Benton RSS Feed

Google’s Android software versus Apple‘s iOS, says Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, "is the defining competition in the industry today.” The battle in smartphone and tablet technology — to build so-called platform ecosystems of partners, developers and users — is the underlying theme in not only Google’s seemingly disappointing quarterly performance, but also in a string of recent tech company and industry reports.

The once-dominant personal computer platform is in retreat. The quarterly results this week from Microsoft, Intel and Advanced Micro Devices all point in that direction. Yes, there is a product-transition issue as the mainstream PC world pauses while waiting for the upcoming release of Windows 8, Microsoft’s new operating system. But the report from IDC last week showed that even Apple’s shipments of Macintosh computers were off 7 percent in the third quarter. Still, people buying fewer personal computers and more smartphones and tablets is a trend that warms the hearts in Apple’s headquarters. That is a tradeoff the company will take gladly, given Apple’s lofty profit margins on iPhones and iPads. The other mobile technology heavyweight, Google, is making a tradeoff of its own. Yes, its profit margins are slipping a bit as more people increasingly use its search and other services on smartphones and tablets. The price paid by advertisers per click is less on mobile devices than on the bigger screens of PCs. But the mobile ad market is embryonic, although growing rapidly. The business models haven’t been figured out yet. Recall, though, that Google was founded and well underway before it figured out the search ad model that made the company an Internet cash register.

[Commentary] With fewer than three weeks before the presidential election, both sides have ramped up their advertising to an incredible extent.

Over the last three weeks, the Obama campaign has purchased $40 million in swing state ad time, while the Romney campaign has spent $49 million. Overall, the Obama campaign is outspending its competitor, $300 million to $164 million. That said, the advantage shifts when you factor in outside groups: total spending from Team Romney — the campaign and Republican Super PACs — comes to $455 million. By contrast, total spending from Team Obama is $352 million. But the fact that Republicans are outspending Democrats hasn’t translated to actual ad saturation. By the end of last week, Obama and his allies had aired about 5,000 more ads than their Republican counterparts. Indeed, despite speculation that Team Obama was on the verge of conceding states like Virginia, Florida and North Carolina, the bulk of the campaign’s ad spending remains located in two of those states — two of the top six media markets for the Obama campaign are located in Virginia (the Hampton Roads area) and Florida (the Tampa area).

[Commentary] For a century, our country has benefited from a communications social contract in telephone, broadcast, and multi-channel video in which through law, regulation, and franchise agreements, providers obtain public benefits in exchange for providing certain, limited public obligations. But how will we write the terms of the social contract between communities and communications providers in building the next infrastructure of world-class IP communications for the 21st century?

The question regarding how to build it has become increasingly important as Internet communications begin to supplant 20th Century methods of delivering voice and video, but it remains unanswered. When we developed the National Broadband Plan, we expressed our concern that the current social contracts governing communications would not create a critical mass of communities with world-leading bandwidth, without which the United States might lose its international leadership in developing the next generation of broadband applications. The best outcome for the country would be if Time-Warner, AT&T and others seized this moment to offer to deploy the kind of network Google deployed in other communities if those communities would provide the kind of inducements Kansas City offered. If they did so, they would find willing partners. And those partnerships would spark a race to the top that would catalyze new investments, new economic growth, and a new generation of American leadership in delivering the benefits of broadband.

[Levin became a communications & society fellow with the Aspen Institute after serving as Executive Director of the National Broadband Planning effort. He is currently Executive Director of Gig.U, a project within the Institute that seeks to accelerate the deployment of next generation networks and services by using university communities as test-beds.]

We’ve upgraded the White House homepage. What makes it better? Most visitors aren't just stopping by; they're looking for specific information about the President and his policies. With these changes, we're applying the lessons we’ve learned from our earlier updates and making sure that the homepage is a gateway to our most timely and important content. It puts tools to search the site front and center and makes the page easier to navigate. We've also made it easier to catch live events broadcast on WhiteHouse.gov/live and highlighted the many White House social media accounts.