• A new version of Yahoo Mail that’s faster, has an improved user interface, integrates with Facebook and Twitter, and blocks more spam
• A new layout in Yahoo Search that presents more content around entertainment and news searches
• A new Yahoo iPad app
• New ad formats

See anything about improving the ‘ol search engine in there? No, you didn’t. Just more Facebook, Twitter and iPad stuff.

[sigh]

This time I was mute because I realized that the only tech topics anyone really wants to talk about any more — and I’m talking about myself here, too — are the iPhone/iPad and Facebook/Twitter. These are not central to legal research.  They’re designed for social networking, not real work. (However I have to admit here that I borrowed a colleague’s iPad this week to install the free Fastcase app. I thought it would be lame, compared to the desktop version, but I was wrong. It made a compelling case for buying an iPad.)

Anyway, I spent much of August coming up with a new presentation, “Search is Still the Killer App”, which I’m presenting at the Phila Bar next week. It felt good to concentrate on search, but I couldn’t help wondering if I was experiencing the first stages of a terminal case of Cranky Old Fart Librarianitis. But then I read this article’s take on the new Google Instant search feature. I’ll boil it down to one pity quote:

“Google needs to stop trying to be Facebook and focus on extending and investing in what makes Google successful: The Algorithm.”

And the faster they get that, the less chance I have of my COFL getting any worse.

Yahoo Search, which launched the same year as my Soobee was born, gave up the ghost yesterday as well. It took a year for them to succumb to the inevitable. However, Yahoo’s not actually gone away. It’s basically an impostor — Bing with Yahoo’s name on it. Do a search on both services. The number of hits are the same. So are the top 10 results. The “Show Only” hint at the top of the SERP, too. Only the ads are different.

Yahoo was a tough old survivor. But nothing lasts forever. Not even a Subaru.

Keeping up with social networking is a lot of work. It’s almost as hard as being mayor of my house, what with the mowing and cleaning and fixing and painting and shoveling and, well, you get the idea.

“So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.”

Google advocates letting Verizon manage its network bandwidth any way it wants:

“In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement.”

I can live with this.

“Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege. The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.”

This raises several questions. If Google is so concerned about traffic to YouTube being throttled back, why haven’t they also cut a deal with Comcast? (You may remember that back in April the DC Circuit Court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission didn’t have the authority to tell Comcast how to manage its bandwidth.) And why is YouTube traffic an issue now? Is YouTube a red herring — is this all really about bandwidth for, say, Google Music?

Very confusing.

Both Google and Verizon said uh-uh.  Here’s Google’s Public Policy Twitter feed:

“@NYTimes is wrong. We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.”

And Verizon’s PolicyBlog:

“The NYT article  regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken.  It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”

(If someone could read between the lines in all that and explain the nuances to me, it would be much appreciated.) Anyway, now the other shoe has dropped. The Washington Post reports that the FCC-hosted talks on a national broadband policy have collapsed:

“Under criticism for its handing of closed-door discussions with certain companies on broadband policy, the Federal Communications Commission announced Thursday the meetings with Verizon, AT&T, Google and Skype were unsuccessful and that it would stop holding them. The announcement comes amid an apparent agreement between Verizon and Google on so-called net neutrality ground rules that would allow certain prioritization of Web sites on fixed wire networks and no rules on wireless networks. Sources familiar with the discussions at the FCC said reports Wednesday of a deal between Verizon and Google on net neutrality upset participants in the meeting, who were moving closer to agreement on stronger rules against blocking and slowing traffic on wireless and fixed-wire networks.”

So what gives? Has Google abandoned “Don’t Be Evil”? Again, I’m confused. But this story from Bloomberg makes a lot more sense to me:

“Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have struck their own accord on handling Internet traffic, as both participate in talks by U.S. officials on Web policy, two people briefed by the companies said. The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn’t apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who spoke yesterday and asked not to be identified before an announcement. Verizon and Google have been adversaries over the issue, known as net neutrality. Verizon was among cable and phone companies saying they need leeway on the delivery of Web content to protect performance of their networks. Google led content providers and advocacy groups that say restrictions are required so communications companies don’t favor their own online offerings or those of partners that pay for higher speeds.”

See the difference? Verizon isn’t extorting money from Google. (“Nice little YouTube ya got here. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it.”) It’s actually a quid-pro-quo — Google preserves net neutrality while Verizon gets a free hand with its wireless traffic, which is much more lucrative.

At least that’s what it seems to me. I’m not naive, nor am I a Google fanboy. But who knows?

(Further, but not far enough to trigger my $99 price point. I’ll just sit over here out of the way and wait a bit longer. It’ll happen eventually.)

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos also predicted that “Kindle books will outsell paperbacks at Amazon sometime in the next nine to twelve months.” Last week, when he said eBooks were outselling hardbacks, I swore they wouldn’t overtake paperbacks any time soon.

“We’ve reached a tipping point with the new price of Kindle — the growth rate of Kindle device unit sales has tripled since we lowered the price from $259 to $189,” said Jeff Bezos, Founder and CEO of Amazon.com. “In addition, even while our hardcover sales continue to grow, the Kindle format has now overtaken the hardcover format. Amazon.com customers now purchase more Kindle books than hardcover books — astonishing when you consider that we’ve been selling hardcover books for 15 years, and Kindle books for 33 months.”

The actual numbers Bezos is quoting are as follows:

“Over the past three months, for every 100 hardcover books Amazon.com has sold, it has sold 143 Kindle books. Over the past month, for every 100 hardcover books Amazon.com has sold, it has sold 180 Kindle books. This is across Amazon.com’s entire U.S. book business and includes sales of hardcover books where there is no Kindle edition. Free Kindle books are excluded and if included would make the number even higher.”

The NY Times gets all Agent Smithy and says that is the sound of inevitability:

“Book lovers mourning the demise of hardcover books with their heft and their musty smell need a reality check, said Mike Shatzkin, founder and chief executive of the Idea Logical Company, which advises book publishers on digital change. ‘This was a day that was going to come, a day that had to come,’ he said. He predicts that within a decade, fewer than 25 percent of all books sold will be print versions.”

Not so fast. Nobody’s talking about paperbacks here, just hardbacks. If hardbacks were priced a bit more sanely, this discussion wouldn’t even be happening.

“Let’s recap: Jobs acknowledged the ["Antennagate"] problem, then offered evidence that people don’t really care because the phones are still selling like hot cakes. Not only that, but other phones have the exact same problem. And it only affects less than one percent of all iPhone 4s anyway. Still, we love our customers so much we are giving them all free cases. Any questions?”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that the San Mateo County D.A.’s office has withdrawn its warrant in the case of the lost/stolen/Lord-knows-what iPhone 4 prototype. Gizmodo’s Jason Chen will get his seized computer stuff back, but it could be subpoenaed at a later date.