Google announced on Monday its new tool, the App Inventor for Android, which is designed to enable non-programmers to create apps that will run on Google’s smartphone operating system. Although many bloggers are claiming that this could be a massive game changer for Google’s struggling Android and the mobile realm at large, I suggest checking out Eric Lai’s blog on ZDNet, in which he questions the promise of DIY programming tools and takes a hard look at Android’s future.

Google Tops Revenue Expectations, but Profits Fall Short

Google grew both revenue and profits in the second quarter, surpassing revenue forecasts, but falling just short of profit predictions. Google generated $6.82 billion in the quarter up 24% year-on-year. Net income was at $1.84 billion, at $5.71 per share, while on a pro-forma basis, net income was at $2.08 billion, or $6.45 per share, falling short of the $6.52 predictions set by financial analysts.

Microsoft Improves Facebook Integration with Outlook

Microsoft’s Social Connector plug-in was updated this week, now allowing users to access messages, photos, wall posts and more from Facebook within Outlook. Microsoft has been steadily adding social media platforms to its Social Connector plug-in, starting with LinkedIn, MySpace and Twinbox for Twitter.

Facebook’s Mobile Usage Increases by 50% Since April 2010

Facebook’s mobile user base has reached an astonishing 150 million users, up 50% from April. Increasing their mobile base is an integral part of Facebook’s growth  strategy. As Eric Tseng stated in a presentation at VentureBeat’s MobileBeat 2010 conference in San Francisco. “We want to turn this whole mobile platform into a Facebook. Mobile is fast becoming our growth lever. As we begin to continue to expand, we’re starting to go into geographies where phones are the predominant way you access the web. Mobile is a way we can get users to be aware of and engage with social services.”

Google’s New Matchtype Goes Global

Google announced on Wednesday that its new broad match modifier will be implemented globally across most languages. The global launch was approved after a successful open beta test in the U.K. and Canada that began in May 2010. To read more on how this could impact your PPC campaign, check out Alex’s Campbell’s article Adwords+ New+ Matchtype.

Must Read Blog Articles:

Google’s Latest Move Toward Social Shopping

Paul Burani authored an article this week on SearchEngineWatch that discusses the new emphasis Google is placing on seller ratings in their advertisements. These ad extensions, Burani argues, not only give incentive to advertisers to adhere to Google’s best practices , but will also provide Google’s engineers with a better understanding of user search behavior.

Apple Snapping up Small Tech Firms

As Ryan Kim notes in his article, Apple does not have, unlike Google, a track record of aggressively collecting small tech firms, that is, until recently. Only six months into 2010, Apple has already purchased it’s sixth company. Although they haven’t revealed the overall strategy behind these acquisitions, Kim points out in his article the one consistent theme: mobile.

Twitters Early Bird Ploy Takes Flight

In an article published on the Wall Street Journal tech blog, Amir Efrati reviews Twitter’s @earlybird’s first week out in the advertising world and takes a closer look into the advertisers that have already jumped on board.

According to Google’s official blog:

The broad match modifier is a new AdWords targeting feature that lets you create keywords which have greater reach than phrase match and more control than broad match. Adding modified broad match keywords to your campaign can help you get more clicks and conversions at an attractive ROI, especially if you mainly use exact and phrase match keywords today.

To implement the modifier, just put a plus symbol (+) directly in front of one or more words** in a broad match keyword. Each word preceded by a + has to appear in your potential customer’s search exactly or as a close variant. Close variants include misspellings, singular/plural forms, abbreviations and acronyms, and stemmings (like “floor” and “flooring”). Synonyms (like “quick” and “fast”) and related searches (like “flowers” and “tulips”) aren’t considered close variants.

For more on how this announcement could impact your PPC campaigns, check out Alex Campbell’s blog on the topic, entitled “AdWords +New +Matchtype.” In the post, Alex discusses how Google’s new matchtype may help PPC-ers improve their spending efforts, by “filling the gap between the oh-so-broad Broad match and the nitpicking Phrase match. A gap which anyone working in PPC will be excited to see filled.”

What are your thoughts on this new matchtype?  How will you be applying it to your AdWords campaigns?

I stand by that position… all else being equal. But in the time since that posting, we’ve uncovered some strong evidence that there may be another variable in the equation that can under certain circumstances trump even the almighty CTR. That variable is none other than Father Time. It appears that sometimes the best thing you can do to improve Quality Score is absolutely nothing.

Here’s a quick outline of what we’ve seen and done in recent weeks:

1)      Before we took over management of an account from one of our clients, the client had built out a number of geo-modified ad groups around important keywords.

2)      The fundamental structure of the “legacy” geo campaigns was sound.

3)      As part of our ongoing expansion and optimization of this account, we continued to add new geo-modified campaigns structured in the same way as the legacy versions, with ads that were also fundamentally the same, with only slight alterations aimed at raising CTR.

4)      After a few months, we were puzzled by the results, which looked like this:

In other words, despite identical structure and setup with similar ad formats across all geo sets, AND despite CTR being more than 50% higher with the new set, Quality Score remained 50% higher for the legacy set.

As confounding as this was – and as tempting as it is to throw our hands up and walk away any time we come across these kinds of seemingly arbitrary Quality Score issues – we dug deeper.

As stated above, the structure of the ad groups was identical: each ad group in both the old and new sets was a single keyword concatenated with a large list of geographic names. Landing pages specific to the “thing+geo” combination were used for each individual keyword in both sets, and there was no difference in landing page design elements. In other words, the only thing we could think of that was different in any potentially notable way was the ad copy.

So this is what we did:

1)      Analyzed the editorial differences between the ads running in the two sets. As mentioned above, they were fundamentally the same, but ultimately they were not exactly the same. These were the three key differences that we found in comparing the ads in the legacy ad groups to those in our newer ad groups:

1. New ad groups used Keyword Insertion somewhat more often than old ad groups.
2. New ads used customized Display URLs (e.g. Website.com/SpecialThing), while old ads used a single, generic Display URL (www.website.com) across the board with no exceptions.
3. The client in question has coverage in a wide variety of verticals, and the way we expressed that in the newer ads that we’d written was something to the effect of “Find What You’re Looking For”; while the old ads expressed this by saying, “Find the details of [xyz] at website.com.”

2)      We isolated 3 different cross-sections of newer geo-modified ad groups, and applied one “legacy element” to each set. So in one cross-section we got rid of Keyword Insertion; in the second one we eliminated the customized Display URLs; in the third we changed the wording of the “find it here” message to match that of the legacy group.

1. Results: CTR, Quality Score and CPCs took a nosedive across the board.

3)      Not giving up, we stretched a little bit further and hypothesized that maybe there’s something about the “alchemy” of those 3 distinguishing elements in combination that led to a better Quality Score. So we took the 3 test sets we’d been working with and applied all 3 differentiators to all 3 sets.

1. Results: CTR, Quality Score and CPC took an even bigger nosedive.

4)      We reverted all of our test sets back to the ads that we had written, which pushed CTR back to its higher levels, and we’re basically crossing our fingers and hoping that the better CTRs will eventually translate to better Quality Scores and lower CPCs. We’ll see.

To be fair, this wasn’t an entirely perfect test. As mentioned above, the client in question here covers a variety of verticals; and as we all know, different types of searchers in different categories respond differently to different types of messaging.

However, the way we set up the tests should have accounted for that to a good degree. We tested a very diverse cross-section in each test set, and when comparing our core test metrics (CTR, QS, CPC), we only did so within each category individually. Still, in all cases, each set had degraded in QS and click metrics within a few weeks after making each round of changes.

So what’s left to test?

Time.

The geo campaigns that were already there when we took over the account had been around for months and in most cases years, humming along unwatched and untouched, delivering efficient traffic at a solid CPC. Then we came in, expanded the geo campaigns to cover more keyword areas, wrote the same kinds of ads with slight variations that led to better CTRs… and in the process killed Quality Score.

In short, aside from any sort of variables that we simply can’t perceive (“dog-whistle variables” I like to call them), it appears that the only major difference between the legacy geo campaigns and the new geo campaigns in this account is that the older ones are, well, older. I can’t explain why, but if there’s any validity at all to our testing methodology, it appears that the AdWords Quality-Score algorithm does indeed favor ad-keyword combinations that have been together for a long time. (Has Google, as a side-effect of its myriad revolutionary advancements in search technology, managed to quantify trust?)

It’s a tough conclusion to communicate to a client (is there anything about Quality Score that isn’t?). You are asked, “What do you recommend we do this month to improve Quality Score in our campaigns?” Depending on the circumstances, it appears that your best answer may very well be, “Absolutely nothing.”

First, let’s define overspend as the additional cost incurred that exceeded a campaign’s set budget.

Now how does overspend occur?

Well, we had to dig a little deeper and used Google’s policy as a reference.  For starters…”If Google over-delivers your ads too much, and you accrue more costs in a billing period than your budget allows, a credit will automatically be applied to your account.” And “Over the course of a single day, you may change your daily budget for each campaign in your account a maximum of ten times.”

What’s not clearly defined above is which budget is being measured for overspend? Daily Campaign Budget? or Total Monthly Budget across all Campaigns?

Additionally “…if you change your budget halfway through the day, you’ll typically spend 50% of your old budget in the day’s first half and 50% of your new budget in the day’s second half…Please note that if demand for your ad is greatest early on the day you make a budget change, AdWords might deliver (for instance) 70% of your first budget in the morning, and then 50% of your second daily budget in the afternoon…if you change your daily budget multiple times in a given day, AdWords will serve your ads based on the highest daily budget amount you chose for that day.” In other words, per Google’s increments and referencing the table below, if your Original Budget was set at $10,000 at Midnight (when AdWords billing begins) but then adjusted to a budget of $8,000 at noon of that day (commencing the second half of the day) you would incur a 10% ($1,000) surplus of the Original Budget which falls in line with Google’s  20% more clicks disclaimer.  However, this overspend jumps to a 38% ($3,000) surplus when compared to the adjusted “new” budget that was edited at noon:

What is more troubling is that the “70%” (per Google) isn’t a hard number and is simply referred to as an example, therefore what if this number was 85%?  See below for an example of how a fluctuating interval can introduce spend above the stated 20% allowance:

This can present challenges when trying to optimize CPC/Bid management, especially if the amount used to make suggestions is the newly inputted daily budget (i.e. the number you see within Google MCC at the end of the day or the next day).  Therefore it may be of value to document what/when budget changes are being made to your campaigns when considering making Bid changes.

Lastly, and arguably most important, Google’s policy suggests that if budget changes are made, they must be of a value higher than the last highest budget for the day.  Simply put, although you can make multiple budget changes daily, (up to 10 max) ads will be served based on the highest budget entered on that particular day.  Therefore, if you have clients or your own campaigns that are budget sensitive, and you anticipate having to make adjustments, it might serve you well to start off the day conservatively.

Google News’s Makeover

Google News got its first real makeover in eight years this week. The service, which was previously categorized into Top Stories, World Science/Technology, Health & Sports, now caters towards “News for you,” which encourages users to edit, add, personalize and socialize their news options. As of Wednesday, users now have the option to choose the news channels they want to view first, add additional sites and delete others. Most importantly, Google’s new news service encourages users to share articles via email, Google Buzz, Twitter and Facebook.

Google Me Rumors

There is an interesting rumor floating around the tech blogosphere this week that suggests that Google maybe cooking up a Facebook-like social media service. The rumor started with a deleted tweet from Digg CEO Kevin Rose,”Ok, umm, huge rumor: Google to launch facebook competitor very soon “Google Me”, very credible source,” which has lead to some serious speculation from industry chatter boxes, who all point out that Google has tried its hand at social media several times- with Orkut, Buzz and Google Profiles- with little success.

Their main problem is obviously Facebook and Twitter’s overwhelming dominance in the social media realm. In order for Google to succeed, they will have to come up with a master social network that enables users to integrate their social experience across the web, rather than confining them to individual channels, like Facebook or Twitter.  As Ryan Singel, a staff writer at Wired.com, speculates, “The only way Google could put a dent into Facebook is to go after it the same way it’s gone after Microsoft — open and free with no centralized data collection and a decision that it doesn’t have to own your data. Sure, Google will closely tie in a bunch of its own products, but it can’t go the Buzz way and require you to have a Google ID or Gmail address.” Google did start off the New Year with social media as one of their main goals. Do you think its possible to ‘put a dent’ into Facebook? What are your thoughts on how Google could best attack the likes of Twitter and Facebook?

ReputationDefender Secures Venture Capital

Based out of Redwood City, ReputationDefender sets out to help individuals and small businesses take control of their online identities. This week the company secured $15 million in venture capital, with which the company plans to expand its management team and develop new products. The security savvy start-up is a subscription based business, charging its customers $9.95 a month to manage their online identities and protect their privacy.  Such security measures include removing customers from marketer databases and deleting unfavorable online content.

Foursquare Raises $20 Million in Venture Capital

One of the most talked about location-based social media platforms, Foursquare, raised $20 million in venture capital this week from Andreessen Horowitz, which valued the company at $95 million. To read more about the growing significance of location-based social media platforms, check out Kate Shaw’s article and corresponding white paper on The Search Agent’s blog.

Facebook Tightens Security on App Developers

After months of pressure to improve their privacy setting and grant more control to users, Facebook launched a new service that forces third-party app developers to request and receive users’ permission to access their data. According to Bret Taylor, CTO at Facebook,  ”With this new authorization process, when you log into an application with your Facebook account, the application will only be able to access the public parts of your profile by default. To access the private sections of your profile, the application has to explicitly ask for your permission.”

Whether this will be enough to claim the nerves of the ACLU, Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Action, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and more remains to be seen.

Merchant star ratings from Google Products will now be displayed under the advertiser’s URL.  Here is an example:

Clicking on the link to the 1,967 reviews takes the user to the merchant’s page on Google Products:

Google has given Sierra Trading Post a merchant rating of 4.7 out of 5.  Google calculates a merchant’s rating based on an aggregated collection of reviews from a variety of sources including re-sellers, product comparison sites, review aggregators, and Google checkout.

Merchant ratings could become an important differentiator on non-brand keywords or searches for popular items.  For example, this search for [computers] puts Dell and HP at the top and both have a rating of four stars.  Could a consumer be influenced by the fact that Dell has 6,000 reviews compared to 760 for HP?:

Some important points about this new feature which Google is referring to as “seller rating extensions” as outlined in the AdWords blog announcement:

• Only online stores currently rated in Google product search will be included
• Merchants must have an average rating of 4 stars or higher
• And have at least 30 reviews
• Merchants will only be charged when users click on the headlines.  Clicks to the reviews will not be charged.
• Merchant ratings will only appear to English-language users searching on Google.com
• Only ads that are targeted specifically to the U.S. will include the merchant ratings.
• You do not need to opt into this product.  If you meet the requirements, the distribution is automatic.
• Unlike other ad extensions, if you want to opt out of Merchant Ratings, there is a separate form that needs to be submitted.

This could be a great opportunity for online retailers to leverage their positive customer sentiment and stand out from the crowd.  Beyond what Google outlined in their blog post, there are some subtle nuances to be aware of:

• Google can include the seller rating extensions on any type of search.  In other words, if Sierra Trading Post were to advertise on their own brand {Sierra Trading Post},  a brand they carry {Columbia sportswear}, or a general keyword like {men’s hiking boots}, Google would include their merchant rating below the ad copy.
• From our research, we have not seen merchant ratings appear with any other ad extensions.  For example, if your ad includes sitelinks or product plus boxes, your merchant ratings will not appear (and vice versa).

Since this a very new product that we have little control over, we are still developing our best practices and, most importantly, we are monitoring our data to gauge the impact.  Here are some tips to consider in evaluating it for your campaigns:

• Take a look at your reviews and your competitors’ reviews.  Are they positive? How many reviews do you have versus your competitors? What is your rating versus competitors?
• Watch your metrics closely to see how this change impacts your performance.  How is this impacting your CTR and conversion rate?
• Place a renewed focus on reputation management.  With this new feature, you need to focus not only on getting reviews on your site for the brands you carry, but on the web for your online store, itself.

While this is an exciting change with great potential, we do have some concerns:

• Advertisers don’t get charged for the clicks on reviews/rating hyperlinks, but these links also take potential customers away from your landing page and out of your designated conversion path
• If our initial observation that you can’t serve all extension types at once is correct, you’ll have to test which extension, including Merchant Ratings, will bring you better results.
• Your competitors’ ratings are appearing right next to yours, even on your own brand terms.  How will it impact you if your competitors have a better rating, or more reviews?
• There are so many ways for your paid ads to stand out now – product plus boxes, Google checkout, Sitelinks, one-line Sitelinks, vertical image listings, location, etc. – how much will Merchant Rating differentiate you?
• What does this mean for comparison shopping engines?  They often supply many of the reviews that go into the merchant rating, but they are not eligible to show a merchant rating of their own.  This seems to put the comparison shopping sites at a disadvantage compared to direct retailers.
• Will we see any reporting on clickthroughs to the reviews page though Google Analytics or AdWords?  This data would really help in measuring the impact of this new feature.

My first thought was that this new feature would improve CTR for retailers with high ratings and lots of reviews.  But it could end up reducing CTR by diverting traffic to the review page rather than our landing page.  Will those customers ever come back?

What effect do you think this will have on your accounts?  For online retailers with positive ratings, do you think this will improve CTR and conversion rate? Or just get lost in the even-more cluttered search results page.

The first feature that grabbed my attention is called “Something Different” on the new left hand navigation.  The choices here make a lot of sense for someone doing an informational search on this term.  As do the “searches related to chocolate” on the bottom of the page.  When it comes to upper funnel or broad keywords that are informational in nature, these are quite helpful.

However, the big miss here is that these types of features are not “one size fits all” and that is where I believe Google and their engineers are stepping into unfriendly waters.  When I do a lower funnel search for a brand term, I think these features are less relevant, distracting, and in some cases inappropriate.  Here is a brand search I did on the term Nike:

As a brand marketer the results are incredibly shocking to say the least.  If I am Nike and I spend hundreds of millions of dollars building up my brand and then when a consumer does a search for my brand, Google displays all of my core competitors on the page, I am questioning the logic.  The beauty of search is access to information based on a stated intent.  If I ask for Nike, I am pretty far down the search funnel; in other words, I am not doing a general information search for shoes or athletic apparel and I am not looking to compare brands of running shoes.  I am very specifically honed in on a brand and not looking for something different.  Put another way, I raised my hand and said, “I want to see Nike” and don’t expect to see Reebok, Adidas, New Balance, Puma and Converse.  Taken one step further and applying logic, the list of searches related to Nike at the bottom of the page should really include Converse and not Adidas because Nike now owns Converse so they are related.

Another new feature is called “Pages similar to” which is based on the root URL of the search term and shows up at the bottom of the SERP.  Let’s take Honda for example:

Honda is similar to Acura, Ford, Nissan and Toyota?  Well I will give you Acura, which is owned by Honda, so that is similar.  The rest sell cars, but the similarities really end there.  Remember, I searched for Honda, so I was already focused on a brand.  A lot of marketing dollars were spent to get me to enter that into Google.  I was not looking for Toyota at that point and if I was I might have included a term like “companies like Honda”.

What is even more interesting to me is this feature does not show up on all car manufacturers.  When I searched for BMW, Mercedes, and Saab, this feature did not appear.  I am sure if you gave brand advertisers the choice, they would opt out of this and all comparison features on their brand term.

This is just one example of where a brand is getting pitted against their competitors, the same is true of GAP, Ford, Polo, Tide, Gillette, and the list goes on.  Now these features are suggestive in nature and meant to be helpful, but if I am spending millions of dollars building my brand, the last thing I want to see on my search results is my competition.

So what is going on here?  Is this a good user experience?  What should brand advertisers, who have helped fund the growth of Google over the past decade, do about these new features?  These are all good questions that Google will need to answer for advertisers who want a clean search results page that is devoid of competitors.  For now, advertisers have to play ball with Google because that is where the volume of traffic is.  As other options become more viable, I do believe Google is playing with fire.

We contacted our Google representative to get some more specifics on this latest addition to the sponsored results.  Here is their official response to our questions:

Google:  “We’re always experimenting with new features and tools to help users find information online. We’ve recently enabled a feature on English language versions of the Google search results page in which additional advertisements for related queries or refinements of the user’s original query may appear. This feature provides users with a diverse set of relevant ads, and offers advertisers with relevant broad match keywords another opportunity to reach their target audience.”

TSA:  I am seeing “Related to” headers on the right hand side sponsored links, what are these?

These headers are related commercial refinements and are part of an experiment we are conducting on Google.com.  They are based on common user refinements for queries taking both search and ads signals into account.   We are experimenting with serving ads that are most relevant to those refinements.

How are ads served under these headers?

Ads that appear under these refinement headers are targeted based on relevant broad match keywords in an advertiser’s account.

Am I being charged for clicks under these headers?

Yes, you will be charged according to the standard CPC auction model if a user clicks on one of your ads.

How can I make my ads eligible to appear under these headers?

All ads for broad matched keywords are eligible to appear under these search refinements.

I want to extend our thanks to Google for helping us to keep up with their ever-changing search results page, and for allowing us to share this information with our readers.  Interestingly, this doesn’t appear to be the end of the story.  I ran a couple of searches this morning, and found some additional examples of these “related to” advertisements, along with yet another new feature:

Based on my search for [padres], Google is using the “related to” feature to serve additional ads based on relevant queries – [padres tickets], [Petco Park].  Now they are also including links to related queries under the heading “Also try.” 

Here is another example in which Google serves me the “Also try” links, this time without any advertisements:

In May, Google made a number of changes to its standard results page, including the addition of related queries on the left-hand column under the heading “Something different” and at the bottom of the page under “Searches related to [keyword]”:

So adding links to relevant queries is not new.  But as far as I can tell, the “Also try” feature is the first time Google has used the right-hand column – the part of the page which had always been reserved exclusively for advertisements – to serve me additional, relevant queries.

When it comes to search, the only thing you can count on is that nothing will stay the same.  What are your thoughts on these latest additions to the Google results page?

ComScore released its May 2010 research on online video viewing on Wednesday, revealing that YouTube continues to dominate the growing arena of online viewership. According to the report, YouTube showed 14.6 billion videos in the month of May, accounting for 43.1% of the 34 billion total videos viewed this month by 183 million Web users. Hulu ranked second with 1.2 billion videos, followed by Microsoft, Vevo and Viacom.

Facebook Introduces New VP of Global Policy

Facebook announced this week its hiring of Marne Levine, former chief of staff of the National Economic Council, as its new VP of Global Policy. Levine, who will be based out of Washington D.C., will oversee Facebook’s relationships with international governments and organizations, representing the social network’s interests on copyright, children’s security and privacy issues.

Twitter to Experience More Outages During FIFA World Cup

Since the start of the FIFA World Cup two weeks ago, Twitter has experienced several system outages due to increased traffic from soccer fanatics across the globe. Users are warned to expect several outages during this weekend’s biggest games- Germany vs. England,  U.S.A. vs. Ghana, and Argentina vs. Mexico.

Google’s Android Winning Traction in App Development

According to a report in BusinessWeek on Wednesday, Google’s Android system is winning in the ongoing battle over app developers. According to a survey conducted by Appcelerator, the Android is experiencing the most promising long-term potential among smartphone operating systems. Although Apple’s iOS system continues to dominate the smartphone sector, Android operated devices acquires 100,000 users daily and, according to researcher Garnter Inc., the Android will surpass iOS as the world’s second most popular operating system by 2010.

Google to Enter Music Business (Rumored)

This week rumors emerged that the search giant Google may enter the music industry and produce a subscription based service to compete with Apple’s iTunes. According to Scott Morrison from the Wall Street Journal, “Google Inc. is preparing to roll out a music download service tied to its search engine later this year, followed by an online subscription service in 2011, according to people familiar with the Internet giant’s discussions with the music industry.” According to an article published in Rolling Stone, Google’s music service is rumored to focus heavily on a shift to the ‘cloud’ computing system. Rather than accessing music through services like Rhapsody or Spotify, Google’s service may enable users to access music via remote servers in an open, search-like environment.

Twitter Settles with FTC

Twitter reached an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) this week in a case over Twitter’s privacy policy. Charges were brought against the micro-blogging site last year, when Twitter allowed hackers to view private “tweets” and send fake messages from the then-President elect Obama’s, Fox news’ and others’ accounts.

Suggested Blogs/Articles/Podcasts:

• On this week’s NYTimes Tech Talk Podcast, Bettina Edelstein sits down with Nancy Spector, deputy director and chief curator of the Guggenheim Foundation, and Ed Sanders, senior marketing manager for YouTube, to discuss their most recent collaboration to bring Art videos to YouTube through a project called “YouTube Play: A Biennial of Creative Video.”
• Kevin Kelleher authored a witty post this week on gigiacom.com entitled “App Creep and the Case for the Mobile Browser,” in which he discusses the overwhelming number of available mobile apps and the need for a functional mobile browser.
• Dan Tynan poses the question of whether Facebook would be able to offer a better privacy policy if they charged for their services.

For more details, please check out my article at Search Engine Journal.