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.

BoomTown just got the following email from Anne Wojcicki, co-founder of 23andMe, the personal genetics start-up, about the departure of her co-founder, Linda Avey (pictured here). She will be starting a foundation related to Alzheimer’s disease.

The pair founded the high-profile company–whose Series A investors include Genentech (DNA), Google (GOOG) and New Enterprise Associates, as well as Wojcicki’s husband, Google co-founder Sergey Brin–in 2006.

It has collected almost $23 million in funding.

Avey noted in an email to staff, which is posted in its entirety below: “I also recognize that the company has reached a critical point in its growth where new leadership can take it to the successful heights we all think it can achieve.”

Wojcicki’s email reads, in part:

I wanted to let you know that Linda Avey will be leaving 23andMe to focus her energy on transforming Alzheimer’s research and treatment, leveraging the 23andMe platform. Linda and I have talked about doing research in Alzheimer’s since the inception of the company. Linda, whose father-in-law recently died from the disorder, will be leveraging 23andMe’s platform as she works to revolutionize the research, treatments and prevention for Alzheimer’s.

Linda will be greatly missed by me and my colleagues but we’re glad she will continue to be in a related field, and we are committed to continuing the work that she and I started three years ago.

And here is the email from Avey to the staff, as well as Wojcicki’s below it and then the official press release:

Dear all-

As I trust you all know, 23andMe is very special to me. I also recognize that the company has reached a critical point in its growth where new leadership can take it to the successful heights we all think it can achieve.

I’ve decided that I’d like to focus my efforts on an area that is personally significant and will continue to have a huge impact on our healthcare system–Alzheimer’s disease. Effective today, I’m leaving 23andMe and have begun making plans for the creation of a foundation dedicated to the study of this disorder. The foundation will leverage the research platform we’ve built at 23andMe–the goal is to drive the formation of the world’s largest community of individuals with a family history of Alzheimer’s, empower them with their genetic information and track their brain health using state-of-the-art tools. We’ve always planned to include Alzheimer’s in our 23andWe research mission…I’m just approaching it from a new angle.

Some of you might be aware that my father-in-law suffered from Alzheimer’s and passed away last year. For this reason, Randy and I are motivated to do what we can to improve the understanding of what leads to the debilitating symptoms and what might prevent them from starting in the first place. The ApoE4 association is barely understood but gives us a great starting point.

I’ll miss working with you but will be excited to hear about the progress I know you’ll be making!

All the best,
Linda

Team:

As Linda has told you, she will be leaving 23andMe to focus her energy on transforming Alzheimer’s research and treatment, leveraging the 23andMe platform. While I am quite sad to see her leave I am excited and hopeful as she takes on this mission. As Linda’s co-founder and partner over the last three years, it has been clear that revolutionizing research has been a primary passion. Our drive to change health care has always had roots in our personal lives and we have tried to structure 23andMe so that any individual or organization could actively participate in research. Linda and I have talked about doing research in Alzheimer’s since the inception of the company and the need for the Alzheimer’s community to have a strong leader. With Linda’s involvement, I believe that the APOE4 community could be the first asymptomatic community to successfully develop preventative treatments. I hope that going forward we’ll both be able to shake up and transform the health care space, making health care and treatments better for all.

Linda’s departure is also a sign of 23andMe’s maturation. When we started the company, the personal genetics industry did not exist; now it is a thriving and competitive landscape. Our company has grown and we continue to be an innovative industry leader. While our success has been exceptional, it is also clear we have a lot of work ahead. We have created a significant and empowering tool, but we must find new and better ways to promote the value of knowing your DNA. In the weeks ahead, we will outline a strategy for the company that we believe will make genetics a routine part of health care and will lead us to making significant research discoveries.

Linda has been instrumental in making 23andMe what it is today and we thank her for her passion and dedication to the company. We have many exciting opportunities before us, and I look forward to working with all of you to make 23andMe a spectacular success.

Anne

Linda Avey to Create Alzheimer’s Foundation

Mountain View, CA–September 4, 2009–Linda Avey, co-founder of 23andMe, an industry leader in personal genetics, announced today that she is leaving the company to start a new foundation focused on Alzheimer’s disease. Ms. Avey’s foundation will leverage the 23andMe research platform to search for causes and treatments for the disease, which afflicts more than 5.2 million people in the United States.

Ms. Avey and Anne Wojcicki founded 23andMe together in 2006. The company provides personalized genetic information through DNA analysis and allows individuals to interact with their private information through a variety of web-based tools.

“I could not be more proud of what we have accomplished in the three years since Anne and I created 23andMe, and I am excited to take the next step in applying my experiences to one of the great health challenges of our time,” said Ms. Avey, who has more than 20 years of experience in the biopharmaceutical industry. “There is a clear need for revolutionary research and concentrated effort to confront Alzheimer’s, and we need to start now in order to make meaningful progress. The resources are out there–my goal is to marshal them to find answers for families, like mine, who have lost family members to such a debilitating disease.”

Concurrent with Ms. Avey’s announcement, Ms. Wojcicki said that 23andMe expects to make its genetic data platform available to Ms. Avey’s foundation in order to advance its research.

“Linda has been a true partner with me over these last three years, an innovative leader for our company and our industry, and instrumental in making 23andMe what it is today,” said Wojcicki. “It is only fitting that she will be making full use of our work together and leveraging the 23andMe platform for a tremendous cause. We look forward to joining her as a partner in her efforts.”

Ms. Avey’s departure announced today takes effect immediately.

Here is a video, in two parts, of Avey and Wojcicki demoing some new features of 23andMe at the sixth D: All Things Digital conference in 2008.

In the first one, they introduce 23andMe, explain the main service and ask News Corp. (NWS) head Rupert Murdoch, Walt and me about our tolerance for milk and about our racing abilities. (Full disclosure: News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones and this Web site.)

In the second one, Avey and Wojcicki survey Murdoch on his genetic traits and show me what genes my kids have in common (and discover that I am not hyperactive).

Here are the D6 demos:

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.

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).

Today, a panoply of prominent tech and Internet leaders is taking a very public stand against a controversial initiative before California voters, which would eliminate the current legal right of same-sex couples to marry.

Forming a group and taking out a full-page ad in the San Jose Mercury News tomorrow, the execs hope to convince voters to reject Proposition 8, which is titled “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

Silicon Valley has had a long history of supporting gay rights. And recently, Google (GOOG) Co-Founder Sergey Brin has made a strong statement opposing Proposition 8, while Apple (AAPL) gave $100,000 to help defeat it.

The honorary co-chairs of “Silicon Valley Leaders Say NO on Proposition 8″ include: Brin; Bill Campbell, Chairman, Intuit; David Filo, Founder, Yahoo; Chuck Geschke, Founder and Chairman, Adobe Systems; John Morgridge, Former CEO and Chairman, Cisco Systems; Pierre Omidyar, Founder and Chairman, eBay; Sheryl Sandberg, COO, Facebook; Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google; and Jerry Yang, Founder, Yahoo.

In a statement in a press release set to go out this morning, Yang said: “Silicon Valley has always been an example for the rest of the country of how diversity and openness help to drive innovation and value creation. This divisive measure is the antithesis of those values that make Silicon Valley so unique.”

An ad the group–which also includes star venture capitalist Mike Moritz of Sequoia Capital, as well as Palm Founders Donna Dubinsky and Jeff Hawkins, and many others–is putting out tomorrow in the Mercury News reads:

Silicon Valley Leaders Urge You to Stand for Equality.
Vote No on Proposition 8.

As Silicon Valley leaders, we are committed to equality and fairness. We are opposed to Proposition 8 because it would change our state constitution to take away rights from one group of people. It would set our state, and our country, back in the fight for fundamental fairness and equal rights.

Please join us by reaching out to friends and neighbors and asking them to stand for fairness: Vote No on Proposition 8 on November 4th.”

(The ad and a longer list of tech leaders opposing Proposition 8 is below.)

If passed by a majority of voters, the California Constitution would be amended to include a new section stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the state’s constitution.

Former California State Controller and former exec at eBay Steve Westly noted that his own interracial marriage was once illegal, which is one of the reasons he was opposing Propostition 8.

“It really is the civil rights issue of the day … people stood up and fought for people like me and now it is time to stand up for others,” said Westly, who was an early supporter of gay marriage and is said to be eyeing a run for governor of the state. “While this is a polarizing issue, it is mind-boggling to me not to support the right of any two adults who love each other to marry.”

One thing is certain–the issue is indeed polarizing. Currently, the vote on Proposition 8 is very close, and a huge amount of money–more than $60 million–has been spent by both sides in the battle, which is considered one of the most contentious and high-profile in the nation.

Here is the ad (click on the image to make it larger):

LEADERS (partial list):
Deborah Barber, Principal, Jackson Hole Group
John Battelle, Chairman and CEO, Federated Media
Larry Birenbaum, Former Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems
Lorna Borenstein, President, Move
Larry Brilliant, Executive Director, Google.org
Owen Byrd, President, Byrd Development
John Chisholm, Chairman and CEO, CustomerSat
Barry Cinnamon, CEO, Akeena Solar
Tod Cohen, Director of Government Affairs, eBay
LaDoris Cordell, Administrator, Stanford University
Sue Decker, President, Yahoo!
Jack Dorsey, Chairman, Twitter
David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development & Chief Legal Officer, Google
Donna Dubinsky, CEO, Numenta
Alan Eustace, SVP, Engineering and Research, Google
Naomi Fine, President & CEO, Pro-Tec Data
Rachel Glaser COO/CFO, Reunion.com
Carl Guardino, President and CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Andre Haddad, CEO, Shopping.com
Jeff Hawkins, co-Founder Palm, Handspring, and Numenta
David Karnstedt, Investor
Scott Kaspick, Managing Director, Kaspick & Co.
Steve Kirsch, Serial Entrepreneur
John Koza, CEO, Third Millennium
Ross LaJeunesse, Head of State Policy Western US, Google
Gary Lauder, Managing Partner, Lauder Partners Venture Capital
Laura Lauder, General Partner, Lauder Partners Venture Capital
Len Lehman, Investor
John Luongo, Former CEO, Vantive Corporation
Roger McNamee, Managing Director & co-Founder, Elevation Partners
Ken McNeely, President, AT&T California
Michael Moritz, Partner, Sequoia Capital
Susan Packard Orr, CEO, Telosa Software
Randy Pond, Executive Vice President, Cisco Systems
Amy Rao, Founder & CEO, Integrated Archive Systems
Jana Rich, Managing Director, Russell Reynolds
Miriam Rivera, Former Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Google
Dan Rosensweig, Investor
Dan Rubin, Partner, Alloy Ventures
Hilary Schneider, Executive Vice President US Region, Yahoo
Len Shustek, Chairman, Computer History Museum
Jeff Skoll, Former President, eBay Inc.
Stephanie Tilenius, SVP, eBay North America
Joy Weiss, President and CEO, Dust Networks
Steve Westly, former California State Controller & former SVP eBay
Evan Williams, CEO, Twitter

[UPDATED on 11/05/08] In the interest of full disclosure, I am obviously not a supporter of Proposition 8. And, after I wrote this piece and hours before it passed last night, I got married in California under its recent same-sex marriage law, which the initiative has now overturned. It is still legally unclear what that will mean for people like me who married before Proposition 8 was passed, as it is not retroactive; as of now, the marriages remain valid. In any case, please see this disclosure related to me here.

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.

At the Google launch of its new “not-a-Windows-killer” Chrome browser, held at its Mountain View, Calif., HQ yesterday morning, Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin arrived late and looked casually dressed and very windblown.

But he was quite talkative about Google’s Chrome, the software to navigate the Internet that the search giant released yesterday.

Brin talked about a lot of aspects of its development and implications, as well as its business prospects for Google (GOOG).

(Google’s other Co-Founder Larry Page is also in a small part of the video, also talking about Chrome.)

In a follow-up interview with me on the same video, Brin talks about possible market share for Chrome, the Mac version and the reaction from the company-that-shall-not-be-named-much–Microsoft (MSFT).

(And, not to get too personal, but check out Brin’s luvvly-jubbly Cayman Red Crocs too.)

Here’s the video:

Also, here are 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.

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.

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):

Tonight, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters had nearly identical stories, noting that Microsoft (MSFT) was interested in buying Yahoo’s (YHOO) search business, which–oh, we bloggers get so touchy when we don’t get even a smidgen of credit, don’t we?–BoomTown speculated was just what the software giant was interested in yesterday.

Wrote BoomTown on Sunday afternoon:

Will Microsoft now just buy Yahoo’s search business instead of the whole company?…The software giant would not give details, but sources at both companies speculated to BoomTown that it involved Microsoft buying Yahoo’s search business and the ad business related to text-based ads, or doing another kind of transaction that would bring the companies closer together to fight Google (GOOG)… Indeed, given that Microsoft, in its long-running war with archrival Google, it wants most of all to grab Yahoo’s search ad business to become a credible No. 2 in the important sector. It could do this via a purchase of those assets or, said others, formulate a deal to be Yahoo’s exclusive search partner.”

And wrote Reuters tonight:

Microsoft Corp. has proposed to buy Yahoo Inc.’s search business and take a minority stake in the Web pioneer, stopping short of a full-out merger, a person familiar with the discussions said on Monday… The new deal, if completed, would forge an alliance between the two companies that would represent an alternative means of competing with rival Google Inc., whose ubiquitous search engine has made it an online advertising powerhouse.”

Said The Journal in its new report, after focusing on a simpler Microsoft-Yahoo outsourcing deal Sunday, also tonight:

Microsoft Corp.’s proposed alternative to acquiring Yahoo Inc. would involve a break-up of the Internet giant that people close to Yahoo said is unlikely to win favor with its board. In recent days, Microsoft floated a proposal to acquire Yahoo’s search-advertising business, said people familiar with the matter… Microsoft’s proposal didn’t offer much detail on how it would structure a search-ad deal, the people said. But the plan would likely involve Microsoft’s selling the ads that appear alongside Web-search results delivered to Yahoo users; that could help it gain on Google, the search-ad-market leader.

To be fair, both Reuters’ and The Journal’s reports make such a plan by Microsoft even more definitive and have interesting new details, which are intriguing.

They include:

Both take note of Microsoft’s proposed sale of Yahoo’s Asian assets (worth close to $10 billion, according to the same analyst cited by both reports, who also puts a $21 billion value on Yahoo’s search ad business).

Reuters underscores that billionaire investor Carl Icahn is not pleased with the idea of a partial sale of Yahoo to Microsoft and might side with a Google outsourcing deal, if that came to pass.

And The Journal stressed that Yahoo’s board, which thinks it is all a Microsoft ploy to scotch a possible search-ad outsourcing deal with Google, was also unimpressed with Microsoft’s ideas.

More new news too from Om Malik at GigaOm, who gets hold of yet another Microsoft exec’s memo to the troops.

Yesterday, it was a “leaked” memo from Kevin Johnson, president of Microsoft’s Platforms & Services division.

Today, one from Satya Nadella, its VP of Search. In the memo, Nadella outlines some minor management re-orging, but mostly talks somewhat opaquely about where search is going (no wonder Microsofties are confused as to what direction to take!).

Money quote:

One of the clear themes that emerged from my discussions was the need to build depth of expertise and focus on both the media and technology side and connect the two via common purpose and vision. The other major theme was to create an organization that wherever possible helped drive global and cross network capability, while always enabling and empowering the local aspects of our media business. Lastly it’s imperative that we set up for blurring of the lines between Portal and Search to drive experiences that enable more seamless exploration of content across the search-browse continuum. We want the combined expertise of the team to drive this innovation and also create more scale with vertical efforts.”

A free lunch at AllThingsD.com HQ–come to my house, walk through the kitchen to the cottage in the back–for anyone who can explain this in easy-to-understand words to BoomTown!

Added challenge: Nadella can enter the contest too!

And, finally, don’t miss this report by TechCrunch about former Yahoo Chairman and CEO Terry Semel’s appearance at a conference in Israel on a stellar panel with Google’s Sergey Brin, Yahoo’s current President Sue Decker, News Corp. (NWS) head Rupert Murdoch and well-known Israeli entrepreneur Yossi Vardi.

All I can say is ouch at some of the translated highlights.

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!