Category Archives: Google

With the Pixel 7 and Pixel 7 Pro set for a full launch in October, the July reveal of the Pixel 6a (some nine months after the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro) may feel like a late addition to last years portfolio. Where does the Pixel 6a fit into Googles smartphone plans over the next few years? How does it tell the story that Google wants to portray? And how can it make the device one that consumers will want to buy?

Google's Pixel 6a

The Pixel 6A Is Not For The Six Family, But The Seven Family

First of all, this is clearly one of Googles smartphones. With the launch of the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro, Google managed to define a unique physical look for its smartphones. The Camera Bar offered both symmetry in construction, drew the eye to the tidy layout of camera lenses and offered a simple solution to both desk rocking seen in phones with an island of camera lenses, and a comfortably physical ridge to help hold the large screened devices.

Google leaned heavily into the capabilities of the Pixel camera at the launch of the device, and the Camera Bar made sure that a message of this camera is different was in place. Yet the Camera Bars biggest advantage is that it identifies the Pixel in popular culture, in the same way as Apples notched iPhone was a noticeable silhouette.

Which leads to the Pixel 6A. While it is remarkably late to the Pixel 6 family, arriving in late July compared to the Pixel 6 and 6 Pros launch nine months previously, it will be on sale as the Pixel 7 Pro and Pixel 7 are fully launched and hit the shelves. With the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro presumably retiring from the product line, Google is going to have a solid stepped profile of a smaller device in the 6a, the regular device in the Pixel 7, and the flagship in the Pixel 7 Pro.

That makes for a better mix than the discounted Pixel 6 Pro and Pixel 6 approaching their end of the retail life competing price-wise against the Pixel 6a.

The Pixel 6a Is Part Of The Six Success

Yet the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro are an important part of the Pixel 6a story. There was a feeling that the Pixel 6 and especially the Pixel 6 Pro broke through a ceiling when they were released last year. There was greater public recognition, there were more network offers, and there was more coverage in the mainstream press; in some cases, the Pixel 6 pro became the natural comparison to the iPhone rather than Samsungs Galaxy S21.

These Pixels also saw Google debut its mobile Tensor chip, giving Google a silicon platform it could work on in a much more Apple-like way. It could customise the inner workings of the chipset to allow for more efficient processing in a number of areas such as machine learning. One obvious area where this had a positive impact was the camera processing and post-production editing of images - and yes were back to the value of that camera bar as an identifier of the difference in the handset.

The Pixel brand over the last year is well established in a number of areas. The Pixel 6a takes that success and looks to translate it to the mid-range market. Previously the mid-range market was where the Pixel 4 and Pixel 5 handsets would sit. That wasnt the case with the Pixel 6 family until now.

The Pixel 6a established the new smartphones in one of the most competitive spaces.

Google's Pixel 6a

The Pixel 6a As A Signpost

Unlike Apples iPhone team, which only has to justify any changes to the board, Android is a much more interesting landscape. Its not as fractured as many make out; the vast majority of manufacturers turn to Googles additional services to round out the Android Open Source offering before adding their own UI layer, apps, and services to their own handsets.

But the space is essentially overseen by Google. Thats not unusual, after all the personal computer space has a similar relationship with Microsoft and Windows the base OS is offered, some services are bundled that manufacturers have to take, and the rest is a have at it process of design, innovation, decisions, and interactivity.

Of course, the last few years have seen Microsoft setting out its own vision of Windows through the Surface hardware platform with a sense of we think this works very well hanging in the air.

Now translate this onto the Pixel platform, and you can see Google using Pixel to speak indirectly to manufacturers on what it believes a smartphone should be. Last years Pixel 6 Pro defined the flagship, the Pixel 6 in the so-called flagship killer space, and now with the Pixel 6a Google has the mid-range definition on the market as well.

Notably, the Pixel 6a holds on to the same top-end processor as the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro although Google has the advantage that it is using its own chip design and does not have a large SKU to choose from. Nevertheless, the idea of keeping as much processing power on the handset - useful for intensive machine learning-based tasks - is front and centre.

Following the September update, the Pixel 6a comes with Android 13, and the promise of OS support for three years, and ongoing security updates for five years. Google wants the Pixel 6a to show that long-term support, especially on security issues, should be the norm and not the exception, even at this price point.

Its also worth noting the areas that Google has sacrificed. The display eschews the rush to fast-refreshing technology instead of sticking to a 60Hz refresh, and RAM is dropped to 6 GB.

The camera is also physically downgraded, leaving the 50-megapixel sensor for the larger phones instead going with the same 12-megapixel sensor seen in the Pixel 3, 4, and 5, handsets. Google is of course leaning into post-processing, hence retaining the more powerful chip to improve the images instead of the physical options.

I wonder if Android 13 is biased towards these options...

Google's Pixel 6a

Finding A Home

Googles Pixel 6a is more than a good mid-range smartphone, its probably the best smartphone under $399 this year and it challenges the competition to match it.

It certainly offers a lot of value for money to consumers, who pick up a handset that is the clearest implementation of Googles vision of Android. Of course each manufacturer is going to take their own devices in their own directions, but they cant stray too far from the path defined by the Mountain View team.

The Pixel 6a is just as important as a signpost as it is a smartphone.

Now read how Googles Pixel Watch will help redefine the smartwatch space...

Disclaimer: Google UK provided a Pixel 6a for review purposes.

See the original post here:

How The Impressive Pixel 6a Tells Googles Compelling Android Story - Forbes

Its the biggest mystery and controversy of Googles search ranking algorithm. For a long time, the SEO community has debated: is the click-through rate (CTR) of search results listings a ranking factor? Or the closely related bounce rate and dwell time?

I present to you everything Google has ever said about this, along with some observations and opinions.

If you are newer to SEO, the concept of clicks or click-through rate (CTR) being ranking factors is simple to explain. Once a user performs a keyword search, they can then click on a listing on Googles search results page. Google could count those clicks as a type of vote for the content in the results and lend more ranking ability to those listings that draw more clicks for the keyword in question.

Similarly, dwell time would be counting how long one stays on a webpage after clicking through to a page from the search results.

A bounce happens when one clicks through to a webpage and leaves without navigating to another page. The assumption is that if a bounce happens too rapidly, the user may have found the pages content unsatisfactory for their query.

Dwell time is also how long the user may linger on the webpage before clicking elsewhere or back to the search results. All of these signals center upon the click to listings in the search results.

Despite many of my colleagues believing Googles official line about CTR or bounce rates not being ranking factors, I will confess that I have long wavered on the question, and I have often suspected it indeed could be a ranking factor. In a recent poll I took on Twitter, CTR was voted the most controversial of all ranking factors.

However, there are a lot of good reasons to believe Googlers when they tell you what does or does not influence search rankings. I have worked in information retrieval myself, and I have known and conversed with a number of official Google evangelists in person or via chats, emails, etc. and they uniformly give great advice and all seem to be highly honest and generally good people.

But

there have been those moments when something rises and sticks in rankings that do not seem like it should, based on all the classic ranking factors that we know.

I have long worked in online reputation management where SEO is leveraged heavily to try to improve how a person or organization appears in search when their name is queried.

There have been these weird instances where a nasty blog post or article with few or no major external links will abruptly pop up in the rankings and, it just stays.

In contrast, other content that has been around longer and has stronger links just cannot gain traction against the nasty-gram item.

You cannot help but notice the difference when these reputation-damaging items arise on the scene. Such pages often have scandalous and intriguing titles, while all the other pages about a subject have more normal, conservative titles.

When you search for a name, and you see some title referencing them along with the word lawsuit, indictment, exposed, arrested, scam, etc., you are immediately curious, and you will want to click to hear what it is all about.

I have sometimes described this as rubbernecking on the information super-highway because it is like how people are drawn to slow down and look when they see a terrible wreck on the road. You see the scandalous title in the search results, and the impulse is to click it.

It has often seemed like the scandalous headlines keep drawing clicks, and this activity seems to buoy the content into appearing high in the rankings on Googles Page 1.

I have even engineered more scandalous headlines on positive pages to draw attention for a client. Once that engineered content is getting most of the attention, the original negative item starts to subside in the results. When this happens, it seems like users clicks are to blame.

But, is the dynamic just coincidental correlation? Or is it exactly what it appears it could be an outcome based, in part, on quantities of relative click-through numbers?

Get the daily newsletter search marketers rely on.

Beyond my anecdotal examples, there are a number of good reasons to suspect that Google could use clicks of links in the search results as a ranking factor. Here are a few:

If this is unused data, why track the clicks? I tried to recall when I first glanced at Google results' HTML and saw that the links were being tracked. It might be sometime in the early 2000s.

What do they do with all that data? After the advent of the inclusion of search analytics in Google's Webmaster Tools (later renamed to Google Search Console), this click data was at least used in webmaster reports.

But, it was collected by Google well before the search analytics report.

Click data affects rankings within the paid ads section. So, why wouldn't they do the same in organic?

It would not be a surprise if Google used a similar method in organic that they use in paid search, because they essentially have done that with their Quality Score.

Over 15 years ago, Google rolled out its Quality Score, which affects ad rankings and there is now ample evidence of Google using quality criteria in organic rankings.

While different parts of Google such as keyword search versus Maps use different ranking methods and criteria, Google sometimes cross-pollinate methods.

If it is used or has been used in the past for personalized search results, it clearly can be used for regular results, too.

Dr. Thorsten Joachims examined click-throughs as a ranking factor and found it to be a potentially valuable method. Notably, he found:

Thus, in a limited study, it was found to be effective. Considering this, why wouldn't Google use it? Of course, his definitions for "outperforming Google" and determining usefulness likely differ from the criteria used by Google.

Microsoft Bing search engine confirmed that they use click-throughs and bounce rate as ranking factors. However, they mentioned caveats around it, so some other user engagement context is also used for evaluation.

Search engines certainly use different signals and methods to rank content in search results. But, it is an interesting counterpoint to rhetoric that it is "too noisy" of a signal to be useful. If one search engine can use the signal, the potential is there for another.

This makes it seem like there could be a substantial motive to downplay and disavow click activities as ranking factors. A parallel for this is Autocomplete functionality, where users' searches, and potentially also click activity, used to be very prone to bot manipulation.

Google has long disliked artificial activity, like automated requests made by rank-checking software, and has evolved to detect and discount such activities.

However, bot activity in search results targeting ranking improvement through artificial clicks would likely quickly become more significant than they already handle. This can potentially create a negative impact on services similar to DDoS attacks.

Despite the years and years of stating that CTR is not a ranking factor, I have seen many jobs posted over time on microtask platforms for people to perform keyword searches and click upon specific listings. The statements may not have accomplished deterrence, and Google may already be effectively discounting such manipulation attempts (or they are hopefully keeping some of that artificial activity out of Analytics data).

Three years ago, when I wrote about how Google could be using machine learning to assess quality of webpages, I strongly suggested that user interactions, such as click-through rate, could be incorporated into the machine learning models generated for a quality scoring system.

An aspect of that idea could potentially happen, depending upon how Google builds its ML systems. All potential data points about websites and webpages could be poured into the algorithm. The system could select ranking factors and weight them according to what matches up with human quality rater assessments of search results.

With such massive processing power to assess ranking factors, an algorithm could theoretically decide if CTR was or was not a useful predictor of quality for a particular type of webpage and/or website.

This could produce ranking models for many thousands of different kinds of webpage and search query combinations. In such a system, CTR might be incorporated for ranking scientific papers but not for Viagra product pages, for instance.

You might think that that third point would essentially set the record straight as Google flat out stated the ranking factor for personalization. But the mystery and controversy remain as the question centers upon overall rankings in a broader sense beyond just personalized results. The controversy surrounds whether CTR is used as a core ranking signal. The blog post disclosing clicks as a personalized ranking factor was from 2009 when personalization effects seemed a little more overt in search.

Because there is some reasonable basis for thinking Google could use CTR as a ranking factor more broadly beyond limited effect in personalization, it creates the groundwork for many SEOs to easily believe that it is indeed a major ranking factor.

Of course, one of the biggest reasons people in SEO have come to think CTR is a ranking factor is because it naturally has a high correlation with rankings.

This is the high-tech version of the age-old question: which came first the chicken or the egg?

The links on the first page of search results have the vast majority of clicks for any given query, and on the first page of search results, the higher ranking listings typically receive more clicks than those that are lower. This makes CTR as a ranking factor seductive.

The obvious question is: Is this coincidental correlation or is it evidence of causation?

Where cause and effect are so closely intertwined, the prospect of confirmation bias is very easy and this is why one should be extremely careful.

This leads us to what Google has said over time about CTR as a ranking factor.

Former Googler Matt Cutts commented that bounce rate was not a ranking factor, stating that it would be spammable and noisy (meaning it would contain a lot of irrelevant data that is unhelpful to ranking determinations).

In a Google Search Central video, Cutts was asked, "Are title and description tags helpful to increase the organic CTR clicks generated from organic (unpaid) search which in turn will help in better ranking with a personalized search perspective?"

He only answered a part of the question, saying that "...so many people think about rankings, and stop right there", advising the person to improve their page title, URL and snippet text to help their CTR.

He avoided answering whether CTR could affect rankings. Of course, this question was specific to personalized search.

Nine months later, Bryan Horling, a Google Software Engineer, and Matthew Kulick, a Google Product Manager, disclosed that clicks on listings were used in rankings in personalized search, as I noted above.

An FTC Google Probe document (regarding an antitrust evaluation) was leaked to the Wall Street Journal. It recorded a statement from Google's former chief of search, Udi Manber, saying:

The document further reported that:

A bit of the context is missing in this document because the segment about rankings and click data comes directly after a missing page it appears that all the odd pages from the document are missing.

Danny Sullivan, former Editor-in-Chief of Search Engine Land, and current Search Liaison at Google, tweeted about the leaked document's reference to rankings being affected by click data, stating:

In the comments, he further stated, "I asked again a few months ago 🙂 no answer."

It seemed mysterious that Google declined to answer one way or the other, and some interpreted this to mean that they indeed did use clicks as a ranking factor.

Or, perhaps the reason was that clicks are used only in certain, limited contexts rather than broadly as an across-the-board ranking factor.

Rand Fishkin performed a test by watching the ranking of one of his blog posts. He called on his social media followers to conduct searches for it and then click on the listing in the search results. The page's listing climbed to the top ranking position. This is worth mentioning in the timeline because Googlers appear to have become irritated at Fishkin's publicized test and the conclusions.

Fishkin acknowledged that the test did not eliminate the possibility that other ranking factors might have caused the ranking improvement, such as links produced by the social media post. But, the sequence of events showed apparently considerable correlation between the clicks and the ranking change.

A 2015 post on the topic of CTR as a ranking factor by the late Bill Slawski with feedback from Fishkin, suggested that some thresholds of clicks would need to be reached for the listing before CTR begins to play a role in rankings.

Slawski's blog post examined a Google patent that had been recently granted that described "user feedback," which could potentially be clicks in search results, as a ranking factor.

The patent was: "Modifying search result ranking based on a temporal element of user feedback." Notably, the patent's description specifically mentions factors that can affect the appearance of materials in search, such as recency and trends.

One interpretation of Fishkin's test results could be that items like news articles and blog posts may achieve higher than typical rankings after their introduction, combined with click-through rate data, as part of Google's freshness or recency algorithms. (Eric Enge similarly theorized this in a 2016 blog post.)

Thus, topics spiking up in popularity shortly after introduction, like blog posts and news articles, might be able to appear higher as part of Universal Search for brief periods. Such ranking ability might not last, however, and arguably might not be deemed ranking factors in the broad sense that affects keyword search rankings over the longer term.

At the SMX Advanced conference, Jennifer Slegg reported that Gary Illyes from Google stated that they "see those trying to induce noise into clicks," and for that reason, they know that using those types of clicks for ranking purposes would not be good.

This speaks directly to the idea that Google would claim not to use it to reduce the likelihood that people would attempt to manipulate the signal.

The statement here asserts that Google is already seeing artificially influenced clicks in search results and because they already see such click campaigns going on, they are not using the signal.

Illyes went on to essentially confirm the earlier 2009 disclosure that Google uses clicks in a limited way to feature previously-visited search results higher for individuals through personalization. He also stated that clicks in search results were used for evaluation, such as checking whether algorithm changes or UI changes had impacted the overall usefulness of search results.

In a Google Search Central hangout, John Mueller states that click-through rate is used to check algorithms at a high level after making changes to see if people are still finding what they're looking for.

While the wording of the statement seems a bit ambiguous, Mueller seems to be trying to persuade the audience that it would not make sense for Google to use the signal because it is noisy. Thus, no one should worry about it as a ranking factor.

Nearly a month later, in another hangout, Mueller refers to "CTR manipulation, dwell time manipulation," saying, "these things may not even work," which is, again, a little ambiguous.

But, much later in 2015, Mueller states more absolutely in regards to bounce rate:

In late 2015, a Googler posted in the Google My Business help forums (Google My Business has since been renamed "Google Business Profile") that one of the main types of factors they use for ranking local business listings is:

Naturally, this excited some commentary and attention. Google rapidly edited the part within a couple of days of its publication to remove the mention of clicks, restating it to read:

Interestingly, I was told by a Googler in the past that local listings used "listing engagement" as a ranking factor.

In Google Maps search results, or those same local listings embedded within regular keyword search results (Google pulls local search listings into the keyword search results under Universal Search for appropriate queries), the listing engagement factor is some combined metric of all interactions with local listings and not just limited to clicks on the link to the website.

It can include clicks to get Driving Directions, clicks to call the phone number, clicks to copy the address, clicks to share the listing, etc.

The Googler's accidental disclosure of listing clicks as a ranking factor would seem to confirm what I was told about listing engagement.

As Barry Schwartz conjectured, the sequence of events implied that the Googler made a mistake about what he wrote or accidentally posted accurate information that Google does not want SEOs to know.

Google would not confirm or deny that clicks are a ranking factor. Again, while Google can and does cross-pollinate some methods from one vertical to another, the ranking factor post was very specifically about Maps and local search listings rankings and not about core rankings of webpages.

At the SMX Conference in San Jose, Google engineer Paul Haar provided an overview presentation on how Google develops its search rankings.

In the slideshow presentation, two of his slides spoke about using click statistics to evaluate changes to the algorithm.

One item they look at when they test algorithm updates is "changes in click patterns," which in the presentation included the caveat, "Harder to understand than you might expect" (which Haar did not mention verbally).

It was clear that the click data, as he described it, was only used to evaluate changes to the algorithm versus being used as core ranking signals. But, some attendees used the click references in the presentation as proof positive that Google uses CTR for rankings.

Google's Gary Illyes did an AMA on Reddit where Darth_Autocrat asked him:

Illyes answered:

Illyes displayed some clear irritation with Fishkin's prior experiments/statements around CTR as a ranking factor in denying user experience ("UX") signals as ranking factors.

The harsh mention directed at someone specific is very unusual in my experience with the typically polite, friendly and patient Googlers, so this denouncement attracted a lot of attention.

The vehemence, characterizing CTR as "made up crap," and laying responsibility for CTR as a rank element theory at Fishkin's feet seemed very oddly out of proportion especially as you add the various other information around click-throughs-as-ranking-factors I have cited herein.

So, was Illyes' irritation caused by having to answer questions about a bogus ranking factor repeatedly, or because Fishkin showed some real effects that called into question Google's insistence that CTR does not affect core rankings?

Moz's then-Senior SEO Scientist Britney Muller pointed out Google Cloud documentation that implied that CTR was a ranking factor. The document said:

However, Barry Schwartz reminded everyone that this document appeared to quote from the 2009 blog post establishing that clicks were used in personalized search.

At the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee Antitrust Hearing examining big tech companies, Google provided very interesting text about how it uses "long clicks" versus "short clicks" in determining whether:

The text Google provided reads:

The verbiage involving "short clicks" and "long clicks" is a description of bounce rate and dwell time for ads. The parenthetical aside about how long clicks can indicate the users found the ad and corresponding website useful seems a bit out of place within this text, which is otherwise a description of how Google assesses overall changes impacting the search results page.

What is interesting about this is that Google apparently finds bounce rate to be useful in some contexts. If useful for assessing an ad's effectiveness, why not a search result listing?

More here:

The biggest mystery of Google's algorithm: Everything ever said about clicks, CTR and bounce rate - Search Engine Land

The World Cup in Qatar will begin on November 20, and tech behemoth Google showed the massive computing power behind its search engine by appearing to know the future, more specifically, who will play in the tournaments final. Either that or it was a silly error.

For a few hours the two teams who would play in that global event were shown for people who search for the query about the upcoming events to be held at the Lusail Stadium, where the World Cup final will be held.

During the period in question, if you searched for Lusail stadium events on Google, the result showed among your answers the six matches of the first phase of the World Cup to be held in that stadium, a round of 16 match, a quarterfinal match and one of the semifinals, which are also based on this pitch, as well as the final. The surprise reveal appeared just with this last game, as Google made the call that it would be played between Brazil and France.

In the same search, along with that hypothetical Brazil-France match on December 18, another result offered by Google for that day was TBC vs TBC. That is, the teams for that match are not yet confirmed. Hours later, Google corrected the error and among the search results for Lusail stadium events Brazil and France no longer appeared.

The six matches actually confirmed to be held at the Lusail stadium are in the first stage: Argentina-Saudi Arabia (November 22), Brazil-Serbia (24), Argentina-Mexico (26), Portugal-Uruguay (28), Saudi Arabia-Mexico (30) and Cameroon-Brazil (December 2).

Given the quality that both Brazil and France have in their ranks, few could argue with it being a likely final pairing, assuming the draw works out that way.

Original post:

Google mistakenly announces the final of the Qatar World Cup - AS USA

Kim Komando| Special to USA TODAY

If I were a betting woman, Id guess you use Google Chrome. Its far and away the worlds most popular browser. It's not my pick if you're looking for the most privacy. Scan my list of browsers ranked by privacy.

After all, Google likely knows every website you visit, where you go, what you buy online, who you communicate with, and much more. Tap or click here for eight ways Google invades your privacy.

That said, Chrome is a solid browser. There are ways to make it even better.

First things first

Before we get into settings, take the time to ensure Chrome is up to date. This happens automatically when you shut down and reopen the program, but its worth checking now and again.

Open Chrome, then tap the three vertical dots to the right of your profile icon.

From the drop-down menu, hover over Help and select About Google Chrome.

If an update is available, it will start. Click Relaunch to finish.

More Google smarts: 10 Google Search tricks to help you find what youre looking for

Your Chrome profile is tied to your Google account. Two-step verification (or two-factor authentication) adds an extra layer of security to your account.

Once you set it up, you'll sign into your Google account using two steps: something you know (your password) and something you have (like your phone). Remember, this is only necessary when you sign on with a new device.

Heres how to set it up for Google:

Go to myaccount.google.com.

Select Security from the left panel.

Under Signing in to Google, select 2-Step Verification, then Get started.

Follow the on-screen steps.

Better safe than sorry: Hackers want Google accounts. Give yours this security check now!

Chromes Safety Check scans your account for compromised passwords and available updates. It also turns on Safe Browsing, a setting that identifies unsafe websites and notifies you of potential harm.

You can run a Safety Check at any time:

Open Chrome, then tap the three vertical dots to the right of your profile icon.

Select Settings > Privacy and security from the left panel.

Under Safety Check, select Check now.

Select the item and follow the on-screen instructions. Chrome will scan for updates, compromised passwords, harmful extensions, and more.

MAINTENANCE 101: Your printer needs a cleanup Follow this 3-step checklist

Extensions let you add powerful features to your browser. Think coupon finders, grammar checkers, and screenshot tools. But not all extensions are helpful. Some track you across the internet, hog your bandwidth or even infect your computer with malware.

Its not just unknown downloads, either. Five extensions with 1.4 million downloads were recently spotted hiding malware. Tap or click for the list to see if you have one installed.

Not sure what is safe? Chrome assigns a Featured badge to extensions that follow Googles technical best practices and meet a high standard of user experience and design.

Its also helpful to search the web for phrases like, Is (the extension youre using) safe to use?

Heres how to remove an extension from Chrome:

Open Chrome, then tap the three vertical dots to the right of your profile icon.

Hover over More tools and select Extensions.

Click Remove on the extension you want to remove, then click Remove again.

Hypertext Transfer Protocol, orHTTP, is used to load pages using hypertext links. Websites that use HTTP are not secure. Thats why you should stick to sites that start with HTTPS. (The extra S stands for secure.) This encrypts a websites content.

Chromes HTTPS-First mode attempts to load all sites over HTTPS and displays a warning before visiting a site that doesnt support it. Heres how to enable it:

Open Chrome, then tap the three vertical dots to the right of your profile icon.

Select Settings > Privacy and Security, then Security.

In the Advanced section, slide the toggle next to Always use secure connections to the right (on) to enable it.

Speaking of security, I hear from folks all the time who fell for an online scam. Its a bummer, but it happens. Here are three steps to take if that happens to you.

No, Incognito Mode does not make everything you do private. It does have some uses, but lets be clear. Incognito Mode doesnt hide your activity from the websites you visit. You can still be tracked, your ISP can still see what you do, and your data can still be shared with third parties.

So, what does it do? When you surf the web incognito, your browser doesnt save your browsing history, cookies, site data, or information you enter in forms. However, it keeps any downloaded files or bookmarks created during the session.

There are a few things I think Incognito is especially good for: shopping, keeping embarrassing searches out of your history, and keeping home and work separate.

Tap or click for my tips for using Incognito to the best of its ability.

My popular podcast is called Kim Komando Today. Its a solid 30 minutes of tech news, tips, and callers with tech questions like you from all over the country. Search for it wherever you get your podcasts. For your convenience, hit the link below for a recent episode.

PODCAST PICK: Amazon police plans, flying taxis, robotic manicures

Get a $10 manicure from a robot, change this secret Google Maps setting, and watch out for flying taxis. Plus, Amazon tests police stations as package pickup points, Work-from-home jobs that pay $20/hour, and YouTube will let creators offer paid video courses next year.

Check out my podcast Kim Komando Today on Apple, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast player.

Listen to the podcast here or wherever you get your podcasts. Just search for my last name, Komando.

Learn about all the latest technology on theKim Komando Show, the nation's largest weekend radio talk show. Kim takes calls and dispenses advice on today's digital lifestyle, from smartphones and tablets to online privacy and data hacks. For her daily tips, free newsletters and more, visit her website atKomando.com.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of USA TODAY.

See the rest here:

Google Chrome is safe, but here's how to make it even safer - USA TODAY

For nearly two decades, top-tier tech companies like Google and Facebook (now Meta) were known for their rapid hiring, luxurious perks, and corporate cultures of abundance.

But now, as rising inflation, the war in Ukraine, and other macroeconomic factors have caused marketers to slash their advertising budgets, Big Techs work culture is changing. In recent months, Google and Meta have drastically slowed down hiring, cut back on perks like employee travel and laundry service, and begun reorganizing departments. Employees fear deeper staff cuts are ahead. Some economists say these moves are a sign that were heading into a white-collar recession, or a decline in job growth and security for professional workers, not just in tech, but also in other high-skilled industries.

Theres more to these shifts, though. The external economic pressures are real but its also a good excuse for behemoths like Google and Meta to clean house.

As Googles parent company Alphabet and Meta have grown into corporate giants worth $1 trillion and $385 billion, respectively, theyve swelled their staffing to over 150,000 and 80,000. Now, economic circumstances are giving management an opportunity to reset expectations, pressure staff to start working harder with smaller budgets, and show some workers the door.

At companies like Facebook and Google, for the longest time expenses were unlimited, said one Meta executive who recently left the company and spoke under the condition of anonymity for fear of professional repercussions. There was a lot of fat in the organizations. Its very healthy to cut that fat. The party is over.

Its not only executives who think that some Big Tech companies have become too bloated, but some rank-and-file employees too. Ahead of the 2020 presidential primary elections, Recode reported that Google and Facebook employees donated the most to candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who wanted to break up Big Tech, arguing that making these companies smaller could return them to their more scrappy and productive early startup days.

Google and Facebook are still two of the most profitable companies in the world, whose annual revenue rivals that of the entire GDP of some countries. Unlike smaller tech companies, they can afford to make payroll and weather times of economic downturn. But, some industry insiders said, it could be to these firms advantage to cut more than necessary to drive productivity and demonstrate to shareholders that theyre being financially responsible. Metas share prices have dropped by about 60 percent in the past year, and Google parent company Alphabet is down by about 30 percent in the same time period.

Both Google and Facebook have candidly warned employees that for those who remain, the company will start demanding more of them. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in an internal memo in July, reported by CNBC, that Googlers need to be more entrepreneurial and work with greater urgency, sharper focus, and more hunger than weve shown on sunnier days. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg put it more bluntly in a company all-hands in June, according to the New York Times, saying I think some of you might decide that this place isnt for you, and that self-selection is okay with me Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldnt be here.

For employees on the receiving end of this executive pressure, the sense is that overnight, their job security is no longer so secure. Even though the cuts at Facebook and Google have only recently started, many employees are already feeling the change.

One current Google employee told Recode that just a few months ago, employees came to Googles regular all-hands meetings, which the company calls TGIFs, with regular questions about whether they would get raises to match inflation. Now, the employee said, a more common question among employees is whether there will be layoffs.

All the talk about compensation goes away because people are scared, they said.

One Google employee Recode spoke with said most of their colleagues accept managements cost-cutting measures.

People have been really understanding, they told Recode. because at the end of the day we still have it so much better than other people. Still, they added that the companys recent cuts and emphasis on productivity has created a sense of nervousness and uncertainty in what we can expect from the company going forward.

That nervousness and uncertainty extends to employees future job prospects, too. Usually, Google employees unhappy with their job could easily seek an offer from Meta, Apple, or other nearby tech giants jockeying for talent; these days, most tech companies have slowed new hiring.

Theres definitely a sense of wait, there may not be a chair at another tech company if the music stops here, said one Google employee.

The fact that in just a few months, the dynamics of the tech industry have turned upside down, and that employees now have less leverage over their employers, represents one of the most significant shifts the sector has seen since the dot-com bust of the early 2000s.

In a cynical way, that Google employee mused, even if managements talk about productivity doesnt amount to more actual efficiency, it is effectively working to get workers to stop pushing for more benefits. And it shows shareholders that Google is serious about its stock performance.

Google and Meta have both seen significant stock decline in the last two years, due in large part to rising inflation, the war in Ukraine, changes to Apples privacy settings, and rising competition from TikTok.

When recessions come along or when things are softening, I think these companies that are very well run take that as an opportunity to streamline things internally, said Keval Desai, a former Google executive from 2003 to 2009 who now runs a venture capital firm he founded, SHAKTI. I do believe that smart companies take opportunities and make unpopular decisions.

But unpopular decisions can be difficult to implement. And improving productivity at massive corporations like Facebook or Google isnt as easy as simply that demanding employees work harder.

Some Google employees Recode spoke with said that they think in order to be more productive, executives should focus on giving teams clearer direction.

There is that fear that people arent working hard enough, but what I see is a lot of people working hard with unclear business priorities, said a Google employee. Maybe theyre not making the best business decisions, but they dont know that.

One example: Google seems to be unclear about how much it wants to prioritize its hardware line. The company seemed to be moving forward with developing its next Pixelbook laptop product until it canceled the latest planned release and disbanded the team working on it earlier this month, The Verge reported.

And in March, Google laid off 100 Google Cloud workers, giving them 60 days to find new jobs within the company which some employees petitioned against, asking for more time. The layoffs came despite the fact that Google Cloud, while still an unprofitable division, is growing its revenue considerably.

Laszlo Bock, co-founder of workplace software company Humu, who headed Googles People Operations teams from 2006 to 2016, said he agrees with the idea that some major tech companies arent as operationally disciplined today as they could be, and that it could be time for change.

I think there is a way for companies to navigate that, though, which is you need to have a clearly articulated set of principles about how and why you want to change. said Bock.

At Google, the company is increasingly focusing its research efforts on AI, and at Meta, the company is prioritizing VR/AR work to support its metaverse plans, as well as its TikTok competitor, Reels.

Google recently made major cuts to its in-house research lab, Area 120, on projects that werent directly focused on AI. Meta has also reportedly scaled back its new experimental product division to refocus exclusively on Reels. More broadly, Meta is planning to cut workplace spending by 10 percent, the Wall Street Journal recently reported, in part through staff reductions and has started quietly disbanding some teams, giving employees 30 days to find new jobs within the company.

Some Meta employees are trying to find new positions on metaverse-related projects, which is what Zuckerberg has made his highest priority, said one employee who recently left the company.

Definitely over the past six to nine months theres been a mad dash toward [Reality Labs], and particularly within the metaverse product group, said a former Meta employee who recently left the company. It feels like everything else is less secure in terms of the companys future.

Some employees and industry experts worry that too much cost-cutting could backfire by stifling employee innovation: the very kind of creativity that made these companies great.

Traditionally, the way you drive productivity is you manage more tightly, you set goals, you cut costs. And the way you drive innovation is you give people more freedom and some flexibility and room to experiment and fail, said Bock. So Im not sure how you increase productivity and increase innovation at the same time.

Our goal this month

Now is not the time for paywalls. Now is the time to point out whats hidden in plain sight (for instance, the hundreds of election deniers on ballots across the country), clearly explain the answers to voters questions, and give people the tools they need to be active participants in Americas democracy. Reader gifts help keep our well-sourced, research-driven explanatory journalism free for everyone. By the end of September, were aiming to add 5,000 new financial contributors to our community of Vox supporters. Will you help us reach our goal by making a gift today?

Follow this link:

How Meta and Google are using recession fears to slow hiring and cut perks - Vox.com

|

Chances are that youve moved all your important documents, photos and other digital files to the cloud. So we cant ignore the significance of cloud cybersecurity moving forward as we continue to go completely digital in so many aspects of our lives.

Cybersecurity companies are fighting for market share as data breaches and ransomware attacks become more common, more damaging and more expensive. With many companies turning towards cloud technology, its no secret that companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft are going to increase focus on this business sector.

That said, Googles recent acquisition of the cyber security company, Mandiant, has stirred up a lot of conversation about the future of cloud cybersecurity and the highly competitive landscape therein. Were going to look at this space to see how much money the big players are making.

It was announced on September 12 that Googles $5.4 billion bid to acquire the cybersecurity firm Mandiant was completed. Mandiant will be joining Googles cloud computing division so Google can attempt to compete with Amazons AWS and Microsofts Azure. This is Googles second-largest acquisition as the company aims to focus on enhancing its security operations suite and advisory services.

With companies worldwide facing cyberattacks, the cloud cybersecurity space is expanding, and fast. With over 17 years of experience, Mandiant is a publicly-traded cybersecurity company that rose to prominence by discovering the SolarWinds attack where 18,000 clients unknowingly downloaded malware. Due to the detection, less than 100 customers ended up getting hacked. The companys specialization in threat detection is what helped them stand out in the market.

Google is investing heavily in its cloud cybersecurity business sector. While Google still has a long way to go to catch up with AWS and Azure, the company is willing to invest its financial resources into growth, even to the detriment of short term profit.

When Google first announced the deal, they brought up how combining Mandiant with Google Clouds security offerings will help Cloud customers with increased protection in five key areas:

The company is also hopeful that the combination of Google Cloud and Mandiant will encourage further collaboration and innovation in the cybersecurity sector while increasing threat research capabilities. As cyber-attacks become more sophisticated, its clear that organizations, governments and individuals need further protection. Theres also significant money to be made in storage as more streaming services emerge.

We looked at the earnings report for Alphabet, the parent company of Google, to see how much the cloud business brings in. During the Q2 earnings report for 2022, the CEO of Alphabet and Google, Sundar Pichai, declared that performance for the quarter was driven by search and cloud functionality. The company has invested plenty of resources into the AI and computing thats needed to grow cloud services for businesses of all sizes.

Google brought in $21 billion in revenue from cloud services in 2021, which accounted for 7.5% of the companys total revenue. However, cloud services still ended up with a net loss of $3.1 billion in 2021.

For the second quarter of 2022, Google Cloud brought in $6.3 billion in revenue, which was a 35% year-over-year increase compared to the second quarter of 2021, when they brought in $4.6 billion in revenue. However, the company also lost $858 million for cloud services in the second quarter of 2022.

Many experts have observed that Google isnt profitable with its cloud services because they continue to invest in the growth of this sector. Amazon, on the other hand, has remained profitable in its cloud business.

Google executives continue to point to the growth potential of cloud services, highlighting that many companies are still in the early stages of a digital transformation.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) had an operating profit of $18.5 billion in 2021. AWS was also 74% of Amazons total operating profit in 2021. On an interesting note, AWS contributed 14% to the companys overall revenue while generating almost three-quarters of the profits.

For the second quarter of 2022, Amazon reported earnings of $19.74 billion in revenue with $5.72 billion in operating income for AWS. The revenue from the cloud services increased 33% during the quarter.

When you take a closer look at the earnings from Amazon, its clear that the cloud business is bringing in a majority of the profit, despite the e-commerce side bringing in more revenue. The cloud business simply operates atop higher margins.

AWS is the cloud computing service that provides data storage and networking for regular customers and big enterprise clients like Twitter and Netflix. Netflix uses AWS for almost all of its storage and computing needs. This includes everything from databases to analytics and even video transcoding. Amazon also has many other large companies that rely on AWS, which ensures that this sector will remain profitable.

Microsoft has remained competitive in the cloud cybersecurity space with Azure and other cloud services. According to the companys earning report for the second quarter in 2022, revenue from Intelligent Cloud was $20.9 billion. Microsofts Intelligent Cloud business sector includes Azure (the public cloud for application hosting), SQL Server, Windows Server and enterprise services. They dont list what revenues they bring in solely from Azure.

Revenue from Azure and cloud services went up by 40% in the last quarter, which is slightly lower than the 46% growth during the previous quarter.

Microsoft also invested in the cloud sector in 2021 with a few major acquisitions. They acquired CloudKnow and ReFirm labsboth major players in cloud security and internet of things (IoT) security, respectively.

The recent acquisitions by Google and Microsoft indicate that these giant companies plan to invest heavily in this business sector. With unprecedented levels of global cyberattacks, there will be more demand for increased cyber security.

Adam Selipsky, the CEO of Amazons AWS, recently remarked in an interview that he believes theres more room to grow in this space since cloud computing is still in its infancy. Selpisky told CNBCs Jim Cramer, Essentially, IT is going to move to the cloud. And its going to take a while. Youve seen maybe only, call it 10% of IT today move. So its still day 1. Its still early Most of its still yet to come.

He also mentioned that despite the steep competition, demand is still increasing for AWS. It will be interesting to observe how Googles acquisition of Mandiant performs and if this newly expanded business could increase Googles market share. Its currently estimated that Amazon has a 39% market share in the cloud cybersecurity space. Theres no telling how many more individuals and corporations are yet to make the complete digital transformation.

Its also worth mentioning that cybersecurity stocks were a rare bright spot earlier in the year when the stock market tumbled due to global conflict and rising inflation. Companies like Telos and CyberStrike remained strong as cybersecurity threats increased worldwide. This sector remained strong until worries of rising inflation and increasing interest rates led to further sell-offs.

From a business perspective, its going to be fascinating to see how Amazon and Microsoft react to Googles acquisition and if the giants decide to participate in additional mergers or acquisitions as well.

If youre looking to invest in cloud technology and cybersecurity, you have many companies to choose from. Cyber security companies will continue to do well as individual users, organizations and governments continue to rely on threat detection for safety. There will also be further demand for cloud storage as streaming services and others continue to put content online.

If you want to invest in tech without the hassle of sifting through hours of research and hype, Q.ai can help you out. With our Emerging Tech Kit, you can take advantage of data-based, AI-backed investment strategies.

Download Q.ai today for access to AI-powered investment strategies. When you deposit $100, well add an additional $100 to your account.

Here is the original post:

Mandiant, Google, And The Future Of Cloud Cybersecurity - Forbes

There's no shortage of rumors when it comes to Apple (AAPL 0.23%) and new tech hardware. Remember the Apple TV (Apple of course offers plenty of services for the television)? Rumors (or maybe hopes) still circle about a possible Apple Car, and there are persistent rumors that an Apple AR/VR headset is reportedly in the works.

But it isn't just hardware. There's also persistent speculation that Apple is building its own internet search service, too. That would be bad news for Alphabet (GOOGL -0.58%) (GOOG -0.36%) and its main breadwinner, Google. But would Apple really pull such a move and cut Google out of the mix in its lucrative hardware empire?

First, a quick primer. To this day, Apple's empire is predominantly based on hardware sales -- and it's done a great job getting consumers into its ecosystem (which includes Macs, iPhones, iPads, Watches, etc.) and keeping them there. It's a classic land-and-expand strategy: Once a sale is registered (an iPhone, for example), Apple can then push other device types by touting how tightly integrated all of them are.

But the device-focused business model has been slowly changing over the years. Software and other revenue not tied to a computing device sale -- the services segment -- hauled in revenue of $19.6 billion in Q3 of Apple's 2022 fiscal year (which ended June 25). That was a 12% increase from the year prior and represented nearly 24% of total revenue, making services Apple's fastest-growing segment.

Alphabet comes from the other side of the equation. It's a software business and monetizes primarily via advertising. It's been slowly edging into the hardware game, but ads remain the key driver of its internet business. Access to Apple's global installed base of devices currently in use (homing in on 2 billion active devices, the majority of them iPhones) is a big deal for Google. It reportedly shells out billions to be the default search engine on Apple devices.

Neither Apple nor Google actually discloses what Google pays Apple for internet search privileges. But estimates point to it being $15 billion in 2021, growing to a range of $18 billion to $20 billion in 2022.

In other words, a significant amount of growth in Apple services (and a sizable chunk of that revenue segment overall) is derived from internet search advertising.

Since Apple tightly controls its ecosystem of devices, why not just use those hefty payments from Google to build its own search engine and eventually drop Google entirely? It might make sense one day. After all, Google's ad business generates pretty healthy profits, even after the sizable traffic acquisition costs (TAC) paid to Apple. In Q2 2022 alone, Google's own services segment (primarily consisting of advertising) generated an operating profit of $22.8 billion, a profit margin of 36%.

By the way, Alphabet's TAC payments are where the Apple royalty estimates come from in the first place. Alphabet says Google's TAC has surpassed $24 billion through the first half of 2022. If Apple's mobile operating system is just over half of U.S. market share and close to 30% globally (Alphabet's Android making up the balance), estimates imply that roughly 40% of that TAC (or between $18 billion and $20 billion) goes to Apple each year.

Apple could already be testing the waters for a rival internet search engine. After all, there's already antitrust regulatory scrutiny over Apple accepting payment from Google in the first place. But besides that, Apple has already monetized search via ads for years in its App Store. Software developers can pay Apple to promote their app so it reaches more Apple users' eyeballs.

But then there's Apple's new activity-tracking transparency (ATT) feature (it's a prompt Apple sends you asking if you want to opt in to an app tracking your device usage activity). Apple has touted this feature as proof of how much it cares about your privacy. But plenty of developers and marketers out there claim Apple is using ATT to limit outside companies' access to users' data and promote its own advertising channels (which do have access to user data) within its massive base of devices. Given that the sale of devices overall has slowed over the years and considering Apple's increasing emphasis on services, building its own ad empire makes sense from a financial standpoint.

In fact, reports suggest Apple is aggressively ramping up hiring for its own in-house advertising segment. Apple's ads segment might already be redirecting billions of dollars a year in targeted advertising in-house with the help of ATT, while also making it harder for Google, Meta Platforms (that is to say Facebook), and others to sell highly profitable targeted ads. If the claims are true, Apple weakens other marketers' ability to sell ads to iPhones and the like while it simultaneously promotes its own targeted ad channels instead.

How does this relate to the development of an Apple internet search engine? Building an ad business -- the primary means of monetizing internet search, at least today -- could be the eventual precursor to Apple going head-to-head with Google. However, cataloging the internet itself is a massive task that requires the ability to collect and crunch a mind-boggling amount of data. Google owns a couple of dozen data centers around the world and rents lots more space for its servers in third-party data centers. Even for Apple, building the right infrastructure for a proper internet search service would be a tall order. $20 billion a year from Google would go only so far toward building new internet infrastructure, not to mention the massive amount of software development needed on top of it.

Given this, I think Google will safely remain the default search engine on Apple for the foreseeable future (unless regulatory factors come into play first). Apple is likely more than happy to collect those annual payments of tens of billions of dollars from Google. I see the status quo in internet search remaining intact for some time since it simply makes financial sense for both Apple and Google.

Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Nicholas Rossolillo and his clients have positions in Alphabet (C shares), Apple, and Meta Platforms, Inc. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet (A shares), Alphabet (C shares), Apple, and Meta Platforms, Inc. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long March 2023 $120 calls on Apple and short March 2023 $130 calls on Apple. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read more:

Should Apple Make Its Own Search Engine and Cut Google Out of the Mix? - The Motley Fool

The threat actors behind a newly discovered malicious advertising app operation have been active since at least 2019, but researchers tracking their evolution report the group has become more sophisticated, expanding beyond its previous Android-specific attacks into the iOS ecosystem.

The latest campaign, according to researchers with Human Security's Satori research team, included 80 Android Apps lurking in the Google Play store and, notably, 9 in the Apple App Store. All together, the team reported the malicious applications were downloaded at least 13 million times.

Once downloaded, the malicious applications spoof other apps to rack up digital ad views, play hidden ads the user couldn't see to gain fraudulent views, and even track legitimate ad clicks to hone the group's ability to fake them more convincingly later.

The research team, which flagged the apps for removal from the official stores, calls this latest iteration of the attack group Scylla. The earliest version of the group was called Poseidon, then Charybdis. Scylla is the third wave of attacks from the threat actors, the Human team explained in their report.

"Today's announcement of the disruption of Scylla named after the granddaughter of Poseidon reflects a new evolution from the threat actors behind the scheme," the Human team said about the find. "While the Poseidon and Charybdis operations centered wholly on Android apps, the Satori team has found evidence that Scylla additionally targets iOS apps and has expanded the attack to other parts of the digital advertising ecosystem."

Human Security worked with Google and Apple to remove the malicious applications and is continuing to work with advertising software development kit developers to mitigate the campaign's fallout.

"These tactics, combined with the obfuscation techniques first observed in the Charybdis operation, demonstrate the increased sophistication of the threat actors behind Scylla," the Human team added. "This is an ongoing attack, and users should consult the list of apps in the report and consider removing them from all devices."

Visit link:

Malicious Apps With Millions of Downloads Found in Apple App Store, Google Play - DARKReading

By AdExchanger Guest Columnist

Data-Driven Thinking is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Todays column is written by Arnaud Crput, CEO of Equativ.

Googles latest legislative dodge has fallen flat. Following an alleged proposal to section off its ad tech business (Google Ad Manager, DV360, AdSense and AdMob) under parent company Alphabet, reports about likely rejection by the Department of Justice (DOJ) could mean a fresh lawsuit.

How will this high-stakes game of antitrust chicken play out? Is Google truly sincere about its willingness to compromise?

I believe its proposal could be seen as a first important proactive step toward true structural change not just at Google but across many of the biggest players in the industry.

An indicator of growing resistance

As scrutiny builds, the need to give ground is growing. It is becoming more untenable for Google to resist reconfiguration. If they call the DOJs bluff, they will likely force officials hands to exact separation of the business within the next two to three years. To avoid that, Google must voluntarily cede some power.

Amid mounting evidence that minor concessions wont pass muster, the only way to squelch further antitrust measures is accepting the inevitable shift toward reduced end-to-end dominance and heavily conflicted business models.

The decision by Disney+ to dump Google earlier this year in favor of a new ad tech partnership with The Trade Desk, and Netflixs move to launch its ad-supported tier with Microsoft, are just two of many recent signs that big publishers are tired of being bullied. They are standing up to Googles strong-arming tactics by choosing alternative vendors. Another indicator is that leading SSP PubMatic reported 27% year-over-year revenue growth, exceeding 21% market expectations in its recent Q2 results.

The downfall of socials leaders

There are signs that the charge for greater neutrality, transparency, and equality is spreading beyond just the supply side. The second quarter of 2022 brought sizable declines in year-over-year advertising revenue for social media and advertising titans. That includes Metas very first loss (-1%), historically low growth for YouTube (+5%), and subpar estimated results for Twitter (-1%) and Snapchat (+13%, but only +4% in the US).

Unsurprisingly, the big platform honchos have been keen to blame losses on financial turbulence. This explanation, however, doesnt wash for many reasons. In sharp contrast to Meta and Google, the big six holding company agencies all posted better than expected revenues for Q2. Some even bested their numbers for Q1. And this in a digital advertising market, which is still expected to grow by 17.8% in the US in 2022.

There are also wider issues affecting the previously powerful position of social players. Not only is IDFA tracking on iOS devices impacting businesses of all sizes, but the rise of hate speech, fake news, and poor quality content has also led to the loss of advertiser confidence and control. Adding to that is growing demand from buyers for a broader range of audience, more quality inventory, format choice and more diversified consumer data. All this is better provided by the open web than by moated walled gardens.

A call for an open web

The digital advertising space needs stronger, more sustainable alignment of interests between media owners and ad tech, with advertisers relying less on walled gardens. As Meta, YouTube and others are pushed to address their flaws, we should start to see the beginnings of a rebalancing of the digital advertising market from walled gardens to the open web.

At that point, market share should finally become more evenly distributed for independent publishers, data owners and platforms, bringing enhanced value and opportunity to all. While the exact rate of evolution isnt easy to predict, this transition is in motion. And in my opinion, Google knows it.

Follow Equativ (@Equativ) and AdExchanger (@AdExchanger) on Twitter.

See the article here:

As The Open Web Becomes More Real, Will Google Be The First To Fall? - AdExchanger

A man holding a phone walks past a sign of Chinese company ByteDance's app TikTok, known locally as Douyin, at the International Artificial Products Expo in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, China October 18, 2019.

Reuters

The explosion of TikTok's popularity has pushed the app into the biggest technology companies' focus. While geopolitical issues remain heightened over data-privacy and security, technology firms can't ignore the platform's influence on audiences.

Google, Apple and Microsoft all have TikTok accounts, with over 8.5 million likes between the three. While Apple has more than 1.3 million fans on the platform, Google and Microsoft have 403,000 and 143,000, respectively. But unlike Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, or any social platform where these companies also have a presence, TikTok is being used to showcase the brands beyond traditional advertising.

"Younger audiences are usually in ad-free environments, so where are they going to be exposed to things like Microsoft?" said Hanna Kahlert, an analyst at research and analysis company Midia Research, where she specializes in social media, cultural/consumer trends and marketing/advertising.

"It becomes a question of, 'Where else are you going to reach these younger consumers and generate a bit of awareness?'" Kahlert said. "Technology companies are going [to TikTok] because it's the best way to reach them."

The rise in big tech's activity on TikTok is reflective of a larger cultural movement.

"Brands can't just exist as brands anymore," Kahlert said. "They have to have an interface, something for audiences to actually engage with. Those big companies need to become more approachable and more personable because audiences are growing very used to being able to interact with the creators that they like."

Being close to consumers is also important. "Social is a place for us to be more personal, to be more relevant, to be, in some ways, more candid, because we're literally in the same space that our audiences exist for themselves," said Kelley Myers, the director of social media for consumer brands at Microsoft.

Big tech companies are finding success on TikTok by not only creating personable content, but by creating content that follows trends already on TikTok often related to corporate humor and professional advice.

This makes content resonate with younger audiences, a demographic that doesn't necessarily relate to specific products or services.

"A lot of the technology companies are focused on the product versus the message, which is great but a lot of them are so into the weeds of the product," said Brian Easter, the co-founder of Nebo Agency, a marketing agency in Atlanta, Georgia.

"One of the challenges is pulling [brands] out of that, and saying, 'Hey, if we go to TikTok, and we just brag about your technology, nobody's going to pay attention,'" Easter said. "What we have to do is find a way to tell stories and to be human."

When brands make human connections, that's when videos drive engagement, he added.

"We're having a lot of fun. We're out there, watching trends, listening to audio trends that are happening, and then finding ways that are super brand-relevant for us to participate in that space," Myers said.

TikTok became the world's third-largest social network last year, ranking behind Facebook and Instagram, according to Insider Intelligence. It estimates that TikTok will have 755 million monthly users globally in 2022, and its market share will top 20%.

While more users are flocking to TikTok, Easter said big tech firms could miss out if they don't invest in content creation.

"Google, for example, would be remiss if they ignored an audience that skews younger," Easter said. "It's not like, 'Hey, I'm Google over here. Please search.' It's about making sure that your brand is building and winning hearts and minds, wherever the users are at."

Users on products like Google's search engine are decreasing. In 2021, TikTok.com was the most popular domain on the internet, outranking Google.com, Facebook.com, Microsoft.com and Apple.com, according to Cloudfare, an internet hosting provider, which also has its own TikTok account.

While big tech competes for audiences on TikTok similar to other brands, it's actually easier for these large companies to rise above the noise.

"I think TikTok is a lot easier to execute as a larger brand," said Haley Filippone, a social and public relations strategist at Nebo Agency.

"Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter have the time, money and resources to really commit to the platform, but you'll see that for smaller brands, video production can be very challenging. It's time-consuming and can be expensive," Filippone added.

Kahlert said TikTok's algorithm is also demanding and requires frequent posting to be prominent on its feed. The algorithm requires brands to post at least one TikTok per day, which can lead to smaller creators actually spending more time marketing themselves than making their products.

"These bigger companies are competing for airspace on the same exact platforms as everybody else, but they're able to hire teams to produce content with speed and scale," Kahlert said.

It's uncertain how long TikTok will remain popular and influential.

"First of all, nothing is permanent, but as permanent as something can be, TikTok has all of the ingredients that it needs to stay in power," Easter said.

Kahlert said our digital society is past the point of a single platform completely upending the social media market. Facebook was the first social platform to shake up the game, then Instagram and Snapchat. She said each platform adds a new aspect or feature, but TikTok might just be another in the mix.

"It might be TikTok that sticks around, but it could just as easily be another company that comes out and does it. I don't think we'll see exactly one being everything," Kahlert said. "We're always going to see at least a handful of these apps being really important at the same time."

While big tech should be on TikTok, Kahlert said that compared to traditional advertising, not all exposure and publicity on social media equals positive awareness, or increased sales.

"It's a lot more unreliable than that, so you'll have one [social post] that goes viral for good reasons, and then there's one that goes viral for bad reasons,'' Kahlert said. "So you need to be [on TikTok]. But be careful what you wish for when it comes to this kind of popularity."

Read this article:

Why Apple, Google and Microsoft are spending more time on TikTok - CNBC