Talking to Google partners at the Zeitgeist event in London yesterday, Page’s big message was that he is focusing Google while also making big bets. The day before, Page announced Google would donate New York office space to the CornellNYC Tech university project and appeared on the Charlie Rose Show.

“I’m trying to give you a very positive world view,” he said at the Zeitgeist event. “Anything you can imagine is probably doable; you just have to imagine it and work on it.”

If the world could get a little better organized and more productive — something Google is actively working on — “I think we could easily double human progress and the rate at which we’re developing,” Page said.

Google’s current big bets are autonomous cars and augmented reality glasses, which Page was wearing on stage at Zeitgeist. (Page goofily warned the audience to call them Google Glass — singular — because the device sits in front of one eye, not both.)

Those projects might seem ridiculously far-reaching, but Page said Google’s previous big bets that are now reality include Android, Chrome, YouTube and language translations.

For instance, YouTube might have seemed like a crazy big acquisition back in 2006, but it has now doubled revenue every year for four years. (That’s a new stat, confirms our resident media hack extraordinaire Peter Kafka.)

Page didn’t specify what YouTube’s actual revenue is, but he noted that doubling anything “starts to add up pretty quickly, no matter where you start from.”

Meanwhile, Google Translate now translates between each of 64 languages instantly and for free. Last week, the Chrome browser had more usage than Microsoft’s Internet Explorer for the first time ever, according to one measure.

As for Android, “I think it’s pretty clear that everyone in the world is going to have a mobile device that’s connected to the Internet,” Page said.

In a rare moment of personal relatability, Page explained part of his rationale for developing self-driving cars. “I have young children — I’m sure many of you do as well. Think about your children — by the time they’re old enough to drive, there’s no reason we can’t have technology that helps teach them.”

As an aside: Though Page might not get out much, he can be trusted to go on anecdote autopilot. Have you heard the one about how Search Plus Your World helps him disambiguate various people named Ben Smith? Page used it yet again, in both the Charlie Rose interview and at Zeitgeist.

Here’s the Zeitgeist talk, which was titled “Beyond Today”:

And here’s The Charlie Rose Show:

Bloomberg News is reporting that the jury has been dimissed, and that there will be no third phase of the trial, which was to have focused on damages in the event that Oracle prevailed.

The win for Google in the patent phase comes on top of a narrow but hollow victory for Oracle, in which the enterprise software giant won a part of its argument, but failed to make it stick in a way that would make any difference to either company.

Asked to decide whether Google had infringed upon Oracle’s copyrights to certain parts of the Java programming language, the jury — the same jury that came out in Google’s favor today — agreed that it had. Then asked to decide on four specific examples of that infringement, jurors could agree on only one that cracked the threshold of being sufficiently egregious to warrant any damages. And in that case, the damages amount to no more than $200,000, probably less than it cost to litigate in the first place.

Google shares rose slightly by $2.09 to $602.89 or less than 1 percent. Oracle shares fell slightly by 6 cents to $26.30.

Oracle put out this statement:

Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.

Meanwhile, here’s Google’s statement, which reads like a victory lap:

Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.

Sources say Rubicon paid around $10 million for the two-year-old company.

Rubicon helps publishers manage and optimize their display ads via “real time” buying, and the pitch is that they’ll now be able to do that with mobile ads, too — though the still-nascent mobile ad business has yet to fully embrace that kind of technology.

Rubicon’s rivals include Pubmatic and Google’s AdMeld. In September 2010, it picked up ad tech assets from News Corp., which also owns this site. Mobsmith raised a reported $575,000 in July 2010.

The biggest changes made on Tuesday were at the top of Motorola’s organizational chart. In addition to the exit of CEO Sanjay Jha, several other Motorola executives are leaving the company. Among those on the way out, we’re told, are strategy chief John Bucher, Senior VP Alain Mutricy, supply chain head Mike Fleming, chief marketer Bill Ogle, HR head Scott Crum, operating chief Juergen Stark and CFO Marc Rothman.

Also leaving is well-regarded enterprise unit head Christy Wyatt, a former Apple and Palm executive. Responsibility for the corporate push will shift to Mahesh Veerina, the senior VP of software and services.

Beyond that, though, Google is holding back with the drastic changes. Motorola remains
a separate subsidiary, employees are keeping their same email addresses and the iconic Motorola logo will remain.

Naturally, the first day of business consisted of lots of “get to know you” town hall meetings with Motorola employees learning about life under Google and meeting some of their new leaders. To give Motorola’s conference rooms a bit of that Mountain View vibe, a few Googlers brought along lava lamps.

Google is making its presence felt in other ways. In addition to new CEO Dennis Woodside, Google has brought in a new HR head, financial chief and marketing lead. Google also said that Regina Dugan, the recently recruited former DARPA head, will lead a new advanced research unit within Motorola — a move that some employees are taking as a sign that Google is committed to serious R&D at its newest unit.

Google did hint that Motorola’s future could be more narrow than the broad array of devices it makes today.

“Motorola Mobility will have a simpler, more focused strategy,” Googorola said in a statement. “You will see fewer, but bigger launches.”

Although Google didn’t mention job cuts in its public statements or in its meetings with employees, layoffs are expected. Fewer products likely means fewer people needed to develop and manufacture those products.

Also unclear is the fate of the TV products unit that makes set-top boxes. Some see this as a natural fit with Google TV, while others say much of the unit could be sold if the right buyer can be found.

At $183 billion, Apple is the world’s most valuable brand, a title it claimed last year as well, though at that time the brand was worth $153.3 billion. In the ensuing year, it has grown another 19 percent. IBM ranked second with $116 billion in value. Google, which ranked second last year, this year swapped places with IBM, after its brand value slipped 3 percent year over year. With a $76.7 billion brand, Microsoft claimed fifth place, ranking below McDonalds — the only non-tech company in the top five.

The biggest year-over-year gain also went to a tech company: Facebook, which rose from No. 35 in 2011 to No. 19 in 2012. A meteoric rise, and one that spiked the company’s brand value 74 percent to $33.2 billion.

Nokia, which ranked 81st in brand value in Millward Brown’s 2011 study after a 28 percent year-over-year decline in value, fell even further in 2012. So far, in fact, that it seems to have fallen right off the chart. Not a surprise, really, given the company’s current situation. But worth noting just the same; as recently as 2008, Nokia was the world’s ninth most valuable brand.

The acquisition had been held up by government approval processes, the last of which came from China over the weekend.

As expected, Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha is stepping down; Dennis Woodside, who oversaw the acquisition on Google’s side, will replace him. Woodside was formerly Google’s president of the Americas region, and before that, built Google’s businesses in the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Russia.

The Motorola deal gives Google access to some 17,000 patents granted and another 7,500 pending, across a wide range of technologies — 2G, 3G, 4G LTE, and video compression and decompression — plus Motorola’s phone, tablet, set-top box and other hardware businesses.

Woodside said in a statement, “Our aim is simple: to focus Motorola Mobility’s remarkable talent on fewer, bigger bets, and create wonderful devices that are used by people around the world.”

Google CEO Larry Page added in a blog post that he expected the Motorola team “will be creating the next generation of mobile devices that will improve lives for years to come.”

The Googorola leadership team will also include Regina Dugan, the recently departed director of DARPA, who will lead an internal lab.

Other Woodside hires include Mark Randall, who ran the supply chain at Amazon and was at Nokia; Vanessa Wittman, the former CFO of Marsh & McLennan; Scott Sullivan, the former head of HR at Visa and Nvidia; and Gary Briggs, the former Google VP of consumer marketing.

Google did not say it planned to make any layoffs, but did specify that quite a few of Motorola leaders are staying on in areas like product development and legal.

As long as they keep paying for TV.

But even if consumers go for that deal, the TV guys need to make sure that advertisers buy in, too.

And that won’t happen until the TV guys can get some basic stuff right. Like counting eyeballs, no matter where they watch a show.

That could still take a while. Witness Comcast’s announcement yesterday, made at the cable industry’s annual convention in Boston, that it has been working with Nielsen on a plan to count viewers when they watched video on an iPad*, using Comcast’s Xfinity app.

For various technical reasons, this is much harder than you’d think, and the two companies have already been beavering away at this for 18 months. Now they’re launching a trial, and Comcast executive Matt Strauss is optimistic that they can work the kinks out by 2013, and advertisers could have true “multiplatform measurement.”

But that only works if all of the big pay-TV providers sign on to the new technology. And the media-measurement business is full of different tests and initiatives, all shooting off in different directions.

Last week, for instance, Spanish-language powerhouse Univision announced a “video neutral” deal with media-buying agency Starcom, which is supposed to mean Univision gets credit for its stuff no matter where anyone watches it. But the announcement describing the deal doesn’t explain how Univision or Starcom will track those eyeballs.

Meanwhile, Nielsen’s rival eyeball-counter comScore recently announced that it had its own technology in place to measure mobile devices like phones and tablets. And earlier this year it announced its own “multiscreen research initiative,” where it paired up with AT&T.

But comScore isn’t tracking any traffic on connected devices, like Google TVs, Apple TVs or Microsoft Xboxes. So if any of that really is taking off, that’s yet another headache.

Shouldn’t this stuff be easier? After all, we’ve figured out how to get the video all of these places — why can’t we count it, too?

On the other hand, recall that the iPhone is still a mere five years old, and the iPad is only two. That’s a blink of an eye for the measurement guys, who move deliberately because there’s billions of ad dollars at stake, no matter what they do. But they may still have to speed things up.

*Or, theoretically, on another tablet.

(Image courtesy of Shutterstock/Liewluck)

If you love a celebrity getting all self-righteous on the world, especially the tech world, then here’s a big plate of Richard Dreyfuss for you.

He tsk-tsks all over the stage in this video of highlights from the 16th Annual Webby Awards, which took place last night in New York.

That includes calling out Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s “Eric” Brin — which I am assuming is a mutant mash-up of Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and co-founder Sergey Brin — for some sort of clickety-click-clack Internet crimes against humanity.

Thankfully, there is a very lovely tribute to Apple legend Steve Jobs at the end that includes President Barack Obama.

Enjoy:

The company is the latest start-up to go after the content-sharing craze, fueled by Pinterest, which allows its members to “pin” images, videos and other objects to their pinboard.

In the same way, StyleSaint allows users to publish and share digital collages of clothing and apparel and to create “tear sheets,” using industry lingo. The collages are formed by pulling together photos and stories from around the Web.

What sets StyleStaint apart from Pinterest and other pure-play content-sharing sites is that this fall it will start designing and manufacturing its very own apparel brand based on the user-generated collections.

StyleSaint officially launched today at TechCrunch Disrupt in New York, but AllThingsD has the details on its funding round, which closed last year.

The company was founded by Allison Beal, who says she’s been obsessed with making “tear sheets” and “style books” since the age of 13. The other co-founders are CEO Brian Garrett, a veteran entrepreneur in the Los Angeles area, and Brian Weitman, who will be the company’s manufacturing partner and is the CEO of STC/QST and president of WTS Los Angeles, which produces Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen’s runway collection among other clothing lines.

Since Pinterest hit it big, raising $100 million at a $1.5 billion valuation, other sites have conveniently been claiming that they are like Pinterest but with an e-commerce twist.

Pinterest doesn’t actually sell anything directly to consumers, but it is widely known for driving major traffic to e-commerce sites. Other sites like OpenSky are trying to create the same sense of community by selling items that are sourced and shared by celebrities and other experts who add an editorial and recommendation-driven component to the site.

Joining StyleSaint’s advisory board is Brian Lee, founder of ShoeDazzle; Kate Ciepluch, former creative director of Shopbop; Irene Au, Google’s head of global design; Jimmy Yaffe, co-CEO of Fuel M+C; Brett Brewer, co-founder of Intermix Media; and Soraya Darabi, co-founder of Foodspotting.

Here’s a glimpse into the company’s style via its promo video:

The deal was a surprise when announced eight months ago but has been a looming reality in recent weeks as the companies received the regulatory nod in one jurisdiction after another.

Motorola said in a regulatory filing Monday that it expects the deal to close by Wednesday, but it looks like it will be sooner than that. S&P’s stock index unit said Monday afternoon that it expects the deal to close before the start of regular trading on Tuesday morning. S&P needs to know these things, of course, because Motorola is part of the S&P 500, at least until Thursday when it will be replaced by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Google was not immediately available for comment.

The deal’s closure was all but inevitable after Chinese antitrust authorities cleared it over the weekend. China was the last roadblock on Google’s eight-month road to regulatory approval, with the deal having already been approved by regulators in the European Union and the U.S. in February.

It’s a deal that has raised some hackles in the process, as Google could potentially play favorites with Motorola by giving early data on the Android operating system to Motorola, one of Google’s many licensed Android handset manufacturing partners. Ostensibly, companies like HTC, Samsung and LG could lose their competitive edge if Google were to give Moto the inside track.

But Google has vehemently denied any notions of favoritism since first announcing the acquisition, stressing that Motorola will continue to be run as a separate business.

That may be more likely after China’s blessing of the deal, considering that it was contingent upon Google keeping Android open to all partner manufacturers for the next five years. That’s especially helpful for Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE, both of which have placed big bets on Android.

At the initial acquisition announcement, Google said — and continues to maintain — that the buy was strictly a patent play, a move that in CEO Larry Page’s words would “enable [Google] to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.”

In a letter to Google chairman Eric Schmidt, European competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia outlined four specific antitrust concerns identified during the EC investigation.

The first: Google may be unfairly exploiting its market position by giving preferential treatment to its own services in its search results. The second: The company may have copied material from rivals’ Web sites. The third and fourth relate to search advertising and allegations that Google requires sites “to obtain all or most of their requirements of search advertisements from Google, thus shutting out competing providers of search advertising intermediation services.”

These are just preliminary conclusions, but because Google has been pushing for a settlement, Almunia is offering the company a chance to resolve them before the EC pushes ahead with what would inevitably be a protracted and unpleasant probe.

“I offer Google the possibility to come up in a matter of weeks with remedies,” Almunia said. “If Google comes up with an outline of remedies which are capable of addressing our concerns, I will instruct my staff to initiate the discussions in order to finalize a remedies package.”

Reached for comment, a Google spokesperson said the company has “only just started to look through the commission’s arguments.”

“We disagree with the conclusions, but we’re happy to discuss any concerns they might have,” the spokesperson said. “Competition on the Web has increased dramatically in the last two years since the commission started looking at this, and the competitive pressures Google faces are tremendous. Innovation online has never been greater.”

But here it is: See, Andy Samberg and Chris Parnell are older, healthier, and they go to Broadway shows, not movie matinees. But they’re still rapping about Rachel McAdams.

The best line, of course, is Samberg’s shout-out to Google — a reminder that he’s still waiting for a “fxxxing YouTube check” for the first “Lazy Sunday,” which NBC doesn’t allow on the video site anymore.

But Samberg’s other viral videos are all proudly displayed on a YouTube channel. And while the clip helped build YouTube into a powerhouse that sold to Google for $1.6 billion, it also helped revive SNL and build Samberg’s career. So everybody did just fine.

And here’s the original (which on NBC’s SNL page, at least, came bundled with an ad for… “Sister Act”).

Google, a Silicon Valley giant that built its business on Web services, startled the tech industry last August by saying it would buy the company, a much older, Illinois-based maker of mobile devices and other hardware.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

It’s here.

Facebook, the 900-million-strong social network that knows more about us than even our closest friends, will become a publicly traded company within the next hour.

Private equity dealmakers will celebrate alongside cadres of newly minted millionaire engineers in Menlo Park, Calif., while retail investors the world around will clamor amongst themselves, tooth and claw, for the chance to share in a mere fraction of the riches.

And yet, after a year of watching tech IPOs — Zynga, Groupon, LinkedIn, Yelp — let’s all admit that it kind of borders on anticlimactic.

We know we’ll most likely see a nice pop in the share price after Mark Zuckerberg rings in the Nasdaq bell remotely from Facebook’s spanking-new HQ in Silicon Valley.

From there, like a floating jump ball up for grabs, the social networking giant’s closing stock price is anyone’s guess — and by the looks of my Twitter feed, everyone’s guess. There’s already a site dedicated to tracking what price Facebook’s stock will settle at when the markets close, a page peppered with numbers posited by the digital elite.

Today is about the money. And yet it is also more than just sitting and watching the ticker tape roll by. For the first time, Zuckerberg’s vision of making the world a more open place will finally apply to his own company.

We got our first taste of it when the company filed its S-1. It’s where we saw that more than half of Facebook’s 900 million monthly visitors are visiting the site via mobile devices, a channel in which the company has yet to figure out a coherent or viable monetization strategy.

We saw that Zuckerberg retains a tight grip on the company’s future — tighter than most CEOs, akin to the likes of Google’s co-founders — holding voting rights on 57.1 percent of Facebook’s mighty class-B shares. He is so tied to his company that he is cited as a risk factor in Facebook’s S-1, of course.

And now we’re witnessing the first defectors from Facebook’s nacent advertising strategy, as with General Motors pulling its $10 million dollars in advertising on Facebook earlier this week, citing it as an ineffective use of the company’s massive marketing budget.

What we’ll soon see is Facebook’s less-pretty public profile, so to speak, with Zuckerberg holding court over earnings calls every quarter, taking heat from investors who expect returns. We’ll be given insight into how the company plans to monetize its different products, and how they actually fare.

Just as Facebook knows so very much about each of us, we, too, will begin to learn a lot more about Facebook.

And yet, through all of this, no matter what grim forecast Wall Street projects, no matter what executive decisions or company road maps the media decries, Zuckerberg’s message is clear — so much so that he made it the poster for the pre-IPO all-night hackathon:

“Stay focused and keep hacking.”

Good luck with that.

(Images: (top) Morin Uwole/Facebook; (bottom) Victor Luu/Facebook)

There are a half-dozen flavors of the operating system, with products made by dozens of manufacturers and literally thousands of individual designs. Whether this is good or bad depends on one’s perspective.

But the sheer number of different products is mind-boggling. In a report this week, OpenSignalMaps looked at data from 600,000 users who downloaded its signal-measuring software. The company found that its software has been downloaded by nearly 4,000 different devices. Some of these are actually standard devices running custom software. But even factoring those out, there are still upward of 2,000 different Android products in the wild.

Of the nearly 600 different brands, Samsung rules the roost with nearly 40 percent market share, followed by HTC, SEMC, Motorola and LG. At the bottom end of the market-share battle, the company spotted a pair of the ill-fated Fusion Garage tablets and a handful of Polaroid’s smart cameras.

For its part, OpenSignalMaps notes the downsides of so many makes and models, but says that the opportunities outweigh the challenges.

“Developers tend to bemoan Android fragmentation yet there’s much here to be celebrated,” the company said in its report. “While the number of different models running Android will continue to increase we’ve seen Samsung take the lion’s share of the Android market, most of that due to the Galaxy product line. Testing on the most popular Samsung & HTC devices will get you a long way.”

Besides, Android means reaching to all corners of the globe. OpenSignalMaps says it has collected data from nearly 200 countries, with the most popular being the U.S., Brazil, China, Russia and Mexico.

“One of the joys of developing for Android is you have no idea who’ll end up using your app,” it said.

The report is chock full of interesting numbers and charts, and is well worth a read.

I have five predictions of how Facebook will be maturing in the first year after its IPO:

1. Search

Facebook has become home base for users in many ways. But when it comes to search, Facebook makes you take a bus transfer at Google every time you want to leave the house.

And that’s a shame, because Google starts each search from a place of knowing almost nothing about me. When I’m taking a vacation to Bali, I’m far less interested in Google’s generic recommendations of things to do than I am in recommendations from my friends who have been there.

Facebook already knows which of my friends have been to Bali, and which restaurants and attractions they liked the best. It can even differentiate between the friend I trust for restaurant recs and the friend who always finds the best surfing spots.

There is a clear battle between Google and Facebook. But it’s not over “search vs. discovery,” as it is often framed. Rather, it’s “transaction vs. relationship” — which is why Facebook has the potential to disrupt search as we know it.

Prediction: Facebook will launch a purely social search by the end of 2012 (before tackling the whole hog in 2013).

2. Advertising

Despite the company’s fierce ethos of consumer experience first, business concerns second, an IPO will inevitably put upward pressure on the latter. With the numbers published quarterly and the prices reset every day, Facebook will be forced to support that share price (if not for the sake of its shareholders, then at least for its employees!) by expanding its advertising revenues.

Facebook today brings in quarterly ad revenue of $872M — just a tiny fraction of Google’s $9B. But transactions are by nature pecuniary — and relationships are priceless. As a gatekeeper to nearly a billion consumer relationships, Facebook can roll out new advertising products that are far more valuable than AdWords.

The market for online brand advertising is already huge at $85B today. As soon as Facebook unlocks the potential of relationship-based advertising, the market will open up by tens of billions more.

Prediction: By Q2 2013, Facebook will have more than tripled ad revenues to $3B per quarter.

3. Open Graph

Occupy Facebook! Oh wait, we already do. Or does Facebook occupy us? Facebook currently occupies 1 in 7 minutes of all time spent online.

As the locus of consumer identity, attention and relationships, Facebook has the potential to be the one true platform that links together every destination on the web.

But it’s not there yet. Open Graph was a start, but it lacks a complete and actionable vision for how publishers can connect, access data and establish relationships. Publishers don’t want bits and pieces of data that they need to analyze themselves — they want a unified schema that bridges their audiences’ online worlds and real lives.

When I buy a chicken at Whole Foods using a Facebook app’s mobile grocery coupon, Facebook can match that incoming data point with the fact that I read Cooks Illustrated and that I’ve been on an Indian food kick lately (based on my restaurant check-ins). By the time that chicken is in my reusable bag and I’m hauling it out the door, there should be chicken curry recipe suggestions on my Facebook page.

Facebook has an opportunity to turn data from the long tail of Facebook apps into real inferences about you and me that publishers and other brands on the web can actually use.

Prediction: Facebook will completely redesign their analytics offering by Q2 2013 to provide not just data but real, integrated audience insights that will guide brands’ personalization efforts.

4. Commerce and Currency

Advertising won’t be the only revenue play Facebook makes in its first year as a public company.

Digital commerce (i.e. digital goods) already represents more than $16B in market size, and is projected to grow to $36B globally by 2014. E-commerce is another $680B on top of that. Both are currently conducted by arcane means: Visa card numbers and PayPal accounts.

Why have digital payments been so slow to evolve? Because even the most trusting of us only allow a few close associates access to our most private details. Who knows me the best? My bank, my lawyer, my mother and Facebook. In fact, no one owns my identity as well as Facebook these days (sorry, Mom!). Just because Facebook doesn’t have access to my wallet yet doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen.

A host of companies today (Google, Apple, Square) are trying to become your digital wallet, but Facebook holds a valuable advantage: it is already the locus of your relationships with third-party Web sites through Open Graph. While the logistics will certainly be no piece of cake, commerce is right up Facebook’s alley.

Prediction: By Q2 2013, Facebook will be presiding over $2B in transactions.

5. Timeline

There’s nothing more core to Facebook than its user experience, and Facebook has since its birth shown a consistent healthy dissatisfaction with it no matter what the status quo.

The current timeline experience is a nice try, but it’s not quite right. Timeline solved one problem — the indigestible frequency and quantity of updates at all levels of priority — while creating several more. New Problem #1: Timeline’s intuition about what’s important is too frequently just plain wrong. And while it gives us a great retrospective on people, it does a surprisingly poor job of helping us stay up to date with them. New Problem #2: Timeline depends heavily on Open Graph widgets to summarize our lives.

The latter is both ambitious and troubling. We admire great biographers for their ability to identify and communicate the essence of a person. It’s an insult say that a Nike Fuel score algorithm can capture the “real me” in the same way.

Timeline is a v1 product. It will take significant and deep tuning over many versions to reach its full potential.

This may seem like it’s just a UI update, but it’s not. Timeline is the clearinghouse for everything that happens on Facebook. Getting Timeline right is probably the single most valuable thing Facebook can do to grow its effectiveness with users — and its revenues.

Prediction: Facebook will release the first major redesign of Timeline by the first half of 2013.

Will the precocious kid that Facebook is today grow into a smart, savvy adult? A boatload of investors and J.P. Morgan certainly seem to think so. Over the long term, it will depend on Facebook’s ability to leave its youthful single-minded focus on users behind and execute consistently against two metrics: great user experience and revenues to match.

This is a guest post by Ben Elowitz (@elowitz). Elowitz is the co-founder and CEO of next-generation media company Wetpaint, and the author of the Digital Quarters blog about the future of digital media. Prior to Wetpaint, Elowitz co-founded Blue Nile (NILE).

According to the latest metrics from Gartner — which measure sales of handsets to customers, not shipments into the channel — Samsung sold 86.6 million mobile phones in the first quarter, 25.9 percent more than it sold during the same period a year ago. That was enough to give it a 20.7 percent share of the market, and to seize the title of “world’s largest mobile handset vendor” from Nokia, which sold 83.2 million cellphones during the quarter, as its market share slipped to 19.8 percent from 25.1 percent a year ago.

Unfortunate news for Nokia, which had been the market’s leader since 1998, but inevitable given the company’s recent decline and, perhaps, its choice of Windows Phone as an OS for its newest handsets.

Because what’s driving Samsung’s growth is Android. According to Gartner’s sales data, Samsung was by far the largest Android smartphone vendor, claiming nearly 44 percent of Android-based smartphone sales. Interestingly, no other Android phone manufacturer captured more than 10 percent of the market.

So, if Samsung commandeered the handset market’s top spot in the first quarter, and Nokia its second, who claimed third? Apple, which sold enough iPhones to capture 7.9 percent of the total mobile phone market.

As for mobile OS market share, Android continues to rule the market — 56 percent of smartphones sold to end users globally in the first quarter of 2012 run the OS, far more than the 22.9 percent running Apple’s iOS.

This “Knowledge Graph” is a two-year-old project that evolved in part out of Google’s acquisition of Metaweb in 2010. Google now says it understands 500 million entities and 3.5 billion attributes and connections.

When users search for a term that triggers the Knowledge Graph, they’ll see a box of information on the right-hand side of the search results page.

The boxes contain all sorts of information that’s specifically relevant to the search term. For instance, a results box for Leonardo da Vinci would have a brief description of him, his birth and death dates and his parents’ names, pictures of five of his most famous works and links to other artists that people often search for when they’re looking up da Vinci. It’s a lot like a dense and visual Wikipedia page.

When relevant, Google will ask users to specify what sort of entity they are looking for. So if you search for “kings,” the box might include disambiguation links for the Los Angeles Kings of the NHL, the Sacramento Kings of the NBA and the NBC drama “Kings.”

With all that information right there on the Google results page, users might be less likely to click through to other Web pages. I asked Google search engineer Ben Gomes about that, and he deflected the question.

“Our goal is help you explore a topic more,” Gomes said. “We’re providing you with a skeleton which we’re using to organize information. But if you actually want to find deep information around a topic, we have the Web pages to provide you with that information.”

At least on an interface level, Microsoft is on a similar track with Bing — where it just launched custom panels for results in 150 categories. But what Google is doing goes quite a bit deeper.

Gomes described the Knowledge Graph project as part of Google’s overarching “progression from data to information to knowledge.” He said that Knowledge Graph results will turn on for a “significant fraction” of Google queries — about the same as local results.

UC’s next target is the U.S., where the company released localized Android and iOS versions this past week, and plans to open up a Silicon Valley office later this year. (It has already made inroads into India, where it has 20 percent share and is close to knocking off market leader Opera, execs said.)

UCWeb's Roy Rong and Yu Yongfu visit AllThingsD.

UC Browser is more than a just dumb container for Web sites; in China, the browser includes its own virtual currency accounts, identity system, social network and navigation services. In a way, it’s more like a mobile-only Facebook platform than the pure Chrome or Safari browsers.

Plus, UC browser is quite fast, because the company maintains local data centers from where it compresses Web sites and sends them to phones. Opera Mini and Amazon’s Kindle Fire Silk browser use similar techniques.

Bridging to the U.S. market won’t necessarily be easy, but UC’s design and experience across the spectrum of low- to high-end phones could be instructive.

CEO Yu Yongfu — who’s on a grand tour of Silicon Valley this week — emphasized that while his company started doing all this in 2004, the U.S. smartphone market only launched with the iPhone in 2007.

And beyond that three-year lead, China is supposed to oust the U.S. as the world’s biggest smartphone market this year.

Yu said he thinks he understands how to deal with the limitations of mobile — small screen size, reduced bandwidth, limited input, short battery life and some eight different operating systems — better than just about anyone.

Still, it’s not clear that the pillars of the UC Web strategy — compressing sites to speed up page loads, and bundling in services and shortcuts — will go over well in the U.S. smartphone market, where we have tended to like our browsers to just show Web pages for us, while leaving heavier lifting to dedicated apps.

UC Browser has 200 million active monthly users, with 50 million of them on Android and the rest spread across other platforms. It gets about a quarter of its users from deals to be preinstalled on phones, said CFO Roy Rong.

The new U.S. version of UC Browser for iPhone

Like other browsers, UC receives revenue through search referral agreements (in China, the default is Baidu; in the U.S., it’s Google). The UC app also includes paid links, display ads, and virtual goods sold in the Flash games it licenses for users. It has its own “app store,” and helps users save bookmarks to HTML5 apps on its home screen. It’s almost like a mobile Web OS.

Rong and Yu said they couldn’t think of any examples of Chinese Internet companies with significant usage in the U.S., so they are hoping to blaze that trail.

To get things started, they rented data centers in Los Angeles and Dallas, signed an agreement to bundle Evernote in UC Browser to help it get distribution in China and vice versa (and plan to do so with other apps), and tweaked the browser’s interface to be more spacious and empty.

For whatever reason, people in China seem to prefer more clutter, Rong said.

But there’s one thing that even the most ardent Facebook fan can’t argue with: Facebook advertising is very much a work in progress.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Facebook itself: “We believe that most advertisers are still learning and experimenting with the best ways to leverage Facebook to create more social and valuable ads,” the company says in its IPO filing.

If you’re a Facebook bull, those words sound reassuring. Facebook sold $3 billion worth of ads last year, and it’s just getting started. Imagine what happens when things really kick in.

But if you’re a skeptic, and there are lots of them, that uncertainity is a real problem. When Google went public in 2004, it had already built AdWords, the search ad engine that still generates the majority of its revenue today. Facebook doesn’t have an AdWords, so it doesn’t have a tried-and-true plan it can present to advertisers: Put dollars in here, see results over there.

Instead, Facebook marketers try different things over time. A few years back, they were all building Facebook apps. Then they started concentrating on amassing fans/followers. Now, digital marketing people tell me with confidence that all of that thinking is outmoded, and that the real Facebook pros are the ones who create “engaging content” on the site, then buy ads to “amplify” that message.

Facebook’s challenge gets even tougher because instead of search ads, whose success and failure are easy for advertisers to evaluate — Did someone click on my search ad? If they did, did they buy something or fill out a form once they got to my site? — Facebook aspires to the big branding dollars that advertisers spend on TV. And those are much harder to score. So convincing GM or anyone else to move big money from traditional ads, which marketers are at least comfortable with, to the wild world of social, requires a lot of work.

The good news for Facebook is that it’s so big that it might succeed even if it never cracks the social ad code. Any Web site with 900 million users and counting, who spend a ton of time there, is going to pull in a lot of ad dollars through sheer force of gravity. If Facebook can keep its users happy, it may get away with muddling through on the ad part.

But being a big, lumbering giant that attracts ad dollars without knowing what it’s doing isn’t the message Facebook wants to sell to advertisers. Or to investors.

OK, on to the “this isn’t that big of a deal” arguments. I’ve heard a bunch, all of which come from (different) people who don’t want to be quoted.

• Obviously there’s a backstory here. If GM didn’t want to keep advertising on Facebook, it didn’t have to announce that three days before an IPO.
• Big Fuel, GM’s social media ad agency, didn’t do a good job. That’s why GM fired them in December. For the record, here’s a quote from a Big Fuel rep: “GM never seemed persuaded of the value of social media in general and Facebook likes in particular. In a sales-driven culture, it is very hard to wrap your head around putting money in places where you don’t see immediate results in an uptick in sales.”
• Starcom, GM’s media buying agency, didn’t do a good job. That’s why GM fired them in January.
• How the heck did GM spend $3 on Facebook “content management” for every $1 it spent on Facebook ads, as the WSJ reports? That’s a sure sign that someone was doing something wrong.
• Ford loves Facebook.
• GM is pulling $10 million out of Facebook. Facebook did more than $3 billion in ads last year.

Again, all of those may be valid points.* But if Facebook really wants to allay outsiders’ fears, it needs to be able to prove conclusively that its ads work, in a scalable way, for a wide variety of advertisers. It can’t do that yet.

*I’m totally amazed by the $3-to-$1 ratio, and am wondering if it’s not to late to pivot myself into a “Facebook content creation consultant.” Those numbers also remind me very much of the late 90s, when companies like Organic went public based on the fact that they knew how to build Web sites and their clients didn’t, and they could charge accordingly. That didn’t last long.