Google gets DoubleClick, but Microsoft gaining?

According to this Marketwatch report:

Microsoft has recently gained ground on Google in online services, and has said it will spend heavily to do so.

Where has Microsoft gained ground? It’s definitely not in search:

Some 64% of U.S. searches went through Google in March, according to data released on Wednesday by Internet metrics firm Hitwise, up from 58% in March 2006.

Yahoo, Microsoft, and Ask.com saw 22%, 9%, and 3% of U.S. searches and each of the three posted a decline in search traffic from a year ago. The remaining 5% of searches went through 48 separate smaller search engines.

I am not sure what what “gains” the reporter is referring to.

Parent org WSJ offers a more sober view:

Doubleclick would have given Microsoft instant entry into the market for running ads on other companies’ Web sites. Now Microsoft may have to build its own service if it decides to compete. That approach has proved difficult to Microsoft, which has poured money into its own search engine and online ad system to little success.

Is Leopard delay related to earnings smoothings?

How much of it is related to development issues related and how much is related to earnings smoothing (irrespective of development issues)? Presuming that iPhone gives the crucial revenue jump in June, maybe Leopard blitz is timed to reinvigorate Mac and iPhone sales during the fall?

This is funny:

Think Secret, two months ago:

Development of Mac OS X 10.5 is wrapping up faster than many at Apple even anticipated, and at present, a release can be expected as early as late March, sources say

Microsoft features allow for crash

Thank you, Microsoft, for letting applications crash on demand.

Geez, can’t Apple learn something from these guys? They should release Leopard on time and without adequate testing and then claim that any crash experienced was intentional. Everybody wins!

NYP and the mysterious gold mine bid

Intriguing:

I’D like to see Edward Pastorini’s checkbook. In fact, I’d be happy just to see Mr. Pastorini.

He’s the mystery investor who says – according to Bloomberg News and repeated repeatedly yesterday on CNBC – that he wants to acquire Gold Fields Ltd., a South African gold mining company worth $12.5 billion.

Late last night, Bloomberg looked like it was getting nervous about the story.

Pastorini is a mystery because we are pretty sure he doesn’t exist. Why? Because every search we’ve done on Edward Pastorini, whom Bloomberg describes as “from San Francisco,” comes up blank.

There is a Dan Pastorini who once lived in San Francisco, but he’s the former NFL quarterback who played for 12 seasons for the Houston Oilers, Oakland Raiders, Los Angeles Rams and Philadelphia Eagles.

Dan Pastorini now lives in Texas, and when I reached him on the phone yesterday, he said neither he nor any of his relatives in California strives to own a gold company.

One trader on Wall Street, who was skeptical of the “takeover,” says he shorted Gold Fields stock twice yesterday after the speculation sent it up more than 14 percent. “It was a lot of fun,” he said.

Who/where the hell is Ed Pastorini?

How not to read things wrong with Leopard delay

As usual, the Merc trots out the negative coverage. It strikes me that there is no paper that covers hometown firms as negatively as the Merc. Seattle PI and Times, understandably, have to suck up to Boeing and Microsoft because they are the two most dominant firms in the area. The Merc on the other hand is completely antagonistic to Apple, Sun, and Oracle, but, curiously enough, still subservient to Microsoft (based on observations of articles over the past two years). Make no mistakes, being suspicious of corporations and questioning motives is healthy – that’s journalism. However, any suspicion or claim needs to be based on facts and justifiable.

Today’s coverage about Apple’s decision to delay Leopard is no different:

Apple’s ambition may be starting to get ahead of the company’s ability to achieve it.

What’s the evidence?

Apple in the past two months has delayed two high-profile products, the Apple TV set-top box and now, it said Thursday, Leopard, the upcoming update to its OS X operating system. The company pushed back the release date of Leopard so it wouldn’t have to delay an even more highly anticipated product, the iPhone.

Apple TV was delayed by how long? 2-3 weeks. Wow! The sky is falling.

This story is nothing but link-bait, because journalists know that negative stories draw traffic.

Perhaps more important, the delay gives archrival Microsoft extra time to convince computer shoppers that its new Windows Vista operating system is every bit as good as OS X.

Are you claiming that people who intend to purchase Vista are making their decision based on Leopard? What’s the evidence? (Hint: none).

Those sales will now come after the end of its fiscal year in September. That could lead analysts to lower their sales and earnings estimates for the company this year – and potentially lead to a lower stock price.

What is the anticipated financial impact of Leopard? $200 million during the first quarter of release!

But by shifting resources to the iPhone, the company is favoring an unproven product that will compete in a very challenging industry, notes Richard Shim, an analyst with IDC, a market research firm.

Yes, it’s risky, but that’s where Apple decided to place its bets. Do you know why?

The analyst, who had been modeling the Cupertino, Calif.-based iPod maker to earn $3.07 per share on $24.5 billion in revenue during 2007, said sales of the new device could add an additional $0.70 in earnings-per-share and $6 billion in revenue.

A potential of $6 billion or $400 million. Which do you think is a better business decision, Troy Wolverton?

B2.0 chimes in:

The iPod line, Apple TV and now the iPhone have clearly drawn resources away from its core business and left the company overextended. As Apple acknowledged in yesterday’s statement, “life often presents tradeoffs.” We may have to wait until October to find out whether they have made the right ones.

Again, the iPhone is Apple’s attempt to radically alter its business model. Apple, under Steve Jobs, does not do half-assed attempts and glitch-ridden releases to assuage Wall Street.