Murdoch: "I don't need no stinking Google!" Shocker.

[AshtonBlack]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8351331.stm

Talk about outdated business model, he's just given up on the internet.

Edit: Cut and Paste Fail.

[Azathoth]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8351331.stm
did you mean that? Your link was about sausage rolls

[Horwood Beer-Master]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8351331.stm
did you mean that? Your link was about sausage rolls

Sausage rolls. Evil old cunt. What's the difference?

[Azathoth]

A Greggs sausage roll has pastry round the bundle of filth nobody in their right mind should go near

[Bella Fortuna]

"I don't need no stinking sausage rolls!" :pissed:



But I do.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Rupert fucking Murdoch! If you ask me, it's about time that old cunt died.

[Azathoth]

I thought a thread about murdoch would be an appropriate place to leave this

[klr]

Hmmm ... so Murdoch doesn't want the world's most popular search engine to refer to his news sites at all if he can help it, assuming I read what he says correctly.

Not just greedy, but stupid and short-sighted as well.

[klr]

One of the links in the BBC article is worth quoting, as it spells out the point I was making:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/g ... ts-to.html

Google: Rupert Murdoch can block us if he wants to

Google has clarified that it will not index publishers against their wishes, in response to Rupert Murdoch's threat to block the search engine from his newspapers’ websites.

A spokesman for the search giant said: “Google News and web search are a tremendous source of promotion for news organisations, sending them about 100,000 clicks every minute.

“Publishers put their content on the web because they want it to be found, so very few choose not to include their material in Google News and web search. But if they tell us not to include it, we don't.”

Mr Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, told one of his own news channels, Sky News Australia, at the weekend, he is considering removing his newspapers’ content from Google’s search index when his company begins charging for content online. This will be in a bid to encarouge the practice of paying for content online, which has previously been free to consumers.

The Google statement said the procedure to remove any material from its search index required “simple technical standards, used by millions of webmasters and honored by all reputable search engines, to instruct a search engine not to index a web page or even a particular photo on a page”.

“If publishers want their content to be removed from Google News specifically all they need to do it tell us,” the statement concluded.

Mr Murdoch, whose newspapers include The Times and The Sun, told Sky News Australia: “I think we will [remove our websites from Google’s search index] but that’s when we start charging.”

He added: "The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories - they just take them. That's Google, that's Microsoft, that's Ask.com, a whole lot of people ... they shouldn't have had it free all the time, and I think we've been asleep."

Last week Mr Murdoch warned that his plans to charge for access to content across all of his newspaper sites, by the end of next June, could now be delayed.

During a conference call to discuss News Corporation’s first quarter financial results, the media magnate said he couldn’t promise to meet his own deadline – but did say it remained a work in progress and “we are all working very hard” on delivering the pay solution.

There is already a partial paywall in place on one of his newspaper sites, The Wall Street Journal. Web users without a subscription can only access the first paragraph of articles if they arrive via the newspaper’s site. However, if they access an article via a link posted on Google, unsubscribed readers can see the full copy.

Emphasis mine.

[Pappa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8351331.stm

Talk about outdated business model, he's just given up on the internet.

Edit: Cut and Paste Fail.

Hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Loser.

[Pappa]

Hmmm ... so Murdoch doesn't want the world's most popular search engine to refer to his news sites at all if he can help it, assuming I read what he says correctly.

Not just greedy, but stupid and short-sighted as well.

+1

Anyone can block google with a simple robots.txt file, but doing so is stupid.

[Ayaan]

If Murdock blocks Google from his news sites, maybe people will find more reliable sources of news like CNN or BBC.

[Pappa]

If Murdock blocks Google from his news sites, maybe people will find more reliable sources of news like CNN or BBC.

He has said previously that he wants his news sites to be paid for too. Why anyone would do that when there are other sites for free???

[Ayaan]

If Murdock blocks Google from his news sites, maybe people will find more reliable sources of news like CNN or BBC.

He has said perviously that he wants his news sites to be paid for too. Why anyone would do that when there are other sites for free???

Very true - free and much more reliable.

[klr]

If Murdock blocks Google from his news sites, maybe people will find more reliable sources of news like CNN or BBC.

He has said perviously that he wants his news sites to be paid for too. Why anyone would do that when there are other sites for free???

Quoted for posterity.

Seriously though, Murdoch just doesn't get it. It's the same trip that his son went on a couple of months ago, wailing about the BBC. Let him de-index his sites if he wants. By the time the penny drops about how bad an idea this is (doesn't he have any executive with the guts to tell him this to his face?), some of his one-time customers mightn't be too quick to go back to him.