Considering the ongoing skirmishes going on right now between Amazon and Google over digital book publishing, it’s more than ironic that Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos was one of only a few initial investors in the search giant.

But–in one of the many interesting details in New Yorker author Ken Auletta’s new book, “Googled: The End Of The World As We Know It”–it was indeed Bezos who invested $250,000 in the start-up in 1998 at four cents a share.

(Some previous reports have had it at six cents a share and at a $100,000 level.)

Three of the others, according to Auletta, all of whom ponied up the same amount, were Stanford University computer science professor David Cheriton, entrepreneur Ram Shriram and Sun Microsystems (JAVA) co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim.

Later, more angels invested in Google (GOOG), followed by the big $25 million venture round by Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital in mid-1999.

While it was known back when Google went public in 2004 that Bezos held about three million shares in the IPO (Auletta said it was precisely 3.3 million shares), the book has a lot of the details about the meeting between him and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in the Menlo Park, Calif., garage of current Google exec Susan Wojcicki.

He had been brought there, according to the book, by Shriram, who had sold his company, Junglee, to Amazon (AMZN) in 1998.

“I just fell in love with Larry and Sergey,” Bezos told Auletta in an interview–not that there’s anything wrong with that considering the flip-flop relationships of Silicon Valley.

He’d presumably be more in love–and less inclined to be fighting Google, first in search with A9 and now in online publishing–if he had held onto those shares.

That stock would be worth $1.6 billion today.

But a spokesman for Amazon declined to comment on what Bezos did with his Google stake, noting it was a personal investment.

Interestingly, Bezos is also an early investor in the current hotsy-totsy microblogging start-up, Twitter.

A part of Auletta’s book, which is slated to come out Nov. 3, is in this week’s New Yorker in an excerpt called “Searching for Trouble.” It is, oddly, not available online.

In any case, the piece is mostly about the various ways Brin and Page dissed big media moguls, figuratively (destroying old media advertising business models) and literally (showing up at meetings sweaty and wearing skates and gym shorts).

Good thing they never did that to Bezos.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

This weekend on Twitter, someone paid BoomTown a compliment of a sort: “I read you because you are a solid fact-based reporter with a Miss Cleo intuition “

Yipes, because of being fact-based, I had to point out that the well-known-via-infomercials Psychic Friends Network shaman turned out to be a bit of a fraud, although she’s always entertaining, with her jaunty Jamaican accent (she was not, of course, from there).

Nonetheless, it got me thinking about how I would predict what would result from all the deal-making that is suddenly in the air, after six months of ennui from the current economic downturn.

While Silicon Valley has been less impacted than, say, New York, things have certainly been tightening up here, with layoffs at big companies and small ones and less frenetic activity than one had come to expect from Web 2.0.

But last week, the pulse seemed to quicken a little with the various rumors that have swirled around Twitter, the variety of controversies around Facebook and the nascent chit-chatting now taking place between Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT).

Thus, with a third eye to the future, here’s my take on what could happen. Big caveat, though: Much of what follows is all my speculation and analysis and not based on any psychic feelings.

TWITTER TWADDLE

Last week, I did a rather long reported post on what was going on after rumors broke out that Twitter was in “late-stage” acquisition negotiations with Google (GOOG).

While an imminent deal was not pending two weeks ago, I wrote that Twitter was indeed the apple of Google’s eye at the moment–specifically and now more so than ever, many sources tell me, of its Search Product VP Marissa Mayer–for some kind of search deal that could eventually lead to an acquisition.

But I also noted that Microsoft was also in the picture, vying for Twitter’s affections, and I doubted that Microsoft and Google would be the only ones interested in the hot-as-July-in-Alabama microblogging start-up.

Here’s the plus for Twitter: It’s on a hype rocket ship, its growth is also accelerating and it does not need money, since it just got a big slug of venture funding.

And that’s also a minus and why I also predict that there are only two outcomes: a sale very soon or a major investment by one of its suitors.

While I would love for its founders, including Biz Stone and CEO Evan Williams, to stick to their claims of remaining a “strong, profitable, independent company,” a cash offer of over $500 million or a cash-and-stock offer of slightly more will probably be enough to take them off the table, mostly because the getting might never get this good again.

That offer is most likely to come from Google, if I had to make a bet, which is well known for moving quickly when it sees a tasty treat it desires.

That’s a shame, since once the start-up actually does enter these kinds of “late-stage” talks for real, some deserved shine will come right off Twitter’s cute little MINI convertible of a company.

Instead, Twitter might want to take a page from Facebook and let itself grow its own as it explores revenue options, while perhaps taking a large investment and striking a significant commercial deal with a strategic partner like Google or Microsoft.

Then, with a modicum of independence and the possibility of acquisition if it turned out it needed help, Twitter could forge its own destiny.

And wouldn’t that be nice if Google or Microsoft didn’t just gobble up every innovative thing they cannot seem to think of on their own?

FACEBOOK FOLLIES

I will be reporting more very soon on what’s been going on as the powerful social-networking site deals with its fast-growing pains–up to 200 million users now, which is about as impressive at it gets in the Internet space.

Not so impressive is the variety of high-profile management mishaps that have plagued the company of late–from its Terms of Service debacle to its redesign rough road to the way Facebook recently parted with CFO GIdeon Yu.

To say Facebook treated Yu–a well-regarded figure in the tech sector, who had also raised an awful lot of funding for the start-up–with very little of the kind of grace he deserved and that it should have displayed is an understatement.

In the creation of a significant start-up, tensions inevitably flare and there is typically a lot of management turnover, which is natural, for a variety of reasons on all sides.

Why Facebook had to insecurely tout its stable financial state while backhandedly slapping Yu by saying it was in a search for a CFO with “public company experience”–Yu had enough public company experience to make that deeply insulting–was unclear, when it simply could have said he was moving on in the way most such partings are done.

The conflict between its public statement and an internal memo I obtained on Yu’s departure underscored the problem.

Insecure and way too focused on optics is probably an issue Facebook will have to deal with as it moves toward what the company hopes will be in IPO in 2010 or 2011. Rather than all the noise, its only goal should be shaping up its revenue and profit performance and, hopefully, building a cohesive management.

But does that mean current CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg will have to eventually step aside before a public offering and make way for a more experienced CEO type, as Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page did for Eric Schmidt, as some have suggested?

I predict not. Because, for all his careening from crisis to crisis of late, I have no question that Zuckerberg–who has fended off big-money acquisition attempts by big players with a cool-cucumberness that Twitter’s execs should study carefully–has every intention of riding Facebook to the very top–or even bottom.

Clearly modeling himself as a modern-day Steve Jobs (who was fired before triumphantly returning) or Bill Gates (a better comparison), Zuckerberg is a visionary techie who wants to style himself as a crack businessman too.

And with a lot of control over the fate of Facebook, he’s going to see his vision of Facebook and himself out.

THE ODD COUPLE

Can two divorced men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?

Oops, I mean can two once-bickering-over-a-hostile-takeover companies start talking without driving each other crazy?

Last week, the news, first reported here Friday, that Yahoo was involved in preliminary talks with Microsoft about an extensive commercial advertising and search partnership–should have come as no surprise.

After all, Yahoo and Microsoft are laggards in the lucrative search space, especially compared to the dominant Google, and they must somehow find a way to get along to get some traction in the marketplace.

But will they or will it be all Felix Unger and Oscar Madison battling until the end of time? While I loved that television show, and movie too, the Yahoo-Microsoft version is not riveting anymore to some.

“I am so bored with their not-coming-to-a-deal,” said one prominent exec, who was involved in the first go-round between the companies. “They need to make a deal, and if they don’t make a deal now, I will be both bored and in shock.”

That made me laugh out loud when I heard it. But it’s not funny, I know, because this is serious stuff!

Okay, then, seriously, this pair needs to come to some sort of partnership agreement like Miss Cleo needs a new reputation.

And, because I am a hopeful psychic, I predict they finally will, dropping all the emotion and history and realizing that they are wasting time and opportunity.

After all, while the future isn’t written, it can–a lot of the time–be both inevitable and utterly obvious.

Speaking of obviously (bogus), here is a video of Miss Cleo’s famous commercial:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

It was jokingly called the “Millionaires’ Dinner,” but I renamed it the “Billionaires’ Dinner.”

That was due to the frothy fortunes that had been made at the time by the Internet pioneers, from Amazon to AOL to eBay. Get it?!?

Well, despite the economic meltdown, there were still a lot of billionaires in attendance at Brockman’s most recent dinner last Thursday in Long Beach. But he recounted to me that the proceedings were a lot more focused on the serious times we are in, as was the whole digerati-packed conference held last week.

Indeed, Brockman now calls the event the “Edge Dinner,” after his lively Edge Web site, where he presides over a variety of eclectic online debates and discussions (in January, for example, the topic was: “DOES THE EMPIRICAL NATURE OF SCIENCE CONTRADICT THE REVELATORY NATURE OF FAITH?”).

Since I managed to miss the fete entirely (embarrassing confession: I fell dead asleep at 7 p.m. and did not wake until the next morning) and could not chronicle it, Brockman allowed me to post some photos from the event taken by him and by former Microsoft research guru and current intellectual property mogul Nathan Myhrvold.

Here are some, and you can see the rest here (click on the images to make them larger):

Google co-founder Larry Page and Applied Minds’ Danny Hillis

Former AOL kingpin and Revolution Health’s Steve Case and Jean Case, Case Foundation

Twitter CEO Evan Williams and Neoteny’s Joi Ito

Nathan Myhrvold, Google’s Marissa Mayer and Nathan Wolfe of Stanford University

Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos

Microsoft Co-founder Bill Gates and DEKA’s Dean Kamen

New Media Nabobs Tim O’Reilly and Arianna Huffington

Here’s a video I did while attending YouTube Live on Saturday–well, live–at the Herbst Pavilion at the Fort Mason Center, right on the San Francisco Bay.

The last time I had attended a big tech industry event here, it was the launch of Windows 97 from Microsoft (MSFT)–which was quite a different scene than this entertaining but freaky show, in which online celebrities jumped a little shakily into the analog world.

Let me just say, online celebrities make real-world ones seem 1,000 percent more interesting. But there is also a homespun sweetness to them too and a look-at-me striving that can be downright heartbreaking.

YouTube Live was the online video giant’s “first ever official live community celebration” and also its first try at a live-streamed event. The YouTube Live broadcast online drew about 700,000 viewers at its peak.

As such, as Peter Kafka of MediaMemo notes: “That is almost certainly a record for a Web-only event. But it’s a nonevent by mainstream entertainment standards.”

I am not sure big ratings were the point, though. Nonetheless, the show did attract a passel of Internet stars, including YouTube Founder Chad Hurley, who sat with Google Co-Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin right up front. Google (GOOG) owns YouTube.

Here is a video of the event, including an interview I did with Obama Girl, as well as Hurley, and also some snippets of the professional performers (Katy Perry, Will.I.Am and Akon) and a passel of online celebs (including the “Free Hugs” and “Will It Blend” guys) appearing onstage:

Please see this disclosure related to me and YouTube (which is owned by Google).

And, no surprise, he is the No. 1 choice of most inside and outside Yahoo (YHOO) in the wake of the news late yesterday that current CEO and Co-Founder Jerry Yang is stepping down.

And why not? Chernin has the right resume: Experienced at running large and complex organizations; savvier than most in media about the Internet; able to make the kinds of dramatic decisions needed; and, perhaps best of all, signaling–via the Los Angeles Times–just this past week that he was open to leaving the powerful media and entertainment conglomerate for something new.

Well, Yahoo would certainly be new for Chernin, in terms of a corporate cleanup challenge, especially compared to figuring out how to make bank on plush toys from “The Simpsons.”

And, while the risks are many, if Chernin (pictured here) managed to turn around Yahoo, he could make a huge fortune too, given Yahoo shares have languished of late, much in the same way they did when former CEO Terry Semel came to Yahoo from Hollywood in 2001.

But it’s not altogether clear whether Chernin would actually leave his powerful perch at News Corp. (NWS)–which owns Dow Jones and owns this Web site. He has been ensconced there for a dozen years, building a huge reputation as a sharp exec (No, Peter, I am not kissing up, as I think Yahoo would wear even you down very, very quickly).

That’s even though many note he is not likely to take over as CEO from its iconic leader, Rupert Murdoch. The media mogul is widely expected to favor one of his own children to lead News Corp. next.

And the 57-year-old Chernin already makes close to $30 million in his current job, which is definitely challenging.

And, although Chernin has been involved in the News Corp.-owned MySpace and has had success backing the Hulu online video site, it is not nearly as hard as the five-year turnaround quagmire (plus no fabulous media mogul perks either) that Yahoo could turn out to be.

In addition, privately to other News Corp. execs, Chernin has regularly pooh-poohed a move to a digital company, even though he is always on the short list for a lot of big Internet jobs–such as the long-unfilled post as digital head at Microsoft (MSFT) more recently.

So, who else to take over from Yang, who will return to his job as Chief Yahoo after stepping down from the company as soon a search for a replacement CEO is successful?

Well, here is BoomTown’s own shortish list, based on asking a wide range of people inside and outside Yahoo, all of whom are important digital players in their own right.

INSIDE YAHOO

Sue Decker:

The current President of Yahoo is certainly being “considered” for the job, which is a polite term for not really being considered at all. While Decker is an intelligent and thoughtful exec, like a politician with a record, she has had her hand on the operating tiller at Yahoo for too long not to get deservedly blamed for its current situation.

In addition, she is radioactive to big investors, who have told the Yahoo board in no uncertain terms that she is a nonstarter.

Maggie Wilderotter:

The former Microsoft exec, who has also been a public company CEO, is an interesting idea floated by some, who think the Yahoo board might turn to one of its own directors, as a short-term solution to stabilize Yahoo.

Wilderotter has been much focused, said several Yahoo execs, on cost-cutting at Yahoo and certainly is not as tarnished, being a more current board member. But she is a largely unknown quantity in the Internet space and, most importantly, at Yahoo.

John Chapple:

The former CEO of Nextel is one of the two board members (former media Frank Biondi Jr. is the other) recently picked by Carl Icahn, when the activist shareholder was admitted on the board as part of the proxy fight settlement.

Chapple has, sources said, been conducting chats with Yahoo execs lately, perhaps as a way to get a lay of the land. If he got the job, it would be clear Icahn had won his Pyrrhic victory (and personal financial defeat) against Yang.

OUTSIDE YAHOO

Dan Rosensweig:

The very funny, but brash, former Yahoo COO is definitely a favorite within Yahoo’s ranks, except for those who don’t like him. But it’s clear Rosensweig does know and love Yahoo, is close to Yang and, ironically, enjoys a tight relationship with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who also wanted him for the digital head job.

Also, Rosensweig, who does have operating chops, has gotten some much needed time away from Yahoo, as a partner at the tony media investment firm, the Quadrangle Group.

Meg Whitman:

Another dreamy CEO choice, except she has already been a big company CEO at eBay (EBAY), has proved her mettle in building it to a powerhouse–despite the online auction site’s currently harder times–and has the giant fortune to prove it.

And, oh yes, she is likely to be using that pile of cash to run for governor of California, on the Republican ticket.

Jon Miller/Ross Levinsohn:

The Bobbsey Twins of the Internet, the pair are now having a very good time running their own investment company, the Velocity Group.

But, aside from some questioning whether he can make the quick decisions needed at Yahoo, Miller (pictured here on the right), the former head of AOL, does not want to leave his New York home and cannot take any job anyway until his noncompete with Time Warner (TWX) runs out in March.

And former Fox Interactive Media head Levinsohn likes Los Angeles, and probably is too fast a personality for Yahoo (his going there would be a shock to its system, but would be endlessly entertaining to me personally).

Tim Armstrong:

The top ad exec at Google (GOOG) certainly is an interesting idea, although has little of the product experience needed to run Yahoo. But he is a well-respected advertising figure–where Yahoo needs to shine–and could do well with a lot of strong execs under him.

He is also not on a CEO path at Google–paging, Larry Page!–and could be interested in proving he could run a company on his own.

Kevin Johnson:

The former Microsoft exec was supposed to be running Yahoo, if he and Ballmer pulled off their takeover attempt earlier this year. They did not, and Johnson then left Microsoft to run Juniper Networks (JNPR) in Silicon Valley, right up the road from Yahoo, in fact.

But Johnson is likely subject to a noncompete by Microsoft and a strong contract at Juniper too. Still, a very sharp exec, he definitely has the operating, political, technological and digital skills to take on Yahoo. Also, ironically, he and Yang really get along well and like each other, despite the takeover battle.

Of course, there are a lot of other ideas: Disney (DIS) online exec Steve Wadsworth; the outside-the-box choice of former Procter & Gamble (PG) marketing wizard Jim Stengel; Microsoft digital exec Yusuf Mehdi; CBS (CBS) digital head Quincy Smith (whose hyperactive dealmaking would likely lead to a mutant merger between CBS and Yahoo); and former Cisco (CSCO) and current Joost CEO Mike Volpi.

Please post suggestions below or, better yet, send tips to me at here.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

It used to be, many years ago, that longtime Silicon Valley tech exec Eric Schmidt could work up a very significant head of steam when talking about the thuggish monopolistic practices of Microsoft and its negative impact on the tech industry.

And, for the most part, Schmidt was dead right–Microsoft’s overwhelming power then had a malevolent impact, both directly and indirectly, on innovation and openness in the digital sector.

Thus, BoomTown is both gobsmacked and a bit in awe that Schmidt–now sitting atop the high-tech pig pile as CEO of the powerful search giant, Google–can, with a straight face, make the argument that everyone is wrong to be nervous about its deal with Yahoo to serve some of its search and text advertising, even though the pair control more than 80 percent of the search market.

Because while Google displays none of the bullying tactics of Microsoft in its glory days–think of it more like a giant that could accidentally squash all us little people with its big dumb feet–the worries about it amassing too much power are well-founded.

Along with customers, competitors and anyone who fears a concentration of power in the hands of one player, I have been a critic of the deal since it was announced in the spring as a Hail Mary play to get Yahoo out of the clutches of Microsoft.

In addition, the Justice Department has hired an outside litigator to decide whether to proceed with an antitrust investigation of the deal and possibly look into Google’s business more deeply.

And just today, comScore released new stats for search market share for August; Google’s rose once again to 63 percent, up from 61.9 percent.

Both Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT)–the distant No. 2 and No. 3–lost share, logging in at 19.6 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively.

In addition, Google (GOOG) accounted for 77.4 percent of all search engine spending in the second quarter of 2008, according to Efficient Frontier.

And–oh, yes–Google-owned YouTube dominates online video rather significantly.

Translation: Scary, like that-bullying-banker-Mr. Potter-from-”It’s a Wonderful Life” scary.

Still, at a press conference yesterday– my invitation must have gotten lost in the email so I will have to rely on the quotes collected by others–Schmidt went on the offensive to defend the Yahoo deal, which is set to begin in a few weeks, in a most peculiar way.

“While we have been talking to regulators, we don’t know what their position is,” Schmidt said. “We don’t know if they think it’s a good deal or poor deal.”

But Schmidt and other Google execs–including co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin–said they would move forward with or without regulatory approval.

“Time is money in our business,” said Schmidt, who also noted the deal was “designed precisely to meet the terms of antitrust law in the United States.”

Well, I am not sure being within the letter of the law is quite the argument I would make. After all, one can be entirely correct–and Google does love to be mathematically accurate!–and still be completely wrong.

Yet Schmidt pressed on!

“You face a question as a large company trying to change things: How many initiatives do you want to take on that are unpopular or lead to criticism?,” he asked, pontificating as if he were fighting for better health care for the world’s poor instead of just being able to sell small text ads hawking things like Viagra and electronics.

Schmidt said the deal would have “strong user benefits” and not raise online ad prices, part of Google’s basic argument that its auction-style business model makes that impossible.

As a side note, Brin–who was, I think, being completely genuine–said Google also felt a debt to Yahoo co-founders Jerry Yang and David Filo for helping Google get started a decade ago.

(Ironically, being the search option on Yahoo’s homepage was the key way Google grew and Yahoo damaged its future prospects).

But, while the payback argument is very touching, it ignores the fact that–on its very face–the No. 1 and No. 2 search and search-ad companies should never be in business together.

That Google leadership does not seem to understand these fears is disturbing.

And with what can only be described as an oafishly arrogant style, they seem to be dismissing anyone who raises concerns as being uneducated or simply a front for Microsoft’s lobbying efforts.

“We are quite certain Microsoft is busy helping everyone get upset about things,” said Schmidt, who has long loved to slap Microsoft at any opportunity.

As if we are all in the thrall of Microsoft (whom I, for one, smack around daily for its dopey Web strategies).

Google, it seems, is in the thrall of no one.

While the deal has been voluntarily delayed by three months, the redacted agreement Yahoo released said it had 105 days from June 12 to start. That would be Sept. 25.

Under terms of the agreement, either Yahoo or Google could end the deal after 120 days from when it was struck, if it was not “commercially reasonable” for either to defend. That would be Oct. 11.

In addition, Yahoo or Google can end the deal if a court later enters an injunction.

But Google does not seem to care about a possible noisy government investigation, which it should.

While Google is in no way guilty of the kind of behavior that got Microsoft into hot water, not caring what anyone thinks was perhaps the most disastrous error of hubris that Microsoft’s Bill Gates (he is pictured on the stand here) made when the federal government came at him and took him to trial.

After a long and bruising court battle in which the judge ruled the company had violated antitrust laws, in which Gates came off very badly, Microsoft eventually settled via a consent decree to rein in some of its behaviors.

And I think we can all agree that Microsoft emerged from that encounter deeply wounded and with diminished momentum that continues to resonate today for it.

There was one thing that Schmidt said yesterday at the press conference that I do agree with: “There is a natural fear of things getting larger.”

Yes, Eric. And, naturally, more people than ever fear Google.

And while that fear has not seeped down to consumers and impacted Google’s terrific brand quite yet, it surely will, especially if Google keeps claiming that it is not all that powerful when anyone with eyes can plainly see that it is.

Just ask Microsoft.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Here is a video I did while I was attending and liveblogging the Google launch of and press conference for its new “not-a-Windows-killer” Chrome browser, held at its Mountain View, Calif., HQ yesterday morning.

Google (GOOG) released its own software to navigate the Internet yesterday, setting itself up in yet another bruising competition with Microsoft (MSFT).

In the video, I reveal my secret Google parking spot, survey the media scrum, bother a Google PR guy, check out snacks while discussing Chrome with blogger John Furrier, listen to various Googlers–including Co-Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin–talk about the effort, interview Chrome project honcho Google VP Sundar Pichal (and ask him about when the Mac version is coming) and make fun of Google furniture.

All in a day’s work for BoomTown!

Here’s the video:

Also, here are the links to three blog posts I did live from the launch yesterday, in order:

Liveblogging From the Google Chrome Launch: Hello, Sundar!

Liveblogging From the Google Chrome Launch: Toe Fungus and Pinocchio

Liveblogging From the Google Chrome Launch: Hello, Larry! (Wake Up, Sergey!)

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Finally, Google Co-Founder Larry Page takes the microphone and thanks the Chrome browser team and compliments them for their efforts.

This is–as anyone on the receiving end of Page’s sometimes pointed manner knows (and BoomTown has been)–a big deal.

Page also starts to talk about how browser choice and innovation could make the planet a better place.

Of course! World peace through better browsing!

Then he moves on to questions from the media, bringing some of the Chrome team up to the stage.

There’s a sequence of very serious questions on how to move tabs, privacy, mobile issues, WebKit, bug testing, Incognito, distribution plans and ongoing support for Mozilla’s Firefox (yes, it will continue–plus, Mozilla HQ is across the street! Hmmm…).

Ooops–the other Google (GOOG) Co-Founder, Sergey Brin, suddenly arrives late. He slips into the lineup of “Inside the Actors Studio”-type chairs, looking like he just woke up, in what is a classic move by Microsoft’s Bill Gates that I like to call the “bed-head maneuver.” (I like the spanking red Crocs though!)

It’s a sleepy ruse, as it turns out, as Brin deftly deflects a question about whether Chrome is an operating system for the Web, given that Internet navigation software has become so integral to consumer behavior.

As in, a Windows killer!

Nope, says Brin (full video answer to come), totally ignoring my dubious look.

The distribution question is key, of course, since Google will want to get Chrome out there. So what’s the secret sauce? Because it is a “great product,” says Page.

As to why Google was doing this, VP Sundar Pichal said the search giant wanted to “start from scratch” in the browser game. Like baking a really good cake, one would assume.

When no reporter would get up and ask the obvious what-about-tweaking-Microsoft question, I finally did and also asked about the business plan for Chrome–as in, how will it help Google make more money?

Both Brin and Page answer again that it’s all about providing choice and also keeping the Web open, which will spur usage, which will rain more magical moolah down on the Googleplex.

Also (and video to come on this too), Brin later adds, Google never thinks of Microsoft (MSFT).

Well, at least on that issue it seems we’re back to Pinocchio–the long-nosed version–again.

Soon to come: BoomTown’s Chrome Launch video and one of just the sleepy-as-a-fox Brin on Chrome!

Until then, here’s the exclusive review in his Personal Technology column of the new Google Chrome browser by AllThingsD.com’s Walt Mossberg, which was published at the same time as the news of its product launch was announced by the search behemoth this morning.

Walt’s reaction is mixed:

“My verdict: Chrome is a smart, innovative browser that, in many common scenarios, will make using the Web faster, easier and less frustrating. But this first version–which is just a beta, or test, release–is rough around the edges and lacks some common browser features Google plans to add later.”

Anyone can now download Chrome, but Walt has been testing it for a week. He also reviews Microsoft’s newest version of its powerful Internet Explorer, called IE8, which he likes better than Chrome.

Money quote: “The second beta version of IE8 is the best edition of Internet Explorer in years. It is packed with new features of its own, some of which are similar to those in Chrome, and some of which, in my view, top Chrome’s features.”

A little tarnish on the Chrome, it seems.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Now, we have two Googlers, who are demoing Google’s new Chrome browser and its features and user interface.

“Friendly” tabs, knowing your history better graphically, auto-typing, simplicity, easier downloading with a new window that one guy is calling a real app like “Pinocchio, because we wanted to build a real boy.”

Well, Pinocchio was wood for most of that story, but I like the effort!

Also, they show off the “Incognito” feature, where you can hide Web searches you don’t want others to see, which basically means porn and Barry Manilow fan sites.

Except the Google (GOOG) guys use a toe fungus search!

This is gross, although hiding toe fungus is a good idea related to Web navigation software.

Now, another smart-looking guy comes on, who looks like the other guys, and discusses the architecture, including rendering, security and so forth.

Also a speed test, from another Google guy, from Denmark, where Google’s Chrome–incredibly–beats Microsoft’s Internet Explorer! It is like one of those blind taste test commercials on television.

My mind starts to wander and I wonder if Microsoft Founder Bill Gates is watching this and getting plenty steamed up north at Microsoft (MSFT) HQ.

At this point, I suggest you please watch the Webcast of this demo to listen to the details, available through both Windows Media Player and RealPlayer.

Because once the Googlers start talking “plug-in bugs,” I start staring at Google co-founder Larry Page–who is here sitting with with top Google exec Marissa Mayer off to the side–to see if both are paying rapt attention.

They are, natch. (I should have eaten a tasty pastry.)

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Starting Tuesday this week, all the major players in the Yahoo-Microsoft-Everyone-And-Their-Mother circus will line their private jets up in Sun Valley for the high-powered 26th annual Allen & Co. confab of tech and media moguls.

Specifically, that would be bigwigs from Microsoft (Co-Founder Bill Gates, deal guy Hank “Hankrosoft” Vigil), Yahoo (CEO Jerry Yang and President Sue Decker), News Corp. (Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch), Time Warner (CEO Jeff Bewkes, who runs the conglomerate that owns AOL), as well as Google (the three amigos: Co-Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with CEO Eric Schmidt).

It could be like that five families sitdown in the “Godfather” movies, except none of the parties can even seem to metaphorically whack each other, as the Yahoo saga drags on interminably.

While BoomTown’s invitation seems to have been lost in the mail–Herb Allen Trois, what gives, Walt and I invited you to our conference! We’re too mean for your pampered poobahs, right?–so we can’t give you an on-the-ground report.

But the Allen & Co. event might be the perfect place to finally make a deal–any deal–this situation surely needs.

So to help, here is BoomTown’s unsolicited advice for the players of this messy mess.

YAHOO: Clearly, Yahoo (YHOO) needs a big break from the drama–and a good first step is to stop its own silly deal-making antics.

First off, the company needs to stop leaking about an AOL merger deal, because it has a been-there-done-that quality that now looks more like a way to look busy.

But it remains a bad idea and feels desperate and employees still don’t like it.

More to the point, there is probably only one true option right now–Yahoo needs to quickly make a deal with Microsoft to outsource its ad search business and/or ad search business.

In addition, spinning in assets from News Corp. (NWS), like MySpace, is not the worst idea and could be a way to juice up social networking on the site.

After all, more top Yahoo employees will soon be headed out the door, unless there is a significant change of direction and, probably, leadership soon.

MICROSOFT: Oh, get over it.

Microsoft (MSFT) is not going to catch up to Google (GOOG) without Yahoo’s search share and that’s that.

It’s not going to be able to grow it organically (Project Granola!), it’s not going to get there with AOL and it’s not going to get there wishin’ and a-hopin’ Google will stumble.

At this point–though it seems juicy to wait as Yahoo’s shares drift downward and as the company moves to its annual meeting and a likely ugly proxy fight with activist investor Carl Icahn looms–waiting is a mistake as it only damages an asset Microsoft should value.

While Microsoft and Yahoo are periodically talking, they also periodically get in snits with each other–the latest due to Microsoft pique over Yahoo’s posting of a regulatory presentation dissing the software giant (see one such slide below; click on it to make it larger).

As I said, get over it.

NEWS CORP./AOL: Make a deal, any deal.

While News Corp. (owner of Dow Jones and of this site) wrinkled its nose over Yahoo’s one-time offer of $4 billion for MySpace (it wanted $8 billion), despite a commitment by News Corp. of also investing $3 billion in Yahoo, if it should do all it can to spin its social networking site out.

Why? With Facebook pressing on MySpace’s momentum, a pending new music service that could use Yahoo’s massive traffic and the plus of being an independent company to compete better, such a move for News Corp. makes a lot of sense.

For AOL, a need for a deal is clear–a dwindling property with some good assets that cannot and should not live within Time Warner. If it gets anywhere north of $8 billion, Time Warner (TWX) should jump at the chance.

GOOGLE: It’s in Google’s best interest to keep the soap opera going, of course. As this situation has developed, it has only underscored exactly how dominant the search giant is.

And, more importantly, just how dangerous to all the rest gathered there Google truly has become.

So, if Larry, Sergey and Eric offer to help the other players work it all out over a roaring campfire, they should all consider themselves warned.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Maybe it would be easier to sell Facebook to Microsoft for billions and billions, even though it is not likely you will.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s take the opposing position about the best future for the hot social-networking site.

In other words, make a friendly Microsoft takeover of Facebook your own version of an IPO, as John Furrier has suggested here, and walk away a Silicon Valley legend.

Because such a sale to Microsoft could happen, you know, with or even without you.

Here’s one scenario to think about while on your current worldwide “Vision Quest” trip:

Microsoft (MSFT) somehow screws up its courage again after the Yahoo (YHOO) rejection and makes a concrete offer anywhere above $10 billion for Facebook. And it gets on the record, as it must, at your next board meeting.

Say you refuse, as you have the power to do (and have done before) as founder, due to the voting structure.

But minority shareholders find out (they always do), then some employees and, inevitably, the press.

Mayhem will surely ensue.

Sure, they all stuck with you when you turned down previous offers for Facebook at more than $1 billion from Yahoo, $5 billion from Microsoft, sniffs in that range from Google (GOOG).

That was definitely gutsy for you to do, in your first job and in your early 20s.

But $10 billion, when you have not yet proven you have a truly sustainable and explosive business model of the kind Google luckily found before its IPO?

And what if the Microsoft offer was $15 billion? $20 billion?

BoomTown will tell you exactly what:

Possible lawsuits–ask any good corporate governance lawyer about it–from any number of aggrieved minority investors for not grabbing the Willy Wonka-esque golden ticket when it was offered to you.

Growing pressure from the media–which you are, to be certain, very good at completely ignoring–asking incessantly whether you have just made too big a bet this time.

And, most importantly, from your own employees, the growing worry that even you, especially in a weak economy, cannot spin up a shinier IPO than the money Microsoft is offering you. Stayers can turn into sellers very quickly.

You need to be prepared, BoomTown speculates, for this very possibility and need to have answers when and if the time comes.

That requires asking some questions, which I am guessing a smart young man like you is already asking of yourself.

Such as: At what price should I consider a Microsoft buyout? Could Facebook still be run independently? And, if not, how long would I have to stay at a Microsoft-owned Facebook?

Most importantly, how many other entrepreneurs like me have refused the big buyout and done better?

(The list is long and varied–some like Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin refused and won, but others like former Netscaper Marc Andreessen did not and also did just fine.)

You’re lucky for now, of course, because Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer will likely not make a definitive offer after the Yahoo debacle, without knowing you are firmly on board to at least consider it with a friendly frame of mind.

And, I am guessing, you won’t dangle a price to Microsoft either.

Thus, a chicken and an egg conundrum. Which comes first?

BoomTown is also guessing the bankers are working hard at solving this ancient philosophical causality dilemma–in this case, who can and should move first?

But no matter how much they huff and puff–expensively, of course–the only one who can solve this puzzle is you, at least at this juncture.

And that requires just one basic question for which you need to have an answer ready: Do you truly believe you can do better?

Well, do you?

Furrier thinks not: “Risk losing it all in competitive warfare where you’re undermatched and overgunned. … It’s about basic risk management.”

Of course, all BoomTown can offer to say is this: There is absolutely nothing basic about it.

And, for your viewing pleasure, there is also nothing basic about this delightful man lip-synching to the classic movie “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory” ditty, “I’ve Got a Golden Ticket” (along with the real clip from movie below it):

All week, Yahoo’s investors have waited for the other shoe to drop–its much-hyped ad deal with Google (GOOG), in which Yahoo (YHOO) would outsource some of its online search-ad monetization business to the search giant.

But will that deal land with a thud instead?

Today, The Wall Street Journal reports that Google executives “are now divided over whether to pursue a search-advertising deal with Yahoo.”

Actually, that depends what you mean by divided, of course, and which Google execs are on which side.

According to sources BoomTown talked to at Google, while there is a lively debate going on at the Googleplex over the ramifications of such a deal, it is more likely than not that the search giant will cut some kind of limited and carefully crafted deal with Yahoo.

Sources said that the structure of the deal is critical, especially making it non-exclusive, limited and also low-key, given the scrutiny related to antitrust issues such an arrangement between the No. 1 and No. 2 companies in Web search will surely and deservedly bring from government regulators.

Some Google execs are very worried about calling further attention to the company in Washington, D.C., as the behemoth that it has actually become, something another behemoth–Microsoft (MSFT)–would surely love to have happen.

“Perceived concentration can be as bad as real concentration, which is not happening if we do a deal with Yahoo in the right way,” said one exec. “But that might be hard to explain clearly.”

While Google execs think that a properly structured deal will pass muster, they are also worried that it might not be worth the damage to the company’s image that might come with a bruising fight over the issue.

Google is still smarting over the brass-knuckle tactics Microsoft used in D.C. related to its DoubleClick deal, delaying its approval and causing Google a lot of money and time.

Already via that deal, its entry into the spectrum auction and its fight over copyright issues with media giant Viacom (VIA), Washington politicians and regulators can’t help but have the growing perception the Google is perhaps not as bouncy and fun and harmless as the company tries to project.

In truth, Google is still bouncy and fun (see its founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin on exercise balls here).

But harmless? Not so much.

In a previous post, I argued that such a Yahoo-Google hookup is a bad idea for consumers, advertisers and anyone interested in a competitive landscape.

I wrote: “It is bad for advertisers, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for innovation, no matter how well-intentioned Google is.

And no matter how many flashy moves Google and Yahoo make, it is flat-out wrong for one player to so dominate such an important sector.”

In addition, some Google execs worry that since Yahoo is staying in the search business, while also outsourcing to Google, that it could gain valuable information about how Google operates.

That’s a no-no at Google, which has what some in Silicon Valley call a “black box” image. In other words, please don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

The less-grand deal, of course, will not be as good news for Yahoo shareholders, since it will not bring in the billion-dollar baby in terms of increased cash flow that some analysts had been bandying about.

And Yahoo is under pressure to come up with a lot of hits now that Microsoft has walked away–for now, at least. Now, it must go it alone, but much damaged by the takeover effort.

During the heat of the deal, such a link-up was seen as a coup for Google, which always likes to stick it to Microsoft.

And it was also seen as a way for Yahoo to better monetize its search business, especially since its own efforts have been so lagging behind Google in size, scope and yield.

And, more importantly, it gave Yahoo an effective weapon in fending off Microsoft’s unsolicited takeover bid.

Well, it worked, it seems, as the talks between Google and Yahoo were the bone that stuck in the throat of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, much mentioned in his kiss-off letter to Yahoo last weekend.

Ballmer wrote, in part: “We regard with particular concern your apparent planning to respond to a ‘hostile’ bid by pursuing a new arrangement that would involve or lead to the outsourcing to Google of key paid Internet search terms offered by Yahoo today. In our view, such an arrangement with the dominant search provider would make an acquisition of Yahoo undesirable to us for a number of reasons.”

I doubt the aggressive Ballmer will let such a deal pass without a lot of heckling and, of course, much, much worse.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google. ]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080508/googles-chilly-feet/feed/ 0 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080423/max-levchin-becomes-the-internets-new-wacky-pix-guy/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080423/max-levchin-becomes-the-internets-new-wacky-pix-guy/#comments Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:29:01 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080423/max-levchin-becomes-the-internets-new-wacky-pix-guy/ Oh, Max!