DISQUS

Jim · 3 years ago

Matt:

You still haven't written about the patent issues involved in the PayPal-TextPayMe saga. I would strongly suggest you look into that. Would be very interesting subject matter. Do us a favor.

Chase Norlin · 3 years ago

Matt, to call Pixsy a "video ripper" shows a lack of due diligence and journalistic research on your part. Additionally, your tone sounds smug and a little condescending. As a journalist, I would expect more, especially from someone affiliated with The Mercury News.

If you had spent a bit more time on our site, reading other news stories about us, and perhaps calling or emailing me to ask some questions - you would have learned that we have developed a unique image search model which significantly improves upon existing image search engines like Google, Yahoo, and MSN.

If we're a "video ripper", then so are these big three engines as well, since they scour websites and take thumbnail images and make them searchable.

Our approach is generally more palatable to the content creator since they are actively syndicating their content using RSS.

I hope that provides you and your readers some clarification.

Regards,

Chase

--
Chase Norlin
CEO, Pixsy

Helen Wang · 3 years ago

This is a war for talents too. Apparently, Allon's schoold in Australia talked to Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google, but in the end, Google got it.

Benjamin · 3 years ago

Google and Yahoo are neck and neck constantly. The IPO stuff for startups is definetely intersetin gthough.

Matt Marshall · 3 years ago

Chase, thanks for the comment. I'm glad we've since had a chance to talk off-line about this, and am encouraged that you are open to debate.

So for the record, here's how I respond to your comment: I stand by what I wrote.

To your credit, I suppose one can make an argument that publishers who syndicate via RSS are more amenable to their photos being used. But one can quite easily argue the opposite, i.e, that publishers, such as I, use RSS to push to material as a simpler more efficient way of delivery, and don't intend to have their creations used in other ways.

And regarding the word "ripped," I'll stand by that too. You're taking photos from RSS, and I looked at your site, and your photos are not as immediately labeled with sourcing information as are Google's or Yahoo's images. In fact, there are no markings at all on the photos you have on your site until you click on them, and then there is a box that pops up which still doesn't have any hyperlinks or other immediate detailed source information. You have to click yet another time to get to more detailed information -- clearly a more laborious process than the other mainstream engines. (Right now, I can't even get to the source with this second click, though you say it is because of my Norton antivirus, which is fair enough, because you say you are going to fix that).

But if Google has run into trouble for displaying photo images from companies like Ten even while supplying abundant source credit (one problem was that Google was often getting them from third party sources), Pixsy is pushing the envelope even more with its two-click-deep source-info requirement. You show no intent to forward the reader to the original source.

Finally, if I search on your site for "iPod," I get a bunch of photos (again with no clear sourcing info at the outside) and ads on the left-hand side of the page. So you are monetizing your image site, even while Google and Yahoo do not (though admittedly, Yahoo comes close, with its singular house shopping ad on top).

If that is not ripping content for your financial gain, I'm not sure what is.

I remain open to debate. Let me know if I've got something wrong.

Matt

Chase Norlin · 3 years ago

Hi Matt:

I'm enjoying this debate. Your most valid point is that related to source information, and we'll be incorporating these updates very soon into our service. Also, you should check out Microsoft's www.live.com image search engine, as they don't have immediate attribution in the image search results until you scroll over.

I should point out that there are a variety of image search engines that monetize their results - Ask.com, Excite.com, AltaVista, Ditto.com, BellSouth (http://home.bellsouth.net), and many others.

Also, we have relationships with large volume image providers, which seem very happy with providing us small thumbnails in exchange for exposure and traffic.

Regards,

Chase

Thomas McInerney · 3 years ago

Matt,

While we're on the subject of clarifying, I'm the CEO of GUBA.com. Om Malik got it wrong: GUBA has been around 8 for years, we lived through the bubble, have been profitable since 1999, and we haven't taken any outside money. To call us a Web 2.0 lemming is absurd. Before founding GUBA I was a software engineer for Sony and Apple, I majored in computer science and so did my co-founder. I was programming at the age of 10 when I got my first Apple II for Christmas. I do this because I enjoy it, not for the money. And frankly, who cares if there are lots of video sites, let consumers try and use the ones they like. That's what free markets are all about.

Chase got it right. Take a little time to back your musings up with a bit of research and thought. We have employees who pay for their mortgages and families with the salary they earn from GUBA. As a journalist, you can call or email me and I'll take time out of my busy day to talk to you. As will most CEOs. This is a unique opportunity so take advantage of it. Otherwise, you risk your credibility.

Thomas McInerney
CEO, GUBA.com

Matt Marshall · 3 years ago

Thomas,

Thanks for commenting, and I'm glad we've since had a chance to talk off-line. For the record, I feel compelled to respond here too. I'm reading through my original post, and still don't see how it is factually wrong. As you confirmed in an offline conversation, you only started allowing user generated video to be posted at your site two months ago. That is the "lemming" effect I'm referring to. With YouTube, Yahoo, Google et al doing this, it seems like everybody else wants in. Sure, you've been involved with video in other ways for several years, including letting people crawl usenet and the Web for content, and hosting stuff that you've signed IP agreements for. Perhaps I should have pointed that out, and you comment is well received for that reason. But the gist of what I wrote still holds.