ComMetrics weekly review: Google Me teams up with Louis Vuitton

by Urs E. Gattiker on 2010/08/23 · 221 comments 21,573 views

in social media diary

This week’s social media DOs and DON’Ts: Social media measurement, marketing buzz tidbits, tools and other happenings we came across while surfing the internet, blogging and posting on Facebook, Identi.ca, Naijapulse or Twitter.

Our focus includes Google Android taking over Apple’s iOS, how Tod’s took a page from Louis Vuitton and improved on it, and after Google Street View’s nightmare in the making, Google drones come to the rescue, and other heavyweight brands’ trials and tribulations.

In case you missed previous weeks’ memorable moments on social media monitoring, just point your browser to:

Don’t miss the upcoming week! Sign up right now with your email to get social media metrics insights first:

So here come the highs, lows and oddities I discovered through my various social media channels.

    Monday

Image - graphic - Google's Android mobiles overtake global iPhone sales to end-users in the second quarter of 2010.In January 2010, Google Android tried to gain market share while Apple pushed up its revenue stream with the help of iPhone, specifically by hooking its users with iOS, which increases its revenue share from telecom service providers:

However, the reality is that Google’s Android mobiles are marching ahead and had already overtaken global iPhone sales by the end of the second quarter of 2010.

This growth comes largely at the expense of Nokia and RIM (Research In Motion, the makers of BlackBerry) and has provided a boost to struggling handset makers like Motorola and Sony Ericsson.

Image - graphic - Android's global share of the smartphone market has leaped from 1.8 percent a year ago to 17.2 percent in the second quarter of 2010 - January 2010 estimates predicted 18 percent by the end of 2012!Nevertheless, while Google’s Android operating system is free, it makes it harder for device makers to differentiate their products.

2010-08-12 Oracle filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco alleging that Google violated copyright with the Android mobile phone platform and infringed on Oracle’s intellectual property pertaining to Java. Google has vowed to fight the suit.

Some experts suggest that Oracle’s lawsuit against Google highlights the internet company’s relatively weak patent portfolio. Had Google had a portfolio equivalent to Oracle’s, they would certainly have agreed to a broad cross-licensing deal, which is generally the case between technology companies with extensive patent rights.

    Tuesday

Once upon a time, Google unsuccessfully tried to leverage its 180 million Gmail users to launch Google Buzz.

While Google Buzz is a smart attempt to integrate Twitter with Facebook’s commenting and ‘like’ system, it has yet to work well with Google Search and the buzz has pretty much died.

Then we had Google Wave, another example of a me-too product by Google, offered with somewhat limited fanfare. Apparently, Google has decided it failed and will be closing down the service by December 2010.

Still, Gmail and Google Talk, as well as Google’s Android smartphone operating system are stellar successes. These applications and services have helped Google remain the number one search engine in most markets.

For instance, Google is served up most search advertising and hauled in US$23.5 billion (Correction – see comments, this number should be billion, of course not as it million as recorded) last year, while Facebook is expected to make between US$1 and US$2 billion in 2010.

2010-08-12 Google bought Jambool, a company that runs virtual currency systems for social games, including those on Facebook. Also this month, Google took over Slide, a major developer of Facebook applications. It had previously invested US$100 million in Zynga, the largest developer of social games, with 700 employees and US$200 million in revenues in 2009.

Now Google wants to marshall this pool of acquired brain power, internal human capital, ideas and resources to build a destination for social games and applications called Google Me.

Of course, this is done in the hope that users will flock there and build another mammoth social network like Facebook. But Google is facing an uphill battle.

For starters, a Facebook, LinkedIn or Xing user moving to Google Me faces high switching costs: it will be time-consuming to transfer their network of friends and contacts, including wall posts and pictures.

Moreover, if a friend has not joined, you cannot connect with them on Google Me. The problem is, that being active on Facebook and Google Me takes more time than staying in touch through one system. Another example of the winner taking a disproportionate market share, making it nearly impossible for others to get enough traction to survive… remember Bebo?

Google has tried social networking with Orkut (very popular only in Brasil), but Google Me will have to do a lot better than that if they have any hope of making a dent in Facebook’s success.

    Wednesday

This week I came across another study about German web users. Unfortunately, the online-produced report does not clarify the methodology used to collect data. For instance, I wonder if the average person really knows whether they are on a weblog versus a webpage (e.g., Economist.com), when both offer commenting and sharing their content on Twitter and Facebook. Nor does the study distinguish between work-related use of the Internet versus private.

And while maybe only 8 percent produce content for a blog (it is unclear whether a blog comment counts), and even fewer produce a video, these numbers have been growing. In fact, considering that probably less than 1 percent of a blog’s visitors to a particular post write a comment or share it with their Twitter followers, 8 percent seems a pretty high number indeed. (By the way, how about leaving a comment below and joining this exclusive club?)

If you read German, have a look yourself
=> ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2010

I also wonder if the average user realizes that they are producing content every time they upload a picture, share it with some friends via an online service, post or comment on a friend’s Facebook wall (e.g., leave a thumbs up – I like this), etc.

Finally, with a response rate of about 70 percent, I am curious about possible response bias. For instance, I refuse to answer such online surveys because I feel my time is better spent doing something else. Did certain groups (e.g., professionals, younger individuals, high income earners and geeks) maybe not participate and are disproportionately under-represented in the findings?

On another note, Facebook announced its geo-locate service, which can be suppressed for now, but cannot be cancelled once activated, something privacy advocates and commissioners want to change.

    Friday

Image - advertising for Louis Vuitton - Three exceptional journeys. One historic game. Café Maravillas, Madrid. Follow Pelé, Zidane and Maradona on Louisvuittonjourneys.comLouis Vuitton followed the tradition of luxury brands associating themselves with famous people by cultivating a relationship with famous soccer players Maradona, Pelé and Zidane.

Gucci followed common practice and emphasized heritage by featuring the artisans who craft their products, implying that tradition and history are somehow linked to their quality. A further step in this game is illustrated by the autumn/winter campaign of Tod’s, an Italian luxury accessories brand.

It features people such as Lord Mountbatten’s granddaughter India Hicks, her sons Felix and Armory Flint Wood, American heiresses Lauren Remington Platt and Ashley Wilcox Platt, English artist Hugo Guinness of the Guinness dynasty, and American movie producer James Johnson of the Johnson and Johnson family, naturally all wearing Tod’s shoes.

Photographer Elliott Erwitt uses London and the English countryside as his backdrop. This aids in portraying the elegance and flair of his subjects, both models and products, including handbags. Presumably, the ads give people a peek into a world they would not otherwise see.

In the age of financial crises and high unemployment, such timeless privilege imbues relatively discreet accessories with an atavistic appeal.

YouTube Preview Image
    Sunday

Microdrones GmbH has confirmed that the first of its mini-drones has been delivered to Google, allowing the latter to spy on people from the skies. CEO Sven Juerss says, “Wir haben gute Chancen, mit Google dauerhaft ins Geschäft zu kommen.” (We have a good chance of building a long-term business relationship with Google.)

This technology can be used to provide an even better service for Google Earth, however, it can also be misused to invade people’s privacy, such as taking pictures of people having a backyard barbecue. This may well turn out to be a greater threat than Google’s Street View.

YouTube Preview Image

Microdrones GmbH’s official client list reads like a who’s who – ranging from the research to defense establishments.

Article source: ComMetrics weekly review: Google Me teams up with Louis Vuitton

What is your opinion? Please share, discuss and leave a comment below.

  • Pingback: Askoli -rise with us

  • Pingback: JobShoots

  • Pingback: Urs E. Gattiker

  • Pingback: Alltop Social Media

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnthank you for another great instalment! nnJust a quick feedback on the “Google drone” news item. There is a comment in the cited WiWo source by user “Jeff Jarvis” stating Google PR has replied via email: “Google is not testing or using this technology. This was a purchase by a Google executive with an interest in robotics for personal use.” nnHaving said that, I don’t know which email is meant but the nature seems worth investigating. Maybe Google has decided to follow the “personal usage” road in light of the storm Street View has received in Germany because Microdrones seems being adamant having hit a business opportunity, isn’t it?nnRegards,nSoenke

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d nnCorporate governance and crisis communication are clearly an issue here, I agree.nnAll documentation in German states that Google ordered the drone and Google paid for it. nnIf now Google corporate communication comes out and tells Jeff Jarvis that the drone was ordered by a Google manager for his own purposes:nn==> all corporate governance and compliance bells go off.nnFor instance, how can it be (i.e. if corporate communication has the facts right) that a manager is allowed to order a gadget in the company’s name and have the latter pay for it when it is for private use and interest only?nnDoes Google pay for managers’ hobbies? If so, what will the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to say about that?nnI also feel like you that it is highly unlikely that Microdrones GmbH’s CEO Sven Juerss would come out stating the things they way he did, if Google was not involved as a company in the purchase. nnLooking at Microdrone’s list of clients I cannot imagine the executive being that stupid, can you?nnI agree with your last paragraph where you suggests that Google has taken the ‘personal usage’ route to protect its reputation amidst a heck of a lot of problems Google Street View has caused it in Europe (e.g., Swiss Federal Privacy Commissioner has taken the company to court).nnThanks again for pointing out these important issues

  • Pingback: World Economic Forum

  • Pingback: CyTRAP

  • Pingback: Urs E. Gattiker

  • Pingback: Anne Lochoff

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnThank you for sharing your perspective. I wasn’t aware of the delicacy of corporate governance and compliance issues this would cause a global corporate such as Google. nnAlso, I was not aware of the harsh feedback Google Street View has received in other European countries than Germany. The tone of commentaries (e.g. Reinhart Gruhn – http://is.gd/eChhR ) signals a typical German stance. To me that is a necessity out of German history. Glad to learn it is not German endemic though. This issue is way to important anyhow.

  • http://twitter.com/soenke_d Soenke Dohrn

    Urs,nnThank you for sharing your perspective. I wasn’t aware of the delicacy of corporate governance and compliance issues this would cause a global corporate such as Google. nnAlso, I was not aware of the harsh feedback Google Street View has received in other European countries than Germany. The tone of commentaries (e.g. Reinhart Gruhn – http://is.gd/eChhR ) signals a typical German stance. To me that is a necessity out of German history. Glad to learn it is not German endemic though. This issue is way to important anyhow.

  • Pingback: alishazoe

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

  • http://My.ComMetrics.com Urs E. Gattiker

    @soenke_d #emex10 nn#socialmedia is important with #Google Street View & the upcoming Google Me. But #privacy versus spie-drones — that is pushing issues a nudge further where I do not want things to go…. nnMy concern is also that whilst we are worried about Street View, we have little problems with other information that companies collect through the Internet. For instance, Google Maps, Gmail, mail programs, how we search… and much more providing a search company (e.g., Bing or Baidu) with lots of information that we may not want advertisers to know.nnFinally, when the government snoops around because of fiscal issues or possible tax evasion by some, citizens seem to be less concerned about their rights and privacy being possibly violated than when such things happen by a company.nnWe can probably agree that regardless if a private, non-profit or governmental organization, my rights should be protected. But are they?

Previous post:

Next post: