shots, executive meeting notes, financial projections,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Just the whole sort of thing. And we
looked at that and said, we’re going to post some of this. Some of it
we’re not. But we said…

CHARLIE ROSE: Like credit card numbers, you’re not going to post
that.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: We’re not going to post the credit card numbers or
things that would embarrass people, but some of this was — we thought was
pretty darn newsworthy, particularly the financial projections and the
executive meeting notes from the last few months. And so we engaged in a
dialogue with our readers, where we said, look, we have got these
documents. We haven’t decided yet what we’re going to post, we think a
couple of documents. We talked to Twitter, sent them all documents, so
they knew what was going on. Talked to our lawyer…

CHARLIE ROSE: So, what did they say, go ahead and post them?

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: They said…

CHARLIE ROSE: We have no problem with this?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: The ultimate answer was, we know you’re going to
post a couple of these, and that’s OK, but for most of these, we’d really
rather you not, and so that’s not a problem, we absolutely won’t. And we
worked with Twitter on the back end to make sure they closed up some of the
security holes that they had. But the interesting thing to me wasn’t the -
– the documents were fascinating. The interesting thing to me was the
discussion that was generated around whether we should publish them or not.

And there are people that have come out, major journalists who have
come out said it was unethical for us to do this. And there were
journalists who had come out and said it was absolutely fine and ethical
for them to do this. In fact, their readers deserve that kind of access.

And obviously I have an opinion because I’m in the middle of the
story, but just taking myself out of it, I think it’s a fascinating
discussion, because I know in the old days, when “The New York Times” or
“The Wall Street Journal” got documents like this, they weren’t — they
didn’t have that discussion with the readers.

CHARLIE ROSE: It’s interesting how you did it, you know, engaging
your community.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: I engaged them, and I would say that 80 percent of
my readers disagreed with me. And let me know about it.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, why did you do it?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Because I think — well, you know, it’s funny.
When I make decisions with TechCrunch on whether to publish or what
position to take, often I’ll look back after everything is played out and
say, would I do things differently with the benefit of hindsight? And
there are a couple of instances in the past where I would have probably
done things differently. In this case, I think I absolutely did the right
thing, and I wouldn’t do things any differently. So.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you know the site called Loopt? It’s amazing.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: It’s this mobile social networking. And it’s all
about location.

CHARLIE ROSE: Wherever you are, you know everybody in your block.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Yes. I can turn mine on — I mean, I don’t have
my phone with me, but I can turn it on when I get out of here and see
everyone around me who’s a friend. Actually, mine is set up a little
differently, so I’ll see everyone who wants me to see them. And it’s a
different way of networking socially.

I love it. In fact, I’ve written about this, where you can imagine a
time where you walk into a bar and you pull out your phone and you see —
for everyone that wants you to see it, you see — and you laugh and it’s
funny, but it’s also big business. Everyone’s picture who’s the opposite
sex or whatever your sexual preferences are, who is single and maybe wants
to — you can see all of them. And that way you know, you know, you can go
and flirt with them on the phone and it sort of helps you meet people in a
bar.

Or you go into a business cocktail setting, and you see people on your
phone that you’ve met before and maybe it helps you with their first name
or to remember things. I think that’s the kind of thing that Looped (ph)
and others are doing that is going to change social networking.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, tell me how you see the future of social
networking? I mean, is it…

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: I don’t know what it is. I mean, it’s hard to
define. It’s — if you look at Facebook, it’s really the plumbing behind
the interactions online between people and helping them map to the real
world. It’s clear that people love interacting with each other on Web
sites. And it’s clear that Facebook has been able to get third parties to
build applications on their platform that leverage you having your friends
sort of seeing what you’re doing. And it’s clear also that they can then
take that — if you saw what they did with CNN around the elections, and
then you can comment and your friends can see you comment, you know, what’s
going on during the election.

That’s all — it’s sort of really fascinating. What’s unclear is
whether it can really become profitable over the long run. Because
Facebook has these massive expenses, and the revenues are growing rapidly,
but it’s unclear if in the long run, they can make that vastly profitable
like Google has.

CHARLIE ROSE: What about the Kindle space?

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: The ebook reader space is very interesting, and I
wouldn’t expect Apple to stay out of it for much longer, to be honest, but
Amazon has been successful in selling the Kindles. I think they — the
estimates are they might sell a million or so this year. They sell lots of
books on top of it and subscriptions, so it’s a great revenue stream for
them.

I’ve argued that Amazon should not be building a hardware device
specifically. They should be building the software or the device and let
anyone build a Kindle if they want. These are forcing Sony and Barnes &
Noble and Apple and others to come up with their competing sort of closed-
off ebook systems. And so I think that Amazon should really say, look,
we’re going to do the books, we’re going to do the software for the Kindle,
but other people build the hardware.

CHARLIE ROSE: You take care of the hardware. Yes. TechCrunch, thank
you.

MICHAEL ARRINGTON: Thanks very much.

CHARLIE ROSE: Michael Arrington.

Thank you for joining us. See you next time.

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

Read the whole story…