We have brought our ducklings (now already ducks) to a wild animal shelter near the town of Soltau. The wild animal shelter has two hectars of space, where they take care of wild animal until they can be set completely free into wilderness.

Since our ducklings still cannot fly (luckily), they have enough time to learn from some other ducks how to live completely off of food they have to find themselves.

According to the wild animal shelter, we did everything right, especially in providing a grass space on our balcony with worms and other ground animals they could pick for. This way, they’ve already learned more about feeding themselves than would have otherwise.

The wild animal shelter is great, there they have enough space for birds like ducks, geese, and some other wild ground birds and they also have a pond. This aviary is large enough for a lot of birds and has a lot of grass/wild grass area where they can learn feeding themselves. Additionally, they can also start swimming in a bigger pond.

View Larger Map

Within 2-3 weeks, their feathers should have grown fully to be able to fly. After that, they will be set free into a bigger pond area without an aviary protection with some other ducks and can then … fly to freedom.

We think we did everything we could in order to give Huey, Louie, and Dewey a good start into their life… after a very tough start on first day. And we hope (rationally) never to see them again — but emphatically, we would like to see them again, maybe coming back to us next year?

We still don’t know whether they are male or female, but we have a hunch that two of them were male (Huey and Louie) and one female.

Good luck, ducks, may your life be happy and lucky…

The New York Times writes: Yahoo and the Telemundo Group said yesterday that they would combine their Spanish-language Internet sites in the United States.

Watch out for the spanish speaking area, one of the most promising markets - next to arab speaking (most promising ex China + India).

A while ago Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft and Skype (among others) started a campaign asking the congress for strict laws requiring Net Neutrality(well, isn’t it ironic that some of the biggest proponents of free market are asking for regulation??).

I know, even Vint Cerf is among those asking for legally requiring Net Neutrality (of course, if I remember correctly, he is working for Google now). But one thing these people don’t understand it that it doesn’t makeany sense at all from the perspective of the network operators!

Net Neutrality stems from the telecommunications time. A time, where the operators of the network were the same as those providing services over the networks. So, AT&T was operating a network as well as providing services over this (and other networks). It made really big sense to agree on Net Neutrality by then instead of setting up agreements with each and every telecommunications company around the world.

But nowadays, it really doesn’t make sense. The network operators are not the same as those providing services over these networks. Google, for example, doesn’t operate a network but provides services and generates huge amount of revenues. If Google were to pay it’s fair share for the network, I believe Google’s profits were a lot less.

Same is true for all service providers. So, looking at this from the network operators’ perspective, why should they offer or agree on Net Neutrality? If I was a network operator shareholder, I’d actually hit my management with a really big baseball bat (or throw a chair at him) if he were to agree on Net Neutrality any further.

And going to congress is a bit wimpish - it reminds me of the European companies (well, I live in Europa but it doesn’t mean I have to like what European companies do from time to time) calling for Government every time there is a new, big competitor entering the market (dare I say “Mittal vs. Arcelor”? sorry, German only).

Congress should clearly stay out of this issue. The same goes for EU Commission. It’s not their job to decide on Net Neutrality. It’s the job of the players on the market - network operators, service providers, and end-user access providers. If Google, Microsoft, eBay, and others are afraid of Net un-Neutrality, they should approach the network operators and tell them, explain them and convince them why Net Neutrality is for their best. If they cannot, then death to Net Neutrality!

(Btw: There was an article on my other blog, imdat.de, and some nice comments regarding this issue, too)

Addendum: On May 3rd, 2006, Washington Post published an excerpt of an interview with Scott McNealy. I don’t really think high of Scott, but he touches some really great points on Net Neutrality there: McNealy Discusses “Network Neutrality”.

The basic idea behind “Freelance.com” was to use people power over the internet for those things where you don’t need to have physical contact and those things which can be done purely on the net.

One of the major, major task you could “outsource” was of course … search. Usually, if my friends are searching for something difficult to find or they have some specific interest, they ask me to search it on the net for them. Why? Because I have accumulated a huge number of tools as well as extensive methodology on how to search.

This goes back to my time when I was implementing a search-engine based on PLS’ CPL back in 1995/96. We needed a search engine for our website (at that time around 40GB of data, which was a lot) and especially for searching our copy of MEDLINE. Additionally, we wanted to integrate search-word related advertising in the result pages.

I worked hard to implement a working system - just to be dismantled, replaced by a way inferior third-party application after our company was merged with the smaller competitor.

Anyway, that’s not the story I want to tell but the story I want to tell is basically that I know how to search and do research on the Net. That’s why my friends ask me if they are searching for something specific.

So, my idea in 1999 was, why not sell this as a service to other people on the Net. I mean not selling my own service but setting up a platform where people can offer search specialties and are experts in various subjects, etc. Don’t ask me why we didn’t implement it (the same goes for something code-named “Internet News Network” but this will be a different story), I was happy that we did implement at least 2 ideas by that time with the management involved…

Now, most of the ideas are old, they just seem to need their time to get into the mind of the big-business people. So, everybody is really jumping on board now and trying to figure out how to make money with so called “social-networks”. Now, finally, they have found a nice-sounding name, “social search” and all of them will go that way. Lets see what comes next… “Social programming”? “Social mailing”? … Actually, I am waiting for (tataaaaa) … Social socializing!

Indeed, the next round of the Web-search wars is likely to center on the ability to networking features. Since Google came out with its Web page ranking system, “we really haven’t had another breakthrough [in search technology] for some time now,” says Bradley Horowitz, vice-president of advanced products at Yahoo, “until social search.” (Microsoft Gets Social - BusinessWeek)

Links:

• eBay buys stake in social networking firm (CNet News.com)
• The Importance of Being at the Top of Search Results (CIO Today)
• Live.com (Microsoft)
• Lycos IQ (Lycos Europe)

These days, the most successful sites are those that understand that the Web isn’t merely a delivery channel for their product, but a larger ecosystem in which they play a part.

[...] Any business model that relies on customers never discovering your competitors is built on a shaky foundation indeed (via Want to Keep Customers? Set Them Free - BusinessWeek).

Jesse James Garrett* has a really good point there. Trying to lock-in a customer into your offering instead of making available what you know is best for him seems one of the most weird, anti-business ideas one can think of.

Of course, every business tries to generate the highest revenue per customer but if you look at it over the customer life-time, you’ll end up making less by locking him/her in than best-serving your customers’ needs.

One thing very interesting for media companies is that they have really great content and a lot of their customers are indeed, one way or another, “publishers” by themselves - publishing own websites, blogs, etc. Why can’t we, the big media players, provide our content free-of-charge to these people, actually develop an API (like Flickr, eBay, …) so that those customers can access our content and integrate it into their websites?

E.g. if Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) would allow adding hovering-links for free into your website, you might actually link to EB directly. So, if I’m writing about, lets say, about Mount Everest, it could be a mouse-over link, which would show information about Mount Everest when a user moves over it - information retrieved from EB.

Other information source could be National Geographic, Bloomberg, and a lot more. Including images (maybe small images where, in order to see the original, you have to click on it and are then transferred to the originating site) and so on. — well, just an idea to give you some food for thought…

*: I think, without offense, the name is really funny - Jesse James Garret. The only way to top it is Jesse James Billy Garrett-Dalton.

Yahoo introduced two new features April 11, one being Yahoo Maps, which uses satellite imagery and appears to compete directly with offerings from Google and Microsoft (eWeek: Yahoo Satellite Maps Feature Takes Off)

Why do I, as a european, always feel left behind with these services? It’s somehow always the same feeling: There is a brand new service launched by some of the major new media companies from the US but that service makes only sense over there in the US.

Satellite mapping/imaging without local search doesn’t really make sense - except, of course, for the fun of it. But I don’t really need a second or third such service “for the fun of it”. On service is enough. So, why don’t you, Yahoo!, please add some local search for Munich, Hamburg, Berlin, well Germany, France, etc?

And I am really not the only one thinking alike. Most of the europeans are really fed up with these US-centric announcements, we always somehow feel left behind, like the step-child.

Yahoo!, Google, MSN, please read it from my lips: four, out of seve G7-members, are from Europe! We are rich over here, we want to (probably) spend money so get your a.. up and offering local services here in Europe. I know, Europe is a mess because of the so many countries and languages, but you can make a lot of money over here - now!

Or: local media companies, lets do it ourselfes, especially since we already have all the necessary contacts, infrastructure and understanding of the markets here in Europe!

The search engine is mum about how it plans to use its cash, but analysts have some ideas for how Google could spend it

says CNN in an article published April 11th.

My biggest worry is that Google starts “buying” brains in Europe too. I know that they are expanding their research & development facilities in Europe and I know that they are searching for bright people.

As long as Google aims at people with a CS degree, I don’t have a problem with it. Once they start understanding that they need more managers and less CS’ers, I’d really start worrying about the market in Europe, because Google is really “… making an offer they [the people] can’t refuse …“.

The reference to a well-known movie is not really coincidence and actually not even funny, because you are, at one point, either with Google or against Google - at least if you are working in the media industry.

Paramount Pictures and Microsoft are entering into a partnership under which the movie studio’s content will be integrated into the software giant’s Xbox Live service, the companies said on Tuesday.

Who would have thought just a couple of years ago that a game console would become the centre-piece of the living room?

This small news article tells me a lot more than a three-pager SPIEGEL article or an in-depth analysis by some industry analyst. Of course, Paramount is probably providing (according to this article) only snippets from its upcoming movies and such (actually something like Apple’s Quicktime Trailer website) and you could see it just as a means of advertising for Paramount content, but still, I think they are both on the right track.

Why? Because the Xbox360 is the right tool, has the technology and even (nearly) the design to be the centre-piece of the living room. You can watch movies (DVD), you can play, you can browse the net, and a lot more. And because Sony has again delayed the introduction of the PS3 (Sony is actually such a sad story, I don’t want to delve into it at all) and Microsoft can use the so gained time to gain even more market share for the Xbox360 and (hopefully) become #1 game console within one year time (hopefully from their perspective).

What does this have to do with my “virtual media company”? Well, we now have to consider not only PCs and mobile phones and TVs and such but also the game consoles as a serious platform to provide our content for. It needs a through understanding of that market, obviously, and we must start thinking how we can provide content to Microsoft and Sony - I’m thinking along the lines of providing in-game news, advertising, entertainment elements, etc. Did anyone of you ever think about in-game news? Well, I don’t yet know how to place it, but I believe it could be a really interesting idea to play around with.